Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 15:15:06 GMT -5
I concur this is not a promising start to the year.
On the bright side, though, the fact there was an immediate outcry and that it had a swift effect is a good thing.
While I'm unhappy the rank and file Republican congress critters tried this one on, it is encouraging that at least the Republican leadership joined Democrats in opposing it, that W's counsel joined with Obama's counsel in opposing it, that Trump disapproved (of the timing, at least), and that apparently there were floods of calls from angry voters in such a short space of time. Also, the media was right on it.
I hope that's a roadmap for any future less-than-good measures that arise.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 3, 2017 18:05:47 GMT -5
Your survey is cracked. There HAS to be an independent body that can investigate House members and the idea THEY should be the ones calling the shots of who and how they're investigated is absurd. There is. It's the Justice department. This "body"--the OCE--is made up of people appointed by House leadership. It had and will still have no subpoena power. ETA: And again, if there HAS to be one, why isn't there one for the Senate? What did it take until 2008 for this realization? Sure it is. Well, that's the fault of dimwitted voters--R's and D's both--who keep putting people in office when they don't deserve to be there. The OCE has no power to remove people from office, regardless. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the creation of the OCE reflected the mindset of more spending and more government as a solution (along with it being more of the "oh, there's a problem? Let's set up a blue ribbon panel to investigate it" approach to politics, which is also no good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 18:22:34 GMT -5
Even assuming the OCE is flawed or unnecessary, I think it was totally boneheaded of them to try to get rid of it in this way -- on a monday night as their first act of the year, in a private conference vote with no Democrats involved, in a year when "drain the swamp!" is a rallying cry.
It really makes them look bad, IMO.
If it needed fixing or ditching, get some Democrats on board. Make the case for why it's bad or unnecessary to Democrats and the public. Don't do it on January 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 4, 2017 5:56:38 GMT -5
This was obviously an effort by Reps to bring new levels of transparency to government. Openly dismantling independent oversight is about as transparent a demonstration of their hubris as I can imagine. I think Trump's unhappy that the Reps are being so transparent about the fact that "congressional ethics" is an oxymoron. I approve this move on the part of the Reps to bring transparency to government by formalizing the reality of a watchdog that's actually a lapdog. We need more acts by politicians where they reveal their naked venality and lust for power, not fewer. ETA: And thanks to robeiae for inadvertently suggesting the latest addition to my signature.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 4, 2017 6:57:32 GMT -5
Even assuming the OCE is flawed or unnecessary, I think it was totally boneheaded of them to try to get rid of it in this way -- on a monday night as their first act of the year, in a private conference vote with no Democrats involved, in a year when "drain the swamp!" is a rallying cry. It really makes them look bad, IMO. If it needed fixing or ditching, get some Democrats on board. Make the case for why it's bad or unnecessary to Democrats and the public. Don't do it on January 2nd. I don't disagree with that at all. It was totally boneheaded. I'm not defending the Repubs' actions, because first of all they didn't get rid of the OCE. They just took away what few teeth the OCE had. So it's still there, being even more pointless and still using resources. And more importantly, by opting for this route they made themselves look awful, as you say. But that doesn't turn the OCE into this wonderful, incredibly effective mechanism that has been the only thing saving us from wave after wave of ethical violations by Congresscritters for lo these past eight years (suggesting that before it existed, things were sooooo much worse). People are all wound up about it, but I'm betting most of them never heard of the OCE until two days ago and now know little more than it's name and a brief description of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 9:29:02 GMT -5
Even assuming the OCE is flawed or unnecessary, I think it was totally boneheaded of them to try to get rid of it in this way -- on a monday night as their first act of the year, in a private conference vote with no Democrats involved, in a year when "drain the swamp!" is a rallying cry. It really makes them look bad, IMO. If it needed fixing or ditching, get some Democrats on board. Make the case for why it's bad or unnecessary to Democrats and the public. Don't do it on January 2nd. I don't disagree with that at all. It was totally boneheaded. I'm not defending the Repubs' actions, because first of all they didn't get rid of the OCE. They just took away what few teeth the OCE had. So it's still there, being even more pointless and still using resources. And more importantly, by opting for this route they made themselves look awful, as you say. But that doesn't turn the OCE into this wonderful, incredibly effective mechanism that has been the only thing saving us from wave after wave of ethical violations by Congresscritters for lo these past eight years (suggesting that before it existed, things were sooooo much worse). People are all wound up about it, but I'm betting most of them never heard of the OCE until two days ago and now know little more than it's name and a brief description of it. and I don't disagree with that. I think what most people thought could probably be boiled down to "Christ, since when is Congress too ethical?" I like Don's "this was their attempt at transparency" theory. Damn it, they were going to bring a new transparency to government if they had to sneak behind everyone's back or ram it down their throats to do it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 4, 2017 10:45:49 GMT -5
I might feel differently about the OCE if it was created by actual law--passed by Congress and signed by the President--and was not limited to just the House.* Because calling it an "independent" body is simply incorrect, imo. The House has the power to shut it down or--as we now have seen--through a collar on it anytime it so desires. That't not independence.
*But of course, it would then likely be an arm of Justice, which is where I do think it belongs.
|
|