FlamingText

Congress To Vote on Bill to Disband Congress

Insiders Say 'Passage Certain.'
   House Resolution 402: The Government Streamlining and Paperwork Reduction Act is scheduled to come to a floor vote early Thursday, with analysts already predicting that it will be approved by a wide margin. House Republicans say they believe they have more than enough votes to assure passage of the bill before sending it back to the Senate floor, where an earlier version already passed by a 62-36 margin, with two senators abstaining. President Bush has already said that if passed he will sign it into law, joking with reporters on one occasion that it was the "Last time I'll ever have to bother with that extra step."

   Although the controversial move to abolish the legislative branch's role as the only branch of government with the authority to draft new laws, approve budgets or declare wars may surprise many, others see this as a logical extension of a conservative agenda that has been advancing by degrees over the course of the last several decades: The move towards a smaller Federal government. Grover Norquist, GOP fundraiser and a leading light of the conservative movement, summed up this sentiment when he famously stated "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

To many beltway observers, H.R. 402 paves the way for exactly that.

Shifting Tides
   Starting with the Republican "revolution" of 1994 and the resulting "Contract with America," a series of ideological shifts in conservative thought have hinged on the premise, popular with many voters, that small governments that operate efficiently are invariably preferable to large governments with many layers of bureaucracy. While the years since the 2000 elections, which saw the Republicans gain control of both Congress and the Office of the President for the first time in since 1952 (minus a period from June 2001 through the end of 2002 when Vermont's Jim Jeffords switched his party affiliation), have in fact seen a growth in the size and influence of the Federal government, the rhetoric remains a powerful plank in the Republican platform. Shrinking and "streamlining" government consistently polls as one of the top political priorities of the party's conservative base.

   "When you come right down to it, are three branches of Federal government really necessary?" asks Rep Browning, R-Indiana.
"I mean, when we speak of checks on executive power, aren't we really talking about an institutionalized forum for second-guessing our Commander-in-Chief? The tremendous red tape in the current process merely serves to hamstring the vital activities of President Bush and his administration. How can they be expected to wage a successful War on Terror if they have to keep checking with Congress to see if every little thing is legal, or if they have to get every little budget item approved?"

   Indeed, Rep. Browning's statement echoes the White House's own complaints of late that constitutional restrictions on the Executive's exercise of broad powers presents an odious restraint on the President's ability to wage an ongoing war.

'Red Tape'
Recent revelations that the White House has authorized intelligence-gathering operations far beyond the scope of those approved by Congress have prompted forces within the GOP to advocate for a “final solution” to the question of Congressional oversight. Speaking on the subject on last Sunday’s Meet the Press, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:
“The problem is not that the president is acting without consulting Congress. The problem is that Congress’ continual demands for accountability undermine the successful prosecution of this war. The American people are serious about the War on Terror, and they demand results. Legislatures don’t produce results; They produce red tape.”

“If you look back at the history of successful military campaigns, one common factor you’ll find in all of them is that they weren’t conducted by committee. In ancient Rome, it was Caesar, not the senate, who oversaw military operations. Likewise, Alexander the Great didn’t consult a bunch of representatives before he moved his troops, he just did it; He acted quickly and effectively. Napolean, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne: Same thing. Victory on the battlefield requires bold initiative, and time and again Congress has shown it has no stomach for that.”

The Loyal Opposition
   Yet agreement on this point is not universal. Across the aisle, many Democrats are campaigning fiercely for a compromise version of the bill that would allow for Congress to continue to hold what would amount to a largely ceremonial role in government, akin to the English House of Lords but with less actual power. Under the terms of this compromise, Congress would still consist of an elected body of representatives from the states, but that body would not be able to draft legislation, would hold no power of veto, would not approve judicial or cabinet appointments and would no longer exercise final budget approval. The executive branch would assume all of those functions, in addition to the sole ability to declare war. Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy has been one of the strongest advocates for this provision, threatening to hold up the final passage of the Senate version of the bill with a filibuster if necessary. Ironically, if Kennedy and his fellow Democrats succeed in this, filibustering will in essence become the sole remaining activity of the revamped Senate.

“It is important that we keep alive the spirit of vigorous debate that has been the lifeblood of American democracy for the last 230 years. It is of vital interest to the continuing health of our great republic that voices representing the constituencies of the states of the Union continue to be heard on the pressing issues of our time, even if those voices are voices of dissent, and even if those voicing their dissent are powerless to act. The right to futile protestations that are routinely ignored by those in power is a treasured cornerstone or our democracy.”

High Hopes for the Future
It remains to be seen if the bill's supporters can muster the two-thirds majority required to end a filibuster, but GOP insiders are optimistic. Queried about what a future with no House of Representatives and no Senate holds in store for career politicians, Senator Smitts, R-OR, expressed a sentiment heard more and more in the corridors of the Capitol these days:
"Are you kidding? Do you know what a Senator's yearly salary is? I could make that in a month in a private consultancy. And once I'm freed from all these intrusive ethics "rules," I can assure you the dividends on my stocks alone will cover the loss of income from my job in the Senate."
Smitts added, jovially, "I have a feeling my portfolio is going to do very, very well this year."

  In a press conference on Tuesday, the President seemed equally upbeat. Fielding questions from the White House press corps about how he saw this affecting judicial appointments, President Bush replied
"Well, obviously it's going to streamline those tremendously, they'll be tremendously streamlined. We have positions that have been held up for approval for years, literally years and years under the current system. That's a tremendous amount of wasteful red tape! I promise you, and this is a promise, that those positions will be filled within two weeks of this bill's passage. Two weeks! It is high time our nation got on with the business of rolling up our sleeves and getting down to the business of this nation."

Asked how he saw the future of relations with the judiciary under the new two-branch system, the President quipped:
"Well, we don't consider it so much a two-branch system as a one-and-a-half branch system."

Posted by flamingbanjo at January 24, 2006 06:35 AM