|
Under Hastert and Armey/DeLay, the House of Representatives has become
a rubber-stamp for the White House, impairing the function of Congress to act
as checks and balances in government.
Recently, however, even some of the loyal GOP Rubber Stampers have lost
their patience with their party leader for blaming them for things he did. Originally, the House of Representatives was designed to be the closest
to the people and the Presidency at more of a distance from the masses, who
were then largely illiterate and suspect as such for not having rational
opinions based upon classical educations.
Over time and evolution, the Presidency has become the informal but
symbolic place where the Voice of the People as a whole is supposed to be
represented. In Paradoxes of the American
Presidency, political scientists Cronin and Genovese write that both
Lincoln and FDR “pushed the envelope” of their constitutional and political
party authority at a time when the state of the union was under duress, and the
public approved of this in the long run because it believed that the good of the whole republic was being
pursued: “Although we sometimes do not approve of the
way a president acts, we often approve of the end results. Thus Lincoln is often criticized for
acting outside the limits of the Constitution, but at the same time he is
forgiven due to the obvious necessity for him to violate certain constitutional
principles in order to preserve the Union. FDR was often flagrantly deceptive and manipulative not only
of his political opponents but also of his staff and allies. FDR even relished pushing people around
and toying with them. But
leadership effectiveness in the end often comes down to whether a person acts
in terms of the highest interest of the nation. Most historians conclude Lincoln and Roosevelt were
responsible in the use of presidential power, to preserve the Union, to fight
the depression and nazism.
Historians also conclude that Nixon was wrong for acting beyond the law
in pursuit of personal power.” Likewise, when any President abuses the bully pulpit of the White House
even to the extent of abusing the loyalty of its own political troops, and
those falsely accused begin to blow the whistle, it means trouble on the
horizon for everybody. In good
times when the budget is/was in a surplus because the trade deficit was being
consistently addressed, dissension such as this might be called party politics,
even though not “as usual”. But when the subject is Homeland Security and First Responders after
9/11, this becomes a particularly clarifying demonstration of the paradoxes of
our perception of the presidency; just at a time when the states are drowning
in new expenses for homeland security the federal government says “it’s not my
problem” (as Bush told the governors’ last week at their annual meeting). When a president is preparing to take
the nation to war, his most serious and profound leadership commitment,
maintaining a consistent agenda of pursuing the common good and common
sacrifice is good leadership that the American people deserve. When the incoming President was being micro-examined by the press,
Texas Democrats proudly said Bush was a centrist who would build on consensus
to get things done in Washington.
Today, they don’t recognize him.
Now some Republicans are joining the chorus that he is “testing the
limits” of that so-called consensus.
The President must demonstrate that he is pushing the envelope for the
common good and common sacrifice. – Karen Watters Cole For more on Bush’s leadership style in Texas vs today, see: GOP
Leader Challenges Bush Statements By
Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59357-2003Mar7.html A senior Republican
lawmaker, firing back at President Bush for recent statements blaming Congress
for underfunding emergency workers, accused the White House of factual inaccuracy and inadequate
communication. In an extraordinary
departure from the public unity that has characterized White House relations
with congressional Republicans, House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young
(R-Fla.)
wrote to urge White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to "be responsible"
and "move on from this pointless and harmful debate" over legislation
passed last month that included money for "first responders" involved
in homeland security. A copy of the letter,
dated March 6, was provided to The Washington Post. Though
lawmakers, even those in Bush's party, often chafe at the administration's
hard-nosed tactics, the letter underscored the unusually raw feelings that have
developed among House Republicans since Bush began blaming them for inadequate
homeland security funds. Democrats
have long criticized Bush for inaccurate statements on spending and other
matters, but this is the most prominent case of a Republican accusing Bush of
falsehoods. "I believe White
House statements that Congress only provided $1.3 billion for first responders
are factually inaccurate because you have narrowly chosen programs that only
you believe will support the first-responder community," Young wrote in
the three-page letter accusing the White House of various contradictions and
inconsistencies. "You can choose to continue the
debate on this issue in this fashion, or we can be responsible and address the
real issues facing first responders," Young wrote following a six-point
critique. "It would be
helpful to have a periodic exchange of information on this issue and other
issues of importance to our country, instead of one-way directives from the
Office of Management and Budget." Bush, accused by
Democrats of shortchanging homeland security, last month said the
GOP-controlled Congress "did not respond to the $3.5 billion we asked for
-- they not only reduced the budget that we asked for, they earmarked a lot of
the money" for unrelated programs.
Bush said he was "disappointed," and White House officials
said Congress provided only $1.3 billion to local governments to combat
terrorism, rather than $3.5 billion. In his letter to Card,
Young wrote that the spending bill passed by Congress for fiscal 2003 "includes $3.465
billion in funding to support the first-responder community."
That
figure includes "$900
million in law enforcement grants the administration sought to eliminate." Young also complained
that White House explanation of the first-responder initiative was just one
paragraph. "The committee repeatedly sought additional information,"
he wrote. Attaching the
one-paragraph justification, Young wrote: "You do not have to be an expert
to know that this is inadequate." Young noted that he
and his staff had "direct conversations" with Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge about the funding levels "in advance of the final
bill," and they agreed to work to "communicate a unified
message." White House spokesman
Scott McClellan said Card had received Young's letter and has been in ongoing
discussions with the chairman through yesterday. "The White House is
working closely with Chairman Young and other congressional leaders on our
shared commitment to make sure front-line responders in states and localities
have the resources they need," McClellan said. The issue highlights the difficulty
Republicans face in controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Young and other Republicans on the spending committee, while reluctant
to take on the president, are smarting from his criticism. Congressional aides said Young is
particularly irritated because he fought for more homeland security money in an
emergency spending bill in late 2001 but was turned down by the White House. Also, they said, he
was angered by Bush's move last year to impound $5.1 billion that had been included in the emergency measure,
about $2.6 billion of which was for homeland security and $500 million for
first responders. In addition,
aides said, Young pleaded with Bush in December
to allow the committee to spend more, but Bush refused. To keep the spending within Bush's requirements, GOP
lawmakers fought amendments to increase spending on security -- and then felt
that Bush betrayed their loyalty. A Young aide said the
letter "was not a game of gotcha.
He was trying to be helpful." Staff writers Juliet
Eilperin and Dan Morgan contributed to this report. Outgoing mail scanned by
NAV 2002 |
