Posted on 10/05/2008 11:10:13 AM PDT by mojito
Talk about lipstick on a pig: the bailout measure, which began as a modest, $700-billion, three-page oink, reached the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday wearing about 450 pages of lipstick. Its maximum final cost was no longer calculable -- after bipartisan negotiations to add "sweeteners" to the thing, to buy it support from various congressional factions.
Americans, and anyone else who happened to be watching (most of the world), got a good taste of what "Congressional oversight" means; to say nothing of the explanation of why, in opinion polls, the U.S. Congress enjoys even less popular esteem than President Bush.
It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway. Money bills in that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one effectively originated in the Upper House. In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting the text of the bailout bill.
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." This decadent habit of cautiously observing the letter of the law, while purposely ignoring the spirit, is at the root of so many enormities in contemporary politics and society. There are times when, given the complexity of the world, one must honestly bend (never break) a law, interpret it drolly, even turn a blind eye. But one should do such things in the cause of honouring the spirit of the laws, for the sake of justice; not in the cause of subverting them.
This is a problem not only in the U.S. but everywhere. We speak fondly of old-fashioned constitutional democracy, while in fact acknowledging it is a thing of the past. Everything from bloated omnibus bills, to "emergency" executive orders, to court reviews of legislation, is used to subvert a constitutional order, and thereby suppress political formulation of the popular will. The process has advanced to such a degree in Europe, thanks to the extraordinary power of the E.U. legal and political bureaucracies, that national assemblies are rendered powerless to oppose them.
The U.S. House of Representatives had defeated the bailout plan when it was already carrying many times its weight in lipstick. It was defeated because the thing itself was genuinely unpopular. Members of both parties had their switchboards jammed by constituents expressing outrage at the thing. They voted it down, even under the extraordinary pressure brought upon them by the White House and the congressional leadership of both parties. If I may be so old-fashioned, that is what democracy is for: to stop things the people just won't have.
Now, curiously, in the week since that happened, a number of prominent economists have weighed in on the bailout measure, including supporters of both U.S. presidential candidates. It appears that all are appalled by the measure itself, and most consider it to be counter-productive. Some 230 of them signed an open letter to Congress, telling them not to be in a hurry.
Here is how John Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance in the University of Chicago, characterized the bailout, in an interview with Fox News: "The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out, you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake."
That comment, and many like it, was offered even before "sweeteners" were added, that would in themselves roll any economist's eyeballs.
It is worth adding that not one of the politicians voting on the 450-odd-page bill can possibly have read the whole thing, let alone deeply considered the implications of its parts. Few of them have an understanding of the crisis they are legislating for. The blind are leading the blind.
Call me a populist (few do), but my "two cheers" support for democracy is predicated on the belief that usually, given enough information, and sometimes even when not given enough, the people know in their gut the difference between right and wrong, up and down, fresh meat and gangrene. And when they don't, we're all doomed anyway. I am seldom surprised when, after much research and deliberation, the "experts" finally embrace a carefully qualified equivalent to the knee-jerk view originally expressed on "Main Street."
This bailout began in the Senate, after the House rejected the first bailout bill.
This bill should be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Article I Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Are they arguing that since they took the shell of the house bill that it’s somehow Constitutional? Or do they just not care because they can do whatever they want?
As we await the final death throes of our charter document, here is a gift suggestion for your favorite government traitor.
They got around that by taking a bill that originated in the house, taking all the language out of it, and putting in the text of this bill.
Heads up - this could turn the tide.
FOX is rerunning “Saving the Economy...” at 2 EST this afternoon and again at 10:00pm and again at 1:00 in the morning.
They ran it 3 times yesterday.
If you haven’t seen it, you MUST. It is a TOTAL take-down on the demRats regarding the Fannie/Freddie economic debacle.
It names names, shows clips, shows how Bush sounded the alarm and tried to get it reigned it, how the republicans tried to and had hearings - to be shouted down by the demRats and defeated with all demRats voting against, all pubs voting for reigning it in - led by barney and Dodd and Shuckster, how the 2 biggest recipients of the Fannie/Freddie were Dodd and Obama - how a ‘young community organizer, years ago, in Chicago, worked with ACORN to push through these loans for even NO income people - a young community organizer named BO -
This whole program is a total and stark expose laying out who - the demRats - brought this all about and how they blocked every effort by the Republicans to reign it in.
If you have not seen this program - you must. I pray they keep airing this until Nov. It may just wake some people up.
It’s an issue that all America is paying attention to, finally. This program shows them who orchestrated the whole fiasco.
I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it last night. Incredible. So far, I haven’t heard a peep of ‘outrage’ from the left. I think this scares them to death and they hope it will just go away.
I think there’s going to be some major investigations although, if we don’t give mcC/Sarah a majority in the Senate and House to work with, it won’t matter if barney et al are found absolutely guilty - they will NOT be forced to step down. Take the case of william “cold cash” jefferson, for ex.
email everyone you know to watch this and email FOX with KUDOS - the more response, the more they’ll air it.
It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway.OK, take your best shot!
Money bills in that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one effectively originated in the Upper House.Nope. It was passed in a very different form by the House and amended and debated and passed by the Senate.
In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting the text of the bailout bill.See -- her knew that. Must be a Canadian lawyer. Dufus. The House passed it, the Senate amended and passed it. The House accepted those amendments and passed it to the President who signed it. Constitutional and as legal as, well Church on a Sunday.
Nope. They kept the language in. Sadly.
Constitution, what constitution, are you talking about that piece of paper the republican party and their brothers, the demorats, just wiped their collective rears on?
The sad, no make that the sick thing about this moronic bill is that NOW that it has passed you are starting to see and hear people on Tv and in the news saying that oh well nothing is going to change until the housing market stabalises but at least this might help a little...
A little? Did not our Government Representatives tell us this was absolutely needed to save the Nation?
Why do we allow them to do this to us?
The first House bill was defeated.
Any subsequent bill, under our old Constitution, would have to originate in the House and then proceed to the Senate for amendment or approval.
The bill that was passed originated in the Senate, and then was voted on in the House.
That’s a blatant reversal of the legislative process outlined in Article I, Section 7.
I thought the House voted down a bill before the Jewish holidays and then went on recess. The Senate voted on an amendment to a bill, but it wasn't the bill that the House just voted down, because that bill was voted down.
So, the Senate amended a different bill. What bill was that?
The House then voted on yet a different (third?) bill when they returned from the Jewish holiday.
So I'm still not clear on which bill, exactly, did the Senate amend.
-PJ
What was originally passed as HR 1424 by the House was gutted by the Senate. Into that shell was put House-originated bailout language, with amendments, and House-originated pork language (HR 6049) passed by the House, amended and passed by the Senate, and sitting the House waiting for its approval.
The language of HR 1424 as passed by the House was not passed in any form.
One can discern the true condition by review of the Congressional Record online - it's all laid out there, albeit tough slogging.
I believe this is the bill that the House passed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3912897.shtml
Taking a non-revenue bill passed by the House, stripping out the language, and converting it into a revenue bill is clearly a violation of Article I, Section 7.
Especially after the original bill was defeated in the House.
So sue them. BTW, it was a revenue bill. But sue away.
Swearing an oath ceases to mean anything to these cocky clowns. What they did with the bailout is illegal!!!!! Or is this no longer America?
Not what my congresscritter said, but then they all lie, right?
Is there a lawyer in the house? Is there some way we can rebut the Senate on the bailout?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.