-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 45 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
The Current Crisis
A Penalty for Harry
Will hard labor be too cruel and unusual for the budget saboteur?
WASHINGTON — A couple of weeks ago I elaborated on how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had at the time failed for three straight years to write up a budget in the Senate, thereby breaking the law three — now four — years running. I said that he should write up a budget in part to inform the citizenry how their tax dollars were being spent. How much was going to the Pentagon and our nation’s security? How much was going into green fantasies like Solyndra and payoffs to the Democratic Party’s friends. That would be friendly fascism, the left’s post-liberalism evolutionary stage. Some call it Obamaism.
Where is the accountability? Failing to write up a budget is a dereliction of duty. At the time, I speculated ever so gently about what sort of crime Harry was committing. Everyone agrees that not writing up a budget is crime. Is it a felony or a mere misdemeanor? I innocently joked that senators from Nevada are not known for committing mere misdemeanors. Now having spent two weeks studying Harry’s case and counseling with members of Congress — past and present — I think I am closer to excogitating a penalty for the wretched Harry.
The law we are referring to is the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which was passed to override President Richard Nixon’s veto of those expenditures in the federal budget of which he did not approve. He called it impoundment. His high-minded opponents responded that it was an extravagant extension of what was then called the “Imperial Presidency.” Today I suppose we call it Obamacare or Rule by Executive Order. To the Democrats it is very progressive.
At any rate, the 1974 law was written in a more innocent era. It was the time of Watergate and impeachment. In those more easygoing days members of Congress could not imagine themselves coldly and with malice aforethought breaking the law. Thus they would not bring embarrassment to Congress by even suggesting penalties. Today, we live in a more ruthless era. There are sitting in the Senate people who would deny the citizenry the simple illuminating document of a federal budget.
I am indebted to Kimberly Strassel, the insightful Washington columnist for the Wall Street Journal, for her learned explication of Harry’s obduracy. According to her, he is failing to submit a budget because, in keeping with the perverse ways of the capital, his failure keeps the focus of the press and the politicians on the Republican House of Representatives. The press and the partisan pols focus on what the House accomplishes rather than focusing on the Senate’s derelictions. Thus official Washington is hysterical over the House’s threat to go over the “fiscal cliff” or its refusal to raise the debt ceiling, rather than the Senate’s repeated violations of the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Furthermore, by refusing to write up a budget Harry’s Senate continues to keep his Democratic members’ true identities hidden from the voters back home. Are they for lavish spending and draconian tax increases? Are they for gun control? Do they want Big Bird reading the evening news on public television? Who knows? They have not voted on a budget. How do the Democratic senators spend their time? No one in Washington seems to care.
Now the industrious Republican members of the House of Representatives have come up with yet another plan for dealing with our fiscal mess and for getting the Democrats in the Senate on record with a budget. The House is voting for a suspension of the debt ceiling at least until May 19. However, the House is also insisting that both chambers of Congress write up a budget by April 15. If one or the other chambers does not submit a budget, its members’ pay will be held up until the end of the Congressional session, January 2015. The Senate’s millionaires and billionaires will not mind, or will they? It can be very expensive in Washington even living on a millionaire’s income. One of the added benefits of the Republicans’ strategy is to demonstrate to the popolo minuto how very well off the Senate Democrats are.
In the meantime, I have prevailed upon former House member Bob Barr to investigate how we can put teeth into that 1974 law that Harry has broken (four times!). We may have to replace the Budget and Impoundment Control Act with a new statute, but Harry we are serious. I will not allow Barr to include hard labor among the new penalties, but my compassion for Harry can only go so far.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/a-penalty-for-harry
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 1.24.13 @ 6:30AM
Harry's dereliction is calculated to extend Nancy Pelosi's budget for three years now...The House has meekly voted CRs to keep the Pelosi budget going, so why should Harry pass a budget? He likes the bloated Pelosi budget of 2009. And his strategy has worked---Democrats won 75% of the Senate races in 2012...24-8. Has any party ever won 75% of Senate races before?
Gregory | 1.24.13 @ 10:44AM
You're exactly right, Mr. Tyrrell, he is a serious felon and must be prosecuted. However, to quote the Bard, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Like the AIDS epidemic in the body politic, for decades now our immune system has been compromised, and we haven't been able to defend ourselves from rot and corruption; the fatal threats from within.
Von Mises Jr| 1.24.13 @ 11:08AM
It institutionalized the $787B Porkulus and $430B Omnibus Bills by creating a higher baseline. Obama's spending is up from $2.93T (at the end of the Bush travesty that increased it from $1.8T from Clinton or a two-thirds increase) to some $3.5T ranges and rising. So we have about doubled the cost of government in 12 years.
But not to worry. Obama increased the M2 money supply from $3T to $9T and rising by $1T annually in perpetuity.
This is a fantastic plan if you want to live under a statist regime with worthless money.
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 12:48PM
Ben Stein's Brother in Law - Mr. Tyrell (Seriously. How else is he allowed to keep writing on this Site?) - laments that Harry Ried Hasn't passed a Budget in 4 Years, thereby Breaking the Law, and suggests that he needs to if we're ever gonna find out where all of our Money is Spent.
Really?
This reminds me of the scene from the Movie: The Untouchables. Elliott Ness (Kevin Costner) is trying to recruit a Chicago City Cop (Sean Connery) to join him in a Group that he wants to set up to go after Al Capone. Connery's Character looks at Ness and says this: "Why should I?"
And, that's where we are, today.
Why should Harry Ried Pass a Budget? Because he's Supposed To? Because he's Breaking The Law?
Why would he let any of that bother him, when he looks around and sees that Nobody Seems To Care?
The President doesn't seem to care. The Senate doesn't seem to care. And the Republican House doesn't seem to care. Or, they would have done something to force him, already.
Right?
If I was Ben Stein's Brother in Law?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Von Mises Jr| 1.24.13 @ 1:34PM
Why would Obama cut spending when Johnny "Marbles" Boehner just gave him what seems to be unlimited spending authority under the debt ceiling for four months for nothing in return? Does anyone think Johnny is going to roll all the marbles on the CR?
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 2:03PM
Exactly.
Aristocat| 1.24.13 @ 9:31PM
VM is the only person I have seen, including conservative writers and commentators, to point out the facts on the Pelosi budget and its continued existence today.
The Clinton $1.5 Trillion budget is now the Obama $3.6 Trillion budget. And Boner goes right along with it every year.
Aristocat| 1.24.13 @ 9:32PM
Well done, sir.
Al Adab| 1.24.13 @ 8:19AM
Thieves can have their hands removed. Swindlers and frauds do a lot of time at hard labor. False swearing (his oath of office) also requires harsh punishment. The proposal of hard labor would be mild compared to the many felonies of which Harry is guilty.
RCV| 1.24.13 @ 12:02PM
And those felonies are?
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 12:52PM
Surely, you agree that he's in Violation of the Constitution.
Or, is the Constitution, in your mind, too busy "Living and Breathing" to give a S**t what the Leader of the Senate is doing?
RCV| 1.26.13 @ 5:33PM
That comment is utterly nonsensical. How can a person be "in violation of the Constitution" ? Please give us the specifics, TLP.
Russel| 1.24.13 @ 8:30AM
Thank you Mr. Tyrrell for doing what our ruling class refuses : take out who could be the most corrupt since __. Almost number one among socialist tactics is removing opponents , but our own elitist DC party hopping millionaires wouldn't dare upset their gravy train . His void could damage their agenda for pehaps years until a suitable replacement could be found , and that would be a daunting task . What a blow to lose a general ! . And it could be so easy... one scheme has been uncovered lately , but of course it got minute coverage . At any rate , thanks .
Pecos Pete| 1.24.13 @ 8:36AM
The Senate will not pass a budget. All Congressional pay will continue. Spending will increase. The national debt ceiling will be increased. Women will serve in forward combat foxholes. The alphabet agencies will issue 100s of new regulations requiring investment in democrat businesses: Corruption is the new byword for both the elected, the appointed, and the employed federal personnel.
KingOcare will be implemented.
The Constitution will be ignored.
c. j. acworth| 1.24.13 @ 8:43AM
....and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will be stocking up on freeze-dried food and ammunition.
And silver.
And whiskey.
KennesawJack| 1.24.13 @ 2:55PM
c. j. Why do you have whiskey listed last?
Maxwell| 1.24.13 @ 9:13AM
Pecos Pete, I am afraid you are correct. But I am also real worried what Harry will do about our AR15's too.
PolishKnight| 1.24.13 @ 9:33AM
You know, guys, sometimes you should perhaps not be so reactionary and easily predictable. You should maybe think things through.
Feminism is one of the more serious threats to traditional values and human decency in our lifetime. It reduces children to chattel and dehumanizes men. It rewards unwed motherhood and social irresponsibility and punishes women in two parent families. I could go on but there's the main point: Feminist dogma has largely been nonsensical. Consider: How can women be equal to men via eternal job and school handouts? The notion of women in combat is dogma that most feminists never expected men to call them on. Most of feminism is like that.
Call their bluff, gentlemen! Or put on a dress and go to the kitchen and make dinner (but still pay the rent.)
Let them get shot at. Let the military crumble. It's run by Obama now, yes? Expose their agenda for the fraud is it. Or live as an enabler.
Mike G| 1.24.13 @ 10:28AM
I disagree I think both the House and Senate will pass budgets and keep their pay coming. Unfortunately, there will be two budgets, as the Dems will not agree to spending cuts, and the House will not agree to tax increases (at least not until it looks like they'll get blamed for the fallout). Thus, each side will have passed a budget, the country will still not have one, and the pols will continue to collect their salaries just for sitting on their backsides.
JayDick| 1.24.13 @ 10:44AM
You are probably correct, but let's follow the likely scenario further, at least in terms of options open to Republicans. In this regard, Republicans should be analyzing options and planning strategy right now.
Republicans could pass a series of "mini" continuing resolutions that are consistent with their budget. Usually, continuing resolutions are huge bills slapped together at the last minute to prevent government shutdowns and cover the whole government. But, for example, a smaller continuing resolution could be passed for just the Defense Department authorizing spending at the level Republicans want. The same could be done for other departments.
If the Senate doesn't act on the CRs, they would be the guilty party. If the Republicans don't do anything really radical in their CRs, they would be less likely to be blamed by the electorate.
Then, in 2014, Republicans could hang the Democrats' votes and lack of votes all over them at election time. By then, the economy will probably be in recession or close to it and the electorate will be ready for change.
Get the drift?
Grzmlyk| 1.24.13 @ 10:49AM
Yup.
America is over.
End of story.
Anthony| 1.24.13 @ 9:28AM
I say waterboard the bastard and traitor on national TV until he finally departs this earth once and for all.
The damage this whore has done to America is incalculable.
Russel| 1.24.13 @ 10:45AM
I second that . The despicable little crook I loathe more than his master , and that's saying something . He started out as a file clerk at the courthouse and wormed his way to the top , by hook and crook . Payola and favors . He's even tried to buy his son into the racket . Treason is too good a word . Wrap a rope around that Chicken neck .
Hardcard| 1.24.13 @ 9:36AM
Transformation anyone? The regime and it's pawns will do as they please, they deem whatever strikes there fancy, we are being played like a violin.
squalis| 1.24.13 @ 9:56AM
No, we are not being played. It's worse. We are utterly ignored. We have been deemed irrelevant.
PolishKnight| 1.24.13 @ 10:10AM
I think this is why many Romney voters woke up with a sick stomach the day after the election. It doesn't make normal sense that Obama should have won. We can at least understand most of the other presidential elections and even call them in advance. But this one was surprising.
The left is being smug and what's useful to see is they're showing their true colors. The leftist racism is now fully out to see. Not that it wasn't there before, but they tried to Orwellize it a bit.
Hindsight is useful in that if we find the reason why Romney lost, it appears obvious: non-whites, unwed women, and gays voted for Obama for special privileges. He has 40% of the electorate wrapped up. Romney did NOTHING about those entitlements so his base didn't see a reason to get out and vote for him. Yes, denying abortion to rape victims to protect unborn babies is a wonderful principle and all, but it didn't help win elections either short or long term.
Will Republicans "get" this within 2 years?
JayDick| 1.24.13 @ 10:51AM
I agree, but would add this. Obama has figured out how to get people to vote who have not voted in the past. These include non-whites, low-income, and other groups that don't follow politics but like government benefits. This trend might continue and Republicans must find a way to counter it.
PolishKnight| 1.24.13 @ 11:02AM
That's true. Again in hindsight, it should have been the typical entitlement voter showing up for the polls because what else do they have to do all day? But in the past it was too much trouble for them to get up from the tv and pick up a registration form and fill it out.
Now that many of them hang out on the internet and follow twitter, their numbers are going up. But still, it's a red herring. They vote for the entitlements because they're free. Obama can print up money (for now) and VIP status based upon race, gender, and gayness are monster perks that trump everything else.
I drove by a church in DC once that looked like it was in the middle of a battle zone. Everyone coming out was well dressed and polite but they are hard core democrats and most of the women probably unwed mothers.
TLP| 1.24.13 @ 4:36PM
Don't you mean that he's figured out how to get People - Both Dead and Alive, Legal and Illegal - to vote at least Twice?
Von Mises Jr| 1.24.13 @ 11:12AM
The Republicans in DC voted for Obama. If they got a guy like Rand Paul or Ron Johnson with any power in this government, the party would be over for the GOP also.
Redistribution is fun if you get to do the redistributing shaving off a few points here and there for sex, drugs and rock and roll.
Who Knows?| 1.24.13 @ 11:12AM
“We don’t need no stinking badges” is the anarchistic credo of the 2013 Democrats, and has been for some time.
Say you own a store, along with a Democrat, and he steals stock on the sly. When carefully figured potential profit proves to be way more than realized profit, the only logical conclusion is that SOMEBODY is slipping stuff out the door before it can be rung up as a sale.
After a while, you get serious, and start watching 24/7 the coming and going of all people, and, lo and behold---there’s your partner, sneaking things into his pocket, and out the door! You confront him, and he says---SO WHAT?
Now, he simply rips the store off in daylight, in front of you and everybody else, and you do---NOTHING.
That’s America, and the mind boggles that the GOP “store owner” just sits there. What is he afraid of?
Have the Democrats privately threatened the GOP, or what?
The GOP resemble the store owner who ONLY wails to his customers and workers and the rest of the world, “Look, my partner is stealing!”. Picture Boehner at the front door, crying about Pelosi-Reid as they walk right by him with arms full of goodies, and doing nothing else!
Why doesn’t somebody SUE the bastards? Just filing a lawsuit against Reid should at least be a start.
Hey, Bob, YOU do it. Or else, is talk all you are about.
PolishKnight| 1.24.13 @ 11:44AM
Remember the big deal about Nixon covering up the FBI investigation? He resigned in disgrace. Then the Dems decided that narrative was great and started to use it against EVERY Republican president from then on.
In the meantime, while projecting their own corruption on the right, the left stepped up theirs to unimagined before heights. Clinton's childhood friend was found dead in a park with a clean hand holding a gun. Nothing. A plane with the Commerce Secretary goes down taking hundreds of other innocent lives and the stewardess dies on the plane trip back. NOTHING. I pointed this out to a Democrat at my office and he laughed "Good luck with those conspiracy theories." In other words, they got away with it so that's all that matters.
So now, Obama's antics are hardly surprising. Give guns to Mexicans and then gripe that we need gun control to stop Mexicans from killing each other? Or how about letting Americans die at the state department in Libya? WHO CARES? But if a Republican does something, look out, the politburo press will be on him in a second.
Even Mexicans are thinking twice about coming here because this is LIKE Mexico!
Who Knows?| 1.24.13 @ 11:46AM
Yup.
Stephie| 1.24.13 @ 11:51AM
Democrats don't care about rules or laws. They will continue to do whatever they hell they please and NO ONE will ever follow through in punishing them. It's like the Billary yesterday saying she takes "full responsibility" for the 4 dead men. But what is her punishment? There is NEVER any punishment, no accountability. They skate on out after the apology and collect their pension for the next 30 years. That bitch will NEVER be president. Never.
PolishKnight| 1.24.13 @ 12:40PM
A liberal friend of mine from up in Canada smugly told me that Harry Truman had a sign on his desk saying "The buck stops here" and Republicans are SOOO irresponsible by comparison.
In the meantime, FDR slept while Pearl Harbor burned and AC's mysteriously out on maneuvers. Truman had commie spies in his organization and they bash McCarthy for pointing it out. Yeah, the buck stopped there alright.
RCV| 1.24.13 @ 12:01PM
Yes, RET has such influence at present that HE will see to it that Harry is punished. Right ...
axbucxdu| 1.24.13 @ 9:00PM
Roman Catholic Voter, your arrogance is unbecoming. All glory is fleeting. And worry not, Moldy Harry's case will be handled by the far harsher taskmaster known as arithmetic.
Purp take the day off and you fillin in?
JP| 1.24.13 @ 12:11PM
"Where is the accountability? Failing to write up a budget is a dereliction of duty. At the time, I speculated ever so gently about what sort of crime Harry was committing."
Well, who would prosecute Harry? The House cannot; and in the Senate, as far as I can tell, the Republicans think Harry is a swell guy. And the MSM? Right? If Harry brought in trucks full of cash and began handing the lute out to K-Street lawyers, the MSM would treat it as "outreach".
atilla| 1.24.13 @ 1:16PM
Why not hard labor for that commie slut
howard lohmuller| 1.24.13 @ 3:04PM
Mr. Tyrrell has demonstrated a very important function of journalists, observant citizens, and academics. That function is to put on the record an indictment of elected and appointed officials of government whom have violated their oath of office or laws of the U.S. While the indictment may not be acted on immediately, it may, and hopefully it will, cause an awakening of citizens to prosecute this wrong doing, or at the least, future transgressions. This is what Journalism is.
cicero| 1.24.13 @ 5:13PM
Rather than whimper and whine, and claim that Reid should be prosecuted under the dictates of the Constitution and the laws of the land, I suggest that we get a can of putty and just plaster over that carving on the portal of the Supreme Court. You know, that "Equal Justice Under the Law" thing. If any citizen ever tried to file a lawsuit against one of the illustrious Senators, the solons of the bench would throw the case out for a lack of standing - and award sanctions to the elected official. Our government, and all branches thereof, are in place to protect the elected class from the tax paying stiffs. Otherwise, how does anyone explain the Clintons?
The only hope for the country is to throw all of the bastards out. Does anyone really think that the Rs want to really rein in the Ds? After all, they may get a chance to be first to the trough next time. Reid is there because the Rs refused to back their own candidate last time. When it looked like she might win, they pulled the rug out from under her, and joined the braying chorus against her in the press. Shameful.
Brian Richard Allen | 1.24.13 @ 11:42PM
.... I have prevailed upon Bob Barr to investigate putting teeth into that 1974 law Harry has broken ....
But wouldn't Mr Barr's ACLU leanings tend him toward empathy for the mentally ill?
Among whom the Fascissocialist Psychosis-suffering Dingy Harry stands out.
RJ| 1.25.13 @ 2:29AM
No doubt Harry Reid has been irresponsible as a US Senator and his election as Majority Leader is a disgrace to the US Senate and the nation. However, given the amount of wealth he has accumulated while in office, he may very well be a criminal who should be residing in a prison somewhere, along with several other elected officials. So much of our government has become a favor-factory of corruption. Those who engage in the trade should be prosecuted.
TruSkeptik| 1.25.13 @ 6:21AM
Imagine that, a law that directly affects members of the Legislative Branch that has no "teeth". No enforcement mechanism of any kind apparently. Merriam Webster defines "law" as "a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority". Therefore, the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is not a "law" but merely another masturbatory declaration by the most corrupt institution on the planet, the US Government. The people are transfixed by the charade, the majority choose the puppet master each four years, nothing improves, gossip and propaganda becomes journalism, the cycle begins again.
Rhoetus| 1.26.13 @ 11:51PM
When congressmen and senators are personally liable for the debt, then and only then, will we have a balanced budget and an honest government.