Silly Season in Congress
Rather than consider needed and desired legislation, members of the House of Representatives have chosen instead to put on a dog and pony show for the folks back home. It doesn't matter that most of the measures being debated and voted on are irrelevant, unconstitutional, or both: what matters is that there is an election coming up, and polls show the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the current members have performed. Even the Washington Post was appalled at the grandstanding.
IT WAS BAD enough a few weeks ago when the Senate -- on the heels of debating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- took up the not-so-burning issue of changing the Constitution to prohibit flag burning. Now the House is managing to make the other body look like a model of industrious, responsible legislating. With just this week left before it takes the rest of the summer off, the House has hunkered down to work hard -- on scoring cheap political points.
On Tuesday it took up the gay-marriage amendment. This was a meaningless exercise, except in terms of amassing political ammunition: The Senate had already defeated the amendment. Nonetheless, some members had no trouble explaining the value of the dead-end debate. "This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). [Emphasis added]
Huh?
The Middle East was holding its breath over the possibility that gay Americans might be afforded the protections and comforts of matrimony? I hope Mr. Gingrey's constituents understood that explanation, because I sure didn't.
I wonder what explanations Mr. Gingrey and his colleagues have for some of the other pressing issues which were considered: the bill to strip the Federal Courts from hearing challenges to the "Under God" section of the Pledge of Allegiance; the one to require doctors who perform late term abortions to tell their patients that fetuses feel pain; the one to shield local officials from having to pay damages or attorney's fees in suits challenging religious displays; and the ones to gut the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to revoke the licenses of corrupt gun dealers.
The WaPo editorial concludes:
...None of these measures stand much chance of being enacted, but then again, that isn't the point. The goal is to motivate voters, and perhaps this stunt legislating will do the trick. Or maybe voters who have more pressing concerns will watch the antics in Washington and decide to hire some representatives who would make better use of their time.
In our dreams...
IT WAS BAD enough a few weeks ago when the Senate -- on the heels of debating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- took up the not-so-burning issue of changing the Constitution to prohibit flag burning. Now the House is managing to make the other body look like a model of industrious, responsible legislating. With just this week left before it takes the rest of the summer off, the House has hunkered down to work hard -- on scoring cheap political points.
On Tuesday it took up the gay-marriage amendment. This was a meaningless exercise, except in terms of amassing political ammunition: The Senate had already defeated the amendment. Nonetheless, some members had no trouble explaining the value of the dead-end debate. "This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). [Emphasis added]
Huh?
The Middle East was holding its breath over the possibility that gay Americans might be afforded the protections and comforts of matrimony? I hope Mr. Gingrey's constituents understood that explanation, because I sure didn't.
I wonder what explanations Mr. Gingrey and his colleagues have for some of the other pressing issues which were considered: the bill to strip the Federal Courts from hearing challenges to the "Under God" section of the Pledge of Allegiance; the one to require doctors who perform late term abortions to tell their patients that fetuses feel pain; the one to shield local officials from having to pay damages or attorney's fees in suits challenging religious displays; and the ones to gut the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to revoke the licenses of corrupt gun dealers.
The WaPo editorial concludes:
...None of these measures stand much chance of being enacted, but then again, that isn't the point. The goal is to motivate voters, and perhaps this stunt legislating will do the trick. Or maybe voters who have more pressing concerns will watch the antics in Washington and decide to hire some representatives who would make better use of their time.
In our dreams...
posted by Diane at 3:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home