During every congressional election cycle, regardless of the winning party, my optimism for a change in the way our democracy functions is always at its highest. I naively think that the majority will put the people of this country first and the goals of the party second. My disappointment this time is even more unpalatable because I believe that putting country over party will always produce a better result and the Democrats are missing the opportunity in a big way.
What have they done? Put troop funding into a bill laden with pork with unrealistic withdrawal timelines to bring the ill-conceived war in IRAQ to an ignominious end. The bill is set up this way in order to garner votes across the full spectrum of liberalism and conservatism. The Democrats had lots of options and chose the absolute worst in the belief that it would benefit the party. I'm sad, disillusioned and demoralized.
What are the other options? After the President vetos this ill-conceived bill the democrats propose "a second bill that would tie U.S. economic and military support to the Iraqi government's ability to meet performance benchmarks." OK, that's a little better and should have been the opening gambit in this game of one upmanship that has nothing to do with what is best for the country.
And here is a third option that was hinted at in the early stages of this game. Attach a requirement to the bill that the President will certify future troop readiness and necessary equipment and if he chooses to send in untrained and/or ill-equipped troops, he would provide that statement to Congress.
I like option 3 a lot. The first two options handcuff the President as Commander-in-Chief and result in Congressional micro-management of the war effort. Option 3 simply puts the President on notice that he has to keep Congress informed about troop readiness (or unreadiness as the case may be). The war will still be the Presidents to win or lose. The troops will be fully funded with no strings attached and the system of checks and balances that form the core of our democracy will be strengthened after 12 years of Republican apathy toward their congressional duty.
What is the downside? The only one I see is that troop morale may take a hit (even more than it already has) when the President sends troops into the war knowing full well that they are not properly equipped or not properly trained or they have not had enough time with their families between deployments. The men and women of our military are ill-served by a President that knowingly orders them into a war zone under these circumstances. But the people will be informed and Congress will be informed and democracy will flourish under option 3. The people can then judge how well our Commander-in-Chief is prosecuting HIS war and vote accordingly.
My vote is for Option 3.
posted by PurplePol @ 7:18 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I would agree with your option three if and only if the military was fully funded, to include the training and outfitting necessary for the tasks at hand. The problem here is, the Democrats will never provide that funding. And, whether you admit it publicly or not, you know they won't. So option three just becomes political suicide for the President. And I think you know that, too.
I don't hide my affiliation. I definitely fall on the liberal side of the fence. The current Congress is as much of a disappointment to me as the previous one. Without the willingness to compromise on either side of the aisle the work of the people is utterly stalled allowing selfishness and selfpreservation to trump what is right for the Country. The Democrats have now provided no-strings fundings for the war for next couple of months. Fully funded is of course a matter of opinion. I have a little trouble with "political suicide" for the lame-duck President although I agree that option three will not be helpful to the Republicans running for office next year.
I guess this is where we differ: I believe the government should leave "the work of the people" to the people. There are very, very few places where the federal government runs things well. Most Federal programs are wasteful and actually counterproductive to their stated goals. They should generally be abolished. Look at FEMA, which is one area where I actually think the Federal government SHOULD be involved. But its current incarnation is useless. So, Congress being stalled doesn't bother me at all, as very little that it ever does pleases me anyway.
I agree whole heartedly that the Federal Government in no way efficiently uses the revenue stream that it gets from the people to do the "people's work". Billions of dollars are squandered every year in every facet of operations from the prosecution of the wars we are involved in to disaster assistance, medical assistance and all other programs designed to help the citizens of this country. The only progress that is ever made at the legislative level is when the two major parties come together and COMPROMISE.
Post a Comment
<< Home