EDJUL210

Now and then we are privileged to a floor debate that demonstrates how election year politics get in the way of serving the needs of the taxpayers. Let's take a look at the floor debate and the political messages within on HR 5618, a bill that would extend recently expired unemployment benefits.

Rep Jim McDermott (D-WA-7th) bludgeoned the bill to the floor this way:

"The House tried to address this issue a month ago as part of a much larger jobs package, but Republican opposition killed the bill in the other body.

Bad Republicans!

"America's unemployed workers cannot wait any longer for all of us to do the right thing. Many of them have lost their benefits after just 26 weeks. And yet, only one, one of more than 200 Republicans in Congress has voted to continue the benefits.

200 or more bad Republicans!

" So we're bringing up a stand-alone bill to extend unemployment benefits so there can be no excuses. There's no place to hide in this. You are looking the unemployed straight in the face."

We'll make you bad Republicans look the unemployed in the face. How about that, eh?

McDermott went on to say that a 'No' vote not only cuts off unemployment funds to recipients but will add to foreclosures when the unemployed cannot pay their mortgages.

How could anyone vote 'No' when such circumstances are predicted? well...up to the plate is Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI-4th) who apparently agrees with McDermott or perhaps not...

"Another month, another bill extending unemployment benefits and extending the Federal deficit. Only this time, the Democrats have waited now almost an entire month since these programs last expired to come up with a plan for how to extend them, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without needed benefits.

Umm...the benefits are expiring today, Rep. Camp. So why do you think the Democrats are bringing the bill up now?

"...it's all because the Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits, despite record Federal deficits."

Bad Democrats! But...how come your party didn't pay for the benefits you funded year in and year out when in the Majority?

"...American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in need. They also know that someone has to pay when the government spends money."

So you are saying Americans want to help people in need only when it doesn't cost them anything? Apparently they felt completely different when your party controlled Congress. I wonder what happened?

But still...$33 billion...couldn't we at least buy some Lotto tickets and take a chance? They are only one dollar? Why don't we do something?

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX-8th) had the explanation-

"The answer is, to Democrats deficits don't matter...the rest of the American public says it does matter."

Including those people who are eating tree bark, we suppose. Among the 'American public' to whom debt 'matters' comes a constituent of Rep Danny Davis (D-IL-7th) who said, "I have always worked, but my unemployment benefits ran out at the end of May. Our house is almost in foreclosure. There are no jobs to be found. And now I have no unemployment benefits. What can I do?"

Rep. Camp's response..."I reserve the balance of my time."

But camp returned warning that the debt will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. Including, we suppose, the children and grandchildren now suffering from the lack of a paycheck their parents and grandparents are currently experiencing.

But just before the vote on passage Rep Camp offered his way of paying for the bill. His motion to recommit would have sent the bill back to committee requiring that it be paid for by stimulus package money which, we remind Rep. Camp, is also borrowed money that may add to the deficit he fears our heirs will inherit.

The first vote on the bill failed 261 to 155. Rep. Camp's motion to recommit received 196 votes. The bill then passed 270 - 153.

No reproduction, language translation or distribution of all website content without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

It’s Tough To Give Americans What They Want

by Lee Hamilton

"Much of what goes on in policy-making on Capitol Hill is the effort to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views and to develop a consensus when people are asking government to do worthy but contradictory things."

The Gulf oil spill has laid bare a series of shortcomings in the government’s ability both to prevent and to respond to such a crisis, and the result is spiraling public frustration. But it might not hurt for members of the public to save a little of that frustration for themselves. Because anyone trying to figure out what Americans want from government as a result of the mess in the Gulf can only be left scratching his head.

“In times of crisis,” the New York Times columnist David Brooks observed a few weeks ago, “you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts.” Most people know that the direct fault was not the government’s, and that there’s nothing the President can do to plug the hole. Yet, as Brooks puts it, “they want to hold him responsible for things they know he doesn’t control.”

They want the government to take decisive action, but not at too great an expense or with too much interference in private oil companies. They want to beef up regulation of the oil industry, but don’t want to stifle efforts to secure our energy independence.

And the Gulf spill is hardly the only issue on which we as Americans contradict ourselves. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, almost two-thirds of those surveyed put a high priority on halting the flow of illegal immigrants into the country; yet even more — almost three-quarters — also say that they are somewhat or very concerned that tougher immigration laws would lead to harassment of Hispanics.

Americans are leery of expanding the role of government in health care — but were outraged by the thought that the health-care reform might affect their federal Medicare benefits. They are bitter about the growing budget deficit, but resent efforts to cut entitlement spending or to raise taxes. They want government to run frugally, but quickly grow indignant when it turns out there aren’t enough inspectors to ensure the safety of the food supply or basic infrastructure or oil-drilling rigs.

The key problem is that Americans want limited government, but keep demanding expanded government services.

So if you’re a politician, what do you make of this? It is the job of our elected officials — our political leaders — to represent the American people. This is hard to do when the American people give conflicting signals about what they want.

In many cases, each of these desires — less spending and more services, for instance — are quite worthy. And there are certainly a host of matters on which difficult issues are at stake and contradictory principles at work. In a recent speech, for instance, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter noted that a choice often has to be made “because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty.”

The truth is, politicians represent the people rather precisely — and certainly better than most people think. To some extent, you can fault members of Congress and other politicians for not pointing out the contradictions. No successful politician, faced with an impossible request, would say, “You’re crazy.” He or she will instead respond calmly, “I’ll do my best and try to be helpful.”

Politicians may, in fact, be fairly criticized for avoiding hard choices, refusing to ask constituents for short-term sacrifice in exchange for long-term gains, and for putting off the day of reckoning. But they understand accurately that their constituents often want contradictory things, and may well punish at the polls members who speak frankly and make tough choices.

It is unfair, then, to place all the onus for government’s failings on our politicians. We — all of us — deserve some of the blame. Americans must understand our own responsibility for creating the problem if we want politicians to fix it.

Above all, it’s crucial to understand that it is the job of the political process — and of Congress, in particular — to recognize the confusion inherent in popular desires and to resolve it. Much of what goes on in policy-making on Capitol Hill is the effort to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views and to develop a consensus when people are asking government to do worthy but contradictory things.

This is the tough, time-consuming work of representative democracy, and some understanding, even patience, on the part of the ordinary voter seems entirely appropriate — since we so often contribute to the dilemma in the first place.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.