Off

Republicans made it 'vaguely clear' this week what they will do if they regain the majority they held on Capital Hill for 12 years. It's all in the Pledge to America they recently release, but as it is often said on Capitol Hill, the devil is in the details.

Sixteen paragraphs spell it out and most from either party would agree with the first four in which the dream of the Declaration of Independence is expected to be guaranteed by the Constitution; that document the Pledge seems determined to interpret on its own.

Democrats and some Independents might disagree with paragraph five where it states that the governed do not agree with this administration, but from there on read carefully.

If you are an astute politics watcher you will notice that the next five paragraphs would have been precise and accurate if the Democrats launched the same pledge against the Republicans just before they took control of the Hill in 2007. Most Americans, though, got the picture without a dramatic pledge and voted them out.

Paragraph six- "An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary" The Republican Congresses and the Bush administration raised legislative compliance with White House wishes to an art form and packed the Supreme court with conservative judges to keep it that way.

Paragraph seven - An 'arrogant out-of-touch government making decision without the consent of the many' pretty much describes why the Republicans lost the congressional majority in 2007.

Paragraph eight - The 'polarizing political environment ...fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose' was created by the Republicans beginning immediately after they lost the majority in 2007.

Paragraph nine - 'our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. ' Again, that's why Democrats are in the majority.

Paragraph ten - 'The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.' And some progress might have been made if the House and Senate Republicans didn't stall legislation to do so over the past four years.

Paragraph eleven - is the Pledge preamble.

Paragraph twelve - Honoring the original intent of the framers of the Constitution is a subjective undertaking that usually ends up in the Supreme Court. As for the strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment? Just hope you don't rely on Federal intervention to protect your rights and freedoms from State legislature abuses.

Paragraph thirteen - "greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations " Okay if you liked things under President Bush and the Republican Congress.

Paragraph fourteen - "make government more transparent " might help to avoid things like when Senate Republicans sneaked a provision in a 2006 bill allowing Senate and House committee leaders to read anyone's tax return.

Paragraph fifteen - "to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America" A better America defined by whom?

Paragraph sixteen - "We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent" Great! As long as Republicans remember, as they forgot for twelve years, that they also represent people who don't agree with them.

This Pledge tells us that the Constitution will be the scapegoat for anything extreme such as handing Social Security funds to Wall Street for investment. Many provisions of the Constitution are intentionally vague to allow for interpretation by the courts. The Pledge, too, is intentionally vague but the interpretations will be left to the Republican Party.

R. McElroy

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

Legislation Is Just The Start

by Lee Hamilton

"...lobbyists don't stop work when a law is passed; in some ways, that's when their work truly begins."

You might imagine, now that President Obama has signed the massive financial reform package into law, that the issue is behind us. Hardly. In a way, the president's signature was just the starter's pistol.

This is because, despite its length — over 2000 pages — and the many months of negotiations that went into crafting it, the financial overhaul measure leaves countless issues to be resolved later by federal regulators and the lobbyists who will try to influence their decisions. It is a textbook example of the limits inherent in a legislative product, and of the manner in which Congress relies on a mix of concrete action and ambiguous ball-punting to cobble together a majority.

The law undoubtedly changes the nation's financial landscape. It creates a new Bureau of Financial Consumer Protection; strengthens regulation of financial holding companies; regulates derivatives; places new limits — the so-called "Volcker Rule" — on the amount of money a bank can invest in hedge funds and private equity funds; buttresses the Securities and Exchange Commission; and tries to discourage excessive risk-taking.

It is also filled with the sorts of compromises the legislative process demands. The "Volcker Rule" was written off, watered down, and then somewhat re-strengthened on its way to passage. The consumer protection agency was initially to be a standalone regulator, but then was placed within the Federal Reserve in order to calm some concerns. The language on derivatives went through a complex series of balance-seeking negotiations between those who wanted highly restrictive regulation and those who opposed it.

The result is a grand and sweeping law that nonetheless leaves many issues unresolved and much room for interpretation in the future. When you have such ambiguities in new statutes — as is frequently the case — it amounts to an invitation to further struggle on the part of the bureaucrats who must give shape and form to the ideas contained in the measure, and the lobbyists whose clients have much at stake in the results.

According to an analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the measure calls for 350 rules to be formulated, 47 studies to be conducted — which is Congress' way of signaling action on an issue without actually making any decisions — and 74 reports. The creation of new entities — the consumer protection agency, a board of regulators to assess risk in the financial system — also will engender much executive-branch maneuvering and back-and-forth with Congress as they're set up and staffed.

Moreover, lobbyists don't stop work when a law is passed; in some ways, that's when their work truly begins, as they strive to build relationships with the regulators who will oversee their industry and try to influence the regulations that will soon enough begin to flow from various executive-branch agencies.

The difference, of course, is that for all its faults, Congress is a relatively transparent and accountable institution. What takes place in regulators' offices is far less visible. As the activity surrounding financial reform now passes beyond public view, political considerations will become less important but the stakes will grow higher. Out of the public's eye, the special interests' influence will grow, and arguments about how to interpret the language contained in the law will blossom — and, inevitably, spill over into the courts. For years to come, there will be enormous demand for lawyers capable either of making sense out of ambiguous legislative language, or of making the strongest possible arguments in favor of interpretations that just happen to favor their clients.

Yet in the end, it's the executive branch that benefits most from what Congress has done. The entire measure is a significant gift of power to federal agencies and financial regulators, who now have to make decisions about how they intend to wield their power. You can already see how significant their role will be in the early maneuvering over who might head the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection: each possible appointee, who must be approved by the Senate, would approach the job differently, and in the weeks following the bill's passage the nuances of their approaches were probably the hottest single topic of debate over breakfast, lunch and dinner tables in Washington.

It is important to remember, in the end, that the authority to act is not the same as acting. That is why, while Congress made some important decisions in the process of crafting its bill, the true import of the financial reform package will only reveal itself gradually. There is an old saying in Washington that nothing is ever decided for good there. For legislation, that's certainly true.

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.