Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way

Free Congress Foundation |Ralph Hostetter | August 09, 2007

The much vaunted leadership of the 110th Congress arrived last January in Washington amid much fanfare about the first 100 hours of Congressional action, leading on through the first 100 days of major legislative accomplishments.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was installed as the first woman Speaker of the House. Finding a new use for her broom, she immediately began sweeping the cobwebs of corruption, untruths and incompetence left by the former Republican occupants of her newly draped offices. She would make her influence felt in Washington.

Meanwhile, Senator Harry M. Reid (D-NV) was settling into his office as Majority Leader with somewhat less fanfare. The first 100 days passed and then some, and a strange quiet has settled over Congress. The Democrats had basically campaigned on a single issue, ending the war in Iraq. With a substantial victory in the House of Representatives and a very narrow victory in the Senate, they interpreted this as a mandate.

Although a majority of the American people had become weary of the war and the growing loss of American lives, they were not yet ready to quit the war outright. When faced with the fact that cutting off funds for the war effort, thus abandoning the brave men and women in combat, was the only way to end America’s involvement, the leadership lacked the courage to proceed.

With the exception of the passage, first, of a wage increase for themselves, a minimum wage law, a very weak energy bill and an investigation of “corruption” in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office with respect to the dismissal of seven United States District Attorneys, nothing was accomplished. The investigation of the Attorney General’s office proceeds with the wild hope they can involve either or both Presidential Assistant Karl Rove and Vice President Richard B. Cheney in some sort of indictable crime, perhaps similar to the Scooter Libby case.

Not having a campaign platform issue other than the war in Iraq to fall back on, they find themselves out of steam and dead in the water. Observers of late have noticed the House and Senate leaders no longer appear singly before the microphone but rather in a group, displaying a downcast countenance. They appear more as a group of losers rather than victors in a recent hard-fought election.

Congress finds itself out of touch with the American public. While Congress is adrift in La-La Land, two of the most critical issues ever to face the nation go begging for solutions. These two issues at some point may determine whether or not America can maintain its economy and its culture. The two issues are energy and rampant illegal immigration.

The Senate passed its first energy bill on June 25 by a vote of 65-27. The bill mandates annual production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, and a 40% increase in gasoline mileage for all motor vehicles.

An arithmetic glance at the figures for ethanol indicates that a situation known as economic cannibalism would be created by the year 2022, whereby one vital commodity (food) is devoured by another vital commodity (energy). The production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol will consume 92% of the entire corn crop (91 million acres) produced annually as of 2007.

Talk of the use of cellulose is just that. The investment of billions of dollars for the infrastructure necessary to produce the ethanol will dictate the fulfillment of the mandate. Investors will have to be repaid. In the upcoming battle of food vs. energy the odds are that energy will win, leading, perhaps, to catastrophic results. Corn is used in a total of 3,500 U.S. food products.

The other fantasy solution offered was a mandate to auto manufacturers to boost gasoline mileage by 40%. No mention was made of producing gasoline from our 200-plus billion barrels of crude oil reserves in our own country. However, that same week, the House voted 196-233 on H.B. 6243, refusing to end the 20-year-old moratorium on drilling for energy off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. A yes vote was to repeal the ban.

The most “critical” of all the issues the new House leadership struggled with was the Congressional Pay Raise (H.R. 2829), which passed 244-181. Their new salary will be $170,000 per year plus untold tens of thousands of dollars in expenses.

No doubt, the overburdening struggle over the Congressional pay raise issue left Member of Congress too exhausted to return to the other major issue facing the nation, illegal immigration. Their two failed attempts in the Senate to pass the comprehensive immigration (amnesty) bill resulted from the fact that both parties completely misread the will of the American public. The U.S. public will not accept amnesty. Nothing substantial has come forth from the 110th Congress to secure the border or to deal with the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already here.

Rumors are that Al Qaeda is already taking advantage of America’s failed border security to gain access to the United States. The word is that nothing will be done about illegal immigration or energy by this “Do Nothing” Congress until it is replaced by the 111th Congress in 2009.

It is bad enough that the 110th Congress is useless — worse, since no legislative action can be taken without it, it has become an obstacle.

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, also is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors. He welcomes email comments at eralphhostetter@yahoo.com.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

12 thoughts on “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way”

  1. If the Republican party has nothing more to offer than what’s in this pathetic piece of mendacious propaganda, than it better prepare for a long hiatus from power.

    For all America’s problems, this article, like the Republican Presidential canditates, has nothing positive or contructive to offer, just a pack of distortions, smears and half-truths.

    But lets review the results of 7 years of rule from out ultra-conservative executive branch.

    First there is the complete and total disaster in Iraq, a protracted conflict which has cost us 3,400 lives and over a half a trillion dollars, $12 billion a month, for which we can have no realistic expectation of any positive outcome. Then there is wage stagnation and growing economic pressure on middle class Americans. Finally there is the precarious state of the economy caught between the vice grips of falling home prices and rising oil prices. Yesterday’s stock market crash was the sharp sound of a bubble bursting. It demonstated clearly that the home-equity fueled economic recovery is over, a wave of foreclosures is looming, and a deep recession is a distinct possibility. As the statement by the French bank, AB Paribas indicated, world investors now consider securities backed by mortgages on American homes to have little more than junk bond status.

    To top it all off, that unhinged, malevolent, crazy man, Dick Cheney, wants to bomb Iran – an act that will start a war we have no chance of winning, a war which will place even greater strain on our exhausted and overstretched military, a war which will rally disaffected Iranians around a radical and unstable leader they currently loathe, and a war which will create even greater havoc and violence in the middle-east disrupting the movement of oil supplies and pushing gasoline prices to levels certain to disrupt our economy.

    Great job. The Republican party must very pleased with its work.

  2. Dean,

    What? Are you serious? Please tell me this is just a bad joke!

    But lets review the results of 7 years of rule from out ultra-conservative executive branch.

    “Ultra-conservative” THIS executive branch? Whatever you’re smoking I suggest you stop since it’s clouding your reason and judgment. Try “barely-conservative” or “anti-conservative” for this President and administration. Outside his lower taxes and anti-abortion stances, this President has very little in common with many of the “conservative” positions of tens of millions of Americans. That’s the problem! He is not conservative at all on many issues and has instead implemented and followed many of the liberal-left approaches, including growing the gov’t and social programs even more than Clinton did. Wake up and smell the socialist policies Dean!

  3. If anyone really wanted an antidote to the nonsense in Washington they would vote a REAL Conservative into office. This would encourage other REAL conservatives to run and win local seats. The course of this faltering nation could be slowed in the short term and re-directed in the long term. Is there a Real Conservative in Washington??? Ron paul is that true statesman. He is pro-life, for lower taxes and adamantly opposed to the War. He is smart and experienced. Register Republican in the primaries and vote Ron paul.

  4. I agree Bush is not a true conservative, but neither is he a moderate Republican or crypto-Democrat. Bush is someone who has exploited conservative causes opportunistically for the purpose of consolidating political power. Unfortunately the conservatives were all too willing to be exploited. The Economist magazine writes:

    Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush’s apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.

    From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream … the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.

    So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party’s individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. … On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.

    The Economist: Is America Turning Left?

  5. A major, glaring problem with the article is in portraying the Democratic leadership as too radical and confrontational, when in reality they have been too compliant and accomodating towards the President and certain special interests.

    Just last week we see how they caved-in to the President’s request to gut the FISA laws and give George W. Bush police state powers to spy on Americans domestically. That was a sad and shameful day for America. The week before that they caved-in to the auto industry and refused to add meaningful and mandatory increases in automobile fuel efficiency standards to the Energy legislation that was passed. Democrats in the Senate have undercut Democrats in the House by refusing cut funding for or occupation of Iraq and to back legislation requiring the President to begin an orderly withdrawl from Iraq.

    Finally the Democratic leadership has seriously erred by taking the impeachment option off the table. George W. Bush has certainly committed many high crimes and misdemeanors justifying impeachment. Never before has a President displayed such contempt for the rule of law, or our consitutional system of government.

    By taking the impeachment option off the table the Democratic leadership has emboldened the Bush administration to continue behaving in its arrogant and indifferent manner. The best example is Attorney General Gonzales’s blatant and repeated to lying (perjury, a crime) to Congress. It should be clear to everyone the the Bush administration boldly violated the Hatch Act by coercing government employees to act as partisan political agents and firing the ones that refused to cooperate. Of all departments we expect those responsible for the adminstration of justice to be the most objective and impartial. What Bush has done striles at the foundations of our democracy.

  6. Dean writes: “Finally the Democratic leadership has seriously erred by taking the impeachment option off the table. ”

    I think this was a matter of practicality given the length of time it takes to undergo the procedures and the fact that we are already in the beginning stages of the next election. Perhaps an investigation will be conducted once he leaves office and, if it’s discovered that there was intentional dishonesty on the part of this administration, charges will be filed. In the mean time, I would humbly suggest that it would be a waste of Congress’s time to pursue impeachment at this point.

    You might find the following article regarding Newt Gingrich’s take on the Iraq war interesting.

  7. Dean writes: “By taking the impeachment option off the table the Democratic leadership has emboldened the Bush administration to continue behaving in its arrogant and indifferent manner.”

    According to Rep John Conyers: “‘I’m not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country’s attention from issues that need to be addressed.'”

    After so many charges of being divisive, this seems the prudent step to take given that we are in the last year or so of this administration. Impeachment is more a symbolic act than anything else, anyhow (remember how it really had a negligible effect on the Clinton presidency?). This shouldn’t take all investigations into criminal wrongdoing off the table, however.

  8. Dean says:

    Finally the Democratic leadership has seriously erred by taking the impeachment option off the table. George W. Bush has certainly committed many high crimes and misdemeanors justifying impeachment. Never before has a President displayed such contempt for the rule of law, or our consitutional system of government.

    Fr. Jacobse, I think your site is being used and abused by a Democratic hack – a Troll…;)

  9. note #3 David says

    Register Republican in the primaries and vote Ron paul.

    Ron Paul is as pure a libertarian as you get in elected office. Why do you say he is a “conservative”? There is a clear distinction between the two…

  10. #10 note to Christopher:

    Libertarian, in my opinion requires a modification, an adjective if you will. One may be very “Conservative, Moderate or Liberal” and be a libertarian. This is, by the way, also true of terms such as Republican or Democrat. I suppose even Conservative can be modified by degrees, such as Ultra.

    Ron paul is a conservative in every way. Traditional political conservatism has always been about the preservation of our Constitutional aims and leery of innovations that have not been tested and proved. It is ironic that Ron pauls ideology has become viewed as refreshing, new and progressive. It makes those of us who get it, chuckle.

    Check him out and tell me what makes him not a TRUE conservative.

  11. David,

    I don’t think you are being quite honest here – there is a serious libertarian/conservative divide in the GOP.

    Ron does seem to come down on the right side on certain social issues (abortion & immigration for example), but I don’t see how that is consistent with someone who has been such a libertarian for so long – even it’s presidential candidate. He is not being consistent.

    Perhaps it comes down to trust. Someone who has carried the water for libertarianism is no more trustworthy than someone who has carried the water for left wing views. Perhaps he got so caught up in his strict constitutional approach, he thought he would hitch his wagon to the libertarian star.

    Libertarianism, as you say, can be thought of as an adjective. Go a little deeper however, and you find a view of man and society that has much more in common with the left than with the right.

    Social conservatives at least are right to question anyone with this sort of background. Kirkean conservatives of course, are not going to take that bait…

Comments are closed.