This page was last updated on February 15, 2012.
Op-Ed: When will Congress Start Earning their Pay?; Jack Manning; Beaver Countian; February 14, 2012.
The Beaver Countian appears to be a “one-man band” consisting of John Paul, a self-described “citizen journalist.” To date I’ve seen no article bylines for anyone but Mr. Paul and it appears he does all the technical work. In an apparent attempt to hide that fact, in his articles Mr. Paul refers to himself as “the Beaver Countian” and “we.” If I’m correct, I have no idea why Mr. Paul would want to deceive his readers, customers, and advertisers on this point.
Below is a detailed critique of excerpts from the subject opinion piece.
I don’t have enough time for a full-blown critique so I’ll stick to only a few points.
I’ll start with No Labels. According to its website, No Labels is “a 501(c)(4) social welfare advocacy organization.” The “social welfare advocacy” portion of the description is a giveaway. Though the group’s slogan is “Not left. Not right. Forward.,” this group appears to consist primarily of leftists with some RINOs (Republicans in name only) thrown in for the illusion of bipartisanship. I’m sure some real, well-meaning conservatives will get sucked in until they figure out what’s going on. While the idea of no labels is seductive, who would benefit from this?
How many Democrat politicians claim to be liberals, socialists, and so on? In a 2007 debate, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said she preferred to be labeled as something other than a liberal. Mrs. Clinton said, “I consider myself a modern progressive,” hoping most voters didn’t know there’s no practical difference between liberals and progressives. If you want an example of progressives, I suggest you take a look at the leadership of Beaver County Reds (aka Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th Congressional District Chapter). Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) responded “I wouldn’t use either word” when the debate moderator asked, “are you a liberal?” Then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) did not have to answer that question. In a 2004 debate, all the participants danced around being called “liberal.”
I get a kick out of lefties saying they don’t want labels. When it comes to tactics, lefties see people only with labels based on age, income, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, and so on. When it comes to them, however, lefties do not want to be labeled based on their ideology.
On the other side of the political spectrum, can you imagine a real conservative or libertarian saying he didn’t want to be referred to as a conservative or libertarian? Heck, even some lefties try to associate themselves with the conservative label. You may recall Howard Dean (D-VT) supporters tried to claim he was a “fiscal conservative.” In the aforementioned 2004 debate, while dodging the “Are you a liberal?” question, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said, “labels are so silly in American politics” and “I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush’s tax cut.”
Given conservatives are proud to be called conservative and liberals (with few exceptions) don’t want to be called liberal, who do you think stands to gain from dropping “labels?”
Item 11 on the No Labels wish-list says, “While ideologically polar opposites, President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill met regularly, had a cordial relationship, and worked together to make headway on major issues such as entitlement and tax reform.” Sure. According to the New York Times, “The Speaker … called [Mr. Reagan] the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House. Publicly, Mr. O’Neill called Mr. Reagan ‘Herbert Hoover with a smile’ and ‘a cheerleader for selfishness.’” Does that sound like “a cordial relationship?” (Note: Though a marginal Republican, Mr. Hoover was a Progressive.)
Item 12 on the No Labels wish-list is: “No Negative Campaigns against Incumbents: … No Labels believes that incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against sitting members of the opposing party — no appearances in attack ads or direct mailings, and no traveling to play partisan attack dog.” First, “negative campaigns” doesn’t mean what you may think it means. Most of us think of negative campaigning as name-calling, personal attacks, et cetera. What No Labels means by negative campaigning is pointing out the aspects of an opponent’s record the voters may not like. Second, why should an incumbent be subject to preferential treatment? I’m sure it’s only a coincidence President Obama is an incumbent this election.
Now let’s look at Jack Manning, a self-described Independent. I’m sure there are exceptions, but the only independents I know of in recent history are lefties. For example, since at least 2000 all Independents in Congress have been lefties. The same appears to be true for Mr. Manning who was “deeply disappointed” the “Beaver-Lawrence Central Labor Council … endorsed the two Democratic incumbents” but not him. Given labor union management is overwhelmingly leftist and pushes leftist policies and programs, no one other than a fellow lefty would even seek an endorsement from these folks. (Note: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat until he changed to a Republican to take advantage of Rudy Giuliani’s popularity. Mr. Bloomberg switched to an Independent in 2007. In fairness, I don’t know what the heck Ross Perot is.)
Mr. Manning wrote, “Only 513 of 6,111 bills put forward have even received a hearing, likely making this one of least productive Congress’ in history.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t judge a legislature’s productivity on the basis of bills heard, voted on, or passed. That’s because new legislation almost always increases government control at the expense of individual liberty.
Mr. Manning wrote, “It has been over 1,020 days since Congress has passed a budget (the only constitutionally mandated role for which they have responsibility).” While the “1,020 days since Congress has passed a budget” part is true, it is misleading. You see, the Republican-majority House passed a fiscal-year 2012 budget during April 2011. Senate Democrats appear to be getting sensitive about this. Senate Democrats want us to believe a “budget agreement” passed in August that only set overall spending limits for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 is the same as passing a budget. As for the business that passing a budget is “the only constitutionally mandated role for which they [Congress] have responsibility,” nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to pass a budget. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” and “[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time,” but that’s not the same as passing a budget.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.