"Kill the Economy, Blame the Democrats"

[rubato]

"Its the perfect crime"


The Republicans are the party of treason. They are knowingly hurting the country just to be re-elected. (after their policies hurt us the worst in 80 years)

___________________________
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... by/239967/


What's Wrong with America, Chapter 817: Sen. Richard Shelby
By James Fallows

Jun 6 2011, 10:26 AM ET
(See update below.) I don't like to personalize politics. But there's no avoiding it in this case. I'm on the other side of the Pacific for a while again, talking with various foreigners who have theories about "America's irreversible decline," the relentless shift of power to China, and so on.

I don't agree, and I emphasize the tremendous resilience of the American system, the serious problems confronting China, and so on. But if I wanted to make a case that our system really has become pathologically trivializing and self-defeating -- and that our problems, theoretically correctable, may be beyond our powers to address -- here's the most recent face I would put to that problem: Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Shelby.jpg

Last year, Shelby -- on his own authority, and in pique for a federal contract that didn't go to Alabama firms -- held up the confirmation of some 70 executive branch appointees. It's bad for America that Senate rules make such one-person tyranny possible. But it should be held against Shelby that he was willing to abuse the rules this way, in reckless disregard of the national interest and the destructive wastefulness of making it so arbitrarily difficult to fill public jobs.

Now, as Peter Diamond has recounted in the New York Times, Shelby has, on his own whim, decided that the most recent recipient of the Nobel award in economics (Diamond), doesn't meet the Shelby Test for economic excellence. I'm more skeptical than most people about the "Nobel prize" in economics. Technically, it's not one of the "real" Nobel prizes, and in some cases it has inflated the delusions of economists that theirs is a hard science comparable to physics or biology/medicine. But let's be serious. A career politician with a law degree from the University of Alabama (Shelby has 8 years as a prosecutor, 40 years as a legislator). Versus the economist who has just been recognized with the highest international lifetime-achievement honor that exists in his field -- and whose specialty is studying America's worst economic problem of the moment, chronic unemployment. Hmmm, I wonder which of them might be in a better position to judge the other's street-cred about Fed policy. Yet Senate rules let one willful politician say: No, I think not. Presumably the Nobel committee will soon offer Shelby a standing veto over its selections.

Here's the real question: America is rich and resilient. But is it resilient enough to permit folly and self-destruction of this sort? There is no recourse against Sen. Shelby for his abuse of power except to make sure everyone knows and remembers what he has done. Which is the point of this note.

(Previously in the "what's wrong" saga here. UPDATE: Jonathan Cohn's view of Shelby and Diamond; also, Daniel Indiviglio's.)


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Of course one could fill libraries with instances of this sort of nonsense. Our legislators live a life of give and take, compromise, and underhanded dealings. Certainly, one side of the library could be filled with crap on the Left and the other side equally filled with crap on the right.

Whether it is a disservice to The Country to hold up confirmation of any particular political appointee - or an army of them - is eminently debatable. The longer it takes to get them installed, the less money is wasted on their salaries, their staffs, the redecoration of their offices, and so forth. CERTAINLY, holding up nominations can have no effect whatsoever on the country's economy, as implied by the title of this thread.

But how about this for "What's wrong with America": The President Pro Tem of the United States Senate has refused to even outline a budget for almost two years, because he doesn't want to have to defend the positions it would necessarily take on the economic and social issues that confront the Congress. The President essentially made no budget proposal last time around. He dithered for months, saying that he had to wait for the recommendations of The Committee, then ignored them anyway.

We have a political party that holds down the White House and the Senate, and lacks the balls to put its true intentions in front of the American people.

And the MSM lets them get away with it - indeed they help the Dems to take potshots at anything proposed by the Republicans.

Do you suppose their dithering might have a negative effect on the economy? Create uncertainty in the corporate offices where decisions have to be made on hiring and making capital investments, maybe?

Nah.

[oldr_n_wsr]

has refused to even outline a budget for almost two years

I find this outragious. And I thought NY state was bad usually being 2-6 months late with a budget.

[Scooter]

The President Pro Tem of the United States Senate has refused to even outline a budget for almost two years

It's not his job, and what's more, it would be unconstutional if he did. Budget bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

The President essentially made no budget proposal last time around. He dithered for months

On Feb 1, 2010, the President sent to Congress a proposed budget for the fiscal year running Oct 1, 2010 to Sept 30, 2011.link

On Feb 14, 2011, the President sent to Congress a proposed budget for the fiscal year running Oct 1, 2011 to Sept 30, 2012. link

How far in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year should he be proposing a budget, if 7.5 to 8 months beforehand constitutes "dithering"?

[Andrew D]

It would not be unconstitutional for the President Pro Tem of the Senate to set forth a budget proposal. Just as it is not unconstitutional for the President to set forth a budget proposal, as Presidents routinely do.

Yes, the bill to raise revenues must originate in the House of Representatives. But a proposal can originate anywhere.