- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Michelle Malkin: The Death of Deliberative Democracy
In 2006, the minority party in Congress issued a dire report on the “unprecedented erosion of the democratic process.” Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., then the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, authored the scathing document. She blasted the majority Republicans’ violations of “procedural fairness,” short-circuiting of debate and late-night meetings “to discourage members and the press from participating” in legislative deliberations. My, how history repeats itself.
Fast-forward to 2009. The Imperial Congress has returned. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Democrats have met the enemy of deliberative democracy, and it is they.
Three years ago, the Democrats complained of House Republicans rushing through conference reports “before members could read them.” Sound vaguely familiar? They urged their colleagues in power to “spend more time on major, substantive legislation” instead of ramming things through. Deja vu, anyone?
The Slaughter report pleaded for more transparency and public access: “Regular order should be the rule, not the exception.” Instead of meeting late at night or early in the morning, the Dems called on the majority to operate “during regular ‘business’ hours so that members and the press can attend and participate.”
Three years later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., jammed a 1,900-page health-care takeover bill through Congress for a hasty Saturday night vote while members of her own party revolted against strong-arm tactics. Upward of 40 pro-life Democrats objected to the plan’s government subsidies for abortion. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made available to the public. Fewer than two days before the scheduled vote, Pelosi was resisting whether to permit an abortion ban amendment to her health-care bill.
Pelosi’s “most ethical,” open and transparent House of Representatives even ordered Capitol police to block a Republican staffer from attending the public unveiling of the health-care reform plan last week. A week before that, Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to prevent them from meeting when Democrats weren’t present.
In June, Pelosi’s Imperial Congress severely curtailed debate on the House cap-and-tax bill and rammed a 309-page manager’s amendment through the legislative grinder at 3 a.m., which no one read before the vote just hours later. As Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., pointed out on the House floor, the “debate” was a “travesty.” So much for procedural fairness: 224 Republican amendments were denied by the majority.
In April, the House passed a $3.6 trillion federal budget in the middle of the night with phony fiscal restraint amendments that leaders all admitted would be thrown out during a closed-door conference.
In February, House and Senate conferees larded up the stimulus bill with pork galore behind closed doors while President Barack Obama denied the existence of earmarks with a straight face. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., snuck in a provision intended to punish governors who chose to turn down federal stimulus funds. The Democrats broke their high-minded pledge to give Americans 48 hours to read the bill before passage. “Urgency” demanded it.
On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid is playing Harry Houdini with his health-care package. After announcing a deal and telling the public that he was sending his proposal to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, there is still no actual bill to review. When 40 Republican senators demanded to see the bill, he played “you show me yours” and then admitted that, indeed, “there is no bill to release publicly — it does not exist.”
Emitting more vapor than an industrial humidifier, Reid still holds out the possibility of abusing the budget reconciliation process to force the government health-care takeover through with a simple majority and limited debate.
Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., performed an end-run around debate over her massive global warming bill Thursday by using a “nuclear option” maneuver on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. She and 10 Democrats rammed through the legislation without considering amendments and in defiance of Republican protests.
The 2006 minority Democrats’ report on the death of deliberative democracy condemned the then-Republican leadership for becoming “the arrogant and corrupt majority they despised and condemned in their minority days.” And now? Et tu, majority Democrats? Same as it ever was.
— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Click here for more information. She can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 12:35 AM
Yes, Michelle, but what the prior congress did was mean-spirited and meant to favor a few of their business interests. What this congress is doing is for the good of the people. See the difference? The end justifies the means when it’s your end, so to speak.
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 05:26 AM
And your point is? That’s life is America. Get used to it. MJ
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 07:31 AM
Thank you Ross M.
I agree, and I would add more evidence. Look at the healthcare proposal from the GOP. The entire bill is focused on enhancing the insurance company’s profits and the expense of the people. There was no provision for not allowing denial due to a preexisting condition. Then take a look at the amount of money the sponsers of the GOP received from insurance companies. Now we go to the Senate where folks like Lieberman and bought and paid for by Aetna.
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 09:07 AM
We need a viable third party.
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 09:45 AM
Ah yes the ends certainly justify the means when you’re doing something good, huh? Why, I’ll bet we could throw out the constitution and embrace soviet style life if it is seen as good, huh, Local? BTW – ever figured out how we’re supposed to PAY for your cherished socialist Obamacare? Oh that’s right, when it comes to economics you prefer wealth redistribution to wealth creation. Nice, so now that our economy is shrinking are you willing to pay more for healthcare?
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 01:01 PM
Hey AN50,
The last administration was expert and throwing out the Constitution. The bill is deficit neutral. I guess you have not read about that? The house bill taxes couples making over $1 million. That would exempt 98.9% of all small businesses and only tax less than 1% of the population. These are the same ones that benefited the most by the Bush tax cuts. Actually, it should have the effect of improving our worldwide competitiveness by putting us more in line with what other countries pay for healthcare. An employer provided health insurance system is a failure for a variety of reasons that include competitiveness, productivity,morality and cost containment.
» wrote on 11.09.09 @ 06:54 PM
An50 usually has a more studied response / comment . Todays post is straight ” ditto that , Rush ” material . Humor me here AN50 , did we not just witness the rightwing ignore the most pressing domestic issue for two terms . The polls all show this issue to be formost on a majority of Americans minds , and ” you betcha ” McCain and whatshername would not be acting on it .
» wrote on 11.12.09 @ 03:49 PM
Gee Willie, I don’t listen to Rush but if you say so. Local are you that naïve or just stupid? Revenue neutral, from a government run program? What planet did you just fly in from? There is no such thing in the history of all governments. Further, all revenue neutral means to a government is they keep increasing taxes to cover their ever increasing spending and/or overruns. Do you understand that? Do you understand that NOTHING is FREE? You will pay for this and pay plenty, period, end of discussion. You and anyone else stupid and naïve enough to actually believe government wants to help you will be in for quite a shock if this lunacy ever gets passed.
Now explain how stealing the wealthy’s money makes us so much more competitive. You know where venture capital comes from don’t you (no not the treasury printing press)? The biggest investors in innovation and competition are the very wealthy you want to tax for a service that consumes wealth. Jeeze why am I having this conversation with you ignorant mooks? Dammit go back to school and actually listen to your econ professor will ya? Oh that’s right he’s a government worker which means he’s a Marxist too. Pretty hopeless.
Our only salvation is that the state sponsored theft (the 10% income tax increase) now hitting our government ruined state economy will end up in the wholesale dumping of idiot incumbents next election. People are pissed off now and when the full effect of this lame brained scheme hits the public there will be big trouble. You can expect the same from your precious saviors lunatic socialist expansion as well.
Oh, BTW will you ding bats ever start taking responsibility for your own actions or is the temptation to just blame GW for the next decade too much?
More Local News »
Michelle Malkin: Speaker Pelosi’s Deficient Cleaning Service
Her House is in disarray as she tries to sweep Massa cover-up allegations under the rug
Michelle Malkin: The Obama Way — Bluster, Bully, Bribe
Accusations of a judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal not so far-fetched
Michelle Malkin: Oba-Kabuki Health Care a Box Office Bomb
Obamacare Theater, lacking substance, showed only that Democrats have a flair for the dramatic
Michelle Malkin: It’s All the Tea Party’s Fault
For the left, all the evil in America can be conveniently placed right where it doesn't belong
Michelle Malkin: Jack Murtha — Requiem for a Corruptocrat
The late Democratic congressman embodied everything that is wrong with Washington
Weather: Fair 60.0º
Search Noozhawk »
