Editorial June 6, 2013



     It’s a bit like playing Monopoly with someone who changes the rules during the game to benefit their outcome…Actually it’s a lot like that.

Authorization and appropriation bills that fund the various government agencies and programs are interwoven with the budget in that the budget lays down the spending guidelines and the funding bills generally follow those guidelines.

This fiscal year appropriations are taken up without an agreed upon budget since the House budget, HCR 25 and the Senate budget, SCR 8, offer very different conclusion about what is to be done and what is to be spent. HCR 25, crafted by House Appropriations Committee Chair Paul Ryan is about cutting spending and not raising revenues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s SCR 8 is about raising revenues and cutting spending. Both bills languish unaddressed by the opposing house. Several efforts by Senators to follow tradition and replace the House bill text with the Senate text and then move to a conference to iron out differences were rejected.

So there is no budget guideline other than those set in that grand agreement, the Budget Control Act of 2012. The BCA set up a series of triggers; The President got about $900 billion in debt increase in exchange for $917 billion in spending cuts. Further increases in the government’s borrowing power first required Congress to express its disapproval (which can be vetoed by the President) and then a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  In the midst of those agreements a Special Select Committee was to produce legislation with sufficient spending cuts to replace the sequester which is triggered if the Committee did not produce such legislation. It did not and the sequestration began.

As that scenario worked its will the House took up appropriation bills for Homeland Security and Military Construction / Veterans.

And that is where the rules of the game have been changed. The House Majority have moved forward on both bills using the $967 billion spending cap proposed in the unpassed HCR 25 rather than the $1.058 trillion cap agreed to in the BCA. The Majority has again ‘deemed’ that HCR 25 was agreed to and, therefore, is the number to accomplish. Deeming something to have happened, despite it having not happened, was a good bit of HR 3, the bill that ‘deems’ the Keystone XL pipeline can move forward despite no approvals from the President, State, or the EPA.

The Minority was quick to pick up on this approach, and rightly so for two reasons; one, of course, is the Majority is just going forward as it sees fit regardless of a clear agreement on the amount of spending cuts in the BCA. The other reason is that the about $40 billion difference between Ryan and the BCA is not insignificant when it comes to future appropriation bills. Other than the enormous Department of Agriculture budget, many other agencies have relatively tiny budgets and will be cut across-the-board. The now missing $40 billion could go a long way to saving some necessary programs from cuts or furloughs in those agencies. Congress had the epiphany around 1993 that across-the-board cuts to funds for asylum seeking immigrants would adversely affect states with a high immigrant asylum population more so than states with lower asylum-seeking populations. Apparently that wisdom was lost this session when sequester was on the table as anathema to both parties to the extent one or the other wouldn’t let that happen. It happened.

In Monopoly the rule-changers wins because every rule that would cause a loss is changed in their favor. And Park Place still remains the valuable property and Baltic Avenue less valuable. Not so in the case of the House budgeters; they win. And when a political party votes on an agreements and then ignores that commitment so to work its will, we all lose.

Classic Senate Speeches

June 1, 1950

Margaret Chase Smith

Margaret Chase Smith

One of the most noted early challenges to Joseph R. McCarthy‘s charges of Communists in government was made by Margaret Chase Smith of Maine in her “Declaration of Conscience” speech in June 1950.

In the controversial aftermath of Joseph R. McCarthy’s speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith was initially impressed with McCarthy’s accusations about subversives in the State Department. “It looked as if Joe was onto something disturbing and frightening,” she decided, refusing to join with those senators taking issue with McCarthy. But then she asked to see the documents he was citing as evidence. Reading through McCarthy’s materials, she failed to see their relevance to his charges. The more she read, and the more she listened to McCarthy, the less comfortable she felt. Smith began to question the “validity, accuracy, credibility, and fairness” of his charges and came to believe that McCarthy was creating an atmosphere of political fear in Washington, particularly among federal employees.

Mr. President:

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition.  It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear.  It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism.  I speak as briefly as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence.  I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican.  I speak as a woman.  I speak as a United States Senator.  I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world.  But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American — and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us — yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor.  Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal.  Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul-searching — for us to weigh our consciences — on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America — on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.  I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism:

            The right to criticize;

            The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

            The right to protest;

            The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs.  Who of us doesn’t?  Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own.  Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents.  Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America.  It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.  But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause the nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation — in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes.  Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs.  History is repeating itself — and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears.  America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances — that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia though key officials of the Democratic Administration.  There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country.  Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation.  The nation sorely needs a Republican victory.  But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny — Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could — simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.  Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way.  While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people.  Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.

As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government.  But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in the Senate debate — and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism.  I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle.  I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.  I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide, and conquer.”  As an American, I don’t want a Democratic Administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much I condemn a Democratic “Communist.”  I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.”  They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country.  As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts that I have drafted what I call a “Declaration of Conscience.”  I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye, and Senator Hendrickson have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008)

Also in this database: McCarthy-Welch Senate Exchange

Copyright Status: Text & Images = Uncertain.