Democratic Selective Memory

Let’s start with a fact which is beyond dispute: The Democratic Party has been in the majority, and therefore in control, of both houses of Congress since the 2006 elections. In most of the recent discussions seen in the media and by Democrats themselves, that fact seems to get lost.

Part 1. When discussing the current economic condition of the United States, President Obama and all his surrogates constantly remind us that “this administration inherited this crisis from the previous administration”.

More facts: Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states, in part: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, states, in part:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I deleted a number of lines which don’t have to do with finances. I think you can get the drift of these two sections of the US Constitution. The Congress owns the money and determines where it goes. How it is it, then, that the Democratic Congress has nothing to do with the current economic situation when they have been running both houses of Congress since 2006? It seems they forgot.

Part 2. The $410 billion omnibus spending bill which is currently under consideration contains about 8600 earmark spending projects. The current administration campaigned on and constantly disparage the placement of earmark spending projects. Their excuse for the current bill is that that Congress did not pass a budget at the end of 2008 for fiscal year 2009 and this is a leftover from the Bush Administration. Therefore, the earmarks in the bill are a product of the Bush Administration. Let me review: The Democratically controlled Congress did not pass a budget in the fall of 2008. The Democratically controlled Congress inserted about 8600 earmarks into the current bill. The Democratically controlled Congress raises the baseline spending in the budget by about 8%. Somehow, all of that is the fault of the Bush Administration. That is insane.

Part 3. When describing the housing downturn and banking crisis in the United States, Democrats blame the Bush Administration. The Senate Banking Committee, which regulates banks, is chaired by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut. Not surprisingly, Dodd received the largest amount of political contributions from Fannie Mae. Senator (at that time) Obama, received the second most. The House committee regulating banking and housing is chaired by Representative Barney Frank, Democrat from Massachusetts. When approached by the Bush Administration and Senator John McCain about increasing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years before the crisis, it was Barney Frank who prevented the increased scrutiny and declared boldly during a committee hearing that “There is no crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The Securities and Exchange Commission was run by Christopher Cox, a Republican appointee. Let me review: The Democrats controlled both of the committees which regulated banking and housing. Therefore, one can argue that there is plenty of blame to go around, but to blame the Bush Administration exclusively is insane.

If you listen to MSNBC or other liberal media outlets, every day there is some story like: “Today a woman in Podunk, Missouri was run over by a toddler on a tricycle while searching for her lost cat. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated today that lack of regulation of toddler tricycles by the Bush Administration is to blame for the accident.”

At some point, people are going to realize that the Democrats have run Congress since 2006 and will hold them responsible for their action and inaction.

The Abuse of Power

In thinking of Rep. Charlie Rangel (cheating on his taxes), Gov. Bill Richardson (special favors for campaign contributions), Timothy Geitner (tax cheat), Sen. Tom Daschle (tax cheat), Rep. William Jefferson (bribes), Sen. Ted Stevens (bribes), Gov. Rod Blagojevich (pay for play), etc., it is apparent to me that what I wrote in an earlier entry about staying in politics too long being too corrupting is true. I can’t take credit for that being an original idea.

In Federalist 6, Alexander Hamilton wrote about situation leading to conflict between neighboring states and the motives of their leaders, “And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears, of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether favourites of a king of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage, or personal gratification.”

In both Geitner’s and Daschle’s cases, I believe President Obama was duped by those individuals. Geitner received compensation from the International Monetary Fund and was reimbursed for taxes he owed to the United States. Every fiscal quarter, he received notification of those taxes and reimbursement and had to sign an acknowledgment form. He cannot credibly claim that he did not know he owed those taxes. This is a man billed as a financial wizard. Even more damning is that when he was audited back through 2002, he paid past due taxes for 2002 and 2003 pointed out to him by the Internal Revenue Service. He did not pay the same taxes due for 2000 and 2001 despite the situation being identical. Once again, it is not credible for him to state he didn’t know he owed the taxes. He is a tax cheat and now runs the Internal Revenue Service.

Daschle received free use of a limousine and a driver for four years. He received them from a man who was also paying him $1,000,000 a year in salary. I believe he could have afforded a car. Daschle says he made an inadvertent mistake. If that is true, why did he find out in July he owed the taxes from his accountant but not pay them until two days before his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services were to begin. The taxes were about $148,000. A regular person would have criminal charges filed for an amount like that. Daschle additionally “advised” health care companies which he would have had to regulate in the cabinet post. He is a Washington insider, a knowing tax cheat, and was forced to withdraw his nomination despite his statements and the Obama administration’s comments to the contrary.

The biggest lie in Washington is that “I am resigning because I desire to deal with personal issues and spend more time with my family”. That is Washington code for “I just got caught”.

Leadership, Responsibility and Behavior

There is a disconnect I see relatively often when it comes to leadership positions. Many don’t seem to understand that responsibility and authority come as a package. You cannot be held responsible for things you don’t control and you cannot control things without being held responsible for the outcomes of your decisions. The more common disconnect of the two is people being reprimanded for things they did not decide. I have written earlier posts about brown-nosing and non-confrontational leadership. Being in charge is a lonely position. Those who cannot handle the isolation need not apply. In order to be effective in those positions, there are certain core requirements. First and foremost, effective leaders demonstrate that they have the welfare of their people at heart. This does not mean a leader is always nice. A leader does reprimand. A leader does hold subordinates accountable. A leader hands out unpleasant tasks. The true leader does these things fairly while simultaneously attempting to the utmost to provide the best working environment for subordinates.

There is similarity between leadership in an organization and raising kids. The two most important factors are caring and consistency. Your subordinates and your children have no reason to behave if they feel you don’t care what happens to them. They have nothing to lose from you by misbehaving. Children want to maintain the trust and caring of their parents. Subordinates need the same support from their leaders. They need to feel like their leaders have their interests at heart. The minute they don’t feel it, they lose respect for the leader. Everyone knows there are tough jobs to do but if the jobs are handed out fairly and leadership takes the time to explain why the job is important, respect will remain in place.

Consistency is a hallmark of a well-run organization. Both children and subordinates need to know where the lines are and that there will be repercussions for crossing those lines. It is not that there MAY be, it is that there WILL be. There is a lot of security in knowing the rules. A lack of rules shows subordinates that leaders don’t care. Consistency with the rules shows fairness and forethought. Everyone hates the stress of “walking on eggshells” situations where you never know what is coming next. A consistent mean-spirited leader is better than never knowing minute to minute what is coming.

Another side of responsibility is individual. I have told my children many times that at some point in your life; you have to decide what kind of person you will be. Being a reliable and conscientious person is not a grand act. It is not one day running into the burning building to save the occupants. It is a series of small daily decisions, often made when no one else is around. It is deciding to do the right thing when the right thing is inconvenient or unpopular. It is taking the harder course of action and not allowing standards to slip. It is being willing to uncomfortably confront someone to improve their performance or correct a mistake when the easier course is to let it slide.

At the end of the day, it is not the perception of others that the good leader strives to improve. The real leader holds himself/herself up to a personal standard. You cannot fool yourself. You know, even when others don’t, that you did not do your best. You know when you blew something off. If you did everything to the best of your ability, in the end it doesn’t matter what others think because you cannot control others opinions and you will have the satisfaction that comes with true accomplishment.