Bringing home the bacon
Comments (11)
Wednesday, January 3, 2007 | 01:52 PM ET
By Henry Champ
On October 31st, I wrote a piece titled "Nancy Pelosi's Tough New Rules."
The polls at that time, just a week before the November 8th vote, were showing the Democrats poised to capture the House of Representatives. The column described Pelosi's campaign pledge to tackle the issue of lax congressional ethics and her promise to immediately "clean up the House" with strict new rules on lobbyists and spending.
The new rules would ban gifts from lobbyists, lobbyist-paid travel and the use of corporate jets by congressional representatives or their top aides. As the column said, "No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a Macdonald's; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no."
Pelosi was also planning to ban the practice of slipping-in special interest projects on unrelated legislation.
Such "earmarks," she said, would now have more public disclosure. Those who try to use this technique to gain local favour or help a friendly lobbyist would be identified, and such disclosure would include listing those lobbyists who had pushed these special programs.
You would think these reforms would be a no-brainer for Democrats, who have only just regained control of Congress after a 12-year Republican hiatus. But many are so protected by the power of incumbency, and the unfair advantages that confers in raising money and defying challengers, that bringing home the pork is, for them, what the game is all about.
Whipping the contented
That initial column attracted much more comment than usual.
Many wrote in applauding Pelosi's proposals. Others, quite properly, argued they were watching a PR event and cited the timed-honoured tradition of making election promises that are never kept.
Tomorrow, all eyes will be on Pelosi as she is sworn in as Speaker and the new Congress takes office. Shortly afterwards, the Democratic leadership will offer its new ethics package. So far, so good.
But the details will count. Will the bill contain the tough rules that Pelosi promised. Or will the subsequent debate see it watered down by members who want the status quo to prevail.
At stake is public confidence in the U.S. Congress, clearly the issue that voters had in mind when they gave a slim majority to the Democrats.
Also at risk, is the (near) future of the Democratic party: Failure to deliver real congressional reform could find the party ousted from control in two short years.
The memo
But the sad fact is, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership have struggled with their members to get them to realize that this ethics package must have overwhelming support.
The Washington Post recently published details of a memo written to all Democratic caucus members by their new chairman Rahm Emanuel.
In it, he says," Failing to deliver on this promise would be devastating to our standing with the public, and certainly jeopardize some of our marginal seats."
Emanual, who led the party's congressional election committee, said at least eight seats were won because of corruption issues and several others appear to be within the party's grasp in 2008 if these promises are kept.
So to those who wrote in response to that column in late October, the question of whether or not Pelosi and the Democrats will deliver is going to be answered over the next few days.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Washington File »
About the Author
Henry Champ is CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C., delivering Canadian viewers the latest developments in the U.S. political arena. Recently, he has been a leading Canadian voice on coverage of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the growing concerns over the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Recent Posts
- Vapour ads create successful campaign smokescreens
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 11, 2008
- The parties are over
- Henry Champ
- Friday, September 5, 2008
- The attack dog fights back
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 4, 2008
- The plan for Sarah Palin
- Henry Champ
- Wednesday, September 3, 2008
- Paying a high price for Palin
- Henry Champ
- Tuesday, September 2, 2008
- Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments
- Sorry, but what is mariburjeka? Jane....
- Bringing home the bacon
- Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive,...
- Bringing home the bacon
- And I am positive that if they let me down, I am moving t...
- Bringing home the bacon
- In all the hype about the start of the new congressional ...
- Bringing home the bacon
- Hopefully, the promises that were made by Ms. Pelosi and ...
- Bringing home the bacon
Archives
- September 2008
- (6 postings)
- August 2008
- (6 postings)
- June 2008
- (3 postings)
- May 2008
- (6 postings)
- April 2008
- (3 postings)
- March 2008
- (4 postings)
- February 2008
- (5 postings)
- January 2008
- (7 postings)
- November 2007
- (2 postings)
- October 2007
- (7 postings)
- September 2007
- (1 postings)
- July 2007
- (6 postings)
- June 2007
- (5 postings)
- May 2007
- (6 postings)
- April 2007
- (6 postings)
- March 2007
- (5 postings)
- February 2007
- (7 postings)
- January 2007
- (8 postings)
- December 2006
- (7 postings)
- November 2006
- (8 postings)
- October 2006
- (10 postings)
- September 2006
- (9 postings)
- August 2006
- (9 postings)
Comments (11)
sweet-lh
Hello
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?
Jane.
Posted March 24, 2008 11:48 AM
G. Sloan
Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published, and those that are published will not be edited. But all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.
You have got to be kidding me! And you have the nerve to call this an open discussion. The CBC has got to be one of the most pro Liberal forces in all of Canada. I know you won't discuss this "openly" but i await your reasons for not post all the comments. If you have people to read the posts as you say, then you have time to set ground rules and delete the posts that break them. But to say something is open for discussion and then say we may not post your comment is just plain stupid or should I say Liberal. You have my email address , please use it.
Posted January 14, 2007 11:27 AM
G. Sloan
And I am positive that if they let me down, I am moving to Toronto.
NO!!! Sorry we don't allow any english speaking, hard working, salt of the earth types in this country any more. The politically correct won that war years ago. So moving to TO wouldn't get you anything but a bad cold...or maybe shot by one of the gangs.
Posted January 14, 2007 11:17 AM
jill
In all the hype about the start of the new congressional session, I have not heard the politicians speaking about addressing the real issue on the public's mind this "winter," both in the U.S. and in Canada: climate change (to quote the press) or global warming. Where are their (the politicians) heads?! In the clouds of rain -where there should be snow or in the warm "spring" sunshine? When will we all wake up and ACT?!
Posted January 6, 2007 09:25 PM
joseph martinkovic
Hopefully, the promises that were made by Ms. Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pass. I voted for five candidates in the last election and all were elected and all were democrats. It is important for government officials to do what they say they are going to do. In another matter, Please write Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty and tell them that they have broken a campaign promise to the Canadian people regarding their promise not to tax income trusts. Where is Mr. Flaherty's honesty? His decision to tax income trusts as corporations flies in the face of good common sense and is a broken promise. Complain and ask them to at least allow the income trusts that existed prior to Oct.31, 2006 to continue to exist under the old tax laws. JM, MBA 74, University of Western Ontario.
Posted January 6, 2007 02:28 PM
Mike Timonin
The political/public memory cycle seems to run just about 10 years. This is clearly to the advantage of an American president - 8 years in office, and then out before the cycle turns. For the honorable opposition, it means that every 10 years or so, they get a shot at being the majority. And the majority has about 10 years until the public notices that the problems in society cannot be traced back to the guys who were in power before, but must be blamed on the bums in power now. And so the cycle turns.
Posted January 5, 2007 12:55 PM
Kari
U.S.
Jerry, gosh I just love the warm welcome I receive on these forums, and always from the Americans. Go figure.
If the dems can pull off a higher minimum wage, better health care benefits, and environmental protection, that alone will satisfy me. If just those three things become a reality I will gladly pay more taxes AND I will personally hand them a generous donation!
One caveat, anyone over the age of 21 who has tried to live off of $8 an hour with no health care knows that the minimum wage is not a living wage, it is just a joke.
ps By the way I am a positive thinker; I am positive that I will be a happy American when I see real, tangible action, not just words from the democrats. And I am positive that if they let me down, I am moving to Toronto.
Posted January 5, 2007 12:08 PM
Raymond Farrell
Ottawa
Lord Acton Lives!
Whatever modest efforts the Democrats make to trim back the tempting perks of power, they will be reinstating them by small steps if they remain in power long enough.
We are only seeing the latest iteration of a recurring cycle in democractic politics. In Canada, the US, or anywhere else with approximate democracy, the party in power will gradually become more corrupt until they are turfed out by a party with a clean-government platform. Some reform measures will be passed. No doubt cynical politics play a role, but I believe many of these zealous crusaders are motivated by genuine idealism. Still and sadly, Acton had it right. Five or ten years later those same crusaders will have taken the easy and tempting choice a few time too often, and the cycle starts again.
Posted January 5, 2007 08:21 AM
Jerry
seattle
Kari, do yourself and the rest of us positive thinkers a favor and go find a tall building to jump from. "To the victors go the spoils" The dems won and anybody who thinks they are not going to pay back their "campaign contributors" with a little taxpayer funded "thank you" must have been born yesterday. It is, and always has been thus no matter the party. No need to break your crayons.
Posted January 4, 2007 06:23 PM
Mike Timonin
Kari, the Republicans will have nominal control of the Senate (assuming that the SD senator is unable to attend), but the new rules will be proposed in the House, where the Dems have a comfortable lead. Also, there is expectation that senators will support the bill once it arrives there.
While I'm happy to see reform hitting the table, I'm more interested in seeing what happens with the minimum wage and student loan bills.
Posted January 4, 2007 01:17 PM
Kari
U.S.
Henry, there seems to be a glaring lack of acknowledgement that if the South Dakota democratic senator is too sick to govern then the republicans will control the House again and all this will be a moot point. I'm sick over it, but it's true.
Also, Pelosi's remedy is just a band aid.
The dishonest in power will always find a way to go behind the backs of the American citizens. They can afford to pay for the secrecy.
I do approve of Pelosi's measures, but our country is close to crumbling under the republicans, and the corruption in Washington under both parties is a bigger swamp than any mere mortal can clean up.
Posted January 3, 2007 07:11 PM