Wednesday’s Thoughts
March 21, 2007 on 3:00 pm | In National, State |
One of those epic battles between the executive and legislative branches is brewing in Washington. It looks like the Senate will issue subpoenas soon for Karl Rove and Harriet Myers to testify under oath about their roles in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and, judging from what President Bush said yesterday, he will strongly resist.
First Read has been following this closely. Bush has offered to let the two be interviewed unrecorded and behind closed doors — a proposal that was summarily rejected by Sen. Pat Leahy, the Dem who chairs the Judiciary Committee. This is a matter that may very well be decided by the courts.
But the best part is it will provide some deliciously hypocritical moments. Just picture Hillary Clinton arguing against Bush’s claim of executive privilege when, as a New York Times analysis notes today, “legal scholars said that President Bill Clinton asserted the doctrine of executive privilege more often and more vigorously [than the Bush admin], including in the investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.â€
And, of course, Republicans who castigated Bill for invoking executive privilege so often, will likely support GWB. All of this just serves to remind us that in the don’t-do-as-I-do department, Congress has no equal.
* * * * * * * *
And I’m sure Mike Flint will tee off on this one on Sunday. The Courant reports this morning that there is a movement afoot to make some or all of Connecticut’s legislators full-time employees. This would essentially dispose of the notion that Nutmeggers send citizen legislators to Hartford.
For enlightenment, look next door. Senators and assemblymen in the state of New York are paid about $80,000 per year. According to the Empire Center, “New York State ranks near the nation’s top when it comes to legislative salaries and per-member spending by lawmakers.”
And what do New Yorkers get for it? Do their lawmakers do a better job or have fewer conflicts? Let’s see, how many years in a row did Shelly Silver and Joe Bruno fail to pass a budget on time? [hint: it was at least 20].
The main rationale for making state legislators full-time is it would save them the trouble of having to work elsewhere and it might prevent the potential conflicts of interest that arise as a result of their other job(s).
I suspect if they were made full-time, most of our legislators would continue to take outside work and simply pocket the extra cash. Two full-time legislators I was familiar with when I worked in Millerton, N.Y., Sen. Vinnie Leibell (lawyer) and former Assemblyman Pat Manning (real estate broker), worked elsewhere on the side.
Roberta and Andrew, if you’re reading, where do you stand on this?
* * * * * * * *
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Terry…my comments….
The battle continues between Democrats and Republicans…..I investigate you when I am in power, you investigate me when youa re in power…and basicly, not much progress is made on anything. BTW, these investigations cost lots of money, money that could be better spent on programs that strengthen us, or make us healthier…this is why we won’t have real change untill a powerful third party can dump both Republicans and Democrats out of office.
Lets keep or legislators as they work now…it does not appear to be drasticly broken, we have good representation, and, we pass our budgets on time!!
As a little side note..thoughts and prayers fo out to the Edwards, I hope the medical news they receive today is once again,a clean bill of health for Mrs. Edwards.
I like this couple, not that I agree with John Edwards on all issues, but, they seem to stay clear of the political and personal B.S that surrounds almost all the other candidates…
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 22, 2007 #
But, where was the uproar when Janet Reno fired 93 AGs, including one that was actively investigating Dan Rostenkowski?
Ah, yes. The unbiased, middle of the road MSM. The same one that still lies that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 22, 2007 #
Marshall,
I agree in principle about the need for a strong third party but have concluded it will not happen in my lifetime. While they talk a good game about the need for change and reform, the American people have demonstrated over the years that they are not seriously interested in a viable alternative to the Dems and GOP.
As for whether to have our state legislators go full-time, The Courant has a level-headed editorial on it this morning.
Edwards has scheduled a news conference in Chapel Hill for noon today. I wouldn’t be surprised if he suspends his campaign.
Comment by Terry — March 22, 2007 #
What do you mean by strong? To expect any party to “break” onto the national scene and steal the free thunder of the the D & R is a bit much.
Perot had a decent shot, until that unfortunate wedding incident. Forbes had a good idea, but wasn’t a good communicator.
I think the problem is inertia. Things go along, and it’s too hard to change the way things are done. Look at our local situation. How many people attend the meetings they should? Well, that’s ok, …….. does a good job, most of the time. Some of the comments I heard at a meeting in Falls Village summed it up nicely: We need more notice, where can I find the info, why didn’t a notice come home…
People have forgotten that this form of government REQUIRES your participation. IF you abdicate that responsibility of participation, those that do attend and serve will make the decision for you. As I pointed out, the principal is requesting $1000 per student at Housy to run her office. People are happy with it. I know because there aren’t complaints.
Change is hard. Apparently too hard for most folks.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 22, 2007 #