Reconciliation…. Change You Can Believe In?

So, by now, everyone has heard of the possibility of Congressional democrats making use of reconciliation as  a method of getting President Obama’s budget passed in the Senate to avoid a Republican filibuster.  Fox news has an article about the possibility of reconciliation here.  Yesterday I received an email from the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, about reconciliation.  According to that email, below is a description of budget reconciliation:

• Budget reconciliation was first introduced in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
• Budget reconciliation is an optional procedure that can be included in the annual Congressional budget resolution process.
• Inclusion in the budget does not mean reconciliation will definitely be used; it merely leaves the option on the table.
• The main purpose of budget reconciliation is to provide Congress the ability to change current law in order to align revenue and spending levels with the policies of the budget resolution.
• Although reconciliation is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980.

I have a major issue with this approach and it deals with our new president and his campaign rhetoric.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of bringing change to Washington, and how politics would not be the same as usual as it has been.  By encouraging reconciliation, the president is encouraging business as usual in the legislative process, specifically when we are talking about cap and trade environmental policies, health care reform, and ultimately the budget.  This process will effectively eliminate the opinion of the minority in order to quickly pass massive changes to the way we approach vital areas of interest.  Silencing the minority, that sounds like an encore presentation of what we went through from 2001 until 2006, where the democrats had very little say in how business was conducted in our nation’s capital.

The president needs to get on the ball here and persuade his democratic colleagues on the hill that we need to have the opportunity for full and open debate from all fronts.  In the Fox News article I cited above, I was surprised at what Senator Robert Byrd had to say about the reconciliation process:

Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Obama administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.

I have found it very difficult to find anything I can agree with Senator Byrd on, but on this occassion I find myself agreeing with him 100% on this issue.

I would like to see the President practice what he preaches because I am sick and tired of seeing business as usual here in the nation’s capital and would like to actually see something constructive accomplished in a bi-partisan manner.

Clinton & Rice Meet To Discuss Transition

So yesterday Senator Clinton and Secretary Rice met to discuss the job of Secretary of State.  I sure hope Senator Clinton took copious notes, she’s gonna need all the help she can get.  Perhaps Senator Rice gave her a user’s manual so to speak, since I hold the belief that Senator Clinton DOES NOT have the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to serve as our top diplomat.  President Elect Obama’s statement announcing her appointment says as much:

Over nearly four decades in public service, as an attorney, First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has become one of the nation’s foremost champions for children and families and advocates for women’s rights and human rights. During the Clinton Administration, she transformed the role of First Lady, fighting for universal health care and helping to lead successful bipartisan efforts to improve the adoption and foster care systems, reduce teen pregnancy, and provide health care to millions of children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program. As a representative of the United States, she championed American interests as well as the rights of women and girls in more than eighty countries around the world. In November 2000, Senator Clinton became the first First Lady elected to public office and the first woman elected independently in New York State; she has since won reelection. In the Senate, she has continued to advocate for equal access to health care, education, and economic opportunity for women and girls around the world. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton has fought for and secured in law improved health care for members of the National Guard and Reserves and worked to bring our troops home safely and responsibly from Iraq. She also serves as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command, working to modernize our military. And Senator Clinton has continued to fight for quality, affordable health care for every American, working to strengthen the Children’s Health Insurance Program and expand the use of health information technology. Most recently, as a groundbreaking candidate for President of the United States, Senator Clinton became the first woman ever to win a presidential primary, receiving more than 18 million votes as an advocate for working families and a voice for millions of Americans who have felt invisible to their government.

The only international experience I see clearly indicated in this statement is the fact that Senator Clinton has championed American interests as well as the rights of women in girls to more than eighty countries around the world, as first lady.  Hmmm…..  During those times where she was championing American interests, and the rights of women in girls in over 80 countries, did she have to interact with world leaders?  Did she discuss serious diplomatic issues during these meetings?  I would like to see more specifics on those achievements that seem to make her oh so qualified to be our top diplomat.  Also, a newsflash, being married to a former president, and traveling with him around the world, does not make you qualified to be secretary of state. I’ve also traveled around the world by virtue of being a military brat, does that make me qualified?  A lot of people would say no. 

The domestic issues that Mr. Obama mentions in his statement have no relevance on her qualifications, or lack thereof, to be secretary of state.  Sure, it’s great that she’s been an advocate for health care for vets, guardsmen, reservists, and children, but those accomplishments are domestic in nature, not international.

Also, how does being the first woman to win a presidential primary make you qualified?  Give me a break, that’s all window dressing.

My advice to Senator Clinton, take some classes, by the way, my alma mater, GW, has the Elliott School of International Affairs, they have classes that can help, and read a lot of books, you’re going to need it, madame Secretary.