Free Markets, Free People

New York Times suddenly discovers governing as a priority for new GOP majority

A New York Times editorial is all over the place today in its hysterical concern that Republicans are going to spend all their time investigating what Democrats have been doing these past 2 years. Let me say upfront that while there are certainly things which need investigation, the GOP can indeed hurt themselves if the investigations seem to be excessive or perceived to be "witch hunts". However, perhaps the most interesting part of the editorial is its title, an obvious shot directed at the GOP’s supposed preference for investigating over what the NYT feels is its real job – "Try Something Hard: Governing".

Funny – I don’t remember the NYT admonishing Congressional Democrats or the administration to do that when the obvious focus of both should have been jobs and the economy and not a horrific health care bill.

Also understand the premise the NYT tries to advance here. Using a Darrell Issa quote, "I want seven hearings a week times 40 weeks", they attempt to imply that’s all Republicans will be doing. That will hardly be the case.

Then we’re treated to absurdities like this:

This combativeness from the new House majority is an early symptom of its preference for politicking over the tougher job of governing in hard times. Its plans already feature the low cunning of snipping budget lines so the Internal Revenue Service cannot enforce key provisions of the health care reform law. (Why not defund Postal Service document deliverers while they’re at it?)

Why not – while the NYT calls it "low cunning", it is indeed a method by which the legislative chamber "governs". The NYT and similar media voices seemed to understand that when Democrats in Congress threatened to defund the war in Iraq. Now it’s "a feature of low cunning". A cry to govern by the NYT with a follow up criticism of doing so by the means the House is able to employ.  Absurd. 

Regulation?  Well, last time I looked it was Congress who decided what regulations were and agencies who enforced them as the law provided by Congress said.  Apparently that’s not the case anymore per the NYT:

The new majority will showcase hearings devoted to what Representative Fred Upton, the ranking Republican on the energy committee, called a “war on the regulatory state.” What he means by that is the Environmental Protection Agency’s daring to accept scientific evidence that human activity is driving global warming. Similar hearings, rooted in the vindictive rhetoric of the 2010 campaign, are likely for the new consumer protection bureau, immigration enforcement, and more.

How 2008 of the NYT to claim the EPA is accepting “scientific evidence” in its drive to regulate CO2.  Obviously the carrier pigeon hasn’t made it to the Grey Lady yet that says not only is the “science” not settled, it is in total disarray and largely discredited.  More importantly it isn’t up to the EPA to decided what science it is or isn’t going to accept.  Its job is to enforce the law as it is written and amended by Congress.  And to this point, there’s nothing in the law which allows the EPA the power or authority they are attempting to assume.  What the Republican Congress wants to do is make that abundantly clear to the bureaucrats there.  That’s governing.  That’s oversight.

The same for the activist who has been named to the Consumer Protection Agency – the job there is to enforce existing law, not make it up as you go or enforce it arbitrarily according to an ideological agenda.  And of course, immigration “enforcement”, which is again being arbitrarily applied by the bureaucrats as they see fit vs. applying it as the law demands, is in the same boat. 

Reining in the bureaucracies as they attempt to overstep their bounds time and time again is “governing”.  It is “oversight”.  And those are two jobs the Democratic Congress has done poorly if at all as witnessed by the examples I’ve given.  And there are plenty more.

The Times acknowledges, even after its ignorant tirade above, that it is the job of Congress to oversee how the laws it has passed are implemented and followed.  And that it also has a duty to oversee the executive branch.

In principle, Congress’s oversight of the executive branch can be a vital necessity. Politically, however, both parties push its limits from time to time. Now is no time for myriad searches for sensational distractions when the nation’s voters cry out for solid progress.

This is the only worthwhile paragraph in the entire NYT editorial.  If taken alone, it speaks perfect sense.  When taken in the context of the rest of the editorial, it is a pitch for no investigations, since it is obvious that while the Times is pretending to call on the GOP House to “govern” it really doesn’t want it doing anything in that area which may point to administration malpractice or malfeasance or allowing executive agencies to interpret law as it sees fit instead of as it is written.

Tough cookies.  To paraphrase Barack Obama – “they won”.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

20 Responses to New York Times suddenly discovers governing as a priority for new GOP majority

  • ‘Governing’ is rolling out more and more nanny state.  Anything else is political grandstanding and not doing their job.

    • [/sarc]

      You’re right, but without the tag someone will take it seriously.

      • Unfortunately that is how NYT will take it.  Accusations of not doing their job if they aren’t supporting HCR or some such program.
         
        Its probably a hat tip to the future ‘smear’.

    • Example 2,319,826,245  of more “helpful advice” from the left that the right should ignore.

  • Of course out in leftie land, there remains great gnashing of teeth that the Obama administration relented on investigating the Bush-Cheney Gang. Obama was just too nice, you see.

    I’ve wondered if Bush didn’t bomb Iran before he left office because the Dems would have put Bush and his top people in the dock for war crimes in 2009.

  • More to the point, it’s pretty disingenious to call on the GOP to “govern” when the Dems have the Presidency and the Senate. 

    For better or worse, Obama’s party is the one that will “Govern”

    • And here I thought that the nation had become “ungovernable.”  Now that Republicans have control of the House, the nation is governable once again?  How convenient.

  • Now is no time for myriad searches for sensational distractions when the nation’s voters cry out for solid progress.

    Lefties keep using the word “progress”.  I don’t think that it means what they think that it means.

    Look for a whole lot more of this sort of foolishness over the next couple of years as the left attempts to frame the debate as a fight between sensible “progress” (more government, more taxes, more regulation) and racist, reactionary, tea-bagging obstructionism.

    shark also hits an important point: as far as MiniTru is concerned, the GOP will “govern” only to the extent that it makes them responsible for anything and everything wrong with the country.  The tea-nami is actually well-timed for The Dear Golfer as the public was getting tired of “it’s all Bush’s fault”; now he has a shiny new whipping boy in the form of the GOP House majority.

  • The same for the activist who has been named to the Consumer Protection Agency – the job there is to enforce existing law, not make it up as you go or enforce it arbitrarily according to an ideological agenda.

    Since it has rule-making authority given to it by Congress, its job is both to enforce existing law and to make law.

    • The Constitution gives the ability to “make law” to Congress and I don’t recall a clause anywhere in there where it said Congress could delegate that power.

      • A snippet from the Cornell LI annotated constitution:

        The Court in Chadha and Synar ignored or rejected assertions that its formalistic approach to separation of powers may bring into question the validity of delegations of legislative authority to the modern administrative state, sometimes called the “fourth branch.” As Justice White asserted in dissent in Chadha, “by virtue of congressional delegation, legislative power can be exercised by independent agencies and Executive departments. . . . There is no question but that agency rulemaking is lawmaking in any functional or realistic sense of the term.”

        link

        • I’d suggest Justice White is full of it. Laws – real laws – can only be changed or overruled by the courts. Rules, such as those which an agency might impose, while they may seem the same as laws, exist at the pleasure of Congress who can and does change them, invalidate them and/or prohibit them as they wish within the supposed constraints of the power vested in it by the Constitution.

    • Not to quibble, but no…it can only make regulations interpreting law, and then only within its mandate.

      • Regulations are a form of law; it’s Congress vesting its legislative function in the executive branch.  This is why Congress can repeal one law (an agency reg) by another (a bill duly passed).

        • No, they’re interpretations of a law – they implement the law. They’re not the law itself, but the law as it is applied by the agency charged to do so. No law passed by Congress means nothing to hang a rule or regulation upon.

          No jay-walking law, no authority (or basis) to make a rule that jay-walkers be charged with a violation of a law.

  • I got something hard the NYT should try…and it is not “governing”…!!!

  • jpm100: nails it, here.
    The call from the notoriously Liberal NYT seems to me a call for the continuance of big government.  Let’s face it, anything that doesn’t continue big government certainly wouldn’t attract the approval of the Times. To that said, shark is also correct in that the democrats are the ones that will still be governing.  So what we have here, is it called for the republicans to be a part of the big government push of the democrats,  instead of opposing them as a suspect many of them probably will.
    As to the rest of the discussion, the nation is not crying out for governmental progress, but individual progress.  Clearly, there was a rejection of the left and it’s policies which promoted the progress of government.  That’s what this most recent election was all about.  To that end, I fear, the best the republicans can hope for for the next two years is tying the hands of those who would pursue those policies.
    The party of no?  Believe me that  for the next two years, I can live with that moniker.  Unfortunately, there are too damn many RINOS involved or the party to fully earn that title.

  • Let me say upfront that while there are certainly things which need investigation, the GOP can indeed hurt themselves if the investigations seem to be excessive or perceived to be “witch hunts”.

    If investigations will put the brakes on government expansion, I say go for it.