We’re Paying Congress for This?

from Truthdig:



We’re Paying Congress for This?
Posted on Mar 27, 2009


By Stanley Kutler

Great crises and problems often have become the subjects of extensive congressional investigation and oversight. Congress has made prominent inquiries into, for example, the Civil War, the Reconstruction, the “money trust” in the Progressive Era, the banking follies of the 1920s and the Great Depression, the prewar defense preparations at Pearl Harbor, the oversight of military contracts during World War II, the Korean War and the emerging character of Cold War foreign policy during the mid-1950s.

Congress’ work gave us transparency and usually led to useful, progressive legislation. And now comes Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s choreographed extravaganza in the House of Representatives, supported by an echoing committee, with sound bites worthy of a night in the Borscht Belt. The ostensible probe of executive bonuses at AIG—forget about any investigation of the company’s decisions that so damaged the financial world—offered a painful reminder of Congress’ now largely ignored unique power of investigation, derived from its constitutionally sanctioned authority to legislate. True, Congress has abused this power from time to time, but that is no argument against its existence.

Rep. Frank provided a perfunctory, carefully staged hearing this month. His fellow committee members had been prepped and primed—seemingly by their press aides rather than by any legal staff. The “hearing” proceeded with hilarity and irony, especially coming from legislators who over the past 20 years had enabled much of the corporate chicanery. The mice that roared eventually produced only a parody of legislation, mercifully about to die.

Frank’s congressional sideshow made more imperative than ever the need for thorough, uncompromising investigations and hearings on any number of issues that have brought us to the present crisis. When Republicans controlled Congress, they disdained anything that might detract from the doings of a Republican administration or would interfere with their fundraising for the next election. Democratic control has offered little beyond the one-day, made-for-television soap operas of Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Alas, these short showings proved to be only a television pilot, not fit for renewal or continuation.

Remember the brief appearance by Monica Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson’s school of law, who vetted Justice Department appointees for ideological purity during the Bush administration, making certain no elite liberals (or elite anything, it seemed) made the grade? Goodling acknowledged in testimony in 2007 that she had “crossed the line” when she improperly used political considerations to evaluate applicants. But she testified for just one day, and followed her attorney’s strategy of running out the clock. Why did the committee fail to follow up? Why do witnesses appear for quick one-offs, offering only a limited opportunity for probing questions? Owen Lattimore probably set the record when he testified for 12 days in 1952, with famed attorneys Thurman Arnold and Abe Fortas providing the best civil liberties that money could buy. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090327_congress_rolls_over_for_the_banks/

Thanx for posting this.

Hey, those investigations into the US Attorney firings were blocked by the then White House. In fact, they are still going on, with much better co-operation on the release of relevant documents. And the investigation served a vital purpose in making the public more aware of the problem and of the improper actions of the Bush White House.

The AIG bonus hearings did serve a purpose -- immediately afterward, many of the bonus recipients declined those bonuses, which took the urgency out of the situation. Bonuses will still receive attention, but can be addressed at a more thoughtful pace.

Results often take a while to achieve, including building of a public reaction to disclosures and developing a record. And new information does emerge from public hearings.

The public hearing system isn't perfect, but it should not be discarded just because it doesn't satisfy an urge for immediate results IMHO.

that was that it finally got the people who were wallowing in their misery yet still silent about their suffering off their asses and finally speaking up, saying enough is enough. It was the complicity of the Obama Admin. plus the greedy bastards who drew up these bonus deal that was going to send more millions into the bank accounts of liars and theives. Up to that point there was anger, but not enough to make the Bailout Boys quit feeding them money buy the truckload. Those bonuses would have been paid otherwise.

It has also been the impetus of economists and journalists to write fantastic articles explaining details and giving facts about the looting of our children's futures that maybe wouldn't have been written if not for the bonus scandal. And it also (I believe) made those people pay attention, read, and LEARN how we got to this point.