Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Last week, I was going to write about Congress in general and Senator Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, in specific.
Since it was Christmas I wanted to write something positive and uplifting.
Problem is, there wasn't anything positive or uplifting to write about in relation to those topics, so I wrote about something else.
This week, the urge to be uplifting isn't quite so compelling.
While Congress was balking in its ability to pass an economic stimulus package - mostly because of Daschle's obstructionism - it did have the political courage to give itself a stealth pay raise.
Oh yeah.
How many of you got pay raises this year? Any wage freezes out there?
Not in Congress. Those guys actually had the gall to pay themselves more.
Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, sums up my feelings on this issue the best of anyone I've read.
He said: "This is an effort by some of the most greedy people on the planet to stuff more taxpayers' money into their own wallets. The bipartisan greed caucus is alive and well."
Here we are in a recession and a war and in the dead of the night on the last day of the session, members of Congress gave themselves another $4,900 a year. Now they get $150,000.
Even more disappointing is the fact that the pay raise is automatic. That's right. They don't even have to vote. They just get it.
Of course they could vote to deny themselves the pay raise, but that never happens.
This time, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., pushed for a vote late Friday to block the pay raise from taking effect. But in a late-night maneuver, legislators used a 65-33 vote on a procedural matter to thwart Feingold's effort.
Feingold will turn down the raise. He also limits his own salary to the paltry $136,700 he earned when he first took office.
So anyway, while members of Congress were busy lining their pockets with a little more of our money, you would think maybe they could take action on a package of measures aimed at turning things around economically for the rest of us.
Nope.
The House passed a three-year $218-billion package, mainly loaded up with tax incentives for corporations and small businesses. Those are things that make Republicans happy. Also included were extended unemployment benefits, health insurance for laid-off workers and low-income tax rebates. Those are the things that make Democrats happy.
But when the bill went to the Senate, Daschle wouldn't even let it get to the floor for a vote.
The administration lobbied senators during the week. W himself went to the Senate, asking them to act. He said the bill was needed to help victims of the recession. He embraced additional benefits and tax rebates for lower-paid workers - issues dear to Democrats - but to no avail. Even though the bill claimed the support of 53 senators - enough to pass - Daschle blocked a request from Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott for a vote in the final hours of the session.
No economic stimulus for us. (It was in those same final hours of the session that the pay raise went through, by the way.)
Daschle says the bill had too much of what Republicans liked and too little of what Democrats liked.
Seems he forgot that it also had a lot of what the average American liked, but certainly we wouldn't want to accuse the good senator of considering what's best for us.
And, of course, as is always the case in matters of tax policy, Daschle invoked the timeless, shallow, disingenuous argument of class, proclaiming W's idea of stimulus was nothing more than a sop to the wealthy.
You know, the old "all-the-tax-breaks-are-tilted-toward-the-rich" argument.
Daschle makes it sound as if the only ones who benefit when a corporation is given a tax incentive are members of the board of directors.
Tax incentives allow companies - small and large - to direct capital at expansion, at hiring more people and paying existing workers higher wages. This stimulates the economy. "Stimulus package," get it?
What's good for companies is good for everybody. We're all in this together. It's not an us-against-them situation no matter how much Daschle and his ilk want us to think it is.
They want to give benefits to lower-income individuals. Noble, no doubt, but it reminds me of the old fish/fisherman adage.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
What does an unemployed worker need most, extended government benefits or a job?
And - this may be the most ludicrous part of all - when accused of obstructionism, where do you suppose Daschle lays the blame for Congress' inability to pass a stimulus package?
Why, W, of course.
'The longer we're unsuccessful in addressing it, I think the more responsibility for the economic circumstances the Bush administration must take,' Daschle told the Associated Press.
Great strategy. He kills the bill and blames W for the consequences.
It's almost as if Daschle wants the recession to continue through to the next election cycle.
Let's face it. It would bode a lot better for Democrats if it did.
If the economy rebounds and the war on terrorism is going pretty well next summer, what will Democrats have to pound on W about?
If W's approval rating stays in the 80 percent range up to election time, it could be a tough election for Democrats.
With the slimmest of majorities in the Senate and a minority in the House, control of Congress hangs in the balance.
I think Daschle is looking more toward the election than he is to his constituents.
It's an unfortunate example of how power drives policy in Washington.
