Today, part three of a series of posts pondering the recent philosophical, historical, and moral quandaries raised by the reportage of The Washington Post regarding the Vice President and his influence on the executive branch. Part One can be found here. Part Two can be found here. Today’s discussion relies largely on the VP’s role in shaping the economy:
- Regarding Cheney’s Feb. 6 2003 goal to sell the House and Senate leaders on a $674 billion tax cut, one month prior to the invasion of Iraq: With war on the horizon, it may have been prudent to consider the cost of such a cut, and that, perhaps a $674 billion dollar tax cut might possibly have been shelved for a later date, at least until certain assumptions about the war (greeted as liberators, etc.) could be reevaluated. To propose a plan suggests that perhaps the individuals involved in crafting it felt the impending war was akin to a business investment, providing enough “profit” to pay for itself. Back in the day they used to call this “war profiteering”, now apparently it’s just a budget proposal.
- Regarding Bush’s rejection of Cheney’s plan to provide deep reductions in the capital gains tax on investments as part of their plan to stimulate the sluggish economy, an act Bush felt would damage his goal of “compassionate conservatism” by slashing taxes on only the wealthiest of Americans, and Cheney’s domestic policy adviser, Cesar Conda’s, assertion that “it goes to show you: He wins and he loses, and he lost on that one.”: Proof positive that the President isn’t afraid to step in an restrain Cheney when he feels that the VP overreaches. So then should we be nervous that the VP, after “losing", began to hold closed door sessions at the Greenbrier resort, in which he actively sought to work his preferred tax cut into the proposal, even at the at the expense of the President’s own goals? Surely, not! By golly, the President put his foot down on this one!
- Regarding the President’s assertions that he is the “decider”, and the portrayal of the VP as the one who often serves up the President’s menu of choices: When did being a “decider” become a virtue for a President? If I’m in an Indian restaurant for the first time, etiquette suggests that eventually I will have to “decide” what I will order, but just because I’ve “decided” on an entrée has nothing to do with whether or not I am informed about Indian food or the quality of the selection. What Bush doesn’t seem to realize is that a menu crafted exclusive of him makes him a more of a “chooser”, something most presidents have rarely been celebrated for.
- Regarding Cheney’s view that the VP should be “the chief of staff in effect, that everything should run through his office” and the President’s willingness to “delegate” responsibilities: A seemingly noble idea that clearly speaks towards a lack on understanding about the history of VP’s, bringing up the age old question: Should Cheney be criticized for taking the leads and aiding the president, or should the president be criticized for being weak and unable to advance his own policy initiatives in he shadow of such an imposing Dick? Sensible people understand the difference between delegating and allowing someone else to do their job for them, as delegating involves setting up certain criteria or goals and allowing your subordinates to craft solutions that work to maximize those goals. It’s not delegating when your subordinates make all the decisions, or more importantly set the goals. Direction should always come from the top. Anyone who has worked where there is a clear chain of command can recognize the difference.
- Regarding the space shuttle
- Regarding files obtained by warrant in Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La) congressional office, and Cheney’s role in keeping those legally obtained Congressional files out of the hands of federal investigators by placing said files under seal for 45 days, thus allowing Bush to sign off on Cheney’s recommendation denying Justice Department access, which today has resulted in nearly half the files being “off-limits”: It’s good to know that $90,000 in cash, found in a freezer in Jefferson’s home, paid in order to influence congressional legislation, will get Cheney down to the Senate and inspire s him to put aside “petty party politics” for the greater good, even at the expense of the Justice Department, which would be troublesome if it didn’t fit Cheney’s pattern of marginalizing and thwarting the Justice Department’s ability to do anything (fight terrorism, prosecute corruption, etc.).
- Regarding the President’s establishment of a budget review board (in which Cheney is the chair) as a device to keep Bush from wasting time on “petty disagreements”, and former Bush budget director from 2001-2003 (and current governor of Indiana), Mitchell E. Daniels Jr’s claim that, during his tenure the number of time a Cabinet official made a direct appeal to Bush was “zero”, which former aides from previous administrations told him was “stunning”: Some of us, when discussing something as important as the Federal Budget, might call “petty disagreements” “healthy debate”, particularly when it involves a dialog between people the President hired—this isn’t Republicans and Democrats in a room, this is, after all, the President’s team. That Cabinet members could not get an audience with the President about the budget makes me want to move to
- Regarding Cheney’s steering clear of faith based/hot/buttoned issues, like stem-cell research and the funneling of federal money into religious groups: Does Cheney’s steering clear of these initiatives mean he is a.) uninterested in them, or b.) clearly the only two issues the VP doesn’t have to shape the President’s opinion on?
- Regarding former Texas Republican senator Phil Gramm’s claim that Cheney had told him that Bush was a “big-government conservative” (the sole item in the Washington Post’s article that is disputed by the Cheney’s office): Well, of course Bush is a “big government conservative”. He apparently needs a lot of people to do his job for him.
- Regarding Cheney’s assertion that Fed Chairmam Alan Greenspan’s analytical model about The White House’s proposed tax proposals (i.e. cuts) were flawed, and Cheney’s unwillingness to allow Greenspan private audience with the President; as well as former Treasure Secretary, Paul H. O’Neil, and Commerce Secretary, Donald Evans’, claims that a huge tax cut would undermine the GOP’s message of fiscal discipline and Cheney’s subsequent demand for O’Neil’s resignation: First: Greenspan has always needed to be taken down a peg or two, who cares if the plunging the country into a record deficit was the way to do it? As for O’Neil: what makes the VP, already enjoying unprecedented influence and power in the White House, think that he can dictate who should and shouldn’t resign form the President’s cabinet? I mean, it’s not like he hired O’Neil, right?... Right?
- Regarding Cheney’s casting the deciding vote in the Senate regarding his capital gain proposal at the sacrifice of one of Bush’s personal goals of abolishing the tax on stock dividends, an issue in which Cesar Conda, Cheney’s personal policy advisor, used as an example of the Vice President “losing”: D’oh!
4 comments:
This is not "Anonymous," except you could refer to me as Anonymous (two or too). Depends on how you "read" what you see.
Interesting exchange between two individuals with similar but different views on a subject. That's the American way - Democrat, Republican - BUT then you have the Independent who tries to read through all the "garbage" published in the media and "blame" laid on the current individuals who run the Government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial); forgetting that America didn't get in this position overnight (or the past 8 years); that groundwork has been laid by history for the past 50 plus years, especially in the Middle East.
Pres. or V Pres. Who runs the country? The President does and is ultimately responsible. The VP is there to have knowledge of what's going on and step-in when needed and take an active role. It is not on your choice or my choice, but the President's choice. That's why there is a VP.
Many volunteer and professional organizations have a Pres., a President-Elect, and a VP. My opinion is you end up "most of the time," with a Pres-Elect that shows during their service that they are incapable of running or delegating anything - yet you're stuck with them. Sometimes you get a good one.
I'd rather have a strong VP, knowledgeable, informed, and active versus a poor Harry Truman type who walked into a guagmire when Roosevelt died, not knowing anything. In the long run, did he make the right choices? That's another debate.
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are all there for what they were designed for: A check-and-balance system. No one branch has "ultimate" power.
But I must ask: Are you a conservative, a liberal, or an independent? Maybe a little of everything, depending on your beliefs. That's what we need. People willing to look at both sides of an issue and make an informed decision. THEN VOTE.
Keep up the good work. I find your blog very interesting, although sometimes confusing.
Thanks for the words Anonymous 2! In total agreement regarding the fact that America certainly has 50 years worth of spotty decisions in the Middle East to hang our hat on and that no single administration should bear the brunt of blame for that mess, if anything, the American people need to shoulder a good portion of the blame (yet, we can't deny that there have been some administrations who have done worse for us in that region than others, and it's pretty clear that the current administration has done anything remotely to improve the situation, other than improve the badness), which is why I feel it unnecessary to even mention the situation in the Middle East, as not a single point has been made about it in the Post or on the blog, so I'm a little dodgey about the link there, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying, although I'm a little shaky with the logic that an independent would seek to "blame" the "current individuals who run the government". Perhaps its the "'s or the word "blame" that makes me think you might be being ironic, which would muddy the waters a bit. Have I misinterpreted? With regards to discussing the VP, if we're not on the same page, then we're only a chapter or two removed (which isn't that far off) from each other. The very first point I made when starting this series was stating up front that an active VP (particularly an ambitious one) isn't a bad thing, what can become problematic is whether or not that VP helps or hurts the President, and, so the corroborated portrait of a VP who works to divert information from the President is worth considering, especially in its implications. When Greenspan, or Bush's policy advisor, say that they can't get a private sit-down with the president without the VP, something's fishy, and I would hope as voters and taxpayers we would then begin to question how such a thing happens and what does it mean for the future. Because, frankly, horrendous decisions have been made, and we can blame the President (most Americans in fact do), but honor obliges us to refuse to turn a blind eye to those who have worked so hard to mangle the rights and reputation of all Americans. If the Vice President has in fact done so, then we are remiss in our duties as citizens to not discuss it or draw attention to it. In fact, at this moment, it is the only thing we can do since the Vice President has broken at least two laws while in office, shotting a man in the face and exposing a CIA operative, and is being investigating as we speak for the third: warrantless wiretapping. No one could claim with a straight face that nothing happens in the White House without Presidential knowledge, and then look at the Valerie Plume case and think that the VP had nothing to do with it, when clearly all the evidence points to the fact that people who work for him let him know of everything, especially given the recent commuting of Libby's sentence (would anybody have cared as much if Bush had pardoned him on his way out the door, but to turn around so quickly? Does that bother you at all or force you to consider why that decision was made?). As for my party. I hate--no, loath--groups, and believe group-think is one of the world's great evils, which is a fancy way of saying I consider myself an independent voter and, in fact, voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, and I would never refuse to vote for a candidate simply because of party lines, but I have sworn to pay more attention and do my homework. I appreciate your comments. Don't be a stranger!
Anonymous 2 (as you have chosen).
The reference to "Independent," "garbage," and "blame," was referring to the independent individuals - free thinkers, if you will - who question the garbage and blame put out by the media. It becomes a finger-pointing contest between all 3 party lines; no one party line in particular. And that doesn't even include the "moral majority." That's another subject.
Shotting I'm assuming you meant shooting - which was a hunting accident. Leaking a name of a CIA operative is unforgiveable, no matter who does it, although I think there has been made much-a-do about nothing in this particular matter. It's just the "idea" of the potentially dangerous exposure fallout which can happen and has happened on several occasions in past history.
I ,too, am an Independent voter and can honestly say I've voted all three parties: Republican, Democrat, and Independent, although it was not Clinton.
Presidential pardons always occur. Clinton pardoned more people than anyone, especially the white collar criminal that helped his brother. No names need to be mentioned. Ford pardoned Nixon. Didn't necessarily agree with that decision either, but it did help heal the country in the long run and he received a lot of flack about that for the rest of his life, but stood his ground on his reasonings.
Bush to pardon Libby I did not agree with. Did not think his sentence was that "excessive." But Bush is a lame-duck president and has nothing to lose at this point in doing so. But evidentally feels it necessary to keep the VP close at this time, who is also a "lame-duck." That still, of course, doesn't eliminate the fact of a very good possiblity of the VP being pursued after leaving office for accountability.
But back to the VP, the point of your articles and comments. I think it always good for Americans to question anyone in power and to review all information - which I can tell you have - if for no other reason than to be informed and hopefully "learn from history," in order to avoid the same path in the future.
Unfortunately, most of the time we ignore history and keep repeating the same mistakes. Hopefully not as bad, but the world keeps repeating them for one reason or another - religion, politics, or power.
If you think politics is a hot topic, you should try religion. Just kidding.
By the way, it says on your profile you are an unknown writer. Written any stories? If so, why not post some of those.
Good luck.
Many good points, 2 (the shortened version), although I think the CIA case is much more significant since it speaks towards an intimidation tactic the VP's office was willing to engage in when attempting to knowingly protect a lie, which they knew the Nigerian sale of nuclear materials was. I find it hard to believe its message wasn't to be taken by all members of the CIA who would attempt to use contacts (in this case a husband in politics) to get the truth out. If you take it even further, it is even more disturbing: the perception is that Plame herself is "living it up" in the states and working on her book in which she will be paid a lot of money for, and I believe most Americans have a tendency to look at that and say, "well it's not that bad" (even though this throws out the fact that she worked for twenty years at her job and that may have been due to the fact that she enjoyed it very much). What we might forget is that, while not only putting her life in danger at the time of the outing, it puts anyone in Nigeria who may have spoken to Plame or been seen anywhere with her in danger, some of whom may be regular Nigerians unaware that any information they've shared was used for American military purposes. It's hard to believe that the Nigerian government simply shrugged its shoulders and did not pursue its leak, incarcerating or potentially killing anyone who they may have suspected who has been associated with Plame.
As for the pardon, I always find it problematic that Clinton be mentioned when discussing Bush's pardons and then say we should learn from history not to make the same mistakes. Clinton made some egregious pardons on his way out the door, which many Americans were very angry about and started the debate about the presidential use of pardons. So why simply shrug our shoulders at Bush doing the same thing, when if we actually look at it, it's not the same thing at all. Bush "commuted" Libby's sentence, and not, most importantly, when he was out the door (Libby would actually have served some jail time by then), but the moment the sentence was handed down, so, in essence, Libby never saw a jail cell for breaking a serious law, which is much different from the people Clinton pardoned, who actually spent several years in prison. Shoot, the woman reporter from the Times, who protected Libby as a sources, was in jail longer than Libby, and all she was doing was her job. This is all made more stomach churning by Bush's claim that he would "fire" anyone involved in leaking the Plame name, when during the trial he did not "fire Libby" at all (or Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney who are on record as having talked about Plame's CIA identity in relation to Joseph Wilson), even when it was clear that all three men played a role in the leak and it was simply a matter of sentencing the one willing to take the fall (but not so much a fall apparently as it was more a stumble). Most Americans expected Bush to pardon Libby on his way out, but many never expected him to do it so soon, a decision that fully illustrates an administration that is completely without accountability. Oh, and Ford pardoned Nixon so that he could "avoid" prosecution for Watergate, so again, something different.
As for my stories, you and my mother ask the same question. I've kept my fiction separate from the blog as I want this to be a venue for other aspects of my shoddy writing. I will however post whenever someone should accept a story and encourage readers to pick up a copy of whatever journal it might be (or read it online if that is an option).
I appreciate your comments and many of the points you bring up are worth discussing. Keep it up!
Post a Comment