Today is the day before the BIG DAY around our office, or better known as the day before the ACES bill is scheduled to be voted on.
I started off the first half of the day staffing the front office once again. I was out there all morning as chaos brewed and simmered down again. Several times there were multiple meetings occurring at the same time. And then even more people were showing up early for their appointments. I was unable to quickly attend to everything because I frequently had the receiver of the phone stuffed into my ear.
I know that the entire staff have been under this same pressure so that after day two of an avalanche of constant calls, I can honestly say that we're ready for some rest.
I started off the first half of the day staffing the front office once again. I was out there all morning as chaos brewed and simmered down again. Several times there were multiple meetings occurring at the same time. And then even more people were showing up early for their appointments. I was unable to quickly attend to everything because I frequently had the receiver of the phone stuffed into my ear.
Tomorrow is the last day of the session before the annual 4th of July recess so I do expect the pace and volume to continue at least through Friday.
I know that the entire staff have been under this same pressure so that after day two of an avalanche of constant calls, I can honestly say that we're ready for some rest.
You mention that you (and I assume other members of the staff) were not aware of Congressman Moore's position on the bill until he voted. Do you feel that the weight of phone and mail contact from constituents was a major factor or party-line voting?
ReplyDeleteI find it insightful to read different perspectives on American politics. I enjoy the Moscow Times and their understanding of our government. Most of all, I find the Financial Times to offer insight and a fresh perspective.
"Cap and Trade" legislation provoked the Financial Time's first negative comments (and editorial cartoon) on the Obama administration. (See Clive Crook, "Obama is choosing to be weak," p. 9, June 29, 2009.)
Clive Crook is critical of the bill, calling it a "travesty," because it has little to no effect on carbon emissions in the short- to medium- term. The FT finds it "a playground for special interest and rent-seekers, a minefield of unintended consequences--and the bottom line for all that is business as usual."
Crook goes on to criticize the health care proposals under consideration, however, enough said.
The concern is that the Obama administration is "responding" to problems, but not developing effective policy programs that actually address the problem.
This is a frequent criticism of government, particularly the U.S. government, where political parties don't develop policies that bind all elected office holders. Instead our legislators have an extraordinary latitude to act as they choose because they are, by comparison, very much on their own to secure re-election.
In the study of American government we discuss "response" democracy, "process" democracy, and "content" democracy.
Given the rhetoric of the Obama campaign, the FT writer is looking for "content" in the legislation passed. The concern seems to be that Obama's preference for relying on Congress to write the legislation will actually promote "business as usual."
I bring this up, because outside of conservative news sources, this is the first break in Obama's favorable news coverage.
Obama has set the bar very high for his administration and his Democrat-controlled Congress. Does that office staff feel the pressure of these expectations?
Although the Congressman possesses the final decision on how to cast his vote, I believe he is committed to keeping an open mind until the actual time to vote. While the office does not keep or share information about inquiries and comments made to/through the office, the Congressman does read, listen and monitor the communications that is received. As a ‘Blue Dog Democrat’ I also believe that the Congressman is more inclined to be less ‘party line’ and vote his conscious. Obviously what he hears and feels, that is important back home, factors into his reasoning. It is also important to keep in mind that some constituents either do not have the ability or the time to voice their concerns about every issue; that is the reason why we elect representatives to represent us in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn addressing your second question, I am not sure of Obama’s intentions. I think the same argument, as you suggest, can be made for criticisms made during his campaign. Clinton seemed to focus on and lead policy development, while Obama originally did not generate such ideas. Perhaps, his administration does take a wait and see approach and then looks more holistically at legislative decisions to revise and expand policy for future related Bills. It seems to be much too early in his term to suggest what role he will take in such matters. And it is also to keep in mind that the President is not a legislator. The President may create an agenda to get certain bills created and passed through Congress, but in the end it is up to the Congressman and Senators to decide on how they pursue a particular topic.