~ Political Drama in Three Acts ~
Cast: Persons who come to positions in government to make a point and others who come to govern. Neither conservatives nor liberals alone are cast as good at governing.
Forward: Some like wielding power but their interest wanes when it comes to the nuisance of making government function well. Governing can get in the way of principles, pledges and making points. For some, government isn’t complicated; it’s just in the way. It’s the root of all ailments. They reach for the lancet with no less confidence as to the result than did medical men whose all-purpose remedy was to bleed the patient. Governing is not always done well, which makes it easier for the talented among the electeds and civil servants to stand out.
I. The urge to rant about the needlessly protracted debt ceiling decision-making is resisted here. Today Congress finally sent “the deal” to the White House.
There is little evidence of the art of politics; instead we witness the game of brinkmanship. Think playing chicken on a narrow country road. In the the driver’s seat are persons with an unswerving belief in what government shouldn’t be and a disinterest in the map of governance. (They also sign a pledge to drive the car without benefit of headlights.) They would just as soon call people names than to the negotiation table.
Props to the White House writer who came up with this for President Obama: “…for the first time ever, we could lose our country’s AAA credit rating…because we didn’t have a AAA political system to match…”
That some people did come to town to be Governers may be what eventually pulls our national fanny out of the fire but one fears that the flames will burn hot for a good while longer.
Governers brought about the Simpson-Bowles fiscal reform commission, sweated over the details of its report, and were prepared to act on that report. Governers tried to make the “Biden negotiations” work…and didn’t walk out. Governers make up the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Six.” Whatever terms of agreement over fiscal policy to emerge from the fire over the next year will be founded in such efforts.
II. The House panel that held longest to a bipartisan spirit in an era of increasing rancor is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Road projects know no party as the saying goes.
In July, Chairman John Mica (R-FL) released the highlights of his planned surface transportation bill. It read much as he said it would. Reforms, consolidations, and reined-in spending to match reduced Highway Trust Fund revenue. It is based on harsh reality and a tax-averse party caucus.
That interest groups responded with concerns about program eliminations and slashed funding was hardly surprising but the response from Mica’s Democratic counterpart was. Nick Rahall’s (D-WV) sharp words may not sound unusual in today’s Washington but observers noted the change for a committee where the chair and ranking member stand together on most things and respectfully disagree on the rest.
In the last scene is the Federal Aviation Administration bill. Mr. Mica takes on both House Democrats and Senate counterparts of both parties over disputed issues in the long unresolved bill that authorizes funding for aviation programs. He put a provocative provision in the House-passed extension and dared the Senate to not approve it. It didn’t. As Congress beats it out of town for the August recess this other Capitol stand-off leaves USDOT holding the bag with 4,000 non-critical FAA staff forced to stay home and contractors around the country ordered to stop work on airport projects.
III. Not without reason many States are concerned, even alarmed, at the damage that can be done by non-indigenous invasive species. Great Lakes States have a long history of struggling with what can arrive in vessel ballast water. But what concerns certain regions of the country also concerns the United States and other nations.
Solutions to an international problem carried in the tanks of global shipping rightly belong to Washington and the International Maritime Organization. A patchwork of regulation at the State level is opposed by the maritime community that values uniform rules from port to port.
When New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued its regulation the response from the industry was predictable and especially vigorous. Why? Besides being imposed at the State level it set an un-enforceable, technologically unachievable standard that initially is 100-times more restrictive and, later, 1000-times tougher than the IMO standard, which the US Coast Guard also is expected to require initially. (A committee background memo provides a summary on the issue.)
Governor Andrew Cuomo and his environmental commissioner inherited the DEC requirement that the agency regulators have insisted on despite all reasoned arguments and documented findings to the contrary. Those regulators made individual vessel operators–a thousand?–apply for an extension of the implementation date so they would not have to meet the un-meetable standard. They were held in suspense until February 2011, beyond the implementation date, when DEC finally sent out letters of extension. Most recently, Steve LaTourette (R-OH) decided that New York was not taking the concerns of others seriously. So he did something to get Albany’s attention.
Perhaps reason will prevail. Industry and other States from whose waters shipping would be effectively barred if the regulation is enforced in New York waters await a decision by the new administration. It’s called governing. Pbea