Politics, Politics, and more Politics

As many of my close friends know, I watch a significant amount of political news on MSNBC. I thoroughly enjoy Harball and Countdown even though I'm not always fond of the views espoused by their hosts, and Rachel Maddow is now my new favorite political news show host simply because she conducts the most civil and tough interviews concerning important topics that I have ever watched (I'm truely amazed at how she is able to express her disagreement or correct someone's inaccurate information without interrupting her guest or raising her voice... way to go Rachel). Today they had a very interesting segment on the earmarks in the appropriations bill which was just passed this week, and I thought I would share my thoughts.

First this should be prefaced with a bit of background. This appropriations bill was a funding request from this past December to provide funds for the continuing operation of certain government programs (I understand that I haven't done my due dilligence in not investigating the bill myself, but the legitimate parts of the bill were not what peaked my concern). Attached to this bill was approximately $7 billion in over 9,000 earmarks. Without this appropriations bill, the legitimate programs would have to be shut down. This leads us to the predicament, is it really worth causing that much disruption in a dispute that amounts to less than 3% of a given bill.

The current administration can either accept the $7 billion in earmarks or shut down those programs until another bill can be created and signed. Judging by how the Economic Recovery Act was "rushed" in 3 weeks, it is reasonable to assume that these programs, the people they help, and the people they employ would be left with nothing for over a month. With the dow dropping below 7,000 for the first time in 12 years, leaving a group of government employees without an income for an entire month would make the current economic situation much worse. At the same time, using the veto on this bill would allow the president to make a stand on legitimately wasteful spending, especially in light of criticism over the proposed budget and Economic Recovery Act. A potentially dangerous principled stand could be the last push over a cliff to the second great depression or a rallying point to encourage greater precision and responsibility in government.

The solution, I believe, depends upon what kind of leader the president is. If he has made the decision to be the type of leader that is a realist, focusing on actual problems and worst case scenarios he will pass the bill and leave it at that. If the president chooses to be the type of leader that puts his faith in the better parts of our democracy he will veto the bill and trust to congress to give him an acceptable bill in a reasonable time frame. For the second option to work he will have to take on a role greater than just managing a crisis. He will have to work to inspire congress to do the right thing for the country, to quickly produce a clean appropriations bill, a task our legislative bodies hasn't been able to do in quite some time. It is time for the president to take his leadership role in the government, tell congress they did this wrong, make them fix it, and remind our legislators where their responsibilities lie.