On the Dem discussion of reallocating chairmanships
There's a New York Times article this morning discussing the possibility that the Democrats may model after the Republicans on committee chairmanships if they retake the house, making seniority just one factor among many in choosing chairmen.
Reality-based points to one possibility in the comments, that this is an effort to defuse the Republican fear based talking point about "Chairman Conyers" etc, but I'm going to add a more cynical possibility.
One of the examples in the article from the Republican side is the appointment of Joe Barton to head the Energy and Commerce Committee despite more senior members. Being from Texas, perhaps I have watched Joe Barton more closely than most, but he is one of the most oil industry friendly reps in the house, and the Republicans used "merit" to put him at the head of the committee that manages energy issues.
How many donations did that appointment generate?
So, the question is, if the Dems are talking about going around the rigid seniority system, which frankly is a really good idea, are they doing it for competence reasons or to put industry friendly chairmen into key posts?
Just a question.
Reality-based points to one possibility in the comments, that this is an effort to defuse the Republican fear based talking point about "Chairman Conyers" etc, but I'm going to add a more cynical possibility.
One of the examples in the article from the Republican side is the appointment of Joe Barton to head the Energy and Commerce Committee despite more senior members. Being from Texas, perhaps I have watched Joe Barton more closely than most, but he is one of the most oil industry friendly reps in the house, and the Republicans used "merit" to put him at the head of the committee that manages energy issues.
How many donations did that appointment generate?
So, the question is, if the Dems are talking about going around the rigid seniority system, which frankly is a really good idea, are they doing it for competence reasons or to put industry friendly chairmen into key posts?
Just a question.
posted by mikevotes at
7:16 AM
2 Comments:
I would go with the latter, as both parties are corporately owned. Much as the people think ademocrat led congress will effect change, I fear we are heading towards a corporate lead dictatorship, where the high priests of expense accounts call alll the shots, while our politicians spend their time posturing at photo ops to use in the next election cycle.
By
Lew Scannon, at 2:47 PM
I tend to agree. I don't know my house members as I should, but in the Senate it would be like putting Biden in charge of banking.
Businesses and trade groups expect something out of their donations. They aren't benevolent supporters of good governance.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home