The Right Kind of Obstructionism
I’ve never been terribly troubled by being linked to “The Party of No”. It seems to me that any consistent conservative outlook has to be predicated on the idea that obstruction is often the better part of valor when it comes to government. Still, there have been moments in the last two years when Republican opposition to the Obama Administration has become churlish (remember that period during the health care debate when the GOP all of sudden became the defenders of the Medicare status quo?).
That’s why it’s heartening to see the incoming Republicans in Congress tackling an all-too-often ignored cause of abusive and expansive government: the regulatory state. According to Talking Points Memo:
[Republicans have found] an obscure authority provided by a 1996 law called the Congressional Review Act. It provides Congress with an expedited process by which to evaluate executive branch regulations, and then give the President a chance to agree or disagree.
House Republicans will have carte blanche next year, and will be able to pass as many of these "resolutions of disapproval" as they want. The key is that a small minority in the Senate can force votes on them as well, and they require only simple-majority support to pass. If they can find four conservative Democrats to vote with them on these resolutions, they can force Obama to serially veto politically potent measures to block unpopular regulations, and create a chilling effect on the federal agencies charged with writing them.
The average American would be shocked to know how many of the nation’s most draconian laws come into effect through the regulatory process – allowing the President and Congress to wash their hands of the consequences. If we’re serious about reigning in the size and impact of government, this is a terrific start.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Right Kind of Obstructionism
Never heard the term "chilling effect on the federal agencies". I've heard of "a chilling effect on free speech", but never on regulators. An interesting locution.
Is Josh Marshall saying that like it's a bad thing?
Jul '10
Re: The Right Kind of Obstructionism
If one views the left as childish, then "No" should be uttered far more often than yes. If one sees the left as dangerous, all the more reason to say "No" as often as possible.
Dec '10
Re: The Right Kind of Obstructionism
What the GOP needs to do is hold the line. We all need this, in fact.
However, I am not hopeful in this regard, as the GOP is notoriously limp spined.
It is as if they exist solely to be criticized by the media and capitulate at the worst possible moment over matters of great import.
As my little sister would say, "I just want to grab and shake them, sometimes, and ask 'WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!'"
I think we can win this fight, if we can get our champions to act the part.