Dem Senators Trust Obama ... Depending on the Meaning of Trust
As I mentioned earlier this morning, Tuesday lunches in the Senate are always a scene -- except when a president-elect comes to visit. Then they become a total madhouse.
The shoving scrum of reporters and cameramen aside, the Senate's mood was palpable. Remember that trust game, so popular at summer camp and workplace bonding events, where one blindfolded person had to fall backwards into a line of outstretched hands from his compatriots? Democratic senators and Obama are playing it now.
"There will be a new level of trust between the [Democratic] majority and the new administration," Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) declared when asked if he would fall blindfolded into a second $350 billion financial bailout this month. "But, having gone through what we just went through [with the Bush administration], we need to put it in writing."
Okay, so will Democrats insist on passing legislation to set conditions on the next round of bailout money? Or will they accept Larry Summers' non-specific promise to do better with the next infusion of cash?
"A lot more action needs to take place" before the second bailout installment is released, incoming Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told a reporter who asked how he was leaning. He then admitted that he hadn't had time to read Summers' three-page letter closely enough to say for sure.
How about Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)?
It's not that I don't trust Barack Obama or his administration. It's that we have to be careful in our urgency to fix a crisis, that we don't get sloppy. We [got sloppy] on the first $350 billion. ... You can't just say 'trust me' ... That goes for President-elect Obama.
The only senator I heard say flat-out that the Summers letter wasn't enough: John Ensign (R-NV).
Seeing Congress demand for oversight for President-elect Obama to receive the remaining funds that were approved last year is like having a bank demand to know what you did with the money they approved and loaned you six months ago.
If you don't put in writing what the demands are before the loan is approved then you're stuck with the fine print as it was during APPROVAL of the loan.
January 13, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Fool me once...." goes more than double when it comes to $350 billion and it matters not a whit to me who the fooler is, Bush or Obama. I wanted to know exactly how Bush planned to spend my money and I want to know exactly how ANY other president will spend my money (particularly if I don't get to see another dime of it).
I wish Congress would collectively grow a pair and start doing its constitutional duty by putting a leash on the Executive branch -- I'm sure that Obama won't mind, being a constitutional scholar and all. Bush's lethal chicanery was enabled by Congress' dereliction of duty. There's plenty of blame/accountability to go around.
January 13, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Horacio Cane likes to say on CSI: Miami - Trust but verify.
January 13, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust but verify. Put everything in writing and vote on it. I don't care if it's for Obama or Gandhi. This is why Chris Dodd has to go. At least Barney Frank is doing his job.
January 13, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Dodd is freaking great dude.
January 13, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Verify YES - verify that the money that's been spent was spent the way the Bill stated it should be; but don't put NEW demands on the money that's already been APPROVED.
January 13, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hi Dad! Yeah, I'm having a great time at college. I blew a bundle on dope and a killer stereo system! And the HDTV looks great in the living room.
BTW, do you think you could advance me next month's rent? I'm a little short right now...."
January 13, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh* It would have been nice if Democrats had been this willing to stand up to REPUBLICAN presidents..
January 13, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has nothing to do with politics. Congress has an obligation to the people to check the Executive, regardless of the political affiliation of either branch.
January 13, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this, and it needs to be done, certainly, but given how lax the original bail-out was, it's a little funny that Congress has now decided to carry out its duty under the new president...
January 13, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
True but this is a whole different level of stink. What is wrong with the system when only the Democrats get the oversight?
It is like the cop that only pulls over the pretty girls, or the black guy, for speeding. Yes speeding is wrong, but selective enforcement is wrong too.
This mirrors what I was reading in another story. The Democrats must dot every I and cross every T, but the Republicans can rob the bank in front of our eyes and all is forgiven in the name of moving forward.
The fact that Democrats do this to themselves must signify some inherent psychosis that I am not aware of, and that is deeply troubling to me.
January 13, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But is it fair to assume that Obama will have the same oversight as Bush's admin did?
January 13, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe its in everyone's best interest--Congress', Obama's, and especially taxpayer's--that legislation is drawn up regarding how the money will be spent. Obama has been pretty good so far with transparency and he needs to continue. Americans have suffered through 8 years of lies from their president and we need assurance that Obama will SHOW US that he has our backs and best interests in mind.
January 13, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink