This page has been formatted for easy printing
www.partialobserver.com

EVERETT'S VERSION
Conscience or Constitution?
As fine a Congress as ever robbed the helpless

by Everett Wilson
August 4, 2011

 

                                                            

            In one   of Edwin O'Connor's novels,   one character describes another:   "as fine a man as ever robbed the helpless." Congress did not rob the helpless on a large scale this week, but they threatened to and might have, so they deserve the description--especially  those members of the House of Representatives  who voted No on the debt ceiling compromise.   Passage  was uncertain,  and a prevailing negative would have meant that the House failed to meet one of  its  fundamental responsibilities:  to fund the government of the United States.  What the heck?  They voted No anyway.  

            None of them should be re-elected, even the legends and stars; especially  the legends and stars, because they're the ones who  set themselves up to know better and then expect others to  follow their example.  To name names, here are four of them,  from both Right and Left:   Michelle Bachmann,   Ron Paul, Barney Frank,  Charles Rangel. 

                 A No vote under the circumstances when the vote was taken was  a vote of dereliction, not of conscience. On a question of such magnitude, when no time remains for alternative action,   the only conscience a House member must honor is the Constitution, which gives the House the responsibility to see to it  that the United States has the funds to pay its bills,  meet  its payroll, and honor  its contracts. 

            You raise  taxes to do it, you borrow money to do it, whatever it takes, but  you do it.  You don't  play games.  If you would rather follow your conscience than do your job, then resign your seat and let somebody take it who has the common sense to distinguish  between preference and necessity. 

            Responsible grown-ups don't play games when national honor is on the table.  They do not threaten to break their promises or welsh on their obligations. Congress played these games for weeks; finally, enough of  them grew up temporarily and did their jobs.   

            I cut  no slack for  those who kept the game going after the clock had run out, then voted No on the only option left on the table.      It should cost them their political careers; we will probably have to settle for a few of them losing their seats.               However much  they bluster from both Right and Left, they are not Constitutionalists.  Constitutionalists do their Constitutional duty.  It is the duty of the House to fund the government's current obligations--debts we have already incurred.  For a while it sounded as though some of our leaders thought it was okay for us not to.       

            The United States keeps its word and  pays its bills. We can't forgive our own debts.  Sure, some of the debts are shockingly stupid, but they are ours to pay off anyway—even if we have to borrow money to do it.

            Along with those stupid debts, remember,  there are those we owe to people who depend on us for their rent and groceries.  We pay them because we said we would; the entitlement is in our promise to them, not in their need.  Failing to pay them would have meant robbing the helpless—which would have happened had the No voters got their way.   

           

 

             



About the Author:

Everett Wilson thinks "political ethics" has long since been an oxymoron, but for old times' sake he makes a stab at it anyway.  




This article was printed from www.partialobserver.com.
Copyright © 2017 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.