politics (17) DC is getting nuttier

In  1925 Congress established The Federal Helium Program to stockpile helium in case of dirigible warfare. One would have thought that after the disaster of the Hindenburg in New Jersey in May of 1937, which effectively ended the "airship" program, while the regular aircraft industry was expanding, would also have reduced if not eliminated the US program. The Germans indeed redirected their effort and the airship materials to building up the Luftwaffe.  It is true that at the beginning of the German air campaign against London the English tried to protect the city with a ring of stationary balloons, the heavily laden German bombers being limited to low altitudes. But it did not work as the planes "jumped" over the balloons and within a short time higher altitude planes were developed to reduce losses to anti-aircraft artillery.

I am bringing this up because Congress voted, before going on recess on 4/27/13 to extend the program (which Repr. Barney Frank thought ended in 1996!), with only 1 vote against in the House. This when Republicans promote spending cuts and the idea that private enterprise can do a better job anyway, while the Democrats generally oppose the Republican spending cuts; but in this instance they all voted for a truly non-essential spending bill. In the total Federal budget the savings from letting the Helium program die would not save the Nation, but as a matter of principle it would have looked good if this near unanimity had produced ANY savings.

The helium bill came at the same time as the bipartisan vote to give the FAA the flexibility of deciding where to apply the sequester cuts instead of applying them across the board as required which had led to furloughing air controllers etc. thus creating delays at airports. As the politicians wanted to get home for their recess this vote would have been a no brainer if the members of Congress were in the habit of using their brains. Undoubtedly a similar vote will become expedient when it comes to the defense department. But why not to all government departments as a principle?

But some programs like Meals on Wheels, etc. probably have not much flexibility (but its recipients are among Romney's famous 47% and usually do not live in the gerrymandered districts of Rep. House members). It would be better to get rid of the sequester altogether, while maintaining the idea of savings. For example, all members of congress could reduce their staff by 1, committees could reduce their staff proportionally, etc. For one thing there is a lot of overlap between a congress member's staff and the staffs of the committees on which a member serves. And it would not just be a saving of salaries but also of the office expenses etc. the "work" of a staff member entails, much of which, I'm sure serves to show that the person is productive. But then, lest we forget, Congress exempted itself from the sequester. But would that not make the staff savings more symbolic of the congressional will to reduce public expenditures?

 Republicans used to say: Well, where is Obama's leadership? As if they would be led in Obama's direction. Media types blame him for failure to reach out and have turned this failure into a character defect. But Obama did reach out and mostly in vain in 2009 or, for example, playing golf with John Boehner. Someone suggested: "have a drink with Mitch McConnell." But why shouldn't the Senate Minority leader reach out? After all he is still the Minority leader after 4 years of trying to prevent Obama's re-election and of becoming the Majority leader. What happened to the famed southern graciouness and hospitality?  And why do columnists like Ms Dowd insist on blaming Obama for not reaching out. It's clear that O. can show the donkeys where the water is, but he can't maken them drink. Even when the Republican Senator Toomy proposes a compromise on "background checks he has to admit that it failed because some fellow Repuclicans woould not want it to look as if Obama had a victory, REGARDLESS OF THE 85% OF REPUBLICANS  NATIONWIDE ARE IN FAVOR
OF THESE CHECKS.

I hate to suggest it, but it maybe racism after all. In 2008, one could blame W. for the victory of a Democratic candidate, even if a black one (during the nationwide gun control debate someone said: Why should a Jewish big city major tell us wat to do). But no such excuse existed in 2012, unless the Reps must blame themselves for putting up the inept Romney. Would the antagonism to the president have been as strong it it had been Ms Clinton? After all there was a lot of antagonism to Mr. Clinton and even with all his "social" problems, the Republicans worked with him even while they were trying to impeach him. Nothing that Obama has put forward in the budget and debt ceiling debates is way off center, yet it nearly all gets rejected without real consideration. And that even in cases where  "private enterprise" has no ideological opposition.