Too many rubber-stampers in Congress

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/59391.php

John Nichols: Too many rubber-stampers in Congress

By John Nichols
October 21, 2003

Before Congress voted on whether to hand George W. Bush another $87 billion for the occupation of Iraq, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., went to the floor of the House and declared, "(We) are being asked to suck it up again, give him $87 billion, do not ask him what he did with it, just rubber-stamp it. That is wrong. Just vote no."

McDermott, a physician who served in Vietnam, is not a rubber-stamp member. He opposed the October 2002 congressional resolution that gave Bush a blank check to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. And he opposed the October 2003 congressional resolution that will give Bush a virtual blank check to maintain the occupation that followed upon that invasion.

Unfortunately, McDermott was right when he suggested that a lot of his fellow members would simply get out their rubber stamps and approve the latest blank-check resolution. The Senate voted 87-12 to give Bush just about everything that he asked for. The House voted 303-125 to give the president everything that he asked for. The two, slightly divergent measures will have to be reconciled into one big blank check, but the bottom line is clear: Most members of Congress ceded their constitutional responsibility to place checks and balances on the president and simply served as rubber stamps.


In a House full of Republican rubber stamps - and more than a few Democratic versions of the same - Tom Petri proved himself to be a worthy successor to Steiger, and to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other founders who believed that Congress should provide checks and balances rather than blank checks.

Read his book, "The Magic Journey" if you get a chance.