by Michael Quinn Sullivan
To his credit, Texas Republican Pete Sessions knew I wasn’t going to be very complimentary of Congress when he invited me to testify before his committee on the issue of congressionally directed spending. When I spoke with them this past week, I had the opportunity to say to the congressmen’s faces what we all know to be true: Congress, specifically, and the federal government in general, has lost the faith and confidence of the American people.
They give us fewer and fewer reasons to trust them.
That’s why I testified that Congress must take steps to reclaim the authority, granted to them under Article I of the US Constitution, that they have spent the last century gradually ceding to bureaucrats in the administrative state. But they must do so in a responsible way.
For his part, Mr. Sessions understands the perilous positions and what’s at stake for our Republic. On the one side is the unacceptable status quo, where federal agency bureaucrats are spending billions of your dollars without transparency or accountability. On the other side is the bad old policy of congressional earmarks, in which politicians used their seniority to shuffle dollars to cronies back home… without transparency or accountability.
If we are to go forward as a nation Congress must adopt rules and practices that navigate those waters in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Congress must assert control over the bureaucrats, but they also must restrain themselves.
I found members of the House fall into one of four categories.
There is the “earmark” crowd. These are the folks who want to return to the bad old days of earmarks so they can get cash to their districts without regard to competing priorities or needs elsewhere in the country. And if that means bridges and post offices end up getting named for themselves, then that’s just the way it is.
Next there are those who defend the status quo. Sure, they will rail against the faceless bureaucracy… but don’t want to do the work – or take the political hits – necessary to weigh the merits of proposals and actually vote for and against spending measures. They don’t want to upset the unconstitutional apple cart.
Then there are the knee-jerkers. These folks correctly don’t want earmarks. They correctly identify earmarks as immoral and inefficient. Yet, their fanatical opposition to earmarks has pushed them to oppose Congress getting into the details of any federal spending. They end up supporting the status quo, without defending it. They are so fearful of doing the wrong thing, that they are empowering the administrative state.
Lastly, we find the constitutionalists. They recognize that the unconstitutional status quo is untenable, and that Congress must begin to claw back the authority they and their predecessors gave away. They recognize the federal bureaucracy won’t reform itself, and even if it magically did, the Constitution demands that Congress – not the myriad of faceless agencies, departments, and offices – should take charge of spending.
Chatting with lawmakers in the Capitol, Democrats seem divided between ear-markers and reformers. Some oppose the status quo merely on the partisan grounds that a Republican now, technically, oversees the executive branch (though I suspect Donald Trump would dispute the idea that the bureaucracy in the administrative state is actually working for him). Others simply want more handouts for politically connected cronies in their districts.
The Republicans are presently divided among the four camps. I’m not sure which are the most frustrating, the ear-markers or the knee-jerkers. The ear-markers are merely wrong, and wear their wrongness on their sleeve as a badge of swamp-dwelling honor. The knee-jerkers, though, are conservatives who claim undying fealty to the Constitution… yet their disdain for the bad old days (or even the stupid present days) makes them unwilling to embrace their Article I responsibilities.
I know US Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Pittsburg) has come out publicly in support of Congress wresting authority from the administrative state. As a bold constitutionalist, he has been unyielding in his push for restoring Article I authority. Where does your member of Congress stand (or cower)? You should ask.
Last observation: There is a growing fear among Republicans that they could lose the House in the November elections. Absent taking positive efforts to defang the administrative state, a case can be made that voters are sensing that maybe these weak-kneed patriots don’t deserve the authority they have squandered.
It was clear to me the “earmark” Democrats outnumber the “reform” Democrats. This is important because the present (righteous) moratorium on earmarks is merely a rule of the Republican conference, not enshrined in the House Rules themselves. Should Democrats win the majority, the bad old days of earmarks will return with a roar and all the Republicans will be left sputtering on the sidelines.
Conversely, public action by Congress taking steps this year to transparently re-engage its constitutional authority over the budget will be much more difficult for a Democrat majority to unravel. And just as importantly, for Republicans, such action might signal to voters that maybe – just maybe – the GOP really is committed to draining the swamp for the benefit of all Americans.
