We're Hunting 'Yeah Buts'

Two years and 110,000 after it started, the President of the United States wants to do something about the Syrian Civil War. He's even taken his case for action to Congress for approval (yeah but he said he may do it anyway even if they disapprove). Sure, what we're planning is being leaked by an Administration that may be more porous than Sponge Bob Square Pants. Yeah but what we hope to gain from this dubious effort is a mystery greater than that of the Sphinx. 

This unfortunately termed 'shot across their bows' strategy has us with a number of US Navy vessels parked off the coat of Syria, all apparently locked and loaded with cruise missiles that the President would like shoot. (Who knew nations had bows.) This will show its President Bashar el-Assad that he can't use chemical weapons against his own people in the civil war engulfing his country that could decide his continued rule, if not his continued existence.

Now for those who've already forgotten, Congress was already looking at a busy schedule when it got back from vacation this week. The nation is about to max out its credit limit at $16.7 trillion and Congress has little time before we allegedly reach default. Yeah but the President wants his Syria resolution dealt with immediately even if we don't know if we can borrow the money to pay for it.

Congress also urgently needs to pass a 2014 budget, since it failed to do so in the previous eleven months. Yeah but one of the biggest complaints we've heard about budgets in the past is how we've spent too much on Middle Eastern wars. Yeah but all the President's talking about is a very limited action involved with firing some cruise missiles to re-establish ourselves as the one and only super power, so how much could that cost?

The Navy lists the Raytheon Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile at roughly $569,000 per unit (yeah but that's in 1999 dollars). A 2011 Huffington Post article cites information from a Navy spokesman that today's cost is actually closer to $1.41 million per missile. That means that this 'bow shot', while undoubtedly creating a number of Syrian 'shovel-ready projects', could cost us between $113 and $280 million dollars.

So you'd think with the kinds of cost involved, targets would be chosen with some guaranteed 'bang for your buck' (pun intended). Yeah but not where the stockpiles of chemical weapons are, since Syria's moving them around and we aren't really sure of where they are.  Besides, striking them might release those chemicals, killing even more innocent people. Not at Syria's missile launchers, warplanes and airports either, since we're not sure about where the first two are are, and cruise missiles aren't good for taking out moving targets or runways. Not at any of his command and control bunkers either, since as bad as cruise missiles are on airport runways, they're worse at bunker busting. Not even at Assad himself, since we're not looking for regime change, something that might provoke consequences that our strategy is not prepared to deal with.

Strangely in this case, the idea of going after Syria in the first place seemed more the idea of the British and French, with the US there to 'lead from behind'; and PM David Cameron took project approval to the British Parliament. Yeah but he after he talked President Obama into stepping forward, Parliament voted it down so the British are now out. Yeah but never fear, the French are still on our side (at least until the next opportunity to surrender occurs). Normally the US waits to build a coalition of NATO forces (yeah but nobody in NATO wants any part of this one), or a world-wide coalition of UN members (yeah but no UN members seem to want sign up).

So today Congress is back at work in Washington; but they're not likely to take up the hearings about the NSA, IRS, or Benghazi that they said were urgent when they left. Others may want to talk about the Budget or the Debt Ceiling lest financial doom occur. Yeah but the President said he really needs a vote on his Syrian resolution this week.  After all, Assad is a bad guy and though this war has been going on for two years it's probably past time we got him to leave (yeah but most of his opposition aren't much better and some are far worse). 

Truthfully, the President's Syrian Charade seems more like something from a 'Looney Tunes' cartoon, and as the President speaks to the American people and to Congress, my guess is that some of those in the White House old enough to remember the Elmer Fudd character can't help but paraphrase the famous quote of its shotgun-toting (that's for you Joe Biden) comic straight man:

"Shhh. Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting yeah buts."

Congressional (Dis)Approval

Recent polling data shows that the American people are not particularly happy with the current crop of elected representatives supposedly serving them in Congress. Of course this might have something to do with the fact that Congress turned a deaf ear to the greater part of the American public during the health care debate, and that even now after its passage we find support for health care reform hovering at about 38%. 


With the subsequent passage of a financial reform package that was going to curb the excesses of Wall Street and protect John Q Public from evil banking institutions, we now see that few of Mr. Public's extended family (about 32.8%) believes that the country is going in the right direction. But certainly the recent exhibition of a serious hearing disability from Congress can't be the only reason that voters are so disgusted. 


Perhaps then, it's disappointment felt when promises by the current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who might still have some questions of her own to answer about the use of military aircraft) to end some if not all of the corruption committed by law makers were less than fulfilled. Yes, we saw lawmakers from Louisiana to Nebraska showing just how ugly the legislative process can be while attempting to secure special privilege for their respective districts during debate and negotiation for final vote counts. (R) Scott Brown has proved equally disappointing, sweeping in on a tide of Conservative votes in Massachusetts only to show himself far less principled than promised (though he was taking Sen. Kennedy's seat after all) by casting votes with the Democrats that he campaigned against. 


But it wasn't merely the so-called "sausage making" of legislation that has cast a pall over Congressional credibility, but the corruption as well. We barely had time to forget the $90,000 found in (D) Rep. William Jefferson's freezer (and apparently the over $470,000 that he funneled into shell companies under his family's control), when we were confronted recently with the potential lapses of judgment by (D) Rep. Charles Rangel. Rangel, the former head of the House Ways and Means Committee (the Committee that writes tax laws) has been cited for 13 potential ethics violations for everything from misusing four rent control apartments to not declaring income and assets properly to Congress or the IRS. 


But such behavior is not limited to the House of Representatives, nor is it limited to Democrats. Republicans have had their share of offenders over the years and as a consequence have no claims to sainthood. While Rangel is the latest poster child for corruption in the national legislature, he is far from the only member operating under questionable circumstances. And while many are asking how Congress can let him remain in their midst, few are asking how someone on a Congressional salary can afford the rent on four apartments in NYC, a vacation home in the Dominican Republic, and bank accounts totaling some $500,000. 


Fewer still realize that if he manages to resign from office, he will undoubtedly be able to keep a Congressional pension that should land him about $150,000 per year and a medical retirement program that would be the envy of any of us. Those of us looking however, do not see Rangel as exceptional. 


Far too many enter Congress claiming to want to 'serve the people' and find themselves millionaires by the time of their eventual departure. Far too many then leave lucrative government service to enter even more lucrative government lobbying or media punditry. The few that choose to forgo such 2nd career windfalls still manage to make the rounds on the paid speaking circuit, get lucrative contracts to write their memoirs, and live in quiet luxury after performing a job that the Founding Fathers considered no more than a temporary position. 


The Founders it seems, had an expectation that after serving their country for a time, legislators would return to the private sector and to 'honest labor'; and would support themselves and their families through their own efforts. I expect that they would be shocked to find Washington DC (named after a politician who retired after 8 years of service to the nation, and without a pension by the way) populated by 'professional politicians' living off of the largess of the American taxpayer. 


The pursuit of power has always been dangerous to both the ruling elite and the ruled, and this appears to be especially so with today's 'public servants'. In fact, one cannot help but feel that for many of those in Congress, their public service turns out to be little more than self-service; with the office providing ample opportunity for greed, graft, and self-gratification (could it be merely coincidence that the House chamber is semi-circular). It should therefore be no real surprise that as yet another election cycle approaches, we now seem to hold those in office with relative disdain. Polling data compiled by Real Clear Politics in fact shows the average for Congressional approval hovering around 21%. 


I suspect however, that this number is even higher than it should be and as the fateful day approaches, that voters will show even less approbation to those running for office this year. I fear that many of our legislators are like to receive a considerable amount of (dis)approval.