Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Equipoise]

Regulating the First Lady

House Republicans are pressing for a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public. But Democrats warn President Obama may take the attempt personally “as an attack on his wife.”

The GOP effort is being led by the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), whose initial salvo was rebuffed recently at a contentious committee markup session. Under Issa’s amendment, any government policy group that Mrs. Obama or another first spouse regularly participates in would be subject to a law requiring meetings to be announced in advance and, in most instances, public.

...

Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.) suggested President Obama might see the legislation as a personal provocation that could trigger a fight. “Let me… caution my friend from California that, as you’re probably aware, this president is very guarded about his family,” Clay said. “I think that, no matter what you’re intending with this amendment, that the president may view this as an attack on his wife. And I’m just saying, you know, let’s be careful--if we want to open up that can of worms. Let’s not go in that direction.”

“We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady,” Issa insisted, repeatedly invoking the “transparency” mantra of the Obama administration. “I believe this is open government at its finest.”

...

Aides told POLITICO that [Issa] plans to reintroduce the spousal provision either as an amendment to another bill or as freestanding legislation.

What the hell? So, they don't like Michelle's supporting girls in high school, vegetable gardens or military families? Or they just want to know what she's doing in advance so protesters can show up? What is the "historic role of the first lady" anyway? Have they ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt? I know that criticizing the First Lady isn't off-limits, but legislating her behavior? Why are Republicans so eager to look so fucking stupid?

[Typo Negative]

“We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady,” Issa insisted, repeatedly invoking the “transparency” mantra of the Obama administration. “I believe this is open government at its finest.”

I guess I shouldn't read anything into the the fact that Issa has been in congress for years and he has only thought of this now?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by spooje

I guess I shouldn't read anything into the the fact that Issa has been in congress for years and he has only thought of this now?

Your mistake is using the verb "thought" in relation to the compound proper noun "Darryl Issa". Never the twain shall meet.

This is the same guy who pushed the recall of Gray Davis as governor of California because he thought he could waltz right into Sacramento without serious challenge, then cried in public when Ahnold got the nod instead.

He's a weasel.

A really dumb weasel.

[Algher]

If I thought they were being legit (which I do NOT):
1) Fight to keep the nepotism laws in effect
2) Reaction to Hillary's secret health care committee

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

[bup]

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by bup

I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

Well, then, put in oversights of whatever committee-head she might become. Not oversights on the first lady.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

I wasn't aware that she was in charge of anything. My impression has been that she's been mostly Obama's PR stand-in, which IS a traditional "First Lady duty".

[R. P. McMurphy]

If something like that had been in place during the Reagan years would the public have gotten access to the readings from Nancy's astrologers?

[Algher]

Originally Posted by jayjay

I wasn't aware that she was in charge of anything. My impression has been that she's been mostly Obama's PR stand-in, which IS a traditional "First Lady duty".

I honestly do not know. She is certainly highly qualified to do more than PR. First Ladies used to be known as PR / ribbon cutters (funny - that is what VPs were too in many administrations - they get funeral duty).

Hillary's work on health care raised the question of what IS the First Lady in terms of Federal Government oversight (from the OP's link):

Issa’s amendment would have effectively overturned a 1993 federal appeals court decision which held that First Lady Hillary Clinton could be considered the equivalent of a federal employee. The court ruled that Clinton’s involvement in a presidential Health Care Task Force was not enough to render the group an outside advisory panel which had to meet in public and disclose its records. After the health reform effort cratered, the Clinton Administration gave up the legal fight and released the records.

In a perfect world, Issa would be helping to clean up the uncertainty of the role of the First Lady, as we begin to get more First Ladies that are qualified for policy work. He would be trying to make sure that if Hillary were elected, Bill would have a clean role to undertake without running afoul of Constitutional and other Federal Law concerns in regards to status. Issa would even be looking forward to the day when a Republican goes back into the White House and has a spouse ready for action as well.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

But this is awfully behind the times of them. IIRC, Laura Bush was involved in literacy/education, and in women's issues overseas.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She's not in charge of anything.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She isn't. Michelle Obama has no legal authority.

The President can delegate any number of Presidential duties as he sees fit to the First Lady. He could just as well delegate them to you, or Brad Pitt, or his cat, providing he isn't assigning them to do a specific job that Congress has to approve, such as secretary of state or a similar post. There are some things he has to do himself and lots of specific positions that require Congressional vetting but things like "Hold meetings on the pet project of my choice" can be done by pretty much anyone he wants. As Algher's cite points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what would seem, at least to me, to be just common sense; that the President is allowed to hire people to accomplish tasks, and that if his wife volunteers to be an unpaid employee doing some of those tasks, there's nothing illegal about it and in fact it's been that way for ages. Ultimately, executive authority as stated in the Constitution is still his. He's on the hook for whatever his chosen agents do.

[Uncle Brother Walker]

Originally Posted by RickJay

She isn't. Michelle Obama has no legal authority.

The President can delegate any number of Presidential duties as he sees fit to the First Lady. He could just as well delegate them to you, or Brad Pitt, or his cat, providing he isn't assigning them to do a specific job that Congress has to approve, such as secretary of state or a similar post. There are some things he has to do himself and lots of specific positions that require Congressional vetting but things like "Hold meetings on the pet project of my choice" can be done by pretty much anyone he wants. As Algher's cite points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what would seem, at least to me, to be just common sense; that the President is allowed to hire people to accomplish tasks, and that if his wife volunteers to be an unpaid employee doing some of those tasks, there's nothing illegal about it and in fact it's been that way for ages. Ultimately, executive authority as stated in the Constitution is still his. He's on the hook for whatever his chosen agents do.

What about Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' thing?

I was taught that one can always delegate authority, but never responsibility.

Having said that, I agree that Mr. Obama can appoint anybody to the position of left-handed coat hangers or whatever. He's still responsible for whatever actions (or inaction) his appointee does.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Algher

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She's not in charge of anything.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by mswas

She's not in charge of anything.

Like any wife, she's in charge of her husband.

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by bup

I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney's energy policy meetings should have been public too.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by brownie55

I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney's energy policy meetings should have been public too.

That's what I was going to ask about. Why should an unelected, unofficial participant in government be subject to more stringent public reporting rules than the vice president? So, what are the requirements about policy groups that elected office-holders take part in?

[elucidator]

Hell, give 'em a dose of overkill! Stream the meetings online, with transcripts published daily. They want transparency? We'll swamp them with transparency! Of course, we'll expect the same from them, its only fair, after all....

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Algher

If I thought they were being legit (which I do NOT):
1) Fight to keep the nepotism laws in effect
2) Reaction to Hillary's secret health care committee

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

The President of the United States needs Senate confirmation for official positions but he has never needed Senate approval for personal advisors.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Algher

If I thought they were being legit (which I do NOT):
1) Fight to keep the nepotism laws in effect
2) Reaction to Hillary's secret health care committee

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

People Voted for Barrack, not Michelle.

I believe appointing the wifey is wrong.

[MOIDALIZE]

Did you just awake from a cryogenic sleep?

[elucidator]

Oh, absolutely! Go after Michelle Obama, that's perfectly brilliant! Yessirree, Bob, thats a great idea!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Issa's only motivation is to harrass the Obama's and hope to contrive a political issue that Obama isn't being "transparent" enough. Obviously this has no chance to go anywhre -- it's not a serious or sincere attempt at real legislation (the last thing the Republicans would want is for an future Republican First couples to be saddled with this garbage). It's just about throwing rocks at the Obamas.

Barack should have this guy rendered to some Moroccan shithole for a couple of weeks.

[SteveG1]

It's just political nonsense. If this is the Burning Issue, if this is the most serious "danger" there is, all I can say is:



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah giggle hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah snort hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah wheeze hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

Stupid Republican idea of the day

I think the GOP's 19 page* Affirmational Federal Budget (pdf) might count as a second "Stupid Republican idea of the day":

Instead of returning to double digit levels of inflation and the failed
economic policies of the 1970s, Republicans support maintaining the cost
of living after witnessing the booms and busts triggered by loose
monetary policy.
...
Instead of spending money on wasteful
programs under the guise of “stimulus” and
“investments,” Republicans seek to ensure that
the federal budge