Republicans to crank up oversight of government

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Thu Nov 4, 2010 6:30pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives is more likely to attack Democrats through highlighting congressional oversight hearings rather than the more rancorous subpoena process, leading Republicans say.

In an e-mail to newly elected House Republicans, Eric Cantor, likely to be the next House majority leader, said the Republican leadership would spotlight oversight findings in floor debates to point up what Republicans say is excessive government spending.

Every week, the Republicans plan to publicize "one major oversight hearing ... that plays into our overall focus on job creation and reducing spending," Cantor said.

Among likely targets for early oversight efforts are the Obama administration's financial regulation reform, the healthcare overhaul and environmental controls and government stimulus money, Republican strategists say.

Other high-profile issues some Republican oversight veterans are also discussing include examining public funding of National Public Radio, which recently fired commentator Juan Williams for comments that upset Muslims.

Voters, upset at high unemployment, gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives in Tuesday's elections. It was the biggest shift in power since Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948.

In a traditional tactic in U.S. politics, congressional committees controlled by the party not holding the White House can tie the administration in knots with subpoenas demanding disclosures of massive quantities of documents and summoning witnesses to appear for public grillings.

Democrats aggressively investigated the administration of Republican President George W. Bush after they took Congress in the 2006 elections on issues like the White House political office headed by Karl Rove and Iraq War contracting.

"I think the old adage of what goes around, comes around, may well come into play," said Michael Madigan, a Washington lawyer who in the 1990s led a Republican Senate investigation into fundraising by President Bill Clinton and fellow Democrats. "Now that power has shifted, you're going to see more subpoenas rather than fewer subpoenas."

NO SUBPOENAS 'LEFT AND RIGHT'

The congressman with the most sweeping oversight portfolio is Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who will chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

But Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Issa, said his "number 1 priority is to get the economy moving."

To that end, the committee will likely use its oversight powers to ensure the government "works better and more efficiently. We're not going to be embarking on issuing subpoenas left and right," Bardella said.

Under committee rules, Issa will have personal authority to issue subpoenas without having to have them approved by a committee majority. His panel has broad authority to investigate almost any aspect of government operations and policy.

Bardella indicated that Issa would likely want to continue tough oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the government-sponsored enterprises seized by the government at the height of the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

Committee investigations that Issa backed over the past two years included probes into whether car manufacturer Toyota was too close to federal regulators and bonuses at Merrill-Lynch. He was among the most active lawmakers pressing the administration for details of the government bailout of insurance giant American International Group.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
ginchinchili wrote:
Oversight of government? But that will require more government to oversee itself and Republicans are against more government. Frankly, unless Republicans are obstructing and saying “no” to everything, I don’t think they have any real plans going forward, except for tax cuts for the rich, which hadn’t worked so well over the last 8 years.

And the Tea Party? They don’t seem to understand much of anything. They seem clueless. I never hear any specific plans coming from them. They want to reduce the size of government and cut spending. They just won’t say how they’re going to reduce the size of government or what it is they’re going to cut. They want to oversee government. Who will be doing the overseeing, more government?

Something that gets lost in all of the rhetoric is that government does a lot that we are unaware of, like upgrading our infrastructure or overseeing our food supplies and our water. They also provide oversight of Wall Street and banks. Cut regulations and oversight and we’ll start seeing more Enrons, WorldComs, bridges collapsing, home-grown terrorist attacks and disease epidemics. Face it, we can’t have it both ways.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should eliminate government waste, but I don’t want, for example, some Tea Partier who’s taking contributions from Exxon and BP to cut oversight of our oil industry only to end up with more disasters like the BP oil spill. Everything about this election was presented in generalities. Very little of substance. Not a good sign.

The Tea Partiers strike me as being very naive. They aren’t very well informed so they are unable to be specific on their positions. They say they want to “take back our country”, but they never define just what that means. Who took our country and who is in charge once it’s taken back? Funny that people didn’t start wanting to “take back our country” until we had a black man in the White House. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

The truth is, nothing will really change until we change our system. There is too much lobbyist influence in our government and too much dependence on corporate sponsorship in our elections. Until that changes, anyone reaching Washington will do the same old song and dance, doing what they have to do to get reelected, which means raising money from corporations in quid pro quo fashion. As long as that dynamic exists we, the voters of America, will never take back our country. AND THE TEA PARTY NEVER MENTIONED ONE WORD ABOUT THIS.

And if they were so worried about deficits, why didn’t we hear any grumblings from them when Bush was president and running record deficits? Not one word when Cheney said, “Deficits don’t matter.” Bush was increasing deficits and spending our money on Iraqis. At least Obama has been spending money on us. So for the Tea Party it’s okay for Bush to borrow money from China to build Iraq’s infrastructure but it’s not okay for Obama to borrow money from China to build our infrastructure while creating jobs for Americans and keeping us from falling into a depression. I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the priorities of the Tea Party. I think Americans should be a higher priority than Iraqis.

This government takeover by the Tea Party is just a case of the blind leading the blind. So now we have a bunch of blind people steering the ship. Good luck with that.

Nov 04, 2010 9:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:
You are so right Ginchinchilli! The whole tea party movement was nothing but a front from the republican party being ran by former republican leaders. They stirred a large group of people through fear, lies and deceit and now they are back in charge doing business as usual. I already read that they are looking to get rid of the Volker rule… Big surprise. They will soon find that they let the wolf back into the chicken coop.

Nov 04, 2010 11:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ginchinchili wrote:
URKiddinRight: I’ve read many of your posts. Good stuff. Smart, clear and succinct. I only wish I could be so concise. Please continue.

Nov 04, 2010 11:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.