In my
post of May 22, I published a response from the White House to my concerns
about the upcoming agreements of and the processes relating to the ratification
of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and similar agreements with our European
trading partners. In a lengthy response the
White House made the following assurances relating to the ratification of the
agreements.
“The new Trade Promotion
Authority mandates unprecedented transparency by requiring that any trade
agreement be published online for 60 days before I sign it, and Congress will
then have months to review, debate, and hold hearings on the details of the
agreement before they vote on it. “ (1)
Imagine
my surprise to find that last Thursday the Senate moved to vote without
hearings and truncated debate to authorize not only so-called ‘fast-track’
authority but the trade bill as well, all grouped together in a single
vote. No hearings, no national
debate. At the end of the week the House
moved in similar fashion to pass the measure but was unsuccessful as a majority
in the President’s own party balked at passage.
A major sticking point was the provision that funds providing for re-education
and training of those workers displaced by the new trade agreements were to
come from cuts in Medicaid.
I find
it interesting that the “new Trade promotion Authority” mandating “unprecedented
transparency” should at this juncture be sequestered behind closed doors and
yet unavailable to the public. And what
matters if the documents are published online 60 days before the president
signs it if the congress has already voted to approve it; for the horse will
have long since left the barn.
The
White House response, like so many responses from the governing elites, was, of
course, a general response duly ‘personalized’.
A ‘canned’ response to an expression of specific concerns; a form of ‘non-communication
communication’. For those in
government, the media advisors, the political ‘handlers’ this is seen as a way
to placate the great ‘unwashed’—those not in the ‘know’. The constituent, however, is left feeling
like one is on the telephone line navigating a corporate ‘menu’ and speaking
with a digitalized ‘voice’.
Communicating with one’s elected representatives is a bit like the
citizens of Galveston and Houston fleeing from an impending hurricane calling
emergency numbers for instruction on how to evacuate the city only to find that
their frantic calls have been routed to New Delhi or Bangladesh from which
instruction is given. It is bad enough
that my Congressman is brain dead, but the ‘non-response response’ only serves
to further illustrate that the rot runs deep.
One is left to ponder whether the original communication though clearly received
was ever read at all.
I have
a beagle named “Belle”. She is a splendid companion but she will bark and bay at whatever passes, especially the postman, for she is a ‘southren’ dog
and she doesn’t much cotton to anything associated with the ‘feds.’ I daily
admonish her but she does not hear. I
bark out her name, but she ignores me.
It’s a funny thing, this beagle, for Belle can be upstairs well out of
sight and mind, but if I rattle the biscuit jar she will bound down the steps
to be the first in line. So, it seems,
it is with our political leaders. “We
the People” are of no account, unless and until we reach for the biscuits.
Ask
Charlie Gladden.
__________________
(1). See the following post: “May 22,
2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions”
No comments:
Post a Comment