Another Signing Hypocrisy

Back in June 2009, I addressed the Signing Hypocrisy based on the 'sunshine policy'.

Here I address the 'signing statement' policy.

Before becoming President, then President-Elect Obama had a pretty strict sounding policy.

Here is a Q&A from the Change.Gov website


Q: "What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" Kari, Seattle

A: President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances.That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice.

Notwithstanding the Q&A above, President Obama has issued quite a number of signing statements.

Among the people who've noticed this are some self described progressives in Congress and they've issued a warning against this practice.

Unless Obama maintains that there is some obvious difference between bad signing statements and good signing statements (other than when Bush did it the practice was bad but when Obama does it the practice is good), this seems to be a pretty clear case of hypocrisy (since Obama hasn't issued a 'I've changed my mind' type statement).

I consider this a minor impact hypocrisy. Very few people (mostly far left democrats who aren't going to change into moderates or conservatives any time soon) really cared about then President's signing statements and very few people (the same far lefters and some Republicans who want to embarrass Obama on this matter) will care that Obama is doing signing statements.

Personally, I don't see why the President should not issue such statements. Congress issues Committee Reports (that can not be vetoed) when passing legislation and Presidential signing statements simply balance power in this case.

The signing statements of the President give a basis for the Cabinet departments to construe important matters. In one case, the Office of Legal Counsel used a signing statement to conclude that President Obama could summarily disregard statute (and FWIW, I agreed both with the Obama signing statement and the OLC statement).



Pre inaugural statement on signing statements is here.
Article about progressive opposition to Obama signing statement practice is here.
At least one newspaper has also denounced the statement and the editorial is here.
DOJ-OLC statement on constitutionality of paragraph 7054 of 2009 Foreign Appropriation Act is here.

A Stark Example of Hypocrisy

(or is it?)

Recently, the US House of Representative voted (mostly along party lines) to issue a formal rebuke to Joe Wilson (smaller image). Representative Wilson shouted "You lie" during an address to the joint house/senate by President Obama.

It seems one of the people voting for the rebuke was Pete Stark (D-CA, 13th).

Some years ago Pete Stark, in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives said that then President Bush was sending men to Iraq to have their heads blown off for his (Bush's) amusement. Republicans attempted to have the House issue a rebuke to Stark but it was defeated (mostly along party lines).

Is this hypocrisy on the part of Representative Stark and everyone else who voted one way in the 2007 case and the other way in the 2009 case.

There are some differences as well as similarities between the two cases.

Similarities - Both Stark and Wilson apologized (Wilson apologized twice but Stark went on to call Bush a liar in other cases and also insulted other members of the House, including in his own party soon after the event). Both Stark and Wilson were rebuked by the head of their party in the House of Representatives.

Differences - Stark did it in a prepared speech, Wilson's shout out seems at least partially spontaneous; Wilson did it in the presence of the President; Wilson's insult is more specific and actually fantastic (notwithstanding many on the left said Pelosi erred in rebuking him and that Stark shouldn't apologize -see the first hotlink on this - I can't find any prominent Republicans making a similar claim ).

The only possible difference which seems to me significant is the on site presence of the President at the time of the shout out. Its probably a case of gross hypocrisy but determining this requires understanding the thoughts of the people who voted. This understanding is beyond me.

As to significance, Stark is from a reliably Democratic district.

article on the rebuke of Wilson here and here
article on the non rebuke to Stark here and here
article mentioning both Wilson and Stark here

Senator Obama
vs
President Obama

Back in 2006, then Senator Obama was against raising the debt ceiling. Here is what he said in a speech on the Senate floor,

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Then Senator Obama also made this speech in 2006

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.


At the time the national debt was about $6B. Then Senator Obama voted against the increase in the debt ceiling.

This fall the Senate takes up a bill to raise the debt ceiling again at the behest of now President Obama. There probably won't be a 'please raise the debt' speech by the President so we won't be able to see a word to word comparison. This means that Obama may be able to claim, albeit implausibly, that he was against the increase or that he was for the increase with caveats.

A related issue is Paul Krugman of the NYTimes.

Here is Krugman in 2004 (the deficit was $400B)

Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course - it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.

It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country.

It's biggest than Argentina in 2001.

and here is Krugman recently (as the deficit went well over $1,500B:

Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it’s not catastrophic.

Krugman, I think would defend this by saying that in 2004 we needed to cut back spending (although he never advocated any specific spending cuts) but now we don't because the world economy was booming then and slumping now. If so, it would have been nice to have a plausible set of 'ready to be made' cuts available when the economy gets better.

Anyway, this is a bit too complicated for a hypocrisy analysis. Krugman is simply a polemist in the clothing of an economist and his polemics are consistent: Republicans bad, Democrats are mostly good but sometimes bad.


Obama positions from article on The Hill and Krugman quotes are from the Washington Examiner

Alcohol Tax Hypocrisy
(or is it)?

Michael J. Rodrigues (whose picture is offset in front on the image) is a member of the Massachusetts Legislature (and a member of the "ways and means" committee in that body and thus important in tax law). He has a license plate with the '29' on it. He led a successful effort in the legislature to increase the tax on alcohol. His car is parked near a store that sells alcohol in New Hampshire near the Massachusetts border along I-95. A person at that parking lotsaw him (Rodrigues) loading several boxes of liquor into asked him (Rodrigues) if he was on official business. Mr. Rodrigues got angry and insulted the questioner.

Rep Rodrigues probably did not break Massachusetts law which allows up to 20 gallons at a time to be brought into the State for personal consumption.

Although I consider the actions of Rodrigues to that of a slimebucket, I can't find any record of Rodrigues saying, "Don't buy alcohol out of state" or "I won't buy alcohol out of state."

Sorry. No hypocrisy.

The source for this, including the image on the left is from the Boston Herald.