While many in DC are crying into their beers or measuring the windows of their new offices, POGO has a different take on the election. We have been hearing a lot of talk from both Democrats and Republicans characterizing "oversight" as a dangerous weapon in the wake of the election. But from our perspective, both sides need to take a different tack.
The Democrats need to stop demonizing oversight as something to fear, and the incoming Republican committee chairs and leadership ought to focus on investigating substantive problems with an eye toward finding solutions to benefit the public interest—rather than gunning for the 2012 elections.
Oversight has clearly been a watchword since the election results streamed in last Tuesday. Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, has called for “rock solid oversight of the executive branch, which is a constitutional responsibility of the Congress.” Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 22-point plan as the likely new majority leader has called for more oversight by individual lawmakers.
All of this is music to POGO’s ears, assuming the oversight is serious inquires into significant areas, with a good faith effort at bi-partisanship.
Of course, some of the Democrat’s fears and Republican’s embrace of oversight are natural reactions. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and our constitutional system of checks and balances was designed to harness these counteracting ambitions. However, congressional oversight of the executive is diluted when members of Congress approach it as political partisans rather than as part of an institution that is responsible for improving the government.
That means congressional Democrats should not be out to protect the administration at any cost and should participate in explorations of wrongdoing, waste, mismanagement or incompetence in the executive branch--even though Republicans may chair their committees. It also means congressional Republicans should not be out to destroy the administration--political witch hunts are usually transparent and end up backfiring.
Everyone should keep in mind that underneath the executive branch’s political layer are men and women in uniform who’ve sworn their lives to protect us, scientists who strive to make sure patients are not harmed by drugs or medical devices, auditors who try to protect taxpayer money from going to waste, and others whose job is to serve the public interest. Sabotaging the administration for political gain can sabotage the critical missions these public servants strive to achieve.
But it’s important to realize that while sometimes the problems lie with the political appointees, in other instances aspects of the permanent bureaucracy are the problem. What that means is responsible congressional oversight could lead to strange bedfellows. Imagine Tea Partiers working with Obama’s political appointees to get rid of corrupt government managers who retaliate against whistleblowers.
At the end of the day, oversight should lead to a better functioning government that better serves the citizenry. On that note, we were heartened when California Republican Darrell Issa, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, “I want to prove the pundits wrong. My job is not to bring down the president. My job is to make the president a success.”
