Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Well...then dont ask baiting questions....at least until you understand the proper role of Congressional oversight.
|
What made my question a "baiting" question?
I understand the intended role of Congressional oversight, but I do not understand how and why in our current context. How do they objectively determine what is worthy of taking action on? Why do they act on some issues and not others?
You seem to have the most knowledge on this topic participating in the discussion, so I addressed my question to you. I certainly understand why you might want to avoid a more detailed exchange on this issue. It is up to you.
Quote:
|
Under which of these objectives and purposes....[INDENT]* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
|
* improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations
The housing crisis was caused in part by the actions of the Country Wide CEO and Fannie Mae. Given Obama's statements about Country Wide's CEO, and as the presumptive leader of his party, there might be interest in looking into this.
* evaluate programs and performance
Fannie Mae, is a government sponsored institution. Depending on how assets are valued, the entity may be insolvent. This institution plays a key role in the mortgage industry - corruption could have a devistating impact on the industry.
* gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes
Executive compensation is an issue of discussion. Jim Jonson recieved up to $21 million in compensation, at a time when the industry was going into a crisis. Congress may want to assess this. Obama, received financial benefit from a friend, this may have been a conflict of interest or an ethical violation, perhaps they should investigate this either to clarify/change the law or to clear the issue indicating nothing unethical happened.
Quote:
|
... would a Congressional oversight investigation of Obama's, McCain's or any future president's "friends and supporters" before he occupied the WH be justified?
|
I looked at the CRS Report On Oversight as you suggested. I would answer your question, yes. Taken from Section 1.
Quote:
|
Despite its lengthy heritage, oversight was not given explicit recognition in public law until enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. That act required House and Senate standing committees to exercise “continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies within their jurisdiction.
|
This is pretty broad in my opinion and can also open the door to all kinds of problems with officials running for office. Again, this adds to my interest in the "how" and "why". I think my questions are legitimate and are not "loaded", whatever that means in this context.
Quote:
|
Congress is responsible for overseeing the administration of the Executive Branch....not the previous behavior of sitting presidents and their friends.
|
My reading of the report indicates broader responsibilities than what you suggest here. In addition to the wording referenced in the Reorganization Act of 1946, we have:
Quote:
1970 Legislative Reorganization Act
a. Revised and rephrased in more explicit language the oversight
function of House and Senate standing committees: “. . . each
standing committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, and execution of those laws or parts of
laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of that
committee.”
|
The Constitution nor legislation restricts Congressional Oversight to specific people or time frames.
Executive Branch activities could certainly include the activities of friends of the WH.