Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who Will Lead House Oversight and Government Reform?

By Ed O'Keefe

Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-Calif.) victory over Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) in the "Clash of the Titans" battle to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee means Waxman will step down as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The California Democrat has led Congress' main investigative committee since 2007. He served as ranking member starting in 1997.

Waxman's move sets up yet another battle to control yet another key committee. Seniority is no longer the only factor determining who gets chairmanships, as the fight for Energy and Commerce demonstrated, but in practice it's still the most important. Expect a delicate battle that could incorporate seniority, age and between three members: Reps. Edolphus "Ed" Towns, Carolyn Maloney and Elijah Cummings. Towns is the most senior member of the trio, but Cummings may be seen by colleagues as the most effective chairman. Here's a review of the Democratic contenders in order of seniority:

Continue reading at Federal Eye>>

By Ben Pershing  |  November 20, 2008; 3:36 PM ET
Categories:  Agenda , House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Waxman's Win Marks Seismic Shift in House
Next: Lieberman Contributed to GOP Senate, House Candidates

Comments

Timt to clear out all the 'dead-wood' from Congress !!!!!!!!

Posted by: mewindows | November 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Having Congress monitor itself is like is like having the convicts run the prison they are in. Ridiculous. Why do the old one's stay in charge? They control what get's considered in the Congress.

The usual claim: No problems on our watch.
It's the way the system works. None of them want the spotlight turned on them.

Posted by: KRittenmyer | November 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Dingell will obviously pour every dime of government money he can into Chrysler and GM. So what's new? Look for passage of the bailout in January or February. How will the companies use it? Bonuses for the management and jobs sent to Asia, GM's only profitable operation currently, probably some retirement benefits to the older more senior UAW employees, then liquidation when the money runs out. The way bailout funding has been when smaller companies went bankrupt in the past. Maybe some money to slow the process, much as the American economy has been run since 1973 (when the US standard of living reached its peak) but nothing could possibly help them at this point. GM and Chrysler's problems started after the oil shock in 1974 following the cutoff of supply from the Middle East after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. I was a junior in high school. 3 2 hiours wait for 8 galons, like during WWII.

GM didn't learn then, neither did the government, neither did the public. Same nonsense in the 1990's. Consume, consume sonsume, now the consumer is said to be responsibile for propping the economy again, but we has nothing to buy but foreign made goods. What's wrong with this picture?

Great solution. Ot will get the politicians through the next election. That's what matters, after all. Keepong your power to do nothing but promise everything.

What a joke they are.

Posted by: KRittenmyer | November 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

What are we afraid of with the big three auto makers? No company can immediately absorb high gas prices in less than a year and bring new cars on line. You sell what sells. Are we holding greedy Exxon, Chevron oil companies responsible for this?
Maybe you would be amused to read Texans for political justice website. Notice Greenbreg, AIG former president's company getting more than $100 Billion, Texas Phil Gramm's chairman of UBS in Switzerland getting american taxpayer money in bailout. Paulson changed the $700 Billion game rules when Bush's friends got their money.
I think, since DOJ Alberto Gonzales fired DOJ Va. Maquire, then shut down the re-insurance investigation against Bershire Hathaway, RE General, AIG and was forced to re-open it by Tom Goble's complaint, that should have let you know AIG was on the skids financially.

Thank God in Florida CFO Alex Sink dumped AIG's exclusive cozy Jeb Bush relationship, and opened Lloyd of London's introduction into Florida re-insurance markets. Maybe AIG wa going down hill and never had reserves (like credit swaps theu charged for) and we are doing this banking favor to prop up and sustain easy USA export businsess money for Bush friends. Darn right you should spend 10% of the funds and bail out the auto makers.

Posted by: theloneconsumer | November 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The time has come to bring "Change" to the White House but not in the form or fashion that President elect Obama is touting. We need the American people to be allowed to be part of these committees such as the "House Oversight and Gov. Reforms Committee". The citizens of the U.S. want people in these organizations whose sole purpose is watching out for us(taxpayers), not just the legislators. We have no confidence in these people. These legislators have let the American people down by allowing economy to tank....

Posted by: Rhonda5 | November 24, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

They're kidding right? Hey someone pinch me. Congress and oversight - in the same sentence? Ethics? They are crooks and liars. Where is the "Change We Can Believe In?" Bull!!!! Same old crap, just different ugly old faces. Everyone of them in congress, including Obama's clintonista comrades, need a mack daddy smack down.

Posted by: candyzky | November 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The auto companies should be helped, but first replace all their top management and write some conditions that they must meet, like a quota of electric cars, hybrids, and strict miles per gallon standards. No more Hummers, and S.U.V.S and no more gas guzzlers. The current management don't get the picture Replace them with middle management that are vetted.. Auto companies must be saved. These are blue color workers. Don't leave them out.

Posted by: koolwoman | November 25, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Who will lead the House Oversight and Reform Committee? The same guy who has led it all these years.....Nobody. Seen any Oversight or Reform lately?

Posted by: bong_jamesbong2001 | November 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD SAY THAT EVERYONE JUST LIKES TO GRIPE AND COMPLAIN SINCE YOU KEEP PUTTING THE SAME PEOPLE OR THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE INTO OFFICE - OR YOU KEEP THE SAME PEOPLE....EVERYONE IS SO DISSATISFIED EVEN AFTER AN ELECTION THAT ONE PARTY GOT EVERYTHING THEY WANTED.....THIS IS A SIGN OF A VERY SPOILED NATION! NOT EVERY PERSON NOR GROUP OF PEOPLE CAN HAVE EVERY THING THEY WANT JUST BY TAKING IT OR DOING IT AND NOT FIND COMPLETE CHAOS -- AS WE, THE NATION , ARE IN AT THIS TIME - COMPLETE CHOAS ......WE MUST HAVE LAWS AND THE MAJORITY MUST RULE - THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS --OOPS -- THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HAVE ELECTIONS.....NOW, WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO - PARTY SYSTEM AND THERE WILL BE SO MUCH MORE CHAOS AND EVEN MORE FIGHTING IN THE STREETS-- MORE ROAMING GANGS AND MORE CRIME.... THAT EVERYONE LIKES TO CALL "DEMONSTRATORS" (FREEDOM OF SPEECH) THAT WILL BRING MORE CHOAS.....OUR COUNTRY HAS NOT REACHED BOTTOM YET, BUT, WE HAVE MOVED UP THE SPEED.....WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT WILL BE READY TO STEP IN AND TAKE THE COUNTRY OVER?
SOME OF US WILL GIVE UP A GREAT DEAL BEFORE WE REACH BOTTOM....TOO BAD, WE HAD A CONSTITUTION THAT BUILT A GREAT COUNTRY - BUT WE'VE WORKED SO HARD TO TEAR THAT CONSTITUTION APART - PIECE BY PIECE, TO SATISFY SMALLER AND SMALLER GROUPS - INSTEAD OF RULING BY IT WITH "MAJORITY RULE" - AS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.
AND WE STILL MAINTAIN THAT EVERY PERSON HAVE A VOICE AND BE HEARD.... AN SOME OF THE VOICES HAVE NO 'CHARACTER', JUST 'WANTS'
WE ARE A SPOILED NATION!

Posted by: myworld | November 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

What is sacred about blue collar workers? Why should they keep their jobs if they are not producing something of value? Why aren't they encouraged to produce something more in line with what people want to buy. One reason the auto companies were able to stay in business was because they were selling wildly overpriced SUV's: will they be able to sell smaller cars for $40,000 and still clear the market? To be competitive they need to be able sell cars at the same or lower prices then the Japanese and I haven't seen much of a commitment in that direction from their management or the unions.

The auto industry follows a bad business model that is really entrenched, personally I thought the banks should have been allowed to fail right along with them. :)

Posted by: persimonix1 | November 26, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company