After the thrill of the Nov. 6 federal election victories subside, after the agony of defeat has eased, after the laureates have been named and the scapegoats have been blamed, the old administration and the old Congress must come together in a “lame duck” governing session beginning Nov. 13 to resolve some vitally important issues. Then both major parties must strategize how to move the nation forward facing at least two more years of possible gridlock.

The reelection victory for President Barack Obama could be interpreted by the White House and his Democratic allies as a mandate to pursue economic recovery and debt reduction his way, first insisting on raising taxes on families making more than $250,000. The president would likely push to steer money toward energy development, education and worker training, manufacturing support and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure.

“(President) Obama will have a lot of leverage,” Dr. David Bositis, senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies told The Final Call, before the president won reelection Nov. 6. “He basically will be in the driver’s seat and get—I won’t say he gets what he wants—but he’ll get most of what he wants.”

Read more at The Final Call.

While there is no rescinding what many observers consider to be a punishment that was far too severe for the crime—the public censure of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) by the House of Representatives on Dec. 2—another Congressional Black Caucus member has exposed a cloud which could taint much of the work of the committee that recommended the unprecedented punishment, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Ethics Committee.

“From the beginning, I have been concerned with the Committee's unsupported conclusions, often contradictory arguments and unfounded negative inferences,” Rep. Maxine Waters said in a statement concerning charges against her which were unexpectedly postponed indefinitely on the day her trial was scheduled to begin.

“It now seems that these concerns were justified, as the Committee's sanctioning of its own attorneys is an acknowledgement of flaws and failures in the Committee's process and handling of my case.” On that same date—Nov. 29—the committee chair suspended, without explanation, two senior lawyers who had been investigating the Waters case.

Mrs. Waters, a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was investigated over the summer because of allegations she provided assistance to OneUnited Bank, a Massachusetts-based Black-owned bank, because the bank received $12 million in federal bailout funds in 2008.

...

“The allegations against Maxine Waters, I find, in terms of what I've read, I find pretty far fetched,” Dr. David Bositis, a senior research fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies told The Final Call.

“I've never actually thought of the Ethics Committee as having anything to do with ethics, if you really want to know,” Dr. Bositis continued. “I've always thought of it, to some degree, as the House as an institution, sort of covering its ass. That's really what it's about.

“Basically I think that the Ethics Committee is about trying to maintain the reputation of the House, which is pretty much a helpless cause. The public has a general feeling, they hold the House in such low regard that it's pretty pointless talking about House ethics,” Dr. Bositis said.

Read more at The Final Call.