Just another example that Washington is too partisan

Need another example that Washington has become too partisan? Here it is:

Last week, U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., sent a letter to constituents using taxpayer dollars, not campaign funds, attacking “liberal lawmakers” and “the new congressional leadership” for approval of an increase in funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards publishes regulations on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in taxpayer-funded mailings from members of the House to their constituents. In reading through it, a couple of provisions caught my attention.

Members must “avoid excessive use of party labels,” with a general guideline of two per page for each party. In addition, “comments critical of policy or legislation should not be partisan, politicized or personalized.”

Though he may not call them Democrats, Pearce, on the first-page of the two-page letter, makes references to “liberal lawmakers,” “the new majority in Congress” and “the new congressional leadership.” On the second page, he refers twice to “the majority” and once to “liberal advocates.”

In comments that are certainly “critical of policy or legislation,” I’d think he’s getting “personalized” when he refers to “Speaker Pelosi” and partisan throughout with his complaints about the bill backed by “liberal lawmakers” and Democrats.

This letter is certainly partisan and an assault on the speaker of the House and Democrats, all at the expense of taxpayers – Democrats, Republicans and others.

So I’m thinking, this must violate the rules of the commission, right? This can’t be allowable.

Pearce’s spokesman told me the commission approved the letter before it was mailed on Aug. 7. I was skeptical, but verified today that it had been, in fact, given the OK by the commission.

Unreal. A bipartisan commission is approving taxpayer-funded letters that are partisan attacks.

This isn’t a complaint against Pearce. It’s a complaint against the commission of Democrats and Republicans that allows this crap. I’m sure it’s allowing such partisan attacks from members of both parties.

What should be allowed at taxpayer expense is a letter in which Pearce makes a policy argument for or against the bill – sans the partisan references and attacks. That seems to be what’s intended in the regulations.

Apparently, Washington has become so partisan that those charged with ensuring that taxpayer dollars aren’t used for partisan attacks can’t see or don’t care that they’re doing the opposite.

Why do citizens tolerate this?