Congress has lost its mind...

Politics serves the purpose in America that the Catholic Church did in Europe in Medieval times. It is the place that wealthy family send their lesser sons, and now daughters, to keep them from screwing up the family business.

Originally posted by MrKite
I think perry5 should run for a congessional position.

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I feel bad for the rational people who will have the misfortune to suffer the invasion.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Originally posted by wolf
The Christians wanting to move to South Carolina and take over is not that new an idea. The Free State Project wants people to move to New Hampshire to turn it into a constitutional republic.

[COLOR=indigo]The insanity continues.....[/COLOR]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&

Originally posted by wolf
........to keep them from screwing up the family business.

Dear (OC):

Thank you for contacting me about the draft, or the Selective Service. I appreciate hearing from you.

Legal authority for the involuntary induction of men into the Armed Forces expired on July 1, 1973. New legislation would be required to reinstate an active draft. Currently, the Selective Service System operates on standby status. Young men are required to register with the System within 30 days before or after their 18th birthday. If the draft were to be reactivated, young men age 18 through 26 would be subject to induction (up to age 35 if deferred when initially called). Student deferments were drastically restricted by law after they caused so much controversy during the Vietnam War of 1964-1973. Graduate student deferments were in fact abolished early in the Vietnam War, in 1966. Under current law, undergraduates who were drafted would be allowed to finish an ongoing academic semester (or their senior year, if about to graduate), and would then have to report for induction. Married men would not be exempt from any actual draft.

At the present time, it appears unlikely that the U.S. will reinstate the draft to meet its manpower needs. The military is meeting its recruiting and retention goals at the present time, and it has a large pool of trained personnel in the reserves that it can draw on to augment its active forces.

Should legislation come before the Senate that would reinstate the draft, I would carefully consider the circumstances and ultimately make a choice that was based on the best interest of our nation's security. In the meantime, I welcome any thoughts you may have on the matter.

Again, thank you for your correspondence. Please keep in touch.

Yours sincerely,

John Edwards
United States Senate

Originally posted by Beestie
Check out the latest bill from the buffoons in Congress and take it to its logical conclusion then find a rock to hide under

Congress wishes to confer upon itself the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions that render acts of Congress unconstitutional.

This can't be happening.

Originally posted by Clodfobble
How very efficient of him, to have a form letter response that works both for people who oppose AND support the draft.

See ya'll in australia.

Convinced that many members of Congress had lost their moral compass, voters sided with Democrats and thrust Republicans from power.

But when the limelight faded, the controversies took an unexpected twist: Democrats, now in control, sought to block or limit prosecutors from gathering certain evidence of corruption against members of Congress on constitutional grounds, complicating the criminal cases against the two Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Democratic leadership joined with top Republicans to continue a years-long tradition authorizing the House general counsel's office to intervene in outside investigations of its members.

Through court filings, the bipartisan coalition sought the exclusion of evidence it said was obtained in violation of Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause protects the legislative branch from meddling by the other two branches, declaring that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Mrs. Pelosi's office makes no apologies. There is "no incompatibility between adherence to the constitutional protections of the Speech or Debate Clause and the effective investigation and prosecution of members of Congress accused of wrongdoing"

classicman;572509 wrote:

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes


You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

Beestie;101404 wrote:

This can't be happening.

classicman;572509 wrote:

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes


You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats who control the levers of power in Washington are divided over whether to push for more deficit spending to end the recession and stem job losses, complicating the possibility of a second stimulus bill.

“We need to be open to whether or not we need further action,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered that “there is no showing to me that another stimulus is needed.”

President Barack Obama underscored the dilemma by addressing both sides of the argument. In an interview with ABC News yesterday, he said unemployment approaching 10 percent is something “we wrestle with constantly.” He added that spending more borrowed money is “potentially counterproductive.”

The split reflects two major challenges facing the Democrats: Record budget deficits that make additional spending much tougher to pass and a 26-year-high unemployment rate of 9.5 percent that is expected to rise to double digits.

“They’re between a rock and a hard place,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June, exceeding economists’ forecasts, while the federal budget deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to top $1.8 trillion this year and $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010. That’s provoked criticism of the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February as either wasteful or not large enough.

Borrowing Surge

The Treasury is increasing debt sales to pay for the spending. After more than doubling note and bond offerings to $963 billion in the first half, another $1.1 trillion may be sold by year-end, according to Barclays Plc. The second-half sales would be more than the total amount of debt sold in all of 2008.

The U.S. should consider drafting a second stimulus package focusing on infrastructure projects because the bill approved in February was “a bit too small,” said Laura Tyson, an adviser to Obama during last year’s presidential campaign who now sits on the White House’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat whose home state has a 12 percent jobless rate, told ABCNews.com that a second stimulus is “probably needed.” Action by Congress would “probably take place towards the end of the year,” Whitehouse said.

With the White House and congressional Democrats focused on a major health-care overhaul and a climate bill, some lawmakers expressed pessimism about the likelihood of such legislation.

Deferring to Obama

“I’m not sure how you would do it,” said the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois. He said he would leave any decision on the need for a fiscal stimulus to “the president’s evaluation.”

Republicans seized on the unemployment rate and job losses of about 6.5 million since the recession began in December 2007 as validation of their vote against the measure in February.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a floor speech yesterday that Democratic proponents of the stimulus program “over-promised on results and now their predictions are coming back to them.”

McConnell mocked the idea of another stimulus. He called it “mind-boggling” and a worse idea than the previous one, which he said “has been demonstrably proven to have failed.” He added, “There is no education in the second kick of a mule.”

Bernstein Defense

The White House dismissed calls to augment or alter the initial legislation.

“It’s working, it’s demonstrably working,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden, whose office is overseeing the rollout of the first stimulus.

Bernstein said about $200 billion of the $787 billion allocated in the bill has been obligated or spent, adding that the effects of the spending and tax cuts will continue to ramp up in the next few months.

“There is no conceivable stimulus package on the face of this earth that would fully offset the deepest recession since the Great Depression,” Bernstein said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The Obama administration may have to stick with that argument, as more spending is unlikely in the face of record deficits, said Stan Collender, a former House and Senate budget analyst.

“Adding additional spending or tax cuts right now would be very difficult,” Collender said. He added, however, that if the economy deteriorates, another bill to juice the economy may become possible.

“Right now it doesn’t seem to be justified,” said Collender, managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. “Come September, it might be.”

Bernstein said about $200 billion of the $787 billion allocated in the bill has been obligated or spent, adding that the effects of the spending and tax cuts will continue to ramp up in the next few months.

Troubleshooter;101617 wrote:

I rather like the idea of a xtian state. It gets them all in one place.

Follow that with a little "strategic" bombing and...

xoxoxoBruce;580977 wrote:

Prolong it? Bullshit. FDR made life better for millions of Americans until the war put everyone to work.

sugarpop;580867 wrote:

Give it time Merc.

xoxoxoBruce;581007 wrote:

They're rewriting history with bullshit assumptions and you're buying into it.

Meet the Press wrote:

SEN. McCAIN: And this is--if I know Washington, this is the beginning of a pretty involved and detailed story. And I, I don't have enough information, but I think a lot more's to come on this.

MR. GREGORY: Should there be an investigation, do you think?

SEN. McCAIN: I don't know if--first of all, I'd like to know the facts of the case before there should be an, "an investigation."

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. McCAIN: How long did, did the director of the CIA know about this program and when did he terminate it? And all of these things are going to, are probably going to be heavily discussed in the weeks ahead.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.

TheMercenary;585394 wrote:

Keeping an eye on the bills in congress and how much they are costing us.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2009/06/29/fy-2010-spending-tracker/

Redux;585403 wrote:

If you want to keep an eye on Congress and want a non-partisan perspective, use non-partisan sources, like Thomas, the official Congressional site and read the CRS bill summaries and the CBO cost estimates that are included or use GovTrack, another good non-partisan source.

richlevy;585437 wrote:

....I'd relegate washingtonwatch and the AARP both to the spin cycle. Both have an agenda, although at least the AARP has a defined constituency whose interests they do look out for, mostly, while trying to sell them insurance.

By RON NIXON and ASHLEY SOUTHALL
Published: July 31, 2009
WASHINGTON — Thirteen federal agencies took nearly half a billion dollars off the top of Congressional earmarks for administrative expenses in 2008, nearly 3 percent of the total amount that members of Congress had directed to pet projects in federal spending bills.


The Defense Department led the way with nearly $240 million deducted from earmarks. Several agencies, including the Education and Housing and Urban Development Departments, did not withhold any money to process and provide oversight of earmarks.

The findings, summarized in a report from the White House Office of Management and Budget, provide the first governmentwide look at how much federal agencies keep from earmarked money.

The report was done at the request of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, who said he first learned of the practice three years ago when the recipient of an earmark he had requested notified him that it had not gotten the full amount.

“This is an issue of transparency,” Mr. Nelson said. “Some of these agencies are clearly taking money without any authority, and they should not have these off-budget expense accounts.”

Over the coming months, as many as 1.5 million jobless Americans will exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits, ending what for some has been a last bulwark against foreclosures and destitution.

Because of emergency extensions already enacted by Congress, laid-off workers in nearly half the states can collect benefits for up to 79 weeks, the longest period since the unemployment insurance program was created in the 1930s. But unemployment in this recession has proved to be especially tenacious, and a wave of job-seekers is using up even this prolonged aid.

Tens of thousands of workers have already used up their benefits, and the numbers are expected to soar in the months to come, reaching half a million by the end of September and 1.5 million by the end of the year, according to new projections by the National Employment Law Project, a private research group.

Redux;585434 wrote:

I really didnt expect you to acknowledge that the the analysis of legislation by WashingtonWatch.com is as partisan and biased as any you will find.

TheMercenary;585557 wrote:

You may not like the messenger but the message is quite accurate.

Redux;585560 wrote:

As much as you like to criticize me as an “agent” for the Democrats or just a typical partisan leftist, I am not the one who, day after day, floods the Cellar with biased partisan op eds and/or links, many (most) of which are misleading, incomplete (ignoring context) or completely dishonest....probably more than all other posters here combined.

Quite accurate? That would be when you acknowledge that many of your “snips” are as biased and partisan (and more often than not, less accurate) than anything I (or others) post.

Ibram;585683 wrote:

:thumb:
Thanks, Redux. Not that it'll change anything, but im glad someone said it.

Redux;585737 wrote:

There are political boards where members engage in honest and often lively discussions that makes for good infotainment. You can have fun and learn something new at the same time.

Shawnee123;585739 wrote:

That's the POV calling the kettle black...

TheMercenary;585738 wrote:

You mean that as long as they agree with your POV...

As you said, "Oh well..that’s life in a political forum." :D

TheMercenary;585748 wrote:

Matters not. Most likely the same 4 I have on ignore. No big deal. It is the beauty of this place. I doubt anyone is "driven away" by me. But that would be free choice as well.

Redux;585750 wrote:

My point exactly.

You dont give a shit.

Its more important for you to get our you "message" endlessly than to contribute to the community in a manner than stimulates discussion.

TheMercenary;585751 wrote:

About anything you have to say or your opinion. Correct. Not so much with others.

Like you said, if I am the only one who comes here who cares. I have confined most of my posts to a few threads. That is within the bounds of civility on a public forum.

Redux;585752 wrote:

Posting an endless number of partisan op eds, with occasional one line personal snarky comments, does not make for civil discourse by most reasonble standards.

Hey..if thats what you want and it makes you feel better about your position...carry on.

TheMercenary;585754 wrote:

Yea, I know, you want me to post partisan op eds that support your savior...

Redux;585759 wrote:

In fact, I would prefer no partisan op eds and for members to think for themselves.

That is how I, and most others I have encountered here, particpate.

The "savior" (the "messiah", the "one") mantra is just another example of that right wing group speak and not being able to think for yourself.

TheMercenary;585761 wrote:

You have supported most everything the Dems and Obama have done. You are an admitted Dem partisan. You can't hide behind your new found non-partisan look.

Redux;585763 wrote:

Cite please....all of my partisan links!

Redux;585763 wrote:

I offer my own opionions. I was critical of components of the ARRA. I was critical of components of Obama's detainee policly. I like the transparency I have seen compared to the previsous admin, but said it still doesnt go far enough.

TheMercenary;585767 wrote:

Like you said. I don't give a shit. :p:D

Ed: Wait, wait... your AARP article. Completely biased.

Redux;585769 wrote:

One AARP press release that refuted the charges in you WSJ op eds...and reaffrimed by FactCheck, Snopes and PoliticalCheck!

TheMercenary;585770 wrote:

It was only one article and issue that you addressed. I conceed that. But as I stated you just don't like the messenger. No big deal really. I don't support yours. I asked you to provide support for other issues that the Demoncrats are pushing for our great grand children to pay for. You declined.

Redux;585771 wrote:

You made it clear that you dont give a shit what I have to say.

I'll wait for UG....at least, he has the abliity to speak for himself.

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets
Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

TheMercenary wrote:

...the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

TheMercenary;586282 wrote:

Aren't these the same guys that castigated the Automakers for arriving on jets?

Queen of the Ryche;586317 wrote:

^Came here to say this.
Got sucked into the Redux/Merc banter. Wow.
From the few pages I read, I don't see a whole lot of political discussion - more of an argument about whose newspapers/websites/preiodicals are more right. I was hoping for "I agree with the WSJ/AARP/insert-article's-publisher-here because..." Not that I consider myself at all competent to defend my political bent as eloquently as I would like, but now I leave disenchanted.

Carry on.

TheMercenary;586346 wrote:

He thinks he is correct. I think I am correct. It has never gone anywhere past that when you drill down to it.

TheMercenary;586360 wrote:

I don't think it always has to be that way. But what eva...

It does, indeed, always have to be that way.

You are a broken record.

Happy Monkey;586335 wrote:

Not to mention that the first line in his quote asked his question he asked it.

Queen of the Ryche;586384 wrote:

And yes, let Congress hang from a net too. Or make them pay full fare on one of our failing airlines.

TheMercenary;586390 wrote:

Many Congress people ride to and from work each day and few have any security. The need for custom jets is not warranted. Esp in this time of spend, spend, spend. They need to take a back seat to their own needs.

Redux;586392 wrote:

Members of Congress have no authorization to use these jets for commuting to and from work, but solely when acting on Congressional business, particularly when traveling abroad.

The exception is Pelosi, who is second in line to the presidency...scary, huh?

Washington -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asked Congress to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit on Friday, saying it is "critically important" that they act in the next two months.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Political survival will be high on lawmakers' minds when the Democratic-led U.S. Congress returns to work on Tuesday amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with its performance.

While the debates over healthcare reform, global warming and banking legislation and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate the airwaves, many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections.

WASHINGTON - Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10 percent of Chrysler and 61 percent of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

For example, GM's market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a "highly optimistic" estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is "highly unlikely" to ever be repaid, the panel said.

Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a "reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding" that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.

Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers' return on the investment but want to dispose of the government's ownership interests as soon as practicable.

"We are not trying to be Warren Buffett here. We are not trying to squeeze every last dollar out," Steve Rattner, who led the administration's auto task force, said before his departure in July. "We do want to do well for the taxpayers but the most important thing is to get the government out of the car business."

Greg Martin, a spokesman for the new GM, said the company is "confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities."

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It is designed to provide an additional layer of oversight, beyond the Special Inspector General for the TARP and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.

The panel's report recommends that the Treasury Department consider placing its auto company holdings into an independent trust, to avoid any "conflicts of interest."

The report also recommends the department perform a legal analysis of its decision to provide TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, their financing arms and many auto parts suppliers. Some critics say the law creating TARP didn't allow for such funding.

The panel's members include Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, who dissented from the report. Hensarling said the auto companies should never have received funding and criticized the government for picking "winners and losers."

Other agencies have also projected large losses on the loans and investments provided to the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that taxpayers would lose about $40 billion of the first $55 billion in aid.

The Absent-Minded Chairman

When normal people happen to “find” their own money, it might mean a twenty left in a winter coat, or discovering change beneath the sofa cushions. But if you’re Charlie Rangel, it means doubling your net worth.

Earlier this month the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress "amended" his 2007 financial disclosure form—to the tune of more than a half-million dollars in previously unreported assets and income. That number may be as high as $780,000, because Congress's ethics rules only require the Members to report their finances within broad ranges. This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel's net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million.

When you're a powerful Congressman and working diligently to increase tax rates to pay for President Obama's health-care plan, we suppose it's easy to lose track of one of your checking accounts. That would be the one at the federal credit union with a balance somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. And when you're crunched for time and pulling together bills to pass in a rush, we guess, too, that you might overlook several other investment accounts, even if some of them are sizable, such as the ones Mr. Rangel missed at JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock.

Oh, and those vacant properties in Glassboro, in southern Jersey? Everybody in Manhattan tries not to think much about New Jersey, so those lots and their as-much-as-$15,000 value must also have slipped down the memory hole. (The New York Post reported yesterday that Mr. Rangel failed to pay property taxes for two of the lots, according to the county clerk's office.)

The Chairman probably isn't doing a lot of dining at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or Long John Silver's, either, which may explain why he didn't disclose the $1,001 to $15,000 in stock he owns in Yum Brands, the conglomerate that runs those chain restaurants. Compared to his undisclosed portfolio stake in PepsiCo—$15,001 to $50,000—that's practically a rounding error.

All lawmakers amend their financial reports from time to time, though rarely are the errors this extensive. Via email, a Rangel spokesman declined to offer details about how the errors occurred, noting that "Once the Ethics Committee completes its work, then we can answer questions in more detail." He added that Mr. Rangel is now "confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests."

Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City's tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn't speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys.

Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel
By LARRY MARGASAK (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — House Republicans failed Wednesday for a third time to oust Rep. Charles Rangel as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, but they kept the political spotlight on his ethical problems.

The House voted 246-153 along mostly partisan lines to refer a GOP resolution to remove Rangel to the House ethics committee. The Democratic maneuver rendered the Republican effort meaningless, since Democratic leaders have said they have no intention of removing Rangel while the ethics committee is conducting a long-term investigation of his conduct.

The ethics committee's investigation of Rangel's financial and fundraising activities has been under way for about a year, and that has provided Democrats political cover to avoid taking action.

"We ought to allow that work to continue and to be completed and receive their recommendation, and we will do that," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday, when asked how Democrats would respond to the Republican effort.

It is unclear how long the ethics investigation will continue, but the closer it gets to the 2010 elections the bigger problem for Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to drain the swamp of unethical conduct that plagued Republicans several years ago — and helped cost the GOP control of the House in the 2006 elections.

Rangel, a New York Democrat, faces allegations of financial improprieties, including failure to pay taxes on investment income and neglecting to report assets and income on his congressional financial disclosure forms.

House GOP leadership spokesman Michael Steel said the attempt to remove Rangel "highlights the Democrats' broken promises" for an open and ethical Congress.

"Obviously, given that House Democratic leaders haven't chosen to do the right thing, an important part of our strategy is to make sure the American people know they're trying to sweep these matters under the rug," Steel said. "The American people will certainly remember the Democrats' broken promises on these issues."

The ethics committee is conducting investigations of six Democrats besides Rangel and one Republican. The committee also is reviewing the practice of lawmakers steering money and contracts to favored companies, and then receiving campaign contributions in return for the "earmarks."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of a subcommittee that dispenses defense dollars, is the most prominent figure in that review, although members of both parties used the same fundraising practices.

A review determines whether an investigation will be initiated.

Conservative Republican talk radio hosts have been using Rangel's case to attack the conduct of Democrats and ridicule Pelosi's promises to clean house.

TheMercenary;599655 wrote:

Just for Reflex, another "gottcha moment" or just another double standard for the Demoncrats on the Hill?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guL87z4PHsrubvj02ZL9F_bAKF2wD9B6FKQ80

It's the Spending, Stupid
By John Stossel

"The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," George Bernard Shaw once said.

For a socialist, Shaw demonstrated good sense with that quotation. Unfortunately, America has become a laboratory in which his hypothesis is being tested.

John Stossel RealClearPolitics
taxes economy

The theory of government I was taught says that government provides benefits, primarily security, to the entire population. In return we pay taxes. But lately the government has been a distributor of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.[//b]

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently disclosed that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year. Some will pay less than zero -- that is, they'll get money from those of us who do pay taxes.

The Tax Policy Center adds that this year the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax brings in, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

[b]The view from the top also shows the lopsidedness of the tax system. The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent.

This presents a serious problem because government has such vast powers to dispense favors. As Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it.

Yes, working people who pay no income tax still pay taxes: sales tax and payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. But the income tax is big and visible, so it's a problem that a growing number of people don't pay, but get benefits from those who do.

Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." I don't know if he envisioned one half of the population living off the other half.

It's important not to confuse the interests of the taxpayers with the interests of the politicians and other tax consumers. Yet that is done all the time. When the government bought toxic assets (of zero market value) from the banks, it said taxpayers would profit when the economy recovered and the assets once again commanded a positive price in the market. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the government is savvy enough to buy low and sell high, it's not the taxpayers who would benefit from any profits. The politicians will spend every penny, rather than cutting taxes.

To put it bluntly, we are not the government.

The built-in unfairness of the tax system has prompted a range of tax-reform proposals, such as a flat tax and replacing the income tax with a sales tax. These alternatives are better, but they have their drawbacks, too. For that reason, there is something more urgent than tax reform: spending reform.

The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is not the tax level but the spending level. Taxation is just one way for the government to get money. The other ways -- borrowing and inflation -- are also burdens on the people. The best way to lighten the tax burden is to lessen the spending burden. If government spends less, it takes less. And if it takes less, the tax system will weigh less heavily on us all.

Once again, we find wisdom in Adam Smith: "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

Redux;599658 wrote:

Where is the double standard?

Redux;600164 wrote:

UG...if I recall, it was the Republicans who controlled the House for 12 years from 95 through 06 and did absolutely nothing in the way of proposing tougher ethics rules for members.

TheMercenary;600170 wrote:

Oh well that is good to know, that makes all of Rangles criminal acts just ok. :rolleyes:

"Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives;

Whereas clause one of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;

Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, “…a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value” and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions;

Whereas the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, “The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel’s personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman’s financial dealings.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel;

Whereas after the Ethics Committee probe was underway, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, “Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited Nabors Industries an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel’s involvement with Nabors Industries;

Whereas since then, further serious allegations of improper and potentially illegal conduct by Representative Rangel have surfaced;

Whereas during the recently completed August district work period, Representative Rangel acknowledged his failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income, and his ownership of two pieces of property in New Jersey;

Whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by Representative Rangel on August 12, 2009 now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as he had previously revealed;

Whereas The New York Times newspaper reported on August 26, 2009 that, “United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month. Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.”;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25, 2009 that Representative Rangel’s corrected filings also revealed “at least $250,001 in a fund called ML Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III.”;

Whereas the aforementioned Roll Call story reported that “Rangel also originally misreported that his investments in 2007 netted him $6,511-$17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. In his revised filing, that range jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.”;

Whereas these most recent revelations by Representative Rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and potentially criminal conduct by one of the most senior Members of the House;

Whereas an editorial in The Washington Times newspaper on September 1, 2009 noted, “Charlie Rangel is one lucky guy. The Democratic congressman from Harlem, N.Y., just discovered that his net wealth is twice what he thought. That’s a pretty good day at the office for a public servant. Mr. Rangel also realized that he made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. This is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for Mr. Rangel, who last year admitted he had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his Caribbean resort property.”;

Whereas the same editorial also noted, “The congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in New Jersey, according to the New York Post. That’s not all. In order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, Mr. Rangel simultaneously claimed three ‘primary residences’.”;

Whereas an editorial in the September 17, 2009 edition of the New Haven Register stated, “The ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee controls writing of the nation’s tax laws. The New York Democrat may write those laws, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. The investigation appears to have a long way to go. The man who is in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws doesn’t pay his federal income or local property taxes. He has such a poor grasp of his own finances that he neglects to list half his assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of Congress accountable and honest. We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. If Charlie Rangel doesn’t have to pay his taxes, why should I?”;

Whereas, an article in The Washington Post on September 15, 2009 stated, “Rangel is now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a man of immense importance in Washington. Nonetheless, he has been busy of late revising and amending the record, backing and filling, using buckets of Wite-Out as he discovers or remembers properties he has owned in New York, New Jersey, Florida, the Dominican Republic and God only knows where else. Rangel recently even discovered bank accounts that no one in the world, apparently including him, knew he had. One was with the Congressional Federal Credit Union; another was with Merrill Lynch – each valued between $250,000 and $500,000. He somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure forms, which means, if you can believe it, that when he signed the forms, he did not notice that maybe $1 million was missing. Someone ought to check the lighting in his office.”;

Whereas the same article in The Washington Post stated, “There is something wrong with Charlie Rangel. Either he did not notice that he was worth about twice as much as he said he was – which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader – or he thinks he’s above the law, which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader.”;

Whereas it has been more than one year since an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, “Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.”;

Whereas at various times during the past twelve months Representative Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have made public statements asserting that the ongoing investigation of Representative Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would soon be concluded;

Whereas the Committee has to date issued no public statements concerning any expected timeline for conducting or concluding its investigation of Representative Rangel;

Whereas major daily newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post , and The New York Post have called for Representative Rangel’s removal from his powerful position at least until the House Ethics Committee has completed its ongoing probes of allegations against him;

Whereas, Representative Rangel’s powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high level decisions about critically important issues such as reform of the nation’s health care system;

Whereas an October 1, 2009 story in The New York Times stated, “Mr. Rangel is one of a small group of House leaders now meeting almost daily behind closed doors with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to distill from the three bills produced in separate committees the one package that will go to the House floor.;

Whereas an Associated Press story on September 20, 2009 stated, “The ethics committee’s investigation of Rangel is almost a year old. It’s as much a problem for House Democratic leaders as for Rangel himself. Later this year, when Rangel’s committee considers estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters, the headlines will be a version of this message: ‘Tax scofflaw presiding over tax changes.’”;

Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, “A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.”;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity; Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments;

Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi’s continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over “the most ethical Congress in history” have held the House up to public ridicule; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means."

Redux;600181 wrote:

Yesterday, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted unanimously to expand the jurisdiction of the committee's investigation of Rangel.

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Rangel_Press_Statement_Oct_8_2009.PDF

IMO, that is how the process should work...and in the meantime, there is nothing in the current rules/standards that allow for removal from a chairmanship during that process.

What is so wrong about following the rules?

Democrats lock Republicans out of committee room

By Susan Crabtree - 10/20/09 05:47 PM ET

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren’t present.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

Republicans charged that Towns cancelled the meeting to avoid the subpoena vote. Democrats first claimed the mark-up was canceled due to a conflict with the Financial Services Committee. Later they said it was abandoned after a disagreement among Democratic members on whether to subpoena records on the mortgage industry’s political contributions to Republicans.

A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.

Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting.

Redux;602455 wrote:

It was pure political theater on the Republican side...so they can go before the [COLOR="Red"]friendly media[/COLOR] and announce that the Democrats blocked subpoenas of that big bad lending institution.

classicman;602470 wrote:

Since when has the media been friendly to the R's anyway???

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) angrily took Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) to task today for failing to launch an investigation in the Countrywide Financial Corp.’s VIP program and questionable lending practices....


Towns responded by reiterating his belief that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into Countrywide’s activities, a reason he previously gave Issa and reporters for failing to launch a committee probe. Towns said the committee did not want to impede the Justice probe in any way so would not pursue its own investigation.

“The Justice Department, I understand, is seriously looking into it,” Towns said during the hearing.

There is no way to know how extensive or limited the DOJ investigation is, or whether it exists because the DOJ does not usually acknowledge investigations until it issues indictments or formal charges. Issa pointed out the fact that Bank of America and Countrywide executives have acknowledged that they have not received any subpoenas for information, but would provide answers to specific questions about the VIP program and other matters, if subpoenaed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60951-issa-blasts-towns-for-not-investigating-countrywide

classicman;602470 wrote:

Since when has the media been friendly to the R's anyway???

Towns Walks on Thin Caucus Ice
By Tory Newmyer and Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
Oct. 22, 2009, 12 a.m.
Government Reform Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) is facing heat from up and down the Democratic ladder after locking Republicans out of his committee room this week in an ongoing spat over a mortgage lending controversy.

Towns’ move set off alarms in House Democratic leadership, with top staffers voicing growing concern Wednesday that the Oversight chairman is losing control of his panel amid a showdown with ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). It was unclear Wednesday evening whether leaders would intervene, but aides made clear they were now monitoring the situation.

“It will be on the agenda going forward,” one senior Democratic aide said.

And while committee Democrats blasted what they called partisan cheap shots from their Republican counterparts, some also decried their own panel leadership for allowing the dispute to distract from other work.

“There seem to be a lot of theatrics, and I wish we would get beyond the theatrics and get some real work done for the American people,” said Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), an Oversight member.

House Democrats blocked the public from attending the unveiling ceremony of their health care bill Thursday morning, allowing only pre-approved visitors whose names appeared on lists to enter the event at the West Front of the Capitol.

The audience at the crowded press conference included Hill staffers, union workers, health care providers and students, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who thanked them for attending.

Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders announced the chamber's long-awaited version of a health care overhaul, which would expand insurance coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, costing less than $900 billion over 10 years.

The West Front of the Capitol -- where President Obama was inaugurated -- is traditionally open to the public. But the entrances were blocked off Thursday morning by metal fences, with Capitol Police officers standing next to staff members holding clipboards with lists of approved attendees.

"The steps of the Capitol are and should be open to the public," Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, said on the House floor Thursday night. But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, denied the charge.

"I was there. I saw nobody turned away. I saw nobody precluded from attending," he told Mr. Cantor.

Videos posted on YouTube, including by Mr. Cantor's office, showed people being turned away by staffers or police. In the video from Mr. Cantor's office, a police officer tells a Republican staffer they are being denied access "per the speaker's staff."

By Thursday evening Republicans were using the closed-to-the-public event as a fundraising tool.

"Pelosi and her liberal allies want us to know as little about this legislation as possible, because it cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Why else would Pelosi forbid the public from attending the event?" the National Republican Congressional Committee said in its plea for contributions.

A 2008 Congressional Research Service report says using the Capitol's West Front usually requires a joint resolution of Congress, though in some cases a simple police permit will suffice.

"Events that entail the use of the West Front Steps of the Capitol, electricity on the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol, require more than 24 hours from setup to cleanup, require vehicles on Capitol Grounds for setup, or will have a large number of Members in attendance typically require a concurrent resolution," the report said.

Congress did not pass such a resolution. Asked about whether a special permit was issued, a Capitol Police spokeswoman referred calls to the House Sergeant at Arms Office, which didn't return calls seeking comment. Mrs. Pelosi's spokesman also didn't return messages asking about the authorization to close down the space.

"Pelosi and her liberal allies want us to know as little about this legislation as possible, because it cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Why else would Pelosi forbid the public from attending the event?" the National Republican Congressional Committee said in its plea for contributions.

classicman;604495 wrote:

I call Bullshit. This information on this legislation is every-fuckin-where. They are more than happy to tell everyone what is in it.

TheMercenary;604584 wrote:

Sure they are. It has never been about what they are telling us. It is what we are not being told.

Redux;604630 wrote:

I thought it was about not being transparent or not making the bill available for all to read prior to the floor debate and vote.....Ahhhh....different bitching and moaning.

Anyone can read the full bill, a two-page summary, a ten-page summary, 20 different fact sheets on the components of the bill and more.

But it won't tell some what they want to here....for that, there are the ideological ops ed from the other side. The ones that describe it as socialism, government take over of health care, screwing grandma.

Or as the Republican leader in the Senate said today, [I]"...the public option may cost you your life."

TheMercenary;604632 wrote:

Correct the bill was completely formed behind closed doors with no bi-partisan input. The ideas formed by committtee with no in put from anyone other than Demoncrats.

TheMercenary;604633 wrote:

Hey Redux. How about all those jobs the White House claims they made. To bad they can't show anyone how they got their numbers and most experts agree it is more smoke and mirrors bullshit from Rahm. :lol:

TheMercenary;604632 wrote:

Fact sheets out by the White House and the Dems. Partisan.

Redux wrote:

But it won't tell some what they want to here....for that, there are the ideological ops ed from the other side. The ones that describe it as socialism, government take over of health care, screwing grandma....

The facts are painful.

TheMercenary;604632 wrote:

Redux wrote:

Or as the Republican leader in the Senate said today, "...the public option may cost you your life."

I could only hope.

spudcon;604667 wrote:

Why fact sheets? Why not the 2000 sheet bill they're voting on?

xoxoxoBruce;604696 wrote:

And those, "detailed briefings" and "easy-to-read four or ten page summaries", are created by non-partisan, no axe to grind, no agenda, never saw a lobbyist, Capitol Fairies. :rolleyes:

The summarized intent of a bill, is rarely the full consequences of a law that gets passed. Sure keeps the lawyers and courts busy, though.

Shawnee123;604709 wrote:

....He's my congressman, my district. I waited on him as the wanna-be's in town courted him at the Country Club (years ago!)

Redux;604702 wrote:

And of course, the health insurance companies love this bill so much, they are spending $millions in lobbying and public media campaigns against it.

There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.

Or we could just continue to let the problem fester.

Redux;604670 wrote:

Hey...I admit that Boehner waving the 1900+ bill makes great political theater!

Redux;604702 wrote:

There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.

classicman;604810 wrote:

I'm curious who you think the losers are.

classicman;604938 wrote:

So apparently you think this is a slam-dunk great deal. Interesting. I haven't really heard that position from anyone else, including those who support it. Everyone seems to think this is some type of compromise or a great first step.

shrug.

Redux;604702 wrote:

IMO, the big winners are:
[INDENT]the 30-40 million currently uninsured,

the 200+ million who are now covered by employer-based plans who wont see their contributions continue to increase at a rate more than double their salary every year,

and those with pre-exisiting conditions who will no longer be denied coverage at affordable rates.[/INDENT]

Redux;604874 wrote:

The biggest losers:
the private insurance companies

the top 1/2 of one percent of wage earners in the country.
Employers with payrolls over $750K (those not currently offering employer-based plans)

And of course, the private insurance companies

Talk about bad timing.


As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.


Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.


CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.


All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.


“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”


The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.


Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.


But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.


Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.


Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.

Clodfobble;606805 wrote:

I thought you were pissed that they kept making laws that only affected the richest people's income?

WASHINGTON — Former Representative William J. Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat whose political career once seemed to hold high promise, was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for using his office to try to enrich himself and his relatives.

Baucus Nominated Girlfriend for U.S. Attorney
WASHINGTON - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus defended recommending his girlfriend for appointment as Montana's U.S. attorney, saying Saturday that his one-time staff member and the former state prosecutor is "highly qualified" but eventually withdrew her nomination.

Baucus said that he began dating former state office director Melodee Hanes after they were both separated from their spouses. The Montana Democrat said they did not have an affair, but began dating while she worked for him.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called Saturday for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation of Baucus' actions. Steele said the panel should determine "why Senator Baucus put his personal needs above those of the people of Montana."

WASHINGTON — Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, toured a prince’s vineyard and castle in Liechtenstein and spent an afternoon at a ski resort in the Alps — all at the expense of a group of European companies.

Representative Danny K. Davis, an Illinois Democrat, got the dignitary treatment when a big donor flew him to Inner Mongolia to lobby for a new medical supplies factory in rural China.

And Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, on another privately sponsored trip, stayed at the historic King David Hotel in Jerusalem and attended a gala party near the Western Wall as part of a weeklong conference that lobbyists and executives paid as much as $18,500 to attend.

Despite changes intended to curb Congressional junkets, some lawmakers and even their families continue to take trips hosted by private groups and companies that revel in their access to Washington power brokers.

An examination by The New York Times of 1,150 trips shows that some of them bent or broke rules adopted in 2007 to limit corporate influence in Washington. Others exploited glaring loopholes in the guidelines, enacted with much fanfare after scandals involving the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

TheMercenary;615658 wrote:

And no one seems to think this is out of line?

glatt;615665 wrote:

Sure it's out of line, but it's what I would expect from a pig like Steele. He's just throwing mud and hoping it will stick.

Nothing wrong with recommending a friend or even a lover for a job they are qualified for. The ultimate decision to hire wouldn't have been his, and he wouldn't have been supervising her. I've recommended friends for jobs. Wouldn't you?

TheMercenary;615669 wrote:

appearance of impropriety

glatt;615676 wrote:

Based on my reading of your article, this is exactly the opposite of an impropriety. Did you read the article? She was working in his office for him. He fell in love with her. Because he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his office, they thought it would be best if she didn't work for him any more. So he recommended her for another job for which she was qualified. The US Attorney job would have taken her back to the state where she had formerly been a highly regarded state prosecutor. The same type of work she had done so well before, but in a different court system.

It all wound up being moot though, because she found an even better job without his help.

The thing this demonstrates is that the Republicans here are just throwing mud and hoping some will stick. There is nothing to investigate. The facts are all known, and they make Baucus look pretty good and Steele look like a pig.

In a statement issued by his office Saturday, Baucus said that "as we grew closer and things progressed, we knew it was time to begin the process of Mel transitioning out of my Senate office."

Here's a poser: Suppose a public official is accused of recommending his girlfriend for a promotion, though he was the one who first flagged the potential conflict of interest and officials had refused to let him recuse himself from decisions about the woman. Should he lose his job?

WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Merck's political action committee donated more than $572,000 to federal candidates in the 2008 election and racked up $4.6 million in expenses to lobby Congress and the executive branch last year, federal records show.

What federal records don't show is that Merck also spent millions on payments to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and several others that are lobbying intensely on a massive bill to revamp the nation's health care system. In all, Merck spent $6.8 million in 2008 to help underwrite the political activity of eight associations and trade groups, according to the company's website.

To date, 50 companies have voluntarily agreed to disclose payments to trade groups, and 24 have started doing so on the Internet, said Maureen O'Brien, the center's research director.

They include health-insurance firm Aetna, which reported $190,000 in political-related payments last year to America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry's trade group, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which reported $128,000 in such dues to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The drugmakers' trade group has backed the Democratic efforts to revamp the nation's health care system and has successfully lobbied the Senate and House to give brand-name drug companies 12 years of exclusive rights to sell pricey biotech drugs before they face competition from cheaper generic versions. Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the trade group, would not say whether it has imposed higher dues on drug companies in 2009 to fund this year's lobbying battle on health care, but said "activity has been ratcheted up."

The group has pumped nearly $19.9 million into lobbying during the first nine months of 2009, up from $14.1 million during the same period last year, federal records show.

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill that rewards most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.

The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work — only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain — into a 1,000-plus-page spending bill that would give the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others increases far exceeding inflation.

The 60-34 vote met the minimum threshold to end the GOP filibuster. A final vote was set for Sunday afternoon to send the measure to President Barack Obama.

Democrats held the vote open for an hour to accommodate Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew who walked more than three miles to the Capitol to vote on the Sabbath after attending services at his synagogue in the city's Georgetown neighborhood. Lieberman wore a black wool overcoat and brilliant orange scarf — as well as a wide grin — as he provided the crucial 60th vote.

The measure combines $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in mandatory payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. It wraps together six individual spending bills and also contains more than 5,000 back-home projects sought by lawmakers in both parties.

The measure provides spending increases averaging about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, NASA and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers.

It bundles six of the 12 annual spending bills, capping a dysfunctional appropriations process for budget year that began Oct. 1, dysfunctional appropriations process in which House leaders blocked Republicans from debating key issues and Senate Republicans dragged out debates.

Consolidated Spending Bill – $9,500 per U.S. Family
Posted by Jim Harper, December 10, 2009 at 9:34 am

The House plans to put all but one of the spending bills that haven’t been completed into one and pass it, perhaps as early as today. The damage is about $9,500 in spending per U.S. family.

The Trasnportation/HUD spending bill will be renamed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010″ and all but one of the remaining bills will be folded into it. The defense spending bill will be treated separately.

We’ll update the cost figures for the transportation/consolidated bill soon, but to get you an idea, here are the bills going into it:

H.R. 2847, The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $570 per U.S. family
H.R. 3170, The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010 – $370 per U.S. family
H.R. 3293, The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $6,160 per U.S. family
H.R. 3082, The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010 – $1,020 per U.S. family
H.R. 3081, The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 – $380 per U.S. family
H.R. 3288, The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $1,070 per U.S. family

Billions of stimulus dollars had been spent or allocated in Colorado by the end of the third quarter, but The Denver Post reports [1] that the majority of that money had gone to the wealthiest counties. Seven out of 10 counties with the highest unemployment rates in Colorado rank in the bottom half of per-capita stimulus spending, according to the Post. Part of the problem, one small-town administrator says, is that poorer areas can’t afford to get projects “shovel ready” for federal funds. But stimulus administrators point out that merely taking a per-capita look is insufficient because some areas – like Boulder, where the University of Colorado is located – received more funds because of large research grants.

From the smallest of town councils to entire state governments, politicians have been using their stance on the stimulus package as a way to win political favor, reports msnbc.com [2], and it’s causing some serious headaches. Reporter Mike Stuckey looks at North Platte, Neb., where a former housing authority director got canned for supporting the stimulus, despite the housing authority’s rejection of the funds, and Worland, Wyo., where school district trustees turned down stimulus money, despite having low-ranking elementary and high schools.

And finally, The New York Times reports [3] that it’s déjà vu all over again with the health care reform battle, as the political lines being drawn replicate those from the fight to pass the stimulus bill last winter. A band of centrist lawmakers, including Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, R-Maine, Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., wielded their considerable power to scale back the stimulus bill, and they’re doing it again on health care reform.

TheMercenary;617498 wrote:

This is what else it paid for.

Consolidated Spending Bill – $9,500 per U.S. Family


http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2009/12/10/consolidated-spending-bill-9500-per-u-s-family/

TheMercenary;617507 wrote:

Pork report. See where your tax dollars went:

Taxpayer watchdog groups say the bills are loaded with thousands of earmarks, the pork-barrel spending projects lawmakers include to direct money to pet projects.

Redux;617562 wrote:

The 2005 record is not in jeopardy......13,997 projects for a total of $27.3 billion!

COURIC: Is there anything in the Senate version that you think shouldn't be in the package?
PELOSI: I would like to have seen more of an emphasis on job creation. I don't think there's any doubt that the House bill created more jobs. But this bill will create 3.5 million jobs and three weeks ago we weren't even on this path. I always say to my members, respect it for what it does, rather than judge it for what it does not do, because this does an enormous amount. And in order for it to instill the confidence into the American people, I think we have to believe in what we are doing and we believe in what we are doing.

Redux;617638 wrote:

Both the CBO and GAO studies showed between 650,000 and 1,500,000 million jobs created or saved in the first nine months. Given that a large part of the recovery money has yet to be obligated (by intent), the projections for the anticipated life of the program (18 months to 2 years) exceed 2.5 million.

Its not a perfect program and there is abuse and faulty record keeping, but nearly all economists have agreed the program has helped the economy from falling off the cliff.

Of course, we know you only accept CBO figures when it supports your agenda and disparage it when it doesnt.....and you have called the program a failure even before it has reached its halfway point.

Your economic plan was so much better....let everything fail and unemployment explode, the strong will survive, and the economy will correct itself.

For one who cares about the little people and the unemployed, that sounds, not only heartless, but irresponsible as well.

TheMercenary;617670 wrote:

Which is why the numbers are pure fantasy and propaganda by the White House. They are filled with fraud, waste, and abuse. Including pet projects and pure pork for Demoncratic Senators who jumped on the money train. Kabuke Theather.

Concerning job creation it has been a complete failure. That is what I am addressing.:eyebrow: Where are the jobs they promised us.

Which plan was that? :lol:

Those are your words not mine. :rolleyes:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the actual number may be more than twice what Recovery.gov says, and as much as 50 percent more than what Obama has been saying. The nonpartisan agency found that:
[INDENT]CBO, Nov. 30: [I]n the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.[/INDENT]
That’s a pretty broad spread, but CBO says the range includes the views of most economists and reflects the inherent uncertainty of such estimates. The agency, unlike Recovery.gov, didn’t depend just on reports filed by recipients of stimulus funds to make its calculations, because the reports don’t provide a complete picture of the law’s impact on jobs. For one thing, the reports measure only jobs created or saved by employers who receive stimulus money directly or their immediate subcontractors, but not lower-level contractors. In addition, the fact that grant recipients and their workers have money in their pockets means they’ll spend some of it on products and services, creating more jobs. And the reports, CBO notes, only cover some of ARRA’s spending; the effects of tax cuts, transfers to individuals (such as unemployment payments) and other elements of the stimulus package aren’t measured on Recovery.gov....

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/stimulus-jobs-re-revisited/

classicman;617804 wrote:

Just asking here - you two go ahead and sling mud at each other all you want.... Who owns/runs factcheck?

Oh and this jobs created/saved is a bunch of crap - there is no way to eally account for jobs "saved".

Redux;617832 wrote:

Fact Check in a project of the Annenburg Foundation, but the facts are from the CBO report.

temporary infusion of federal money to replace the temporary lost tax revenue.

So you think the recovery program has been a failure, like Merc?

Or will you straddle the fence, like you always do?

classicman;618081 wrote:

IIRC they are a left leaning organization. However, getting the info from those who are trying to convince us that they made the right decision is still more than difficult. Large grain of salt. I remember very clearly when the promises of "jobs created" became "created or saved" It was a brilliant redesignation.

and when that money is gone? Then what?

I dunno - Merc can certainly speak for himself. For me, Its too early to tell. There is still a lot of money that hasn't been spent. It is still in the pipeline. There was a lot of waste and pork, but thats not uncommon.
So far though, I'm not really all that impressed. I have friends in different business sectors who got stimulus money and their input has confirmed my initial skepticism.

You mean will I blindly follow one or the other? no thanks. I did that long enough. I severed those ties. I refuse to bury my head up the ass of either party, like some people. You, however, don't have that luxury since you are part of the Democratic party.

Redux;618111 wrote:

The data is not from Fact Check, but from the non-partrisan CBO...nice try.

I agree that Obama over-promised

. . .but that doesnt take away from the success of the program to-date. Most economists agree that the recovery funds have made a difference.

The intent has always been temporary...until the economy, including state and local tax bases, recover.

Your posts would suggest otherwise, but that is just my opinion and you certainly can disagree.

classicman;618129 wrote:

Interpretation of the data .. . sigh


<faints>

just not anywhere near the job creation that we were sold. So they changed that to created or saved. cough/bullshit/cough
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
This one just has a different sales pitch.


The tax bases that are dwindling, you mean? What about Stimulus II thats floating around?

Well you know what they say about opinions . . .

Redux;618134 wrote:

Shove it up your ass.

EDINBURGH -- The expenses racked up by U.S. lawmakers traveling here for a conference last month included one for the "control room."

Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.

While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.

Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early.

The tour provides a glimpse of the mixture of business and pleasure involved in legislators' overseas trips, which are growing in number and mostly financed by the taxpayer. Lawmakers travel with military liaisons who carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor. Typically, spouses come along, flying free on jets operated by the Air Force. Legislative aides come too. On the ground, all travel in chauffeured vehicles.

The cost they reported for such travel abroad was $13 million in 2008, a 70% jump from 2005, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records. Lawmakers don't have to report the cost of domestic travel when the government pays. The $13 million didn't include the expense of flying on Air Force planes, which lawmakers don't have to disclose.

Over the 2005-08 period, the cost of legislators' privately funded travel, both domestic and overseas, fell 70%, to $2.9 million, according to LegiStorm.com, a Web site that tracks it.

Lawmakers must reveal only general information about the travel, such as countries visited. Several weeks after a trip, they report the overall cost, without a detailed breakdown. This account of congressional travel is based on trip itineraries provided by lawmakers, meeting schedules and what two Journal reporters saw. Mr. Tanner's office and other lawmakers confirmed many details of the account and didn't dispute the others.

The blending of business and pleasure on the trip to Scotland was typical, aides and lawmakers say. In August, two Republican senators, Richard Shelby of Alabama and John Cornyn of Texas, went to Europe with their wives and aides to meet with banking regulators and industry executives. Military officials picked up Mr. Shelby's luggage at his office. A separate government car drove him and his wife to the airport. "That is typically how the military handles departures on congressional delegations," said a spokesman for the senator.

Over the 2005-08 period, the cost fell 70%,

TheMercenary;617670 wrote:

Which plan was that? :lol:

TheMercenary;619116 wrote:

The taxpayer should not be paying for their wives.

richlevy;619139 wrote:

Exactly.

TheMercenary;619141 wrote:

The Republickins are no better if they can't produce a plan, but they have pretty much [strike]been[/strike] locked themselves out of the process.

richlevy;619256 wrote:

Fixed it for ya.:right:

To put it kindly, the stimulus package that President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rushed through Congress at the beginning of his presidency has been a flop. It is not just that the $789 billion package has not had the effect the White House promised it would; it's that it may actually have been counterproductive, actually lengthening the recession by effectively taking money out of the private economy, where it could have been used to create jobs and for investment purposes. Instead it has been parceled out by the government, which has been unable to track where it has gone or what impact it has really had on job creation. And that has led to any number of fallacious statements by senior administration officials about jobs "created or saved."

There is really no way to assess the number of jobs "saved," which has been the principle rallying cry of the White House over the last few months. Moreover, as data released Friday by the Republicans on the House Committee on Ways and Means makes clear, payroll employment has declined in every state except North Dakota and in the District of Columbia in the nine months since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been law. Likewise the national unemployment rate, which Obama promised would not exceed 8 percent if the stimulus became law, has reached a 25-year high of over 10 percent.

As the table below indicates, in no state has anything like the promised job creation occurred. In Alabama, for example, the White House estimated that the stimulus package would generate 52,000 jobs by the end of calendar 2010. Yet the government's own figures show the state has lost a net 30,700 jobs through the end of November 2009. In Illinois, which sent Barack Obama to Washington back in November 2004, the White House estimated a net increase of 148,000 jobs but the state has lost more than 150,000 thus far.

In California, the home state of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the prediction was that 396,000 new jobs would be created by the end of next year. So far it has lost just over 340,000. In Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in the fight of his political life as far as his 2010 re-election bid is concerned, the estimates predicted 34,000 new jobs would be created. So far this year, since the stimulus has been enacted, it has lost more than 50,000.

Pelosi said she wouldn't change course on health care just because Americans are turning against the plan.

classicman;617488 wrote:

Of course they are, Merc. I don't think anyone here is under the influence. The typical dwellar is much smarter than the average beer, ya know.

Nearly every staff member of Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith's office quit Monday morning in response to his decision to switch parties. His chief of staff resigned, along with his entire legislative and communications team -- many of whom have worked for Griffith since before he arrived in Washington.

"Alabama's Fifth District has deserved and has benefited from great Democratic conservative leadership since Reconstruction. And until now they had it," Chief of Staff Sharon Wheeler said. "I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake -- a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat. As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we all remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley.
But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him. It is with deep sadness that we leave our work for the Fifth District. But because we are unwavering in our own principles, we have no choice but to move on. We do not know what the future holds, but we are taking a leap of faith with the belief we will soon find ourselves in the employment of principled public officials."

Democrats moved closer to a final deal on health care reform Thursday &#8212; and for some vulnerable members, the end can&#8217;t come soon enough.

In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer.

A Democrat who attended the Ways and Means session said Pomeroy was &#8220;very angry&#8221; as he spoke about the delay. &#8220;Other folks were upset, but he was the maddest by far.&#8221;

&#8220;I believe Congress needs to resolve fairly quickly this protracted health care debate,&#8221; Pomeroy told POLITICO on Thursday. &#8220;We have a number of other issues that haven&#8217;t been able to get enough attention, because health care is taking up all the floor time, all of the attention. We need to move on.&#8221;

Pomeroy is hardly alone.

Rank-and-file members throughout the House Democratic Caucus are anxious to get past the health care debate &#8212; whatever the outcome &#8212; so that they can turn their attention to less polarizing issues that could help them win reelection in November.

WASHINGTON&#8212;Democrats' loss in Tuesday's race for a Massachusetts Senate seat is a stark illustration of how support from independent voters has collapsed, a phenomenon that's prompting party leaders to revamp their playbook for this year's midterm elections.

Independent voters&#8212;typically centrist, white and working-class&#8212;backed President Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008. But Massachusetts is now the third Obama-won state in the past three months where independents have swung decisively Republican.

Democratic strategists worry the numbers paint a gloomy picture in states with competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races this year, especially those where independent voters hold sway, including Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio. Those states weigh heavy on the White House because they will be battlegrounds for Mr. Obama's re-election campaign.

Massachusetts could be problematic again in November when Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick is up for re-election amid dropping approval ratings. Unexpected blue-state contests could erupt for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland.

Republicans in November won the Virginia and New Jersey governorships by winning independents by two-to-one margins. In those states and Massachusetts, polls showed that independents were anxious about the economy and the rising jobless rate, with health care a less important issue.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Air Force detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s use of United States Air Force aircraft for Congressional Delegations (CODELs).

According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker&#8217;s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period &#8212; $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

The following are highlights from the recent release of about 2,000 documents:

* Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international CODEL is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House Speaker&#8217;s family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, &#8220;to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders&#8221; included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey&#8217;s Irish Crème, Maker&#8217;s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

* According to a &#8220;Memo for Record&#8221; from a March 29&#8212;April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, &#8220;CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.&#8221;

* The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to &#8220;view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.&#8221; The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.

&#8220;Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker&#8217;s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,&#8221; said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch previously obtained internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi&#8217;s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker&#8217;s last minute cancellations and changes.

"What a horrible woman she is."

Straight Bourbon (Sour Mash is a variety of Bourbon) is acceptable. Some examples of Bourbons are Bookers, Basil Hayden, Bakers, Knob Creek, Jack Daniel&#8217;s, Jim Beam, Maker&#8217;s Mark, Old Crow, Old Granddad, Old Weller, Wild Turkey.

Shellac is edible and it is used as a glazing agent on pills (see excipients) and candies in the form of pharmaceutical glaze (alternatively, confectioner's glaze). Because of its alkaline properties, shellac-coated pills may be used for a timed enteric or colonic release.[16] It is also used to replace the natural wax of the apple, which is removed during the cleaning process.[17] When used for this purpose, it has the food additive E number E904. This coating is not vegan and most likely not vegetarian either as it may, and probably does, contain crushed insects. In the tablet manufacture trade, it is sometimes referred to as "beetlejuice"[citation needed] for this reason.

richlevy;634127 wrote:

Food colorings and flavors may not be kosher. In general, the laws of kosher are ...

But Senator Bayh's explanation that recent events had convinced him that "there is too much partisanship and not enough progress" in Washington made entirely too much sense for it possibly to be true. After all, such a decision would be principled, maybe even noble - and in Washington these days, that sounds downright inconceivable.

The two issues Senator Bayh mentioned as straws that broke the camel's back were the failure to establish a bipartisan commission to force Congress to consider fixes to the federal government's long-term budget problems, and the collapse of a compromise jobs bill negotiated by Republican and Democratic senators. Both are excellent examples of politics taking precedence over what's best for the country.

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

Lindsey Graham wrote:

"We've all got Social Security cards, they're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."

Senate majority leader faces re-election challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes that if he repeats a campaign slogan enough, it will become true.

"I'm independent, just like Nevada," the Democrat said Monday after making his campaign official by filing his candidacy with the secretary of state. "The people of Nevada know me. I'm not going to change who I am. I'm the same person today that I used to be."

xoxoxoBruce;633966 wrote:

What the hell is the difference between kosher Bourbon and regular Bourbon? :eyebrow:


edit; Shenanigans...

link

TheMercenary;633969 wrote:

A Rabbi?

ZenGum;640677 wrote:

When did Nevada declare independence??? and are the rest of you going to invade?

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the proposed relocation of naval personnel to the island of Guam, Rep. Hank Johnson expressed his concern for the stability of the tiny U.S. territory -- not its political stability or its economic stability, but its basic, physical stability.

"My fear that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," the Georgia Democrat said, making a tipping motion with his hands.

"We don't anticipate that," Adm. Robert Willard responded.

Guam, like many islands, is attached to the sea floor, and thus unlikely to tip over under normal stresses.

classicman;645864 wrote:

Don't laugh too hard - He's from Georgia too.

TheMercenary;646489 wrote:

Oh God I would just love it if this happened...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406

The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.

By Monica Crowley

During President George W. Bush's two terms, you couldn't drive far without seeing a particular bumper sticker: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now that Democrats control the White House and Congress, the left treats dissent as the lowest form of treason. When the left agitates over government policies, it's considered righteous anger. When the right - and much of the center - agitate, it's painted as the rantings of the criminally and violently insane.

With Obamacare signed into law, Democrats have stopped congratulating themselves long enough to notice that the American people aren't cheering on the sidelines. According to a CNN poll released last week, 58 percent oppose President Obama's handling of Obamacare, while Gallup shows him this week with a 46 percent job approval, his lowest yet. A CBS poll released after the House of Representatives passed Obamacare showed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's favorable rating at 11 percent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's at 8 percent, higher only than Beelzebub's.

Aware that their "reform" is rejected by most of the American people and that they will face serious consequences in November, the Democrats have decided that the best defense is a good offense: Attack those who oppose Obamacare. It doesn't seem to bother most Democrats that that pernicious strategy puts them in the weird and politically untenable position of attacking most of the American people.

Over the past week, a parade of Democrats have accused members of the Tea Party movement and other opponents of Obamacare of threatening them. There may be an infinitesimal number of looney tunes who have engaged in that kind of unacceptable behavior out of hundreds of millions of Americans. But the Democrats have dishonestly extrapolated from a few claimed incidents to taint all those who reject Obamacare as wild-eyed wackos.

If this sounds familiar, it's because the Democrats have shown a disturbing pattern of demonizing those who disagree with them. A year ago, Mr. Obama's Department of Homeland Security issued a report for law enforcement called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." It suggested that anyone who opposed abortion, illegal immigration and oppressive taxes, supported gun rights or served in Iraq and Afghanistan should be singled out for special attention. Why? Because such people might burst into a spasm of violence at any time. There was no mention of being on the lookout for potential violence committed by Islamic jihadists, even after actual acts of violence committed by an Islamic jihadist in Little Rock. (The Fort Hood shooting happened later.)

In other words, if you go to church, believe in protecting innocent life, own a gun or defend your country, the Democrats consider you a potential enemy of the state. It was no coincidence that the Homeland Security report was issued just as the Tea Party movement was gaining real national traction.

Not surprisingly, then, once they had passed their widely unpopular health care bill, the Democrats moved quickly to delegitimize opposition to it. Their defiant move in the face of overwhelming popular resistance gave them another excuse to equate big-government progressives with good patriots and small government advocates with potentially violent nutcases who must be watched.

As if on cue, this week, Homeland Security, the FBI and the Department of Justice's Joint Terrorism Task Force carried out raids against a purported "Christian militia group" in the Midwest. According to reports, nine people have been charged with plotting to kill police officers with "weapons of mass destruction." The indictment describes the group as an "anti-government extremist organization" and the FBI special agent in charge, Andrew Arena, cast it as "radical and fringe." That may be, but the description has a conveniently familiar ring to it.

Interestingly, the head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Dawud Walid, rushed to announce the raids at a CAIR banquet at about the same time the story became public. "We salute the FBI for breaking up a militia that was seeking to harm American Muslims," he said. It's curious that he would know that at a time when the FBI still had the investigation under seal. (We're still waiting to hear why Homeland Security and the FBI chose to use the descriptive word "Christian" when they seem unable to use the word "Muslim" in connection with Islamic extremism.)

It's mind-blowingly coincidental that these raids on a supposedly "Christian" militia group would come at the exact moment that Democrats were trying to change public opinion on Obamacare by claiming persecution by their opponents. They have cast Tea Partiers, conservatives, independents, Christians and militia members as all cut from the same unstable, volatile cloth. How can anyone take their opposition to the Democrats' agenda seriously when they're toting guns and being raided by Homeland Security and the FBI? They're all nuts, don't you know?

The Democrats handle dissent by isolating it, smearing it and delegitimizing it in order to crush it. The warning should be clear: If you have small-government, traditional values, you may be considered by your own leadership to be an enemy of the state.

TheMercenary;647136 wrote:

CROWLEY: Enemies of the stateAdministration smears some opponents, arrests others



Monica Crowley is a nationally syndicated radio host, a panelist on "The McLaughlin Group" and a Fox News contributor

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/enemies-of-the-state/?feat=home_showcase

TheMercenary;647227 wrote:

Like or not, her assessment is accurate.

Redux;647229 wrote:

Of course, we know that you believe with all your heart that conservative talking points are factual and liberal talking points are propaganda.

TheMercenary;647227 wrote:

Like or not, her assessment is accurate.

Redux;647234 wrote:

Its simple, Merc.

Prove that her assessment is accurate...and not with partisan opinions but with objective cites.

Redux;647237 wrote:

So you demand that I provide cites to back it up when I state and fact or an assessment and you demand that I prove your links and assessments are not factual. No burden of proof is ever on you.

Nice try.....I never was on a debate team, but I think it is fair to say that if we were in a formal debate, you would have been tossed from the stage.

Redux;647245 wrote:

You know, the funny thing is if your name was UG, people here would be all over your ass...you say much of the same as UG.

But your "friends" are more than happy to criticize UG, but give you a pass.

I would love to get you in a formal debate here...no links, an objective moderator to ask questions.....but I dont think you have the balls to do it.

Let the people decide. :)

TheMercenary;647247 wrote:

No, really, I am completely open. You have the floor. If you want to dispute the "assessment" that this person has put forward, and so many agree with, please do so. You have my undivided attention. If it is so "partisan" you should be able to just pick it apart.

I respectfully await your response.

Redux;647251 wrote:

Respectfully?

Come on, dude. What ever I post and cite, you will immediately call propaganda or talking points. Anything that contradicts you opinion is automatically propaganda...the CBO, the GAO, independent economists, etc.

That is hardly respectful...or honest.

Find an objective moderator...even from within your family here.....Let that person post questions and we offer our response w/o attacking the other's opinion.

Set a time and lets do it!

Redux;647251 wrote:

Set a time and lets do it!

Redux;647257 wrote:

So I take it that you are not interested in an objective/moderated discussion where you have to justify your opinion and not simply attack.

I propose UT as moderator...our own Tm Russert or Tony Snow...two late (but only one great) talking head/moderators types.

Let me know if you change your mind and we can set the rules with UT.

Redux;647262 wrote:

I know from experience that what ever I say, you will jump in with a charge of "failed" or "propaganda"

Why should I continue to play by your rules.

Make it a level playing field and we can discuss any issue you want.

Are you really that afraid to have a moderated discussion?

Let me know if you change your mind.

PRESS MAN &#8226; ANDREW FERGUSON

Teatime at the Times

The tiny corner of the New York Times empire where David Barstow works is called the investigative unit. The name has an impressive urgency to it, like the title of a TV spin-off&#8212;CSI: Times Investigative Unit. You can imagine guys in Weejuns and khakis getting a hot tip and springing into action, yanking their tweed coats off the backs of chairs and shouting something irreverent and ironical over their shoulders as they bolt for the newsroom door.

Perhaps a new &#8220;torture memo&#8221; has been leaked; maybe a politician has committed an act of creative accounting on Supplement B (3) subpart vii of his financial-disclosure form. Or maybe a large number of Americans way out there in the land beyond the Bronx have been caught holding political opinions that are dangerously bizarre. TIU is on the case.

These strange-thinking Americans, loosely roped together as the Tea Party movement, sent David Barstow on his most recent investigation. His assignment lasted for five uninterrupted months and bore literary fruit, with a 4,500-word front-page story on February 16. &#8220;Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right,&#8221; the headline read&#8212;aptly enough, for a premonitory suggestion of bombs going off just over the horizon rumbled through Barstow&#8217;s story. To the astute Times reader lingering with the paper over breakfast, the hints were unmistakable.

There was the dateline, for one thing: Sandpoint, Idaho. The reader might rub his chin?.?.?.?-Sandpoint? Vaguely familiar...rings a bell...let&#8217;s see...Wait! God Almighty! Yes, that Sandpoint, notorious 15 years ago as the home of gun-slinging Randy Weaver and his Ruby Ridge survivalist compound, the headquarters of the Aryan Nation group of gun owners, a hothouse of gun-owning militias and paramilitary groups with their guns?.?.?.

Undertoad;647265 wrote:

I'd be happy to moderate. I have a decent familiarity with Robert's Rules, spent time in Toastmasters, and took PHI 201: Logic from an excellent prof.

Redux;647280 wrote:

I propose a live "real time" discussion.....in the chat room.... just point me in the right direction.

No links to someone else's opinion, no time for google searches between posts....just responding to questions in our own words based on our knowledge of the issues.

We can decide on topics, rules, etc...but leave the specific questions to UT, with no advance notice.

What could be more fair?

Just need the other side represented!

Shawnee123;647319 wrote:

It's not a threat. It's a SMILIE.


Hahahhahaaaa...a moderated discussion...great suggestion UT but it seems only one of them is willing.

TheMercenary;647209 wrote:

...I accept my responsibility in the exchange but will not waver from my convictions of my statements...

TheMercenary;647216 wrote:

So what is your solution?

Allow his propaganda to stand on it's merit?

Shawnee123;647323 wrote:

The other side's second person can be UG...kinda level the playing field. ;)

Shawnee123;647329 wrote:

I'm gonna be on Dancing With the Cellar Stars!

Redux;649173 wrote:

Unfortunately, there will be no post-discussion dancing in the Cellar due to someone in the proposed main event having cold feet. :cry:

Months after President Obama urged federal agencies last year to cut wasteful spending, the U.S. Department of State paid $3,814 to fill an order of Jack Daniel's whiskey for gratuities at one of its many overseas embassies.

The booze buy wasn't unusual.

Last year alone, the State Department sent taxpayers tabs totaling nearly $300,000 for alcoholic beverages &#8212; about twice as much compared to the previous year, according to an analysis of spending records by The Washington Times.

Shawnee123;647319 wrote:

It's not a threat. It's a SMILIE.


Hahahhahaaaa...a moderated discussion...great suggestion UT but it seems only one of them is willing.

TheMercenary;649178 wrote:

Taxpayers foot State Department's stiff liquor bill




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/taxpayers-foot-state-departments-stiff-liquor-bill/

Barack Obama hopes his famous health care victory will mark him as a transformative president. History, however, may judge it to have been his missed opportunity to be one.

Health care will not be seriously revisited for at least a generation, so the system's costliest defect -- untaxed employer-provided insurance, which entangles a high-inflation commodity, health care, with the wage system -- remains. Obama could not challenge this without adopting measures -- e.g., tax credits for individuals, enabling them to shop for their own insurance -- that empower individuals and therefore conflict with his party's agenda of spreading dependency.

On Sunday, as will happen every day for two decades, another 10,000 baby boomers became eligible for Social Security and Medicare. And Congress moved closer to piling a huge new middle-class entitlement onto the rickety structure of America's Ponzi welfare state. Congress has a one-word response to the demographic deluge and the scores of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities: "More."

There will be subsidized health insurance for families of four earning up to $88,200 a year, a ceiling certain to be raised, repeatedly. The accounting legerdemain spun to make this seem affordable -- e.g., cuts (to Medicare) and taxes (on high-value insurance plans) that will never happen-- is Enronesque.

As America's teetering tower of unkeepable promises grows, so does the weight of government, in taxes and mandates that limit investments and discourage job creation. America's dynamism, and hence upward social mobility, will slow, as the economy becomes what the party of government wants it to be -- increasingly dependent on government-created demand.

Promoting dependency is the Democratic Party's vocation. It knows that almost all entitlements are forever, and those that are not -- e.g., the lifetime eligibility for welfare, repealed in 1996 -- are not for the middle class. Democrats believe, plausibly, that middle-class entitlements are instantly addictive and, because there is no known detoxification, that class, when facing future choices between trimming entitlements or increasing taxes, will choose the latter. The taxes will disproportionately burden high earners, thereby tightening the noose of society's dependency on government for investments and job-creation.

Politics in a democracy is transactional: Politicians seek votes by promising to do things for voters, who seek promises in exchange for their votes. Because logrolling is how legislative coalitions are cobbled together in a continental nation, the auction by which reluctant House Democrats were purchased has been disillusioning only to sentimentalists with illusions about society's stock of disinterestedness.

Besides, some of the transactions were almost gorgeous: Government policy having helped make water scarce in California's Central Valley, the party of expanding government secured two votes by increasing rations of the scarcity. Thus did one dependency lubricate legislation that establishes others.

The bill is a museum of hoary artifacts from liberalism's attic. The identity politics of quasi-quotas? The secretary of health and human services "in awarding grants and contracts under this section ... shall give preferences to entities that have a demonstrated record of ...training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds." And the bill creates an Advisory Council on Green, High-Performing Public School Facilities, and grants for "retrofitting necessary to increase the energy efficiency and water efficiency of public school facilities."

The public will now think the health care system is what Democrats want it to be. Dissatisfaction with it will intensify because increasingly complex systems are increasingly annoying. And because Democrats promised the implausible -- prompt and noticeable improvements in the system.

Forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to persons because of pre-existing conditions, thereby making the risk pool more risky, will increase the cost of premiums. Public complaints will be smothered by more subsidies. So dependency will grow.

Seeking a silver lining? Now, perhaps, comes Thermidor.

That was the name of the month in the French Revolutionary calendar in which Robespierre fell. To historians, Thermidor denotes any era of waning political ardor. Congressional Democrats will not soon be herded into other self-wounding votes -- e.g., for a cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme as baroque as the health legislation. During the Democrats' health care monomania, the nation benefited from the benign neglect of the rest of their agenda. Now the nation may benefit from the exhaustion of their appetite for more political risk.

classicman;649508 wrote:

Merc - Perhaps you could start your own thread - "Merc's Madness" - and put all the links there.

The legislation, H.R.4621, the Prevent Deceptive Census Look-Alike Mailings Act, would require any mailing with an envelope marked &#8220;Census&#8221; to clearly indicate the sender and return address. It would also trigger an existing requirement in federal law to include a disclaimer that the mailing is not from, or affiliated with, the federal government. The bill would not prohibit the use of the word &#8220;Census&#8221; on a mailing, but the mailer must make clear that it is NOT sent by the United States Censu

Words: George Weir
Music Roy Williamson

By the cross our Andrew bore
By the sword oor Wiliam wore
By the croon oor Robert swore
Tae win oor Liberty
Ca' the falcon frae the glen
Ca' the agle frae the ben
Ca' the lion frae his den
Tae win oor Liberty

By the man wha's faith was old
By the man they sold for gold
By the man they'll never hold
Tae win oor Liberty
Ca' the thieves o' Liddesdale
ca' the spears o' Annandale
Ca' the brave of Yattowvale
Tae win oor Liberty

By the arm that bends the bow
By the arm that plies the blow
By the arm that lays them low
Tae win oor Liberty
ca' the banners frae the west
Ca' the raven frae his nest
Ca' the clans that dance the best
Tae win oor Liberty

By the field that once was green
By the shield that's silver sheen
By the sword in battle keen
Tae win oor Liberty
Bless the man wha's faith we hold
Bless the man in chains they sold
Bless the man in cloth o' gold
Wha won oor Liberty

The references to "The man sold for gold" would be Wallace, and the man in cloth of gold would be Bruce.

It's probably more about the Wars of INdependence in general rather than just Bannockburn.

The song is a comparatively modern one...(I'd guess the mid 70's), and George Weir wrote several songs that the Corries sang.

WASHINGTON &#8212; The federal budget deficit hit an all-time high for April as the government kept spending to aid the recovery while revenue fell sharply.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday the April deficit soared to $82.7 billion. That was significantly higher than last year's April deficit of $20 billion and the largest imbalance for that month on record.

The government normally runs surpluses in April as millions of taxpayers file their income tax returns. However, income tax payments were down this April, reflecting the impact of the recession which has pushed millions of people out of work.

Total revenues for April were down 7.9 percent from a year ago.

The Obama administration forecast in February that the deficit for this year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing the current record $1.4 trillion set last year. Many private economists believe this year's imbalance will be closer to last year's figure and that deficits will remain high for years to come.

The chance that the majority Democrats will pass a budget this year is &#8220;fading,&#8221; Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.

He is pessimistic because House Democrats don&#8217;t know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats have indicated that would be a tough vote in an election year.

One option Conrad said his staff is now looking at is a deeming resolution.

Like an actual budget measure, the deeming resolution would set the discretionary spending levels for the next fiscal year. But unlike a budget resolution, the deeming resolution would allow Democrats to avoid laying out their fiscal policies for 2011 and beyond.

Centrist House Democrats have been wary of voting for a budget resolution because it&#8217;s likely to project large deficits. Republicans have hammered Democrats over the budget deficit, which they blame on Democratic spending.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that President Barack Obama&#8217;s policies would lead to deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

The House and Senate together have failed to pass a final budget resolution on numerous occasions, including in 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2006. Republicans held both chambers in those Congresses with the exception of 2002, when Democrats controlled the Senate.

classicman;657221 wrote:

Next year's budget is sinking in deep red ink

Link
The fiscal irresponsibility of this is just astounding. Didn't they just pace a law recently that there would be no additional spending that would increase the deficit? How the heck is that gonna happen if they don't create a budget first?
Oi'!

classicman;657308 wrote:

Then what is the point?

classicman;657343 wrote:

So there is no point to doing this at all and its just a total waste of how many man hours and taxpayers money on this worthless nothing. Great - I feel so much better now.

"Our Founding Fathers considered the power of the purse the most important responsibility of the legislative branch. If that power is abused, it can have very serious consequences for our nation, not only threatening our prosperity with huge budget deficits but, ultimately, undermining the economic foundations of our safety and national security. And that&#8217;s why we must start now.......to reform the budget process."

toranokaze;657717 wrote:

The reliance upon a pure fiat currency is one of the signs of the fall of a nation.

Griff;657856 wrote:

... Nothing will get done. [/i]

Griff;657856 wrote:

More good thinking about our current climate from David Brooks. As long as we punish hard work in this country our culture will continue its decline.


In a few years&#8217; time, Ben is going to be disappointed again. He&#8217;s going to find that the outsiders he sent to Washington just screamed at each other at ever higher decibels. He&#8217;s going to find that he and voters like him unwittingly created a political culture in which compromise is impermissible, in which institutions are decimated by lone-wolf narcissists who have no interest in or talent for crafting legislation. Nothing will get done.

Redux;657862 wrote:

I disagree with Brook's basic premise and its not clear at all how the current monetary policy has punished hard work.

Griff;657865 wrote:

we never hear Republicans complain about debt created by war-making.

Redux;657862 wrote:

A recent study found more entrepreneurs starting new businesses in 2009 than at any other time in the past 14 years....in part, because, even with tight lending, money is cheap right now as a result of the current Fed policy.

Griff;657865 wrote:

I don't think Brooks would ever endorse a "hard" currency as it can be too inflexible, suppressing economic expansion. That said, as long as our currency is losing value saving is punished. To go along with what you said we will have to raise taxes and cut services to rebuild the integrity of the dollar. We will have to cut more services than Democrats want and raise more taxes than Republicans want. Both parties live in a fantasy world created by ideology, we only have to read Krugman today to witness the self-delusion. I believe it may be possible to ease the pain in an economic contraction through government spending, but you'll never hear the left calling for cuts during an economic boom, much as we never hear Republicans complain about debt created by war-making.

Getting centrists elected is the tough part since they can't speak to blind ideology. They have no core group to hold in place while they reach out to other voters.

Rand Paul is going to get creamed defending BP the way he is. Sometimes corporations really are the bad guys.

Growing small business should be the focus of centrists. Let's not create a regulatory morass that suppresses start-ups, but we damn well better regulate and hold big business accountable for environmental and economic destruction.

spudcon;657868 wrote:

I think you need to look back at the last century to see who was in charge when all the major deficit making wars were started. It wasn't Republicans. Republicans did get us out of most of them.

lookout123;657893 wrote:

I think you'll find new businesses tend to launch more as unemployment climbs.

We are not arguing that Greenspan's policies were perfect. Nor should anything that follows be construed as a defense of central banking or of the Federal Reserve. Particularly alarming is the way the lender-of-last-resort function has been expanding the moral-hazard safety net and mispricing risk, a trend to which Greenspan no doubt contributed. Our preferred ideal would combine abolition of the Fed and unregulated free banking.
(note: I dont agree with abolishing the Fed and unregulated free banking)

Nonetheless, Alan Greenspan stands out as the most competent--and arguably the only competent--helmsman of United States monetary policy since the creation of the Federal Reserve System. As Milton Friedman observed upon Greenspan's retirement, "For the first 70 years after it opened in 1914, the Fed did far more harm than good, presiding over inflation in two World Wars, converting a moderate recession into the great depression, and then in 1970s, producing the most serious peacetime inflation in our nation's history." By contrast, Greenspan's "performance has indeed been remarkable."
(I dont agree here either..that the Fed policy was largely responsible for the great depression.)

(here is where I agree)
Greenspan not only oversaw relatively low and stable inflation, but also ushered in a striking decline in the volatility of real gross domestic product. Although defenders of macroeconomic intervention often suggest that government policies after World War II dampened business cycles, the truly significant change should be dated at 1987, the year Greenspan assumed office.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/was_greenspans.html

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- On Sept. 15, 2008, America woke up to its worst financial meltdown in generations.

Nearly two years and thousands of pages of legislation later, it is still unclear whether the government has found a way to prevent a similar collapse from happening again.

The Senate passed a financial reform bill Thursday with the aim of stopping future crises before they start. The bill addresses several leading causes: crazy lending practices, risky bets by banks, inflated credit ratings on junky assets and an inability to wind down collapsing financial institutions.

Will it prevent the next crisis? Even proponents of the legislation concede it might not.

Democrats in Congress have added $173 billion in new spending to the federal deficit in just three months since they passed a law requiring that any new expenditures be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget.

They will try this week to add another $197 billion in two separate measures. The House is expected to vote Wednesday on a package of extensions in government aid to unemployed Americans, Medicaid funding for states, and tax breaks that will add $134 billion to the $1.4 trillion deficit.

The Senate is expected to vote this week on a $63 billion supplemental spending bill. Half of that amount would go to the war in Afghanistan. The rest is for aid to Haiti, settlement of land claims with American Indians and discrimination claims of black farmers, compensation of war veterans exposed to Agent Orange, foreign aid to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and replenishment of the government&#8217;s disaster relief fund.

Republicans, who oppose some of the spending outright, say that at the very least all but the $33 billion that the Pentagon needs to continue funding a surge of 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan should be offset by spending cuts.

&#8220;Anything that&#8217;s not directly related to fighting the wars should be paid for,&#8221; said Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican.

Some of the extenders bill is paid for. The extenders bill actually has a higher price tag than $134 bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The full cost is $174 billion. But the measure does create $40 billion in revenues.

So far, it appears that Democrats plan to escape their own rules that require them to offset all new spending by declaring the measures to be &#8220;emergency spending.&#8221;

New spending can also be offset by tax increases under what is known as pay-as-you-go rules, but Republicans oppose tax hikes most of the time and say the problem is too much spending. Many Democrats believe tax increases are necessary but realize that they are highly unpopular with voters.

Another $23 billion in emergency spending on the nation&#8217;s schools is waiting in the wings as well.

Aware that moves toward spending discipline are needed at a time when the national debt is approaching the $13 trillion mark and deficits are slated to add another $10 trillion to that over the next decade, President Obama on Monday proposed to Congress legislation that would allow him to pick items out of legislation sent to him by Congress and mark them for elimination. The measure would give Congress final veto power, however, over whether the president&#8217;s cuts are approved or rejected.

The measure is not expected to be passed by Congress.

When Congress passed PAYGO legislation in February saying they would not spend any more taxpayer money without cutting fat out of the budget elsewhere, Obama hailed lawmakers for committing the country to fiscal responsibility.

&#8220;The United States of America should pay as we go and live within our means again &#8212; just like responsible families and businesses do,&#8221; Obama said on Feb. 18, a few days after signing statutory PAYGO into law.

PAYGO was first enacted in 1990, with even stricter rules than the current law, but expired in 2002. When Democrats regained control of Congress in 2007 they put PAYGO rules in place but those did not carry the weight of law and were flouted constantly.

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire two weeks before PAYGO passed, Obama said of the new law: &#8220;That&#8217;s how we&#8217;ll get our deficit under control.&#8221;

&#8220;That&#8217;s something that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree to &#8212; if we could just stop playing politics, get past the Washington game,&#8221; Obama said.

Only not so much.

Since Congress passed PAYGO, Democrats have added $173 billion in new spending without cutting anything to offset it, according to a tally by Republicans in the Senate. Republican senators have on a few occasions tried to block the spending, but with almost no success.

Thune, the GOP&#8217;s chief deputy whip in the Senate, said that in particular when the extenders bill comes to the Senate later this week, &#8220;there isn&#8217;t anybody, I think, in our conference who is going to abide $150 billion in spending that&#8217;s going to be added to the debt.&#8221;

Thune suggested that unused and unobligated funds from the $787 billion stimulus bill, passed a year ago, be redirected to pay for the new spending.

The Obama administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, did not respond to requests for comment.


WTF

TheMercenary;658675 wrote:

I agree, it will not. More smoke and mirrors by the Demoncratically controlled Congressional Whores, as it was with the Healthcare Reform and Stimulus Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs Package. A big fat FAIL as we are still at a near 10% unemployment rate. Elections are just around the corner folks. Vote the scumbags out.

Spexxvet;658842 wrote:

Fail.

Cite.

Prove it.

Urbane Guerrilla;659593 wrote:

Now, if you think you have anything at all that actually proves Merc's got it wrong, you fucking cite for your position, you socialistic annoyance to all the adults.

Congress is at it again, doing the only thing it seems to know how to do: spending more of the taxpayers' money. This time it is using a collection of popular "must-pass" tax provisions to hide huge new spending increases.

These provisions, better known as the "tax extenders," are a collection of about 45 long-established tax provisions&#8212;such as the R&D credit for businesses and the deductions for property taxes and tuition expenses for individuals&#8212;that expire each year unless Congress extends them. Congress has still not passed the tax extenders for 2010, leaving many taxpayers uncertain of whether they will be able to continue using tax reducers they have routinely factored into their long-term plans.

The pressure is on Congress to pass the tax extenders soon to provide businesses and individuals some stability for planning&#8212;at least for the remainder of the year. Not wanting to let an opportunity go to waste, Congress has larded the extenders bill (H.R. 4213) full of completely unrelated spending increases and tax hikes. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will increase spending by $174 billion[1] and increase taxes by more than $40 billion over 10 years. The result is an irresponsible increase of the cumulative deficit of $134 billion during the same period.

This latest exercise in congressional extravagance shows that Washington has still not received the message that the American people are tired of spending increases and tax hikes. Instead it continues to ignore warnings&#8212;from California to Greece, from Moody's to CBO&#8212;that continued runaway spending will lead to ruin. Better policy would have the tax provisions extended without adding unrelated or irresponsible spending increases to an otherwise necessary bill.

Higher Taxes

The CBO wrongly scores the yearly extension of the tax extenders as tax cuts.[2] As such, Congress has an excuse to raise other taxes because, under Pay-as-You-Go (PAYGO) budget rules currently in place, Congress must offset tax cuts with spending reductions or increases in other taxes. After just a few years of this unnecessary exercise, Congress is now out of relatively painless taxes to hike to "pay for" the extenders.

This is most evident with the distressing tax increase that Congress has chosen to pay for this year's extenders. H.R. 4213 would limit the foreign tax credits U.S. businesses can claim for income taxes paid to other countries. Congress is selling this change as a way to keep jobs in the U.S., but in reality it is an egregious tax hike that will drive more jobs overseas.[3]

If Congress passes H.R. 4213, the tax extenders will be retroactive for the 2010 tax year. In the near future Congress will have to go through this whole routine again to prevent steep tax increases for future tax years. The job-destroying reduction of the foreign tax credit shows that Congress is scraping the bottom of the barrel for tax hikes to offset the extenders. Even more injurious tax hikes could be on the way if Congress continues this annual tax hiking ritual.

More Spending

Beyond the tax extenders and the tax hikes to pay for them, Congress has added $174 billion in new spending that is not completely paid for. The spending largely involves extending the following four programs:

&#8226; Doctor Fix. H.R. 4213 still does not provide a permanent solution to the problem of low Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors. Congressional leaders removed this costly fix from their health care overhaul and instead have kicked the can down the road one more time. H.R. 4213 prevents reductions in Medicare reimbursement for doctors for only 2012 and 2013 at a cost of $63 billion. Senate leaders should get serious about a permanent fix of the Medicare reimbursement for doctors[4] once and for all and find some way to offset spending rather than adding the additional costs to the deficit.

&#8226; Unemployment Insurance Extension. Unemployment Insurance (UI) usually provides benefits for up to six months, with another three months available under the Extended Benefits program in high unemployment states. During this recession Congress has extended maximum UI benefits to almost two years (99 weeks) and made UI benefits slightly more generous. H.R. 4213 continues these extensions and expansion yet again through December 2010 at a cost of $47 billion. While extending UI to 99 weeks eases the financial pain of job loss as individuals look for scarce jobs in the recession, many workers with extended UI stay unemployed longer than those without UI. This measurably raises the unemployment rate. Congress can decide whether that is a worthwhile policy tradeoff. It is not, however, economic stimulus.

&#8226; Another Medicaid Bailout. H.R. 4213 would continue to use federal taxpayer funds to bail out state Medicaid programs at a cost of $24 billion. Medicaid is crippling state budgets, but the solution is not to transfer the cost to the federal taxpayers. Instead, Congress should get serious about Medicaid reform and grant states the flexibility they need to fix the program.[5]

&#8226; COBRA or Nothing. H.R. 4213 would give premium relief only to those unemployed workers who opt for COBRA coverage. It is well documented that COBRA coverage is one of the most expensive options available to those who lose their jobs.[6] Workers would be better served if they were able to decide whether to use this temporary assistance on COBRA or to use another, more affordable option, including policies available in the individual market. Nevertheless, H.R. 4213 would extend COBRA benefits through December 2010 at a cost of $7.8 billion.

These four spending provisions cost a total $142 billion over 10 years. To sneak these spending hikes through, Congress sidestepped its own PAYGO budget rules by designating most it as emergency spending. This is further proof that PAYGO budgeting rules do not inhibit congressional spending and have no impact on lowering the deficit. PAYGO is at best a convenient excuse for Congress to raise taxes.

Bad Policies

Costly spending increases and unnecessary tax hikes are not the only problems with H.R. 4213. The bill also sets other bad policy precedents, including:

More State Bailouts. Included in the $174 billion of new spending is over $31 billion in bailouts for the states. This includes Build America Bonds ($4 billion) and Recovery Zone Bonds ($2.4 billion) that subsidize state infrastructure expenditures, the $24 billion Medicaid bailout described above, and assorted other transfers to the states. In total, the state bailouts comprise 18 percent of the entire bill. That does not include an additional $23 billion that the Obama Administration wants added to the bill to stop state and local governments from laying off 300,000 teachers.[7]

State governments have spent above their means for years. Further bailouts from Washington will only delay the inevitable: States must cut back on spending to more sustainable levels. In the short term, more money from Washington only incentivizes states to continue spending well above what they can afford as Congress continues to cover for their profligacy.

It is time for Congress to stop facilitating the reckless spending of the states. Postponing the day of reckoning any longer is throwing good taxpayer money after bad and makes choices even harder for the states.

Premature Action on Oil Spill. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 sets out the means by which the federal government leads oil spill cleanup efforts and pays for the costs. Generally, the responsible party&#8212;in the current case, BP&#8212;is on the hook for all the cleanup costs, plus up to $75 million in compensation for damages. Beyond the $75 million, an oil spill liability trust fund created via a tax on oil provides an additional $1 billion per event. H.R. 4213 raises this amount to $5 billion and increases the tax from 8 cents per barrel to 32 cents to fund it. Raising the cap may be reasonable, though the tax increase is excessive and premature.

At this early stage, too few facts are in regarding the oil spill for legislative measures to make sense. And in any event, new laws would not affect ongoing cleanup activities, so there is no reason to rush. Once the facts are in, some changes to oil spill laws may be warranted&#8212;but now is not the time to increase taxes on energy. And certainly not in a tax extenders bill.

Defined Benefit Pension Funding Rules. A traditional or defined benefit (DB) pension plan pays retired workers a set benefit, usually a percentage of their pre-retirement income for every year that the worker was employed by the company. The financial health of private-sector DB pensions depends on regular contributions, investment earnings that reach at least a predicted level, and retirees living (and thus receiving benefits) as long as expected. Prior to 2006, when funding rules were tightened, employers were able to avoid cash contributions and could raise promised benefits even if the plan was seriously underfunded.

Because of the recession, certain employers may have to lay off additional workers in order to fully fund their pension plans. The pension relief sections of H.R. 4213 temporarily ease funding requirements for both single-employer and multi-employer pension plans to give them more time to rebuild losses from 2008 and after. At the same time, they still restrict plans from increasing benefits unless the increases are fully and separately funded. This combination is appropriate for the circumstances, but additional pressures for yet more funding relief should be resisted so that the days of irresponsible funding decisions and unpaid-for benefit increases cannot return.

Extension of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Included in the extenders package is a $2.5 billion extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) emergency fund. The Senate beat back an earlier attempt to include this provision in the FY 2011 budget; however, House leadership has managed to include it in the conference agreement. If passed, this would undo the historic welfare reform of 1996.

The TANF Emergency Fund, originally created as part of the stimulus package, was meant as a "temporary" measure. The President, and now Congress, are intent on extending it another year. This anti-reform fund would pay states for increasing their welfare caseloads, providing no incentive to help people into jobs.[8] Such action would completely reverse the successful 1996 reform that helped to move millions of families out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. President Obama has sought to curb this success in the name of "stimulus." His FY 2011 budget aims to extend this program for another year at a price of $2.5 billion.

Stick to Basics

Before H.R. 4213, the tax extenders were already a yearly occasion for Congress to raise taxes under the guise of faux fiscal discipline. Congress has now taken this one step further by using the tax extenders as vehicle to significantly increase spending and the deficit. It is time for Congress to make the tax extenders permanent so it cannot use their annual extension to increase the size of government.

Congress should make all the provisions in the tax extenders that are good policy permanent[9] and allow the ones that are not to expire. It should then cut other taxes to make sure the reforms are revenue-neutral. If it takes these steps, Congress will have one less way to raise taxes and sneak through this kind of irresponsible spending increase in the future.

For 97 years the 12 regional banks of the Federal Reserve system have operated relatively free of political interference from Washington. The looming financial reform bill threatens that independence, not least through an effort to impose new presidential appointees at the regional banks.

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled "Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce." Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to "establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion."

So what else is new, you say? Don't the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game&#8212;to wit, the political allocation of credit. They want to put a network of operatives at the highest level of government who are responsible for making sure that regulators put the hiring of, and lending to, minorities at the top of their priority list. The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate. The post, says the bill, will be "comparable to that of other senior level staff."

The law says this diversity czar will "ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity" of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with "increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts" of each agency and conducting "an assessment" of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for "affordable housing," Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender. Isn't the point of this financial reform supposed to be to make regulators better judges of systemic risks, which means focusing on financial safety and soundness? If the Waters provision passes, federal regulators will have to put racial and gender lending at the top of their watch list when they do their checks on the banks and hedge funds they are regulating.

This is especially pernicious at the Fed regional banks, which have long operated independently of political intrusion. Federal Reserve bank presidents aren't appointed by the President precisely to avoid Treasury and White House control. They are appointed by their regional bank boards.

However, in another threat to Fed independence, the Senate bill departs from that tradition by making the president of the New York Fed a Presidential appointee. Blame for this Congressional intrusion goes to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and former Goldman Sachs executive Stephen Friedman for orchestrating the selection of former Goldman economist William Dudley as Mr. Geithner's replacement at the New York Fed.

classicman;666718 wrote:

On a side note, I read this somewhere and thought it was an interesting concept.

*Congresspeople and senators shall contribute to social security just the same as the rest of us

TheMercenary;666882 wrote:

Pelosi is going DOWN!

Happy Monkey;667009 wrote:

They do.

"People have to understand things always take longer in the Senate. Potentially, we could let some of these items start in the Senate and then go over to the House. That might be a very good solution to our problem. Because then the Senate would send the House something that's already bipartisan, and they could work to build the support they need. Maybe we should try that, because everything gets passed in the House and comes here. It would be better if we started and sent things over there."
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

Two of the three firms providing legal counsel to Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., in his pending ethics cases are lobbying firms. In fact, one firm, Oldaker, Belair & Wittie, conducts much of Rangel's political fundraising, while operating four different lobby shops.

But who's ultimately paying Rangel's legal bills? Mostly corporate and union political action committees along with individual lobbyists. Over the past six months, PACs and lobbyists have accounted for a majority of the money Rangel's campaign has raised this year, not counting transfers from Rangel's other fundraising operations (more on them below).

Spexxvet;673207 wrote:

The republicans increased our national debt and nixxed finance reform on the same day. They must be proud.

classicman;673278 wrote:

Read more:
Ahhhh Rangel nice guy. He who has been taking care of his wall street buddies for so long is now being repaid (sorta) for his true loyalties.
Another POS who has been in power too long. Shackle him up and throw him out.
Its sickening that these "lobbyists" can not only buy politicians, but that after their true colors are shown, they still benefit by defending them, both monetarily and politically. Fuckin shell game is what it is. So glad things have changed in Washington - NOT.

Thanks to perks given to all members of Congress, it's not Grayson's campaign but taxpayers who footed the nearly $73,000 bill to produce and mail the DVD to 100,000 homes in Grayson's district of Lake, Marion, Orange and Osceola counties.

It's a stunt that drew howls from Republicans, who complained that Grayson was abusing the congressional privilege of franking that allows lawmakers to send taxpayer-paid newsletters and other mail to residents.

"This is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars, and it goes to show that Alan Grayson is completely out of touch with Central Florida," said state Rep. Kurt Kelly of Ocala, one of seven Republicans looking to unseat Grayson this fall.

"This is just ridiculous behavior. What congressman would do this in the face of a huge budget deficit?" he asked.

Since taking office, Grayson has used speeches and hearings to loudly attack everything that he sees as wrong with America &#8212; including giant corporations, financial leaders and Republicans.

He's best known for a floor speech in which he says the Republican health-care plan was for sick patients to "die quickly," although Grayson aides were quick to note that the health-care quip was not included on the DVD.

"If we were self-serving, we would have put that one on there," Jurkowski said.

classicman;673278 wrote:

Read more:
Ahhhh Rangel nice guy. He who has been taking care of his wall street buddies for so long is now being repaid (sorta) for his true loyalties.
Another POS who has been in power too long. Shackle him up and throw him out.
Its sickening that these "lobbyists" can not only buy politicians, but that after their true colors are shown, they still benefit by defending them, both monetarily and politically. Fuckin shell game is what it is. So glad things have changed in Washington - NOT.

Democrats could make a real statement by drumming both Rangel and Waters out of the House, but they won't.
No doubt the private thought of most members on both sides is probably something like: "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

But before Republicans go gloating, it should be noted for those with short memories that after Tom DeLay was admonished by the Ethics Committee in 2004, the Republican leadership replaced their Ethics Committee Members, fired the Committee Staff Director, Chief Counsel, & Spokesperson, and changed the rules to make it easier to kill any ethics investigations.
At least in these two cases, Democrats are willing to investigate our own when they go wrong.

Waters, a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, helped arrange a meeting in September, 2008, between Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank and Treasury Department officials, according to ethics investigators.

OneUnited Bank ultimately received $12 million in bailout funds.

According to the report, Waters' husband owned almost 4,000 shares of OneUnited stock at the time of the meeting. The shares had declined in value from more than $350,000 in June to $175,000 at the end of September.

"A meeting was in fact granted, however, the discussion at the meeting focused on a single bank -- OneUnited. Rep. Waters' husband had been a board member of the bank from 2004 to 2008 and, at the time of the meeting, was a stock holder of the bank," the report said.

The report released Monday stated that Waters "agreed to refrain from advocating on behalf of OneUnited," but failed to instruct her chief of staff, Mikael Moore, from doing so.

Following the September 9 meeting between Treasury and National Bankers Association officials, Moore "was actively involved in assisting OneUnited representatives with their request for capital from Treasury and crafting legislation to authorize Treasury to grant the request" for financial assistance, the report said.

"Reasonable" people could construe Moore's "continued involvement in assisting OneUnited as the dispensing of special favors or privileges to OneUnited," the report concluded.

Waters refuted that allegation as well Tuesday.

"If you're going to wrap this all around creating these violations because I failed to supervise my staff, it doesn't hold water, they don't have any proof of that and I maintain that I want to go to trial or whatever they want to call it -- adjudicatory hearing -- because I think I don't deserve this," she said.

Moore is the son of Edward Waters, one of the congresswoman's two children, both of whom were noted in a 2004 Los Angeles Times story about money the family has made by doing business with companies and candidates the congresswoman has helped.

Spexxvet;673207 wrote:

The republicans increased our national debt and nixxed finance reform on the same day. They must be proud.

Destroy government-owned national health care root and branch, and destroy deficit spending with it.

WASHINGTON&#8212;Apparently the Senate can work quickly after all. You just have to limit it to two senators.

On Thursday, the chamber approved a $600 million border-security bill in 31 minutes, from opening gavel to final passage. While their colleagues were enjoying a summer recess, Sen. Chuck Schumer flew in from New York and Sen. Ben Cardin drove his Pontiac from Baltimore to represent the entire Senate in the cavernous chamber.

Sens. Charles Schumer, above, and Ben Cardin were the only senators present for passage of a border-security bill on Thursday.

Mr. Schumer delivered the opening (and closing) speech, while Mr. Cardin sat in the presiding official's chair. Mr. Schumer told his fellow Democrat that he hoped the border bill, which provides 1,500 additional border agents, would "clear the path" for talks on revamping the nation's immigration rules.

"I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in this important task,"
he added, looking around at 99 empty seats.

The New York Democrat proposed passing the bill by "unanimous consent," meaning it would become law as long as no one objected.
Mr. Cardin asked the empty room if anyone did, and, not surprisingly, response came there none.
Just like that, the bill was on its way to the president's desk.

ZenGum;677454 wrote:

Reading Griff's post, I took it that Schumer was a Republican ... which made me surprised when Merc bagged him. Did I miss something?

Griff;677459 wrote:

That is some odd writing on my part, I probably lost you when I wandered into my own beliefs about W. Schumer is a Democrat who appears to hold to, the now old-fashioned, collegial atmosphere in the Senate.

At a forum Monday, Rangel popped off over an Obama comment last month that the 80-year-old congressman should "end his career with dignity."

The President spoke after Rangel was slapped with ethics charges. "Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is," Rangel said Monday.

"In the next few years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity."

Rangel said last night his retort wasn't meant as a slap but admitted, "Obviously, it didn't go over big." As for Powell's argument: "I think that Obama would say that I'm one of his best friends. And certainly one of his strongest supporters &#8212; I admire him. I respect him."

He said Obama's remark had rankled because "I just thought dignity was an individual thing other people can't really describe."

But, he conceded, "You don't zing the President of the United States if you're interested in working with him."

Paul Krugman's New York Times column for August 23 on extending the Bush tax cuts is not merely misleading; it is an outright and deliberate fabrication. For more than a decade, Krugman has been writing two columns a week for the New York Times opinion pages. Opinion pieces are designed to express a point of view, but the argument is supposed to be supported by facts.

Krugman is a Princeton economics professor who won a Nobel Prize in Economics. So the alternative explanation for Krugman's column today -- that he is just stupid, and very bad with numbers -- would seem far less likely than that he lies in order to deliberately mislead Times readers and the general public.

Krugman never liked the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The economy was in recession at the time the cuts were passed, and Krugman, who is a Keynesian, generally supports lots of stimulus to address weak economies. However, he prefers massive injections of government spending to tax cuts, and if tax cuts are a part of any stimulus package, he thinks the cuts should not include any tax reductions for wealthy people. The Bush tax cuts included cuts for all taxpayers, and they were set to expire at the end of 2010.

Krugman, who seems utterly unconcerned with deficits today -- he wants much more government spending and an extension of most of the Bush tax cuts -- railed at the Bush tax cuts in 2001 for their impact on the deficit (estimated revenue loss of $1.2 trillion for ten years when passed). He admits in his column today that extending the Bush tax cuts that President Obama wants to continue for another ten years is expensive. Those tax cuts are for individuals earning less than $200,000 a year, or families earning less than $250,000. In his article, Krugman does not provide any numbers for the cost of extending the tax cuts for those earning less than the target amounts. Those tax cuts are by far the biggest share of the cost of extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts. Despite that, Krugman lets loose this whopper in relation to the cost of extending the 2001 tax cuts to the highest earners:

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that's the least of it: the policy center's estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he's going to get the majority of that group's tax break.

Quite simply, if you take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans and pick the one with the highest income, he is not likely to get a majority of the tax benefit of that group. Far from it.

The article Krugman links to in order to support his conclusion was written by Adam Looney for the purportedly non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute (about as non-partisan on tax matters as the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist). But even this liberal analysis does not support Krugman's lie. Krugman provides data that the total cost for extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts to the top one tenth of one percent of Americans, the 120,000 with the highest annual incomes, would be $360 billion over ten years. But this number is the result of extending not only the 2001 Bush cuts on income tax rates, but also extending the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. This is a common game for Krugman -- mix and match, and hope nobody notices. In his article, Krugman never mentions the 2003 tax cuts, but instead focuses exclusively on the income tax rates in the 2001 tax cuts.

The Tax Policy Center lays out these numbers for extending the Bush 2001 income tax rate cuts to the top two brackets -- $36 billion a year on average for ten years. But these brackets account for far more than the top 0.1% of earners, the group Krugman singles out. In fact, the group in the 33% and 35% tax brackets impacted by the Obama proposal is twenty times as large -- over two million taxpayers (or as the president commonly states, 2% of all Americans). The Tax Policy Center analysis indicates that extending all the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Extending only the tax rate cuts from the 2001 Bush tax cuts would cost $1.57 trillion over ten years -- more than 77% of which, $1.21 billion, would be the cost for extending the 10%, 15%, and 28% rates. The cost of extending the tax cuts for the two top brackets is $360 billion over that period, less than 25% of that total. Part of the $360 billion cost is attributable to the top 0.1%, the 120,000 highest earners. How much? It is not clear from the Tax Policy Center study. But let us assume it is 50% of the total. Then the total cost of extending the 2001 tax cut to the top 0.1% of earners would be just over 10% of the total cost of extending all the tax cuts. So if you take a group of a thousand randomly selected Americans, there is no way that the highest earner in the group would get a majority of the total tax savings from that group.

The Tax Policy Center also estimates that the total cost of extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts for all taxpayers would be $680 billion more than the cost of just following the Obama recommendations and raising some of the rates. In other words, Obama's proposals call for extending 82% of the $3.7 trillion in tax cuts from these years, at a cost of over $3 trillion to the Treasury. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 0.1% would receive an average of $310,000 a year in extra tax cuts over ten years if all 2001 and 2003 cuts were extended. Krugman summarizes this as 120,000 taxpayers receiving on average $3 million over ten years, or $360 billion in total. Again, it does not take a Nobel Prize-winner to see that 360 billion is less than 10% of $3.7 trillion in total tax cuts. So if one were more honest than Krugman, and looked at a thousand randomly selected Americans and picked the highest earner, and looked at his total tax savings over the next ten years from extending all the 2001 and 2003 cuts, the highest-income individual's share would be less than 10% of the total, hardly a majority of the group's tax savings.

I have no problem with the National Tax Center arguing that the cuts for the highest earners are wrong or unfair or too much. At least they provide honest numbers to make their case. But why does Krugman feel the need to lie and argue that the share for his group is more than five times its real share of total tax savings?

A close look at the National Tax Center numbers shows that the biggest costs by far from extending all the tax cuts are for retaining the lower rates for the lowest three tax brackets and for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. You won't find this in a Paul Krugman column.

Of course, other articles are needed to discuss the fact that lowering tax rates in 2001 was considered deficit expansion, but raising rates in 2011 is considered deficit neutral, or analyzing whether government spending or tax cuts does more to produce economic growth and create jobs. In the real world, any rise in tax rates is anti-stimulative. Krugman has argued for trillions more in stimulus spending (and an enormous increase in deficits and national debt) because the economy remains weak. So his push for raising some tax rates has nothing to do with his concern about deficits, or a concern with the state of the economy and economic growth. It can be explained only by the desire to spread wealth around -- to redistribute.

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson awarded eight scholarships last year to her grandsons and a top aide's children &#8211; bringing to 23 the number of awards she handed out since 2005 in violation of Congressional Black Caucus Foundation eligibility rules.

The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday that over the last five years, the Dallas Democrat has awarded up to $20,000 in 15 scholarships to two grandsons, two great-nephews, and aide Rod Givens' children between 2005 and 2008. The 2009 awards &#8211; reflected in a previously undisclosed list provided Monday by the foundation &#8211; push that above $25,000.

"While I am not ashamed of helping, I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process," Johnson said in a written statement issued Monday night, after two days of national scrutiny and sniping from critics, including her campaign opponent. "To rectify this matter immediately, I will reimburse the funds by the end of this week."

Sloan said it might be politically dicey for the ethics committee to target another black lawmaker, now that two &#8211; Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California &#8211; face rare ethics hearings in coming months. "There's just too many issues with African-American members," she said.

Baran disagreed. "If a member is committing fraud and getting money for relatives in improper ways, I don't think that's going to stop the ethics committee from taking a look as to what actually transpired," he said.

classicman;679638 wrote:

Wow really? If there were three white people would they not investigate the fourth?
Thats a pretty outlandish thing to say.

xoxoxoBruce;679686 wrote:

Yeah, nobody reads EULAs.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club.

Reporters will be allowed, Spratt's campaign asked for no audio or video recording of the debate between the candidates.

Mulvaney's campaign protested the request when agreeing to the debate, then sent out a news release Monday slamming Spratt saying "in this country, we have open debates."

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) awarded three scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to his stepdaughter and wife&#8217;s niece between 2003 and 2005, according to records from the nonprofit group.

Bishop is the second Democrat found to have funneled CBC Foundation scholarship funds to relatives, threatening to turn the program into a larger political problem for the party. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) recently paid back $31,000 to the foundation for scholarships that she improperly awarded to various relatives and children of a top staffer.

The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to &#8220;take a look&#8221; at the office if his party regains majority power &#8212; a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Boehner wondered aloud how effective the office really is, ignoring its considerable record for discreetly investigating alleged misbehavior on both sides of the aisle and letting the chips fall where they may.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu3.html

and

House Republican leaders won&#8217;t say whether they will scrap an ethics office if they regain the majority this fall.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2008, has attracted criticism from Republicans and Democrats during the last couple of years. Most GOP lawmakers voted against the creation of the OCE, and many political observers believe the OCE will be disbanded should Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) become Speaker next year.

Pressed for comment, GOP leadership aides declined to directly answer the OCE question, presumably seeking to avoid politically damaging headlines about how Republicans want to strip away a new layer of ethics scrutiny.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/117559-house-gop-dodges-questions-on-the-future-of-ethics-office

TheMercenary;681679 wrote:

Who cares, as long as the Republickins gain control of either the House or Senate, some one has to stop this run away train of spend, spend, spend, spend.... oppps and then tax.

Redux;681684 wrote:

Oh, I get it.

WHO CARES about big $100 million donors on the right attempting to influence elections...only Soros matters.

And WHO CARES when the most effective ethics reform initiative ever enacted might be gutted.

After all, you would then need to be more even handed in your outrage.

They have had 4 years and screwed it up

TheMercenary;682233 wrote:

I only care that the Demoncrats are thrown out all costs, they have completely failed this country in every aspect.

Undertoad;682246 wrote:

A year and nine months sir

xoxoxoBruce;682252 wrote:

Right, because the Republicans did so well by us the previous 8 years.

classicman;682456 wrote:

You mean minority?

Redux;682494 wrote:

McConnell unveiled the Senate Republican tax plan today.

It would make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire this year and limit the estate tax to those over $5 million ($10 million/couple).

The CBO hasnt scored it yet, but a somewhat similar proposal scored by the CBO would mean $4 trillion in lost revenue over ten years......four times the projected deficit impact of the health care reform and stimulus bill combined.

Deficits result not only from increased spending, but equally from reducing revenue.

Yet, the Republicans argue with a straight fact that cutting $4 trillion in revenue wont result in significant deficits.

TheMercenary;682499 wrote:

Obama and your party lied to the electorate. See you in Nov.

suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he will add the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.

The decision means the defense bill, which often passes with bipartisan support, will be home to two major, thorny political issues &#8211; the other being the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Reid called the DREAM Act "really important" and said it should be passed because it provides a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military. DREAM is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act.

"I know we can't do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid said at a news conference. "But those Republicans we had in the last Congress have left us."

Many Hispanic voters are angry with Democratic leaders for not doing more to pass an immigration overhaul. The decision by Reid to add the DREAM Act now could help soothe that anger.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Reid's decision "needlessly controversial."
The Senate will need 60 votes to take up the bill next week, and Reid said Tuesday he doesn't know if he has enough votes.

Redux;682509 wrote:

Aw. man....I was expecting you to say WHO CARES about $4 trillion in lost revenue (increased debt) over the next ten years.

Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak.

Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation, which was held at the Washington Convention Center a few blocks away. &#8220;It ain&#8217;t about Nancy. It&#8217;s about black people,&#8221; Waters said.

This is Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. I noticed that you have given to other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a senior member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I&#8217;m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the old St. Elizabeth&#8217;s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with fifteen other sites here for, that are part of the stimulus.

I was, frankly surprised to see that we don&#8217;t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my long and deep work. In fact, it&#8217;s been my major work on the committee and subcommittee it&#8217;s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I&#8217;m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the committee and a subcommittee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn&#8217;t, frankly done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I&#8217;m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly need contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

Chris Van Hollen, the head of the party's House campaign committee, has written members asking each to raise $30,000 for the committee. Other members have been told privately that their chances of getting or keeping plum committee assignments partly hinge on their ability to bring money in.

Washington (CNN) -- The Department of Defense recently purchased and destroyed
thousands of copies of an Army Reserve officer's memoir in an effort to safeguard
state secrets, a spokeswoman said Saturday.

"DoD decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained
information which could cause damage to national security,"
Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham said.

In a statement to CNN, Cunningham said defense officials observed
the September 20 destruction of about 9,500 copies of Army Reserve
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's new memoir "Operation Dark Heart."

"The whole premise smacks of retaliation," Shaffer told CNN on Saturday.
"Someone buying 10,000 books to suppress a story in this digital age is ludicrous."

At least one seller on the online auction site eBay claiming to have a first-edition printing is selling it for an asking price of nearly $2,000. The listed retail price for the second printing is $25.99.

TheMercenary;683418 wrote:

Shakedown Street
Nancy Pelosi and House Dems hit up lobbyists in a sleazy scramble for cash.

Already a prominent presence as an analyst on Fox News Channel and a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove is also playing a leading role in building what amounts to a shadow Republican Party, a network of donors and operatives that is among the most aggressive in the Republican effort to capture control of the House and the Senate.

He has had a major hand in helping to summon the old coalition of millionaires and billionaires who supported Mr. Bush and have huge financial stakes in regulatory and tax policy, like Harold C. Simmons, a Texas billionaire whose holdings include a major waste management company that handles some radioactive materials; Carl H. Lindner Jr., a Cincinnati businessman whose American Financial Group includes several property and casualty insurance concerns; and Robert B. Rowling, whose TRT Holdings owns Omni Hotels and Gold’s Gym.

Their personal and corporate money — as well as that of other donors who have not been identified — has gone to a collection of outside groups Mr. Rove helped form with Mr. Gillespie, including American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which in turn are loosely affiliated with similar groups staffed or backed by other operatives and donors with ties to Mr. Rove.

ZenGum;685020 wrote:

Does the guy actually get the royalties from those 10,000 sales? Not to mention free publicity?

WASHINGTON &#8211; Events took a strange turn Thursday when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, barricaded herself and small number of her staff in her office in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C. It remains unclear whether the staff members inside the office with her are active participants in the action, or whether they are being held by Pelosi against their will. Crying and shouts of &#8220;Never!&#8221; and &#8220;My blog will always be called &#8216;The Gavel!&#8217;&#8221; could be heard coming through the wall in the hallway outside the blocked door.

Capitol police say that Pelosi began blocking the door to her office shortly after dawn Thursday morning. It&#8217;s unclear exactly what sparked Pelosi&#8217;s move, but Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley was reportedly seen leaving her office a few minutes before the sound of furniture moving and hammers were heard to echo from inside her office. Quigley is among a growing number of Democrats seeking a new direction, or just some sign of a grasp of reality, in his party leadership after its defeats last week. He had reportedly met with Pelosi to urge her to step aside, or at least stop referring to herself with the pronoun &#8220;we.&#8221;

&#8220;That time of morning it&#8217;s usually quiet in the building,&#8221; said Capitol police spokesman Sgt. Dan Hillen. &#8220;But we started getting reports of what sounded like someone remodeling their office so we went to check it out. We found that Speaker Pelosi&#8217;s office doors were locked from the inside. Our officers knocked, but no one answered or opened the door. We did hear someone inside, who we now believe to be Pelosi, whisper, &#8216;Cheese it, it&#8217;s the cops!&#8217; before uttering a long, loud shush. There were also sounds of muffled crying. We retrieved the keys to unlock the door, but met resistance from inside. Those inside have apparently moved quite a bit of furniture and at least one sculpture into the doorway, and something large and wooden has been nailed across the doors to keep them from opening.&#8221;

Hillen speculated that the object nailed across the door might be the giant gavel that Pelosi famously toted across Capitol Hill when she became speaker.

Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s final days as Speaker of the House were spent at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka&#8217;upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.
Escorted throughout her trip by a mini security motorcade that included Secret Service and Hawaii County Police officers, Pelosi was seen at St. Michael&#8217;s Catholic Church in Kailua-Kona, where she received Communion. Parishioners greeted her warmly, Hawaii Reporter was told. Two police SUVs were on guard outside the hotel during her week long stay.
Pelosi, who traveled to Hawaii by private plane, spent the holidays in Kona last year at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that reportedly rents for $10,000 a night.

...But just in case the filibuster isn&#8217;t enough to grind the Senate to a halt, some clever geezer also invented &#8220;holds&#8221;. Thankfully, like most old-time senators, he was probably shot in a duel....

Filibuster reform

In the Senate, a move is under way to change the filibuster -- the procedure in which 60 votes are needed to move a bill from debate to a final vote. Changing the filibuster rule has drawn both support and ire. Many wonder, why change it now?

Julian Zelizer, a historian and CNN.com contributor, says changing the rules is not necessarily a bad thing.

"Some opponents of reform will certainly ask, given the recent coverage of the historic 111th Congress, whether procedural changes are really needed. Shouldn't senators just leave things alone?" he said in a recent CNN.com commentary. "The answer is no. The past three decades of congressional history have been marked by a filibuster frenzy."

He added: "Whereas senators once reserved filibusters for big issues such as civil rights, now they are willing to filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, everything that comes their way. In short, the filibuster has become a normalized tool of partisan conflict."

That partisan conflict was on full display in the last Congress with Republicans filibustering a number of Democrats' legislative items, such as the health care reform bill.

Rep. Christopher Lee is a married Republican congressman serving the 26th District of New York. But when he trolls Craigslist's "Women Seeking Men" forum, he's Christopher Lee, "divorced" "lobbyist" and "fit fun classy guy." One object of his flirtation told us her story.

The evidence is clear: Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and don't believe their representatives share their priorities.

There's plenty of room for debate over whether Congress shares voters' priorities on political and policy issues. But when it comes to personal priorities, at least, voters have good reason to be skeptical of Congress. Most members of Congress simply don't share in the average American experience.

National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires. Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

Even the 2010 elections, with its promises to "take our country back," produced a freshman class of senators with a median net worth of close to $4 million. The median net worth of freshman House members is more than half a million dollars, according the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based, non-partisan research group that tracks the effect of money on elections and public policy.

Multiple factors contribute to this picture. It begins with campaigns that have become increasingly costly to run, making it all the more difficult for a person of modest income to run for office. National parties, looking for ways to bring down their own costs, actively recruit wealthy candidates.

Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.

How wealthy is Congress?

The average estimated personal wealth of congressional members far exceeds the average American's wealth, according to Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "We're talking orders of magnitude," he said -- people with assets in the high six figures in the House and even higher in the Senate.

The Center regularly goes through the time-consuming process of reviewing congressional financial disclosure reports -- which are only filed on paper -- and publishing the information in a reader-friendly online format. Their work has shown that, besides a slight dip between 2007 and 2008, Congress' personal wealth has continued to rise.

"Most Americans are being represented by people who, any way you cut it, are in the elite of the financial elite," Levinthal said.

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

infinite monkey;743139 wrote:

Rhode Island is another country? :eek:

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:
[...]
Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.

With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.

Better to think of this, not as a negotiation, but a game with two simple rules. Collectively, each player must ensure the debt ceiling goes up. Individually, each player must come out looking better than the other side.

this plan is a moral abomination that moves Congress one step closer to a dystopia where government does not govern anything, but instead takes a series of empty symbolic votes they can advertise in their home district for the purpose of being reelected to take more rounds of empty symbolic votes.

gvidas;744560 wrote:

This whole debt ceiling debate is asinine brinksmanship. If (when?) they fuck this one up, it's going to end up costing us way, way more. And, naturally, there has been approximately zero discussion of the role military spending plays in the whole situation.

Nate Silver breaks it down: GOP's no-tax stance is outside political mainstream



He goes on to point out that, if the average Republican voter wants to solve the problem with 26-74% split of tax increases to spending cuts, and the average Democrat wants 46-54%, there's more disparity between Republican voters and Republican politicians, who're refusing to settle for anything less than 0% tax increase / 100% spending cuts (26% difference) than between Republican voters and Democrat voters (20% difference.)

Fareed Zakaria put it nicely the other day on Fresh Air. Paraphrasing, this is a financial problem being debated in ideological, almost fanatical terms. In religion, there are absolutes that it is very hard to find a middle ground between: how do you find a fair compromise between Christianity and Islam?

But this is economics, numbers. You can split the difference.

Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

TheMercenary;744703 wrote:

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

TheMercenary;744703 wrote:

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

Fair&Balanced;744733 wrote:

You've been watching too much FOX News.

piercehawkeye45;744723 wrote:

Democrats ran congress but Republicans blocked any attempt for a compromise on the budget deal.

glatt;744717 wrote:

Something needs to be done and the fair thing is to share the pain equally.

TheMercenary;744780 wrote:

Congress controls the budget. Not the president. Demoncrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress until last year. So far since Obama has been in office they ran up the credit cards with no plan to pay for it.

piercehawkeye45;744786 wrote:

And Republicans walked out on a budget deal that was at least a start in the right direction because it involved some tax increases. If Republicans play this intelligently they could come on top, but that seems to be something they haven't been able do as of lately...

TheMercenary;744781 wrote:

I agree. The key word being "equally".

The debt ceiling debate rages on, with President Barack Obama daring the GOP to call his bluff
and Sen. Mitch McConnell declaring a deal impossible with this White House.
These days, it’s hard for most Americans to sort through the red-hot mess that is Washington.

In a gerrymandered America, extremism sells at the polls and in the world of political talk.
Fact blurs with fiction and simple math becomes fuzzy.

Here are 10 truths about the debt crisis you won’t hear over the next month
from the halls of Congress or the West Wing.

skysidhe;745224 wrote:

If I could, buy gold, I would.

glatt;745218 wrote:

I've been wishing I could have a crystal ball. Lots of uncertainty right now. I'm actually not sure that Washington is going to get this thing fixed. I mean, they are fucking politicians, but they aren't insane, are they? If they default, I'm afraid it's gonna be real bad. Crystal ball, tell me, is it time to cash everything in for gold and start stocking up on guns and ammo?

skysidhe;745224 wrote:

If they let it default then they are insane. If they are playing scare tactics to get the constituents riled up, to see who can push their own agenda further, then they are morally flawed. Why do they talk out of both sides of their faces.

They make a media circus out of something so crucially important.

piercehawkeye45;745287 wrote:

The idealists are the ones that scare me. I'm starting to think many of the tea party republicans actually believe that defaulting could be a good option.

glatt;745218 wrote:

If you can swing it, it's usually a good idea to tighten a belt and save, especially if the company is going to match some of it.

I've been wishing I could have a crystal ball. Lots of uncertainty right now. I'm actually not sure that Washington is going to get this thing fixed. I mean, they are fucking politicians, but they aren't insane, are they? If they default, I'm afraid it's gonna be real bad. Crystal ball, tell me, is it time to cash everything in for gold and start stocking up on guns and ammo?

Spexxvet wrote:

I wouldn't. I saw yesterday that gold is selling for $1600 per ounce, an all time high. Should have bought it a couple of years ago.

piercehawkeye45;745292 wrote:

As annoying as it is, I'm beginning to believe this how the game has to be played for politicians. Or at least that strategy has been the most successful for politicians for past 50 or so years.

While President Obama&#8217;s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government&#8217;s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be &#8220;catastrophic&#8221; and a sign of &#8220;insanity,&#8221; that&#8217;s not the position the president has held in the past.

Here are Obama&#8217;s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America&#8217;s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can&#8217;t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government&#8217;s reckless fiscal policies. &#8230; Increasing America&#8217;s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that &#8216;the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

piercehawkeye45;745292 wrote:

As annoying as it is, I'm beginning to believe this how the game has to be played for politicians. Or at least that strategy has been the most successful for politicians for past 50 or so years.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

TheMercenary;745369 wrote:

Neither side cares about the country, they only care about the next election and holding on to power.

TheMercenary;746001 wrote:

both side will have to take a big bite of that SHIT sandwich at the next election.

TheMercenary;745369 wrote:

Neither side cares about the country, they only care about the next election and holding on to power.

Griff;746037 wrote:

This is always fun to say but not true at all. The Democrats are bending on budget cuts as Republicans are bending on tax increases. Your people, the Tea Partiers are the ones forcing brinkmanship games. You are getting what you are demanding and bitching about it.

Griff wrote:

[quote=TheMercenary]
Neither side cares about the country, they only care about the next election and holding on to power.

Griff;746037 wrote:

This is always fun to say but not true at all. The Democrats are bending on budget cuts as Republicans are bending on tax increases. Your people, the Tea Partiers are the ones forcing brinkmanship games. You are getting what you are demanding and bitching about it.

The mistake is that people tend to assume their politicians operate on the same axis of progress that they care about. But it's almost universally not true, though there is some (indirect) overlap. President Obama is not working on his constituents' axis of progress, he's working on his own. And he's not combatting Republicans on their constituents' axis of progress either, but against that of the narrow number Republicans he's actually in the negotiation room with.

So this has been a good lesson to us all. This should not be understood as a "turning point" where President Obama revealed himself as a master Nth dimensional chess player thinking 20 steps ahead. This was a 1 dimensional chess game, and the mistake people have been making is they were assuming that his axis of progress was policy goals, when really it is influence and election goals. Just like the Republicans. This doesn't mean he's "with you" or "against you." It just means that you, as an observer who follows politics, should put politicians and their goals in the proper context in order to understand or predict their decisions. You can want one thing, but just recognize that even the politician who is the most in your corner is just trying to balance distinguishing his/her brand and getting re-elected. That's not a good or bad thing, that's just the outcome of our system of Democratic representation.

gvidas;746265 wrote:

But the root of that distribution isn't, to my eyes, the people we elect. It's the fact that we have given corporations an insane amount of power.

BigV;746706 wrote:

"The crisis atmosphere *he* created will be avoided." "The truth is, the President wants a blank check today." Are you kidding.

Please, stop being so shallow.

infinite monkey;746724 wrote:

I don't do telephones.

Perhaps even better I show up on his doorstep?

Not heard of one person here who's actually bothered with anything but whining here...but I'll keep in mind how ineffective my effort is, next time.

Thanks.

BigV;746706 wrote:

"The truth is, the President wants a blank check today." Are you kidding.

Please, stop being so shallow.

infinite monkey;746724 wrote:

I don't do telephones.

Perhaps even better I show up on his doorstep?

Not heard of one person here who's actually bothered with anything but whining here...but I'll keep in mind how ineffective my effort is, next time.

Thanks.

richlevy;746818 wrote:

Just wait until Obama starts placing the National Guard on alert on Aug 2nd. That should get everyone's attention.

ZenGum;746845 wrote:

There is a last resort.

Print cash.

infinite monkey;746887 wrote:

Well, how about if we tack on North and South Dakota?

BigV;746701 wrote:

Quick question friends--

do you think whatever deal is made about the debt ceiling/deficit reduction... do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to make one that is so short that we'll need to do this process again before the 2012 elections?

piercehawkeye45;746886 wrote:

I resent that. Wisconsin is a much better choice.

TheMercenary;746894 wrote:

...and ties it to a balanced budget amendment ...

glatt;746908 wrote:

Politicians who throw around the idea of constitutional amendments lose major points in my book. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution. It's not just an act of congress signed into law by the president, it requires 2/3s majority in BOTH houses and then goes to the individual states and must clear through 3/4s of them. That's 38 states that each have to approve the proposed amendment. It isn't easy. The equal rights amendment never made it through. Anything that is remotely political isn't going to make it. For example, think of the political climate in Arizona and the political climate in Massachusetts. There aren't too many issues that both states are going to get behind. That's the divide you have to bridge.

Politicians who talk about Constitutional amendments are just full of shit.

[COLOR="Blue"]Kennedy raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 5%.
Johnson raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 18%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Nixon raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 36%.
Ford raised the debt ceiling 5 times for a total increase of 41%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Carter raised the debt ceiling 9 times for total increase of 59%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%.
George H.W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 9 times for a total increase of 48%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Clinton raised the debt ceiling 4 times for a total increase of 44%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]Obama has raised the debt ceiling 3 times for a total increase of 26%.[/COLOR]

Adding the percentages of the Democratic presidents’ total debt ceiling increases (shown in blue) together reveals that President Ronald Reagan, arguably the most popular Republican president on this list, actually raised the debt ceiling by a higher percentage than all of the Democrats combined.

The Democrats’ total percentage increase is 152%. President Reagan increased the debt ceiling by 199% in his two terms in office.

The Republican presidents, shown in red, when added together, have raised the debt ceiling by a total of 414%.

Stormieweather;746927 wrote:

The problem is, when we dropkick them to the curb, are we going to end up with a bunch of fire-and-brimstone, punt women back to the stone age, elitist nutballs in power instead? Are there any actual sane people running for office?

classicman;747008 wrote:

Spexxxx - were those R or D congresses?
redo and resubmit please & thanks.

Spexxvet;747035 wrote:

Here, I just remembered that I have this bookmarked, for just such an emergency.

Correlate and draw causational conclusions at your leisure.

Stormieweather;747002 wrote:

Huh? :eyebrow:


I repeat, are there any sane people running for office...so the VOTERS CAN MAKE THE DECISION....?

bunch of fire-and-brimstone, punt women back to the stone age, elitist nutballs

TheMercenary;747115 wrote:

If that is the case, again, how does that differ from the other extreme?

Brianna;747165 wrote:

I bet if the people started to build a guillotine in Washington some shit would get done.

richlevy;747171 wrote:

A dickhead separated from it's body is still a dickhead.:mad:

Brianna;747179 wrote:

The guillotine remark was tongue-in-cheek, you humorless man.

DanaC;747173 wrote:

I've been watching this 'debt ceiling' issue unfold from over the pond, and I think I probably can speak for a good proportion of my fellow Brits when I ask, wtf is your government doing?

How can this level of brinksmanship possibly still be going on, this close to crisis?

glatt;747175 wrote:

Speaking from this side of the pond, I can tell you that we have no fucking idea what the government is doing. They are scaring me.

Brianna;747165 wrote:

I bet if the people started to build a guillotine in Washington some shit would get done.

richlevy;747171 wrote:

A dickhead separated from it's body is still a dickhead.:mad:

DanaC;747293 wrote:

I tell you what is surprising from my perspective, is that your system doesn't seem to actually place a great deal of power into the hands of the President.

WASHINGTON &#8212; After days of theatrics, the House of Representatives on Friday evening finally approved a conservative Republican plan linking an increase in the nation&#8217;s debt ceiling to the highly unlikely passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once has the convention method of ratification been employed.

ZenGum;747308 wrote:

I too am wondering WTF these maniacs are doing. Even if this is resolved without default, they have done permanent damage to America's reputation and standing, not to mention their own economy and the world economy.

I ask myself, could they really be so crazy as to sabotage their own economy to make some pointless political statement?

Then I ask myself, are they so crazy they take creationism as a literal truth and believe the end times are upon us?

I do not like the answers.

Tinned food, people, it's the currency of the future.

ZenGum;747308 wrote:

I ask myself, could they really be so crazy as to sabotage their own economy to make some pointless political statement?

DanaC;747472 wrote:

I heard on the radio that there's a possibility the US troops won't get paid? How can that even be a possibilty ffs?

Words fail me. Callow, cowardly, selfish.

ZenGum;747479 wrote:

How about "treasonous".

ZenGum;747479 wrote:

How about "treasonous".

Brianna;747476 wrote:

The republicans are kicking the most vunerable and the ones in harms way to the curb to make sure Obama fails. it is truly sickening and I think it's about time for a revolution.


The hysteria of white America to this president is completely nutty.

classicman;747582 wrote:

Change is required. Pain is inevitable.

classicman;747584 wrote:

And Bri, the color of this pres has nothing to do with this issue to about 99% of the people and ZERO to all the rational ones. Please take your race card and stuff it.

sexobon;747482 wrote:

Means exist to get the military paid on time, even before a new budget is approved...

Spexxvet;747677 wrote:

I read that as "Palin is inevitable" and threw up in my mouth a little.

In too many other areas of the country, and too many other subcultures, his race is a huge issue.

classicman;747779 wrote:

Well then we should just bomb them all.

Happy Monkey;748292 wrote:

Plus, the dreaded "uncertainty" that is causing the "job creators" to not create jobs has been extended to the end of the year, for "super congress" to deal with.

DanaC;748295 wrote:

The thing is, and I am well aware I am a little lost in the field of economics, but haven't most western economists been suggesting that severe spending cuts at this stage may retard recovery?

--snip

BigV;748302 wrote:

Permit Keith Olbermann to restate my thoughts:

[YOUTUBE]ndkRgj6j-Pg[/YOUTUBE]

I need a transcript of this. I want to print it up, like a Desiderata of furious disgust at the actions of our elected officials. Public servants? PTUI! Turn the volume UP.

BigV;748331 wrote:

well, stormie, what makes you think the air traffic controllers would be less noble and altruistic than the safety inspectors? They seem to have put dedication to principle above loyalty to tribe by performing their jobs without pay. That is noble dedication.

would have returned 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration employees and about 70,000 others to work

Stormieweather;748525 wrote:

How hypocritical to claim austerity needs and bray about spending cuts when their own actions are costing our country a shit ton of money.

Stormieweather;748319 wrote:

If it were up to me, all the FAA employees would be OFF the job until this was resolved. When air travel grinds to a halt, congress will get it's ass back to Washington to resolve it, guaranteed.

TheMercenary;748925 wrote:

Slanted political view, but one I happen to agree with...

S&P Drops U.S. Credit Rating to AA+ // Obama and Reid’s Crowning Achievement

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/sp-drops-u-s-credit-rating-to-aa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le·gal+In·sur·rec·tion%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Democrats own the downgrade. They fought Republicans and Tea Party supporters every step of they way, and forced a deal which was insufficient. They played class warfare and race politics against arguments that we needed to drastically change our spending habits.

The Mercenary wrote:

Slanted political view, but one I happen to agree with...

Griff;749024 wrote:

Interesting tidbit of the day: Standard and Poor's is a division of McGraw Hill. Feel free to connect any dots you find important.

Griff;749167 wrote:

McGraw Hill is invested very heavily in the Republican backed NCLB. They sell the textbooks and the standardized tests that the books teach to. They are very tight with the Bush family and Harold McGraw is a Romney supporter. To view them as neutral observers is a mistake even if their conclusion to down-grade is reasonable. Also remember that these are the same birds who gave a AAA rating to mortgage backed securities

SamIam;749122 wrote:

I don't know that it's especially true, but at this point, the Teabaggers certainly have the government they deserve.

I cannot believe how irresponsible Congress has been, playing the party line and idealogies to the complete detriment of the nation. The right wing has been the worst culprit in this by their refusal to re-instate taxes. They are like children who want something for nothing, and everything and everyone in this nation from education to the military to seniors to children suffer as a result.

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama&#8217;s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush&#8217;s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

&#8220;Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,&#8221; said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

TheMercenary;749305 wrote:

No, Really? :lol: "Teabaggers"? Really? How the hell could a minority group have the government they deserve? How does that work?

TheMercenary;749305 wrote:

Get off your high horse. God damm Dems are no better. They ran up the credit cards exponentially in the last few years and now want everyone to figure out how to pay for it. And the rest of the sane people have asked at every boondoggle of a BS spending bill passed, "How are you going to pay for it?". Obamacare is a perfect example, the Dems and Obama played smoke and mirrors with the costs and how it was going to "pay for itself", what hose shit. They fudged the numbers to the GAO to make it look like a bed of roses, everybody gets what they want..... it will break the bank. The Stimulus package! "Hundreds of Thousands of Shovel Ready Jobs", more BS, unemployment rate still above 9% and no end in site. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid OWN it.. Downgrading of US for the first time in history! Obama and the Dems own it... The Republickins have their share, but they don't OWN it like the Dems do, not by a long shot. Guess we will see in 2012.... How'd that work out for the Dems in 2010?:D

Brianna;749330 wrote:

SamIAm - why do you persist in a battle of logic with an unarmed man?

:lol:

SamIam;749328 wrote:

All, I'll say is that by refusing to pay taxes like any other responsible citizens would, the tea flavored Republicans are just as much at fault or more than the democrats.

TheMercenary;749537 wrote:

Demoncrats

Spexxvet;751555 wrote:

re[COLOR=Red]PUBIC[/COLOR]ans.:D

TheMercenary;749537 wrote:

You mean the 47% of Americans that don't pay Federal Income tax?

TheMercenary;749305 wrote:

No, Really? "Teabaggers"? Really? How the hell could a minority group have the government they deserve? How does that work?

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

So what do we do? Right as the engines start, I throw out my steering wheel. Now you believe me, right? Well, Boehner didn’t throw out the steering wheel, McConnell didn’t throw out the steering wheel but a group behind them said "Throw out the steering wheel, Mr. Speaker and make those people realize that we’re not going to agree to anything unless we get our way." And -- and if you have a sane person dealing with somebody that you feel may be insane, by that point when they draw the steering wheel you feel they’re insane "you lose". And the American people lost, incidentally.

Buffett: People do not want to see the instruments of government used as weapons the whole idea of the -- of the -- of the law that’s a shield not a sword. I mean the minority has become the sword in this respect. And I don’t blame this on Speaker Boehner. And I think that he -- I think that he -- ...
Rose: He had members of the Tea Party --
Buffett: The people that said -- the people when back in the back room said -- said to him, "You’re not going to have our support if you go in there and bend an inch on this." They said throw away the steering wheel.

TheMercenary;749537 wrote:

You mean the 47% of Americans that don't pay Federal Income tax?

richlevy;751551 wrote:

You really should stop using the term 'Demoncrat'. It undercuts any rational argument you attempt to make.

That being said, I am envious since even if I were so inclined to retaliate, which I am not, I cannot think up a similar term for Republicans:rolleyes:.

Resnublicans?

Reflublicans?

Repub-asslicans?

GOP is a bit easier:

Bland-old-party

richlevy;751561 wrote:

Let's see. You state %47 of Americans. You do not state 47% of adult Americans. I am refraining from checking your figure on Snopes at this point through an extreme act of will.

So first let me state that I consider the fact that the government is not taxing my 2-year-old grandson to be something of a victory.

Also, there is not much point at taxing people at the poverty level, since any money you have to take away from them would have to be returned to them in the form of assistance, at least until some people are finished completely shredding the safety net.

I agree the fact that there is such a large percentage of people who do not pay taxes is disturbing, but for a different reason. This is a symptom of the larger problem which is a wealth distribution system that has become more and more dysfunctional in the past few decades. With unrealistic tax cuts, we have stolen from the public treasury to enrich a small segment of our population at the expense of everyone else. This should not be possible in a democracy unless you are able to find a large enough number of people who are willing to vote against their collective self-interest in a fiscally sound government. The Republicans have found a way to do so.

If you don't like the %47 number, become a Democrat and find a way to help them become richer.

Nineteen lawmakers are listed as either violating the law or showing a lack of regard for congressional ethics and rules in a government watchdog group&#8217;s annual report on the &#8220;Most Corrupt&#8221; members of Congress.

The seventh annual report released Tuesday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) lists 14 members &#8212; 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats &#8212; as having allegedly violated congressional ethics rules or criminal laws, such as illegally garnering campaign contributions or failing to disclose accurate financial records.

Lamplighter;774685 wrote:

and then over the next several months to see if, in fact, Obama actually holds congressional feet to the fire.

classicman;774696 wrote:

Does it really take that long to assess the polling data?

classicman;772888 wrote:

Is he talking to an empty room?

classicman;772888 wrote:

I take comfort that Castro is only at 5% - lol

busterb;774921 wrote:

"SuperCommittee" I'm thinking the reason they can't get anything done, is because they haven't had enough time to cover all their campaign donors, friends, and family.
Create new loopholes. Etc. IMHO.

TheMercenary;775813 wrote:

I think they, both parties, went into it knowing they were going to fail.

Economics always takes revenge on all when money games are used to 'stimulate an economy'. Deja Vue.

Undertoad;776022 wrote:

Well the CBO agrees that there is less of a "multiplier effect" with the stimulus which is precisely what he was talking about with the lawn thing.

Lamplighter;776089 wrote:

And, they may have finally succeeded in ruffling Obama's derriere !

If you can't work with people you despise, you don't belong in Washington

Griff;776093 wrote:

Don't tell Santorum, he'll hire an exorcist.

Lamplighter;776467 wrote:

Classic, if you believe all that were true and overwhelmingly important,
why would you think it would do any good to bring in a new politician ?

I'd suggest a quick read of Frank's congressional history in Wikipedia
to see if instead, and on balance, you might think he is has a better fit
with what we want in from a 30-year veteran politician.
.

"In July 2008, Frank said in an CNBC interview, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They&#8217;re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward."

classicman;776584 wrote:

He said exactly what his handlers told ... err ... paid him to say. Then the bottom fell out.

classicman;776584 wrote:

his handlers told ... err ... paid him to say

As Dodd-Frank crept through Congress, it was steadily weakened.
The Senate voted down a ban on a pernicious derivative, naked credit default swaps.
An attack on “too big to fail” — explicit size limitations for financial institutions
— was also kept out of Dodd-Frank,
even though the humongous size of financial institutions made necessary
the bailouts that Congress supposedly despised.
There was no serious limit on executive compensation, even though lust for bonuses
was also a direct cause of the recklessness that nearly sabotaged the economy.
<snip>
Obviously, Frank can’t be faulted for the majority of the shortcomings of Dodd-Frank.
No congressman, no matter how skilled a negotiator, could have made Dodd-Frank
into the market reform mechanism that it was never destined to be.

Of course, there is the option is to reject the content based upon the source.

TheMercenary;777066 wrote:

One of Barney Franks greatest legacies will be his relationship to a guy who ran a prostitution ring out of his house.

In 1985 Frank was still closeted. That year he hired Steve Gobie for sex,
a male prostitute, and they became friends more than sexual partners.[24]
Frank housed Gobie and hired him with personal funds as an aide, housekeeper and driver
and paid for his attorney and court-ordered psychiatrist.[24]
In 1987 Frank kicked Gobie out after he was advised by his landlord that Gobie
kept escorting despite the support and was doing so in the residence.[24][25]

Later that year Gobie's friends convinced him he had a gay male version of Mayflower Madam,
a TV movie they had been watching.[24] In 1989 Gobie tried to initiate a bidding war
for the story between WUSA-TV (Channel 9), the Washington Times, and The Washington Post.[24]
He then gave the story to The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract.[25]

Amid calls for an investigation Frank asked the House Ethics Committee
to investigate his relationship "in order to insure that the public record is clear."[26]
The Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved
in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims;
they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office
to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets and for misstatements of fact in a memorandum
relating to Gobie's criminal probation record.[27]
The House voted 408–18 to reprimand Frank.[28][29]

The attempts to censure and expel Frank were led by Republican Larry Craig,
whom Frank later criticized for hypocrisy[30] after Craig's own arrest in 2007
for lewd conduct while soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom.[31][32][33]

Frank won re-election that year with 66 percent of the vote,
and has won by larger margins until the 2010 Mid-term elections
when Frank only won by eleven points.[34]

In 1985 Frank hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex.

In 1987 Frank kicked Gobie out

Frank asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate his relationship
"in order to insure that the public record is clear."

Frank used his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.

and for misstatements of fact in a memorandum relating to Gobie's criminal probation record

Lamplighter;777200 wrote:

- whether you chose to believe this source or not

TheMercenary;778676 wrote:

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

BigV;779149 wrote:

And that's a perfectly good justification for why your character assassination isn't listed in Wikipedia. Such a statement is not basic, not benign, and not accepted by all. You make his point.

I wonder if you have other sources to back up your claim. Do you?

TheMercenary;778676 wrote:

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

basic facts as accepted by all

cannot speak to matters beyond that.

If you ever needed any proof that the congress is totally dysfunctional and unable to do anything - even something it wants - their failure to agree on a payroll tax cut extension is it.

Forget who is at fault. They all are for letting it go this far. Both sides are so determined to undermine the other that they can't even figure out how to do something they both want: Extend the payroll tax cut.

If this gridlock continues, it will be a fitting end to a year in which Congress accomplished absolutely nothing.

Nothing, unless you want to give them credit for not allowing the government to shut down. I give them no credit for that because I think that is the least we should expect of the people we send to Washington. Yet, that was what they spent most of their time arguing about.

What made this latest episode more odious than usual, is that by sending the legislation to a conference committee, House Republicans killed Senate legislation but did not have to go on record as saying they had voted to give people a tax increase. But make no mistake. That is exactly what they have done if this stands.

There is a reason that Congress has a 9-percent approval rating, and today's antics are like putting up a neon sign to remind people of it.

Forget who is at fault.

glatt;781861 wrote:

why?
We all know it's the relatively new Tea Party representatives. This was a bipartisan deal, passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. And the tools in the Tea Party are the spoilers. They shot it down and offered nothing in return. It's very ironic to me that the Tea Party is the group behind the coming tax increases. It's exactly the opposite of what they say they are about.

classicman;781923 wrote:

Although I agree with you for the most part, they are all at fault for dicking around until the last moment. They spend way more time on political posturing than they do on actual legislating.
They need to STFU and DO whats right for us, not them.

glatt;781928 wrote:

The legislators typically dick around until the last minute, until the pressure is really on and they then make a last minute deal. I don't approve of that governing style, but it's the way it has been forever. What's different now, is that they are dicking around until the last minute, they make a deal, and then the Tea Party spoils it and now they have mostly all gone home for the holidays while the middle class gets to face their unemployment benefits being stopped and their paychecks being cut. Merry fucking Christmas, America. Brought to you by the Tea Party.
[ATTACH]36107[/ATTACH]

glatt;781861 wrote:

why?
We all know it's the relatively new Tea Party representatives. This was a bipartisan deal, passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. And the tools in the Tea Party are the spoilers. They shot it down and offered nothing in return. It's very ironic to me that the Tea Party is the group behind the coming tax increases. It's exactly the opposite of what they say they are about.

TheMercenary wrote:

Don't you love how they paid for it?

The bargainers agreed to pay for that by raising fees people pay for new mortgages

SamIam;782458 wrote:

The Senate's two-month version continues the payroll tax and jobless benefits at this year's levels and costs $33 billion. The bargainers agreed to pay for that by raising fees people pay for new mortgages or refinancing insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies. For a $200,000 mortgage, the fee increase would raise a borrower's cost about $17 a month.

BFD. Why are you weeping crocodile tears over THAT? :rolleyes:

But the whole deal only does what ALL POLITICIANS have done repeatedly, kick the can down the calendar and deal with it another day

If you or anyone you know is looking for a job right now, take a look at this opening... and please pass it on to anyone you might know.

Base pay - right off the bat - is $174,100 a year. And you don't need any experience to qualify.

People with all kinds of backgrounds have held this job.

Carpenters, police officers, accountants, taxi drivers, volunteer firemen, musicians, dentists, engineers, farmers, nurses, bank tellers, ministers, driving instructors... Even a tollbooth operator has held this position.

And little education is required, either. Twenty-seven people currently holding one of these jobs have no more than a high-school diploma. And even that isn't required. Not even a GED.

Not bad, considering you'll never have to worry about money again.

In fact, practically every other colleague you'll meet in this job is a millionaire - or multimillionaire.

And in addition to an instant six-figure salary, you'll get three retirement plans. I'm not kidding. This is absolutely true.

You'll be eligible for Social Security benefits, of course, like everyone else. But you'll also get a 401(k)-like plan that "matches" up to 5%. And you'll get an increasingly rare chance to participate in a pension plan, too - a good one. How good?

Even if you only last five years on the job, you're guaranteed an immediate, full pension when you retire at age 62... or at age 50 if you've worked 20 years... or at any time after you've worked 25 years.

You'll collect nearly 44% of your six-figure salary, depending on how long you worked.

Hard to believe, I know... especially these days. So please, if you know someone with good character who's looking for a job, listen up... Because the position gets even better...

While most Americans are paying out the nose for health insurance (and getting less of it) this job comes with the best healthcare money can buy. You'll get to choose from 10 different first-rate plans.

And if you have a preexisting condition, that's okay. You'll be fully covered anyway.

You'll even have the option of visiting a doctor on site, whenever you want.

Or working out in a top-flight gym - for free...

Or taking a spin in your free "company" car, burning all the free gas you can buy...

Or parking it - for free - at the two regional airports near headquarters, which comes in handy...

Once you get this job, you'll be able to fly almost anywhere in the world for free... and make even more money while you're doing it. That's because you'll receive a per diem travel allowance... and get to keep whatever you don't spend - up to $3,000 per trip.

These are just a few of the job's perks. But here's the best part... You barely have to work.

In fact, most of the people who hold this job work only three days a week. And they all enjoy more than a month of paid vacation every year on top of it... often much more.

This may be hard to believe, but it's absolutely true.

Now, if you'd like to apply for one of these openings, there are only two qualifications:

You must be at least 25 years old. And you have to be a U.S. citizen for at least the last nine years. That's it.

The only drawback is that you must be willing to travel to Washington, D.C. from time to time. But only when you really want to, between jaunts to Martha's Vineyard.

And things get even better...

That's because the annual salary is not all the money you can make in this job.

You see, when members of Congress leave office, they can still keep spending the Political Action Committee PAC money on whatever they please... until it's gone.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), for example, has spent $50,807 this way at the Boulders Resort in Carefree, Arizona. And Rep. Pete Sessions of (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has spent $49,739 at several Las Vegas sites, including Dos Caminos, a restaurant that brags about its "vibrant bar scene."

Who's got time to worry about some "debt ceiling" when there's so much extra cash to burn?

But it's not just about the extra money...

Members of Congress can also increase their existing wealth... in ways the rest of us aren't allowed.

If, for example, Congress is considering a law that would help or harm a particular industry, members are free to use that information to buy or sell stock. So it's totally legal for them to personally profit from insider information.

The most popular investment among members of Congress? General Electric, in which 82 current members are invested.

Members also get a special tax deduction of $3,000 to write off living expenses when away from their congressional districts or home states. And, of course, the value of most of the other perks is not taxable.

I mean, why tax that income when you can simply add to our country's debt problems?

Let's face it... Our "representatives" are officially out of touch. They have no idea how real Americans live on a day-to-day basis.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready to stop filling up 535 extra gas tanks each week...

Especially when 58% of Congress members are millionaires. And the "non-millionaires" are doing just fine.

The median wealth of a House member in 2009 was $765,010.

For a senator, it was $2.38 million.

Despite what they tell us, working in Congress is not a "Public Service." It's a job - an incredibly lucrative one.

We believe it's too lucrative. And it's time for it to stop. It's time to send a message.

Congress should be watching out for us - not profiting off of us. In fact, it's time for Congress to live like we do. We believe members of the U.S. Congress should be subjected to the same economic realities the rest of us must face.

If you're ready to stop filling up 535 extra gas tanks a week... stop paying for your representative's gym membership...or taking care of his parking tickets (Yes, we pay for those, too.)... Or funding their extra retirement plan...

Then take a second to let your voice be heard. Vote today. We need as many votes as possible.

We're going to make the results public and share the poll results with major media outlets across the country. Our goal? To eliminate their excessive, taxpayer-funded perks and make Congress pay its own way... just like the rest of us. No more freebies.

The more votes we have, the better chance of getting our voices heard.

So are you ready? Are you ready to start making these people live like the rest of us?

We are. And now we're ready to do something about it.

You can vote right here. And if you know anyone else who would like to stop buying gourmet soups and sandwiches for rich people on Capitol Hill every day, pass this on.

Yours truly,

classicman;782547 wrote:

If some would just stop bitching about caring for their fellow man and spend more time working on the implementation, we'd all be far better off.

infinite monkey;785725 wrote:

You're just being ridiculous. Cut it out. ;)

TheMercenary;785724 wrote:

Well that is not how things work in a society of a Right to "pursue happiness".