How much compromise...?

Paul Brandus has an article in The Week titled "Why Cantor's upset is bad news for Obama." This refers to the defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in his primary, to a Tea Party-supported candidate. Brandus's point is that the House Republicans will move even further to the right, making it more difficult for Obama to accomplish his agenda, since Cantor was somewhat willing to work with Obama.

One passage in the story is amusing: "The [Republican] establishment group would prefer to at least talk to President Obama and look for common ground on key issues; the far right sees this as a waste of time. To them, there's no common ground to be had. Obama must be resisted — completely, on everything, and with no room for compromise."

Does anyone remember any sense of "compromise" from Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress? Have Senate Democrats "compromised" with Republicans on any of their agenda? 

No. To the contrary. Democrats excluded Republicans almost completely from legislation when they had control of Congress. Harry Reid's Senate not only shuts down Republican requests for debate or the opportunity to offer amendments to legislation, they actually changed the rules so they could force through Obama's judicial nominees over Republican opposition.

Now that Republicans control half of Congress, and Tea Party-leaning Republicans are exerting their own power, it's that one particular contingent that is being blamed for an unwillingness to compromise. Laughable.

Others Say Smart Stuff Too - Part XLII

The Democrats have made a lot of stew out of the supposed "unconstitutionality" of the Republican House's actions regarding funding the government. The Republicans have been described as anarchists, terrorists, hostage takers, and other names less savory. Critics say, "Obamacare was passed by both (Democrat) houses of Congress, signed into law by the (Democrat) President, and ruled Constitutional." (My notes added to improve accuracy.) The overall Democrat theme is "How dare Republicans use funding in this way?"

The answer lies in the words of James Madison, America's fourth President, and the man often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution." Here's what he had to say about the House of Representatives and funding (Some emphasis is mine):

"The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of Government. They, in a word, hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the People gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the Government.

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon, with which any Constitution can arm the immediate Representatives of the People, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - James Madison, Federalist Papers #58 (1788)

As the closest representatives of the people (the majority of whom oppose Obamacare) it is the House's duty to use the power of the purse to fulfill the people's wishes. Refusing funding, reducing the prerogatives ("excesses") of other branches of government, and redressing ("remedying") the grievances of the people are right in line with what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I hate always being right

FoxNews headline, January 11, 2012: "Millions noticing paychecks lighter today, due to payroll tax hike"

Whattaya know, two months after the election, and almost two years before the next one, our taxes go up. Remember that "nobody making under $200,000 will pay more in taxes" promise? Remember how many of us were saying that was just a flat-out lie? 

For anyone who voted Democrat in the last four years, congratulations, you're reaping what you sowed. 

A deadlocked Congress is no victory

Yesterday morning, Cole Shooter, a "guest host" on KFYO's LFN (Lubbock's First News) commented that he would be perfectly happy with a deadlocked Congress, because if they were deadlocked then government spending couldn't increase.

It's a mistake to perceive a deadlocked Congress as any sort of victory for limited government.  The ratchet effect toward a bigger government still works -- first, in that many entitlement programs have automatic increases which add to federal spending, and which increases continue even if Congress does nothing.  

Liberals also advance the power and scope of the federal government when in office (as we've seen so well the last two years.)  If Conservatives merely keep the status quo when they're elected, rather than reverse the growth, the result is a slow but sure realization of Liberal objectives.  A slow defeat is still a defeat.  The only victory possible for Conservatives is the appropriate reversal and cancellation of government programs (including unlegislated mandates by government regulatory agencies; e.g. EPA.)

Congressional justice quantified, Part 2

From a report on the House Rules governing how the US House of Representatives punishes its own members (paraphrased): 


A reprimand is a vote by Congress criticizing a member for his conduct.
A censure is a vote by Congress criticizing a member for his conduct, in which the member has to stand at the front of the group.

• Republican Joe Wilson, for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech. Reprimanded.
• Democrat Charlie Rangel, found guilty of 11 misconduct charges, ranging from ethics violations to improper solicitation for funds from parties with business before Congress. Censured.

It's all in who you know.

"This is why the American people have thrown you out"

Wow. Political theatrics, yes, but wow.  (And he's right.)

THIS is what politics is all about

Yahoo Financial news headline: "Members of US Congress get richer despite sour economy"

Not to mention the reports that show public sector (government) employment has risen during the recession of the last two years, while private sector employment has gone down. And that federal employees receive 54% more in pay and benefits than private sector workers doing the same job. Coincidentally, government employees now represent more than half of all union memberships.

Whose for bigger government? The ones who get to keep taxpayer money, that's who.

Yet another reason I don't run for public office

This morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Politico‘s Executive Editor Jim VandeHei discussed the temptations (and perils thereof) that await new congressmen when they get to Washington, DC -- "Especially unattractive members of the Congress who have not had women show attention to them maybe since college. They come here. Power is an aphrodisiac. Suddenly they have women who are interested in them. It’s a temptation some can’t withstand."  


Who needs that kind of trouble?

Well, well, well...sometimes it takes a while

Politics daily headline, September 21, 2010:  "GOP prepares to unveil new 'Contract with America'"

The article begins with "Republicans are going back to their '90s playbook as Election Day approaches..."  The author then goes on to delineate how Republicans are making promises about what they will do, such as freezing tax rates, cutting back on spending, and a repeal of Obamacare.

I referenced the appeal of the 1994 Republican "Contract with America" previously, in 2005.  One of the points that I raised was that such a contract would hold politicians acountable.  They will either do what they agree to, or they won't. 

In the current political environment everyone wants to appear Conservative -- Democrats are running ads that they opposed Obama, and John McCain reversed his longheld position on border security (now he's for it.)  Politicians will say anything to get elected.  A scorecard will make it easier to see if they keep their word.

But what if they don't?  Senators stick around for six years, and Representatives for two.  They can do a lot of damage before we have a chance to evict them.  Politicians lie.  (72% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of members of Congress, according to a Rasmussen survey.)  If Republicans win in November, as current projections show, their feet need to be held to the fire.  If -- or when -- they divert from what they agreed to do while campaigning for the job, they need to be blasted by their constituents.  Lying politicians should not have a moment's peace.

For anyone born since 1992

Coming this fall: I Want Your Money

Best line, from Ronald Reagan: "I would say they [Congress] are spending money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors.  The sailors are spending their own money."

Congressional justice quantified

I've written previously. about Charlie Rangel's troubles. An investigative Congressional panel has issued its recommendation.  Here's how the Democrat Congress metes out justice

Republican Representative Joe Wilson's offense -- He shouted out "You lie!" as Obama addressed the Congress. Penalty: Congressional reprimand.
 
Democrat Representative Charlie Rangel's list of alleged offenses:
1. Conduct in violation of the solicitation and gift ban
2. Conduct in violations of Code of Ethics for Government Service (clause 5)
3. Conduct in violation of the House gift rule
4. Conduct in violation of postal service laws and franking commission regulations
5. Conduct in violation of any franking statute
6. Conduct in violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations
7. Conduct in violation of the purpose law and the Member's Congressional Handbook
8. Conduct in violation of the Letterhead Rules
9. Conduct in violation of the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) and House Rule 16
10. Conduct in violation of Code of ethics for Government Service (clause 5)
11. Conduct in violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service (clause 2)
12. Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
13. Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discredibility on the House
• House Rules state that a Member "shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."
• Subcommittee finds Rangel violated this with the following offenses:
1. -Improper solicitations of potential donors to the Rangel Center
-Acceptance of favors and benefits from donors to the Rangel Center in a way that some might see as influence the job he does in Congress
-Knowingly accepting indirect gifts from donors to the Rangel Center
-Improperly using franking privileges to raise money for the Rangel Center
-Writing solicitations for the Rangel Center on House property
-Misusing House resources- staff, phones, e-mail and franking for work related to the Rangel Center.
2. -Misuse of Congressional letterhead to solicit donations to the Rangel Center
-Failing to disclose, from 1998 to 2007, full and complete financial statements
3. -Rangel's pattern of submitting Financial Disclosure statements that were incomplete and inaccurate
-Failing to make sure his Financial Disclosure statements were complete and accurate
-Violating the Ethics in Government Act
-Failing to report rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic on his Federal income tax returns from 1998 to 2006
4. -Violating the Internal Revenue Code
5. -Receiving rent stabilized apartment, using it for campaign activities when the lease stated it should be used only for living purposes
6. -Accepting the rent stabilized apartment in a way that could look like he was influence in his government activities by the deal
7. -By breaking the law, Rangel violated the Code of Ethics for Government Service
8. -By not adhering to the letter and spirit of House Rules
-"Respondent's pattern of indifference or disregard for the laws, rules and regulations of the United States and the House of Representatives is a serious violation"
9. -"Respondent's actions and accumulation of actions reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House"

Recommended penalty: Congressional reprimand.

It took a year-and-a-half, but...

Associated Press: "Panel hits Rangel with 13 alleged ethics charges" (Note: despite the AP's attempt to soften the blow, the charges are not alleged.)


I first wrote about Charlie Rangel's ethics problems back in December of 2008. Sometimes Congress takes a while to see if one of them smells worse than usual.

AP: GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

With a Republican having won the important 41st Senate seat, making possible Republican filibusters to block Democrat legislation, the Democrats have several crafty maneuvers they can use to pass healthcare. None of them are ethical; all of them reflect massive arrogance. But since when has that stopped these guys?

1. They can hurry through the vote before Brown takes over the Senate seat. The House of Representatives can be pressured to accept the Senate vesion of healthcare legislation -- quickly. Democrats have been meeting in secret with the Obama White House (no C-Span cameras covering these meetings) and a vote may come as early as Saturday, January 23.
2. They delay Brown's seating by having the Massachusetts Secretary of State (a Democrat) delay his confirmation, or the Democrat Senate leaders can take their time seating him. This gives them time to make more deals.
3. Democrats can use the power of reconciliation, a maneuver in the Senate where they tie legislation to the budget, which limits debate and allows passage with only 51 votes. The House has a similar rule, but it is much easier to carry out through majority leadership strongarming.

Obviously, classifying healthcare legislation as a "budget" item stretches incredulity, but nothing is out of the question anymore when it comes to Obama and the Democrats in charge of Congress. However, the victory of a Republican in a dark blue state reinvigorates the Republican party, which was pronounced DOA after Obama's victory last year.

Bought and Paid For

From the Associated Press: GOP's Snowe Will Vote for Democratic Health Bill "WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans...."

Note: The Democrat legislation will still leave 20+ million Americans without insurance coverage. Sounds like Snowe held out for a better price.

What the Heck is Going On?

In case you haven't heard, one of the most popular presidential candidates of all time won the presidency last year, with the aid of a fawning, non-vetting media. His party (Democrat) controls both houses of Congress, to the point where they can ram through any legislation they want without a single Republican vote. They did just that with the "stimulus" bill earlier this year.

The Republicans are leaderless and impotent, with little support for the party nationwide. The media have continued their near unanimous worship of Obama.

• Yet Obama can't get his healthcare legislation passed.
• Forty-nine percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's job performance, up sharply since he took office. 52% disapprove of his ideas on healthcare.
• Obama was publicly called out in Congress by Republican Joe Wilson. Although the Democrats voted to censure Wilson based on their party strength, Wilson received over $1 million in donations to his campaign after his outburst.
• The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to defund Obama's support group ACORN.

What the heck is going on? It can only be attributed to one thing -- the power of the tea parties, the townhall protests, and the massive anti-big government protest in Washington DC on September 12. The voices of angry American citizens have scared the crap out of politicians.

If for no other reason, our voices need to be raised even more. Politicians need to be afraid of the electorate. They must be reminded that their phony-baloney jobs depend on us. For the next thirteen months, America's citizens must be heard in Washington. The loudest message must be sent in November 2010.

The Grandkids Can Eat Gruel

The Heritage Foundation has an interesting analysis of the Obama spending plans. You can read the article, but the picture packs quite a punch:

P.S. Remember that Congress actually determines government spending. Remember it especially well in next year's election.

Let's Start Keeping Score

The Obama administration and its willing accomplices in the Democrat-controlled Congress have developed the technique of rushing through enormous legislation, because of the dire consequences they claim would happen if anyone carefully inspected, thoroughly contemplated, or even actually read the legislation. As a result, the trillion dollar stimulus bill and the trillion dollar climate bill both passed quickly, against Republican resistance.

Since hurried legislation was so necessary, let's look at the first results of the stimulus bill. Without the stimulus bill, the Obama administration said, unemployment could reach as high as 8.5 percent by April. With the Democrat bill, we were told, unemployment would only reach 7.8 percent.

As of today, less than a week after the end of the second quarter, unemployment is at 9.5 percent. This is what Vice President Joe Biden meant when he said everyone "guessed wrong" on unemployment. Biden said the White House is keenly aware of the gap between the rhetoric used to sell fast passage of the legislation and reality.

***
I subscribe to Edmund Burke's idea of Conservatism, wherein change is introduced gradually, building on the wisdom of what has gone before. Change must be organic, rather than revolutionary. Rushing through radical change without due consideration, "may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation." I don't think our latest generation of Congressmen have shown themselves to be unusually wise. The stimulus legislation scorecard illustrates this.

Obama's "Extremist" Dictionary

Obama's Homeland Security department issued an "extremism dictionary" recently. Among those considered potential threats to America are those who oppose abortion and those who oppose taxes. It also warns about those who "link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution." Also mentioned are those who believe in the sovereignty of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Obama administration has amped up its efforts to criminalize those who oppose it, even in thought or belief. It's informative to note some of the beliefs that it feels threaten it. With the collusion of the Democrat Congress, Obama can now create laws to enforce its views.

What did you expect? Remember this in 2010 and 2012.

AIG and the Monkeys

AIG is the insurance company that collided with a financial iceberg and which Congress has given billions and billions of our dollars. AIG took some of that money and paid some of its executives hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. Everyone is mad at AIG and Congress, so Congress (and Obama) are screaming at AIG and enacting legislation to create a special tax to get the bonus money back.

Now then.

The agreement that Congress created and which AIG signed before the money was given over last fall included language that specifically okayed the bonuses. So the first thing to say is that Congress has zero credibility in showing outrage now.

Most Congressmen are saying that they didn't know the language was in the agreement. This indicates one of two things: 1) These Congressmen are lying; or 2) They are incompetent, voting for something they don't understand. Neither one of these options reflects well on these buffoons.

The language was eventually traced back to Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. He has been one of the loudest critics of the bonus money -- no hypocrisy there -- and at first denied knowing anything about the language in the agreement.

Let's back up for a moment. In his notorious appearance on the Tonight Show, Obama said he was "stunned" when he learned about the AIG bonuses. That would indicate some level of surprise, right? Stay tuned.

Back to Dodd. On Tuesday, March 17, in an interview, Dodd denied knowing anything about wording in the agreement that specficially provided for bonuses to be paid to executives. The next day, Dodd said that his words had been "misunderstood," and that he had, in fact, inserted the specific wording.

Ahem.

Now it gets interesting. Remember how "stunned" Obama was at learning of the bonuses? Dodd claims that he inserted the language okaying the bonuses against his own judgment but under pressure from the administration. So either Obama is lying, or Dodd is lying, or they are both lying. Regardless of the answer to that question, it is evident that they are both incompetent.

And incidentally, AIG has been the fourth-largest political contributor to Democrat Senator Chris Dodd over the course of his political career.

The AIG situation is what it is. The government should never have given them any money in the first place. Now that it has, though, members of Congress look like a bunch of chattering monkeys trying to get their faces on television so that they can show us how they, too, are enraged at the bonuses -- blithely stepping past the fact that they approved the bonuses in the first place.

Hard to Understand

I've decided that after next Tuesday, I'm taking a break from politics for at least two weeks. This election has confused me more than any election ever. I absolutely do not understand the fascination with Obama. No big deal, there are a lot of things I don't understand, but usually I can put together an explanation for the opposing point of view. Not this time. The support for Obama is clearly not based on anything he's ever done, and the people who support him are fervent to the point of religious zeal. Those two facts just do not go together in my mind.

McCain may win; Obama will likely win. I know that the polls can't be trusted. Imagine you're a black voter who goes into the booth and decides that Obama is just not qualified (a very rational decision.) You go outside and the network reporter shoves a camera and microphone in your face and asks you how you voted. Are you going to say you voted for Obama, or for the white guy? The networks will start calling the election for Obama at about noon.

Even if McCain wins, however, I'll need a break from the craziness of this election. It will be fun to focus on other topics for a while. After that, we'll see. If Obama wins and the Democrat Congress starts its turn toward collectivism, I'll be making observations to say "You were warned."