Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday called for the elimination of the House rule that prohibits holding votes open for the purpose of changing the outcome.
“Rule 2(a) is not enforceable,” Hoyer told the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of Aug. 2, 2007, adding that he would not be opposed to a committee recommendation to eliminate that rule.
The rule in question was one of the signature accomplishments of the new Democratic majority when they took leadership of the House in 2007. It was intended to prevent the sort of arm-twisting that has become common on close votes. Now that it's become inconvenient to a majority that frequently faces close votes, they will apparently do away with it.
The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments.
Yesterday Democrats announced agreement on a conference report for the federal budget:
Senate and House budget writers have reached a compromise on a budget resolution that could be taken up by both bodies as soon as next week, said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad.
"We reached agreement," Conrad said Monday. "We reached agreement on Friday night..."
The compromise clears the way for congressional leaders to name members to a conference committee.
"So we are ready now for the House and Senate to name conferees," Conrad said. "We expect that will be done this week and we could perhaps have a conference either late this week or early next."
In retrospect, the Republicans simply weren't very efficient. Too often they named Democratic conferees and then made key decisions without them. Democrats are far more efficient: making all the decisions before any conferees are even named.
The House Democratic Blue Dogs have enshrined one policy goal above all others: balancing the federal budget. So far this Congress they've rolled over and allowed Democratic leaders to push through legislation to increase spending and maintain existing tax rates, even where such moves have expanded the deficit. Now that it's time to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan however, they say they will not budge:
So far in the 110th Congress, Democrats have added hundreds of billions in unpaid-for spending on the wars, tax cuts and domestic programs while trying to claim credit for reinstituting a PAYGO rule, albeit one that is so weak that Democrats have been able to all but ignore it.
Last year, Democrats forced through an alternative minimum tax relief package without offsets over the objections of Blue Dogs, and this year, they passed a massive bipartisan stimulus package without offsets as well.
To be clear, the Blue Dog objection is not to the war funding itself -- which is almost certain to be approved as emergency spending. Rather, it's to a $52 billion expansion of veterans' benefits that the Democratic leadership is trying to push through without paying for it. Democrats may wind up deeply embarrassed that the 'difficult vote' they had set up for Republicans -- for a clean funding bill, or for more veterans' benefits -- will be short-circuited by their own team.
And as for the funding for our troops? Don't worry -- Congress will get to it eventually...
The Senate Appropriations Committee postponed its scheduled Thursday markup of this year’s war supplemental spending bill, after the House delayed floor consideration of the legislation until next week...
Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, says the Pentagon needs the funding bill completed by Memorial Day:
"We need [the supplemental appropriations bill] very badly before the Memorial Day recess. We stop paying soldiers on the 15th of June and we have precious little flexibility with respect to that," Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview at his Pentagon office last week. "Clearly that creates incredible constraints and difficulties for us."
Without the extra funding, Mullen said, the Defense Department would be forced to delay contract awards and withhold other spending to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. "It makes it extremely difficult to execute the day-to-day business of the Pentagon without knowing the money is coming," he said.
The only reason this legislation has not yet passed is that Congressional Democrats refuse to allow a stand-alone funding bill to come to the floor, where it would likely be supported by all Republicans and a handful of Democrats. Instead, Pelosi and Reid insist that the legislation be supported by a broad swath of Democrats -- a policy they decried when it was practiced by Republicans. Instead, they again choose to play politics with the safety of our troops. It's become clear that for Democrats in Congress, they simply can't help themselves.
Bush to Push for Colombia, Panama, Korea Trade Agreements
The president made clear today in his comments before the Organization of American States that he will continue to press ahead for Congressional consideration and passage of outstanding trade deals:
Yesterday I met with the President of Panama. I assured him our efforts to get the Panamanian trade bill passed will be just as vociferous and vigorous as our efforts to get the Colombia trade bill passed. Congress must understand they have a chance to spread prosperity in our neighborhood; they have a chance to support friends in our neighborhood. And there's no better way to express that friendship than to support the Colombia free trade agreement, the Panamanian free trade agreement, and while they're at it, to send a clear message around the world that the South Korean free trade agreement is good for the U.S. economy as well.
Each of these trade deals is good for the U.S. economy -- reducing barriers to our exports and giving consumers more choices and better prices when they make purchases. That's reason enough to continue to press ahead for passage.
Beyond that however, it's good politics. As things now stand, the Democratic leadership in Congress will never give the president a fair shot to win passage of these accords. Their preference is effectively to kill the deals by never allowing them to see the light of day. That being the case, the president has an incentive to force the question on Congress in each instance, and make the Congressional leadership take responsibility for inaction.
As the election approaches, we'll see if Democrats in Congress really are content to insult Panama and Korea, as well as Colombia.
From Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) writing at the Huffington Post:
Had the French been victorious in that original Battle of Puebla on May 5th, 1862, they could have continued their influence across the Mexican nation, and would have likely supported the Confederacy in its battle against Union forces. Instead, the French had to regroup their forces and concentrate on their war with Mexico, which was much more united just one year after the first attack. Of course, just fourteen months after the Battle of Puebla, the U.S. Civil War would see a major battle when Union forces claimed victory at Gettysburg and effectively brought a close to the Civil War.
I guess nobody told General Sherman. And while I'll concede a rather weak grasp of Mexican military history, I'm pretty sure the French sacked the Mexican capital one year after that first attack--as in conquered the country and installed an emperor a month before the Battle of Gettysburg. Exit earmark proposal: $100,000 for remedial history courses for the esteemed and honorable members of the United States House of Representatives.
Ted Stevens (R-AK) needs all the friends he can get. He's the subject of a Justice Department investigation and he faces a real Democratic challenger for the first time in years. It's made him one of the top Democratic targets this year. But in a strong demonstration that Congressional appropriators are the third party in Washington -- and more united than both Republicans and Democrats -- Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is raising money for his re-election bid:
Putting their friendship above party, Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) will headline a fundraiser today for one of the Democrats’ top targets this cycle, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska).
Inouye, who chairs the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on which Stevens is the ranking member, is the “special guest” at the noon event at 101 Constitution Ave. NW. According to the invitation, the lunch is organized by several high-profile lobbyists, including Stevens’ former top aide, Lisa Sutherland. The fundraiser seeks $1,000 in contributions from individuals and $5,000 from political action committees to aid Stevens’ bid for an eighth term this fall.
Inouye and Stevens have long been allies and senior appropriators, and have reputations for putting their personal and working relationships ahead of party politics. In the 2004 cycle, Stevens similarly helped Inouye raise thousands of dollars for his re-election, which was not seriously contested.
It's good to know that some bonds are stronger than ethics investigations.
A number of contributors to this blog have written on the controversial tanker deal awarded by the Air Force to EADS, and currently being investigated by GAO (examples here, here, here, here, and here). Now it looks like the House at least, is getting ready to pass legislation to undo the deal:
First, those lawmakers are readying measures that would prevent the Air Force from following through on the contract, which was awarded to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. and the U.S. arm of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space company (EADS).
Second, they propose to permanently change Pentagon contracting rules that they believe favor foreign firms over U.S. companies...
The Buy American movement could be helped by a slowing economy, growing concern about the outsourcing of jobs abroad and the pressures of an election year, analysts said. In the House, particularly, the odds are good for passage of legislation related to the tanker deal.
The White House is likely to issue a veto threat on any legislation to retroactively overturn the contract award. This probably gives Boeing advocates in Congress a free pass: they can vote for legislation to protect American jobs, knowing that in the end it won't be enacted. That's assuming of course, that Congressional leaders are content to let the issue die after a veto.
The more significant question is what U.S. trading partners do if and when Congress adopts legislation to reverse the award. Congressional actions typically get a lot of attention in foreign capitols.
Last year Congress cracked down on banks making too big a profit off of student loans. Democrats were delighted to stop rapacious lenders like SLMA from taking a pound of flesh from America's students. Speaker Pelosi was so proud of the bill that she even convened a photo-op intended to make it look like a presidential signing ceremony, and then instructed people to applaud (around 1:56).
The only problem with slashing the rate of return on student loans? Lenders are now losing money hand over fist. Sallie Mae continues to write loans in the hopes that Congress fixes the mess it created, but many other banks have dropped the business entirely.
Congress is frantically trying to enact a fix before May, when many college-bound students will be submitting loan applications. But rather than admit their error and repeal the bad bill they passed last year, Democrats in Congress are getting ready to craft a bill that provides taxpayer subsidies to hurting lenders:
Usually, the law of unintended consequences takes so long to reveal itself that no one remembers the culprits. But the speed at which Congress's student lending changes have gone south is raising political danger for Democrats, if Republicans had the wit to point it out. (They don't; that's why they're Republicans.)...
The result is that the same man who authored last year's bill to cut lenders' returns has crafted a new bill to subsidize those same lenders. Last week the House passed Education and Labor Chairman George Miller's latest foray into collegiate finance. The bill gives the Department of Education new authority to purchase loans directly from lenders.
To summarize: Congress mandated a return on student loans that is too low to attract private capital in the current market. So Congress will now use your money to create artificial investor demand. Taxpayers will bear more risk so that Congress can fashion a new business model to replace the one it just destroyed. The Bush Administration, unwisely but typically, has endorsed this approach.
The hypocrisy defies belief. And it gets worse when you realize that Congress is also trying to convince the Fed and the U.S. Treasury to take on these nonperforming student loans, even as they criticize the Fed for accepting bad mortgages. It seems the essential difference is that if the Fed puts itself on the hook for the student loans, at least the Senate might not look so bad. Not to worry though -- at the end of the day it'll all be papered over with a little more taxpayer money.
Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.
“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.
His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases.
The good news: Barry Fleming, Broun's challenger in this summer's Republican primary, has outraised him 9-1. Writing in Reason a few months back, Dave Weigel said "Fleming may start this campaign as the favorite, but there is substantial, enduring support for a congressman [Broun] who shares the voters’ contempt for Congress." Yes, contempt for Congress, I wonder where that comes from...
I've pointed out recently how House Democrats have threatened to block Canadian oil imports. The proverbial thumb-in-the-eye of Colombia has also been well-chronicled. Now comes news that House Democrats may soon get the chance to kill the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. That's because Korea has conceded on the one issue that is preventing the accord from coming up for a vote:
The U.S. and South Korea have reached formal agreement on a plan to lift the Asian nation's long ban on U.S. beef exports, removing a major impediment that has held up action in Congress on a trade pact that would tighten economic ties between the two nations...
Two-way trade between the U.S. and South Korea in 2007 totaled more than $80 billion. U.S. officials estimate the proposed trade deal would spur billions of dollars a year in added economic activity, boosting sales abroad of American-made goods but also opening creating new opportunities for U.S. financial-services companies. The deal with South Korea would be the largest U.S. bilateral trade pact since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.
The usual cast of characters opposes the Korea FTA. The AFL-CIO says it hurts both the United States and Korea. Public Citizen has organized a coalition against the accord. A grand coalition of labor and environmental groups will soon descend upon Capitol Hill to threaten any Democrats who seem inclined to vote for the FTA.
Yet the agreement is another win-win for U.S. consumers and workers. Korea's agricultural tariffs are about four times those of the United States. Overall, Korea applies tariffs roughly three times those of this nation. Once the agreement is implemented, 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer products will be duty-free, and more than half of all agricultural trade will be duty-free immediately. It's not surprising that the accord is supported by dozens of export-oriented U.S. industries.
The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement won't be sent to Capitol Hill immediately. While the administration may see political value in forcing House Democrats to go on record on the issue, they would rather see it enacted. Therefore the first step will be to hold consultations with Congressional leaders.
Congressional Democrats have a difficult negotiating position, however. The last thing they want to do is vote against the unions just a few months before election day. At the same time, it would be politically damaging to kill a second agreement with a key U.S. ally in such short order.
Of course, if Speaker Pelosi hadn't killed the Colombia FTA so rashly, they might not face such a tough choice.
Dem Energy Bill Threatens Defense, Alienates Canada
Democrats frequently complain about gasoline prices, right before they take action to limit our available supply of oil -- thereby increasing prices further. The energy bill that they passed last year is an excellent example. In that legislation, Congress reclassified oil derived from Canada's tar sands as an alternative fuel which produced excessive amounts of carbon -- thereby putting it off limits for use by the U.S. government. That could put a serious crimp in plans to increase U.S. consumption of this fuel from 1 million barrels per day to 3 million barrels. From Investors Business Daily:
"Classifying the oil sands as a nonconventional fuel," said Tristan Landry, a spokesman for Canada's Embassy in Washington, "would unnecessarily complicate the integrated Canada-U.S. energy relationship."
"Unnecessarily complicate" is putting it politely. Really, it's like someone dying of thirst but refusing to drink from a burbling spring just feet away. It makes absolutely no sense.
Curiously, this provision poses problems for the U.S. and Canada -- one of our most loyal and trusted allies. However, just like the decision to block the Colombian FTA, it also makes Hugo Chavez very happy, since it would leave the United States a little more dependent on Venezuelan oil. One wonders what the Congressional approval rating is in Caracas.
In any case, the Air Force is weighing in heavily in an effort to get Congress to undo the ban. And Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is expected to offer an amendment that would correct congress' monumental blunder:
Sources say Inhofe, who recently introduced a bill to repeal the GHG restrictions in section 526 of the 2007 energy law, may offer the proposal as a floor amendment to defense authorization legislation, which is currently pending in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The defense bill is expected to pass out of committee within the month and go to the floor shortly thereafter. Inhofe is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican on the Environment & Public Works Committee.
Let's hope that Congress decides its better to address the interests of the Defense Department and Canada than it is the government of Venezuela. No sure thing.
The House agenda appears thin even for an election year, and majority Democrats are in no hurry to send bills to die in the Senate or to provide targets for Republican sniping.
Democrats are counting on picking up seats this year, and observers say they plan to run on the strength of their accomplishments in 2007. ..
Of late, House Democrats — back in the majority after a 12-year hiatus — have begun taking bills that would normally be considered under suspension and putting them through the rules process to have something to debate on the floor.
The suspension calendar is reserved for non-controversial bills, which are expected to pass by better than a two-thirds majority. And if you look at the list of recent House votes, there's not much there apart from post offices and federal buildings -- what else is new.
Democrats are banking on a fall victory that gives them control of the White House, and of Congress by a wider margin. Democratic strategists say that will allow them to pursue a more 'ambitious' agenda next year. For the time being, their strategy is to avoid difficult legislation, and hope that a combination of a fundraising advantage and a popular nominee allows them to overcome their dismal approval rating.
CQ Politicsreports that the sponsors of the chief Senate climate change legislation are pleased with the cost estimate of the bill released by the Congressional Budget Office. That's because their proposal won't cost the federal government a dime. In fact, it will raise taxes by about $1.2 trillion over ten years. And CQ cryptically notes that it will 'cost the private sector billions of dollars annually.'
This imprecise report led me to go and find the CBO estimate. What do they mean by 'billions of dollars annually'?
CBO estimates that enacting S. 2191, as amended, would increase revenues by about $1.21 trillion over the 2009-2018 period, net of income and payroll tax offsets...
S. 2191 also would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. The most costly mandates would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period...
So $1.2 trillion in new taxes, and about $100 billion more a year in compliance costs borne by the private sector. Given that concerns about jobs and economic growth are now the overriding issue for the 2008 election, is it really smart for Democrats to push a measure that's likely to be a major job killer, and a drag on economic growth?
With the House of Representatives likely to vote today to kill the Colombia trade deal, it's worthwhile to look at what the deal would do for our trade with that nation. The U.S. Trade Representative sends the following data:
...Since 1991, Congress has given Colombian products almost complete duty-free access to the US market while US products going into the Colombian market place still face stiff tariffs. The Colombia agreement finally allows American workers to compete on a level playing field. Eighty percent of all tariffs on US goods will go to ZERO on day one of the agreement entering into force (the tariff on cars is 35%, furniture is 20%, high quality US beef is 80%, etc).
Since 1991, U.S. workers and businesses have paid over a BILLION in tariffs to sell their wares in the Colombian market. Colombian workers and businesses have paid close to zero to sell in the U.S. Every day we delay enactment of the Colombia FTA we hurt U.S. workers, farmers and entrepreneurs who will benefit from opening the Colombian market to U.S. exports in manufactured goods like tractors from Illinois, TVs from Pennsylvania, washers from Ohio and agricultural goods like beef, pears and rice – all the time while the U.S. market is almost totally open to theirs.
Is the Colombia deal a good one for U.S. workers and consumers? Listen to Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez of California, who opposes it because it is too effective in expanding markets for U.S. goods:
The safety of Colombian workers is too important to risk. We need to see results.
I am also concerned that the FTA will gut Colombia’s legitimate agricultural industry. Colombian farmers will be forced to compete with subsidized crops in the United States.
Here's a crazy idea: let the Colombian government worry about their agricultural sector. If you honestly believe the accord will significantly increase sales of U.S. exports -- as it clearly will -- then you ought to approve it as quickly as possible, not kill it.
Speaker Pelosi's arrogant and unilateral move is a stick in the eye of America's staunchest allies in the hemisphere. By demonstrating that America is willing to break its word even to its best friends, it empowers Hugo Chavez just when it seemed that his influence was on the wane in the region. It also takes away from future presidents one of their most important 'soft' foreign policy tools: improved trade relations with the U.S.
That's a lot of damage done in one quick stroke. And for what?
Speaker Pelosi won't admit it, but if the House backs her recommendation to indefinitely postpone the consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, then the accord is dead for the foreseeable future. That's because the decision removes the single most important driver for support of trade agreements: the knowledge that a vote will take place by a specific date, no matter what.
Under the rules of Trade Promotion Authority, once the president submits an agreement to the House and Senate, it must receive an up-or-down vote within 90 days. No amendments are permitted, and neither are any delays. Speaker Pelosi is preparing to strip the timetable from the law, so it does not apply to the Colombia FTA. Even Pelosi cannot claim that this is consistent with House rules -- she says "it's sort of in-keeping with the rules of the House".
Pelosi claims that the reason she's indefinitely deferring a vote is that if it came up for a vote today, it would lose. But the fact is, the vast majority of Reps. commit their votes only when the schedule forces them to. Why should they anger labor or the business community unless forced to? Only when a vote is scheduled do most elected officials come off the fence.
By deferring the vote, Pelosi has taken away that urgency permanently. Once the Democratic leadership demonstrates a willingness to do the unprecedented -- and cancel a vote that was previously set in stone -- there's no reason for them not to do so again. Members of Congress will now be able tell advocates of the agreement that they're still considering both sides of the argument, and that it would be irresponsible to take a firm stand without knowing what the region may look like when the agreement is voted on.
Make no mistake: if the House ratifies Pelosi's decision -- as it likely will -- then this Colombia Free Trade Agreement is dead. This is an important victory for Hugo Chavez and America's enemies in Latin America, and a serious blow to our staunchest ally in that critical region -- and Mark Penn
There have long been rumblings that Senate Democrats no longer believe Robert Byrd (D-WV) capable of fulfilling his duties as Appropriations Committee chairman. There have been backroom whisperings that the time had come to push him aside and allow someone younger and more energetic to take the reins -- even if Byrd remained the nominal chairman of the committee. Now it seems that time has come:
The Senate Democrats met during their weekly leadership meeting that includes the elected party leadership, as well as a broader group of regional whips and officers. Byrd’s diminishing health was not the reason for the session, sources said, but came up during the Senators’ discussion about the upcoming debate over a $100 billion-plus supplemental spending bill on Iraq.
Byrd, 90, has been in and out of the hospital in recent weeks, and he missed a series of votes before the spring recess. Concerns have been mounting for some time about his ability to handle his appropriations duties, but so far, Senate leaders have been unwilling to take action.
One high-level Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Senators on Tuesday raised “serious concerns about his ability to handle his appropriations work, especially with the upcoming hearings on the supplemental.
“They are struggling to try to figure out how to deal with the situation.”
Officially, it's not yet been decided that Byrd will see his workload lightened, but it seems things have reached a tipping point. Options under discussion include relieving Byrd of his chairmanship, or naming him 'Chairman Emeritus' while another senior Democrat takes over the panel.
Roll Callreports that the Members of Congress who are deciding how to address the depressed housing market and economic slowdown are among those who've lost the most. And one of the contenders for the title of biggest loser is John Kerry:
Congress’ uber-rich had the most at stake. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who married into the Heinz ketchup fortune, is near the top of Roll Call’s list, with as much as $2.9 million in potential banking stock losses. According to his 2007 disclosure form, Kerry owned at least $1 million apiece in insurer AIG, investment bank Morgan Stanley and mortgage issuer Washington Mutual, whose stock alone has lost 75 percent of its value during the past 15 months.
It's useful to remember that hundreds of Representatives have experienced losses direct and indirect as a result of the slowing economy. Few if any will recuse themselves from voting on legislation that may directly influence their net worth. And if you may have lacked faith in the wisdom of Congress to properly address the slump, check out this:
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who works with many GOP Members on their financial disclosure statements, suggested during a conversation about potential pitfalls in disclosing financial information that it's not surprising that nearly 10 percent of lawmakers may be out millions of dollars because of the current credit collapse.
“Frankly ... these people are economically illiterate,” she said.
There's always been a wealth of evidence that Members of Congress don't understand the economy, but it's nice to have it confirmed by someone who handles their investments on a day-to-day basis. It explains a lot.
The FEC currently has just two out of its six board members because of a Senate dispute over the nomination of Hans Von Spakovsky. For months, Barack Obama had a hold on Von Spakovsky's nomination because of Democratic anger over his activities at the Department of Justice (although he has recently been vindicated). Now Obama has released the hold, but Democrats are holding out for a stand-alone vote on the nomination -- instead of the traditional bloc vote -- in order to defeat him. Without a quorum of the board, the FEC is unable to take any enforcement actions. As a result, it cannot implement the bundling rule that Barack Obama and the Democrats are so proud of:
Under last year's ethics and lobbying law revisions, campaign and political action committees affiliated with lawmakers should have completed their first quarter of tracking and identifying the lobbyists who raised large amounts of money by "bundling" smaller contributions.
But the new disclosure requirement cannot take effect without publication of final rules by the FEC, whose work ground to a halt late last year in a congressional showdown over the six-member commission's makeup...
Bundling allows lobbyists to increase their influence with politicians by collecting campaign checks from clients and lumping them with their own contributions. Under current rules, the name of the bundler, who is often a lobbyist, is not revealed.
Barack Obama and Russ Feingold derailed Von Spakovsky's nomination last year, placing a hold on him right before he was to be confirmed. Now that he has been cleared, will Obama call on his Democratic colleagues to allow the FEC to do its work? Or is Obama too beholden to lobbyistfundraisersto allow disclosure to go forward?
The Senate is considering a bipartisan housing bailout bill, loaded with tax breaks, that seems destined for easy passage. But it’s also guaranteed to meet stiff resistance in the House from fiscal hawks. The legislation aimed at helping ease the pain of the deflating housing market includes about $11 billion (over 10 years) in fiscal incentives. According to Congress Daily:
The Senate bill is heavily weighted toward tax breaks -- which are not offset with corresponding spending cuts -- that would cost approximately $11 billion over the next 10 years. The bill would allow property owners who do not itemize on returns to claim a deduction for their property taxes. That provision would cost $1.5 billion.
It also includes language that would allow businesses to write off recent losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 over a longer period of time so they could claim greater refunds. The change would extend the write-off from two years to four years, at a cost of $6 billion.
Senate Democrats originally wanted it to apply to five years as a special favor to the homebuilding industry, which has suffered massive losses in the downturn.
The measure would raise the cap on mortgage revenue bonds by $10 billion so housing finance agencies could refinance subprime loans, mortgages for first-time homebuyers and multifamily rental housing. The cost of that provision is $1.7 billion.
"I don’t see anyway that kind of package--not offset--passes the smell test in the House," a person following the issue closely for the housing industry told me. Early polling on the issue by Gallup released yesterday also reveals a mixed bag. The federal government taking steps to ensure people don’t lose their home is far from uncontroversial--56% of Americans say they support such a proposal, while 42% oppose. Not surprisingly, Democrats overwhelmingly support the idea, but 6 out of 10 Republicans oppose it, according to Gallup.
The dance of "Congress has to do something" in an election year bumping up against fiscal and philosophical constraints has begun.
In 1998, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) -- a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee -- obtained and distributed to the media an illegally-obtained tape of a private conversation of Representative John Boehner (R-OH). After litigating the dispute for ten years, and losing each step of the way, McDermott is now being forced by a federal judge to pay Boehner some $1.6 million in damages and legal fees:
A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney’s fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.
U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.
McDermott's reaction is priceless:
“While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny,” McDermott said in a statement, adding, “With the end of this case, another threat against the First Amendment has been met and turned back.”
I guess it's true that the First Amendment has been defended -- after all, the court said that private citizens cannot have their phones illegally tapped by other private citizens. It's wonderful that McDermott was willing to spend so much of his time and money to make that point.
Still, it's amazing that House Democrats have stood with McDermott in his attempts to prod the courts to authorize warrantless wiretaps by private citizens against other law-abiding private citizens, while they continue to refuse to authorize government wiretaps of terrorist communications.
Wiretapping for me, but not for thee (i.e. -- you, the American people).
And unfortunately for McDermott, he won't be able to rely on his old buddy Saddam to help with the bill on this one.
Democrats Promise an End to Anti-Terror Efforts in Iraq
The headline is for emphasis; what the Democrats are really promising is to end all our efforts in Iraq -- including anti-terror efforts, training of Iraqi security forces, and anything else you can think of:
More than three dozen Democratic congressional candidates banded together yesterday to promise that, if elected, they will push for legislation calling for an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq that would leave only a security force in place to guard the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad...
The starkest difference between the group's proposal, dubbed a "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party's presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.
While it is both novel and reckless to propose withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq, these Democrats share one critical element with the Democrats already elected to power in Washington -- they refuse to commit to a timetable. Nevertheless, the anti-war wingnut crowd should really believe them this time, since they pinky-swore it.
The document also seems to follow the Obama Doctrine on Iraq: we're getting out as fast as we can, regardless of conditions on the ground, and we reserve the right to get back in if we learn that al Qaeda is, in fact, operating in the country.
Jim McDermott: "We Don't Mind Being Used" by Saddam Hussein
Last night came the news that Saddam Hussein's regime paid for a high-profile trip taken by three congressional Democrats to Baghdad in the fall of 2002. The visit, by Democratic Representatives David Bonior, Jim Thompson, and Jim McDermott, was brokered by Muthanna al Hanooti, a Michigan resident with close ties to the Iraqi regime. Hanooti is being prosecuted for spying on behalf of Saddam's regime.
Reacting to the latest news, Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for Jim McDermott, one of the three congressmen, said his boss wasn't aware that the money came from Saddam Hussein's regime when he accepted it. He told me the same thing in 2004, when I asked him about the $5,000 McDermott had accepted for his legal defense fund from Shakir al Khafaji, one of Saddam Hussein's biggest U.S. boosters before the war. Khafaji, who accompanied the congressmen and made the arrangements for their visit, had run "expatriate" conferences in Baghdad for Saddam as recently as 2000. He also provided $400,000 to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter for Ritter's propaganda film on behalf of the former Iraqi regime. In an interview back in 2001, Ritter told me that Khafaji was "openly sympathetic" with Saddam Hussein.
All of this was public record -- available to the lawmakers with a Google or Nexis search. But they went anyway. Reacting to the news yesterday, Jim Thompson pleaded ignorance.
"Obviously, had there been any question at all regarding the sponsor of the trip or the funding, I would not have participated."
Thompson and McDermott would have us believe that they visited a sworn enemy of the United States -- one who had tried to assassinate a former president and declared that the "Mother of all Battles" had never ended -- without doing even the most basic research about who was funding their trip? That's hard to believe. And Bonior, who was from Michigan and had taken money from al Khafaji before, had no idea that he was backed by Saddam Hussein? When I spent a week reporting in Michigan for a story on Iraqi exiles, virtually every Iraqi I spoke to told me about al Khafaji and his dirty money. Is is possible that nobody ever mentioned this to Bonior, who recently chaired John Edwards' presidential campaign, before he traveled to Iraq with al Khafaji? Again, hard to believe.
In any case, they knew well that they would be used as propaganda tools before they left. This is how we put it in a piece on the trip back in October 2002:
EVEN BEFORE the Baghdad boys left Iraq, media outlets throughout the Middle East gleefully highlighted divisions in the U.S. government and the travels by the "antiwar" congressmen. The Iraq Daily, for example, published by Saddam's Ministry of Information, printed daily updates of the trip and posted them in English on their website.
For example, a September 30 report says, "the members of the U.S. Congress delegation has underlined that this visit aims to get acquainted with the truth of Iraq's people sufferings due to ongoing embargo which caused shortage in food and medicine for all Iraqi people." (That article appeared next to a report on Saddam's continuing financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or, to use the paper's formulation, "intrepid Palestinian uprising martyrs." Also in that issue is an article by American white supremacist Matthew Hale, "Truth About 9-11: How Jewish Manipulation Killed Thousands.")...
So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN's Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. "If being used means that we're highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don't mind being used."
Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.
You remember seeing the Representatives--Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan, and Mike Thompson of California--glowering at the news camera every night as they implored America to let Saddam provide a training ground for terrorists and torture his people in peace. Normally I’d say it’s a good thing they weren’t doing this on the taxpayers’ dime, but in this case the phrase "rock and a hard place" comes to mind.
Their little junket reminded me Ted Kennedy’s outreach program to the Soviet Union in 1983. As reported by the CNS News service, "Kennedy offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts." Whether he took a fee for his consulting work is unknown.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but here are four guys who, as members of Congress, actively worked against America’s best interests during dicey times. I’m loathe to use a loaded word like “traitors” but at the very least, they’re ungrateful louts with no concept of shame.
Sleeping with the enemy under the guise of loving your country: the p.r. strategy favored by Democrats 4-1.
Roll Call reports that the House Appropriations Committee had its website crashed yesterday by a flood of requests for earmarks. As a result of the problem, they've been forced to extend the deadline to give Members more time to submit requests:
In a sure sign that earmarks remain as popular as ever, an overload of pork requests clogged the House Appropriations Committee’s Web site Wednesday, forcing an extension to the request deadline to next week.
The committee extended its deadline for earmark requests until 11:59 p.m. on March 24 after a “massive influx of requests” caused “unavoidable access and processing delays,” wrote Rob Nabors, staff director for the committee, in a memo to Member offices.
And thus the Democrats act to dramatically reduce the number and scope of earmarks.
The left is happy today. For months they've been pushing House Democrats to force a reauthorization of FISA that fails to protect American telecommunication companies for their good-faith cooperation with America's intelligence agencies--and which was doomed to be vetoed by the president. Instead, the House has done them one better: They've passed a bill--by a party-line vote--that's not even going to pass the Senate:
But the bill appeared destined for oblivion. The Senate likely will not accept any of the major House changes to the version it passed Feb. 12, and Bush has vowed to veto the legislation if it should reach his desk.
Debate broke along predictable party lines, with Democrats contending the measure would grant the intelligence community all the authority it needs to spy on foreign terrorism suspects while protecting civil liberties of Americans.
By taking weeks to pass a bill with no chance of enactment, the House is intentionally wasting time in the effort to get a reauthorization of the program signed into law. Why do they want to prolong the period of time that our nation's terrorist surveillance program is weakened? And if they are serious about this law, then why would they drag out the debate with pointless actions such as the one the House took today--particularly when Congress is beginning a two-week recess?
Pelosi seems to be arguing that, in her view, it's OK to hold a floor vote open to change the outcome, as long as you don't hold it open for an egregious amount of time. How long is that? Apparently 10 minutes is OK, but 3 hours is not. If they do this a few more times, we may be able to figure out the cutoff point.
Earlier this afternoon, Democrats broke Senate rules in order to defeat the Kyl amendment, which would have set the top death tax rate at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption. Under current law, the death tax will jump from zero in 2010 to a top rate of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption in 2011.
You can watch the Democrats' shenanigans unfold here. About four minutes after the vote was scheduled to end, the measure was winning 50 to 48, and Sen. Tester announced: "Time has expired. The clerk will tally the vote."
Then senators Dodd and Biden come in to defeat the measure 50 to 50--Cheney was not in the Senate to break the tie.
A GOP aide told me that Republicans may ask Cheney to come to the Senate tonight if they can bring the amendment up for another vote. But the aide doubted the measure would pass because Mary Landrieu--a Louisiana Democrat up for reelection this year--changed her vote from "nay" to "yea" only after learning that Dodd and Biden were on their way to defeat the bill.
Yet even if the amendment didn't pass, Cheney's presence could force Landrieu to officially flip-flop on the same vote on the same day.
But Republicans, and some Democrats, charged that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership "stole" the vote on the parliamentary procedure, technically known as "ordering the previous question." In response to GOP manipulation of votes during their years of control, Pelosi promised at the beginning of the 110th Congress that floor votes would last only 15 minutes, and that "no vote shall be held open to manipulate the outcome."
Pelosi, however, appeared to go back on that promise during the "previous question" vote, which was open for for a total of 31 minutes before it was gaveled closed. Republicans stood on the floor during the dramatic 16-minute period following the official end of the vote, clapping and cheering, occassionally breaking into chants of "Rules of the House!"
Read the whole article. According to the Politico, the House will soon have its own "independent" six-member office of Congressional Ethics, which is not expected to do anything this year. That's too bad. If House leaders really want to deliver on ethics promises, maybe they could charge the office with reviewing the propriety of the vote that created it.
Over the last year or so, I've chronicled the attempt of Congressional Democrats to have it both ways on Iraq. They've consistently promised their base that they'll do everything in their power to end the war (except de-fund it), and they've told the general populace that they'll never cut off money for the troops. It looks like we're about to see another act in the long-running farce. Or perhaps the willingness of Senate Democrats to proudly advertise the fact that they're fully-funding the war means that this fight really is over.
It seems just a few weeks ago that Democrats were again talking about attempting to force a withdrawal from Iraq. That was odd, since they had recently funded the war. It's even more surprising when you consider that the Democratic budget plan for 2009 matches President Bush's request for war funding, before even being confronted on the subject:
The Chairman’s Mark matches the President’s core defense budget and the President’s request for additional war costs. While the war funding request in the President’s budget is insufficient for a full year’s costs under his policy of a long-term commitment in Iraq, the Chairman’s Mark’s war funding will cover expenses for about the first six months of the next administration, and longer still under the policies preferred by most Democrats in Congress.
The reference to 'longer still under the policies preferred by most Democrats' clearly signals that the money will last longer if it's spent on redeploying from Iraq. However, the fact remains that Democrats are planning to provide the funds, regardless.
It's stunning how completely and convincingly Congressional Democrats switch between bluster about forcing a withdrawal and full-funding for the mission. All it takes is a change in audience for leaders in Congress to change their tone.
After World War II, Congress passed what I consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history, the GI Bill. The bill, which provided college benefits for troops returning from the war, quite literally built the American middle class.
Today the GI Bill is still alive (though not so well). The legislation hasn't been significantly modified or adjusted in years, failing to match the ever rising costs of state college tuitions and falling well short of the cost of most private institutions. And that's to say nothing of the sky-high price of textbooks, increases in cost of living, health care, etc. Though Congress incrementally increases the monthly payout annually, the most a veteran can receive is a measly $1,100 dollars a month in tuition assistance.
Fortunately, there's been a growing movement in both Congress and the national media to completely overhaul the GI Bill. Senator Jim Webb (D, VA) has led the charge, and is currently enjoying bipartisan support for the initiative (though an early version failed to pass last year). Here are some of the specifics:
Under the updated bill introduced today, service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could earn up to 36 months of benefits, equivalent to four academic years. Covered benefits would include the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school; a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area; and a small stipend per semester for books.
In an effort to reduce the cost of private institutions, Senators Webb and Warner worked collaboratively to include incentives for private schools to further offset the tuition costs above what the benefit provides. A new program would be created in which the government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from these institutions.
This makes an awful lot of sense. If we're serious about initiatives to increase the size of the Army and Marines, and are equally serious about preserving the all-volunteer force, better incentives are needed to attract the right candidates for military service. The Pentagon is concerned that a plush benefits package will affect retention rates (the brass doesn't want too many GIs leaving after their initial service commitment), but as noted ad nauseam here at THE WEEKLY STANDARD, the Pentagon needs to look inward on retention, not outward.
Victory on Telecom Immunity, Greenwald Hardest Hit
The government shows up at your office just days after the 9/11 attack and asks for your help in the war on terror. What are you going to do? According to Glenn Greenwald, you should call a lawyer (isn't that always what the lawyers say). But telecom executives did the only thing they could do--assist the government in whatever way possible. I doubt any of them even had a moment of doubt in complying with the government's request--worst case, the NSA captures a call from some innocent, naturalized American talking to his al Qaeda-affiliated cousin in Paktia, not exactly an ethical minefield.
But the industry now faces as much as $7.243 trillion in liability, as practically every telephone customer in North America is to be considered a victim of this dastardly operation. After months of demagoguing the issue, the Dems in Congress are finally going to cave and grant the firms immunity from lawsuits that are not only frivolous, but a threat to national security.
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald, who's devoted the last three months of his life to this issue, is despondent:
There's very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don't actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don't actually care about any of it. That's all a given.
But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.
And to think of all the other things Glenn Greenwald could have not achieved over the last few months were his energy and resources devoted to other hopeless crusades!
The House of Representatives is likely to vote next week on a FISA extension, but not the bipartisan bill which passed the Senate by a wide margin:
“We don’t have agreement but ... I am very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week, “ House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said on the floor Thursday in a colloquy with Minority Whip Roy Blunt , R-Mo...
The Senate version, which the White House helped to draft, would grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have been sued for their alleged cooperation with the administration’s warrantless surveillance activities after Sept. 11, 2001. The House measure includes no such liability shield.
Liberals in the House are unwilling to extend liability protection to telecommunications companies that facilitated surveillance on suspected terrorists operating abroad. Quin Hillyer looks at the lawsuits that House Democrats are insisting go forward:
Moreover, the suit defines the class of aggrieved citizens as “all individuals” who were customers of the phone company “at any time after September 2001” that the program was in effect. In this one suit, that class is identified as consisting of 24.6 million people. How all 24.6 million Americans could possibly be harmed by this program aimed at suspected foreign terrorists is a question perhaps best answered in the Twilight Zone...
Do the math: The total potential payout by AT&T for the first two categories of alleged violations is $49.2 billion. Meanwhile, at $100 per day for each day of the four years at issue after 9/11, the total potential liability for each of the two latter counts is $3 trillion, 591 billion.
That number times 2, plus the $49.2 billion, comes out to a potential grand liability of $7.243 trillion. That is half of the entire national economy! And that’s even before “punitive damages” are taken into account.
Don't worry, though. Speaker Pelosi is 100 percent certain that there's no national security risk for allowing FISA to lapse, or leaving telecom companies on the hook for cooperating.
Ron Paul's presidential campaign exceeded expectations--at least in the fundraising department. Now he's using his cash and donor lists to elect other Republicans who back a withdrawal from Iraq:
