Paterson Goes To Washington For A Bailout

Next month the big debate in New York after the election is over will be in Albany over the state budget. We are looking at record budget gaps for the next few years and the Governor wants the Legislature to come and cut spending wherever they can to fill the holes left by the disaster on Wall Street. Though to Paterson's credit, he is trying to find balance with a bailout from the Federal level as well. He testified in front of Congress today and made his case for financial relief.

From Capitol Confidential:

Paterson said he was appearing on behalf of New York and other struggling states to “present our case” for federal investment in state water and food projects and more spending on food aid and other social programs to help jump start the economy.

In stark terms, Paterson described the fiscal crisis in New York and the looming economic problems in as many as 39 states bracing for deficits in fiscal 2010.

“The most essential way the House and Senate can help our country is to reinvest and reignite the engine of our economy, which we see as our states,” Paterson said.

Paterson asked Congress to consider helping states by:

_ Boosting spending and eligibility for food aid. “Food stamps are the best economic stimulus,” Paterson said.

_ Increasing federal spending on block grants to states.

_ Spending federal dollars to build roads and repair bridges and water treatment facilities. “Infrastructure repair (is) something this country has not addressed in the last 50 years.”

Some economists have been skeptical that infrastructure spending would provide the kind of immediate economic relief desired in a new stimulus package, because projects could take too long to get under way.

But Paterson said in New York alone there are 40 “shovel-ready programs for improving highways and bridges” and another 50 programs are “ready to go in the area of water projects.”

Having fellow Harlem resident Charlie Rangel at the head of the Ways and Means Committee is a promising sign for Paterson, but that does not put a financial package in the bag as of yet. All of his proposals are sound and putting dollars into infrastructure pays many dividends as opposed to just a simple $600 check that Congress and Bush approved a few months back. Programs like food stamps that are geared for the poor also must be followed through with, especially since so much money has already been allocated to the wealthy financial firms that are at the heart of this gigantic mess.

Contact your Representatives in Congress to make the case for Paterson, so that the State Legislature does not need to make so many cuts to our state budget.

While Congress Cheers The Bailout...

Today the Congress approved one of the biggest blank checks in history. How could the legislature get behind Wall Street and George Bush's proposal to give our money to these crooks and liars? Well it's really easy actually, just add another $110 billion dollars worth of treats and you'll get the extra votes you need.

From Smart Money:

Some relief could be on the horizon for contracted credit markets if the House on Friday votes for the bailout plan approved by the Senate late Wednesday. While most of our pundits concede the necessity of a rescue in some form, the unappetizing aspects of legislative sausage-making that pushed the price tag for taxpayers up to as much as $850 billion could prolong resistance to the bill.

"What started out as a two-and-a-half page proposal is now hundreds of pages and includes 'bells and whistles' (earmarks) such as: tax benefits for film and television productions, stockcar racetrack owners, wooden arrows designed for use by children, six pages worth of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident; and tax earmark extenders for Virgin Island and Puerto Rican rum-makers, American Samoa, mine rescue teams and mine safety equipment," Charles Schwab analyst Liz Ann Sonders wrote Thursday. "No, I'm not kidding about this!"

Washington analysts like Tom Gallagher, who tracks policy for the ISI Group, began handicapping the House vote like horse track habitués, and decided the odds were in favor of passage by the House.

"We believe the GOP leadership has secured enough votes to pass the bill," he wrote in a Thursday policy report. "But the Democrats expect to pick up a few votes as well, which should produce a majority for the TARP. But the package hasn't changed much and we don't expect very many of the 'no' votes to change their votes, so while we think it will pass, the vote will be close."

So the damn thing passed and now Wall Street will have our their filthy money and Congress can say they got us some goodies that will cost us even more. So while Congress cheers, the rest of the nation is left with more sobering news, such as the fact that the economy lost another 159,000 jobs in September alone.

Of course, Mr. Anti-Earmark Money himself voted for this, which is no surprise to anyone because he has the uncanny ability of being for something in one sentence and changing his position in the next. He could care less about what happens to the rest of us as long as he gets to be President and gives large tax breaks to his wife and the wealthy elite like her.

I guess we should be happy with the pork we got, right? I think I'll get into the wooden arrow business or even better, make rum down in Puerto Rico. Heaven knows we needed that garbage! Maybe I'll just say f*&k it and paint, perhaps something like the latest Banksy piece on Broadway and Howard right now.

Of course, there is some good stuff in there I'll admit. Increasing the FDIC limit to $250K is a nice thing. Honestly though, this is akin to letting the water out of a manmade lake in order to save a couple of yachts while the middle class's S.S. Dingy will be sitting stuck in the muck at the bottom of the pit.

While McCain Was Busy Gimmicking, Congress Derails Bailout For Time Being

While most of the candidates were out campaigning, John McCain stayed behind at his Arlington headquarters so he could pretend he was in Congress being a bi-partisan maverick, or something like that. In fact, he had his whole brigade claiming that he was there to bring the bill in and get passed, when in reality we saw a majority of Republicans and some Democrats opposing it. The defeated bill then caused the largest drop in the Dow ever recorded, nearly a seven percent loss of the total value. There were many reasons to vote against it for Democrats and Republicans and in the end the American people were saved from the largest legit robbery of the poor to pay the rich. And to top it off, the media is now blaming McCain for coming in and screwing everything up.

From Crooks and Liars:

Chris Matthews cuts through the spin and pins the blame squarely where it should be: On House Republicans and John McCain who promised to deliver their vote.

“McCain said he was going to lead the Republican charge, he was going to make sure that this was a bipartisan success. He called charge, and the Republican retreated. That’s what happened here. “

Politico’s Mike Allen writes:

McCain takes credit for bill before it loses

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain’s campaign’s difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy.

Think about how bad this is for McCain. He “suspended” his campaign last week and promised to get the House GOP on board. The bill failed today because those very same Republicans bailed once Pelosi hurt their feelings. McCain put his leadership credentials on the line and failed. Not a little fail, but an Epic Fail. And the worst part about it is he and his campaign have been claiming for the past 48 hours that it was McCain’s leadership that got the bill passed.

So John, when will we see the humble side of you and admit that your intervention helped make this mess even larger? Oh, that's right, never. McCain's leadership skills are in the gutter, proven by his inability to rein in his party after saying repeatedly that he would. John may have acted heroic in Vietnam, but as a Senator and Presidential nominee, he is clearly anything but.

Judge Hints At Congress To Arrest Bushies

Our Congress has been absolutely horrific this session (and the last few as well) in playing its role as a co-equal branch of government. In the Constitution, it states that Congress is allowed to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch, but Democratic leaders have been hesitant about doing so when the White House skirts the law and throws roadblocks up to discovering the truth of their crimes. Instead of going for the throat, the Dem majority has only mustered limited effort and tries to shield itself from criticism (from the lawbreakers) by going to a judge to make Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, among others, testify to Congress. Well the judge hasn't ruled yet, but his statement thus far speaks volumes.

From TPM:

In a motion hearing in federal court today, U.S. District Judge John Bates questioned why Congress didn't simply arrest former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten after both refused to respond to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee:

Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court? House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did.

The hearing is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.

The Bushies are doing whatever they can to wait out the end of the term so they can hopefully fly under the radar. Sternly written letters may be threatening the first time, but after Congress writes dozens of them, no one seems to care. Now if they use actual force and arrest these crooks (alleged crooks of course) then that could actually do something. Claiming Executive Privilege is a bullshit maneuver and everyone knows it, Congress is just too cowardly to do anything about it.

Congress Compromises The Constitution

I wasn't surprised that every single Republican in the House voted to spit on the Constitution and give the telcos (and George Bush) a get out of jail free card. Spying on American citizens without cause and with no regard for the fourth amendment isn't shocking considering Bush's record thus far. What was sad, dismaying and atrocious was that more half of the Democratic caucus went along with it and have the audacity to claim it is a good bill.

From FireDogLake:

...and the drip, drip, dripping away of our civil liberties continues. The vote was 293 Yays, 129 Nays. As Glenn says:

Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."

You can register your disgust here...we're well over $250,000 and climbing....

UPDATE: The vote tally on this is not yet up on the House website. But I've confirmed the numbers that the total votes was as follows: 293 yes -129 no. Also that the majority of the House Dems voted no - 105 voted yes, 128 voted no. As soon as there is a full vote tally, will get a direct link up and running for everyone.

UPDATE #2: Vote tally just went up for the roll call vote on HR 6304. You can find the full list of yays and nays here.

Well at least my Congresswoman didn't vote for it, if that is any consolation for the constituents of NY-14. Still, everyone here on the East Side of New York, clear across to the west side of San Diego will suffer from this legislation. Congress collectively told us that our Bill of Rights doesn't matter and that they really don't care what we think about retroactive immunity for lawbreakers.

Telecoms Write Legislation To Give Themselves Immunity

The FISA debate, if not for anything else shows why Washington is broken and how we need to fix the system. At&T, Verizon and the other telecoms graciously took the time to write their own legislation for Congress so that they can get off the hook for their unconstitutional crimes when they helped George Bush spy on Americans. The problem isn't that Congress laughed in their faces, its that they are trying to 'work things out'.

From Politico:

Many Democrats want the companies held accountable for participating in the program, which was initiated in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The White House, however, has insisted that the participation of the telecoms is crucial to monitoring conversations between potential terrorists. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that does not contain immunity.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday a FISA deal is “still in flux” but he described the latest developments as “promising” and said he hoped to have a solution soon.

House officials declined to discuss the specifics of the proposed immunity language by the telecoms.

Although it remains to be seen if congressional Democrats will accept the telecom companies' proposal, the communication between the two sides signifies that progress is being made.

If many Democrats want these companies to be held accountable, it is only because either they want the rule of law to be upheld or their constituents are screaming in their faces (or in the direction of their offices) to do something for them instead of corporations for a change. The only progress that should have been made is to declare the telecoms immunity legislation dead on arrival. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that George Bush will veto what the people want, nor does it take a genius to know that we can wait until we have the 44th President in office.

If for some reason "progress" is made, Democrats are going to realize they will pay for their actions by facing primary challenges in the near or somewhat near future. We must uphold the law, even if it pisses politicians big campaign donors off. I for one, really do not care for it.

Welcome To Congress Jackie Speier

Ms. Speier won her special election race to take over for the late Congressman Tom Lantos. In typical fashion, Republicans in the House treated her to a less than cordial reception by booing her, upsetting her young daughter in the process.



Speier however, was having none of it and had the best answer to their petulance.

Will The Congressional Dems Cave On FISA?

How ridiculous would it be if the Democratic majority in Congress gave the telecommunications companies (and George Bush) retroactive immunity, even though they have no need to do so at all? Folks, it would another failure by our caucus to stand up to the President and to act as a co-equal branch of government. This would be a repudiation of the Constitution and another symbol that Congress would lay over and die rather than protect the rights of Americans, something they swore an oath to when becoming members of the Legislative branch.

I guess many in that caucus just don't give a damn:

House and Senate Democratic leaders are headed into talks today that they say could lead to a breakthrough on legislation to revamp domestic surveillance powers and grant phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A senior House Democratic aide said a bill could be sent to President Bush as early as next week. But significant issues remain, including those surrounding immunity, said Wyndee R. Parker, general counsel of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Parker, who said she hopes the House can take up the compromise legislation as early as this week, said a resolution has been delayed partly by the need for all members of the House Judiciary Committee to gain access to the letters and other relevant documents sent to the phone companies by the administration requesting their assistance.

Um, what? No, the duty of Congress is to allow the people (who they represent) to be able to sue these companies for violating their privacy. It is up to (and framed by the people that wrote our Constitution) the courts to decide whether the telecoms are culpable in their actions that aided and abetted George Bush in his quest to illegally spy on American citizens. That is how it is supposed to work.

If only the wing of the Democratic party that wishes to (and rightly) do nothing to help these corporations had more members, we'd be able to sit tight until either the President learns that this is a nation of laws and not a nation that serves corporate interests.......or, we get a new President. That is what we need, "compromise" (meaning giving Republicans everything that they want) is not the right path of action here.

The Oil Companies Must Not Win This One

In this time of economic uncertainty, with people losing their jobs, their homes and society losing it's middle class, the only winners I can see are two sectors. War profiteers and the oil industry. We know what to do about the Halliburtons and Blackwaters, simply stop the war and legislate that the military take care of itself and not private companies that charge our government (meaning us, the taxpayers) through the roof. Of course, we need to get rid of George W. Bush to do that. Yet for the oil industry, this is something we can take of now. Can Congress seal the deal for us?

From RawStory:

Democrats in Congress are relying on record oil prices and a surge in gasoline costs to make another attempt at imposing $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies.

With crude oil prices exceeding $100 a barrel and gasoline prices moving well over $3 a gallon — and indications that $4 is not out of the picture as the summer driving season approaches — the House scheduled a vote on the tax measure for late Wednesday afternoon.

The House bill, similar to one that failed to win Senate approval last fall, would roll back two lucrative tax breaks for the largest U.S. oil companies, and use the money for tax incentives to support wind, solar and biofuel industries as well as energy efficiency programs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to use the soaring prices at the pump as a way to garner support for the bill. Her office distributed a state-by-state list of high gasoline prices — up by more than 75 cents a gallon from a year ago — compared with oil industry profits, including a record $40.6 billion in earnings by ExxonMobil Corp. last year.

Now I am no math whiz, but if you add $18 billion worth of taxes, and Exxon made over $40 billion, that would mean they'd still make over $20 billion in profit, IF they were the only oil company! President Bush said this would make us less safe when it comes to energy security, but we all know he is talking out of his ass on this one. The oil companies are also crying about this, claiming it to be unfair. They sound like heroin junkies forecasting the end of the world if they don't get their next fix while Bush is their pusher, not wanting to allow the victims (our society) to get better.

I know the House passed a similar bill last year and they deserve props for that, but the pressure is on the Senate. We must make sure that not only does our caucus march in lockstep on this issue, but that we pull a few so-called moderates from the GOP side as well. The American people have no love lost for these oil behemoths and neither should the men and women that represent them.

Congressional Priorities

As I was sitting at lunch in the pizza parlor across the street, the TV was on NY1 as usual. Instead of hearing the local news in background, what I heard was members of Congress questioning Roger Clemons and his former trainer on the issue of whether or not they used/administered the steroid HGH. Trust me folks, I'd much rather hear about the weather. I did hear one Congresswoman say that it was ridiculous they were wasting the Congress' time by doing this....and I completely agree with that conservative on this. Why does Congress care about a Major League Baseball incident? Are they just looking to increase C-Span's ratings?

Instead of that crap, we could have heard about how the Democratic Congress is finally going to stop bending over for the White House and execute the contempt of Congress against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers. Why did we not? Well, because the Nancy Pelosi-led Democrats are going to cave because they fear the courts will reject them. Aww, boo f**kin hoo. Pelosi can't even set a date for the hearings after stalling on this for months. I want to see some action damnit! I want these crooks to be held accountable. Our democracy will cease to exist unless EVERYONE is held to the same standards of law. Just because you work at the White House does not mean you get to commit crimes against Congress.

Seriously if I was Roger Clemons or Brian McNamee I wouldn't have bothered to show up. Why should they if members of the White House staff won't? Screw that. The Congress has better matters to attend to, and they better start doing it before they lose all of their legitimacy.

Congressional Snafu Snarls Hate Crimes Bill

Any ordinary person can tell you that the way Congress works is confusing as f%@k. That little cartoon about how a bill becomes law that I saw when I was small is complete crap. Things do not work that simply. Due to the messy Congressional conflagration, there will be no Matthew Shepard Act this year which means that the public will get the message that Congress does not want hate crimes legislation extended to the GLBT community.

From RawStory:

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was widely supported by Democrats and some moderate Senate Republicans. But because it was attached to a major defense policy bill that would have authorized more money for the Iraq war, many anti-war Democrats said they would oppose it.

"We don't have the votes," said one House Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because conference negotiations on the defense bill were ongoing. "We're about 40 votes short, not four or six."

The development is a blow to civil rights groups which say that broadening federal laws are necessary to address a rise in crimes motivated by hate and based upon a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

So the bill had widespread approval, yet it failed. It failed because it was attached to a military spending bill and therefore it would be denied ironically by hardcore conservatives and anti-war Democrats alike. Conservatives (at least those ones) do not think gay people deserve to be protected from hate crimes....and while anti-war Democrats are in support of the Matthew Shepard Act, they do not care to fund more missile programs.

So if you want to blame someone, blame Pelosi for not sending the legislation to the floor for a vote. She says she won't give up on it, but in her mind, this isn't the right time. For now though, this is one more hurdle for victims of these hate crimes to get appropriate justice and also keeping the funds out of law agencies hands to prosecute the crimes.

Markos Publishes...Not A Diary!

Literally hot off the presses and not in an orange format, Markos Moulitsas of the famed DailyKos has penned his first Newsweek article. This will be the first of many as he goes up against the infamous Karl Rove. "Kos" pulled no punches today (as he always does on the blog) and went after everyone on Iraq, Bush, the Democratic Senate and the House of Representatives. Markos knows that Americans aren't fools and he isn't buying the Congressional crap either.

From Newsweek:

For a party that won historic gains in 2006, the Democrats have proven surprisingly reluctant to deliver on their chief campaign promise: forcing George Bush and his Republican Party to change course on their disastrous war in Iraq.

Anti-war sentiment among the American people is now approaching 70 percent, but Congress has proved incapable of action. Twice now, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate have caved on Iraq funding bills, giving the unpopular Bush everything he has demanded. Now the Democrats are reportedly ready to tackle this Sisyphean task once again tomorrow, when they consider a fresh $50 billion for Bush's wars.

Nevada's Harry Reid claims the Senate bill will establish a December 2008 "goal" for the end of combat operations. If Bush vetoes, the Senate majority leader says, "then the president won't get his $50 billion." The words sound tough, but we've heard them before.

One thing I do miss are the links. These clickable words in the article are a traditional media tool that only show Newsweek's archives on the person or place mentioned. It is better than nothing I guess, but the links in the blogosphere are far superior.

Besides that, Markos hits hard in his introduction to Newsweek. He is holding Bush, Pelosi and Reid accountable for their actions. Especially so for Reid and Pelosi who vowed to change the tune of Congress. The only sound that has changed so far is one of Republican compliance to Democratic kowtowing. Our Democratic leaders have been pitiful thus far, and now they need to back up their tough talk with hard action.

King George Is A Petulant Little Child

It really is a scary thought reality that our country is being run by a five year old. Now that Bush has lost his rubber stamp Congress and been replaced by the semi-spineless Democratic one, his panties are all up in a bunch. Georgie does not like that the Democrats do not cave to all of his legislative lunacies so he is going another route. No, this isn't about his signing statements, he is just going to pen more executive orders.

From RawStory:

"White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration," the Post authors write. "They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases."

House Democrats disagree with Bush's assessments.

The article gave little information about Bush's plans for administrative orders, focusing mostly on Congressional infighting and legislative disagreements between the White House and Congress.

Is Congress not doing their job? Well, that is a tricky question. To Pelosi and friends' credit, they have passed many beneficial laws such as dealing with the minimum wage and what not, yet they still haven't done anything about the war. The 110th Congress has certainly done more than the 109th or any previous sessions since the Republicans took control in 1994. It isn't Congressional activity that pisses George off, its what they are denying him.

Markthshark, a DailyKos diarist nails it on the head:

"Given Bush’s dubious track record over the past seven-years, I get the distinct and ominous feeling this has more to do with Congress’ hesitation to green light a preemptive attack on Iran than it does with the amount of work Congress is doing overall," the Kos diarist remarks.

Bush wants it his way or no way, so he'll do whatever it takes to thwart the will of Congress and the American people.

Whats This? Bipartisan Legislation To Endorse The Constitution?

Hold the presses! Something good might come out of the Congress concerning our Constitution. Not only that, the main sponsor of a bill to curtail the 1973 War Powers Act is a.....Republican (gasp!). Not just any Republican of course, we are talking about Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) who was made famous by changing French Fries to Freedom Fries in the Congressional lunchroom. Of course now he is one of the few Republicans on the Hill that wants to end the war, so it isn't too surprising. Nevertheless, his statements on the bipartisan bill are music to my ears.

From The Sun Journal:

Jones submitted the bill Sept. 25 and announced it Thursday at a press conference with three of five co-sponsors. One of them, Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat, is a member of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs which will first hear the bill. Also present were Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, both Republicans. The other co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii and and Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania, both Democrats.

The bill would prevent U.S. involvement in another long war without congressional approval. But Jones said it was not drafted in response to last week’s “World War III” comment by President George Bush or to new numbers released this week by the Congressional Budget Office putting the cost of the Iraq War through 2008 at $610 billion and predicting a cost through 2017 of as much as $2.4 trillion.

“This has nothing to do with Iraq,” said Jones, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and was one of the first Republican congressmen to oppose the war in Iraq.

Well, it does and it doesn't Mr. Jones. The reason it is being brought up has a lot to do with Iraq, and how the President took us to war over there. Also true, it does have to deal with the Constitution and how the Congress gave away much of their war powers with that 1973 legislation. It is about time that Congress become a co-equal branch in this government as the Founding Fathers had set it to be originally.

Olbermann Slams S-CHIP Opposers

Relevant Insanity

Relevancy and insanity are two words that do not usually go together in the same sentence, but when we are dealing with President Bush, it fits perfectly. His little tirade yesterday confirmed his delusional state where he believes that he is still relevant to this nation. Sadly, in a way he is right.

The President still unconstitutionally goes over the American people and Congress' head with his wiretapping, his war and the signing statements he adds on to bills passed by the Legislative branch that he must sign when confronted with veto-proof majorities. The small percentage of America that still backs him somehow provides enough leverage for him to continue to execute the badly planned occupation in Iraq and the full-out assault on our Constitution.

Even though the American people overwhelmingly came together last fall and threw out the Republican-led House and Senate, the new Democratic Congress is almost as bad as the old one. Their acquiescence to his crimes and willingness to bend over for The Decider is absolutely disgusting.

Sure, the Democrats aren't all bad, they voted to expand S-CHIP, increase the minimum wage and do a few other things. But. But. The Democrats were placed in power to stop the war and to present a new direction for the country where international cooperation would replace the six year nightmare of overt unilateralism that made our Founding Fathers turn over in their graves.

So when George claims that he is still relevant...it is not his veto-wielding that keeps him in the spotlight as much as his hubris and authoritarian-like executive power that the Congress has consistently failed to check in the last nine months.

Al Sharpton Testifies To Congress About The Jena 6

Pelosi Admits Congress Isn't Doing Its Job

Speaker Pelosi made an appearance on the Sunday TV talk show circuit and the most important question that came up was about how Congress is dealing with the war. By and large, the majority came about because Americans want out of Iraq and they thought that Pelosi would help lead us out, yet nothing has changed yet. Even non-binding resolutions have trouble getting passed and our troops continue to die for an illegitimate war. So what does she have to say for herself?

From The Hill:

Pelosi said Democrats are “doing all we can to change the debate” but stressed that they do not have the kind of power that the White House has.

The speaker, in an interview aired on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” stated it was ironic that, as an outspoken opponent to the Iraq campaign, anti-war activists are targeting her now. However, Pelosi added that she understands and respects the frustrations of the Democratic base.

“We will continue to pass legislation to make that point [that the war should end],” she said. “And we happen to be blocked by a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, but the public doesn’t want -- care about that. They just want us to end the war.”

Thats right, we want you to end the war Madame Speaker. Although she said herself she would not give Congress high marks on its performance to end the war, she shifted the blame on the White House (deservedly) and the fact that the Senate is not filibuster-proof.

Frankly, that is not good enough. Ending the war can be as simple as not funding it. Yet Pelosi and other Dems are too cowardly to take such a principled stance. They would rather cower in fear of Bush's empty rhetoric and Senate Republicans' threats to filibuster, even though they haven't done so yet. If Pelosi wants a passing grade, she might want to take a look at defunding the war...while Congress still has the power of the purse.

The Scholars Of Congressional Corruption

It takes a lot to make it to the upper crust of corrupt elected officials. It is so easy to be sucked into the greed and filth that even the most virtuous of politicians are looked at with a questionable eye. Nevertheless, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was able to make their third annual list of the top 25 most corrupt members of the 110th Congress. Since CREW is non-partisan, they were more than willing to list them by what they did and not what party they belong to. Of course, most do have elephants next to their names.

From CREW:

CREW also has re-launched the report’s tandem website, www.beyonddelay.org. The site offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions as well as the full-length profiles and all accompanying exhibits.

Members of the Senate:
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Members of House:
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Rep. David Scott (D-GA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)

Dishonorable Mention:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

“Every year CREW creates this compendium of corruption to expose and hold accountable those members of Congress who believe they are above the law,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today. “With the third edition of Beyond DeLay it has become abundantly clear that many public officials believe that the rules don’t apply to them.”

The Beltway has provided quite a comfortable set of cushions for ethically-challenged politicians over the last five ten twenty slew of years. For too long, their greed has been left unchecked. Thankfully we have organizations like CREW and others to expose these bastards and what they are doing. It won't end overnight or even next year, but continuing to report on unethical behavior will eventually start to clean things up in the swamp that is Washington.

Petraeus Gets His "Blah Blah Blahs" On

General David Petraeus finally submitted his long-awaited (and previously leaked) report on the status of Iraq today. Surprisingly (to no one) it furthered the mission of the President and did not address the realities both militarily and politically in the war-torn region. Congressman Lantos didn't buy it and neither did I.

From The Huffington Post:

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House's bidding, he said firmly, "I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress."

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

Petraeus said a decision about further reductions would be made next March.

With all due respect that is a very weak rebuttal. You can say "nuh-uh" all you want, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to believe you. March could bring another increase in troops for all we know. The only constant here is that our men and women are being killed and injured. The monetary toll keeps rising as well and the bullshit indicators are through the roof.

Like I mentioned before, Congressman Lantos called Petraeus on the BS...but will Congress act appropriately and end this war? That is the question.