Category: Congress

Congress Does the Right Thing, and then Scrambles to Repeal It

No Comments

I am talking, of course, about the attempts to repeal changes to the federal flood insurance program, so as to stop subsidizing people who choose to live in flood prone regions:

Setting aside objections from the White House and fiscal watchdogs, a bipartisan Senate majority voted Thursday to delay rate increases in federal flood insurance for coastal property owners from Maine to California.

The 67 to 32 vote reflected mounting political opposition to big insurance hikes that Congress passed in 2012 to prop up the nation’s nearly bankrupt flood insurance program. The bill, which faces an uncertain outcome in the House, would delay the increases for up to four years for hundreds of thousands of property owners across the country, including tens of thousands in Massachusetts.

The measure also postpones the adoption of a new set of official flood maps for coastal regions, which would have dramatically expanded areas designated as prone to floods and required thousands more to obtain costly insurance. In Boston alone, the number of properties encompassed in the new maps would rise from 8,000 to 18,000.

Floods are getting worse because of anthropogenic climate change, and the original maps were too conservative, and the rates were never appropriate to the level of risk.

The solution to ameliorating damage from flooding is not to pay people to live there.

Contemptible McCarthyite Behavior

No Comments

It appears that that the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Mike Rogers (R) and Dianne Feinstein(D),* have decided to imply that Edward Snowden was a Russian agent for a long time before he became a whistle blower:

The heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees suggested on Sunday that Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, might have been working for Russian spy services while he was employed at an agency facility in Hawaii last year and before he disclosed hundreds of thousands of classified government documents.

The lawmakers, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, offered no specific evidence that Mr. Snowden had cooperated with Moscow. Since Mr. Snowden’s disclosure first became public last spring, there has been much speculation that he was collaborating with a foreign spy service.

Nearly a year later, however, there has been no public indication that the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mr. Snowden’s actions, bolstered by separate “damage assessment” investigations at the N.S.A. and the Pentagon, has uncovered evidence that Mr. Snowden received help from a foreign intelligence service. A senior F.B.I. official said on Sunday that it was still the bureau’s conclusion that Mr. Snowden acted alone.

This is disgraceful, callous, and cowardly behavior, and it harkens back to the worst of Joe McCarthy.

Shame on Mike Rogers, and shame on Dianne Feinstein.

*Full disclosure, her grandfather, Sam Goldman, and my great-grandfather, Harry Goldman, were brothers.

Elizabeth Warren’s Just Issued a Big F%$# You to Regulatory Business as Usual

No Comments

She, along with Tom Coburn,* have introduced a bill which would force disclosure of the details of sweetheart settlements:

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that aims to make government settlements with corporations more transparent and fair. It could end up saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

 When banks and other corporations are accused of breaking the law, the government often settles cases instead of going to trial. In the wake of the financial crisis, for example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and government banking watchdogs have settled cases  against banks that helped tank the economy. Regulatory agencies have argued that settlements are adequate tools to enforce the law, but Warren has protested. She notes that many settlements are tax-deductible. Other deals are confidential, meaning the public has no idea whether the terms of the agreement are fair.

 Warren’s bill would discourage tax-deductible settlements by forcing federal agencies to explain why certain settlements are confidential, and to publicly disclose the terms of nonconfidential agreements so that taxpayers can see how much settlement tax-deductibility is costing them.

You can go to the link and get the link, but basically, it is typically something in the range of 30%-40% that is deductible.

Of course,  while recovery of this money is good, the real benefit is that it creates a profound disincentive for the sweetheart settlements that seem to the norm these days.

*Talk about the political odd couple.

Warren’s press release is after the break.

Washington, DC – United States Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today introduced bipartisan legislation to increase transparency around settlements reached by federal enforcement agencies. When federal agencies close investigations and settle cases, they often tout the dollar amount obtained from the offender, but in many cases that amount is misleading because of tax deductions and other “credits” built into the settlement that reduce the settlement’s true value. Worse, sometimes agreements are deemed confidential, with key details or even the fact of a settlement hidden from the public. The Truth in Settlements Act will require more accessible and detailed disclosures about these agreements to allow the public to hold regulators accountable for the true value of these deals.

“When government agencies reach settlements with companies that break the law, they should disclose the terms of those deals to the public,” said Senator Warren. “Anytime an agency decides that an enforcement action is needed, but it is not willing to go to court, that agency should be willing to disclose the key terms and conditions of the agreement. Increased transparency will shut down backroom deal-making and ensure that Congress, citizens and watchdog groups can hold regulatory agencies accountable for strong and effective enforcement that benefits the public interest.”

“Taxpayers deserve to know the settlement details corporations arrange with the government, and the best place for Congress to start is with policies that enhance transparency,” Dr. Coburn said. “Since agencies are not currently required to disclose the financial structure of government settlements, too often the true value of those settlements is not known because often companies are allowed to deduct part of the payment. Our bill gives taxpayers the transparency tools they need to access real information and numbers regarding enforcement settlements.”

Under the Truth in Settlements Act, all written public statements that reference the dollar amounts of settlements will be required to include explanations of how those settlements are categorized for tax purposes and whether payments may be offset by “credits” for particular conduct. Companies that settle with enforcement agencies will be required to disclose in their Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings whether they have deducted any or all of the dollar amounts of their settlements from their taxes; and federal agencies will be required to post basic information about settlements and provide copies of those agreements on their websites.

To address concerns about confidentiality, the Truth in Settlements Act also requires agencies to explain publicly why confidentiality is justified in any particular instance. The Act also directs agencies to disclose basic information about the number of settlements they deem confidential each year and directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of confidentiality procedures and to provide additional recommendations for increasing transparency. These and other provisions of the Truth in Settlements Act will increase the transparency of government settlements and permit greater public scrutiny.

###

Because ……… Freedumb!

No Comments

Specifically, Freedumb Industries, who just dumped massive quantities of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol-methylcyclohexane methanol into West Virginia’s Elk River upstream of the water treatment plant, leaving hundreds of thousands without water:

A chemical spill along a West Virginia river on Thursday triggered a tap water ban for up to 300,000 people, shutting down schools, bars and restaurants and forcing residents to line up for bottled water at stores.

 Governor Earl Ray Tomblin declared a state of emergency for nine counties following the spill of 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol, a chemical used in the coal industry.

 The spill occurred on the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia’s capital and largest city, just upriver from the eastern U.S. state’s largest water treatment plant.

Why did this Happen? Because ……… Freedumb!

Today, at the time they were shutting off water for all those people, the House of Representatives voted to gut the Superfund act.

Why, Because ……… Freedumb!

The House passed legislation Thursday aimed at easing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and requiring more cooperation between the EPA and states on environmental cleanup projects.

 Members voted 225-188 in favor of the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act, H.R. 2279. The bill is made up of three Republican bills that were combined together, and it includes some provisions that House Democrats found unobjectionable while they were considered in committee.

 The bill was supported by just five Democrats in the final vote, while four Republicans voted against it.

 Specifically, it removes a requirement that the EPA revise solid waste disposal regulations every three years, and prohibits the government from imposing solid waste regulations on states that overlap current state-wide rules.

 Other language in the bill would require all federally owned facilities to comply with state rules on hazardous substances, and require the government to consult more closely with states before imposing cleanup requirements under Superfund, the federal program that funds the cleanup of abandoned waste sites.

 The legislation would also ensure that if a state has rules requiring companies in polluting industries to post a bond or offer other financial sureties for possible cleanup costs, those rules cannot be affected by possible rules the EPA might develop in the future.

 ………

 But several Democrats criticized the legislation as an attempt to weaken current law. Many argued that the bonding language would let companies avoid the cost of cleaning up pollution, and pass those costs onto taxpayers.

 “The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). “If polluters don’t pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more burden to the taxpayer, and none of us should want that.”

 Others argued that the bill could further confuse how the federal government and the states must work together on clean-up efforts, which could slow down that process. That argument was also made by the Obama administration earlier this week, in a statement saying President Obama would veto the bill.

 “H.R. 2279 would unnecessarily increase the potential for litigation between the Federal government and the States, negatively impacting the timeliness and number of cleanups,” the White House wrote.

Why are they doing such a stupid thing, and why are they doing it on the day of what looks to be one of the worst chemical spills?

Because ……… Freedumb!

Un-Dirtyword, Believable

So Debate has Started, but can They End It?

No Comments

Today’s vote to allow debate to begin on continuing emergency unemployment compensation is not the same thing as either voting for the bill, nor is it a vote to shut off debate.

Instead, it is posturing by Republicans with a dash of blackmail down the road thrown in:

If you think Tuesday’s vote in the Senate to extend unemployment benefits means that Washington has finally come to its senses, think again. Although six Republican senators broke with their party and joined Democrats in supporting the notion of preserving benefits for about 1.3 million Americans who have been out of work for more than six months, this was just a procedural vote that paves the way for a full debate on the measure. And Republicans, in both the Senate and the House, have made clear that they won’t approve any actual legislation unless the White House agrees to cut spending in other areas, to cover the cost of the extension—about 6.4 billion dollars over ten years.

From a political perspective, it’s easy to see the appeal of this maneuver. Going into an election year, the last thing the Republicans want is to be depicted as heartless goons with no sympathy for the millions of Americans struggling to find work, the blameless victims of the Great Recession and its aftermath. (Of course, this is exactly how the Democrats would like to portray them.) At the same time, though, the average G.O.P. congressman or senator lives in mortal fear of upsetting right-wing groups, such as Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth, which are leading the fight against extending jobless benefits. (On Monday, Heritage Action said it would include the Senate vote on its “legislative scorecard,” which ranks elected officials on their fealty to the conservative cause.)

Personally, I would call the Republican’s bluff, and cut things like abstinence only education and oil company subsidies, and maybe tax private jets, but I am not an elected official, nor do I work for one.

Welcome Madam Chairman

No Comments

The Senate has approved Janet Yellen as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

While it important is that she is the first woman to Chair the Fed, more important is that she is not Larry Summers.

The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party managed to prevent Barack Obama from pursuing into his Wall Street Neoliberal inclinations.

Hopefully, this means we can stop him when he (once again) tries to sell out Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare in the name of a “Grand Bargain.”

Rapists in the Pentagon win ……… For Now

No Comments

The Senate has passed the defense authorization bill, and caved to the pro-rape faction in the military by dropping Kristen Gillibrand’s proposal to remove such charges from the chain of command:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said she will push legislation to remove sexual-assault allegations from the military’s chain of command after congressional leaders spurned her approach in crafting a compromise defense measure.

“I have an assurance that we will get a vote, just not when we will get a vote — before the end of the year or maybe right away in the new year,” Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, told reporters today. Leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees yesterday agreed on a $552.1 billion defense authorization bill for the current fiscal year.

Under the compromise, commanders would be stripped of the ability to dismiss a finding by a court martial and would be barred from reducing guilty findings. Retaliation against personnel reporting sexual assaults would become a military crime.

President Barack Obama has said the issue of sexual assault is undermining trust and readiness among members of the armed forces, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has called attacks a “scourge” and a “blight” on the military.

While Hagel and uniformed leaders in the military have backed changes in the handling of such cases, they have resisted Gillibrand’s approach, saying commanding officers must be able to discipline their own troops.

The issue has crossed party and gender lines. Gillibrand has won support from Republicans including Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, while her proposal has been opposed by such Democrats as Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who heads the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

Just so you know, the military says that such crimes need to remain in the chain of command to preserve, “Good order and discipline,” even though other militaries, like, you know, the Israel Defense Forces.

After all, it’s not like the Israelis have been at war in existential struggles in the past 60 years, has it?

Our officer corps is profoundly dysfunctional, and we need to stop the inmates from running an asylum.

This is Just Nasty

No Comments

As you may be aware, Senator John Cornyn has gotten himself a Teabagger challenger in the primary, US Representative Steve Stockman (R-WTF).
Well, Harry Reid’s communications director just Tweeted this:

.@woodruffbets Senator Reid has always felt that Senator Cornyn is someone he can work with on a range of issues.
— Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) December 10, 2013

Well played, Mr. Jentleson, well played.

It sounds nice, but it is read meat to the ‘Baggers who will vote in the primary.

Shoot Me I Agree with James Sensenbrenner

No Comments

He is calling for James Clapper to be prosecuted for lying to Congress:

Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the original author of the Patriot Act, says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress.

“Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” the Wisconsin Republican said in an interview with The Hill.

He said the Justice Department should prosecute Clapper for giving false testimony during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March.

During that hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper whether the National Security Agency (NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Clapper insisted that the NSA does not — or at least does “not wittingly” — collect information on Americans in bulk.

After documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA collects records on virtually all U.S. phone calls, Clapper apologized for the misleading comment.

The intelligence director said he tried to give the “least untruthful” answer he could without revealing classified information.

Sensenbrenner said that explanation doesn’t hold water and argued the courts and Congress depend on accurate testimony to do their jobs.

“The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced,” Sensenbrenner said. “If it’s a criminal offense — and I believe Mr. Clapper has committed a criminal offense — then the Justice Department ought to do its job.”

He’s right.

This was clearly a case of perjury, particularly since he got the questions in advance as well as being given the opportunity to clarify.

Even if there is not a case for his being prosecuted (there is), his behavior clearly justifies the removal of his security clearance.

It’s not going to happen under this administration, though.

Well, It’s a Start………

No Comments

The House of Representatives just passed a (rather weak) bill to reign in patent trolls:

The Innovation Act, a bill with measures aimed to stop “patent troll” lawsuits, passed the US House of Representatives this morning on a 325-91 vote. Several amendments that would have stripped out key parts of the bill were defeated.

Passage of the bill is a big step for patent reformers, which would have been hard to imagine even one year ago. However, patent trolls going after “Main Street” businesses like grocery stores and coffee shops have made headlines and enraged politicians from Vermont to California.

Majorities of representatives in both parties supported the bill. On the Republican side, 195 representatives voted in favor of the bill and 27 voted against, while 130 Democrats supported the bill and 64 opposed it. The White House has said it supports the bill, which must first pass the US Senate.

The key politician pushing the bill ahead thus far has been Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The most prominent opponent has been Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the most senior Democratic member of that committee.

If passed in its current form, the bill will add to transparency in patent litigation and require patent holders to reveal who is profiting from a lawsuit. It will also allow lawsuits against customers to be stayed in certain circumstances and will require fee-shifting to the prevailing party in most patent cases.

………

Stronger action on demand letters is something that proponents of legislation may try to add in on the Senate side. Opponents, meanwhile, will still be looking to stall or kill the bill entirely.

The biggest change to the bill thus far has been the removal of an expanded review program, which could challenge business method patents at the patent office. That plank was strongly desired by anti-troll advocates, since it could have greatly lowered the cost of fighting some patents. But several key tech companies with large patent portfolios, including Microsoft and IBM, were opposed to the expansion of the review program and would likely not have supported the bill if that provision had remained.

This bill is weak tea, particularly with the “lame-ass patent review” provision being stripped from the program, but it passed by an overwhelming vote, which indicates that the political calculus is moving in the right direction.

Well, This Might Explain an Outbreak of Huevos in the Senate

No Comments

It appears that someone pointed out to Dem Senators that some major abortion cases in courts dominated by Republican appointees., and the potential of crippling rulings girded the Democratic Caucus into action:

Within hours of each other, two federal appeals courts handed down separate decisions that affirmed sharp new limits on abortion and birth control. One on Oct. 31 forced abortion clinics across Texas to close. The other, on Nov. 1, compared contraception to “a grave moral wrong” and sided with businesses that refused to provide it in health care coverage.

“These are the kinds of decisions we are going to have to live with,” a blunt Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, warned his caucus later as it weighed whether to make historic changes to Senate rules. Those changes would break a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s nominees and end the minority party’s ability to block a president’s choices to executive branch posts and federal courts except the Supreme Court.

The moment represented a turning point in what had been, until then, a cautious approach by Democrats to push back against Republicans who were preventing the White House from appointing liberal judges. All the more glaring, Democrats believed, was that they had allowed confirmation of the conservative judges now ruling in the abortion cases. Republicans were blocking any more appointments to the court of appeals in Washington, which issued the contraception decision.

Faced with the possibility that they might never be able to seat judges that they hoped would act as a counterweight to more conservative appointees confirmed when George W. Bush was president, all but three of the 55 members of the Senate Democratic caucus sided with Mr. Reid. The decision represented a recognition by Democrats that they had to risk a backlash in the Senate to head off what they saw as a far greater long-term threat to their priorities in the form of a judiciary tilted to the right.

Gee, you think?

Now is the time for the Senate to get the train rolling, and some liberal, and young, judges on the Federal Circuit Courts.

I Did Not Expect Harry Reid to Have the Stones to do This

No Comments

I said that I did not believe that Reid of the Democrats would ever invoke the nuclear option, no matter how awful the Republicans were.

I was wrong:

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

The main combatants Thursday were the chamber’s two chiefs, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who have clashed for several years over Republican filibusters of Obama’s agenda and nominees.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

McConnell linked the rule change to the methods used to approve Obama’s health-care law solely with Democratic votes. The normally reserved GOP leader paced at his desk during his speech, often turning his back to Democrats to address only his fellow Republicans.

“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” McConnell told reporters, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”

The clash ended with a vote nearly as partisan as the times — 52 to 48, with all but three Democrats backing the move and every Republican opposing it.

I tend to think good riddance to the filibuster. 

It is an accident of history, and it has generally ill-served the American people.

Here’s hoping that it gets further dismantled as time goes on.

Good Point ………

No Comments

Say what you will about the batsh%$ insane wing of the Republican Party, but unlike liberals who seem to invest all their hopes in the Presidential primary they managed to take control of the party:

But the huge reaction to Scheiber’s piece just reminds me that ever since Sen. Ted Kennedy’s 1980 primary challenge to Jimmy Carter – maybe since Gene McCarthy’s insurgency, followed by Bobby Kennedy’s, convinced Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election in 1968 – progressives have been over-invested in finding a primary campaign vehicle for their hopes and dreams. And until Barack Obama came along, that hadn’t worked out very well.

Even Obama’s emergence is a cautionary tale for Warren backers, because I’d argue that investing the freshman Illinois senator with magic progressive properties was a bad bet. He was never more progressive, ironically, than Hillary Clinton, except maybe on Iraq – and his national security policies can’t make any of his anti-war, pro-civil-liberties backers comfortable that they did the right thing.

Joan Walsh, the author, misses the point here: Obama was never in the remotest sense a progressive.

He lied in 2008, which is yet another reason why liberals play a suckers game by investing too much effort in the primaries.

If you take down an sitting President of your own party, the electoral consequences down ticket are huge.

If you pick off Representatives, and state reps, and board of ed members, and everything including dog catcher, in the primaries, as the (thoroughly repulsive) Club for Growth did, you get results, and these people become front runners when a Senator’s seat opens up, and eventually the bench from where candidates are selected becomes more in line with your ideology.

BTW, while we are at this, don’t give to the DCCC. As Down With Tyranny has repeatedly documented, the Democratic Party in general, and DCCC chair Steve Israel in particular, are determined to reconstruct the Blue Dog caucus, even if it results in fewer seats for the Dems.

Why to Tell the Steve Israel and the DCCC That You Will Manage Your Own Campaign Donations

No Comments

Because former Blue Dog Steve Israel has as his goal the resurrection of the Blue Dog Caucus or something very similar, even at the expense of the possibility of Democrats taking back the house:

Last week, when MoveOn and PPP released their much buzzed about polls showing how Democrats could pick up many seats, the first thing I noticed was that these were all the Steve Israel seats they had polled. I spoke with them and asked them to poll some of the districts that the DCCC studiously ignores, districts we’ve been covering here at DWT and where Blue America has some great candidates. This morning MoveOn and PPP are releasing new polling data for some of those districts.

Outstanding, at top Blue America races where Lee Rogers is ahead of Buck McKeon (CA-25), Paul Clements is ahead of Fred Upton (MI-06) and Jason Ritchie is ahead of Dave Reichert (WA-08). In other districts, like FL-27, where Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have actively discouraged Democratic opponents, there is a clear indication that if Pelosi manned up and fired Israel and cleaned out the nest of self serving incompetents who run the DCCC, the Democrats would win back the House hands down in 2014. In many of the districts where there are no Democrats– thanks to Israel’s agenda– voters see no alternative to the GOP incumbent but there is a clear indication that a Democrat could campaign and win. In FL-27 where Wasserman Schultz has been protecting Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for years, if an election were held today, an unnamed Democrat would beat her 47-45%. ………

You can read the rest at the article, but basically, the DCCC will drop big bucks on ConservaDem long-shots, and ignore competitive races where real Democrats are running against vulnerable Republicans.

I Wish I Could Smith Words Like Charlie Pierce

No Comments

This New York Daily News Cover, and related story aren’t as good as the classic “Ford to City: Drop Dead”, but it’s close

Because his characterization of the recent leaks of Boehner communications on healthcare to the press as, “The Democrats Are Bringing Guns To A Gunfight,” is both succinct and evocative.

He is describing the fact that Democrats have finally taken the gloves off, and they are leaking emails from Boehners staff to the press:

Senate Democrats are considering leaking a series of emails between the chiefs of staff of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker John A. Boehner regarding employer contributions to congressional staff health care plans, multiple top-level sources said late Monday.

 Senate Democratic chiefs of staff discussed the emails between Reid chief David Krone and Boehner chief Mike Sommers at a recent meeting, according to a source with direct knowledge of the meeting.

 Leaking the emails would be unusual, given the taboo over disclosing personal communications between top staffers. But the missives also would reveal Boehner’s position on employer subsidies for congressional staff. Democrats believe the Ohio Republican’s decision to attach an amendment to revoke those contributions to the most recent House continuing resolution was a direct shot at vulnerable Senate Democrats up in 2014 and would like to highlight the contradiction between Boehner’s public and private stances on the issue.

Pierce is right when he approves:

This would only be responding in kind. For years, Washington worked on a system of both written and unwritten rules of behavior. One of the marked characteristics of the reign of the morons has been to trash the informal systems of acceptable conduct. Fine. Let’s do away with all of them and have an actual brawl over what’s at stake.

BTW, some of the leaks have already occurred, with communications between Boehner and Reid being leaked to Politico:

With the federal government nearing shutdown, House Speaker John Boehner stood on the House floor Monday and called on his colleagues to vote for a bill banning a “so-called exemption” that lawmakers and staffers receive for their health insurance.

 “Why don’t we make sure that every American is treated just like we are?” Boehner asked, seeking to prohibit members of Congress and Capitol Hill aides from getting thousands of dollars in subsidies for their health insurance as they join Obamacare-mandated insurance exchanges.

 Yet behind-the-scenes, Boehner and his aides worked for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and others, to save these very same, long-standing subsidies, according to documents and e-mails provided to POLITICO. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was also aware of these discussions, the documents show.

 During a five-month period stretching from February to July, Boehner and his aides sought along with Reid’s office to solve what had become a big headache for both of them. They drafted and reviewed a possible legislative fix, as well as continued to push for an administrative one from the Office of Personnel Management.

 ………

 “As POLITICO has previously reported, Speaker Boehner was aware that Sen. Reid and the White House were discussing this issue. He was always clear, however, that any ‘fix’ would be a Democratic ‘fix.’ His ‘fix’ is repealing” Obamacare.

 But according to several sources in attendance at a mid-July meeting with Reid, Boehner wondered aloud at one point whether he and the Nevada Democrat could quietly slip some language into a bill to end the problem without it receiving any public attention.

 “When I was in the state legislature, we used to stick things in [bills] and no one would notice,” Boehner said during a private meeting with Reid in July to discuss this issue, the sources said.

 Boehner’s aides then told him this would not be possible, so the idea was dropped.

 The speaker and his chief of staff, Mike Sommers — who was at that July 17 meeting as well — cannot “recall the Speaker making such a comment,” Boehner’s office said.

 In mid-July, as Boehner and Reid were trying to schedule a private meeting with Obama on the super-sensitive topic, the speaker’s top aide said it was okay to use a cover story to conceal the true nature of that prospective White House gathering.

 “We can’t let it get out there that this is for [Boehner] and [Reid] to ask the President to carve us out of the requirement of Obamacare,” Sommers told David Krone, Reid’s top aide in a July 17 e-mail obtained by POLITICO.

 “This is a little bit more difficult because it isn’t a routine meeting, as [Nancy] Pelosi and [Mitch] McConnell won’t be there. I am even ok if it is the President hauling us down to talk about the next steps on immigration.”

 After Krone suggested that the White House press office might float that the Boehner-Reid-Obama meeting was on immigration, Sommers said he wasn’t concerned about what cover story was just as long as the real reason behind the meeting wasn’t disclosed.

 “I really don’t care what is is about[,] it just can’t be about what we know it is about!” Sommers told Krone.

If Harry Reid did not specifically order the leaks, then he knew in advance, and said nothing to dissuade the leakers.

More of this please.

Democrats need to stop wringing their hands about how people observed the social niceties  in the good old days, and recognize that the ‘Phants do not see those niceties as anything but a weapon to be wielded against their opponents.

I’m not suggesting that Democrats go back to caning people on the floor of the Senate, Democrats need to understand that you do not bring a Hello Kitty® doll to a gunfight.

Stay Classy, Barack

No Comments

What a surprise. When Congress wants to hear testimony from innocent victims of drone strikes in Pakistan, the Obama administration invokes the immigration authorities to prevent their entry:

The US government is being accused of derailing a congressional hearing that would be the first to hear testimony from survivors of an alleged CIA drone strike by failing to grant the family’s lawyer a visa.

 Shahzad Akbar, a legal fellow with the British human rights group Reprieve and the director of the Pakistan-based Foundation for Fundamental Rights, says the state department is preventing him from taking his clients to Capitol Hill next week. The hearing would mark the first time US lawmakers heard directly from drone strike survivors.

 Akbar’s clients, Rafiq ur-Rehman, his 13-year-old son, Zubair, and his nine-year-old daughter, Nabila, are from the tribal regions of north Waziristan. The children were injured in the alleged US strike on the village of Tappi last year. Their grandmother – Rehman’s mother, Mamana – was killed.

 Rehman and his children have spent months making preparations to visit Washington after being invited by US representatives to testify in the ad hoc hearing on drone strikes.

 According to Akbar, his clients’ visas for the trip have been approved, but his has not. He believes the hold-up is political.

 “It’s not like my name is scratched because there is some sort of confusion. My name is blocked,” Akbar told the Guardian. “Before I started drone investigations I never had an issue with US visa. In fact, I had a US diplomatic visa for two years.”

 This is the third tangle Akbar has experienced with US authorities over a visa since 2011, a year after he began investigating drone strikes. In April, Akbar said he was being prevented from speaking at a human rights conference in Washington because of a delay processing his application. He was eventually granted entry.

This is indefensible, and is a consequence of having a policy that terrorizes millions throughout the world, and creates more terrorist, is indefensible.

Obama and His Evil Minions™ know that their policies will not hold up to scrutiny, so they are conspiring to keep a 13-year old talking about the death of his grandmother.

And this guy is a Nobel laureate.

What were they thinking in Sweden?

Obama Asks for Congressional Authorization for an Attack on Syria

No Comments

This is something that I did not see coming.

Presidents Nixon have been outright hostile to the application of the war powers act, so I expected that his speech yesterday would be to announce the start of 2-3 days bombing.

Instead, he announced that he would be submitting a proposal for a war powers act authorization:

President Obama put on hold Saturday a plan to attack Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons, arguing that the United States had a moral responsibility to respond forcefully but would not do so until Congress has a chance to vote on the use of military force.

The announcement puts off a cruise missile strike that had appeared imminent, a prospect that had the region on edge and stoked intense debate in the United States, where many dread getting dragged into a new war.

Obama did not indicate what he would do if Congress rejects the measure.

Lawmakers are scheduled to return from recess on Sept. 9to begin what is sure to be a contentious debate about the risks of injecting the United States into a conflict in which it has few reliable allies and enemies on both sides of the front lines. The Senate will hold committee hearings on the proposed strike this week, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced Saturday.

The decision to seek congressional approval for what the administration has said would be a short, limited engagement was a remarkable turn one day after Secretary of State John F. Kerry delivered an almost-prosecutorial case for military intervention. Obama made the decision Friday night following days of agonizing deliberations with members of his Cabinet, according to administration officials.

I think that Obama is aware of the politics of the situation here, and felt a need to distinguish himself from Bush’s foreign policy.

I think that his calculus is that Congress won’t be willing to deny the request and will grant him the authorization of use of military force (AUMF), because of the political consequences of the vote.

I think that this is a miscalculation. On the Sunday shows, members of Congress expressed a lot of skepticism about the AUMF.

In particular, they complained that it:

Leading lawmakers dealt bipartisan rejection Sunday to President Obama’s request to strike Syrian military targets, saying the best hope for congressional approval would be to narrow the scope of the resolution.

From the Democratic dean of the Senate to tea party Republicans in their second terms, lawmakers said the White House’s initial request to use force against Syria will be rewritten in the coming days to try to shore up support in a skeptical Congress. But some veteran lawmakers expressed doubt that even the new use-of-force resolution would win approval, particularly in the House.

“I think it’s going to be a very tough sell,” said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), who is often a key crossover Republican in compromises with the White House. For now, Cole said he is “leaning no” on approving any use of force against Syria.

His remarks came after a more than 2½-hour classified briefing that drew 83 lawmakers to the Capitol, GOP aides said. They flew in from across the country on 24 hours’ notice for a rare Labor Day weekend meeting. The briefing, run by five senior national security officials, began the administration’s all-out effort to win support for what Obama has said would be a limited strike against military targets to punish Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime for carrying out a chemical attack.

White House officials have less than two weeks to secure backing in the House and the Senate, which will not formally return from their regular end-of-summer break until Sept. 9. They are expected to then immediately begin debate on military authorization, with votes by mid-September.

………

Obama’s allies said the first order of business will be to work with the administration to redraft the resolution, which was sent to Capitol Hill on Saturday night and barely filled one page. It had no prescriptions for what type of military action could be carried out or its duration.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters that the resolution is “too open-ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said, “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a former Senate staffer who inspected chemical weapons attacks by Saddam Hussein’s government against its own citizens in Iraq in the 1980s, said he will push to add language that would limit the length of the mission and prohibit putting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria.

I think that the old Clinton hands remember how the AUMF vote in 1991 largely cleared the way for Bill Clinton in 1992, because the Representatives and Senators who voted against it were ruled out as a Democratic Presidential nominee by the conventional wisdom of the time.

I think that this is wrong.

First, we won’t have the sort of conclusive military victory that we had in Kuwait

Second, this is a different time, and the political equation has changed.  The current resident of the White House got there largely on his credibility of his opposition to “stupid wars.”

Voting against the AUMF, or voting to narrow it, is likely to be a requirement for any Congressional Democrat who wants to run for President in 2016.

I thing that there is a significant possibility that Obama will be handed the same sort of defeat that David Cameron did in the UK.

(AUMF request after break)

I’m a Little Bit Less Enthused About Martin O’Malley Now

No Comments

It turns out that he campaigned with corrupt Joe Lieberman wannabee Cory Booker:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) will campaign for New Jersey Senate candidate Cory Booker (D) on Thursday.

The governor, considered a likely 2016 presidential contender, sent out a tweet on Tuesday alerting his followers to his plans.

“Excited to join @corybooker on the campaign trail in New Jersey this Thursday,” he tweeted.

According to PolitickerNJ, O’Malley will make stops on his own in Trenton and Paterson and appear with Booker in Newark, N.J.

He’s previously helped another New Jersey Democrat, gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono, to raise cash, lending his name to a fundraising email sent out by her campaign last month.

I understand the motivation, he wanted to hook up with a winning campaign to show that he has some political pull to aid his embryonic presidential bid, but Booker is a corrupt bankster loving SOB.

Oh, well.