Dems Did It

Does Congress need Instant Replay?

This recent letter from Republican Leader John Boehner to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscores not only the mess she's made but the rediculous and hypocritical "rules" she's instituted. This letter is Boehner, in effect, throwing the coach's flag. Too bad they don't have instant replay. This one would clearly be overturned...

March 29, 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

The American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's House.  Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly broken.  Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably frustrated because they know you can't "clean up Congress" with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as they are to enforce.

It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public acceptance.

As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee.  The new rules were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle:

• A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and canapés....but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box lunch provided by the very same corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)]

• Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund, they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf tournament - solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)]

• In order to go on a "first date" with someone who happens to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)]

• A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a preseason game from Xavier University (private university). [see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p. 37)]

• A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad.  Similarly, a $4 latte is OK - but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p.5)]

• A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying it for any purpose - official, campaign or personal - even at his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan Pearce, Feb 16, 2007]

• A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it will be held in the home of a player whose father is a lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p. 2)]

• Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O) of House Rule XXV]

• A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may - in many cases - take the same Member to dinner using his personal funds. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p. 3)]

• A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming with environmental group lobbyists -- as long as none of them are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", March 14, 2007 (p. 2)]

It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of disarray in the House.

Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now infected the legislative process as well.  For example, confusion over the proper application of congressional earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to certify as "earmark free" a multi-billion dollar Continuing Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was laden with them.

Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with newly adopted earmark "conflict of interest" rules until after the deadline for submission of earmark requests had expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY 08 appropriations process by delaying for more than a month processing of many Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the earmark process more transparent.

This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional resources the panel needs to carry out its added responsibilities to Members.

Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their campaign rhetoric have instead left Members - on both sides of the aisle - more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have properly sparked so much public outrage.

After all, few of the "Culture of Corruption" violations by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney - or alleged violations by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan - would have been prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in effect last year.

Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely communicated and firmly enforced.  And, as you and your fellow Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last Congress, the process of developing those rules must be transparent and genuinely bipartisan.

To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules -- and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions that working group members believe would improve both compliance and enforcement.

As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997, the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly divided between majority and minority members. I propose that it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each party, and one or two additional Members from each side of the aisle.

I further propose that we direct the working group to report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess.

Madame Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public statements made by you and members of your staff noting your desire to correct evident problems with several of the new rules.  Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility that you have often pointed out can only result from a thoroughly bipartisan effort.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner
Republican Leader

54 days... and counting

Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was busy dumpster diving for votes to past a non-binding, non-actionable, micromanaging timeline on Iraq. As most Americans have figured out by now though, this highly-touted resolution does nothing more than give the terrorists an extended spring break so they can come back after we leave.

At the same time, funding for those troops in the field, who are very much in a binding, actionable war zone environment, has languished in Congress.

It has been 54 days now since the President submitted his supplemental spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And all Congress has to show for it is some fresh cooked pork.

This brings the term "Do Nothing Congress" to a whole new level...

Progressives ward off evil Legos

Some people fight terrorism. We call them soldiers and heroes.

Some people fight fires. We call them firemen and heroes.

Some people fight crime. We call them police officers and heroes.

And some people fight... Legos. We call them Communists.

A group of commrades, er "teachers" in Seattle clearly identify more with Karl Marx than Thomas Paine. When children under their care at an after school program built a large Lego structure known as "Legotown" the values of our society came out as well. Values like competition, leadership, creativity and enterprise. This, of course, was too much to take. Drastic steps must be implemented. Ergo, ban the Legos.

We met as a teaching staff later that day. We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation. We knew that the examination would have the most impact if it was based in engaged exploration and reflection rather than in lots of talking. We didn't want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a "community of fairness" about Legos?

Their conclusion, of course, was to just ban those little Devil-blocks outright.

Fortunately, other people have caught on to this nonsense. John Miller from National Review takes on Lego-bashing with gusto.

My vision of social justice for children of elementary-school age is as follows: If you’re tagged, you’re it; if the ball hits you, you’re out; and pig stories are fun, especially when told over microwaveable hot dogs.

It's because of just this sort of liberal brainwashing that more and more families are choosing to homeschool their children.

Nancy Pelosi had a bad day

It appears that the Democratic-run House is, well... not a happy place for the Spin Firm of Pelosi & Hoyer.

According to Drudge:

Dem leadership pulls DC voting bill from floor; conservative Dems were supporting DC gun repeal...
Leader Hoyer seen yelling at staff on floor...
Speaker Pelosi absent because she is desperately searching for Iraq supplemental votes...
Holmes-Norton standing silently in disbelief..

Sensationalist? Of course. Wrong? Not so much.

It appears that the Democrats have had to pull the DC Voting bill from the floor, and Nancy Pelosi found a little TOO much pink in her office this afternoon...

After years of whining that they could do better as the majority, support for the Democrats among mainstream moderates is quickly eroding...

Congress cuts troop funding, Media talks about DOJ's HR

The mainstream media has a long, storied history of not paying attention to news that actually matters. Take, for instance, the recent hubbub about how eight lawyers were fired from the Department of Justice.

Story after story after story describes the gritty details and oh-so scandalous cover-up (at least, they've tried to invent a cover-up) of how eight (8) lawyers at the Department of Justice were "wrongfully" fired from their jobs.

In the meantime, there is very little coverage of the Democratic Congress' efforts to cut off funding for our troops in the field, as well as put an artificial timeline on how our military does its job. Over one hundred thirty-five thousand (135,000) troops are currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if the liberals running Congress have their way, these troops will be out of supplies, dangerously cut off in the field:

On Thursday the Senate also voted 82-16 to pass a nonbinding resolution by Republicans that vows to protect funding for U.S. troops in the field. For weeks Democrats had resisted voting on this proposal, fearing its passage would overshadow their focus on ending the war, or commit them to opposing funding cuts for the conflict.

We're not sure why the Democrats want to take responsibility for allowing Iraq to fall to the terrorists, but they seem intent on micromanaging this war. We're not sure why they would want to cut off supplies for our troops in harm's way either. And the media seems intent on ignoring that.

Sign me up!

An actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator (at least that's what the e-mail forward said):

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, ! all I ne ed to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.

I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,

Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA

Senator Joe Lieberman on Iraq

We love this guy. No wonder he left the Democratic Party. He has too much sense to be that liberal.

Increasingly, the debate over our foreign policy is becoming so polarized, so partisan, so bound up in the battles we are having here in Washington, that it seems blind to the real battle outside of America, the challenge of our time from the Islamist extremists who want to destroy us all, who attacked America on September 11, 2001, and intend to do so again.

Read the whole speech here.

Colorado: Which Colorado Promise was that?

Newly minted Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D) has found himself in some hot water... again.

Recently, Ritter vetoed pro-labor legislation he had earlier supported, clearly a half-hearted attempt to shield his liberal agenda with some pseudo-moderate persona. It, well... didn't work.

Now the unions are back. And this time, they're pissed.

So pissed, in fact, that they are threatening to pull the whole freakin' 2008 Democrat National Convention from Denver. Colorado Democrats worked tirelessly to beat out New York City to host the liberalpalooza and now this... this... Ritter is going to throw it all away?

So we'll see if Governor Ritter, who campaigned on the back of a "Colorado Promise," decides which promise he plans to keep...

Myth Buster: Doubling the Special Forces

We've all heard the Democrats talk about how they support the troops. And we see right through it. It's just political posturing for the sake of a vote or two. Disgusting.

Even worse is the promise first made popular by presidential hopeful John F. Kerry when he determined to "double the size of our special forces."

Nancy Pelosi has put it atop her agenda as well. This is a good thing, right?

Well... not exactly. As author Michael Fumento (who himself qualified for Army Special Forces training as a soldier) writes in The Weekly Standard, doubling the Special Forces is impossible save one exception: lowering the standard.

A look at the current Special Operations Forces numbers, and efforts already underway to expand them, shows there can be no doubling in any meaningful sense of the word. Current authorization for active SOF is about 43,000 (there are about 10,000 more in Reserve and Guard units). The Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon's main planning tool, calls for adding another 13,000 active-duty Special Operations Forces over the next five years. So if the Democrats wish to double the number already budgeted for, it would mean adding 56,000 men; if it doubled the number available today it would still be an additional 43,000. Now keep in mind that a large chunk of those 13,000 to be added came last year from a simple transfer of about 2,500 Marines in Force Recon. Most of the current expansion won't be so easy.

As Fumento points out, the Democrats' goal is sheer poll-friendly messaging. Even worse, they don't even get the language right. They constantly refer to expanding the "Special Forces" -- which is technically the term for the Army's Green Berets. Since they want more SEALs as well, the correct language is "Special Operations Forces." This is the more accurate label for those units under the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) including the Army Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALs, Air Force 720th Special Tactics Group, Marine Force Recon, and several others.

So why this fascination with doubling the "Special Forces"? Fumento quotes a former Navy SEAL who has one theory:

"...there's something about special ops that appeals more to Democrats than GOP," he added. "There's almost like there's a craving to be accepted by real men. I don't know any liberal Democrat who doesn't like special ops."

"A craving to be accepted by real men." Hmm. That just speaks for itself about the sad state of affairs in the Democrat party.

Colorado: Dems hate math, love sex

This may be a foregone conclusion nationally, but in Colorado the Democrats are outdoing themselves to look naive, incompetent, and shrill.

The latest flap is over a bill in the statehouse that would simply require Colorado students to pass four years of math and three years of science. Sounds easy enough, eh? The Democrats hate it. Can’t stand it. Why, you ask?

It violates the concept of local control.

WHAT??? When was the last time we heard that Democrats were worried about local control? That’s like Democrats worrying about spending in Washington. Democrats love spending in Washington!

Ok, so really -- what’s the hold up? The real opposition is arts groups, who protest that by spending more on math and science, Colorado will have less to spend on arts.

Sorry folks, but the last time we checked, the United States was not falling behind in the arts. We’re facing rapid decline in math and science relative to other countries, like China and India, who are cranking out top scientists by the truckload.

Anyway, the state Senate begrudgingly passed the bill, sponsored by witty State Senator Josh Penry. We’ll see if the “local control” argument comes back up in the House.

Meanwhile, while opposing ANY basic standards for math and science, Democrats in Colorado have embraced sex education as the elixir to our education woes. Local control, ironically, has not been brought up as they push to mandated sex education across the state.

Let's continue with the governor. Newly elected Bill Ritter, who's only experience in public office before this was as the District Attorney of Denver, is having a hard time getting a handle on his new job. He won by riding the wave that saw a lot of good, mainstream Republicans removed from office. Since then his performance has been less than mediocre.

Just as an example, he campaigned as a "business-friendly" Democrat (as if there were such a notion) then cheered as a grotesque "labor-friendly" bill raced through the Democrat-controlled statehouse. Now here’s where it gets interesting. He vetoed the bill. Yeah. Seriously, we couldn’t make this up.

"In substance, I agree with House Bill 1072, and made that clear to labor as I was campaigning," said Ritter, a Democrat.

But, "a substantive change like this, that has been in the law for this long, should have more of a dialogue among the communities of interest, and that didn't happen."

Translation: "I supported the bill before I vetoed it." Note to Mr. Ritter: John Kerry is the wrong guy to call for political advice. You really need to look elsewhere, sir.

He vetoed the bill, not because he disagreed with it, but because he didn’t like the tone of the debate. The state Senate opposes math and science standards but wants to mandate sex education. Hold on to your hats, Colorado. The Nanny State is moving in.