I am watching the House of Representatives vote on the new Speaker. I believe that as of now the conservatives missed unseating John Boehner by one vote. That is a shame. The American people asked for a change. Sixty percent of Republican and unaffiliated voters expressed disapproval with John Boehner as speaker. It is unfortunate that our representatives do not currently represent us. I am grateful to my Congressman for voting against John Boehner for Speaker.
Charlie Rangel has served continuously in the House of Representatives since 1971. He has had a few challenges along the way. There was the question of using Congressional letterhead to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, the question of receiving unusually low rents on his four Harlem apartments, failure to pay taxes on income from his Dominican home, along with unreported assets and other challenges.
In March of 2010, Charlie Rangel temporarily stepped down from his chairmanship of the ethics committee because of the charges against him (rightwinggranny.com). There was no talk of him leaving Congress, it was simply an embarrassment to the Democrats to have him as chairman of the ethics committee.
Now, fast forward four years. Roll Call is reporting today that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi became the first member of leadership on either side of the aisle to call for Rep. Michael G. Grimm’s ouster from Congress. Michael Grimm has been charged with felony tax evasion. I guess Representative Grimm is simply not as good at making up excuses as Representative Rangel was.
I am not endorsing tax fraud, but even a quick glance at Representative Rangel’s tax history causes one to wonder why he is still on Congress. Representative Rangel only had to step down from his chairmanship of the ethics committee while he was under investigation. It seems to me that Representative Rangel and Representative Grimm should either both be asked to resign from Congress or they both should be allowed to stay. I really don’t think anything else makes any sense.
The article reports:
Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) accused House Republican leadership of reneging on a deal made with him to get his support on a crucial procedural vote that almost killed the $1.1 trillion cromnibus funding bill.
Stutzman was one of the last Republicans to cast his ballot in favor of a rule allowing the House to vote on the cromnibus. National Review Online reported that Stutzman backed the rule at the last minute after leadership told him that they would pull the bill, once the rule was passed, and replace it with a short-term continuing resolution favored by rank-and-file conservatives. With the last-minute help of Stutzman and outgoing representative Kerry Bentivolio (R., Mich.), leadership won the vote 214–212.
“I supported the rule because I was informed by leadership that the cromnibus was dead and a short term CR would take its place,” Stutzman said.
Admittedly, it would have been a huge black eye for the Republican leadership if the rule had not passed, but lying to fellow Congressmen is just wrong–regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. The House of Representatives passed a bad bill–it does not represent what the American people voted for. However, the people the American people voted for are not yet sworn in to Congress. Hopefully when they arrive, they will make a difference.
Mr. Hewitts advice is simple:
First, do not cut the expected hike in the military housing allowance or increase the deductible applicable to medical services for military families on active duty. I would hope the GOP learned its lesson last year that your base is deeply committed to the proposition that the active duty and retired-career military should be the last category to receive benefit cuts, not the first in line to get whacked.
…Next, do not vote for a Continuing Resolution that is other than a stop-gap measure. Allowing a lame duck Congress to set spending for the balance of 2015 just after the country voted overwhelmingly to reject the authority of Harry Reid and his allies over that process would itself be a rejection of the people’s vote.
Mr. Hewitt then makes a very prescient prediction:
Look, this president only knows how to do one thing, which is how to make the Congressional GOP look bad –very bad in fact. That is his goal, his entire reason for being for the next 24 months. The president intends to force a shut down next fall, and no matter what you try and do between now and then, he will force that shutdown. The only thing you can do successfully is frame his incipient irresponsibility by quickly passing an updated version of the Ryan Budget –one which removes the sequester from the Department of Defense– and then follow up with the appropriations bills that conform to that budget, communicating every day of the year that you are acting responsibly and the president is refusing to do so.
Be ready. That prediction makes a lot of sense. The President is an expert at convincing the press that he is right when he is wrong. The voters are looking for two things in the new Republican Congress–one is a return to the idea of small, limited government and the second is the developing of a backbone to stand up to a lame-duck President. I am a Republican, and I am waiting for the Republicans to convince me that they are not simply interested in being in control of the bureaucracy, but understand the need to shrink the government and cut spending.
One of the main problems with the Obama Administration has been the President’s total disregard for the U.S. Constitution. This was illustrated by comments like “I have a pen and a phone.” Well, the President may have a pen and a phone, but that is not the way the American political system is supposed to work. The U.S. Constitution establishes three distinct branches of government designed to check and balance each other. Hopefully the results of yesterday’s election will move the country closer to the government our Founding Fathers designed.
The article reports:
The President was asked about whether he will be changing his personal political agenda to accommodate a new Republican Senate and House. He danced around the issue and refused to say specifically what he’ll do differently in the future to get things done but did say he is “open to Republican ideas.”
“Congress will pass some bills that I cannot sign and I will take some actions that Congress will not like,” Obama said. “To everyone who voted I want you to know I hear you, to the two thirds of Americans chose not to participate, I hear you too.”
Obama failed to take any responsibility for the massive rebuttal of Democrats at the polls yesterday as Democratic and Republican presidents have typically done in the past after wave elections against their Party. Further, he argued messaging about policy was the reason why Democrats lost yesterday, not because of the policies themselves.
Democrats in Congress will have a decision to make. Many of their colleagues lost their jobs yesterday after almost always voting for President Obama’s policies. President Obama will not be in office after 2016. Do the Democrats want to continue to support an agenda that cost their colleagues their jobs? Also, I have not yet been able to find out what percentage of eligible voters voted in this election, but I suspect it was higher than one-third. I don’t think two-thirds of Americans stayed home, and if they did, they chose not to have a voice.
This is a chance for a new beginning for America. It is a chance to get our debt under control and to allow bipartisan bills from the House of Representatives to be voted on in the Senate. It is a chance for Congress to stop playing political games and actually get something done–even with a President who will probably continue to play political games.
On Monday, The Hill posted an article about some of the Congressional campaign funding this year. Democrats in the House of Representatives are complaining that their usual sources of campaign funding had dried up because outside organizations are funding Senate campaigns rather than House campaigns.
The article reports:
According to public data compiled by a Democratic source tracking outside spending, liberal coalitions — labor, green and women’s groups — have spent $18 million less than what they invested in 2012.
The biggest drop-off is in labor.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $8.3 million in 2012 to help House Democrats, but has only spent $181,500 in independent expenditures on House races this year.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme) also pitched in $6.3 million two years ago, but has only spent $612,000 to help House candidates so far in this cycle.
Both labor groups declined to comment.
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) — which spent $4.2 million on House races in 2012 but just $1.1 million so far this year — admitted that, like other liberal groups, its focus has been elsewhere.
“We made a decision very early on that protecting the Senate firewall was our top priority,” LCV spokesman Jeff Gohringer told The Hill.
I thought that the Republicans were supposed to have all the outside money.
The article further reports:
Republicans argue Democrats have consistently outraised them throughout the 2014 cycle, have outspent them in the most competitive House contests, and are just setting up their post-election blame game.
In August, the GOP committee brought in $4 million compared to the DCCC’s $10 million, and ended the month with $46 million in the bank compared to Democrats’ $55 million.
The well-heeled House Majority PAC has $21.4 million in ad reservations through Election Day, according to a Republican tracking ad buys, while the main GOP House outside group, American Action Network and its sister super-PAC Congressional Leadership Fund, have laid down $8 million for October. American Crossroads, also focused on the Senate, is playing in just one House race, Arkansas’s open 2nd District.
I hare to be cynical about this, but does anyone else remember that the security on the website that raised money for President Obama was disabled so that contributions from overseas could be accepted? Money will always be a major part of American politics, which is not my favorite fact, but one does occasionally wonder how much of this money comes from questionable sources.
The Heritage Foundation posted an article today about government-sponsored entities (GSEs). These organizations have an off-budget status (excludes them from federal budget rules and processes) which hides their real cost to taxpayers.
The Treasury is keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-backed loan guarantee giants, off the federal budget.
How is this possible?
In 2008, the government took control of Fannie and Freddie and agreed to shield the entities from bankruptcy. Now that the country has recovered from that housing crisis, and money is coming back in through these government-sponsored entities (GSEs), their true cost remains hidden.
…It’s jaw-dropping that such massive flows of taxpayer money could be kept outside the federal budget. And as you can imagine, keeping that cash off the books distorts the overall budget picture.
Just for a start, the housing entities’ “profits paid to the Treasury in 2013 alone have resulted in federal spending and deficits being underreported by more than $100 billion,” says Boccia, the Grover M. Hermann Fellow.
This affects public perception of the deficit—and even lawmakers’ perceptions as they make plans to spend more in the coming year’s budget.
The obvious solution to this is to eliminate GSEs. They have become another way that Washington can control more taxpayer money without being held accountable.
There will be an election in November. All of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election. Unless we elect people who will actually represent us and not become part of the Beltway establishment, we will be watching America descend into bankruptcy.
This video is from YouTube:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Unfortunately, lately we haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the U.S. Constitution.
There is some serious hand wringing and semi-hysteria going on right now on the part of Democrats and establishment Republicans about the vote taken in the House of Representatives to fund the government, but not ObamaCare. First of all, I would like to point out that this whole question could have been avoided if Congress had passed a budget at some point instead of relying on continuing resolutions. But I guess that is beside the point.
I am a little concerned about the vote, but there are a few things I have noticed. First of all, two Democrats voted for the defunding and one Republican voted against it. That’s more bi-partisan than most things that happen in the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives is elected every two years. They are expected to be responsive to the wishes of the voters and reflect the views of the voters. Well, according to Real Clear Politics (they average everyone else’s polling data), 52 percent of Americans oppose ObamaCare. Thirty-eight percent of Americans support it. (Just for the record, Real Clear Politics also reports that 44 percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing and 50 percent disapprove). These are the current numbers.
So, regardless of how you feel about the vote, the House of Representatives is representing the view of the American people. So what about the Senate? The direct election of Senators by popular vote was established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before then, Senators were elected by their state legislatures. They were supposed to represent the interests of their states. Because of the role that money plays in modern politics and the role that parties play, Senators no longer represent their states (or their people for that matter). They represent lobbyists, unions, and big business. Party discipline plays a big role in how they vote (generally speaking, the Democrats are much more disciplined than the Republicans).
There is no way the continuing resolution without funding ObamaCare passes in the Senate. However, the passing of the defunding resolution in the House can be a teaching opportunity to help those who have not been paying attention learn exactly how ObamaCare will impact them. We are already seeing the impact in the reduction of work hours for many people, the loss of company healthcare plans for many people, and the higher premiums for health insurance.
I hope the government does not shut down, but I believe the Republicans in the House were doing their job of representing their constituents when they passed the law funding the government and defunding ObamaCare.
We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.
The website states that the promise was kept on January 5, 2011. It might have been kept then, but it is about to be broken now! More than a thousand pages were added to the bill on Friday night. Do you believe anyone will have read and studied them by the vote on Monday? Please email your Senators (and any other Senators you know who are planning to vote for cloture) and ask them to read the bill before voting on it.
The article reports:
Mitt Romney won this district by 18 points last fall, but Sanford’s personal history made the seat competitive. Democrats poured money into the race while national Republicans abandoned their candidate, giving Colbert Busch a 5-to-1 advantage in outside spending.
If the American people can forgive Bill Clinton for his indiscretions, I guess they can forgive Mark Sanford for his. There are two things in this election that bode well for the Republicans in 2014–the amount of money poured into the coffers of Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch did not make a difference, and a seriously flawed candidate whose positions on issues are in line with the voters can win an election despite his flaws.
As the House of Representatives considers the immigration bill that the Senate will hand them in the near future, they would do well to keep this election in mind–issues won–money did not.
This article is based on a story posted at Hot Air on Sunday.
In 1995, as part of what was going on in the House of Representatives at the time, the House barber shop was revamped and privatized. For whatever reason, the Senate barber shop was not. Now, Hot Air is reporting that the Senate barber shop needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate to keep operating. In response to this expense, Senate sergeant at arms Terry Gainer is attempting to privatize the Senate barber shop. (Why do the House and the Senate need separate barber shops in the first place?) So far, Mr. Gainer has bought out four employees in order to replace them with independent contractors, and he hopes to do more of that in the future.
The article reports:
…in merely the past fifteen years, has cost taxpayers over five million dollars. Senate Hair Care Services is technically open to the public, for those who know/care about it, but last year alone the salon needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate coffers to cover their jacked-up costs.
Might I suggest that the Senate barber shop might be a prime candidate for some serious budget cuts.
The Hill posted a fairly good summary of the budget deal reached in Congress that will prevent a government shutdown. The Congress has actually agreed on something. Now the bill goes back to the House of Representatives for final approval and the President has to approve it in order for it to become law.
The payroll tax cut was extended for two months. That means that we will have to sit through all the posturing and name calling again in about six to eight weeks. Yuck. The bill includes a provision to expedite the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. The bill does not extend some of the business tax breaks–this will not be good for the growth of the economy–there is no such thing as a corporate tax–all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.
The Hill reports:
The bill now awaits approval next week by the House of Representatives. Senate aides expect House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to agree to the proposal but he will not do so formally until he has had a chance to consult with members of the House GOP caucus.
The thing to remember here is that all these last minute theatrics are caused by the fact that the Senate has not approved a budget since President Obama took office (even during the two years he controlled the House and the Senate), so there are no spending guidelines in place. What we need is for Congress to actually pass a budget that they will have to follow. That would help make Washington a saner place.
The level of chutzpah in the Obama administration never ceases to amaze me. The latest example is Eric Holder’s recent testimony before the House of Representatives. Hot Air posted a story on the testimony yesterday, complete with a Townhall.com video of the actual testimony.
The article at Hot Air reports:
That means he (Eric Holder) not only called for tighter gun control regulations — he also accused the House of Representatives of keeping law enforcement in the dark “when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops.”
There are no words…
The Daily Caller reports a recent statement by North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue:
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”
Excuse me, the Constitution calls for elections for Representatives to the House of Representatives every two years and for Senators every six years. The idea is that the House is more responsive to the public and the Senate is supposed to be a more thoughtful body because it is less worried about elections. I could right a book about whether it actually works that way, but that was the intent. To think that the way to solve our current economic problems is to throw out the Constitution is not only nuts, it is not appropriate for an elected official. I don’t know about on the state level, but on a national level, all elected officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. This was not an appropriate remark from any elected official.
The Hill reported today that the House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit the power of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to dictate to a American company where it can expand its manufacturing.
The article reports:
The House approved H.R. 2587 in a 238-186 vote in which eight Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the bill and seven Republicans voted against it.
The bill is a response to the NLRB’s decision to sue Boeing after it opened a manufacturing plant for its new 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina. The NLRB is charging that the plane manufacturer picked South Carolina for new production in order to retaliate against strikes by its unionized workers in Washington state. South Carolina is a right-to-work state that generally bans union membership.
It is ironic that it would have been less complicated for Boeing to move its plant out of the country. That kind of government interference costs American jobs.
It is understood that the bill has little chance of passing in the Senate, but Republicans want a public vote in the Senate on the issue.
The article further reports:
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill would put real limits on the right of workers to bargain collectively. He said the bill would allow companies to say to workers, “Yeah, you have the right to bargain collectively, but if we don’t like what you’re doing, we’re taking a hike.”
Trade associations have lent their significant lobbying weight in support of the bill. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers that they would score votes on the bill.
Conservative activist groups, such as Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth, also have pushed for passage of the bill.
Unions are in opposition, saying the legislation will gut worker protections and undermine the NLRB’s legal authority.
I don’t know when the NLRB was given the power to tell companies where in the United States they could do business, but I do believe that it is time to take that power away. If corporations cannot meet union demands and still make a profit, they should be free to relocate where unions are not an issue. That used to happen in this country–one of the reasons the textile industry moved out of New England to the southeastern states in the 1950’s was that the southern textile plants were cheaper to operate because they were not unionized. When did companies lose that freedom?