WASHINGTON In their zeal to protect their members from politically hazardous votes on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, Democrats running the House of Representatives are taking extraordinary steps to muzzle Republicans in this summer's debates on spending bills.
On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government's contribution to the District of Columbia's city budget.
No way, Democrats said.
At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.
The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., insists the clampdown is to prevent debates from dragging on and on. Republicans, however, have agreed to limit the amount of time debating the bills.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes.
So instead of debating an attempt backed by House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio to allow more children living in Washington to receive school vouchers, the House will vote on a Quixotic attempt to eliminate the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
"What they want to do is they want to avoid tough votes on appropriations bills," said Rep. David Dreier of California, senior Republican on the Rules Committee.
Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party's leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C. Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership's new policy on floor debates "muzzles the voices of pro-life members."
The process has become so relentlessly efficient that Democrats were actually forced to drag out action to Thursday on a $33 billion measure funding energy programs and water projects. The reason? They need to stretch the workweek into Friday to force lawmakers to remain in Washington for committee work on health care and other spending bills.
Republicans complain that unless a member of their party is one of the 60 members of the Appropriations Committee, he is essentially blocked from having any say in shaping the budget. "That simply disenfranchises most of the members of this body," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Democrats say that months ago, they offered Republicans the chance for a more open process in return for a guarantee that Republicans wouldn't drag things out. Republicans initially said no but recently have agreed to limit how long a bill can be debated. Too late, say Democrats.
"We offered Republicans the opportunity to work with us in a bipartisan way to offer amendments so we could complete the appropriations process in a timely manner," said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "They rejected that offer and have repeatedly used delaying tactics."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was not in the country on the day of Michael Jackson's memorial service, but his grinning face popped up on his Twitter site with a message urging fans to help the financially desperate city pay the tab for police and services.
"Help LA give Michael the safe and orderly send-off he deserves," said a tweet in his name.
But when Villaraigosa returned from his nine-day getaway in South Africa, he changed his message. He ridiculed the fundraising drive and said the city will pick up the estimated $1.4 million bill for the Jackson event, even though he helped enlist billionaires and corporations to bankroll a public celebration for the NBA champion Los Angeles Lakers last month.
The abrupt reversal has yet to be fully explained as City Hall fields complaints that it bowed to political or corporate pressure while sticking taxpayers with an unjustified bill for a lavish celebrity tribute in a privately owned arena.
At a City Council meeting Tuesday, a string of residents grumbled about the taxpayer expense at a time when the city is slashing spending and facing possible layoffs to close a projected $530 million deficit.
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times said: "City Hall bumbling makes Los Angeles look laughably low-tech, shamefully disorganized, simultaneously an easy mark and a swindler, and cheap and pathetic besides."
A week ago, Villaraigosa seemed firmly behind the fundraising effort to recoup the cost of putting 3,200 police on the streets for crowd and traffic control, including spending $48,000 on sandwiches to feed them.
A press release issued from Villaraigosa's office last week quoted him asking for donations. But he told reporters Monday it was "ridiculous" to set up a Web site to collect money from the King of Pop's fans.
Questions of the mayor's role surfaced almost as soon as his Twitter page lit up with messages urging donations the day of the memorial. When asked how the mayor was tweeting from Africa, spokesman Matt Szabo told the LA Observed blog that Villaraigosa either writes his own messages or "I approve with direct authorization."
Szabo said in a statement Monday that the mayor first learned of the plan to collect donations on the Fourth of July weekend. The statement then jumps to the following week, saying Villaraigosa "did not support" an online Web site for credit card donations but "allowed the site to remain online" until he returned from Africa. It's not clear what will happen with the $35,000 that was collected.
Acting Mayor Jan Perry, who was sitting in for the vacationing Villaraigosa, issued a statement saying she directed city employees to set up a site to collect donations, but the mayor's staff removed it after creating a link to Villaraigosa's personal Web page.
The mayor's office did not respond to questions submitted Tuesday asking, among other things, why a statement was issued in the mayor's name asking for donations if he never supported the idea.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2009 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
As we know, San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is pushing a bill to legalize and tax marijuana. On Wednesday, the State Board of Equalization told us just how much that would raise: $1.4 billion a year.
Wow, that's a lot of pot: 16 million ounces are annually consumed in California, according to the report. You gotta love this state because...uh...uh... we forgot what we were going to say.
Oh, yeah: How in the hell do you figure out how much of an illegal quantity is consumed? It's not like the average recreational yuppie user -- and we all know doctors, lawyers, political leaders and educators who blow the occasional doob -- is going to fess up to some alleged "survey taker." Not that they're paranoid.
The Board of Equalization's answer is on page 6 of its report. It is basing its figure on "numerous assumptions, all of which come from law enforcement estimates and academic studies."
There are a few other interesting tidbits hidden in the stems and seeds of this report:
Dope would be cheaper: "Legalization of marijuana would cause its street price to decline by 50 percent. This 50 percent decline in price would lead to additional consumption of 40 percent."
But fewer would be smoking: "The imposition of the $50/ounce tax would then lead to reduced consumption of 11 percent."
So does this mean that fewer people would smoke because they don't want to pay the tax? And does that mean they'd rather buy from their local dealer -- and save the tax?
Up with dope, down with booze and butts: The report says there may be more people smoking dope and fewer smoking cigarettes and drinking. "There could be a 'substitution effect' toward marijuana and away from cigarettes and alcohol."
So would you put down the Marlies and beer if weed was legal?
What about the munchies? The report claims that "consumers choosing to increase their consumption of marijuana would likely do so by reducing their consumption elsewhere, some of which is subject to the sales and use tax (such as cigarettes), some of which is not (such as groceries and most services)." Which means, you know what's coming next from the Legislature: A Munchies Tax.
California NORML notes that "Not included are savings in law enforcement costs for investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning marijuana offenders, which are estimated to total some hundreds of millions per year."
So are you ready to do your part to plug California's $26 billion budget gap?
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2009 10:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Except for the problem of it still being a Federal crime, and the problem of employers firing you for even having traces in your system from a smoky concert a week ago, it is a fine idea.
#3
Yeah, the DEA is already regularly closing down Marijuana shops that are legal under California law. What makes Ammiano think they're going to look on his plan any more favorably?
#4
California NORML notes that "Not included are savings in law enforcement costs for investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning marijuana offenders, which are estimated to total some hundreds of millions per year."
A $50 per ounce tax could generate a lot of personal growing and a lot of bootlegging. I think they overstate the amount they would collect.
Preventing tax evasion will still cost money, including investigation, prosecution and penalties.
#5
Um, what's the street price of weed? $50/ounce seems like an awful lot.
And isn't pot sort of legal in California anyways, what with the "medical" dodge? At this point, I'm in favor of legalizing it across the country & taxing the fuck out of it.
Maybe we can get our local hill trash smoking weed instead of stringing out on horse. They couldn't be less useful to society I figure.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
It won't generate that much tax revenue because it is easy to grow in your backyard. As soon as it's legal, everyone will grow their own to avoid the taxes. They could still outlaw growing it, but that will add to the bureaucracy they can't afford anymore.
#7
Christ, Penguin, ain't nobody lazier than doped-up stoners. If they don't *have* to grow the crap in their closets with sunlamps, I'm willing to gamble that they won't. I believe you could still reap a hell of a lot of tax revenue if you don't pull this $50-an-ounce crap.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I think legalized pot is a great idea, tax revenues or not. Maybe we could get all our chronic drunks to smoke themselves into a stupor instead - they'd be a whole lot less violent. And maybe some of the meth-idiots would do the same. Yeah, the potheads would be non-productive citizens, but that's an improvement over counterproductive. And they'd be harder for ACORN to get moving to the polls on election day.
If it ever does become legal buy stock in whoever makes Twinkies and Vanilla Wafers!
#9
Legalise and tax sales in line with beer selling terms and conditions, unilaterally, and set a limit for that pesky home-grown. How many folk here have thought of home-brewing their own beer but never get round to it?
#11
Um, what's the street price of weed? $50/ounce seems like an awful lot.
Mitch, it's around $400 ounce in SF, but spare a thought for the Japanese, it's 300% dearer.
This has a lot of potential. If the tax shortfall continues, the state could start giving out dime bags instead of IOUs. And why not an additional levy on Doritos, pizza and other fast food? Call it the munchies multiplier!
#14
I'm guessing there would be a lot of people willing to do their part to save Kalifornia. Would also unburden law enforcement from dealing with a lot of dopey crimes.
Embattled House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, facing a multi-pronged investigation by the House ethics committee, shelled out nearly $280,000 to four different law firms over the last quarter, according to his newest campaign disclosure report.
Overall, Rangel has paid $928,000 to his attorneys during the last year as his personal finances have come under scrutiny on a variety of fronts.
But despite his ethics troubles, Rangel remains a prolific fundraiser, raising nearly $405,000 in the period from April 1 to June 30, according to the latest report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
More than half that total - nearly $236,000 - came in the form of PAC contributions from corporations, trade associations and labor unions, including AFSCME, Boeing, General Electric, Pepsico, Raytheon, and UPS.
Rangel still has more than $831,000 in cash in his campaign account as of June 30. Federal election law allows lawmakers to use campaign funds to pay their legal bills if they stem from an investigation related to their official duties.
Rangel also reported receiving $88,150 in "bundled" funds via the National Beer Wholesalers Association, American Council of Life Insurers and Association for Advanced Life Underwriters. Lawmakers must disclose bundled funds worth more than $15,000 from any one source during a six-month period.
Just last month, the House ethics committee empanelled an investigative subcommittee to look into Caribbean trips taken by Rangel and four other lawmakers in 2007 and 2008. The subcommittee will determine whether the trips, sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, complied with House rules barring corporate funded travel.
The House ethics committee is also investigating allegations that Rangel used Ways and Means post to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College in New York. The New York Times reported last year that Rangel helped preserve a tax break benefitting a million-dollar donor to the Rangel Center.
In addition, Rangel has faced questions over his use of four rent-subsidized apartments in Harlem and his failure to fully pay his taxes on a Dominican Republic resort home.
Rangel and House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), had hoped the investigation into the New York Democrat would be finished by now, but the ethics investigation could drag on for months or even into next year, according to House insiders.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2009 10:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
It's OK, Charlie will rent out his Caribbean vacation house to a supporter for a week for $900,000.
Posted by: ed ||
07/16/2009 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
$928,000? Again remind of how much Congress members make a year? Ought to change the law so that Congress critters can't use campaign funds to legally defend themselves. There might be more law-abiding, ethical, Congress critters. But then again, "What was I thinking?
Figure air transportation, rental car, hotel stay, eats.
Posted by: Kelly ||
07/16/2009 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"...and that all 675 managers needed to meet in person."
Why?
Haven't they heard of teleconferencing?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/16/2009 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Correct, Kelly. The Biltmore off season is no luxury stay. And meeting peer managers face to face once a year is not unreasonable, even for government managers. ?This is a molehill.
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Springfield Township, enjoyed a long military career, retiring after 31 years from the Navy, where he attained the rank of 3-star admiral. Now, he feels it's time to give back.
That's one reason he's running for the U.S. Senate in next spring's primary against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Philadelphia.
During a stop at the Williamsport Sun-Gazette on Wednesday, Sestak, 58, was quick to remind its editorial board and Publisher Bernard A. Oravec that while he respects Specter, he, unlike the senator, was not one to follow former President Bush. It was Bush, he said, with the help of lawmakers such as Specter, who helped "derail" the economy. "He (Specter) voted consistently with policies that got us there," he said.
Sestak said he decided on a Senate bid even before Specter decided to switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
In further addressing his reasons for making a Senate run, Sestak said, "The defining issue is being in it for others and not for yourself."
Sestak said he thinks President Obama's stimulus plan is working for the nation. While unemployment has grown, it has not been to the extent it would have, had the president and Congress done nothing.
He said he's in favor of reforming health care, but not through a single-payer system. And he'd favor a model like that of Massachusetts, with everyone insured. "Eventually, what you pay is less because you mandate others be insured," Sestak said. Increasing numbers of people would receive preventative care, helping further drive down costs, he explained.
Sestak noted that just two insurers in the state control 70 percent of the health care plans. "That's a monopoly," he said. "I believe if you get fair competition, you get the best capitalism with the best medical system." Doing nothing with health care, he added, is simply not an option.
Sestak said the U.S. military still is a great one, but must improve its readiness. The real mission in Afghanistan is that of eradicating al-Qaida from neighboring Pakistan. "We must transform our military," he said.
On Social Security, Sestak said there could exist various means of keeping it solvent, including having the more affluent wage earners pay stiffer Social Security taxes. "There should be several ways to to solve this problem. What's the right way to be fairest to everyone?" He said Specter has voted five times for privatizing Social Security, a solution that he opposes.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2009 10:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Other than the three stars, he sounds like the same old Democratic face...
#2
It was Bush, he said, with the help of lawmakers such as Specter, who helped "derail" the economy. "
Just run his fellow Donk Congressman Barney Frank enunciating that there's nothing wrong with how Fannie Mae et al were being run by his stooge sycophant when this challenger talks about 'It's Bush's Fault'(tm). So, when is the Frank investigation starting Joe? /rhetorical question.
#3
Damnit Joe, stop complicating my primary choices! I *was* going to pull the lever for your not-Arlen ass, regardless of the campaign details. But lord, you seem bound and determined to make my decision problematic.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In further addressing his reasons for making a Senate run, Sestak said, "The defining issue is being in it for others and not for yourself."
If that doesnt prove this guy is just another lying douche bag I dont know what does.
#5
I would have thought his expression of interest in running for the US Senate would have so sufficiently established his douchebag credentials as to not require further proofs.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
Recovery.gov is the Obama administration's website for tracking government stimulus spending. Will there soon be a tracking explanation of the $18 million that the administration has recently dedicated to redesigning and maintaining the newly-launched site for the next four and a half years? That's $4 million a year. I'da done it for them for about a tenth of that and hired a couple slaves at good wages to do the actual typing.
The Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. won a bid for $9.5 million to redesign the already-functional Recovery.gov by January and up to $18 million through 2014, according to a press release from the General Services Administration. Smartronix isn't giving interviews right now about the deal, but the company released a statement saying it will offer "24x7 operation and maintenance" in addition to the initial creation and installation of the new version. Whoopdy doo. 24-7, is it? Kinda like Rantburg, only without fresh content daily. And without the commentary. But with press releases.
To complement the beefy computer servers that the company will need to run the site and support millions of users, Smartronix will keep a mirror version of Recovery.gov in case things go wrong. I've got a mirror of the Burg in my basement, though I'll admit I don't keep it backed up often enough. Tack an extra hundred thou on what I make on it, though, and I would. Guaranteed.
At first glance, the White House got ripped off. Picked right up on that, didn't they?
Twitter Inc., the fastest-growing social network, didn't even raise that much money in its third venture funding round last year. Oh, well. What's Twitter? Some fly-by-nite, right?
Some website designers had similar first impressions when asked about the contract. "That's insane," said Brad Crowell, a Los Angeles-based Web designer who worked on a now-defunct media-rich social network. "I would never have to work again in my life... It doesn't even take a million dollars a year to keep a site up." I ask for donations every three or four months. I make hosting, plus a little left over for the hardware fund which is usually eaten up by household emergencies.
Chetan Damani, director of Imano, a Web development company with 40 employees and offices in New York, London and Mumbai, initially agreed. "That's a pretty sweet deal," Damani said on the phone from London. I'd say so. With that kinda money I could do nothing but the Burg, as could each of the mods, plus we could all smoke expensive cigars except for Doc Steve who could chew expensive gum.
But putting it in perspective, Damani conceded that very few design firms can follow through on the hyper security and quick turnaround that Smartronix is promising. "They're following some pretty strict standards," Damani said of Smartronix. "It's more than just a design." Right. I'd put a few bucks extra in Badanov's pay check, but not $4 million a year. Between the two of us, we've kept the Burg puttering along. The site hasn't been knocked down in a long time. That's prob'ly because we've got at least half of China and Korea in the ban bucket.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/16/2009 10:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Doc Steve who could chew expensive gum.
Get him some of that Juice gum they're sabotaging the Paleos with.
#2
Within days, several media outlets, including Fox News and the Washington Examiner, criticized the size of the contract and alleged that campaign contributions made to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer from Smartronix executives played a role in the company being selected to design the Recovery.gov 2.0 site.
A spokeswoman for Hoyer (D-Md., 5th) said he was not involved in the contract and had no knowledge that it was awarded to a business in his district until the media reports surfaced. "Congressman Hoyer had no involvement in the award of this contract. Any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous and not based on fact," said Stephanie Lundberg, Hoyer's press secretary. "Federal contracts are awarded independently, not by members of Congress."
Calls placed to Smartronix were not returned by press time, but the company did post a statement on its Web site that makes no reference to the allegations of pay-to-play contracting. "Smartronix is honored to have been selected to redesign the Recovery.gov 2.0 Web site," said CEO John Parris in a press release. "We have assembled the best team to meet the contract's complex requirements and have immediately begun work to meet the Recovery.gov 2.0's aggressive schedule. We look forward to working with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and our partners to develop a solution that will allow the American taxpayer to see how the money from the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 is being distributed and managed."
Those who have questioned the high cost to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site are misguided, RAT Board Chairman Earl Devaney told Congress Daily last week. Critics have oversimplified the task of revamping "the government's largest Web site" in such a short time, as well as the difficulty of building security controls and interconnectivity with a reporting system designed to handle a huge amount of information, he said.
Still, anti-tax groups are up in arms about the price tag and the lack of information known about the contract."Tech-savvy experts tell us that there really are no Web sites out there that would merit this kind of cost including sites for major retailers or banking Web sites," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, in a statement. "So unfortunately, it looks like taxpayers are once again being taken for a ride with blindfolds for that matter."
Accountability watchdog groups said it is premature to assail the cost before seeing the final product."That may be a bargain depending on the basis of the work that we're asking them to do," said Scott H. Amey, general counsel for Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that monitors waste, fraud and abuse throughout the federal government. "The amount of money sounds high for a database, but I'm not an IT expert, so I can't say how much a database [like this] costs," he said.
A glance at details of how the contract was advertised and awarded did not raise any red flags, he said. The contract was competitively contested two other companies submitted bids and it includes a "full-solution package" for operations and maintenance, which is good.
One factor that likely contributes to the price tag is that the quick timeline to redevelop the Web site commands a premium, said Craig T. Jennings, a senior policy analyst for OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that aims to increase federal accountability and transparency.
"There's been a rush to criticism that I think is really unwarranted," he said. "At an initial glance, $18 million is a lot, but it could be that this Web site is going to be really awesome and that it's going to deliver the transparency that the administration is aiming for."
And it is unlikely that Hoyer, despite his high profile within Congress, curries influence within the GSA and the federal procurement process, Jennings said.
The Examiner reported that Smartronix executives contributed $19,000 to Hoyer since 1999. Although there is no hard evidence of any wrongdoing, Common Cause Maryland Executive Director Ryan O'Donnell said it is another example where the role of money in politics raises ethical questions. "You can't prove it one way or the other," he said. "You seldom can, which is why taking money out of politics is so important to begin with because if you do create that separation, you never have any question."
Expending up to $18 million to make stimulus spending more transparent is a worthy outlay, O'Donnell added. "That's a drop in the bucket compared to the [size] of this stimulus package," he said of the $787 billion plan signed in February. "There needs to be a way for the public to oversee it and a Web site is making information public and helping to create accountability itself. I think it's definitely fair play to criticize any part of the stimulus package, but in order to do that, transparency is essential."
#9
Your are simply entering dementia. A comedy of sight and sound performed by an illustrious cast of cabbage patch players. A veritable cornucopia of political delights to vex and break wind upon all of humankind. Now; without delay, let the farce continue.
#2
Sorry, as much as I dislike Boxer, this guy is just playing the race card. It sucks when they use it against you and it sucks when they use it for you
#5
As a San Diego native, I can only say: "sorry, but I've NEVER voted for 'Ms. Dumb as a hatfull of hair'".
She was pwned, big time, by a serious, successful businessman who wasn't gonna play 'racial gotcha'. Barbara? You're a stupid SF-area twit who's not qualified to clean those chambers, much less be Chair, ma'am
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/16/2009 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
