Politics, Government & Public Policy: October 2006 Archives

The Times from the United Kingdom has an article about the upcoming American election and labels our Senate as "more powerful" than our House.

The Democrats need 15 net gains to regain control of the 435-member House for the first time since 1994. They can count on perhaps a dozen, but others are too close to call and the residual power of incumbency may be critical. ...

Regaining control of the more powerful Senate is an even harder task for the Democrats, who must make six net gains from 33 seats being contested. Of these, only 15 are held by the Republicans, while at least one seat that the Democrats are defending — New Jersey — could yet be lost.

I think it's a mistake to characterize the Senate as being "more powerful" than the House of Representatives, although each individual Senator has more power than each individual Representative due to the greater membership of the House, if nothing else.

The United States Constitution does give different powers to each house of Congress though, so let's review them. (Please let me know if I miss anything.)

The House:

- "sole Power of Impeachment"

- "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"

The Senate:

- "sole Power to try all Impeachments"

- Advise and concede or object to treaties and Presidential nominees for federal offices

It's not clear to me that the Senate's portfolio is really more powerful than the House's, considering that they can't propose raising money to fund anything. However, I don't know the practical effect of the House's power to raise revenue.

Brendan Miniter argues that "Voters Still Want Tax Cuts" and I think he's right, but his article listing examples of how states are scrambling to cut taxes every which way really highlights to me that if voters really want to get what they want they need to divest political power from the federal government and get more local.

In Arkansas, home to the megaretailer, one of the hottest issues in the governor's race this year is repeal of the state's hated 6% tax on groceries. Getting rid of the food tax has been on the conservative agenda for years, and four years ago repealing it even made it onto the ballot, but lost by a wide margin. Now with the state enjoying a large surplus and Gov. Mike Huckabee retiring, the stars are aligning to abolish the tax that brings in a mere $200 million a year. And it's Democrat Mike Beebe who is leading in the polls with his promise to phase it out. ...

In Colorado, the Republican foundation has crumbled in the past few years. It shouldn't be lost on anyone on the right that two years ago GOP Gov. Bill Owens led the effort to suspend the state's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights to allow for sharp increases in spending and a five-year suspension of rebates the state would otherwise have been forced to mail to taxpayers. Gov. Owens is on his way out now, and it should come as no surprise that Republicans will almost certainly see Democrats capture the governor's mansion next month. Rocky Mountain Republicans are divided and disillusioned. Democrats are not.

The unreported story this election cycle is that while scandals and the war have dominated congressional races, on the state level conservative economic ideas are still winning elections. Voters continue to support promoting economic growth by cutting taxes.

But even states who want higher taxes (*cough* California *cough*) should be able to get what they want, and they'd be better able to if the distant feds didn't have their hands in so many pies. Want public health care? Take it up with your state. Want to follow Kyoto? Do it at a state level, like California. Let's see what happens, and maybe you'll win other states to your cause. Part of the idea behind the federal system is that states should experiment and compete to create the best legislation, but when the federal government is so all-encompassing there isn't much competition to be had... with predictable results.

Rush Limbaugh illustrates once again why, love him or hate him, he is the nation's premier political commentator. Here he breaks down the controversy over Missouri's proposed Amendment 2 and Michael J. Fox's recent ads promoting it.

Michael J. Fox is participating in this disinformation campaign. Folks, I don't care what anybody says, it is unseemly, it is exploitative, and it is downright mean to mislead people who suffer from incurable diseases at the moment or horrible diseases, that there is a cure around the corner if only, if only Republicans could be defeated. There has been a tradition in this country of bipartisan efforts to cure all of these diseases or to come up with vaccinations for them, but never mind that, we're in the process here now of damaging what has traditionally been this bipartisan effort in addressing and curing illnesses by politicizing them. We're now politicizing diseases and illnesses.

The Democrats politicized spinal paralysis and spinal injuries in the 2004 campaign, and now they are politicizing Parkinson's disease, and they've done that, and it's all about stem cell research, and of course embryonic stem cell research. Any bit of information or research that shows progress in either of these areas that does not involve stem cell, embryonic stem cell research, is rejected by the left. Now, why is this? What is so damned important about embryonic stem cell research? Why not adult stem cells? Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord? Because you can't take abortion out of this mix.

Just because it's not being talked about in this campaign, do not be lulled and fooled into thinking that abortion does not remain the sacrament of the Democratic Party and its religion. It is the thing that they will never once compromise on, and they think that anything that stands in the way of embryonic stem cell research is going to be an obstacle to having abortions, and the converse is true. If you can open up the field of embryonic stem cell research and just go out and get an embryo, what do you have to do to get an embryo? I've heard some Democrats say, "Well, an embryo is not fertilized, is it?" How little they know. Of course it's fertilized, and you have to kill it, and of course that advances the notion I told you long ago, folks.

Read the whole thing to be totally informed.

Don't miss the latest from David Zucker: The Taxman Ad.

(HT: Pajamas Media.)

Two days ago President Bush signed a bill slowly repealing the Wright Amendment that for so long prohibited long-haul flights out of Dallas' Love Field in order to protect American Airlines and the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. From its inception the law was arbitrary and anti-competitive, and it's good (especially for the people of Dallas) that it's going to disappear. Wikipedia has some background on the Wright Amendment and explains its motivation thusly:

After the deregulation of the U.S. airline industry in 1978, Southwest Airlines [headquartered at Love Field] entered the larger passenger market with plans to start providing interstate service in 1979. This angered the City of Fort Worth, DFW International Airport, and Braniff International Airways which resented expanded air service at the airport within Dallas. To help protect DFW International Airport, Jim Wright, a Fort Worth congressman, sponsored and helped pass an amendment to the International Air Transportation Act of 1979 in Congress which restricted passenger air traffic out of Love Field in the following ways:

* Passenger service on regular mid-sized and large aircraft could only be provided from Love Field to locations within Texas and the four neighboring states, (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico). At the time, all of Southwest's destinations were included within this zone, hence the law had no immediate effect on Southwest's operations.
* Long-haul service to other states was possible, but only on commuter aircraft with no more capacity than 56 passengers.

While the law deterred other major airlines from starting service out of Love Field, Southwest continued to expand as it used multiple short-haul flights to build its Love Field operation. This had the effect of increasing local traffic to non-Wright-Amendment-impacted airports such as Houston/Hobby Airport, the New Orleans Airport, and the El Paso and Albuquerque Airports.

Some people have managed to "work the system" and get around the Wright Amendment's restrictions. For example, a person could fly from Dallas to Houston or New Orleans, change planes, and then fly to any city Southwest served — although he or she had to do so on two tickets in each direction, as the Wright Amendment specifically bars airlines from issuing tickets that violate the law's provisions, or from informing customers that they can purchase multiple tickets that would allow this.

Until recently I didn't even know about this stupid law, and I can't even imagine how many other ridiculous laws we're stuck with that no one affected even knows about.

Here's a humorously titled article about the proliferation of Congressional staff that make most of the decisions Washington instead of our duly elected leaders. A different way to look at "big" government... not just spending too much money to do too much, badly, but also simply bloated with bureaucrats.

There are now more than 17,000 staffers on personal or committee staffs, a work force bigger than an Army division. Political scholars James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo believe that in reality many of them make up a "network of tax-funded 'constituent service' aides whose actual job is to subvert the electoral process--that is, to give incumbents unfair advantages over their already underfinanced challengers."

As long ago as 20 years ago, the growing power of staff attracted the attention of Sen. Barry Goldwater. He took the opportunity to single staffers out for attention in his 1986 "farewell address": "Today's Hill staffers write most of the legislation and speeches, they do all kinds of work that the members of Congress should be doing," Goldwater warned. "It is safe to say that the U.S. Congress is now run by paid staffers, not by people elected to do the job."

The growing power of the staff has in turn fueled the dramatic increase in the number of Washington lobbyists, who perhaps not without coincidence also number about 30,000, twice as many as six years ago. Staffers who leave Capitol Hill often hit the jackpot as high-priced lobbyists or consultants. The sheer complexity and size of government now mean it's often impossible for members to know how to understand and navigate it, so they often turn over that job to their staff or former staffers turned lobbyists.

Anyone who doesn't believe staffers exercise that kind of power on a day-to-day basis should talk to Mark Bisnow, a former aide to such senators as Hubert Humphrey and Bob Dole. "Just watch senators on their way into the chamber for a vote," he told me several years ago. "Many will quickly glance to the side where aides stand compressing into a single gesture the sum of information their bosses need: thumbs up or thumbs down."

Maybe our Congressmen wouldn't have so much free time for instant messaging their pages if they actually had to do real work.

I'm not sure why opponents to Missouri Amendment 2 are framing the debate as a matter of "cloning". The very first provision of the proposed amendment is "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." The amendment isn't about cloning, and even if it was, is that really an enormous moral dilemma?

The real problem with the "Stem Cell Initiative" is that it is focused on embryonic stem cell research in which a human being is killed so their cells can be harvested. Isn't there a strong enough pro-life constituancy in Missouri that the issue could be contested based on its similarity to abortion? All the "No Cloning" signs make the opponents of Amendment 2 look like idiots.

Furthermore, there needs to be a serious effort to educate the public about the different types of stem cell research. This essay on "The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research" is a good place to start.

The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).

Read the rest to educate yourself, and vote no on Missouri Amendment 2 despite the foolishness surrounding the debate.

So Senator Reid made some money off a fast and loose land deal in Las Vegas. I think his behavior was stupid and gives the appearance of unethicality (heh), but it's probably not that big of a deal.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews. ...

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later. ...

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

Exactly like the "technical transfer" earlier this week when Google bought YouTube with stock. Ownership interest in one company was traded for assets held by another.

It seems clear that Senator Reid violated the Senate's ethics rules, but it doesn't seem that he did so with malicious intent. I think the Senate should censure him and that he should demonstrate his acceptance of responsibility by donating some of his profits to charity.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that the Republicans have no reason to be magnanimous. Democrats blow every Republican molehill up into a mountain no matter how much leeway Republicans give their indiscretions, so why shouldn't the right play by the same rules? Still, Republicans will get themselves in hot water if they try to draw parallels between this land deal and Mark Foley's perversion.

The fishiest part of the whole transaction is also probably the commonest and least likely to draw curiousity from Reid's fellow lawmakers: how did he make $1.1 million profit off a $400,000 property?

Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

I expect it's incredibly common for politicians to use their name and position to get a business advantage. I'm not sure how to stop it, and I doubt the Senate will address this issue at all. After all, they're the ones with the investments that consistently beat the market by 12%.

It's depressing to read about FEMA wasting over $100 million on puppet shows to help hurricane victims recover from "mental trauma". Read the whole article, it'll piss you off.

At the Pinitos Learning Center in Boca Raton, disaster workers dressed as "Windy Biggie" and "Sunny" teach 30 preschoolers a song about how the wind is good, even during a hurricane.

"Windy Biggie is our friend.

"Windy Biggie is strong wind.

"She turns, turns, turns, turns around.

"She's knocking things to the ground."

This is FEMA tax money at work. It's also paying for Hurricane Bingo, puppet shows, "salsa for seniors," and yoga on the beach. ...

Doris O'Neal was a Project H.O.P.E. Wilma counselor in Palm Beach County from December through July, when she left because of illness.

"I think it's a waste of taxpayers' money," she told the Sun-Sentinel. "I mean, puppet shows? What is that doing? I felt guilty a lot of days going to work and earning a paycheck." ...

After last year's hurricanes, FEMA approved applications from 28 states and the District of Columbia for crisis counseling grants totaling $109 million. ...

SAMHSA and DCF officials acknowledged that they do not know whether anyone who attends the shows and presentations is actually suffering any trauma from the storms. Many people receiving Project H.O.P.E. services told the newspaper that they have no hurricane-related distress. ...

The preschoolers at Pinitos Learning Center could not even name the hurricane that the Wilma Project H.O.P.E. team came to discuss.

"Tornado!" shouted one boy.

"Windy Biggie" and "Sunny" told the toddlers a story about two children in a hurricane -- shopping for supplies with their parents and riding out the storm in a safe room. They sang the "Windy Biggie Song" nine times.

Joel Kimmel, a Coral Springs psychologist who does crisis counseling, viewed tapes of Project H.O.P.E. presentations provided by the Sun-Sentinel.

"I'm lost as to what these people are trying to accomplish," he said. "I don't see how teaching these kids this song is helping them in any way. It's very confusing and may even be damaging."

What a disgraceful scam and a waste of America's sympathy and resources.

The South Florida Katrina team organized a picnic in April at Snyder Park in Fort Lauderdale that "was fun when staff and survivors were able to interact, play games and enjoy activities," says one report. Three days later, Project H.O.P.E. managers treated 29 team members to lunch at Benihana "to alleviate stress after the team had worked so diligently on the Katrina Picnic."

Help, I'm stressed! I've been working really hard pointing out tragic government waste! Someone take me to Benihana.

John F. Harris has written a good article about how new media is a powerful political weapon, and although he focuses a lot on the negatives he also points out that Republicans at least see a lot of positives in the new landscape.

Former congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) ended his political career over sexually charged e-mails to former House pages. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) stumbled over his puzzling use of the word "macaca" and his clumsy response to revelations about his Jewish ancestry. Former president Bill Clinton had a televised temper fit when an interviewer challenged his terrorism record.

All three episodes, however, were in their own ways signs of the unruly new age in American politics. Each featured an arresting personal angle. Each originally percolated in the world of new media -- Web sites and news outlets that did not exist a generation ago -- before charging into the traditional world of newspapers and television networks. In each case, the accusations quickly pivoted into a debate about the motivations and alleged biases of the accusers.

Cumulatively, the stories highlight a new brand of politics in which nearly any revelation in the news becomes a weapon or shield in the daily partisan wars, and the aim of candidates and their operatives is not so much to win an argument as to brand opponents as fundamentally unfit.

New media is really fulfilling the promise of the "global village", gossip and all. Just like these sorts of personal attacks factor heavily in small-group dynamics, new media is allowing people to network more extensively and thereby redefining "small". No village chief would be selected without public knowledge of his dirty laundry, and now national politicians face the same scrutiny on a much larger scale. For people who complain about past generations of corruption and cronyism in government -- me included -- new media may lead to vast future improvements as the old dogs retire.

The article also has an astounding quote by former president Clinton ackowledging that the old media has long been an ally of the left.

But he [Clinton] said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.

"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

Only unrealistic when it comes to the new media, who don't tend to be leftist lapdogs. The older generation of rightwingers seems to have a better grasp on reality.

One of those who salutes the changing landscape -- with as much passion as Clinton deplores it -- is Cheney, who said he considers the breakdown of what he called an old media "monopoly" as among the most favorable trends of his years in politics. He said the change requires politicians to grow a thicker skin. Once while shaving, he heard Imus referring to someone as "Pork Chop." Only after a few minutes did he realize the host "was talking about me. I'm Pork Chop. And I laughed like hell."

"Sometimes it's pretty trashy," he said of new media's rise. "But I guess I'd put the proposition that there's more time and opportunity for policy discussions and debate than there used to be."

And that's exactly the point. No censorship in the global village -- everyone gets to know everything, and everyone gets to have their say.

Good grief, Gateway Pundit is all over the Mark Foley scandal and it looks like Democrats may have known a lot more than they've admitted... and kept it secret so they could whip it out before the election!

What we know now...

Radical Gay Rights Activists held on to information about Representative Foley for months and years. These "Rights Activists" knew that representative Foley had relationships with "young men less than half his age." They did their own investigation on Foley. They even flew in their sources in to be interviewed about the Representative. They shared this information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They held on to the information for over a year. They wrote about how they would break the story at midterm elections.

So... despicable as Mark Foley appears to be, Democrats knew about it and let it go until the opportune moment. Maybe they aren't too concerned about Foley's actual perversions after all.

Drudge is now linking to a post on Radar Online about the "bogus" blog that started it all. Christopher Tennant details how the blog appears to have been set up a couple of months ago specifically to break the news about Foley, and how it has since been abandoned. Plus, a connection to DailyKos.

I want a Constitutional Amendment that throws out every elected office holder and prohibits them from ever again setting foot into the capital.

Update:
But now Drudge reports claims that it's all a prank.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

Having just moved to the St. Louis area from Los Angeles I'm still trying to get up to speed with local politics... but it's no surprise to discover that Democrats play dirty everywhere. Republican Senator Jim Talent has had numberous campaign signs torn down, and now the vandals are caught on tape. Guess who?

Signs in a Springfield, Missouri were consistently vandalized recently even generating coverage on Missouri news outlets. Talent supporters kept replacing the signs, they kept getting vandalized, etc.

So, they captured the crime on film and realized it was McCaskill volunteers ripping the signs down!... Nice!

Gateway Pundit even has mugshots and names to go along with the video. The girl, Christin Green, values her vagina so much that she proclaims it tastefully on her shirt. Unfortunately Chris Worth leaves us in the dark as to his level of genital-esteem, assuming he has any. Not at all tacky!

This travesty joins that of the high-ranking Democrats in Milwaukee who slashed some van tires so old people couldn't go vote for Republicans. In that case though the perps weren't mere campaign workers, they included the son of Democrat Representative Gwen Moore and a former acting mayor of the city. Disgraceful.

In the comments please post links to other instances of election interference or voter fraud... let's see if we can find more Democrat or Republican thugs.

Aside from the what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it questions surrounding Mark Foley's resignation, Larry Kudlow identifies lots more reasons why Dennis Hastert should resign as Speaker of the House.

Rather than a winning message of economic growth, a strong defense, and optimism for the future, Hastert has given us silence. And where’s his response to the House Democrats, who take every opportunity to speak up? ...

Seldom does he make himself available to the press, including various cable and broadcast talk shows. He has operated as a behind-the-scenes player, someone who is worried more about process and compromise than advancing Republican philosophy.

And there are consequences to such reticence. Tax reform has gone by the wayside. So has spending reform. So has free trade. So has true immigration reform. ...

Hastert doesn’t lead; he drops the ball.

He never discusses key election issues, particularly economic issues. Where is he on the Bush bull market for stocks; or the not-too-hot, not-too-cold, but steadily expanding Goldilocks economy; or the resiliency of the American consumer; or plunging gasoline prices; or the remarkable profit-making health of U.S. businesses in the aftermath of President Bush’s supply-side tax cuts?

I've never been a fan of Hastert, and I think it's past time for him to go.