February 5, 2010
You Like This
Oh, yes, I like this very much.
February 4, 2010
Can't Call them a Do-Nothing Congress!
The Democrats in the 51st Congress ridiculed President Benjamin Harrison and Republicans for annual federal spending that reached one billion dollars for the first time: the Billion Dollar Congress! Ahh, those were the days...
217 Ayes (all 'D') - 212 Nays
Hat-tip: Roger Simon
A billion? Pikers.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 4, 2010 9:10 PMAt the time they surely thought, what - a ba-billion dollars? Now we're barely impressed by a ta-ta-trillion dollars!
Posted by: johngalt at February 5, 2010 3:52 PMFebruary 2, 2010
Help is on the way!
According to the Senator-Elect's Facebook page:
Scott Brown will be officially sworn in on February 11th at 12:45pm.
UPDATE: You and 8,048 others like this.
January 27, 2010
Quote of the Day
Neither the House nor the Senate have figured out how to pass a reconciliation sidecar first, We are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that amends another piece of legislation which does not exist yet. We are having problems with the CBO and parliamentarian on that front. -- one senior Senate aide
January 21, 2010
Ezra Klien Finds the Dark Cloud
Well, he finds a silver lining:
Scott Brown: Inadvertent hero of banking reform?If Scott Brown's election was very bad for health-care reform, it looks like it was very good for financial reform. Desperate to add a new issue into the news cycle and give Democrats something they can actually fight for, the White House is set to propose a raft of regulatory reforms that go far beyond anything that Congress has suggested so far, or that the White House has hinted might be in the offing.
The dark cloud was spotted by political meteorologist James Pethokoukis a few days ago.
Brown win could spark Obama war on Wall StreetScott Brown’s stunning capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy was a political black swan, a near-unpredictable event.
The result ends the Democratic supermajority in the Senate and leaves key parts of the Obama agenda in deep trouble. But the biggest loser just might be Wall Street. Desperate Democrats may see anti-bank populism as a way of holding power as the November midterm elections approach.
The last days of the heated Senate race saw the first attempts at that political gambit. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley’s allies in Washington, both the White House and national Democratic officials, used President Barack Obama’s proposed bank tax as a cudgel to bash Brown via emailings and telephone calls.
Now that he doesn't have health care to worry about, he can really go after those fat cat bankers (boo, hiss!)
January 9, 2010
TOSS UP in the Commonwealth!!!
Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:
-As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.
Wow. A 2-1 lead over Coakley among independents is huge.
I liked this line: "All that said Coakley can certainly still win this race..." That's a far cry from "a Republican has a snowball's chance in hell of winning Ted Kennedy's seat."
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2010 10:59 AMJanuary 6, 2010
Quote of the Day
"There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail," quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.-- Speaker Pelosi quoted in PoliticoI think the word you are looking for is "RAWR!"
UPDATE: Honorable Mention QOTD:
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Wednesday it was not a slap at the president. "It was a quip," Daly said. -- AP
December 30, 2009
Three Cheers for the Filibuster!
John Stossel wants to expand it to the House.
I'll have to think about that one, but he presents a nice defense of the procedure that every majority party learns to hate:
On any given day, what is Congress more likely to do: violate or expand liberty? As nineteenth-century New York Judge Gideon Tucker put it, “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”Libertarian science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein had a good idea. One of his novels depicted a bicameral legislature with one chamber needing a supermajority to pass laws and the other needing only a minority of votes to repeal them.
By the standard of protecting freedom and keeping government caged, that’s not a bad idea. It should be easier to repeal laws than to pass them.
Bravo to Stossel for looking to "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" for government reform ideas.
But this quote shouldn't go without repeating:
There is no greater threat to individual freedom and autonomy than government. The threat from private freelance crime is small potatoes compared to the daily usurpations of the state, with its taxation, regulation, privilege-granting, inflation and war.
The first line, by itself, deserves commitment to memory.
Posted by: johngalt at December 30, 2009 3:10 PMDecember 28, 2009
Elections Matter
Sprint showed us what it would look like "If Firefighters Ran the World."
Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin and Christopher Dodd show us what would happen "If the Mafia Ran the World."
Problem is, the Sprint ad was hypothetical and the Senate's actions are all too real. It can legitimately be argued that the Democrat party has become a full-fledged criminal syndicate. Just listen to Judge Napolitano.
Is what we are seeing today much different than if a majority of Mafioso had been elected to Congress?
jg: that's SO not true. If the Mafia ran the Federal legislature, they'd be running it at a profit.
Ha.
Posted by: Keith at December 28, 2009 2:37 PMNot to mention that whatever you kick up would be far less than current taxes...
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 28, 2009 2:54 PMPerry: great point. I hear that, since Red China is no longer buying our T-bills, one of the administrations went down to the docks last night to borrow a few trillion dollars from a guy. The guy turned him down, saying that Uncle Sam couldn't afford the vig.
Posted by: Keith at December 28, 2009 2:58 PMYou think congressmen aren't profiting from their activities? Why else you think they do this "thankless" job - benevolence?!
I know you were joshin' but all kidding aside, the analogy fits like a glove.
Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2009 4:07 PMIf the analogy fits, you must aquits...
Posted by: jk at December 28, 2009 4:28 PMDecember 15, 2009
Helping Out TPM
I feel a little bit better about my two hopeless Senators when I watch this. But I do not post it just to jab my Minnesota friends with some sort of rhetorical poke in the eye with some sort of sharp stick, with large hunks of rock salt stuck on the end.
No, I post this for the same reason @mkhammer linked: the good people at Talking Points Memo put this together and posted it because they think it makes Senator Franken look so good. Yup, watch him take down Senator Thune with his repetition of a Moynihan quote -- watch in awe!
Oh! He's using the "Liar, liar pants on fire" defense!
Congratulations, Minnesota. You must be so proud.
Posted by: Lisa M at December 15, 2009 9:23 PMI blame Coleman. He lost to a wrestler, barely beat a dead guy, and then lost again to a clown. Having said that, if half of one percent of the ACORN registered voters were fraudulent, that would have given Franken his victory, making him the senator from ACORN and not Minnesota.
Posted by: sugarchuck at December 16, 2009 10:42 AMYeah, sc, but "the dead guy" knew how to throw a great party...
Posted by: jk at December 16, 2009 1:17 PMDecember 11, 2009
Separated at Birth?
Too funny. Smart Girl Politics' Senate Rally invitataion:
Hat-tip: WaPo
He's a bad bananna with a, greasy black peeeeeel!
Posted by: johngalt at December 11, 2009 11:20 PMDecember 9, 2009
100 Lame Government Stimulus Projects
Senators Colburn and McCain have compiled an impressive document: Stimulus Checkup: a closer look at 100 projects funded by the coercive taxpayer theft act of 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It's worth a look.
Don Luskin has highlighted a few egregious examples, but I'm going to open the bidding with #14: Anti-Capitalist, Socially-Conscious Puppet Shows ($100,000)
Each spring, Minnesota is home to a nationally known Mayday parade put on by In The Heart of the Beast Puppet and Mask Theatre (HOTB), which includes artists that advocate for socially progressive causes such as the elimination of fossil fuels and ―free market fundamentalism.‖98 The theatre derives its name from a quote popularized by Che Guevara, who in a thinly-veiled reference to the United States said, ―I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the heart of the beast.
Holy cow, who's representing that State in the Senate? Some comed -- oh, never mind.
Pull up a chair and open the PDF, you'll be really unhappy you did.
UPDATE: #51 is an oldie but a goodie: Study On Why Young Men Do Not Like Condoms ($221,355)
Indiana University professors received $221,355 in economic stimulus funds to study why young men do not like to wear condoms. The research will ―advance our understanding of...the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men, and to create --education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively.
Oy. Government at its best, unfortunately.
Posted by: johngalt at December 9, 2009 3:39 PMHow did they ever narrow it down to just a hundred? Sifting through thousands of candidates to pick that hundred would be a job I sure wouldn't want.
Unless it were being paid for with stimulus money.
(I kid, I kid...)
Posted by: Keith at December 9, 2009 5:38 PMNovember 23, 2009
The Ayes Have It!
Hat-tip: Don Luskin, who says "Watch this and tremble"
Democrats should be embarrased, Republicans either sardonic or smug, and independents outraged.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 24, 2009 11:21 AMAnd people who actually believe in self-government, dejected.
Posted by: jk at November 24, 2009 12:12 PMJK, you are so 18th century!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 24, 2009 12:48 PMNovember 12, 2009
I'm a US Senator, Don't Ask About the Constitution!
What's Professor Reynolds's line? Our country is in the best of hands.
Hat-tip: Heritage
One wonders how many senators have read the Constitution in its entirety. Probably as many as have read the bills they've voted on.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 13, 2009 10:17 AMNovember 6, 2009
A Few Districts in the Old Dominion
It's Friday and jk is linking to Kim Strassel.
She looks at a few districts in Virginia, compares their 2008 and 2009 voting patterns, and proclaims a tipping point on heath care and the entire Obama agenda:
The White House and the congressional leadership saw this coming, and it is why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is force-marching her health bill to a vote tomorrow. She's not about to give her members time to absorb the ugly results, or to be further rattled by next week's Veteran's Day break, when they go home for a repeat of the August furies. If not now, she knows, maybe never.Look for it, nonetheless, to be a squeaker. A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care. Combined with the election results and Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers, this is no recipe for loyalty. Hello, tipping point. Hello, even crazier Washington.
Awesome as usual.
October 29, 2009
Only 534 Losers
And one Flake:
Seriously, Rep. Flake always seems to be on the right side. There are a few other Congressfolk and Senators that I admire somewhat, but nobody is so on all the time as Rep. Flake.
Hat-tip: Instapundit, who applauds his Confucian wit.
I like his idea of encouraging American travel to Cuba, to "see what it's like." To the collection of amusement and theme parks in this country would be added, "Communist Land." Hey kiddies, don't miss the "Apparatchiks Run my Neighborhood" ride by spending too much time in line for bread.
Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2009 2:38 PMA thoughtful and intelligent politician? Let's make sure he doesn't get to much air time! Yeah, he has the health care line in there, but the bigger picture is that free trade is better foreign policy than sanctions or military action. Meanwhile the left holds on to the first and the right the second and neither works.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 1, 2009 10:14 AMOctober 27, 2009
Ralph Nader versus Rep. Frank
Must see to believe. I cannot embed, but grab a barf bag and listen all the way to the end. Rep Barney Frank defends himself from charges of inaction by Ralph Nader: "We Are Trying On Every Front To Increase The Role Of Government." Got it Ralph? You irrelevant (and strangely svelte) piece of putrefied horseflesh!
Hat-tip: Insty
UPDATE: Larry Kudlow Responds:
Thanks Below the Beltway
September 30, 2009
Charlie Cook: 33 -50% Chance Dems lose House
James Pethokoukis heard the analyst at a Center for American Progress conference. Among the reasons:
1) Record drop in party ID where a 17 percent D edge has dropped to 5 over the summer.2) An eight point drop in Obama’s approval rating over same period from 60 to 52.
3) Obama approval among independents has dropped to the low 40s. They are very worried about deficit and hyperactive government. Cook called it “visceral.”
4) Cook notes that more than 80 D House seats are in districts won by McCain in 2008 or Bush in 2004. And 48 are in districts won by both McCain and Bush in 2008 and 2008.
5) Dems could lose “a few” Senate seats, but then set up for lousy 2012 and 2014 where they have to defend a lot of seats.
6) He think Obama should have given Bush more credit for rescuing economy at end of 2008.
September 25, 2009
Your Friday Horrible
I read about this, but one really has to see it:
"...this balance between freedom and safety." Really. Hat-tip: Ann Althouse who juxtaposes it with Beavis and Butt-Head clips
Price Contriols Don't Work, Huh?
Remember when the 111th Congress stepped up to protect us little guys from the mean old credit card companies? They were going to dictate terms that are fair. Scrivener notes "Politicians shocked! Price controls produce the same result as always."
After passing the new law by an overwhelming vote, it hailed its achievement as a great bipartisan act of consumer protection.*But now Reps. Barney Frank and Carolyn Maloney, the prime political movers behind the new restrictions, are shocked and appalled to find that credit card issuers are raising interest rates before the effective date of the new law, as per their press release ...
Pew Charitable Trust reports that interest rates have spiked by an average of 20% on credit cards representing more than 91% of the $864 billion in outstanding credit card balances. It’s clear that credit card companies are taking advantage of this period between the signing of my bill and the current effective date,” Rep. Maloney said. “The breadth and depth of the rate hikes happening now point to the need for faster consumer protections. Americans need relief now.”
I just hope that there are no unintended consequences of their dictating terms to health insurers. Nah -- certainly, they've figured all that out...
"... a great bipartisan act of consumer protection." A great act of meddling with the markets.
"... Americans need relief now..." Is there such a thing as Pyrrhic relief? One more relief like this, and we'll be totally bankrupt. Oh wait, we are already. Nevermind.
Is it not amazing that, no matter what the government does in its efforts to manipulate the economy, it always - WITHOUT FAIL - has exactly the opposite effect. Current economy policy may be proof that insanity is truly defined by doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting the results to change from prior attempts.
Posted by: Keith at September 26, 2009 12:47 PMIn light of our pragmatism debate, I am curious exactly how bipartisan the vote was. Anybody (well, everybody) better at this than I am? I am trying to find the bill and the roll call. I am guessing that it's "the usual suspects" in the GOP giving cover.
Posted by: jk at September 26, 2009 1:07 PMNope. Mea Maxima Culpa! The bill passed the Senate 90 - 5. Bipartisan as a pay hike!
Posted by: jk at September 26, 2009 1:09 PMAugust 29, 2009
It's almost as if the rules are not equally applied
I simply cannot imagine that anything will ever happen to House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel. Today, a few more shoes drop.
Rep. Charles Rangel claimed on mortgage papers that a Harlem brownstone was his principal residence -- even though he was living elsewhere at the time, The Post has learned.When the Democrat -- who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee -- took out the mortgage in 1990, he said the property on West 132nd Street was his "principal residence," records show.
But Rangel has been living since the 1970s in Harlem's Lenox Terrace apartment complex, where he improperly amassed four rent-stabilized properties.
Don Surber Tweets: Jail time for Rangel? http://blogs.dailymail.com/...
I think the operative phrase is "who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee " Having a toothless quasi-legal proceeding against him protects him from a real prosecutor, and from answering any questions. I saw him on Kudlow early on. The charming chair cannot possibly answer any questions as it would compromise the ethics committee proceedings. But, these are just wild allegations by partisan NY papers. No merit, et cetera.
Perhaps if MSM sources started to make demands, he could be in trouble -- but what's the intrade contract on that -- three cents? A powerful, charismatic, African American, Democratic leader is not a pleasant target for the Katie Courics of the world.
He'll ride it out. As will Senator Dodd. No matter how many times Instapundit reminds us of the little Irish cottage.
Why can't we get these guys the same way we got mobsters, with the IRS? If he lied on mortgage documents and illegally obtained rent controlled properties I am betting that all of this showed up on his income tax forms as improper deductions. Let the House Ethics committee put on their show of investigating ethics, but here in the real world the IRS can find real prosecutable offenses.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 30, 2009 11:03 AMYeah, we could sic the Secretary of the Treasury on him! No, wait...
Posted by: jk at August 31, 2009 1:24 PMIs this so obvious that it need not be mentioned ... that Rangel is the chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee that WRITES the IRS rules?
Posted by: johngalt at September 1, 2009 12:04 PMAugust 26, 2009
Liberal Lion Passes
Half century Senator for Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, died of cancer last night. Terrible news for a family that has had more than it's fair share of tragedy.
Philadelphia's KYW1060 news radio is running segments of Pennsylvanians commenting on the passing of Senator Kennedy. The Governor, former Senator Harris Wofford, & dozens of other notables are given a couple of lines.
One Pennsylvanian not heard from?
Mary Jo Kopechne. (to steal a line from James Taranto)
Governor Rendell's segment was something to the effect of "because he didn't become President, he became a better Senator."
Yeah, I wonder why.
Already bracing for a week of fawning media slobbering. I wish I could claim the following as original, but I understand it was penned by Jim Treacher:
"As long as the media is going to keep bringing up Camelot, I think it's only fair we get to bring up the Lady in the Lake."
Posted by: Keith at August 26, 2009 1:17 PM"Wanna go to Chappaquiddick? You drive."
KEITH! Welcome back brother.
Posted by: johngalt at August 26, 2009 2:10 PMThanks, JG - been under the pile for the last two or three weeks with the day job, something of a blog war, and the new dogs. Perfect day to come off radio silence, as it were.
Kudos to Alex for the tasteful wording - "Terrible news for a family that has had more than its fair share of tragedy."
Posted by: Keith at August 26, 2009 3:34 PMAugust 10, 2009
Who's in YOUR wallet?
I love this co-opting of 'Capital One' simply by changing the spelling...
August 6, 2009
JK Applies for AP Job
Democratic Congressman Cleared on Five CountsALEXANDRIA, VA. - Former Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was found not guilty of 5 of 16 corruption charges today by a federal jury.
The jury of eight women and four men returned the not guilty verdicts following five days of deliberation.
Sorry, but after reading New jobless claims drop more than expected, I just couldn't help myself,
August 3, 2009
Clunkhead Quiz
Imagine you’re a member of Congress. You’re a fan of the Cash for Clunkers program. You discover that the $1 billion that Congress budgeted for the program has been spent in FOUR DAYS. The program is now out of money. What do you do?
A. Realize that $4500 per clunker was too big a subsidy and that you can achieve the same effects with a much smaller amount.B. Worry that maybe there is some fraud in the program and that some of the cash isn’t going to clunkers
C. Increase the budget by $2 billion
The correct answer for clunkheads is C, of course. That’s the wise choice when you are spending other people’s money. What fun that must be!
Hat-tip: @jives who wonders "I wonder how charities who take car donations feel about the Cash for Clunkers program?"
D. Increase the budget by $2 billion and expect it to keep the program funded longer than just 8 more days.
Posted by: johngalt at August 4, 2009 10:09 AMJuly 27, 2009
Imperial Congress
The WSJ Ed Page delivers a serious smackdown of Ways & Means Chair Charlie Rangel. Sad to say, Rep. Rangel is one of my favorite Congressional Democrats. Besides his considerable style and charisma, he seems to be one of the few who understand that the nation's business provides the revenue for his pet projects and -- unlike so many -- is truly reluctant to kill the golden goose.
But, he is a crook. He owns a villa at the Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic (don't all men of the people?) that "rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season. Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15." Rangel reported no income from the property, which I am tempted to ascribe to Congressional business acumen. Yet one must also consider malfeasance.
Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.
As he told Larry Kudlow, these are all just accusations and he has the presumption of innocence.
But not around here. Rangel is a powerful member of Congress and can count on the six current ethical investigations to be slow and friendly. Ergo, he must suffer at the court of ThreeSources' opinion. He's a crook.
So you're saying that a sitting US Congressperson is a crook? Naaaaah.
Seriously - I continue to maintain that the only sustainable solution to this problem is to remove the profit motive for elected officials, i.e. revoke the 16th Amendment. Point belabored here.
Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2009 4:00 PMJuly 17, 2009
American Hero
National Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford is my man of the week this week. He came to blog fame thanks to his testimony to the Senate. He was testifying on behalf of his members who will suffer disproportionately under the Cap'n Trade bill. He crossed paths with Senator Boxer, who made a point of showing all the support the bill has with other organizations, like the NAACP.
He is a guest on Breitbart TV and he is very engaging (not to mention clean and articulate!) If you have some time, I highly recommend his interview.
Now he's going to start a search across California looking for "all these green jobs they're talking about."
"They oughta recall her butt. That's what they oughta do." - Alford on the voters of California regarding Ms. Senator Boxer.
Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2009 10:04 AMJuly 14, 2009
Quote of the Day
I am attending a Senate Banking hearing on the Obama proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Some folks think new regulations would stifle financial innovation. Sen. Chuck Schumer just dismised “innovation as merely “clever ways to dupe the consumers.” -- James Pathokoukis.
Umm, that would be New York's Senator, Chuck Schumer.
Don't remind me.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 14, 2009 12:07 PMDid not mean to rub it in Perry (and I'm in a glass house myself). It just strikes me as if Chuck Grassley had gone on about stupid-ass corn farmers or something. Not even her home Senator cares to defend her.
If you haven't seen it, do read the City Journal piece on Washington's assault on New York that I link to above.
Posted by: jk at July 14, 2009 12:27 PMJuly 8, 2009
Bug? Feature? Bug Feature?
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” [Dem Leader Rep. Steny] Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference
June 11, 2009
This Guy Has Had the Gavel a Little Too Long
I'M F***ING CHAIRMAN! I'LL ASK THE QUESTIONS!!!
Hat-tip: Insty
May 7, 2009
The Bill That's Too Liberal for Senator McGovern
The Bill That's Too Liberal for Senator McGovern gets new life with the addition of our newest superannuated Democratic Pennsylvanian. The man who carried his home state in 1972 takes to the WSJ Ed Page today to point out yet another horrible feature of the "Free Choice Act.:
The recent news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter has become a member of the Democratic caucus has given new life to legislation that many thought had been put to rest for this Congress -- the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).Last year, I wrote on these pages that I was opposed to this bill because it would eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. However, the bill has an additional feature that isn't often mentioned but that is just as troublesome -- compulsory arbitration.
This feature would give the government the power to step into labor disputes where employers and labor leaders cannot reach an agreement and compel both sides to accept a contract. Compulsory arbitration is bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences.
Huh? You think the guys who just stole billions of dollars of equity from Chrysler bondholders to give to the unions -- you think they'd dare get political in a forced arbitration?
Three Sourcers have no doubt noted that "Cool-hand Arlen" has been stripped of his seniority by Democrats (how's that for gratitude?). They will "re-evaluate" his status in 2010, which is code for, "Vote with us on card-check and healthcare or else." It's the Democrat version of a re-education camp. "I've got my mind right, boss! I'm a-shaking, boss, I'm a-shakin'!" Harry Reid needs a pair of aviator sunglasses.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 7, 2009 1:18 PMYou're not suggesting that a principled legislator like Senator Specter would betray his firmly held principles over a plum committee assignment, are you? Hello? BR?
Posted by: jk at May 7, 2009 1:26 PMApril 28, 2009
File Under "Duh"
BREITBART: WASHINGTON (AP) - Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority."I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or Wednesday.
Color this pragmatist concerned. Specter will be
UPDATE: Good stuff as you'd imagine at PA H2O dS/dt>0 (keep scrolling). They're running toward the jubilant over there. We will see.
And I have to call "bovine effluvia" on Specter's own spin. This is a guy who, a mere six weeks ago, said that he chose not to switch parties "because he is a Republican." Now he says: "no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation."
(1) No matter how loyal he is to the party? When in the sphincter of Hell could that phrase possibly have been applied to Specter?
(2) Is he trying to tell us that, out of a sense of duty to state and nation, he is switching allegiance to the party that has done more to harm the nation than all of America's enemies in history have succeeded in doing, combined? Does he actually think that anyone not related to him by blood is stupid enough to believe that?
Political expediency - no more, and no less. But past all that, I wish him well, and offer him my congratulations. See what I mean here:
http://stand.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/29/congratulations,_arlen_specter.thtml
Posted by: Keith at April 29, 2009 5:22 PMLet us not conflate the [non-]question of whether Senator Specter is a complete git with the question whether this is bad for the GOP.
I think our Keystone State friends at PSH20dS/dt>0 are whistling past the graveyard to think that a Democrat Senator Arlen Specter will somehow be better for liberty than a RINO one. And it looks like most of the ThreeSourcers are joining in.
RINOs cast at least one good vote every session for leadership. Now is a pretty bad time time to be losing seats. But I am glad you all are having a good time.
Posted by: jk at April 29, 2009 5:38 PMjk: you make a good point, and I appreciate your call for cooler heads to prevail. I'd propose we discuss this in terms of unemotional reason.
(1) Did we lose a filibuster-proof Senate? I tend to think not; my suspicion is that Republican Specter would have voted with the Dems for closure on a lot of issues.
(2) Which of Specter's votes change as a result of his change in party affiliation? I don't think we see a lot here; my sense is that Democrat Specter will vote pretty much like Republican Specter did.
(3) He's already announced his (weak) intention to continue voting against card check and the end of secret ballots on unions. Does he change on this? Future uncertain; try again later.
(4) A Toomey-Specter primary fight would have cost a lot of money for the GOP, and Toomey would have almost certainly have emerged the winner. We've just avoided those costs. With luck, we'll have the opportunity to see a bloody and expensive Specter-Sestak primary on the other side. Money not spent in the primary can be spent in the general, and the presumptive Toomey-Specter fight moves from the primary to the general. The key here is having the best conservative candidate run in the primary.
I understand PA has had a shift in the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in recent years, but I'm not yet convinced that translates into a leftward lurch of the state's electorate - just that the Republicans haven't given them a reason to register in their column. Specter depended on a significant crossover vote in the past; it would be up to the right candidate to energize voters.
I'm no expert on PA politics, and would gladly entertain the thoughts of someone who was...
Posted by: Keith at April 29, 2009 6:57 PMAnd I appreciate the optimism! I'll even toss one your way: losing Specter's seniority will give his plum committee assignment to a more Republican Senator.
I suspect we do lose our pal Arlen on card check. That is my biggest worry. As for saving the primary money, dang, you are an optimist! Specter owns that seat in the general up to and well past his death. Getting knocked off in a Democratic primary would be pretty comical, but Toomey's chances against him in a statewide race are lim->0 (you pick the epsilon).
Posted by: jk at April 29, 2009 7:16 PMEven if jk is more righterer than the rest of us, just think of it as "a tough investment now toward a brighter future for our children."
Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2009 7:16 PMWhile I agree with JK in the voting principle that "party trumps person" as a rule, I have to go with JG on this one. Putting principles aside in an effort to cling to power is exactly what got us in this fix. The Republican brand was damaged by Democrat-like spending. With Republicans like Specter, Snowe and Collins, the filibuster firewall was illusory anyway, as we saw in the stimulus fight. Burnishing the brand at this time without much actual loss, as Keith noted, is worth it to me. I also don't count Toomey out in the general. A lot can happen between now and then.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 30, 2009 3:09 PMApril 23, 2009
Club for Growth Rankings
The Club for Growth Congressional scorecard/rankings are out:
In the Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint gets the top slot. In the House (surprise!) it is Rep. Jeff Flake.
If I may continue my partisan hackery, the top 170 House members and all but two of the top 50 Senators have an R. Combine this with the goose-egg the stimulus bill got in the House with no Republican votes, together with some pretty stiff opposition in the GOP Senate Caucus (all but three). I don't find it too tough to pick a favorite.
I broke my state's congressional delegation down... the "moderate/conservative" Democrats are pretty bad.
Of course the moderate Republicans we have are nothing to brag about either... but we do have a 100%er.
http://pawatercooler.com/?p=12618
Posted by: AlexC at April 23, 2009 8:16 PMDo I have to wonder how my ex-junior senator, Shrillary, and current senator Chuck "The Schmuck" Schumer are ranked?
Shrillary's successor, Gillibrand, comes from the House and scored 9%. That's the highest of any NY House Dem. My own rep, John Hall (formerly of the band Orleans) scored an unsurprising 0%. His economics are worse than his old band's music.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 24, 2009 11:33 AMApril 19, 2009
Fly Murtha Airways!
I don't think this is quite what Mister Madison had in mind. At the John Murtha Airport, the screeners outnumber the passengers -- but Federal Jack keeps it in operation.
Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway.
The facility, newly renamed the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha's ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
March 21, 2009
Norah O'Donnell v. Maxine Waters
I don't even have a comment for this. Just make sure to watch the whole thing, especially toward the end where Waters explains why she doesn't think that Congress should read the bills they vote for -- SERIOUSLY!
March 17, 2009
The Right to Contract -- Gone!
WASHINGTON – Talking tougher by the hour, livid Democrats confronted beleaguered insurance giant AIG with an ultimatum Tuesday: Give back $165 million in post-bailout bonuses or watch Congress tax it away with emergency legislation.Read that again, Read it in context if you want. These bonuses were part of people's compensation package (probably in some part because of government meddling that people take more pay as "bonus," but let's not even go there now). Now the Federal government says "take that pay back, break your contract" or we will tax it away from you (AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO'S EVER HEARD OF A BILL OF ATTAINDER?)
These people have lost all moorings.
Stunning. This is simple contract law. While I may have an issue with agreeing to pay these guys such-and-such salary and bonus regardless of performance (heck of a way to run a business, but we ARE talking about AIG), but once those contracts are agreed to and signed, they must be honored. People like Dodd, Grassley and Frank know this; they are merely posturing for the press and the voters. They know what they're talking about is illegal; their only concern is looking tough for their re-elections.
Know what? In view of the average voter's performance, I've venture to say that's a working strategy.
Those executives with their bonus may or may not (and this would be an interesting debate) have some moral obligation to say "you know, I'm embarrassed about my role if AIG's collapse, and I don't feel right about taking this money. Here, take it back," but that's not legally enforceable. I'd be interested to know how many of them already have the estates up for sales and are preparing to relocate to come tropical place known for umbrella drinks and a lack of extradition treaties.
For the record, Costa Rica is beautiful this time of year, but I wouldn't be leaving a forwarding address.
Posted by: Keith at March 17, 2009 6:57 PMHow can anyone hold these "executives" at AIG culpable for AIG's troubles given the absolute instability that resulted from mark to market accounting? They were victims of government interference in the economy just like the rest of us.
Posted by: johngalt at March 18, 2009 12:10 PMI blogged a bit last night on this, which I mostly won't repeat here. It comes down to the simple principle of morality: it's wrong to make other people liable for someone else. Let AIG and its people work it out amongst themselves, and leave the rest of us out of it.
If the U.S. taxpayer weren't put on the hook for AIG's woes, then we wouldn't care whether or not the executives get paid. The company would otherwise have gone bankrupt, and any bonus-seekers would stand in line with all the other creditors.
There might be a contract, which with a bankrupt company is squeezing blood out of a stone. No problem with this in a just world. In a just world, where people are not robbed by "government" to prop up companies, these executives can explain to a bankruptcy judge why they should get a single penny in bonuses considering that they're the ones who drove the company into the ground.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 18, 2009 3:40 PMMarch 13, 2009
Quote of the Day
[Senator Kent (D - ND)] Conrad, for his part, has been reminding everyone that he was a key player at the president's Fiscal Responsibility Summit -- which took place somewhere after his votes for the $33 billion increase in children's health insurance and $787 billion stimulus, though before his vote for the $410 billion omnibus and its 9,000 earmarks. He's also been talking about the deficit Mr. Obama "inherited," just to keep things in perspective as his committee works on the president's $3,600,000,000,000 budget blueprint. -- Kim Strassel, WSJ Ed Page
March 12, 2009
Whew! That was close!
WASHINGTON – Congress' automatic pay raises are in little immediate danger of being scrapped for good, even with the economy slumping and millions of Americans unemployed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday would not commit to holding a vote on a bill to do away with the annual cost-of-living increases. She pointed out that Congress recognized the economic crisis by voting this week to skip next year's raise.In so doing, though, lawmakers defeated a Senate measure to abolish the automatic pay hikes and force them into the deep discomfort of casting actual votes to give themselves raises.
No one is rushing to defend the current system in a tanking economy that has rendered the annual raise a quaint memory for many outside Washington.
Hey, when you're getting the job done, you deserve to get paid!
February 22, 2009
"Where's their answer to this?"
A number of ideas over the past weeks have come together for me this morning-
In response to the letter I sent to my Senators opposing H.R. 1 a beloved cousin emailed me, "I’m not saying I disagree or agree with you when I ask this question…. But what would you suggest? I don’t really know what the right answer is at this point…"
The first line of my reply to her was, "Well, on numerous occasions in the past we've cut tax rates in an attempt to spur economic growth and every time that's been done the economy improved and net tax receipts increased, despite the lower rate of taxation."
Then the shamulus bill passed and a number of Republican governors, upon seeing the fine print, began suggesting they'd refuse the federal handouts. "Republican governors, as the last bastion of capitalist political power in this country, should implement a capitalist plan for job creation - eliminate the corporate income tax" I thought. By doing this in one or more states there would be a side-by-side comparison of capitalism versus government bailouts that would be difficult to ignore on the key statistics of job growth and state GDP growth.
But I wondered which states have a Republican governor AND a corporate income tax that could be axed?
This morning Tim Pawlenty and Mark Sanford appeared on Fox News Sunday with Ed Rendell and Jennifer Granholm to discuss the "stimulus" bill. Among other things, Sanford called The Big O's foreclosure plan "a horrible idea." Last week Sanford suggested that his state might "turn down stimulus money" from the feds. In that L.A. Times story real estate agent Joyce Rivas claimed to have voted for Sanford twice but was angered by his "threat." Rivas asked, "For starters, where's their answer to this?"
In a quick search I found that Governor Sanford proposed, last December, elimination of the 5% South Carolina corporate income tax.
Lawmakers and observers said eliminating corporate income tax is an interesting idea, but want to hear more details.(...)
South Carolina could join four other states, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming, with no corporate income tax, Sanford said. South Carolina collects about $300 million in corporate income taxes annually, far less than sales and individual income tax collections.
“We’ve got to get away from this piecemeal approach to jobs incentives,” Sanford said in a written statement. “We believe a better approach would be to simply lower the overall tax rate for corporations, so that we’re not only giving companies a good deal when they decide to locate here but we’re giving them a reason to stay and expand.”
There you are, Ms. Rivas. That is our answer.
For reference: Tax Foundation's 'State Business Tax Climate Index Rankings' Maryland... ouch!
I watched that show as well. Let me just say "Sanford for God!!!"
I have heard for years about how impressive (and telegenic) Governor Granholm is. "Don't amend the Constitution for President Aahnold," they said, "it will backfire and you'll get Democratic President Granholm." Watching her today, I don't think either of them should start measuring drapes. (For the record, I would support an amendment allowing a naturalized citizen to be President and for the record my naturalized-citizen wife would not. There you go.)
You can see where these former industrial giants of states get the "former" though I confess to liking Gov. Rendell's style. Gov. Granholm will gladly take her money and South Carolina's and yours and yours and yours and yours.
...and another thing!
This humble little blog has mentioned several things that would be wildly more effective and far more conducive to liberty. Holidays on cap-gains taxes, elimination of the corporate cap gains tax, increased immigration and the payroll tax holiday would all be wildly stimulative. None would grow government's size and influence.
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2009 7:19 PM...but whadda WE know. We're just "the people."
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2009 11:31 PMFebruary 19, 2009
Mister Toomey, Come Home We Need You...
No opponents yet for the primary or general, yet John Fund reports that Senator Specter (RINO - PA) is vulnerable for his betrayal on the stimulus bill:
But a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that Republicans are finding his vote for the stimulus not at all palatable. A full 69% of Pennsylvania Republicans opposed the package, and independents are evenly divided on its merits. Only Democrats are enthusiastic, with 73% in favor. All of that means that 40% of voters are less likely to support Mr. Specter because of his vote versus only 31% who are more likely. Worse, in a Republican primary, a full 58% of party loyalists say the stimulus bill would make them less likely to back the five-term incumbent.
Mr Toomey is looking toward the Governor's mansion.
I dont see anyone seriously posing a primary threat to Mr Specter.
As a result of the pro-Bama switch in Pa voter registration, the Pa GOP electorate is far more "Republican" than ever. A good candidate could take it easily.
Posted by: AlexC at February 19, 2009 12:58 PMFebruary 18, 2009
If we found one, we could see.
 |
NPR actually notices a "Culture of Corruption" in the 111th.
Hat-tip: Instapundit |
February 13, 2009
Runaway Train
Rapid passage of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama "Stimulus" Bill, H.R. 1, is apparently too important to wait for even a reading of the 1100 page text - even by the congressmen who are compelled to cast their votes! Those voting "Aye" have apparently already made up their minds and are disinclined to know what was changed in Conference Committee. For example:
"We also are getting press reports that there is a plus-up - I think $8 billion - in the high-speed rail account. We also know from further press reports that Leader Harry Reid is looking at a train to Vegas and that's what he wants to see out of the stimulus bill... Again, that's exactly the kind of waste and pork-barrel spending that the American people are sick and tired of and expect a lot more," he [House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)] added.
I heard Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) say that the Vegas rail line, a maglev type, is projected to cost $10 million PER MILE and that a private partnership had already invested millions in a conventional rail link between the same points that would now be at serious competitive disadvantage. He used the word 'bankrupt" to describe the effect on the private effort, "with the stroke of a politician's pen."
But the house vote was rushed through a mere 10 hours after the bill was finalized. This despite a unanimous agreement to allow 48 hours to read the bill prior to consideration and voting. The 48-hour review provision was reportedly one of the measures that was stripped in conference.
The following statement was released by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at 4:57 p.m.:"The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon."
(The text was released at 11 pm.)
President Obama promised "change." In his Inaugural Speech he said,
"And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."
I suppose that the 3 hours between 6 and 9 am qualifies as "the light of day."
February 10, 2009
Daschle's Revenge
Tom Daschle's sudden withdrawal as HHS Secretary nominee was a banner moment for American individual liberty. But perhaps we breathed too easily too soon.
Eight days ago JK wrote,
"As far as getting somebody worse, I've no doubt that there are worse ideologues than Senator Daschle. Yet his book about Health Care calls for an American equivalent to the NHS's NICE panel which would provide approval of all treatments and procedures based on government-decided efficacy and cost efficiency. Senator Daschle is radical enough to scare me and is a sophisticated enough player that he seems likely to be able to achieve many of his goals."
If only JK had known how prescient those words might be. The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey quotes the former senator thusly:
A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
So we shouldn't be surprised to find (McCaughey link) a Daschle-like health care trojan horse in the "we can't afford to delay it" economic stimulus bill, H.R. 1:
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. [Emphasis mine.]
The good news is that this was discovered, and is seeing the light of day on Fox News. The bad news? What the hell ELSE is in there??
Thanks for the kind words, jg, and thanks for beating me to this post. I've had two people email it to me today.
I told my brother-in-law this weekend that "we can waste a trillion dollars and survive, but once we nationalize medicine, rewind welfare reform to LBJ levels, and prop up unions, it's game over."
Okay it's a rhetorical device to be flip about $1T -- and I was chastised for it. But I am serious, while we and Senator Collins look at the difference between $750B and $900B, we are missing -- as you say -- huge hunks of vanishing liberty.
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2009 4:07 PMAll Hail the Blue Dogs!
Blog Sister Dagny asked about the brave 11 Democrats who voted against the Stimulus. One is Rep. Walt Minnick from Idaho. He's got a better idea:
Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democcrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.Minnick introduced START as an alternative – just in case the legislative process stalls out, says press secretary John Foster. As one of the brave 11 Democrats who voted against Pelosi’s stimulus bill, Minnick explained to folks back home that he opposed the speaker’s version because it was so “Christmas-treed up” with wasteful spending, like $300 million for golf carts. Foster told The Examiner that the House leadership encourages members to do what’s best for their districts, so there has been no backlash. We’ll see how long that lasts.
I'll happily listen to comments that this is $170 Billion too much. But elections have consequences. This sounds like a fair amount to give the triumphant Democrats and I seriously appreciate the transparency of the web pages and the shutoff of spending on recovery.
The sad part is that these guys get elected in Idaho, and probably deserve it, but then they become just another member of Pelosi's army.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Relative to what's on the table, this makes a lot of sense. Which is why it doesn't stand a chance.
However, there's no way to get around the fact that the only way gubm't can "stimulate" one person is to first take it away from another person. Why is the job of a steel worker on a bridge worth more than a software developer? The Refugee has often maintain that if you really want to see employment skyrocket, then eliminate the corporate income tax.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 10, 2009 12:50 PMFebruary 6, 2009
johngalt on the Stimulus
I must say I'm glad to be in the loyal opposition right now. It's much more satisfying to unleash full-throated criticism of government when those in control are all Democrats. And having written this prior to reading Martin Feldstein's take I see we're on the same page.
via email to both Colorado Senators:
Dear Senator [Udall / Bennet],I am writing to urge you to vote against the "Economic Stimulus" bill H.R. 1 in its present or any amended form. To amend this bill into a productive measure would require a nearly complete rewrite.
My wife's opposition to this bill, with which I certainly agree, is primarily on the basis that it is immoral to take money from people who earned it and spend it on controversial programs in an effort to restore economic growth by principles which are, at best, merely hopeful. The magnitude of the spending proposed in this bill compared to the time spent debating it is beyond reckless to the point of criminal irresponsibility. That this could actually happen in our government is proof that value is of no consideration while engaged in the practice of spending Other People's Money. Such carelessness leads to "misfortunes" like overpaying $86 billion for securitized assets in a $350 billion bank "bailout" bill.
My personal opposition to the bill, with which my wife certainly agrees, is primarily because it would create many new government agencies (38 by some estimates) and associated recurring costs to the treasury on an annual basis. A majority of the jobs it might create are in the public sector which would have an opposite than intended effect on economic recovery.
You may be surprised to learn, as I was, that even Keynsian economists - who believe government spending can increase economic productivity - are opposed to H.R. 1. They say it is the wrong kind of spending. One might think that a body with as much experience in spending money, albeit other people's, as the United States federal government might be better able to choose the appropriate type of spending in a given situation.
H.R. 1 is not the answer to America's problems. Its passage will be a wasted effort to stimulate the economy and will only lead to further attempts at the same goal. Please vote NO on H.R. 1 and move us more quickly to the next such attempt which can only be an improvement over this one.
Very truly yours,
[johngalt]
Fort Lupton, CO
Nice. I sent them each an email yesterday as well.
Fat lot of good it will do us -- two Freshman Senators, one of whom was back-bencher in the House. But I think it is good to remind them that a large swath of Colorado voters don't think like them.
Posted by: jk at February 6, 2009 2:46 PMYes, I was thinking the same thing. I received an email from the NoStimulus.com petition site reporting the number of signatures has surpassed 68,000. It also said they are targeting specific senate offices: Specter (PA), Snowe (ME), Nelson (NE), McConnell (KY) so I used their execrable web forms to forward my letter to each of them plus Nelson (FL) DeMint (SC) Feinstein (CA) and Inhofe (OK). [This last is my current favorite senator in the country.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 6, 2009 5:14 PM