Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics'

Source:Crash Course- The United States Congress, from Crash Course.

Source:The New Democrat

"In which Craig Benzine teaches you about the United States Congress, and why it's bicameral, and what bicameral means. Craig tells you what the Senate and House of Representatives are for, some of the history of the institutions, and reveal to you just how you can become a representative. It's not that easy. But an eagle gets punched, so there's that."

From Crash Course

The main reason why we have a bicameral Congress made up of a House of Representatives and a Senate, is because our Founding Fathers (The Founding Liberals) came from an authoritarian unitarian dictatorial country. That was run by a monarchy and had an official state religion. The United Kingdom of course and the Founding Fathers wanted to create a free society that had a limited responsible government. Where a lot of power wasn’t rested with one part of government, or in one office. But spread out and accountable to the people. For Congress to pass any laws, they have to do it together. The House and Senate, have to come together and work out the final bill that both chambers pass and get the President to sign what they agreed on.

As surprising and disappointing to today’s so-called Progressives as this may be, we don’t have a unicameral Congress and a Senate, that makes up our federal legislature. We don’t have a Congress and a Senate and every time I hear someone say that we do and say the Congress and Senate, or our Congress members and Senators, or even Congress people and Senators, I think to myself no wonder the world sees Americans as stupid. Because you have all of these people who not only don’t understand their own history, but don’t get their own form of government. And perhaps only have high school diplomas, because their schools were tired of seeing them and trying to teach them. The Senate, is a big part of Congress and the bigger part as far as power. And the power that an individual Senator has over a Representative.

We have 535 Members of Congress. 435 Representatives in the House and a 100 Senators in the Senate. Representatives, represent sections and generally gerrymandered House districts that are part of states. But Senators have to represent the entire state and are accountable to the entire state. Which is one example of why they’re more powerful than individual Representatives, because again their accountable to more people and have to speak to more people. Even if politically and ideologically they agree with what their party colleagues in the House want to do on a bill and even if they were once a Representative themselves, they might not be able to politically go along with what their party is doing in the House. Because it could hurt them politically at home voting for something that is so ideological and partisan. Which means they have to compromise.

The House of Representatives, or HR, is accountable to the popular will of the people. The people they represent and when something becomes very popular with the majority party in the House, they tend to act quickly and pass their own bill. With very little if any input from the minority party, even the minority leadership. The House is known for show votes, because that is what they do a lot of. They pass bills that either clearly don’t have sixty-votes in the Senate, or the other party controls the Senate and that bill won’t come up anyway, because the Senate Leader will kill the bill by himself. The Senate, usually is where the action is as far as bills that are passed that get signed into law by the President. The House passes a partisan bill. It dies or is blocked in the Senate and the Senate passes a compromise worked out by the majority and minority leadership’s.

Again, Senators have to represent an entire state and unless they come from a state where one party and one political philosophy is clearly in control, like South Carolina, or Massachusetts, there’s a limit to how partisan they can be and still be able to pass bills and even get reelected. Senators who are there to legislate, (Senators other than Ted Cruz) have to be able to work with their more moderate members in their caucus, their own leadership and even practical Senators from the other party. If they want top committee assignments, elected to leadership, build up a solid Senate record in Congress and even get consistently reelected. Because their own party in their state might not be that radical and part of the Center-Left, or Center-Right, depending on which party they come from. And because of this bicameral Congress it makes it difficult to pass bad partisan legislation in Congress. because you have a partisan House, but a Senate that has to work together to get anything done.

The New Democrat Coalition: Representative Ron Kind: The American Prosperity Agenda

Source:The New Democrat

There’s a faction in the Democratic Party that I’m and this blog is part of that I believe at least represents most of America. We represent most Americans because we believe in things that tend to unite us as a country. The New Democrat Coalition and most of the Democrats that make it to the leadership of the party in and out of Congress and who tend to get elected President of the United States. Including the current President who has New Democrat leanings at least, tend to be New Democrats as well.

Americans tend to believe in both economic and personal freedom. We like to keep most of the money we make ourselves in order to take care of ourselves and our families. We don’t want big government or any other government to manage our economic affairs for us, or even try to. Which makes us very different from Europe especially Scandinavia, at least from that perspective. And we don’t want big government in our homes and personal lives in general. Snooping on innocent Americans and telling us what we can do in the privacy of our own homes, short of hurting innocent people. This is where a majority of Americans tend to be.

Now people who say that Americans who believe in a high degree of both economic and personal freedom and economic freedom, must be Libertarians. Especially people who tend to be very far to the Right or Left and aren’t fans of either personal or economic freedom, or at least one of them. And some on the Far-Left in America aren’t fans of personal freedom either and believe in the nanny state to prevent Americans from making unhealthy decisions with their own lives. But Americans tend to want both and don’t want big government managing their economic or personal affairs, but aren’t anti-government. And don’t want government to shut down or do practically nothing.

Americans tend to individualistic and want freedom. New Democrats what all Americans to have that individualism and freedom. So those things aren’t based on who your parents are and their income levels. But what you’re able to contribute to society and how hard you’ll work to achieve freedom for yourself. New Democrats believe in these things and what we believe the role of government is to make sure that all Americans have that opportunity to obtain freedom for themselves. But also for their children as well.

And that means we need things like a modern infrastructure system.

A public education system that works for everyone that is part of it.

Tax reform that encourages more economic development and not less.

An energy policy that takes advantage of all of our natural resources and not just oil and gas, but all of them.

An immigration system that encourages people who want to work and be productive and who have skills to offer America to come here. And that brings undocumented immigrants who are only guilty of being undocumented to come out of the shadows and pay for being here illegally, but allow for them to stay in America and contribute.

These are the things that New Democrats believe in and if I had to guess things that most Democrats believe in. And for the Democratic Party to be the majority party in Congress again, especially in the House that has so many swing districts and areas, more of us are going to have to get elected to the House of Representatives. And run for the Senate in states where neither party has an overwhelming advantage. And doesn’t like big government from either fringe.

NORML: Legislation Introduced To Get The Feds Out of The Marijuana Enforcement Business

Source:The New Democrat

Representative Jared Polis has been against the War on Drugs and in favor of marijuana legalization as long as I’ve known of him and I believe he was elected to the House in 2007. And has worked with Ethan Nadelman and other anti-drug war groups in Colorado the state he represents and other places. So Representative Polis is not a Johnny-come-lately to marijuana legalization. Someone trying to seem hip or cool with young voters who are against the drug war and are in favor of marijuana legalization. He has a long consistent record on this.

All Representative Polis and Representative Earl Blumenauer another Democrat, but from Oregon would do, is get the Feds out of the business of criminalizing marijuana. So if another city or state decides to legalize marijuana the people there who choose to get involved in marijuana, adults that is won’t have to worry about the Feds arresting them for that. Even if marijuana is already legal in their state. Thats all I’m asking for really is to get the Feds to butt out and worry about Federal matters and see what the states do on this issue.

What I and Jared Polis are in favor of is exactly what the drug warriors are against both the Neoconservatives and Progressives. Because you get the Feds out-of-the-way and similar to same-sex marriage you’ll see several states move to legalize because not they won’t have to worry about the Feds arresting their people as a result. Because a lot of states especially big states like Texas that have high prison populations are already looking at legalizing or at least decriminalizing marijuana because of the high cost of having so many low-level non-violent offenders in prison. Who don’t represent a security threat to their state.

U.S. Senate Democrats: John Tester: 'Taking Care of Veterans is a Cost of Going to War'

Source:U.S. Senate Democrats- Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana)

"Senator Tester expresses concern that House Republicans are dragging their feet on a veterans bill." 

From U.S. Senate Democrats

Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator John Tester with the lines of the veterans affairs debate. Senator Bernie Sanders, "that if you can afford to send your soldiers to war, you can afford to take care of them when they come back". And the one from Senator Tester "taking care of veterans is a cost of going to war". Something that House Republicans or at least the Tea Party Caucus has either forgotten or simply doesn't understand. That it apparently it was easy for them to run up the national credit card during the Iraq War. But guess what that bill has come due and its time to pay and they don't seem to want to pay the bills.

Senate Democrats: Majority Leader Reid: 'Democratic Principles For The 113th Congress'

Source:Senate Democrats- welcome to the U.S. Senate, where you are more likely to see the Super Bowl of absolutely nothing, then to see and hear a real debate or any legislation passed.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor regarding compromise and Democrats' legislative priorities for the 113th Congress." 

From the Senate Democrats

Senate Democrats: 'Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Filibusters His Own Bill To Lift Debt Ceiling'

Source:U.S. Senate Democrats- Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois)

"Senator McConnell objects to his own proposal to lift the debt ceiling. Senate Democrats react." 

From Senate Democrats

It's hard to know whose right here unless you go through the whole story and do the research on it because even though I'm a registered Democrat, I tend not to automatically take the word of politicians, even politicians that I tend to agree with, like Dick Durbin, the Assistant Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. 

But this sounds like that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the 2nd ranking Republican in the entire U.S. Congress, with only Speaker of the House John Boehner out ranking him in Congress on the Republican side, offered a bill to extend the debt ceiling. And Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, simply took McConnell up on the offer and McConnell objected to that. Perhaps not expecting Senate Democrats to say yes. If this is true, then this a bad case of Congressional obstructionism 101.

Senate Democrats: Majority Leader Harry Reid: 'On Filibuster Reform: I Want The Record To Be Very Clear'

Source:Senate Democrats- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Nevada Senator Harry Reid addresses the need for filibuster reform from the Senate floor." 

From the Senate Democrats

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is talking about here is that he's not trying to or wants to eliminate the filibuster. He just wants the minority party whether it's the Republican Party like today or the Democratic Party, just six years ago, to actually have to filibuster in order to slow down or block legislation. And he makes an excellent point. 

The way the Senate cloture rule (which is the filibuster rule) works today, is that the Majority Leader (in this case Harry Reid) brings legislation or executive nominees to the floor that Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration want to pass and confirm. And Leader Reid generally has a majority to pass that legislation or confirm those nominees. But without first consulting with the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) or the Ranking Republican on whatever the committee that has jurisdiction over that legislation. 

Then what the Minority Leader (in this case Mitch McConnell) does, since he has 47-100 members of the Senate, is try to line up at least 41 of his own members to block the legislation that Senate Republicans haven't even been consulted on, to block the legislation or nominee from being passed or confirmed. And the exact same thing happened in the 2000s when there were 2 Republican Senate's and George W. Bush was President and Tom Daschle and then later Harry Reid was the Senate Minority Leader. 

What Leader Reid wants to do and this won't happen at least until the next Congress is sworn in after the New Year, is pass a rule that says if you want to block legislation, you have to actually hold the floor and filibuster about the bill that you want to block. As soon as you give up the floor and there aren't at least 41 other members on the Senate floor, the Majority Leader could then move to pass the bill and just need 50 votes, plus the Vice President, to pass the legislation. 

This would be the filibuster rule regardless of whose in the majority and whose in the minority and whoever the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are. 

Nancy Pelosi: 'Why I'm Running Again For House Democratic Leader'

Source:Nancy Pelosi- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announcing why she's running for Minority Leader again.

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi announces she will run again" 

From Nancy Pelosi

So let's see I have this straight: Nancy Pelosi is running for reelection as House Minority Leader because she believes that women need to continue to be empowered in America, in government and everywhere else. And somehow Leader Pelosi being a woman herself, (obviously) that her keeping this role as the highest ranking women in Congress (House or Senate) and in either party, would make it easier for this to happen. So what Leader Pelosi is essentially doing is making her candidacy for reelection about her gender. And thats hopefully not her best case for her being reelected, 

"Reelect me because I'm a woman" is not much of campaign theme and vision for the future of the House Democratic Caucus.  I could just see radical feminists freaking out about men (especially Caucasian men) running for office based on their gender. 

Gender, race, ethnicity, should never be any driving force for why someone should be elected or reelected to anything. It should always be about the individual and their qualifications, period. Because we're all individuals and we're all our own people, regardless of our gender, race, or ethnicity.

The Hill: 'The Hill’s 50 Wealthiest Lawmakers'

Source:The Hill Newspaper- left to right: U.S. Representative Michael McCaul, U.S. Senator John Kerry, and U.S. Representative Darryl Issa.

"Republicans dominate The Hill’s annual rankings of the 50 wealthiest lawmakers for the second year in a row, with Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) retaining the crown as the richest member of Congress.

This year’s wealthy list tilts decisively once again toward the right side of the aisle, with 31 of the 50 richest coming from the GOP. Thirty-one of the lawmakers on the list are from the House, with the remaining 19 coming from the Senate.

{mosads}Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), at No. 37, is the only GOP leader to make the top 50. The Republican Party’s fastest-rising star, GOP vice-presidential candidate and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, comes nowhere near making the list, having a net worth of at least $2.2 million, a modest sum among members of Congress.

McCaul reported a minimum net worth of $290.5 million for 2011, a more than $3 million jump from 2010 that kept him nearly $100 million ahead of his nearest challenger, Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).

The Texas Republican’s wealth stems from several family trusts. His father-in-law, Lowry Mays, is the founder of the radio broadcasting giant Clear Channel Communications.

Kerry, the runner-up, reported a net worth of at least $198.8 million for 2011, much of it coming from wife Teresa Heinz Kerry’s ties to the Heinz Ketchup fortune. The senator is the richest Democrat in Congress by a sizable margin, and topped The Hill’s Wealthiest lists in 2009 and 2010 before being dethroned by McCaul last year.

The Massachusetts senator reclaimed the No. 2 spot on this year’s list from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who saw his minimum net worth fall by almost $80 million. Issa, a powerful House chairman who made his fortune in car security systems, had at least $140.6 million in 2011, placing him third on The Hill’s list.

Issa listed four liabilities on his financial disclosure form, including $75 million in loans that he reported paying off in early 2011. Every liability that is reported on a lawmaker’s yearly disclosure report is counted against his or her wealth under The Hill’s methodology.

This is the first time The Hill has published its rankings in the midst of a presidential election year. The race between Republican Mitt Romney and President Obama has been dominated by a debate over wealth and how it should be taxed, with Obama calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.

The Hill reviewed lawmakers’ 2011 calendar year financial disclosure forms to develop the rankings. Lawmakers do not have to report exact figures for their assets and liabilities on the forms, instead providing the values in ranges.

To calculate the wealth of each lawmaker, The Hill uses the low figure in the value range for each asset and liability. The liabilities are subtracted from the assets to reach a minimum net worth.

Some lawmakers chose to provide exact figures for their holdings, often by attaching bank statements to their disclosure forms. In those cases, The Hill used exact figures when possible to calculate a lawmaker’s wealth. 

A new wrinkle for this year’s Wealthiest list was that lawmakers had to disclose mortgages on their personal residences for the first time. That was required by the STOCK Act, in response to the Countrywide scandal in which lawmakers and congressional aides received preferential treatment on their mortgages.

This year’s list includes a few newcomers.

Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine) clocked in at No. 12 after coming nowhere near the top 50 in 2010. Her net worth skyrocketed from at least $500,000 to $31.8 million last year after her marriage to hedge-fund manager Donald Sussman.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), meanwhile, returned to the list at No. 22 with a minimum net worth of $14.5 million. His spouse’s holding in the famed Strand Book Store in New York City jumped from a minimum value of $1 million to being worth at least $5 million. His wife, Nancy Bass Wyden, helps run the store.

Other lawmakers posted impressive gains.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) solidified his status among the very wealthiest lawmakers with a net worth of at least $80.1 million in 2011 — a spike of almost $25 million from 2010. The former Connecticut state attorney general stayed in the top 10, coming in at No. 6.

One of Blumenthal’s Senate colleagues, Mark Warner (D-Va.), also had a good run last year. His wealth increased by more than $9 million to $85.9 million, placing him fourth on the list.

Some lawmakers didn’t fare as well, and reported substantial losses.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who was cleared in July by the House Ethics Committee of misleading Congress about his finances, slipped out of the top 10 after reporting a drop of more than $5 million in his net worth. The congressman’s $36.5 fortune ranks him 11th, just behind freshman Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), who was worth at least $36.7 million in 2011. 

Due to the limitations of the forms, it’s likely that some lawmakers are far richer than The Hill’s list indicates.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), as owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, is certainly one of the richest members of Congress. But his status as a NBA basketball team owner only counts for $50 million under the value ranges given on financial disclosure forms. Fortune magazine estimates the team is worth nearly $270 million.

Coupled with some substantial liabilities, Kohl ends up having a minimum net worth of $10.1 million for 2011, placing him at No. 32 on the list.

Rachel Leven, Julie Ershadi, David Kaner, Lydia Nuzum, Gunnar Sidak and Jennifer Smola contributed to this report.

Update: This story was corrected on Friday, Aug. 24 to show that Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) has a minimum net worth of $72.2 million. Incorrect information appeared in an earlier version of this story." 

From The Hill

The Hill: Alexandra Jaffe: 'Todd Akin Vows to Stay in Race As GOP Amps Up Pressure On Him'

Source:The Hill Newspaper- reporter Alexandra Jaffe.

"Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) vowed to stay in Missouri’s Senate race on Tuesday as a number of former Missouri senators, led by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, called on him to exit.

But Akin told conservative talk radio host Mike Huckabee he’s staying in the race.

“We are going to continue with this race for the U.S. Senate,” he said Tuesday afternoon.

{mosads}But Blunt and former Missouri Sens. John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, John Danforth and Jim Talent — all prominent names in the state — released a statement Tuesday calling on Akin to withdraw.

“We do not believe it serves the national interest for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in this race. The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside,” they said in the statement.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a strongly-worded statement after Akin’s radio interview, encouraging him to step aside.

“It should not be lost on anyone that some of the only voices not calling for Congressman Akin to do the right thing and step aside are Claire McCaskill and the leaders of the pro-abortion movement.  Senator McCaskill knows that the only way she wins re-election is if Todd Akin is her opponent in November,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said in a statement.  “We continue to hope that Congressman Akin will do the right thing for the values he holds dear, but there should be no mistake — if he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC.”

Adding to the pressure on Akin, late Tuesday afternoon presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney released a statement calling on the lawmaker to drop out.

““As I said yesterday, Todd Akin’s comments were offensive and wrong and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country.  Today, his fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race,” Romney said.

Calls for Akin’s removal from the race have escalated since comments he made on Sunday, that pregnancies from “legitimate rape” are rare because the female body has biological mechanisms to prevent such an outcome, caught fire across the nation, causing a number of prominent GOP lawmakers and candidates to distance themselves from his remarks.

GOP leadership has expressed concern that Akin could cost them one of their most likely pickups in November and, consequently, the majority in the Senate. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who said Tuesday she wanted Akin to remain as her opponent, was considered one of the most vulnerable Democratic senators but Akin’s comments changed that perception.

Akin’s campaign made a nearly $150,000 ad buy on Tuesday for an advertisement in which he apologizes for his remark, and has repeatedly said he will not drop out of the race.

He has until 5 p.m. to drop out of the race without further cost to his campaign." 

From The Hill

Nancy Pelosi: 'Leader Pelosi on GOP Repeal of Patient Protections'

Source:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi- (Democrat, California) speaking on the U.S. House floor about House Republicans plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

"Leader Pelosi speaks on the House floor against the GOP repeal of patient protections." 

From Nancy Pelosi

The U.S. Supreme Court (thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts) just saved the Affordable Care Act, which gives President Barack Obama, as well as House Democrats (led by Nancy Pelosi) and Senate Democrats (led by Harry Reid) and every House and Senate Democratic candidate whose running for Congress this year, who needs Democratic votes to get elected to Congress this year, a huge political victory. 

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the constitutionality of the ACA is a huge victory for national Democrats, not just because of the benefits that comes from the ACA (also known as ObamaCare) which are actually popular, but now this bill is officially constitutional. (According to the U.S. Supreme Court) 

House Republicans, especially the House Republican Leadership knows this and now knows that the ACA will be with us until Congress (House and Senate) and the President (Democratic or Republican) repeals the law. And now they're going to have to deal with questions on the campaign trail, as well as their Republican presidential nominee, who passes almost the exact same law in Massachusetts, when he was governor of that state, they're going to have to deal with questions like: "We know you are against the ACA, but what would you do instead?" knowing that they don't have an answer for that question.

The House Republican Leadership knows that their ObamaCare repeal with no replacement will pass in the House, with just Republican votes and that they may even lose some Republican votes and it will die in the Senate and perhaps not even come up for a vote, unless Senate Democrats led by Majority Leader Reid wants to use that vote against vulnerable Senate Republicans who are up for reelection this year. 

But House Republicans want to give their right-wing, Republican base something that says that they're trying to repeal ObamaCare, but simply don't have the power in Washington to do that right now. Their ObamaCare repeal attempt, is nothing but partisan, Washington politics.

Chris Van Hollen: 'Mitt Romney Flips Faster Than Pancakes At IHOP'

Source:U.S. Congress- U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen (Democrat, Maryland)

"On the Martin Bashir show, Rep. Van Hollen points out how Mitt Romney was for the student loan rate doubling before he was against it." 

From Chris Van Hollen

It must be great to be able to change your mind whenever its convenient: "My position is no longer popular, so I'm going to change it." 

It's one thing to change your position, as facts and evidence changed. And just say: "Look, I was wrong, if I knew now what I didn't know then, I wouldn't of taken that position." But it's another to change your position for political convenience, which is what Mitt Romney has become an expert on: 

"Governor Romney, what's your position on abortion? Well when I'm running for U.S. Senate or Governor of Massachusetts, I'm pro choice. But when I'm running for President in a Republican Party that considers abortion murder, I'm pro life." 

You could go on to the healthcare mandate, the House Republican budget plan and others. I'll give Governor Romney credit for not going after the Religious-Right to go out of his way to bring them to his corner and come out for things like outlawing pornography, gambling and other things. Which is what Rick Santorum did, but again thats another flip fop. From 2007-08 when he tried to convince Republicans he was a Religious Conservative.

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign slogan should be: "If I need your vote and you are for it, so am I. And if I need your vote and you are against it, so am I." 

Mitt gives new meaning to the term practical leadership, because instead of trying to accomplish the politically possible, he tries to accomplish the politically popular. At least amongst people he believes he needs to vote for him. 

When Mitt is running for President in the Republican primaries, he runs as a Reagan Conservative. Which is why the Religious Right doesn't like him. And when he runs in the general election, he'll run as an Independent Republican, or Moderate Conservative to seek votes from Independent voters. 

What Mitt really should do is clone himself. Have Conservative Mitt run for Republicans, Independent Mitt to run for Independents. Or get a time machine to erase all of his positions he took in the Republican primaries, that Independents don't like.

This won't work for Mitt, he'll end up being the John Kerry of 2012, where Independent voters are trying to figure out who the real Mitt is and running out of time. And sticking with the guy they know because Mitt Romney might not even know who the real Mitt is anymore. Because he's changed his positions as often as some women changes their hair color to the point they can't remember what their natural hair color is.

Citizens Against Government Waste: 2012 Congressional Pig Book

Source:Citizens Against Government Waste- U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (Republican, Pennsylvania) talking about the CAGW report.

"Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the 2012 Congressional Pig Book, the 21st edition of the group’s exposé of pork-barrel spending. CAGW was joined at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Northwest Washington, D.C. by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), as well as Representatives Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Tom Price (R-Ga.), and Paul Broun (R-Ga.) for a press conference announcing the release. Also in attendance were two live pot-bellied pigs, Bubbles and Churchill, courtesy of the Pig Placement Network in New Jersey and their handler for the day, Susan Magidson.

The 2012 Congressional Pig Book is a proverbial “good news, bad news” story. The good news is that, according to CAGW’s criteria, the number and cost of earmarks have decreased dramatically since fiscal year (FY) 2010, when the last Pig Book was published. The number has dropped by 98.3 percent, from 9,129 in FY 2010 to 152 in FY 2012, the fewest since CAGW published the first Congressional Pig Book in 1991. The cost has decreased by 80 percent, from $16.5 billion in FY 2010 to $3.3 billion in FY 2012, the lowest amount since 1992.

The bad news is that the moratorium on earmarks has been breached by Congress.

Since Congress declared the 2012 appropriations bills “earmark-free,” there are no lists of which members requested the earmarks or the location and purpose of the expenditures, which is a disturbing departure from the transparency of the past several years. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities for members of Congress to contact federal agencies after the fact and request that money to be directed to a district or state for the programs that have received mini-“slush funds,” despite the requirement that the money be spent competitively."

From the Citizens Against Government Waste

"CAGW Releases 2012 Congressional Pig Book" 

From Citizens Against Government Waste

If you are a career politician who just happens to serve in Congress, (as if there are any other types of politicians who serve in the House or Senate) your number one priority, if only priority is getting reelected. And if not reelected, you are looking to get promoted. Maybe you serve in the House and you want to show that you can get elected statewide and run for the Senate or run for governor of your state. If you are in the Senate, you obviously want to get reelected or perhaps run for governor yourself, or perhaps you are looking at running for President.

My point is (yes, there's a point here) is that Congressional pork (which is Congressional appropriations that are a waste of taxpayer dollars, designed to please particular constituents) is designed to get members of Congress (House and Senate) reelected to promoted to higher office. You get career politicians out of Congress and you make Congressional elections (especially in the House) competitive and you eliminate post of the pork in Congress and in the Federal budget. 

Not saying that most of the pork in Congress comes from the House. If anything more pork comes from the Senate, simply because individual senators who aren't even in leadership or chairman or ranking of their particular committees, have more authority than individual representatives who have the same seniority in the House. 

What I'm saying is that Congressional careerism is a big reason for the Congressional pork that comes out of the House and Senate every year. And when you represent a partisan, gerrymandered district in the House, it's much easier to get reelected in the House, than in the Senate, because you don't have to run statewide, especially in a competitive state, like Pennsylvania or Michigan. 

So my solutions to eliminating Congressional pork, or at least seriously cutting back on it, is forcing Congress to go on a serious diet and get off the meat-lovers diet that they've been on since they were first elected to the House or Senate. And if you can't eliminate Congressional earmarks, you can at the very least make them be transparent. 

Make sure that every earmark that is attached to any Congressional bill (House or Senate) has the name of the member that the earmark belongs too. And force all earmarks to be paid for. 

These two changes right here would eliminate a lot of the Congressional pork. It's one thing to waste tax dollars when no can you see you doing that. It's another to do that publicly when people, including taxpayers are watching, especially when you are up for reelection. 

Senate Democrats: 'React to Supreme Court Arguments on ACA'

Source:Senate Democrats- From left to right: U.S. Senator's Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) and Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont)

"Democratic senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Jack Reed (RI) weigh on Supreme Court arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act." 

From the Senate Democrats

If this post sounds familiar, it's because I originally wrote it at FRS FreeState. 

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.

Think Progress: GOP On Ron Wyden

Source:Think Progress- former Speaker of the U.S. House and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich.

"GOPOnRyanWyden.mov" 

From TP Clips

Today I'm a little disappointed in Senator Ron Wyden (member of the Finance Committee) who generally I agree with, for going along with Representative Paul Ryan. (Chairman of the Budget Committee as well as a Member of the Ways and Means Committee) I'm not disappointed in Senator Wyden in working with Representative Ryan on Chairman Ryan's Medicare voucher plan. 

I'm all for bipartisanship if it can produce a better final product, that can't be produced in any other way. I'm disappointed in what they've come up with in reforming Medicare, which is basically turning Medicare into a voucher system. Which is what the Ryan Plan that was produced back in April does.  

People who call themselves Conservatives (which is what I'm assuming Paul Ryan believes he is) talk about the need for freedom of choice (at least in the economy) all the time. And yet they're in favor of eliminating freedom of choice, or partially limiting seniors free choice and ability to choose Medicare, if they still want Medicare for their health insurance. They have a huge contradiction there. 

Nancy Pelosi: 'Leader Pelosi on GOP's BBA Constitutional Amendment'

Source:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) talking about the House Republican Balanced Budget Amendment.

"This week, the House is considering a GOP "Balanced Budget" Constitutional Amendment (H.J.Res. 2) which would destroy jobs, drastically cut Medicare and Social Security, and give federal judges power to raise taxes and make spending decisions.  H.J.Res. 2 not only provides that there be a balanced budget every year, unless three-fifths of the Congress votes for a specific excess of outlays over receipts; it also requires a three-fifths vote of the Congress to raise the debt ceiling.  It is likely that H.J.Res 2 would require balancing the budget by about FY 2018 (it states it shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification; if ratification occurs in 2013, balance would have to be achieved by FY 2018.)" 

From House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Anyone who believes that taxes are necessary in any country to fund government, understands that government's can't borrow indefinitely. And at some point bills have to paid, not borrow money to pay other bills, but actually pay up your bills. Otherwise taxes wouldn't be necessary and we could just borrow indefinitely to pay for anything. And I don't know anyone who believes that. The question is how do we pay our bills and to what point does our credit run out. 

If the United States were to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tomorrow, not just Congress, but at least thirty-four States, two days from now we would still have a Federal debt of 15T$ and a Federal deficit approaching 2T$. A year from now we would still have a debt and deficit approaching those numbers, because Congress wouldn't agree to cut 2T$ from the Federal budget for one year. They may agree to cut 200B maybe 500B, pass tax reform that raises new revenue to cut the deficit in one year. 

If we passed a deficit reduction plan not over five years or so, but a year from now we would still have a deficit of over 1T$. And maybe even five years from now we would still have a deficit. So passing a BBA alone does not balanced the Federal budget, it just requires the Federal Government to do that. But doesn't lay out how to do that, just tells them they have to do it. But leaves it up to the Administration and Congress who lately can't agree on the time of day or the weather outside (It's chilly. No, it's cold!) on how to balanced the Federal budget. So any BBA would at best be a first step in balancing the Federal budget. 

Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid- 'GOP Games Put Families Affected by Natural Disaster at Risk'

Source:Senate Democrats- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

"Nevada Senator Harry Reid calls on Republicans to support funding for FEMA. Without Republican support, Reid says the agency tasked with helping disaster-struck communities across the country get back on their feet will be out of luck." 

From the Senate Democrats

I heard Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat from Louisiana) last week on the Senate floor say something to the effect that the Federal Government can't plan for disasters. Meaning that they can't budget for them and put money aside to deal with them. Now if I didn't care I would've laughed at that statement, because America gets natural disasters every year. That comes from being as huge of a country as we are and the area that we are located in. We are prone to just about every natural disaster the world knows about. We get them every year and we have a general idea of the amount of damage they do and how much it costs to clean them up. 

This idea (or joke) that the Federal Government can't plan ahead for these disasters, is bogus. (To be overly generous) And sounds like to me an excuse for not planning ahead. 

The Federal Government could either put money aside, prioritizing, cutting back on things you don't need or need as much or finding new revenue. When you don't prioritize, you don't have priorities. In other words: when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. When everything is important and then nothing is important. 

The Federal Government has moved past prioritizing and has now moved to budgeting. (If you want to call it that) It's actually appropriating, budgeting means putting together a budget: "This is what we need to do, this is the money that we have, if we don't have enough money to cover what we need to do. Then we cut back on things we don't need or we find new revenue." This is how responsible people budget. Appropriating is just approving money to spend on something whether you have the money or not. 

 I don't agree with the House GOP Leadership on everything. (You don't say. Thanks for the tip, Captain Obvious.) Actually, it's rare when I agree with them on anything. But their basic message on disaster relief is sound, that we should help the victims of these storms and fund FEMA to do that in the short-term, but at the same time, we should find a way to pay for our disaster relief by cutting back on things we don't need or already have plenty of funding. Or raising new revenue to pay for the disaster relief. And there are plenty of areas that we can cut back on that wouldn't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve to be hurt or can raise revenue in areas that wouldn't hit anyone that can't afford to get hurt. 

Congress used to pass what's called a continuing resolution (both in the House and Senate) and they would come together and pass one, which lays out how much money the Federal Government can spend. And advises the Appropriation Committees on where to spend that money in the Federal Government. And then the Appropriations Committee would figure how to appropriate the money that the Budget Committees said they could spend. This system worked pretty well and we should get back to it.

Pot TV: U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich- 'At Seattle Hempfest (2011)'

Source:POT TV- U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) speaking at Hempfest in Seattle, Washington.

"POT TV - US Congressman Dennis Kucinich speaking on the main stage at the 20th Anniversary celebration of Seattle Hempfest on August 20, 2011. See photos of Seattle Hempfest 2011 onCannabis Culture." 

From Pot TV

Even though I rarely agree with Representative Dennis Kucinich on anything other than social issues, decriminalization of marijuana being one of them, like Representative Ron Paul I have a lot of respect for Representative Kucinich, because he's one of the most honest members of Congress, which you might be thinking doesn't sound like much. But it's true, he's a very honest man and one of the most honest of the 535 members of Congress that we have. He's very articulate and one of the best spokespeople for the democratic socialist or socialist libertarian movement in America. 

The arguments that Representative Kucinich makes for decriminalization of marijuana and treating heroin, cocaine and meth addicts like patients instead of criminals, is very similar to the arguments that I make on this issue as well. Actually, except for economic policy, Representative Kucinich and Representative Paul are very similar on most other issues. It's just that Representative Paul is a Classical Libertarian on all issues for the most part, I believe abortion being the only on where he's not libertarian on. And Representative Kucinich is a Democratic Socialist on economic Policy. (The Bernie Sanders of the U.S. House) I'm closer to Representative Paul on economic policy than Representative Kucinich because I'm a Liberal.  But I'm very similar to both of them on Social Issues. 

I want government off of my back and out of my wallet, thats where Ron Paul and myself are similar. And only have government do things that we can't do for ourselves. If thats the type of government we had, our taxes would be very low and our freedom would be very high. 

Representative Kucinich being a Democratic Socialist on economic policy, likes the idea of high taxes to fund a large welfare state of social insurance programs. Similar to what they have in Britain and Sweden. So thats my main disagreement with Dennis Kucinich. (And that he's basically a hippie-pacifist on foreign policy) 

Representative Kucinich and I are very similar if not identical on social issues. 

But Rep. Kucinich is dead right as far as I'm concern on the so-called War on Drugs, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and with Libya coming to a close. The forty year so-calledWar on Drugs in America is another war we should end as well. We've fought a stupid and hypocritical war, where we have drugs that worse for people than marijuana, that are legal, like alcohol and tobacco. 

And this has been a stupid war where we arrest people for what they do to themselves rather than what they do to innocent people. And we lock them up in prison making our prisons more crowded than they need to be. Taking the space that should be occupied by actual dangerous criminals who do represent a threat to innocent people. When we would save so much money and actually make money as an economy and government and put people to work. 

We need decriminalization of marijuana and then getting heroin, cocaine and meth addicts the help that they need in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their stays. It's rare if ever that I agree with Representative Dennis Kucinich on economic policy, even though he does make good arguments. And is honest and believes what he says but he's dead right on most social issues and to some extent on foreign policy as well. And he deserves a lot of respect for that. 

 On a personal note: this is my 100th post for FRS FreeState.

Nancy Pelosi: 'Celebrating the 46th Anniversary of Medicare'

Source:House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi- House Democrats, holding a press conference celebrating the 46th anniversary of Medicare.

"Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats held a press conference ahead of the 46th anniversary of Medicare becoming law." 

From Nancy Pelosi

The 46th Anniversary of Medicare and it should be celebrated because of the health insurance it's guaranteed for tens of millions of senior citizens since. And it's been a great success and has achieved the original purpose of its objective, which is not something that can be said as fact for a lot of other Federal programs. Perhaps not even a lot of other Federal programs. 

And I believe a big reason for its success, that it guarantees health insurance for everyone thats eligible for it. Meaning all senior citizens has a Patients Bill of Rights built into it. Which was also part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, meaning that Medicare can't dump its patients because they get sick and need health insurance or reach a lifetime cap on the amount of health insurance they consume in dollars. Or have a preexisting medical condition. (To use as examples) 

Another reason why Medicare has succeeded is unlike Medicaid, Medicare has a dedicated revenue source. Medicare is funded through part of the payroll tax, unlike Medicaid which has to come out of general revenue in the Federal Government as well as state government's. And the Federal Government actually has to pay more for Medicaid then it does but has never lived up to its own obligations that itself wrote into law when they created Medicaid back in 1965. 

Medicaid is something like a 40B$ program the entire U.S. Department of Education budget and is very expensive to run. Unlike the Federal Government that run Medicare on its own through the Health and Human Services Department. And again has a dedicated revenue source to fund the program and doesn't have to look to cut the Federal budget just to fund Medicare. 

But with Baby Boom Generation retiring which is a huge generation and the cost of their medical care coming down the road followed by Generation X (my generation) and others, it's time that we look to reform Medicare in a way that saves the program and makes it work even better. 

What I would like to see done with Medicare instead of turning it into a voucher system coming from the Tea Party and no longer guaranteeing health insurance for senior citizens and forcing senior citizens with a voucher to go get their own health insurance from the private sector, where private insurers wouldn't have to cover them and taking away part of their freedom of choice in health insurance, we should let seniors and every other American decide for themself where they get their health insurance, or let them have health savings accounts, if that is what they want.

Or instead of doing what the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus and its allies want to do and convert Medicare into a single-payer health insurance program for everyone and taking away the freedom of choice for everyone to be able to decide where they get their health insurance. 

What I would like to do is give senior citizens the freedom of choice to decide for themselves where they get their own health insurance. They can stay on Medicare or with a voucher could decide to go into the private sector or even public sector as well. 

If we ever create a public option in health care reform that I would like to see. As well as reform the financing of Medicare, have the wealthy pay more into it before they are eligible to collect it and once they are on it. And raise the retirement age for people who are able to work longer and can afford to wait before they receive Medicare. We could fix the financing of medicare with the last two reforms alone. 

What could really save Medicare indefinitely where we may never have to worry about its financing again or at least not the Federal Government. Would be to get it off of the budget of the Federal Government all together, not eliminate it or turn it over to the states. But converting it into an independent non-profit health insurance service thats no longer run by the Federal Government. That would compete in the private market with other non-profit health insurers and hopefully a new public option would be part of its competition. 

Medicare could be well-regulated, meaning it would have to accept any senior citizen eligible for it. But maybe it would also accept people from all age groups as well (the public option) which would help cut its costs because it would be able to cover healthier people as well. 

And under my plan there would no longer be just one Medicare, each State would have it own Medicare system, but none of the states would run it. But there would be a Medicare service in each state: Medicare Maryland, Medicare Ohio, Medicare Florida, etc, every State. But each Medicare service would have to comply with a basic set of standards from the Federal Government. 

Under my plan Medicare would have its own Management and Board of Directors at the National and State Levels that they would select. Medicare has been a very successful Medical Insurance Program the last forty six years and we need to keep it as a very successful Health Insurer going forward. But for that to happen, we need to put some solid reforms on it and not do anything to it that could make it weaker. By eliminating the Freedom of Choice for its current patients and perhaps future patients.

Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid- 'Speaker Boehner's Plan is Not a Compromise'

 

Source:Senate Democrats- Senate Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about House Speaker John Boehner's (Republican, Ohio) debt reduction plan.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells reporters, House Speaker John Boehner's plan to raise the debt ceiling "was written for the Tea Party, not the American people." 

From the Senate Democrats

Neither the debt plan offered by House Speaker John Boehner or Senate Leader Reid will pas in the other chamber. Meaning the Boehner plan is DOA in the Senate. And the Reid Plan is DOA in the House and probably won't even pass in the Senate, because probably the entire Senate Republican Conference will vote against it because it's not the House GOP plan. And a lot of the Senate Democratic Caucus will vote against it, because the Reid plan doesn't have revenue increases in it. Even though it does have defense cuts in it and has nothing, but budget cuts in it. 

My main issues with both leaders plans it that they don't have revenue raisers in it, no tax hikes on the wealthy or closing of tax loopholes. At least the Reid plan has defense cuts in it and cuts defense in a way that doesn't hurt our national security by using the revenue from ending military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and using that revenue to pay down the debt. Instead of putting it back in the defense budget or spending it on other areas in the Federal Government. 

I'm at the point now that I would settle for a debt ceiling plan that yes has budget cuts in it including in defense but everywhere in the Federal Government. That has entitlement reform in a way that doesn't hurt anyone that actually needs those programs. And I would accept just closing tax loopholes: over 3000 of them according to the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission. We could raise 100B$ a year or more to pay down the debt and deficit, just by closing the loopholes. 

With a good tax reform plan, we wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone to pay down the budget deficit and get the national debt under control. For example we could still keep the Home Mortgage Deduction, but end that deduction for second homes like vacation homes. We could raise a lot of revenue there, as well as wiping out fraud in Unemployment Insurance. Like for people collecting it, but not actively looking for work, or ending Food Stamps for people who aren't eligible for it. Or overpayments in Medicare and Medicaid. 

We can reform our entitlement programs without hurting people that actually need them. Requiring wealthy people to pay more into Social Security and Medicare and collecting less of it. And use those savings to help pay down the debt and deficit. 

I believe Speaker Boehner is trying to put together a proposal that could get more support than previous debt proposals from the House. And that Leader Reid is trying to see where the actual support for these debt proposals are especially in the Senate. Including on his own proposal which he finally put on the table. 

My other issue with these debt proposals is that they are both temporary, meaning Congress and The White House will have to deal with this issue in a few months. It's time to have a debt plan that Congress can agree on that gets us past this issue so they can move on to other things.