Senator McCaskill, fighting the good fight

No government representative is perfect any more than any other human is. They're either doing a good job or they're not. It's my contention that US Senator Claire McCaskill is, in fact, doing a good job. Right now, she is in the news, for instance: McCaskill Continues Fight to end Automatic Pay Raises for Congress As part of agenda to Clean up Congress, McCaskill again calls for Congress to pass her bill to end automatic raises for Congress. Years ago, when this first took place and Congress voted into law the idea of automatic pay raises for themselves because they didn't want the issue to keep coming up--knowing we, the people, would virtually always be against the idea of raises for them--I know I was appalled. How is anyone going to vote, when you have the chance, but for a raise for yourself? And an automatic pay raise for yourself? How perfect is that? Who doesn't want that? And who but Congress has that option? Almost solely, they have this option alone. It was and is disgusting. It really should be stopped and Senator McCaskill is trying to get us back there, along with her effort to kill "earmarks" in our financing system. Both great ideas. So good on you, Senator, thanks very much. We appreciate these efforts. Please, by all means, keep it up. Link: http://mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1495

Senator McCaskill keeps doing great things

First she made herself known as our own local auditor of government, helping to keep people honest and spending legal--and lower. Then, as our Senator, Claire McCaskill pushed for killing the spending, wasteful "earmarks" of our federal budgets. Now, Senator McCaskill is pushing for and introducing a bill "that would give President Barack Obama – and future presidents – line-item veto power" over the budget. And thank goodness. Everyone talks about reducing spending. Senator McCaskill keeps proposing good, sensible, workable ways we could--and should--reduce spending. Thank you, Senator McCaskill, from one Democrat to another. Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/10/3420610/mccaskill-introducing-line-item.html

Sen. Claire comes through again

Hoorah for Senator McCaskill. She's going after "earmarks" in Congress again. This out today: Toomey, McCaskill to call for permanent earmark ban Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will announce their proposal Wednesday morning at a Capitol news conference. The move comes one year after McCaskill and then-Sen.-elect Toomey penned a joint USA Today op-ed supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. For a definition: "an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees." The really bad thing about earmarks is that they are so "under the radar" and virtually unaccountable to the legislation process. With all the over-spending we have and debt, this makes far too much sense and is long overdue. Links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/toomey-mccaskill-to-call-for-permanent-earmark-ban/2011/11/29/gIQAlZAu8N_blog.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

Earmarks in Congress

If the Tea Party does nothing else in this country but hold Republicans' feet to the proverbial fire about spending, they will have served a terrific purpose.

The first issue, right out of the chute, so to speak, is on earmarks.  Republicans always hoot and holler they're for reduced and reducing spending but when it comes right down to it, they spend right up there with the best of 'em.

During this last campaign, the Tea Party members, for the most part, said they were for eliminating earmarks in the House for spending.

Good for them.

But Republicans like none other than Mitch McConnell says they serve a good purpose.

Balderdash.  The bloody hypocrite.

Get this--yesterday, while making his rounds on the Sunday morning news programs, Senator McConnell said he "doesn't believe an earmark ban will actually save any money."

Right.  Sure it won't.

Sadly, even Tea Party member Senator Jim Demint, who's supposed to be such a radical, is right now only pushing for a two year moratorium.

What a wienie.  I want to ask him, "Senator Demint, is that all you got?"

But the real shocker for me, today, on this topic comes from the guy who's supposed to be toughest of all on budgets and cutting spending--newly elected Representative Rand Paul.  Check this out:  As Dave Weigel notes Tuesday for Slate, Paul suggested his stance on earmarks wouldn't be as black-and-white once he entered office: According to the Wall Street Journal, Paul told its reporter that earmarks "are a bad 'symbol' of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night."


That's positively disgusting.  Paul is turning out like every other politician--something he absolutely wasn't supposed to do.  In the campaign he runs saying one thing, sounding like he's going to be tough and now, after he's been elected, he says he's going to go for earmarks just like everyone else.

If I were one of his voters from Kentucky, I would be at least disappointed if not out-and-out angry.
Being from the rest of the country, I don't have high hopes for finally getting rid of earmark spending.

Or for cutting the deficit or big spending, for that matter.


Link to original post:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101109/pl_yblog_upshot/republicans-conflicted-over-earmark-ban

Roy Blunt: wrong for Missouri

Cutting deficits---again

There's a story out this evening on President Obama welcoming the idea of nations cutting deficits. Naturally, this will have to include us, the US, cutting ours. The American people are for it. Republicans take this position, as do Libertarians, of course and even most Democrats, publicly and, for some of them, privately, too. But here's the thing--We, the Democrats, did this once, during President Clinton's 2 terms. We cut the deficit and deficits, thank you very much. We had pay/go provisions, everything. The Republicans did away with them during dumb-dumb W's 2 presidential terms. So you know what? Here we go again. For once, the Republicans will have to be FOR something--this cutting of spending and deficits--and not just the "party of no" as they have been for the last 2 years, since this President attained the White House. Won't and wouldn't that be refreshing? Link to story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100627/ap_on_bi_ge/obama_8

A roundup of articles on the Republicans this afternoon

Each day, I look at the links I've attached here, to this blog, to see what stories I should possibly be aware of. This afternoon, it seems there is a pretty good thread, telling of what the Rethugs, I mean Republicans, are up to of late.

To wit:

From Americablog:

--Inhofe and GOP again rally to protect BP from liability

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Environmental and Public Works committee, blocked a request offered by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to pass the bill, which would raise corporations' liability caps from $75 million to $10 billion.

Republicans, protecting British Petroleum. Nice.

From Daily Kos:

Great patriotic Republicans reject taking care of 9/11 responders
by Joan McCarter

I guess they're already over 9/11.

Ailing Sept. 11 responders don’t deserve a permanent, guaranteed program to ensure they get health care, and giving it to them could wreck the country, Republicans in Congress argued today.

Calling the Sept. 11 Health and Compensation Act a new “entitlement program” like Medicare, members of the GOP on the House Energy and Commerce Committee argued the nation already has too much that it must pay for, and making the care of tens of thousands of 9/11 responders mandatory was too much of a burden.

Republicans, not protecting the American people who were working for us, right after 9/11 and putting their lives and health on the line for us.

From Alternet:

Peak Hypocrisy: Republican Party Vies for Tax-Payer Bailout

Posted by Joshua Holland at 1:40 pm

Four years ago, I asked Dean Baker why he didn’t like the term “free-market fundamentalism” to describe conservative economic thinking.

Joshua Holland: You say that conservatives are not, in fact, self-reliant fans of free-markets. Lay out your thesis in a nutshell.

Dean Baker: Well that’s the stereotype — that conservatives are willing to take the hard knocks when they come — but in my book I argue that what the conservatives have done is they’ve rigged the deck. They’ve made sure that certain people come out ahead, that income flows upward, and that other people are put at a disadvantage — and these things are built into the rules of the system. And then what they want to do — in talking about “free markets” — is they want to kick back and say, “No, no, no; those are the rules, and we can’t talk about them.” They don’t want to talk about how the deck is rigged; they want us to fight over the small scraps.

Republicans, taking care of themselves and their rich friends, first, last and foremost.

Conclusion: The Republicans are deeply, deeply fragmented--we know that--and self-destructing, popularity-wise, with the American people. They know very well how to take care of themselves and their rich friends, the wealthy and big business, the corporations. What they don't know is that they need to take care of the country and the American people. Or how to do it.

The Libertarians aren't even really a political party (no real national committee, no organization) and the "Tea Party" is a rather small collection of people with a wide variety of opinions but no real core values they share other than "smaller government" but that's what the Republicans and Libertarians have been hawking for years now.

If the Democrats and President Obama can pass the trimmed-down "line item veto" this President is pushing for, cut earmarks, shrink spending that way and then act, as soon as possible, on the eventual conclusions of the bipartisan panel to cut government spending, we will stay much more cohesive and strong and be able to weather the political storms now and into the future.

That's a lot of "ifs".

But I believe we can do it.

To all Republicans and Libertarians out there...

...who want to say or think this President only wants to grow government and "tax and spend", blah, blah, blah.

From The Federal Times.com government website and news:

Obama to shed federal office space

By TIM KAUFFMAN | Last Updated: May 20, 2010

President Obama soon will order agencies to get rid of office buildings and other properties they no longer need, Federal Times has learned.

Federal agencies are holding on to more than 20,000 excess assets — from office buildings and labs to warehouses and runways — that could be sold to generate additional revenue. In addition, agencies have identified more than 65,000 properties that are partially or completely vacant but haven't been deemed excess, which would allow them to be sold. The properties are valued at more than $1.2 billion.

"Currently, federal agencies have little or no incentive to dispose of excess real property, and the time it takes to get an asset off the federal inventory is considerable," Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Jean Weinberg said in a statement to Federal Times.

Obama will issue a memorandum as early as next month requiring agencies to re-examine their real estate footprints and identify opportunities to dispose of properties that are unneeded or not being used to their full capacity, Weinberg said.

The new policy will require agencies to make a "significant reduction" by 2012 in how much they're paying to rent, maintain and otherwise occupy space, said Dennis Goldstein, director of asset management at the General Services Administration, which has been working closely with OMB to develop the initiative.

And agencies will have to make difficult decisions about how much space employees need to do their work, Goldstein said at last week's Federal Real Property Association's annual conference in Washington. For instance, agencies could require more employees to telework or could establish shift schedules that would allow two or more employees to share desks, cubicles or offices.

Oh, and he's set up a bipartisan commission, too, to see how we can possibly cut spending.

He's also trying to get a pared-down version of the "line item veto", too, so he can cut "earmarks" and some pork-barrel spending out of future budgets.

Just sayin'.

Link to original post:
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20100520/AGENCY04/5200302/-1/RSS

Lower spending? "Who ya' gonna' call?"

Did you see where there are less earmarks coming out of Congress now, since the 2008 elections when the Democrats took over?

Yeah.

Check it out, from the Office of Management and Budget:

"The Administration has just completed its count of the earmarks contained in the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bills, the last of which the President signed into law in mid-December. Although more needs to be done, the news is encouraging: earmarks are down by double-digit percentages….These reductions build on the progress that has been made on earmarks since 2006, reductions prompted by a series of reforms that then-Senator Obama helped to write – including bringing more transparency and disclosure to the process."

There was a little blurb about it in the Star yesterday in "Today's Top 5" column on B2. I thought it too important to pass up.

"Members of Congress obtained about 2,000 fewer pet projects last year, according to White House analysis released Monday. Lawmakers stuffed 9,192 so-called earmarks into bills last year, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $11 billion."

That's the bad news, of course.

Here's the good: "That's a 17% drop in the number of earmarks and a 27% reduction in cost."

But wait! There's more!

This just out today on CNN:

"The 'Pig Book,' an annual report detailing the excesses of pork spending, has served up its usual heavy-duty mockery of congressional excesses. But this year the meat spit is smaller."

"The number and costs of congressional pork projects dropped this year, the Citizens Against Government Waste said in its '2010 Congressional Pig Book Summary,' issued on Wednesday."

"The 9,129 projects in the report 'represent a 10.2 percent decline from the 10,160 projects identified in fiscal year 2009, and the $16.5 billion in cost is a 15.5 percent decrease from the $19.6 billion in pork in fiscal year 2009,' the group said."

So what's that, you say? You thought Republicans were more responsible with the people's money?

I guess you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?

Additional link to story:
http://washingtonindependent.com/82043/congressional-earmarks-decline-sharply

Have I mentioned how fond I am of irony?

Yes, I am extremely fond of irony. I believe that, if there were a god, he or she creating this reached possibly their finest hour, being as it is one of our best gifts of the universe.

Where else can you get that much humor?

For instance (you knew there'd be a "for instance", didn't you?), the Republicans right now, meeting in, of all places, New Orleans for the "Southern Republican Leadership Conference."

Man, is that good?

That, as they say, is delicious.

It doesn't get much better than that, does it?

But they weren't done there, either, oh no.

Check this out--guess who they had as a speaker?

David Vitter.

From Think Progess yesterday:

"SRLC organizers noted that the conference was 'going to be highlighted by the bold and dynamic values and individuals that make our party what it is.' In selecting the individuals who 'make our party what it is,' SRLC chose Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to kick off today’s events. Vitter, of course, is known for frequenting a Washington, D.C. and New Orleans prostitution service. The married father of four has led Senate efforts to pass a 'Marriage Protection Amendment' and bring down ACORN. Today, right-wing activists rewarded Vitter with a standing ovation. Vitter thanked the crowd for the 'warm welcome.'”

It gets better. They gave Vitter a standing ovation.

Wow. I couldn't write stuff that good.

And then, of course, there is the equally entertaining fact that Republican National leader Michael Steele is there and speaking, even after his staff took clients to a Hollywood bondage club, spending nearly $2000.00 on them and billing it to the same Republican Party.

Man, I love these people. Sure, they're haters and dividers and they're only for themselves and their wealthy clients and big corporations, instead of the American people but when they're not hating or legislating horribly, they're darned, ironically funny and entertaining.

And you can't forget Newt Gingrich's earlier adultery, even as he gears for a run at the White House, even now, for 2012.

More, you say?

How about the fact that the Republican Party called for an "earmark moratorium" in Congress but, according to OpenSecrets.org, "Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) were the first to submit earmark requests in violation of the new moratorium, followed recently by freshman Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.). All three have asserted the importance of directing money back to their constituents."

This gets better, too: "in some cases, these earmarks are benefiting industries that rank among two of these three politicos' major benefactors."

Ain't dat a beauty?

So you see? All the Republican greed and ugliness isn't for nothing.

They're also here to entertain us, even if it is at our own expense.

Again, have a great weekend, y'all.

Freeze earmarks? Hell, kill 'em

Yesterday, some Conservative Republicans put up a proposal to "temporarily ban senators from earmarking spending bills with back-home projects like roads, water projects and grants to local governments."

The Senate rejected it.

It seems they don't have the courage to take away this little privilege of theirs that they use to take more fiscal pork back home.

Sure, they call themselves "Conservatives" or "Blue Dog Democrats" but like a hog at a trough, they just can't come up with enough strength to walk away.

This was only going to be a temporary moratorium on these earmarks, too.

Talk about lack of conviction.

Here's a thought and suggestion I've put up here before for some enterprising representative in Washington:

Propose that earmarks be done away with.

Heck yes.

It's the only fiscally responsible thing to do.

We've been hearing for weeks, if not months, about the debt and deficit we have as a nation.

And these legislators will still spend far too much in government--who are they kidding?

"Defenders of earmarks say they represent but a small portion of the overall budget, are a legitimate way for lawmakers to exercise Congress' power of the purse, and that they know the needs of their states better than agency bureaucrats."

Horse-hockey.

Besides spending too much money--and coming out of "back rooms" to do it--it also raises questions of these same representatives doing illegal political favors for constituents and companies that get funds from earmarks. Getting rid of them would give the nation a huge double benefit, at minimum.

"Opponents say earmarks are often wasteful, invite corruption and are a way to win votes for big-spending legislation."

Much more true.

So, note to some political upstart Senator or Representative out there (Claire? Anyone?)--go against the Party line and make a serious proposal for a law making earmarks illegal.

You'll be on and in the news immediately (you glory hound).

I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.

This is no way to run a government. Or country.

Claire McCaskill on the Senate floor about earmarks in recent legislation

Yeah! Yay, Claire! You go, girl! We're with you! We are proud you're from Missouri! And we're proud you're not bringing home any earmarks to us, here at home! You've got our backs and we've got your votes!