Cairo on the Potomac

One of the issues central to the recent Egyptian protests (are we calling it a revolution?) was an emergency law that gave the government powers to limit dissent.  The Egyptian government took the broadest possible interpretation of "emergency" since the law had been in place for thirty years.

I would be willing to bet that most Americans find this outrageous and that they don't believe something like that could ever happen here.

Open Congress reports on an extension of the PATRIOT Act:

Yesterday, the Senate voted 74-8, with 18 senators abstaining, in favor of moving forward with legislation to extend three of the most controversial PATRIOT Act surveillance powers for four more years, without any modifications...


And so by the end of the week, these expansions of government surveillance powers that were hastily put in place following the shock of the 9/11 attacks will be extended once again. Why? Well, because, in the words of Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] on the Senate floor yesterday, “this is a time of heightened threat.” “Maybe no specific threat,” she added. “But certainly heightened threats.”

I guess since it's only been 10 years we've still got a way to go by Egyptian standards.

Perhaps all is not lost, Rand Paul is mounting a filibuster right now.

Maddow Proves She Can Pander Too

Much of the liberal blogosphere is currently engaged in trashing Evan Bayh (D-IN) for his retirement announcement, but prior to that there was at least a small amount of gloating over an exchange between MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) on Meet The Press.

I would have went with, "Maddow Leaves Schock In Awe," but The Huffington Post instead just had, "Maddow Stuns Rep. Aaron Schock." Maddow's point centered on the fact that Schock attended the ribbon-cutting of a project in his district that was funded by a bill he voted against.

Regarding Schock's appearance at the green technology education program ribbon-cutting ceremony, the bill providing funds for that program was an omnibus-spending bill that Congress took up last spring....

"If you vote against the omnibus bill," [Maddow] said at the end of the exchange, "if you complain about the omnibus bill, if you tout your vote against the omnibus bill, it is hypocrisy to then go to your district and go to a ribbon cutting ceremony for something that is funded by the omnibus bill that you voted against."

Only problem is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Elections, and votes in Congress, have consequences. Once they are over effective leaders recognize the changed landscape and adapt.

It wasn't hypocrisy when the Obama administration changed course on the closing of Guantanamo, or a New York City trial for KSM. It wasn't hypocrisy when Democratic Senator Jim Webb called for Democrats to slow down on health reform in the wake of Scott Brown's victory. If it was, why isn't Maddow outraged by these instances as well?

Maddow has a reputation as an intelligent analyst of politics and policy and a tough interviewer. She and her fans form a mutual admiration society centered on the idea that they are much smarter than your average Tea Party attending Fox viewer, whom they deride as being duped by every utterance of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

That's what makes Maddow's rush to the bottom in this instance so damning. Her simplistic take on Schock's actions couldn't have been any more Palin-esque if she had written it on the palm of her hand. Who says they don't like red meat in blue states?

Once a spending bill becomes law, refusing a reasonable amount of money for home district projects would be more akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, an act that many voters might find even more distasteful than any apparent bout of hypocrisy. Something I think the serious Maddow would agree with. It's too bad the Maddow we saw in this exchange was anything but serious.

Rep. Kind Wrong on Comparison of Base Closings & Deficits

The LaCrosse Tribune reports:

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind called Monday for new measures to reduce the deficit and balance the federal budget.

Those included the creation of a bipartisan fiscal commission, or deficit reduction commission, that could recommend specific budget items to target.

The La Crosse Democrat said it should be modeled after the Base Closing Commis-sion, be-cause it often is too difficult for members of Congress to recommend cuts that could affect their own districts.

"I've been calling on the administration and my colleagues to embrace this idea," he told reporters in his La Crosse office. "We're trying to get more of my Republican colleagues to embrace the idea, too. If there's a concept that we're all in this together, through shared sacrifice, it might make this more politically feasible."

This may sound entirely reasonable to the ears of many, in reality this is nothing more than an attempt to disguise the continuing failure of leadership from those on Capitol Hill.

The fact of the matter is that we already have a bipartisan commission tasked with maintaining fiscal order. It is called the United States Congress. It's members are elected at regular intervals by the people. They are tasked with making our laws, including the collection and spending of revenues. They are not tasked with going to Washington DC to attend fabulous cocktail parties while another group of people, whom they have selected, do the actual work of governing.

But what about the comparison to the Base Closing Commission? Don't be fooled for an instant, there is simply no comparison. There are relatively few military bases, and the loss of a single base in a congressional district can have a tremendous local impact, so legislators fight to keep them open. A commission in this scenario gives political cover to legislators who have to answer to constituents back home about why their base was closed, but a base in a nearby district or state was not. If all we faced was the need to eliminate some discreet and localized points of spending, even if they were rather large, then perhaps a commission would be the way to go, but that isn't the case.

The Congressional Budget Office notes that about half of federal spending is mandatory, that is enacted into law and then happens automatically without being reauthorized every year. The biggest portion of this mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are, of course, the programs that are most affected by the changing demographics of the country and the fact that health care costs continue to rise faster than overall inflation.

You know what else these programs have in common? They affect the elderly and those in poverty. And guess what, there are elderly people and poor people in every congressional district in the nation. Someone ought to tell Mr. Kind we already are all in this together. So if the real fiscal threat stems from circumstances that affect every single legislator, the case for a special commission tasked with making the tough choices simply falls apart.

I've singled out Mr. Kind for what I see as a particularly egregious example of making a reasonable sounding case for an unreasonable position, but it's not as if the Republicans in Congress have shown any more willingness to make the tough choices, and at times they have descended in to downright incoherence.

The fact of the matter is that this country has some difficult decisions to make in the not too distant future. These decisions are not the end of the world, but they are not at all easy. They involve deeply held notions about what our government "owes" us (hence the name, entitlements). Making them will require skilled leaders who are able to determine the best course of action and make a convincing case for their decision. I wonder how many currently serving in Congress are up to the task. Unfortunately, I fear it is not many.

Next!

Hope you weren't planning on catching your breath anytime soon:

Open Congress reports:

While Congress continues to plow full steam ahead on health care, Democrats in the House recently took a big step forward on another huge and contentious issue, immigration. On Tuesday, Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27] and Rep. Luis Gutierez [D, IL-4] introduced comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will serve as the starting point for Congress’ work on the issue this session....

H.R. 4132 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Prosperity and Security Act of 2009

As a first step on immigration reform for the 111th session of Congress, it’s pretty aggressive. The bill touches on just about all elements of immigration reform, from border security to foreign worker visas to employment eligibility verification. It generally follows the same framework of the comprehensive immigration bills that were attempted by the 110th Congress under President Bush and failed mainly because of public opposition to providing a process for immigrants who are currently undocumented to eventually become legal residents.

Is there a sense anywhere that public opinion on immigration has changed since the last time this was attempted? Given the low opinion of Congress, I would think that sentiment on immigration would have to have improved dramatically since then, something that I see little evidence of.

On the up-side, at some point we are simply going to run out of big issues to tackle. At which point we will no doubt begin tackling the unforeseen consequences of our earlier actions.

What's wrong with being deliberative anyway?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should just stop reading Yglesias. He's still on his Senate kick, this time quoting Steven Hill from the Financial Times:

He also observes that not only is it ridiculous that 41 senators can block action, but the GOP 40 only represents about a third of the population!

To which I can only reply: Barack Obama only got about 53% of the popular vote when he was elected President, yet he controls a much larger percentage of the national agenda. About 70 million people voted for Obama, which seems like enough for a mandate until you remember that about 62 million people voted for someone other than Obama.

Only about 135,000 people voted for Nancy Pelosi in 2008! How's that for disproportionate influence on the national legislative agenda?

I fully recognize that elections have consequences. Someone should tell Yglesias that an inability to secure a filibuster proof majority in Congress also has consequences.

The Strange Shape of Senate Financial Reform

Today Senator Chris Dodd unveiled a plan for the Senate version of financial regulatory reform.

The big news is the changes in the power of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.  The Fed would be restricted in its ability to make loans to financial institutions, which of late has become a major part of its activity.  It also takes away much of the Fed's role in regulating banks.

Dodd is up for re-election in 2010, but he's not running against Ron Paul, so this new found hatred for the Fed seems a bit out of character.

Then there's this:

Mr. Dodd also stepped into a debate about the governance of 12 regional Fed banks. These banks play a role in regulating private banks and have a say in the Fed's decisions on interest rates. Private bankers choose six of the nine directors on the boards of each of these 12 regional Fed banks, which critics say could be a conflict of interest.

The personification of this concern over banks choosing Fed directors is none other than Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  One of the major knocks on Geithner has been his cozy relationship with many of the giant, now failed, financial firms during his time as head of the New York Fed, but as far as I know Dodd has never called on Geithner to step down.

So by Dodd's logic the process of banks choosing Fed directors is so flawed that the Senate and the President need to take over that duty, but overseeing a global financial crisis while at the New York Fed makes you qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury?

With a Senate counterpart like Dodd, Barney Frank has to like his chances to stay in the lead on financial reform regardless of how many times he is present at a pot bust.

Frozen Rates or Frozen Credit?

Senatus:

Credit card rates “would be immediately frozen under new legislation introduced Monday by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.),” The Hill reports.

“We worked long and hard to enact the safeguards included in the Credit CARD Act,” Dodd said in a statement. “And no sooner had it been signed into law, but credit card companies were looking for ways to get around the protections this Congress and the American people demanded. This bill would end those abuses and further protect customers today.”

But is the behavior of card issuers an attempt to "get around" Congressionally imposed rules? The Market Ticker (H/T Dad29) has a different take (his emphasis):

• Citibank's credit-card terms change implies a willingness to accept and even provoke a complete and intentional destruction of their credit card business as a very high probability outcome, given that nobody in their right mind will accept a 30% interest rate who has an alternative. The obvious implication is that only those who can't transfer balances out will remain and if your credit is that impaired there's a good chance you will default - either intentionally or otherwise. This too implies foreknowledge of a near-complete impending freeze in the credit markets.
  
  
• The change in terms on credit accounts is NOT confined to Citibank. I have received a fax from a customer of Infibank with substantially identical terms, in which both the standard and penalty rate was adjusted to 29.99%. This strongly implies that whatever Citibank smells the problem is not confined to them.

Two very different views on what the change in credit card rates indicates. This will be one to watch.

WI Congressional Fundraising

From the Journal Sentinel:

• Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has raised $8.7 million since his last election in 2004 and has $3.1 million on hand for his 2010 re-election bid.

•  Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) self-finances his Senate bids and is not up for re-election until 2012. Kohl, a millionaire, reported raising $279,000 so far, all but $2,000 of it from his personal wealth.

•  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) raised more than any other Wisconsin House member, bringing in $257,000 in the last three months alone for a total of $833,000 this year. His campaign now has $1.4 million in the bank.

• Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) has raised $111,000 this year and has $404,000 in the bank.

•  Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) has raised $180,000 this year and has $39,000 for her run. Moore is considered to be in a safe seat and does not typically do much fund-raising.

•  Dan Mielke, a Rudolph Republican who hopes to challenge Obey once again for the House, reported raising $367,000 this year, but most of it - $333,000 - was his own money.

The link has some additional information. Including the surprising fundraising by Republican challengers in WI.

Pelosi vs. Conyers

Here is Speaker Pelosi on CNN's State of the Union program from last weekend responding to a question about the possibility of doctors opting not to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients if the final health care reform bill reduces reimbursement rates:

Well, in the legislation and in our broader agenda here, we have initiatives to promote more doctors, especially in primary care, but perhaps if they're more familiar with what the bill actually does. And that's why we want to finish this third piece so that we can have a document that people can make judgments about. [EA]

And here, of course, is John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, assessing the chances that he, or other members of Congress, will actually read the bill:

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

So lawmakers won't be able to read and understand the bill, but doctors will?

The Real Problem With Cap & Trade Legislation

The real problem with the cap and trade legislation is that it's entirely possible that no one person knows everything that is in it. This is particularly sad since 400 or so of our duly elected representatives recently undertook a vote to see if it should become the law of the land.

Here is how Open Congress described the process (emphasis mine):

Complicating matters is the sheer length of the bill — H.R. 2454 weighed in at 1091 pages. The substitute bill that was dropped this week is 1200 pages long! And, as if to add insult to injury, there are 300 pages of material included today [that is Friday, the day of the vote] based upon committee action yesterday.

I wrote last week that OpenCongress can be an incredible resource for citizens, reporters and activists looking for information on Congress, but cautioned that this is only true when Congress makes that information available. With the case of the American Clean Energy And Security Act, this simply wasn’t possible. Members of the House were given precious little time to determine the policy outcomes of this legislation, due to its size, the different versions released, and the time frame provided for action (Speaker Nancy Pelosi had sought a vote before next week’s 4th of July recess). Members of the public were given even less time.

This is an absolutely terrible way to govern. It is especially galling given that President Obama trumpeted transparency during the campaign.

Of course, with so many pages, maybe there are some really great things buried in there and I should stop worrying about the bill's potential cost and criticizing Steve Kagen (D -WI) for his 'yes' vote.

First Branch or Worst Branch?

If you haven't seen it already, Megan McArdle at The Atlantic has a post up entitled Maxine Waters brings the crazy.

It is a clip of Congresswoman Waters' questioning of Treasury Secretary Geithner, which is rambling and, at times, bewildering.

Perhaps Ms. Waters is a nice lady. Perhaps she brings government money to her district like no one else and the people there are greatly appreciative of her efforts. On the other hand, the rest of the country has to endure her service in the congress.

I submit that the United States would, on the whole, be better off if we sent a check to her district in exchange for the promise to keep her home and off Capitol Hill. They could keep electing her and as long as they didn't let her leave the district, we would keep sending the checks.

McArdle says, "she seems to get all of her questions off of the fringier conspiracy sites." I don't know if this is true, but I am sure we would be better off if she would just yield her time and start a blog to promulgate her theories about the "linkages" and the "connections". Who knows, she might be happier too.

Omnibus 2009 & Congress: Lost in the Reids

First let me commend Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for his vote against the omnibus spending bill. Feingold has spoken out against the earmark process and it is nice to see him stick to his position when it really counts. I am certainly willing to be critical of Feingold when the situation merits, so I should also be willing to praise him in cases such as this.

I have no such sympathy, however, for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I am not surprised he would vote for this bill, it is not that hard to understand, but his comments on the bill leave me bewildered. NPR's Morning Edition had a story on the bill that included this from Reid:

"Agencies of our government have been so underfunded and under-resourced during the Bush years that these agencies need this money so that they can function properly."

Does Reid actually think that Bush cut funding to government programs? Surely there are examples of specific programs that Bush cut, but federal spending rose during his years in office. Bush may have cut taxes, but he had no such compunction when it came to spending.

Bush went from spending 1.8 trillion in 2001 to 2.7 trillion in 2007. This is 18.6 and 19.5% of GDP respectively. (See this link for the data tables.)

To say our government was underfunded during this time is beyond belief.

Perhaps one could argue that the money that was spent under Bush was misallocated. Fine. The Democrats won the election, they get to set the priorities. Democrats should revise spending to be more in line with their wishes, but this bill increases spending as well. The case for spending increases was made, and became law, as part of the stimulus bill. The increases in this bill set a new high water mark from which spending may never recede.

So Reid is either woefully misinformed or simply making things up to justify the passage of this bill by the Senate. I am not sure which is worse.

My dismay was amplified when I came across an item on the OpenCongress Blog that notes the approval of Congress has jumped to 39%, the highest it has been since February of 2005. Are people more approving because they believe they will receive some direct benefit from the current spending spree? Are they more approving because we are clearly in dire circumstances and the Congress seems to be doing something, anything?

If they listen to Mr. Reid's words, I am not sure how one can be more approving of the job the Congress is doing, even if you believe in the measures that have been adopted thus far.

Within the poll, there is this additional piece of information:

Since January, approval of Congress among self-identified Democrats has risen from 17 percent to 57 percent.

Democrats have had much the same Congressional team since 2006, with the notable exception that one rising superstar has now relocated to Pennsylvania Avenue, so why the sudden jump? Some of it must be reflected glory from the highly popular president. But could some of this spike be the result of too many people being largely ignorant of the basic facts about our government and taking Reid, and others, at their word?

So in Senator Reid we have another example of the disconnect between rhetoric and reality that is a marked feature of our political landscape. And in the poll numbers we see a possible symptom of this disconnect.

Discerning the reality of our situation is critical for our national well being. Unfortunately, discernment is not something that can be legislated into existence.

Omnibus 2009 & Obama

With little fanfare, President Obama recently signed the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2009. This is the bill that has become infamous of late for containing about 9000 earmarks. These are those specific spending measures inserted into bills by members of Congress which are considered 'vital spending' by their recipients and 'pork' by everybody else.

Thus, a president that pledged to go through the budget line by line during the campaign has now made these earmarked projects the law of the land. At least spokesman Robert Gibbs admitted that Obama had not read the entire bill when asked if that was the case.

Many of the administration's surrogates had been making the rounds last week offering the excuse that this bill represented 'old business' as the reason why the president was going to sign it. This excuse is utterly uncompelling coming from a president that ran with 'change' as the explicit theme of his campaign.

After all, weren't Guantanomo Bay and Bush's stem cell funding ban 'old business'? The president didn't seem to think there was any reason to maintain these two items from the previous administration, so why keep this spending bill?

With his budget, health care and energy reform, and other legislative priorities of his own coming up, I can understand why Obama would choose to avoid a fight with Congress over a bill that he could at least partially blame on his predecessor (only partially, though, he did sign it into law).

The fact of the matter is that members of Congress wanted this bill to become law, including all of the earmarks. In some sense that makes this spending bill nothing more than a payoff to the Congress. And now that Obama has delivered on this, he will no doubt expect the Congress to return the favor in the near future.

I am not so naive to think that this state of affairs isn't how things normally work in Washington, but it would be nice if we could drop the pretense and see this bill for what it is. The sooner we in the United States close the rhetoric vs. reality gap, the better.

Feingold and Ryan Walk the Line (Item)

Senator Feingold and Representative Ryan published an Op-Ed arguing for a line item veto as a means of curbing government spending. Aside from the potential constitutional issues this type of provision may entail, this initially seemed like a good idea to me. But then there's this:

If the president could remove egregious earmarks, we could save billions in taxpayer money.

If the spending is so egregious, then Congress should stop it. Even if it doesn't rise to the level of egregiousness, but is merely wasteful or simply not useful Congress should still stop it.

For Congress to rely on the president, any president, to save it from its own bad habits is ridiculous and an abdication of its responsibility under our system of government.

A Republican, especially, should be wary of reliance on such a scheme. If the federal government is not a cure-all for personal irresponsibility, why would it be such for Congressional irresponsibility.

I respectfully suggest that Feingold and Ryan re-examine their position on this issue and then advocate for sensible government spending without calling on the executive to bail them out.

It's high time the first branch of government started living up to its billing.

Rep. Obey: Let the Sun Shine on Spending

As an Arizona native who now resides in Wisconsin, I have to admit to something of an affinity for Frank Lloyd Wright. This is based mostly on his geography, but the architecture was pretty good too. It's not just Wright though, I am drawn to other AZ/WI connections as well. Here is one that caught my eye from TheHill.com (via Real Clear Politics) describing a war of words between Representatives Jeff Flake of Arizona and David Obey of Wisconsin. Here is the crux of the matter:

Flake, an ardent earmark foe, believes a one-line statement in the stimulus bill will help Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) avoid self-imposed earmark transparency requirements intended to give members at least two days to scrutinize and challenge pet projects in all appropriations measures.

The language, included in the rule providing for debate on amendments to the economic stimulus bill, allows Obey to “insert in the Congressional Record not later than Feb. 4, 2009, such material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year 2009.”

Inserting such material in the Congressional Record seems innocuous enough, right? But in a letter sent to Obey, Flake put a much finer point on it. The article continues:

“While providing the explanatory information in the record may meet some loose standard of transparency, its timing will also certainly provide an end run around any effective accountability,” he wrote in his letter to Obey. “It appears there will be little else for members to do except cast a single vote and wait for the media reports on what the bill actually contains, similar to those we’ve seen on the airdropped defense earmarks.”

Regardless of what one may think of Flake and his positions on many other issues, his reputation as a crusader against wasteful spending is well known and by any common sense standard, is laudable.

I am not ready to accuse Mr. Obey of making the "end run around effective accountability" that Flake does. However, when questioned about the matter, Obey had to resort to claiming that public financing of election campaigns would eliminate the danger of undue influence on earmarks. This seems like a strange response. How about eliminating most, if not all, earmarks? How about allowing debate and votes on individual earmarks? I suppose it is too much to ask our legislators to simply resist the temptation of exchanging earmarks for campaign contributions.

While I don't think that Mr. Obey intended to convey that the absence of public financing for campaigns means it is OK to insert sweetheart deals into spending bills, I can certainly see how this added language and his response to Flake's concerns might lead one to believe that this is the case.

Transparency in appropriations is more critical than ever given the fact that we have decided to allow government spending to make up our primary response to current economic conditions. To that end, Mr. Obey ought to make clear the reason for his action and pledge to allow the sun to shine completely on the earmark process. Sunshine may be in short supply during Wisconsin winters, but perhaps Mr. Flake can remind him of just how intense an Arizona summer sun can be.

Stimulation and Contraception

Let it be clear from the outset, this post will contain no lewd puns. Besides, I had to look up how to spell innuendo and until recently I thought a double entendre was what you had when there were four people on the court at the French Open tennis tournament. And, for the record, the leader of the House Repbulican leader's name is spelled B-O-E-H-N-E-R, but it pronounced BANE-ER.

Yesterday morning I was enjoying my usual Sunday morning routine of coffee and political talk shows before church when I heard something that I thought must be a mistake. When asked for his reaction to the economic stimulus bill being considered in the House, Boehner said:

But spending 44--or $200 million to fix up the National Mall, $21 million for sod, over $200 million for contraceptives, how is this going to fix an ailing economy?

Now the $21 million for sod sounds so much like business as usual in the Congress that it passed without notice, but $200 million for contraception? That has to be a mistake I thought. Apparently not.

The reality of it is not quite as straightforward as Rep. Boehner presented it on Meet The Press, but here is the description of the provision as listed on Boehner's website:

Now comes the latest revelation about the congressional Democrats’ “stimulus” plan: it includes taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry. Specifically, a provision in the legislation clears the way for expanded federal funding of contraceptives through Medicaid for those who aren’t even poor. Here’s how:

A Clinton-era program allows states to seek a waiver to offer Medicaid “family planning” services – even for those who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. If they seek the waiver, the federal government matches the state funding with $9 for every $1.

Yesterday, during consideration of the congressional Democrats’ spending bill by the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the panel eliminated the waiver requirement. The result? All 50 states will now offer Medicaid “family planning” services (including contraception) with the federal government offering the same $9 to $1 match

This, of course, was one of the weekend talking points and was grist for the mill on Rush Limbaugh today as well as the obligatory left-wing blogosphere response. (I swear sometimes these entire exchanges are little more than set-pieces in some thoroughly predictable national pageant.)

Maybe Boehner's linkage to abortion is an overreach, maybe not. Maybe, since the Democrats control the presidency and the Congress, they have the ability to enact an agenda that includes funding for contraception. But to include increased access to contraception and family planning as economic stimulus strains credulity to the breaking point. I seem to recall then candidate Obama remarking something to the effect that a pig remains a pig, even if it is wearing lipstick.

Further evidence of just how shaky this proposition is comes from Speaker Pelosi's response when questioned by George Stephanopoulos of ABC. She said:

Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Setting aside the generally incoherent tone of this response, just how does this provision reduce costs? Is she actually suggesting that as a response to the economic crisis people should stop having babies because they represent a cost to the states?

If this is true, it is only so because of the steady increase toward government interference in what have been traditionally family concerns, but that is a discussion for another day. While we do so at our own not insignificant peril, if we are going to reduce human beings to the sum total of their economic impact, the Speaker has a more pressing concern.

In case she hasn't looked at her desk in a while, she and her colleagues in the House are currently considering taking out a mortgage on the nation's future to the tune of about three quarters of a trillion dollars. Who does she think is going to pay this back?

If you don't have children now, there won't be any workers in the future. No workers means no productivity. No productivity, no taxes. I guess it won't matter that we can't pay our debts since there won't be any of us left.

While "I want my last check to bounce" may work as a personal finance strategy, it's no way to run a country.

And if spending on contraception and family planning is our best response to current conditions, our checks just might start bouncing long before we write the last one.

No New Year's Resolution for the TARP

In case you missed it, the Senate voted to release (or, rather, to not block the release of) the remaining $350 billion of funds from the TARP program. You remember the TARP, right? This was the money that was requested in order to buy mortgage backed securities from financial institutions, allowing them to avoid the disastrous consequences of their own irresponsible actions.

The consensus from both sides of the political aisle seems to be that the first portion of the money has been squandered. We have poured money into several financial institutions who seem to have done everything with it except lend. Acquisitions have been undertaken, dividends have been paid, and balance sheets shored up, but benefits have yet to flow to the larger economy. With so little to show for such a large expenditure, I am left scratching my head as to why we are doubling down on the TARP to the tune of another $350 billion.

It is worthwhile to think back to September and the initial response to the financial crisis. At that time, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson circulated a now infamous 3-page proposal for legislation in response to the situation. Lawmakers promptly rejected the proposal as too broad, with too little oversight. They felt that granting the Secretary such a tremendous amount of power was dangerous, and probably not without reason.

Instead, Congress proposed and quickly passed their own response to the crisis. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) dwarfed Paulson's three little pages, as if legislative quality and effectiveness is measured in reams of paper used. Among other things, EESA spawned the TARP and the Congressional Oversight Panel to monitor the TARP (more on this in the future). It also, however, included a provision to exempt from an excise tax, certain children's wooden toy practice arrows (I am not making this up). This is emblematic of how the Congress functions, or malfunctions if you will. Despite this legislative action, the economy continues to falter.

So a three page response was insufficient in theory, while the legislation that we ended up with has failed in practice.

How then, should we proceed? A change in course would seem to be in order. To that end, House Finance Chair Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced HR 384 which is described on house.gov as a resolution,

to reform the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and ensure accountability under such Program

The Senate's vote, though, all but insures the needed reforms will not take place. Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd (D-CT) has indicated that he will not introduce legislation similar to that of Franks. This refusal is all the more saddening since it comes from the Senate. The body, that with its longer terms and smaller size, should be most willing to assert itself in the face of what in Washington seemed to be a foregone conclusion.

Given the inability or unwillingness of our Congress to stand up to our President over the last eight years, a condition that Democrats especially have bemoaned, I am surprised that this is the best we can do. Regardless, we are on the hook for the remaining money and at this point one can only hope that the Congressional Democrats' faith in Obama to spend this money more wisely than Bush is not misplaced. Though on the face of it, I can't see why this would be the case.

Over at house.gov you can find a summary of activity on the House floor. The entry for Thursday, January 15th includes this item:

2:04 P.M. -

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 384 as unfinished business

The matter of fact tone of this simple note belies the continued trouble that it portends. The nation may never get back to business until members of Congress fulfill their obligation and tackle the unfinished business of governing.

No Chair for Burris Lands Harry in the Hot Seat

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was Speaker of the House, this post would have been entitled 'Waffle House', but alas, I have to make do with Hot Seat Harry.

After an appearance on Meet The Press last Sunday in which Mr. Reid seemed quite adamant that the Blagojevich-appointed Roland Burris would not be accepted into the senate as Barack Obama's replacement, he now seems to be softening his stance considerably.

For those of you scoring at home this is the part where a solid Congressional majority begins to lose its way and get bogged down in everything except, you know, actually governing. It is no wonder that at least since Reagan, if not before, the Office of the President has turned into something just this side of a cult of personality. Please don't mistake this as a partisan criticism, as this sort of thing takes place in Republican Congresses as well. Impeachment anyone?

As noted, Mr. Reid had previously seemed quite firm in his pronouncement that Mr. Burris would not be allowed to join the Senate. When asked why Mr. Burris would not be welcome by Meet The Press moderator David Gregory, Mr. Reid's answer was that, "Blagojevich is obviously a corrupt individual." As Reid indicated, yesterday Mr. Burris was denied his place in the Senate.

Today, however, the Associated Press is reporting that Mr. Reid is looking for a way to accept Mr. Burris and that the main sticking point now is the fact that the Illinois Secretary of State has not yet signed the papers finalizing the appointment. I think the Civil War was still on the last time time Democrats were this deferential to states.

I don't want to suggest that Mr. Reid's grilling on Meet The Press had anything to do with his change of heart, but Mr. Gregory had him flummoxed, if not down right stymied. I mean this is what, Gregory's fourth or fifth show? He is a savvy media insider and down-home Harry is just a Senator from little ol' Nevada.

I can't help but wonder if Hillary Clinton isn't watching the news and regretting the decision to accept the appointment as Secretary of State.

Well, for Harry and the gang it is back to that stately but hollow dome that serves as a backdrop to the Washington DC soap opera that rivals anything found on Days of Our Lives. It is just too bad that they are Mr. Reid's days and our lives.