View Poll Results: New majorities in House and Senate... how they rate?

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican, approve of Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Republican, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    24 29.63%
  • Republican, undecided about Congress/Senate

    1 1.23%
  • Democrat, approve of Congress/Senate

    8 9.88%
  • Democrat, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    6 7.41%
  • Democrat, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Independent/Other, approve Congress/Senate

    2 2.47%
  • Independent/other, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    27 33.33%
  • Independent/Other, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Other (Will explain in great lengths in the thread)

    4 4.94%
Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 854
  1. #16
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    So when they cannot change the rules... they resort to open threats... way to go. Most ethical... transparent... never mind..




    Murtha accused of rules violation


    Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened to deny any further spending projects to a Republican who challenged him over an earmark last week, the GOP is charging – a potential violation of House rules that could cause a spike in partisan tensions.

    Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who questioned money that Murtha inserted into an intelligence bill last week, turned the tables Thursday night by saying he would call for Murtha to be reprimanded for violating House rules.

    Rogers plans to insert a transcript of their exchange in the Congressional Record to document the potential violation. His resolution will also require a House vote to reprimand Murtha for his comments, according to a draft received by The Politico. Rogers is expected to file it on Monday.

    It does not call for an investigation by the Ethics Committee.

    'The way I do it'

    According to the draft resolution, Murtha shouted at and chastised Rogers on the House floor Thursday for offering a motion last week to challenge $23 million Murtha requested in an intelligence bill.

    Murtha had requested the money to prevent the administration from shuttering the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa., which is part of Murtha’s district.

    I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Murtha told Rogers, according to the draft transcript given to The Politico.

    This is not the way we do things here – and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?” Rogers replied.

    That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said.

    The showdown occurred on the Republican side of the aisle, in the so-called Ohio Corner, in front of numerous GOP lawmakers who witnessed the episode, one member present said.

    Murtha could not immediately be reached for comment.

    If it took place as alleged, Murtha’s tirade could violate House rules, which forbid members from blocking earmarks based on how a colleague votes.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #17
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Buh-bye rolling economy. Hello entitlements, inflation and recession...

    Distract, Tax, and Spend

    Distract, Tax, and Spend
    Democrats are poised to reverse over a decade of Republican tax relief.

    By Mitch McConnell

    While most of the media were busy covering the latest developments on the Iraq funding bill or the bipartisan immigration proposal, congressional Democrats on Thursday quietly passed a budget creating the framework for the largest tax increases in American history.

    Until Thursday, the largest tax increase had been in 1993. That’s when Bill Clinton proposed a monstrous budget that even he would later admit had contained too many tax hikes. The Democrats lost the House of Representatives the following year for the first time in half a century. Clinton, speaking at a Texas fundraiser soon after Election Day, pinned the blame squarely on the hikes: “It might surprise you,” he said, “to know that I think I raised them too much too.”

    Despite what happened to Democrats as a result of that tax hike, the budget they submitted their first year back in control of both houses of Congress — and pushed through Thursday on a party-line vote — provides a framework for tax hikes a full three times larger than the one that put them in the minority back then. This budget reverses more than a decade of Republican tax relief. It means a tax hike on every single American — working, retired, rich or poor — and, even as it aims to raise nearly $1 trillion with new taxes, does absolutely nothing to rein in spending or shore up an entitlement system badly in need of reform.

    Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.

    Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.

    The great untold story of the post 9/11 period is the recovery of America’s will to fight on, despite new threats, and build an even stronger economy, a stronger America than before we were hit. A Republican Congress gave the American people the tools they needed to help themselves — and then got out of the way. We eliminated the marriage penalty and doubled the child tax credit. We created a tuition tax credit and put the death tax on the road to extinction. We slashed the tax on capital gains and dividends.

    Americans took care of the rest, unleashing a flood of economic activity that’s still lifting the tide for tens of millions of working families and retirees. Despite 9/11, despite a recession, despite Katrina, despite a war, the American economy soared. China may be one of the world’s fastest growing economies. But its entire Gross Domestic Product is less than our net economic growth in the five and a half years since 9/11 alone.

    The Democrats sounded a thrifty tune in the run-up to the November elections. They know about the tax-and-spend stereotype, so many insisted things would be different this time around. But budget season is always the most telling time of year on Capitol Hill. And as Democrats on Thursday advanced the largest tax hike in history, the story they’re telling is this: The party of tax and spend is back, with a vengeance.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #18
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Then.....

    Pelosi becomes first woman House speaker
    POSTED: 4:28 a.m. EST, January 5, 2007


    ncoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters that Democrats would move quickly on rules changes.

    "On Thursday and Friday, we're going to adopt rules that will change the way the people's House operates to ensure its integrity, to ensure its openness and to ensure its transparency," Hoyer said Wednesday.

    Tighter restrictions on spending earmarks, lobbying, gifts and travel will be proposed, Democratic House leaders said.


    Pelosi then moved on to promote her party's agenda.

    She urged Congress to hit the ground running and pass legislation quickly to ensure it will be the "most honest and open Congress in history."
    and now..

    Water bill is flooded with earmarks
    Democrats pledged to cut down on pork, but legislation suggests a hearty appetite for it.


    Dramatic increases in earmarks - pet projects quietly slipped into spending bills - figured prominently in Republican scandals that helped Democrats win control of Congress last year. But with Democrats now in charge, the practice is still thriving.

    A bill the Senate approved last week to authorize water projects contains 446 earmarks, and the House version has 692.

    The Senate bill, with its 446 projects, has more earmarks than a version drafted last year when Republicans were in charge. That bill had 272.

    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," grumbled Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #19
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    15,261

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    I’m puzzled I thought things were supposed to get better with a democratic lead congress.

  5. #20
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Cut-n-run/ABSCAM Murtha threatens another house member for pointing out one of his "pork" projects..... Pelosi... It's the Repug's fault.


    Pelosi defends Murtha against Republican reprimand


    U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday defended a leading anti-war Democrat against a Republican plan to reprimand him over a political spat on defense spending.

    Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, is expected to file a resolution this week calling for the House to reprimand Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for allegedly threatening to withhold spending for defense projects backed by the Republican lawmaker.

    Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has become a target for Republican criticism because of his leading role in Democratic efforts to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

    In the weekly Republican radio address, Rogers accused Murtha of violating House rules by threatening defense project funding. The incident followed a failed attempt by Rogers to kill a House measure granting funding for a project in Murtha's Pennsylvania district.

    Murtha's office was not immediately available for comment. But Pelosi blamed Republicans for causing an "unjustified" stir and predicted Murtha would overcome any reprimand vote.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #21
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Flood of earmarks refill the swamp

    WASHINGTON -

    When Democrats took control of Congress last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised voters that her party would “drain the swamp” and “lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.” Four month later, Democrats are reflooding the swamp with earmarks and more.

    They turned the defense supplemental bill into what Heritage Foundation president Ed Fuelner called a “$20 billion ransom note” sent to President George W. Bush — which he promptly vetoed.

    House Democrats have also attached $100 million of pork to the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, including a $23 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

    The NDIC was established in 1993 to centralize drug war intelligence. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., pulled strings to get it placed in his district.

    More recently, a 2005 U.S. News & World Report story reported that the facility — located in a renovated department store in Johnstown — “had run through six directors, been rocked by scandal and been subject to persistent criticisms that it should never have been created at all.” Even former NDIC Director Mike Horn admitted that the center’s reports were “God-awful, poorly written, poorly researched and, in some cases, wrong.” The House Government Reform Committee called the NDIC “an expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug enforcement resources.”

    By any rational standard, this $400 million disaster should have been shut down a long time ago.

    Last week, Murtha reacted with “finger-jabbing, spittle-spraying” fury when Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., sought an audit of NDIC. Murtha, chairman of the powerful House Defense Appropriations Committee, retaliated by threatening to torpedo any future defense earmarks in the former FBI special agent’s district — in apparent violation of House ethics rules.

    Rogers was not the first to feel Murtha’s fury. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., was reportedly also berated and threatened when he tried to close a program in Murtha’s district.

    No wonder the former head of the Congressional Accountability Project called Pelosi’s first pick for House Majority Leader “a one-man wrecking crew” of congressional ethics. Rogers has since filed a formal complaint, but don’t expect the House to hurry to consider it. Pelosi is defending Murtha against Rogers and other critics.

    Earmarks have so distorted the legislative process that repealing even the worst of them is becoming nearly impossible. Members of Congress who dare challenge these sacred cows are on notice from Pelosi and Murtha that they will meet a similar fate as Rogers and Tiahrt. Looks like that swamp won’t be going dry anytime soon.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #22
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    CNN on the "new" high flying Congress.... business as usual..

    "The Most Ethical Congress In History"

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #23
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings



    Freshmen fail first ethics test

    U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha gave nearly $50,000 to 19 House freshmen who abandoned a week-old pledge to toughen House ethics rules by voting against a reprimand of Murtha for reportedly violating those rules.

    Despite last week’s media blitz promoting tougher ethics enforcement, a group of freshmen Congressmen failed their first practical test Tuesday night, when they refused to reprimand one of their colleagues for an apparent ethics violation.

    In fact, those freshmen wouldn't even allow a debate to occur on the House floor, killing a privileged resolution before it could be considered by the full House.

    On May 16, Democrat lawmakers held a news conference in Washington, DC, where more than two dozen freshmen announced a push for stronger ethics enforcement. The members followed up that event with local media, garnering widespread attention for vowing to reform Congress.

    "Members of Congress must know that if they break the rules,” Ohio’s Zack Space told C-SPAN, “they will be caught and punished.”

    But when Space was given the chance to punish one of his own, Pennsylvania Democrat Jack Murtha, he refused. Murtha contributed $2,000 to Space’s campaign last fall.

    Murtha was accused in a privileged resolution sponsored by U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, R-MI, of violating House ethics rules. According to Rogers, Murtha threatened him when Rogers opposed a $23 million Congressional earmark to fund a controversial project in Murtha’s district.

    “I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the appropriations bills,” Murtha is reported to have said, “because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.” Murtha has not denied the exchange.

    The House Code of Official Conduct states that a Member “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark…on any vote cast by another Member.”

    Rogers sought a reprimand of Murtha by the House for the apparent ethics violation. On an overwhelmingly party line vote, Democrats tabled the Rogers’ resolution, effectively killing it. Two Democrats, Earl Blumenauer, D-OR, and Jim Cooper, D-TN, voted against their party’s leadership.

    Among those refusing to reprimand Murtha were the 23 Democrats who last week vowed tougher ethics enforcement.


    “One of the messages voters sent last November was that the time had come to change the way business was being done in Washington,” Iowa’s Bruce Braley said on May 16. “The American people deserve to have the highest confidence that their Representatives are doing their jobs in a professional and ethical manner.”

    Like Space, Braley voted against reprimanding Murtha. He, too, received $2,000 from Murtha last fall.

    Another freshman publicly calling for tougher ethics enforcement was Connecticut’s Chris Murphy.

    “Too often the ethics process has been used by Congress to protect its own,” Murphy told his hometown paper, the New Britain Herald. "People are tired of the scandalous headlines coming out of Washington, and Congress should move forward soon to clean up its act.”

    Murphy, who claimed in that interview to have “organized and led…the freshman class” on ethics reform, also voted to kill the reprimand; and, like his colleagues, collected $2,000 from Murtha in 2006.

    In fact, twenty-two of the twenty three freshmen who spent last week promoting tougher House ethics voted on Tuesday to kill the reprimand. One, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, voted “present.” Shuler did not receive any funds from Murtha during his campaign.

    In addition to the members already mentioned, the following freshmen who vowed tougher ethics rules, yet refused to rebuke Murtha, received the following contributions from the Pennsylvania Democrat. They are: Patrick Murphy, PA, $7,000; David Loebsack, IA, $4,500; Peter Welch, VT, $4,000; Yvette Clarke, NY, $4,000.

    Additionally, Murtha contributed $2,000 each to Harry Mitchell, AZ; Jerry McNerney, CA; Ed Perlmutter, CO; Tim Mahoney, FL; Brad Ellsworth, IN; Baron Hill, IN; Tim Walz, MN; Paul Hodes, NH; Albio Sires, NJ; Kirsten Gillibrand, NY; Betty Sutton, OH; and Steven Kagen, WI.

    Besides Shuler, only Stephen Cohen, TN; Kathy Castor, FL; and Phil Hare, IL, received no financial backing from Murtha.

    Murtha could still face an investigation by the House ethics committee. All but one member of that committee voted “present,” should they have to investigate. One member of that committee, Michael Doyle, D-PA, voted to kill the reprimand, which would force his recusal from any investigation into the allegations against Murtha.

    This is the second time in the past few weeks Murtha faced a possible ethics violation. Murtha reportedly made a similar threat against Kansas Republican Todd Tiahrt.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #24
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,698

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    ^^^ Everytime you hear about Murtha, part of the story is about money changing hands... mostly on the sly. He belongs on the Sopranos.

  10. #25
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Everytime you hear about Murtha, part of the story is about money changing hands... mostly on the sly. He belongs on the Sopranos.
    I think that would constitute an insult to the cast of the show.... Murtha is not smart enough not to get caught. If he were not a politician being protected by his Washington cronies and was in the mob, he'd either be behind bars or "swimming with the fishies".

    MURTHA UPDATED: The freshmen defense

    U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the “Freshmen 23,” a group that vowed last week to toughen House ethics only to collapse when given their first chance to enforce those rules against a fellow Democrat.

    U.S. Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY20, defended her vote to kill a House reprimand of U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha, telling the Albany Times Union late yesterday that “the resolution essentially convicted Murtha without due process.”

    Gillibrand failed to note that her vote actually prevented the House of Representatives from even debating the measure. Under House Rules, a privileged resolution could be debated for at least one hour, allowing both Democrats and Republicans to make such arguments on the House floor.

    She also failed to note that Murtha has not denied the exchange, which would have placed him in violation of House Rules. Those rules state that a Member “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark…on any vote cast by another Member.”


    Murtha is reported to have vowed to remove any Congressional earmarks sponsored by U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, R-MI, after Rogers opposed a controversial $23 million earmark for Murtha’s district. It was Murtha's second such reported threat in just the past few weeks.

    Gillibrand was one of 23 House freshmen who conducted a whirlwind of media activities last week, promising to toughen House ethics rules.

    "This class was elected on a reform message," Gillibrand said on May 20. "This is something that really weighs on us. There's a sense that the new members have an opportunity to make a difference. They want to go and clean up the place."

    In 2006, Gillibrand received $2,000 from Murtha’s political action committee.

    Gillibrand’s argument contradicts that of fellow Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregen, who said in a statement he believed the measure “deserved debate.” Blumenauer voted against Democrat leadership.

    “If former Republican House leader Tom DeLay of Texas had been accused of threatening a Democrat on the House floor," the Associated Press reported Blumenauer saying, "I would expect the same."
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #26
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,698

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Who is Afraid of Debate?

    May 23rd, 2007 - As the Senate debates the massive in scope immigration reform bill, a disturbing fact is emerging: Senators may be blocked from offering critical amendments to improve this flawed bill.

    Yesterday on the Senate floor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the following to say about the amendment process on this bill:

    The only thing I will announce--I told both managers and I think Senator McConnell agrees with this, and if not, it is something we need to do for an orderly process here--is that we do an amendment at a time. The last time on this bill, we wound up with 30, 40 amendments pending. I am saying we are not going to do that this time.

    Translation: “This year when we debate the immigration bill, leadership will allow far less amendments than 30.”

    According to early reports circulating around the Senate, it looks like the number will be around 20. That means each side gets 10 chances to amend this bill. It also means that the fiercest critics of this bill on the left and right will be given very limited opportunity to amend the bill because their leadership may reserve at least half of the 10 amendments for the bill’s supporters. That leaves conservative critics with less than a handful of amendments.

    Let's remember that when this bill was first announced the supporters of it hid the ball. They did not release language and they said they wanted an expedited vote in a hurried fashion. Now they have agreed to allow one more week before a vote, but they are sitting on the ball running the clock out on debate.

    This is not the way the Senate should work. On a bill of this magnitude, we owe it to the American people to have a full debate.
    $2.5 trillion bill, but no time to talk it over.

  12. #27
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    $2.5 trillion bill, but no time to talk it over.
    OBEY!!
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #28
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Celebrating Memorial Day with Ethics Failures

    Celebrating Memorial Day with Ethics Failures

    Congressional Democrats approach the Memorial Day recess without a single piece of major legislation that they campaigned on signed into law. Few have been sent to the president at all. And in the last week before the holiday, House Democrats have voted to block a reprimand of John Murtha for threatening another Member in violation of House rules, and ignored a report that the Intelligence Committee violated earmark rules to the benefit of Murtha. And the scary thing is, that may be the GOOD news for House Democrats this week.

    That's because besides disappointing their base by finally conceding to fund the Iraq war, it appears that House Democrats may delay action on ethics reform legislation (already pretty weak) indefinitely:

    A Democratic House aide confirmed leadership discussions about whether to postpone votes on the reform package until after the upcoming weeklong break. The aide said a fluid situation made it difficult to determine exactly when, if at all, leaders would pull the plug on action this week.

    House Democrats already are playing defense on the ethics front this week. Republicans have charged Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) with violating House rules for threatening another lawmaker’s earmarks. A GOP motion to reprimand him was tabled Tuesday evening on a largely party-line vote...

    Boyd said objections to the measure aren’t contained to a couple of corners of the caucus. Instead, he said, Members from different backgrounds who share long histories of honest service under existing rules are raising hackles. To say leaders have their work cut for them, he said, “would be an understatement...”

    Outside reform groups said they are ready to ring the alarm if lawmakers leave town without wrapping work on the package. “If this gets dragged past Memorial Day, we’re in a world of hurt,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.

    She framed a stark choice for House Democrats. “My question to them if they’re unhappy with the current bill is, ‘Do you think you’ll be happier in the minority?’”
    For their ethical shortcomings, Democrats have been criticized by the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, and apart from being unable to adopt and apply new ethics rules, Democrats are being hit -- by CNN -- for the lavish junkets that they are now taking with taxpayer money:

    If the Memorial Day recess is an appropriate time to judge the effectiveness of the new Congress, Democrats cannot be pleased with how they're likely to be judged.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #29
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    “The most ethical congress in history”




    House Defeats Bid to Reprimand Murtha


    WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

    Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.

    The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion to reprimand Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Iraq war foe and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

    Two Democrats - Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee - voted against killing the motion. One Republican - Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania - voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand.

    Murtha, known for his bluff manner and fondness of pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark - a targeted spending item - for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district.

    In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, "you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha's threat violated congressional ethics rules.

    In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules. "It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.

    Still, several Democrats said some party members found it distasteful to vote to protect Murtha.

    When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. Members seeking earmarks would have to identify themselves and their intentions in time for staffers to review the items, leaders said.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #30
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,355

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Democrats Fail on Earmark Reform


    by Phil Kerpen
    Posted: 05/24/2007
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20856

    When Democrats announced a moratorium on earmarks and a promise to pass meaningful reform in the aftermath of their election victory I was cautiously optimistic and praised that announcement. The question then, as I wrote here on H.E., was whether they would follow through on their promises to voters and enact real reforms for the fiscal 2008 appropriations process. Well the results are in and the Democratic majority has failed the test badly. Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee David Obey announced yesterday that the House will keep all of its earmarks secret through the initial passage of the appropriations bills, adding them in only at the last minute in conference committees, where they will not be subject to public scrutiny, debate, or floor amendment.

    Conference committees are supposed to be for reconciling differences between House and Senate versions of legislation. Earmarks conjured out of nowhere in conference have long been identified as one of the most abusive earmarking practices. By the time a bill emerges from conference the more contentious points have usually been settled, often after a long drawn out process, and the bills are likely to be enacted. It is often a scramble against time to meet the end of the fiscal year or the expiration of a continuing resolution. Adding earmarks at that stage virtually guarantees that indefensible projects will be funded because they will escape any meaningful public review or congressional debate.

    Adding earmarks in conference reports is also a violation of the standing rules of both the House and Senate. The relevant House rule (rule XXII, paragraph 9) says: “Moreover, a conference report may not include matter not committed to the conference committee by either House.” The relevant Senate rule (rule XXVIII, paragraph 2) says: “Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.”

    When these rules were broken by Republican majorities, Democrats correctly called foul. In fact, last year the Democrats denounced the Republican earmark reform bill for its failure to definitively end the practice. The Democrat alternative last year, an amendment sponsored by Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.), caucus chair and architect of the new majority, would have prohibited “the inclusion of earmarks and other provisions in conference reports without the language having first been in either the House or Senate legislation’s original language.”

    Not only are Democrats now refusing to specifically prohibit the practice, but Chairman Obey is using the conference committee method to block transparency of all House earmarks. Far from setting a new standard of openness and ethics, the Democrats, are now setting a new low for public accountability with respect to earmarking, disregarding their campaign promises as well as the rules of the Congress.

    Organizations like Americans for Prosperity are most effective when we can point to outrageous earmarks to get the public engaged and energized, as our success in bringing together thousands of activists for limited government on the Ending Earmarks Express tour last year demonstrated. By keeping the entire earmark process a secret until the last minute, the new House process will make it impossible for activists, groups and ordinary citizens to weigh in against even the most egregious wastes of their tax dollars until it’s too late.

    Obey’s new process, played out in secret until conference reports are made available, will privilege insider special interests and advocates of big government at the expense of ordinary citizens. For the sake of fiscal responsibility, Obey must be pressured by fiscally responsible members of his caucus, including Rep. Emanuel, if his proposal last year was sincere, to reconsider and make the earmarking process open and accountable. If Obey insists on moving all of the House earmarks through the backdoor of conference committees, then fiscally conservative voters may make the Democrats' time in the majority short-lived.

    Mr. Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity. His website is PhilKerpen.com.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •