Reference only: Accomplishments of the 110th (democratic) Congress

AF A-10's picture

Strengthening American Competitiveness

Congress, under Democratic leadership, passed forward-thinking legislation to help ensure America’s competitive advantage in science, research, and technology. S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, increases the nation’s investment in basic and innovative research; strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school; and develops the infrastructure needed to enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States. A true example of bipartisanship, the bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and is a response to concerns by industry leaders that America’s role as a leader in the technological and scientific fields was slipping. The bill takes significant steps toward securing our competitive edge in the future.

See the DPC Legislative Bulletin entitled, S. 761, the America Competes Act, for more information on this legislation.

Transparency, Accountability, and Ethics in Washington

Senate Democrats passed comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform. Americans have sent a clear message that unethical and illegal behavior in government will no longer be tolerated. Democrats responded by making ethics reform their first priority in the 110th Congress. In January, the Senate passed S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which would strengthen internal Senate rules regarding gifts and travel, slow the “revolving door” for former Senators and staff, expand lobbying disclosure requirements, establish a study commission on ethics and lobbying, prohibit pensions for Members of Congress convicted of certain crimes, and implement reform procedures relating to earmarks and conference reports. This legislation represents the toughest, most sweeping ethics reform in a generation.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Senate Democrats Passed the Toughest, Most Sweeping Ethics Reform in a Generation, for more information on this legislation.

The Senate passed bipartisan legislation to restore checks and balances to the appointment process for United States Attorneys and safeguard the integrity of our justice system. The recent probe into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for allegedly political reasons has revealed incompetent, at best, and illegal, at worst, action by officials at the highest levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. The Bush Administration has called into question the independence of U.S. Attorneys across the nation and, in so doing, heightened concerns about the overall politicization of the Justice Department, especially the Civil Rights Division. House and Senate Democrats are committed to continuing the full investigation into the firings, and into the broader issue of political influence on justice decisions, and to ensuring proper checks and balances in the selection of future U.S. Attorneys.

In March, the Senate passed S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, which ensures the Senate’s role in the placement of U.S. Attorneys. Under a provision that was slipped into the USA Patriot Act reauthorization in 2006, the appointment process for U.S. Attorneys was altered so that the Attorney General could appoint “interim” U.S. Attorneys indefinitely – thus completely avoiding the Senate confirmation process. S. 214 would restore the process that existed for 20 years prior to the 2006 change and would require an interim appointment made by the Attorney General to expire after 120 days or when a permanent U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. After the 120 days, if a successor is not in place, the U.S. District Court would then appoint the U.S. Attorney. Returning to this effective, proven process will ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place for the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. The effectiveness and legitimacy of the federal justice system depends upon it.

See the DPC Legislative Bulletin entitled, S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, for more information on this legislation.

Better Pay for Working Americans

Democrats sought better pay for working Americans by passing legislation to raise the federal minimum wage. In February, after a ten year battle, Congress passed H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The bill, which would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour in three steps over two years, would benefit 13 million workers -- 260,000 of whom are AAPIs -- and help reverse years of wage stagnation without harming the economy. Nearly 59 percent of those who would benefit directly or indirectly are women, and 46 percent are their family’s sole breadwinner. Moreover, the raise would help well-over six million children under the age of 18 whose parents would receive an increase in earnings.

The raise of $2.10/hour would help many of the approximately 37 million (or 12.6 percent) Americans who live below the poverty line by adding nearly $4,200 to a full-time, year round minimum wage worker’s income. In some areas of the country, this additional money would be enough for a low-income family of three to cover months of groceries, utilities, or rent or nearly two years of child care or college tuition at a public two-year college. When combined with the Earned Income Tax Credit and assistance programs, the additional income would lift a family of four over the poverty line, even after payroll taxes. While more needs to be done, raising the federal minimum wage is an important step toward economic security for working Americans.

As the House and Senate continue to work to clear an increase in the federal minimum wage bill for the President’s signature, the nation can be assured that Democrats are dedicated to giving workers their long overdue raise.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Senate Democrats Voted to Move the Country in A New Direction, Towards Better Pay, for more information on this legislation.

Better Health Care, Educational Opportunities, and Economic Assistance for Working Families

Senate Democrats led the way toward creating a stronger Food and Drug Administration (FDA), establishing a new and better direction for the safety of the drugs we take and the food we eat. In May, the Senate passed S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act, which would greatly improve the FDA’s oversight of drug safety. The measure ensures that the FDA will no longer have to wait on legal opinions before making critical public health decisions. The bill also addresses misleading prescription drug ads by providing a constitutionally sound, effective, workable way to ensure that ads targeting consumers contain accurate information about the drug. S. 1082 will further end the abuse of so-called “citizen petitions,” while preserving the FDA’s ability to review any such petitions that have public health merit.

In this new era of the life sciences, Democrats have no doubt that medical advances will continue to bring immense benefits for our citizens. Thus, we are working to ensure that we have strong, vigilant public health watchdogs to guarantee that new drugs and medical devices are safe and beneficial, and that they actually reach the patients who urgently need them.

See the background and summary section of the DPC Legislative Bulletin entitled, S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act, for more information on this legislation.

The Senate-passed 2008 Budget Resolution would improve children’s health care coverage and combat our nation’s health care crisis. More than 11 percent (or 8.3 million) of American children do not have health insurance. These statistics are worse for children of color: a staggering 21.9 percent of Hispanic children, 12.5 percent of Black children, and 12.2 percent of Asian children are uninsured. Programs like SCHIP are working to reduce this percentage by insuring low-income children who do not qualify for Medicaid but whose families cannot afford private insurance. Nonetheless, the President and a number of Congressional Republicans have called on Congress to ratchet back SCHIP coverage to limit coverage to children in families earning no more than twice the federal poverty level.

The President has also called for a reduction in the federal matching rate for children in families with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and for SCHIP-covered adults, the large majority of whom are working-poor parents of children enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. If adopted, the President’s proposals would not only fail to make any headway towards covering the nation’s nine million uninsured children (11 percent), but his approach would also effectively cut off health coverage for 1.6 million children and low-income adults.

At a time when the number of uninsured has reached approximately 45 million people, Congress should be working to expand health coverage, not causing individuals to lose the coverage they currently have. That is why a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected the inadequate funding for SCHIP proposed by the President. S. Con. Res. 21*, the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Resolution, as passed in the Senate, would provide up to $50 billion for SCHIP over five years to provide coverage to the estimated six million children eligible but not enrolled in either SCHIP or Medicaid, and to maintain coverage for all currently-enrolled individuals.

Further, to address this year’s shortfalls, which would leave 14 states without money to provide full SCHIP coverage, Congress included $650 million in funding to SCHIP in H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (2007 Emergency Supplemental). Though this bill was vetoed by the President, it is expected that SCHIP will eventually receive the funds needed to address this year’s short falls. The health of our nation’s children depends on it.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Improving Health Coverage for Children is America's Top Health Priority, as well as the Debating SCHIP Reauthorization: Setting the Record Straight for more information on this issue.

Congressional Democrats have taken steps to increase funding for other education and training programs. The Senate-passed 2008 Budget Resolution provided for an increase in discretionary spending for education and training programs of $9.3 billion above President Bush’s 2008 Budget Request. From the crib to the university, Democrats will invest in key education programs, including Head Start, Pell Grants, and programs authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind Act. The Senate’s budget also rejected the President’s proposal to cut funding for critical education, employment, and job training programs in the Department of Labor.

Democrats have once again invested in energy assistance programs for low income families. Since 2001, home heating costs have increased by 59 percent, and the price of electricity to cool homes in the summer has increased by 29 percent. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental provides $640 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps American families by assisting them with home heating and cooling costs.

Homeland Security

Senate Democrats led the way toward implementing key 9/11 Commission recommendations. Senate Democrats’ first priority is to protect our nation from further terrorist attack. After years of inadequate action on critical homeland security needs, the Senate passed S. 4, the Improving America’s Security Act of 2007. This bill will make America more secure by giving our first responders the tools they need to keep us safe, making it more difficult for potential terrorists to travel into our country; advancing efforts to secure our rail, air, and mass transit systems; and improving intelligence and information sharing between state, local, and federal law enforcement.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Democrats' New Direction for Homeland Security Will Make America More Secure, for more information on this legislation.

Congress provided emergency funds that would have addressed National Guard equipment shortfalls. In March, Congress passed H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (2007 Emergency Supplemental), which would have provided an additional $1 billion to President Bush’s request for National Guard equipment needs. In January, General Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified that 88 percent of Guard units are rated as unready (a historic high) and the Army National Guard has only 40 percent of its necessary equipment stock. General Blum warned that these shortfalls are compromising the quality of force training and limiting the Guard’s ability to quickly respond to disasters at home. Nonetheless, President Bush chose to veto H.R. 1591 and, in doing so, rejected increased funding for the National Guard and compromised the nation’s ability to respond to natural and man-made disasters.

Just this month, equipment shortages impeded the National Guard’s ability to respond to the devastating tornado that destroyed the town of Greensburg, KS, on May 4, 2007. The New York Times reported that, “For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.”

If not clear before, it should be absolutely clear now that adequately funding the National Guard is vital to the security and safety of our nation.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Overstretched and Under Strain: Bush Administration Mismanagement of Our Military Leaves Us Less Capable of Responding to Threats at Home and Around the World, for more information on this issue.

Democrats passed legislation to better secure American borders and transit systems. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental would have also provided $2.25 billion in funding necessary to address dangerous border and transit vulnerabilities left open by the Bush Administration since 9/11. This allocation included hundreds of millions of dollars to protect American rail and mass transportation systems, install Explosive Detection Systems at airports, screen air cargo, and implement security measures at our nation’s ports.

Supporting, Honoring, and Caring for Our Troops and Veterans

Democrats provided funds to support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 2007 Emergency Supplemental, Democrats exceeded the President’s funding requests for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes funding to support the 140,000 troops deployed in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan and funds for the escalation force of 21,000 combat troops and 4,729 support personnel in Iraq and 7,200 troops in Afghanistan.

Democrats also added funding to protect our troops against improvised explosive devices. In addition to the President’s funding request, the 2007 Emergency Supplemental included $1.2 billion in additional funding to provide our troops in Iraq with mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), vehicles that military commanders believe could reduce U.S. casualties by two-thirds compared to armored Humvees. If the bill had been signed by the President, these emergency funds would have ensured that more than 2,000 MRAPs reached our troops by the end of this year.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Overstretched and Under Strain: Bush Administration Mismanagement of Our Military Leaves Us Less Capable of Responding to Threats at Home and Around the World, for more information on this issue.

Democrats boosted funding to treat wounded soldiers. The neglect and mismanagement discovered at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center has highlighted the Bush Administration’s lack of focus on the well-being of our nation’s veterans and servicemembers. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental would have provided $3.3 billion in funds for military health care, which is $2.1 billion above the amount the President requested. In addition to investing in military hospital improvements, the supplemental bill would have also allocated $900 million for brain trauma injury and post-traumatic stress disorder treatment and research.

Democrats are also committed to investing in the resources needed to care for our veterans. One of the best ways to honor America’s more than 24 million veterans for their service and sacrifice in past and current conflicts is by providing them with high-quality, comprehensive care once they return home. In both the 2007 Emergency Supplemental and the Senate-passed 2008 Budget Resolution, Congress increased funding for veterans health programs.

The 2007 Emergency Supplemental would have allocated nearly $1.8 billion in funds to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA), not requested by the President, to accommodate the increasing number of new veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, improve metal health and readjustment counseling services, and fund new polytrauma centers for the severally injured.

The Senate’s 2008 Budget Resolution allocated $43.1 billion for veterans in 2008, which is more than $3 billion above the President’s request. This represents 98 percent of the level requested in the Independent Budget, a plan developed by four leading veterans groups. The resolution also rejected the President’s proposal to increase TRICARE co-payments and to impose new fees and higher co-payments on certain veterans, which, according to VA estimates, would result in more than 100,000 veterans leaving the VA health care system.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Pattern of Neglect: The Bush Administration is Failing Our Troops and Veterans, for more information on this issue.

A Much-Needed New Strategy for Iraq

Democrats demand a change of course in Iraq. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental, sent to the President on May 1, called for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, in conjunction with concerted efforts to train and equip the Iraqi security forces and to build regional and international support for the Iraqi government. The legislation directed the President, within 120 days of enactment, to begin to redeploy troops from Iraq, with a goal of having only a limited number of troops remaining in the country on March 31, 2008. With this provision, Democrats demanded a change in policy in Iraq that would transition the mission of U.S. forces and advance a new comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and political strategy to bring stability to the country and bring to a close the United States’s open-ended commitment in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President, with many Congressional Republicans at his side, chose to veto this legislation, against the advice of many military experts and the will of the American people.

As Congress and the White House finish the Emergency Supplemental bill, Democrats will remain committed to the goals of fully funding our troops and changing course in Iraq. With a growing bipartisan consensus for change, we are committed to forging a new direction in Iraq that will bring this war to a responsible end and allow the United States to refocus much-needed resources on hunting down Osama bin Laden, countering the threat posed by al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist networks, and addressing other critical issues both at home and abroad.

Protecting Middle-Class Taxpayers

Democrats are also working to eliminate unfair tax burdens on middle-class Americans. Skyrocketing health care, education, housing, and gas costs have placed middle-class families in a tight economic squeeze. Making matters worse, more and more of these families are being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally intended for the super-wealthy to ensure they paid a minimum tax. The 2008 Budget Resolution, as passed in the Senate, would protect middle-class taxpayers by providing AMT relief for 2007 and 2008 – one year more than the President – and prevent millions of middle-class taxpayers from being subjected to the tax.

The budget passed by Senate Democrats would provide tax relief for working Americans. The Budget Resolution anticipates legislation to:

· extend the child tax credit so that it will remain at $1,000 per child;

· extend relief from the marriage penalty;

· enhance the dependent care credit to help families deal with the high cost of raising children; and

· strengthen the adoption credit so that would-be parents can afford adoption costs.

Senate Democrats recognize the burdens placed on middle-class families and remain dedicated to providing tax relief to these hard-working families.

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Middle-Class Life Under Bush: Less Affordable and Less Secure, for more information on this issue.

Energy Independence and Environmental Protection

The Democratic-led Senate has rejected funding cuts to energy and environment programs. Democrats took a first step toward a national energy policy that promotes energy independence, protects the environment, and confronts global climate change by increasing funding for energy and environment programs in Fiscal Year 2007. H. J. Res. 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, increased funding for basic science research at the Department of Energy by $200 million and for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $300 million. Efficiency and conservation are the cheapest and fastest ways to reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

In the 2008 Budget Resolution, Senate Democrats sought to increase funding for energy and environmental programs, which have sustained dramatic cuts during the Bush Administration. Among many other cuts, the Bush Administration reduced funding for clean water, public lands, oceans, climate research, energy efficiency and conservation, and energy cost assistance for low-income Americans. While the Administration has cut these important programs, the President, in his 2008 Budget Request, failed to repeal lucrative subsidies for oil and gas companies.

See DPC Fact Sheet entitled, President Bush's Budget Cuts Environmental, Natural Resource and Energy Independence Programs, for more information on this issue.

Improving Water Infrastructure and Reforming the

Corps of Engineers

The Democratic-led Senate passed important, bipartisan legislation to improve water infrastructure. For seven years, communities have been waiting to shore up their infrastructure needs—many of them vital to protecting families and homes from catastrophic flooding. This month, Democrats worked with Republicans to authorize the projects and programs of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers through H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. The Corps constructs projects for flood damage reduction, navigation, ecosystem restoration, recreation, hydroelectric power, water supply, aquatic plant control, and hurricane and storm damage reduction.

Congress has not authorized the activities and projects of the Army Corps of Engineers since 2000. Corps reform provisions in the bill include updates in the Corps’ planning process, the water resources planning coordinating committee, independent peer review, and improvements to the Corps’ mitigation program. These provisions will help ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers does its job more effectively and soundly, and require, in many cases, an extra pair of expert eyes on its projects. H.R. 1495 also authorizes the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration program to reverse wetland losses and provide hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits to areas devastated by the hurricanes of 2005.

Advancing Stem Cell Research

Democrats are committed to expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have the unique ability to develop into virtually every cell and tissue in the body, and this research is giving hope to millions of people with debilitating diseases and disabilities who may one day benefit from embryonic stem cell therapies. Scientists report that the restrictions President Bush has imposed on the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally-funded research is hindering progress. Last year, the President vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have expanded the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally-funded research.

Undeterred, the Senate again passed legislation to expand the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally-funded research. S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, directs the Health and Human Services Secretary to conduct and support embryonic stem cell research, regardless of when the stem cells were derived, provided that: 1) the stem cells were derived from embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for fertility treatment, and are in excess of what was needed for those treatments; 2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and 3) the individuals who donated embryos have provided their written informed consent and have not received any financial or other inducements for making the donation.

S. 5 has the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans, as well as major medical and scientific associations, research universities and institutions, and dozens of patient advocacy organizations. The House has passed similar legislation. As the House and Senate work to get this bill out of conference, Democrats, many Republicans, and the American people have called on President Bush to not veto the legislation when it comes to his desk, which would only serve to tie the hands of scientists and hinder future medical advances.

See DPC Fact Sheet entitled, NIH Director Agrees that Federally Funded Scientists Should Have Access to New Embryonic Stem Cell Lines, for more information on this issue.

Rebuilding the Gulf Coast

Democrats are committed to investing in and rebuilding the Gulf Coast region. More than a year and a half after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast, much of the region’s economy, infrastructure, and housing remains devastated. Failures of the insurance industry, increased crime, and the breakdown of many social services have made it even more difficult for long-time residents to return to and rebuild their homes and lives. The situation has caused many to wonder whether the Bush Administration has forgotten about the Gulf Coast. Democrats, however, are committed to ensuring that the Gulf Coast receives the necessary funds to continue the recovery effort. In the 2007 Emergency Supplemental, Congress provided a total of $6.7 billion for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including $1.7 billion to complete levee and drainage repairs, $70 million to reduce violent crime in Gulf Coast states, and $115 million to repair the seafood and fisheries industries, which is vital to the region’s economic recovery. Though the President vetoed the bill, Democrats are committed to securing these emergency funds for the Gulf Coast rebuilding effort.

* When referencing the 2008 Budget Resolution, this document refers to the resolution as passed in the Senate on March 23, 2007. An updated version of this document will be released to reflect the conference report.

AF A-10's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Paul Perkins's picture
Submitted by Paul Perkins on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 12:31pm.

Let me grab just one point per post for debating purposes

Scientists report that the restrictions President Bush has imposed on the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally-funded research is hindering progress.

The vast majority of private research funding is going to the adult stem cell researchers as they have produced (presently) all the 75+ cures now in testing. Thus,the ESCR crowd has to fight hard for gov't funding - it's all they have.

There is only one entity that will continue to throw billions at a technology producing (thus far) zero return on investment!

First two guess don't count--it's the US government.

This is the way to blog!


Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:03pm.

Reference only: Accomplishments of the 110th (democratic) Congress

Strengthening American Competitiveness
Congress, under Democratic leadership, passed forward-thinking legislation to help ensure America’s competitive advantage in science, research, and technology. S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, increases the nation’s investment in basic and innovative research; strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school; and develops the infrastructure needed to enhance innovation and competitiveness in the United States. A true example of bipartisanship, the bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and is a response to concerns by industry leaders that America’s role as a leader in the technological and scientific fields was slipping. The bill takes significant steps toward securing our competitive edge in the future.
This is a huge spending bill, where a lot of the money will go into government schools that can’t even teach Johnny how to read and write. Republicans know well enough that just throwing a bunch of money at something isn’t going to inspire innovation. If you really want to bring innovation back to the U.S. and to the youth of America, reduce taxes on business so that they don’t have to go overseas for cheaper labor and stop throwing good money at our worthless government schools. Students should be given the opportunity to go to the best schools through a voucher system, but Democrats won’t allow it because the are beholden to the largest union organization in the country – the NEA.

Transparency, Accountability, and Ethics in Washington
Senate Democrats passed comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform. Americans have sent a clear message that unethical and illegal behavior in government will no longer be tolerated. Democrats responded by making ethics reform their first priority in the 110th Congress. In January, the Senate passed S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which would strengthen internal Senate rules regarding gifts and travel, slow the “revolving door” for former Senators and staff, expand lobbying disclosure requirements, establish a study commission on ethics and lobbying, prohibit pensions for Members of Congress convicted of certain crimes, and implement reform procedures relating to earmarks and conference reports. This legislation represents the toughest, most sweeping ethics reform in a generation.

Democrat leadership worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.
Key changes include:
• The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
• The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
• The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
• The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.
There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in the new ethics bill, but upon a close look its obvious that earmark transparency reforms have been eviscerated. Senator Reid has given himself and a few committee chairmen the authority to determine whether congressional earmarks have been properly disclosed to the public. Under this bill, the American people would be forced to trust Senator Reid and Senator Byrd – two of the biggest earmarkers in the Senate – to certify earmark disclosure. This bill allows the fox to guard the henhouse and makes a joke of ethics reform.
Rather than opening the secret chambers of government to the public, this new Congress has opted to change the locks. This bill, which was negotiated in secret, guts key earmark reforms that both houses of Congress approved overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, this process shows that Congress’s 19 percent approval rating is well-deserved.
Hitlary hired Sandy “Pants” Berger on her team, and Democrats have the gall to talk about ethics? Nice try, Warthog.

The Senate passed bipartisan legislation to restore checks and balances to the appointment process for United States Attorneys and safeguard the integrity of our justice system. The recent probe into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for allegedly political reasons has revealed incompetent, at best, and illegal, at worst, action by officials at the highest levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. The Bush Administration has called into question the independence of U.S. Attorneys across the nation and, in so doing, heightened concerns about the overall politicization of the Justice Department, especially the Civil Rights Division. House and Senate Democrats are committed to continuing the full investigation into the firings, and into the broader issue of political influence on justice decisions, and to ensuring proper checks and balances in the selection of future U.S. Attorneys.
In March, the Senate passed S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, which ensures the Senate’s role in the placement of U.S. Attorneys. Under a provision that was slipped into the USA Patriot Act reauthorization in 2006, the appointment process for U.S. Attorneys was altered so that the Attorney General could appoint “interim” U.S. Attorneys indefinitely – thus completely avoiding the Senate confirmation process. S. 214 would restore the process that existed for 20 years prior to the 2006 change and would require an interim appointment made by the Attorney General to expire after 120 days or when a permanent U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. After the 120 days, if a successor is not in place, the U.S. District Court would then appoint the U.S. Attorney. Returning to this effective, proven process will ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place for the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. The effectiveness and legitimacy of the federal justice system depends upon it.

Americans killed by Reno at Waco 80 Gonzales 0
Attorney’s fired by Reno: 93; Gonzales: 8

Reno vs. Gonzales

Better Pay for Working Americans
Democrats sought better pay for working Americans by passing legislation to raise the federal minimum wage. In February, after a ten year battle, Congress passed H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The bill, which would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour in three steps over two years, would benefit 13 million workers -- 260,000 of whom are AAPIs -- and help reverse years of wage stagnation without harming the economy. Nearly 59 percent of those who would benefit directly or indirectly are women, and 46 percent are their family’s sole breadwinner. Moreover, the raise would help well-over six million children under the age of 18 whose parents would receive an increase in earnings.
The raise of $2.10/hour would help many of the approximately 37 million (or 12.6 percent) Americans who live below the poverty line by adding nearly $4,200 to a full-time, year round minimum wage worker’s income. In some areas of the country, this additional money would be enough for a low-income family of three to cover months of groceries, utilities, or rent or nearly two years of child care or college tuition at a public two-year college. When combined with the Earned Income Tax Credit and assistance programs, the additional income would lift a family of four over the poverty line, even after payroll taxes. While more needs to be done, raising the federal minimum wage is an important step toward economic security for working Americans.
As the House and Senate continue to work to clear an increase in the federal minimum wage bill for the President’s signature, the nation can be assured that Democrats are dedicated to giving workers their long overdue raise.

Big whoop. It doesn’t solve a thing because companies will just increase the cost of goods or fire workers to pay for the increase. It actually will have a negative effect on the economy because people will spend less when the cost of goods and services increases. If people really want a raise, they should do better in school.

Better Health Care, Educational Opportunities, and Economic Assistance for Working Families

Another government program that takes money from the productive and gives it to the non-productive.

The Senate-passed 2008 Budget Resolution would improve children’s health care coverage and combat our nation’s health care crisis. More than 11 percent (or 8.3 million) of American children do not have health insurance. These statistics are worse for children of color: a staggering 21.9 percent of Hispanic children, 12.5 percent of Black children, and 12.2 percent of Asian children are uninsured. Programs like SCHIP are working to reduce this percentage by insuring low-income children who do not qualify for Medicaid but whose families cannot afford private insurance. Nonetheless, the President and a number of Congressional Republicans have called on Congress to ratchet back SCHIP coverage to limit coverage to children in families earning no more than twice the federal poverty level.
The President has also called for a reduction in the federal matching rate for children in families with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty line, and for SCHIP-covered adults, the large majority of whom are working-poor parents of children enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. If adopted, the President’s proposals would not only fail to make any headway towards covering the nation’s nine million uninsured children (11 percent), but his approach would also effectively cut off health coverage for 1.6 million children and low-income adults.

At a time when the number of uninsured has reached approximately 45 million people, Congress should be working to expand health coverage, not causing individuals to lose the coverage they currently have. That is why a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected the inadequate funding for SCHIP proposed by the President. S. Con. Res. 21*, the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Resolution, as passed in the Senate, would provide up to $50 billion for SCHIP over five years to provide coverage to the estimated six million children eligible but not enrolled in either SCHIP or Medicaid, and to maintain coverage for all currently-enrolled individuals.
Further, to address this year’s shortfalls, which would leave 14 states without money to provide full SCHIP coverage, Congress included $650 million in funding to SCHIP in H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (2007 Emergency Supplemental). Though this bill was vetoed by the President, it is expected that SCHIP will eventually receive the funds needed to address this year’s short falls. The health of our nation’s children depends on it.
See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Improving Health Coverage for Children is America's Top Health Priority, as well as the Debating SCHIP Reauthorization: Setting the Record Straight for more information on this issue.

Another government program – Where in the constitution is it written that we all have the right to free health care from the government? How many of the uninsured have parents that would rather spend money on crack and “rims” than on health care for their children. Government needs to stay out of this. It’s just more income re-distribution.

Congressional Democrats have taken steps to increase funding for other education and training programs. The Senate-passed 2008 Budget Resolution provided for an increase in discretionary spending for education and training programs of $9.3 billion above President Bush’s 2008 Budget Request. From the crib to the university, Democrats will invest in key education programs, including Head Start, Pell Grants, and programs authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind Act. The Senate’s budget also rejected the President’s proposal to cut funding for critical education, employment, and job training programs in the Department of Labor.
Yes, by all means, throw more money at government run schools. The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. It ain’t gonna happen. Parents – get your children out of government schools and start home-schooling them if you can’t afford private school. Anything but governments schools.
Case in point:

Students Suspended For Talking About Nooses

Democrats have once again invested in energy assistance programs for low income families. Since 2001, home heating costs have increased by 59 percent, and the price of electricity to cool homes in the summer has increased by 29 percent. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental provides $640 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps American families by assisting them with home heating and cooling costs.
More Socialistic Income Redistribution. Leave it to the Democrats to take money from the productive and give it to the non-productive.
Homeland Security
Senate Democrats led the way toward implementing key 9/11 Commission recommendations. Senate Democrats’ first priority is to protect our nation from further terrorist attack. After years of inadequate action on critical homeland security needs, the Senate passed S. 4, the Improving America’s Security Act of 2007. This bill will make America more secure by giving our first responders the tools they need to keep us safe, making it more difficult for potential terrorists to travel into our country; advancing efforts to secure our rail, air, and mass transit systems; and improving intelligence and information sharing between state, local, and federal law enforcement.

a href="http://www.borderfenceproject.com/">What about the fence?

See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Democrats' New Direction for Homeland Security Will Make America More Secure, for more information on this legislation.
Congress provided emergency funds that would have addressed National Guard equipment shortfalls. In March, Congress passed H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (2007 Emergency Supplemental), which would have provided an additional $1 billion to President Bush’s request for National Guard equipment needs. In January, General Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified that 88 percent of Guard units are rated as unready (a historic high) and the Army National Guard has only 40 percent of its necessary equipment stock. General Blum warned that these shortfalls are compromising the quality of force training and limiting the Guard’s ability to quickly respond to disasters at home. Nonetheless, President Bush chose to veto H.R. 1591 and, in doing so, rejected increased funding for the National Guard and compromised the nation’s ability to respond to natural and man-made disasters.
Just this month, equipment shortages impeded the National Guard’s ability to respond to the devastating tornado that destroyed the town of Greensburg, KS, on May 4, 2007. The New York Times reported that, “For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.”
If not clear before, it should be absolutely clear now that adequately funding the National Guard is vital to the security and safety of our nation.
See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Overstretched and Under Strain: Bush Administration Mismanagement of Our Military Leaves Us Less Capable of Responding to Threats at Home and Around the World, for more information on this issue.
The Clinton Army
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/223653.shtml
Maybe if Slick Willie would have had more on his mind than when Monica Lewinsky, then 9/11 might not have happened. Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter, but he wouldn’t take him.
Democrats passed legislation to better secure American borders and transit systems. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental would have also provided $2.25 billion in funding necessary to address dangerous border and transit vulnerabilities left open by the Bush Administration since 9/11. This allocation included hundreds of millions of dollars to protect American rail and mass transportation systems, install Explosive Detection Systems at airports, screen air cargo, and implement security measures at our nation’s ports.
Democrats demand a change of course in Iraq. The 2007 Emergency Supplemental, sent to the President on May 1, called for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, (“Surrender”, in Democratese) in conjunction with concerted efforts to train and equip the Iraqi security forces and to build regional and international support for the Iraqi government. The legislation directed the President, within 120 days of enactment, to begin to redeploy troops from Iraq, (Surrender to the enemy) with a goal of having only a limited number of troops remaining in the country on March 31, 2008. With this provision, Democrats demanded a change in policy in Iraq that would transition the mission of U.S. forces and advance a new comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and political strategy to bring stability to the country and bring to a close the United States’s open-ended commitment in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President, with many Congressional Republicans at his side, chose to veto this legislation, against the advice of many military experts and the will of the American people.
As Congress and the White House finish the Emergency Supplemental bill, Democrats will remain committed to the goals of fully funding our troops and changing course in Iraq. With a growing bipartisan consensus for change, we are committed to forging a new direction in Iraq that will bring this war to a responsible end and allow the United States to refocus much-needed resources on hunting down Osama bin Laden, countering the threat posed by al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist networks, and addressing other critical issues both at home and abroad.
Protecting Middle-Class Taxpayers
Democrats are also working to eliminate unfair tax burdens on middle-class Americans. Skyrocketing health care, education, housing, and gas costs have placed middle-class families in a tight economic squeeze. Making matters worse, more and more of these families are being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally intended for the super-wealthy to ensure they paid a minimum tax. The 2008 Budget Resolution, as passed in the Senate, would protect middle-class taxpayers by providing AMT relief for 2007 and 2008 – one year more than the President – and prevent millions of middle-class taxpayers from being subjected to the tax.
More Income Redistribution by Democrats – They like to spend other peoples money to buy votes. It should be illegal.
The budget passed by Senate Democrats would provide tax relief for working Americans. The Budget Resolution anticipates legislation to:
• extend the child tax credit so that it will remain at $1,000 per child;
• extend relief from the marriage penalty;
• enhance the dependent care credit to help families deal with the high cost of raising children; and
• strengthen the adoption credit so that would-be parents can afford adoption costs.
Senate Democrats recognize the burdens placed on middle-class families and remain dedicated to providing tax relief to these hard-working families.
See the DPC Fact Sheet entitled, Middle-Class Life Under Bush: Less Affordable and Less Secure, for more information on this issue.
Advancing Stem Cell Research
From the Democrat Abortion Party – Leave no aborted baby behind act
Democrats are committed to expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the unique ability to develop into virtually every cell and tissue in the body, and this research is giving hope to millions of people with debilitating diseases and disabilities who may one day benefit from embryonic stem cell therapies. Scientists report that the restrictions President Bush has imposed on the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally-funded research is hindering progress. Last year, the President vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have expanded the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally-funded research.
Undeterred, the Senate again passed legislation to expand the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally-funded research. S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, directs the Health and Human Services Secretary to conduct and support embryonic stem cell research, regardless of when the stem cells were derived, provided that: 1) the stem cells were derived from embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for fertility treatment, and are in excess of what was needed for those treatments; 2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and 3) the individuals who donated embryos have provided their written informed consent and have not received any financial or other inducements for making the donation.
S. 5 has the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans, (THAT IS A LIE) as well as major medical and scientific associations, research universities and institutions, and dozens of patient advocacy organizations. The House has passed similar legislation. As the House and Senate work to get this bill out of conference, Democrats, many Republicans, and the American people have called on President Bush to not veto the legislation when it comes to his desk, which would only serve to tie the hands of scientists and hinder future medical advances.
See DPC Fact Sheet entitled, NIH Director Agrees that Federally Funded Scientists Should Have Access to New Embryonic Stem Cell Lines, for more information on this issue.
Rebuilding the Gulf Coast
Democrats are committed to investing in and rebuilding the Gulf Coast region. More than a year and a half after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast, much of the region’s economy, infrastructure, and housing remains devastated. Failures of the insurance industry, increased crime, and the breakdown of many social services have made it even more difficult for long-time residents to return to and rebuild their homes and lives. The situation has caused many to wonder whether the Bush Administration has forgotten about the Gulf Coast. Democrats, however, are committed to ensuring that the Gulf Coast receives the necessary funds to continue the recovery effort. In the 2007 Emergency Supplemental, Congress provided a total of $6.7 billion for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including $1.7 billion to complete levee and drainage repairs, $70 million to reduce violent crime in Gulf Coast states, and $115 million to repair the seafood and fisheries industries, which is vital to the region’s economic recovery. Though the President vetoed the bill, Democrats are committed to securing these emergency funds for the Gulf Coast rebuilding effort.
It was the Democrat leadership and laziness in the region that failed these people – not the federal government!
* When referencing the 2008 Budget Resolution, this document refers to the resolution as passed in the Senate on March 23, 2007. An updated version of this document will be released to reflect the conference report.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:07pm.

For background, Robert Morgan and Maximus asked WHAT democrats have done this congress. If you want to debate WHY and IF they were good ideas, we are going to need alot of paper my friend.

I take it you don't like transparent govt? Would you rather the 9/11 commission recs not be implemented? You did like the funding of the National Guard, Border and Transit Security, IED resistent vehicle funding, Wounded soldier and VA fundings. So, see? The dems aren't all bad after all!

By the way, if you get a chance, I have some questions for you over on your blog about the anticlimatic Black march for social injustice or whatever it was.

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 10:03pm.

"For background, Robert Morgan and Maximus asked WHAT democrats have done this congress. If you want to debate WHY and IF they were good ideas, we are going to need alot of paper my friend."

Hack - What a bunch of nonsense and gobbledy-gook. I expect more from you than that kind of horsesh** for an answer. When Democrats do something, they usually have one hand in my pocket and it dam well better stop.

"By the way, if you get a chance, I have some questions for you over on your blog about the anticlimatic Black march for social injustice or whatever it was."

Didn't see any questions directed at me. Now if you would like to comment on all of the venom spouted from the Black "Leadership", feel welcome.

-------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to a bunch of idiots and morons that can do nothing but use the money of hard working Americans to buy votes’”

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 4:49pm.

I agree with you both that government (especially right now) costs us more than it should. Remember that with a republican majority and president, this government has grown 29% larger and outspent every administration before GWB COMBINED.

Beaver, as to your comments:

"When Democrats do something, they usually have one hand in my pocket and it dam well better stop."

I suggest you vote for every democrat you can. That is how we will end the tremendous and fruitless exercise in Iraq that is basically foreign welfare paid to Iraqq by you and I and every other taxpayer. It is also paid with the blood of our brave, and that isn't even taking into account the interest due on what we've financed. You cannot imagine how many programs we could fund RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA with the money we are using to build and rebuild in Iraq; to fly helicopters because the roads aren't safe enough; to fund and airlift 10 ton bomb-proof vehicles to keep our hosts from killing us with IEDs. I say let's start the budget cuts there, bro!

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by thebeaver on Wed, 11/28/2007 - 10:30pm.

The war and the cost of fighting it will end. Hillary's entitlement programs will last forever.

Keep taxes low. Vote Republican.
-----------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Thu, 11/29/2007 - 9:49am.

Believe me when I say I understand your concerns of a massive wave of entitlements becomming a mil stone around tax payer's necks. You know that such programs require the Senate and House to become laws and not just the president. But to the much greater point. You said,

"The war and the cost of fighting it will end."

Beaver, the cost of fighting this war ends when:

1) We have paid the national debt and its interest to countries like China who hold those notes and

2) When the last disabled veteran this war produces dies. We are producing many brain injured, PTSD effected, and physically disabled veterans from this conflict. The vast majority of these vets will need support for life, and they have earned that support. Blundering into Iran will cause many more. Again, the cost of Iraq interpolated into the future is above 1 trillion dollars. I can't think of one program a democrat will bring that can begin to approach that human and economic cost.

On a bright note, Mike Huckabee looked great last night. A blogger here complained he sounded too polished. You know what, I'll take that any day. I think his support of the Fair Tax is hollow, because that has less chance of passing than any other program being thrown about, but he's smart to know it will get him votes. He and Ron Paul are the two GOPers that I would be comfortable with as POTUS. Is there a dem you could live with?

ps: Hope you can make coffee friday the 30th. I'm posting a blog to all now.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 1:23am.

Hello Hack.

DUDE!!! What a long post! And some people say Ms. Conner posts long ones. Eye-wink I'll have to finish reading it next year. Smiling I'll cover it later but I'd just like to to talk about two things:

He and Ron Paul are the two GOPers that I would be comfortable with as POTUS.

I like Mike (uh oh...listening to too many commercials Smiling ) but I'm not 100% convinced he's fiscally conservative since he did raise some taxes in Arkansas. However, his support of the FairTax certainly is a plus. Socially he's right on the money WRT abortion and 2nd amendment rights. And he's funny! You got to watch this clip where he talks about GPS units and where to send Shrillary (uhh...excuse me, that's the Charter Member of the Right Wing Conspiracy part of me coming out Eye-wink ) Hillary.

I also like Dr. Paul for the simple reason because he truly believes in the Founding Fathers' vision of less government. Check out this clip of Sen. Thompson, Dr. Paul, and Governor Huckabee talking about cutting 3 programs. (Just as a sidenote, Thompson once again showed he's not very good IMHO by not giving a concrete answer.) Notice that Dr. Paul had no trouble in identifying two programs to cut -- Department of Education and Homeland "Security." I think we can both agree that the Department of Education does a poor job and control of schools should go back to local and state officials who know how to deal with the local problems better than some bureaucrat in DC. Also Dr. Paul wants to get rid of Homeland Security. Again, I think we can agree Bush created a disaster (again?) when he created that new department. It's just ineffective to put it nicely.

Huckabee came across strong too in wanting to abolish the IRS. I think somebody said last night we got problems when we fear an audit from the IRS more than other things. Smiling

Is there a dem you could live with?

In a word, NO! If you can show me ONE democrat that believes in less government, the sanctity of life, less regulation, less taxes then I will consider voting for him or her. Heh, I'll even make it easy for you -- show me a candidate that believes in just 2 of the 4 things above and I'd consider him. Right now, with all of its MANY flaws, the GOP is the only major party that offers (somewhat!) a contrast to the tax and spend, pro-death democrats.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 7:03am.

This post got a couple of chuckles out of me.

The GOP debate was much more entertaining than the dem's best debate could dream of being. The clip on Mars travel actually put Tencredo in a rare favorable light. In a serious debate on who will lead our nation, joking about putting Hillary on a rocket to Mars might gain you the GOP nomination, but it will be the shaped charge that blows your head off in the general election.

I apologized for this rare long blog above even before I posted the unwieldy beast. I was asked what, if anything, the dem lead congress has done. Alot of fluff, to be sure, but imagine what they could have done without the obstructing minority. Smiling

Here is where my biggest laughs came:

"In a word, NO! If you can show me ONE democrat that believes in less government, the sanctity of life, less regulation, less taxes then I will consider voting for him or her. Heh, I'll even make it easy for you -- show me a candidate that believes in just 2 of the 4"

Penta: If you allow politicians to convince you they will not collect revenue (tax) while they spend more money than ANY DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN before them; and you have no aprehension in your heart as the national debt and federal budget deficit soar, I guess the GOP is the place for you to cast your vote. I should try this at home. One month, I'll buy stuff and pay with cash as I go. If I spend a bit more, I'll work some OT to pay off the bills. The next month, I'll "say" I won't spend more money, although I will spend much more than the previous month. But I'll put the bills on credit cards and go, "look! My bank account is as high at the end of the month as it was at the beginning." And I just won't talk about the credit card bills or how to pay them. Does that work?

As to abortion: Why did the GOP not make it illegal between '98 and '06 when they had the congress? Because it's a largely lip service issue to get votes from pentapenguins.

Smaller govt? Are you kidding Penta? The two GOP candidates in your clip want to cut The Department of Homeland Security. And you know who created that department don't you? From the wire tapping we experience to our open internet transactions to the increased secrecy of this huge GOP created Federal govt, do you somehow blame that on democrats?

As for sanctity of life: War with Iran and the death penalty tend to end lives. Your sanctity of life claims may be more of a cover for opposing abortion only, but supporting many other scenarios that end lives. We could talk all day on this, but we are both comfortable in our skin with our opinions. Let's just see how the rest of America sees it. Hope you can make coffee!!

Kevin "Hack" King


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 11:46am.

Morning, Hack. I'll try to swing by around 1200 hours. Smiling

The clip on Mars travel actually put Tencredo in a rare favorable light.

Not really sure what you mean by that since Rep. Tancredo is pretty good when it comes to lower taxes, border security, etc.

joking about putting Hillary on a rocket to Mars might gain you the GOP nomination

I get what you are saying, but hey, it's not a bad thing to laugh a bit. Smiling

Penta: If you allow politicians to convince you they will not collect revenue (tax) while they spend more money than ANY DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN before them

Hack, you don't need to tell me this. Eye-wink This is exactly why I no longer consider myself a Republican because the party as a whole has almost no republican beliefs left. Bush is a disgrace to the term "fiscal conservative." I'll go so far as to say he's almost a RINO. Except for two (seemingly) good Supreme Court justices (well...I haven't forgotten the Harriet Myers scandal), initial good handling of the War on Islamic Fascism, and some pro-life legislation, he's been bad for this country. To loosely paraphrase Ronald Reagan, Bush spends money like a drunken sailor, except that's an insult to drunken sailors. Bush hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like. You dems are welcomed to claim him as yours if you want. Eye-wink

and you have no aprehension in your heart as the national debt and federal budget deficit soar

As parties as a whole, almost the only difference left between Republicrats and Demicans is this: Democrats are tax and spend, and Republicans are borrow and spend. BOTH are WRONG. It's simply choosing the lesser of two evils and IMHO borrowing and spending is less damaging to our current economy than taxing and spending. Sigh...except for a select few (Dr. Paul aka Dr. No for all his votes against waste and Tom Colburn) nobody in Congress wants to reduce spending and taxes.

I should try this at home. One month, I'll buy stuff and pay with cash as I go. If I spend a bit more, I'll work some OT to pay off the bills. The next month, I'll "say" I won't spend more money, although I will spend much more than the previous month. But I'll put the bills on credit cards and go, "look! My bank account is as high at the end of the month as it was at the beginning." And I just won't talk about the credit card bills or how to pay them. Does that work?

Nope, that's sound economic advice. People act like government is special -- no, they are not. They need to follow real world economic advice just like we do.

As to abortion: Why did the GOP not make it illegal between '98 and '06 when they had the congress? Because it's a largely lip service issue to get votes from pentapenguins.

Well Hack, I thought a guy of your intelligence would know they can't do that. Eye-wink Sadly, the Supreme Court has taken way too much power, so Congress just can't outright ban abortion. The only way to do that would be to reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton so that either Congress or the States could decide. Or pass a Constitutional Amendment to bypass the Courts directly. However, the Republican Congress and Bush have made a few good moves like the Laci Peterson bill that counts a murder of a pregnant woman on Federal property as two murders and the Partial Birth Abortion ban.

Trust me, NOBODY, and I mean, NOBODY panders to me. I can think for myself. Smiling

Smaller govt? Are you kidding Penta? The two GOP candidates in your clip want to cut The Department of Homeland Security. And you know who created that department don't you? From the wire tapping we experience to our open internet transactions to the increased secrecy of this huge GOP created Federal govt, do you somehow blame that on democrats?

Hack, I'm almost suspecting we unconsciously agree almost as much as we disagree. Eye-wink The PATRIOT Act is flat out unconstitutional and illegal. Warrantless searches are illegal. Detaining US Citizens for years is illegal. You won't get any argument from me that the Bush Administration has greatly chipped away at our liberties in certain areas. Good ole Ben Franklin said it best:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

I'm willing to bet that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves with the attacks on liberty and smaller government by the current administration.

As for sanctity of life: War with Iran and the death penalty tend to end lives. Your sanctity of life claims may be more of a cover for opposing abortion only, but supporting many other scenarios that end lives.

You're wrong on two points, Hack. 1) Nobody was forced to go into the military. Last time I checked there wasn't a draft. While we may (or may not -- I'm not getting into that now) disagree with Iraq, the soldiers over there are volunteers -- they choose to fight and possibly (and of course we hope and pray this doesn't happen!) die for their country. 2) While it hasn't been 100% perfect, the death penalty is good because it says that we as a society have a respect for life and heinous crimes will be punished. IF you have a deeply held religious belief against it, I can and do respect that. Hey, if I were president, I'd abolish the death penalty and send 'em up for hard labor in Alaska. Death is too nice for some of these dregs of society. Smiling See that's the difference -- soldiers volunteer and criminals are convicted by a jury of their peers with solid evidence. Care to explain how abortion is like that? The baby doesn't volunteer to be murdered. The baby doesn't have a jury condemn him or her to death. Big difference, my friend.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 3:15pm.

Pentapenguin,
you are correct that we agree on many things. You are a very likeable person and I appreciate you showing. Hopefully next time you bring some others wink, wink, with you. As for the comment on war killing people, you have a very common thought process. It is a uniquely American thought process that mainly (sometimes only) thinks of the American cost of a war in lives. Here's our exchange:

Me

"As for sanctity of life: War with Iran and the death penalty tend to end lives. Your sanctity of life claims may be more of a cover for opposing abortion only, but supporting many other scenarios that end lives."

You:

You're wrong on two points, Hack. 1) Nobody was forced to go into the military. Last time I checked there wasn't a draft. While we may (or may not -- I'm not getting into that now) disagree with Iraq, the soldiers over there are volunteers -- they choose to fight and possibly (and of course we hope and pray this doesn't happen!) die for their country."

Pentapenguin. If you are "pro life", certainly the lives of people in Iran and Iraq that have died count. People driving in their cars, sleeping in their homes, walking down the street. War kills all sorts of innocent people for many reasons. Recognizing this, it seems we would put more responsibility on our pro life candidates to weigh these facts in lieu of discretionary, pre-emptive wars that have a 100% chance of ending innocent lives. And Penta, whether someone volunteers for military service or not, their life should still be sacred, shouldn't it?

BPR: I am for the death penalty even though we have issues with it here in the USA. You are more likely to get the death penalty depending on your race and the race of your victim. Law and punishment should be color blind. There is also far too much of a financial burden on states with the myriad of death row appeal requirements. We need some type of salary caps in these cases (like the major leagues). I am also pro choice. I won't support laws that allow girls raped and impregnated to be murderers under the law. I would not consider use of the "day after" pill murder. Hope this clears some confusion. And BPR, no more absences at blogger coffee meetings. Capice?
Kevin "Hack" King


BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 9:55pm.

I would love to attend, had meetings and appointments today. When is the next one, so I can see if I can make it.

You would not be able to spot me out in a million years. Thanks for the invite.


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 4:21pm.

Hey nice meeting you too, Mr. King. Smiling

As for the comment on war killing people, you have a very common thought process. It is a uniquely American thought process that mainly (sometimes only) thinks of the American cost of a war in lives.

Nope, as having a (little) bit of knowledge on economics and history, I can see the full view (a little bit better I think than the average person) of what war does. Sherman had a good take on it (despite being one of those horrid Yankees Smiling ):

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is h**l [edited by me].

War may be necessary at times, but it is never good because there is always damage to lives and property. I fully realize this war has taken many Iraqi lives as well and has cost us taxpayers billions of dollars. I didn't think I needed to spell it out, but I do consider other things than simply the American lives lost.

If you are "pro life", certainly the lives of people in Iran and Iraq that have died count.

That bugs me when you use those quotes. Eye-wink Of course some innocent people died in Iraq. More than 3000 of my INNOCENT brother and sister Americans died on 9/11. War kills innocent people...there's no way around that. With that said, if the Iraqis and Iranians would take more control over their governments and get rid of the dictators themselves, then we wouldn't have to even consider doing it. If the people of Afghanistan didn't tolerate Al-Qaeda we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Believe it or not, I'm not for going to war for the least little thing. Benjamin Franklin (I love him!) said it well:

There never was a good war, or a bad peace.

And Penta, whether someone volunteers for military service or not, their life should still be sacred, shouldn't it?

Unquestionably. My point was that it's voluntary -- I don't think anybody asks the baby if he or she wants to be aborted. Eye-wink

I am also pro choice. I won't support laws that allow girls raped and impregnated to be murderers under the law.

Please, drop the Newspeak and use the term pro-abortion. Eye-wink I'm very "pro-choice" myself: I'm pro-choice on where to send your kids to school, I'm pro-choice on how much taxes you want to pay (i.e. the FairTax), I'm pro-choice on women being able to do what they want to do (careers, marriage, etc.) unlike Muslim theocracies, I'm pro-choice on whether you want to own firearms, etc., etc. "Pro-choice" is just an euphemism for something unpleasant we don't want to think about.

And I'm not aware of anybody wanting to throw girls in jail for having an abortion. We do want to criminalize "doctors" performing these "procedures."

As for your exception for rape, think about it. What you are really implying is that you want the child to pay for the sins of the father (so to speak). If the "thing" in the womb is human, then it's morally wrong (regardless of what the political law says) to take that life for whatever reason. I realize this isn't a perfect analogy but there is something in the US Constitution about this.

but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood

Punishment of crimes should not be done upon the innocent children/family of the criminal. The unborn kid pays with his or her life for the father's crime. That's why I think it's wrong to allow for exceptions like these except to save the mother's life.

And before you say I'm cruel and heartless, I want to say I have a real heart for people that go through this. I'll just go ahead and say I do a little bit of volunteer work for the local Pregnancy Resource Center that can and does help girls and women in need.

I would not consider use of the "day after" pill murder.

Even though "it" is at that stage a clump of cells, it still is a human being and thus it it wrong to kill it. I know this may come across as a trite and old argument, but it's still true -- you were no different at that stage (nor was I). Would you have wanted your mom to use the pill then?

We've gone over this before and I'm happy to go over it again, but I have the scientific, historical, and ethical points on my side. The destruction of human life in the womb is wrong.

And just a little tidbit: more lives are lost each day from abortion than all the US troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war. More lives are lost each year from abortion just in the US than the entire casualty count from the Iraq war (US, Iraqi, and other lives). I don't care what nationality you are -- my heart grieves for the innocent lives lost in war and in "peace" (i.e. abortion over here).


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 3:17pm.

I think bpr is out of town. I think I heard on the news he was at the Clinton headquarters in Rochester NH today.


Submitted by Davids mom on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 3:03pm.

I have nothing but admiration? for those who are being loyal to Bush and the Republican party.. . . and nothing but praise for those realists who understand that labels are not important this year - but actions and plans that will bring respect and peace to Americans and the world. The loyalists in my opinion have allowed their loyalty to blind them to reality. Loyalty is a good thing when it is coupled with common sense and wisdom. . .and a grasp on reality.

Our economy is and has been for years - a war-based economy. There are a few people/corporations in our country who have and are benefiting greatly from our military involvement in the Middle East. There are Republicans and Democrats who have acknowledged this - and have tried to move our country to a 'peace' based economy. (No easy task)
The fear of terrorists will keep our economy based on 'war'. This is not a baseless fear for America or the world. The 'war on terrorism' is not being won by our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan or the many other 'fronts' where our military personnel are gallantly fighting. Bin Laden speaks a truism when he states that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. did not implement 9/11.

There are knowledgeable military men and women in this discussion. Please explain to me why we (the US) don't have more cooperation from the rest of the world in our war on terrorism. In my opinion - peace will not come until the 'terrorists' of the world are stopped and made to pay for their crimes against innocents. (With all of our technology, etc. - it is still difficult for me to understand why Bin Laden is still 'free'. It makes me wonder if 'oil' is more important than his capture.) A military friend, whom I respect, stated that a winning military solution would not be acceptable to the American people. Do you think a combination of diplomacy and military force will achieve victory in the war on terror?

Will winning the 'war on terror' bring 'peace'?

ChiefUSAFRet's picture
Submitted by ChiefUSAFRet on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 3:18pm.

There is a very good book you should read- it will tell you that we are in fact getting cooperation from other countries. Our media loves to tell you what is wrong and rarely ever tells you of what is going right. Remember we have not had an attack here in U.S. since 9/11 and this is no coincidence. The book is entitled "The Terrorist Watch" by Ronald Kessler. It is very informative and at the same time very critical of our government before 9/11.


Submitted by Davids mom on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 6:38pm.

Thanks. I'll read it.

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 8:29am.

Are you saying you don't support the death penalty? Interesting from you I think?


Submitted by thebeaver on Thu, 11/29/2007 - 10:29pm.

Hack,

I won't deny that war is hell, but I would rather pay for that than one of Hitlary's many entitlement programs that she has planned. At least there is a purpose to winning this war as opposed to to funding programs for a bunch of leaches that are too dam lazy to go out and make something of themselves.

Can't make Starbucks - I'm a working stiff and both times won't work for me. I do appreciate the offer though.

-----------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 7:08am.

morning Smiling

If you can tell me the purpose that our war in Iraq is accomplishing for Americans in America, I'm all ears.

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by thebeaver on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 1:15pm.

Hack,
I very suprised that you do not know the answer to that question. However, seeing that you don't, I suggest you pose the question to one of our brave men or women that our serving our great country.

E-mail them your question (If you have the guts) and I am sure that you will get a good answer.
Email Our Troops! - Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and Airmen

Short of that, I suggest that you go perform a physical impossiblity on yourself.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

TonyF's picture
Submitted by TonyF on Fri, 11/30/2007 - 7:13am.

but, then again this does help me keep my "cover" I.D. intact.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us,To see oursels as ithers see us!
(R. Burns)
If we could see ourselves as others see us, we would vanish on the spot.
(E. M. Cioran)


maximus's picture
Submitted by maximus on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:57pm.

You two seem to have stumbled upon the same list of democrat “accomplishments”. I guess you think that the 9-11 commission recommendations is what has kept us from being attacked again; that the republicans wouldn’t have thrown money at the border; that dems really care about IED resistant vehicles (the higher the body count the better as far as they’re concerned); and that the republicans wouldn’t throw money at the VA?

Buying votes takes a lot of our money. That’s what has driven your entire list of “accomplishments” as laid out by the DCP.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 4:55pm.

You are so far off base with this one that you're outside of Turner field in the far corner of the parking lot:

"that dems really care about IED resistant vehicles (the higher the body count the better as far as they’re concerned)"

Dems care soo much about troops that they want them OUT of Iraq! We want a body cvount of Z E R O! Who is keeping them there, Max? We care so much about troops that democrats have been the sponsors of the vast majority of veteran's care bills. The liberal New York Times exposed and ended the abuse of disabled vets at Walter Reed, Max. At least be honest with these arguments.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 5:26pm.

"Dems care soo much about troops that they want them OUT of Iraq!"

Yeah, Democrats care so much about the troops that their leader, Senator Harry "the weasel" Reid declared the war as lost. Democrats are so concerned about making President Bush look bad that they will say things that diminish the morale of the brave men and women fighting the war and put them in harms way with their disrespectful utterances. Harry Reid should be charged with treason.

Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 5:34pm.

We won the war. We lost the peace. The Bush administration ignored the recommendations of our military leaders and failed to plan for the occupation of Iraq. (Our "occupation plan" was a 30-slide Powerpoint presentation created by Doug Feith).

Democrats don't need to make Bush look bad...he has shown he is quite capable of doing so without any assistance.


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 6:22pm.

"the higher the body count the better as far as they’re concerned"?

Keep it up, Maximus. That sort of "scorched Earth" rhetoric lost your party control of the Congress in 2006, and will lose your party the presidency in 2008 as well. Smiling


Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 6:45pm.

The party line put the Democrats in the unenviable position that if "things" went well in Iraq (low body count, growing economy, milestones being met, etc.)that it was bad for the Democrats. Iraq was touted and a dismal failure by the democratic leadership (Harry Reid went so far as to declare the war was 'lost').

Don't fault Maximus for stating the obvious.

On the other hand, look on the bright side, if things go well in Iraq, we will have the opportunity to focus on domestic issues.

Regardless, the dismal approval rating of congress is due to the new democratic leadership's inability to properly interpret the desires of their constituency.

Congress' approval ratings are after all hovering around the lowest levels in history and are consistently lower than your buddy George 'W' Bush.

If we do not recognize the will of the people, we will lose not just as a party but as a nation.

The next time Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi sticks their foot in their mouth do what I did, write them a letter telling him what an idiot they are for putting our goals in opposition to what is best for America. Otherwise, we will lose the slight margin of majority we attained during the mid-term elections.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 5:03pm.

"Regardless, the dismal approval rating of congress is due to the new democratic leadership's inability to properly interpret the desires of their constituency.

Congress' approval ratings are after all hovering around the lowest levels in history and are consistently lower than your buddy George 'W' Bush"

If you are going to use a poll, righton, understand the poll. Congress has a low approval rating. When separated by party, republicans in congress have an abismally low rating; lower than the dems. Why? Because Americans want us out of Iraq yesterday.

Ron Paul and Barack Obama are the biggest cash generators. They receive more money from military families than any other candidates. Do you know what they have in common? They want us out of Iraq.

Just when conservatives are making comments suggesting the war is going so much better, lindsey Graham and Johny Isakson come home saying that it may be time to pull funding from the Maliki government. Righton, I'm sorry, but we have been turning corners since late '03 and you will continue to hear the "its getting better" while not hearing of Shiites and Sunnis forming a unity govt that includes kurds equitably. It won't happen in our lifetimes no matter how much cash and how many bodies we throw at this IRAQI problem.
Kevin "Hack" King


Sniffles's picture
Submitted by Sniffles on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 12:35pm.

RightOnTheMoney, there are several good online dictionaries out there on the internets. I urge you to use one to look up the definition of the word "fact". I think you'll be surprised to find out it doesn't mean what you think it does. Eye-wink

I don't begrudge people their own opinion. I do, however, get a tad prickly when someone attempts to pass their opinion off as a 'fact'.

The simple truth is, Democrats are working just as hard (probably harder...IN MY OPINION) as Republicans to bring a conclusion to Mr. Bush's poorly planned, poorly executed fiasco of a war.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 3:53pm.

And someone on here said democrats didn't thinl!
Denise just puts leads on here for us to hunt and read as if they were gospel.
There are thousands of problems---we need to solve them!

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 11/27/2007 - 6:24am.

Well, I see that you've been busy. You'll get carpal tunnel syndrome if you take up answering all of your old blogs and adding new comments and new blogs, as well as "communicating" with "d.smith" & "nitpicky." You won't even have time to eat with all of that typing. What did you eat on Thanksgiving Day? Any favorites? Did you cook?

How's your book (One -- or is it Three? -- Landed in the Cuckoo's Nest) coming along? Re-reading your old posts for inspiration? Do you have writer's block? Puzzled

No links or additional reading -- I wouldn't want to push you over the (edge with THINKING! Laughing out loud

I agree with one thing you've said: you do have "thousands of problems---we need to solve them!"

How about working first on thinking BEFORE typing. I know it's hard, but you can try. Smiling

Hi, Tug! What's your recipe for sweet potato soufflé (low-calorie, I hope), or something else that you had for Thanksgiving dinner? Did you enjoy Thanksgiving? Did you see all of your kids and grandkids? Smiling

$, don't hyperventilate! Eye-wink


Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Thu, 11/29/2007 - 2:48pm.

LOL
We had a great Thanksgiving, everyone together at one of my son's home. Hope you had a good one too!

I'll get back to you with that recipe. Smiling

Lord a mercy, I hope you can help dollar/nitpicker/smith! Smiling


Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 3:56pm.

He's back! Dr. Denise, where are you?? Smiling


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 3:57pm.

She has been gone way too long.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 3:14pm.

Brother, you're having to much time on your hands today. Is this Denise like or what?

I yam what I yam...Popeye


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 4:13pm.

Maximus asked what dem dere dems did this session. I apologized before the rare book of a posting.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 4:37pm.

I'll have you know I am a full 5'10" tall, not that measely 5'7" or 8. The way it's going, I might be that much around before long. I'm sure that Caddy didn't look as good as mine anyway.

I yam what I yam...Popeye


Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:06pm.

I have a joke especially for you!
(When I have time to post it.)

Smiling


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:03pm.

It's at the emissions place on the south side of 54 next to Al's 1 Hour Cleaners. It be reeaalll reaaalll nice!

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 5:33pm.

Good folks. I looked at it the other day, seems to be in good shape. Nice dark metallic green/tan leather. Northstar etc. No price, or miles stated.

My Son & I went over Sunday on the golf cart to check it out.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 4:19pm.

putting that stuff out there for all to see. Of course, if we Dems had any brains, we would be independents LOL. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.