Shelby Steele: The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin... Protecting You From The UN-Frendly Skies... Prohibited Items Found 3/2 to 3/8... Congressional earmarks sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers' properties... Public Law List (112st Congress - 2012)... Congress's Phony Insider-Trading Reform... Obama denounces Senate vote to block Cordray at consumer watchdog agency... Walker signs 'castle doctrine' bill, other measures... Holder faces House Republicans over health-care law, ‘Fast and Furious’... Postal workers behaving badly!... The supercommittee failed because Democrats insisted on $1 trillion in new taxes...
PositiveReform header image 4
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; When the government fears the people, there is liberty.  ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

Entries Tagged as 'Congress'

Salary freeze for federal workers approved by House

December 9th, 2010 · Economy, Government, House

Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 8:41 PM

The House approved legislation Wednesday that freezes base pay for federal employees at current levels for two years.

President Obama called for the freeze last week as part of an effort to control the national deficit, angering federal employee organizations and upsetting local members of Congress.

“The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice,” he said. “And that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government.”

The pay freeze is projected to save a total of $28 billion over five years, a fraction of a $1.3 trillion budget shortfall. The legislation now goes to the Senate.

- Joe Davidson

Tags:

No Comments

US Congress Daily Digest – December 2010

December 1st, 2010 · Daily Digest

Document are available for download in PDF format.

  • Wed, Dec 22, 2010 – Not Available
  • Tue, Dec 21, 2010
  • Mon, Dec 20, 2010
  • Sun, Dec 19, 2010
  • Sat, Dec 18, 2010
  • Fri, Dec 17, 2010
  • Thu, Dec 16, 2010
  • Wed, Dec 15, 2010
  • Tue, Dec 14, 2010 (2)
  • Tue, Dec 14, 2010 (1)
  • Mon, Dec 13, 2010
  • Sun, Dec 12, 2010 – Not In Session
  • Sat, Dec 11, 2010 – Not In Session
  • Fri, Dec 10, 2010
  • Thu, Dec 09, 2010
  • Wed, Dec 08, 2010
  • Tue, Dec 07, 2010
  • Mon, Dec 06, 2010
  • Sun, Dec 05, 2010 – Not In Session
  • Sat, Dec 04, 2010
  • Fri, Dec 03, 2010
  • Thu, Dec 02, 2010
  • Wed, Dec 01, 2010
  • Tags:

    No Comments

    Senate passes sweeping food safety bill: Protection or Control?

    November 30th, 2010 · Deception, Government Control, Senate

    Reference:
    Senate Bill (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (111 S 510)); House Bill (Safe FEAST Act of 2009 (111 HR 1332));
    CBO Cost Estimates, November 29, 2010; CBO Cost Estimates, November 19, 2010; CBO Cost Estimates, August 12, 2010

    By Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, November 30, 2010; 10:51 AM

    The Senate on Tuesday approved the biggest overhaul to the nation’s food safety laws since the 1930s, voting 73 to 25 to give vast new authorities to the Food and Drug Administration; place new responsibilities on farmers and food companies to prevent contamination; and–for the first time–set safety standards for imported foods, a growing part of the American diet.

    The legislation follows a spate of national outbreaks of food poisoning involving products as varied as eggs, peanuts and spinach in which thousands of people were sickened and more than a dozen died.

    The measure passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans, one of the few pieces of legislation to bridge differences in an otherwise sharply divided body. The House approved a different, more stringent version of the bill more than a year ago.

    House leaders have indicated that they would accept the Senate version of the bill, however, in order to avoid the time-consuming conference process and speed the sending of the legislation to President Obama‘s desk. Proponents hope to have the legislation signed into law by the end of the lame-duck session.

    Despite strong bipartisan support and backing from a diverse coalition of major business and consumer groups, the bill was been buffeted by politics in recent weeks.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags:

    No Comments

    Charlie Rangel found guilty of 11 ethics violations

    November 16th, 2010 · Accountability, Congress, Corruption, Democrats, Ethics, House

    By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010; 2:15 PM

    Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) was found guilty Tuesday of breaking 11 separate congressional rules related to his personal finances and fundraising efforts for a New York college.

    The eight-lawmaker subcommittee that handled the trial – which reached a unanimous verdict on 10 of the counts – now sends the case to the full ethics committee for the equivalent of sentencing. Potential punishments include a formal reprimand or censure, with each of those punishments needing to be ratified by a vote on the House floor. Expulsion is also a possible remedy but considered highly unlikely.

    Rangel was not present for the ruling, following his walk-out from the trial Monday when the panel rejected his request to delay the proceedings because his campaign account was empty and he had no political money left to cover the cost of a legal team.

    He released a statement Tuesday calling the decision unfair. “How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the Ethics Subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” the statement said. “I can only hope that the full Committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions. ”

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chaired the trial, praised her colleagues for their handling of the case, which landed uncomfortably in their laps in July after talks broke down with Rangel over reaching a plea deal.

    “This has been a difficult assignment, time consuming, and we have approached our duties diligently,” Lofgren said.

    Lofgren said her panel, divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, would meet again Tuesday to draft the final report to be sent to the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is the formal name for the ethics committee.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags:

    No Comments

    Everything you ever wanted to know about the lame-duck session of Congress

    November 16th, 2010 · Congress, Politics

    By Ben Pershing Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, November 15, 2010; 7:20 PM

    With a lame-duck session underway on Capitol Hill, we know you’re brimming with questions about what exactly Congress is doing and why. Fear not: Your new “In Session” columnist has the answers.

    What e xactly is a lame-duck session?

    We’ll defer here to the Congressional Research Service, which explains: “The expression ‘lame duck’ was originally applied in 18th century Britain to bankrupt businessmen, who were considered ‘lame’ in the sense that the impairment of their powers rendered them vulnerable, like a game bird injured by shot.”

    The term was eventually applied to politicians who had announced plans to retire or had been defeated for reelection. It also describes any House or Senate session that occurs between Election Day and the start of the next Congress.

    Obvious jokes about bankruptcy aside, this year’s session will feature a large number of lawmakers who are themselves lame ducks: More than 100 members of the House or Senate won’t be back in January. Keep an eye on the office supplies.

    How often do these sessions happen?

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags:

    No Comments

    House panel rejects Rangel’s request to delay corruption trial.

    November 15th, 2010 · Accountability, Corruption, Democrats, Ethics, House

    By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, November 15, 2010; 10:35 AM

    Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) pleaded with a House panel Monday to delay his long-awaited public trial on corruption charges, saying he needed time to find a new lawyer, but his request was rejected and the session went ahead without him.

    The trial, conducted by an eight-member panel of Rangel’s congressional peers, is the first of its kind since 2002. Rangel faces allegations that he broke congressional rules in his personal finances and his fundraising efforts for a New York college. He and his previous legal team parted ways in September.

    “I object to the proceeding,” Rangel told the House panel. “With all due respect, since I don’t have counsel to advise me, I’m going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings.”

    He said he cannot afford a lawyer at present because his campaign account has been depleted.

    The panel then went into closed session to consider the requested delay. The lawmakers later emerged and said the trial would go ahead.

    Rangel asked that he be allowed to accept either pro bono legal work or reduced-fee support, but such actions might violate congressional rules forbidding gifts. Abbe Lowell, one of Washington’s premier white-collar defense lawyers, attended the hearing and said during the break that he would join Rangel’s defense if the panel postponed the hearing to allow Rangel time to raise money to pay Lowell’s fees.

    Rangel has already burned through $2 million in legal fees, draining funds from his now wiped-out campaign account. When he told his former legal team that he would not be able to pay the estimated $1 million to finish the case, they withdrew from the case, he said Monday. He now wants to set up a separate legal defense fund that could provide legal support, but it may take weeks or months to finance the operation.

    “I am being denied the right to have a lawyer,” he complained. He argued that “50 years of public service is on the line.”

    The 40-year House veteran arrived in the hearing room inside the Longworth House Office Building precisely at 9 a.m., the scheduled start time, with his wife and other family members trailing behind.

    He sat at a desk in front of the dais, in a room that is usually reserved for the House Administration Committee, which oversees mostly mundane matters of internal congressional management. Winking at photographers, Rangel brought with him some yellow legal pads, pens and a massive binder containing the case against him.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags: ···

    No Comments

    Junior Democrats in Senate seek to change the way chamber does business

    November 15th, 2010 · Democrats, Dissention, Senate

    By Shailagh Murray Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, November 15, 2010; 12:34 AM

    Senate Democrats are expected to elect the same party veterans as their leaders when they return to work this week, but a new class of junior lawmakers is exerting its influence by challenging the chamber’s sacred traditions and the partisan, top-down governing style that has marked the past two years.

    The young Democrats, many of whom will be on the ballot in 2012, reject the view that the Senate must move at a glacial pace, that only its most senior members get to determine the policy agenda, and that bipartisanship has become the purview of the naive and nostalgic.

    “In the last election, voters said, ‘Please work together.’ I think they’re going to move next to profanities,” said Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), a member of the Class of 2008.

    Upstarts such as Udall, his cousin Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Mark Warner (Va.) are expected to wage a fresh campaign to change Senate operating procedures and give first-term lawmakers a greater say over Democratic strategy and how the party communicates with voters.

    To amplify the voice of Democratic freshmen, Senate leaders are considering elevating at least one newcomer to senior ranks. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), who survived a bruising 2010 challenge, to lead the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2012 campaign cycle. That would have given Bennet a seat at leadership meetings – along with responsibility for a potentially brutal election cycle, with 23 incumbent Democrats on the ballot, compared with 10 Republicans. But Bennet, who has three young children, turned down the job.

    A top goal for ’06 and ’08 Democrats is to change Senate rules that allow a single member of the minority party to prevent legislation from advancing. They want the Senate to take a more entrepreneurial approach to crafting bills, rather than falling back on the same veteran chairmen and their pet policy prescriptions. And they are unwilling to write off Republicans, viewing the opposition as the linchpin to advancing Democratic goals.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags: ·····

    No Comments

    Assessing midterm losses, Democrats ask whether Obama’s White House fully grasped voters’ fears

    November 8th, 2010 · Accountability, Change of Power, Congress, Democrats, Dissention, Obama Exposed, Politics

    By Karen Tumulty and Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, November 7, 2010; 12:46 AM

    President Obama‘s failure to channel the anxieties of ordinary voters has shaken the faith that many Democrats once had in his political gifts and his team’s political skill.

    In his own assessments of what went wrong, the president has lamented his inability to persuade voters on the merits of what he has done, and blamed the failure on his preoccupation with a full plate of crises.

    But a broad sample of Democratic officeholders and strategists said in interviews that the disconnect goes far deeper than that.

    “There doesn’t seem to be anybody in the White House who’s got any idea what it’s like to lie awake at night worried about money and worried about things slipping away,” said retiring Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D). “They’re all intellectually smart. They’ve got their numbers. But they don’t feel any of it, and I think people sense that.”

    Bredesen had voiced such reservations long before the election, but more Democrats are saying the same thing after Tuesday’s defeats – although few are willing to cross the White House by doing so publicly.

    Obama “is not Bill Clinton in the sense that he’s not an extrovert. He doesn’t gain energy by connecting with people,” said a Democratic strategist, who worked in the Clinton White House and asked not to be named while offering a candid criticism. “He needs to be forced to do it, either by self-discipline or others. There’s no one around him who will do that. They accommodate him, and that is a bad thing.”

    William A. Galston, a Clinton White House policy adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the midterm election revealed what had always been a “missing middle” to the Obama campaign message.

    “Hope is a sentiment, not a strategy, and quickly loses credibility without a road map,” Galston wrote in a paper released two days after the election. “Throughout his first two years in office, President Obama often struggled to connect individual initiatives to larger purposes.”

    With the public skeptical of and even hostile to his biggest accomplishments, including the economic stimulus package and the health-care overhaul, Obama fell back on a plea to voters not to turn back to failed Republican policies. That appeal “just missed what was happening with the country and with people,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

    Still, Democrats remain divided between their moderate and liberal wings over whether the president should continue to push hard with his agenda or move to the center to try to accommodate the Republicans in Congress.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags: ··

    No Comments

    There They Went Again: The 111th Congress fits a familiar Democratic pattern.

    October 29th, 2010 · Accountability, Congress, Corruption, Deception, Democrats, Federal Spending, Government, Government Control, Greed

    Democrats and their allies are already rationalizing their likely defeat next Tuesday, variously blaming the economy, GOP obstructionism, corporate money, or an inexplicable collapse in President Obama’s communications skills. Whatever minor truth lies in these excuses, they obscure the larger reality: Americans appear ready to repudiate Democratic governance for the fourth consecutive time.

    Senior Editorial Writer Joseph Rago maps out the bureaucracy to come.

    Far from being a unique historical event, a GOP victory on Tuesday will repeat the pattern we have seen since the 1960s. Four times Democrats have won control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and four times they have attempted to govern from the left. Each time Americans saw that agenda and its results, and they rejected it at an early opportunity. Maybe there’s a lesson here.

    ***

    We cite the 1960s as a watershed because it marked the creation of the modern Democratic Party. The Southern conservatives who had checked the left since the de facto end of the New Deal in 1938 were swept away by LBJ’s 1964 landslide. Democrats implemented their fondest ambitions—the Great Society, Medicare and Medicaid—only to lose 47 House seats in 1966 and the White House two years later, as the Democratic coalition split over Vietnam and flower power.

    Thanks to Watergate, Democrats returned to overwhelming dominance in 1976. Jimmy Carter had run as a centrist—he favored regulatory reform and sun-setting programs—but he quickly ran afoul of young liberals on Capitol Hill who had flooded into the House in 1974. They overrode Mr. Carter’s spending vetoes and ran his budget director out of town. Democrats avoided major losses in 1978 only to lose both the Senate and White House in the first Reagan landslide amid inflation and gasoline lines.

    Their next chance to govern came in 1992, as Bill Clinton won the Presidency after 12 years of GOP dominance. Mr. Clinton ran as a New Democrat, but there were few of those in Congress. Democrats imposed a huge tax increase, put off welfare reform and tried to pass HillaryCare. They lost both houses in 1994, and they wouldn’t reclaim the House for 12 years, amid the near-defeat in Iraq and GOP corruption of 2006. For his part, Mr. Clinton saved his Presidency by moving back to the center.

    The fourth great Democratic governing opportunity arrived two years ago as Barack Obama rode his post-partisan rhetoric and the financial panic to the largest win by a Democrat since LBJ. Their House majority swelled to 39 seats, and in the Senate they achieved a filibuster-proof 60 seats. The Republican “brand” was badly tarnished, and pundits heralded a new Democratic era. Amid the Democratic euphoria, New York Senator Chuck Schumer visited our offices and told us to cooperate with this new agenda or we would be irrelevant.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags: ··········

    No Comments

    While economy is down midterm campaign funds exceed $2 BILLION.

    October 26th, 2010 · Congress, Deception, Economy, Government, Greed, Politics

    House and Senate shatter fundraising records for midterm election and may exceed $2 billion

    By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, October 26, 2010; 12:04 AM

    House and Senate candidates have already shattered fundraising records for a midterm election and are on their way to surpassing $2 billion in spending for the first time, according to new campaign finance data.

    To put it another way: That’s the equivalent of about $4 million for every congressional seat up for grabs this year.

    The frantic fundraising by candidates has largely been overshadowed in recent weeks by a tide of spending by outside interest groups, most of it targeting vulnerable Democrats. Such groups could spend $400 million or more by Nov. 2.

    But the latest Federal Election Commission data, along with a new study from a campaign watchdog group, show that most of the money sloshing around the 2010 elections is being raised and spent by the candidates themselves.

    As of last week, House and Senate campaigns reported taking in more than $1.5 billion, exceeding the total collected by congressional candidates in 2006 and in 2008, FEC data show. Most of that money already has been put toward advertising and other expenses.

    The Public Campaign Action Fund, a watchdog group, will release a study Tuesday predicting that House candidates alone could spend nearly $1.5 billion by the time the dust settles on Election Day. The calculation is based on previous elections in which about half of a campaign’s money was spent in the final month of the contest.

    Senate campaigns are also on track to exceed the $550 million mark from 2006, bringing the likely total to $2 billion or more by the time the ballots are counted.

    The surge is driven in part by the unusually broad battlefield in the House, where an estimated 90 seats are in play, almost all of them held by Democrats. Many Democratic incumbents are emptying their coffers in an attempt to win the message wars against GOP-allied interest groups.

    [View Complete Article →]

    Tags: ··········

    No Comments