One creative way to do it, we suppose:
NEPAL’S troubled national carrier has taken a spiritual approach to recent maintenance troubles with one of its Boeing 757s by sacrificing two goats in front of the plane to appease a Hindu god.
The carrier was forced to suspend international flights for around 10 days in August as both the aircraft it uses for foreign flights were grounded due to technical problems.
Speaker Pelosi’s Congress makes history, as just 18% of Americans approve what they are doing.
And the bad feelings aren’t coming from Republicans, but rather the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton.
The nine-point drop in Congress’ job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats’ ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents’ ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans’ 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month.
Pork Rules
Roll Call Editorial
June 13, 2007
Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new disclosure policy on earmarks. It’s better than his previous one — the “air-drop” policy — but it’s a far cry from full transparency.
In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July.
That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the earmark rules Republicans put into place in September — after they got into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be individually challenged during debate on appropriations bills.
This year, despite promises to run the most open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of earmarks.
On top of that, late last month Obey announced that earmarks would not be included in House bills this year, but would be inserted (air-dropped) into House-Senate conference reports — which, of course, are not amendable. He blamed Republicans for making the policy necessary — specifically, their failure to pass appropriations bills last year, necessitating time-consuming work this year on a continuing resolution and the Iraq War supplemental.
Practically no one bought the excuse. It was denounced by Republicans and editorialists as a gross violation of Democratic promises, a “gutting” of GOP reforms, a retreat into secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. As the House began processing four appropriations bills this week, Republicans promised to resort to obstructionist tactics to protest Obey’s lack of openness.
So, on Monday, he announced the new policy: Earmarks will be fully disclosed prior to the August recess, after House voting but before House-Senate conferences, and may be challenged by writing a letter to the Appropriations Committee. After considering defenses from their sponsors, Obey will decide whether to put earmarks into conference reports. There still will be no votes on the issue.
Obey reiterated this system was necessitated by time constraints that made it impossible to vet 32,000 earmark requests before upcoming votes on appropriations bills. Asked if he would revert to a policy of full and early disclosure next year, he said he wanted to but couldn’t rule out the possibility that specific circumstances would arise.
That simply isn’t good enough. Obey should not only be disclosing all earmarks before House voting, but all earmark requests. Earmarks should be open to public vetting, full debate and floor challenge.
Obey threatened that if Republicans continued to “demagogue” and “politicize” the earmark issue, “There will be no earmarks for anybody.” He asserted that Republicans truly were upset only that he was shrinking the volume of special-interest projects. Do we believe this? There’s one way to judge — fully disclose all earmark requests so everyone can see who wants what pork.
WSJ - REVIEW & OUTLOOK
June 13, 2007; Page A18
Life isn’t easy for an Appropriations Chairman in Congress these days, what with all the fuss about “earmarks,” and other hassles from backbenchers who won’t accept their pork in silence like everyone else. So it’s possible that House spender in chief David Obey was temporarily disoriented when he uttered this beauty on Monday:
“The only real opportunity you have to prevent something stupid from happening is to have the protection of the staff who know the most about these programs and can fight something if they think it smells,” Mr. Obey told reporters, while trying to explain why he won’t be disclosing earmarks in spending bills despite the promises made by Nancy Pelosi while lambasting Republicans last year. Instead, Mr. Obey declared that he and his staff would vet the earmarks themselves and then disclose them all in the Congressional Record some day.
The staff? The who? Apparently Mr. Obey is referring to the Capitol Hill employees hired by Members of Congress and beholden to them for their livelihoods. These are the same Appropriations employees whose job it is to tend to the needs of Members, keep them happy, and make sure they get enough pork in the various spending bills so they vote “aye” and the bills pass on the House floor. These are the cops that Mr. Obey says will clean up the earmark beat. Uh huh.
We sympathize, at least a little bit, with the Wisconsin Democrat. His colleagues have already shoved something like 32,000 earmarks his way so far this spending bill season, and the last thing he wants is for some troublemaker to be able to lampoon one or more of them on the House floor. That’s what got Republicans so embarrassed when that Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere was uncovered in 2006. Democrats led by campaign chairman Rahm Emanuel had great fun with the issue and promised they’d be different. Now poor Mr. Obey is stuck between the pork and those campaign promises.
So the promises are giving way. At least Republicans allowed earmark votes on the floor. Under Mr. Obey, earmarks won’t be vetted in an Appropriations subcommittee, or at the Rules Committee, or on the floor. They will be kept secret before the House votes on spending bills, to be unveiled only later when it is time to prepare a final House-Senate conference report. Only then will backbenchers be able to raise questions about individual earmarks — in writing, to Mr. Obey’s “staff,” which will then get to decide whether the earmarks survive or not. Guess what “the staff” decision will be on an earmark requested by, say, Powerhouse Democrat Jack Murtha and a challenge raised by some first-term Republican from Amarillo?
By the way, the latest Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg survey finds that Congress’s approval rating is down to 27%, with 63% of the public saying Democrats are practicing “business as usual.” For the record, that’s lower than President Bush’s approval rating. At this rate, maybe “the staff” will have to run for re-election next year.
St. Petersburg Times: “Pet projects pushed out of public eye The new game that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He is taking the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic that Democrats promised, voters might want their ballots back. The result, then, is that the earmark projects will receive almost no public scrutiny and no congressional debate. This is precisely the kind of environment in which convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff thrived, the kind of place he fondly called the ‘favor factory.’” (Editorial, 6/5/07)
Las Vegas Review Journal: “Democratic earmark reforms lasted 100 days. When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their ‘earmarks,’ exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny. She failed to mention this “reform” would remain in effect for little more than 100 days … The ‘anti-earmark reforms” are just for show. Mere window dressing. Why, if we enjoyed the immunities of a colorful old Democratic congressman, we might even call them ‘total crap.’” (Editorial, 6/5/07)
CNN’s Jack Cafferty: “Remember when the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January? On their very first day in power they approved rules to clearly identify so-called pet projects or ‘earmarks’ in spending bills. You know, part of their promise to bring openness and transparency to government. Well, guess what? The Associated Press reports Democrats are not including the spending requests and legislation as it’s being written. Instead, they are following an order from the House Appropriations Committee Chairman, David Obey, to keep the bills free of these earmarks until the fall. Now by doing this, nobody will know what the earmarks are when the bills are first voted on in June. And when they’re finally announced in the fall, well, then, it will be virtually too late to do anything about them. Clever, don’t you think?” (6/4/07)
Toledo (OH) Blade: “Backtracking on earmarks. HERE’S the outrage of the week (among many) from Washington: Democrats, who took control of Congress by pledging reform and whacking Republicans over the issue of special-interest ‘earmarks,’ already are perpetuating this odious waste of taxpayer money … Democrats promised to end such abuses … Now that they’re in charge, they should live up to their rhetoric. (Editorial, 5/26/07)
The Missoulian (MT): “Congressional pork too tasty to leave alone. Congress is ignoring election promises and feasting on pork projects. What’s on the menu on Capitol Hill these days? Pork, of course. And just about everyone’s in line for the buffet. Not that we’re surprised, but we are scratching our heads, given the promises and pronouncements of the last election season. In their first half-year in office, the newly powerful House Democrats have seemingly lost their reformist zeal …” (Editorial, 5/31/07)
Reading (PA) Eagle: “Democratic vows remain unfulfilled … Democrats can talk the talk, but they seem to be having difficulty walking the walk. As the approval ratings of Republicans plummeted prior to last November’s general election, Democrats saw their chance to regain congressional control … Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was soon to become speaker of the House, said, ‘We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history.’ That pledge was broken in March when Democrat leaders pushed through a $124 billion emergency-supplemental bill to fund the military in Iraq and Afghanistan that was laden with $21 billion in pork-barrel spending, known as earmarks. A House rule instituted by Democrats that prohibits swapping earmarks for votes also seems to have fallen by the wayside. (Editorial, 5/31/07)
CNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER DREW GRIFFIN: “The new, open, Democratic Party-controlled Congress promised the earmark process would no longer be secret. All earmark requests are made public with plenty of time for debate. But Dave Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of those Democrats bragging about the changes, has decided that earmarks, those generous gifts of your money, will be inserted into bills only after the bill has cleared the House floor. In other words, earmarks will still be done in secret, no public debate. There was supposed to be some kind of change …. In the next few months, in what Congressman Obey says is the most open earmark process ever, the bills will be drafted, the earmarks added. But only then, just before those bills are passed, will the public learn where the treasure is buried.” (5/25/07)
Associated Press: “After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress’ pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify ‘earmarks’—lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states—in documents that accompany spending bills.” (6/3/07)
CNN’s GRIFFIN: “Thousands of pages of earmarks in a bill, time after time after time. And the Democrats promised reform. And, it’s not happening.” (5/31/07)
Pelosi Falls Short On Election Promises
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is discovering the cold truth about governing with a slim majority: It’s much easier to promise behavioral change for Congress than to deliver it.
Pelosi vowed that five-day workweeks would be a hallmark of a harder-working Democratic majority. So far, the House has logged only one. Lawmakers plan to clock three days this week.
The speaker has denied Republicans a vote on their proposals during congressional debates — a tactic she previously declared oppressive and promised to end. Pelosi has opened the floor to a Republican alternative just once.
Pelosi set a high standard for herself when she pledged to make this “the most ethical Congress in history” — a boast that was the political equivalent of leading with her chin. And some critics have been happy to hit it.
She is drawing fire for putting Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who had $90,000 in alleged bribe money in his freezer, on the Homeland Security Committee. And The Washington Post reported during the weekend that she is helping chairmen raise money from donors with business before their committees.
For more on this article, click here.
Homeland Security: Staff misspoke about jailed border agents
MCT NEWS SERVICE
February 8, 2007
WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security yesterday retracted staff members’ comments that two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler had told investigators they intended “to shoot Mexicans.”
The department’s inspector general issued the retraction at a congressional hearing as the department released a previously sealed report into the conduct of the two agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
Congressional pressure to remove the two agents from prison – either through presidential pardons or by releasing them on bail pending appeal – intensified yesterday after reports that inmates assaulted Ramos over the weekend.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, called for the dismissal of Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin if the two men aren’t protected.
The case has become a cause célèbre among conservative groups, which contend that Ramos and Compean were railroaded by overzealous federal prosecutors who gave the drug smuggler immunity to testify against the two agents.
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of San Antonio has defended his handling of the case, saying the agents seriously overstepped their authority by attempting to cover up the shooting of the smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and destroying evidence. They began serving their sentences last month. Compean faces 12 years in prison, Ramos 11.
The Homeland Security Department, which includes the Border Patrol, released its inspector general’s report after four Texas lawmakers demanded the document to compare it with information from a briefing that department staff members gave them in September.
The aides told the lawmakers that the two agents had admitted to investigators that they intended to “shoot Mexicans.” But Inspector General Richard Skinner said under questioning by Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, that the statements were erroneous.
Democrat Leaders Fail to Disclose Family Charities, Violate Federal Law
Pelosi, two other Democrats failed to disclose roles in family charitiesBy Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.All three foundations are funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses, and do not solicit donations from outside sources.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Friday the speaker will amend her reports. He said it “was an oversight” that she had not listed her position dating back to 1992.
For more, click here.
We all know Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receiving criticism from the GOP in the early days of the 110th Congress.
After all, that is to be expected.
However, in case you missed it, did you know she is getting criticism from some powerful members of her own party?
Let’s review:
1. The Dean of the House, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), is taking the Speaker to task over her creation of a special select committee to “deal with global warming.” Specifically, he doesn’t enjoy Madam Speaker treading on his turf:
“We should probably name it the committee on world travel and junkets,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which overseas the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Indeed. Furthermore, Rep. Dingell doesn’t think much about the potential members of the committee (which is expected to be run by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) - but we really don’t know because we’re unsure if the Speaker will staff the committee with people who agree with her, or allow the GOP to pick members)
“‘We’re just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor’ said Dingell, a champion of the auto industry, which could be required to producing cleaner-burning and more fuel efficient vehicles. …
2. Meanwhile, the ramming-through of legislation during the “100-Hour” lockdown of the House is drawing the ire of not only Republicans. The Speaker is also getting grief from her compatriot in the Democrat Leadership: Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
“There are also certain to be tensions with the Democratic House, where the rules give Speaker Pelosi far more power. In private, Senate sources say, Reid has been critical of the Speaker for what he believes was unnecessary roughness in ramming through her first-100-hours agenda, refusing to allow Republicans to propose amendments and breaking her campaign promise to open up the lawmaking process. There may also be some gavel envy; Pelosi will be able to pass one hard-line piece of legislation after another out of the House–putting Reid in the impossible spot of trying to find 60 votes for these bills in the Senate.”
3. Finally, the Head of the Ways and Means Committee, the estimable Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is apparently not a fan of the House lockdown, and thinks the Speaker’s choice to bring monetary bills to the floor without committee hearings was a mistake.
Sources say Rangel went to Pelosi urging that his committee be allowed to review legislation allowing the feds to negotiate with drug companies over prices and taking away tax breaks for big oil companies - but she refused.
With friends like these…
