How Long/Short is Congress's Institutional Memory?

Whereas the Republican-controlled 109th Congress was derided as the "do-nothing Congress," Pelosi & Co. seem determined to make the 110th the "do-something Congress" - even if nothing would be better. Lately, these do-something efforts in the House are aimed at undercutting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been conducted with a surprising amount of cleverness. To begin with, they've split the war funding into three parts: the funding itself, a much-hyped GI Bill, and the obligatory sop to the far-left mandating withdrawal.

On the funding portion, Republicans too showed that they could play cute, and borrowed a play from the Audacity of Hope (or at least Obama's play book): 132 Republicans voted present, protesting the fact that they had not been permitted to offer alternative legislation.

But the real cute part of this whole legislative mess is the benefits for veterans, a new "GI Bill" extending educational benefits for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. To fund these programs, an estimated $52 billion over ten years, Democrats could have slashed discretionary spending elsewhere - the farm bill, for example. Instead, they chose to further burden their favorite target: the successful. Thankfully, unlike Obama's bone-headed conception of wealthy, they set the bar at a reasonable (though still outlandish in principle) $500,000 for individual filers and $1,000,000 for joint filers. The tax hike is also a relatively insignificant .47 percent.

But it's the principle of the matter. Congress has used taxes on the wealthy before to fund wars. Perhaps most notably, in 1898 Congress passed a 3% excise tax on telephone usage. In that day and age, such a tax was a tax on the wealthy. Unlike this tax, the Spanish-American telephone tax was likely proposed without the "screw the rich" intent - after all, no one can dare claim that the country's elite sat out the war (just look at the roster of the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment). But the telephone tax holds a lesson for Congress, and questions its institutional memory, as it wasn't repealed until 2006.

Now I dare not expect too much of Congress; it's unlikely that most remember when the Spanish-American war was fought, or where - though I do hope they can name our opponent and perhaps (though it may be a stretch) the conflict's casus belli. But they should clearly remember that such taxes outlive their usefulness by years, decades, even centuries, and should be levied carefully. Some enterprising Republican in the Senate (Gordon Smith or Susan Collins, perhaps, who are both moderates and facing stiff reelection battles) should attach an amendment putting a sunset on this tax, or perhaps even an annual renewal.

Democrats also engage - shocker - in some martial relativism here. While all wars are no doubt hell, as Sherman said, they aren't all the same. Congress enacted the GI Bill after the war to reward a whole generation of American men, many of whom had been drafted into the service (though the vast majority went willingly). In contrast, all of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are volunteers. I know, not a distinction I expect 435 of our not so bright and hardly best to grasp, but still.

32 Republicans voted in favor of the bill; many of those are facing tough battles for reelection and represent moderate districts where supporting the troops likely outweighs fiscal responsibility. Some of those 32, however, are just asshats such as Don Young, who no doubt understands that the revenue raised by this tax is fungible and could be diverted to...a bridge to nowhere? If it survives the Senate in its present form (where it'll put McCain in a hell of a bind), Bush will likely veto in the name of fiscal responsibility and urge Democrats to find the money elsewhere. Whether or not the veto gets overridden will likely be a result of two things: whether Boehner and the Republican leadership chooses to whip the vote and keep their party in line, and if not whether individual Republican representatives put fiscal responsibility over a vulnerability to cheap attacks that they don't support the troops (by Democrats and the media who keep twisting the knife in the back of the troops at every opportunity they get).

Fun With Earmarks

Thursday night, Jim DeMint forced a vote in the Senate, looking for a one-year moratorium on earmarks. However noble it may have been, only twenty-nine Senators voted in favor. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all voted yea. The peerless Dick Durbin voted nay. But this post isn't about him, it's about Obama getting tripped up in his own stupidity yet again (see previous post).

Because in the same week that he voted for that one-year moratorium, it emerges that in 2006 he requested a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago hospital. Where his wife just happened to be Vice President of Community Affairs, a position created especially for her. [Jim Geraghty adds a spicy detail about this that makes following that link worthwhile, and a hat-tip to the HotAir folks for bringing it to my attention in the first place.] You have to wonder - did the conversation occur over dinner? "Honey, can you pass the salt and, you know, get a million in federal dollars for the hospital?" "Sure Michelle, and dinner's delicious." Elsewhere? I won't speculate.

So given that Obama = Change, one might expect him to recant and say that he shouldn't have requested the earmark in the first place. Instead, in that same Tribune interview, he says that he should have asked Dick Durbin to get the money instead. Imagine that conversation. "Dick, Michelle's asking me to, you know, steer federal funds to her employer. It looks bad, so can you do me a favor and get it?"

Apologies in advance for the weakness of what I'm about to say: given the old line about a million here and a million there suddenly being real money in Washington, one wonders whether a "paltry" million is the sort of change Obama stands for. Weak sauce. Feel free to hate.

Renzi Gets Worse

So he's not just indicted. He's indicted on 36 counts of corruption, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud; two others were charged along with him. One hopes that on top of everything else, we're not running against a "culture of corruption" too this November.

More Lessig

So he's still not officially running, but he's now got a campaign website of sorts. It's got most of what you'd find on a real site, but he's still not officially in. I'm not certain this is a statement of intent - perhaps he's trying to gauge support still?


He also sat down for an interview with Ars Technica, touching on his campaign and what he'd like to do in Congress. It's worth reading in its (relatively brief) entirety, but I'll pull some key excerpts here. First off, it's worth noting that Lessig is currently focused (academically speaking) on the corrupting influence of money in politics; to that end:

One simple means of reducing the political power of campaign cash, Lessig says, "could be done tomorrow." He wants to ban legislative earmarks, those juicy morsels of targeted federal funding legislators direct toward pet projects and political supporters. Lessig also hopes to encourage more robust public financing of campaigns, noting the salutary effect such policies appear to be having in states like Maine and Arizona. Most immediately—and perhaps most radically—Lessig says he will swear off contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, and he hopes to bring grassroots pressure to bear on other candidates to follow suit.

"This is about building a parallel to Creative Commons in Congress," Lessig explains, referencing the popular legal license he created to help authors and artists make their work available for free distribution and modification. Just as creators under a Creative Commons license cede some control over their works in order to promote a robust open-source culture, Lessig's political vision entails "people in power, legislators, voluntarily waiving that power in order to build a better system."

No more earmarks? Good. Public funding? Less certain how I feel about this. It might make for more reasonable campaigns, however - and perhaps shorter campaigns (which in turn would allow voters to pay more attention). The no PAC money is nice - and in a true blue district like the CA-12 may appeal to voters (pure speculation, that).

On policy, he is (as I noted yesterday) a full-blown progressive. However, and I imagine in opposition to his primary opponent, he's a "free-trade, pro-market liberal." As I've said, we could do worse. So what's he planning on doing in Congress?

"Silicon Valley needs a representative who can speak for the interests of the Internet, of making it flourish," he says. "As we're leading into this moment when the owners of telecommunications platforms are trying to leverage their ownership into control of the Internet, yammering about the need to turn it into the old Bell System, we need someone in Washington who's going to be able to stare them down."

But while Lessig wryly notes that the RIAA and MPAA "won't be excited to have an opponent of extremist copyright legislation in Congress," he also stresses that a congressional run would not be some kind of crusading extension of his work on "free culture." For Lessig, the central policy question will be, "Who ultimately controls innovation on the Internet? That's the net neutrality fight; that's the open spectrum fight."

As I've said, I've got mixed feelings about net neutrality. But as I've also said, we could do worse - Lessig is an intellectual and a thoughtful one at that. Given the district, he's orders of magnitude better than a Republican has any reason to hope for.

I'll credit the unparalleled Glenn Reynolds for bringing this to my attention; on Instapundit, he notes "one certainly can't object to the prospect of more serious thinkers, and fewer professional politicians, in Congress." I wholeheartedly agree.

Favorite Article of the Day (yesterday)

Apparently Democrats are a whopping 0 for 40 on votes pertaining to surrendering in Iraq; the one that passed both chambers was vetoed and the override failed. The growing consensus seems to be that Democrats have waited too long and been too impotent and that the surge's success in recent months has cut the ground out from under them.

There's a scene in the second season of West Wing wherein Communications Director Toby Ziegler berates a Knick for going 1 for 27 from the field, noting that "that's one better than my grandmother could do. And she's dead."

Pity the Fools?

I'm not going to describe them as thankless jobs, but both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi find themselves in uncomfortable spots. Their approval numbers make the president look like Bono (or at least Britney), Bush has rediscovered Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution (vetoes), and then there's the party itself. In the first episode of The West Wing, a leader of the Religious Right tells Chief of Staff Leo McGarry "Every group has plenty of demons" to which Leo replies "You don't have to tell me about it, Reverend. I'm a member of the Democratic Party."

Pelosi and Reid would only succeed in shutting up their foaming at the mouth base if they withdrew from Iraq yesterday, impeached (and probably lynched - or at least sent to the ICC) just about anyone who's ever stepped foot in the White House, and nationalized the means of production - to say nothing of locking up Rush Limbaugh and effectively rendering the homeland vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Given that they can't do any of that, the leadership is deadlocked. Congressional Republicans, for their part, have maintained the discipline that was a hallmark of the Tom Delay era. They've also taken a page from the Democratic playbook and are using what they can to hold up Democratic legislation and force votes on matters that Pelosi and Reid would rather push under the rug (the condemnations of MoveOn.org, for example). Thus Congress goes nowhere and Democrats find themselves beset on every side.

I don't pity them, I just laugh mercilessly. Politico's got a piece on this whole impasse here.

Broken Arms on Capitol Hill

Democratic House Whip James Clyburn (SC) predicts that he's about 15 Republican votes away from overriding the president's veto of S-CHIP (speaking of stalking horses...). Do my generation a favor, call/email your Rep and remind them that S-CHIP is a foot in the door for socialized medicine. Tell them you know they're not anti-kid if they vote against. I think a lot of Republicans need to hear this.

Oh and I'll spend some time tomorrow looking for a list of which Republican Reps have flipped from the first S-CHIP vote; if you find one, let me know?

"Do It for the Taxpayers"

Fred Barnes convincingly lays out the argument against S-Chip, rightly portraying it as a foot in the door measure for universal healthcare. This is the sort of thing we used to be good at but Democrats never showed much aptitude for - putting the other party in a position where policy aside, it's a symbolically bad vote. It'll be interesting to see if the truth about the policy makes it into the media or is lost behind the "Bush hates kids" meme.

"A binge diet of junk social science"

So say two academics disgusted at the sort of biased "studies" being peddled to Congress. Check it out. I mean I don't even have my undergraduate degree, let alone a PhD, and I've already had it drilled into me that you cannot manipulate your data to produce a desired outcome. Apparently that rule doesn't apply to Harvard professors?
[h/t: the Corner]

John Doe Immunity Lives?

I, along with the rest of the conservative blogosphere, bemoaned last week's apparent demise of language that would shield citizens reporting suspicious activity from lawsuits. Except it turns out that it may have been a Hamas funeral - the dearly departed may not have been dead after all. Captain Ed has the tentative good news.

Oh and while we're at it, this may be as good a time as any to note that "dead" in Washington-ese isn't an absolute term as it is for the rest of the world. This can be good (John Doe immunity shield) or bad (immigration bill) - but either way it's worth noting.

"John Doe" Amendment Dead

The John Doe amendment, which would shield citizens who report suspicious activity from lawsuits, died yesterday in both the House and Senate. Michelle Malkin's got a roundup on it, including votes. Hopefully the bill this is attached to will suffer at the hand of the president's veto pen, though we'll see. What is certain is that Democrats have shown that they value political correctness more than national security.

Of course liberals will get really and truly steamed when the public wises up to the fact that potentially the greatest domestic Islamic terror threat isn't your stereotypical Arab but rather black Muslims, oftentimes converted (and radicalized) in prison. Then people will start reporting suspicious African-Americans and the NAACP and Al Sharpton will get in on the act.

One final thought on the matter: if I'm not mistaken, Republicans could offer this as a separate bill in either chamber, because it was merely an amendment when it was struck down last night. The Senate Homeland Security Committee is chaired by Joe Lieberman, who was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor last night. As a separate bill, it might also garner more attention and thus force Democratic Senators to listen up for once.

The Earmark to Nowhere?

Say what you will about Ted Steven's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" - at least we knew what the money was being spent on. The same can't be said of an earmark inserted by John Murtha, potentially among the most corrupt members of Congress: no one actually knows if the recipient
organization actually exists.

But it's only a million dollars, right? Being such a paltry sum, Congress didn't bother to look into it too much, and overwhelmingly passed the bill.

Now here's the big question: is there more here than meets the eye? Is Murtha channeling money to nonentities for personal purposes? The man is corrupt, as well as inept, so I'm hoping someone looks into this; though despite the Democrats' love affair with subpoenas, I hardly expect them to bestir themselves for this.

Rematches

Given how many close House contests there were last November, it's no surprise that many losers (on both sides of the aisle) are back for another go. CQ's got what looks to me like a pretty good list. Most are to be expected, though I feel that there should be more freshman Democrats in marginal districts on the list. As for the narrowly-victorious Republicans, a friend of mine who worked on the Seals campaign wasn't too optimistic - she felt that in many races (likely including most of the ones on this list), Democrats had missed the boat. Whether or not she's right remains to be seen, though the enormous Democratic financial advantage may partially mitigate a more balanced environment (which is itself an enormous assumption).

Congressional Democrats Get Really Serious About Surrender

Seventy Congressional Democrats have said enough is enough, they really want to surrender; or as they euphemistically state, they "will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

It would seem to me that in the space of two paragraphs, Politico succeeds in contradicting itself; they first cite the last fight over Iraq appropriations, in which a defeatist revolt almost undercut Pelosi. They then claim that this sets the stage for a battle royale between them and the President. Sorry but I think it's one or the other. If Pelosi offers a bill similar to the one she offered last time, and they rebel again, it's a battle between factions of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, Pelosi follows her heart and supports them. But if reports from Iraq continue to improve, she may be hard-pressed to do so. This could be fun...

Pentagon to HRC: Shut Up!

The Pentagon, or at least Undersecretary Eric Edelman, gave Hillary Clinton a piece of its/his mind; it/he had enough of her Iraq rhetoric, specifically in regards to plans for withdrawal. Edelman's response is worth quoting at length:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,"

While I entirely agree with Edelman's sentiments, I don't believe they should be coming from anyone at the Pentagon. That being said, Clinton shouldn't have been asking such questions to begin with.

Edelman's comments, and the fact that he is a protege of Cheney's, will no doubt stir up a hornet's nest on the left; unsurprisingly, the Senator's staff responded very sharply.

Another Reason to Call/Write Congress

Democrats in Congress have cut the language that would give anyone reporting suspicious behavior immunity from the sorts of lawsuits that CAIR is trying to file in the "flying imams" case. This, of course, is the same party that lauds governmental whistle blowers. Although the language went to conference at 1pm, there's no promise that it's been finalized. If your Senator or Representative is on the list below, contact them and let 'em know whats at stake.
Senate

Democrat	Republican
Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman (ID) (CT)	Susan M. Collins Ranking Member (ME)
Carl Levin (MI)	Ted Stevens (AK)
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)	George V. Voinovich (OH)
Thomas R. Carper (DE)	Norm Coleman (MN)
Mark L. Pryor (AR)	Tom Coburn (OK)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)	Pete V. Domenici (NM)
Barack Obama (IL)	John Warner (VA)
Claire McCaskill (MO)	John E. Sununu (NH)
Jon Tester (MT)

House - Democrats

Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2)
Chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security.

Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Vice Chair of the full Committee and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism

Ed Markey (MA-7)

Norman D. Dicks (WA-6)

Jane Harman (CA-36)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment

Peter DeFazio (OR-4)

Nita Lowey (NY-18)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)

Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection

Donna Christensen (USVI)
Rep. Donna M. Christensen continues to distinguish herself as a leader in the United States Congress. As a Member serving her fifth term, she is the first female physician in the history of the U.S. Congress, the first woman to represent an offshore Territory, and the first woman Delegate from the United States Virgin Islands...

Bob Etheridge (NC-2)

James R. Langevin (RI-2)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response

Christopher P. Carney (PA-10)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight

Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11)

Al Green (TX-9)

Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)

House - Republicans
Peter T. King, New York, Ranking Member

Lamar S. Smith, Texas Christopher Shays, Connecticut Mark E. Souder, Indiana Tom Davis, Virginia Dan Lungren, California Mike Rogers, Alabama Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Dave G. Reichert, Washington Michael T. McCaul, Texas Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida David Davis, Tennessee Kevin McCarthy , California

A Stunner in Georgia

You probably had never even heard of Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA); never knew he died either, I suspect. But now his replacement has been chosen by a special election, and it's not who anyone expected. There are some interesting lessons from the race, namely don't get sloppy!

Welcome to Washington, Mr. Broun.

[Georgia's delegation having four doctors is like Louisiana's having two Rhodes Scholars - entirely unexpected]

Hyperbolic Harry and Other Fun

I missed Majority Leader Harry Reid's absurd comments on the Democratic Senate blog yesterday, but Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House didn't - and now Harry's hearing about it. Check it out. Oh and Carl Levin rightfully gets an earful as well.

I'm reading this after watching Band of Brothers last night, specifically the episode where Easy Company is ordered to Bastogne with limited ammo, no winter clothing, etc.; would Harry have cried about them lacking the proper equipment? Probably, if he could have scored political points in doing so.

More Congressional Harassment

Veterans for Freedom, a group that understands that the blood of Americans spread in Iraq cannot be in vain, is launching a push of their own to give our troops the opportunity to win. Check out their ten-week plan here. If you're a veteran, I'd urge you to get involved; they're doing great work and they rightly note that their strength is their numbers. And again, feel free to give a piece of your mind to your Senators, especially if they're spineless cretins like Reid (apologies to honest invertebrates everywhere).

The Senate Votes

Of course referring back to my previous post on the consequences of our withdrawal, that day may not be coming as soon as the fools on the (Capitol) hill might wish. The Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment went down in defeat today, with 52 voting for cloture (and thus seeking to raise the white flag) and forty-seven showing some evidence of spine. The yeas and nays are below (or here); if your Senator refused to second-guess Petraeus, call him or her and give your thanks; otherwise call and give them a piece of your mind (Invertebrate Republicans in bold). Find their contact info here (phone and email).

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)	Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1

Johnson (D-SD)

[Oh and for the record, Surrender Harry had no change of heart - unsure whether he's got one - instead, he voted against it on procedural grounds.]
UPDATE: As someone commented, I forgot Hagel the first time through; Freudian slip?