John Boehner's New House Rules

I was pleasantly surprised by Kim Strassel's recent Wall Street Journal editorial which detailed the newly-newsworthy voting activities of House under John Boehner. She wrote,

"In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. His committee chairmen having presented a base spending bill, Mr. Boehner threw open the floor for full discussion. Some 600 amendments came pouring in.


"Chaos," "a headache," "turmoil," "craziness," "confused," "wild," "uncontrolled" are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There's a far better word for what happened: democracy. It has been eons since the nation's elected representatives have had to study harder, debate with such earnestness, or commit themselves so publicly. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it is unpredictable. But as this Presidents Day approaches, it's a fabulous thing to behold.

And about time. The Democrats' style of management—on ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, stimulus—was to secretly craft bills and ram through a vote, denying members a chance to read, to debate, to amend. They learned this from former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who infamously micro- managed his GOP majority from 2003-2005. The House had become a place where the leadership called all the shots and the majority saluted.


But this week the country witnessed the House coming together to argue over and exercise its foremost responsibility: power over the purse. And from the look of the amendments, both sides were eager to use that funding authority to put the Obama policy machine on notice."


It's difficult to recall a time when there was such open and visible discussion of how Congress spends our money. Strassel continued,
"Americans got to see what happens when members of Congress exercise their collective knowledge of the federal government. Mr. Issa put forward amendments to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from spending money studying the impact of yoga on hot flashes in menopausal women. Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum offered to strike funding for the Department of Defense to sponsor Nascar race cars. Indiana Republican Todd Rokita proposed getting rid of money provided for dissertation research under a 1970 Housing Act.



The nation witnessed Democrats—the members not in the majority—offer their own amendments, a courtesy Speaker Nancy Pelosi never extended. In the main, that meant seeing that nothing much has changed on that side of the aisle. Most Democratic amendments were to restore funds for even the most minor GOP cuts. Texas's Sheila Jackson Lee even went to the mat to continue funding for those road signs bragging about the stimulus.



Remarkably, voters saw Republicans disagree vehemently with each other. Just as remarkably, the world did not stop spinning. To the contrary, these arguments helped flesh out differences and proved it is possible for gentlemen to have honest disagreements. Nowhere was this more clear than in this week's vote to defund a second (duplicative) engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The engine is being developed in a town near Mr. Boehner's Ohio district, and the speaker is a supporter. Yet 100 Republicans joined 123 Democrats (and Defense Secretary Robert Gates) to oppose the second engine and save taxpayers $450 million this year and $3 billion in the long-run.


Mr. Boehner didn't have to allow that vote. Mrs. Pelosi wouldn't have. But in opening the House, Mr. Boehner has done far more than put reform above his own priorities. This week's exercise forced members to read the underlying spending bill; to understand the implications of hundreds of amendments; to remain on the floor for debate; and to go on record with votes for which voters will hold them accountable."


Perhaps the best part of that passage is that Boehner allowed his own pet second jet engine project to be defeated. It's heartening to see a Speaker not use his powers to tilt the playing field for his own district. And not to punish his own party's members for voting against it.

Reading that list of petty, indefensible uses of tax dollars as we are borrowing 40% of them, should do wonders for making Representatives newly-accountable. I suppose the liberal Democrats who are mentioned as trying to restore every sliver of spending the Republicans are cutting may be re-elected in their districts. But maybe not. Perhaps even those voters will begin to see the stupidity of allowing so much money to flow to Washington, only to be wasted in favored, lavish, unnecessary projects nobody would pay for in the private sector.

There are things I don't like about Boehner, but Strassel's piece made me feel much better about him so far.

Eric Cantor For Speaker- Again!!!!!

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page noted earlier this week that John Boehner quietly deep-sixed Paul Ryan's attempt to force money cut from budgets to be sequestered in an untappable account until the fiscal year's end. Further, use of the money would be subject to a full House vote.

This way, Ryan reasoned, individual committee fiefdom's couldn't play bait and switch with budget cuts, using supposed-savings to grease other wheels in sub- or committee votes.

Before Ryan knew what was happening, according to the Journal, Boehner quickly gaveled the question to a voice vote and defeated it.

This is deeply troubling. Some say that Boehner appreciated the Tea Party movement early on and accommodated it. I never bought this line.

What Boehner did this week signals, to me, that my worst fears are coming true. Unless and until Boehner is braced, 24/7, by Eric Cantor on one side and Paul Ryan on the other, he's going to cave back into the arms of waiting old-line spending bulls in the GOP House caucus.

New brooms sweep cleanly. I always felt, and continue to feel, that Boehner's membership in the GOP House leadership that lost control of the chamber four years ago should have prohibited his becoming Speaker.

Eric Cantor is the obvious new face who should have been elected Speaker. Boehner's antics with floor votes and bushwacking his own Budget Committee chair, Ryan, tells you he's no true Tea Party friend, nor has he gotten religion about changing the way things are done in Washington.

Now They Tell Us! Brian Baird Comes Clean About Pelosi

This past weekend's Wall Street Journal in-depth interview, by John Fund, was with retiring Washington state Democratic Representative Brian Baird. He alleges that he's retiring "because the brutal congressional commute makes it impossible for him to see his twin five-year-old boys grow up." Fair enough. As a 12-year veteran, he's not running out just because he'll be in the minority come January.

I find Baird's comments totally disingenuous. Consider these passages from the interview,

""It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."



Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws."

So for all his sanctimony in the interview, remember, Baird was a party-line Pelosi soldier. He is one of those morons who believes that passing bad legislation on which people must rely, and must obey, is okay. Then serially fixing said flawed legislation, creating even more uncertainty- well, that's okay too.


"Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."



When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.


"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.


For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.



Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?" "

I find these statements, again, disingenuous. So Baird had all these insights about and issues with various legislative proposals. But where was he on CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc., complaining about them? Did he do so, and I missed those interviews? The last comment is hilarious, except it indicates how stupid Baird must be. Only "troubled" that Barney Frank's magical bill omitted Freddie and Fannie? C'mon, is anyone really this dense? They started the housing meltdown, led by Frank's directives from Congress. Was, and is, Baird so naive about the GSEs that he really 'asked' why they held an event for a freshman Rep?


"Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.
"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.


Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.



He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me."

All well and good, but, again, why was Baird silent? So long as these back-benchers remain silent, the parties will both continue to behave badly. Baird was elected by people in Washington, not Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, et.al. Whose interests was he really serving with his silence?


"Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.



"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.""

Again, nice sentiments....now. Where was he nine months ago with this stuff in public? It's great to be brave now. How about when it mattered and might have affected legislative results? Sorry, Brian, you get no credit here for after-action honesty and 'courage.'


"In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it.""

Nice. Why wasn't this published online as an alternative view, rather than silently voting for Pelosi's bill?



"I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:


"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." "


Not as easy as you think? I don't know about that. That pledge is feasible. The fact that Baird believes it is not means he is in the camp of believing people work harder as you raise tax rates. What an idiot!

Sure, honesty about numbers is important. So is treating voters as adults. But, as his former colleagues will likely see tomorrow/Wednesday morning, that's probably going to be the rule now, no longer an exception. And it will go for Republican in two more years, as well.

A different kind of tipping point, politically, may now have been reached.

Frisco Nan's First 100 Days

Saturday's Wall Street Journal noted that the Democrats' famous 100th day of House rule will occur this week. The editorial writer at the Journal graciously thinks it is,

"too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish...."

Given 'victories' like cutting off funds for the Iraq war, including much of the pork that the Democrats promised to reject, refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, and raising the minimum wage for workers, except those employed by companies in Frisco Nan's own district, it's unclear how these will play in Nan's colleagues districts some 20 18 months from now.

As the Journal article notes, much of what is being passed will be vetoed by Bush, assuming it even gets through a Senate reconciliation process. And as it concludes,

"If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi."

Just so. But, fortunately, the Dems are too set in their ways to change their behaviors now. Despite recruiting many centrist freshmen candidates, many of whom won, the House Democrats ran and seek to govern from anger, retribution, and righteous indignation. Although possessing paper-thin margins in both houses of Congress, Reid and Frisco Nan simply cannot contain their partisan zeal for persecuting, and attempting to prosecute, President Bush and his cabinet for political differences.

The upshot of this crusading attitude will likely be a continuing strain on Nan's ability to resolve her continuing dilemma- satisfy her liberal base, to whom she owes her Speakership, or satisfy the broad centrist group of newly-elected and veteran moderate party members in the House. She cannot do both.

In the past, the first group has cut off its nose to spite its face, rejecting electability in favor of extremism. The second group probably would like to return to Washington in 2009 and, therefore, may exert a pressure as yet unseen by Nan to 'do the right thing' for the country, no matter if it does not demonize Bush or the Republicans.

Personally, given how little, as usual, has been signed into law by now, I'm betting this auspicious 'first 100 days' will be, and will want to be forgotten by the Liberal Democratic House leadership, by year's end.

Edifice Complexes

I recently watched a program on the History channel describing Nero's burning of Rome, to clear way for his new pleasure palace. He only lived in it for about six months, before being deposed and executed.

Consider Washington, D.C.- our country's "hack central." How are our Congressional office buildings named? Has any Representative or Senator ever asked you for naming ideas?

The building names are all incestuous pats on the backs by Representatives and Senators to themselves - Dirksen (from my old state and, by the way, district, too), Hart, and Russell for the Senate. Rayburn, Cannon and Longworth for the House.

Would any of us taxpayers name these large, expensive buildings in Washington for the hacks we had to send up to the Hill?

Why aren't they named, for example, Hale, Aldrin, Perry, Sheridan, Morse, Edison, or Marshall? Named for great Americans, instead of forgettable hacks. Or for posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor winners? Men and women who truly sacrificed for our country, as recognized by Congress. How fitting, no?

Who even recalls Longworth or Cannon? Rayburn was the consummate (Texan) trough-feeding House hack...um......Speaker.

It's just unconscionable. Mark my words, regardless of her record or brevity of service, Pelosi will get a shrine, too, just for being the first female 'First Hack' of the House. Instead of, perhaps, Molly Pitcher, Florence Nightingale, or the first female cabinet secretary. It's just disgraceful, and I mean that in a very non-partisan manner.

San Francisco Nan's Minimum Wage Exemption

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday regarding newly-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's exemption of one of her hometown companies, DelMonte, via its StarKist Tuna unit, and its Samoan operations, from her highly-touted minimum wage hiking bill.

There are many more news articles on the topic, such as those found here, here, here, and here. It's not simply a Journal editorial hack job. Many people have noted the ethical lapse by Speaker Nan.

By the way, that last link is really precious. The writer outlines my own thoughts, which are that the Democrats have been starved of effective power for so long (and still are, btw), that they could not wait to begin ramming through the House their version of America, bill by bill.

With a weak plurality in the Senate, and a sitting President of the opposing party, the craigslist poster notes that Nan is simply butting heads with a process that will deny her anything but a reputation for ineffectiveness and naivete.

But, that's for later. For now, we see Nan as the usual House hack she, in fact, is. Anyone in the House long enough to make the 'leadership' team is typically so irretrievably hacked up that s/he can't help her/himself from grabbing for the goodies ASAP.

Welcome to the Speaker's House of Shame, Nan. You got there in record time, baby! I guess women can do something better than men.