Congress To Save Us From Devastating Steroids
On Thursday, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell released his report on the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. The 409-page report named 86 players and pointed the finger at the owners for knowing what was going on but taking no action.
America, of course, was aghast. And our politicians were there to show their feigned outrage about something that is meaningless.
President Bush, who once owned the Texas Rangers, said Friday he's been "troubled by the steroid allegations."
Oooo, troubled. Considering all the shit youve done, I would think Derrick Jeter raping your dog wouldnt trouble you.
Then Henry Waxman, my representative, jumped in and said he would
hold hearings today. Waxman is chairman of the House of Representatives Government Oversight and Reform Committee, so naturally he would get all up in the business of baseball. That is what government oversight and reform is all about.
"The Mitchell report is sobering. It shows the use of steroids and human growth hormone has been and is a significant problem in Major League Baseball," Waxman and Davis said.
"And it shows that everyone involved in Major League Baseball bears some responsibility for this scandal."
Yes, and it has nothing to do with you, Mr. Grandstanding Bitch. You know why Congress will be holding hearings on steroids? Because it's an election year. Because the Democrats are implicated in legalizing waterboarding. Because Harry Reid is giving immunity to telecoms and not allowing oversight on FISA. Because they have helped Bush with his illegal wiretapping program. Because they have done nothing about the US attorney scandal. Because they have increased the number of troops in Iraq, rather than reduce. Because they have not held Harriet Miers in contempt. Because they have done absolutely nothing about immigration. Because they have done nothing about Bush cooking intelligence to start the Iraq war. Because New Orleans is still a wreck from Hurricane Katrina. Because we still havent restored Habeas Corpus. Because they have done nothing about human beings indefinitely detained without charges. Because they have done nothing to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Because the national debt is horrifying. Because Bush turned Medicare into a time bomb and they have done nothing to fix it. Because they continue funding abstinence education in the face of all evidence. Because they have done nothing to implement the 911 Commission recommendations. Because they have not looked into the 2004 Ohio voter irregularities. Because Bush is still writing his signing statements on bills without a worry. Because the Vice President still thinks he is a fourth branch of government. Because they have not addressed the net neutrality problem. Because they allow funding for the fake missile defense shield to continue. Because No Child Left Behind continues to destroy our schools. Because the White House still refuses to turn over requested emails. Because they have allowed Bush to repeatedly put lunatics on the bench. Because of the evisceration of the US Commission on Civil Rights. And because, most of all, on a day when the FCC is going to remove the rule that stops media companies from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same town, Henry Waxman plans on stealing the spotlight with a bullshit hearing on steroids.
The list of failures for this Democratic Congress is huge. But here is one they cannot fail on because, my gosh, it is baseball we are talking about. It is the most pure sport in the land and we cant allow big league players to do steroids because it will influence our kids. Then our precious children will take steroids and become huge, hulking children.
Never mind that the majority of kids are now on pharmaceutical drugs to calm them down. Never mind that alcohol is the #1 advertisement during baseball games. Never mind that their parents take drugs to go to sleep, to get through the day and to get an erection. We now have drugs that are so very "bad." And baseball players are the reason. Not football players, not hockey players, not basketball players, not boxers. Nope, it is the baseball players because that sport is so pure. It always has been.
Sure, Babe Ruth, that hero of heroes, was an incredible drunk and liked to do a bit of coke, but come on, that never hurt anyone. And Mickey Mantle. The Mick! So full of booze that the amount he ingested could have killed a donkey on any given day. Dont pay attention to the fact that a baseball team is named the Brewers. And how about the Big Red Machine, hopped up on amphetamines? Shit, how about the majority of players taking amphetamines since 1940? How about the fact that the drug was introduced to baseball by WWII soldiers who took it overseas and gave it to their teammates when they returned to MLB? How about that the teams supplied it to the players? Congress jumped in and put a stop to all that nonsense for the kids, didn't they? Bullshit.
Yes, we need to get Waxman on this, now. Because today the FCC will allow TV stations to own a newspaper in the same town and Waxman thinks a steroid hearing should steal the headlines. But we know what is really important: Steroids. Because if we don't take care of that, the kids might start to get the wrong idea about how to live life. Then they might take steroids, which won't mix with with their Ritalin and Lexapro and their Zoloft and Desyrel and Lamictal and their Focalin XR and Depakote and Risperdal and their Catapres. Then theyd be totally fucked up.
Its important to have priorities and Id like to thank Congress.
Noticed Your Birth Control Costing More? Tell Congress
Remember this piece about birth control costs for college students going up because the Bush administration cut the funding that helps subsidize it?
Well, college students around the country, with the help of NARAL, organized petition drives on campus, and as a result of their work, there's a bill wending its way through Congress now--HR 4054, the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act--that does just what its title suggests: restores college and university access to low-cost birth control.
this fall, college women returned to campus to discover that the birth control that previously cost them $510 for a monthly supply now cost $4050 per pack, making it far more difficult to afford. Due to a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), as of January 1, 2007, every college and university health center and hundreds of safety-net providers were unintentionally cut off from accessing low-cost birth control and passing on the low price to college women and low-income women. The result has been an increase in the average price of birth control on college campuses, often to 10 times the previous cost.
Rep. Crowleys legislation, The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, would bring down the soaring cost of birth control at college health clinics and safety-net providers and increase access to affordable birth control. This legislation will not cost the taxpayers a single dime, and would restore the voluntary benefit to college health clinics and safety-net providers. (My emphasis.)
Should be a no-brainer, but you can't count on that in a world where plenty of legislators think Plan B causes abortion (it doesn't) or that it's a-okay for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions to women.
So take half a minute to click through and send a letter to your representative urging them to support HR 4054.
Bitch_PhD can't wait for a decent national health program that'll cover birth control for everyone.
Bush Hates the Free Press. What Else is New?
I know, I know, guys. Writing articles about Bush is sooooo 2005. Forget outrage fatigue, I know most of us are bordering on outrage catatonia at this point. But for a moment, try to harken back to that fall of 2004 when you thought that George W. Bush was the Most Evil Man in the Universe and that the Neo-Cons would rule for ages and ages to come. You know, back to when Bush was polling above even his own pathetic IQ.
Back then, if Congress had gotten up the balls to pass a Federal Shield Law by an overwhelming majority and Bush said, Fuck it, I like putting journalists in jail, wouldnt that piss you the hell off?
Welcome to Tantrum Town. Population = You.
The House overwhelmingly approved a media shield bill Tuesday that would protect reporters from having to reveal their confidential sources in federal courts, despite warnings from the White House that it could lead to more leaks of classified information.
The measure was passed on a broad bipartisan vote, 398-21, with 176 Republicans joining virtually all Democrats to support the bill.
In an unusual alliance, senior Republican like House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo, broke with the Bush administration to join the majority in passing a bill that supporters said would bolster the freedom of the press.
"In the past few years, there have been too many instances where the pendulum has swung against the free flow of information and in favor of the government," Blunt said on the House floor. "I was troubled by the instances I've seen where reporters have been jailed or threatened with jail for simply protecting their sources."
The White House issued a statement Tuesday afternoon saying President Bush's advisers would recommend he veto the legislation unless it's changed, claiming the bill is too broad and could harm national security.
Here youve got a bill with about 95% of the House of Representatives voting for it that is designed to aid the free flow of information to the public. The free flow of information happens to be something that the founders of our country thought was so important that they made journalists the only private occupation to have specific Constitutional protection. Moreover, its a bill that that would enact a law that is already working comfortably for thirty-one states and the District of Columbia. And then the President comes along and says hes gonna veto it. What a twat, right?
But wait, theres more! Want to know the reason why Bush threatened to veto the bill?
"It is likely that the legislation will encourage more leaks of classified information by giving leakers such a formidable shield behind which they can hide," the statement read.
Oh that is fucking rich. Just ask Scooter Libby and Richard Armitrage how much the President cares about leaking classified information. Cant have the press finding out about another flap like the NSA wiretapping program, can we? God damn, theyre pricks.
The real reason were getting pushback from the White House on the proposed federal shield law is that enacting one would lessen the power of the executive to strong-arm reporters into giving up their sources. Thus, the Administration loses a crucial end-run around actually doing their jobs. Why waste time investigating crimes yourself when youve got the press to do it for you? And if they dont, well, throw them in jail like you did with Josh Wolf or Judith Miller, or like you threatened to do with Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada.
Look, Im all in favor of the sanctity of the judicial process. It bothers me when, like in the BALCO case, sealed grand jury testimony gets leaked. And I understand the Law and Order viewpoint that often the only way to find illegal leakers and prosecute them is to go through the reporter they leaked the info to. Im sympathetic to those concerns. But that doesnt mean they should trump the ability of the Fourth Estate to do their jobs. The public has a right to know and journalists have a right... nay, a goddamned Constitutional responsibility to tell them. If that means some people get away with breaking the law in certain circumstances, so be it.
I recognize that we live in a time where the mainstream press is so coagulated, so docile, so lazy and so institutionalized that wealthy benefactors have to set up non-profit press corps to insure that true investigative reporting actually gets done. I recognize that the mainstream press is so laughably bad that two shtick-y comedians who do almost nothing but poke fun at the press are pretty much universally perceived as having more integrity than the whole lot of 24 hour news networks combined. The profession of journalism needs a massive overhaul, starting with a Ma Bell style de-consolidation of the media conglomerates. That much is certain. Another part of the solution is to ensure that reporters dont risk jail time for seeking out important stories. This bill would do that.
Luckily, if the support that this bill received in the House is at all translated to the Senate, we wont have to worry about President Gargamels veto pen. Thank goodness for that. This Federal shield law has been a long, long time coming.
Congress Repeals Global Gag Rule
Hurrah! Feministing announces that Congress has voted to repeal the Global Gag Rule, which banned U.S. family planning money to international organizations that so much as mentioned abortion internationally.
First passed in Reagan's second term, the Gag Rule stayed in place under Bush senior, was abandoned under Clinton (hurrah), and then reinstated, of course, by baby Bush. So this vote is the first time since 1993 that Congress has stood up for international women's reproductive rights. And, by the way, for actual science: there's no evidence that the Gag Rule reduces the incidence of abortions (especially since it withholds funding from the very organizations that are most likely to provide birth control), and plenty of evidence that it undermines women's health all over the world.
Who do we have to thank? In the Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Wanna tell me again that getting women into office doesn't matter? In the House, the original amendment was sponsored by Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CN). Wanna tell me again that being pro-women in office necessarily means being anti-man? (Hint: it doesn't--good on you, Rep. Shays).
Bush, of course, being a complete asshole, promises a veto--even if doing so means vetoing the entire $34 million foreign assistance bill that the amendment is attached to. Gotta love a man of principle: if women are gonna get to hear about abortion, no one is going to get any help!
Hang on, world. We'll be getting rid of this jackass next year, we promise.
Bitch_PhD apologizes for the lack of image on this article--my laptop's died, the computer I'm using doesn't have graphic imaging software, and no one's in the office what with it being Sunday and all.
Bush to Abort Stem Cell Bill, Again
You have to hand it to George W.: hes got the brainpower of a headless chicken, but the guy sticks to his guns. As hes proven with Iraq he doesn't deter from the course, rather, he sees it through no matter the absurd and painful consequences.
Just this week, Congress put forward a new bill that would relax the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The bill looks promising, and basically says that, if passed, the government would dish out the necessary cash to fund stem cell research using embryos that would otherwise be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics. Thats like mashing two potatoes with one fork: wed be cutting down on biohazard waste (probably not much of a threat to world happiness, but still) and we'd get to recycle excess fruit of the womb by using it for crucial research.
Naturally, things arent that simple: theres an enormous, stubborn, half-retarded ogre guarding the bridge to our dreams of untold stem cell derived riches. George W. Bush has squashed these dreams of a better future before, and like the arch-villain he is, hes vowed to do it again. The AP quotes him as saying:
If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing that line would be a grave mistake. For that reason, I will veto the bill.
To his credit, at least he has a reason. Id hate to think he was maliciously annihilating the dreams of thousands of suffering people for the sport of it. I think I'm even beginning to wrap my head around his point: we wouldnt want to destroy something before we threw it away, because that would be
mean?
Even if this bill doesnt pass and it wont at least Congress is showing the initiative to try and make a progressive change for the better. With a different monkey on the throne, our country might just have some better luck getting decent legislation passed, and hopefully our future will be that much brighter.
Obstructionist Congressional Republicans Block Will of the People
The House of Representatives is the closest thing Americans have to a truly representative democracy. While states as small as Rhode Island receive equal representation to states as large as California in the Senate, and the bizarre electoral college system can award the presidency to someone who receives fewer votes than their competitor, Representatives in Congress are apportioned on the basis of population distribution to ensure that everyone gets some measure of a voice in the federal government. So when Democrats took back Congress last year by storm, overturning a 12 year Republican majority, it was the best indication so far that the will of the voters was to push forward a Democratic agenda and reject the failed policies of their Republican predecessors. However, Republicans have refused to accept the will of the American people and have revived a little-used procedural tactic to block the legislative efforts of the majority party.
Since January, GOP leaders have relied on a maneuver known as the "motion to recommit" to stymie Democrats and score political points for Republicans still adjusting to life in the minority.
The motion to recommit allows the minority a chance to amend a bill on the floor or send it back to committee, effectively killing it. In a legislative body in which the party in power controls nearly everything, it is one of the few tools the minority has to effect change.
In the 12 years of Republican control that ended in January, Democrats passed 11 motions to recommit. Republicans have racked up the same number in just five months of this Congress.
To anyone keeping score, the Democrats have made this possible because their congressional leadership has made good on their promise to keep the legislative process more open and give their own party members more freedom than Republicans while they were in control. Republican leaders demanded that their party members all vote against motions to recommit, but Democrats are leaving the choice to do so up to the individual Representatives.
In a turn of refreshing honesty, Republican minority leaders are brazenly open about the purely partisan nature of these motions, with little indication that they serve any purpose but to slow down the legislative efforts of the Democrats.
"Sometimes we offer motions to recommit to improve legislation -- sometimes it's to force Democrats in marginal districts to make tough choices," [Minority leader and hater of Democracy John] Boehner said. "Every time the Republicans win, it boosts morale. We're able to show unity, which is good for the overall team. Members feel good about winning on the House floor. And when you're in the minority, it doesn't happen that often."
For decades Republicans leveled charges against the "obstructionist" Democrats in Congress and how their nefarious plots and schemes prevented Republicans from doing the bidding of the people. But with only five months under their belts as the minority party, Republicans have demonstrated that they can and will use every loophole available to them to be even more "obstructionist" than the Democrats ever were.
Conservatives Get A Piñata Style Beat Down
The White House and some members of Congress have reached an agreement on immigration reform that would grant legal status to millions of people who have illegally crashed our party. Apparently lawmakers have been meeting secretly and only today revealed the fruit of their naughty bargaining.
The deal mandates increased border security and creates a new Z visa, which would put immigrants on track to get citizenship in 8 to 13 years. They would have to pay fees and a $5,000 fine and also return to their home country first. What could possibly be a problem in that scenario? Most immigrants have thousands of dollars lying around and would not at all be suspicious of leaving and coming back.
The plan would create an immigration system based on skills, education levels and job experience. The current system emphasizes family ties. Low-skilled immigrants would be forced to return home after two years in the US. They could renew their visas twice, but would have to leave for a year in between. If they wanted to become citizens they could apply for a green card under a point system.
One big reason to reject the plan is that Bush supports it. Everything he touches turns to shit and this would be no different.
President Bush said the proposal would "help enforce our borders but equally importantly, it'll treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty but without animosity.
Liberals and conservatives came out against the reform plan. Liberals say the proposal is unworkable and unfair, while conservatives are losing their minds over the idea of amnesty. Take a look at what the kids on the Free Republic website are saying.
dEPORT tHE pRESIDENT aND cLOSE tHE bORDERS.
Interesting idea. We're going to table it.
Hail it all you want Mr. President you just lost a lot of my support. What an absolute disgust with all politicians. Cant trust those who your supposed to have confidence in.
Nor can you trust grammar, apparently.
High-tech employment? Show me how many of the 12 million could even work in high-tech. Get rid of the idea of being born here makes a person a citizen. The 14th ammendment that states that was only for the black slaves, not immagrants.
Note: I, FearTheReaper, hate "immagrants" too.
Good Lord, how many more do they intend to bring into the country? Isn't 30-50 million enough for them? The sorry bast*rds. They're traitors to America/Americans. I hope they rot in hell.
30-50 million is a big difference. That's a twenty million spread. I'm going to need you to pick an exact exaggeration.
Im done with him on this and many other issues. Ill never vote for him again. Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.
I pretty sure this guy is talking about the Visogoths, in which case he should be on another forum.
Si, claro que si, el guapo presidente.
Somebody whipped out the mother fucking translator! BAM!
Im startin to get on board with the impeachment folks. Treason is the reason.
They finally get around to talking about impeachment and its over immigration. Gotta love the conservatives.
GOP Civil War Kicks Off
As I have said before, the only way for Republicans to survive the 2008 elections will be to crush the White House. The administration is behaving like a reckless, drunk, angry 11-year old boy and will drag the rest of the GOP down to depths never before seen if it continues on its current path. Republicans in Congress just seem to be waking up and realizing this President will not alter policies to save them from hemorrhaging seats next year. Suddenly the Republicans on the hill are growing balls and the White House is not happy about it.
Eleven moderate Republican Congressmen went to the White House this week to let the President know they expected a change in course in Iraq. The did not hear what they wanted to hear, and after the meeting Republican Tom Davis of Virginia said Bush is in a bubble. They then leaked the meeting to the press and the White House is not pleased.
White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting's organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House's chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration's unhappiness.
DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE KING UNLESS HE GIVES PERMISSION! Rape their wives and cut off their feet but let them live.
Sith Lord Dick Cheney let the Republicans in Congress know exactly where they stand with the administration.
Vice President Dick Cheney did not mince words in an interview with the Fox News Channel. We didnt get elected to be popular, Mr. Cheney said. We didnt get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party.
Um, Dick, you are gonna need them on your side or you will be eating your own assholes for the couple of years. Thats how the government was set up by the Founding Fathers. Turns out they wanted to avoid everything that you are.
The Republicans in Congress are giving the White House plenty of warnings that they need to make a change. House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
"By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."
And Senator Lott also made his stance known:
"This fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground."
And now they are asking for face-to-face meetings with the President to express their displeasure only to be rebuffed. Apparently the White House did not understand what it meant when the RNC leaked the information about Rove using their servers for his emails. Let me spell it out for you: You have served your purpose. You may be in the White House but we will kill you for the partys survival.
On the other side is a White House so ruthless that they leaked the name of a CIA agent for payback. 2008 will be a glorious year for liberals. If you thought Republicans were savage when attacking the left, wait you see them go after their own.
For DC: Finally Some Representation with Taxation
During the American Revolutionary war, "Taxation without representation" was a rallying cry for those opposed to England's heavy taxes on the American colonies without granting them any form of representation in England's government. After breaking off from England and establishing an independent, representative democracy this problem was solved for all inhabitants, right? Well, almost. Congressional representation is guaranteed by the constitution for everyone living in a state.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
The nation's capital, Washington DC, is not in any state per se, and for good reason, since any state containing that city would likely be granted undue power in either the senate or the house. However, what that means for the permanent residents of DC is that they are afforded no voting representation (Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is the current non-voting representative) at the national level in Congress, and might explain why DC license plates continue to have "Taxation without Representation" as their slogan.
However, all this may finally be set to change. Part of the Democrats' congressional agenda has been to secure legitimate representation for DC residents, and a bill that would ensure this has passed in Congress.
The budget measure passed 216 to 203 and was then combined with the voting rights bill that had passed.
Supporters called the bill's passage their biggest victory since 1978, when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give the city two senators and a House representative. The amendment died after failing to win passage by enough states. The current legislation would not give the District senators.
A news conference after the vote drew a jubilant group of members of Congress, D.C. leaders and activists. They hugged and shook hands, savoring the moment.
"It's been a great day," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who had emphasized in his floor speech that District residents haven't been able to vote for congressional representation since 1801. "It's never too late to do the right thing."
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who this week led thousands of people in a voting rights march on Congress, said residents "appreciate the history of this moment."
"This was a statement about our country's principles, values and morals. That we would no longer be the only democratic-represented country in the world where the citizens of the nation's capital did not have a vote in the national legislature," he said.
As with all things good in this world, once passed in a Congressional vote the White House threatens to veto them. Suddenly the White House's overwhelming concern for strict adherence to constitutionality represents a massive roadblock into getting another seat, which will almost certainly vote Democrat, into Congress. Curiously these concerns were nonexistent when authorizing measures to push forward Bush's own agenda, like illegally wiretapping US citizens, abandoning the principle of habeas corpus and violating treaty obligations by indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists in secret prisons. But clearly those were minor infractions, and the White House has to draw the line somewhere on important issues like granting its own citizenry representation in the federal government - such a thing would be too much to bear.
Fortunately for the White House, and unfortunately for the backers of the bill and the residents of DC, if the Senate approves this bill (and the White House doesn't veto it for fear of bricks through windows) it still faces an uphill climb in the courts. The constitution is relatively straightforward in granting only states the right to voting representation in congress and the senate, so a constitutional amendment may be the only way to secure this right for the residents of DC. Time will tell, but DC should hold off on any celebrations for now.
White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best
George Bush is king. It happened yesterday, while we were all going about our business. Tony Snow broke the news to us on almost every news show and even during a White House press conference.
Snow to MSNBC: Theres another principle, which is Congress doesnt have the legislative I mean oversight authority over the White House.
Snow to MSNBC: First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesnt have oversight.
Snow to Fox: Congress doesnt have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.
Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."
Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."
Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."
MR. SNOW: Congress
does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.
Um. Okay. Now Im not sure what to do. When someone tells you everything you learned as a child about your government is wrong and that person is IN CHARGE, what do you do? This is quite simply freaky and disturbing.
The president has declared himself above the laws of our country and has said he will not be a part of our system of government. I dont give a shit if you are conservative or liberal or moderate, you should understand we are walking into some very strange territory and anyone who supports this bullshit should be cast into the sea. (Do we do that?)
Oversight is real. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, on more than one occasion.
In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."
Dont sit back and think, wow, this is so out of character. We have been heading toward this for quite some time. Bush lied to get us into a disastrous war, he has been illegally tapping our phones, illegally looking at our internet exchanges, he broke campaign funding laws, he is writing his own little additions on laws passed by Congress, he has violated the anti-torture statute, as well as international torture laws, he has suspended habeas corpus and outed a CIA agent. Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.
Put aside the fact that this makes the White House seem like it really has something to hide, that they are so guilty and have committed such crimes that they have to defy the Constitution.
Ask yourself this: What does happen when a sitting president decides hes not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, Im not going to do that? Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.
2007 Constitutional Showdown!
The US attorneys purge scandal has been heating up for a while and now things are finally starting to get exciting. Today, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law voted to subpoena Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Gonzales chief of staff, Kyle Sampson for their role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors. They will be asked to testify under oath about their actions.
The under oath part is what the White House is worried about. The administration is attempting to paint the scandal as a partisan attack, but their constant changing of reasons for the firings does little to help their argument. Yesterday, Bush offered a compromise: His aides would come to meet with Congress, behind closed doors and not under oath. Thats a really super compromise when you are being accused of criminal activity. He only pissed off Democratic and some Republican members of Congress. Next the Senate will vote for subpoenas.
The White House has strongly indicated they will claim executive privilege and not allow aides to testify.
Bush said Tuesday he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
Uh huh. Well, Im not going to argue that, instead, Ill let White House Spokesman Tony Snow argue it for me. From the Chicago Tribune ten years ago, when Snow was upset that Clinton might not let his aides testify:
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''
Youre a good boy, Tony, thanks. The subpoena question will most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices are Republicans. But the Court has already been injured by their actions in the recount decision of 2000. The justices are supposed to be above partisan politics and the recount decision was along party lines. The Supreme Court lost credibility in the eyes of many Americans. Will it self-inflict more damage to save an unpopular president?
Before any ruling the subpoena fight will be in the media and Bush will lose. The incredibly unpopular administration is already known for lying and if it chooses to fight a battle over whether or not aides should swear under oath, which is just telling the truth, it will lose. Editorials are already popping up.
If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."
I dont want to have to tell the truth is not a good defense, but it is what the White House is going with. We can feel good about one thing during all this madness, Bush feels really bad for the folks who were unjustly fired under his watch.
Im sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are I put them in there in the first place; theyre decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now theyre being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and its just what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and Im sorry that the situation has gotten to where its got. But thats Washington, D.C. for you. You know, theres a lot of politics in this town.
Oversights a bitch, huh? Welcome to America, Mr. President.
An Iraq Resolution, This Time with Teeth
Remember the nonbinding resolution Congress approved that lightly chastised Bush as command in chief of the armed forces for the continuing failure in Iraq? No one else does either. That's the problem with nonbinding resolutions, they don't actually do anything but express disapproval without any consequences. It seems that senate Democrats have decided to give the Iraq question another go, only this time the resolution may actually mean something.
The Reid Joint Resolution builds on the longstanding Democratic position on Iraq and the Levin-Reed Amendment: the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war. It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options.
"The President's strategy in Iraq is not working, and Congress must decide whether to follow his failed policies or whether to change course," said Senator Reid. "Democrats believe, as does an overwhelming majority of the American people, that the time has come to transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq. Hopefully, Senate Republicans will now join Democrats and the American people in calling for a change in course. They must put doing the right thing above protecting the President."
As of right now the resolution seems to consist of little more than bullet points, some of which are of the "We Support Our Troops" ilk. Clearly this thing needs to be fleshed out a little more completely before it's brought up for a vote, otherwise if it's passed Democrats could bear the political burden of having passed a resolution that amounts to little more than a mission statement. Bush has remained intransigent on the issue, saying little other than threatening a veto of any Congressional directive to set a hard deadline to withdraw troops. To date Bush has vetoed only a single bill, one seeking to expand research for embryonic stem cells.
Few would argue at this point that Iraq is not a mess, and even General Petraeus, the current commanding officer of US troops in Iraq, suggests that non-military methods may be a better way to improve the situation.
Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, warned that military force alone wouldnt succeed in ending the current bloodshed in Iraq, yet is necessary to improve security in the violence-torn country.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month, adding that political negotiations were crucial for a long lasting peace.
Political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort," he said.
Petraeus further stated that talks should include "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them."
He's obviously not agreeing with the Democrats that it's time to start pulling out US troops, but if even the recently appointed (by Bush) military commander thinks that shifting the focus towards political solutions is the way to go, it should be a sign that the military option really hasn't worked so far.
It remains to be seen whether Iraq will stabilize in the absence of an overwhelming US military presence, but with more training of Iraqi soldiers and police as an ongoing project, presumably there will come a point in the not-so-distant future when control of the country will have to be handed off to its people. Maybe setting a deadline will light fires under the asses of those in training positions to make sure that gets done properly.
Congress Snubs Bush on Iraq
Despite vocal opposition to the motion, Democrats passed the non-binding resolution condemning the president's troop escalation in Iraq by a vote of 246 to 182, with some Republicans jumping the fence to voice their displeasure with the state of affairs.
The vote follows days of fierce debate, during which the Democrats have made it clear that more decisive steps to limit Mr Bush's war policy could follow.
The Senate is due to vote on the troop plan in an unusual Saturday session.
Previous Senate attempts to debate the anti-troop surge resolution have been met with delaying tactics from Republican members.
Keep in mind, the resolution is non-binding, so what it really says to Bush is "we don't approve of what you're doing in Iraq, but we're not ready to actually stop you from doing it." What is encouraging, however, is that it fostered actual debate on the subject, something that had been sorely lacking since even before the war was waged (one would think that going to war would merit debate, but apparently not in this deliberative body.)
Some Republicans were obviously outraged over the affair, or at least able to feign it convincingly enough.
Republican Roy Blunt countered with a warning that the Democrats' "slow-bleed approach" would hurt US troops fighting overseas.
"This non-binding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose," he said.
[...]
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner criticised the Democrats' attempts to derail Mr Bush's plans.
"While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," he said.
Same-old, same-old. Republicans accusing Democrats of not "supporting the troops" by kowtowing to Bush's military demands. Nothing particularly new there, though it seems to carry even less credibility coming from the mouthpiece of the recently defeated party. What is new though is the defection of Republicans on such a high-profile issue, possibly another side effect of being the minority party.
The conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill has been that those Republicans facing the most tenuous political hold on their seats would be in open revolt against Bush's unpopular decision to send more troops into Iraq. But the lion's share of GOP opponents of the Bush plan come from comfortable to very safe congressional districts.
Of the first 13 Republicans identified as supporters of the resolution, only three received less than 55 percent of the vote in winning reelection last year Reps. Ric Keller (Fla.), Phil English (Pa.) and James T. Walsh (N.Y.). A handful of other GOP supporters received 65 percent or more of the vote last November, placing them among the safest batch of incumbents in the House.
"This is a matter of conscience not just your conscience but the conscience of your district," said Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.), who has become an unofficial leader among the antiwar Republicans, along with the Eastern Shore's Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.).
Any time a politician opens his or her mouth one has to wonder whether what comes out is calculated solely for political gain, and this goes for all parties and stripes. And it is certainly currently politically expedient to be against the Iraq war. But the fact that an array of Republicans are able to break with the party line and come out against it, with a few minor exceptions like Chuck Hagel, is encouraging for a party that had been militant about keeping everyone voting the same way on key issues. Again, that could also be more a function of Republicans being in the minority could lock-step agreement be in the future for the majority Democrats? Let's hope not, considering where it's gotten us.
How Lazy is Congress?
These past two weeks have seen one of the more ridiculous debates in recent memory occur in Congress. Patting themselves on the back for their inspiring work ethic, Democratic legislators are instituting a five day work week in Congress. To most anyone who wasn't born with a trust fund, this seems ridiculous, as labor unions historically had to fight to reduce the work week to only five days, and virtually everyone who holds down a full-time job (or two) knows that it is expected rather than excessive. Nevertheless, opposition to the enactment of the five day work week standard is strong, particularly amongst Republicans, who claim that it puts a strain on representatives' families and keeps them away from their constituents. But what is the reality of "extended" work week for Congress? Apparently it doesn't have much to do with debating serious issues.
Consider yesterday's schedule for the people's representatives. Not only did they have to pass H.R. 99, "commending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln volleyball team," but they had to do it immediately after passing H.R. 72, celebrating the achievements of meteorologist Max Mayfield. Then it was on to legislation in support of the African American spiritual, remembering a deceased NASCAR driver, naming a courthouse in Duluth, Minn., and honoring the grandfather of two congressmen.
That left time for a full debate over the day's signal legislative achievement: H.R. 130, congratulating the Indianapolis Colts for winning the Super Bowl.
It's easy to lament the colossal waste of time that is the routine of our federal representatives, and I don't think anyone is deluded enough to believe that everything Congress does is important and has a purpose. That being said, the increase in working hours is not necessarily a good idea just because it puts legislators on par with everyone else who holds down a job. Putting together a quality piece of legislation takes time and research, and while representatives have staffs to help them with this, if they're wasting all of their time voting on pointless bills like some of the ones described then they're not giving the important ones the sort of attention that is required.
In addition, the critique that mandatory time in Washington keeps representatives away from their constituents could very well be a legitimate one; a representative government should give its representatives time to meet with constituents so that their interests can be better represented, and forcing reps to stay in Washington means that only those constituents with the means to go there or to hire a lobbyist will have their opinions heard.
However, Congress could certainly stand to work harder, and the 109th Congress of last year was the laziest Congress in almost sixty years based on the number of days in session. Democrats are almost certainly going to keep the five day work week as long as they can provided it can maintain the patina of productivity they'd like to keep. And who knows? It could turn out to be a good thing and force legislators to make the most of their time after being elected, though people with big expectations from their federal government are often let down.
Duncan Hunter Joins Presidential Race, World Stifles Laughter
Throwing his battered, unappealing hat into a very crowded ring, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) announced his formation of an exploratory committee for a presidential campaign.
Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.
"Let's begin this race for the American presidency and let's win," Hunter, said, wrapping up 25 minute speech.
The 14-term conservative from California, who has made no secret of his White House aspirations, set up a presidential exploratory committee last week.
He initially announced his intentions in October, becoming the first GOP candidate to declare, and then began making stops in early primary and caucus states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
He joins an increasingly crowded GOP field of declared and likely candidates, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Crowded is an understatement. This is one of the most wide open presidential races in the past century, considering that the vice president isn't running, so "stars" (assuming Washginton really is Hollywood for ugly people) from both parties are all making it their time to shine.
Duncan Hunter isn't well known outside of policy wonk circles, where he's been considered a pro-military hawk, with some other conservative tendencies, like a border fence with Mexico:
Hunter stands out amongst many of his chickenhawk compatriots, however. He has an military service record and a son who served in Iraq.
Hunter, 58, was born in Riverside, California, and was an Army Ranger in Vietnam. He worked his way through law school with farming and construction jobs.
Hunter won his U.S. House seat in 1980 and has been an ardent military supporter. His son has spent a pair of seven-month tours in Iraq.
Hunter's bid is a huge long shot, Congress typically doesn't produce Presidents, at least not straight out of the house, and while much of the country still considers itself to be conservative, the results of the midterm election suggest that they may not always vote that way when it matters. Competing with names like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain (not to mention having to deal with other, better known conservatives like Sam Brownback who will be drawing on the conservative base vote) is not going to make the campaign trail easy for Representative Hunter. We'll see if he lasts past New Hampshire.
Democrats: Cheap Drugs for All!
One of the biggest complaints with the Republican-sponsored 2003 prescription drug bill is that it gave the government very little bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies in determining the price of drugs for people on Medicare. Which was essentially a giant subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry, since there's no logical reason why the industry's biggest customer couldn't have some say in determining how much it was willing to spend for these drugs. Nevertheless, Bush and other Republicans touted it as the final solution to all of the nation's prescription drug woes and considered the matter settled.
Enter the Democrats. On a legislative binge this past week, one of the items at the top of the list was getting a change implemented in this particular piece of legislation to allow Medicare the right to negotiate the prices of these drugs, and they've already gotten it through Congress.
The idea behind the bill is using the sheer size of the Medicare program to generate steeper discounts than private insurance plans can muster.
"Forty-three million people can have the purchasing power to perhaps encourage these drug houses to give the government and the American retirees a better price," said the bill's author, Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan.
However, the bill's prospects dim after Friday's vote. President Bush has said he would veto the bill if it makes it to his desk. He said that competition is already reducing prices for seniors and creating an environment that encourages the development of new drugs.
The Senate has held one hearing on the subject this year, and more are expected, with that chamber likely to take a much longer look at the concept than the House did.
The legislation strikes a clause known as the "noninterference provision," which prohibits the secretary of Health and Human Services from participating in negotiations between drug manufacturers and insurers that sponsor Medicare plans. It would require the secretary to negotiate. Insurers still would be allowed to try for steeper discounts than what the government obtained.
Predictably, Bush has decided that keeping the pharmaceutical industry's profits artificially high with taxpayer money is more important than letting the free market decide what drugs should cost (that's how markets work - buyers can use their collective power to force sellers to lower their prices) and is threatening a veto. Granted, Bush didn't use his veto much (only once) in his first six years in office, but this is also the first time he's had to deal with a Congress that didn't bend over backwards to make sure he was happy.
Opponents to the bill claim that sufficient competition between Medicare and private insurers already exists to keep prices down and provide cheaper alternatives to senior citizens, and that the bill will effectively do nothing.
House Republicans pointed to a review by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that found the House proposal wouldn't result in lower prices.
"CBO estimates that [the bill] would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that the secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by private drug plans under current law," acting CBO director Donald Marron wrote in a letter Wednesday to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., the author of the bill.
This may very well be true, the CBO is a nonpartisan government organization that evaluates budget and fiscal decisions made by Congress, and so has probably done a fairly thorough analysis of the situation.
That being said, there's no reason to assume that the situation can't change in the future and we'll end up in a place where giving the government some leeway in negotiation drug prices isn't beneficial. There just doesn't seem to be much logic in intentionally hamstringing Medicare like this.
Minimum Wage Goes Up
The Democrats are on a roll with some momentous new legislation (along with some ...not so momentous) and in doing so have just fulfilled an earlier promise, to raise the minimum wage.
The Democratic-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade.
The vote was 315-116, with 82 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.
"You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland.
The bill was the second measure passed since Democrats took control of the House, ending more than a decade of Republican rule.
The measure, which now goes to the Senate, would raise the federal wage floor by $2.10 from its current $5.15 an hour in three steps over 26 months.
The last increase was in 1997, when President Clinton successfully prodded the GOP-controlled Congress to enact the increase. Republicans declined to approve another raise for the six years in which they held majorities in the House and Senate and President Bush was in the White House.
Organized labor and other supporters pitched the bill as badly needed assistance for the working poor.
Business groups and other critics said it could lead to higher prices for goods and services, force small companies to pink-slip existing workers or hire fewer new ones, and crimp profits.
The White House issued a statement saying it opposed the bill because it "fails to provide relief to small businesses."
Predictably, advocates for and opponents against raising the wage have both been guilty of oversimplifying what is, in reality, a complicated economic issue. Arguments in favor of raising the minimum wage often note that employers will squeeze the most work out of their employees for the least compensation possible, and without a higher minimum wage the employees get screwed. Opponents often say how high minimum wages can hurt employers, who have to compensate by raising the prices of consumer goods and firing employees, resulting in a net increase in unemployment. Both are correct, to a point.
An analysis of the effects of raising the minimum wage shows that there exists a balance between a minimum wage that can be too high and end up hurting employers and consumers, and one that is too low resulting in exploitation of workers.
"Both critics and advocates of the minimum wage have exaggerated its effects," says Isabel Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "It doesn't do a great deal of harm. At the same time, it's no panacea for the low earnings of less-skilled workers."
[...]
What might a national minimum of $7.25 mean for the economy?
One economist, George Treyz, recently revved up his computer models of the economy in a bid to find out. The firm he heads, Regional Economic Models Inc. in Amherst, Mass., specializes in such forecasts.
His model suggests some of the complex ripple effects - and the possible magnitude of changes. The study predicts that, two years after the minimum of $7.25 goes into effect, total employment in the US would fall by 0.17 percent. That's roughly the loss of one job in every 600.
The pay gain for workers affected by the wage hike might approach 8 percent.
"It's a significant redistribution of income" to several million low-wage workers, Mr. Treyz says. Meanwhile, "there is some very small amount that it costs people in general" throughout the economy.
The pay raise would push up consumer prices by 0.35 percent. That would make it harder for US companies to sell exports overseas. The upshot: Thanks to inflation and weaker trade performance, the nation's real disposable income would fall slightly, by 0.14 percent.
Part of the social contract is accepting the premise that a slight decrease in disposable income (often via taxes, but other economic manipulations like minimum wages as well) is worth it in order to ensure at least a minimum quality of life for as many people living in the country as possible.
Raising the minimum wage will likely not be any sort of magic bullet solution to the continuing problem of American poverty, which has a variety of complex causes. But this modest increase should be of at least some benefit to low wage workers at a minor cost to the rest of us. That seems like a sacrifice worth making.
Important New Bills Introduced By Congress
The first 100 hours of the new Democratically controlled Congress is here and it has started with a bang. The House passed anti-terror legislation that the Republicans had avoided since 9/11. The measures were recommended by the September 11th commission and require inspection of all airline cargo and ships bound for the US.
But that is not the exciting news. Our Congress peeps got the ball rolling right away on their pet projects.
H.R. 83, introduced by Reps. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., and Tom Petri, R-Wis., would add certain species of carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.
This one is obviously really important because there has been a lot of wrongful carp shipping. At least in my neighborhood, anyway.
H.R. 216, by Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. would waive certain prohibitions with respect to nationals of Cuba coming to the United States to play organized professional baseball.
For a long time now baseball has suffered horribly because of the lack of legal Cuban pitchers. Outfielders, not so much.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Issas H.R. 27 would designate the exclusive economic zone of the United States as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.
Reagan invented the exclusive economic zone and we mostly call it that anyway. Long overdue.
Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, introduced a measure to provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley. Regula represents President McKinleys hometown and does not want the peaks official name changed to the native Alaskan Denali.
This bill is a fucking powder keg. Besides abortion, the fight over the name of McKinley is the most volatile problem facing our country. Hold on to your asses, this one could lead to civil war.
Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., would require the display of the Ten Commandments in the Capitol.
Both Jesus and Christopher Lambert personally lobbied for this one.
Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, would honor the thousands of Freemasons in every state in the nation
for their many contributions.
Im not going to comment on this one because I dont want to die.
Rep. John Linders, R-Ga., H.R. 25, which would abolish the IRS, repeal the income tax and establish a national sales tax, drew 23 Republicans and even one Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma.
Taxes are gay.
Rep. John Conyerss, H.R. 40, which would impanel a commission to study the impact of slavery and discrimination and make recommendations for remedies, drew 15 cosponsors.
Slavery was really gay. I think Lincoln was the first to say that.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. His H.R. 48 would redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area, the better to honor the former senator.
What an ass-kissing bitch. This bill is ridiculous.
Good luck, bills!
Bush Can Now Look In Everything But Your Anus
President Bush is continuing on his journey of destroying America. Today we learned that on December 20th George gave himself the right to open peoples mail without a warrant. But dont worry, its only totally fucking illegal.
Bush gave himself the new power during the congressional winter recess when he signed a postal reform bill, then jotted a little signing statement at the bottom. The statement gave him the ability to open peoples mail under emergency conditions. If he had read above his signing statement he would have seen that the bill reinforced current protections of mail from searches without a warrant. Past presidents would have used this thing called a veto, which was created to force the different branches of government to compromise. But now you can apparently just jot down a contradictory statement at the bottom of a congressional bill.
A Senate Intelligence Committee aid promised they will look into Bushs totalitarian move. Many in Congress were not happy.
"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
But Bush seems to have a lack of understanding of the separate government powers that were established by the Founding Fathers, as well as how those powers operate.
"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
No shit.
Democrats Target GOP Supporters
With Democrats ready to try and get something accomplished in Congress, they're making their new agenda clear, and part of it is going to include sticking it to two major Republican donor organizations; oil and pharmaceutical companies. Payback is a bitch.
In their first 100 legislative hours, Democrats aim to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, roll back subsidies for oil and gas companies, and reduce the cost of student loans. They're also quickly gearing up to investigate allegations of corruption in war contracting.
"Parties reward their constituency groups, and they go after the other party's constituency groups. Parties are never stronger than in the first few days, so they do it early," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
Moreover, it's popular. "You can't find people supporting big drug and oil companies, except the people who work in them," Professor Sabato says. For example, some 85 percent of Americans say the government should negotiate prescription-drug prices for the Medicare program, according to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
It's hard to find people who outright support big oil or big pharma, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not one either, as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America rejected a beautifully written and scientifically brilliant grant proposal I submitted to them last year. That being said, criticism of both groups tends to lean towards oversimplification of the mass-protest-sign-slogan variety (think "Oil is bad" or "Pharma is bad" along with some cheesy, moderately relevant, probably alliterative rhyming scheme incorporated) rather than well considered theses as to how the two groups could be better. Certainly the cashing in on Katrina-related price hikes by oil companies was despicable, and the continuing subsidies to these companies seem to amount to little more well orchestrated, legal kickbacks. That being said, the economy is highly dependant (at least currently) on the availability of cheap oil, so to completely demonize the supplier of a necessary commodity seems a bit simplistic. Getting rid of their government handouts seems like a good place to try and fix the situation, however.
Big pharma is another supplier of a necessary commidity, and it seems unlikely that someone suffering from an otherwise untreatable malady will continue protesting that pharmaceutical companies are "evil, evil buckets of bile." However, again, they've done some highly questionable things over the past few years, including price gouging on various medications, pushing unpopular (though successful) legislation preventing the government from negotiating the costs of drugs bought in bulk for medicare patients, and ramming protectionist bans on cheaper, identical foreign drugs down the throats of Americans who would rather pay less for the same thing. So there's plenty of room for legitimate criticism.
The two largest hurdles I see in the Democrats making these changes effective are first, as I've already discussed, avoiding making knee-jerk decisions that cripple two industries that still provide important products and make up key elements of the economy while letting them know that the party is definitely over. It's a fine line to walk and one that will be made difficult by the slim majority held by the Democrats in the senate. The second is the allure of the vast amounts of money both of these industries funnel to elected representatives via their extensive lobbying groups. There's nothing fundamentally Republican about either big oil or big pharma, they were just the majority party and so that's where the majority of the money went. With the Democrats in control lobbyists for both groups are going to be scrambling to get Democrats on board with their program, and even the most idealistic progressive can't possibly believe that all Democrats will be immune to them.
