Not bad for a new Senator…
Harry Reid Attacks Ted Cruz As “School Bully”
May 8, 2013 by 6 Comments
Obama’s “Fairness” Economy Has Backfired
May 6, 2013 by 1 Comment
One of the most seductive parts of President Barack Obama’s political message (and the message of progressive Democrats in general) is sympathy for the poor and a willingness to talk about the disparities of capitalism — about the rich being too rich and the poor being screwed. In some ways, it’s the predominant message of the Obama era.
And though it’s reasonable to contend that Republicans need to display more compassion — if for nothing else than their own political survival — isn’t it also reasonable to take stock of how things have gone for the poor under four-plus years of progressive rule?
Now, if you’re heavily invested in the market, life is peachy. A confounding fact, no doubt, when one considers that nearly every economic indicator known to mankind has been pretty abysmal of late. We are experiencing high unemployment, a shrinking labor force, stagnant gross domestic product growth and rickety consumer confidence. A disconnected market, though, has been on a historic boom. So if we need any more proof that life really isn’t fair, think about this: The rich have the Federal Reserve, and you have Harry Reid.
What does it mean in substance? According to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data, thanks to a robust stock and bond market, coupled with a lousy housing market, the recovery has meant that households with a net worth in the upper 7 percent have seen their net worth rise, on average, by nearly 30 percent in the years after the recession and that everyone else’s net worth has dropped by an average of 4 percent.
The economic gap between whites and minorities is even worse. According to the Urban Institute, whites, on average, have two times the income of blacks and Hispanics and six times the wealth, and that gap is accelerating.
Read More at Reason . By David Harsanyi.
How About An Assault Pressure Cooker Ban?
April 27, 2013 by 6 Comments
Here’s an idea.
How about an assault pressure cooker ban?
In view of last week’s events in Boston, it makes more sense than an assault rifle ban. (Keep in mind that Obamacare probably will not pay for the surgical removal of my tongue from my cheek.)
It’s now well known that a cheap pressure cooker (Wal Mart has them as low as $42.87 for a T-Fal model) can be turned into an IED, which can kill or maim a lot faster than a Bushmaster 223 with a 30 round magazine. Ask the folks who were gathered near the finish line of the Boston Marathon last week.
Where are the “if we can just save one life” folks on this one?
I’m pretty sure that the Second Amendment does not cover pressure cookers, so why not ban them in addition to ball bearings and printed circuit boards that can receive radio signals and switch something on?
A more reasonable question to ask, of course, would be if those folks in the Boston area, who were ordered back into their houses during the manhunt for the two Chechnyan punks who apparently set off the IEDs at the Boston Marathon, would have felt more comfortable with a handgun or an assault rifle to protect themselves and their families?
I know that if this had happened in Northern Nevada, there would have been a whole lot of weapons being loaded and cocked and kept handy until the manhunt was over.
At the risk of being accused of politicizing a tragedy, this is the exact reason we do not and should not ban guns in this country. You have a guaranteed constitutional right to defend yourself from nutjobs like these clowns and, for that matter, anybody else who would do your family and yourself any harm.
Understand that you are not required to do so. But you have the right to do so. And, should you wish to be pro-active in a situation such as this, the nanny staters should not be standing in your way.
One such nanny stater is our own Harry Reid (D-Washington DC Ritz Carleton), who has now completed his transition from a one-time blue dog Democrat who understood exactly the nature of the state he represented to a Barney Frank limousine liberal who could care less about who actually sent him to Washington because he’s above all that.
In last week’s Senate votes on the President’s gun control bill, Reid actually voted FOR an assault weapons ban.
That’s right, Dirty Harry voted to stop me from owning my M1 Carbine, the assault rifle that won World War Two. The rifle we made six and a half million of and sold surplus to citizens’ marksmanship groups in the 50s and 60s for around $21.
He lost by a good 20 votes because even in a Senate run by Harry Reid, there’s enough good sense to realize such a bill was going nowhere.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein poo pooed the need for “assault weapons” in Boston on Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE: Senator, reaction to the Boston bombings has spilled into other issues, including gun control. There are some conservatives who say — some conservatives who say that, when a million people in Boston were forced to stay in their homes, that a lot of those people — particularly in Watertown where they were going door to door and there was a real concern that this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages — would people like to have guns?
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Oh, some may have, yes. But if where you’re going is do they need an assault weapon? I don’t think so. As the vice president said —
WALLACE: Shouldn’t they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves?
FEINSTEIN: Well, how about a machine gun then? We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used.
WALLACE: Semiautomatics, that’s the most popular rifle in America.
FEINSTEIN: And you could use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect. And there’s the element of surprise. Now, you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument, but 12-gauge shotgun, there are many weapons, 2,000-plus weapons that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon.
Please.
This is a woman who simply cannot see reality.
As a neighbor of mine succinctly put it, “I have great respect for the police, but they’re reacting. I want to be pro-active.”
That is exactly what people like Feinstein fear.
Pro-active citizens? We can’t have that. They might hurt someone.
Fortunately, our founding fathers already thought about it way back in 1789; and they added it to the Constitution right after Freedom of Speech and Religion.
So, it would seem that no matter what Feinstein and Reid do, they cannot win.
As long as we don’t back down, that is. And if there was ever a reason not to back down, it’s the fact that Reid could betray the state that sent him to Washington.
Internet Sales Tax Embraced By No-tax Republicans
April 25, 2013 by 3 Comments
WASHINGTON— You don’t see this very often: a majority of Senate Republicans voting to make people who buy stuff on the Internet pay state and local sales taxes.
Anti-tax guru Grover Norquist isn’t happy about it, and the conservative Heritage Foundation is questioning the senators’ conservative credentials. But the issue of taxing Internet sales is getting strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike.
The Senate could vote as early as Thursday on a bill to empower states to require online retailers to collect state and local sales taxes for purchases made over the Internet. Under the bill, the sales taxes would be sent to the states where a shopper lives.
On Wednesday, the bill passed a test vote in the Senate, 74 to 23, with 27 Republicans voting in favor. Senators were trying to work out agreements Thursday on potential amendments and the timing of a final vote.
If they can’t reach agreement to vote earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, the Senate will vote Friday morning to end the debate. The Senate is scheduled to go on vacation next week, and Reid vowed Thursday to pass the bill before senators leave town.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Stephen Ohlemacher.
Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)
Who Really Calls The Shots In Our Government?
April 20, 2013 by 14 Comments
Congress has proven once again that it’s a special interest world – the rest of us are just living in it.
Earlier this week, the Senate voted against tighter restrictions on guns and gun owners, effectively ending the push that began in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting.
But the real story here isn’t the vote – it’s the NRA. You see, the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying and giving contributions to members of the U.S. Senate. The Senate vote on gun control just proves how effective the NRA’s strategy really is.
And I want to talk about this strategy because it provides an excellent view into how Capitol Hill really works. Folks are always telling me they don’t understand why this or that happened on Capitol Hill. Well, it’s time to shed some light on it.
Now, as a matter of disclosure, I want to let you know that I’m a lifelong member of the NRA. I agree with the NRA’s position against restricting the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
But that’s not what I’m here to talk about.
I want to talk about process…
The White House is in Shock
Right now, the U.S. Senate is controlled by the Democrats. Yet since the Democrats “defected” to the NRA, the Senate just totally jammed their exalted leader.
Barack Obama’s scheme to add additional rules, restrictions, regulations, and limitations to gun ownership lost big. In a progression of votes on amendments, the truth became clear: No one, Democrats included, wants to mess with the Second Amendment.
Even Sen. Harry Reid, Obama’s supposed point man in the Senate, didn’t seem like he wanted to deliver.
Thus, the central proposal to expand background checks was voted down 54-46. Remember – in the Senate, such bills don’t just need a majority. They require 60 votes to get past a virtually guaranteed filibuster.
The White House had even set in motion an intensive, coast-to-coast lobbying campaign that featured gut-wrenching pleas from families of the Newtown school shooting victims.
But it didn’t help. And Obama administration officials were visibly angry after his agenda got shellacked. The anger level was so high that even Obama spoke out. “All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” he said of the vote, adding that the effort “is not over.”
But in reality, it’s likely all over.
The Power of the NRA
In a democracy, a president always gets his chance.
But one third of the Senate and the entire House have to face the voters in 18 months, and these members know that the NRA can sway elections. No amount of tears from the Newtown families is likely to trump electoral politics in Washington.
So how does the NRA have such massive influence on national politics? They’ve only got about five million members, compared to a country of over 300 million.
First, it’s important to note that the NRA political machine is truly bipartisan. The NRA will support anyone – liberal, conservative, whatever – as long as that congressman is good on one thing: guns.
It’s this laser focus that gives the NRA such strength.
Secondly, everyone in Washington understands that elections are won at the margin. And the NRA specializes in being the margin of victory.
It specializes in securing the votes that put a candidate over the top, and not just in the general election. The NRA also plays in primaries. And members of Congress hate primaries.
Because of a dirty secret called gerrymandering – the bizarre construction of political regions intended to benefit the political elite – most congressional districts are heavily dominated by just one party.
This means that most incumbents will win… as long as they don’t lose in their party’s primary. And if you’re down on guns, the NRA will actively recruit a candidate to take you out in the primary election. For this reason, Congressmen fear primary challenges.
Keep Your Friends Close…
The NRA is wonderful to its friends and brutal to its enemies. It’s the domestic policy equivalent of Teddy Roosevelt’s edict to speak softly and carry a big stick. Everyone knows the NRA carries a big stick.
But if you’re on its side, campaign funds flow, and the NRA will take special care to help you when you need it.
So if you’ve ever wondered why an incumbent president can’t push his agenda through a U.S. Senate that’s controlled by his own party, now you know.
In three years, Barack Obama will be history; but the NRA will still haunt you if you cross them. Once again, a special interest carries the day on Capitol Hill.
This article originally appeared on CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: HunT Trader (Creative Commons)
Evidence Of Criminal Activity Inside Of Congress
April 18, 2013 by 13 Comments
Last year, Congress passed the STOCK Act with great fanfare. I’ve written about it before because it had the potential to enhance government transparency. The law had the power to stop insider trading by congressmen.
Now, raise your hand if you actually thought that law would last…
No one? I figured.
In one of the least shocking moves in recent memory, Congress decided to gut the STOCK Act in an under-the-radar vote that crushed any hope for policy-making transparency.
You see, rather than build trust, our representatives would rather cover up criminal activity.
In modifying the STOCK Act, Congress killed the provision requiring congressional members and White House staff to post their stock transactions online.
The same day the bill was introduced, the Senate voted on the changes (with no public debate) in a nighttime voice vote. The House followed suit with a similar voice vote – and no debate – the very next day.
The whole process happened so quickly that Harry Reid introduced the bill on April 11, and it was signed by President Obama on April 15.
House Republican leaders even violated their much trumpeted promise to give the public three days to study any bill before holding a vote.
Never Listen to What They Say. Just Watch How They Vote.
When the original STOCK Act was passed on April 4, 2012, the media ate it up. President Obama said it was the first step to “help fight the destructive influence of money in politics and rebuild the trust between Washington and the American people.”
But media coverage of the latest changes was virtually nonexistent compared to the triumphant proclamations of a year ago. And the president is dubiously silent this time around.
There’s a silver lining, though! Starting in 2014, the president, vice president, and members of Congress will once again have to disclose their trades.
The problem is, the disclosures won’t be placed online where the public or journalists can easily review them. Instead, the disclosures will be extremely difficult to access. Why? National security.
That’s right. Whenever Washington passes an unpopular bill, they often justify it on the grounds of “national security”.
Tom Lee of the Sunlight Foundation explains the tactic this way: “This approach is known as ‘security through obscurity.’ Essentially, the idea is that rather than fixing a system’s flaws, you can just make the system opaque or unusable or unpopular enough that those flaws never surface.”
The reactions from government watchdogs were swift and furious.
Lisa Rosenberg, also of the Sunlight Foundation, writes:
Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information (if anyone thinks high-level congressional staffers don’t have as much or more insider information than their bosses, they should spend some time on Capitol Hill) but it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online.
Are we going to return to the days when public can use the internet to research everything except what their government is doing? Will Congress, in its twisted wisdom, decide that information is public if journalists, academics, advocates and citizens are forced to dig through file cabinets in basements in Washington to find it?
Actions (Still) Speak Louder Than Words
So now the ban on insider trading still exists, but with limited disclosure that no one will likely ever know about. The disclosure might as well not exist at all.
Last year, with great pomp and circumstance, Congress passed legislation to clean up a dirty cesspool of insider trading by Washington insiders. Then, the week before we actually get to see the disclosures, they circled back, gutted the bill, and kept the cloak of secrecy as tight as ever.
This is a perfect example of the constant deception on Capitol Hill. And it also illustrates why the actionable information we provide at Capitol Hill Daily is such a valuable asset. We use all of our resources to get you the gritty details that you won’t find anywhere else.
This article originally appeared at CapitalHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)
Rand Paul Did OK At Howard University
April 15, 2013 by 1 Comment
There was only one Jack Kemp. God knows we need his all-American appeal to conservative and urban audiences at a time when the GOP is attempting frenzied “minority outreach.”
(I put “minority outreach” in quotes because involvement is more my cup of tea.)
That aside, Senator Rand Paul’s Howard University speech set the outreach march on steadier ground.
Instead of sounding like a Democrat with a removable “R,” he was himself, which is all American blacks (pro and con) should ask of him.
I don’t think I’m alone is saying I don’t need White folks adopting minstrel show phony drawls (see Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden), nor drop obvious applause lines based upon our religious or civil rights experience.
Just talk to us.
From the podium and during Q & A, he addressed his stance on issues like the Civil Rights Act that got him in hot water in the past.
One mistake I think Black folks make is demanding that those far removed from our community magically address us as if they’ve been lifelong insiders.
Rand Paul is obviously a White male libertarian and Republican US senator. Some of his conclusions on the GOP or icons like Ronald Reagan differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream.
That his conclusions differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream doesn’t necessarily make him a villain.
American Blacks of Paul’s generation should focus less on what happened in the past and more on what can be done now to distance ourselves from the limitations of yesteryear.
Rand Paul was born in the South three years ahead of me. We came of age in a region forced to confront its Apartheid by federal troops and legislative leveraging from the White Hosue and Capitol Hill.
A lot of Black liberals will charge that he doesn’t “get” Black folks. I wonder: does “Mt. Negro Dialect” Harry Reid “get” us any better?
I’d argue that Rand Paul’s decriminalization of what he calls “victimless drug crimes” alone has the potential to liberate several generations of Black men who chose drug-dealing as a profession.
That stance resonates far more with the Black liberal (and parts of the conservative) mainstream than with anti-drug hardliners like myself.
I consider crack, heroin, meth, and other chemical angels of slow motion death to be nothing less than satanic in their design and impact.
Drug decriminalization is a big libertarian coalition builder, and within it lies the glue for adding American Blacks who feel that the War on Drugs is racist.
This topic, along with libertarian aversion to intrusive policing and an aptly named “warfare state,” were rightly shared by Paul at Howard University- just like he does elsewhere.
I think he did ok during his Howard University speech, precisely because he remained himself and didn’t deviate from trademark philosophical positions.
I expect White folks to be themselves and not put on patronizing productions designed to pacify us.
Rand Paul did ok at Howard University and thus far is ok by me as someone offering the GOP political viagra if they’re willing to take it.
Donate/Stop Socialist Hate!
http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8
Senate Background Check Debate Starts Next Week
April 12, 2013 by 6 Comments
WASHINGTON — The first hurdle cleared with deceptive ease, the Senate turns to the heart of the battle over curbing gun violence next week when it considers a proposal to expand required federal background checks to gun shows and online firearms sales.
In a bipartisan 68-31 vote Thursday, senators rejected an effort by conservatives to block debate on Democrats’ gun control legislation, a measure backed by President Barack Obama. Senators then formally opened debate on the bill, lawmakers’ response to the mass shooting in December at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and the most ambitious effort to limit gun violence in nearly two decades.
Thursday’s one-sided vote belied what looks to be a difficult path in Congress for gun restrictions. Most Republican senators and many moderate Democrats oppose or are wary of curbs they think go too far, and the view from the GOP-run House is even cooler, where leaders say they want to first see what the Senate does.
“Nothing is going to happen quickly,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a brief interview. “We’re going to be on this for a while, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Read More at OfficialWire . By Alan Fram.
Loading ...
The Sequester As Seen From Capitol Hill
If I’ve learned anything after 30 years on Capitol Hill, it’s this: you can never trust what politicians say. We all know that actions speak louder than words, and nowhere is that more true than in government.
The same applies to the budget battle going on in Congress. Everybody on the left and the right has been posturing for months now, spewing rhetoric that they think voters want to hear.
But once the rubber finally meets the road, all of that posturing means nothing. Let me tell a little story to explain…
Last night, at about 9:30pm, my phone rang.
Mary Beth, my wife of 30 years and veteran of countless campaigns, picked up; but then she handed me the phone.
I was surprised to hear a congressman on the other end. It was late, and his call was unexpected. I won’t divulge my friend’s name (we’ll call him “Bill”) because he’s a great source of inside information. If I shared his name, he’d likely deny what I’m about to tell you because he dropped a bomb.
First, Bill tried to tell me that the drop in Obama’s poll numbers would surely make him compromise on the budget.
I couldn’t help but laugh. I said, “If you think a temporary drop in poll numbers will send the White House into retreat, you don’t understand Obama and the people around him.”
See, in my opinion, the Obama administration has only begun to fight for their budget. And I also reminded Bill that all of the House members are up for re-election next year, whereas Obama never has to run for office again.
He then agreed to share his secret with me. He said that the Republican caucus is preparing to compromise with Harry Reid and the Senate on the budget.
After all of the congressional cat fighting, all the rhetoric, and all the posturing, the House Republicans are ready to throw in the towel.
And the worst part is the reason they’re caving. You see, Republicans believe that compromise will cause the least disruption before the 2014 election.
You read that right. They’re only thinking about the election. John Boehner knows that most of the Republican caucus won’t support the compromise. Instead, Boehner is counting on Democrat votes to get a budget deal done.
If Bill hadn’t said it so clearly, even I, as cynical as I am, wouldn’t have believed that our representatives could be this crass. But there it is, straight from the mouth of a congressman. Proof that the reason a budget deal will get done has nothing to do with the country or governing America properly.
Instead, the Republican leadership will compromise with Obama so that Democrats can’t hammer them on the budget in the next election.
Now we know that all the promises to balance the budget, keep down taxes, and repeal the Affordable Care Act are just rhetoric to get our votes and secure their jobs. But, on a positive note, at least my friend said he’d vote against the budget compromise.
This article originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.