Food Insecure About to Become More Insecure

Summertime and the living is not so easy for the 12% to Iowans who are experiencing food insecurity. Summer months mean that many children who are fed breakfast at schools are sometimes going without. I worked on a mobile food pantry and saw about a dozen people gathering up groceries for their families. One was a parent of a family of eight whose daughter was a student in the classroom of one of the other volunteers who is a teacher.

     I helped an person with disabilities to gather up food for a the week who relies on the food pantry to fill the gap that her disability check does not cover. There are many stories of people who hold jobs, who make do with what they have got and still can't make ends meet. At this time, Congress is looking at making qualifying and maintaining services through the SNAP program based on meeting minimum work thresholds. While the intention may be to keep people from defrauding "the system"--the truth is, it is likely to make it so more people are food insecure, also known as hungry.

    Thankfully, because of food banks and other programs, people are are able to get by. But, because of hardline governmental policies, more and more pressure is being placed on these agencies to handle the overflow when programs like SNAP are adding restrictive rules designed to "save the taxpayers money" at the expense of those truly in need such as the 14 million children who  live in food insecure households.The current Farm Bill expires Oct. 1, and a number programs will lose funding if a bill is not passed before then. Let your Representatives know that this not something you support. 

Climate-Controlled Congress

To say that Congress is confused about climate change is laughable. As The Week reports, the House team of Mo Brooks and chair Lamar Smith is so lacking in basic scientific knowledge, that they used the lion share of a committee meeting to discuss global climate change to have Dr. Philip Duffy, the President (and applied physicist from Stanford with 20+ years of climate change research under his belt) of the Woods Hole Research Center explain to them why they were misinformed (video) about the results of climate change.

Some of the nuggets that The Week reported:

"1. NASA says that melting ice is a main cause of sea level rise. But Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said Wednesday that the real culprit is erosion, namely from the White Cliffs of Dover as they collapse into the ocean.

2. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the committee chairman, shared slides showing that increased fossil fuel consumption doesn't correlate to rising sea levels — a view that Science noted "rejects thousands of scientific studies." Smith's data came from a single measurement station in San Francisco.

3. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said that the committee should "be open to different points of view" — including whether humans are actually the main cause of global warming, as the committee has accused federal scientists of manipulating climate data before."

Climatewire has more on the Congressional open mouth/insert foot fest.

Sadly, Duffy had a lot of good ideas that he summarized in writing, though they likely fell on deaf ears::

• "Accelerated deployment of carbon-free energy production technologies we have now, especially wind and solar;
• Development of new such technologies, as well as technologies for energy storage and transmission;
• Development of technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere;
• Research into geoengineering;
• Adoption of land-management practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere;
• Development of improved technologies for measuring GHG emissions and global carbon stocks
• Accelerated research into understanding climate thresholds and tipping points, in order to inform top-line climate police goals (e.g. 2º vs 1.5º)"

Universal Health Care Now!

I've been taking some time away from blogging because, let's face it, problems never really go away and everyone needs a chance to chill out. In my absence, the national health care debate rages on. Many people actually thought there was a national health care bill ready to go when President Obama was elected. Certainly his plan was shopped publicly when he was running for the office. But apparently there is not a "shovel-ready" health care bill or enough money to pay for the bill, depending on who you ask.

This is my solution. No holidays for Congress until a bill is forwarded for the President's signature that makes sure that 100% of Americans have access to affordable health care. At this point I don't care if it is a single-payer or gazillion-payer model, just that it is universal and affordable to all.

As for those Congressional leaders who line up he pieces on the chess board who need to get this done, lock down Capitol Hill and take your fellow public servants off the grid. This means no lobbyists, cell phones, or computers (except in the capable hands of the recorders who will write up the final bill). No tweeting, crackberry texting, facebooking, etc. Clearly this bunch is overly distracted and needs time to focus. If necessary, cut off the air conditioning (think of it as reliving the Continental Congress).

The point is that health care is the one thing that is needed by every worker and the thing that American industry claims keeps it from being competitive globally. If we really want to rev up the economic recovery machine, make sure everyone has the opportunity to be healthy--even corporate personages.

Trial lawyers, unions, big biz, doctors, and insurers beware, you can not dictate the discourse on this issue any more. You had your chance. If you are found within 100 miles of the halls of Congress, you should expect to be deported to Palau (we should at least get our money's worth out of that deal). We know you have been assailing us with your ideas of what is best for us, but really, it is always about what is best for you.

We the people are sick of being sick because the pursuit of profits are involved. We want health care as a fundamental right--after all what is the pursuit of happiness if you can't get out of bed to pursue it?

So listen up Congress--drop everything else you are doing and get this legislation done. If it isn't perfect coming out of the gate, don't worry about it--we'll make you keep working on it until it is or elect people who can. Congressmen Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham, and King and Senators Grassley and Harkin, this means you.

Three Reasons Why It's Hard to Pity Big Business

Here are a few reasons:

Insurance giant AIG executives receiving $185 million dollars from bailout money from US taxpayers while 10,000 laid-off people go to find a job at a career fair at Dodger's stadium.

Clean water quality in Iowa being sacrificed by Iowa legislators under duress from the Farm Bureau and the Pork Producer's Council.

To Defeat labor initiatives like the Employee Free Choice Act, business PACs not only gave nearly five times more in campaign contributions than labor PACs did in the last election cycle ($365.1 million versus $77.9 million, including contributions to leadership PACs) they are backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $144.4 million on lobbying efforts in the 2007-2008 election cycle, or more than $400,000 for every day Congress was in session. By contrast, the entire labor sector spent less than $84 million on lobbying efforts during those two years.

Sparse Change?

Traditionally presidential political campaigns are high on ideals and low on results--for every big idea that is adopted, there are hundreds more that never see the light of day. Is it any wonder that the electorate is sour to Washington DC's ways and means?

Politics is the "art of the possible" and thus there are many mediums employed to create this "art". Legislation is sculpted by lobbying interests, painted by public policy gurus, digitally enhanced by spin doctors, and then sometimes acted on by politicians whose world view is occluded by the next election cycle.

Are we the "nation of whiners" that John McCain supporter and former Senator Phil Gramm says we are? If he means that we complain that those we send to Washington to represent us don't live up to our expectations, then, yes, we are guilty as charged. We like to think of our leaders as living up to their predecessors, after all this is the USA, land of constant improvement.

The fact is that most of us don't really participate in the messy world of policy. The language of legal documents makes our eyes glaze over and so we wait for it to be cut up by the press and advocacy groups into easily digestible pieces. However, in legislation, like all things involving planning, the devil is in the detail. Buried in most legislation are bits and pieces that are added on, aka "pork". Sometimes the pork is tasty pork and other times it is a trade-off to get the legislation through committee.

The point of all this is that for real change to happen in Washington, we need to be better consumers and voters and push for things like clean legislation. Without insisting that the way business is done in Washington is changed, it won't make as much difference who we send there.

New House Bill: No Immunity to Telecoms

House Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Tuesday to update the nation's wiretapping program, rejecting a Senate-passed version of the bill that would give telecommunications companies legal immunity for agreeing to participate in the program after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

President Bush secretly instituted the National Security Agency's domestic spying program after 9/11.

President Bush and House Republicans have insisted that the House pass the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill.

Instead, top Democrats -- including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers -- proposed that lawsuits against the phone companies could move forward through U.S. district courts.

The government has effectively frozen all litigation by invoking the "state secrets" doctrine, arguing that documents detailing the phone companies' activities are classified.

House Passes Bill aimed to Move US From Oil to Alternatives

The House approved $18 billion in new taxes over 10 years on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles.

The money collected would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period (or approximately 7.8% of net income), according an analysis by the Ways and Means Committee. Those companies earned $123 billion last year.

Senate Democratic leaders said they would put the bill on a fast track and try to avoid a Republican filibuster.

The White House said the bill unfairly takes aim at the oil industry. President Bush is expected to veto the legislation if it passes Congress.

Congressional Democrats Go Soft Again

Democrat Senator Harry "Gumby" Reid with Democrat House Leader Nancy "Pokey" Pelosi

``I don't think any change in the bill is really worth the delay,'' Pelosi said.

A vote on the President's economic stimulus bill by the US Senate and House that will provide rebate checks and add yet another $167 billion to the national debt while actually providing little relief to the American people. The Democrats made only the smallest of dents by getting the Republicans to agree to $300 rebates for 20 million older retired Americans and 250,000 disabled veterans while dropping demands to extend jobless benefits 13 weeks, offer heating aid for the poor, and give tax breaks to certain industries.

About 111 million Americans who show at least $3,000 in earned income or who pay income tax. Will receive a rebate check for $600 to $1200.

The rebates phase out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000. Any taxpayer who has children and qualifies for any rebate will receive an additional $300 per child.

The bill also doubles the amount of equipment costs a small business can expense in the first year to $250,000 and allows a 50 percent bonus depreciation for businesses that buy major equipment.

Tell Congress: We Want Labels on Cloned Meat

From the good folks at True Majority

You may have been discouraged to hear yesterday that the FDA gave the green light for companies to sell meat from cloned animals. The real news? It has probably already been on our shelves for years.

For years, the FDA has asked major cattle cloning companies to keep their products off the market. For years, they've ignored. One Kansas farmer has already come forward and admitted to openly selling semen from prize-winning clones to U.S. meat producers, while another cattleman says that, "This is a fairy tale that this technology is not being used and is not already in the food chain." This is unacceptable. That's why TrueMajorityAction is demanding that Congress pass a law requiring that all products from cloned animals be clearly labeled.

Tell Congress: Cloned animal products should be clearly labeled.

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/t/50/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1222

Dem Leadership to Cave In on War Funding--Again

How is this a winding the war down?

- Budget deal would give President Bush $70 billion in additional war funding

- Provision calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq by end of 2008 dropped

- Legislation would be passed by end of the year

- Amount less than $200 billion requested by the president


From UPI and CNN
Democratic leaders said a budget deal containing funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to pass without provisions for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Democratic lawmakers said Congress is likely to pass as much as $70 billion in war funding, but without measures calling for the redeployment of many of the U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of 2008, CNN reported Thursday.

Democratic leaders said the measure may spark controversy among the party faithful who have been outspoken against the war.
The base of the Democratic Party expressed concern of the lack of pressure exerted on U.S. President George Bush to change the Iraq policy.

Senate Republicans said they would block any budget deal that didn't contain at least some of the $200 billion in war funding requested by the Bush administration.

Democrats point to the measure as a victory that curtails the Bush administration's war effort.

"What is for sure is he will not get all $200 billion," said a senior Democratic. "Whatever number it is, it is much less than what the president asked for. For the first time in this war, he has received less than his request."

"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.

Republicans Block Energy Bill To Protect Big Oil's Interest

From CNN

Senate Republicans blocked a broad energy bill Thursday because it included billions of dollars in new taxes on the biggest oil companies.

Supporters say the bill would move the country away from gas-guzzling cars and toward nonfossil fuels.

Democratic leaders fell one vote short, 59-40, in getting the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Democrats said they would strip the taxes from the legislation to move the bill forward.

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hoped to get the revised energy package approved later in the day, including the first increase in automobile fuel efficiency in three decades and massive increases in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel.

He said we will "eliminate the tax title."

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky predicted the revised bill would be approved with wide bipartisan support.

The legislation, if passed by the Senate, would have to be voted on by the House, which a week ago approved legislation that included the $21 billion tax increases with revenues marked for promoting renewable fuels and energy efficiency.

But Senate Republicans stood firm on opposing the tax increases, which they said would guarantee a veto by President Bush.

McConnell chided Democrats for pushing a "massive tax increase" that he said "they knew would never be signed into law" because of the president's opposition.

Reid countered that the Senate shouldn't back away from the needed tax measures "just because the president doesn't like it."

"We must begin to break our country's addiction to oil," Reid said.

Headlines from the War

On October 24th, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Today, Washington Post and the AFP say a new study by congressional Democrats estimates the economic costs could send the price tag of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ballooning to 3.5 trillion dollars by 2017, Democrats warned. This report estimates the conflicts “hidden costs,” which include oil prices, interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars and treating wounded veterans. "The full economic costs of the war to the American taxpayers and the overall U.S. economy go well beyond even the immense federal budget costs already reported." Through 2008, it is estimated that the combined wars will cost a family of four $20,200 in taxes.

###
On the brighter side...

The U.S. military is sending 3,000 soldiers home from Diyala province, the second large unit to leave Iraq as troop levels are cut after a 30,000-strong "surge" earlier this year.

Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, will not be replaced by a new unit when they leave the ethnically and religiously mixed province north of Baghdad by January, military officials said on Tuesday.

Instead, troops from the larger 4th Striker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, located near Baghdad, will take over the area, said military spokeswoman Major Peggy Kageleiry. There are around 162,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

About 2,200 Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left western Anbar province in late September under President George W. Bush's plan to cut troop levels in Iraq.

###

Democrats Messaging Heartless

Noted linguist, philosopher, and all-around thinking man, Noam Chomsky said, "If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion." Nobody helps us do that better than the Republican party. With "Healthy Forests" that involve clearcutting miles of acres of trees and "Clear Skies" that increase the levels of carbon dioxide emissions leading to faster global warming, the "Way Forward" is well-- "Mission Accomplished." The turn of a phrase has won the hearts and minds of the masses, at least until the 2006 mid-term elections. But, as it turns out, some jackass Democrats want to tear a page out their playbook and get a leg up on their peanut consuming, never forgetting elephant counterparts.

According to The Hill

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

He said the meeting left him cold because it focused on what polling shows voters want rather than how to present persuasive messages. Republicans have done a better job by developing poll data into focus group-tested messages like “culture of life” and “defending marriage,” along with attacks like “cut and run” and “plan for surrender” in Iraq, he argued.

In particular, Helfert points to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped develop the 1994 “Contract with America” and is credited with helping Republicans come up with terms for polices like “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax.”

“Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,” Helfert wrote.
Democratic leadership aides were not impressed, and indicated that the memo did not have a vast and immediate impact.

So, if I understand this, Dems, like the Repubs, want to find better catchphrases to help the rest of us "get with the program." I know words are powerful, but there is something to be said for telling people the truth. As I recall -- actions speak louder than words. Try speaking plainly.

We are waiting for leadership--actions, not just words. You want to appeal to our emotions, show us that you will end the war, take care of our children's health, and keep us safe and employed. As the late Paul Wellstone said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.”

SCHIP Sailing Again

In a move that is likely to put more pressure on Republicans in Congress and the White House, the NY Times reports:

Sensing a political advantage, Democrats rushed Wednesday to move a health care bill for children back to the House floor, having made minor changes to win over more Republicans.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would vote Thursday on the new bill. Like the original, which President Bush vetoed three weeks ago, it would cover 10 million children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and increase spending on the program by $35 billion, for a total of $60 billion, in the next five years.

But the new bill would tighten eligibility for the program, generally barring the use of federal money to cover illegal immigrants, childless adults and children of families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level: $61,950 for a family of four.

“The bill addresses all of the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We hope the Republicans will take yes for an answer.”
Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said the changes would improve the bill and would pick up some Republican votes.

Mr. Upton was among 44 Republicans who voted last week to override the president’s veto of the earlier measure. Supporters fell 13 votes short of the number needed to override in the House. The bill had passed in the Senate with more than the two-thirds majority needed to override. More

Why SCHIP Really Sunk

Despite the need for SCHIP (State's Children Health Insurance Program) to cover more uninsured children and pregnant mothers, this week Congress was unable to override the President's veto. The reason is abundantly clear for those who follow the train of thought that led to the veto.

If SCHIP were to be expanded, it is feared that it would be at the expense to private insurers. An article on SCHIP on Wikipedia states: In a 2007 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives.^[9] A Cato Institute briefing paper estimated the "crowding out" of private insurers by the public program could be as much as 60%.^[10]

The Watchdog Blog reports "Government operated health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) operate with far less administrative expense that the so-called “market-based” private insurance programs. In fact, private health insurers and HMOs now href="http://www.pnhp.org/physiciansproposal/proposal/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf">consume 13.6 percent of premiums for overhead while both the Medicare program and Canadian NHI have overhead costs below 3.2 percent. "

Given the amount of lobbying the insurance industry does ($227 million in the first half of 2007), it would seem the veto is a preemptive (turf protecting) strike against the "terrorist threat" of national health care being built from the foundations of SCHIP, Medicaid, and Medicare.

And, as reported in the Congressional Quarterly, "A Families USA analysis of Census Bureau data finds that more than one out of three people under age 65 — approximately 89.6 million Americans — were uninsured at some point during 2006-2007.

Most of the uninsured lacked coverage for long periods of time, the study found. Nearly two-thirds were uninsured for six months or more and over half were uninsured for nine months or longer."

Given that increases in spending for SCHIP worked out to an estimated $555 per child per year, it will be a tough sell to convince American families that SCHIP is a bad plan, if for no other reason than one visit to the emergency room can easily cost that much or more.

The revamped SCHIP bill will go through this year or it will be another nail in the Republican's White House chances.

Who's Got the Hooch?

In the parlance of our time, the Iowa delegation has mid-grade renewable "hooch" in terms of Congress.org power rankings as compared to others in the land of legislation.

As a state we are ranked #19 (Illinois and Missouri are #22, Minnesota is #44, South Dakota is #41, Nebraska is #52, and Wisconsin is #9)

As power hitters, we have at #17 in the Senate, Tom Harkin and #25 Chuck Grassley.
In the House, we have at #45 Leonard Boswell, #250 Dave Loebsack, #290 Bruce Braley, #335 Tom Latham, and pulling up the rear, #374 Steve King.

Catch 22 for Ethics Violations

22 members of Congress have been singled out for being "most corrupt." In their annual report, The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics named:

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM): His ethics issues stem from his contacting the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico to inquire about an ongoing corruption probe of Democrats.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Senator McConnell’s ethics issues stem from earmarks he has inserted into legislation for clients of his former chief of staff, lobbyist Gordon Hunter Bates, in exchange for campaign contributions as well as the misuse of his nonprofit The McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Sen. Murkowski’s ethics violations stem from her purchase of land in Alaska for a price below market value, her acceptance of a mortgage on terms not available to the general public and her failure to accurately disclose the transaction in her 2006 financial disclosure report.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK): Sen. Stevens’ ethics issues stem from his ties to the VECO Corporation; earmarks he has inserted for companies that paid his son, Ben Stevens; his relationship with his brother-in-law, lobbyist William Bittner; his relationship with Alaskan real estate developers Jonathan Rubini and Leonard Hyde; as well as the activities of his non-profit, The Ted Stevens Foundation.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): His ethics issues stem from his use of earmarks for personal gain and his connections to a lobbying firm under investigation.

Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA): Doolittle’s ethics issues stem from his wife’s relationship to his campaign and political action committees, as well as campaign contributions and personal financial benefits he accepted from those who sought his legislative assistance. Rep. Doolittle is currently the subject of a Department of Justice investigation.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL): Rep. Feeney’s ethics violations stem from his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and three trips he took in apparent violation of House travel and gift rules.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): His ethics issues stem from his improper contact with a Washington U.S. Attorney.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): Rep. Hunter’s ethics issues stem from his connection to now former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and now indicted defense contractor Brent Wilkes. In addition, Rep. Hunter purchased his home in a questionable land deal, escaped paying full property taxes for many years, and gave conflicting reports of the property’s true value. Rep. Hunter also used the power of his office to financially benefit his brother and his presidential campaign has violated federal election law.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA): Rep. Jefferson’s ethics issues stem from his business dealings and from the misuse of federal resources.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA): Currently the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, his ethics issues stem primarily from the misuse of his position as chairman of the committee to steer hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks to family and friends in direct exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee.

Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA): His ethics issues stem from his relationship with Lewis Operating Company and the sale of property.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV): His ethics issues stem from misusing his position to benefit himself, his family and his friends and misreporting a dramatic increase in his personal assets.

Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA): Rep. Murphy’s ethics violations involve his misuse of official resources for political campaign activity. Rep. Murphy currently is the target of a Department of Justice investigation.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA): Rep. Murtha’s ethics violations stem from abuse of his position on the subcommittee to benefit the lobbying firm of a former long-term staffer and from threatening to block earmarks of other members for political purposes.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM): Rep. Pearce’s ethics issues stem from his failure to properly report a transaction on his financial disclosure report and from trading legislative assistance for campaign contributions.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ): Rep. Renzi’s ethics issues stem from assistance he offered to a former business partner and legislation he sponsored that benefitted his father’s employer.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY): Rogers’ ethics issues stem from misuse of his position to steer millions of dollars in earmarks to campaign contributors, including a company that employs his son. A newspaper in his district, The Lexington Herald-Leader, has called Rep. Rogers the “Prince of Pork.”

Rep. David Scott (D-GA): Rep. Scott’s ethics issues stem from allegations of tax evasion and misuse of official resources for political campaign activity.

Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL): Rep. Weller’s ethics issues stem from his repeated failure to report assets he bought and sold in Nicaragua, the misuse of his position to sell foreign property, his acceptance of campaign contributions from Puerto Rican interests in apparent exchange for supporting legislation that benefitted Puerto Rico, and his acceptance of campaign contributions in return for assisting a telecommunications executive in a dispute with a foreign government. In addition, there is a question as to whether Rep. Weller qualifies for a waiver allowing him to exclude his wife’s assets and liabilities from his financial disclosure forms. Then there is the matter of one of his staffers knocking a reporter down the stairs.

Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM):Her ethics issues stem from improperly contacting a sitting U.S. Attorney.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK): Young’s ethics violations stem from the misuse of his position to benefit family and friends and to steer millions of dollars in earmarks to corporations in exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee, Midnight Sun PAC (MSPAC). Rep. Young is currently under four separate federal investigations including an investigation into his role in securing a $10 million earmark for a road in Florida, assistance he offered to recently convicted VECO executive Bill Allen, his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his financial relationship with recently indicted businessman Dennis Troha.

Dishonorable Mentions: Larry Craig and David Vitter

A Way Forward in the Senate

From FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Confusing "can't" and "won't."

Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.

The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.

As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."

Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):

Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.

This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."

This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:

If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war-legislation that has little chances of passing.

The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so.

The Democratic leadership may believe-rightly or wrongly-that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation-by confusing "can't" with "won't."

Poll: Congress and Bush Both in the Dumper

Only a third of the public is satisfied with the job President Bush is doing and even fewer are pleased with Congress, according to a poll by The Associated Press and Ipsos released Thursday.

With the clash between Bush and congressional Democrats over Iraq continuing to dominate the news, 33 percent said they approve of Bush's performance. That essentially matched his all-time low of 32 percent measured several times in the AP-Ipsos survey, a level that has barely changed since late last year.

Bush's approval on various issues ranged from 40 percent on foreign policy and terrorism to 33 percent on Iraq. But he wasn't the only one whose popularity was in the doldrums.

Congress' 26 percent approval was also about the same as its low point since Democrats took control this year, which was 24 percent in July.

Obama Says Congress Won't Challenge Bush on Iraq

From the AP

Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.

Obama, on the second day of a trip to Iowa, conceded that Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war or even to tie continued funding to a timetable for withdrawing troops.

The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact.

"You have to at least give people a one-year break for every year served in Iraq," Obama said. "At least that would put a ceiling on how many troops could be sent there at any given time."

In his speech before about 300 people at a park in this eastern Iowa town of 6,100 people, Obama focused on his plan to begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately and complete the withdrawal by the end of next year.

Obama spoke on the same day Bush was scheduled to address the nation, seeking support of his plan to maintain troop levels in Iraq until next summer, then withdraw about 30,000 troops if conditions are favorable. Bush has said he's basing his plan on the advise of the nation's military leaders.

Speaking with reporters, Obama dismissed Bush administration claims that an increase in troops has brought progress to Iraq.

"After an additional 30,000 troops and enormous sacrifice, we are back to where we were in June 2006," said Obama. "We have not made progress politically."