Democrats renege on first 100 hours promises

[Rightlane]

Andrew L. Jaffee

The Democrats promised to restore bipartisanship and openness, tighten ethics rules for lawmakers, and reign in pork barrel spending in their “first 100 hours” pledge made for the November 2006 elections. They haven’t kept their promises. In fact, they have actually moved in the opposite direction. Is this what voters really wanted last November? I doubt it. The Democrats have sought to exclude Republicans from decision-making (there goes bipartisanship), failed to enact meaningful lobbying reforms (there goes ethics), and have gone full-steam ahead on hiding pet pork spending in legislation (there goes pork reform).

Regarding Democratic promises of “bipartisanship,” the Washington Post wrote:

…But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories. …

http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/06/03/1741


http://oldbluejacket.com/images/CongressFromHell.jpg


Is this story supposed to surprise anyone? Come on, we all knew what the Dems would do if they got power. All the more reason to take their power away in 2008.

[preservanation]

:DVery good!

[wonder cow]

I always though the first 100 hours thing was stupid.

restore bipartisanship

Why would you even want to do that?

However, I will say that it is nice to have a congress that at least pretends to be an independent branch of government as opposed to the total and complete assmonkeypandabearcrapclowns that were in charge up to this year who groveled all over their embarrassing worthless selves for the privilege of rubber stamping everything Chimpy squeaked and squalled and spun in his own shit about.

What "assmonkeypandabearcrapclowns" is not a word you say? Well, we shall see what the good folks at the urban dictionary have to say about that.

Thanks for your definition of assmonkeypandabearcrapclowns!

Your submission is under review by editors.

[BoogyMan]

WC you should ask about why earmarks are still hidden. David Obey would be a good person to ask about this, especially after the promise to end the hidden funding and make government more transparent.

[wonder cow]

David Obey would be a good person to ask about this, especially after the promise to end the hidden funding and make government more transparent.

Hypocrisy and lies from politicians and congress? A promise from politicians to regulate themselves and then they don't? Whaaaaaaaaa?

The way to handle such promises is to flog the shit out of these people when they make them.

Here is a couple of other self regulatory fantasies that will never happen: term limits, real campaign finance reform.

The only way to accomplish such things, IMO, would be an amendment via this method:

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

What say you Boogy? Shall we start a petition?

[Red Dragon]

Wait, people expect politicians to keep their promises. Where were during the last couple million years? That's like trying to teach a fish to play the piano. Hmm I think I just insulted fish there, I should probably apologize to them. :D

[BoogyMan]

David Obey would be a good person to ask about this, especially after the promise to end the hidden funding and make government more transparent.

Hypocrisy and lies from politicians and congress? A promise from politicians to regulate themselves and then they don't? Whaaaaaaaaa?

The way to handle such promises is to flog the shit out of these people when they make them.

Here is a couple of other self regulatory fantasies that will never happen: term limits, real campaign finance reform.

The only way to accomplish such things, IMO, would be an amendment via this method:

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

What say you Boogy? Shall we start a petition?


I have already been writing to just about everyone I can think of on the earmark question, care to join me? I am ready to sign the petition!

[preservanation]

I always though the first 100 hours thing was stupid.

restore bipartisanship

Why would you even want to do that?

The Dems have been and are the king of lying hypocrites.
Unfortunately, for the last seven years, the Repblicans have been vying for that not so coveted title.

I am not interested in bipartisanship in the least. Compromise with libs is always a one way street. Trying to get allong with Dems is futile and has gotten us into this mess to begin with. Screw the "new tone". It is a failed policy.

The Dems have been positioning themselves with this "will of the people" bunk to the point that they could popose to paint the Washington Monument blue and claim that's what the people elected them to do. Have they forgotten that they had to run candidates to the right of the Republicans to win the House and Senate?

If I were a lib (*ech*) I would be furious that they haven't done more to get our troops out of Iraq. Empty promises. They even had to bribe House members with buckets of pork to get that last spending bill passed. Thank God Bush did not cave to their nonsense.

[ViolaLee]

I have already been writing to just about everyone I can think of on the earmark question, care to join me? I am ready to sign the petition!


Joe Biden had the answer last night in the debate on how to end earmarks. Campaign finance reform. If the special interests can't give millions to the campaigns, the politicians won't stick thankyou earmarks into bills.

[NortheastCynic]

Right...except campaign finance reform may be the greatest violation of the First Amendment ever seriously considered by the government. Not allowing people to donate money to who they choose is a severe and unconstitutional restriction of their rights. If you want to get rid of pork you passed a balanced budget amendment, it's that simple.

As for the Dems, not that it excuses them from lying to the electorate, but they aren't the firsts and won't be the last to do it. They're lying, coniving, bullshitting politicians just like the Republicans, no one side has the monopoly on either of those stately qualities.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

As for the Dems, not that it excuses them from lying to the electorate, but they aren't the firsts and won't be the last to do it. They're lying, coniving, bullshitting politicians just like the Republicans, no one side has the monopoly on either of those stately qualities.

-NC


I would not have used that language NC but that is, in form, exactly what I have been saying for quite some time now.

[Truth_and_Power]

They may not be great but IMO they are less of a disaster than the repubs. Until they lie us into a war or two and get caught printing out bribery menus, they will have trouble really living up to the excesses of their predecessors.

I would wholeheartedly support a balanced budget amendment and the elimination of earmarks. Neither deficit spending nor earmarks make any sense.

I think we can have federally funded elections and avoid some of the first amendment issues if we devote a sizeable chunk of the airwaves to free and equal election advertisement time without imposing restrictions on private money (other than transparency). They are our airwaves, and if it eliminates the wholesale bribery of our politicians, it's worth it. I'm sure more air time will always be great and a good thing to spend money on. However, if there is a good amount of free time for all candidates, its impact will be lessened. Also, we can structure that time so that there are more debates and other meaningful platforms for discussion of the candidates positions, rather than mudslinging, unanswered 30 second spots.

[preservanation]

Right...except campaign finance reform may be the greatest violation of the First Amendment ever seriously considered by the government. Not allowing people to donate money to who they choose is a severe and unconstitutional restriction of their rights. If you want to get rid of pork you passed a balanced budget amendment, it's that simple.

As for the Dems, not that it excuses them from lying to the electorate, but they aren't the firsts and won't be the last to do it. They're lying, coniving, bullshitting politicians just like the Republicans, no one side has the monopoly on either of those stately qualities.

-NC

100% agreed. Can't believe McCain teamed up with ultra-lib, Feingold,D(WI) to write CFR, or that Bush signed it or most shocking of all that the Supremes let it stand. IMHO it is in direct violation of our cherished 1st Amend. This is only one of the reasons we need another conservative Supreme Court judge and that I will never vote for McCain in the primaries.

[wonder cow]

Right...except campaign finance reform may be the greatest violation of the First Amendment ever seriously considered by the government.

Giving money = freedom of speech and/or press? Kind of a broad interpretation there NEC.

Myself , I don't think bribery should be considered protected speech.

[NortheastCynic]

Freedom of expression has been held as part of the First Amendment. Giving money to a political campaign is expressing your endorsement of that campaign. The slippery slope that can arise from regulating how people donate their own money is extremely dangerous.

Wondercow, if the Democratic majority passed a legislation that barred citizens from giving money to Republican campaigns, would that be unConstitutional?

-NC

[wonder cow]

Wondercow, if the Democratic majority passed a legislation that barred citizens from giving money to Republican campaigns, would that be unConstitutional?

Yes. Because in that case it would be targeting speech/expression, etc. If, instead, you target the bribery aspects, that is quite a different story.

So if I give a wad of cash each to two opposing candidates running for the same office, what am I doing? Expressing myself or attempting to purchase influence?

[NortheastCynic]

So if I give a wad of cash each to two opposing candidates running for the same office, what am I doing? Expressing myself or attempting to purchase influence?You're attempting to purchase influence. That's undeniable. My point is, how can you criminalize that without allowing donations to a single campaign [instead of both, opposing candidates]?

-NC

[wonder cow]

My point is, how can you criminalize that without allowing donations to a single campaign

How to go about fixing the problem is a tough question.

However, we are not going to destroy our liberties by restructuring the way we finance political campaigns, campaigns that happen a few months every two years.

There is much to gain from ending the purchase of influence.

[NortheastCynic]

I hear you, Cow. But let me explain how I feel about campaign finance and the purchasing of influence.

Ultimately, the blame falls on the electorate for allowing corporations to "purchase influence". Yes, the wealthy give money to politicians, but that money doesn't buy them votes. It buys them publicity, etc. etc. But ultimately, the people have to buy the nonsense that politicians feed them and it is the people who vote these people in. Now, I do agree that the groups are able to get tit for tat deals via pork. But as I said, I think a balanced budget amendment would alleviate that.

-NC

[lily]

But as I said, I think a balanced budget amendment would alleviate that.

-NC


You've said this twice already, NC.......but I don't see the logic in it. Can you explain what you mean?

[NortheastCynic]

If you legally force the government to balance the budget, there is less room for pork. If they wanted to add pork, they would have to cut spending somewhere else or raise taxes, both of which would look bad to the electorate.

-NC

[lily]

Oh.....ok........than makes sense. Thanks.:)

[preservanation]

Freedom of Political speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. CFR seriously threatens that right.

[Truth_and_Power]

There is always a point of diminishing returns, even with campaign advertising. Why not just federally fund enough airtime so that you approach the turn of that curve. Then you don't have to outlaw any giving of money at all, but you lessen its influence. Make the system for getting on the federal fund bandwagon less 2-party-focused so that indepedents can get involved as well.

I have not heard any problems with this strategy other than getting bribed politicians to work against bribery..

[NortheastCynic]

Well, you'd have to amend the Constitution in order for that to happen, which isn't going to happen just for the reason you mentioned.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

Well, you'd have to amend the Constitution in order for that to happen, which isn't going to happen just for the reason you mentioned.

-NC


Okay well then just give that rep. back his 90k and send him back to his office with a written apology.. since we're being totally apathetic now that we have actually happened upon a good idea. This reminds me of the people that want to censor tv because the rating/blocker system "doesnt work". Sounds a lot more like they dont care to make it work and would rather you forget about the recent good idea so they can go ahead with their plan.

[NortheastCynic]

Apathetic? No, realistic, yes. What exactly, do you think are the odds of the United States Congress passing an Amendment to the Constitution [requiring 2/3 approval from both houses] that uses taxpayer money to fund public broadcasting of third party/independent ideals. The odds are slim to none. It isn't going to happen. That isn't apathy, that's reality.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

Just like global warming, no one is going to do anything of substance until they have seawater in their yard. The worst part is that these riding-lawn-mower conservatives just eat up that "first amendment" b.s. because it's about the only chance they have to throw the bill of rights back at the liberals.. well that and gun control.

[NortheastCynic]

Truth_and_Power, I've suggested what we should do about it, a balanced budget amendment. And I'll say it one more time, what are the chances of the 2/3 of the US Congress passing an Amendment to the Constitution that weakens the two party system? Offering a "solution" that will never come to fruition is no different than offering nothing.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

Truth_and_Power, I've suggested what we should do about it, a balanced budget amendment. And I'll say it one more time, what are the chances of the 2/3 of the US Congress passing an Amendment to the Constitution that weakens the two party system? Offering a "solution" that will never come to fruition is no different than offering nothing.

-NC


You think a 2/3 vote that weakens the pork barrel system is more likely?

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, considering it was one vote await from occuring approximately 10 years ago.

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, considering it was one vote await from occuring approximately 10 years ago.

What's with the echo effect?

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

Anyway, the eternal war on terror would activate the "exception" clause in any balanced budget amendment, and then all we've done is give Dear Leader another reason to keep the war machine going.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yes, considering it was one vote await from occuring approximately 10 years ago.

-NC


I thought maybe it was just an important point. :)