Tag Archives: House of Representatives

Uncategorized

Even ‘our SOBs’ may need to get tossed

I’ve been thinking the past few days about my former congressman, the late Jack Brooks, a crusty Democrat who served Southeast Texas for more than four decades before getting beat in that landmark 1994 Republican sweep of Congress.

Jack used to refer to himself as Sweet Old Brooks, which translates into the initials SOB. He was proud of his irascible nature. In fact, Brooks embodied the saying of members of Congress that so-and-so “may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”

Some polling has come out in recent days that suggests American voters may be more likely than at any time in memory to throw out their congressman or woman in the next election, largely because of the trumped-up drama that took us once more to the brink of defaulting on our financial obligations.

The faux drama ended late Wednesday when the Senate leadership cobbled together a deal to reopen part of the federal government and lift the debt ceiling so we can pay our bills.

The consequences of defaulting are quite chilling to consider. The financial markets would have collapsed, taking millions of Americans’ retirement accounts into the crapper.

Still, with that prospect hanging over Americans’ heads, a number of senators and House members voted against the deal to prevent the default. Who voted no? Among them were Texas’s two GOP senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and my current Republican member of Congress, Mac Thornberry.

Thornberry said on TV tonight that he voted “no” because the deal didn’t solve any problems; it only postponed for a few months a situation that he thinks will repeat itself when the debt ceiling is set to expire once more.

I guess my question for the dissenters is this: How would you propose to solve all those problems at the last minute?

I’ll concede that the political system is badly broken. However, Thornberry, Cornyn and Cruz all are part of what ails it. They, of course, blame the other party — just as the other party blames them.

So, to fix the problem they proposed letting the government default on its debts, allowing the economy to crash, keeping federal employees furloughed and maintaining maximum dysfunction in our federal government. Reminds me of the old Vietnam War axiom of “destroying the village in order to save it.”

To think that some folks still wonder why Congress’s approval rating is in the sewer.

Uncategorized

Bring Senate debt plan to vote, Mr. Speaker

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has been hiding something called the Hastert Rule, named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert, one of Boehner’s predecessors.

The Hastert Rule means that nothing goes to a vote if it doesn’t first have the support of most members of the party that runs the House of Representatives.

The time is at hand for Boehner to throw the Hastert Rule in the trash bin. The U.S. Senate very well could present the House with a plan to extend the nation’s debt ceiling and reopen the part of the government that’s been shut down for two weeks.

Both of these things likely would be short-term repairs. They would, however, stave off the first default on our obligations in American history. If that occurs at midnight, world financial markets could collapse, the U.S. credit rating would plummet and a new recession could occur, causing significant pain and misery for millions of Americans.

Boehner has been shackled to the will of about 30 or so members of his Republican caucus who want to attach certain conditions on the debt ceiling increase and reopening the government. It’s time he showed some guts.

It’s a fairly open secret that most members of the entire House want this debacle to end. The speaker, I hasten to add, is the man in charge of the entire legislative chamber. His “constituents,” such as they are, do not comprise merely the Republican majority. Depending on who’s doing the counting, Democrats are virtually united in their support of Senate efforts to end this madness. Add their numbers to the substantial number of Republicans who also want it to end, and I’m pretty sure you come up with far more than 218 House members, which is the minimum number of votes needed to approve a deal.

So, what’s it going to be, Mr. Speaker? Are you going to allow this catastrophe to occur or are you going to exercise the enormous power you have by virtue of your high office to get something done?

Uncategorized

Senate moves ahead; House stumbles and bumbles

Can this actually be happening? The U.S. Senate is close to a deal that would forestall a default on our nation’s obligations while the House of Representatives cannot even reel in all the members of the party that runs the lower chamber?

And is the result going to be that the United States actually defaults and sends investment accounts into some abyss?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

What in the world is happening to our legislative branch of government?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said late Tuesday that “we’re in good shape,” meaning that he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have been talking to each other, along with their parties’ leadership teams. They’re trying to reach a deal that is acceptable to all members of the Senate.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the Capitol Building, Boehner is trying to fend off the insurgents within his own party. So far, he’s failing badly.

If this whole thing explodes, I am thinking the clock will start ticking down the time Boehner will remain as speaker. Either his own party will throw him over, or the voters will do so in November 2014 when they hand control of the House over to the Democrats.

Senators, who believe bipartisanship still seems to matter, need to persuade their House colleagues of the disaster that awaits them all if they cannot get a deal done … now.

Uncategorized

Speier seeks to shame her colleagues

Good luck, Jackie Speier, if you think your congressional colleagues have any shame left in them.

Rep. Speier, D-Calif., scolded her House Republican colleagues for their extravagant travel habits while they are voting to cut money to pay for food stamps that feed poor Americans.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/19/rep-speier-holds-up-vodka-and-steak-on-house-floor-to-shame-food-stamp-opponents/

She singled out a few of them, such as Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who has this habit of denigrating poor folks with loose and careless talk. King recently went on a trip and spent an amount of money that would have fed him for 881 days on money that would have paid for food stamps.

“They dine at lavish restaurants, eating steak, vodka and even caviar,” she added, showing food props to members of the House. “They receive money to do this. That’s right, they don’t pay out of pocket for these meals,” Speier said in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Speier isn’t the first member of Congress to try shaming colleagues. Nor will she be the last.

I’m beginning to think that members of Congress have gone far beyond being shamed. Their conduct is shameful and their attitude is shameless.

Still, I applaud Jackie Speier for the valiant attempt at trying to find some thread of decency among her colleagues. Just don’t take one of these trips yourself, Ms. Speier.

Uncategorized

Iran awaits word on U.S. resolve

I’m beginning to think the fundamental question of whether the United States should attack Syria over its use of chemical weapons is this: If the United States pulls back on a direct challenge to make Syria pay for its actions, will it embolden Iran to commit even more mischief in the Middle East?

President Obama has pledged to strike Syria if it crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons on civilians. The Syrians did the deed and the United States is now poised to launch air strikes. Obama has formally asked Congress for authorization and it appears that while the Senate might approve the request, the House of Representatives will pull back.

Without full approval by both houses of Congress, the president is left with two terrible options: walking away from his threat to strike the Syrians or acting on his own as commander in chief by issuing the order to strike.

If he goes it alone, he faces the wrath of a Republican-led House of Reps that detests virtually every policy he proposes. If the president walks away and gives Syria a pass on the hideous act of gassing civilians, he risks looking feckless in the face of imminent threats to a critical region.

Waiting in the wings is the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s primary allies, an exporter of terrorism and a known hater of the United States, aks “The Great Satan.”

The Iranians can bring a lot of misery to the region in a huge hurry if we fail to act.

The world awaits to learn how Congress will respond.

Uncategorized

Obama to seek congressional permission on Syria

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz recently called President Obama “imperial” and “lawless.”

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, of course, is fond of tossing out pejorative terms, often recklessly.

I’m curious now whether he feels that way about the Obama administration as it seeks congressional approval to strike at Syria in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons on civilians, including women and children.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/31/obama_seeks_congress_ok_to_strike_syria_119792.html

I’m quite certain Cruz would vote “no” on a congressional resolution. But in the grand scheme, seeking congressional approval for a strike is both wise politically and from a policy standpoint.

Politically, a “no” vote from the House and Senate puts the monkey on lawmakers’ backs for failing to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad for gassing innocent victims. The president has made a compelling case that Assad’s military machine needs to be punished severely for this horrifying action. Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, two former senators with extensive foreign policy experience — not to mention actual military combat experience — have declared their outrage over the chemical weapons attack.

Obama now seems willing to ask Congress for is approval. He is willing to wait for House members and senators to return from their month-long recess before taking the issue up with them. He’s consulted heavily with congressional leaders along with our allies to line them up in support of whatever action might occur.

Is there a lesson to be learned from the British Parliament’s rejection of a use-of-force resolution? That remains to be seen. For now, any U.S. action likely will be done solely with our military might.

The Navy is standing by, as are all available forces that would be deployed against the Syrians.

All the president needs — and it’s no small task — is an approval by the rest of the country’s elected representatives.

I’ll weigh in with this: Congress should approve a limited, but decisive, strike against the Syrian military. However, if it says “no” to such an action, the president would be wise to heed Congress’s “advice and consent” on this critical matter.

As for some of the loudmouths who serve on Capitol Hill, they ought to put a lid on the nasty name-calling and give the president credit for asking their permission to act.

Uncategorized

Stupidity alive and well in U.S. House

U.S. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., is saying some remarkably stupid things.

The brand new congressman — elected in 2012 in a special election — said he’s asked lawyers “how can I impeach the president.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/kerry-bentivolio-president-obama-impeachment-95739.html?ml=la

Bentivolio told a town hall gathering of local Republicans that the president has committed an unspecified crime likely related to the IRS controversy or the Benghazi tragedy. He’s not laying out any specifics, but says he wants badly to impeach President Obama.

This kind of idiocy from lawmakers elected with an agenda that has nothing to do with helping their constituents makes me sick. I used to think serving in Congress was an honorable calling. Some folks still see it that way — and I include members of both parties in that category.

Lately, though, we’re moronic statements from the likes of Kerry Bentivolio — and let me throw in comments made recently by Republican U.S. Reps. Steve Stockman and Blake Farenthold of good ol’ Texas — who are tossing the “I-word” out as an applause line in front of their fervently faithful followers.

These clowns are a disgrace to an institution that can ill-afford this kind of ridicule.

Uncategorized

Partisanship enters debate over crime

I got into an interesting rhetorical tug-of-war with a friend of mine this week.

It involved the sentencing of former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to 30 months in federal prison; Jackson’s wife got a one-year sentence in Club Fed. Jesse Jackson’s crime involved the theft of $750,000 from his campaign treasure chest.

My friend, a businessman in Amarillo — and a dedicated Republican — wanted to know if Democrats were still “proud” of their party now that one of their own had been sent up the proverbial river for committing a crime. I responded that the Republican Party has had its share of crooks; I cited former President Richard Nixon and former Vice President Spiro Agnew as examples. We went back and forth after that, but didn’t really settle anything.

He’s still an ardent Republican and I’m still an equally ardent Democrat. I believe we’re still friends; I’ll likely find out next time I visit his business establishment.

But the exchange brought to mind the cheapening of what’s happened to Jackson and other political leaders of either stripe — Democrat or Republican. It pains me when partisans try to hang the “all Democrats/Republicans are crooks” label on either party when someone gets convicted and sentenced for committing a crime.

I don’t give a damn about Jackson’s party affiliation, any more than I gave a damn that Nixon and Agnew were Republicans. Jackson was tried and convicted by the federal court. Nixon was nearly impeached by the House of Representatives and he quit to avoid a certain impeachment and conviction by the Senate; Agnew resigned after being indicted by the feds for taking bribes.

The system in all those cases worked irrespective of the political labels any of the principals wore at the time, and it usually works whenever any high-profile politician gets in trouble.

Uncategorized

Newt hates being negative?

Now I’ve heard just about everything there is to hear in contemporary American politics.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the one-time bomb-thrower in chief of the Republican, the one-man wrecking crew against all things Democratic, now says his party has gone too “negative” in its effort to roll back the Affordable Care Act.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/14/20026954-gingrich-hope-key-to-progress-for-gop?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=4

I need to have my hearing checked?

Gingrich is now trying to be the paragon of positive thinking in his party. Imagine that.

My favorite Gingrich tactic came to light in the early 1990s when, while building what would become the House Republican majority, once counseled his congressional colleagues to adopt a glossary of terms to demonize his Democratic opponents. Among them was this notion that Republicans had to label Democrats, get ready for this one, as the “enemy of normal Americans.”

Remember how he tore after then-House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas for his ethical lapses? Turned out that Wright was dirty and he resigned from the House, but he did so after being bloodied badly by Gingrich’s relentless attack.

Gingrich’s scorched-Earth strategy succeeded in 1994, as the GOP captured both houses of Congress in one of the party’s more stunning mid-term successes. He then sought to give first-term President Clinton the dickens masterminding the infamous government shutdown. That didn’t work out too well for Gingrich, as his party got clobbered in the 1996 and 1998 elections. He eventually quit the House a broken political leader.

Gingrich has become the poster boy for those who know to acquire the power to govern, but who don’t know how to actually govern.

So here he is today, giving advice to his Republican progeny on how to woo disaffected voters.

Good luck with that, Mr. Speaker.

Uncategorized

Cornyn vs. Gohmert? Really?

Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka reports that U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert is being pushed to challenge U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in next year’s Texas Republican Party primary.

Please, please, say it is so.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/gohmert-v-cornyn

Gohmert is running neck and neck with Rep. Steve Stockman of Friendswood in the contest to be Texas’s goofiest Republican member of Congress. Gohmert enjoys tremendous strength among the party’s tea party wing. Cornyn — the former Texas attorney general and state Supreme Court justice — is a more “establishment-type” Republican, meaning that his support comes from the more mainstream sources.

Gohmert remains committed to the notion that the president may have been in a foreign country. His list of idiotic statements in recent years has become the stuff of legend.

It puzzles me, though, as to why Cornyn might become a tea party target. As head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, Cornyn has earned his spurs criticizing President Obama at every turn. He certainly was no shrinking violet during last year’s presidential campaign, as he tried repeatedly to derail the president’s successful re-election effort.

That doesn’t appear to be good enough.

What would happen if Gohmert were to run? He’d likely lose the primary, but that would mean he’d also surrender his House seat in 2014. But whoever his East Texas constituents send to the House to succeed him remains a dicey proposition.

If next year’s Texas primary features these two gut-fighters, though, it’ll embody the intraparty warfare that’s brewing between those who want government to do something and those who want it to do nothing.

I’m hoping Gohmert runs. Texans need a good laugh.