Tag Archives: Capitol Hill

International news, local news, national news

Where is LBJ when you need him?

1 Comment

Barack H. Obama needs to channel Lyndon B. Johnson.

In a big way.

President Obama’s negotiating team — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — has just brokered a deal that cuts off Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

But not only are congressional Republicans opposed to the deal — which is no surprise in the least — but congressional Democrats appear to be skeptical of the deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/key-democrats-skeptical-of-iran-deal-120123.html?hp=t1_r

How does LBJ play into this? I’m trying to imagine congressional Democrats bucking ol’ Lyndon, who was legendary in his ability to cajole his former congressional colleagues into seeing things his way.

Vote with me, or else I’m going to make your life holy hell, he would tell friend and foe alike. There was not disputing LBJ’s sincerity. When he said he’d make congressmen and women’s lives uncomfortable, he meant it.

Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney, who is no slouch as a political observer, once told me he thought Obama’s greatest weakness as president was his lack of congressional relationships. He served only three years in the Senate before being elected president in 2008 and hadn’t built a large cache of friends on Capitol Hill upon whom he could depend when the going gets tough.

It’s going to get quite tough in the weeks ahead as the president seeks to sell the details of his Iran nuclear deal to members of both parties.

Imagine Democrats telling Lyndon Johnson that they’re skeptical of a deal negotiated by a presidential team of the same party.

As for President Obama’s efforts to sell this deal — which I believe has the potential for bringing a more comprehensive peace to the Middle East — well, good luck, Mr. President.

legal news, medical news, national news, political news

POTUS vs. SCOTUS over ACA

President Barack Obama has chided the Supreme Court over its decision to hear a case involving the Affordable Care Act.

Some critics, of course, suggest the criticism is out of bounds, that the president is trying to “bully” the nine justices who could strike down a key provision in the ACA. Bully those men and women? I don’t think so.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-fix-health-law-court-rules-against-071508891–politics.html#

Obama says the court was wrong to take up a case in the first place. The case, to be ruled on perhaps in just a matter of days, involves the legality of the federal subsidies used to help pay for Americans’ health care. An estimated 6.4 million Americans’ health insurance policies are at risk if the court strikes down the subsidy.

Now the president has declared the ACA to be a “reality,” it is law and it is part of the American fabric of providing health insurance to those who need it.

Is he right to challenge the court? Of course he is.

Just as critics chide the president for ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution, they ignore the obvious notion that the separation argument goes the other direction. By that I mean that the judiciary, as a co-equal branch of government, isn’t immune from criticism from another branch of government. Indeed, the legislative branch — Congress — hardly is shy about criticizing the executive and the judiciary when either of those branches of government steer in what lawmakers suggest is the “wrong direction.”

Where the president misfired, in my view, in his criticism of the Supreme Court was when he did so during his 2010 State of the Union speech. With several court members sitting in front of him, surrounded by other administration and military officials, not to mention a packed chamber full of lawmakers, the president said the court was wrong in its Citizens United ruling that took the shackles off of campaign contributors. Whatever criticism the court deserved, that was neither the time or the place to deliver it.

So, the fight goes on between Barack Obama the nine men and women who hold the fate of his signature domestic policy achievement in their hands.

 

local news, State news

Turner bids teary farewell to Legislature

rep. turner

This is something you don’t see every day: politicians from both sides of the political paying heartfelt tribute to one of their own as he prepares to depart their ranks.

So it was when state Rep. Sylvester Turner bid farewell to the Texas House of Representatives. He’s leaving the House, where he served for 26 years, to run for mayor of Houston.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/sylvester-turners-tearful-farewell

Is this a huge thing? Not really. It’s simply worth noting in light of the occasional acrimony that flares up in Austin and more often, it seems, in Washington, D.C.

Turner is a Democrat, but the praise he got from Republican colleagues seemed heartfelt and sincere.

They praised Turner’s rhetorical skills. This came from Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo: “He could turn the House with logic and good argument.”

I once heard the late Republican state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo say the same thing about a one-time foe, former Sen. Carl Parker, D-Port Arthur, who used to deride his GOP colleagues as “silk-stocking Republicans.” He included Bivins among that category of Republican. Bivins didn’t take it personally and they men remained friends despite their political differences.

That’s the way it ought to be.

As Turner told his colleagues to their faces, with tears welling up in his eyes: “I love each and every one of you. Whether we have voted together or not is not important to me. Whether you are a D or an R is not important to me. The reality is we are Texans, but proud Texans.”

Well said.

 

national news, political news

McConnell pledges more judicial gridlock

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid it out there.

Talking to conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell said the Senate “likely” won’t approve any more high-level circuit court or Supreme Court judges during the Obama administration.

So … if I understand it correctly, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, say, in the next 24 hours — and it can happen, given the ages of some of the court’s senior justices — the Senate won’t confirm anyone appointed by President Obama, even though Obama has another 18 months to go before he leaves office.

That’s what the Kentucky Republican senator said, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244107-mcconnell-highly-likely-senate-wont-appoint-new-judges-for

I surely understand the politics of these appointments. The highest court in America comprises a slim conservative majority. Should one of the court’s conservative justices suddenly no longer be on the court, that would send the Republican majority in the Senate into sheer apoplexy. GOP senators would go ballistic at the knowledge that the “socialist/Marxist/terrorist-appeaser” president would be empowered to appoint a justice who would swing the balance of power on the court.

And oh yes, the reverse would be true if we had a conservative president appointing a justice who then might have to face confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate.

But that’s what we have.

McConnell seemed to offer himself some cover in his radio interview by noting the “bipartisan” votes the Senate has had and the bills it has approved with bipartisan majorities. So, it’s OK then to stall these appointments because, as McConnell said, the Senate is up and running like a well-oiled machine.

What a crock!

It’s fair to remind everyone — the Senate majority leader included — that Barack Obama has been elected twice by clear majorities of American voters. Part of the president’s authority rests with his ability to appoint federal judges with whom he feels comfortable. It’s in the Constitution. He can do that!

Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. But is it truly within the Senate’s purview to obstruct qualified jurists to these posts purely on political grounds, because senators can’t stomach the notion of the high court comprising judges with whom they are uncomfortable?

Before you accuse me of being a partisan hack, I’ve noted this very thing when we’ve had GOP presidents’ high court appointments stymied by Democrats employing the same logic in seeking to block qualified judicial appointees.

I happen to be a strong believer in “presidential prerogative,” and that belief swings in both directions.

Welcome back, gridlock.

national news, political news

Get elected to Congress, and enrich yourself?

Median income of Americans has fallen since 2003.

How about the incomes of their elected congressional representatives? It’s gone the other direction.

http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/stories/4235/list-congress-members-getting-richer?utm_medium=social.paid&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ao.sp.fb.dt.4235&utm_term=insidegov

And to think that some members of Congress want a pay raise, that 174 grand a year isn’t enough, that only “rich people” can serve.

That’s the line being pushed out there by U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., along with other members of the House and Senate who gripe that they’re underpaid.

Check out the link attached to this blog and you might get a different idea of just how “impoverished” some of our elected reps and senators have become — which is to say they aren’t impoverished in the least.

Many of them have seen their portfolios increase while serving on Capitol Hill.

How does this happen? In some instances, senators and House members parlay their public standing into positions on corporate boards. All they do, then, is belong to boards of companies that reap tremendous profits and then distribute some of that wealth among board members.

Hey, it’s great “work” if you can get it.

This is the kind of stuff that makes the plea such as what’s been coming from Alcee Hastings sound ridiculous on its face.

Let’s can the give-us-a-raise talk.

national news, Uncategorized

Rep. Hastings wants a raise … from 174 grand a year!

Roll Call has the right term for what U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings is demanding.

The newspaper calls the Florida Democrat “tone deaf.”

That’s likely going to be one of the more charitable descriptions the man with the checkered past is going to hear about his demand for a raise for members of Congress.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/hastings-members-of-congress-need-a-pay-raise/

House members and senators earn $174,000 annually. Hastings complains that the cost of living in the District of Columbia is too high and that lawmakers cannot afford to live there on their meager six-figure salary.

Hastings has lost touch with what most of us out here, beyond the Beltway, are enduring. Granted, the economy is in full recovery mode and lives are better for many millions of Americans. But in the eyes of us working stiffs, 174 grand a year to make laws is a pretty fair wage.

I should point out that lawmakers take extended breaks from the rigors of studying and voting on issues. They jet off to exotic locations on junkets, er, “fact-finding trips” to learn about pressing issues of the day.

Allow me to say this out loud and clearly: I do not feel one tiny bit of sympathy for the salary we taxpayers shell out for our members of Congress.

Furthermore, that someone such as Alcee Hastings would make this demand/request is even more galling. I call it that because before he was elected to Congress, Hastings had the bad form of being impeached and then removed from his post as a federal judge in Florida on allegations of corruption.

Now this man says he wants more money?  “We aren’t being paid properly,” Hastings said after a congressional hearing.

Maybe Hastings and his colleagues would deserve a raise if Congress demonstrated an ability to govern.

Maybe …

 

national news

Not exactly Felix and Oscar, however …

The Hill calls them Washington, D.C.’s newest “odd couple.”

They are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Barack H. Obama, the Democratic president of the United States of America.

McConnell has been saying nice things about the man he once pledged to make a “one-term president.” The one-term notion didn’t work out, as Obama was re-elected in 2012. But hey, life goes on.

Washington’s new odd couple: McConnell and Obama

I rather like the idea of these men becoming “friends,” even if it’s a relationship of convenience.

They aren’t the first national political leaders to link arms and find common ground in an Oscar Madison-Felix Unger sort of way.

Let’s go back to the 1960s, when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen teamed up to help enact the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts. How about when Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill would bash each other in public, but then toast each other over whiskey after hours? Democratic President Bill Clinton and GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to balance the federal budget. Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy found common ground in pushing education reform through Congress.

See? It can be done, ladies and gentlemen.

McConnell and Obama are on the same page regarding international trade. The president, in fact, is finding his stiffest opposition coming from the left-wing base of his own party. But he’s got a pal on the other side of the aisle.

The arrangement doesn’t surprise some Capitol Hill hands. “It validates what McConnell has been saying for the last six and a half years. If the president wants to join us on something that’s good for the country, we will work with him. This is an example of that,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman.

Well, for what it’s worth, some of us out here in the Heartland are surprised.

And pleasantly so, at that.

 

medical news, political news

Do as he says, not does, on abortion

Here’s an item that might cause you to rethink your view of the world’s most glaring example of political hypocrisy.

U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., once was a physician in his hometown of Jasper, Tenn. He was married to a woman who obtained two abortions, reportedly on Dr. DesJarlais’s advice and counsel.

Then the congressman, who’s served in the House since 2011, voted “yes” on a bill that makes it illegal in this country for women to have an abortion after the 20-week period of their pregnancy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/16/congressman-who-advised-ex-wife-to-seek-abortion-votes-for-late-term-abortion-ban/?tid=sm_tw

His staff calls him “100-percent pro-life” and said his congressional voting record reflects that view.

Fine.

The congressman’s spokesman said he’s “always advocated for pro-life values.”

Always? Even when he counseled his wife to obtain an abortion? The spokesman didn’t say whether either abortion occurred after the 20th week of pregnancy.

This dichotomy cuts to the heart of why this particular issue is so troublesome for so many Americans. It’s one thing to pontificate from positions of power — such as from Capitol Hill — about what people should do when faced with these most emotionally charged decisions. It’s quite another when you’re faced with making them yourself or when asked to provide guidance for those with whom you are closest.

The Washington Post story attached to this blog post also notes that divorce papers released during DesJarlais’s re-election campaign in 2012 showed he had multiple affairs with patients, co-workers and drug company representatives while he was practicing medicine. Voters in his House district re-elected him anyway — twice, in fact.

Lawmakers’ lives are open books. They make laws that we all must follow and it’s fair to inquire about the background of those who cast these important votes — even when they reveal the harsh reality that some of them don’t always live by the values they preach to others.

International news, national news, political news

Techno-terrorists elevate threat to U.S., world

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issues a stern warning.

International terrorists have become cyber-savvy and are posing a uniquely new threat to the world.

Are we on guard against these guys? And what in the world do we do to stop them?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-security-chief-warns-of-new-phase-in-terror-threat/ar-BBjy1fG

“We’re very definitely in a new environment, because of ISIL’s (IS’s) effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others,” Johnson said in a TV interview this morning.

The Islamic State reportedly is recruiting heavily through the Internet. It’s also posing serious threats to cyber infrastructure.

It’s no longer just madmen with bombs strapped their chests who pose threats to human life. This global war has turned into a battle of wits.

This new threat brings to mind something that congressional leaders sought to bring to national attention. I keep waiting to hear from the Texas Panhandle’s congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, on how we’re defending ourselves against cyber warriors.

House Speaker John Boehner tasked Thornberry some years ago to lead a congressional committee that would devise strategies to fight Internet hackers and other enemies who would seek to do serious damage to our cyber infrastructure.

When these discussions bring the news to the front pages and gobble up air times on our news networks, I always seem to miss hearing from Rep. Thornberry, who I understand to be an expert on these issues.

I trust he’s working behind the scenes. He’s also become chairman of the House Armed Services panel, which is a huge responsibility all by itself.

Still, our Homeland Security secretary no doubt can use all the help he can muster in protecting “the homeland” against cyber attacks.

Let’s hope this fight transcends the political differences that seem to divide the White House and Capitol Hill … even when it involves national security.

 

national news, political news

Stop making me laugh, Mr. Speaker

John Boehner might be the most unintentionally funny politician in Washington, D.C.

The speaker of the House of Representatives, for instance, told conservative journalists that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Benghazi/e-mail kerfuffle just won’t go away.

Imagine that. They won’t vaporize. Become old news. They won’t be relegated to the back burner.

And why do you suppose that’s the case?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-on-hillary-emails-these-things-just-dont-go-away/article/2563850

It’s because Boehner and other Republicans won’t allow it.

That’s the short answer. Indeed, it’s the only answer I can figure at the moment.

The Benghazi matter will stay in the public eye for as long as Congress wants it to stay there. Boehner, according to the Washington Examiner, intends to keep the focus on Benghazi and the e-mails that have been called into question by the House Select Benghazi Committee chaired by Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Boehner said this: “They deleted all the (former IRS director) Lois Lerner e-mails, but they keep finding them. You know, these things just don’t go away. So I don’t know where the server is, I don’t know what condition it’s in, I have no idea, but the American people deserve the facts. That’s all. Just tell us what the facts are.”

So, the hunt will go on. Benghazi will remain in front of voters. Boehner wants the truth, by golly, no matter what.

I don’t know whether to dismiss Boehner’s ridiculous assertions about why these matters won’t fade into oblivion or whether to enjoy watching these fishing expeditions. On one hand, the Benghazi tragedy — in which four Americans were killed in that September 2012 fire fight launched by terrorists at the U.S. consulate in Libya — has been settled. Members of Congress, though, keep looking for more … and then more after that. They seem intent on finding something — anything — that’s going to derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That, I submit, is why the Benghazi e-mail tempest will keep going.

Correct, Mr. Speaker?