Tag Archives: Congress

national news, political news

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

national news, political news

Here we go: Congress to probe email tempest

It was a matter of time — and it took no time at all — before Congress would decide to conduct hearings into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email accounts while she served as secretary of state.

Here’s how I believe the inquiries break down: What will they learn? What do they hope to learn?

Boehner reportedly set to announce Clinton email probe

At issue is Clinton’s use of a private account rather than using a State Department email account to communicate with, oh, this or that foreign minister or U.S. government staffers relating to official government activity.

The hearings might enable members of Congress to learn what she said and when she said it, and to whom. The public also might learn whether Clinton divulged national security secrets while using the private account — which is the one thing she said categorically the other day she didn’t do.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said — by golly — he doesn’t want to subpoena Clinton. Sure thing, Mr. Chairman. “I’d rather not have to subpoena her, but if she’s fully cooperative there wouldn’t be a need,” Chaffetz told The Wall Street Journal. “Are we prepared to do so if necessary? I suppose so. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.”

Now, what does the Republican-led Congress hope to learn? Only God knows. I’m guessing the leadership hopes to learn something — anything — that is going to damage Clinton’s chances of getting elected president of the United States next year.

That’s how it goes in the world of politics. Something goes amiss and Congress jumps all over it.

If the hearings commence, and I am quite certain they will, be sure to tune in to all the speeches lawmakers will make prior to asking whatever questions they intend to ask. This is a bipartisan tendency. Indeed, as Republicans pontificate over their outrage at what they suspect happened, you’ll hear Democrats blather on about how they are utterly certain this is all a witch hunt.

Get ready for it. The fun is just beginning.

 

State news

Welcome back, Daylight Savings Time

Am I weird or what?

Daylight Savings Time never has been a big deal to me. Here we are, back on it once more. DST has returned a bit earlier than usual. It’s going to stick around a bit later than normal.

What’s the problem with it?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/hate-daylight-saving-time-thank-two-presidents-texas

The essay attached here “blames” DST on two presidents from Texas, Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican George W. Bush.

LBJ pushed Congress to approve DST in 1966. It would take effect late in April and expire at the end of October every year. The idea was to provide more recreational time in the daylight for Texans wanting to enjoy the great outdoors.

It also was intended to conserve electricity, with buildings needing fewer light bulbs burning while the sun was out.

Along came George Dubya in 2005 to get Congress to extend DST from early March to early November. That means we get even more daylight.

Not all states recognize DST. Arizona is one of them. That state retained its independent streak and went against the feds’ decision to enact it for the rest of the country. That’s Arizona’s call. Go for it.

Ranchers long have objected to DST because their cattle and/or horses stay on the same feeding schedule whether its daylight time or standard time.

For me, the time change has become part of our way of life. We know to “spring forward” in the spring and “fall back” in the fall.

Big deal.

Let’s just live with it. Shall we?

 

national news, political news

Rep. Schock wishing for anonymity

Aaron Schock is one of those politicians few people ever hear of outside of the district he represents.

A lot more Americans know about him now, and for reasons he likely wishes didn’t exist.

The Illinois Republican congressman has made a name for himself by spending a lot of taxpayer money on private matters for himself and his staff.

Schock Treated Staffers to Weekend in New York

The U.S. House Ethics Commission is investigating a complaint that Schock spent extravagantly while on an “official” trip to the United Kingdom. The expenses included stays at very expensive hotels, high-dollar meals and many other perks along the way. He allegedly used private aircraft in violation of House rules.

The latest is that Schock reportedly treated his staff to a $10,000-plus weekend in New York, with staffers performing next to zero official duties.

I know he isn’t the first politician to go for the gusto on the public dime. He won’t be the last, not by a long shot.

The fascination with this still-developing story, at least as far as I’m concerned, is how a no-name back-bench politician manages to place himself squarely in the public eye with apparently no outward sense of shame or embarrassment.

Is there a sense of entitlement at work here?

International news

Enough of the barbs, guys; start talking like friends

President Obama has been trading barbs of late with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

They’re tossing them in public at each other. I’m wondering, though: Each man has a secure phone line to the other’s office. What might a private conversation sound like at this moment:

Obama: Hello, Bibi? This is Barack. You got a few minutes?

Netanyahu: Sure thing, Barack. Hey, I can call you “Barack,” right? I heard about that crap over your addressing (German Chancellor) Merkel by her first name, Angela. What nonsense.

Obama: Sure thing, Bibi. No problem. Hey, let’s set aside all this name-calling and get down to brass tacks. You know why I didn’t want you to speak to Congress. First of all, John Boehner messed up by not advising me about the invitation. Second of all, you’ve got an election coming up and we just don’t usually invite foreign leaders to make high-profile public speeches so close to an election. That’s been the practice for as long as I can remember.

Netanyahu: Yes, I understand. But you have to understand something about my position here on Iran and those nuclear talks. Iran is a neighbor of ours. Those crazies sit just a few hundred miles from Jerusalem. I worry about them every hour of every day I’m awake. I’ve got to make the case that no deal is better than a bad deal. You’re sitting in Washington, a long way from the Middle East. You have the comfort of distance. We don’t have it here.

Obama: Absolutely, I get it. But understand that we have a tradition in this country of putting partisanship aside when it concerns foreign policy. In this country, as in yours, we have only one head of government at a time. Boehner’s invitation is seen as an intrusion in our foreign policy tradition. The president’s team negotiates deals. Sure, we take advice from legislators, but their job is to make laws, not to engage in diplomacy.

Netanyahu: OK. Here’s what I think we — you and I — ought to do. Let’s quit sniping. We know you love Israel and we love the United States, too, Barack. Let’s just cool the rhetoric until we get this negotiation completed with Iran. If the nut jobs in Tehran reject whatever plan you and your international partners come up with, then you and I can speak with one voice — as we’ve sought to do before.

Obama: But what if Iran accepts the deal?

Netanyahu: We’ll decide then what to do. Personally, I’m hoping they reject it, if only because I want us to be friends in public the way we are in private.

Obama: Deal, Bibi. Let me make just one request: If you decide to bomb the Iranian nuke plants, give us a heads-up, just to show Boehner how friends are supposed to interact with each other.

Netanyahu: Will do, Barack.

 

International news

Netanyahu plans no 'disrespect' of Obama

Benjamin Netanyahu has laid it out carefully: His speech Tuesday before Congress is not intended to “disrespect” President Obama or the office he holds.

The Israeli prime minister made that point today in a preliminary event at the American Israel Public Affair Committee speech. He said the U.S.-Israel alliance is stronger than ever, but that the two friends have differences on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The main event occurs Tuesday when the prime minister speaks before a joint session of Congress.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/netanyahu-says-congress-speech-is-not-intended-to-show-any-disrespect-to-president-obama/ar-BBi9ajY

Actually, if any disrespect has occurred, it came from the man who invited the prime minister to speak to Congress. That would be House Speaker John Boehner, who broke with diplomatic protocol by extending the invitation without consulting with the White House — or with the president.

Netanyahu contributed to showing up Obama by accepting the invitation.

But the speech he has planned to deliver Tuesday will seek to drive home the friendship that the two countries maintain in spite of differences over specific strategies and tactics.

“Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons,” he told the AIPAC audience. “Disagreements among allies are only natural from time to time, even among the closest of allies.”

He added: “We’re like a family. Disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable.”

The prime minister will no doubt get an earful from the president’s domestic critics about why they think Obama is wrong on Iran. He’ll agree with them clearly.

Let’s not look for any sign of a breakup between two of the world’s tightest allies. From where I sit, the United States and Israel remain the best of friends.

 

national news, political news

What became of a strong House speaker?

1 Comment

John Boehner seems like a decent enough fellow. I’ve long thought of him as someone whose instincts lead him toward working with Democrats, not against them.

But the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has this problem: It is that some of his fellow Republicans don’t like working with the other party. There seems to be enough of those types to make governing quite difficult for the once-affable speaker.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/boehner-house-congress-rambunctious-115634.html?hp=c1_3

Boehner today said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the House is a rambunctious place. It’s full of members with competing ideas on how to get things done. He said “I think” I can lead the House.

Interesting, yes? Well, yes.

The speaker was handed a big defeat this past week when the House defeated his plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security for three weeks. The “rambunctious caucus” of the House, aka the TEA party wing, bolted from his idea, along with a number of Democrats. Some last-minute scrambling enabled the House to approve a DHS funding bill that expires at the end of this week. Then we get to do this all over again.

I’m trying to imagine how past speakers would handle all this rambunctiousness. Would Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas allow it? How about Speaker Tip O’Neill of Massachusetts? Hey, do you think Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia would stand still for this foolishness?

These three gentlemen — two Democrats and a Republican — were among the stronger-willed men to run the House. They all governed with considerable effectiveness. Their secret? My belief is that they all knew how to work with members of the “other party.” They also worked well with presidents of the other party, working overtime to search for common ground.

Speaker Boehner is being whipsawed by his own caucus. It’s not a pretty sight.

By definition, Speaker Boehner is the Man of the Entire House, not just of his or her political party. The partisan roles are filled by the majority leader and the majority whip of the party in charge. The speaker, though, is supposed to look after the interests of all House members.

Boehner has to figure out a way — in a big hurry — to get the rowdy bunch in line.

I have an idea: Pick up the phone, call Newt Gingrich and ask him: “Newt, how in the world can I corral these clowns?”

national news, political news

Preposterous plan saves DHS, for now

Roger Daltrey sang it loudly at the end of The Who classic, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”

Republicans had vowed to govern better than Democrats did when they took over both congressional chambers at the beginning of the year. That vow is in jeopardy.

Why? The House of Representatives, which the GOP has controlled since 2011, is going to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but only until March 19. Then the House and Senate will have deal once again with imminent closure because of Republican anger over an executive action taken by President Obama to deal with illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/harry-reid-nancy-pelosi-shutdown-homeland-security-115538.html?hp=lc1_4

Congress appears ready to avoid a shutdown at the end of today. The GOP-run Senate wants to approve a funding measure that doesn’t include a provision to strip the executive order of its authority. The GOP-run House, though, isn’t ready to swill that Kool-Aid.

What a terrible way to run the government. A Band-Aid here and there. Then we return to the same crisis mode that sends everyone’s blood pressure through the ceiling.

Obama sought to delay deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants. Congress didn’t like that the president acted alone, even though his predecessors have done so on the same issue over the years.

Republicans are so intent on stopping the deportation order that they’re threatening to de-fund the very agency, the Department of Homeland Security, that is charged with protecting the nation against bad guys trying to sneak into the country.

What kind of governance is that?

The new boss is no better than the old boss.

Ridiculous.

 

national news

Listen to Texas lawmakers on DHS funding

Dear Members of Congress:

Your Texas colleagues are speaking wisdom that you need to hear.

Do not play politics with funding the Department of Homeland Security. Doing so, according to Rep. Michael McCaul, puts the nation at a serious national security risk.

Do you understand that? Do you understand what it means to use DHS funding as a political football?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/20/lawmakers-toying-dhs-funding-dangerous-game/

Let’s all understand something. Some of you are angry with President Obama’s decision to grant temporary amnesty for several million illegal immigrants. Others of you support the president’s decision.

Those of you who oppose Obama’s executive action, however, are signaling a serious breach in our national security network if you cut money out of DHS just because you’re mad at the president.

McCaul, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said it well: “The terrorists are watching and the drug cartels are watching, and anytime we play politics with funding a national security agency, it’s a dangerous game to play,” McCaul told the Texas Tribune. “It’s a sign of weakness in our government.”

I get that McCaul, a Republican, is fingering Senate Democrats for this standoff. Both sides are to blame here.

Republicans have added amendments to the DHS funding bill that takes aim at Obama’s executive order. Democrats oppose it and the Senate has held up the funding because of that opposition.

So, who’s playing politics with our national security? I’m casting a plague on both political parties.

A lot of border-state lawmakers are concerned enough to send up warning signals.

Congress must not defund a national security agency because of petulance over a presidential order.

Don’t endanger the nation by cutting off money for the agency whose mission is to protect “the homeland.”

 

military news

Hey, how does 'conflict' sound?

A good friend of mine has an idea about how to deal with the word games being played over what we call the current war we’re waging with international terrorists.

My pal Jim, who lives in Arizona, writes: “Let‘s call it a conflict. Didn’t we use that term before to soften the impact?”

Boy, howdy! We sure did.

Remember the Korean conflict? Or the Vietnam conflict? The “conflicts” in Korea and Vietnam turned into  “wars” eventually, but many headline writers and journalists writing about Vietnam often didn’t capitalize the “w” in “war,” as if to suggest that it wasn’t really a war.

Perhaps this sidesteps the issue. My earlier blog post noted the discussion about whether the Obama administration is right to avoid using the term “Islamic terrorists” to describe the enemy with whom we are at, um, war. My point is that we need not quibble over what to call the enemy, but we should instead concentrate our efforts solely on actually fighting these monsters.

Whatever we call the enemy, or the fight in which we are engaged, it’s a war by any known definition of the word.

I’ve noted before that we’re in a form of a world war, although it doesn’t resemble the two previous world wars in which we fought — Nos. I and II. Those wars involved nations declaring war on other nations. It involved mass mobilizations of men, who then were sent to battlefields to fight men from other nations that had done the very same thing.

Our wars since WWII, though, have materialized differently. We’ve had no formal declaration since President Roosevelt asked Congress on Dec. 8, 1941 to declare that “a state of war has existed” between the United States and Japan.

But we’ve fought actual wars. The men and women who’ve died in battle have been killed just as dead as they were in World Wars I and II.

I told my friend Jim that I’ve always hated the term “conflict” to describe war.

Instead, I prefer to call these fights what they are. And what we’re fighting today is no less gruesome and deadly than any war we’ve ever fought.