Tag Archives: Congress

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.

 

national news, political news

GOP plays with fire over DHS funding

3 Comments

Congressional Republicans — and Democrats, for that matter — keep insisting that national security should be above partisan politics.

What, then, is going on with GOP threats to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because its congressional caucus is so upset with President Obama’s executive order on immigration?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/15/us-usa-congress-homeland-idUSKBN0LJ0P520150215

Good bleeping grief, people! The Homeland Security department, as its very name says, is charged with protecting the United States against internal and external threats. The 9/11 terrorist onslaught produced the agency, correct?

Now, though, it’s becoming a political football, being kicked around Capitol Hill by congressional Republicans who just cannot get over the notion that the president acted within his constitutional authority to delay the deportation of several million undocumented immigrants.

They are threatening to sue Obama over his action. They want to repeal it. They are insisting that he acted unlawfully. Yet no one has produced a shred of evidence to suggest that the president acted outside of the authority granted him by federal statute and the Constitution of the United States of America.

DHS money is going to run out on Feb. 27 unless Congress approves money to pay for it.

The House of Representatives has approved money for DHS, but have added some amendments stripping the president’s executive action of its authorization. Senate Democrats object to the GOP amendments and have held up the appropriation, drawing criticism — quite naturally — from House Republicans. Speaker John Boehner said the GOP has done its job; now it’s up to Senate Democrats.

That’s all fine, except Senate Democrats object to GOP complaints about the executive actions on immigration, which were legal and constitutional.

Thus, the gamesmanship.

What in the world has happened to good government?

 

International news

Now it's Congress's turn to step up in fight

1 Comment

My fellow Americans, let us now declare that a moment of truth has just landed on Capitol Hill’s doorstep.

Do members of Congress, most of whom belong to the Republican Party, stand ready to authorize the commander in chief’s use of military force against the Islamic State? Are they now going to sign on in this fight, rather than carp at the president’s strategy, or criticize him for allegedly not having a clear cut mission in this ongoing battle?

Barack Obama today sent a request to Congress for a three-year authorization to keep taking the fight to ISIL. It contains language that prohibits the long term use of U.S. ground forces — except for special operations forces that could be used to conduct specific, surgical strikes against the enemy.

The plan isn’t perfect, but the president says he has heard the calls for congressional approval of however the commander in chief chooses to fight this battle.

So, will Congress step up and sign on? I surely hope so.

President Obama has declared that ISIL is on the defensive. He also said the fight will be difficult, but that the coalition of 60 or so nations — several of which are in the Middle East — are winning the fight. ISIL has been degraded, Obama said, and the coalition of nations is continuing to pound ISIL targets in a relentless air power campaign. Fighters have been killed, as have their commanders. Command and control centers have been disrupted. Morale among ISIL fighters reportedly has deteriorated.

I happen to endorse the president’s reluctance to put U.S. ground troops into yet another Middle East war. The air campaign has been savage and it well could be enough to break up the ISIL fighting force that has created so much havoc, heartache and hysteria in the region it has terrorized.

So, is Congress now going to give the commander in chief the authority he is requesting? Will the legislative branch join this fight?

If the answer is yes, then it must stand with the head of state as he seeks to destroy this dastardly enemy.

 

national news

It's all Bibi's fault for U.S.-Israel misunderstanding

The relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a turn for the worse.

Why? Well, it turns out Bibi didn’t talk Barack to advise him of an invitation he got to speak to the U.S. Congress, courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/ron-dermer-john-boehner-israel-white-house-114771.html?hp=r1_3

He owed the president a phone call, observers have said. He didn’t make the call and accepted the invitation. The White House is fuming. I cannot blame the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now it turns out the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer is saying it wasn’t his fault. He did everything by the book.

The invitation and its resulting tension between Obama and Netanyahu has become a major back story behind the out front story: the effort to impose sanctions on Iran while the U.S. and other powers are trying to negotiate a settlement that ends Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration opposes the sanctions — at this time. Boehner and Netanyahu want to impose them, so Boehner asked Bibi to make his case publicly before a joint congressional session next month.

Gosh, is it any wonder the Obama administration is torqued out of shape over this?

The speaker of the House has made a mess of this by sidestepping the White House. The Israeli prime minister has become an accomplice to this messiness by accepting an invitation that shouldn’t have come to him in the first place.

Mr. Boehner, we have only one president at a time. And it isn’t you.

 

International news

Boehner, Bibi are dissing the White House

2 Comments

Isn’t it customary to allow the president of the United States conduct foreign policy? And isn’t it unwelcome when other American political leaders interfere directly with sensitive negotiations that are taking place?

Welcome to the new world of political brinkmanship.

House Speaker John Boehner has poked President Barack Obama in the eye by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress — without consulting with the president.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-netanyahu-congress-invitation-Obama

Why is that a big deal?

Well, Boehner wants to impose further economic and political sanctions on Iran while the Islamic Republic is negotiating with the United States and other powers on a deal to disband its nuclear program. Netanyahu is on Boehner’s side, so he’s going to speak to Congress next month to make that case.

Bibi won’t visit the White House while he’s in-country, which is customary, given that he and his Likud Party are about to face parliamentary elections in Israel. Indeed, Netanyahu himself has decried the practice of using foreign visits to further political ends in his country — and yet, here is doing, what he once condemned.

The aggravation comes in large part because Boehner has inserted himself directly into this matter that is underway between the State Department and its counterpart in Iran. U.S., allied and Iranian negotiators are seeking a way to avoid Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, which virtually every civilized nation on Earth says is unacceptable.

Now we have the head of government of our most reliable Middle East ally coming here seeking to undercut that effort — with the blessing of the speaker of the House of Representatives.

It was leaked some time back that a White House aide referred to Netanyahu as a “chickens***.”

That term actually applies to Speaker Boehner.

 

medical news

Abortion bill: a non-starter

1 Comment

Let’s just put this one on ice: Abortion is not going to be one of those issues where the White House and Congress are going to compromise.

President Obama will veto House Resolution 36 if it ever gets to his desk.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-threatens-to-veto-new-gop-abortion-bill-20150120

The bill, cobbled together by Republicans who themselves are split on this issue, would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Yep. That’s it.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. Or that most Americans favor granting women the opportunity to decide such matters. Thus, abortion remains legal. The rate of abortion also happens to be declining.

None of that matters. Republicans who control Congress say two things: They oppose government “interference” but they demand that government interfere in this most personal and intensely emotional decision possible.

The National Journal reports: “Republicans themselves are divided on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. At last week’s GOP retreat, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., called on House leadership not to bring up the bill this week, saying that the caucus needs ‘to be smart about how we’re moving forward.'”

It’s not smart to approve a bill they know will get a veto and which will not be overridden. It’s also not smart to tell a woman that she must take a pregnancy to full term. That is her call to make — exclusively.

 

 

 

International news

New sanctions against Iran? Now?

I make no apologies about my unwavering support for Israel in its struggle against the forces committed to its destruction.

Having visited the country and seen it up close over an extended period of time, I get that Israel must be on constant alert against its enemies.

However, it seems to me the speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s invited Netanyahu to speak to a joint congressional session on Feb. 11 to make the case that the United States should impose additional sanctions against Iran while it is in the middle of negotiations that seek to rid Iran of its ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/22/boehner_defies_obama_on_iran_sanctions_invites_netanyahu_125347.html

Isn’t it true that we have just one president of the United States?

Well, Barack Obama wants to complete the negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He said he would veto any bill that piles on more sanctions against Iran — at this critical moment.

This is a difficult and dangerous gambit that Congress is playing.

Congressional leaders believe they’ve been left out of the negotiation process. So they’re going to interject themselves into this tumult by adding more sanctions against Iran.

Why now? Why not let diplomacy — which brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place — complete its task? If the negotiations fail, if Iran decides to proceed with its nuclear program — and threaten yet again to blow Israel to pieces — then all bets should be off.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday quoted an unidentified Israeli intelligence official as saying that adding sanctions “would be like throwing a grenade into the process.”

Speaker Boehner is having none of it. He wants to circumvent the White House by inviting Netanyahu — who’s got his own political troubles at home — to make his pitch for additional sanctions.

I totally understand Netanyahu’s perspective. His country has gone to war several times in the 67 years of its existence against nations that have vowed — and actually sought — to destroy Israel. Iran has threatened Israel directly many times since the Islamic Revolution overthrew the shah in 1979. The Israelis likely have plans drawn up already in case the need arises to launch a pre-emptive air strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

But we’re in the midst of a delegate negotiation that shouldn’t be rattled by additional sanctions that well could end these talks — and destroy any prospects for a potential binding settlement.