[icerrelmCam]

So after months and months of campaigning on fiscal responsiblity and transparency the Senate Democrats made themselves out to be complete hypocrates this week. After the House passed a strong and sweeping bill that would give the American people disclosure to Congressional earmarks, the Democratic Leadership in the Senate was apparently against allowing us all to see how much of our money they waste on pork barrel spending in the name of their own reelection aspirations. When Republican Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment to toughen the much weaker Senate bill and match it to the full strength of the passed House bill Reid and Durbin had a fit and tried to squash the amendment my tabling it. Much to their surprise, their effort embarrassingly failed. This is but a piece of the article. There is much more to read in the link.

WASHINGTON - The Senate's new Democratic leaders, the fragility of their thin majority on display for the first time, were set back Thursday when nine Democrats joined with Republicans in support of stricter House-passed rules on lawmakers' pet projects

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was forced to delay a final vote on a measure he opposes after losing 51-46 a parliamentary attempt to kill it.

The measure, an amendment to an ethics and lobbying bill, would have adopted a wider definition of "earmarks," specific projects inserted in bills, to include Corps of Engineer water projects, Pentagon weapon systems and items from other federal entities.

The language favored by Reid would require disclosure of only targeted funds directed to nonfederal entities such as city parks, state universities and private contractors. Reid crafted the ethics bill with Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., but McConnell supported DeMint on the earmarks issue.

"If we're going to go through all this process, if we're going to change the laws and try to tell the American people that now you can see what we're doing, let's don't try to pull the wool over their eyes," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sponsor of the amendment.

Senate Democrats stumble on earmarks - Politics - MSNBC.com After the move to kill the DeMint language failed, Democrats refused to allow the amendment to be approved by voice, a normal procedure, and an hour later Reid called the entire Senate to the floor to beseech them to reconsider. He did not set a time for a final vote. Someone should ask Reid why he was lying to the American people for the past year as he and his party were out trumpeting fiscal reform and transparency. We should also be asking why Reid, Durbin, and the majority of Senate Democrats are against the American people being allowed to know where our tax dollars are going?

[annouhMus]

So after months and months of campaigning on fiscal responsiblity and transparency the Senate Democrats made themselves out to be complete hypocrates this week. After the House passed a strong and sweeping bill that would give the American people disclosure to Congressional earmarks, the Democratic Leadership in the Senate was apparently against allowing us all to see how much of our money they waste on pork barrel spending in the name of their own reelection aspirations. When Republican Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment to toughen the much weaker Senate bill and match it to the full strength of the passed House bill Reid and Durbin had a fit and tried to squash the amendment my tabling it. Much to their surprise, their effort embarrassingly failed. This is but a piece of the article. There is much more to read in the link.

Someone should ask Reid why he was lying to the American people for the past year as he and his party were out trumpeting fiscal reform and transparency. We should also be asking why Reid, Durbin, and the majority of Senate Democrats are against the American people being allowed to know where our tax dollars are going?

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your outlook) Senators are a bunch of people of varying political outlooks which are NOT really separated by the terms Democrat and Republican But rather by varying degrees between Conservative and Liberal. The D and R catogories are passe' and should be disregarded. This is evidence of that fact. I think that is Good.

[icerrelmCam]

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your outlook) Senators are a bunch of people of varying political outlooks which are NOT really separated by the terms Democrat and Republican But rather by varying degrees between Conservative and Liberal. The D and R catogories are passe' and should be disregarded. This is evidence of that fact. I think that is Good.

If I had it my way we would eliminate political parties altogether and people would have to vote based on the candidate himself.

[KLhdfskja]

If I had it my way we would eliminate political parties altogether and people would have to vote based on the candidate himself.

How could that possibly be done?

[DrCeshing]

Wait a minute, shouldn't you be voting for the "candidate himself" anyway? That's what's wrong with America, people are into labels and don't really look at the candidate they're voting for. I think it's fascinating that a whole block of evangelicals were surprised to see that Bush hasn't done anything about the environment because they just figured he stood for that because they stood for that. They were toeing a party line that was imaginary and weren't really looking at the candidates themselves.

[icerrelmCam]

Wait a minute, shouldn't you be voting for the "candidate himself" anyway? That's what's wrong with America, people are into labels and don't really look at the candidate they're voting for.

Yes, it should be that way, but there are a lot of people who just go into the voting booth and vote a straight party ticket without even knowing what the candidates stand for. In Pennsylvania we have an option of just pressing one button to vote the entire party ticket and a ton of people do it where I vote at. They assume because they are a member of the party they support that they share the same ideas.

I think it's fascinating that a whole block of evangelicals were surprised to see that Bush hasn't done anything about the environment because they just figured he stood for that because they stood for that. Where did you get the idea that Evangelicals voted for Bush because they thought he was an environmental steward? I have never heard this claim made before.

They were toeing a party line that was imaginary and weren't really looking at the candidates themselves. It happens all too often. If we got rid of political parties and had people just run as individuals then voters would be forced to learn about what they stand for before voting for someone.

[Sironimoll]

Where did you get the idea that Evangelicals voted for Bush because they thought he was an environmental steward? I have never heard this claim made before I think the poster was actually saying exactly what you're saying. Evangelicals assumed that Bush was pro-environment because they only look at one set of issues within a party and assume the party agrees with all of their concerns. If we had a system closer to most of Western Europe you would have enough political parties that people's actual beliefs could be represented in government. I think alot of evangelicals would vote for the Christian-Democrat party that is popular in alot of European countries, they are Christian, but progressive on issues like minimum wage and the environment. The far right has really taken control of the Republican party and so people who aren't that far right are forced to vote for them.

[Gedominew]

Corp our system is fine. It isn't the system that sucks it is the people in it who say one thing to get elected then do something else.

[icerrelmCam]

Corp our system is fine. It isn't the system that sucks it is the people in it who say one thing to get elected then do something else.

But then aren't the American people the ones who are really at blame? The liars and panderers don't get into office on their own. They need our vote. We allow them to get away with it.

[Gedominew]

We have your are right. But I think the last election actually empowered the moderates. We understand that it is our vote that makes the differene in who controls the chambers of government. There unfortunately though is still the everyone but my guy is crooked mentality in the US.

[gkruCRi1]

So after months and months of campaigning on fiscal responsiblity and transparency the Senate Democrats made themselves out to be complete hypocrates this week. After the House passed a strong and sweeping bill that would give the American people disclosure to Congressional earmarks, the Democratic Leadership in the Senate was apparently against allowing us all to see how much of our money they waste on pork barrel spending in the name of their own reelection aspirations. When Republican Senator Jim DeMint offered an amendment to toughen the much weaker Senate bill and match it to the full strength of the passed House bill Reid and Durbin had a fit and tried to squash the amendment my tabling it. Much to their surprise, their effort embarrassingly failed. This is but a piece of the article. There is much more to read in the link.


Someone should ask Reid why he was lying to the American people for the past year as he and his party were out trumpeting fiscal reform and transparency. We should also be asking why Reid, Durbin, and the majority of Senate Democrats are against the American people being allowed to know where our tax dollars are going?

From what I am reading, saying it is 'Senate Dems' who are doing this is inaccurate. The Senate has 100 members, and 50 are Dems, one socialist from Vermont will caucus with them, and 49 are Reps. The article states that 9 Dems are in the opposition. The vote was 51-46. This means a rake of Reps are in the opposition too, and by no means all Dems are in the opposition.

What this boils down to, IMO, is that some from both parties are favouring the reform at issue, whilst some are not. This doesn't surprise me because neither party did this kind of reform before today anyway, and I'm surprised that so many have gone as far as they have to date on other reforms and come as close as they have on additional ones like this to date. Certainly the Reps could have done this reform up to this fall, and the Dems could have likewise done so when they controlled earlier. Moreover, Senators tend to be the far more entrenched club than the House in deal making with the House, something good in some respects like partisan bills but bad when it comes to self-serving, earmarks, cigar room deals and antics, etc.

Inasmuch as it is likely a pipe-dream although it shouldn't be if the public could rally around them, some good proposed amendment material would be something like those added to the Pennsylvania Constitution during a constitutional convention called by the people (since politicians don't like putting handcuffs on themselves) during the 1870s about how bills must be passed in their efforts to stop shenanigans in legislating.

Article III

LEGISLATION

A. Procedure

Passage of Laws

Section 1.
No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose.

Reference to Committee; Printing

Section 2.
No bill shall be considered unless referred to a committee, printed for the use of the members and returned therefrom.

Form of Bills

Section 3.
No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.

Consideration of Bills

Section 4.
Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House. All amendments made thereto shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill and before the final vote is taken, upon written request addressed to the presiding officer of either House by at least twenty-five percent of the members elected to that House, any bill shall be read at length in that House. No bill shall become a law, unless on its final passage the vote is taken by yeas and nays, the names of the persons voting for and against it are entered on the journal, and a majority of the members elected to each House is recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

Concurring in Amendments; Conference Committee Reports

Section 5.
No amendment to bills by one House shall be concurred in by the other, except by the vote of a majority of the members elected thereto, taken by yeas and nays, and the names of those voting recorded upon the journals.

Revival and Amendment of Laws

Section 6.
No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length.

Notice of Local and Special Bills

Section 7.
No local or special bill shall be passed unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published in the locality where the matter or the thing to be effected may be situated, which notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the introduction into the General Assembly of such bill and in the manner to be provided by law; the evidence of such notice having been published, shall be exhibited in the General Assembly, before such act shall be passed.

Signing of Bills

Section 8.
The presiding officer of each House shall, in the presence of the House over which he presides, sign all bills and joint resolutions passed by the General Assembly, after their titles have been publicly read immediately before signing; and the fact of signing shall be entered on the journal.

Action on Concurrent Orders and Resolutions

Section 9.
Every order, resolution or vote, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary, except on the question of adjournment, shall be presented to the Governor and before it shall take effect be approved by him, or being disapproved, shall be repassed by two-thirds of both Houses according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.

Revenue Bills

Section 10.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments as in other bills.

Appropriation Bills

Section 11.
The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the Commonwealth, for the public debt and for public schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.

Legislation Designated by Governor at Special Sessions

Section 12.
When the General Assembly shall be convened in special session, there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the Governor calling such session.

Vote Denied Members with Personal Interest

Section 12.
A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Rather than seeing elected representatives wasting public time proposing hot button socially divisive issues that have no real chance of passing but are intended to merely pander to and shore up supporters, I think the kinds of amendments expressed above would get alot more bipartisan support in the public.

The public would have to push these matters because politicians would rather play the same games, but when a bipartisan groundswell gets started, politicians usually latch onto them because the sleeping lion is awake and they would rather get the benefit of being the lion's feeder than the lion's prey.

[Zvssxstw]

Just how long are we going to vote different people in and get the same thing?
When are the American Public going to stand up and take back control?

We do not have a two party system like many of you here think we have, we only have one political party with two faces...

Just look at what is said and then done,,,,,,,,, what is going on now is what has gone on for 10's of years..........only the names have changed but the acts are the same.

[icerrelmCam]

From what I am reading, saying it is 'Senate Dems' who are doing this is inaccurate.

My statement is not at all inaccurate.

Senators voting to table the amendment:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Senators voting to allow the amendment vote:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (I-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

As you can plainly see here, while there was a small amount of crossover on both sides of the aisle, the tabling of the amendment was overwhelmingly supported by the Senate Democrats.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

My title of this post is a fair statement to make.

[annouhMus]

If I had it my way we would eliminate political parties altogether and people would have to vote based on the candidate himself.

HIP HIP HARRAH( I do that now.)

[gkruCRi1]

My statement is not at all inaccurate.
(cites floor vote) . . . My title of this post is a fair statement to make.

Granted, the majority of the Dems voted against it. Some Reps did too. As the article stated, 9 Dems went with the DeMint amendment whilst 7 Reps opposed it. But it was not uniformly partisan, a fact that does not surprise me. Plus, I simply find the old Dem/Rep thing on this subject that effects everyone to be distractions and chestnuts that do not get or guarantee permanent results.

Here is what those who favoured the amendment said about it:

DeMint insisted that the Senate definition would catch only about 5 percent of earmarks, saying that in most instances lawmakers insert their pet projects not into the bill itself but into the explanatory report language that accompanies the bill and is not subject to a vote.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said that of some 12,852 earmarks found in bills last year, only 534 would be subject to Senate disclosure rules.

The conservative DeMint praised new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for backing the more comprehensive earmark rules that the House approved last week. "I'm here to defend her language on behalf of the Democrat colleagues on the House side. Those who wanted it tabled said:

"It's important that the Senate rules be amended slowly and with careful bipartisan deliberation," Reid said, stressing that the House didn't spend much time on their version and the Senate approach was "so much better."

Reid argued that his version was stronger than DeMint's in disclosing lawmakers seeking special tax benefits for a small group of people or an industry, and included language requiring lawmakers to certify that they had no personal stake in earmarks they support.

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also said the DeMint provision was "unworkable" because it was so broad that it could be applied to thousands of projects included in federal spending bills. It seems to me that both sides are claiming there is something better about their positions whilst there is something hidden and amiss in the other's that leaves the situation much the same.

The point that I was trying to get at was the constant bickering that one party or another is somehow not living up to reform. I feel that is exactly what politicians want the public's focus to be on--partisan lines, and missing the Big Picture.

As I see it as explained, I doubt that DeMint and crew have had an epiphany since their own fiscal shenanigans whilst the held the Senate, and I don't think the Democrats have had that either since re-assuming control of the Senate. Both seem to be pointing out the flaws and hidden 'outs' of each other's proposals whilst claiming theirs is better but with the other side pointing out their flaws.

To me, this kind of bill battling seems to be the old 'robbing Peter to Pay Paul' game and/or shell game. Picking one of the two ways leads to the same results through different means, if what they all say on the matter is truthful insofar as the 'ways out.'

And if these bills and proposed amendments are scrutinised, it wouldn't surprise me if the bills and amendments are geared towards some partisan stuff too regarding how each does their business.

What would impress me is if both those who voted to add or table that amendment, if they are really concerned, is table the amendment and attempt a fusion bill that corrects the problems/loopholes alleged by each.

But, that did not happen, and it seems the public is likely going to be handed another reform bill that is merely a condom with a hole cut out of the top, making it useless other than to fool people into a sense of security.


And even if the bills do offer some reforms, nothing stops Congress from gradually pulling out the strings on them though later bills and amendments.

That is why I explained that I feel this subject would be much better handled if the public could wake up from its deep slumber and push for constitutional amendments of the kind I cited that currently exist in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Amendments get right to the heart of the matter in mandatory terms. And since it was the public in Pennsylvania that clamoured for those cited amendments in the 1870s in a popular movement, accomplishing these ends is possible because it has happened before.

Expecting Congress to police itself is wishful thinking regardless of party affiliation.

For example, along with those cited amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution that the people demanded in a groundswell was another that stated that no laws varying the compensation (i.e., pay raises) for the services of the state Congresspeople shall take effect until an intervening election has taken place.

The state government once again did not do that on their own volition--the people made them do it by convention.

A similar provision now presumably exists in the US constitution:

The text of the 27th Amendment reads:

“ No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. It was first proposed as the original Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1789. It finally was ratified in 1992.

If it took government, on its own 'integrity', 203 years to ratify something so basically honest as that, why in the world would it ever do something of greater integrity on pork and other shenanigans with bills? Heck, whether the 27th Amendment is really validly ratified is in question given the SCOTUS precedent that spoke on that exact amendment's construed abandonment over weight of time long before 1992 in Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1921).

To me, reform in government practice is a situation that needs the people to do it, and by demanding amendments to the Constitution to permanently require such things.

[Zvssxstw]

Take some thing simple and make it so that no one can understand it......

What they are really saying is that we like it the way it is, but we need to make it look to the public like we are ending it.