For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

Is your daddy friends with Jim Baker too?

 

We knew a baker... usually we just bought donuts from him.

[mr_genius]

I wonder if they'll give him the same amount of s*** for doing cocaine as they give Bush over the unfounded rumors he did cocaine.

 

My guess is no.

 

 

your guess is correct. FOX news might say something about it about the MSM sure won't. they luuuuv Obama, so i'm sure they'll overlook this whole thing.

 

Obama admits it. Bush doesn't address it. So I doubt he'll get as much s*** as Bush's cocaine history

 

 

 

when Bush ran for president the stories were "should person who did cocaine be president?" not "should someone who won't admit doing cocaine be president?". if the MSM is unbiased, as they claim, admitting usage should have nothing to do with running the story. lol, and the stories should be slammed all over the news just days before the election.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry, please tell me where Bush's cocaine use became a big issue again? Obama's cocaine use was covered in his 2004 Senate campaign as well.

 

And its coming out now. 18 months before the election. It will be old hat and tired and busted when it gets anywhere close to a voter's mind.

 

Again, Obama admits his past usage of recreational drugs. George Bush didn't address anything he did before 40. But I'm sure it was different for him.

[mr_genius]

Again, Obama admits his past usage of recreational drugs. George Bush didn't address anything he did before 40. But I'm sure it was different for him.

 

personally, i don't care what either did.

 

[Balta1701]

personally, i don't care what either did.

 

I do at some level. If a person tried something once or a couple times, I could live with that, but I don't want a regular user or recovering addict in the White House.

 

Edit: For example, if say, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court spent a decade addicted to dubious painkillers which caused hallucinations to the point he tried to leave a hospital in his pajamas, well, that's something I'd care about.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

I do at some level. If a person tried something once or a couple times, I could live with that, but I don't want a regular user or recovering addict in the White House.

 

Edit: For example, if say, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court spent a decade addicted to dubious painkillers which caused hallucinations to the point he tried to leave a hospital in his pajamas, well, that's something I'd care about.

 

haha, well yea. having a junkie as president or on the supreme court isn't a good idea.

 

i'm prett sure Obama and Bush jr aren't drug addicts.

 

i think you know what i meant.

[mreye]

We knew a baker... usually we just bought donuts from him.

 

Is that what you ate after your drug binges?

[southsider2k5]

"Let she who is without pork cast the first stone!" or "The subway to nowhere."

 

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2007-01-03/news/smith_1.html

 

Though Nancy Pelosi only emerged from the starting gate Tuesday as American history's most powerful woman, she's been hinting for weeks at what's to come.

 

On Nov. 13, for instance, a USA Today story headlined "Democrats: Identify Pork Sponsors" detailed how Pelosi plans to open the 110th Congress with a rule publicly "outing" lawmakers who use legislative "earmarks" to help special interests. She's also championed a Democratic-sponsored 2007 spending bill that's something of a pork fast: It doesn't include any language targeting money for pet projects.

 

If she's persistent with this crusade, we can expect one of two things: Either San Francisco will be deprived of more than half a billion dollars in federal money we thought we had coming, or Pelosi will squander an opportunity to become this country's first effective national female leader.

 

The map charting these two possible paths is contained in a memorandum — reported for the first time here — that revealed the pork-barrel wastefulness of the Pelosi-sponsored Central Subway, a 1.7-mile light rail line currently budgeted at $1.2 billion that's supposed to connect the Giants' ballpark to Chinatown.

 

Last year, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) went down in ignominy for championing the Gravina Island bridge, a span to nowhere being built with $223 million in federal money that helped tar Republicans as cynics in advance of the midterm elections, and inspired the Democratic Party's current anti-pork rhetoric.

 

By my reading of the aforementioned memo — which describes the conclusions of an independent analyst hired by the city's Municipal Transportation Agency to evaluate the proposed Central Subway last spring — Pelosi's own pork-slinging on behalf of transportation dwarfs Stevens' pet project in audacious wastefulness and political favor-granting.

 

According to consultant Tom Matoff, San Franciscans will get little in return for this massive federal expenditure. The Central Subway project will not significantly improve our ability to get from one place to another, and it will make the city's public transportation system more expensive to run and maintain. In addition, its rationale is based on bogus financing and ridership numbers.

 

If built as planned, the Central Subway "might actually worsen travel conditions for some customers, without a compensating improvement," Matoff wrote. "It does not, apparently, meet the market needs of the corridor it is intended to serve."

 

Pelosi has already secured "cost-effectiveness" exemptions in the 2005 federal transportation bill to smooth the way for what is expected to be $532 million in federal grants to fund the Central Subway. Meanwhile, S.F. Municipal Transportation Agency chief Nat Ford has, during recent weeks, been making the rounds in Washington, stumping for around $200 million more needed to fund the project.

 

I had hoped to discuss the report's conclusions with SFMTA planning director Bill Lieberman, who commissioned the report and distributed it to the agency on Nov. 6. But Lieberman and the agency parted ways soon afterward.

 

"Bill opened up that question, and for whatever reason is gone. I hope that's not a signal to everyone who will work there subsequently that we cannot ask questions about big, politically connected capital projects," says Tom Radulovich, executive director of the transit advocacy group Livable City.

 

The report's conclusions also beg the question of whether Pelosi will lead a reinvigoration of the Democratic Party or turn Democrats into laughingstock pork-barrel hypocrites from day one.

 

SFMTA spokeswoman Maggie Lynch was not able to respond to my request for comment from Ford by press time. An aide in Pelosi's Washington office was likewise unable to obtain comment regarding the Central Subway report in time.

 

Perhaps they're saving their breath for an end-of-pork-barrel-spending press conference next week.

 

The Platonic ideal of pork is a piece of federal spending that solves a political problem and does little or nothing to address the practical needs of citizens. Sadly, much transportation spending in America fits this bill. As a result, money that could be used to make it easier, cheaper, and quicker for people to move about the city is instead wasted on paying political favors. The Central Subway may be this country's most articulate case in point, having gained life a decade ago as a political deal between then-Mayor Willie Brown and Chinatown business leaders, who feared that the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway following the 1989 earthquake would cut their neighborhood off from Bay Area transportation.

 

Bill Lieberman, in one of his last acts as SFMTA planning director, paid homage to the project's age-old rationale in a memo he wrote to accompany the release of Matoff's results to city transit bureaucrats.

 

Matoff's criticisms would require revisiting "decisions made decades ago," Leiberman writes, adding that the project "fulfills the commitments already made to the communities served."

 

Though conceived as a bit of ward patronage, the project was originally wrapped in the language of practical civic needs. It was envisioned as part of a larger network of trolley, bus, and light rail lines that would allow residents of the South of Market and Bayview-Hunters Point districts to link swiftly to BART and the rest of Bay Area mass transit via a light rail line hooked into the Central Subway. The tunnel would link east and west by eventually connecting to a rail line to the Richmond District. It would also link the city's northern and southeastern shores — or, at least, that was the plan 10 years ago. Reconfiguring and "value engineering" have erased all these goals. Like the Iraq War, the project is based on rationales that have arisen and faded with time.

 

What's left is a project that exists merely to exist.

 

"What is the role of capital investment in a transit system?" writes Matoff, transportation planner for LTK Engineering Services. "It should represent either an opportunity to reduce operating expenses, or represent the most efficient way of bringing better service to additional markets. As proposed, this project does not appear to do [either]."

[southsider2k5]

Remember the 5 day work week? That didn't even last a week either... I guess the BCS game is worth a day and a half of holiday time. Must be nice.

 

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

 

 

Another interesting move by the Dems was to change approval for tax increases from 60% to only 50% +1.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...15506-5182r.htm

 

House rules change clears way for tax increases

By Donald Lambro

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

January 7, 2007

 

 

One of the first key procedural votes in the Democrat-controlled House last week established legislative rules that Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote.

 

The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a supermajority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.

 

Democrats unanimously voted down a motion offered by Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio that would have prevented them from waiving the rule, a move that tax-cutters said signaled the Democrats' intention to raise taxes between now and the 2008 elections.

 

"American taxpayers need to hold on to their wallets because the new House rules concerning taxes are not worth the paper they're written on," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).

 

"After spending an entire year on the campaign trail claiming she will not raise taxes, the first vote Nancy Pelosi brings to the floor for a vote as speaker will open the door to billions and billions of dollars of tax increases over the next two years," Mr. Norquist said.

 

Many liberal Democrats vowed in the midterm election campaigns to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those in the top income-tax brackets, and party leaders already have scheduled a vote to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, which would effectively raise taxes on the nation's energy-producing corporations.

 

"The Democrats have a more established record of wanting to raise taxes than Republicans do. So to have them reject making the rule unwaivable indicates they want to preserve the option to raise taxes," said Jo Maney, spokeswoman for the Rules Committee, through which all legislation must pass.

 

"The Democrats were smart in crafting the new rules," said Dan Clifton, ATR's chief economist. "They did not change them but made additions to them. Now the three-fifths rule can be waived by a simple majority," or 218 votes.

 

"President Clinton got a bare majority 218 votes for his tax increases in 1993. So all the Democrats have to do is vote to waive the three-fifths rule, and they've got a tax increase," Mr. Clifton said.

 

Democratic officials saw Mr. Boehner's motion as a move to tie their hands on future tax policy, and the majority leadership effectively held all of its troops in line to oppose it, even though some of its members ran on pledges not to raise taxes.

 

"In the coming months, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee will be pressured to repeal or waive the Contract with America's barriers against unfair tax increases to make it easier for the Democrat majority in Congress to raise taxes," Mr. Boehner predicted.

 

The Democrats also approved the so-called "pay-as-you-go" rule as part of the House rules package. The rule says that when taxes are cut, lawmakers must offset any revenue loss with either new or higher taxes elsewhere, or reductions in spending.

 

But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Friday that the pay-as-you-go rules "do not always work perfectly, and it may be useful to consider changes to improve the technical workings of [pay-as-you-go] to make it more effective."

[Rex Kickass]

Couldn't that also be seen as a more effective way to be able to achieve PAYGO benchmarks though?

[southsider2k5]

Couldn't that also be seen as a more effective way to be able to achieve PAYGO benchmarks though?

 

Sure its more effective. They just made it impossible for the Repub's to hold up their legislation. Now they can do whatever they want.

[EvilMonkey]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[mr_genius]

Couldn't that also be seen as a more effective way to be able to achieve PAYGO benchmarks though?

 

 

the Dems only have a slight majority in the Senate. they won't get the large tax increases they want. if they try to push legislation for huge tax increases the republicans should filibuster.

Edited January 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

the Dems only have a slight majority in the Senate. they won't get the large tax increases they want. if they try to push legislation for huge tax increases the republicans should filibuster.

Obstructionist!

[Rex Kickass]

You can't filibuster in the house. I don't think major tax increases are on the agenda.

[NorthSideSox72]

the Dems only have a slight majority in the Senate. they won't get the large tax increases they want. if they try to push legislation for huge tax increases the republicans should filibuster.

While I am sure there are exceptions, I find it unlikely that the newly-crowned Dems will want to waste their political capital on a PR drain like a tax increase.

[Balta1701]

While I am sure there are exceptions, I find it unlikely that the newly-crowned Dems will want to waste their political capital on a PR drain like a tax increase.

I think it will be almost impossible for the next 2 years to get the Dems to extend any of Bush's tax cuts that were targeted at the upper classes if any of those do come up for extension. There might be enough support to push through extensions on some of the middle class targeted cuts if those come up, but its also questionable whether the leadership would allow them to come to the floor (a negative vote on those type of bills would be something easy to put into an attack ad against a candidate in 08).

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if one or more of the major 08 Presidential candidates went ahead and advocated a rollback of Mr. Bush's tax cuts to balance the budget and accomplish whatever it is he or she wants to accomplish.

 

And anyway...it's not like if the Dems decided to push through a $3 trillion tax increase tomorrow, the President wouldn't veto it anyway, so large-scale measures should just be tossed out. There might be some successful movement though if the President were willing to negotiate (I won't veto x bill if you insert proposition y into it), but that's something that this President has totally avoided during the last 5 years of a Republican majority and something I'm not even sure if he's capable of doing (no negotiation with the enemy!)

[mr_genius]

Obstructionist!

 

 

haha, they better obstruct!

 

You can't filibuster in the house. I don't think major tax increases are on the agenda.

 

 

i said Senate, not house, yo.

 

I find it unlikely that the newly-crowned Dems will want to waste their political capital on a PR drain like a tax increase.

 

i hope you're right

Edited January 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

the Dems only have a slight majority in the Senate. they won't get the large tax increases they want. if they try to push legislation for huge tax increases the republicans should filibuster.

 

That's where the procedural changes come in... It used to take 60% to move tax matters, now it only takes 50% +1. They can force anything they want onto the President's desk now. The size of the majority doesn't matter as long as the Dems vote as a block.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's where the procedural changes come in... It used to take 60% to move tax matters, now it only takes 50% +1. They can force anything they want onto the President's desk now. The size of the majority doesn't matter as long as the Dems vote as a block.

Bush would undoubtedly veto and rollback of recent tax cuts, or any addition of new taxes.

 

One thing people should keep in mind about this procedural change - it had to be done for PAYGO to work. Here is why. PAYGO says you need funding for any initiative to be declared and established before a program is passed (among other things). So if Congress, in their infinite wisdom, passes more programs than they have funding, they would HAVE to increase revenue in some way. But if the program itself only passed with, say, 55% of the house, but tax increases required 60%, then you'd be in a sort of purgatory - program passed, but it would be unfunded.

 

Sort of a weird thing, but its true. And if this forces Congress to not pass programs it can't fund, then its great. If on the other hand, they pass stuff anyway and it goes unfunded, that's idiotic. Its also possible it would result in actual tax increases, which would also be bad. I really hope that the result is option 1 - fiscal discipline.

[southsider2k5]

Bush would undoubtedly veto and rollback of recent tax cuts, or any addition of new taxes.

 

That is really besides the point. Just because they know it would be DOA on his desk, doesn't mean that the Dems have to work with anyone to get it there. All those promises of cooperation and bipartisianship are already flying out the window to fit their agenda, no matter what guise they are hidden under.

[NorthSideSox72]

That is really besides the point. Just because they know it would be DOA on his desk, doesn't mean that the Dems have to work with anyone to get it there. All those promises of cooperation and bipartisianship are already flying out the window to fit their agenda, no matter what guise they are hidden under.

I think you've gone well past what has actually transpired - though they may indeed not cooperate with Bush at all. Even if they try, though, and it doesn't work, whose fault is it? Anyway, they just started. The GOP was in power for 12 years. Maybe we can give this new Congress a year or two, and get some perspective on what they are able to accomplish. So far, overall, I think they've done some positive things.

[mr_genius]

That's where the procedural changes come in... It used to take 60% to move tax matters, now it only takes 50% +1. They can force anything they want onto the President's desk now. The size of the majority doesn't matter as long as the Dems vote as a block.

 

true, but they need a certain number of votes (60 i think) to override a veto. i doubt they'll get that many votes to raise taxes.

[southsider2k5]

Thus far, multiple different sources have said, both publically and under oath in the original Berger case that the documents Berger took were not originals and that no document has been lost to history due to this case.

 

As a source for this, I'll give you the Wall Street Jourlal, who went and asked repeatedly and specifically the lead prosecutor in the case whether Berger prevented examination of any documents by the 9/11 commission.

 

Link.

Link

 

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/new...e.aspx?NewsID=4

 

Press Release

 

Did the 9/11 Commission receive all the documents it requested? Davis Releases Berger Report

January 9, 2007

 

By David Marin (202)225-5074

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) released the following statement today on a committee report that sheds important new light on Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives. The report makes it clear that the full extent of Mr. Berger’s document removal can never be known, and consequently the Department of Justice could not assure the 9/11 Commission that it received all responsive documents to which Mr. Berger had access.

 

“My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.

 

“The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.

 

“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.

 

“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort.

 

“The compromised law enforcement effort contributes to reduced confidence that the 9/11 Commission received all the documents it requested. The execution of a search warrant before Mr. Berger knew there was an investigation would have either located additional documents or enhanced confidence that he stole no others than those he admitted to taking.

 

“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’

 

“The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.”

 

There is also a link to the PDF version of the report.

[mreye]

true, but they need a certain number of votes (60 i think) to override a veto. i doubt they'll get that many votes to raise taxes.

 

2/3 = 67 votes in the Senate

 

and they would need 2/3 of the 435 members of Congress

 

 

The point isn't if they'll be able to "raise" taxes. Nobody's dumb enough to come out and say "I'm raising taxes!" They'll diguise it as a "rollback of Bush's evil tax cuts for the rich." (Of which, I must be filthy rich, because I enjoyed a part of those cuts.)