Dems begin passing Lobbying reform bills

[Balta1701]

Well, here we go...at least it's a start. Haven't had enough time to evaluate the actual rules changes Pelosi has passed in the House, but the House Dems have already done at least a few things the Republicans were totally unable to do last year...pass rudimentary lobbying and earmark reform bills.

Ethics Reform

In the House, Democrats did not skip a beat between formally taking control and getting to work on what they have called their hundred-hours agenda. Last night, the House nearly unanimously approved a broad package of internal rules changes designed to sever the cozy links that have developed between lawmakers and lobbyists.

 

The changes would prohibit House members or employees from knowingly accepting gifts or travel from a registered lobbyist, foreign agent or lobbyist's client. Lawmakers could no longer fly on corporate jets. In addition, congressional travel financed by outside groups would have to be approved in advance by the House ethics committee and immediately disclosed to the public.

 

The measures were approved 430 to 1, with only Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) voting against it. This was a remarkable change considering that House Republicans could barely pass a far weaker measure last May and ultimately did not enact any measure because they could not reach agreement with the Senate.

Earmark reform

The House's new Democratic majority, moving swiftly to fulfill a campaign pledge, took steps today to crack down on lawmakers' earmarking of taxpayer funds for special-interest projects, a controversial practice that figured prominently in scandals that helped drive the Republicans from power.

 

A large bipartisan majority of House members is expected to approve a requirement that earmarks — their costs, beneficiaries and congressional sponsors — be fully disclosed.

...

Whether the measure will rein in the explosion of earmarks is far from certain. Some hope that lawmakers, if required to attach their names to earmarks, will be too embarrassed to pursue funding for controversial projects that could be decried as pork or favors to campaign contributors.

 

But for many lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, bringing home the bacon is a badge of honor, and they go to great lengths to trumpet their efforts.

It doesn't have every possible bit of ethics reform that could have been done, but it has enough that CREW, an organization I think does good work, seems moderately satiated. They also were hoping for an independent ethics panel, which they didn't get with this package, and they want outsiders to be able to file ethics complaints with the House...but even they seem happy with the start.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), described the new ethics package proposed by the Democratic House leadership this week as a promising move toward a cleaner Congress.

 

Highlights of the legislation include earmark reform, a ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists, mandatory pre-approval of any trips in connection with official duties, coupled with almost immediate disclosure of such trips, and the end of the use of corporate jets at under-market rates.

 

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director said, “The new Democratic leadership deserves credit for introducing legislation that tackles the ethics issues that plagued the last Congress.”

 

CREW particularly praises the proposal’s aggressive earmark reform provisions, which require disclosure of the authors and beneficiaries of all earmarks, limited tax benefits and limited tariff benefits. Additionally, the author must certify that he or she does not benefit from the inserted earmark. If earmarks are not disclosed according to the new rules, any member of Congress can raise a point of order that would strike that portion of the bill.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, here we go...at least it's a start. Haven't had enough time to evaluate the actual rules changes Pelosi has passed in the House, but the House Dems have already done at least a few things the Republicans were totally unable to do last year...pass rudimentary lobbying and earmark reform bills.

Ethics ReformEarmark reformIt doesn't have every possible bit of ethics reform that could have been done, but it has enough that CREW, an organization I think does good work, seems moderately satiated. They also were hoping for an independent ethics panel, which they didn't get with this package, and they want outsiders to be able to file ethics complaints with the House...but even they seem happy with the start.

Good start. Looks like they, for the most part, mean business.

 

The earmark thing, though, is kind of weak. Most lawmakers won't care about being exposed for the pork, in fact that will likely only boost local support for them. What they NEED to do is what I thought some of the Dems talked about, which is plain old STOPPING all earmarks for now, until a unified, balanced system can be put in place (like, as I stated then, the system the City Council of Chicago uses).

[southsider2k5]

The key word being "dems" begin passing... because they have broken their promise of minority party discussion on bills.

 

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input

Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

 

By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01

 

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

 

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

 

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

 

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

 

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

 

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

 

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

 

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

 

Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending directives and to certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse. That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule.

 

Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

 

"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."

 

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

 

For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.

 

"It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation."

 

In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

 

Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties can work together.

 

In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In the new Congress, the panel -- which sets the terms of debate on the House floor -- will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful of reporters.

 

"It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate."

 

At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said.

 

For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

 

"We're going to make an impression one way or the other," said one Democratic leadership aide. "If it's not positive, we'll be out in two years."

 

House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

 

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.

 

Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.

 

"If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong."

 

To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi has been distributing the spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels alienated.

 

Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and A.B. "Ben" Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and Means.

 

Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.

 

"If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."

 

"The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very, very strong," he added. "It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal."

[NorthSideSox72]

The key word being "dems" begin passing... because they have broken their promise of minority party discussion on bills.

They may turn out to not be as cooperative as they stated, but, this article doesn't say that's happened. It says, basically, that it MIGHT happen.

 

And the 100 hours items were all discussed with the GOP leadership in join conference before Congress even convened. That already is more than the GOP was ever interested in doing.

 

Let's wait a few weeks and see if the Dems really do start to work the minority party into discussions.

[NorthSideSox72]

Also, the house passed PAYGO legislation for spending, which me likey. Makes it tough to bloat programs and increase deficits, but also disallows major new spending without finding the money. Muchos gracias.

[Balta1701]

They may turn out to not be as cooperative as they stated, but, this article doesn't say that's happened. It says, basically, that it MIGHT happen.

 

And the 100 hours items were all discussed with the GOP leadership in join conference before Congress even convened. That already is more than the GOP was ever interested in doing.

 

Let's wait a few weeks and see if the Dems really do start to work the minority party into discussions.

Link)

 

Seriously though, I understand the move for their first 100 hours, because the Republicans would simply offer up enough amendments and delay enough to push everything past the 100 hour deadline they set, and would then go on TV proclaiming that the Dems had broken all of their promises to pass everything in 100 hours.

 

After the initial legislation surge, then it'll be time to watch and see if they keep that promise.

[mr_genius]

Also, the house passed PAYGO legislation for spending, which me likey. Makes it tough to bloat programs and increase deficits, but also disallows major new spending without finding the money. Muchos gracias.

 

sounds good to me. lets also make the tax cuts permanent.

 

low taxes and low government spending. excellent combination.

 

 

 

the House Dems have already done at least a few things the Republicans were totally unable to do last year...pass rudimentary lobbying and earmark reform bills.

 

looks as if Balta has totally bought into the dems bs on this.

Edited January 5, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

sounds good to me. lets also make the tax cuts permanent.

 

low taxes and low government spending. excellent combination.

looks as if Balta has totally bought into the dems bs on this.

I agree on low taxes. Tax cuts I am split on.

 

as for Balta and the Dems' B.S., his statement is accurate - the GOP couldn't even make a dent on those subjects. The Dems have gotten things started at least.

[mr_genius]

I agree on low taxes. Tax cuts I am split on.

 

as for Balta and the Dems' B.S., his statement is accurate - the GOP couldn't even make a dent on those subjects. The Dems have gotten things started at least.

 

 

you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea!

 

as for the start on removing pork?

 

yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt.

[NorthSideSox72]

you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea!

 

as for the start on removing pork?

 

yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt.

The attempt is what it is. Read the article. The bill passed. Is it everything we want to see? No. But its a far sight more than any attempt made by the GOP congress. You can doubt it all you want, but its there in black and white.

 

I think taxes are fine where they are for now, and once we get out the nightmare that is Iraq, we should decrease the budget accordingly and split the surplus between debt reduction and lowering some targetted taxes.

 

And if you actually think that the Dems "LIVE" on pork any more than Republicans do, then you truly are drinking the GOP kool-aid.

Edited January 5, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[mr_genius]

The attempt is what it is. Read the article. The bill passed. Is it everything we want to see? No. But its a far sight more than any attempt made by the GOP congress. You can doubt it all you want, but its there in black and white.

 

I think taxes are fine where they are for now, and once we get out the nightmare that is Iraq, we should decrease the budget accordingly and split the surplus between debt reduction and lowering some targetted taxes.

 

And if you actually think that the Dems "LIVE" on pork any more than Republicans do, then you truly are drinking the GOP kool-aid.

 

 

I read the article and there are tons of loop holes. the dems know this and already know how to exploit these loop holes.

 

glad you agree that taxes should be low.

 

do i think the GOP lives on pork too? yes. Republican koolaide? thats funny. i probably dislike GW Bush and crazy evangelicals more than you. I have a strong dislike for the current Rupublican party. Haven't voted GOP in 8 years. nice try.

Edited January 6, 2007 by mr_genius

[Damen]

you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea!

 

as for the start on removing pork?

 

yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt.

 

In 1994, there were 1,318 pork projects costing taxpayers 7.8 billion. In 2006, there were 9,963 pork projects totaling 29 billion.

 

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...rts_pigbook2006

 

So yeah, they both feast on it, but while Democrats were up to their waste in it, Republicans went over their heads.

[mr_genius]

In 1994, there were 1,318 pork projects costing taxpayers 7.8 billion. In 2006, there were 9,963 pork projects totaling 29 billion.

 

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...rts_pigbook2006

 

So yeah, they both feast on it, but while Democrats were up to their waste in it, Republicans went over their heads.

 

 

it's out of control for both parties. a lot of the pork increases were earmarks by democrats as well as republicans.

[ptatc]

Good start. Looks like they, for the most part, mean business.

 

The earmark thing, though, is kind of weak. Most lawmakers won't care about being exposed for the pork, in fact that will likely only boost local support for them. What they NEED to do is what I thought some of the Dems talked about, which is plain old STOPPING all earmarks for now, until a unified, balanced system can be put in place (like, as I stated then, the system the City Council of Chicago uses).

 

The problem with this is that with the crappy support universities get in this state from our beloved Gov. we depend on earmarks for funding. The system is flawed but if it stops the universities in this state are going to be in worse shape than they are now.

 

I'm sure this is only one example where this is true but it's one I am personally involved in.

[Balta1701]

The problem with this is that with the crappy support universities get in this state from our beloved Gov. we depend on earmarks for funding. The system is flawed but if it stops the universities in this state are going to be in worse shape than they are now.

 

I'm sure this is only one example where this is true but it's one I am personally involved in.

It's actually true in a surprising number of cases. Things like the Bridge to no where and the guy who said he'd earmark the hell out of the House if he became a committee chairman give earmarks a well-deserved bad name, but for a decent chunk of government it does become really important, they build useful projects, actually-needed bridges, roads, highways, upgrade facilities at universities, pay for sometimes important research, and to top it off, they only wind up being like 1% of the Federal Budget. A hell of a lot more money has been poured into Iraq than will be poured into earmarks for the next few years.

 

But the system has gotten so screwed up that there's just no accountability for what exactly people are earmarking. That's how you get a million dollar earmark to upgrade a bus station as a tourist attraction and the infamous bridge to nowhere while at the same time wiring up universities for the internet and so forth. Hopefully, adding some transparency to the system will provide a major upgrade in this matter, but we'll see.

 

looks as if Balta has totally bought into the dems bs on this.

Will you seriously state that this is not a step in the right direction? Remember when you say I've bought into the B.S. that I'm the one here who thinks that the U.S. government will never fully reform until we totally eliminate lobbyists entirely and switch to a fully publically funded campaign finance system - as long as there are groups giving money to candidates, the system simply will never be clean or representative in any way.

 

But I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The American people as far as I can tell really dislike the entire lobbying setup, which is one of the reasons why society generally has such a low opinion of their government officials; they keep selling out to the highest bidder. These reforms, even with their flaws, are an acknowledgement of that, and a gradual step in the right direction. If we're not going to create a public campaign financing system, then we might as well take a few steps to clean up Delay's mess.

 

Hopefully, the train keeps rolling, and the people keep demanding from their leaders more accountability and less input from lobbyists on the government, and eventually, we can reach a point where the whole stinking system is just swept out of the way. To borrow a phrase, in terms of lobbying reform, this is not the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning.

[EvilMonkey]

Maybe they can start by getting this guy to resign from congress, instead of just removing him from a committee.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pre...p.php?view=4452

Mr. Cold, Hard Cash Strikes Again

Heard on the Hill

By Mary Ann Akers, Roll Call

 

January 4, 2007

 

On only the fourth day of the new year, we’ve decided that the 2007 “Some Nerve!” award goes to ... Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

 

You might think that a guy who’s still the subject of a federal bribery investigation would be more careful than to use taxpayer resources to raise campaign money. But nope, not Jefferson. And heck, he still hasn’t provided us with that “honorable explanation” he promised for the bizarro (and alleged) $90,000 in cash federal agents confiscated from a freezer in his Capitol Hill home.

 

Last week, House Democrats were shocked to receive a letter from Jefferson — on his official Congressional stationery, no less — asking colleagues to donate money to help him retire his campaign debt.

 

“As you know,” the letter, dated Dec. 29, 2006, began, “I recently won a grueling race for re-election.” (And won resoundingly in a runoff, despite the ongoing federal probe in which two people have already pleaded guilty.) “In order to get our message out and otherwise compete, we incurred over $200,000 in debt.

 

“Therefore, I would deeply appreciate it if you would assist me in retiring my debt by contributing $1,000 (or whatever amount you can afford) to my campaign,” Jefferson wrote.

 

Nice letter. Too bad it violates House ethics rules. It’s a no-no to use taxpayer resources to raise campaign dough.

 

Some Democratic aides were downright aghast at Jefferson’s audacity at using franked envelopes, official letterhead and the House internal mail service in a blatant violation of House rules.

 

“We were going to send him a check in a freezer bag,” joked one chief of staff to a Democratic Member of Congress who received Jefferson’s solicitation.

 

Another, only slightly snarkier, Democratic House chief of staff pitched in with: “He’s got $90,000 in his freezer, why can’t he buy some stationery and stamps?” (Answer: Because the Feds took the money!) The chief of staff added, “Some people will never learn. Can’t he go away already?”

 

Jefferson, who has not been indicted (yet) in the bribery scandal, sent out the letter by mistake, according to his office. His staff apparently meant to use campaign stationery, but instead used the boss’s “Congress of the United States” letterhead, which, by the way, still lists Jefferson as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

Remember, Jefferson’s own Democratic colleagues voted overwhelmingly to kick him off the committee last summer after the FBI claimed it had videotaped the Congressman accepting $100,000 in marked bills from an informant. And now Jefferson has the gumption to write them and ask for money?

 

Jefferson’s spokeswoman, Melanie Russell, told HOH that the Congressman himself was unaware of the boo-boo until she went to him with our request for comment. “It’s news to him,” she sighed.

 

“It was just a tremendous — tremendous — staff error,” she said. “We are contacting the appropriate committees to apologize and rectify the situation.”

 

We presume that will involve the cash-strapped Jefferson campaign reimbursing the House Franking Commission for the costs involved in sending the fundraising solicitation.

[Balta1701]

Maybe they can start by getting this guy to resign from congress, instead of just removing him from a committee.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pre...p.php?view=4452

Unfortunately, there's actually very little the Dems can do to get him to resign from Congress until he's actually indicted...right now he isn't, and the whole procedure is hung up in court as a result of the search of his Congressional office and the resulting legal challenge. They've already, at least in the last Congress, stripped him of his committee assignments and put him in a position where all he can do is vote on the floor, but until he's indicted it's hard to actually do more.

 

And you're also over 24 hours late in posting that one.

[NorthSideSox72]

it's out of control for both parties. a lot of the pork increases were earmarks by democrats as well as republicans.

That was my point - you stated specifically that Dems lived on pork. In reality, this is one problem that is not party-specific.

[Texsox]

you like low taxes but not tax cuts? it's not just "tax cuts for the wealthy!", but tax cuts for everyone. lame democrat slogans are often misleading and inaccurate, but easy to remember! yea!

 

as for the start on removing pork?

 

yea, right. the democrats LIVE on pork. no way they are legit in this attempt.

 

And Republicans live on deficit spending to boost the economy. "We'll buy you everything and you'll never have to pay for it." Republicans insist they have to spend more than the taxes they bring in to stimulate the economy. I'll take paid for pork over borrowed from other countries debt any day of the week. But would prefer a pork free balanced budget.

“We were going to send him a check in a freezer bag,” joked one chief of staff to a Democratic Member of Congress who received Jefferson’s solicitation.

LMAO.

[mr_genius]

And Republicans live on deficit spending to boost the economy. "We'll buy you everything and you'll never have to pay for it." Republicans insist they have to spend more than the taxes they bring in to stimulate the economy. I'll take paid for pork over borrowed from other countries debt any day of the week. But would prefer a pork free balanced budget.

 

once again a poster inaccurately reads a criticism of democrats as supporting everything republicans do.

 

oh, and you don't think pork helps lead to national debt?

 

do you even really have a point with your previous post?

[Balta1701]

So, another little bit of good news, at least for now, Pelosi has decided to keep one of the actually positive Republican rules...a term limit for committee chairmen...something that was not in place for the Democrats before 94, which almost certainly contributed to the corruption that developed in that group. Link.

During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.

So...if anyone reads anything about them trying to get rid of that rule in the future, make sure to point it out. If there's never less attention focused on it, then they can't get rid of a good rule, right?

[Texsox]

once again a poster inaccurately reads a criticism of democrats as supporting everything republicans do.

 

oh, and you don't think pork helps lead to national debt?

 

do you even really have a point with your previous post?

 

Perhaps you should actually read the post I responded to.