Open mic picks up US Senator admitting openly that the S.510 bill is all rigged. [Archive]

View Full Version : Open mic picks up US Senator admitting openly that the S.510 bill is all rigged.

Nitro Express

12-02-2010, 12:08 AM

sadaist

12-02-2010, 01:56 AM

The problem isn't that it is "rigged". The problem is this guy and any others will just find a way to work within the system. Why did an open mic have to pick up this private conversation? The guy should be saying it to everyone to bring it to light and be trying to correct it. If he were truly upset with it that's what he would do. The fact that this wasn't supposed to get out just lets us know he will just go along with it like everyone else. No backbones these politicians have...none of them.

Hardrock69

12-02-2010, 08:54 AM

Who among them wants to commit political suicide?

Who among them wants to lose the position they spent countless millions of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to attain?

Who among them wants to give up the extreme pay and benefits they receive in relation to the actual work they have to do?

Like Richard Pryor said about politicians in the film "Brewster's Millions": "Why do you think they spent XX millions of dollars to get elected to a job that only pays XX unless they were going to make it all back somehow?"

Nitro Express

12-02-2010, 11:07 AM

If s.510 becomes law, you can kiss small farms goodbye and say hello to a big corporate farm monopoly and possible inspection of your home garden by the FDA. Of course the big boys can have filthy farms that endanger the public with eggs full of bacteria and nothing with be done to them.

Then you have the CSPAN open mic with a US Senator blabbing about how any debate is useless because the Senate is bought and paid for and is going to vote in favor with the big corporations.

We know this goes on but at times its nice to see evidence of it.

The only thing I can see to curb it would to make corporate donations to politicians illegal. Only individuals who are US citizens can donate to politicians and by law, that should be for campaigns only. This would make most the lobbying a bribe and illegal. Good luck getting it through committee and passed and signed into law.

SunisinuS

12-02-2010, 05:33 PM

(CNN) -- Senate Republicans' threat to hold up legislation for everything not related to tax cuts or the budget is either standing up for principles or a "congressional temper tantrum," depending on your point of view.

Thousands of CNN.com readers responded to news that all 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."

The letter came the day after President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties, and all parties pledged to work together to solve the nation's economic problems.

Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved

Some readers said Republicans' tactics are a continuation of the "obstructionism" they have practiced since Obama took office.

"Republicans lose an election and stick to their obstructionism, Republicans win an election and stick to their obstructionism," commented a reader who identified himself as "joesmith007."

Others said Democrats acted with a similar heavy hand.

"Sounds alot like the passage of the healthcare bill to me," commented a reader who called himself "pedrosanchez."

Many likened the ultimatum to a "temper tantrum."

Tax cut showdown on Capitol Hill RELATED TOPICS
Tax Policy
U.S. Democratic Party
U.S. Republican Party
"Right, because throwing temper tantrums and keeping other important issues from being addressed is the way to solve problems," wrote reader "lmmmr." "Did we really elect a bunch of 3 year olds?"

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted by former President George W. Bush will expire after December 31 if Congress fails to reach an agreement on their extension. Top Democrats and Republicans disagree sharply over whether the current tax rates should be extended just for families earning $250,000 or under per year, or for everyone, regardless of income.

Obama and GOP still far apart on tax cuts

Republicans contend that a failure to extend all of the tax cuts would hamper an already sluggish economy. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders argue that the roughly $700 billion price tag attached to an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be fiscally irresponsible.

Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for everyone

Readers accused Republicans of being more interested in paying back campaign donors than helping lower-income Americans in hard times.

"The people making over $250,000 are generally not having problems paying their bills. [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell must think the American people are seriously stupid in trying to sell that they are attempting to help the average American with this maneuver," wrote a reader who called himself "rapier."

"ocscorpio78" wrote, "Good to know that the GOP thinks tax cuts for millionaires is the most important issue facing our country right now."

But a reader who identified himself as "rukidding1" countered that "Democrats are just as bad. They just voted not to ban special pet projects called earmarks. There all politicians."

Political analysts were split along ideological lines on the Republicans' tactic and on the fiscal impact of extending tax credits for those above the $250,000 threshold.

"What you're doing will take additional tax revenues from individuals who can do something positive," Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins told CNN's "John King USA" on Wednesday. "It's not like there's a shortfall, because you take taxes away from us. That's the other side of the story. You're not cutting any spending.

"We for four years have had to sit here and deal with how Democrats can do whatever they want. They can't do that now. Republicans aren't going to give up what they've been fighting for."

But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said extending the cuts for all in return for extending benefits for the long-term unemployed is a deal that Democrats shouldn't agree to.

"Remember, when you extend it for people making over $250,000, you're adding $700 billion to the deficit," he said. "To deal with it -- we're going to cut the deficit, but the first thing we'll do is add $700 billion to the deficit and we're going to extend unemployment compensation. But don't worry, we're going to freeze federal pay.

"I mean, it's -- does anybody see it? Is it just me that sees if we cut the deal, we're going to spend money on both sides and talk about cutting the deficit? I don't know."

While the debate over extending the tax credits to all goes on, the stalemate feeds public perception that lawmakers are more driven by party politics than finding solutions, said CNN contributor Jon Avlon, an independent.

"There are two parallel tracks here. The argument Republicans are making is that this will create a stimulus for the economy rather than a tax cut in the middle of a recession," he said. "But clearly, I mean, Republicans beginning the day with this kind of bargain is what gives bipartisanship a bad name in Washington. If you agree 100 percent of the time and cave in, then you're being bipartisan. There's something disingenuous about that."

A reader who called himself "Brational" also decried leaders' lack of ability to compromise.

"Whether we are Republican or Democrat we all need to send the message to both sides of the aisle that constructive compromise is more important to us than sound bites and ideological nonsense," he wrote. "I manage to get things accomplished in my job, working with people I don't always agree with. Don't you? These bozos (on both sides of the aisle) will continue to act like three year olds until we demand better behavior. Let's stop defending them based on the (R) or (D) after their name and start expecting them to get to work, damn it!"

Cafferty: Is anyone serious about tackling deepening financial crisis?

Some readers advocated not paying lawmakers if they're not getting anything done.

"So if I showed up to work and said that I have no intention of doing anything for the next 2 months and prevent everyone else from doing anything as well then I would be fired in a heartbeat," wrote a reader identified as "AliTny." "Does it make it ok if you are a US congressman. At a minimum can we at least not pay them for the period they are not working?"

SunisinuS

12-02-2010, 08:03 PM

Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks:

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government overspending.

[How do deficit-cutters sell the U.S. on pain?]

"The American people are speaking out loud and clear. They have had enough of the spending, the bureaucracy, and the government-knows-best mentality running rampant today throughout the halls of Congress," Bachmann said in a July 15 statement. The group, she wrote in a letter to House Administration Committee chairman Bob Brady, "will serve as an informal group of Members dedicated to promote Americans' call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."

Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

[With jobs at issue, what is Washington doing?]

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the tea partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmark requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.

More than one member can sign onto an earmark. Still, there are 29 caucus members who requested on their own or joined requests for more than $10 million in earmark funding, and seven who wanted more than $50 million in funding.

Most offices did not respond right away to a request for comment. Those that did said they supported Republicans' new efforts to ban earmarks.

[Will Obama's winning campaign plan be used against him in 2012?]

Alexander, for one, "stands with his fellow Republicans in the House in supporting the current earmark ban. Since joining the Tea Party Caucus in July, he has not submitted any earmark requests and has withdrawn his outstanding requests that were included in the most recent Water Resources Development Act," said Jamie Hanks, his communications director.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), who requested 25 earmarks in the last Fiscal Year at a total cost of just over $80 million, has agreed to abide by the Republican earmark ban, according to spokesman Adam Buckalew. "He supported the moratorium and the prohibition adopted recently by the Conference on House earmarks for the 112th Congress," Buckalew said of Harper.

"It's easy to be a member of the TEA Party Caucus because, like them, I agree that we're Taxed Enough Already and we've got to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Deficit spending is not new, but the unprecedented rate of spending in Congress is," Rehberg said in a statement emailed by his office. "Montanans have tightened their belts, and it's way past time for Congress to follow their lead. The TEA Party Caucus is about listening to concerned Americans who want to fundamentally change how Congress spends their tax dollars. On that, we're in total agreement."

[For America's 10 wealthiest Congressional Districts, it will be more happy holidays]

Bachmann's office did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment.

Still, some Republicans -- albeit none who belong to the Tea Party Caucus -- have said they will not abide by the voluntary earmark ban. And, said CAGW's Williams, the anti-spending organization isn't waiting with baited breath.

"Seeing is believing. It's going to take a lot more than rhetoric to convince us," he said.

A list of Tea Party Caucus members and their earmark requests in Fiscal Year 2010, courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book:

NAME EARMARKS AMOUNTAderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400Broun (R-GA) 0 0Burton (R-IN) 0 0Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000Coffman (R-CO) 0 0Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0Lummis (R-WY) 0 0Marchant (R-TX) 0 0McClintock (R-CA) 0 0Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000Myrick (R-NC) 0 0Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0Pence (R-IN) 0 0Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000T. Price (R-GA) 0 0Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200Roe (R-TN) 0 0Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And more comedy: