President Trump's Budget

Trump’s budget

Everywhere I turn, I am seeing cries and lamentations about President Trump’s first budget. First of all let’s be clear about what we are talking about. What was issued in the press is what is referred to as a “skinny budget” meaning there are no details only large-scale bottom-line numbers. So the devil will be in the details in the full budget released in the coming months.

Talking about the substance of the budget is likely to get people who are fiscally conservative into a great deal of hot water. Cries about cutting the NDA or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the EPA or any number of smaller budget items is likely to drown out any sort of logical discussion of the size and scope of the federal government and therefore its budget. But what is interesting is the fatal lack of understanding of the federal budget. There are so many programs that overlap other federal programs, state and local programs, and even private efforts that cutting most of these budgets won’t have any effect on the folks who supposedly receive federal funding. For example the NEA’s relatively small budget is used support museums, libraries, research, and other activities. But the truth of the matter is, like any other large organization, a large chunk of money goes to pay salary for employees. To be fair though, only about 20% of the NEA’s budget goes to salaries and program support, which is really good for any organization. But the NEA is an organization dedicated to spending tax dollars on, let’s be honest here, largely left wing and liberal meaning concerns. Politically, among Trump supporters and fiscal conservatives, this does not sit well with probably a majority of Americans.

As for the notion that cutting meat NEA is going to close museums across the country nothing could be further from the truth. A little less than half of the NEA budget, about $72 million in fiscal year 2017, is given out in direct grants. There are, according to Google, more than 35,000 museums in the United States. Even assuming every museum applies for indirect grant from the NEA each museum would receive a paltry $2,057.14. That’s it. For most museums that won’t even pay the electric bill for a year. Of course, not all museums apply for NEA support, and any museum that relies solely on funding from one source, probably does not deserve to remain open.

So let’s not kid ourselves that cutting the NEA means that even one museum will close. Yes, I know support for the humanities is important. Yes, I know that museums are important. But that does not mean the federal government should be taking tax dollars in spending on supporting museums.

Of course the NEA is but one victim of President Trump’s budget suggestion. I could spend several posts talking about and defending the budget cuts why they should be done and what the marginal effect would be. But politically, people need to understand, this is not going to be the final budget not by any stretch of the imagination. This is a negotiating tool. That is it. If more people took the time to read Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal” they would have a far better understanding of how the president works. He knows he’s not going to get all of this. He knows that things that he wants to cut will be put back into the budget. But the document does do several things: it shows his base, his voters, that he is doing what he said he would do. Politically it’s refreshing. For far too long Congress and the president have tried to tinker around the edges of budgets but never really reducing anything. At least this president is willing to wield a mighty axe in the budget process. It takes bold stances to affect change.

Personally, I would like to see Pres. trump and Congress tackle what is really going to break the bank from a budget standpoint and that his entitlements. But to do that is going to take an absolute willingness to take a beating personally and professionally in the press and before voters. That may take more courage than anyone in the elective office currently has. But we certainly need someone to do that.

Never fear, this skinny budget is just one step in the process, a process that is ultimately and finally controlled by Congress. The question will be, does the President have the guts to veto spending bills that completely disregards his priorities? That will be an interesting test.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

"[A] democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people -- from a fairly narrow background, a legal background -- have to say."

Said Justice Anthony Kennedy, a man who sits on the fulcrum of a relatively ideologically divided Supreme Court.


I have an idea.  Maybe the Supreme Court should start kicking cases on the ground of  a "textual committment to a co-equal branch" of government as the political question doctrine stated in Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 (1964).

Seems like the Supreme Court, which has the power to control its docket, could start pushing back on Congress and the Executive Branch to start doing their job instead of punting to the Court.  These are smart people on the Court, surely they could find a reason to return these political cases back to the elected branches and say, "you guys have to figure this out."

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

The Lost Art of Congressional Oversight

Most people probably didn't notice, or it may have passed most people's radar even if they are relatively diligent Congressional watchers, but on Wednesday, something interesting happened on Capitol Hill--a Congressman announced that he would begin doing his job--overseeing the executive agency his committee is supposed to manage.  Florida Rep.Jeff Miller (R), chairman of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee announced that he is ready to up his and his committee's oversight of the Department of Veterans' Affairs.  According to a committee press release:

“Lengthy delays or not responding to requests at all has become the norm,” stated Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “First we were told $20 million was spent in FY2011 on conferences; then we were told it was a little over $100 million; finally we were told that no accurate, reliable figure on conference expenditures exists. Because of these discrepancies, Ranking Member Filner and I asked for clarification of VA’s total conference spending for that year and prior years, as well as a breakdown of all individual conferences, and still have yet to receive any information.”

Miller's specific context is recently provided and widely divergent statemetns of spending on departmental conferenes, which ranged from $20 million, to over $100 million and on Wednesday, the Committee was told that the figure was $86 million.   Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner, calling Miller an MVP wrote:

The third VA figure of $86 million was presented at Wednesday's hearing. Miller's exasperation was clearly evident when VA's No. 2 official, W. Scott Gould, couldn't explain the variation among the estimates.

Instead of merely venting his anger, Miller responded to the VA obstacles by declaring, "The truce is over. Expect much more oversight from this committee."

Miller was still fuming after the hearing, telling The Washington Examiner's Mark Flatten that the committee "got the same old crap that VA has been giving us for two years, and I am tired of it." 

Perhaps to remove any doubt about his intention, Miller added that the committee "will be digging in every possible corner that we can for issues that are not being served for the veterans. If you have leadership within the VA that have arrogant attitudes, the veterans are not being well-served."

Tapscott goes on to note that the current VA Secretary, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, seemed like a man who could clean up the VA, a department that seems rife with mismanagement apparent by its inability to quantify even a basic budget line item of internal conferences.  But even the effective Shinseki seems to have not made a dent.  

You could lay the blame on many different places and Shinseki and his predecessors do indeed to shoulder some of the blame.  But ultimately, the real failing is at the Congressional level.  Almost by necessity (and probably not fully necessary--but that is a subject for another post) Congress has to delegate a lot of detail work to the executive  branch to flesh out the details of legislation.  This process, known as rulemaking, means that Congress needs to be active--truly active-- in their oversight duty to make sure that Congressional intent is carried out.  Of course, Congressional intent may be hard to discern from the actual legislation, which makes oversight even more important.  When rules and regulations are proposed by various executive branch agencies, those rules are subject to review and rejection by Congress under the Administrative Procedures Act.  However, such rejection almost never happens.

Similarly, management of the federal budget--a task clearly and Constitutionally delegated to Congress--is hardly ever exercises after an appropriations bill is passed.  Rep. Miller is responding to an obvious problem, that agency officials cannot even answer basic questions about their budget and as a result Miller is now proposing greater oversight of the VA by his Committee.  While Miller is to be applauded for this, what is truly troubling is that his vow is making news.  

Increased Congressional oversight is not and should not be news.  It is an art and a duty that should be exercised as diligently as possible and as often as possible.  Congressional oversight, if it means that senior executive branch officials are spending twenty, thirty or even fifty percent of their time responding to Congressional inquiries, is not simply "a duty" of Congress, but arguably is "the" duty of Congress.  Take the example of a typical household budget.  That budget and the expenditures made under it have to be reviewed regularly, scrutinized, refined if necessary and certainly altered to fit that actual reality of the situation.  A private company has budgetary review all the time, no matter how big the company is.  However, in the regular effort to be reelected, and the constant campaigning that accompanies that, the lost art of Congressional oversight gets dismissed in the shuffle of campaign events, other duties, and the apparent feeling of trust of executive branch bureaucrats.  

While we want to be trusting of government officials, members of Congress and their staff don't have that luxury.  Congress must be skeptical of every dollar spent.  In the end, only vigilance will save the tax payer money, and only vigilance will keep the government on task.

Show Your Work Congress

Last night, I had a long conversation with the Peanut, my oldest daughter, about her math homework.  She had gotten a failing grade, 55%, on a math homework assignment, despite she whined, getting all the answers right (which I have no doubt she did).  What was the reason she failed?  Well, she failed to follow the instructions and show her work, which was spelled out in the instructions.

That was what was running through my head when I read this brilliant idea via Mark Tapscott:

Few things are more characteristic of business as usual in Washington, D.C., than closed doors. Nothing will do more to end business as usual than opening them to C-SPAN cameras.

With the "fiscal cliff" of sequestration approaching, now is the perfect time to establish a precedent: The bigger the deal, the more important it is that negotiations be done in public.

It took about 12 seconds after the 2012 campaign winners were declared for the maneuvering toward a "grand bargain" to begin among President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner.

Everybody professes to favor compromise, but without open negotiations there is no way to know who actually offers concrete compromises and who merely talks about them.The essential antidote is to let C-SPAN's cameras cover the negotiations gavel to gavel, with open news conferences after every bargaining session.

The only reasonable alternative to the cameras would be making public a complete transcript of every word said during the talks, with no opportunities for participants to "revise and extend" their remarks.

Of course, the participants will say they can't deal in candor if their work is made public.  Well, tough noogie chuckleheads, you are elected representatives and we as you employers have a right to see your work.  Just like the instructions on my daughter's math homework, she has to show her work, our representatives and elected officials need to show their work.

The only way they can ever hope to get out of the 10-20% approval rating doldrums is to engender faith in their work, and start doing it out in the open.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

ObamaCare has so Many Myths, It's Hard to Know Where to Begin

Cory L. Andrews started with the litigation side of matters, debunking the leading Obamacare litigation myths:

My favorite:

Myth #5: “Judge Vinson declared not just the individual mandate, but the entire ObamaCare law unconstitutional. That shows how radical he is.”This is the myth that will not die. Following Judge Vinson’s ruling in Florida, defenders of ObamaCare seized on the supposed “fact” that he declared the entire law unconstitutional as further evidence that Vinson was an unhinged jurist whose ruling placed him “outside the mainstream.”

Similar reports followed from virtually every media outlet in the country (see here, here, and here). But nowhere did Judge Vinson hold that the entire law was unconstitutional. Rather, he found that only the individual mandate was unconstitutional; yet, because Congress hadn’t bothered to include a severability clause, the entire law was void.

This is an important distinction. Other than the individual mandate, Judge Vinson impugned no portion of ObamaCare on constitutional grounds, nor did he overstep his judicial duty.

Check it out. (Links in original)


Judge Vinson's decision was handcuffed upon him by Congress' failure to include a severability clause so that even if Judge Vinson found every other provision constitutional, the fact that one feature is unconstitutional invalidates the whole 2200 page think.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/02/dubunking-leading-obamacare-litigation-myths#ixzz1DxkEEbUK

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Betsy's Page: Are waivers from Obamacare constitutional?

Betsy Newmark brings to the fore an interesting argument about the Obamacare waivers that are being handed out like Valentine's Day candy. Pointing to a an article by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger,  Newmark notes that not very many people are questioning whether the waivers themselves are permissible.

Professor Hamburger writes:

More seriously, it raises questions about whether we live under a government of laws. Congress can pass statutes that apply to some businesses and not others, but once a law has passed — and therefore is binding — how can the executive branch relieve some Americans of their obligation to obey it? 

The dangers of inequity are obvious. Will only corporations and unions get waivers, or can individuals also get them? For example, if a family physician feels financial pressure under the health-care law to fire one of his employees, will he get a waiver to avoid adding to unemployment? 

Indeed, can even a small corporation get a waiver? Small businesses provide most new jobs, but the answer is obvious: Waivers are mostly, if not entirely, for politically significant businesses and unions that get the special attention of HHS or the White House. The rest of us must obey the laws. 

The dangers of inequity are real because of the discretion inherent in the waivers themselves.  Employers and unions can apply for the waiver (which in and of itself is an expensive proposition) and the Obama Administration through the department of Health and Human Services can then determine whether the waiver should be granted.  Jonathan Adler questions whether, as Prof. Hamburger asserts, the waivers themselves are unconstitutional?

An argument that any executive waiver authority is unconstitutional is a hard sell, particularly given the extent to which Congress may delegate legislative-like authority.   But the concerns that motivate such arguments, particularly that such power is prone to abuse and can undermine the rule of law, are serious.  What to do?  I think such concerns can be addressed through the creation of administrative procedures designed to ensure greater transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Adler brings up the best argument regarding the waivers themselves.  What is unclear is what are the criteria for the granting or denying a waiver?  As Adler pointed out, waivers are not uncommon in the executive branch, but what those waiver provisions include, for example with the Federal Communications Commission,  is a lengthy procedure, including notice and comment periods. Such provisions, Adler contends, allow for a clearer judicial review if that becomes necessary.  Such features are absent in the health care waiver process.

But returning to Betsy Newmark, there is a practical question,

There definitely seems to be something fishy about members of the executive branch to have the power to pick and choose whom a given law should apply to. Take the question away from Obamacare and imagine that it was some other law such as the Civil Rights Act and businesses argued that they could not afford to implement the law. Can you imagine the uproar if any presidential administration tried to pick out which organizations would get waivers from the law? Or pick any law that imposes some sort of burden on organizations - collecting payroll taxes, paying the minimum wage, or following environmental regulations? 

The greater problem with the healthcare waiver provisions is the lack of foresight exhibited by Congress.  They clearly recognized that there maybe problems, hence the waiver provision themselves.  Congress also stretched compliance out a fair distance, which seems admirable, but the confluence of the two means that a great many companies and unions, are failing to take an adequate effort at compliance rather than simply going for the waiver.  This is not an unreasonable position to take for the party seeking the waiver.  Getting the waiver now means they don't have to expend the efforts to comply first and then seek the waiver on the expedited basis.  So the economic rationale makes sense.

Congress is generally very bad at legislating for the future and makes serious mistakes when trying to legislate future behavior, particularly economic behavior.  So given their very poor track record, being a bit more deliberative would have gone a long way to preventing the problems we see today.

What doesn't make sense is that Congress allowed the waivers so far in advance (three and four years) before compliance was mandated.  What also seems odd is the criteria that Congress laid out to be considered for a waiver were particularly fuzzy.  Impact on unemployment seems particularly bad.  A businessman just needs to argue that changing the healthcare plan will lead to unemployment?  Given that there are so many factors lead to unemployment it seems difficult to understand.

Still, it is a good question to ask, is it proper for Congress to delegate the waiver activity?  Yes, I believe it is. Do I think it is unconstitutional to operate that waiver program without well-defined criteria issued by Congress?  Yes, because Congress is abdicating its responsibility?

To ask the question differently?  Would a Democratic Congress have delegated the waiver authority under ObamaCare to a Republican Presidency?

The Debt Ceiling--Can I Raise My Debt Ceiling Too?

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty argues against raising the debt ceiling and makes a common sense suggestion for Congress--pay our debts first.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Sunday and in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Pawlenty challenged even leaders in his own party, who have said Congress must increase the federal debt ceiling rather than risk a default that could send interest rates skyrocketing and the economy back into recession.

Mr. Pawlenty said Congress should pass legislation that would put interest and debt payments ahead of other federal spending and allow the federal government to pay its creditors as tax revenue flows in. With the surge of tax payments that come in between April and June, that would at least buy time to try to cut spending dramatically, he said.

This makes sense to me, because that is how real people do it.  Look, when you and I get paid, we have to prioritize our payments.  Maybe you put a savings deduction or a religious tithe first, but at the top of your (and my) payment list is things like:

Mortgage/rent
credit card debt payments
food
utility payments

Regardless of how you do things, normal people pay their debts before embarking on new spending.  The federal government should be the same.  If the government pays its debts first and only then addresses other spending or new spending, they will find themselves with less money to play with.  Congress then pays the debts  (thus securing the long term financial health of America) and then can spend the rest in a fiscally responsible manner (we hope).

Makes sense--you know like real people sense.

Is the Problem with the Constitution That We are Misreading It?

Having we misread the Constitution?  The more I think about it, I am coming to the conclusion that yes, we have.  After the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives and despite the provisions in the new House Rules regarding the citation of a Constitutional provision for every piece of legislation introduced in the House, it is not going to matter much in my opinion.  There will be three provisions cited more than any other:

1. The Interstate Commerce Clause.  With the notion that just about everything impacts interstate commerce, Congress will regulate every kind of business, even one that is purely intrastate.
2. The Necessary and Proper clause" even though this clause was created to allow Congress to pass legislation necessary and proper for carrying out its delegated powers in Art. 1, Sec. 8.  I don't the the House Leadership should let this pass, there needs to be something else cited, but we will see.
3. The General Welfare clause.

It is that last one that carries the most danger--and I am not even talking about how you define "general welfare," itself a significant problem.

Article 1, Sec. 8 gives congress the power to levy taxes and appropriate money for the general welfare of country.  The problem is that the general welfare is interpreted so broadly by Congress, no matter who is in power on Capitol Hill.  But a broad interpretation of a delegated power runs contrary to the purpose behind the Constitution, the creation and framework for a government of LIMITED powers.

The Congress wants to expand its power, that much is almost assured and they frequently use the spending power as a means to do so, spending money and attaching strings  and conditions to that money in order for states/localities to spend it.  The classic example is federal highway money, which used to be given to states only if they had a 55 MPH speed limit and a drinking age of 21.  So in order to force compliance with what Congress decided was in the general welfare (i.e. a speed limit or drinking age despite those being largely a matter of state concern), Congress held federal money hostage, money that had been taxed from the various states and their citizens, in order to obtain a policy goal it ordinarily would not have been able to touch because it is not within the purview of its delegated powers.

The Courts have almost universally allowed such "covert" regulations and legislation to be attached to spending bills with impunity because Congress can spend for the general welfare. But more and more I find myself wondering if that the courts and Congress and the states themselves, were just completely wrong and we have let it go for so long that we think it is the natural order of things.  We have allowed the notion that Congress can attach any kind of strings to federal spending.  The Preamble to the Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People wanted to promote the general welfare by establishing a national government of limited, delegated powers designed to keep the federal government limited.  But if the spending power for the general welfare is located in the list of limited powers of the Congress, how can it have such a broad scope, allowing Congress pass laws that otherwise would not be possible under the limited powers of Art. I, Sec. 8?  In other words, if the power of Congress is limited by Sec. 8, why is the spending power treated and interpreted so differently than other powers?   Did the Framers really intend to provide a list of limited powers and then say, "those limited powers and spheres of responsibility don't apply if Congress is spending money for the general welfare?"  

Are policies related to policing (speed limit), health and welfare (drinking ages or education) of the citizenry not a matter for the states and localities?  Where in the theory underlying the Constitution of a limited government of delegated powers and a concerted effort by the Framers to circumscribe and check the powers of the national government do the Courts, Congress and national Executive find the power to regulate matters outside the discrete list of Section 8 Powers?

We need to seriously think about how to resolve that conflict that is in keeping with the actual Constitution.

Ezra Klein Calls Reading the Constitution a "Gimmick"

And it is too confusing because it was written over 100 years ago.



The last time I checked, the Constitution was written in English--right?

Two Looks At Caroline Kennedy

New York Daily News and the Washington Post. From the Daily News' Micheal Goodwin:

Asked about her qualifications, she fell back on gibberish and the Kennedy name.

"As a mother, as an author, as an education advocate and from a family that really has spent generations in public service, I feel this commitment," she said. "This is a time when nobody can afford to sit it out, and I feel I have something to offer."

The "sit it out" part is revealing. Among those who want the job, she has done the least public service by any measure. She didn't even vote in about half the contested elections in the last 20 years.

Sensing she's not ready for prime time, her handlers, most of whom have connections to Mayor Bloomberg, suddenly insisted media questions be submitted in writing. The answers they provided, under their names, were vapid. And she will not, as is the campaign custom, release financial documents that reveal her wealth and holdings. We're expected to trust she has no conflicts of interest.

Even the one job she had in public life has come into question. Apparently on the basis of a chance meeting with New York's schools chancellor at a party on Martha's Vineyard, she signed on as a part-time fund-raiser. How much she raised and how much she worked have been challenged, but no matter. The point is that this self-described advocate for the public schools did not send her children to them.

Enough.

Limousine liberals are a dime a dozen, and carpetbaggers are nothing new in New York. And with the social scene constantly churning out the old for the next new thing, there's no reason middle-aged dilettantes can't also try their hand at politics.

They just can't start in the Senate.

This is from the Washington Post:

But that's when I caught myself, and my more out-of-the-box side spoke up: Kennedy had young children, and no matter how much child care her money could buy, she clearly wanted to be a very-much-there primary caregiver. Perhaps, like many women in her situation, she found stimulation and satisfaction in whatever tasks most easily fit her schedule and her life, and her kids' lives. You could say her work history was spasmodic; you could say it was scattershot. But you could also say that as her children have grown up, her focus on public life has intensified, culminating in her fundraising for the public schools and her participation in Barack Obama's presidential campaign. You could say that, consciously or unconsciously, she was preparing for this moment.

Rather than a privileged aberration, I prefer to view Kennedy as a bellwether, a case study in how things could be if only the workplace were more accepting of an unconventional CV, one that may brim with great experience and skills and talent but is also peppered with gaps and one-off projects and volunteering. After all, if workers can no longer expect the security of a 50-year career with IBM or Procter & Gamble, then maybe employers should stop expecting each and every job applicant to present them with an old-fashioned sequential résumé. Maybe now's the time to change our thinking about what constitutes the ideal CV.

When we talk about women going back into the workforce, it's illuminating to consider the circumstances under which they left it in the first place. For many women, it was never truly a choice, never truly voluntary. As Pamela Stone, author of "Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home," points out, many are pushed out by jobs with long hours, rigid workweeks and inflexible demands. "These women haven't opted out," says Stone. "They've been shut out, by workplaces that don't pair well with family life."

The Post's bit is rubbish. Caroline Kennedy is not like say, my wife, who left her work when we had children, we couldn't afford to have her work with the cost of childcare being what it is. Caroline Kennedy is not like us--not by a long shot, nor, as Goodwin points out, is she ready for the Senate.

The Pettiness That is the Democratic Party

More on punishing Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a close ally of Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the Connecticut Independent should pay a price for his campaign attacks against President-elect Barack Obama.

"There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.

Carper, a fellow centrist who was Delaware campaign chairman for Lieberman’s failed bid for president in 2004, said he and many other Senate Democrats are disappointed and even angered by their colleague's sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric during this year's presidential campaign.
Lieberman said he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) because he was the best prepared to lead the country at a time of war, and Lieberman questioned Obama’s readiness to lead.

Carper did not rule out stripping Lieberman of his coveted gavel running the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, or imposing other sanctions like taking away seniority on other committees or a subcommittee on Armed Services.

With friends like these....

You have to wonder how these same Democrats would feel if their majority wasn't so large.

Making the Crap Sandwich Palatable

Intersting reading:
* Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
* Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
* Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
* Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
* Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
* Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
* Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
* Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
* Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

I sense a theme a bit here, lots of energy tax credits. Not a bad thing really, but it is apparent that these credits are there to make that crap sandwich a lot more palatable.

House Passes Bill To Expand Drilling, Fund Renewables

It is bogus, but this story was buried behind all the financial mess.

Republicans Daring Pelosi to Call House Back into Session

This protest, which I like, is being somewhat undermined by the falling oil prices.

But the GOP is right, Congress needs to address energy issues. If this report is right, the GOP might be looking at a significant win three months before the elections.

Hypocrisy Thy Name is Pelosi

Gateway Pundit on Pelosi and the energy bill debate. Gateway reminds us:

Amy reminds us that these are the same politicians who ripped Iraq for taking a vacation without finalizing important legislation.

The Gueriila Congress

Have House Republicans grown a pair over the past few weeks? It sure seems so. Mark Hemingway describes the Republicans' efforts in the House (which recessed for summer break for five weeks):

So what did the Republicans do? Even as the House Democrats left town running scared, they stayed on the floor of the House. House Republicans are still railing against the House leadership and are orating like their lives depend on it, to anyone who will listen about the need for cheaper gas and energy. The C-SPAN cameras have been shut off (C-SPAN has no control over them), the Democratic leadership made the sergeant-at-arms kill the microphones, and they even at one point tried to turn off the lights.

It's summer, so there are no shortage of tourists trying to get in to witness what promises to be a heck of a civics lesson. They're lined up out the door to get in, and being that the House is out of session, the G.O.P. has even opened up the floor seats to visitors. Every five minutes or so the throngs of citizens would erupt into loud applause and cheering at something that was being said. One source on the Hill I spoke with was calling this, "The Guerilla Congress."

The atmosphere is positively electric in the House. It's a good thing for Democrats this isn't on C-Span because they'd look awful. Still, I get the sense Republicans in Congress aren't they're to put on a show. They've seized on an issue they have conviction in and the American people agree with. They're fed up with Pelosi and Reid's incompetence and bad faith. For the first time in years, House Republicans look like they're in it to win it. It's too early to say if Congressional Republicans can carry this momentum forward, but this is the stuff turning points are made of.

I agree.

Normally I would suggest that President Bush call Congress back into Special Session, but this is way better. Pelosi could order the GOP out of the Chamber (it is within her power to do so) but that would be an even bigger disaster. The GOP needs to make sure that every single word is recorded and distributed. If they have to work in shifts, they should just keep going. This one action could result in a massive turnaround in GOP fortunes for November.

Will The Democrats Jump the Shark on Energy?

Good Question. I like this graph:

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Spent Millions on Lobbying

Of course the breahtless reporting on the lobbying efforts of failed or failing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is getting pitched about.

The two companies were set up by federal law as "government-sponsored enterprises" that operate as private companies with profits and stockholders. Critics say they have used their clout and unusual status to create a sort of regulation-free zone around their businesses. When times are good, shareholders and executives of the companies are richly rewarded. When times are bad, as now, taxpayers could be left holding the bag.

"Congress created this problem by creating special rules at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ignored the problem for years," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a sharp critic of what he sees as a looming federal bailout.

Considering the near blindness of Congress to the problems of these institutes, I would say that they did their job, protecting their status despite the problems.

Fannie, Freddie Deflected Risk Warnings

Good story on the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac fiascos. Just getting caught upon weekend papers

Double Standards In Harlem

Charlie Rangel's "ethics problems" not sitting well with locals:

At Lenox Terrace, the luxury development in Harlem, management uses two sets of standards when it comes to rent-stabilized tenants, many residents say.

For the select group of prominent or politically connected apartment dwellers like Representative Charles B. Rangel, Lenox Terrace provides below-market accommodations and does little to scrutinize whether the arrangements comply with rent-stabilization laws.

For other residents, however, the owner has a different posture: aggressively enforcing even arcane provisions of the regulations, threatening costly court battles to drive tenants from their rent-stabilized homes, and using other tactics that some housing advocates describe as harassment.

Of course the double standard exists, I don't think people find its existence shocking. What I find more shocking is that Rangel claims he doesn't know about the double standard:

Mr. Rangel said last week that he never considered that he was getting a special deal from the Olnick Organization, even as he acknowledged that he had for years been allowed to lease four rent-stabilized units at Lenox Terrace at about half the market rate.

So which is worse, an aggressive landlord protecting what he considers to be his rights, or a national leader who seems incapable of seeing the disprate circumstances in his own community.

Of course it does explain Rangel's blind eye toward sound economic principles.