Congress: No time for Impeachment. "We're busy, busy, busy!"

From today's Washington Post, a brief story on the introduction of Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested yesterday that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time.

Because all day and night, all Congress does is really important stuff. Stuff that is much more important than holding someone accountable for death and destruction done under false and misleading evidence. Congress does this:

S.159 : A bill to redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont as the "Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area".

H.R.49 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the "Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building".

H.R.2309 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3916 Milgen Road in Columbus, Georgia, as the "Frank G. Lumpkin, Jr. Post Office Building".

H.R.1808 : To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia, as the "Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center".

H.R.3315 : To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall.

H.R.2408 : To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Green Bay, Wisconsin, as the "Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic".

See, it turns out there are just loads and loads of Federal buildings out there that ... gasp! don't have names!

So the House of Representatives can't just drop what they're doing to and start dealing with something that starts out like this:

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of
Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

They're too busy.

720 millions dollars for one day of the Iraq War

There is nothing I can add to this. Please watch:

Fuel efficiency standards: It's a gas, gas gas!

The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday passed an energy bill that, among other things, would raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles for the first time since 1975. You remember 1975, don't you? No? Well, see if you remember what we were driving in 1975:


That's right, it's the 1975 Chrysler Cordoba! I also remember riding around in my friend's 1975 Chevy Nova (although hers was a 2-door model):

So yes, I do believe it might be time to update our fuel efficiency standards. In 1975, the average price of gas was about 59 cents a gallon, which when adjusted for inflation is about $1.70 per gallon. Add to the increased cost of gas the amount of knowledge we now have about climate change and greenhouse gases, and it really is almost unfathomable that auto fuel standards have not changed in 30 years.

It really says a lot about the power of the auto and oil industries.

Not surprisingly, Republican senators have already announced they will filibuster the bill, and President Bush has indicated he will veto it if it makes it to his desk. The two main features of the bill (which are the reasons they are against it): (1) it repeals billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks (yes, the oil companies that are making record profits continue to receive massive tax breaks), and (2) it calls for an increase in auto fuel efficiency standards to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Please join me in contacting your Senators to tell them you support the energy bill. It's you and me against the oil and auto companies, pal. Tell them it's not 1975 any more ....

The Matthew Shepard Act is in trouble - Please take action now!

For the first time, hate crimes prevention legislation has passed both chambers of Congress. This is the closest we've ever been to securing federal assistance for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity.

Please join me in urging your senators and representative to ensure that the Matthew Shepard Act (S 1105) is included in the conference report of the Department of Defense Authorization Act (HR 1585) and sent to the President's desk for signature.

This legislation would eliminate the barrier currently preventing federal involvement in protecting victims of bias-motivated crimes on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. Current law authorizes federal involvement only in cases involving bias related to race, color, religion or national origin.

Bush handed first veto defeat. Congress takes baby steps, baby steps.

Subhead: Congress grows a spine!

Well, it's a start. For the first time in his seven years as president, Congress today handed President Bush a defeat, overriding his veto of a $23 billion water resources bill. No, it's no Iraq war funding, but it's a start.

From AP:

[It] marked a milestone for a president who spent his first six years with a much friendlier Congress controlled by his Republican Party. Now he confronts a more hostile, Democratic-controlled legislature, and Thursday's vote showed that even many Republicans will defy him on spending matters dear to their political careers.

The bill funds hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration, that are important to local communities and their representatives. It also includes money for the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast and for Florida Everglades restoration efforts.

5 more soldiers dead. What will you do?

I don't even know where to begin this post. How can we possibly still be debating the Iraq war? Every poll of US citizens shows an overwhelming majority of us want our soldiers out of there now. Yet here's the disconnect: where are the massive protests of the 1960's against the Vietnam War? Where is the call for action from those who are polled?

The American people seem to me to feel defeated in our own home. The saber-rattling and fear-mongering of the Bush Administration has gotten to us. Sure, we could call our senators, but what's the point ...

People! The point is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This has been the deadliest year yet in Iraq, as we are soon approaching 4,000 dead. Most are killed not in battles against the enemy. Most are killed by roadside explosive devices set by local insurgents.

Call. Now.

U.S. Senate contact information
House of Representatives contact information

Why does a salad cost more than a Big Mac?

Answer: The billions of dollars of federal subsidies included in the Farm Bill. That's right, the ingredients of that special sauce are making somebody pretty wealthy. From the Physicians Committee for responsible Medicine (PCRM):

The Farm Bill, a massive piece of federal legislation making its way through Congress, governs what children are fed in schools and what food assistance programs can distribute to recipients. The bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies, much of which goes to huge agribusinesses producing feed crops, such as corn and soy, which are then fed to animals. By funding these crops, the government supports the production of meat and dairy products—the same products that contribute to our growing rates of obesity and chronic disease. Fruit and vegetable farmers, on the other hand, receive less than 1 percent of government subsidies.

The government also purchases surplus foods like cheese, milk, pork, and beef for distribution to food assistance programs—including school lunches. The government is not required to purchase nutritious foods.

Read more here.

The irony, of course, is that the original Farm Bill was created to aid small, family farmers the help they needed to compete. But most the assistance in the 2007 Farm Bill will go to a very small percentage of American farmers. Efforts to reform the Farm Bill were defeated, and yesterday the bill was approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

In a statement from OXFAM:

While Oxfam welcomes critical new investments in nutrition, conservation and renewable energy, the Farm Bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee today failed to reform our unfair and broken system of commodity subsidies that undercut farmers and rural economies at home and abroad. Unless the rest of the Senate intervenes, our taxpayer dollars will continue to encourage excess production, reduce world market prices and undermine the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.

Three thousand eight hundred

That's how many U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq. That's the ugly number I come back to today on my first post since last week.

I fear that this number has indeed become merely a statistic to many Americans. It has become too large to really understand. That is, of course, unless you are friends or family of one of those three thousand eight hundred people. Because we must never forget that these are fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, devoted friends. These are real people. Who are now gone. Forever.

Please, contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them how you feel. Clearly the leadership is not there in either party to bring this debacle to an end. It's up to we the people.

Republican Senators once again refuse to support the troops

I get so frustrated with the way the phrases “support the troops” and “pro-troop” get thrown around. See how I can use it in my title to disparage the Republicans who voted against Sen. Jim Webb's amendment yesterday?

Read the facts for yourself and see who you think has the troops' best interest at heart, and who is playing politics with this issue. From The Raw Story:

CNN asked Webb about Senator John McCain's statement that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to manage troop rotations and that the Webb amendment “would create chaos.” Webb replied, “Senator McCain — who I've known for 30 years — needs to read the Constitution. There's a provision in Article 1 Section 8 which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the governance of ground and naval forces.”

Now take a look at how CNN frames this story with their own headline:

Democrats' attempt to limit Iraq duty fails

A measure that would have forced the Pentagon to give troops sent to Iraq stateside leave equal to their time in the battle zone was defeated Wednesday evening in the Senate after failing to draw enough Republican votes.

Oh, so the story here is about how the Democrats failed, not about how the Republicans voted against something that would help our troops.

Groundbreaking news: Equity for organic farmers

Before going on the August break, the House of Representatives approved the 2007 Farm Bill, which includes more than $300 million for organic agriculture.

Also included in the bill is a major revision to the crop insurance rates required of organic farmers, which has been higher than for non-organics. From a press release put out by the Organic Trade Association:

In addition to the funding, the House of Representatives also directed the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to provide equitable crop insurance to organic producers. Currently, organic producers pay a 5% surcharge, and if losses occur, they are paid at the conventional, not the organic, price.

Non-organic farmers do not have to pay the 5% surcharge. Why do the organics? Do they have different droughts? Floods? They deal with pests, just without chemicals.

This would be a big help in bringing down the price of organic foods. Please contact your US Senators' office and request that they support this provision of the 2007 Farm bill.

10 Good Reasons to go Organic:

1. Organic products meet stringent standards
2. Organic food tastes great!
3. Organic production reduces health risks
4. Organic farms respect our water resources
5. Organic farmers build healthy soil
6. Organic farmers work in harmony with nature
7. Organic producers are leaders in innovative research
8. Organic producers strive to preserve diversity
9. Organic farming helps keep rural communities healthy
10. Organic abundance – Foods and non-foods alike!

Congressional Web “Masters”?Um, not so much

Do you get frustrated when looking up information from congressional websites? You're not alone. A news study shows that there is no cooperation among the 535 House and Senate web managers, and that basically, they aren't interested in whether you find their sites helpful or useful. From Government Computer News:

“Strikingly, we find that there are relatively few efforts by offices to evaluate what constituents want or like on their Web sites,” state the researchers in their paper, “Members of Congress Websites: Diffusion at the Tip of the Iceberg.”

David Lazer, the lead researcher for the project and a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, presented the results at the annual conference of the Digital Government Society of North America recently in Philadelphia.

The research team interviewed 100 individuals who held primary responsibility for maintaining official Web sites for individual members of the House or Senate. They found “strikingly little effort” on the part of managers to find out what features or information constituents wanted and what elements of the Web site worked or did not work.

Only one office sent out a survey form asking what features users would like to see. Other offices relied on what they called informal feedback such as e-mail. Lazer said the lack of a formal feedback mechanism could be problematic if it leads citizens to view the sites as of little help and could even cause them to become more disengaged from the political process.

House defies veto threat from President Bush, adds 6 million children to insurance program

From today's Washington Post:

House Democrats pushed through legislation Wednesday to add 6 million lower-income children to a popular health insurance program while making deep cuts in federal payments to Medicare HMOs, defying a veto threat from President Bush.

On a 225-204, mostly party-line vote, the House passed the legislation, which would add $50 billion to the decade-old State Children's Health Insurance Program and roll back years of Republican-driven changes to Medicare.

How can they think they deserve a raise?

From the McClatchy Newspapers:

After raising the minimum wage by 70 cents an hour this week, many members of Congress are ready to give themselves a pay increase of roughly $4,400 per year.

That would take their annual salaries to nearly $170,000.
....

Under current plans, members of Congress will receive an automatic pay raise, estimated at 2.5 percent, in January. In a show of bipartisan consensus, the House voted 244-181 last month to kill a proposal that would have forced a straight up-or-down vote on the pay increase.

Congress approved the law making its pay raises automatic in 1989, giving legislators an easy way to avoid tough votes that could hurt them during re-election campaigns. Since then, congressional salaries have nearly doubled, from $89,500 to $165,200 a year.

President Bush is paid $400,000 a year. His salary isn't affected by changes in congressional pay.

House of Reps. to Bush: “Time to Pack Up”

The US House of Representatives has scheduled more votes on Iraq policy next week just before members of Congress go home for the August recess. The Iraq Study Group Implementation Act (H.R. 2574) has strong bipartisan support. This legislation would set the U.S. on a new course in Iraq by making serious regional diplomacy, negotiations with Iraq's warring factions, and U.S. troop withdrawals unavoidable.

Read more on why this bipartisan legislation is the next practical step that Congress should take to change U.S. policy on Iraq.

Urge your representative to cosponsor the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Implementation Act (H.R. 2574) and to vote to attach this legislation as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill when it comes to the floor of the House in early August.

Time to get off our collective butt

I returned today with the news that Congress and the White House are in a standoff on the 2008 appropriations bills. Although this may sound like a boring post to start off my return from vacation, it's actually got me pretty fired up.

You see, the war in Iraq is costing us about $12 billion per month. Yes, per month. And while we continue to pour money down this bottomless hole of a mess, our own citizens here at home suffer and our future as a world leader looks grim. In the congressional spending bills are provisions for home heating assistance for low-income Americans. President Bush says it's too much. He also says Congress is planning to give too much money to Amtrak, and he wants that cut way down, too. Oh yeah, and he also wants to cut down spending on Head Start, community centers, and health research.

What kind of nation have we become when we spend billions of dollars each month to occupy and fight in a country where we are not welcome, while neglecting our own citizens? According to Prime Minister Al-Maliki, Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want." A recent poll of Iraqi citizens found that 47% approve of attacks on US forces. And 80% think that we plan to have a permanent presence in their country (such as military bases) even after the troops are withdrawn.

We are a prosperous nation, but we are like a child when it comes to spending. The Bush-Cheney crowd saw the conflict in Iraq as a child sees a shiny new bicycle. No sense of priorities or empathy for others, just grabbing at what they want at that moment. Childish and irresponsible.

It's time for all of us as American citizens to speak out about where our tax money goes. President Bush has already announced that he will veto any bills that he feels put too much money on domestic spending. Yet he's given a blank check to the mess in Iraq. It's our money that he has been entrusted with, and it's time we made it loud an clear that we want a change. Contact your Senators and Representatives and demand that they stand up to Bush's threats. It's your money he's playing with. All $12 billion a month of it.

GOP leaders say D'oh!

Remember this: the Republicans are the ones who are voting against the procedure called “cloture” on the Iraq spending amendments.

From the American Heritage Dictionary: “Cloture: A parliamentary procedure by which debate is ended and an immediate vote is taken on the matter under discussion. Also called closure.”

According to Senate rules, a vote for cloture must result in not just a simple majority of votes, but 60 votes. That is what the Democrats are trying to get done. The Republicans are the ones voting against ending the debate! So when the blowhards of Mitch McConnell and John McCain get in front of the press and announce that the Democrats are wasting time, someone needs to ask them why they voted against ending the debate and having a simple vote on the Senate floor?

If you're still confused, the best explanation I've seen yet for what the heck is going on in the Senate right now is at Firedoglake:

This is a pretty in-your-face procedural move from Reid — who gave the GOP leadership an opportunity to vote on all of the amendments up or down and, when they refused, Reid left the Grand Obstruction Party to stew in its own obstructionist failure. He’s left no cover for them or for the Bush Administration for continued stall and obstruct maneuvers on this — instead, the onus is on them to explain why their actions are focused on protecting the President’s flank, rather than on standing up for American soldiers and against more failed policies.

Why the filibuster was necessary: The Democrats grow a spine!

GOP talking points have labeled last night's filibuster on the Iraq defense spending amendments "Political Theater." Well, then, they shouldn't have threatened to have it come to this.

You see, much of what goes on in the halls of Congress, well, it goes on in the halls of Congress — not on the House or Senate floor. And the Republicans in the Senate tried to make legal maneuvers in the committee rooms and hallways to keep the many proposed amendments (almost all aimed at requiring troop withdrawal) from ever making it to the floor for an honest vote. It is to the Democratic leadership's credit that they finally stood up and said “No.”

A candlelight vigil was held outside Congress last night as well, attended by 57 Representatives and 25 Senators. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) said this to those assembled:

So I have one question for all of you: Are we united in speaking out against the Republican obstructionism on the floor of the United States Senate? If we are united let us respectfully proceed and listen to our Senators and bear witness to the obstructionism of the Republicans, and bear witness to their just saying ‘No’ to having a vote on Levin-Reed.

If we are unified then we will be successful and we will soon have the vote on Levin-Reed to end the war and bring the troops home.

If this was theater, it was public theater. And that is how our American democratic system is supposed to work. It remains to be seen how the voting will go on these amendments, but one thing is for sure: the Democrats in Congress have finally stood up to the Bush-Cheney war machine and said, “No more.”

Sen. Webb the only one in Congress who is actually supporting the troops

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) took on Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) on Meet the Press on Sunday, and tore him a new one. (And why is it called Meet "the Press" when the only reporter on the show is Tim Russert? That's a question for another day, I suppose ....)

Webb, as you'll recall, sponsored an amendment to the defense spending bill currently being debated in the Senate. Webb's amendment called for US troops to get as much time off as they spend on deployment. Before Iraq, troops who were gone for a year got 2 years back. That long-standing policy has been thrown out the window in the Bush-Cheney “war on terror.” The amendment supporting the troops never it made it to the floor for a vote. That is pathetic, Senators.

According to Webb:

“The traditional operational policy has been if you’re gone for a year, you get two years back. We’re now in a situation where the soldiers and the Marines are having less than a 1 to 1 ratio.” Webb said. Turning to Graham, he added, “And somebody needs to speak up for them rather than defending what this President has been doing.”

The view from the other side of the pond

From an editorial in the UK Guardian Unlimited:

Support for the surge is draining in Washington by the week. Republican members of Congress who once stood by Mr Bush are defecting. The Senate is in the middle of debating a series of motions aimed at constraining the president's hand as commander in chief. They may come to nothing, as not even the Democrat majority want to go for the jugular by voting to cut funding for Mr Bush's extra troops.

The defections and the motions all serve to isolate a president already in retreat. Mr Bush will do well to make it through on his current course to September, when General Petraeus is due to report back to Congress. Few in Iraq believe the situation can be turned around by then. The president's denial about the reality of Iraq stops any progress being made. It also stops policy makers developing a cogent plan for withdrawal. The president will sit out the unfolding disaster until his term of office expires. Insurgents and militias will sit out the unfolding disaster until the Americans leave. The one benchmark certain to be kept is that Iraqi civilians too poor to flee the country will keep on dying.

Your assignment for today

I need your help today.

Yesterday, I listened to Sen. Lieberman as he argued against the amendments to the Defense Authorization bill. (It is being debated in the Senate all week, and much of it is being carried on C-Span radio.)

Lieberman said something that really made me stop and think (aside from his apparent obsession with Iran, which was also quite startling). To me, it sounded like: “We don't have to listen to what the people of America are saying. We in Congress know what's right.”

Here's the exact quote:

Mr. President, I conclude with these words: Our responsibilities in this chamber ultimately do not allow us to be guided by our frustrations, or even by public opinion polls, when we respectfully believe that those public opinion polls do not reflect what is best for our nation.

We were elected to lead. We were elected to see beyond the next election, to do what is best for the next generation of Americans. We were elected to defend our beloved country, its security, and its values - all that is on the line in Iraq today.

So my question to each of you is this:

Did we elect them to lead us where they think best, or did we elect them to enact the public will?

I hope you will take a moment to ponder and then share your thoughts in the comments. I'm honestly conflicted on this notion and could use your insight. Remember, you can always post anonymously if you wish.