Fired up Missourian's blog

I know, I know...you read the title of this blog entry and think, "wow, there's a real dog bites man story." You're right, Senator Bond working for the special interests instead of for ordinary Americans is hardly a novel concept. Nevertheless, this example is particularly egregious -- even for 'ol Kit. Deirdre does a great job, and her article speaks for itself.

I'll just point out that this nonsense is even too much for Bond's Republican colleagues. Check out what Trent Lott (R-MS) had to say about Bond's efforts: the amendment "allows unscrupulous movers to continue to defraud consumers with little practical recourse for our constituents that have been mistreated."

I submitted a post this morning about the Administration's disappointing decision to withold information from the Senate concerning Judge Roberts' tenure in the Office of the Solicitor General.

Reuters is also reporting that the White House is preparing to bypass the Senate altogether and install John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador via the use of a recess appointment. 

A recess appointment would enable Bolton to serve in the U.N. post until the Senate reconvenes in January 2007.

The link between these two stories is the Administration's continuing insistence to thumb its nose at the United States Senate.  The Democratic leadership in the Senate has vowed to end the filibuster and permit the Senate to vote on Bolton as soon as the White House turns over a set of requested documents about Bolton's role in the State Department. 

The New York Times this morning reports on the Bush Administration's decision to release some of the records from John Roberts past, but not all of them. 

The Times article states: "The Bush administration plans to release documents from Judge John G. Roberts's tenure in the White House counsel's office in the mid-1980's and his earlier job working for the attorney general, but will not make public papers covering the four years he spent as principal deputy solicitor general starting in 1989."  (Emphasis added). 

The story goes on to explain that an unnamed Administration official said that the White House had reviewed some of the papers from Judge Roberts's work in the counsel's office and saw nothing in them that could create problems for his confirmation.  (Emphasis added).

Here's another excellent piece from the Center for American Progress' Daily Talking Points.  If you haven't already, I recommend signing up at www.americanprogress.com.

DeLay's Divorce from Morality

The Washington Post confronted Tom DeLay with this passage from Monday's Progress Report: "At every opportunity, [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance 'we all deserve.' Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion, threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo." In today's edition, DeLay's spokesman, Dan Allen, responded. Allen said, "The fact that they're tying a life issue to the budget process shows just how disconnected [they] are to reality." Allen's statement succinctly reveals exactly what is wrong with right-wing leaders like Tom DeLay. DeLay and his allies have divorced their conceptions of morality from their core responsibilities as legislators, like the budget. As a result, they are advancing amoral policies which have devastating effects on children, the sick and the indigent. (Share your thoughts on DeLay's response at ThinkProgress.org.)

David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, deserves kudos for his piece this morning about Republicans' dirty tricks using K Street.

His piece can be found here (free sign-up required): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp

The problem is even more pervasive.  Congressman Delay (R-TX), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and others have teamed up with uber-lobbyist Grover Norquist on what's called the "K Street Project." 

The project's purpose is ensure that corporations only hire Republicans into top lobbying jobs.  The lawmakers accomplish this goal by threatening to derail legislation that these companies care about if they hire Democrats (or offering rewards for hiring Republicans).  These lobbyists tend to be the ones that make PAC decisions for the companies, and thus Democrats end up getting frozen out come fundraising time. 

Just when I thought I couldn't get any more cynical about Republican hijinx, the Terri Schiavo situation comes along.  Now, I'm not even going to get into the substance of the issue, but Congressional Republicans' efforts to politicize the situation are simply appalling. 

Senate Republicans actually circulated a memo to their ranks calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue."  See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51402-2005Mar20.html.  I think someone ought to call on Senate Republicans to release the document so the American people can see what other bits of insight this memo has to offer.

I posted a piece yesterday afternoon about the Senate Republicans' failure to deal responsibility with the looming budget deficits.  The New York Times ran an editorial this morning on this very topic.  The text of which is below.

March 17, 2005

EDITORIAL

Sham Self-Discipline in the Capitol

Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and George Voinovich (R-OH) tried to offer some fiscal sanity to the Congressional budget process today, but were stymied by the Republican caucus. 

The two lawmakers offered and amendment to impose Pay As You Go (PAYGO) rules that would require all new spending and all new tax cuts to be fully paid for, or else require a 60-vote majority to be enacted. 

While all Democrats and a few forward-looking Republicans voted for the amendment, it was defeated by a vote of 50 to 50.

This vote proves once again that Congressional Republicans (including our own Senators Talent and Bond) care more about protecting the huge tax cuts for millionaires that they do about reigning in deficits. 

Here is a truly remarkable story from today's Washington Post.

The story has to do with the Bush Administration's practice of using taxpayer dollars to create fake news stories praising Administration policies and then sending those stories to TV stations that run them completely unedited. 

Despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office (the independent investigative arm of Congress) determined that the practice violates federal law (federal law prohibits taxpayer money from being used for "covert propaganda") the Administration is uncowed.   

It's not enough for Senator Talent to simply cater to the credit card industry by helping to enact new bankrtupcy laws that squeeze lower-income people.  He isn't stopping there.  He's also working to ensure that those same laws protect wealthy debtors by helping them shelter their assets from creditors.

Senator Talent has done this in two ways.  First, he voted against Senate Amendment 68 (offered by Senator Kennedy) which would have set a maximum amount for a homestead exemption under state law.  Under current law, wealthy debtors can take advantage of laws in a few select states that allow them to buy lavish homes soon before filing for bankrtuptcy and then protect that home from the reach of creditors.  Senator Kennedy's amendment sought to put a stop to this practice by capping the value of a home that a debtor can keep out of the reach of the Bankrtuptcy Court.  Senator Talent apparently believes that folks like Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski should continue to be able to frustrate their creditors' efforts to collect by shielding assets in their mansions.

The bankrtupcy reform bill is on the glidepath towards passage, but this bill is an unwise giveaway to big credit card companies that will hurt low income Americans. 

The credit card industry bemoans the rise in the number of personal bankrtupcy filings, but their own lending practices have contributed greatly to the problem.  Now, the giant credit card companies want to have it both ways.  They want to continue to extend credit to those that may not have the ability to repay, and they want to be able to squeeze those same people on the back end by making it more expensive and more difficult for them to seek protection in bankrtuptcy.