Keep Your Eyes On The Ball...

[Guest oldfella]

We seem to have slow learners in Congress!

_____________________________________________

Note to Boehner: End 'Business as Usual'

Thursday, 11 Nov 2010 By Betsy McCaughey

Only a week after the historic trouncing of Democrats in the House of Representatives, GOP House leaders seem to be forgetting why they won.

Already, GOP chiefs are divvying up key committee chairmanships with the same people who ran things last time 'round jockeying to get their power back.

If that happens, voters who supported Republican candidates to rein in the cost of government will be defeated after the election by the seniority system and cronyism.

Tea party candidates promised voters they'd end profligate spending, earmarks, and political deal-making. The GOP lost control of the House four years ago in no small part because voters had come to doubt the party's commitment to controlling spending.

This year, voters were outraged enough at Democrats' overspending to give Republicans another chance. But the party chiefs may blow it.

One of the most powerful jobs in the House is to chair the Appropriations Committee, which divides up billions of dollars of federal funds. It's the favor factory. Appropriators rise to top leadership positions in both parties because they decide whose pet projects get funded.

By definition, reining in federal spending means reining in the appropriators' power.

The leading contender for Appropriations Committee chair is Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, a prototype of the lifelong politician. He's been in Congress 32 years. He rose to the chairmanship in 2005 and stayed on as ranking minority member when the GOP lost the House in 2006. Worse still, he's a spendaholic.

Under GOP House rules, Lewis shouldn't be able to retain his party's top slot on the committee for more than three terms, but Lewis is expected to ask for a waiver - and likely will get it.

Such decisions are made by the Republican House Steering Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Boehner, will become speaker of the House in January.

Boehner will call most of the shots and gets five votes on the Steering Committee. Generally chairmanships are meted out based on seniority and popularity: who raises the most money for GOP candidates, toes the party line, etc. Ugh!

Even so, the Steering Committee is supposed to abide by term limits. After their big takeover of the House in 1994, Republicans imposed term limits on chairmanships, making good on a key promise of their Contract With America and ensuring that the message the voters had sent in the 1994 election upheaval would have an impact on what actually occurred in the House.

Now, as then, opening House leadership positions to newer members is vital to changing Congress' pro-spending ways. Term limits are meaningless, if they can be overridden by cronies.

The prospect of getting a waiver is the ultimate incentive for a chairman to dispense costly favors, in utter disregard of taxpayers or the federal debt. That's just what Rep. Jerry Lewis has done again and again, consistently voting against limits on spending.

GOP newcomers in Congress should jump all over this. To rein in spending, they should demand that the Appropriations Committee be handed over to a serious cost-cutter.

The American Conservative Union is gathering signatures from tea party members and other political activists on a letter putting Boehner on notice that handing the chairmanship to Lewis will have deadly consequences for the Republican Party.

The letter warns: "If you now give a waiver to allow the old Chairman to continue, it would be a signal to the millions of independents and members of the tea party movement who took a chance on Republicans in the election, that you have ignored their message of change, and that instead it will be business as usual in Washington."

At last February's Conservative Political Action Conference, Boehner was asked how he'd handle the tea partiers if he became speaker. He promised to listen to them and open the House to their influence: "I'll pledge to you right here, right now, that we're going to run the House differently."

We'll soon see if he's ready to keep that promise.

Betsy McCaughey is a former New York lieutenant governor and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."

[Glenn]

I think the slow learners are the voters. While we did send a few new people to congress, not nearly enough to change much The republicans are not really much different than the democrats at the end of the day. They are all about money and power. The only chance to get any real change is term limits. Either by law or by just voting them out. And we all know that ain't going to happen.

Glenn

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The slow learners are the ones not paying attention to what is going on and not speaking up. Term

limits might help but getting more new blood in Congress to put up a leadership challenge is what is

needed, right now. 2012 is just as important as this election cycle. The battle isn't over.

If you say the change didn't do anything after this one election, you're missing something. Republicans

couldn't do much better than what they did during this election cycle and they already have their

foot in the door for 2012. Getting a few more Democrats out and replacing several Republicans in

2012 will do a lot to right the ship. Alexander and Corker are both considered as targets by the

Tea Party movement. If they don't wake up they might lose their "Country Club" status.

[DaveTN]

Term Limits are a cop out. They are like zero tolerance laws; they are for people that can’t do their jobs.

If a person stays in office it is because the people want them there; we should not have the right to violate that.

What do term limits give us? 50% of the time we have a President that doesn’t have to worry about what the people want because they can’t be reelected.

Term limits will not help us. Electing people that we think can do the job will. And even then they can’t work miracles by themselves; it takes the American people doing their part.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well said, DaveTN. It's people getting

engaged in the process that makes

the difference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldogy]

Just my opinion, but until we, the people demand single item legislation we can expect nothing to change...........We are the slow learners for allowing any unrelated attachments to a bill.

[Worriedman]

Jimmy Naifeh is the best example I can think of relative to the necessity of term limits. The "People" want whoever can steal the most money from other regions as a politician in office, to bring back the pork to their constituents, simple as that. Allowing a King-making by virtue of longevity gives the most crooked of our politicians the ability to gain power over others who have not been in office as long, and is wrong. They currently get to vote themselves all manner of perks that we, the unwashed get to pay for, and the further this dynasty building goes on, the more removed from care of the Republic the careerer politicians get.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Although I agree that Jimmy Naifeh is a good example, what about free elections? Who are we to

tell someone else who they can or cannot elect to office from their district? The best term limiter

is the voter who uses his brain to decide, not a law that restricts his ability to elect a person he

considers his best choice. That may be telling about a particular district, and maybe the district is

due for changing, but restricting a person's choice isn't the answer. One thing about term limits is

that there will always be a seat changing, but will it necessarily be good? It would get rid of the

career aspect, though, but there are occasionally some politicians you might want to keep in a

position because they may not be corrupt. I know, wishful thinking to some, but was Fred a bad

US Senator? If more people paid more attention could Ron Ramsey have been our next gov?

Sure. We tend to take the pathway to least resistance in all forms, including politics. Maybe Fred

isn't a good example, but I would have liked him to stay there for a longer time.

The structure and rules of the state legislature may be due some changes like making certain

bills stand a "constitutionality test", like some have proposed about the federal government.

The perks should be wiped out and those allowing them should be expelled. It's supposed to

be a civic duty, not a country club.

When people decide to get rid of their legislators and replace, and get rid of the "but not mine"

mentality, things will change. The Tea Party proved it. Other movements in the past have proved it,

also. Getting the right candidate is the answer, not limiting our choices.

Some things just take time.

[Worriedman]

6.8 and Dave, I heartily disagree. Each local will re-elect a politician, if they are bringing home the bacon, regardless of their fitness for governance, it all has to do with money. Cases in point, Barney Franks and Richard Daley. Daley has had his foot on the neck of 2nd Amendment Rights in his local forever. Ted Kennedy would have been re-elected again, if he had lived this long.

Term limits would preclude the favors and scams that occur now, building the machines that perpetuate control. And, if the ability to live as a King forever were restricted, then we would not have the constant flow of money going out in medical benefits and retirement that our Legislators enjoy now. Two terms and back to your "real" job, and we would all be better off. It should be a "service" not a life style or careerer.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It should be a service and a civic duty only. I agree with that, but when we take away

the rights of one person to choose his or her representative freely should we play with

that freedom as opposed to another freedom? Like gun control?

I'm just throwing wood on the fire. Term limits may be, in the end, the only way to

deal with the cronyism and corruption, but I still think the best way to deal with this

is a more informed and involved voter. If that voter decides to impose term limits by

default, he gave up a little more of his own rights, didn't he? Either way, something

will give. Both ways corrupt to one degree or another.

Change isn't necessarily good.

[DaveTN]

6.8 and Dave, I heartily disagree. Each local will re-elect a politician, if they are bringing home the bacon, regardless of their fitness for governance, it all has to do with money. Cases in point, Barney Franks and Richard Daley. Daley has had his foot on the neck of 2nd Amendment Rights in his local forever. Ted Kennedy would have been re-elected again, if he had lived this long.

Term limits would preclude the favors and scams that occur now, building the machines that perpetuate control. And, if the ability to live as a King forever were restricted, then we would not have the constant flow of money going out in medical benefits and retirement that our Legislators enjoy now. Two terms and back to your "real" job, and we would all be better off. It should be a "service" not a life style or careerer.

I don’t care enough about term limits to get in a big argument about them; right or wrong I would say they are here to stay. I just think they are wrong.

You use the examples of leaders that are anti-gun and that is why you want them out.

Naifeh wasn’t a problem because of term limits; he is still in office. He was a problem because of Tennessee legislative rules that allowed to play games with bills. That has not been fixed.

I can assure you that Daley is in office because that is who the people of Chicago want there. Those people want guns banned.

Absolutely it’s about money. If a legislator brings 10,000 jobs to Murfreesboro; he gets my vote. I don’t care what party he is and I don’t care if he has a gun/slash tattooed on his forehead.

[Worriedman]

Naifeh is a tax and spend liberal, who just happens to be anti-gun, because somewhere a lobbyist for the NRA did not plunk down enough cash or goods to keep his patronage.

I don't go to Chicago, ever, so they can have Daley. If those folks want to be oppressed and denied their Rights by one person who rules their lives, that is fine with me.

State office wise in TN only the Governor is saddled with term limits, and more is the pity.

Long term office holding lends itself to abuse of the system. It was intended for legislators to serve a little time and return to their previous lives, instead of amassing power by virtue survival, the longer they stay the more powerful they get due to seniority, till they fall witless in dotage from their perches. Just imagine 30 years of Al Frankin!