Buffet Buzz

By Keith R. Schmitz

Warren Buffet's op-ed in this morning's New York Times -- Stop Coddling the Super Rich -- has been burning up twitter since it appeared last night on-line, being tweeted 37,000 times. This makes both the title and its author trending topics all day long.

Looks like the Tea Party and anyone else who supports sacrifices on the altar of trickle down economics have run out of arguments, except of course this guy who has no idea about what he's talking about.

Paul Ryan calls Paul Ryan's power grab "unprecedented," "breathtaking"

by folkbum

I have written previously about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Galt's Gulch), and the trouble the GOP is likely to have putting him, a True Believer, in charge of writing its budgets. As much as Republicans like to campaign on things like deficit reduction, they have never been much for rubber meeting the road in that regard.

However, they are about to do something quite amazing: When they vote on House rules tomorrow, they will give Ryan, one representative in a House of 435 voting members, singular authority:

Another aspect of the proposed rules also seems at odds with promises made in the campaign about what a new Republican majority would do. There was much talk about increasing the transparency of the legislative process, and some proposals in the new rules package would do that. But the new rules also include a stunning and unprecedented provision authorizing the Chairman of the Budget Committee elected in the 112th Congress, expected to be Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to submit for publication in the Congressional Record total spending and revenue limits and allocations of spending to committees — and the rules provide that this submission “shall be considered as the completion of congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011.” In other words, in the absence of a budget resolution agreement between the House and the Senate, it appears that Rep. Ryan (presumably with the concurrence of the Republican leadership) will be allowed to set enforceable spending and revenue limits, with any departure from those limits subject to being ruled “out of order.”

This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend.

In other words, Ryan can pick a number without telling anyone, at random if he wants, and that number is the spending limit for the year. Period. No debate, no vote, no transparency to the process.

How are Republicans able to make such a thing possible? They are going to use a process called "deem and pass."

As soon as those rules are adopted on Wednesday, Ryan's spending levels will be considered--or "deemed"--adopted by the full House as if they'd passed a budget with a floor vote. The legislative language in the rules package holds that Ryan's spending limits, "shall be considered as contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011 and the submission thereof into the Congressional Record shall be considered as the completion of congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011."

If this sounds familiar, it's because "deem and pass" is a technique long in use in the House*. Used to happen all the time--well, a lot, anyway. Until 2010, when House Democrats attempted to "deem and pass" the Senate version of the Affordable Care Act, the health care bill, and revisions to that bill in a single vote. This is something that should not have been a controversy, but House Republicans jumped all over it. They and the punditerati whose job it is to parrot GOP talking points called this act every possible evil name in the book. (I refuse to link or read the local righty bloggers anymore, but this Wisopinion blogsearch result will let you see what Wisconsin's geniuses were saying about the idea then. As I said, I don't read them anymore, but I am guessing they're pretty quiet about it today.)

Of particular interest, FOX News interviewed, surprise, Rep. Paul Ryan about deem and pass at the time: "Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called the procedure 'unprecedented' and 'breathtaking.' "

Now, of course, he is willingly going along with the GOP leadership, because this "unprecedented" and "breathtaking" action will "deem and pass" a huge chunk of power directly into his little hands. Classy!

* To be clear: I personally have no issue with deem and pass as a process--it is traditional and right up until last spring, non-controversial. It's a time-saver, basically. However, I do have a problem with two things: One, the massive power-grab itself, concentrating authority without debate or transparency into the hands of a single representative, and Two, the hypocrisy of the GOP in general, and Paul Ryan in particular.

Related, 1: When Ryan sets his budget number, he's planning to just pretend that a repeal of the Affordable Care Act won't increase the deficit. No sense living in reality when you have your hand on the biggest lever of power, eh?

Related, 2: Remember in 2007, when incoming Democratic House Oversight Committee Chair Henry Waxman wrote a letter to all of the labor unions and environmental groups in the country to ask them what investigations of the White House he should be pursuing? I don't either.

Hearing and Vision Problems

By Keith R. Schmitz

Put the GOP in control of Congress and what will America get for their troubles? Hearings.

We are in the depths of the worst economy in over 70 years and the out party sees the solution as witch trials, but that's what you get from a group that is as comfortable with government as they would be in a steel wool sweater. For good measure throw in their chronic problem with acting out and rational perspective.

As usual, the Republicans can't wait to overplay their hand. Meanwhile, if the Democrats could get out of their fetal ball and come up with some visionary and creative ideas, November could be different. However...

We are so screwed.

And This Is Bad Because?

By Keith R. Schmitz

Actually had the pleasure of introducing Paul Ryan at one of these Economic Trends breakfast, and had a very nice conversation with him during the breakfast.

In this video Cong. Ryan accuses Democrats in Congress of trying to create a "socialist welfare state."

As if.

Maybe They Were Punked -- Again

By Keith R. Schmitz

Looking for light for what for them are the darkest of places, the right has been chaffing over the notion that their Stalinization program in the GOP led to a loss of the 23rd district for the Republican Party for the first time in over 100 years, based on what they call the mainstream media "meme." The claim is that a Democrat Michael McNulty held that seat in the late 1990's and into this century, so the MSM is in their minds, wrong as usual.

Turns out their breathless protests were based on something that appeared in all places, Wikipedia. Whenever they can, they will pick up a fumble and run with it, even when it is whistled dead because it leaves a trail of misinformation on the nets that their minions will pick up and repeat for months to come.

If they would have double checked their "facts" they would have found in places such as the contemporary report in the New York Times and in the Library of Congress that McNulty served in the 21st. The memorable Sherwood Boehlert won the 23rd in 1998.

By the way, Wikipedia moved McNulty's seat to the 21st.

Please play again. Thanks you.

The Heckle: Give me more, please

by folkbum

There are a number of things I like about the UK: Earl Grey tea, Shakespeare, the Beatles, Harry Potter, Oscar Wilde's one-liners, Waking Ned Devine, the word fardel, the original BBC "The Office," and so on (notably, not the National Health Service, thankyouverymuch).

And, in addition to those, there's Parliament. Not so much that I like the system, especially versus Congress, which as we all know is already the single worst governing body in history, save for all others ever conceived. Rather, I like the fact that on a regular basis, the Prime Minister stands up at the front of the Parliament there and has to defend himself and his government's policies.

Yes, the questioners are often boorish and offensive, and yes the whole thing is so base up against the "My Esteemed Colleaguing" and "I Cede The Balance Of My Timing" and such that makes "Booknotes" seem so very "Girls Gone Wild" compared to the rest of CSPAN's programming. But you know what? It works for me on a number of levels.

For one, an idiot like Joe Wilson (not to be confused with Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was much more circumspect in calling the president, then WBush, a liar, and did it in print, and turned out to be correct--all things you can't say about the volatile South Carolinian who shares the name) would have a time and place for his jackassery, and could let it out in a more cathartic and appropriate manner than in the middle of a joint session's rarified air. For two, since the filter would be gone, we'd get to see a lot more of the jackassery, revealing heretofore closeted jackasses whose exposure would surely be good for the nation.

For three, it would work to sharpen the arguments used by the president (or an appropriate representative; to capitalize on the current controversy, perhaps a new "czar" of some flavor) to defend his policies. When the jackassery happens--a "You lie!" shouted from the far reaches of the minority's back bench--the president or his czar can call that out: "Prove it, meathead" or some such gauntlet. "Pick up that bill and show me the death panels, and try not to look like too big an idiot."

I teach high school, you know, and some days my classes are like that. Not that I get accused of lying, often, but these kids come with their own agendas and they will press and press until I can convince them to listen quietly long enough that they finally get that, no, really, John Donne is totally talking about sex in that poem. (Note: Add John Donne to the list above.) It took me a couple of years to get the hang of managing that. Imagine Barack Obama, gloves off, in 2011 after two years of practice, going manno-ah-manno against some Republican goon on, say, student loan reform (not sexy, but really needed, look it up). Obama's already a pretty sharp debater (just ask Secretary Clinton), and if he got to do it every day up against the leading lights (sliding scale, please) of the Republican Party, he would almost certainly be able to wither nonsense objections faster than those flowers that only bloom for a few hours and then die, and that's pretty fast.

For four (fore!), stealing Parliament's thang would also, I think, do wonders to expose the minority leadership, i.e., his Orangeship, John Boehner (R-not very far from where I grew up), if they can't lead straight. Boehner in recent days has both shown a rightblogger-level of ignorance about the health care bills up in his chamber and "dodged" an offer for him to explain the Republican alternative to those bills. Parliament's where party leaders are made or broken, and bumbling incompetence at Boehner's current level would have long ago caused rebellion in the ranks, and maybe the good people of suburban Hamilton County, OH, would have had the sense to pasture him by now.

And for five, finally, this would certainly make the general public take up an interest in government again, at least until the novelty wore off. I'm too lazy to google now (and, frankly, still disturbed by the fact that the google box and buttons are somehow bigger today--egad) to check, but I'm sure that the number of people who can name the leaders of Congress is probably somewhere south of Congress's actual approval ratings, and that says a lot. Not even the leaders, but, you know, people's own representatives, I bet they don't know. Except, now, I bet everyone in South Carolina knows who Joe Wilson is--infamy, to paraphrase Lucky Day, being more than fame.

Is the dogfighting of Parliament perhaps diametrically opposed to the august nature the wig-wielding Founders envisioned for the Congreff of the United Statef? Almost certainly. But I'll be damned if Madison and Morris and Jefferson and the rest of the band wouldn't look at the dismal state of the GOP's behavior today and be able to tell the difference, anyway.

Bonus Round

By Keith R. Schmitz

For $350 billion dollars contestants, Congressman Barney Franks asks the titans of the financial world, "What is it you'd do differently if you didn't get a bonus?"

What a stumper.

Morgan Stanley's John Mack is the only one brave enough to hazard an answer. But all he offered was a brief historical digression about how the bonus system became established at investment banks.

Buzzzzz! Wrong answer.

Quizmaster Franks concludes -- "So if there were no bonuses, we'd still get our money's worth."

Actually did they even give us our money's worth?

One of the most laughable charges we liberals get when questioning outrageous CEO salaries compensation is that we are afflicted with jealousy.

No, just pragmatic. Equal laughable is the belief on the part of many on the right that minuscule taxation is necessary because someday they might possibly be pulling down these princely sums.

Is that kind of like suicide bombers believing they will be greeted in heaven by 72 virgins?

Deep in the Heart of Dixie

By Keith Schmitz

Spent part of my day at Neeley's Bar-B-Q in Memphis and the other in a place called Olive Branch, MS. The significance, other than having a project for a client, is that Olive Branch is in the Mississippi first Congressional District.

Tonight the GOP lost that seat in a special election to Democrat Travis Childers. The GOP dropped something like $1.3 million, augmented by GOP shadow groups in support of Greg Davis.

The place where I was had Davis signs all over. There were Davis leaflets on the cars at the local Krogers.

No matter. In a district that probably matches up in partisan breakdown to the Wisconsin 5th, the GOP saw another seat slip away.

The pundits can talk all they want. This year will not be pretty for the GOP.

Who knows? Maybe Paul Ryan might feel hot breath at the back of his neck?

The GOP and those that have steered it to the hard right earned it. And in the MS-01 gas is only $3.55 a gallon.

110th Congress under Democrats: Not business as usual

First we had Nancy Pelosi's bold 100 hours agenda, and a promise to get to work on the people's business right away in January instead of the traditional wait-until-after-the-State-of-the-Union approach. Then we had Harry Reid's promise that the Senate would stay open in January, too, and that Senators might be expected to work more than two days a week.

Now comes word that Democrats will not only finish the unfinished mess the Republicans are leaving behind, they will do it without any of those pesky earmarks:

House and Senate Democrats have decided to complete this year’s unfinished appropriations process with a joint resolution keeping the government funded until the new fiscal year starts in October, vowing to ban all earmarks from the measure.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), the incoming Appropriations Committee chairmen, issued a statement yesterday laying blame at the feet of departing GOP leaders for failing to pass nine of the 11 fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills, a criticism leveled by several Republicans in the waning days of the lame-duck session. [. . .]

Democrats had faced mounting pressure to forge a plan for completing the outstanding appropriations bills quickly, with several appropriators appearing inclined toward an omnibus that would combine versions of the spending bills already approved in committee. Yet members of the new majority acknowledged the difficult task of crafting an earmark-free omnibus that would avoid potential objections from conservatives and GOP appropriators. [. . .]

Byrd and Obey, in their statement, promised to work on a bipartisan basis to secure passage for the coming spending resolution. Earmarks in this year’s appropriations bills will be candidates for inclusion during the 2008 process, they said, “subject to new standards for transparency and accountability.”

Way to go, Obey!

This is the kind of move that establishes, in a major, major way to anyone watching and to anyone with their hands out hoping for special treatment, that the Democrats will not be pursuing business as usual. And it's the kind of move that's earning praise from both sides of the Cheddarsphere. Liberal Corey Liebmann is just one of the happy bloggers on my side; more surprising is conservative Jenna Pryor:

But when the party supposed to be the fiscally prudent party fails to do this for years, despite numerous pushes from the party faithful, and the Democrats manage to handle it (somewhat) almost immediately...it is more than a little disheartening.

Jenna has, basically, never known anything besides Republican rule in Washington; some of us are old enough to remember that Democrats used to get stuff done, like balance the budget and finish spending bills without having to shut down the federal government. Come on over to the light, Jenna.

In the meantime, despite the re-election of Democrat William "I always have $90,000 in my freezer!" Jefferson in Louisiana over the weekend, Democrats are showing some spine on ethics. Cheddarspherean DICTA points out that Nancy Pelosi has booted Jefferson from the influential Ways and Means Committee until he's either cleared or convicted. No "DeLay Rule" for us!