Past time for ethics committee to release findings on Rangel?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
What are they waiting for? It's been almost two years since the house ethics committee started investigating Congressman Charlie Rangel... and so far - nothing.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/07/art.rangel.jpg caption="Congressman Charlie Rangel"]
Meanwhile the 79-year-old New York lawmaker has filed for re-election. Rangel wants to run for his 21st term in the house; but first he has to win the Democratic party primary on September 14.
So will the ethics committee release its report before then? If they do... and if the report is damaging... Rangel could be toast. But, if they hold the report until after the election - chances are Rangel will win again. This could also raise political questions about the timing of the report.
As one Democrat tells Politico: "It would let everyone say that this is a cover up, that it's just the same old ethics system." And that's right on the money. Remember when the Democrats took control of the house in 2006? Nancy Pelosi promised they would "drain the swamp" after a decade of Republican rule. Sure.
The leaders of the ethics committee aren't commenting on the Rangel case. For his part, Rangel insists he's innocent - that no wrongdoing has been found. He says he gave up his powerful chairmanship of the ways and means committee so he wouldn't be a target for Republicans.
Nonetheless, Rangel is being investigated for a wide range of allegations - from using his chairmanship to raise money for a public service center that carries his name... to failing to pay taxes on income from a home in the Dominican Republic... to hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets and income on a financial disclosure form.
Here’s my question to you: Isn't it past time for the House Ethics Committee to release its findings on Congressman Charlie Rangel?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How serious is Congress about reducing natl. debt?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
"Everything has to be on the table." That's what Pres. Obama says about reducing our skyrocketing deficits. Don't bet on it.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/28/art.debt.clock.jpg caption="The National Debt Clock in Manhattan."]
For one thing the president refuses to say which programs may be cut. And, other lawmakers have been all over the place lately saying what they want off the table. No value-added tax, no cuts to Social Security, and not allowing tax cuts for low and middle income families to expire.
All this as the president's 18-member bipartisan debt commission gets to work. The commission is meant to bring the federal budget down to three percent of the country's GDP by 2015. Right now the deficit is on track to be double that.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warns that if we don't do something about these deficits they will do "great damage" to the U.S. economy. Bernanke says our debt levels are on an "unsustainable path."
Budget experts point out that new measures will have to rein in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs. But we continue to be represented by people who won't make any tough decisions because they're afraid if they do they won't be reelected. Time to vote them out. We can't keep kicking the deficit can down the road any longer.
And don't get too excited about this so-called debt panel created by Pres. Obama, either. It has no legal authority. They need 14 of the 18 members to agree to any recommendations, which can then be ignored by Congress. This is sort of like sitting on the railroad tracks, seeing the train barreling down on you, and refusing to move out of the way.
Here’s my question to you: How serious is Congress about reducing the national debt?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What would you like to see Congress do next?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
So whaddya got for an encore? And do we have the stomach for it?
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/art.capitol.jpg caption="Lights on at the Capitol as the House of Representatives worked during a rare Sunday session last night. "]
If you liken the passage of health care reform to a birth, the pregnancy was difficult and the labor and delivery were worse.
But - now that the health care baby is here, what's next? There's no shortage of issues facing this country that demand attention from our government.
Start with immigration reform. Tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied in Washington this weekend, frustrated with the lack of action so far. The president promised to make immigration overhaul a top priority in his first year... but we all know what happened there.
It's an issue that has defied resolution. Congress failed to agree on immigration reform under President Bush... and with the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington today, I wouldn't bet they'll have any more luck this time.
There's the economy... with nearly 10 percent unemployment, bringing the jobs back is issue one on millions of Americans' minds. There are also skyrocketing deficits and our more than $12 trillion national debt - that we are unceremoniously dumping on future generations.
Add in reform of the financial institutions, no coherent energy policy, education, and gays in the military… the list is long.
Not to mention a whole basket of foreign problem including two wars, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and a disintegrating situation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Eve of health care vote, pres. & Congress declining approval
Left: Clinic workers rally in support of Pres. Obama's historic health care reform package, urging congressional leaders to vote 'yes'. Right: Opponents of health care reform demonstrate against Obama's proposed health care legislation. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
On the eve of that historic health care vote - the American people are fed up with Washington.
A new Gallup poll shows President Obama with the worst job approval rating of his presidency. 46 percent approve of the job he's doing - while 48 percent disapprove.
As for Congress - Americans think even less of that bunch; only 16 approve - which is close to an all-time low - and a whopping 80 percent disapprove.
And, There are more signs that incumbents better watch their backs come November.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asks: If there were a line on the ballot that would let you vote out every single member of Congress - including your own representative - would you do it? Half of the people surveyed say "yes."
As a piece in the Journal suggests: "Congress always looks worst when it's in the middle of making the sausage known as legislation... By contrast, lawmakers usually look better when the sausage is finished, packaged and displayed on the store shelf."
What's unclear is whether the American people will look more favorably on the president and Congress if - and it's still a big "if" - they can make the sausage, also known as health care reform.
Democratic Congressman Tom Perriello of Virginia summed up the way a lot of people feel about our lawmakers when he put it this way: "If you don't tie our hands, we will keep stealing." He was talking about how the only way for Congress to be fiscally responsible is to give them no choice.
Here’s my question to you: What does it say that on the eve of the health care vote, President Obama's approval rating in one poll is the lowest ever and Congress' approval rating is nearing an all-time low?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Chances of health care reform with 8 lobbyists for each Congress member?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Lobbyists are one major reason why our government is broken.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/25/art.health.bill.jpg caption="A copy of the Senate's health care reform plan sits between members of Congress as Pres. Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting to discuss health reform legislation."]
And you don't have to look any further than health care reform to see that we have the best government money can buy:
- Consider this: More than 1,700 companies and organizations hired about 4,500 lobbyists last year to work on health care reform. That translates to eight health care lobbyists for each member of Congress.
- According to this report by the Center for Public Integrity: The health sector spent more than $540 million on lobbying last year. The health industry has given $45 million dollars in campaign donations for the 2010 election cycle; and it spent more than $200 million on TV ads related to health care reform last year.
You think anyone in Washington hears the voice of the common man? Think again.
The fingerprints of lobbyists are all over this legislation. As one expert put it, "They cut it. they chopped it. they reconstructed it. They didn't bury it. I don't think they wanted to."
Lobbyists apparently succeeded at blocking the public option and softening the effect of cost-cutting measures on health care companies.
The American medical association says it helped kill some fees for doctors and a tax on cosmetic surgery - among other things.
At the end of the day, we're talking about legislation that can be called "reform," while what it really is is a three-card monte game designed to protect all the vested interests in the debate except the taxpayer.
Here’s my question to you: What are the chances of health care reform when there are eight lobbyists for every member of Congress?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How effective is deficit panel that can't make Congress act until after elections?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama is backing a bill to create a bipartisan budget commission, which could force Congress to vote on doing something about the country's skyrocketing deficits - the likes of which we haven't seen since World War II.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/25/art.capitol.jpg caption=""]
But here's the catch - this panel would report after the November elections and Congress would vote on its recommendations in December. Wouldn't want lawmakers to have to vote on raising taxes or cutting spending before re-election, right?
President Obama says the deficits didn't "happen overnight and won't be solved overnight." He adds the only way to solve long-term fiscal challenge is with Democrats and Republicans working together.
Haven't we heard this song before? And not even starting the process for at least ten more months guarantees nothing will happen "overnight."
This proposed panel is getting push-back from members of both parties. Most Republicans don't want an entity that would likely lead to tax increases - even though most economists agree that deficits can't be brought under control by only cutting spending.
As things stand now - officials expect the U.S. will hit the current $12.4 trillion cap on borrowing in the the next few weeks; so Democrats are trying to raise this cap by almost $2 trillion. This would allow the government to keep paying its bills through the rest of this year, and - this is key - the Democrats wouldn't have to try and raise the debt ceiling again for November's elections.
The Democrats just increased the debt ceiling by almost $300 billion last month...
Here’s my question to you: How effective is a deficit panel that can't force Congress to act until after the November elections?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Congress give up trying to pass health care?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A majority of Americans want Congress to put the brakes on health care reform.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/22/art.nurse.jpg caption=""]
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 55 percent of those surveyed say lawmakers should suspend work on the current health care bills and consider alternatives. Only 39 percent say they want Congress to try to pass the current bill.
32 percent say the president and Democrats are right to make health care reform their top priority right now. 46 percent say health care is important, but other problems should be addressed first; and 19 percent say it shouldn't be a top priority.
Meanwhile, President Obama is vowing to press ahead - even though he acknowledges health care reform has "run into a bit of a buzz saw." Party leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi insist health care will move forward - but other lawmakers, much like the American public, are losing their appetite for fast action.
Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Dodd says his colleagues should "maybe take a breather for a month, six weeks" to regroup after the loss in Massachusetts.
There's no question this week's election has made the road to health care reform more difficult. Pelosi has ruled out what was the preferred option for some Democrats - the House passing the Senate bill as is. She doesn't have the votes.
And, although there's a sense that a scaled-back health care bill might be the best route for Congress to take - even that might be easier said than done with the current political winds blowing across Washington.
Here’s my question to you: Should Congress give up trying to pass health care?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much does Congress feel Americans' pain in recession?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Times are tough - very tough - for millions of Americans... but you could never tell by watching the way Congress spends our tax dollars on themselves.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/12/art.pelosi.copenhagen.jpg caption="Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer (right) and Rep. Henry Waxman at a press conference in Copenhagen last month during the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference."]
CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip at least 20 members of Congress made to the Copenhagen climate summit last month.
The bipartisan delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so large - it needed three military jets - two 737s and a Gulfstream Five. Some members brought along their spouses, children... plus there were also senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark - most of them flying commercial.
Pelosi wouldn't answer any questions about costs or where they all stayed - even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will "comply with disclosure requirements."
CBS puts the cost of military jet flying time at nearly $170,000 plus the cost of dozens of commercial flights... hundreds of hotel stays, many at the five-star Marriott... and tens of thousands of dollars in meals.
This is a disgrace - the national unemployment rate is at 10-percent, with employers cutting more jobs than expected last month. People are suffering. In California, Pelosi's home state is faced with a $20-billion deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget plan would force 200-thousand children off low-cost medical insurance... end in-home care for more than 300,000 sick and elderly citizens... and cut income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.
This nation is hurting - but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.
Here’s my question to you: How much do members of Congress feel the pain of the American people in this recession?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Ethically, Congress ranks lower than car salesmen
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to ethics - Congress scores lower than car salesmen.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/11/art.car.dealer.jpg caption=""]
For the first time in Gallup's annual poll, a majority of those surveyed - 55-percent - say the honesty and ethical standards of members of Congress are "low" or "very low." That number has more than doubled since 2000.
The decline in Congress' ethics rating in the past year has occurred almost equally among Republicans, independents and Democrats.
The most-highly rated professions include nurses, pharmacists, doctors, police officers and engineers.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel along with members of Congress: Car and insurance salespeople, stockbrokers, HMO managers and lawyers.
Telemarketers and lobbyists weren't included in this poll - but have received even lower ratings than Congress in the past.
It's a sad reflection of how Americans view the people they send to Washington to represent them. But it should come as no surprise considering the shennanigans that go on in the Capitol:
- Like former Cong. William Jefferson, recently sentenced to 13-years in prison... in a corruption case where he famously hid 90 grand in cash in his freezer...
- Or Senator John Ensign - who admitted to an affair with the wife of a staffer, paid the family almost 100-thousand dollars, and then allegedly got the husband a lobbying job, where he lobbied Ensign
- Or Congressman Charlie Rangel - still up to his ears in ethics investigations tied to his personal finances
And Senator Max Baucus of Montana - who faces accusations that he nominated his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney job.
And that's just skimming the surface… we didn't mention Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter… it's a very long list.
Here’s my question to you: Ethically speaking, what does it mean that members of Congress rank lower than car salesmen?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Obama look like Bush by letting aide avoid testifying?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Congress, and the American public for that matter, would like to know how uninvited guests can simply walk into the White House and attend a state dinner hosted by the president. Seems like a reasonable question.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/09/art.rogers.jpg caption="White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers planned the state dinner that Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed."]
Trouble is, no one wants to tell them. Except for the Secret Service, who willingly admitted their role in the screw up.
The intruders - they weren't guests - the Salahis - don't want to talk. And if they're subpoenaed by Congress to testify they say they plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment. The one that protects against self-incrimination. If, as they claim, they were invited - they weren't - why would they do that?
But the bigger question is why the White House is providing cover to social secretary Desiree Rogers. The president cites executive privilege in saying this woman who was in charge of the dinner, that's her job, doesn't have to testify.
Now we're not talking about a key policy adviser to the president here. We're talking about a secretary whose job it is to be in charge of stuff like dinner. It's not like she has access to the nuclear launch codes, if you know what I mean.
But the president doesn't want Rogers to have to go in front of Congress and explain why she didn't do her job. Which was dinner. Why not? People have been fired for less. But she's being shielded from any embarrassment not because of "executive privilege," but because she's an old pal of Obama's from Chicago. This is change?
Here’s my question to you: Does President Obama look like Pres. Bush when he allows social secretary Desiree Rogers to avoid testifying before Congress?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments