Good thing that senator served for almost 57 years?
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/19/byrd.jpg caption="Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is now officially the longest-serving member of Congress."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is now officially the longest-serving member of Congress –ever!
Ready?
The Democrat from West Virginia - who turns 92 tomorrow - has served for almost 57 years - including 6 years in the House and 51 in Senate... that translates to a record of 20,774 days.
He's served under 11 presidents - coming to Washington during the Eisenhower administration in 1953.
Byrd tops all other senators in the number of votes cast... that would be more than 18-thousand... and the number of leadership positions held - including two stints as majority leader.
He's never lost an election.
Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 40s... later calling it "the most egregious mistake" he'd ever made... and he voted against the civil rights act in the 60s... but he later followed a more traditional Democratic path, blasting Pres. George W. Bush's policies after 9-11 and during the Iraq war.
Byrd is thanking the people of West Virginia for their ongoing confidence in him... He says it's been the "quality and dedication of service" that has guided him and that he looks forward to serving them for quote "the next 56 years and 320 days."
Fine. But this isn't what our forefathers intended. They didn't envision career politicians - but rather people who would give a few years of their life to public service and then go back to farming or banking or whatever it is they did.
But without term limits - in a lot of cases, we wind up with politicians who spend their entire adult lives in Congress. And in many cases the results aren't good.
SO HERE'S MY QUESTION FOR YOU:Is it a good thing that a senator has set a record for serving nearly 57 years in Congress?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
FULL POST
Will Congress ever pass a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's an idea that's long past due and it will probably never happen...
A group of Republican senators is proposing a Constitutional amendment to set congressional term limits - 12 years for the Senate and six years for the House.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/11/art.demint.jpg caption="Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)"]
Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina says real change will never happen in Washington until there's an end to the era of permanent politicians. DeMint says lawmakers have been re-elected about 90 percent of the time over the last 20 years - because the system favors incumbents.
We all know the drill: Some spend decades in Washington, get into bed with the special interest groups that feed their campaign coffers and forget all about the people they're supposed to represent.
And we've heard this before... Republicans who gained control of the House in 1994 promised to pass congressional term limits, but once they were in power, they failed to deliver. The Supreme Court later ruled term limits were unconstitutional - which is why this group of senators is trying to change the Constitution.
In order to pass, two-thirds of the House and Senate would have to approve the amendment - along with three-fourths of the 50 states.
As for the power hungry politicians, they say they don't like to mess with the Constitution; and that Americans should be able to vote for whoever they want.
But I would be willing to bet if this idea was put to a vote of the people it would win going away.
Here’s my question to you: What are the chances Congress would ever pass a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Congressman William Jefferson get 33 years in prison?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When the feds found $90,000 in Congressman William Jefferson's freezer - you had to figure something wasn't kosher. And sure enough... this slime ball had turned bribery, fraud and money laundering into a fine art.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/10/art.wm.jefferson.jpg caption="Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA)"]
The former Democratic congressman from Louisiana was convicted in August on 11 federal corruption counts - including bribing a Nigerian vice president on a telecom contract.
Federal prosecutors now want Jefferson locked up for as long as 33 years - which would be the harshest prison sentence ever for a member of Congress.
The Justice Department insists that his "stunning betrayal of public trust" is deserving of what could be a life sentence for this 62-year-old. And they want him to start serving his sentence immediately after Friday's hearing. He's now free on bond.
Of course, Jefferson's lawyers argue he should get a prison term of less than 10 years. After all, what's eleven federal convictions among dirty congressmen?
They say the government's recommendation is out-of-line with previous sentences for congressional corruption; and that it doesn't take into account the positive side of Jefferson's life and career. Wonder what that is.
Former Congressman Duke Cunningham, Republican of California, was given an eightyear sentence in 2006 for taking more than $2 million in bribes - along with tax evasion and fraud.
Maybe if the system began to come down harder on jerks like Jefferson who violate the trust placed in them by the people, future would-be scoundrels would think twice about filling their freezers with ill-gotten lettuce.
Here’s my question to you: Should 62-year-old convicted Congressman William Jefferson get 33 years in prison?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much does the House health care bill matter?
House Democrats clap for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a press conference after a vote on health care. The House passed the health care reform bill 220 to 215 after a late night vote. (PHOTO CREDIT: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Don't cancel your existing health insurance just yet. Health care reform narrowly passed the House late Saturday night; but it's a long, long way from a done deal in the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is comparing this legislation, which passed by a scant five votes, to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; and President Obama says he looks forward to signing it into law by the end of the year.
Not so fast...
One top Senate Republican, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, is already declaring the bill "dead in the water."
Here's why: What happens to the so-called public option? Harry Reid still doesn't have the votes to pass that. And Republicans along with Independent Joe Lieberman are promising a filibuster if the public option stays.
The House bill costs hundreds of billions of dollars more than the latest Senate version; which means the Senate could wind up cutting expensive parts of the bill - like a requirement for employers to provide coverage. Another huge difference between the bills is how to pay for reform.
And what about abortion funding? At the last minute, the House passed an amendment that prohibits federal funds from going to insurance plans that offer abortion coverage. For millions of women - this could mean the house bill breaks the promise that "if you like your current health care you can keep it."
This much you can count on. Anytime the House votes late on a Saturday night after last minute changes were made and the promise by Pelosi is broken to post the bill online for 72 hours before a final vote, it ain't good.
Here’s my question to you: How much does the House health care bill even matter?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Obama force Congress to vote on health care reform?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to health care reform, it almost feels like President Obama doesn't want to get his hands dirty. House Democrats are planning a vote on their 2,000 page bill this weekend - which is fine, but it won't mean anything unless the Senate acts too, and that's looking less likely
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/05/art.obama.podium.jpg]
After losing governorships in Virginia and New Jersey - and after being told by Majority Leader Harry Reid that his health care reform is probably going to be put off until next year in the Senate - President Obama was out the day after the election making a speech about education in Wisconsin.
What if instead he made a speech that said:
"That's enough. I've tried to be bipartisan. I've tried to leave Congress alone to do its job. In general, I've tried to be a nice guy through it all, but it's not working. And before we lose any more governorships, Senate seats or congressional seats, here's what I've decided to do:
"I'm ordering the Congress to remain in session until both houses vote on a final version of health care reform. Pass it or don't, but you're not going home until you address it. And if that means you work through Thanksgiving and Christmas and Easter and the 4th of July, so be it. You were sent here to do the people's business and you're not going on vacation until it's done."
The Constitution gives him this power. According to Article 2, Section 3, the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them." Harry Truman called such an emergency session in 1947.
Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama keep Congress in session and force them to vote on health care reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Congress add $250 billion to deficit with separate bill for higher doctor fees?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Here's just another example of your government at work - Senate Democrats want to get quick approval of a bill - separate from the overall health care reform plan - that would increase Medicare payments to doctors by nearly $250 billion over 10 years. This money would be added to the deficit.
The measure would avoid a 21 percent reduction in Medicare fees paid to doctors that's scheduled to go into effect in January... along with future cuts. The American Medical Association is of course calling on Congress to pass this thing - saying it will "protect seniors' access to quality care."
The measure was introduced without much attention in the Senate Tuesday - and it's been set aside for a quick vote next week... instead of being sent to the Finance Committee for hearings - which is the way things usually work.
It will need 60 votes to pass. Republican leaders along with some Democrats are opposed. They rightfully feel our deficits are big enough without adding another quarter of a trillion dollars if these increases in doctors' payments are put into place.
Why are there two separate bills? Well - if this $250 billion isn't included as part of the overall health care reform tab... then Democrats can say they're not exceeding President Obama's goal of $900 billion for health care reform over 10 years.
I know the government treats us with contempt... but we're not stupid. It's as if nothing is beneath these people.
Here’s my question to you: Should Congress add $250 billion to the deficit with a separate bill for higher doctor fees?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Do away with health insurance industry's antitrust exemption?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Democrats are pushing back hard against the health insurance companies. As part of the health care reform bill - they want to strip the industry of its antitrust exemption. The industry got a special exemption from the anti trust laws way back in 1945 on the grounds that it didn't participate in interstate commerce.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
This means that unlike other industries, health insurance companies can discuss pricing, territories and other things that would otherwise be considered collusion. Translation: They make more money and you pay higher premiums. Nice deal - for them.
Senator Chuck Schumer is calling for more competition - and points to statistics that show 94 percent of the nation's insurance markets are "highly concentrated,"and that in almost 40 states, two firms control more than half the market. Schumer says the top 10 companies went from $2 billion to $12 billion in profits in the past decade.
Where has this little factoid been during the health care debate... and what is Congress is waiting for? If this could increase competition and lower prices - why haven't they done something already? Excuse me. I lost my head there for a moment.
The insurance companies insist they are one of "the most regulated industries in America at both the federal and state level." They say this is nothing more than a political ploy. Whatever it is, it's long overdue.
Congress' wrath was triggered by that potentially flawed industry report earlier this week suggesting premiums would rise significantly under the Senate's health reform bill. They're also running TV ads that say seniors would suffer under the Senate plan.
The deal is we all suffer under the health insurance companies' plan. Time to contact your senator or representative... or both.
Here’s my question to you: Should Congress do away with the antitrust exemption enjoyed by the health insurance companies?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Post health care bill online 72 hours before Congress votes?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In an attempt to make sure health care reform doesn't get rammed through Congress with little debate - a group of Senate Republicans has introduced a resolution requiring all bills be made public for at least 72 hours before a vote.
Not a bad idea. Since many in Congress don't read the bills before voting, maybe somebody should.
Over in the House, a group of more than 180 - mostly Republicans - is circulating a petition also requiring all bills to be posted online for three days. They're demanding the Democratic leadership schedule a vote on this. No vote so far, although Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to post the final health care bill online 72 hours before the last vote.
But it's not just Republicans pushing for more transparency. A group of centrist Senate Democrats sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid this week saying "every step of the process needs to be transparent" - they also asked for three days for the public to look at this stuff on the internet.
There's also an online campaign called Read the Bill along with a group called Read to Vote that's collected more than 80,000 signatures asking lawmakers to promise to read every page of every bill before voting. That'll happen...
Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington put it this way, "there's a pattern here, the more important the bill, the more complicated it is, the less time we have to read it."
Some Democrats point out the same thing happened under Republican control. Maybe so... but it was President Obama, not Bush, who promised more transparency once he was running things. Remember?
Here’s my question to you: Should health care legislation be posted online for 72 hours before Congress votes on it?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What major new laws will Congress pass before adjourning?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama has only been in office a little more than eight months now... but many are beginning to wonder if his political capital is already spent. The president came into office with several top priorities - including health care reform and climate change legislation.
Health care has taken up most of the summer and it's still not clear what the final outcome is going to be. Democrats are close to bringing the legislation to the floor of both houses of Congress for debate. They say they're confident a bill will pass this year... and they see more momentum now than they did under President Clinton 15 years ago - which, when you think about it, is irrelevant.
If health care reform doesn't pass, does it really matter how much momentum it had?
As for climate change legislation - forget about it. The president's top energy adviser says there's no way Congress will be able to pass a bill this year. Which means the U.S. will have nothing to show when talks on a global climate treaty start in Copenhagen in December.
Not finished yet... In the wake of the financial meltdown last year - President Obama and Democratic leaders talked a lot about imposing new regulations on Wall Street. But so far - that's all that is… just talk. Nothing's been done.
Here’s my question to you: What major new laws will Congress have passed by the time it adjourns for the year in early December?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Congress keep extending unemployment benefits?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Chris Hondros/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The House is considering a bill today that could help more than one million jobless Americans. It's an emergency measure, widely expected to pass, that would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for people living in states where the jobless rate tops 8-point-5 percent. That includes 27 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
This would be in addition to the 26 weeks of benefits that most states offer, and the federally-funded extensions of up to 53 weeks that Congress approved last year.
As this recession drags on and the jobless rate goes up, lawmakers have been under pressure to extend benefits... with governors from 22 states calling on Congress to act quickly. It's estimated that there are now more than six potential workers for each job opening - that's up from 1.7 when the recession began.
But critics say that additional unemployment payments can be a disincentive to looking for a job... and that it could be counterproductive to extend benefits now - when the economy is showing signs of recovery.
The bill's sponsor says it won't add to the deficit because it would extend a federal unemployment tax paid by employers... and require better reporting on new hires so the government doesn't keep paying them unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats say they'll address the measure as soon as the House votes.
State unemployment checks are around $300 a week, plus another $25 from the stimulus act. The national unemployment rate is now at 9.7 percent and expected to be above 10 percent for much of next year.
Here’s my question to you: Should Congress keep extending unemployment benefits?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments