Democrats Have Started to Change Congress

Get ready for higher taxes and a new recession....the democrats are in power!

We will see if they abide by these new rules. However these badly needed changes took two days under Democratic Control. The GOP did not make these changes for the past 12 years while they were in control of Congress.

Right, because they were the same rules the Democrats had when they were in power for 40 years.

COl, did you read my post on how there is no real change? So far the changes the Democrats are proposing are those embrased by the GOP but could not pass because of opposition from the Democrats. The Democrats have already said that they will not put more troops in Iraq. Looks like Vietnam all over again. Now I can see what you mean by we are losing the war. You knew that they would get power and destroy American service men in the process. Good reading of the tea leaves.

Time will tell if there will be REAL change in the way Congress operates. However, these changes DID not come to light under the GOP for the past 12 years!

However, these changes DID not come to light under the GOP for the past 12 years!

Because the GOP wasn't trying to hurt America and hurt American business.

Because the GOP wasn't trying to hurt America and hurt American business.

Yeah I forgot about that. I guess I better fold up my business and fire my people while I take this new civil service job.

IslandDog

How is making the names of members of congress who sponsor Pork or Earmarks harming Business?

How is limiting lobbyists from trying to buy Congressmen harming business?

How is a "Pay as you go" Budget policy harming Business?

How is embracing Mollohan, who made a fortune off of earmarks, anything but business as usual? Pelosi is poised to allow him to be in charge of the committee who funds the people who are investigating him. You're not so blind that you'd miss that, you're just whitewashing as always.

How is making the names of members of congress who sponsor Pork or Earmarks harming Business?

It does not.

How is limiting lobbyists from trying to buy Congressmen harming business?

It is called freedom of speech lobbyists are paid advocates of the people. We the people have a right to discuss issues with our elected leaders. What is the difference between me and a few hundred like minded people talking to a congress man or hiring a person to do it for me? That is what a lobbyist is.

Bakerstreet

How does that address the issues I raised? Earmarks went from 1,400 per year under the democrats to 14,000 last year by the GOP. You sight one example. Face it-- The GOP abuse of power is coming to an end.

How is a "Pay as you go" Budget policy harming Business?

The budget policy is meant for one thing...to increase taxes.  But then again you think raising taxes doesn't hurt businesses.

You sight one example. Face it-- The GOP abuse of power is coming to an end.

LOL.  Do you seriously thinkt he democrats aren't going to take advangtage of their power col.  Are you that much of a democratic supporter that you will turn a blind eye to their corruption.  I notice you still haven't addressed Bakers question to you.

"How does that address the issues I raised?"

Uh, your point is that the Dems are changing things. Obviously, they are just delegating the job of guarding the bank to the thieves. It would take a bias as strong as yours to see that as "change".

They've already broken their promises. They've already financially backed and favored members of their party known to be corrupt. Nothing in the future will be any different, you've just opened the gates to a different family of huns.

How does that address the issues I raised? Earmarks went from 1,400 per year under the democrats to 14,000 last year by the GOP. You sight one example. Face it-- The GOP abuse of power is coming to an end.

Quarter truth on your part.

you cite the differences between when the Democrats were in charge and when the Republicans were in charge. This i meaningless since we don't have a breakdown of who did what. How many of the 14k earmarks were from Democrats? You don't know because of the Democratic rule that keeps that information hidden.

paladin 77

The difference is BUYING access and favors not freedom of speech. The BIG BUCKS that change hands has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It has everything to do with trying to influence legislation to benefit who you lobby for.

The requirement to disclose who proposed the earmark and requirement to justify the reason for sending tax dollars is a step in the right direction that the GOP failed to take for the past 12 years.

paladin 77 The difference is BUYING access and favors not freedom of speech. The BIG BUCKS that change hands has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It has everything to do with trying to influence legislation to benefit who you lobby for. The requirement to disclose who proposed the earmark and requirement to justify the reason for sending tax dollars is a step in the right direction that the GOP failed to take for the past 12 years.

Sort of like that "democrat" that had $90,000 stuffed in his freezer?

drmiler

No, more like the $230 Million for a Bridge to an island where 50 people lived in Alaska. The $90,000 is not justified and if guilty the democrat should be punished. However, the $230 Million is of a size that will show up on the overall budget screen.

the 90,000 didn't come from the government, Col, it was a BRIBE, taken on videotape.

The difference is BUYING access and favors not freedom of speech. The BIG BUCKS that change hands has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. It has everything to do with trying to influence legislation to benefit who you lobby for.

The big bucks you speak of are called bribes paid to influence votes. That is against the law. Lobbyist are paid to support legislators that vote their way. If you are pro-life you would get money from lobbyist that support the pro life adgenda. If you are pro-death I mean pro-choice you get money from lobbyist that support that adgenda. It is a fair system because there are almost always two sides to every law. The money is not given to the legislator but the campain fund. Unless you are a dishonest person in government, in which case the person should be kicked out of public service. So far two Republicans have been forced out for this shameful conduct just because it hit the news. On the other side no one has been forced out of office. It makes it appear that there is a culture of corruption on the other side. You can not legislate morality no matter how hard you try. Liberals will write a new law every time they get caught doing something wrong but rarely will they get rid of the offender. Congressman Rostinkowski is a famous example. He did not resign from office he had to be kicked out of office severla weeks after he went to jail for accepting bribes. At first the Dems calimed innocent until proven guilty, as reason that he should keep his seat. Then when he was convicted they said he had to go through the appeals process. He was in federal lock up with a sentance of I think of 10 years before he was stripped of his seat and the jerk had the guts to run for office while in prison. Did the Democrats put a stop to him? Nope. Contrast that with Congressman Cunningham, he got caught doing bad things and resigned before there was a trial. Why is it that the Democrats always try to beat the system if it will help them hold on to power? That is not morality it is power mongering.

drmiler No, more like the $230 Million for a Bridge to an island where 50 people lived in Alaska. The $90,000 is not justified and if guilty the democrat should be punished. However, the $230 Million is of a size that will show up on the overall budget screen.

Ahhhhh. But he won't be because the democraps are in charge. And like Baker said it "was" a bribe, he accepted it and it's on video tape.

Paladin77

Too many times what the Lobbies want and what they pay for is to get members of congress to VOTE their way and does not benefit the majority just the people. We should insist the people we elect serve those that elect them not an interest of special interest groups that pays for trips, food etc. The action of the Democrats to cut off this will help but we need more to make Congress serve those that they represent. I hope the K Street bunch is put out of business.

drmiler

O Contraire. The change that will require those that initiate the Earmarks and Pork to be identified and to be required to JUSTIFY these pet projects will make that much harder to sneak expenditures into bills. To have gone from 1,400 per year under the democrats to 14,000 last year under the GOP SAYS IT ALL!!!!

We should insist the people we elect serve those that elect them not an interest of special interest groups that pays for trips, food etc.

You are contradicting yourself, either because you don’t understand the way the system is set up or because you choose not to understand how the government is set up.
You ignore people openly taking bribes and equate them with people spending money in a state they represent. The Bridge was an earmark that would help his constituents; this is what you said they are supposed to do. Whereas the 90k in the freezer was a bribe to vote for something he did not believe in. The congressman from Alaska was taking care of the people that voted for him while the congressman from Louisiana was caught taking bribes on camera. Based on the facts you seem to dislike the representatives who bring in pork to their states as they are supposed to do in favor of protecting dishonest elected officials.

I also notice that you think those trips and such should be outlawed. What you don’t know is that they already are outlawed. By law each representative must declare any trip taken and pay for it out of their own pocket. The new Speaker of the House wants to change that law because she broke it so many times. Go back and look at how many times she has had to revise her travel documents and write checks to reimburse for illegal trips taken. No wonder she wants to scrap the system she hand her people have been caught breaking. BTW it was the Democrats that came up with these laws that the Democrats like to break. So they are not trying to do good they are just doing the same old thing. they get caught breaking the laws so they write new laws instead of obeying the ones on the books.

kinda like the laws on illegal immigration. We can't even enforce the laws we have, so we need to make new laws....

"We should insist the people we elect serve those that elect them not an interest of special interest groups that pays for trips, food etc."

Sure... when it is an oil company. What about when it is PETA? What about when it is international aid organizations? Do you think, say, that I have the same access to my congressman than, say, Micheal J. Fox would?

Don't be a hypocrite, Col. If you are going to squeeze out "interests" from influence, then lets start looking at some of these "fact finding tours" congressmen take at the behest of bleeding-heart causes. Let's start adding up the free press they get when Micheal J. Fox goes on a tirade three times a day on different talk shows during an election.

It's a slippery slope, ain't it? I wonder what sort of accommodations the Dems are getting in Syria, Iran, etc., in the next few weeks and months. Even if they pay for it themselves, they aren't spending their money, they are spending taxpayer money, and I wonder if I could get the same treatment, even if I paid myself.

If we are going to start scrutinizing the people who try to influence politics to "change the world", I wonder what side will come down the most fervently active and abusive...

The issue is that many times the lobbies support the interest of a small group of companies or special interests. What they attempt to get Congress to do very often does so at the expense of the majority to help a group like the oil companies.

The Bridge was to help 50 people at a cost of $230 Million and was not debated as to its worth but tacked on to a bill and there was no requirements for the person attaching the earmark to be identified. The explosion from 1,400 under the democrats to 14,000 Earmarks in 2006 is proof this process IS NOT WORKING. How much of the Annual Budget Deficit is made up of spending created by these Earmarks that are NEVER debated or evaluated against other requirements for our country? The Changes made by the democrats is LONG OVER DUE!

Col, do you even read the comments that are posted to you?  I bet you are still calling yourself a republican too.

Which special interests, Col? Just the bad old people working for money? What about NoW? What about NARAL? CAIR? AIDS activism? GLAAD? Where do you draw the line with your scrutiny of "influence".

Compare, for instance, the number of people who, say, have HIV in the US as opposed to those whose lives are directly tied oil industry. Now by your standards the oil industry would be a "small group of companies" imposing their will on government, but in reality their issued have a LOT more to do with our nations welfare than, say, AIDS activism lobbyists.