Congress cleaning up its mess before Christmas recess

The AMT was finally patched just in time for Christmas break but there will still be a delay in getting your refund and it will be back next year because the patch is only good for this year:

'Twas the night before Christmas, or just about so,
All Congressmen and Senators straight home wished to go.

Then what to our wondering eyes did appear,
But a tax called "alternative," which the middle class fears.

[...]

So Reid and Pelosi, they finally surrendered,
And decided to patch it, lest voters be angered.

But the Grinch AMT, it just won't disappear.
Unless Congress kills it, it will resurface next year.

A potential 2008 ad?

Too funny!

(via)

Congress gives Bush Iraq funds without timeline

I'm surprised they didn't fight this some more. I commend them for finally doing their job:

The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President George W. Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the U.S. Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administration's plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House of Representatives and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

Democrats cave to Bush's demands

But Pelosi is still making this a partisan fight:

House Democrats have elected to manipulate funding levels for various government programs to reflect their policy priorities. The House Appropriations subcommittee chairmen have been given substantial leeway to decide which programs will be cut and boosted in the process.

The Senate is expected to adopt a straight across-the-board cut without discriminating among Democratic and Republican favorites, said several Democrats briefed on leadership negotiations.

As a result, even after House and Senate appropriators shave the omnibus to Bush’s number, they will still have to wrestle over differences in each chamber’s version.

[...]

Another significant difficulty emerging for Democrats is a disagreement over war funding. Pelosi made clear that a House-passed omnibus would not include any more funding for the war in Iraq, although it may include funds for military operations in Afghanistan.

One senior House appropriator said that plan means it will be left to the Senate to decide how to package war funds in the omnibus. As lawmakers scramble to recess before Christmas, there will be pressure to add war funds without restrictions on Bush’s ability to conduct the war. The president has vowed to veto any effort to withdraw troops from Iraq or impose other constraints.

This is why Pelosi is one of the worst Speaker of the House in recent history. She doesn't get it that she has to compromise to get what she wants. She has to work with the Republicans or it won't pass in the Senate. She better hope that she doesn't lose seats in the House in 2008 or she will really learn what it means to compromise (if the Democrats vote her in as Speaker of the House again, I would be surprised).

And then there's this:

Democrats made a final attempt to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Bush by threatening to kill all lawmakers’ earmarks to bring the cost of the omnibus to the level Bush demanded. Obey hoped rank-and-file Republicans would pressure their leaders to accept a Democratic-proposed compromise that exceeded the White House budget by $11 billion, said a Democratic aide.

But that plan fizzled in the face of stiff Democratic opposition.

She can't even keep her own people in line! And I thought they were going to get rid of earmarks. These people just keep writing the ads for the 2008 election.

(via)

Democrats lose in Ohio and Virginia

OOPS! I thought the country was tired of Republicans and wanted to kick them out:

Republicans maintained control of both congressional seats that were up for grabs in special elections Tuesday in Ohio and Virginia, disappointing Democrats who had hoped to extend their gains in the House.

In Ohio, a state representative defeated a Democrat making her third run for the seat. And in Virginia, a first-term state legislator easily won.

Both elections were to fill seats left vacant by deaths. Jo Ann Davis, who had represented a southeastern Virginia district for seven years, died of breast cancer in October. Rep. Paul Gillmor, first elected in a northwest Ohio district in 1988, died in a fall in September.

The winners of both races will complete the terms of Gillmor and Davis.

Democrats, who won control of the House last year 233-202, had hoped to benefit from the low turnout typical of special elections.

BTW, Ohio was supposed to be a "bellwether" for the country:

“An Ohio congressional election on Tuesday has become a dress rehearsal for the 2008 elections, drawing big campaign bucks from Washington and big Ohio political names to the district.”

“Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, got 55 percent of the district’s vote in 2006. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown won by a narrower margin.”

“‘I think it’s a bellwether for Ohio and a bellwether for the country,’ agrees the dean of Ohio’s Democratic congressional delegation, Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, who backs Weirauch.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 12/9/07)

So, with these results, I wonder what's going to happen in 2008?

House Democrat on Iraq: "There is no question that the security situation has improved,"

Another Democrat notices that the military can actually do the job they are tasked to do. Shocking!

Rep. Earl Pomeroy says he saw significant security improvements in Iraq during his fifth trip to the country, but said much more is needed.

"I've never felt more hopeful about the success of the effort than coming back from this trip," Pomeroy, D-N.D., told reporters on Wednesday. "At the same time, we need to transition this now, so the United States no longer carries the principal combat and security functions."

[...]

He said he saw significant improvements since his last trip in July 2006. For the first time, he said, he and his congressional traveling companions were allowed out of the secure Green Zone in Baghdad.

[...]

Pomeroy said he believes the administration is not doing enough to end the war. He has voted with fellow Democrats several times this year to establish timetables for withdrawal from the country.

If the surge is working, then why not let the military determine when to leave instead of the defacto defunding that the cowards in the Democrat leadership are doing now.

Video: Eric Canton knocks the House Democrats

This is what I'm talking about! More of these and make sure they get on air during the campaign season.

(via)

House GOP force pork-laden bill back to committee

This is a smart move be Republicans and they would do well to continue to push the Democrats on this because it is a failure by the Democrats to follow through on their campaign promise:

House Republicans have been fighting and winning the few little battles they can, considering they are in the minority in a body where the minority has few rights. But tonight they won big on a motion to recommit the Intelligence Authorization Act to committee, with instructions to remove all earmarks from the bill.

This is one of many such little wins the House GOP has enjoyed, peeling off moderate and marginal-seat Democrats as they do so. The committee is not obligated to follow the instructions, but they can only ignore them if Democratic leaders are willing to ram the earmarks through, over a clear majority vote of the House.

If Republicans don't make this a campaign issue, they would prove they have no political sense. Ads that demonstrate the failure by the Democrats to curtail earmarks should be running in every district for months leading up to the election. This is a bigger issue than people realize since we all, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, are paying for things we do not need. It's really time for us to tell Congress to stop wasting out money.

Pelosi: let them eat cake

Well, that's what it sounded like to me:

On Thursday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, said he and the White House Iraq coordinator Gen. Douglas Lute discussed a compromise in which Congress would provide additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if the administration accepted readiness standards for the troops sent into battle and a ban on the use of torture.

The Democrats' part of the compromise would be to extend the time period in which they would demand that troops be withdrawn from Iraq, Murtha said.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no sign of accepting such a compromise and said the Democratic Congress would not pass a war funding bill other than the one that had already passed the House.

How long do you think her resolve will last once Bush and the military start publishing the layoffs and what the troops have to do without because of the lack of funds? She's got too many seats in red districts to gamble that the Democrats won't be portrayed as trying to undermine the success of the surge by playing politics. She may even have a mutiny of the more moderate Democrats.

Not only is she undermining the war in Iraq, she's cut off further funding for Afghanistan. How is that a winning position? I really don't think it's a great idea for the Democrats to be perceived as being on the side of the enemy.

Jack Murtha acknowledges that the surge is working

Bwahahahahahahahaha:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

Here's a blast from the past where he's caught on tape video saying that the progress was an "illusion" (btw, while you're there check out the bunny snuff film -- I think it went on too long).

But of course the borg would never allow him to get away with that:

War critic Rep. John Murtha on Friday clarified an earlier statement that seemingly expressed optimism about President Bush's plan that increased troops in Iraq. Murtha emphasized that he still thinks the war should end.

After making a trip to Iraq last week, Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters Thursday, "I think the surge is working." But he said that was just one element and the United States was still failing diplomatically in the country.

Budget bills contain $20 billion in pork!!!

The Republicans did not learn their lesson, they ignored the clear outrage of the Republican voters who stayed home instead of voting for them last November. I expect earmarks from the Democrats, but I'm getting tired of them from the Republicans. Do we have to raise up another party to get a representative who commits to not wasting the taxpayers' money?

The base is already demoralized, why push us further? These people really don't get it, do they?

It looks like Congress won’t even come close to giving up those irresistible earmarks.

Citizens Against Government Waste, which closely monitors federal spending, is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills — and the picture isn’t pretty. The group estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion.

Democrats and Republicans alike had promised to curtail the practice of directing money to specific projects.

They have, but not nearly as dramatically as their campaign rhetoric had suggested. In the last fiscal year, when Republicans controlled Congress, there were $29 billion in total earmarks.

Joe Carter suggests docking the pay of...

Senators and House members who miss too many votes campaigning for president. I think it's a wonderful idea, I'm all for cutting spending wherever we can:-)

While the Democrats refuse to fund the war, the military continues to do its job

The emergency spending bill that the House passed only funds the withdrawal of troops.

The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and “not to extend or prolong the war.”

The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.

The bill’s prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.

But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.

Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.

But the military still has al Qaeda to root out:

The same day Multinational Forces Iraq reported it had killed Tha’ir Malik, the emir of Tarmiyah, Coalition forces fought a major battle against the terror network in the city. Twenty-five al Qaeda in Iraq operatives were killed and 21 captured after Coalition forces conducted a series of raids west of the central Sunni city searching for senior al Qaeda leaders.

The term “Coalition forces” in Multinational Forces Iraq press releases usually is referring to Task Force 88 or 'The Task Force,' the special operations hunter-killer teams assigned to dismantle al Qaeda in Iraq's leadership. The scope of the battle and number of al Qaeda operatives killed and captured indicates the Task Force may have come close to its mark.

The battle was initiated after soldiers spotted fighters and called in close air support to attack. The al Qaeda teams engaged the Coalition aircraft with antiaircraft weapons then moved to a secondary fighting position and then other buildings. Also uncovered at one of the sites were “two substantially large weapons caches,” which “included numerous anti-aircraft machine guns, surface-to-surface missiles, rifles, pistols, grenades, mortar rounds and artillery shells. Coalition forces also found a large quantity of ammunition and components used to manufacture improvised explosive devices.” No Coalition casualties were reported.

The military does it's job but the House refuses to do their's. Why doesn't the House want the military to fight al Qaeda? Why are they siding with our enemy? When the surge is working and we are having so many successes, why won't the Democrats in the House fund the effort? (To see some of the successes go here).

Congressional Democrats in Spending Standoff With Bush.

If they weren't spending all their time voting for meaningless resolutions, they might have had a funding bill by now:

President Bush may have lost a veto battle last week on a water projects bill, but GOP allies in Congress are sticking with him in another, bigger veto showdown over government spending.

Democrats are struggling to draw up a playbook to finish this year's spending bills for Cabinet departments, the most basic job of Congress. While the new budget year began Oct. 1, Democrats have completed action on just two bills -- funding defense and health and education programs.

Some of the Democrats' early decisions have appeared to cede even more leverage to Bush, while internal divisions within the party have contributed to the delays in getting bills finished and sent to the White House.

On three votes last week, House and Senate Republicans stood with Bush to demonstrate they will sustain his looming veto of the health and education spending bill, a top Democratic priority.

As Republicans learned so painfully when President Clinton used veto after veto to beat them during the 1990s, the veto pen is the ultimate weapon in legislative warfare. And its power is especially potent in situations like the present, which deals with spending bills for agency budgets that lawmakers are eager to pass.

[...]

But in a move that left some Congress-watchers scratching their heads, Democrats have given up much of what leverage they had by sending Bush the only spending bill he really seems to care about, a $471 billion budget for the Pentagon. There had been speculation they would hold the measure in reserve to try to force the White House to negotiate, but with that bill in hand, Bush is free to play hardball on the rest.

Maybe they're smart enough to realize that the Republicans would charge them with playing politics with the safety of the troops. It would be all over the Internet like wildfire that the Democrats love pork more than the troops. I would certainly be saying it :-)

If Pelosi was as good as her press, she would have taken hold of the reigns and gotten the bills put together sooner so that she wouldn't look so inept. It's a testimony to her leadership skills that the budget is so late.

Plus the Democrats have given the Republicans a huge campaign issue by demonstrating that they really are the tax and spend party. And as the last election demonstrated, I don't think the people are in the mood for more taxes no matter what they're getting.

58 Votes on Iraq War This Year

And the Republicans in the House ask why? The answer is obvious: BDS. The BDS of both the members of the House and of their base. If Clinton was in charge of this war, you wouldn't have any votes in Congress for withdrawal:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will bring another troops-out-of-Iraq bill to the House floor on Friday.

It will be the 58th "politically motivated" bill on the Iraq war by the House and Senate this year, Republicans complained.

"We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States," Pelosi said at a press conference. "This gives voice to the desires of the American people," she said of the bill, which ties war funding ($50 billion for four months) to an immediate troop withdrawal.

"This is not a blank check for the president," Pelosi said.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) criticized Democrats for refusing to recognize the important of the U.S. military mission as well as the "tremendous progress we've made against all odds in capturing and killing agents of terror, and providing a level of security for political reconciliation to take place.

"This bill is deja-vu all over again," Blunt said. "The last time Democrats tried to tie funding for our troops to a date for surrender, they failed - and that was before the marked turn-around we've witnessed on the ground over the past several months."

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Iraq from every neighborhood of Baghdad, according to a top American general - "allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

The newspaper quoted Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, as saying, "there's just no question" that violence had declined since a spike in June.

I wonder when it will dawn on the Democrats that with each vote they look more ineffectual? It won't pass in the Senate and they know that, yet they take the time away from other legislation to pass a meaningless resolution that is purely symbolic. With each vote they look like a child holding his breath because he's mad at his dad. If I were a Democrat in the House I might be tempted to vote down the next resolution so that the leadership would stop offering these bills and would actually get some work done before the Christmas break (how embarrassing would it be for the resolutions to start losing votes -- with the surge working there is a real possibility that some might want to change their vote to be in support of the work the troops are doing).

Democrats have failed to lead

According to Karl Rove:

After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.

[...]

Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.

[...]

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

(via)

Can't argue with that, though I know the lefties will try. Remember lefties, ad hominem attacks are not a refutation of his argument. You can't refute him by stating that he's Beelzebub, Hitler and Stalin all rolled into one.

Tongue in cheek, lefties. You know, humor.

Hoyer Credits Surge for 'Decrease in Violence' in Iraq

Now that the surge appears to be having its desired affect, I was beginning to wonder how long it would take for the Democrats to start claiming victory in Iraq. Evidently, not long:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.

"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.

[...]

"I am not surprised, therefore, that when we send 20,000 additional troops and put them in an area of consequence that those 20,000 troops from the best army in the world, the best trained, best equipped army in the world brings a very heightened security," he said.

(via)

Yes, he always knew the surge would work and maybe he did. I'm just waiting for Reid to say this (technically he was for the surge before Bush proposed it :-)

Here's the audio.

(via)

Pelosi should be commended for keeping her promise...

I beat up the Democrats on this blog quite a bit so when they do something honorable, I think it should be noted. I'm thankful that Pelosi has kept her promise not to attempt to impeach Bush and Cheney. She said it was off the table and evidently it is.

The Mother of All Tax Hikes

Have you seen this video from the NRCC? Pretty silly.

(via)

TNR: Democrats don't have what it takes to govern?

Yeah, I agree :-)

"Forget 'liberal': Given a few more weeks like the ones congressional Democrats just endured, and the dreaded L-word they'll be struggling to shake is 'losers.' Children's health care, government spying, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire, the toxic ramblings of Representative Pete Stark -- you name the issue, Dems managed to get their clocks cleaned in the p.r. battle with a fractured Republican minority led by a lame-duck president only marginally more popular with the American public than Chinese toy manufacturers.... [W]hat in God's name is wrong with congressional Dems? It's one thing to lose all your battles when you're the beleaguered minority crushed beneath the boot heel of a well-liked commander-in-chief and a power-mad congressional majority. But, when you can't manage to win even one lousy spin cycle under the current politically felicitous circumstances, voters are going to start wondering if you simply don't have what it takes to govern -- if perhaps you really do deserve that 25 percent approval rating" -- from an editorial in the latest New Republic magazine.