When Will Do Dems Do Something Constructive?

[red states rule]

Now that San Fran Nan is back from her "Coddle A Dictator Tour" can she please actually do something constructive - like sunding the troops without porks or deadlines?

In other words - do your job?


Resume House work
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 10, 2007


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to call members of Congress back to session this week to continue working on the $124 billion supplemental bill to provide funding for troops in Iraq. The House passed its version of the emergency supplemental more than two weeks ago, but the Democratic leadership failed to take the next step and appoint members to the conference committee before members left town for a two-week break, which is scheduled to last through the end of this week. Senate conferees were appointed promptly with the hope that the conference committee would begin meeting in March. Inaction on the part of the House leadership has slowed the process, and regardless of Mrs. Pelosi's motives, America's soldiers will soon begin to feel the repercussions.
Recognizing the urgency with which Congress must act, Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate sent Mrs. Pelosi a letter yesterday, exhorting the speaker to return the House to session and "work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible." The Senate, they note, "is in session and ready to work."
Failure to expeditiously pass an acceptable supplemental, which President Bush requested more than two months ago, will hurt American soldiers sooner than some Democrats -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who believes current funding will cover the efforts until the end of June -- have argued. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren wrote at the end of March that "we are particularly concerned as Congress is set to recess until mid-April without enacting this essential legislation. Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined the specific costs to the military -- ranging from a reduction in training for Reserve and Guard units to a delay in forming new combat brigade teams -- if the supplemental is not passed by April 15, and then if it is not passed by May 15.
The House bill, to be clear, is a flawed piece of legislation. It is a formula for nothing but defeat in Iraq, weighted by pork-barrel projects, and should be greeted by a White House veto. Congress will need to reach an agreement on an acceptable appropriations bill. This makes it even less excusable for Mrs. Pelosi to have stalled the process by leaving town without appointing conferees. The speaker now needs to cut short the House's break and return to work.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070409-100840-9786r.htm

 

[red states rule]

Here I thought this would be the most ethical and hardest working Congress - and we have to ask them to get back to work

 

[Bullypulpit]

Now that San Fran Nan is back from her "Coddle A Dictator Tour" can she please actually do something constructive - like sunding the troops without porks or deadlines?

In other words - do your job?


Resume House work
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 10, 2007


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to call members of Congress back to session this week to continue working on the $124 billion supplemental bill to provide funding for troops in Iraq. The House passed its version of the emergency supplemental more than two weeks ago, but the Democratic leadership failed to take the next step and appoint members to the conference committee before members left town for a two-week break, which is scheduled to last through the end of this week. Senate conferees were appointed promptly with the hope that the conference committee would begin meeting in March. Inaction on the part of the House leadership has slowed the process, and regardless of Mrs. Pelosi's motives, America's soldiers will soon begin to feel the repercussions.
Recognizing the urgency with which Congress must act, Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate sent Mrs. Pelosi a letter yesterday, exhorting the speaker to return the House to session and "work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible." The Senate, they note, "is in session and ready to work."
Failure to expeditiously pass an acceptable supplemental, which President Bush requested more than two months ago, will hurt American soldiers sooner than some Democrats -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who believes current funding will cover the efforts until the end of June -- have argued. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren wrote at the end of March that "we are particularly concerned as Congress is set to recess until mid-April without enacting this essential legislation. Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined the specific costs to the military -- ranging from a reduction in training for Reserve and Guard units to a delay in forming new combat brigade teams -- if the supplemental is not passed by April 15, and then if it is not passed by May 15.
The House bill, to be clear, is a flawed piece of legislation. It is a formula for nothing but defeat in Iraq, weighted by pork-barrel projects, and should be greeted by a White House veto. Congress will need to reach an agreement on an acceptable appropriations bill. This makes it even less excusable for Mrs. Pelosi to have stalled the process by leaving town without appointing conferees. The speaker now needs to cut short the House's break and return to work.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070409-100840-9786r.htm

Odd, the Republicans never sent a supplemental to the president without pork and I don't see you bitching about that. The last two supplementals passed by the GOP controlled Congress took at least 80 days to reach the President's desk...Didn't hear any GOP talking heads bitch about that. Bush is having his temper tantrum because he doesn't get a blank check from Congress anymore.

 

[red states rule]

Odd, the Republicans never sent a supplemental to the president without pork and I don't see you bitching about that. The last two supplementals passed by the GOP controlled Congress took at least 80 days to reach the President's desk...Didn't hear any GOP talking heads bitch about that. Bush is having his temper tantrum because he doesn't get a blank check from Congress anymore.

Pres Bush askes for a meeting with the Dems and Reid says no

Here I thought Dems said they wanted to work with the President

 

[Edward]

Pres Bush askes for a meeting with the Dems and Reid says no

Here I thought Dems said they wanted to work with the President

The Congress is not at the call of the President and does not meet with him at his convenience. If he wants to meet with Congress he can get off his fat lazy ass and testify before a Committee of Congress or wait until they are ready to discuss with him issues that they think are important.

 

[red states rule]

The Congress is not at the call of the President and does not meet with him at his convenience. If he wants to meet with Congress he can get off his fat lazy ass and testify before a Committee of Congress.

Put down your comic books and get caught up on current events

Dems flip flopped and now they will meet with Pres Bush in his office

 

[Edward]

Put down your comic books and get caught up on current events

Dems flip flopped and now they will meet with Pres Bush in his office

It only makes sense that they decided to meet with him on their terms and in their own time and regarding matters that concern them. Democrats have met with the President in the past and have been part of routine briefings and closed-door sessions for years with President Bush. This is only another example of them doing so.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

so we agree?, pork is bad, period. Right?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im not here to be the republican spokesman, so please, reps and dems, just be honest, and try for once to disagree without name calling, leave the talking points to bill oreilly and al franken lol

 

[red states rule]

It only makes sense that they decided to meet with him on their terms and in their own time and regarding matters that concern them. Democrats have met with the President in the past and have been part of routine briefings and closed-door sessions for years with President Bush. This is only another example of them doing so.

Their terms?

If was after the Gallup poll showed the approval rating of Congress was at 22% Dems dropped THEIR demands and agreed to meet Pres Bush

 

[red states rule]

Odd, the Republicans never sent a supplemental to the president without pork and I don't see you bitching about that. The last two supplementals passed by the GOP controlled Congress took at least 80 days to reach the President's desk...Didn't hear any GOP talking heads bitch about that. Bush is having his temper tantrum because he doesn't get a blank check from Congress anymore.

Only ABC Marks 100 Days for Dem Rule & Failure to Pass 'Six for '06' Campaign Promises
Posted by Brent Baker on April 13, 2007 - 20:17.
Back in January, ABC anchor Charles Gibson was the most triumphant over supposed Democratic achievements after taking control of Congress. But on Friday night, only Gibson's World News, of the three broadcast network evening newscasts, reported on the failure of Democrats to pass the bills they promised in their first one hundred days. (Brian Williams' lead on NBC: “A new and growing political problem for the White House: Missing e-mails.”) Gibson had trumpeted on January 4 how video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the House floor holding a baby while she talked to colleagues demonstrated “the ultimate in multitasking: Taking care of the children and the country” (NewsBusters post with video) and two weeks later he celebrated how House Democrats “completed their scheduled hundred hours of work in just about 42 hours, so they can put the other 58 in the bank.” (NewsBusters item)

On Friday night's World News, Gibson explained: “When Democrats took control of the Congress in January, they promised it would be a new day. They'd get things done. They even had a checklist. Well, a hundred days after taking control, we've checked the checklist.” Jake Tapper made clear how they've come up very short, pointing out how the Democrats “have no major legislative accomplishments to mark this anniversary. None of their 'Six for '06' campaign promises last year have made it to the President's desk.” Tapper listed several bills which passed in the House but have yet to be reconciled with the Democratic Senate and he noted how Democrats have “conducted twice as many oversight hearings over the Bush administration as Republicans did last year.” Tapper concluded, through the perspective of Democrats, on a hopeful note: “Democratic leaders know conflict with the White House is not enough for voters. So in the next hundred days they'll try to deliver on the promises of their first hundred days.”

Charles Gibson introduced the April 13 World News story:


“When Democrats took control of the Congress in January, they promised it would be a new day. They'd get things done. They even had a checklist. Well, a hundred days after taking control, we've checked the checklist. Here's our senior political correspondent, Jake Tapper.”

Jake Tapper: “The anniversary of the Democrats' takeover of Congress one hundred days ago was greeted with scorn today by Republicans.”

Senator Trent Lott: “Here we are, on Friday the 13th, discussing the first 100 days of the 110th Congress. They're gone, may they rest in peace.”

Tapper: “Democrats, after all, have no major legislative accomplishments to mark this anniversary. None of their 'Six for '06' campaign promises last year have made it to the President's desk.”

Senator Mitch McConnell: “The result of that of course is that nothing has been accomplished.”

Tapper: “Democrats in the House and Senate have passed bills[list on screen] allowing funding of embryonic stem cell research, increasing the minimum wage, implementing 9/11 commission recommendations and funding the Iraq war while requiring troops to start withdrawing. But Democratic leaders have yet to reconcile the House and Senate versions of these bills and send them to the White House. And while campaigning last year Democrats emphasized the laws they would pass, today they say their success should be judged differently.”

Senator Charles Schumer: “Change, accountability and oversight have become more than words, they've become our mission.”

Tapper: “Democrats conducted twice as many oversight hearings over the Bush administration as Republicans did last year -- on Iraq, the fired U.S. Attorneys, the environment, the list goes on. And this new dynamic has led to chest-thumping standoffs between the White House and Capitol Hill.”

President Bush on March 19: “They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 28: “Calm down with the threats. There's a new Congress in town.”

Tapper: “Democratic leaders know conflict with the White House is not enough for voters. So in the next hundred days they'll try to deliver on the promises of their first hundred days. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Capitol Hill.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/12034

 

[red states rule]

im not here to be the republican spokesman, so please, reps and dems, just be honest, and try for once to disagree without name calling, leave the talking points to bill oreilly and al franken lol

Case Closed
Tax cuts mean growth.

BY FRED THOMPSON
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.

So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.





President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.
Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.

This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.

To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a "more progressive" tax system should be asked one question:

Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?

Mr. Thompson is a former Republican senator from Tennessee whose commentaries, "The Fred Thompson Report," can be heard on the ABC Radio network
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009940