DCRepublican.com

On my flight back to Washington, I read a great article in the Wall Street Journal, “A GOP Choice: Tom Coburn or Ted Stevens,” where the WSJ’s John Fund asked a question that has seemed to be the 800-pound gorilla in the room, or at least here in DC.

The first paragraph of Fund’s article get’s right to the point, illustrating the problem that unfortunately hasn’t been taken as seriously as it should have been since the 2006 massacre.

The Republican Party is facing what Ronald Reagan called “a time for choosing.” A real argument is raging over how much it should turn its back on the bad habits that cost it control of Congress in 2006.

One of the biggest problems that I’ve had with the Republican Party over the past few years is the simple fact that when it comes to voting based on true conservative principles, many members of the party will talk a big game, but when it comes time to vote they cave in like a house of cards.

Let’s just recall back to March 13, 2008, where Senator Jim DeMint introduced his “earmark moratorium” to the Senate floor:

While this amendment seemed quite straight forward, and sounds like an easy victory for the GOP to rally together on, it’s interesting to note which Republicans voted against such an important piece of legislation:

Republicans voting against S. Amendment 4347:

• Bennett (UT)
• Bond (MO)
• Brownback (KS)
• Bunning (KY)
• Cochran (MS)
• Coleman (MN)
• Collins (ME)
• Craig (ID)
• Crapo (ID)
• Domenici (NM)
• Gregg (NH)
• Hagel (NE)
• Hatch (UT)
• Hutchinson (TX)
• Lugar (IN)
• Murkowski (AK)
• Roberts (KS)
• Shelby (AL)
• Smith (OR)
• Snowe (ME)
• Specter (PA)
• Stevens (AK)
• Vitter (LA)
• Voinovich (OH)
• Warner (VA)
• Wicker (MS)

It’s crazy to think that there are 26 Republicans who actually voted against this, but those are just facts that had to be faced.

Now, just assume that the party actually came together and rallied behind core issues that didn’t fluctuate from convention to convention, the overall vote would have been much closer to 50 - 50.

The point I’m trying to make by all of this is that the party shouldn’t have to choose between Ted Stevens or Tom Coburn. When it comes to voting on earmarks (wasteful government spending), members of both the House and Senate should all be on the same page - voting nay.

If they can’t come together on even the most fundamental core issues, what’s the point of even having a party?

Some people might disagree with me on this, but I don’t see any value in having “part time Republicans” serving in the Senate. I’d rather the Democrats have a super majority with a small group of principled Republicans bringing reason to the floor each session than deal with some of the the unpredictable RINO’s that we have now.

It was reported today that the budget deficit of the United States will hover around $482,000,000,000 for the year 2009. What does the White House blame for this deficit? Of course, the most typical response is the sagging economy, but then they have another blunder to add to the pile of blame: the absurd stimulus package that was suppose to “stimulate” economic growth in the United States.

Of course, every branch of the government seems to have some way to legitimize this handout by claiming that the numbers will come in, and we’ll continue to see the economy grow stronger.

What’s funny is that all of this is being said on the heels of what is becoming a semi-annual trend: a bailout of some sector or company by the government, funded or backed by the tax-dollars of hardworking Americans who would overwhelmingly oppose the proposal at hand.

Washington’s lesson in economics: If you work hard, pay your taxes and make smart decisions, the government might leave you alone. If your neighbor doesn’t work hard and makes bad financial decisions, the government will bail them out with your hard earned money, but of course come back to you with a tax increase to fund their irresponsibility that is driving this country further into debt.

If you’re a young American watching how Congress has worked in the past year, why would you even want to be financially responsible?

Today the Senate voted to take the next steps in passing a bill that would essentially try and remove speculation from the oil markets. However, does the Senate have any idea what they are even talking about?

In watching some of this unfold today, it’s quite clear that this bill is going to serve as the base for a variety of additions and negotiations, which means it’s probably something that the Republicans might actually compromise on, if they get their carrots.

The biggest impetus for this bill was the skyrocketing costs of oil over the past few months. According to CNN.com, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is convinced that speculation is responsible for 71% of the increase in the price of oil.

Who actually believes that 71% of our increasing oil prices are based on the actions of investor? Anyone?

I think John Birger explains this well in an article at money.cnn.com, Don’t blame the oil ’speculators’, where he examines the ludicrous accusations that speculators are playing a “huge” role in the increase of the price of oil.

One segment from the article:

Bad public policy

If our representatives did understand the oil markets, they’d know that the true telltale sign of a speculative bubble is not rising trading volumes but rising oil inventories. Speculators would be hoarding oil - building up inventories either in anticipation of higher prices or as part of a scheme to drive prices there. Yet according to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil inventories are now at below-average levels. U.S. oil stocks stand at 309 million barrels, versus 330 million in June 2005.

So far, lawmakers have introduced nine different bills targeting oil speculators, though for the most part their prescriptions have been milder than their over-the-top rhetoric .

Bashing futures traders may well be good politics, but it’s stupid public policy. By providing a mechanism for locking in prices, the futures market makes it easier for oil companies to make costly investments in new production - which is the key to lowering prices at the pump.

Futures trading also discourages hoarding in an otherwise tight market. Without speculators willing to take the other side of so many futures contracts, oil refiners and other end-users might be inclined to ramp up their spot-market purchases and store more oil as a hedge against further price increases.

And, of course, any increased draw on current supplies would lead to even higher oil and gasoline prices. Indeed, without a futures market, I believe we’d be decrying oil at $200 a barrel oil instead of oil at $135.

I encourage everyone to read Birgers complete article, because I think it sums up the real issues so well.

Honestly, I’m quite shocked to see Senator Dorgan be so aggressive in pushing this legislation. After all, he is one of the few members of the Senate who I would have guessed would be most qualified to oppose the very claims he is making. Senator Dorgan has an MBA from U of Denver, was the tax commissioner for North Dakota, is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism. You would hope that any one of these positions would have given him more understanding on this issue.

But, I guess sometimes politics surpasses knowledge.

For more details on this bill, please checkout TheOilDrum.com, where they have been covering this extensively, and are providing excellent analysis of the more complex issues regarding speculation.

While it’s no surprise that each year more Americans turn to the internet to find news about what is happening in Congress, what is surprising is how resistant certain factions in Congress are when it comes to letting Members of Congress communicate with their constituency more freely.

Currently, there is a debate brewing in the House about how the Franking Commission should relax the rules when it comes to communications using outside platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Following a firestorm of debates in the blogosphere last week (including an online petition from the Sunlight Foundation), yesterday’s New York Times had an article highlighted the debate, and its bipartisan response thus far.

The Times’ article made it quite evident that there was support on both sides. But what is truly troubling is the position of Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, Member of the House Franking Commission:

Mr. Capuano wants web sites where lawmakers post videos to be scrubbed of advertising and political messages that could be seen as endorsements.

What’s so troubling about this proposed change, is that it essentially tells a company that if they want to open their services up to members of Congress so they can reach the masses, they’ll have to remove the possibility of generating any profits whatsoever.

If we were to implement Congressman Capuano’s vision on a larger scale, I don’t see how there could be any way that a Member of Congress could reach out to any media source. For example, if a member wanted to write an op-ed, would it have to be in a publication that has no advertising? If it’s re-posted on the publications website, would they have to remove all advertising from that page?

The reality is that no Member of Congress would ever suggest a move this radical when it comes to using traditional media. So why be so restrictive when it comes to integrating new media?

While Congressman Capuano claims that he supports the idea of making Congress more modern, I don’t see how you can do that by limiting uploads to sites that are advertisement free.

If this rule change ever went through, I can guarantee that there would be even more confusion about what members can and cannot use to communicate with their constituency.

Sure, they might remove the ads from a YouTube page, but what about the embed feature? Is it acceptable for a member to upload something to YouTube, and then for others to spread it across the web? What about other features YouTube has like social bookmarking sites (Digg, Reddit, Propeller, etc)? What about Facebook? They all have advertisements, therefore each raise questions that would have to be answered.

Then of course there are the arguments about which services, other than YouTube, a member can upload videos to? There is no way that YouTube competitors will sit idly by while they are being barred from sharing messages created by elected officials, simply because they allow advertising to sustain their business. In reality, they are following the exact same business model as newspapers, magazines and television stations.

I’m sure there are a wide variety of other problems that could develop from maintaining such a restrictive policy on new media, and I urge you to share them below.

Rasmussen Reports released a new survey today that showed Congress has reached an all time low, receiving a dismal 9% approval rating. FreedomTalks has come up with a list of just a few possible reasons why that might be. Click here to read more.

digg story

You decide.

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the Amendments of the House, Striking Title VI through XI, To the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3221 )

Measure Title: A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.

YEAs (Jerks)

NEAs (Cool Guys)

Not Voting (Better have a good excuse)

This is going to be an interesting series of votes to follow, I’ll have more later.

When President Bush announced his economic stimulus in January, he bragged that his package was the “right size” and would “boost” the economy. It sure has led to “higher consumer spending,” but not where Bush had probably hoped. The adult pornography industry reports that has seen a huge uptick in business thanks to Bush’s package.

Of course, this is also a great opportunity to bring back one of my favorite videos from ht

digg story

For more what Chuck Grassley is trying to do, click here to read more.

Even though it was inevitable that the Democrats would get the cloture vote that Harry Reid was seeking on the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (aka: Housing Bailout Bill), I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see it get the overwhelming support that it did.

The final vote on H.R. 3221 was 83 yea’s, 9 nay’s, and then there were 8 member of the Senate who were either running for President, recovering from surgery, or simply didn’t want to show the American people that they had a pair and stand up for what is right.

Regardless of how this vote turned out, there are 9 members of the Senate who deserve our thanks and gratitude for standing up and speaking out against this horrible piece of legislation.

Senators who have a pair:

Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming

Senator Christopher Bond, Missouri

Senator James Bunning, Kentucky

Senator Michael Crapo, Idaho

Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina

Senator John Ensign, Nevada

Senator Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona

Senator David Vitter, Louisiana

And then there are those Senators who simply don’t get it:

Blogs covering this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/06/senate_key_vote_doddshelby_hou.php

http://usmegatrends.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-goat-in-house.html

http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=1319

http://rubechat.kfan.com/forums/thread/3139831.aspx

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/another-emergency-spending-bill-possible-housing-bill-may-be-pushed-back/

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-congress-housing,0,2396621.story?track=rss

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2008/06/senate-housing-bailout-further-erodes.html

If you’re covering the post-cloture segments of the Housing Bailout Bill, let me know, I’d be more than happy to add your link to the list.