Humor: Secret Republican Video Disclosing Their Senate Fiscal Stimulus Strategy Exposed

This evening, an incredibly disgruntled Republican staff assistant to Senator Holmes Gimmee-Gimmee (R-American Samoa) provided this reporter an astonishing video disclosing the GOP's strategy for the upcoming Senate battle over the fiscal stimulus legislation. Secretly this evening this chronicler met the disenchanted staffer at the Simpering Toad Restaurant in the now privatized Capitol Rotunda. Expressing concern for his life should his lone role in leaking the video become known, the annoyingly secretive staffer nervously requested that his name be unrevealed. This journalist, however, indicated his preference for semi-partial nondisclosure of sources in order to protect his journalistic reputation for honesty and to remain at least arguably free from probable indictment. The staffer, Mr. Fred*rick Jon*s, agreed to my suggestion that this scrivener disguise his name carefully with asterisks (*).

We began our meal at the always popular Simpering Toad Restaurant with a few alcoholically powerful Senate Slings, served chillingly cold for $7.95 each during happy hour, which in the Capitol runs from 10:00 a.m. until sine die. I would be remiss to not report the "Slings" provide an exceptionally tasty and affordable pre-dinner beverage for anyone who might be in the Capitol to receive provocative leaked information from an obviously frightened Senate staffer. A plate of gavel-shaped cheese sticks and double fried pork "Earmarks" added a memorable - and complimentary - appetizer to accompany the pre-leaking portion of this reporter's meeting with Mr. Fred*rick Jon*s, now weeping uncontrollably. After downing his fourth Senate Sling at the spacious and comfortable restaurant and piano bar, Mr. Jon*s struggled both for words and for the physical coordination to lift his head out of his delightfully seasoned Caesar Salad ($12.95 a la carte, free with entree). His breathing was labored, and he slept a bit.

However, one cannot stay asleep long at the Simpering Frog given the swiftness and courteousness of the service! Soon, our flaming pork chops entrees had arrived! The waiter and always helpful maitre d'hotel assisted Mr. Jon*s back into his seat from under the handsome pine table where he had curled up into what this journalist would term a psychotic state of catatonia. Yet, the aroma of Simpering Toad flaming pork chops (a bargain at $22.95, particularly on Capitol Hill) revived him sufficiently so that with his belt carefully wrapped around his chest and attached to his overstuffed leather chair, he stabilized enough to at least barely speak.

Given his bouts of whimpering "Mama! Mama! Mama!," this usually reliable journalist had difficulty getting much detail about the circumstances that drove Mr. Fred*rick Jon*s to betray his party and his longtime benefactor, GOP American Samoan Senator Gimmee-Gimmee. In addition, the Simpering Toad is widely known for its piano music and desserts, and, candidly, Mr. Jon*s' "reasoning" ability had descended to grunts and yips (which I informed him were interfering with my enjoyment of the piano stylings of pianist Cal Smith). The deliciousness of my dessert, a huge melon-sized portion of Fill-You-Buster Fudge Gelato, kept your scribe from physically throttling the increasingly annoying Senate staffer. Thankfully, when the final bill came and your writer was going through Mr. Jon*s' wallet to retrieve his credit card, the always ebullient staff had procured a gurney for the now recumbent staffer. As your reporter dutifully waited for a special services bus to transfer Mr. Jon*s to a bus stop nearest a hospital, I rifled through his top coat pockets until I found the video that had necessitated our highly secretive meeting at the delightfully affordable and wonderfully managed Simpering Toad Restaurant in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.

In any event, the video certainly does reveal the strategy and tactics that the Republican National Committee suggests be employed in the upcoming fiscal stimulus battle. Or should this correspondent write "suggested" strategy and tactics? For now, due to the traitorous perfidy of an unknown, petty, and easily inebriated Senate staffer who would not explain his motives, the GOP will likely be forced to reevaluate. An investigation, of course, will quickly follow to learn the identity of the dark haired man of approximately 5'8" with a scar on his right eyebrow from having fallen off the gurney.

The GOP Fiscal Stimulus Legislative Strategy video is below. Your reporter wishes he could provide some possible or plausible explanation for this clearly desperate act of a disloyal Senate staffer. As you have seen, he would not communicate with this journalist despite the ambiance inherent in the fine dining room of the Simpering Toad in the Capitol Rotunda. Thus, this is a cautionary tale for anyone who would receive top secret information in a Capitol Hill bistro atmosphere of elegance and reasonable pricing.

GOP Strategy Video

**** Note: There is no "Read More" for this posting ****

Daschle HHS Confirmation Hits Taxes Snag

This doesn't sound good . . .

Please, No Daschlegate. Here's the basics of what hopefully will not become Daschlegate:

President Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary, Tom Daschle, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes, partly for free use of a car and driver that had been provided to him by a prominent businessman and Democratic fund-raiser, administration officials said Friday. Mr. Daschle, concluding that he owed the taxes, filed amended returns and paid more than $140,000 in back taxes and interest on Jan. 2, the officials said.

[Snip]

The [Senate Finance Committee report, prepared by staff of both parties] said, “Senator Daschle filed the amended returns voluntarily after Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate the senator to be the secretary of health and human services.”

The committee report said Mr. Daschle had told the committee staff that “in June 2008, something made him think that the car service might be taxable, and he disclosed the arrangement to his accountant.”

“Under Section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code, the value of transportation services provided for personal use must be included in income,” the report said. “Senator Daschle estimated that he used the car and driver 80 percent for personal use and 20 percent for business.”

The car and driver were not Mr. Daschle’s only problems. The Finance Committee said he failed to report consulting income of $83,333 on his 2007 tax return and overstated the deductions to which he was entitled for charitable contributions from 2005 to 2007. In his amended tax returns, he reduced the deductions by $14,963.

And there's more. For the full NYT story, go here.

On the Critical List. Since I first heard it, I've believed that 61 year old former South Dakota Democratic Senator (1987-2005) Tom Daschle was an exceptional choice for HHS Secretary. As Kate Phillips observed at the New York Times The Caucus blog, "If anyone can now navigate the legislative mines, it may well be Mr. Daschle. He certainly knows the territory on the Hill." And after the disastrous health care reform effort led by Hillary Clinton in President Clinton's first term, Obama needs someone like Daschle whose 30 years on the Hill as both staffer and Senator will pay high legislative dividends. Daschle, too, knows what it's like to have been in the minority party of the Senate, and once said, "When you're in the minority, it doesn't matter what you're agenda is, you're not going to have the degree of freedom that you have as a member of the majority." This is the kind of experienced and pragmatic partisanship that the President is looking for to push any health care proposals past the GOP - and to enlist some members of his own party, like the Blue Dog Democrats.

President Obama’s cabinet selections have suffered a few setbacks already. His nominee for Commerce Secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew amid a federal investigation into state contracting. His designated attorney general, Etric Holder, Jr. has also not been confirmed, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to explain his own tax faux pas. Moreover, the highly partisan and controversial health care policy area would benefit from a smooth and squeaky clean Daschle ascendancy into HHS, but his tax and business problems may prevent that. A spokesperson for Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) quickly voiced his support for the nomination, and CNN reported that "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Daschle brought the issues to the committee's attention himself and that Obama is 'confident' he will be confirmed." Well, Harry Reid office and White House spokespersons say lots of thing . . .

Daschle brings legislative expertise, of course, but he has also developed health care policy expertise. For his basic views on reforming health care, see his article here, or see his book "Critical: What Can We Do About the Health Care Crisis." For criticism of his approach, see Tom Cannon's recent National Review Online article, and, interestingly enough, see some Amazon reviewers. [Note that the comparative-effectiveness research proposal that Daschle recommends and Cannon and others criticizes is a provision in the House-passed stimulus plan. I offer a critique of Cannon's criticism in the comments section of my Wednesday, January 28th posting, The GOP "Elections Have Consequences" Party Votes Unanimously Against Fiscal Stimulus Bill.]

Taxing Us With Their Taxing Problems. It does get tiring to hear of the consistent problems that highly placed people have in paying their taxes, regardless of political party. I know we are a tax averse country, whether with or without representation. Particularly since the Reagan era, most Americans have been as averse to taxes as they are to liver and onion flavored bubble gum. Yet, it always surprises me that people who know they are in the spotlight and know they may be called upon to serve in a position requiring Senate confirmation, as Daschle has surely known for more than a year, would find accountants that demonstrate basic reading and arithmetic skills. I like Daschle very much, always have, but Democrats cannot come bursting into Washington riding high on "change" and then have this kind of thing happen to our best known and brightest. Perhaps, regrettably, President Obama will have to rethink this nomination. Yet, it's too early for that as The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Senate Finance Committee will hold a closed-door meeting Monday at 5 p.m. to discuss delayed confirmation hearings for former Sen. Tom Daschle as secretary of Health and Human Services and to go over tax and business matters that have held up his confirmation, Finance Committee aides said.

Let's see if there are any truly principled or rational explanations for what appear to be major tax and business oversights, mistakes, or - hopefully not - worse. Tom Daschle is a good man, but we ran a recent campaign swearing that we would bring only the very best to D.C. Unfortunately, one of my favorites, may be in critical condition.

***** Note: There is no "read more" to this article *****

Mr. President, When Courting the GOP: You Can't Hurry Love

In no uncertain terms, yesterday evening, the House Republicans rebuffed the President on their first real date. They were unanimous in the snub by sharply rejecting his, in their view, overly large fiscal stimulus package (see yesterday's posting). Not a single Republican was smitten with Obama's courtly smile either.

And today, GOP Senators seemed just as underwhelmed by Obama come-a-courtin' and vowed to keep their distance. Even after an apparently pleasant enough luncheon date with the new President, Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and others of the GOP leadership held a press conference to discuss the encounter, and its topic: the economic stimulus legislation. With unanimity, they.did.NOT.like.it.

Senator Kyl swooned "bittersweet" about their luncheon get together with the President, and rejected him even though, for dessert, he had proffered their equivalent of a bouquet of flowers and Godiva chocolates, i.e. numerous tax cuts. Unimpressed, the Senator observed, "Just because you call something a tax cut doesn't make it a tax cut!" He felt "rejected" even though the President has been chasing them down with hefty tax cuts with all the fervor of a desperate suitor. Well, they're not a low maintenance date, Mr. President.

Among the spurned and spurning, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) was the most outspoken, asserting that as far as being stimulating the President had a lot to learn. "We know what stimulation is," the Senator said, "We know what works. John Kennedy did it. It worked. Ron Reagan did it. It worked." So Mr. President, it appears that the Senate GOP is just not that into you, or your huge fiscal stimulus package, despite your dynamite dancing.

Well, as we all learn fairly early in our adolescence, you simply cannot hurry love, Mr. President. You're just toddling through the first ten days of your tenure, so don't give up yet. Perhaps, as tonight you tend to your disappointed heart, you might have a listen to the Supremes and their 1966 iconic tribute to the waiting game called not-yet-requited love, "You Can't Hurry Love". . .

**** Note: There is no "read more to this post ****

>

The GOP "Elections Have Consequences" Party Votes Unanimously Against Fiscal Stimulus Bill

This evening, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, a fiscal stimulus and tax cut bill. With only 11 Democrats voting against the bill, Republicans - in a display of their likely brand of 111th Congress "bipartisanship" - voted against it unanimously (one, Rep. Brown-Waite (R-FL-5) not voting). They opted instead to offer their perpetual solution to everything, the failed bromide of the exclusivity of tax cuts. To see how your M.C. voted go right here.

One vote demanded by the GOP prior to the final vote actually sought to strip out all spending measures in the bill. Quashing this absurdity even attracted some GOP votes, and it

Read the rest, by clicking on the "Read More" link , below right ---------------------------------------------->

Start reading the rest, below

lost 320 - 116, again, all votes to pass it and thereby reduce fiscal stimulus to nothing but tax cuts were Republican. To see how your M.C. voted, and to get the best roster of ultra GOP wingnuts, go right here. As reported by Huffington Post, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey (D-WI), stated it with pinpoint accuracy, "'They don't look like Herbert Hoover, I guess, but there are an awful lot of people in this chamber who think like Herbert Hoover,' he said, referring to the president whose term is forever linked in history with the Great Depression."

Earlier today, employing the verbal spin so well-developed by the GOP in recent years, Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) bloviated. "Cantor said that Republicans objected to what they saw as excess spending in the bill. 'I think we demonstrated here that the kind of bill they put together without any input from us was not a stimulus bill. You can call it a safety net bill, a relief bill. It was a spending bill.'" Imagine, Republicans - who ballooned a Clinton Deca-Billion dollar surplus into historic deficits through profligate tax reductions and massive spending financed via debt - lecturing about "spending."

Nearly $550 Billion of the bill is devoted to both immediate and ongoing job creation that would stretch well into the future, modernizing infrastructure, expanding broadband, improving health care delivery systems, and assisting now radically underfunded state and local budgets, preventing layoffs of state workers. Without batting an eyelash Cantor, though, went on to imply that all this was no stimulus at all, "I think that if you have infrastructure programs that are meaningful, impactful, and put jobs back into place immediately within the first twelve months, you have a legitimate case for that to be a stimulus." As usual, logic aside, he called upon "entrepreneurship" - and tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts - as the answer, as if entrepreneurship provides a truly quick and easy method to stimulate the economy while "shovel ready" projects do not. (See October 2008 chart of "shovel ready" projects ready to go within 90 days of funding; click on for a larger version) In fact, the bill offered both tax cuts (about $300 Billion) and primarily quick job-creating projects ($550 Billion). If there was even a modicum of compromise in the GOP, the bill would have satisfied a fair sized portion of the caucus.

Keep it up, GOP! With the economy in free-fall, keep on voting to deny anything but tax cuts to your own constituents. Although most of the remaining GOP in the House are in safe GOP districts, perhaps in some of them constituents will catch on - the GOP represents a failed supply side ("Voodoo") economic theory that offers tax cuts only, whether the economy is booming or swooning. In other words, they offer the nation, now in its direst straits since the 1930s. a ride to nowhere on a ship with even fewer lifeboats than the Titanic. And, by their vote against a bill that provides both generous tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, they are showing that they will not compromise in any way. Who was it who kept telling Democrats that "Elections have consequences"?

President Obama Jogs GOP's Memory: "I Won"

Ouch! It's not easy getting your proverbial butt handed to you on a platter, so any of us can feel the pain of having to face oneself in the mirror and say, "I l.o.s.t." And to hear it again and again from one's own party members isn't bad enough. Now, the almost always docile Democrats are saying it too, and at the highest level. Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported on that day's "White House working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. But," the WSJ observed, "Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab." Challenged by Republican Senator Kyl or Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) - it's unclear who - over the contents of the fiscal stimulus package, replied with a single one-two punch: “I won.” No knock out was reported, but a little rhetorical blood had been drawn, and some GOPers felt a bit unnerved so unaccustomed were they to falling back a bit on their heels.

For most Democrats that "jab" reported by WSJ has long ago been abandoned, with the roundhouse hook or swift uppercut an even more distant memory. During the Bush years, even when they had a majority in Congress, as in the 110th Congress, they cowered in a defensive crouch and "fought back" by taking punches on the gloves, hoping, Olympics style, to win on points. In the event they did land a blow, they'd more often apologize than follow up. President Obama gave his best public demonstration since the campaign that he's got fight in him, and Democrats ought to

************Click "Read More" (below right), for more, plus video ----------------->>>>

******** Start "Read More" below this line ********

follow his lead, start morning runs, and afternoon workouts with the punching bags. Up to now, they've been the punching bags.Politico noted that President Obama delivered his comment "matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation." Obama's got sting.

The Friday WSJ article added,

The ["I won"] was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check. Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as "welfare.”

(Note that McCain himself proposed refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan but conveniently called them "reform," not "welfare.")

Republican legislators have, I think, wisely chosen to not counterattack against the "I won." As the WSJ observed, it was "a jab," a little pop to the nose by the new President, just to get their attention and metaphorically drive home a point. The GOP knows the electoral facts; their ability to obstruct legislatively is always at the ready, but to snipe and bellow "successfully" within this critically ill economy against a popular and invigorating President is beyond their present strength.

The Persistence of Memory. After years of vile blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay, John Boehner, and countless other GOP uber partisans, imagine suggesting President Obama is too partisan or "boastful" about his electoral win! We have, for example, a quick and deadly uppercut in reply. Not President Anymore Bush himself provides the gloves down opening with his too glib performance at his November 4, 2004 press conference, two days after winning 50.7% of the popular votes in the closest election since, well, four years earlier when he needed a final push from the Supreme Court to "win."

Displaying the mathematical ability of a poorly trained rhesus monkey, he was feeling Bushfillment about the presumed "mandate" his nearly non existent victory over the unfairly maligned John Kerry bestowed. Mike Allen of the Washington Post - a sycophantic and sickeningly deferential Bush Reporter Booster Club member - asked him, "Do you feel more free, sir?,"

He answered happily - now famously - pressing his victory lap accelerator to the floorboard:

[A]fter hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that--when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view. And that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to--and the people made it clear what they wanted--now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful--it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the--after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on . . . [Emphasis added]

So, it's a nice early episode in the Obama Presidency. The well earned, "I won," on his side; and the well-deserved "You lost," on the other. I hope it serves to plant a seed of backbone in so many other Democratic legislators, a seed that sprouts quickly in the new sun of the 111th Congress.

Congressional Democrats 111th Congress Training Video

Congress Ought To Rescind Its 2009 Pay Raise

January 26, 2009: This is another updated version of previous postings on this topic.

President Obama, striking exactly the right chord on his first day in office, signed a White House staff pay freeze Memorandum. It will apply to those earning more than $100,000 per year, approximately 70 upper staff. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington,'' the President said. Obviously, the budget impact of this will be de minimus, but it does, at the very least, outdo our Congress, our oft-bellowing Congress that rarely misses an opportunity to call someone out on overspending or being paid too much in a time of national sacrifice.

The President's memorandum reiterated the theme: "The United States is in a period of severe economic stress. Too many Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health insurance, or a substantial part of their retirement savings, and many more feel uncertain about the future." But then he offered a bit of giving on the part of the White House, a display of leadership one hopes the Congressional leadership follows: "Accordingly, as a signal of our shared commitment to restoring the country's economic vitality and because of the serious economic conditions we are facing, I intend to freeze the salaries of senior members of the White House staff, to the extent permitted by law. I direct you to report back to me within 30 days with recommendations for actions to implement this freeze."

In response, however, the leadership as of today has been less than lukewarm in its non commitment to withdrawing its 2009 pay raise. In fact, there is no bill in the hopper to do so. Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), though, is leading a charge against next year's pay raise. There is one fairly lively (83 cosponsors) House bill, H.R. 156 - of two House bills overall - that would prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment next year, emphases on "automatic" and "next year."

But why not cancel this year's raise for Members of Congress, House and Senate, that brings their salaries to nearly $175,000? Rep. Mitchell, who introduced H.R. 156 on January 6th, will donate his $4,700 pay raise for this year to charity. That's a nice move. But, again, what about voting to rescind the 2009 pay raise altogether? The reaction to that in the halls of Congress was recorded earlier today:

For more on this entire question, including the history of the pay raise issue and a suggestion for a Constitutional Amendment to address the future, my original "Congressional Payfarce" posting begins below:

"If they will only do their job that is all that they are being overpaid for."

David O. Selznick, on actors and actresses

As the economy caves in at an ever faster rate, our elected officials are cashing in, their pay raise, that is.

************Click "Read More" (below right), for more, plus video ----------------->>>>

*********************READ MORE BELOW THIS LINE *************

It seems small, a 2.8 percent increase in pay this year, equal to about $4,700, but at a full salary of $174,000 could we be overpaying just a bit? And these days national politicos of all persuasions seem particularly unglued by the specter of overpayments everywhere. My gosh, those unions! That gets Republicans into a raging hurly burly. And those Wall Street and Big 3 executives and Roland Burris - that gets my beloved Democrats equally undone.

But, yet, they are strangely silent about their own salaries.

I'm wondering. Perhaps our elected reps don't realize they just got a raise. They've been pretty busy lately, looking under every desk and in every closet for union folks and welfare queens and those pesky Wall Street fat cats. I'm thinking they've just not been informed their pay check got fatter. Let's help out and let them know!

Seriously, Though. As movie mogul David Selznick said of actors and actresses, "If they will only do their job that is all that they are being overpaid for." Sound familiar? Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of nearly $175,000, more than double the median household income for the Washington, D.C. metro area. This doesn’t include taxpayer funding of very generous "platinum parachutes" (pensions), health plans, allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses, including franking privileges (free mailings).

Also, most voters hold Congress in particularly low esteem these days, somewhere between roadkill and Nazis. Not too good a recommendation for a pay raise. So, you'd think salt-of-the-earth Congressfolks would be looking for ways to pump up their standing, at least to overtake roadkill. We know how they feel about the nasty bail out "symbolism" that the loan package for the Big 3 brought with it. Isn't it time for Congress to aim its always wagging fingers at itself and vote to say no to their automatic (not voted upon) 2009 pay raise. Doing so should have been its first article of business - and priceless good p.r. - on the first day of the just convened 111th Congress. And it should have been done quickly with no debate. Somehow they neglected this, or forgot. Yes, I'm certain, they forgot. Let's remind them.

Foxes 535, Chickens 0. The 535 members of Congress cannot with a straight face blame anyone but themselves. Our Constitution provides that the fox guard its own chicken house; they set their own salaries. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6. Clause 1. It's that simple, and has rarely been challenged, and when challenged, the courts have stepped aside in deference to the legislative branch.

A February 2008 Congressional Research Service report, Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2008, provides a summary of the historical and legislative background:

Prior to 1969, Congress [determined its own pay] by enacting stand-alone legislation. . . By 1968, they had risen to $30,000. Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recently in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods — including an automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process — are now also available. Under the annual adjustment procedure, Members [received] a 2.8% adjustment in January 2009.

Note that their pay raises (what they strategically and craftily call "cost of living adjustments" (COLA)) are now granted without an affirmative vote of either chamber. Indeed, to their credit, they have from time to time refused their own pay raise, as recently as 2007. They generally, however, just let the COLA take effect on the down low, as they've done this year. Is it reversible? Sure is. But, remember, they forgot.

(For more background and history about the pay raise issue, see my prior article.)

Never Go Begging. One question I've begged thus far, and an important one: Do we want a system whereby MCs are paid a minimal salary, and where they have to cover their own office expenses, etc.? I think it's a relatively easy "No." Unless we want all our MCs to come from substantial wealth, or, on the other hand, to have even more incentive to play the "pay to play" game, we are best served by a relatively well paid Congressional class. They presently receive about $170,000 per year, with substantial other benefits.

These days, during a deflationary spiral that's a high salary, a bit too high for a public service job in the midst of the Lesser Depression. The suffering of the increasingly unemployed American public screams for Congress to make an effort to share their burden. I'd think $120,000 would be enough to both compensate handsomely and provide incentive to honesty, particularly considering the exceptional benefits they receive.

"With foxes we must play the fox." Thomas Fuller, English Clergyman (1608-1661). So what to do? There are a few legislative proposals in the hopper in the 111th Congress that would prevent the COLA taking effect next year (2010), but nothing thus far to revoke this year's raise. All House pay raise resolutions are referred to the House Administration Committee and Senate proposals generally to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. As of this date I found no Senate proposals, but you can view a synopsis of the House proposals introduced in the new Congress at the Committee on House Administration (as of this writing, see H.R. 156, H.R. 201, H.R. 215, and H.R. 282. Especially see H.R. 215; it includes some of the "recorded vote" transparency sought by my proposed Amendment below. Did they read this blog? Yeah, right . . .)

This little pay raise dog and pony show goes on year after year with pretty much the same proposals. They go to committee. They die in committee. A long term solution is needed. I propose a new constitutional amendment that repeals the 27th Amendment (the Congressional pay raise amendment), - see my previous posting for information on this Amendment - and replaces it with a stronger one, making the pay raise "dance" visible to the American public and enshrining it as an Amendment.

Congressional Salary Amendment

SECTION. 1. Amendment XXVII. The XXVIIth Amendment is hereby repealed.

SEC. 2. Article 1, Section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution. The term "ascertained by law" shall require affirmative single topic legislation. Congressional salary adjustments require stand-alone legislation prior to the adjournment of each two year Congressional session. Such legislation shall include the Congressional salary scale for each year of the upcoming Congressional session, and may originate in either house of Congress.

SEC. 3. Time Periods. Pay raises or reductions for the first year of the next Congress to convene may not exceed the applicable percentage pay raise (or reduction) of the upcoming fiscal year General Schedule (GS) pay scale of the Office of Personnel Management, or its designee or successor. The salary for the second year of the next Congress to convene shall be within the same legislation as for the first year and shall set Congressional salary at the same percentage of the average pay increase or reduction of the previous five years as certified by the Office of Personnel Management, or its designee or successor.

SEC. 4. Exception.

Should it be determined by the appropriate Committee or Subcommittee of either house that adjustments, up or down, to Congressional salary are advisable at any time during the two year Congressional session, such legislation requires a recorded vote of 60% of each house for a pay raise, and a simple majority for a pay reduction, and any salary increase may not in any case, other than stated national emergency, be greater than a positive 10% of the applicable fiscal year General Schedule, and may not be applied retroactively. Pay decreases may be accomplished through voice vote or suspension of the rules. A filibuster in the Senate for pay raise legislation shall require a simple majority to invoke cloture.

SEC. 5. Effective Date. This Amendment shall take effect as of the first session of the next Congress to convene after the date of final ratification by the states.

Tally Ho! I know my proposal needs work, and as the chart shows, its passage by Congress and ratification by the states is longer than a long shot, but it's a start. For example, the proposed role of the OPM, an executive branch agent, is replete with separation of powers and comity issues, inviting principled objections from all sides. At least, the proposal does bring more "sunshine" to the process and, as a Constitutional Amendment, makes it difficult for Congress to finagle it via legislation. Under this Amendment, the pay raise process would become a feature of national discourse, not an aside hidden by automatic procedures. It would gain the attention of the public, particularly, I believe, due to the requirement of a recorded vote for pay raises - that would prevent your Congressional delegation hiding within "voice vote" invisibility.

So join the "Proud Four Percenters" of the chart accompanying this article (click on the chart for a larger view). The, tell your MCs you want to support "something else," like a Congressional Pay Amendment. Yes, there are huge challenges for this Congress to address, and for Congresses to come, but let's try to get this particular proposal on the table. Should you want to contact your Representative or Senators regarding this issue, their contact e-mails, etc. may be found at the official House site and the official Senate site. As we've often seen, the only pressure that can be brought to bear is the good old-fashioned politics of yelling.

First Date?

As President and First Lady, yes.

Not to get all mushy, but they do seem to like each other a lot, and the emotion is palpable. The Obama's, including their two daughters, are heartwarming to watch. Again, not to get too sentimental, mushy, sugary, saccharine, sloppy, slushy, or corny.

(The pic is from the White House of the Inaugural evening. Click on it and through magic it'll get larger.)

[By the way, there is no "Read More."]

Victory For My Readers!!! I Can Now Do Expandable Postings!!!

Readers Rejoice!! That's me toasting to happy expandability.

Thanks to ingenious and smart Paul Lawny at LawnyDesigns:Tips, Tricks and Tutorial and Lawnys Templates: Free blogger templates for your blogger powered blog, I can now provide expandable postings. This is my first example, just for fun and to thank Paul. Now, for my nauseatingly long postings, you can see click on "Read More," which I hope you always do. (Find the "Read More" link below, to the right side of the page and give it a try.)

******** Start reading continuation below ********

As here, it will open up the full posting. To return to my homepage at any time, all you need do is either hit the "back" button of your browser OR just click on the "They Will Say ANYTHING!" banner at the top of the expanded page.

I like the feature because it cleans up my homepage and, for example, let's you see more of my topic headings without having to scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll . . .

President Obama's First Mission Accomplished

One mission down, many more to go.
Bon Voyage!

The music above is from Remember the Titans.
It's a slow, haunting rendition of
Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye,
and well worth the listening while thinking about the pictures.
(@ YouTube)

,

Welcome, PRESIDENT Obama.

I know there is nothing I can write that will add a grain of salt to the this sublime moment in our history. Those who know me, or have been kind enough to read my postings here, know - unfortunately - I am never at a shortage for words. I'm not now. I can think of much to say, much to write . . . but I won't give in to it. Well, maybe just a little bit . . .

As a nation, in the last eight years, we have suffered true and lasting damage to our way of thinking about "freedom," and "liberty," and "compassion." We have also caused the world much grief and enormous damage. Despite this we remain at heart a good and noble people. Last November we caught ourselves, I believe, just in time, just before we may have forgotten who we are and who we have been. I'm counting the hours until tomorrow, when, for the first time the sun will rise at Noon, and the darkness fade . . .

President Obama inherits a nation sharply divided, but never more so than in March 1861 when

************Click "Read More" (below right), for more, plus video ----------------->>>>

************* Start reading continuation below ***************

President Lincoln said, in his inaugural address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Let us pray to - and invoke - the "better angels" of our American nature and rebuild our honored place among the nations of the world.

And for fun, here's Kool and the Gang's Celebration!

Congressman Steve King Objects To Barack Obama's Middle Name, But What About His Own?

On Thursday, Politico's Daniel Libit reported that Wingnut über alles, Congressman Steven Arnold King objects. Most strenuously. What is it that we should consider objecting most strenuously to? President Elect Barack Hussein Obama intends to follow a longstanding swearing in tradition,* and use his middle name - the surname of his Kenyan father - when he is sworn in on Tuesday as the 44th President of the United States. My God, and I thought the economic mudslide or the Iraq war were things more strenuously objectionable. But thanks to Congressloon King, you live, you learn.

It's always inspiring and educational to hear what Congressman King has to say. Last year he predicted that Al Quida types would be "dancing in the streets" should Obama be elected. Being the stand up guy he is, he even told Geraldo Rivera (how-is-it-he-still-has-a-job) that if he was proved wrong (which he was), "I will come and apologize to you and everybody in America." Like Motel 6, I'll keep the light on for that one . . .

Making Tom DeLay Look Decent and Kind, Almost. King, always rated among the worst or dumbest people in Congress, or on earth, is a lunatic. He might almost cause the wingnuttiest among us to say, "He said what?" He's notorious for his

************Click "Read More" (below right), for more, plus video ----------------->>>>

*********** Start reading continuation below *************

words and for his votes, even among his fellow travelers in the GOP. Although he marches in lockstep with his GOP counterparts, some of his side trips have been jaw dropping. In October 2008, in the midst of a growing economic catastrophe, he was one of 28 of 396 Congressfolks - and most of his own party - to vote against extending unemployment benefits. Previously, in September, he joined 27 other Scrooges to vote down the Elder Abuse Victims Act. Homeless Emergency Assistance? "Nay," with 67 others. How about overriding the veto of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act? "Nay," again, with 41 others. For crying out loud, this guy couldn't even bring himself to vote for a bill patting AmeriCorps on the back! It was a bill with no budget consequences that simply "encourage[d] all citizens to join in a national effort to salute AmeriCorps members and alumni, and raise awareness about the importance of national and community service." He's against that? Thank God there was no vote on puppies or Motherhood. Remember too, that all the bills listed above were supported by the GOP, often en masse. Here's where you can see the scores upon scores of things he apparently strenuously objected to that most other wingnuts did not.

And Who Is He To Talk About Middle Names Anyway? So, he thinks "Hussein" is a perfectly nasty middle name to carry around, much less publicize at a Presidential inauguration. It's replete, he believes, with all kinds of malodorous connections. It appeals to the crazies, the terrorists, the traitors, the . . . wait a gosh darn minute . . . The distinguished Congressnut's full name is Steven Arnold King. There's something about that middle name that brings back memories of third grade American history . . . Something about the Revolutionary War . . . A military commander of the fort at West Point who tried to surrender it to the British and thus open the entire Hudson River to British naval might and cut the colonies in two, north from south . . . A man who has become a byword - the icon - for treason in the United States, Benedict ARNOLD.

So, the next time a discussion of middle names comes up, perhaps the extinguished Congressman Steven Arnold King might recall his own, and Shut. The. Hell. Up!

A BIG thanks to YouTube's HUMANITAINMENT.COM for the video!!
Find more of his great stuff right herrrrrrre.

* The use of the middle name in Presidential swearing in ceremonies is not universal, however. Neither Carter nor Reagan did so, and it is not required by the Constitution. For a nice article see this one.

Dick Cheney Action Figure!

Our favorite Dark Master, known in his human form as Nearly-Not-VP-Anymore Dick Cheney, has certainly been busy lately. Every time we try to get some rest he's either amusing or nauseating us with his version of the last eight years. Today, he admitted to a few mistakes: the mistakes he'd noticed others had made, something he deplores, like partisanship.

He didn't even mention his relatively minor faux pas of mistaking his good friend for a 22 ounce quail and nearly buckshotting his face off. But remember, his pal, on release from the hospital - his face resembling a human version of Swiss cheese - actually apologized to Cheney. I guess he felt he owed him a round of ammo and what would have been left of a quail after encountering buckshot traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.

About other issues like Iraq and deregulation and the economy and torture and Iraq and torture and the economy, he feels pretty good about himself. Certainly to the extent he thinks about it. When asked by Jim Lehrer on today's Newshour whether 4,000+ American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives were worth it, he replied - while showing off his seemingly permanent state of boredom - "I think so." He's not really figured that one out yet.

********* Start reading continuation below **********

Let's try reality as a way to help him. He proposed with his neocon bubbleheads for years beforethe 9/11 to attack Iraq. Then, once over-occupying the Vice Presidency, he cooked the intel during the lead-up to the invasion, cheerleaded dishonestly every step of the way, tried to undo the lives of anyone who got in his way, lied repeatedly about WMD, and everything he was given the opportunity to lie about, and then pushed the torture buttons whenever asked . . . But today, this many years later, he hasn't got an answer for Jim Lehrer beyond "I THINK SO"? No, I don't think this is a reflection of his changing mind. No, he's not starting to question himself. That's never been his M.O. But to Jim Lehrer's humane question whether our Iraq misadventure was worth it, our Darth Cheney says he THINKS so. What can one say about that one? I have no words. Do you?

I did come up with an idea for a new Playmobil toy set, though. It probably reflects the words I can't find to describe his "legacy." I can only hope we've not heard the last of him. No, I don't think his proposed autobiography will be anything more than an extended tall story. My hope is that we hear from him in the witness chair, should Congress and the Obama Justice Department grow the cahones to prosecute him (among others).

For now, I've sent the idea below to the good folks at Playmobil Toys, but perhaps it's just too frightening for their constituency. We'll see.

Welcome to the Part-Time Lifestyle!

The just released employment report of the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has begun, I believe, to at least mildly sedate those overly optimistic CNBC cheerleaders who keep braying that the worst is behind us. I'd like to join them in that optimism, but the numbers in all areas beg for realism, or what I call "my pal" pessimism. I've written before that the unemployment rate will rise well above the oft-predicted 9%. While not yet there - the recent report puts the unemployment rate at 7.2% - we're just starting to see the bulk of the job losses. The unemployment rocket's on the pad and it's taking on the fuel of indecision and inaction in Washington D. C.
Primarily, I'd guess we're all disgusted and dismayed by the sniping and skirmishing already apparent among both Democrats and Republicans about President-Elect Obama's plans to stimulate the economy. Disgusted? Yes. Surprised? No. It's clearer by the day that Congress will not act quickly enough or boldly enough to pour water on the fires devouring our economy. It would very 2008 of them them to turn what I'm presently calling the Lesser Depression into the Mother of All Depressions. Unfortunately, let's face it, the present mess is well above everyone's pay scale, from economists to comedians, even Bill Maher. Søren Kierkegaard was as amusing a man as ever lived and even he, in one of his few serious moments, observed "Life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward." So, let's move forward by looking backward at the December 2008 BLS employment report.
Onward to Unemployment! The overall employment situation is represented by the rocket graph I've so kindly provided employing childlike Photoshop skills. (Next page) It charts the

************ Start reading continuation below *************

BLS reports of unemployment and underemployment for the Dubya Bush years. The unemployment rate is the "official" one we hear about each month in the news. Yesterday, it was reported at 7.2% and represents the "total unemployed as a percent of the civilian workforce," and as you see, it really took off in 2008.

But there is more lurking within the BLS reports: the underemployment data. Because it's always a scarier number, it's less reported by the media (if at all), and includes other groups, namely (1) "marginally attached workers" who have not looked for work in the four weeks prior to the monthly BLS survey, but still want to work; (2) "discouraged workers," also not looking for work but because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify; and (3) workers who "for economic reasons" (as BLS puts it) work part-time but who want, and are available for, full-time work.

The numbers represented by the percentages at the far right of the rocket chart combine the BLS official unemployment rate with the data derived from the other sources of underemployment. Presently, we have a 13.5% figure staring us in the face, and the Lesser Depression is in its early phase, absent, as I say, quick and forceful and successful fiscal stimulus.
Within the BLS report is one interesting forewarning that the worst is still ahead, and also a sure measure of the collective pain of the American workforce. It's their calculation of what they call the "number of persons working part time for economic reasons." These are involuntary part-time workers, emphasis on "involuntary."

In December, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons . . . continued to increase, reaching 8.0 million. The number of such workers rose by 3.4 million over the past 12 months. This category includes persons who would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. [Emphasis added]

Madoffematics 101. Note the meteoric rise from 4.6 million to 8 million in the last 12 months. The recent data in the chart at the bottom of the page looks, to mathematical thinkers, like exponential growth. As an example of the speed and power of exponential growth, one can imagine a similar graph of the number of lawsuits brought over the last few weeks against pyramid scheme king Bernie Madoff . . . Basically, in exponential growth, the larger a quantity gets, the faster it seems to grow, kind of like viruses grow in petri dishes. And that looks like the BLS part-time employment chart (below), doesn't it? Of course, that kind of growth can't continue or everyone in the U.S. would be working part-time, kind of like Congresspeople . . . Understand, though, the vast increase of part-timers is among workers who want to work full-time (one supposes they need to "put food on their families," as Dubya once famously sputtered). These aren't teenagers looking for babysitting or populating lemonade stands . . . The accelerating slowdown of business activity, however, means that millions of once full-timers are now part-timers. Look again at the dark line in the BLS graph below. Then compare it to the other years and periods of recession (indicated by vertical gray lines). That present straight up incline in the chart is just crazy scary, particularly at what I predict is the beginning of this multi-year Lesser Depression.
One might think, reasonably, that most part-timers are youthful workers, and generally that's the case. Thus, they don't have as many family obligations, and therefore part-time work is not as damaging overall to the economy. However, the "times they are a' changin'." A previous BLS report on involuntary part-time employment as of November 2008 puts a bullet into that idea:

However, workers aged 25 years and older have [historically] accounted for a disproportionately large share of the recent rise in involuntary part-time employment. From the third quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2008, 84 percent of the increase in involuntary part-time employment occurred among workers aged 25 years and older; they made up 75 percent of all involuntary part-time employment in the third quarter of 2008. [Emphasis added]

Moreover, business-related moves by employers reacting to slack business by creating more part-time workers is a harbinger of an increasing official rate of unemployment. The same BLS report continued:

Similarly, a rise in economic part-time employment due to slack work frequently occurs before a rise in unemployment, mainly because many employers tend to reduce workers’ hours before implementing layoffs when faced with a decline in demand for their goods and services. [Emphasis added]

With the enormous growth in the part-timer segment last year, 2009 appears crocodile dangerous, to say the least. Absent a Heave-sent bipartisan agreement on a hefty stimulus plan that quickly works, this kind of involuntary part-time worker increase warns, I think, that the official unemployment rate - the media darling - will run above 12% in 2009.
And, as discussed, by some measures of unemployment that, unlike the publicized BLS unemployment rate, include discouraged workers, involuntary part-timers, and others marginally attached to the workforce, our unemployment rate is already 13.5%. That's the number I believe measures the real pain. So, absent a quick and successful fiscal stimulus plan, the official unemployment rate tops 12% as I expect it will, our true unemployment rate will be in the neighborhood of 18-21%, a very bad neighborhood adjacent to Great Depression Avenue. And that will not keep the Lesser Depression "lesser." Can Congress not know this?
More Time for Hobbies. The good news, we finally have a four day workweek! The bad news, it's totally involuntary . . . Yet another measure of the critical labor situation is the BLS report of the average hours in the work week:

In December, the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.2 hour to 33.3 hours, seasonally adjusted—the lowest level on record for the series, which began in 1964. [Emphasis added]

The "lowest on record for the series, which began in 1964" is not a record that comes with a medal. And should the involuntary part-time work rate continue its rocket-like ascent, the work week will also fall further, to the very low 30s. It's a four day week. Less wages, but more time for hobbies like . . . looking for more work.
We need to do what the Internet allows us to do so well: Yell at our Congressional delegations. Not, "inform." Yell. Not "raise consciousness." Yell. We saw how successful this has been in Obama's victory; Internet fund raising and misinformation destruction are but two things that we used to take away the GOP's normal advantages. We can do the same now. Send a very simple e-mail to your Congressional delegates, House and Senate. Tell them your own stories, direct them to move quickly to provide fiscal stimulus to the country. Yell. Yell. Yell.

******************************************

Contact your representatives by email or phone. Here's where you'll find their contact information, courtesy of Contacting the Congress.

Senator Reid: Seat Roland Burris!

Harry Reid, Mr. Burris Has Come to Washington. Only a few people in the United Sates do not know that on December 30th Illinois GoverNOT Rod Blagojevich used his termite riddled pulpit to appoint Roland Burris, a 71 year old veteran Illinois politician, to the Senate seat vacated by President Elect Obama. Still-Governor Blago move brought a groundswell of dissatisfaction all around, and it has since grown to where a constitutional standoff now exists. Mr. Burris, the first African American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois, is now in Washington, D.C. - with flags flying for all to see - to claim his Senate set. He's been loud in his proclamation of legitimacy, and despite the origin of his appointment in the apparent extortion factory of Guv Blago, Mr. Burris makes his claims not without reason, or law, on his side.

The former AG threw his hat into the ring on December 13th, saying "I am more than happy and willing and able to come to the call of my friends and to try to be able to bring some sanity and help to the people of this state, the people of America, and to the United States Senate." Mr. Burris is considered a solid, if not stellar, Democrat, he is a person who would likely vote with the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, and Harry Reid ought to keep that firmly in mind. The GOP has already signaled they will toss bipartisanship under the proverbial bus and Reid ought to know he'll need the junior Illinois senator to invoke cloture. He appeals to both white and black voters, but, true enough, has sometimes been criticized by black constituents. He's a middle of the roader - but does not look like a blue dog Dem - and if he's seated in the Senate through the good sense of Reid and the Democratic leadership he'd prove a good soldier in the ranks of filibuster breakers. Like the Aretha Franklin classic Think (next page) accompanying this entry, "You need me and I need you . . ."

Senator Reid, You've Got Bigger Fish to Fry. At a time when the party needs to focus on hitting the ground running in the just convened 111th Congress, controversy over seating Burris has

************** Start reading continuation below ***************

sadly become, along with the Franken Senate seat, the first bit of business. It ought to play out quickly and cleanly, particularly since the Franken-Coleman contested election will be protracted and tie up the Minnesota seat (discussed here on December 30, 2008 in another entry). Dems do not need yet another seat tied up.

Under Article 1 Section 5. Clause 1 of the Constitution the Senate has the power to "Judge . . . the Qualifications of its own Members," and it has done so on 132 occasions since 1789. In fact, the question of appointment by a governor has occurred on 26 occasions, but not many since the adoption of the 17th Amendment in . Paragraph two reads:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This does not appear to be in play here. Illinois explicitly empowers the governor to make such appointments, and regardless of the stink surrounding Blago, he is still constitutionally the Guv. It's somewhat ironic that the 17 Amendment, replacing the previous method of legislative selection of Senate vacancy appointments, "was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection," not gubernatorial.

In any event, whether the Senate could exercise its Article 1 powers authority to "judge" the "qualifications of its own members" is questionable in this case. While the Constitution uses strong language, in 1969 a Supreme Court case throws some real doubt as to whether the Senate can block Burris. The case, Powell v. McCormack, ruled that Congress is limited to determining whether a person meets the constitutional requirements for membership—30 years old, nine years a citizen, and a resident of his state—or was legitimately elected. And Burris certainly meets those; he is substantially more than 30 years old, is a citizen and resident of Illinois. The Powell case does not indicate that "qualifications" are tainted because the governor is an Olympic class miscreant, soon to be under indictment and likely impeached, and removed from office.

So How Bad Is This? Given the source of the appointment, of course it looks bad. But that doesn't go to the substance of the appointment, i.e. Mr. Burris himself. He appears to be a good pick of an honest man with years of relevant experience that will be helpful in a time when fiscal experience (he was the state's Comptroller) and the reassertion of the rule of law (he was Illinois AG) is not just necessary but critical. And, boy howdy, does he have chutzpah! A badly needed attribute among a Democratic Senate too civil (or frightened) to take on the firebrands of the GOP. Put it this way, if Blago had not been caught with his hand reaching for the the till, wouldn't the selection of Mr. Burris have been viewed as, if not the very best choice, at the least, a very good choice? I believe so.

On December 30th Harry Reid stated that the Democratic leadership will fight seating Mr. Burris.

It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

Today, in a theatrical performance, Mr. Burris was turned away from the swearing in of the 111th Senate. In his speech opening the new session of Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "Mr. Burris is not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois." Burris indicated that the Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, had informed him that his credentials were not in order because they lacked the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State and the state seal. This issue is to be argued before the Illinois Supreme Court, and most believe that the signature and seal are not required. The spokesperson for the Illinois Secretary of State indicated agreement, stating that his office did not exercise "veto power" over the governor's appointments. This is basic constitutional law, and it is likely that, in the absence of some Olympic level legal gymnastics, the court will sustain Mr. Burris's appointment. The requirement for the Secretary of State's signature is a Senate standing rule, however, and that may implicate the Article 1 powers, but invoking that power is bad politics, I believe. And Senate rules are, to put it mildly, flexible.

But back to the swearing in attempt today. In a classic shoot the messenger move, the AP reported this as if it was Mr. Burris's fault:

But if what Burris really wanted a circus, he got one. A mob of reporters awaited him outside the Senate's North Door, where Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer and a throng of officers escorted him through security and up to Erickson's office on the third floor. There, more reporters waited. Once again Burris went through a metal detector and into Erickson's office, nestled between the elevators and the press gallery. Twenty-one minutes later, Burris left; a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that Burris had been rejected. Burris left the building, escorted by Gainer and his officers. And soon, a noisy throng of reporters followed him across the street, and Burris confirmed that he'd been turned away.

An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter." Asked what his options were, Wright said there possibly could be a court challenge and he said that Burris also would continue to talk to the Senate leadership.

One bright spot emerged for Burris supporters this weekend. On Sunday, Reid signaled a possible settlement when he told David Gregory of "Meet the Press," "I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room to negotiate." If there is one certainty about Reid, it's that one. His negotiation style with the GOP has often left Democratic goals begging. This time he could use it to fashion a reliable Illinois Senate seat.

Senator Reid: THINK! So Reid says "negotiation." But he also wants to show strength, and he's not really accustomed to it. He's likely to make a mistake by remaining hidebound to his previous statement. We've just spent eight long years being stymied by a President who remained stuck in his former beliefs. Reid and the Democrats should revise their approach. They can educate the public as well. How? (1) Restate their objections to Blago in no uncertain terms; (2) state that, despite this, Blago is still constitutionally empowered to make this appointment and, under our system, is innocent until proved guilty; (3) discuss the excellent character and qualifications of Mr. Burris; (4) discuss the extremely difficult problems facing the national and the Senate's obligation to "hit the ground running"; (5) educate about the possibility of a Senate appointment fight being protracted, distracting, and, in the end, contrary to Powell vs. McCormack; (6) educate about the high costs of a "special election" option and the also high cost of a vacant Senate seat; (7) and finally, most importantly, reiterate that positions taken are subject to change given new information or context, and that leadership is not demonstrated by riding a horse off a cliff because your map indicates there's a road there.

I hope that Reid doesn't think he's painted himself and the Democratic Senate into a corner. It's absolutely certain that the Republican party will squeal no matter what Reid does, so he shouldn't think he'll win either way with them. And, undoubtedly, they savor a special election against "Blago Democrats," and if Reid goes forward and vacates the seat, he's courting a new Republican Senator from Illinois. It's time to exercise the privilege of the majority party to change its mind. Use that power for once, grow into it, and move on to more important fights ahead with Senator Roland Burris solidly on your side.

You better think, think about what you're trying to do to me Yeah, think , let your mind go, let yourself be free