Will Tom Price Run Straight Into The Hatch Act?
by politicalvine
Rumors have it that Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) has his reelection campaign humming right along…straight out of his Cobb County (federal) district office.
Rumors abound about how his district personnel, upon waking-up to a challenge-candidate out of Cherokee County, have spent the last several months shaking-down businesses, associations, and politicos by threatening that if they don’t block John Konop from making any headway, they will be “cut-off” from any help from (and, we quote) “The Congressman.”
PV’s Analysis: The good thing about this type of illicit activity is that we do not have to rely on Denny and The Jets (i.e., Speaker Hastert and Bribery Central in the House of Representatives) to investigate these types of influence-peddling activities.
No, this type of stuff is handled directly out of the Office of Investigative Counsel, a completely separate law enforcement arm of Congress. And, violation of the Hatch Act isn’t going to entail a slap on the wrist, monetary fine as punishment if one is found in violation of it. Try jail time. Federal jail time.
We hope Tommy Boy and his merry band of shakedown artists in Cobb and Cherokee counties continues their romp through the district…the more activities they get caught at, the bigger the complaint sent to OIC will get.
Technorati Tags: Congressman Tom Price
Sphere: Related Content
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 am
Is it not clear to you that the GOP leadership in the House is exactly where the Democrats were in 1994? They are insulated, clueless, corrupt, and rooted firmly in the belief that they enjoy a permanent majority. David Brooks is right, the best thing that could happen to the Republicans and the country would be the promotion of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker!
I suppose John Konop should be credited for trying to correct the ship’s course before it crashes on the rocks. Yet, if you examine the similarities between Konop and Steve Sinton, it will merely underscore the point that the GOP has seriously overstayed its’ welcome.
When you look honestly at where the Republican Party is with regard to ethics in government, between Libby, Abramoff, Scanlon, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Perdue, Reed, and now Price, it seems that the only ethically-minded vote in November 2006 is for a Democrat.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Charley,
If all the Dem Party has to offer is “We’re not the Republicans,” then you folks will NOT win much of anything.
See, the fact is that the Dem Party has long been the party of corrupt and immoral people. You only recently switched to the Dem Party because of the hypocrisy of the current Republican leadership (i.e., President, Congress, et al.), but, you forget that most people still remember the corrupt ideas of the Dem Party and will not freely go vote for them.
If the Dems were smart and wished to out-flank the GOP this next voting cycle, they would do the following things: 1) Quit talking about “punishing the rich” and start talking about helping ALL people by reducing paperwork burdens on their lives…and admit there is a serious problem with the current form of the Tax Code; 2) start talking about REAL, sincere lobbying reform…ban lobbyists from the Capitol during sessions, I don’t know. But, this constant exposure to freebies from lobbyists is polluting our republic; 3) forget pointing-out the hypocrisy of the GOP in Congress…start talking about how YOU want to stop the pork-barrelling of all members of Congress…
Actually, you know what? Perhaps rather than have me list a bunch of stuff I see a problem with, I advise you (and anyone in the Dem Party) to go checkout the beliefs of Representative Ron Paul for some logical, Libertarian views on this country, and see if you cannot start making more sense in how you wish to govern.
NOT just takeover Georgia or Congress because the GOP has a few people in leadership who have obviously drunk some sort of power Kool-Aide, but REALLY “govern” this country for everyone.
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:39 am
Why not say, with success, “We’re not the Republicans?” Perdue was not elected governor in his own right, Perdue won because he was the alternative to Barnes. Period. What worked for you then will work for us now.
I’m all for closing corporate and high income tax loopholes as a method of simplifying the tax code. The complications are all at that end, not the working class brackets. The problem is that simplifying the code DOES “punish the rich”, so in both the conservative and libertarian mindsets, ’simplification’ is merely a code word for scrapping the progressive tax structure. If you couldn’t sell it in the aftermath of the 2004 elections, you certainly won’t be able to now that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. The same goes for Social Security privatization.
Democrats have already proposed a total ban on lobbyist’s gifts to members of Congress, far eclipsing Hastert’s loophole-ridden farce of reform. Something else that should be considered is a constitutional amendment making all federal campaigns publicly financed. It won’t stop the interest groups from running their own ads in targeted districts and states, which means we would have to stiffen laws and enforcement against coordination. Pork-barrelling would decline under such a system, though elimination is, honestly, beyond anyone’s ability.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 am
Why not require monthly debates. They could be on TV and radio and let them sell advertising.
January 23rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
Charley, you forget that prior to the elections in 1994, the porkies in Congress were the Dems. They get back to power, and it will be the same all over again.
The message “We’re not the GOP” won’t really resonate that well since a lot of the same voters will say to themselves “Yeah, they’re not the GOP…they’re worse in terms of policies…” and won’t vote for the Dems.
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
After seeing your performance at an event sponsored by your own campaign setting up a friendly audience, John you should absolutely thank the good lord that you do not have debates scheduled with anyone, much less a sitting congressman.
Bart
January 23rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Bart,
People like you in both parties are why voters are frustrated. If anyone challenges the good old boy network you attack.As Vice Chairman of the party you should welcome new ideas not chase people away.
I realize with your past problems with dirty campaigns it is difficult for you to focus on issues and not personal attacks.
Your support and Tom Price of out of control spending (Highway and Energy). Trade deals that sell of America to China brick by brick. And failed federal programs like No Child Left Behind and the Drug bill make you and Tom ring leaders to the race to the bottom.
Warren Buffet told us last week at this rate the world will own more of us then the whole American Stock Exchange.He called this our biggest economic problem.
I would hope you as a party leader and Tom Price would not be so insecure with your argument that all you do is take personal attacks on my family and I.
As you know I am ready to debate Tom Price anytime. The real issue is will Tom ever show and defend his voting record ???????
January 24th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I’m sorry, Bill, but your asertions are not fact-based. Pork-barrelling has exploded under GOP control, both in total dollars and in the number of ‘pet projects’. How can you be against pork-barrel spending, and say Democrats are worse than Republicans when Republicans are MORE fiscally irresponsible? I switched parties in 2004 because I am still a fiscal conservative and the vast majority of the GOP is NOT!
Oh, and another reason I switched is people like Bart, party officers who do not maintain organizational neutrality in party primaries. Sickening!
John, you seem to be an OK guy, though we probably have some profound disagreements on social issues. Sadly, I don’t like your chances. I think both you and Bill are tragically misanalyzing the true nature of the GOP in the W era. The GOP is driven by a perversion of Judeo-Christian faith, coupled with a belief in 19th-century, unregulated, boom-bust economic cycles, with an nod to tawdry, short-term political pandering that drains national resources without helping the working class (hence Medicare prescription drug coverage).
Quite frankly, John, that does not sound like you. I sense that your vision is much better for America. I hope you do not lose that vision for the sake of campaign dollars and organizational support, because in a Republican primary, they ARE mutually exclusive.
January 24th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
John,
Are you now claiming to be the anti-good ol boy candidate? Those who endorsed you at the Southern Party of Georgia may decide to pull their support, better be careful.
No attack intended John, just repeating what was said after your Slapshots performance by many, including some who you probably consider to be steadfast supporters. If you are unable to accept constructive criticism (as one would expect from you based on your helium inflated ego), it will be quite an enjoyable campaign season watching you waste $100k of your own money (pls consider donating to fallenheroesfund.org instead).
One last no charge bit of advice; doom and gloom candidacies work best if the candidate admits to being a dem. The GOP generally wins running as the party of optimism ala Ronald Reagan and George W. who ironically gave a very strong defense for his trade treaties yesterday.
John, hoping for economic decline is a sick foundation on which to build a self indulgent campaign unless one only seeks temporary publicity (or unless your last name is Kennedy, Kerry or Clinton).
Bart
January 24th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Charlie,
Bart and Tom Price are exactly , what you are talking about. That is why I am running to try to bring back what the Party use to stand for.
Bart and Tom Price, can not respond to issues with facts but only insults.
Back to your original E - Mail I think the money it takes to get elected is behind this. That is why I suggested mandatory debates on a monthly basis , and letting TV and radio sell time.
Without this we will keep getting officials who are mainly driven by the money. This would make Tom Price and others actual answer questions rather than hide behind advertising and hitman like Bart.
Finally we must demand integrity from our elected officials. I said in the summer at a party meeting Both Tom Delay and Barny Frank should of been forced to resign over the travel scandel. Instead both parties have cover guys like Bart with talking points.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
From the Southern Party of Georgia in support of Candidate John Konop for U.S. Representative, 6th District GA:
“We recommend that you visit Mr. Konop’s campaign web site - JohnKonopForCongress.com and if you are in his district get in touch with him. His election would be a great improvement over the incumbent!”
For more information about the first official political party to come out and endorse John Konop for Congress, please visit http://www.spofga.org/new_index.phtml
January 24th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Bart,
The fact is, John Konop WOULD be a great improvement over a sychophantic, “do-ANYTHING-Tom-DeLay-tells-me-to-do” Congressman.
I’m beginning to suspect that Tom Price and Tom DeLay are gay lovers…that would explain the undying loyalty Price has to DeLay a LOT better than DeLay merely giving Price $10,000.
January 24th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Bill,
Seems we disagree on which elected body has control over treaties. Konop apparently believes an individual U.S. Representative can “control congress” especially with regard to trade treaties. Unfortunately for him and his zealot followers the Constitution clearly states the President “shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur:”
An erratic, ego driven publicity whore (i.e. Cynthia McKinney) is seldom if ever a better representative of any area. Congressman Tom Price agreed with President Bush on CAFTA, lower taxes, strong defense, etc. He has introduced legislation to force a serious decline in federal spending, tighten the borders and is an avid supporter of real tax reform (Fair Tax).
Given the choice of a candidate with a proven strong conservative track record or one who openly seeks to increase the size of government (reminds one of Reagan v. Mondale), I will take the known quantity being Representative Price.
Bart
January 25th, 2006 at 12:03 am
John Konop will “increase the size of government?” And, Tom Price hasn’t voted to do exactly that with the budget?
Bart, you’re talking NONSENSE…you really are.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:07 am
And, as far as the “Fair Tax”, anyone would be a fool to now trust our federal bureacracy to implement THAT law. It would be the biggest cluster-screwing of the country EVER.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Bart,
First, you tell everyone I am a Democrat, and then you say I am too far to the Right. The reason why I have a cross section of support is because I tell the truth with no spin. The average American understands that both parties are selling them out to cheap overseas labor markets, which includes child slave labor.
Both parties want illegal immigrants and legal immigrants as a tool to drive down wages. You should understand that with your own job search.
Tom Price’s support of the Highway Bill, Energy Bill, No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug Bill are examples of how he has left no lobbyist behind! This has left a debt near 9 trillion dollars and a government growing at 7.5% a year.
As far as trade, Tom Price has sold out our country to China. I agree with Republican Representative Charlie Norwood that Congressman from either party who voted like Tom Price on trade, should pay the price with the voters.
Bart, as the Vice Chairman of the Republican party, playing the role of a hitman for Tom Price, which you were arrested for in past elections, is an example of why 44% of Americans think Congress is on the take .
John Konop
6th District Candidate for U.S. Congress
January 26th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
John,
Quick, easy question; If you were a member of the 109th Congress today, which of the three following candidates would you support to replace Tom Delay as Majority Leader:
A) Roy Blunt (R-MO)
B) John Boehner (R-OH)
C) John Shadegg (R-AZ)
January 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Bart,
It’s great to know you are finally visualizing me as your next congressman.
I encourage you to close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and repeat after me, “Congressman John Konop, Congressman John Konop, Congressman John Konop”.
Thanks, and keep up the good work…
January 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
ROFL!
January 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
John,
So what’s the answer to the posed question Congressman Konop (don’t stroke your ego too much, could suffer a premature electulation).
BB
January 27th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Let me guess who you’re for, Bart. You’re for anyone Tom Price is for, right?
It cost Tom DeLay $10,000 to buy Tom Price to be his personal bitch. Is John Boehner willing to pay at least that much to buy Tom Price’s vote and loyalty?
January 28th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Bart,
The Rep. who ran against Tom Delay for whip said , that under DELAY it was all about raising money not the issues.
The same Henry Tan from China caught giving money to the Clinton White House moved his money to Abramhoff and Delay. In fact Tan was on tape bragging how Delay told him he had congress in his pocket to block reform in China.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:23 am
What is the big deal JohnBill??? This is not a life or death question, just curious who Congressman Konop would support given the choices as they are today. If Konop cannot even address something as simple as choosing a majority leader, then one must wonder how he would be able to handle complex trade negotiations, the war on terror or taxes.
BTW, the so-called “vision” of me accepting Konop as the 6th district rep. is akin to asking Hawks Coach Woodson which color uniform his team would wear in the NBA finals….or Georgia Tech Football Coach Gaily how his team will travel to play in the BCS Championship game next year.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Bart,
I am sorry you did not get the point. I would ask all three Congressmen whether or not they would emphasize raising money or issues. I would ask members like Charlie Norwood, which candidate they felt would promote issues over raising money. I would then vote for that Representative.
By the way, no defense - as usual - from you or your guy, Tom Price on spending. NO DEFENSE - as usual - only selling off our country to communist CHINA!
So you and Tom Price disagree with Warren Buffet that it is okay to have countries like China own more of the U.S. than Americans. Once again, you and Tom will aviod the questions as usual.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
I thought Blunt was running for House Republican Policy Committee chairman, I might very well be wrong though. I know Phil Gingrey is seeking that position. I am surprised Tom Price isnt trying to run for something already.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
I think Tom Price is running for whatever position someone can buy him off to run for.
Since his Daddy, Tom DeLay, got taken-out by a money-laundering scheme, I guess Tom P. is lost in the desert, wandering around looking for a new Big Daddy to hook-up with.
January 29th, 2006 at 9:39 am
John,
So in other words, all your rhetoric of “control congress” is just that…hollow talk. You would have to get permission from Charlie Norwood before deciding how to vote on the simplest question. What if Charlie isn’t around John, would you then be “lost in the desert” as Bill falsely implies is the case with Congressman Price after Delay stepped down.
Still working to get a straight answer from you John, the following three links provide a non-partisan account of the three candidates for those who actually care to look. Instead of waiting on marching orders from Congressman Norwood, maybe you can get enough data to answer the very simple question:
John Shadegg - http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNIP8155
John Boehner - http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H3092103
Roy Blunt - http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC033389
After you study up then answer the question, I will be happy to discuss those issues like China trade that you put forth to divert attention from the original inquiry. Seems to me your avoidance here on such a simple question is a continuation of your Slapshots performance where everybody agreed you never gave a straight answer. Stop the spin John.
Bart
January 29th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Bart,
I was clear in my answer. Charlie Norwood was an example, of someone I would talk to who did not sell out to Delay. Ron Paul & Walter Jones would be other examples of leaders who did not sell out to the big money interests. If Congressman like Tom Price had listened to men like this, we would not be closing in on a 9 trillon dollar debt. We would not be in debt to China and have countries like that buying us out brick by brick.
Not everyone thinks short term like you and Tom Price. The reason why so many of us from both parties are upset is that your “party type talking points” are not working. We get it! That is why Tom Price is scared to debate me on the issues and he hides behind party hitmen like you.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
John,
What answer? Never mind John. It is clear you realize how little chance you have of winning, thus no need to give a straight answer to any question (even those posed by the satellite meeting of the Falls of Cherokee HOA conducted at Slapshots a few weeks ago).
Once again I provide a link to http://www.fallenheroesfund.org for you to consider instead of wasting $100K in this no win campaign.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Bart,
If you really cared about our troops you would not support the exporting of our economy to China.
The troops need jobs that pay well when they come home from serving our Country.
China takes U.S. dollars and buys oil from Iran who supplies weapons to terrorist that kill our troops
China sells arms to Iran that is also given or sold to terrorist that kill our troops.
To wrap yourself around the flag while supporting policies that kill brave young men and destroys the middlle class is why I am standing up to Tom Price.
The sad part is both parties are filled with people like yourself more loyal to the party then your Country.
That is why Tom Price nor yourself have any excuse for backing COMMUNIST CHINA over your fellow Americans.
I will say it again , Charlie Norwood is right , this is not a party issue it is about being an American !
” The truth will set you free “
January 30th, 2006 at 6:05 am
I have two questions, one for John and one for Bart.
John, in a matchup between Tom Price and Steve Sinton, whom would you support?
Bart, in a matchup between John Konop and Steve Sinton, whom would you support?
January 30th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Charlie,
I have made this comment numerous times in public and private. My faith, family,country, friends, and nieghbors far outwiegh my allegiance to the Republican Party.
If Tom Price refuses to change his reckless support for out-of-control spending bills and trade policies that sell out our Country to places like China, what choice is left?
How DOCTOR PRICE, could support the Prescription Drug Bill that was a give-away to drug companies at the expense
of our parents and grandparents is sick! You would think a doctor would understand that if seniors citizens cannot afford their medications, what the short and long term health effects are for our parents and grandparents.
Similar comments could be made about other NO LOBBYIST LEFT BEHIND Pork-Filled Bills that Price supported like the Highway, Energy, and No Child Left Behind legistlation.
Tom Price supported pork-filled legistlation which has contributed to the national debt soaring over 8 trillion dollars with no end in sight. Keeping all the debt issues in mind, I agree with Warren Buffet that the selling off of America to countries like China is our biggest economic issue today. Tom Price’s support of pro-communist China, with child and slave labor trade violations and intellectual property theft that occurs 90% of the time, is contributing to the selling off of America and our middle class.
As far as Steve, I would have to have an open mind, depending on whether he opposed Tom Price’s support of pro-communist China exporting of our American economy and Tom Price’s out-of-control pro-lobbyist spending policy at the expense of our children’s future.
I am a Republican because I believe the party stands for less government, local control, as well as fiscal and personal responsibility. But you are right, Charlie, many in the Republican Party have a whole new play book.
John Konop
January 30th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Charley,
You asked — ‘Bart, in a matchup between John Konop and Steve Sinton, whom would you support?’
An honest, straightforward answer — The Libertarian…if no Libertarian in the race, then I would either enter a write-in candidate where available or vote for neither as I cannot force myself to vote dem as would be required in your posted scenario.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
John,
Maybe if I re-phrase the simple question, you can provide a spin free answer:
Which of the three candidates for House Majority Leader would John Konop support if he were in Congress today assuming all trade related issues with China were resolved?
Does that help John? Or maybe I should add a fourth name for your consideration since Stinton is more to your liking than a conservative Republican — go ahead and use Nancy Pelosi if you would rather since all Republicans are considered by you to be in favor of slavery, corruption, America’s demise, etc.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Konop distortions:
- Congressman Price was not in Congress when the Prescription Drug Benefit was added to Medicare (12/8/03)
- Congressman Price was not there for Kennedy’s education bill (aka No Child Left Behind) signed by President Bush 1/8/02.
BTW John, the leading advocate for immigration reform Congressman Tom Tancredo endorsed Congressman Price — http://www.tomprice.com/images/imreform.jpg — Is Tancredo now to be labeled a China loving, slavery endorsing big spender?
January 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Bart,
Are you suggesting Tom Price doesn’t supporet the Drug bill or NCLB? He has been on the multiple radio shows and in todays newspaper promoting the Drug bill.
Tom Price has also has been a very public about his support of No Child Left Behind. In fact, he even issued a press release about his support.
The word I used was “support”. I realize it most be tough to have no defense on his voting record, as well as of bills he SUPPORTED.
The best example is that you still have no answer for the out-of-control spending and trade deals that sell off our country and drives the growth of legal and illegal immigration at the expense of the middle class (i.e. that includes you). That is why Tom Price is scared to debate me.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:16 am
John,
As I stated before, I would be happy to dive into a strict policy discussion with you just as soon as you answer my simple question.
Tom Price scared to debate you? LMAO. Are you getting dizzy yet?
Bart
January 31st, 2006 at 11:21 am
Frankly, Bart, I don’t quite understand your hangup on the question of who should replace Tom DeLay?
This is what you’re going to do with however Konop answers: you are going to tear into him and yell and scream about how stupid he is and go off and celebrate about how you won your points.
With any luck, the person who replaces Tom DeLay will be a bit more honest than DeLay…which means, of course, that Tom Price will not be able to support that candidate.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:53 am
Bill,
Nothing major intended. I thought it to be a simple question that might provide some insight into Konop’s philosophy beyond just being pissed at China, Mexico and the United States.
Why is Konop afraid to answer?..because he is worried that I will “go off”??? Believe me, there are plenty of Konop statements and actions on which to base a debate, this is not one of them (unless he chooses Pelosi which based on his past would not be a shocker).
February 1st, 2006 at 9:20 am
Bart,
It is sad to see that you are more concerned with party leadership and what if’s with party leaders than any meaningful discussions.
Cliff
February 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Bart,
John’s more of a conservative Republican than you are. All you are is a partisan Republican, which means you’ll vote for anyone regardless of their true nature in leadership.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Thanks Cliff for the profound analysis. Why not just pick any old schmuck to be majority leader, who gives a crap? Sorry you don’t get it.
Bill, LMAO…you can’t be serious.
As far as substance, I accepted an invitation from Konop to debate him publicly long ago, but never got a time/date. Still don’t know what it would prove beyond the fact that I disagree with his grow government regulation and spending platform, but it would certainly be fun.
Maybe Bill can explain how it is conservative to propose removing over 20M people from the country/workforce (imagine the cost of finding 20M people when we already know how many millions were wasted futilely searching a relatively small area for 1 right wing radical clinic bomber who happened to be #1 on the FBI Most Wanted list??!!?? Multiply x 20M spread over 48 states x many years).
No problem according to Konop; let’s place the burden on America’s backbone, a.k.a. small business to become an unpaid immigration police force subject to being shut down if caught using illegals (otherwise known in conservative circles as increasing the size and influence of government). Don’t forget how much it will cost to add enough government enforcement officials to search for the illegals and go after non-conforming small business owners (tax increases and/or special illegal immigrant reduction fee sure to come). Maybe we should save money by adding another star to the flag representing Mexico as the 51st state…war doesn’t cost as much as what Konop proposes.
Meanwhile let’s also cut off relations with China forbidding any products made in China from entering the U.S. until China abides by credit card processing magnate Konop’s idea of fair trade thus creating an inflationary economic tsunami even Alan Greenspan would find unstoppable. Are these conservative ideals Bill?
Where is Herman Cain when we need him…he is a boat rocker who could make a difference.
Bart
February 1st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Bart, I have to confess I don’t understand the scenarios you were presenting, but it sounds like like you might have the start of a good science fiction novel.
I encourage you to visit ControlCongress.com for an explaination of my positions. Thanks…
February 1st, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Bart…I think you should run for President. The clarity in which you present your ideas is just unfathomable.
And, to give you an idea on how to distinguish yourself from the rest of the pack, I recommend you start a movement called the “Brannon Party.”
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 am
John and bb,
Thank you both for your answers. It seems to me that each of us has a different idea as to what a conservative is. No wonder political labels are useless; the labels themselves are subjective. The issues and the ability to implement policies are what is important.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:14 am
Charlie,
You are right. Both parties use the labels as away to drive people a part and raise money to maintain power.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Bart,
Sorry I do “get it”. You are concerned with being a follower of the leader, instead of leading by example. I would not vote for anyone based on who the would follow verse were they would lead. You also comment that nothing should be done with existing large problems (ie 20M people) because they are to big/expensive. Avioding the painful truth has created the mess and continuing to ignore the issue as to big to handel will only continue to grow the problems. I have not heard anyone suggesting to stop immigration, only controll our borders and documenting the people that enter. A good start to controlling cost is to prohibit immigrants from receiving any program, service or benifit paid for by American tax payers. That would not cost tax payers anything. Pretty easy START to a major issue. Verse you profound idea of doing nothing.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Cliff,
HUH!?
Bart
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:46 pm
John,
You can stop spinning now, Boehner wins…must have paid somebody off if we are to believe Bill’s analysis. This must really wad your panties, a congressman from your semi-home state becoming majority leader despite being the self proclaimed author of NCLB. Maybe you can donate another four large to your brother along with moving expenses so he can relocate to Ohio’s 8th district and run against JB.
Sorry you couldn’t make up your mind in advance of the vote John. I know it must be tough to choose a leader when one’s ego is as large as yours creating irrational thoughts of grandeur.
Here’s a new question that a prospective Congressman will be forced to address: Should HR25 make it to the floor of the House, how would John vote? Couple of hints to help you out:
- If passed, it would be the fastest way to significantly eliminate the benefits of being or supporting an illegal immigrant.
- If passed, it would immediately change the unbalanced trade paradigm in favor of America without placing additional police burdens upon 80% of job generating small businesses.
- If passed, corrupt social engineering congressmen would no longer be able to engineer socially.
How Would John Vote?!
BTW, fallenheroesfund.org up to $5M, only $5M more to go…$100K would be much more useful with these folks than a no-win congressional campaign.
Bart
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:51 am
Why is no one talking about re-negotiating NAFTA so that Mexican wage standards are at least similar to ours?Why does no one seem to care that hiring an illegal immigrant IS A CRIME THAT NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED? Why are so many focused on people who are driven by economic desperation, and so few on those who enrich themselves through economic exploitation?
The corporate superstructure will win either way: the first is through maintaining the status quo indefinitely. The second is that if illegal immigrants were forced out through economic pressure and ethnic cleansing (stop drooling, Bart), it would create an “emergency” labor shortage requiring the “emergency” suspension of minimum wage and other labor laws. Naturally, the “emergency” would last - let’s see now - FOREVER, if certain people had their way (I said stop drooling, Bart).
Even a cursory examination of human history will reveal an obvious truth. To expand the gap between rich and poor is to plant the seeds of repression and revolution. Cromwell, Robespierre, and Lenin are, in the end, the same man. Are we cursed to follow in those footsteps, or will we find a way to break the pattern? I believe the next 25 years will provide a conclusive answer.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 am
Bart,
I would support anything to simplify the tax code.
Neal, on his show has said this is not a fix for out of control spending that you and Tom Price support.
This is not a fix for bad trade deals and our immigration problems.
This is why you and Tom Price always avoid the question.
Fisher your back up guy for Price for Congress has made many of the same points about Tom Price.
http://fisherforcongress.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Charley,
Eliminating the minimum wage permanently would be a good thing.
Bart
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Bart,
We have , why do you think 20mm illegal immigrants are here and growing. hey Bart , what about your guy FISHER.
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
John,
Note in my previous post I did not write or imply that the Fair Tax would “stop out of control spending”. In fact, that is the only drawback I see to the proposal, it is supposed to be revenue neutral. If I had my way, the budget would be cut to the bone starting with a 5 year reform of Social Security to become a 100% private program.
The Fair Tax is a much more rational approach to solving what some consider to be problems (immigration, trade) than becoming an isolationist country as would inevitably happen should you, Bill, Pat Buchanan and the Southern Party of Georgia succeed.
Interestingly a writer in this week’s Cherokee Ledger challenged Chip Rogers to spend a day in the shoes of a working immigrant. While I support some of Chip’s revised bill as it is presented in today’s AJC (reworked to address concerns expressed by me on this site lampooned by you and Bill), I do agree with the writer that spending a few days with these folks can be beneficial. Recently I have done just that working with some friends (legal citizens, small business owners who have never hired an illegal immigrant) on a shopping center construction project in Suwanee. I do not know how many of the hispanic workers on the job site are legal, but I do know they are courteous, work hard and perform tasks that the 4.7% of unemployed Americans would not do for three times the salary. In your world free of illegal immigrants, who would fill these jobs John? I challenge you to swap your white collar for a tool belt and hard hat for a couple of days in the trenches.
Bart
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Bart,
I am gald you were able to get some work. I will ask again ,your guy Fisher
Why do you support a guy who rips Tom Price for his out of control spending addiction that you support ?
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Bart,
So, Bart? Should we just repeal all immigration laws and open our borders officially?
Sure would start saving money on border patrol expenses.
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Charlie,
You are right about wage issue via trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA,WTO……
I have made this point a lot in public.The area newspappers from AJC,Ledger,Tribune,Story have printed it.
http://www.communityreview.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A2799
February 5th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Bart,
If eliminating the minimum wage law is a good idea, then please, PLEASE, make sure it’s on your party platform. That way, the Democrats can use it to club you into total submission. You’ll never sell it, any more than you can sell Social Security privatization.
Sadly, you won’t put it on a party platform, because you know your proposals on wages and Social Security are the kiss of political death. Given a choice between conviction and victory, you will always choose the latter. That, as they say, is the rub.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Charley (note correct spelling of your name, something that eludes the credit card processing magnate),
If I was in a position to do so, I would include those provisions plus much more to reduce the scope of government’s influence on our lives. You on the other hand as a proud liberal would rather let big nanny take care of everything.
Make you a deal, you push to implement absolute socialism as is the want of most liberals and I will push for less government, more privatization. Let’s see which side wins.
Bart
February 5th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Bill,
No need to open the borders officially as opposed to the unofficial open border policy now in place. Instead it would make good sense to realistically address the 20M already here while coming up with an ongoing worker program for our South American neighbors similar to that offered elsewhere i.e. H1B Visas for blue collar workers.
Bart
February 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
John,
How do you with a straight face accuse any congressman of having any responsibility in “out of control” spending after only one year of service? Congressman Price has an exemplarary record when it comes to work toward controlled spending. If this is your public gripe with Congressman Price, once again I urge you to consider a wiser use of $100K.
Bart
February 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Bart,
You never deal with facts , just spin.
Please defend his support or votes on
HIGHWAY BILL
ENERGY BILL
PRE DRUG BILL
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
I do not know how many more ways you can dodge this question. I know why you support Tom Price , because the both of you are great at not answering the question and blaiming others.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Bart,
How you can talk about big government and never answer address Tom Price’s complicity by voting and supporting every lobbyist-filled pork bill?
Conservative columnist PJ O’Rourke said it best: “Democrats support big government and Republicans proved it does not work”.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
John,
From Jim Wooten’s column in yesterday’s @issue section: “Price’s (that would be Congressman Tom Price (R-GA6) legislation, which has drawn 48 co-sponsors, including Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA8) and Phil Gingrey (R-GA) of Marietta, would require all general appropriations bills to come with a separate list of all earmarks, along with sponsor’s name.” Price says, “if you are going to ask for something…that you be willing to put your name beside it and stand up and defend it in front of colleagues, the news media and your constituents.”
HIGHWAY BILL - certainly not perfect, but increases significantly the amount of tax money collected in Georgia that stays in Georgia due to the efforts of Isakson, Price and others. What would John Do?
ENERGY BILL - IMHO both federal DOEs (energy & education) should be abolished. But since there is no serious move afoot to follow the Contract with America, what is wrong with the Energy Bill (House version, I know elements were dropped in final passage by the senate)? What Would Querulous John Do?
PRE DRUG BILL - Horrible vote buying legislation passed long before Congressman Price took office. What Would John Do? Would John tell senior voters that he will work to end the PRE DRUG program?
NCLB - Again passed long before Congressman Price was elected. What Would John Do to reform education?
February 7th, 2006 at 6:30 am
bb,
The deal you propose is fraudulent. You too support a nanny taking care of the American people; your nanny is simply different than mine. Your nanny spies on our private emails and phone calls. Your nanny is bought and paid for by massive corporate interests (you all but admitted it yourself with your reference to the prescription drug bill). Your nanny obviously believes that credit card bills never come due. Your nanny rams a narrow-minded, hate-filled interpretaion of the Bible down everyone’s throat, Christian and non-Christian alike. All of this is soundly based on the ACTIONS of the Republicans and not the meaningless RHETORIC.
I do not and will not condone the personal indiscretions of former President Clinton. That said, I’ll take an administration that gave us a balanced budget, less government as a percentage of GDP, fewer dead Americans as a result of terrorism, a lower abortion rate, and real growth in jobs and wages. My nanny does things better than your nanny. Deal with it.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Bart,
Your endorsed candidate Fisher pointed out that Tom Price supported and or voted for all the pork bills.
http://fisherforcongress.blogspot.com/
Why will you not answer the question with no spin? Your endorsed candidate Fisher said that to be for a balanced budget and vote for and,or support pork bills is having it both ways.
Please answer your endorsed candidate Fisher’s question: how can Tom Price be for pork bills and a balanced budget at the same time?
February 7th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
John,
Are you sniffin’ again? Endorsed candidate? What are you talking about, never even heard of this Fisher guy.
Now answer my questions, WWJD…regarding all the bills I addressed sans the spin. WWJD? No spin John, try being truthful.
bb
Bart
February 7th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Bart,
1/30/2006 , you said that you would vote for the Libertarian. Fisher is the libertarian.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I said I would vote for the Libertarian if a Republican was not in the race. That will not be the case because as you admitted previously, Tom Price will win the GOP primary.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:08 am
John,
Just a thought…if Congressman Price after one year in D.C. is the posterboy for all that is wrong with America, then what must you think of President Bush? Considering his authorization of NCLB, WTO, CAFTA, tax cuts, etc., how did you bring yourself to vote for him in ‘04? Or did you…here’s a question that fits with others posed by Charley:
John, who received your vote in the election for President in 2004? If Bush, please explain how you can vote for him yet disparage everything he stands for in your futile effort to “control congress”.
Come on John, no spin…let’s get a straight answer for once.
bb
February 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
A lot of people voted for Bush who are now figuring out he is NOT “conservative.”
Man, Bart…the amount of sychophantic passion you have and demonstrate for certain individuals is pathetic.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Bill,
I asked the first time you labeled me a Price sycophant to support the contention that Tom is less than a reliable conservative vote. Still waiting….
My research indicates his first year was spent as a champion of fiscal conservatism, protection of our borders and vocal support for reforming Social Security and the IRS. He voted against wackjob Bernie Sanders’ bill calling for American withdrawal from the WTO (as did every other GA GOPer except Westmoreland and Konop’s icon Norwood who joined with Cynthia McKinney, John Lewis, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Kennedy to vote for economic suicide).
From a Congressman Price floor speech given 6/21/05…I think this pretty much sums up the difference between an optimist (Price) and the Chicken Little campaign of Konop:
“I was listening a little earlier, and I was thinking, do you not just get tired of the naysayers? Do you not just get tired of the folks who have nothing but doom and gloom to offer? It really is remarkable. I do not know what I would do if I felt that way every single day; the other side of the aisle (bb note: a location Konop’s querulous outlook would be welcomed) seems to be so depressed and demoralized about what is going on. They are obviously not paying attention. This is an exciting time to be an American. It is an exciting time for all Americans.”
Nuf said,
Bart
February 16th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Bart,
Bad research again on your side. The majority of Georgia’s U.S. Congressmen from both parties voted to pull out of the WTO. The only Republicans were Linder,Kingston and Tom Price that voted to keep dealing with Communist China.
In fact your hero, Ron Paul, also voted to stop dealing with Communist China.
Bart, President Bush also just released a statement that we are having trade problems with China. Thanks, jk
February 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Bart,
One more thing John Lewis voted with Tom Price to keep dealing with Communist China. As Norwood points out this is not a party issue it is about being an American!
February 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Bart,
A “sychophant” is a person who acts as a diehard mouthpiece for an individual, regardless of what that individual does or says.
Over the summer, when the House voted to return the ethics rules back to where they were before they voted to first save poor old Tom DeLay’s hide (back to requiring that any leader who was indicted had to resign), Tom Price was one of only 11 congressmen to vote against doing so.
Why did he do this? Because Tom DeLay was his Mack Daddy, having given Price something on the order of $10,000 via several PACs DeLay controlled, and Price wanted to support his Mack Daddy from having to resign.
Rather than vote like the rest of the House on the basis of what was right, Price voted to protect his cash machine. That tells me Tom Price is nothing but a political hack whose allegiance can be bought with MONEY rather than having any principles worth a shit.
February 16th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
John,
I stand corrected on the minor issue of who voted for / against economic suicide but am reassured by the overwhelming 338-86 against the ludicrous resolution. Maybe you can move to Vermont, Bernie the socialist can’t hang around much longer.
bb
February 16th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Bart,
You are not defending the trade deal with RED China ?
February 16th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
John,
WWJD…since you won’t answer questions, I will take a stab at WWJD:
Highway Bill — vote NO after not participating in negotiations thus leaving his constituents with little to no federal highway funds.
Energy Bill — vote NO, hell everybody will be waiting in soup lines soon anyway after Konop “controls congress” so we don’t need no stinkin’ gasoline…plus lack of gas powered vehicular travel will help address the obesity epidemic in America…win - win baby!
Trade — withdraw from WTO, rescind NAFTA / CAFTA, place record breaking tariffs on imports (DVD Player was $99, now with tariff fees $399)…proceeds from tariffs fund 15 foot fence around the U.S.A.
Pre-Drug Bill - Too bad granny, there’s a new sheriff in town…end of the giveaway drug program and BTW don’t forget to vote for Konop. (I would actually agree with you on this one but it would be the first expensive government redistribution program to be abolished…ever).
REAL ID — vote YES to help end illegal immigration.
BTW, great ad in the Ledger…seems I read that somewhere before and you admitted taking certain statements out of context. Is that the best you got, distortions, lies and out of context statements? How much did Ben charge you for his dirty campaign playbook?
Bart
February 17th, 2006 at 12:17 am
John,
My bad…just realized Ben probably couldn’t sell the dirty campaign playbook just yet as he discovered a more realistic office to seek…amazing the similarities in campaign theme despite the different party affiliation. Is it in the Konop gene to attack first, talk issues later.
bb
February 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Apparently, bb genes compel one to put corporate profits above the love of country. We can call names from from here to Doomsday, my friend, and accomplish nothing. Why don’t you give us an explanation of why the $725 billion trade deficit is good for this country?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Charley,
Be happy to answer the question using a source cited frequently be John, the CATO Institute…I quote,
“In the next 20 years, China could surpass Japan as the world’s second largest trading nation, and between 2020 and 2030 the People’s Republic of China could emerge as the world’s biggest economy. To do so, however, China must continue to liberalize its economy, establish a modern financial system with a sound currency, and conform to international norms for protecting property rights. The United States should help move China in the direction of greater economic and personal freedom by adopting a consistent, long-run policy that normalizes trade relations, integrates China into the global trading order, and promotes exchange on a broad front.
Congress should uphold the principle of free trade and defend human rights; trade sanctions should be used only in extreme cases and only when they have a high chance of success. Too often well-intended sanctions end up harming the parties they were designed to help and delaying real reform.
The U.S. policy of engagement has been sucessful and should be continued and deepened. Congress should not let the bilateral trade deficit with China interfere with that strategy. Any movement away from freer trade and toward protectionism would only delay China’s progress toward freedom and prosperity and harm the global economy.”
My point Charley is to stay engaged or face the consequences later. China is a powerful country producing babies faster than the U.S. can produce bullets. If you desire a trade war that will likely lead to a real bloody war, then join with Konop’s ‘head in the sand’ policy.
American consumers benefit from Chinese imports. China is the 3rd largest IMPORTER of goods /services in the world. America is the #5 exporter and doubled its exports to China since 2000 (about the time China joined WTO). Why would any sane person desire to walk away from a deal that will ultimately bring real concepts of freedom to oppressed Chinese citizens through open, free trade?
You asked me for reasons trade with China benefits America. Now I ask you Charley, why do you believe America should withdraw from the WTO and would this be good for the country?
Bart
February 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Bart,
I understand now, that being a vice chairman of the Republican party does not mean you understand basic legislation.
First, the Highway money is a formula base on a percentage. Georgia gets around 90 cents on a dollar. The Congressman than decides on the 90 cents on a dollar where that money goes. Bart spending money we do not have is not a fiscal conservative.
Second, the energy bill by every group that look at it, called it NO LOBBYIST LEFT BEHIND !It was a give away to large oil companies that have not vested interest in solving the problem.
Pre- Drug Bill, was an anti- capitalist plan that did not allow drug companies to bid on the price of drugs. It was a no win plan for the average American. The winners are Drug companies. Tax payers got stuck with the bill garanteed to drive higher defictes. Seniors got left with higher drug prices and mass confusion.
All the above bills were written by K street lobbyist. Bart, The truth will set you free.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Bart,
Tell that to the average American family.
Flat wages
Healthcare cost growing 4 time faster that wages.
Childcare and college 2 to 3 times faster than wages.
Energy price out of control.
Tom Price is leaving the middle class behind.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
John,
OK John, you again avoid answering the basic question…WWJD? Bitching about a perceived problem does not lead to a solution.
BTW, highway bill increased from low 80% to 90%+ return on our fed hwy tax. Had you been the obstinate “control congress” kind of guy you portray yourself to be, Georgia and the 6th district would still be at 83-84% costing tens of millions that fund gridlock relief. Please campaign with the message…”I would have voted against the highway bill”.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Bart,
Wrong again the formula had nothing to do with the amount of Pork Tom Price voted for in the Highway bill. Tom Price would not say I voted for a pork bill to get a higher percentage of Highway funds. If the amount of pork was tied to the percentage each state got we would be further in debt.
I would of voted against the Highway bill and the 6th district would of still gotten the same allocation.By the way, the exact same thing happen in Arizona.
February 18th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Wrong John. Johnny Isakson worked with others in ‘04 to vote against the bill coming out of committee because it did not include a significant increase in the percentage. Negotiations took place, the percentage was increased along with other pluses for GA, the bill moved forward. I can give you the entire history, but that would be a waste of time and blow another of your bogus soundbites.
HR3 Final House vote: 412-8
HR3 Final Senate vote: 91-4
If Konop were able to vote, outcome would have been 411-9…not exactly “controlling congress” Johnny boy.
Every GA Rep voted YEA including your hero Charlie Norwood who added two “earmarks” funding studies for a couple of new interstates in GA.
Give it up John, this is a strategy to nowhere using bogus soundbites and personal attacks. I thought you would at least have something creative to offer while wasting tens of thousands on a losing proposition.
bb
February 18th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
From 8/1/05 Marietta Daily Journal -”$40.7M fed trans funding for Cobb County alone” - Go ahead John and campaign in Cobb with the promise to vote against $41M in gridlock relief because some Alaska Senator porkmarked the bill…
Congressional bill to feed funds to Cobb
Monday, August 1, 2005 3:13 AM EDT
By David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writer
MARIETTA - A massive transportation bill approved by Congress last week included tens of millions of dollars earmarked for Cobb County roads and interstates.
Both the U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the six-year, $286.4 billion infrastructure bill, which now must be signed into law by the president.
The bill included more than $40.7 million for projects just in Cobb County alone. It included a total of $92 million in transportation and other funding for metro Atlanta, more than $211 million for the state of Georgia.
“Infrastructure is our state’s single greatest need,” east Cobb resident and U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said in a statement. “This legislation is critical to the state of Georgia, because it will provide our state with the tools necessary to improve and expand its surface transportation infrastructure to meet the demands of a growing population.”
Other Cobb projects included in the transportation funding bill are:
n $18 million for improvements to the Interstate 285 interchange at Atlanta Road in Cobb County;
n $6.6 million for the reconstruction of the Interstate 75 and Windy Hill Road interchange in Marietta;
n $5 million for widening Cedarcrest Road from Paulding County to Governor’s Towne Club development now under construction near Acworth;
n $3 million for land acquisition in carrying out viewshed protection and wildlife abatement at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park;
n $2.5 million for widening and reconstruction of Queens Road in Cobb County;
n $1 million for the construction of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on Interstate 575 from the I-75 interchange near Kennesaw north to Sixes Road in Cherokee County;
n $1 million for the City of Smyrna to implement a “Railroad Quiet Zone;”
n $1 million for the City of Smyrna for development and construction costs associated with the redevelopment of the former Brawner Sanitarium on Atlanta Road into a city park and recreation complex;
n $1 million for the City of Smyrna to construct a railroad pedestrian bridge;
n $836,000 for Cobb to implement Smart-Card technology and for local bus facility improvements;
n $480,000 for an I-75 to I-575 interchange near Kennesaw; and
n $300,000 for design and construction of railroad crossing gates in Acworth.
The bill also included funding for a project in Fulton County intended in large part to help relieve traffic for east Cobb commuters. The legislation provides $4.5 million for the widening of Johnson Ferry Road and Glenridge Drive from Abernathy Road to Hammond Drive in Sandy Springs. The project will eliminate a bottleneck where traffic on six-lane Johnson Ferry Road in east Cobb is reduced to four and then two lanes after drivers cross the Chattahoochee River into Fulton.
“This legislation will help address the problems of congestion in metro Atlanta and driver safety,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Roswell), who represents parts of east and north Cobb. “After much work and many years, we have a bill that not only tackles those issues but a bill that will create jobs and fund priority federal highway projects in the 6th (Congressional) District.”
The legislation covers 2004-2009 and comes nearly two years after the 1998-2003 act expired. On Friday, Congress had to approve the 12th temporary extension of the old act to keep money flowing to the states while it tried to come up with a new, more generous bill.
A main cause for the delay was a rift between Congress, demanding a maximum amount of spending on the infrastructure, and the White House, which threatened to veto any bill that added to the federal deficit.
February 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Bart,
Are you sure you are not an old time liberal Democrat. If you are saying that you support the needless pork projects to fix a funding problems with the highway bill ? What part of fiscal sanity does that cover ? The second biggest part of the budget is interest rate for debt. Next year this will be close to 4oo billion and growing. Is this part of your platform to fix pork spending ?
February 19th, 2006 at 10:39 am
No I support whatever it takes to shine the light on porkmarks as Congressman Price is working to do right now. In the meantime sticking one’s head in the sand as you propose solves nothing: 412-8 John (likely a reflection of the margin in the upcoming 7/18 6th district primary - car wash bet still open if you believe in yourself).
February 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am
How would Konop have voted, with Pelosi or the GOP…one has to wonder based on his “this is not a Republican or Democrat thing” campaign:
Pelosi Wants Ethics Probe of Deficit Bill
By DAVID ESPO,
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded an ethics investigation Thursday into the passage of deficit-reduction legislation that President Bush recently signed, a new twist in an episode of Capitol intrigue that blends election-year politics and questions of constitutional law.
“Republican leaders chose to ignore House rules, precedent and even the Constitution itself” in sending the politically charged measure to the White House, said Pelosi, D-Calif.
She said the legislation was defective because it had cleared the two houses in different forms, and added that Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., “knew full well this was an invalid bill.”
Republicans, citing an 1894 court precedent, say the measure is valid because top House and Senate leaders put their own signatures on the bill before it was sent to the White House.
On a party-line vote, Republicans shelved the call for an investigation, and Hastert’s office did not respond directly to Pelosi’s charges.
But other Republicans fired back, accusing her of playing politics. “They’re not even in favor of deficit reduction,” Rep. Jim Nussle (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa said of the Democrats. He said a Senate clerk involved in the controversy should resign “out of honor to the basic tenets of the Constitution” — or be fired.
The political rhetoric aside, the events marked the latest — but not likely the last — development in a controversy with little if any precedent.
Republicans said — and Democrats did not disagree — that the legislation Bush signed correctly reflects the congressional majority’s intent on issues of rented medical equipment under Medicare, the section where the bill’s text inexplicably appears to have been changed twice.
One lawsuit has been filed challenging the bill’s constitutionality.
“The version that was signed into law by the president never passed the U.S. House,” says the suit filed by Jim Zeigler, a lawyer in Mobile Ala. An eldercare lawyer, Zeigler said in his suit he does not know whether to advise clients to heed the Medicaid nursing home regulations that had been in effect, or the ones contained in the law Bush signed last week.
Zeigler’s claim underscores the sheer breadth of the legislation, which called for dozens of changes in Medicare, Medicaid, student loan and other federal benefit programs as part of an effort to save the government $39 billion over five years.
The legislation itself was the subject of political struggle as it made its way through Congress.
After a year-end weekend of harried closed-door negotiations among GOP leaders, it passed the House last December on a vote of 212-206. It cleared the Senate on the strength of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, but not until Democrats forced two minor changes that required a revote in the House. The outcome that time was 216-214.
That set the stage for last week’s White House signing ceremony.
But not long before Bush was to sign the bill, Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., were conferring, trying to determine whether the measure was valid.
It turned out that a part of the bill concerning Medicare reimbursement for rented medical equipment had been changed by a Senate clerk.
Aides in both parties say the Senate-passed bill said ownership of certain rented medical equipment should transfer to patients after 13 months, as GOP leaders intended when they put together their final compromise.
But for reasons that remain murky, the formal papers that were carried from the Senate to the House said ownership of the equipment would transfer after 36 months.
The House agreed to the measure, lawmakers evidently thinking they were voting on the 13-month provision. After the vote, a Senate clerk replaced the “36″ with a “13″ before the bill was sent to the White House.
Concerned, Senate Republicans sought and won agreement from Democrats to pass a follow-up measure affirming that Congress’ intent had been to set the rental period at 13 months.
House GOP aides made the same request of Pelosi’s staff, but were rebuffed.
February 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Bart,
You just gave the key reason why earmarks will not work. As the vice chairman of the Republican party, you just celebrated Tom Price voting for pork in other disticts so he could fix a broken funding system for roads.Guys like you brag about the amount of money brought home. So how would a earmark by name hurt a local Congressman, who brings home pork? As I said ,you sound like the most liberal wing of the Democrat party.
This is why people are waking up to the empty message on both sides.That is why polls are showing people like Charley are leaving the party. The real problem is we have to many sheep in position of power in both parties.
February 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
The CATO Institute is a pro-big business organization, i.e. it is funded and supported by those who personally profit from our trade with Communist China. Thusly, their arguments can in no way be considered objective or authoritative.
China will not liberalize unless they are forced to do so. China needs the trade surplus they have with us to sustain their population. Therefore, if we threaten them with the loss of their surplus, they will have no choice but to trade by WTO rules, stop manipulating currencies, and increase their wages. What is your problem with that?
Perhaps your problem is that you have forgotten the most important lesson Ronald Reagan taught this country; always negotiate from a position of strength. Massive trade and budgetary deficits are weaknesses. A less educated workforce is a weakness. Maintained dependence on fossil fuels is a weakness. Sacrificing our military options against Iran and North Korea for nonexistent Iraqi WMD’s is weakness.
Strength is in cutting wasteful earmarks, not just “disclosure”. Strength is having our own manufacturing base. Strength is making sure our colleges and universities are putting out the best engineers, doctors, and scientists in the world. Strength is finding and using alternative energies. Strength is using our military for self-defense, not Halliburton profits and Chinese creditors.
Which brings us back to the original question. If we are more afraid of a military confrontation with China than they are of us, then we have already lost. I reject your defeatism! Tyranny will be vanquished, and the tyrants of Beijing will be no exception. Reagan would not have it any other way.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Sorry Charley,
You cannot simply trash CATO because it is pro-business…oh my…pro business, profiteering, greedy bastards. They provide a reasonable alternative strategy to that supported by anti-business, anti-competition, anti-free trade organizations you and John find appealing. I encourage you to explore their free trade website, it is very thorough with years of data supporting their analysis.
Please tell me how the government of America should “threaten China with the loss of their surplus”? Tariffs? Worked great when Bush tried it pandering to steel unions…ha. America already threatens China because we are still the world leader in so many ways including consumerism. Otherwise China would have already cancelled Special Administrative Region status for Hong Kong and attacked Taiwan but for the knowledge that either action would end all relations with the USA. Pulling out of the WTO and closing our border would likely incite China to act, certainly give them no reason to stand pat.
Do you join with your colleague on the left John Konop supporting withdrawal from the WTO as a means to “threaten” China into playing fair despite reality that it could lead to war and worldwide economic decline?
Bart
February 20th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Let me quote from another of Konop’s favorite people, Alan Greenspan (is he to be ignored because he is “pro big business”) —
Greenspan: “The more we liberalize trade, and the more we expand it, the higher our standards of living”
Appearing before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee in June, 2005, the Fed Chairman had this to say: “A very substantial amount of America’s prosperity is a consequence of an opening up of the world trading system over the last 50 years. Everybody has benefited from the increasing globalization.” Mr. Greenspan went on to state that, “A very major portion of our current standard of living rests on our position in the global markets. If we start to retreat from that, we will find we are very significantly impaired with respect to living standards.”
February 21st, 2006 at 6:42 am
Can one honestly say that the economic growth generated by “free” trade has been equitably distributed? Not that you care about that; you’ve made that quite clear. Rational individuals, however, have a more enlightened sensibility. The economic benefits are on paper only, and are real only to the wealthy and major corporations. The working class is left behind to endure the Wal-Mart cycle of lower wages, lower prices, lower wages, lower prices, until we are nothing but slaves to corporate control!
The answer to your question is YES, because you are misanalyzing China’s modus operandi. They are, above all, pragmatic, and would rather accept the soft landing of liberalization rather than the fiery conflagration of war. It is amazing how nuclear weapons change the equation. Facing a lose/lose proposition, the pragmatist will always choose the lesser setback. Thusly, why would China prefer mushroom clouds over higher wages, better labor and environmental standards, adherence to WTO rules, and (realizing you don’t give a hoot about this either) some measure of religious freedom?
What really frightens you, Bart, the prospect of a global economy actually friendly to the working class?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:43 am
Bart,
Greenspan latest statements have changed as the results are coming in from our unfair trade deals with countries like Communist China. In fact he issued a warning about our trade deficit. I am not against free trade it ia about having a level playing field.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/02/business/main1093967.shtml
February 21st, 2006 at 9:22 am
To both “fair traders”, I submit a dead on column from Walter Williams:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-15-04.html
Not quite sure how pulling out of the WTO ends up benefiting “the working class” (leftist phrase meant to ignore workers making more than a “livable” wage, i.e. Jack Welch is not a working man, but the schmuck building GE clocks in Podunk, IA for $8 an hour is). In fact, the so-called “working class” already benefits from free trade. Just visit any Wal-Mart on a Saturday and you will witness firsthand how the “working class” benefits. Pull out of the WTO and the “working class” suddenly finds its “livable wage” ain’t so livable.
Bart
February 21st, 2006 at 9:29 am
One more comment to Charley, when did the law pass requiring prosperity to be “equally distributed”…or are you simply a closet Marxist, you know; “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Would that suffice in providing “equal prosperity” for all no matter their contribution?
Hey John, great idea reaching across the aisle seeking support…will you be holding a Marx fan only fundraiser soon to redistribute from the “working class” to your futile campaign?
February 21st, 2006 at 9:31 am
Bart,
The guy building the clocks is in Communist China, Mexico… We lost 4 million manufacturing jobs. The jobs being created are low paying service jobs.
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005–$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
February 21st, 2006 at 10:31 am
GE has 165K empolyees in the USA, 142K the rest of the world. They have certainly not outsourced as many jobs as your former employer listed as “one of the worst offenders” when it comes to taking white collar jobs offshore.
How do you do it John? Your entire career was spent benefiting from offshore labor while encouraging personal credit card debt then all of a sudden you had an epiphany??? How does one go from promoting debt, realizing prosperity because of higher profits generated by offshore labor to a Chicken Little candidate whining that debt and offshoring will destroy America? This is one amazing transformation John.
Bart
– Congress needs a spending wakeup call, but John Konop is definitely not the operator.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:48 am
Bart,
Is this what the strategy as Chairman of the Republican party and Tom Price came up with , lies about my career. I guess you and Tom Price would rather attack my family and I than debate the issues.
The Truth Will Set You Free
February 21st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I accepted your debate offer long ago…still waiting for the date, place and time. I can knock out your positions in person even better than on the http://www.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Bart,
If you want to speak for Tom Price, as Vice Chairman of the Republican party, you can call me and book the date. You can use the Monday night or Saturday Forum times that you control for the Party. I do think you should check with Tom Price first. Thanks jk
February 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I speak for myself, no need to call Congressman Price. You’re the one that wanted the debate, you set it up. I’ll play the part of everyday Joe sixpack, you pretend to be a viable candidate…ought to be a hoot!
bb
February 21st, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Bart,
Tom Price has used people like you to attack my family and myself. No more dirty stuff ,it is time For the Price camp to stop avioding the issues. No more dodge ball.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
John,
No dodge ball…let’s get r done.
BTW, your family has not been “attacked”. Playing the victim by misquoting Betty Price is a pitiful sign of severe desperation.
Bart
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:39 am
Bart, I said ‘equitable’, not ‘equal’. There’s a difference. Try a remedial reading course. It might help.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Charley,
No there is not…check any thesaurus and you will find there is no difference. Considering the rest of your class warfare based post, it is easy to determine that you seek equal, equitable, fair, (choose your word) distribution vs. letting market forces drive the outcome. I stand by my previous response.
Bart