I was one of those who had hoped that President Bush would have vetoed the ethics bill that was sent to him by Congress several weeks ago. Not because I was against earmark reform, but because i though that the bill was a sham compared to what had originally been proposed by the new Democratic Congress when they took office. The problem was that President Bush would have gotten killed in the media had he vetoed it - it would have been played up as "Bush Against Ethics Reform".

My fears about the ethics bill having been a toothless sham have been realized, according to CQPolitics.com. Basically, it boils down to legalistic parsing. According to the fine print in the new regulations, earmarks attached to an appropriation bill after conference can be challenged and must be transparent, but authorization bills can be secretly earmarked and no-one can challenge them. In addition, if a member of Congress decides for some reason that he or she wants to attach a secret earmark to the appropriations bill, all they have to do is add it in conference, and the transparency aspects of the new ethics bill does not apply.

Less than two weeks after the Senate's new earmark rules took effect, critics are accusing Democrats of providing less openness than promised. Only appropriations earmarks will be subject to challenge via points of order, not the abundant special provisions scattered through authorization bills. And a reading of the fine print shows that the public disclosure of earmark information, one of the big changes of the lobbying and ethics law (PL 110-81), doesn't have to happen until a late stage in the legislative process. "This is one of the most bald-faced bait and switches I've seen in Washington," Steve Ellis, vice president for programs at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Monday. "We have to have some shame," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who has been a thorn in the side of leadership in both parties on earmarking and federal spending issues. "We have to have some honor in this body."

In essence, all a member of Congress has to do now to continue to abuse the practice of earmarks (secrecy in the ownership of the earmark, inability for the floor to challenge the earmark) is attach them to a different bill. Read the article, including the clarification remarks by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Taking advantage of this loophole is obviously something that leadership had planned on doing for quite a while now, even as they were publicly claiming that they had cleaned up the earmark process.

Don't look now, but if Congress doesn't reach some sort of an agreement for the next fiscal year's budget, the federal government will run out of money on Oct 1. Although political rhetoric is high, there is little chance of the Democrats going down the Newt Gingrich 1995 path and shutting down the government - primarily because they recognize that Newt's battle with President Bill Clinton was largely seen as a victory for Clinton, making Newt even more demonizable (is that a word?) until his exit from Congress in 1998. So, Democrat leaders are going to propose an interim budget to give them more time to "negotiate" with the White House on spending issues.

The draft resolution, which is still being finalized, is intended to buy as many as six additional weeks for negotiations, though Democrats are pessimistic about their chances of making much progress with Mr. Bush. With the exception of veterans' health care and border-security funds, the White House has signaled little flexibility, and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have much appetite for a protracted fight. "I don't want a headache. I want to try to work this out," Mr. Reid said last week after meeting with White House Budget Director Jim Nussle. At the same time as the standoff over domestic spending, Congress is being asked by Mr. Bush to provide more money to implement his Iraq policy, which the top leaders adamantly oppose.

With President Bush emboldened after his victories in Congress last week, his threats of vetoes are being taken more seriously by the Democrats. The Dems simply don't have enough votes to override any Presidential veto right now, be it on the war or general spending. That's not likely to change over the next six weeks, so look for the Democrats to capitulate on many of the White House's demands in the final budget, especially in matters regarding defense spending and funding the War in Iraq. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi believe, rightly so, that giving in on war spending at this precise moment, having lost all anti-war votes so far this fall session, would be the final straw for much of their far-left base. Hence the postponement of the final budget.

In January, we were told that the new Democrat-led Congress was going to save the country, change the world and make every bald guy grow hair. Instead, we have a Congress that continually gets beat by a lame-duck president and hasn't passed even one requisite spending bill:

With none of the 12 fiscal 2008 appropriations bills enacted, both the House and Senate will take up continuing resolutions to extend federal government funding at current levels.

But wait, they're still working on really important legislation. Way more important than passing bills that will keep our country moving:

Two other measures are expected to see House floor action next week. One bill (HR 2693) would protect workers against an artificial-butter flavoring chemical called diacetyl, a chemical that is used in the production of microwave popcorn.

Yeah, that Nancy Pelosi has taken that mandate handed to her and really run with it, hasn't she. I sense that the country is so much better because of Democratic leadership. Or not.

Speaker Pelosi and her compadre Steny Hoyer have spent so much time on stupid investigations and meaningless resolutions condemning everything and everyone connected to the war in Iraq that they've failed to do what they were actually put in office to do. It may just be the shortest leadership run in congressional history if this keeps up.

Public approval ratings: President Bush: 29%. Congress: 11%.

That is the result of a recent Zogby Poll.

So what can you say about a situation that words can not aptly describe? In essence, you have two competing forces -- the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress -- in control of the Executive Branch and the Legislature whom the public absolutely despises? How about "You need to get your act together. Both of you."

It is difficult to pinpoint any one particular issue that has led to this drop because most of the problems are so voluminous that it's getting to the point where the public is longing for the good old days when King George ran the show. You have the emergence of a mortgage crisis that no one seems to know how to address; the current attempt to pass a piece meal amnesty program, the DREAM Act, in bold defiance of the public's will; the Democratic leadership getting lumped in with the far, far left due to the now legendarily disastrous "Betray Us" ad; the President planning on vetoing the bill that will de-fund the incredibly anti-union/anti-middle class Mexican truck program; refusal to deal with the importation of unsafe goods from China; and on and on and on.

While few assumed that President Bush's approval ratings could get worse, they have and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has been an absolute, unmitigated failure. 11% is the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States.

Let's put that into perspective: Bush is right up (down) there with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and this Congress is less popular than the Congress that served during the time when half the country seceded from the union and a war broke out that saw 600,000 casualties.

Will things get better? Can they get any worse?

Karma will get you. When you violate the principles of a political ideology to the degree that the current Republican leadership has and to the degree that it has, it is only a matter of time that the voters will simply start abandoning the party.

According to the Politico, the polling organization Public Opinion Strategies has noticed a huge trend of voters no longer identifying/affiliating with the Republican Party. While the article mentions that the most significant drops in affiliation would be Independents who formerly favored conservative ideals, it also ignores the fact that many former registered Republicans are moving more towards the Independent ticket disenfranchised with the party. While these voters won't cast a pro-Democrat vote, they will simply opt not to vote at all preferring to stay at home in protest with the hopes that in the long run letting the current Republican leadership lose office and somewhere down the road be replaced by a legitimate conservative.

Yes, the Iraq war is a major part of the Republicans losing popularity, but there is more to it.

One of the huge fallacies about political groups in the United States is that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberals. This is not really an accurate sentiment as there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and moderates in both parties. (And, yes, there are also fringe element radical and reactionary groups within both parties as well.)

What is utterly perplexing about the Republican Party is that it has moved more and more towards a hybrid of the classical Rockefeller Republican (often derided as country club Republicans) and emerging Neo-Conservatives (There are variants to the origin of what a neo-con is, but it is usually a combination of former conservative democrats who drifted to the Republican wing and globalists) yet the base of the Republican Party is primarily classical Reagan and Goldwater conservatives and the base isn't happy with this new crop of Republicans who are heavy on government spending, open borders, globalization, et al. In June, rage and anger from the base over President Bush's pro-amnesty stance led to a revolution of sorts which saw a massive drop in grass roots donations combined and this has now manifested to a multitude of the conservative base moving towards independent status.

This should come as no surprise. Why should conservatives affiliate themselves with a party that is not conservative?

It would appear that General Petraeus' report has done very little to sway the opinions of the Democrats in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid has blasted Petraeus' Iraq plan (which includes drawing down 5,000+ troops by the end of the year and close to an additional 30,000 by summer's end) Reid echoed the sentiment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was expressed yesterday in a press release that lambasted Petraeus' plan.

According to the AP, Democrat leadership would prefer a more rapid withdrawal of a significant number of troops and the remaining troops would serve in a more limited capacity.

This posturing by the Democrats may have SERIOUS repercussions if the public relations strategy they are employing fails. Within much of the public, there is a sentiment growing that the Democrats are posturing against Petraeus as a means of scoring political points in order to win in the next election. If the Democrats become pegged as a party that seeks its own agenda at the risk of causing serious harm to the troops in the field, the public will become resentful and the Democrats may find themselves in trouble with a segment of the voting population.

Also released last week was The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, aka the Jones Report, requested and mandated by Congress. The media played the same game with this as they did with the GAO report on political benchmarks - they played up the negatives, and ignored the positives, conclusions and context. As a result, the articles serve not as informed pieces on the substance of the report, but as talking points for Democrats. In fact, I just witnessed Senator Carl Levin read aloud a short throwaway quote from the report on the failure of the political goals of the Iraq Government during his opening statement in the Petraeus hearings. That shows that the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't have any way to portray the subject of his Committee's hearing today - General Petraeus and the military surge in Iraq - as failures, so he's forced to spend his introduction on a topic not related to the hearing at hand.

The Jones Report is 153 pages long. I'll save the reader some time and suggest that he or she read pages 5 through 24, which includes the Executive Summary of the report along with the Conclusions, Key Findings, and Recommendations. Then read pages 125-130, Concluding Observations. In addition to describing the changing reality in Iraq that the American military is bringing, the Iraqi Armed Forces get good marks on their progress. It states conclusively that Syria, Iran and al Qaida are the main disrupting forces in Iraq, and that we are making significant headway against them with our new strategy of "clear, hold and build". The Iraq Ministry of Interior is a mess, but a correctable one. In short - good progress under new strategy, still a ways to go, consequences of failure dire. As for the reported recommendation in the report claimed by the Left to bring home the troops - non existent, although the report does suggest strongly that the Coalition's footprint in Baghdad be reduced not by sending troops home, but by getting them out in the communities and on the border.

There's been three main reports on Iraq released over the past week and a half. Prior to the release of each, there's been corresponding leaks to the media that paint the reports in the worst possible light. This is according to plan, meant to sway public opinion against the surge. Take some time and read the original documents, people! Before I went off to undergo a few medical tests, I mentioned an article co-authored by Tom Ricks on the first progress report on Iraq authorized by the Democrat Congress - the GAO Iraq Political Benchmark Report released on September 1st. This particular GAO Iraq Report was designed by the Democrats in Congress to fail - they specifically ordered the GAO to give an achieved or not achieved rating to each benchmark. In other words, it was not supposed to be a report on progress towards goals, but one on failure to meet goals. The media then did its part, publishing stories highlighting the negatives of the report, without putting political benchmarks in context alongside the noticeable gains that are being met by the military in Iraq.

That sandbagging was too much for even the GAO to accept in light of the recent developments in Iraq. Against the original Congressional directives, it decided to rate partial achievements on some of the benchmarks, and in the summary (on page 2) it acknowledged substantial progress outside of the limited scope of the report:

These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province.

That the GAO specifically mentioned progress in Anbar Province is especially ironic given Ricks' negative story on the results of the report. It was a year ago today (9/11/06) that Ricks and his "sources" claimed in another Washington Post article that Anbar was lost, and "the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there". So much for Ricks and his expert sources. Perhaps they were the problem all along...

With approval numbers in the teens, the United States Congress is failing to meet the benchmarks it set for itself on Election Day 2006, when the American voters elected the Democrats to replace the "Do Nothing" Republican Congress.

That made-up headline adequately describes what's happening today in Washington, and should put in perspective the "political benchmarks" way of grading progress in Iraq that the Democrats and the media are now using to judge the surge. Here's more from Rich Galen in this morning's edition of the Mullings newsletter, Surprises in Iraq and in the Senate:

Here in New York City, I came across a local program which featured Mull fave Rep. Chris Shays who made the point that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is trying to balance the interests of Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, local tribal and religious as well as provincial political leaders. Not to mention the interests of the Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Kuwaitis each of whose interests are largely in conflict with any of the Iraqis interests and with the interests of each other. Shays pointed out that the Congress of the US, which has only Republicans and Democrats, can't get anything done, either and perhaps has set the accomplishment bar for al-Maliki a bit higher than necessary.

According to an article out this morning from Gallup, Perceived Inaction Largely Behind Low Ratings of Congress, fully "48% of Americans disapprove of Congress for perceived lack of action":

The poll results make clear that Americans who disapprove of the job Congress is doing are frustrated with perceived inaction -- either in general or in regards to specific issues such as the Iraq war, illegal immigration, or serving the needs of the people. There is also a widely held perception that there is too much bickering and party politics in Congress. The relatively small proportion of Americans who approve of Congress are largely giving them credit for trying, even while acknowledging they are not accomplishing much.

Sounds very similar to what's happening in Iraq. What's the old rejoinder - "Physician, heal thyself"? I'm certain that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama will all join me in calling for the immediate recall and replacement of all Congressional members...

Bamboozled by the changes happening in Iraq, Democrats, during their vacation, are reduced to proudly claiming credit for reforming the corrupt earmark process in Congress. In the fall of 2006, as Republicans attempted to institute their own set of earmark reforms prior to the elections, the Democrats blocked most of them. Now, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has managed to do a 180º on the earmark subject, now proudly stating Don't Get Rid of Earmarks in a New York Times Op-Ed. In it, he states that the Democrats pledged in 2006 to clean up the earmark process, and they have done so.

Not quite. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) reminds us that last fall it was Nancy Pelosi herself who promised that the Democrats would do everything in their power to reign in earmarks, and if it were up to her, she'd end them. At the very least, they'd be few and far between. Boehner admits that Republicans should have done more to reform earmarks while they were in power, but points out that some of the so-called "reforms" that Emanuel is so proud of has actually turned back some of the reforms that did get enacted by Republicans last year:

With Congress and the all important Senate Judiciary Committee out on summer recess until next Tuesday, President Bush could make a recess appointment to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales indicated that he will serve until September 14, but I'm sure he's flexible.

Regardless, the Gonzales resignation has put a huge cramp into the Democrats' plans for the beginning of September, which they wanted to dedicate to the "failure" in Iraq prior to General David Petraeus' report to them on September 11 (a date chosen by the Democrats, by the way). If there is no recess appointment, there will be a rush to confirm whomever the president selects by the middle of September, lest the Democrats risk being publicly attacked for not manning the ship at Justice around the anniversary of 9/11.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a federal program administered by the states that was designed to provide health insurance coverage to the children of the poor -- the most needy. In recent years, states have requested, and some have been granted, waivers from the federal government to offer health insurance under that program to families that are not poor.

The Democrats in Congress, along with some Republicans who think that this is a winning political issue, have voted to codify this expansion by offering such health insurance to "children" as old as 25, in "low income" families making 400 percent above the federal poverty guideline. That means that a two-parent single-child family that makes $68,680 would be eligible for SCHIP, as would a single parent with one child making $54,760. A two-parent, two child home making $82,600 would also be eligible, and so on. Go to the site and do the math yourself. A sensible amendment stating that a family falling under the expanded guidelines for SCHIP, that also is eligible for an employer provided health insurance program, would have to accept the employer's insurance first was defeated by the Democrats.

This makes a mockery of a program that was originally intended to help the poor. President Bush has promised to veto the bill. In the meantime his administration has issued regulations instructing states to take care of the poor first before helping non-needy families. The Dems are freaking, as expected.

State Medicaid directors plan to join a growing chorus of opponents to a plan by the Bush administration to force states to sign up more poor children for taxpayer-funded health insurance before coverage can be offered to better-off families.

The Democrats' expansion of SCHIP is simply a way to begin to implement socialized health care to people who can take care of it themselves through the private sector. It's also seen by Democrats and some Republicans as a way to buy votes using the taxpayers' money. Bush should veto the expansion. And if the states want to offer health insurance coverage for anyone other than the poor, let them do it on their dime.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (don't ask me how I find these things) runs an article today concerning a public demand in Alaska by conservative Republican State Representative Mike Kelly that GOP Senator Ted Stevens, GOP Representative Don Young, the Alaskan Senate Rules Chairman John Cowdery, and the Alaskan GOP Chairman Randy Ruedrich resign before the next election.

Fairbanks Republican Rep. Mike Kelly made a public call this weekend for U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, U.S. Rep. Don Young, and two other prominent members of the GOP to step aside to help restore trust in government and keep the party strong. Kelly, a Republican, wrote in a letter to the editor published Sunday in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that the Alaska Republican Party needs new leadership and has only two options in the coming year - "further revolution" or reform. "A new governor and changes to ethics legislation gave us a start," he wrote. "Next steps would involve selfless sacrifice for the benefit of the Republican Party and the conservative agenda by powerful individuals whose action could permit a new team of conservative candidates to rise without risk of offending current longtime office holders.

Needless to say, the Republicans Kelly targeted have refused to go along. But they might soon not have a choice in the matter. From the same article:

Stevens and Young are both under investigation by the FBI for ties to VECO Corp., the oil field services company formerly run by Bill Allen, who earlier this year pleaded guilty to charges of bribing state lawmakers. Cowdery was one of the state lawmakers whose offices were searched last August by the FBI. Ruedrich stepped down as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission amid allegations that he misused the position for political purposes.

Ted Stevens and Don Young are selfish egotists, either oblivious to the damage that they are doing to the national Republican Party or so cocksure that they don't care. In which case they might as well be Democrats. With that in mind, there's a very real possibility that Republicans in Alaska run candidates against Stevens and Young in the GOP primaries, turning those races into referendums against corruption. That's how the current Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, won in the last election.

Ultimately, the upcoming election may be an election in which the have-nots (almost all Americans, really) strike a blow for democracy by overthrowing the very few haves. Let's face it, under the Republican-led administration and Congress combo, the have more and more have made out extremely well. Remember how much of the tax breaks President Bush and his Congress passed went to the wealthy?

That wasn't enough. They want more. How much? Unbelievably much. They rarely miss a trick (or the opportunity to pass laws favoring themselves) and they get a great return on investment.

Who are these intrepid envelope-stuffers? Let's find out, courtesy of Billionaires for Bush. This Onion-style Web site does with humor what stats themselves don't. Almost all of America is getting taken to the cleaners for the benefit of the very wealthy class. It's one thing to be the land of opportunity and another to be the rigged game of patronage and inheritance. America was founded as a representative democracy and not an economic oligarchy. If this country is to act like a responsible adult and even thrive again, it is going to need a level playing field and a real sense of fair play.

Should the wealthy get a tax break that can only be balanced by keeping the middle class down and the less than middle class poorer than ever? Is there a hit out on the middle class? Is having much of the country (and its voters/workers) owned by an aristocracy what we want? Economic inequality just doesn't sound the same as 95% of America are getting ripped off. The 2006 election may have put the repeal of the estate tax on hold but for how long? Even now the Gucci loafers are whining and dining Congress while on the summer break. Your thoughts?

Gallup has a new poll on Congress out this morning:

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

In the same poll, President Bush's approval rating, although anemic, is approaching twice that of Congress at 32%. The last time that Gallup measured a similarly low approval rating for Congress was in 1992. Coincidentally (or not), that was the year of the last election that Democrats were elected to a majority in the House and Senate, leading directly to the 1994 takeover of Congress by the Republicans.

The Republicans are a long way off from doing the same thing in 2008. In my opinion, they have quite a bit more house cleaning to do (hello Alaskan delegation) before they can rightfully earn back the majority. But I wouldn't be too happy to be a Democrat right now, regardless of how the media is trying to spin things.