Every so often, a Democrat actually proposes a bill that shows exactly how they would act if they were given a clear majority in both houses and the presidency. Rep. John Dingell is doing that now:

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like - a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

First off, 52 years in Congress? If that isn't a reason to propose term limits, what is?

Dingell wants gas constantly over $3-4 per gallon and he'll use the money to fight "global warming," a crisis that scientists can't even agree on, right? Well, not exactly:

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

If that is not a Democratic plan, nothing is. The esteemed Representative wants to raise taxes under the guise of fighting global warming and will instead use the money to pay for social programs created by Democrats that have grown to large for the government to support. This show exquisitely that every single program the Dems enact needs a huge tax burden to support: Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. The list goes on. The fact is, this is all a drop in the bucket if socialized medicine ever passes.

Another Iraq withdrawal proposal has failed in the Senate due to the fact that it lacked the required number of votes necessary for moving it forward. The vote was a plan that would begin to move a significant number of troops home from the region within 9 months. According to the Washington Times, the failure of the bill marks a very bad week for Democrats as they were unable to press forward with their anti-war platform leaving them somewhat stymied. The bill was stalled at 47 -47. The votes were basically on party lines although Republicans were joined by Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Christopher Dodd. (Dodd, a presidential candidate, wants nothing less than rapid de-funding of the war) Democrats were joined by GOP members Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel. It would require 60 votes (two thirds majority) in order to break a Republican filibuster. It does not seem likely that mustering 60 votes on any anti-war legislation will be possible unless more and more Republicans join the fold.

It does not seem that this type of gridlock will change unless the violence security levels in Iraq get worse or there are decided political failures or deterioration in the Iraqi government. So, for the foreseeable future the Democratic leadership in Congress can do very little to end the war.

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.

Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, assorted pundits bloggers and the traditional media (including the NY Times and Washington Post), Americans have had it with this war and think the Dems in Congress have not done enough to end the war. According to a new Pew Research Center poll:

Check out the independent numbers. They are not moving President Bush's way. The only ones who feel good about the song and dance in Washington recently were Republicans (their numbers feeling the war was getting better went up a little).

President Bush and General Petraeus convinced no one else. The American people are speaking but are the leaders really listening. What a sad state that not even a few Republicans would support a Dem troop rotation that would give them as much time at home as in Iraq. It's not enough the war goes on, the elected Republicans are fine with the suffering on top of it.

Enough is enough.

New Virginia Senator James Webb tried an end run to stop the war in Iraq, by limiting the deployment options of the military. The idea of guaranteeing time between deployments made great sense rhetorically and it was hoped the idea of supporting the troops while stopping the war would enable them to pick off enough senators to get it done.

But it was not to be, as the WaPo reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now giving up on clever strategies and going back to the old strategy which did not work last spring:

Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.

"It's all definite timelines," Reid said.

The Senate will resume the war debate today, and Reid invited Republicans to offer proposals. His spokesman said that several possibilities are being negotiated, although it appeared unlikely they will meet the 60-vote threshold to pass.

One of the common criticisms that opponents level when it comes to the accuracy of the figures claiming the number of people in the country without medical care is that a significant number of the uninsured includes the millions of illegal aliens in the country.

The question was posed towards the Hillary Clinton camp was regarding whether or not universal health care coverage will cover illegal aliens. The response, per CNN:

Senior policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a "huge issue" in this country–said, "That's one we're going to have to think through a little bit... " When asked if it would be safe to assume that the Democratic frontrunner, at this point, has no position on coverage for illegal immigrants advisers answered "yes" and said the plan does not "at this point" deal with that issue.

Think it through a little bit? No position? Does "not at this point" mean it is a possibility in the future? How could the possibility of providing government sponsored health care coverage extend to foreign nationals who are in the United States illegally? If anything had the potential of derailing the universal health care coverage proposal would be extended to illegal aliens. As a matter of fact, such a platform would probably derail Clinton's viability to win the presidency.

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.

Senator John Edwards has taken to discussing his plans for universal health care coverage, and some of his statements will surely raise eyebrows. No, it is not the fact that his program will cost $100+ billion dollars a year, nor is it the fact that he proposes to pay for the program by eliminating the Bush tax cuts on households who earn $200,000 a year or more. No, what will raise eyebrows--according to an AP report --is the fact that Edwards' program will mandate by law that all Americans must see their doctor for a series of check-ups in order to undergo preventive care.

To say this will not prove popular with the public is a supreme understatement. In the past, conservatives have won elections and maintained popularity with segments of the American public on the basis that the conservative movement is a proponent of limited government. In Edwards' case, the notion of mandatory medical check-ups will surely be construed by the public as significant government over-reach. Edwards has been sinking in the polls and this proposal may finish his campaign off for good.

Curiously, the AP report also makes mention of the fact that Edwards has asked the public to stop driving SUV's while he himself has purchased one. The AP further notes that Edwards has stated he will no longer purchase an SUV in the future. Why is this curious? It would seem like the AP was "lowering the boom" on Edwards as very few readers could walk away from this article with anything other than a negative impression of Edwards' campaign.

Karl Rove becoming a private citizen will be too tempting a target for Congressional Democrats to pass up. They will continue to take every opportunity to publicly attack him, and will be constantly issuing subpoenas to Mr. Karl Rove as opposed to Karl Rove, presidential adviser. Their base will be constantly reminding them that it will be easier to get Karl Rove to appear before the Democrat show trials, since President Bush will no longer be able to order him not to. The Democrats won't be able to help themselves. And therein lies the problem.

The Democrats have been issuing a lot of subpoenas lately, and seem ready to go to court to force the Bush administration to comply. Having Rove before them under oath as a private citizen doesn't change anything, since he will still be able to claim that his discussions with the president and other administration officials falls under "Executive Privilege."

This will enrage the Democrats even further, and will probably force them, in a knee-jerk reaction, to go to the courts for a resolution. The Bush administration isn't afraid of that -- in fact, I think that a court battle is what they might be looking for.

I was under the impression that we already had a gas tax to pay for highways, roads, and bridges and stuff. But apparently some folks (Democrats) don't think it's high enough. From the Star-Tribune:

President Bush said Thursday that he would be opposed to any steps by Congress to increasing the gasoline tax to raise revenues for national bridge repairs in the wake of Minneapolis' bridge collapse.

"Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities," Bush said, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Right on! It's been rare enough to hear something from President Bush that makes me say that, but this is one of those times. Currently the system is that congress takes money from the highway trust friend and allocates it according to their priorities set in Washington, D.C. Then any money left over can be allocated by the state governments. That's exactly backwards.

The state departments of transportation can allocate money themselves, thank you very much. And they might be more interested in making sure an existing bridge is safe rather than building new bridges to nowhere.

And then there's the situation where Ohio's gas money goes to Montana because Montana has a congress critters with better committee assignments. Bad idea all around. Bush calls Congress on it, but does he have the guts to follow through on it? History says no.

in 1968, the Democratic Party tore itself apart. On one side were those who opposed the Vietnam war. On the other was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who ultimately declined to run for re-election and threw the race wide open. Are we seeing the same today? The Hill reports:

Congress's failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.

The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.

The tension in the Democratic party is that the Democrats want to be able to influence the war in Iraq, without taking any blame for what happens afterwards. As Captain Ed summarizes brilliantly:

Quite obviously, the Democrats have decided that they cannot win the next election on the platform of United for Peace and Justice, or Code Pink, or Voices for Creative Non-Violence. They represent the fringe of American political thought, and that path takes the Democrats right back to 1995. That's why they can't vote to defund the troops in Iraq, and why they couldn't stand up to the supposedly-irrelevant George Bush on FISA. In short, they want to take the money from the fringe-Left groups, but they won't deliver on their agendas -- for which we should all be grateful indeed.

If you're an anti-war Democrat look forward to continuing frustration and the ongoing question about who to vent your frustration at. Note also that the the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, don't have to actually vote on the matter.

Yesterday, John Fund had an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Northern Exposure - The GOP's Alaska delegation could become the new poster boys for corruption, that should serve as a wake-up call to gutless and clueless Republicans in Congress.

Fund points out a few inconvenient truths about the recently passed and signed Ethics "Reform" Bill. In January, the Senate unanimously adopted "sunshine" provisions for all bills, a device intended to publicly show the public the who, what, and where's of earmark spending. It was supposed to be codified in the reform bill. It wasn't. In addition, according to Fund:

The bill the rest voted for had been gutted: Disclosing an earmark is now voluntary (not mandatory), protecting an earmark requires only 41 votes (instead of 67), and the power to determine whether a spending provision inserted by a senator is officially considered an earmark will now be up to . . . Mr. Reid.

Last winter, the Democrats quickly adopted the mantra that the election of 2006 was all about getting out of Iraq. While that was probably true for the far left, the rest of those concerned about Iraq were more concerned about changing the failed tactics in Iraq towards ones that would give us a chance for victory. Even then, if you take both coalitions together (the stop fighting left and the start fighting middle and right), Iraq concerns were a distant second to the main concern of voters in 2006 -- corruption, specifically Republican corruption.

The end of last week saw the final passage in the Senate of the much heralded ethics bill, S.1. It now goes to the president's desk for signing. The Democrats proudly proclaimed victory upon the passage of this bill, claiming another promise to the American people fulfilled. However, if they promised earmark reform and transparency to the voters they failed - this offers both in name only. In fact, much of the bill was crafted behind closed doors by Senate Democrat leaders, hardly engendering trust in a bill that was originally intended to halt that type of legislating. Shamefully, the bill got weaker and weaker as it moved along. Here's White House spokesman Tony Snow:

"At the beginning of the year, members of the House and Senate all agreed that it would be very important to make all earmarks transparent. In other words, identify an earmark, say who requested it, say what the purpose is and who would benefit from it," he said in his daily briefing to reporters. "Now all of that is basically gone. As a matter of fact, the language has been considerably weakened. And furthermore, the reporting requirements have been reduced basically to no requirements at all," he said.

What's no longer included in the 'reform' bill just passed that had previously been approved? Here's just a few things, courtesy of WorldwideStandard.com:

• Require that committee reports identify all earmarks in the legislation;
• Prohibit consideration of bills with undisclosed earmarks;
• Require disclosure of all earmarks in a conference report;
• Prohibit earmarks conditioned on a Member's stance on legislation; and,
• Prohibit earmarks that would benefit a Member or his or her family and close associates.

The public continues to be left in the dark. And members of Congress are allowed to continue to play their games. Perhaps Harry Reid could edify us as to how this could have happened in a bill that he crafted - in particular, why these particular requirements were stricken from the final bill.

In a rare Saturday session, the House passed an energy bill that will cost the American consumer billions.

The main thrust of the bill was to repeal tax breaks put in place to help the oil companies compete in an increasingly difficult world market. To think that the oil companies will not pass those costs on to the consumer is absurd. At the same time, increased restrictions on exploiting domestic oil and gas resources are to be put in place further hamstringing our production capabilities and increasing our reliance on foreign oil sources.

Another portion of the bill that will cause increased prices is the requirement that 15% of electricity that is produced must be from renewable sources. I think we should begin by renewing the plans for windmills near Hyannis Port, MA, you know, those ones that Teddy Kennedy and his nephew Robert, Jr. shot down for purely aesthetic reasons, but I digress.

This bill represents a major shift in policy as noted by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA),"This is a historic turn away from a fossil fuel agenda toward renewable energy. It's been a long time in coming," The reason it's been so long in coming Congressman, is that we as a nation are ill-prepared to make the shift and the costs associated with doing so will be enormous. We haven't built a new refinery in this country in 25-years and the technology available to build new nuclear plants is efficient and safe. Why weren't these issues addressed?

The consensus is that the President will veto the bill when he receives it, but Bush will have to be a tough negotiator to make all the bad policies in this bill go away.

There's not too many good things you could say good about the last several GOP-led Congresses. The prescription drug bill and McCain-Feingold are two of the train wreck pieces of legislation passed.

That said, at least they didn't have the audacity to steal a vote when they were losing it. No, leave that up to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever":

As time expired on voting, the sitting House speaker, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, New York Democrat, declared the Republican measure had failed on a 214-214 tie vote. But because some members changed their votes in the final seconds of voting, the electronic tally board showed the vote as 215-213, indicating the motion had passed, when Mr. McNulty struck his gavel.

Republicans immediately called for the 215-213 tally to stand, and began walking off the House floor in protest when Mr. NcNulty allowed more members to change their votes. The final tally was 212-216, with the motion failing.

For those who don't understand the archaic procedures of the House, once the gavel comes down, things stop and the vote is final but that's not what happened here. The Democrats changed a vote in the House of Representatives in full-view of the country. They aren't even trying to hide their conniving ways anymore, even when all the facts show the GOP won the vote.

To make things worse, the bill will provide illegal aliens (yes, criminals) with hard-working Americans tax money. Talk about insult to injury. Hey, if you can't win on the issues, just cheat and steal. I guess if you have an approval rating of 3% on your handling of the Iraq war, you can't sink much deeper so why not drop any pretense of being ethical.