-- Sen. Barack Obama, followed closely by Rep. Louise Slaughter, were the most impressive of the 'introducers' Wednesday of the Democrats' new Congressional reform package, dubbed the Democratic Honest Leadership Act. Obama appeared poised and presidential; Slaughter did just that to the corrupt Republicans.
Show openers Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were a little weak and stumbling, with Pelosi looking like she just fell out of bed in a no-tell motel gripping an empty gin bottle, and Reid as spirited and riveting as a bowl of cold oatmeal. The only thing worse was the GOP reform plan which had loopholes the size of the Holland Tunnel to accomodate large truckloads of future gamy cash. Its unveiling by that old grafter 'Jabba the Hut' Hastert, whose rise to the House Majority Leader's seat was based solely on the fact that he couldn't find anyone to commit adultery with, and Rep. David Dreier, who can't answer a question without reformulating it to his liking first, added salt to the wounds with a Brillo pad.
The Dem ideas to ban no-bid contracts, require appointees to important government posts to actually have prior credentials in the field, and sending war profiteers to the big house were fine, although they left out any method of enforcing these rules, but the Dem plan didn't go nearly far enough. Here are some hints, guys:
(a.) Make ALL money, gifts, trips, dinners, etc. from or with lobbyists, corporations or business trade groups illegal, and any member caught accepting same would be immediately removed from office.
(b.) Support, as the GOP's ignored 1994 Contract with America did, strict term limits for Senators and Representatives, and use it to beat up the Repubs for not keeping their promise on this score. (I'd make it one 6-year term for the Senate and two 2-year terms for the House. This would keep miscreants such as Tom DeLay from building a power base in Congress, the platform that has led to corruption by both parties. If you're wondering what kind of job such a 'fluid' Congress would do, just look at the miserable job the 'institutional' Congress has done; could newbies do any worse? Besides, our elected representatives could concentrate more on doing their jobs rather than raising money for their next campaign.) Also, no more 'revolving doors' either; those elected to Congress and their staffs would be prohibited from working for a lobbying firm or any company that does a majority of its business with the government for ten years after they have left office or their staff position.
(c.) At all meetings where public business is discussed, a videotape record should be kept, available to any member of the public to review upon request. If a constituent or lobbyist attempts to discuss business in a social setting, the Senator or Representative, like a judge presiding over a case, would tell that person they can't talk about legislative business except when videotaped. No closed-door deals, everything aboveboard and open to public scrutiny. If any member of Congress violates this rule, they would be removed from office immediately.
(d.) Members of Congress should have ample time to review any bill before voting on it; at least ten working days between the presentation of the bill and the vote, except in the case of emergency disaster relief.
(e.) No more 'add-on items' to legislative acts that have nothing to do with the title and intent of the bill. For example, if a bill is titled "Emergency Hurricane Disaster Relief" Sen. Ted Stevens or his ilk can't stick in an item to fund a multi-million dollar Alaskan bridge; if the bill has to do with America torturing suspected terrorists, no more 'William J. Le Petomane Memorial Thruway' boodle tacked onto the end. If MOC's want pork for their districts or states, they are going to have to ask for it openly, and justify the expediture.
(f.) Members of Congress shall have their salaries and pensions cut in half, as well as reimbursements for housing, etc., until the budget is balanced. They will also receive Social Security in retirement, benefit amount commensurate with the amount paid in, the same SS every other American receives. No more golden parachutes or lavish perks.
(g.) Federal-level political candidates should be publicly-funded and less expensive, and, to maintain their FCC licenses, radio and TV broadcast networks should be required to provide free airtime to candidates. To break this down:
(1.) Congress will create a taxpayer-funded Congressional Campaign Fund which will be spilt equally between candidates for Senate and Congress irrespective of political party based on the following criteria: Senate candidates must receive enough signatures statewide to qualify to appear on the ballot; Congressional candidates must receive enough signatures in their district to qualify for a position on the ballot. Presidential candidates must qualify for a position on enough state ballots so that they could mathematically receive the required electoral votes to win. A template for national and state elections should be standardized; i.e.: five percentage of the state's voters signing a petition would be enough to place a senate candidate's name on the ballot; likewise five percent of the voters in a congressional district would be sufficient to put a Congressional candidate's name on the ballot. The same would apply to presidential candidates; in each state, five percent of the voters would be adequate to place a candidate's name on the ballot.
(2.) To offset the loss of campaign contributions, all short TV 'spot' ads would be banned for any national elective office; instead, Senate candidates, two months before the election, would receive one hour of weekly statewide TV and radio time per month, to be apportioned in no less than fifteen-minute segments and at least one two-hour debate between all qualified candidates will be broadcast free of charge. In a similar fashion, candidates for Congress will be given free airtime of one-hour per month within the candidate's district, apportioned in the same way as above, and at least a two-hour slot afforded all candidates to debate one another. Presidential candidates should be given one hour per week, in no less than fifteen-minute segments, at least two of those segments to appear in prime time, for two months immediately preceding the election. A two-hour debate per month between all presidential candidates would be provided free by the broadcast networks. ALL paid political advertising would be banned. Non-profit advocacy group advertising would also be banned three months prior to an election, as well as PAC and political party ads. Candidates would be required by law to appear and speak on their own behalf; no surrogates or endorsers would be allowed to use this free airtime. The rules of the candidate debates would be set by the independent organization -- such as the League of Women Voters -- hosting the event and not by the political parties or their representatives, although candidates will have the option of not participating in the debates, they will not be able to apply that airtime to their individual free airtime. No candidate may collect more than $100 (one hundred) dollars from any one person in any election cycle, and that money may be used only on bumper stickers, buttons, flyers, and print ads. No corporation or business may donate money to any candidate under any circumstances, nor provide free travel, favors or other emolument in any form.
The Tattlesnake realizes none of this would pass with either party unless the anti-corruption feeling is strong enough amid the voters to force Congress to accept proposals such as these or lose their jobs.
We can only hope that the public will put such pressure on our lawmakers because only sweeping change will solve the problem; the halfway measures presented by both parties won't, in the final analysis, do much more than fill a soundbite.
-----------------------------------
'Pension' As In 'Suspension'
Hard to believe that the same 'we care' corporations that have been killing the American worker and our standard of living in every other area would alter their pension accounting methods to stick the knife in a little deeper, but that's what the AP says here.
Stripped of the financial page double-talk, here's the New Math accounting method in plain English: 'Two for me, none for you.'
I wonder how many of these corporate employees, mostly white and middle-class, will continue to slit their own throats by voting for Republicans? ("I may be sick, old and flat broke, but at least we ain't got no gays gettin' married in our town!")
Accounting Changes May Squeeze Pensions
By ADAM GELLER, AP Business Writer
Mon Jan 16, 5:59 PM ET
It may sound arcane, but a planned overhaul of the way companies keep their books on pensions and retiree health care plans could come at a very real cost to workers counting on those benefits.
The changes -- likely to begin by year's end -- come as a growing number of companies freeze pensions and cut retiree health benefits, shifting risks and costs to workers. In recent weeks, IBM Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. have joined the list of those announcing they will freeze their pension plans.
But some experts say new regulations requiring companies to more accurately calculate and show the cost of their retirement promises could speed up the move by employers away from guaranteed pensions and other benefits.
"Changing accounting rules can cause companies to change their behavior," said David Zion, an accounting analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston.
Rules now in place give companies cover. Many have made expensive retirement promises without putting aside all the money needed to meet them. But they don't have to fully disclose the shortfalls in their earnings statements or on their balance sheets.
Read the rest here.
------------------
Quote to Quote
Courtesy of the Jan 17, 2006 Progress Report:
"It's very, very important that the president has the agility and the speed to gather up electronic surveillance of individuals that may be in contact with the enemy."
-- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, attempting to justify Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, Jan. 16, 2006.
"FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information."
-- Washington Post, Dec. 22, 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment