Carol Shea-Porter - The Misadventures of the 112th Congress

As I write this column, the country waits to find out if the ringmaster of the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner, is going to be able to control his members and get them to vote for the payroll tax cut extension with its compromises, or will his group  walk away from 160 million Americans who need a tax cut and just go on vacation? Usually this year, they have chosen vacation—lots of it—but I hope that after stopping the payroll tax cuts from being paid for by a tiny surtax on millionaires and billionaires, the House Republicans will be moved by the plight of the middle class and finally do something for them.  After all, they have spent the whole legislative year either doing nothing but pushing the country to the edge of disaster, or thanking their special interest friends by helping them legislatively.  While the Republican House has not produced a single jobs bill, they have created crisis and deadlock, and their antics have created worry and uncertainty around the globe.

In case you think this is too critical, let’s review the year. I think the best overall summary of this 112^th Congress comes from Fox News, believe it or not. Chad Pergram, who covers Congress for Fox News, said in his December 13, 2011 column,  “This year’s Congress is the Indiana Jones of Congresses. It exists in a perpetual state of distress. It repeatedly dashes out of some underground temple before being crushed by a gigantic, booby-trapped boulder.”   To this, I might add, of their own making.

So, what has the House been doing?  The House has taken some ugly votes, with the help of the NH-01 Representative, who voted with leadership 96% of the time, and the help of the NH-02 Representative, who voted with leadership 86% of the time. Here are some of the year’s highlights.   They voted to privatize Medicare.  They voted to repeal the health care law, but offered no substitute.  Both our NH members of the House of Representatives voted with the Republican majority against funding for the Memorial Bridge in Portsmouth. The Republicans in the House voted to cut the Community Development Block Grants by 62%.  They voted to cut school funding and money for first responders and for community health centers, among other cuts.

 They took a lot of votes against the environment.  Our NH-01 Representative got an F from the Sierra Club.  The National Clean Water Network, a group of 1,200 local, state and national non-profits who work to protect our water, said the NH-01 Representative never once voted for clean water. Even Ron Paul got a 7%. The NH-02 rep voted for clean water a little more than half the time.  While the House did not want to protect our water, they did protect oil companies by voting against cutting any taxpayer subsidies for oil companies.

The House also went on vacation without passing a bill to reauthorize the FAA, which threw 4,000 federal workers out of work, laid off thousands of construction workers, and cost the federal government $300 million. That move earned them bipartisan rage from the middle class, and it also showed that they simply could not get the job done. As the Republican former member of Congress who is now the Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood, said, “Because of their inaction, states and airports won’t be able to work on their construction projects, and too many people will have to go without a paycheck. This is no way to run the best aviation system in the world.”

Actually, this is no way to run a government. The Congress almost shut the government down a number of times this year because they could not pass their appropriations bills, and they had to pass continuing resolutions to keep going. The House Republicans not only almost shut the government down, they also brought us to the edge of default when they initially refused to raise the debt-ceiling, and got our credit rating reduced as a result. Now the newspapers are asking if Speaker Boehner can control his caucus. The larger question is, can voters control them? While Congress has become more and more divided, and agreements are harder to come by, this 112^th Congress has been the worst. As Chad Pergram said in his September 21, 2011 column, “These days, those cliffhanger serials seem to run on C-Span, with the 112^th Congress narrowly averting disaster at every turn.” So far, this Congress has been the disaster.

****

Former congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s 1st District from 2007-11. She is seeking a third term in the November 2012 election. She wrote the proposal for and established a nonprofit social service agency, which continues to serve all ages. She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Carol Shea-Porter - Can Congress compromise? If so, when?

People are disgusted with Congress. Does Congress deserve its current approval rating of just 12%? What are they fighting about? Can't they compromise? Before citizens throw their hands up, let's look at some divisive issues, and place them in context.

While citizens are disturbed that Congress is so divided, they have to realize that so are the voters.  The well-respected Pew Research Center just completed a major study that shows the high degree of polarization in US politics. Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Center, said, "What we see is a much bigger and increasingly diverse middle...What's striking about it is that they're not so moderate. People in the middle have some strong, well-defined ideological points of view." This confirms my experience while teaching Politics, working on campaigns, and then serving in Congress. There is a real hardening of positions among voters and politicians.

Often there is unwillingness to compromise because one side wants to keep or gain control. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was blunt but truthful in 2009 when he told National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." On the House side, Congressman Pence said, "You bet, we want those policies to fail." This is not leadership, nor is there a hint of compromise in those statements, and that view is clearly shared by many others. But sometimes there is another factor in play. Sometimes it is not just a refusal to play nice. Sometimes it really is a deep ideological belief that the other guy is so wrong that it will hurt the country if they yield. That belief may be right or wrong, but it does cause politicians to stand their ground and refuse to budge.

Many of these issues have just one position--for or against. For example, pro-choice or the opposite, anti-choice. You cannot have it both ways, and most people start at a certain moral or legal point that does not allow much room to compromise. I, for example, believe this is a privacy issue and the government needs to stay out of it. NH has two Republican members of Congress.  One says there can never be an abortion, not even to save the life of a mother, and the other is a member of the Republicans for Choice PAC, elected several times to the House with that position. Who can compromise with whom in that scenario?

Another issue is taxes. Even though the United States has a high corporate income tax that should be lowered, most corporations actually don't pay any federal income tax, thanks to politicians. While most who wrote these favors into the tax code had political reasons to do so, some truly believe that if we tax corporations, they can't create jobs. Never mind that they pay taxes to other countries and create jobs there-some still believe it will hurt jobs so they won't compromise. 

Politicians and citizens are all over the map on health care. Some want it for seniors, some want it for vets, some want it for nobody, and some want it for all. People who are desperate for health care and cannot afford it need advocates who will fight, and people who have good jobs and good health care want "their side" to stand their ground also. These issues and others create gridlock and frustration.

There are some answers though. First, voters should choose the team they most identify with, Republicans or Democrats, and then send that team to run the country. Teamwork is key to success, and the two parties can't work well together at this point. Second, voters need to compromise also. They should ask the candidate about positions, but they also need to allow a good candidate to fail the 100%-purity-about-every-issue test. Voters should not give up, thinking politicians are all the same, because they clearly are not. 

Citizens need to choose their team, and then tell team members that when a compromise is good for the country, they will understand a hard vote. Encourage courage. Reward courage.  At least, accept it, if there is to be compromise. Finally, people must remember that America has faced gridlock before, over issues as diverse as Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Health Care, Asbestos, Abortion, Immigration, etc. We are guided by a Constitution and by decent people of all persuasions. We will be bruised and battered, but with faith and optimism and good will, we will survive.

#####

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Tom Peters "Insanity on Steroids"

July 29th, 2010

Sample from House Budget Hearing
 
Rep Ann Kirpatrick  (Dem) AZ  Told the house that families in her district are forced to live with less every day and they somehow make do. Its time for congress to do the same. She made a motion to amend the appropriations bill by reducing Congressional pay and discretionary spending by 5%. 

Rep John Olver (Dem) MA and others said it was not possible, undoable. Motion failed.

Rep Jim Jordan (R) OH Told the house with a $1.4 Trillion Deficit, $13 Trillion Debt "we need to take steps now to start the process of reducing spending." Made a motion to revert discretionary spending back to 2008 levels.

Rep John Olver (Dem) MA and others said it was not possible, undoable. Motion failed.

Rep Jeff Flake (R) AZ attempted to reach house members by repeating the debt figures and telling the house how they were "so incredibly out of touch with the American families across this country." He made 4 motions to reduce spending on earmarks by $1 million each. For the renovation of a building in Buffalo, NY, for adding more bike paths in Tacoma, WA, for more bike trails in RI and another similar project. \223With our government buried so deep in debt, how can we possibly ask taxpayers to pay for this?\224

Rep John Olver (Dem) MA and others said this was minuscule amounts of money. Cutting these projects will not amount to anything.

Rep Jeff Flake (R) AZ said, If we can't even cut, what you call small amounts, how will we ever deal with the deficit and debt?

Rep John Olver (Dem) MA and others said it was not possible, undoable. Motion failed.

Don't we send addicts to rehab?

Tom Peters:
Ashland, NH

ON FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM and REGULATION

By Peter Bearse

Republican Candidate NH CD1

Is it any wonder that our economy is screwed up? -- When Congress can’t even ask the right answers, let alone get to reasonable answers on the need for reforms in the financial sector, or in Congress itself -- so as not to screw up another sector of the economy. The key issue which Congress avoids is distribution of power, not only between the private sector and government, but within the private sector itself. Avoidance has consequences. One is that government will continue to be part of the problem because a Democratic Congress mistakenly assumes that it’s the major part of the solution to any problem. Another is that the economy will be rendered less dynamic. Government intervention into any sector of the economy favors the financial powers-that-be to the disadvantage of the smaller fry -- small, community-based banks, small business and entrepreneurs. As I noted in earlier releases, government and big business, on balance, destroy jobs; smaller actors create them. An American economy guided by big government bailing out big banks is in danger of riding on the same rails as Japan from 1990 to about 2002 -- low growth and high inflation -- “stagflation.” 

Congress puts the country in danger when it sets to solving the wrong problems. It often does so by overreacting to media headlines rather than trying to get to the root of problems. So, rather than finding ways to get the financial sector to serve the real economy, Congress comes up with “reforms” that serve the sector and itself. Why? -- because it starts with a misleading diagnosis: that the core problem is that the burden of bailouts falls too much on taxpayers. Then it starts down a misguided path guided by the influence of big money contributions to help Members’ reelection. So, if you want to know what’s happening with financial regulation -- “Follow the money!”

Thus, as in the case of the earlier un-healthy concoction carrying a “reform” label, we face a huge bill…

*     Whose implications for the future are poorly understood and too little debated;

*     That does not eliminate either significant chances of future bailouts, nor of taxpayers being put on the hook for them [The latter is hidden in the section on FDIC “loans”];

*     Whose risk-management via governmental regulation threatens to put dampers on the prime drivers of our economic progress -- entrepreneurship and innovation; and…

*     Whose solicitous care and favoritism for the big boys spells a big imbalance in the economy: Investors will favor big banks and corporations over small, community-based banks and more entrepreneurial enterprises. The market and political power of the big would grow. The corruption of Congress would increase, threatening the foundation(s) of our Republic.

What features need to be included in a real reform package that would finance real American enterprise, not a casino economy? ^[1] There are eight (8):

*     Non-bank financial companies need to be regulated as banks if any part of the corporation takes deposits.

*     “Standard” derivatives’ trading should be moved out of banks into public trading exchanges. “Customized” trading can continue through in-bank “desks“, but with federal agency oversight.

*     Securities’ underwriting and trading needs to be regulated, and incentives provided, so that banks and other financial institutions provide more patient money for business’ start-up and development, not incentives for “flipping” investments to make quick bucks.

*     Existing financial regulatory agencies need to be consolidated, trimmed and refocused rather than adding another, new agency to an already cumbersome bureaucratic layer-cake.

*     The attitude that some big banks are TBTF -- “Too Big To Fail” should be cast aside. Failed banks should be handled, as now, by the FDIC. Bank corporations or holding companies should be allowed to fail and/or be reorganized under bankruptcy statutes. Any expectation that any banks will be “bailed out” through any other mechanism should be put to rest.

*     Congress should recognize that the biggest banks are multinational corporations. Thus, some provisions of American legislation designed to alleviate “systemic risk” should be conditioned on trans-national coordination, cooperation and sharing of burdens yet to be worked out under “Basel III.”

*     Capital reserve requirements of non-bank financial companies need to be increased, significantly, and allowable leveraging (debt/equity ratios) decreased.

*    Restore the “double liability” system that governed banks until the
FDIC was established in the 1930’s, whereby bank officers’ personal
assets would be liquidated to make depositors whole if a bank failed.

Republican Senators should stand fast against Democrats’ attempt to ram through another bad bill, so that these and other improvements can be made.

           PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist and Independent-Conservative Reagan Republic Candidate for Congress in NH CD 1, April 27, 2010.

---

^[1] This adds to my response to a question on the issue raised during the first U.S. House candidates’ Forum held in NH CD 1, hosted by the Brentwood Republican Town Committee. I was the only one of the six candidates to answer the question directly and precisely.

Response To LTE in Monadnock Ledger-Transcript Demeaning the Tea Party Members

Information in the “Tea or coffee” letter printed in the Monadnock Ledger April 1st is incorrect and misleading.

I am a member of the T.E.A. Party which is a group of concerned citizens (democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians, etc.) that have banded together as one voice to say that they are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.

Contrary to what was said in the previous letter, constructive criticism and creative solutions have been offered. TEA Partiers do not encourage violence, obscenities, or racial remarks as incorrectly reported by the biased news media. Demonstrators using such tactics have been democratic supporters such as S.E.I.U. members.

Why are we “Teed Off”?

Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.

1.     The House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.

2.     They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.   

3.     Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the next 2-years

4.     Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000.

5.     Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., increase?

Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.  

     ·Why should they care about you?  

     ·You never did anything about it in the past.  

     ·You obviously are too stupid or don't care.   

     ·Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?

Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution whereby  "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

These people in Washington have brought this upon themselves!  It's time for retribution.  Let's take back America!

Dick Olson