Dems screw up Earmark reform legislation in the Senate.

[TayTay]

This is outrageous. What the hell was Harry Reid thinking? What a moronic turn of events.

Okay, what am I talking about? Yesterday, Sen. DeMint added a 2nd degree Amendment to an Amendment that Sen. Reid had to the Senate Ethics Reform bill. (S.1. Still with me?) DeMint took the language that Rep Nancy Pelosi used in the House version of Ethics Reform that defined how and when earmarks could be used to designate specific government funding to specific projects across the country. (Think of that famous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. That was an earmark.)

Reid has a much weaker version of earmark reform in mind. His version would really only affect about 5% of earmark projects and they most likely could be put back into bills anyway at a later point in the legislative process. This was earmark reform without the, ah, actual reform. It would sound like the Senate was doing something, when in reality, they weren't.

DeMint called their bluff. (BTW, I can't stand Jim DeMint. He is a hard-core Rethug true-believer. But he nailed the Dems yesterday, just nailed them.) He put an amendment forward that contained Nancy Pelosi's language from the House Ethics Reform bill. This would affect 100% of earmark projects and make people own up to their requests for funding for pet projects. The Democrats did NOT recognize the language and Sen. Durbin of Illinois took to the floor to denounce this amendment as ill-thought out and unwise. Sigh!

DeMint, sensing a political 'moment' in time, took to the floor and revealed that this was Pelosi's language and that he was there to applaud her for taking this thought stand and to signal his intention to work with Democrats by voting FOR a Democratic reform. (He had the Democrats dead to rights at that moment for hypocrisy. Sigh!) Reid does NOT want this amendment to pass. He called for a vote to 'Table' or kill the DeMint amendment outright.

The vote failed. The following Dems voted AGAINST killing the amendment: Cantwell, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Landrieu, Nelson (FL), Obama, Tester and Independent Lieberman. (OMG, a king of pork voted against tabling this. Lieberman voted not to table. OMFG!)

Normally, after a vote like this, the Senator proposing the amendment moves for a voice vote and the amendment is approved and put into the bill. (Hey, they just voted FOR it in voting not to kill it. Senate logic is tough, but that much is clear, right?) Reid was pissed, so he had Sen. Durbin object to the voice vote. The Amendment is now pending in the Senate while Reid tries to get Senators like Obama, Kerry and Feingold to change their minds and back the meaningless Reid Amendment that represents toothless ethics reform.

The Rethugs get a big damn club to beat the Democrats over the head. The Democrats get egg on their face, an increase in the cynicism as it is apparent that they only back theoretical reform and a big black eye for Harry Reid who can't control his Senators. (Holding the vote open, which is what Reid is essentially doing in order to hunt up Dem votes to kill it, is something Tom Delay excelled at in the House. Sigh! Dems should not be in the position of looking like Tom Delay in terms of ethics and how they run their Congress.)

Read all about it here: http://tinyurl.com/y5jae3

[MH1]

1. OMG, what a screwup by Reid.

Don't he and Pelosi coordinate? Or is that too much to expect from our party's congressional leaders?

[warrens]

13. Senate rules are different

The Repukes are just doing the same thing we did when we were in the minority. That was a pretty good move by DeMint, because he knows the Senate will never pass the full reform bill.

[karynnj]

28. But they should and so should the house

The November 2006 exit polls listed corruption and Iraq as the 2 big issues. This is not only the right thing to do (duh)but likely the political thing to do.

This is important - do we want McCain to be able to claim he is a reformer when he runs ... and be believed.

[Meldread]

2. Agreed

I hope those who voted against Tabling remain firm, and other Democrats join them - leaving Reid standing all alone.

[blm]

3. Hopefully, Reid can admit the screw up and work to correct it.

.

[Ian David]

11. No. They should keep Nancy Pelosi's language in the bill.

It's a pitty that it took a Repuke trick to force Reid to do the right thing, and that they made him look stupid in the process.

[blm]

17. That's what I mean - correct himself by doing the right thing here.

.

[woodsprite]

4. I think the House is looking alot stronger than the Senate on

many things. I *LOVE* Pelosi! Reid is good at riding the rail and IMO could learn much from her.

Edited because I used the word "alot" alot. ;)

[Beelzebud]

5. I've never cared for Reid, and I wish we had a better majority leader...

[flamin lib]

6. Okay, everybody, time to pick up the phone. nt

[porphyrian]

7. What the fuck, Reid? You WANT our government bought and sold?!

Stupid fucking career politicians.

[jsamuel]

8. why is this the first we have heard of this?

[underpants]

10. I'd be shocked if it was that last you heard of it

If this is what happened.

[wisteria]

14. Yep,, I have the same thoughts as you. n/t

[TayTay]

18. Ahm, this is in the Congressional Record.

I heard it yesterday when I got home. And this will be all over the RW web real soon. (DeMint, much as I dislike him, just nailed the Dems yesterday with this.)

BTW, Harry Reid took a vote, recorded in the record, to have the Sgt-At-Arms round up Senators so that Reid could explain his position on the Earmarks bill. (Sigh.)

Go to the Congressional Record online and look it up for yourself.

Sen. Durbin: Unfortunately, overall the DeMint language is not ready for this bill. The DeMint amendment defines earmarks to include amounts provided to any entity, including both non-Federal and Federal entities. The Reid-McConnell definition which is before the Senate covers only non-Federal entities. On its face, the DeMint language may sound reasonable. After all, I have no problem announcing to the world when I have secured funding for the Rock Island Arsenal in my State. But the DeMint language is actually unworkable because it is so broad.

What does the Appropriations Committee do? It allocates funds among programs and activities. Every appropriations bill is a long list of funding priorities. In the DeMint amendment, every single appropriation in the bill--and there may be thousands in any given appropriations bill--would be subject to this new disclosure requirement, even though in most cases the money is not being earmarked for any individual entity. How did we reach this point in the debate?

There is a concern expressed by some that there is an abuse of the earmark process. When you read the stories of some people who have been indicted, convicted, imprisoned because of earmarks, it is understandable. There was a corruption of the process. But as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I tell my colleagues that by and large there is a race to the press release. Once you put an earmark in to benefit someone in a bill, you are quick to announce it--at least I am because I have gone through a long process evaluating these requests and come up with what I think are high priorities. So there is transparency and there is disclosure.

The purpose of our debate here is to consider reasonable changes in the rules to expand that disclosure. Senator DeMint is talking about something that goes way beyond the debate that led to this particular bill. We are not talking in his amendment about money that goes to non-Federal entities--private companies, for example--or States or local units of government. Senator DeMint now tells us that we have to go through an elaborate process when we decide, say, within the Department of Defense bill that money in an account is going to a specific Federal agency or installation. That is an expansion which goes way beyond any abuse which has been reported that I know of. Frankly, it would make this a very burdensome responsibility.

That continues for a while in the CR. Then DeMint gets up and says this:

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am not quite prepared to make all of my remarks about the amendments, but I did happen to be in the Chamber, and Senator Durbin was kind enough to open the discussion on two of my amendments, which I greatly appreciate. I am somewhat disappointed, however, that my colleague is not completely informed about these amendments.

I will start with the amendment that attempts to more accurately define what an earmark is. My colleague went to great pains to continuously describe this as the DeMint amendment, the DeMint language. Unfortunately, I am not sure if he knows, but this is the language which the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has put in this lobbying reform bill in order to make it more honest and transparent. I believe she has a very thoughtful approach. She campaigned on this, along with a number of Democrats and Republicans. We do need to disclose and make transparent every favor we do for an entity.

I am beginning to get disappointed in this process because I did believe in a bipartisan way that we were going to come together to try to do things to show the American people that we were going to spend their money in an honest way and that was not wasteful. But as we look back on some of the scandals, the first one that comes to mind, obviously, is the Abramoff scandal--using Indian money to try to buy influence on Capitol Hill.

[underpants]

19. Okay

:hi:

[Robbien]

15. The muckrakers over at Marshall's blog had it

Showing he can be every bit as bullying to advance a bad idea, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) held open a vote on his watered down earmark reform legislation today in order to round up enough votes to push it through.

Part of the Senate's ethics reform bill deals with earmarks -- lawmakers' often abused practice of inserting items in legislation to direct funds to special interests (a la Duke Cunningham). According to current rules, lawmakers can attach earmarks anonymously, a state of affairs inviting abuse. Reform efforts have sought to change that. Republicans and good government types have criticized Reid's version of earmark reform legislation, which is weaker than the version passed by House Democrats, saying that it doesn't go near far enough in terms of disclosure.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.

According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.

more at link
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002326.php

[librechik]

33. UPDATE: Reid backs down on earmarks

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002331.php

yay!

[Robbien]

34. Yes Yay.

Very much yes Yay!

Thanks for giving us a headups. This makes a not so hot day a little bit better.

:thumbsup:

[Ian David]

9. I never EVER trusted that bigoted old fuck Harry Reid.

I'll applaud many of his actions now and again, and I prefer him over 99% of the Repukes, but we need to cleanse ourselves of his ilk.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. How exactly is Senator Reid "bigoted ?"

:shrug:

[Ian David]

44. Reid is against Marriage Equality and voted for The DOMA. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Even Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA

[Ian David]

51. Really? Why? n/t

[wisteria]

12. This makes Reid look shady and crooked. Trying to pull a fast one on the public.

I think the people of this country want real reforms, not nicely packaged worthless ones. This does make him look bad. I applaud the senators who did not go along with tabling a real ethics package- even if it is a bit extreme, because they know we need this type of reform.
This can and might just be spun real well by the media and RWgers.

I noticed Clinton wasn't on the list of true ethnic reformers.

[flamin lib]

16. Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121

Reid's phones were tied up but I was only on hold for a few minutes.

[Desert Liberal]

31. Left him a voicemail, as if he'll hear it.

What the hell does he think he's doing? I thought we were pretty damn clear on what we expect from our politicians! This isn't a game, Mr. Reid. This is no time to let a Republican make you look like a bumbling butthead! For god's sake man, get your head on straight or get out of the way!

:grr:

[Selatius]

20. Hary Reid is a lot of things, but I don't think he's terribly honest.

At least Russ Feingold and others had the fortitude to go against Reid, and I hope they continue to oppose Reid on his fucktarded position on ethics.

[MH1]

22. I'm thinking he's an old-school politician

who doesn't realize that people have better information tools now and he (hopefully) won't be able to continue to get away with old-school political tricks like he used to.

I hope he wakes up to it soon.

[Selatius]

23. If old-school means corrupt-school, then you're probably right

If Dem leaders want to do things the old-school way, they will lose Congress again.

Harry Reid just gave the Repubs ammunition to use against Dems.

[karynnj]

21. We need a new leader!!

Last November, the exit polls showed that Iraq and corruption were the two biggest issues. This loses corruption as an issue for us. Last year, it was Reid who didn't want the Democrats to speak about Iraq. What does he stand for?

[mloutre]

24. Bring me the head of Harry Reid.

Yeah, okay. Hey, ho, way to go. Give 'em help, Harry.

WTF is this, anyway? Reid was for earmark reform until he was against it? This is bullshit on the half shell.

What skeletons does Reid have in his closet and who's got pictures of them threatening to post them in the internets that he should go along with this farce? Is he secretly on the Illuminati's payroll or what?

This is bad. This is bogusoid. This is seriously chingada.

And this is not, repeat *not* what we voted for in November of 2006.

[MH1]

25. Only *EIGHT* Dems stood up for putting teeth in this "reform" bill?

Only EIGHT?

Sheesh.

Et tu, Teddy? Hillary? (okay I expected it of her. But Teddy?)

[TayTay]

26. Not just Teddy. what about Boxer, Durbin, Leahy

and others. I understand the desire to give the new Dem Majority Leader a victory on his first Senate bill, but damn, this just flat-out sucks. It's a toothless bill. And Reid got nailed on the base politics of the thing. He gave DeMint a golden opportunity to paint the Dems are not being in favor of reform. For God's sake, DeMint was on the floor of the Senate promoting Nancy Pelosi. OMFG! That is an embarrassing screwup.

[karynnj]

27. This is a test of who wants reform

if reform means giving up perks and power.

The eight deserve praise.

[Schema Thing]

29. Let's fire Harry Reid

We don't need our own Tom Delay; we need genuine reform.

And thank you Cantwell, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Landrieu, Nelson (FL), Obama, Tester and Independent Lieberman.

Reid, you bastard motherfucker, you should be shot for making me thank Lieberman. I think I'm gonna go throw up now.

[crispini]

30. Ha! Well, good for DeMint,

and Harry, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

[bluewave]

41. Durbin and Reid should be disciplined by the party

Reid for his gross betrayal of the people's will, and Durbin for gross incompetence. This was outrageous. Another embarrassment like this, and new Senate leadership should be sought.

[confludemocrat]

32. ZZZZZ

These are meaningless games. So the Senate has diff thinking than the House? So what? Conference committees will work out these budget diffs, anyway.

[TayTay]

35. This sets the rules of the Senate

Do these bills even affect each Chamber and do they have to be approved in tandem? I would think the Senate could set the Rules of the Senate and the House could set it's own rules.

In that case, it is a big deal. It is the chance in the Senate in the 110th Congress for reform. There might not be another chance. It also shows who stands for reform and an end to corruption and who does not.

[confludemocrat]

43. Repubs outsmarted Dems in a way overlooked here

Neither the Pelosi bill nor its reprise in the Senate was a good idea. Killing add-ons just promotes the Repub agenda of stopping spending on stuff that's needed, as well as stopping pure pork.

I hate "fiscally conservative" Democrats. Quietly adding funds for socially important programs or facilities in poor places will now be fodder for grandstanders or assholes like Obama or Kerry--so-called "new Democrats", who talk a good game, but fail to deliver on redistribution of wealth. With the vaunted transparency, only a different set of politician than we have now will be able to to do good, and it won't be the weathervanes like them.

They will throw the baby out with the bathwater to make some kind of point. A new water system for some podunk place? How is that not ultimately good?
raising taxes on the richest should be on the agenda, rather than this.

[Meldread]

48. I agree that they are weathervanes.

...however arguing and grandstanding against something like spending money on those who need it won't be a major problem. It just forces those who wish to do such a thing to stand up and defend it, which will in turn make those who oppose it look bad. It's not really hard to defend giving money to those who really need it, and it is something that the American people support.

[bluewave]

37. Let's face it: We hit a grand slam with Pelosi. Reid is a single, at best.

A very, very weak single. He seems very meek, much like Frist.

[Robbien]

38. No way. Didn't you see the update? Reid did the better thing and backed down

After losing a critical floor vote Thursday and scrambling in vain to reverse the decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., found the spirit of bipartisan compromise more to his liking Friday morning.

Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint’s amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules. . . .

Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, “Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn’t be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job.”

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002331.php

Frist would never have taken the better road.

[bluewave]

40. This makes my blood boil. Why are we relying on Rethugs

for tough pork reform? I thought that was what I voted. Now Harry decided to throw out our votes and scale it back to a BS 5%? WTF, who does he think runs this country?

[Robbien]

42. Yes Reid is not bullish on reform, he does likes his pork.

I love the idea that DeWine moved to change that 5% reform to 100% reform just in order to stick it to Reid. DeWine never believed Reid would back down. DeWine felt Reid would hold firm at 5% and DeWine would be able to hold the 100% bill over Reid's head for the next two years.

Now both Reid and DeWine are stuck with a 100% bill neither of them really wanted. Ha!

[Meldread]

45. Ha. So funny. Now they both are stuck voting for it.

DeWine never thought Reid would back down, but he ended up making Reid look like such a fool (and he was) that the other Democrats no doubt FORCED Reid to back down. Now, DeWine's own rhetoric can be used against him if he doesn't support the amendment he put forward.

Score one for the American people!

[Pithy Cherub]

39. The funny thing was Obama was presiding over the

senate and the look on his face as he recognized the senatorfrom Illinois. As soon as I hear Obama cast his ney bote, I knew it. At first I thought it was an error and then just shook my head. Durbin got taken as DeMint even stated his esteemed colleague was so much better at debate than he. Durbin replies about how he worked on committees and he thought the language was very shortsighted and illegal. Ouch...:crazy:

[Morereason]

47. Called his office!

Add my name. Ethics and finance legislation are extremely important to changing washington!

[rpgamerd00d]

46. Any news on this? Did they un-screw it up or FUBAR it?

[Morereason]

49. Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121 - Call

Just want to add this again. I just called. Took about 2 minutes to get in. Should be taking longer!! ;)
Anyway call Him. It is important he feel the heat of the people.