Archive for the 'Max Baucus' Category

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

Let’s just get this bit out of the way. I am not a lawyer; I am just a person who has the privilege of being a United States citizen, with all the rights and obligations that come with that honor. It is my duty as a citizen to defend the Constitution. Someone whose opinion I value disagrees with me. I am rising to the challenge.

There is an argument afoot, as to the legality of a legislative vs. amendment solution to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I believe that both a legislative and an amendment path could lead to righting a 200-year-old wrong; my friend believes that there is only an amendment path. That is what this post is about, evidencing the legal legislative path to representation in Congress for DC residents.

First some history. Back when the founding fathers were writing the Constitution in June of 1783, there was a riot outside of the statehouse in Philadelphia, (which was the capitol of the US, at the time). There were some unpaid revolutionary troops, who were demanding pay from the forming federal government, the forming fathers asked Pennsylvania to provide some protection, and Pennsylvania refused. The Congress decided to move to Princeton then to Trenton, New Jersey; to Annapolis, Maryland; and finally, New York City, to settle the Constitution in a more peaceful environment(s).

From this situation, the idea of a “District”, outside of the influence and dependence on a singular state was born. The Framers constructed an idea of a District no more than 10 miles on each side, to hold the nation’s capitol. Alexander Hamilton raised an amendment to the Constitution, in his state, providing that when the federal district reached significant population (reached in 1850), “provision shall be made by Congress for having a District representation in that body”. The Constitution was passed without such amendment in 1789, when everyone lived in a state.

So the idea of the District was created. Virginia and Maryland succeeded lands to create the District, and in 1791, the site was chosen by George Washington. While the District was under construction, the residents were allowed to vote in their former state’s elections (north of the Potomac in Maryland, and south of the Potomac in Virginia). December 1, 1800, the federal government moved to Washington D.C. from Philadelphia. It wasn’t until 1801, when Congress assumed control over the District, that the former residents of Virginia and Maryland were denied the right to vote in elections.

July 9, 1846, Congress passed a law returning Alexandria County and Alexandria to the State of Virginia. After decades of DC resident’s complaints (petitioning as early as 1803), the lands of the District, south of the Potomac, were returned by recession to Virginia, and the residents living in that area had representation on the hill again. You will note that the right to representation in Congress was a primary reason that the District is not 10 miles square today. While I might I don’t agree with their reasoning for wanting the vote (slavery), the fact remains that the citizens demanded representation, and Congress gave the land back, so that they could have representation. The yellow bit is Virginia, and the gray/white part is formerly Maryland and present day Washington, D.C.

Image from Mental Floss.

My friend claims that there is nothing in the Consititution granting the power to Congress to pass a law granting a voting member to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives. The relevant portion of the Constitution is, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, (hereinafter “The District Clause”):

To exercise exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States . . .” (Emphasis mine.)

And he would probably cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States . . . “

And Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 (as amended by the 17th Amendment):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof. . . “

Ahh, there’s the rub. Fortunately, I have several instances where Congress has treated Washington, D.C. as a state, by using the District Clause.

Congress has let Citizens Vote for Congress Even When They Aren’t State Residents: While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected “by the People of the Several states,” Congress has not always applied this language so literally:

* After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later became the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 - even though, legally, they were no longer residents [of a state].

* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. Citizens living abroad to vote in Congressional elections in their last state of residence - even if the no longer are citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return.

. . .

* Article III provides that courts may hear cases “between citizens of different states” (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, D.C. residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating D.C. as a state for this purpose - a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949).

* The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce “among the several states,” which, literally, would exclude D.C. But Congress’ authority to threat D.C. as a “state” for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889).

* Similarly, a U.S. Court of Appeals recently treated D.C. as a “state” for purposed of the Second Amendment, in Parker v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2007).

from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Letter with H.R. 1905 Fact Sheet Including Constitutionality Issues, April 18, 2007 (PDF 93 kb)

* “For instance, the Supreme Court consistently has upheld Congress’ right to treat the District as a state in decisions on federal taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, the right to trial by jury, prohibition and the right to sue citizens of the states in federal courts . . .”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

“Moreover, the United States is the only country in the world that denies the citizens of its capital representation in its national legislature, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).” id.

Ilir Zherka, executive director of the voting-rights advocacy group DC Vote, points out that for decades the U.S. departments of State and Justice have helped other countries write their constitutions “In not one of them has the U.S. proposed to disenfranchise the people of the capital.”, id.

Let’s refer back to the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue. I think it is extremely important here. The Sixteenth Amendment (passed in 1909, ratified in 1913):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The D.C. is not a State, yet the citizens pay Federal Income Taxes. If my friend’s contention is true, that Congress cannot pass a law giving representation to its citizen’s, because it is unconstitutional based on the frequent use of “the several states” throughout the Constitution; then the fact that D.C. citizens pay taxes on their incomes would be unconstitutional as well.

If my friend’s contention held true, that D.C. cannot be treated as a state under the Constitution, and the powers granted to Congress to provide legislation “exercise[ing] exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district“; then the Congress would have done a lot of illegal things over the years.

I posit the Constitution conflicts with itself. It is not a perfect document. All contingencies could not have been foretold. Therefore, the founding fathers put in ways to amend it (thank you Ben Franklin), and ways for Congress to provide for the citizen’s rights, who happened to live in a District, instead of a State.

Happy April 15th. Make sure you mail in your taxes to the government today, or apply for an extended deadline to file.

The residents of DC are mailing in their taxes today to the government as well; the difference being, they don’t have voting representation in the Senate and House. Taxation without representation.

I wrote a post a while ago about how Baucus was one of the 3 people in congress holding back DC’s right to representation. Now there is some disagreement about how to go about getting the vote for DC, and the consequences for doing so. There are a whole lot of reports and analysis available at www.dcvote.org. And one in particular handed over to our own Senator Baucus to address his concerns:

Washington, DC -Advocacy organizations, DC Vote and DC Appleseed, have presented Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) with a memo from Latham & Watkins LLP that addresses the Senator’s concerns about the DC Voting Rights Act (S. 1257).

On September 18, 57 members of the Senate voted in favor of cloture - to bring the bill to the floor for debate. Sen. Baucus was the lone Democrat who voted against this bill that would provide the more than half a million residents of Washington, DC, a voting member in the House of Representatives. In a statement after the vote, Baucus expressed concern that “Montana’s voice [in the House of Representatives] would become less influential” should the bill become law.

Latham & Watkins, found that the effect of the DC Voting Rights Act “will not weaken Montana’s representation in the House, but, to the contrary, has the potential to eventually increase it.”

The team’s research resulted in two significant findings. First, in a fifteen-year period from 1991 to 2006 (from the 102nd to 109th Congress), just 1.2% of roll call votes in the House were decided by a margin of three or fewer votes. Of the same votes, only 41, or less than one-half of one percent, resulted in a tie or a one-vote margin. To date, there have been no ties and only a single one-vote outcome in the 110th Congress.

Secondly, the findings show that the DC Voting Rights Act will not harm Montana because, by increasing the House’s membership, by one jurisdiction in DC, “the measure results in smaller congressional districts and thus actually improves Montana’s prospects of gaining a second representative by reducing the average number of persons per congressional district.” According to the “Hill method” of apportioning seats in the House, at the time of the 2000 census, Montana would have needed an additional 8,168 people to gain a second seat in the current 435-seat House. In a 437-seat House, however, Montana would have faced a somewhat smaller population hurdle of 7,829 people in order to qualify for a second House seat.

“These findings prove what we have known all along,” said Ilir Zherka, DC Vote Executive Director. “Giving the 580,000 residents of the District a seat at the table of American Democracy will not affect Montana’s voice in Congress.”

Zherka added, “The heart of the issue is that all tax-paying Americans deserve a voice in government. The complaint of ‘dilution’ has been a rallying cry against increasing the franchise throughout history - when women were given the vote, when African Americans were given the vote and when the voter age was decreased. Our democracy has only been strengthened with each milestone in our country’s voting history. We hope that Sen. Baucus will reconsider his position and vote on the right side of history.”

see the full report here. (Emphasis mine).

I stand by what I have said before: “I cannot vote for someone to represent me in Congress, who doesn’t defend the most basic right of democracy : representation.”

I’m also going to give Baucus a chance to do the right thing, and I am going to remind him that I strongly support DC voting rights by calling him today, tax day, at 1-800-332-6106.

I am honor bound and I believe that it is the right thing to do: Max Baucus’s campaign finance practices are wrong. I feel driven to write this post because I constantly chastised Burn’s and still chastise Rehberg for collecting large sums of out of state money. It is wrong when they do it and it is wrong when Max does it. As Pogie points out here:

A lot of of us on the left raked Conrad Burns across the coals last year for his attitude about fundraising, as well as the source of much of that money. While no one will ever suggest that Baucus comes close to the level of sleaze that emanated from the Burns campaign, consistency demands a critical look at the people who contribute to his campaign, as well as his office’s attitude about it.
-
Money has corrupted the legislative process and cheapened the leaders who shape the laws. Isn’t it time for Senator Baucus to show that he is worth more than his campaign contributions?

Really. Think about it. 90% of his funding from out of state? Millions of dollars and he hasn’t even started campaigning in Montana? Does he intend to? Do we count? I am not so sure.

Now, consider this post by Carol from Missoulaopolis, where she suggests that Montana should take the lead on enacting requirements that all campaign contributions come from inside the district to be represented. I think there might be something to this. What is the downside? Why do we need out of state money? Particularly when it only serves to fortify the incumbent. This puts no one at a disadvantage, so what is tha harm? Thoughts?

A new poll released by Montana State University-Billings showed some pretty interesting numbers. Here they are distilled:

Schweitzer:
Approve: 63%
Disapprove: 18%
Undecided: 19%

Baucus:
Approve: 64%
Disapprove: ~18%
Undecided: ~18%

Tester:
Approve: 57%
Disapprove: 16%
Undecided: 27%

Rehberg:
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 17%
Undecided: 24%

Now, there are a few interesting take away points here.

1. Montanan’s love their governor and senior member of the Senate. Brown and company beware.

2. While Tester is doing well for this early in the game, there is a lot of room for things to go south for him. I am a little surprised by this number, expecting more of a bitter feeling to linger after the last election.

3. While Rehberg is doing well, he doesn’t seem to have left much of an impression on people for this late in the game. There is a lot of room for things to go south for him, and I fully expect that those numbers will quickly dwindle when they were pitted with a viable alternative next November.

4. The core of the Montana Republic party is smaller than I had assumed. It looks to me to be around 16 to 18% (Note: Republic party is not a typo, if they cant take the time to say the last two letter of my party’s name, neither can I)

In support of number 3 above, consider the states support for the Iraq war:

The poll found that only 35 percent of Montanans surveyed now support the decision to go to war in Iraq. About 58 percent oppose that decision, up from 48 percent in both 2005 and 2006 in the same poll.

Let us all take this time to remember that Rehberg has voted in lockstep with Bush on this issue since day one. Also, consider that Bush had an 87% approval rating in 2001 but has slipped to 35% now. Can you say ’sinking ship’? Good. I knew you could.

These numbers would be good ones for Tester and Baucus to remember too:

63 percent say the country is moving in the wrong direction; 19 percent say it’s moving in the right direction.

We want change, not rhetoric.

I am really tired of trying to be somewhat diplomatic on issues, which has been my want as of late. Today’s veto of the health and education spending bill just before he was handed another $471-billion in supplemental spending for the pentagon shows that the man doesn’t give a damn about anything but his war.

I’ll put it to you this way: it is estimated 18,000 American’s die each year from a lack of health care. This is real stuff. The statistical chance of getting killed by a terrorist in this country is next to null. About 3000 in the last 10 years? 180,000 have died in that same time span from a lack of health care. how many people have died in America from an Iraqi terrorist in the last 10 years? Zero. What the hell is going on here that we have a president that cares more about a non-threat than a real threat?

I urge Democrat’s to stand behind this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won’t approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
-
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
-
If Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
-
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

Email Jon Tester and Max Baucus on this. Remind them exactly what America’s priorities ought to be. I was going say to contact Denny Rehberg on this, but then I remembered that he drank the kool-aid right down and is a lockstep supporter of George Bush’s war over education and healthcare. Have a look at Bill Kennedy instead.

Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus delivered a joint press release today rebuking Judge Mukasey for not answering question on waterboarding. They will not capitulate and they will not vote for Mukasey.

“From fighting terrorism, fraud, corruption and the scourge of meth to gaining the trust of the American people the next Attorney General has a huge task ahead. Over the past several weeks, we have listened carefully to what both Judge Mukasey has said and what he has refused to say.
-
We are deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s refusal to acknowledge what our courts, our military and every single previous administration has recognized: waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. Failure by our government to repudiate torture exposes American men and women fighting around the world to potential danger and injustice.
-
For too long the Department of Justice has lacked an independent leader who will attack the many problems that face this country, while preserving the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. We do not believe that Judge Mukasey will be that needed independent voice and we cannot, in good conscience, vote for his confirmation.”

Good job sirs. We appreciate you standing up on the side of right. Court precedence on this is set and clear: waterboarding is torture. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin underwent the process in order to determine if it is torture and determined that yes, it was unquestionably torture. This process is torture, it breaks American and international law and we do not need another Attorney General that is willing to rewrite the law.

Seems like the Iraq War was the big loser in Montana.

Both Helena’s and Missoula’s anti-Iraq war referendums won decisively with majority numbers - Helena’s taking nearly 62% of support, and Missoula with almost 65%!

Reaffirming Helena’s anti-Iraq War referendum vote was the dismissal of the anti-anti Iraq War referendum - a call to give Bush a blank check, with no conditions, for funding of the Iraq war - by a slightly-less than the nearly 62% support the anti-Iraq war referendum received.

Only two cities, I know, but I’ll take the time to point out that both are over 60% threshold…..

7 U.S. forces were killed on Monday.

3857 U.S. forces have been killed in Iraq.

2007 has been the deadliest year.

853 U.S. forces have died this year.

118 U.S. forces have been killed since September 1st.

The worse previous year was 2004, with 849 U. S. forces killed.

24 Sons of Montana have died.

How many more?

Email Rep. Dennis Rehberg and tell him “Not One More!”

Email Sen. Max Baucus and tell him “Not One More!”

Email Sen. Jon Tester and tell him “Not One More!”

Support our U.S. forces by bringing them home.

Shane rightly came over to my place and held my feet to the fire regarding my chip shot (some may call it a cheap shot) at the methods used by the Democrats to put a human face on the SCHIP debate. Now that the initial evaluation is over, and now that we’re mostly done peeing on each other’s legs, I’m left wondering what the end result of all of this will be.

The President did what he promised he would do with his veto pen, and Congress doesn’t appear to have enough votes for an override. This was all predetermined, of course, because the President had promised to veto the legislation to begin with. Knowing this, I wonder why the legislation moved ahead at all in the form that it was in. Was it just a political statement? Was there aversion to compromise simply to draw attention to the debate? I’d say yes, but I’d also add that there is nothing wrong with highlighting policy differences with the neon light of brinkmanship as long as something good comes out of it.
In that vein, I stumbled upon this from The Modesto Bee that gives a pretty thoughtful (but brief) response on how a compromise could still be reached. The statement from the article that jumped out at me drove home the question I ask in my title; now what?

This [compromise would give] Democrats one big bold action they can tell voters their Congress achieved. Then again, Democrats may want to avoid a compromise so they can tell voters next year to blame Bush and Republicans for the fact that children remain uninsured.

Congress has made its point, and the President has made his. Now we’ll see if the players actually want to do something about the issue, and our own Mr. Baucus will be sitting center stage.

It is true that many of us on the left have been critical of Max Baucus recently, particularly his vote in the resolution against MoveOn.org. However, rumors of his demise in the eyes of the left have been greatly exaggerated by Montana bloggers on the right.

Occasionally Max does something to remind me that I genuinely like the guy. As Don pointed out at Intelligent Discontent, he has recently followed Jon Tester in posting his daily schedule online. That’s something, however small, it is something. Then a little piece of ‘Max Mail’ showed up in my inbox today. According to the press release, Max is the first Senator to address dealing with travel generated carbon emissions.

(Washington, D.C) – Montana Senator Max Baucus is putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to climate change.
-
The senior U.S. Senator today offset his carbon emissions for air travel between Montana and Washington, D.C., paying $1,152 dollars for a year’s worth of travel to begin to help establish a “carbon-neutral footprint.”
-
Baucus today became the first U.S. Senator to use services provided by Native Energy, a privately held Native American energy company, to offset his official Senate travel.

Essentially, NativeEnergy is a firm that will invest your money in the production of renewable energy to offset your carbon emissions. Here is how is works:

• Under federal law, renewable generators can force utilities to buy their power.
• For efficient grid operation, if the utility has to buy the project’s power, it is going to use it.
• As a matter of physics, if the utility uses the renewable project’s power, it must, for any given level of demand, use less from other sources.
• For efficient grid operation, they use less from those generators that have the highest fuel costs – fossil fuel plants.

While I am intrigued by the notion, I am not instantly sold on this idea. It feels a little bit like a papal indulgence. I do understand the equation

more renewables = less fossil fuel

I also like the idea of changing the way that energy works and I appreciate that Max is trying to be a leader in change while bringing personal accountability to the table.

It is no secret that Baucus gets a lot of flak from progressive bloggers. It is also not a secret that I am not as hard on him. Why? Well, I think that he represents a pretty big chunk of Montana effectively. Wouldn’t be my first choice for the job, I think that he is a bit to cozy with big business, but I also realize that he generally puts Montana first. It could be a lot worse.

When I read that he was the only democratic senator to vote against cloture on the bill to allow Washington DC a vote in the house, I knew that he had done the wrong thing. He had done the wrong thing for the country and for the people of Montana.

His logic centers around the notion that the additional 2 representatives ( Utah gets one too ) would dilute Montana’s influence in the house:

“This was a vote about fairness, and about protecting Montanans’ rights,'’ Baucus said. “While we have equal representation in the Senate, Montana only has one voice in the House. If we were to expand the House, Montana’s voice would become less influential.'’

While I am willing to lend some credence to this argument, I would counter that right now we have 500,000 citizens in DC that have no representation and that is bad for democracy. What is bad for the democratic process in this country is ultimately bad for Montana. A stretch? Maybe, but I don’t think so. Consider this single quote from the article:

The city has been denied voting rights in Congress since 1801, making it the only major capital in the world where citizens are denied a vote in the nation’s representative body of government.

Does that sound like a very democratic notion?

I came across an interesting story today that reminded me of something way back in the archives of the 2006 elections. I posted a piece at The Wrong Dog’s Life Chest and at the old Left In The West where I discussed the fact that Conrad Burns had used deceptive language in his press releases to make it look as though he had already procured funding that he had not. One of the items that he declared funding as ‘procured’ was the Billings stadium. In these posts, I made the claim that he was did not have the political capitol to pull these off, since many in the GOP senate were already writing him off.

<SHAMELESS_TOLD_YOU_SO> As I recall, many in the right wing blogs said I was dead wrong. In fact Eric Coobs did a whole post on why I was wrong and how Burn’s would deliver. Well, he didn’t. </SHAMELESS_TOLD_YOU_SO> Now I see that Jon Tester and Max Baucus had to go to the mat to make sure that funding came through. Now, I am not sure that this is the perfect usage for federal dollars, but here is what Jon and Max had to say:

Montana’s two Democratic senators angrily fought the amendment. They said replacing Cobb Field, a wooden structure that has deteriorated, will bring economic development to Billings.
-
“This new stadium will spur redevelopment efforts and revitalization of the area,” Sen. Max Baucus said. “Over 100,000 people attended events at Cobb Field last year. For a state with 900,000 people, that’s a lot.”
[snip]
Sen. Jon Tester said the new stadium will play a major role in Billings.

“That’s why they voted to raise their own taxes by several million dollars to rebuild it,” he said.

Now, this raises a question that I have been seeing floated around the right wing blogs, so maybe it is time to address it. Jon Tester did campaign against earmarks, but he was very clear on what kind of earmarks he was talking about. The kind that are silently inserted into bills without oversight or committee discussion. The kind of earmarks that Burns put in for Jack Abramoff. This is something that Jon and Max felt was important for Billings Montana, and they might be right. The point is that it was discussed in and debated in the light of day with oversight.

The language has gotten polluted, there is a difference between ‘earmarks’ and procuring funding. What Tester claimed during the election:

The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don’t support earmarks, period.
-
If a project’s a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I’m not for earmarks because they don’t pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

And that is exactly what he did here. He stood up in font of the entire Senate and spoke on why this money should be brought back to Montana.

In a speech on the floor Tuesday, Tester defended his support of the Billings earmark.
-
“I’m standing here today to vigorously defend why I requested this funding project in the light of day,” Tester said. “And I’m going to bat for it because Cobb Field deserves funding. There are no secrets here. There is no waste.”

Again, I am not sure that rebuilding Cobb field is the best use of the federal dollars to spur economic growth in Billings. I am not an economist. I can say that I more clearly approve of some of the other items in the 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Funding Bill:

$1 million to help the Great Falls Transit District buy four new fuel-efficient buses.
[snip]
$600,000 to help transport and rehabilitate housing from Malmstrom Air Force Base at Great Falls to be used on the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation;
$650,000 for ExplorationWorks in Helena, to help complete a new science museum;
$400,000 to help restore the historic Daly Mansion in Hamilton; and
$1.5 million for an I-15 Custer Avenue Interchange in Helena.
The most expensive projects are road work: $7 million to rebuild 4.5 miles of Shiloh Road in Billings, and $6 million for a eight-mile-long project to reroute U.S. Highway 93 around Kalispell to connect with U.S. 2. U.S. 93 also would be expanded to four lanes in that area.

Here I hate to confound myself by agreeing with Eric Coobs on this (of course, he deleted most of his blog so you could never prove it if I hadn’t told you so), but he once made a valid point on this issue. I pay federal taxes, a lot of them. I want to see our fair share of that money come back here and serve a positive purpose.

With all the news over Senator Larry Craig what is missed is at what cost? To begin with, he will receive his retirement to the tune of some $136,000 dollars a year. So it must not go unnoticed that the crime does not fit the outcome very well does it?

Had it been a felony rather than a misdemeanor then this would not be the case. However, he will able to continue his lifestyle in whatever manner he chooses and we as taxpayers will pick up the bill.

Speaking of costs, there were some 1,800 civilians killed over the past month in Iraq. In one instance the cost of life was 500 in just one incident.

And then there is my own battle with the VA’s disability rating board. I just found out that my Agent Orange cancer disability payments have been reduced from 100% to 20% which is not only a huge deduction (like $2,000) because the people who oversee the veterans benefits have concluded that I am cancer free after just one year of remission but they can’t explain the huge loss of weight which is well over 100 pounds, the night-sweats, the sleepless nights that come in one to two hour blocks, the diminished lung capacity, the hoarseness of the vocal cords due to damage by chemicals used to kill the cancer and of course the huge loss of revenue because I was too sick to work.
Am I battling to fight this and do the right thing, Yes - But keep in mind that when you take on the VA you are appealing to the same people who determine what you do or do not get in terms of disability compensation. I’ve taken the steps of seeking help from both of our Senators (Bacus, Tester) and Congressman Reberg but that as I am sure most realize takes time and money both of which I do not have.
Clearly my medical records (both past and present) show that the side effects of the cancer are presenty even today but just try to prove to them that you are trying to do the right thing when it is clear that the government are more concerned with their own set of values and protecting their nest eggs to worry about the plight of the veteran.

Not long ago I was asked to share my experiences with the effects of service related health issues and you can trust that I shall. Why? Because this whole affair just simply is NOT fair. It IS about more than money it is about doing the right things for the right reasons.

Can they say the same?

The Senate voted to expand SChips on Thursday evening. Though Bush has threatened to veto the bill in the past, it was passed with a super-majority vote. Why? Well, most people in this country support universal health insurance, at a super-majority rate of 2 to 1. You can imagine that they sure as hell support healthcare for children.

Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus both came out in support of the bill. I commend them on taking this important step for Montanan’s. Why is it so important to Montana? Only half of the employers in Montana offer health coverage and this leaves a lot of kids at risk.

The average cost of a family health plan on the open market in Montana is about $8,000 per year, Baucus said. That’s about a fifth of the income of a family of four making twice the poverty level, or $41,300.
-
“CHIP offers affordable, comprehensive health coverage for working families,” Baucus said. “CHIP works and has helped thousands of Montana families.”
-
The 2007 Montana Legislature increased the family income eligibility cutoff for CHIP from 150 percent of the federal poverty level to 175 percent. That’s a yearly income of just more than $36,000 for a family of four, Baucus said. That change will add 2,000 children next year, he said.

Rehberg, on the other hand did not vote for the house version of the bill. Why?

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg on Wednesday voted against House Democrats’ bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, saying it’s based on an “extremist political ideology” to expand government-run health care.

By this line of thought, the American people follow “extremist political ideology” by a margin of 2 to 1? 66% of American’s are ‘extremists’?

In typical fashion, Dennis Rehberg wants to have it both ways, saying that he supports Chips, but does not support funding it. Additionally, he goes on to say that he did not vote to fund it because it would hurt senior citizens?

The House version funds the SCHIP expansion by increasing tobacco taxes and cutting $194 billion from the “Medicare Advantage” program, which are government payments to private insurance companies selling additional coverage plans for senior citizens on Medicare.
-
The federal government generally reimburses insurance companies for those payments. Congressional budget officials have said the government is overpaying private companies for the costs.
-
Rehberg said using the Medicare money to fund the SCHIP expansion is pitting senior citizens against kids in a battle for health care, and that 16,000 Montanans get coverage through Medicare Advantage.

The only problem with this logic is that the bill doesn’t take money from old people, it forces the ‘private insurance companies’ to stop bilking the government out of millions.

A Montana spokeswoman for AARP, the consumer group representing people 50 and over, said the group is “disappointed” with Rehberg’s vote. The measure actually strengthens Medicare programs for low-income seniors and reduces “excess payments” to private Medicare Advantage plans, said Pat Callbeck-Harper.

Thank you Jon Tester and Max Baucus for putting Montanan’s first. Dennis, I hope the insurance companies appreciate your work. Now we know where you all stand.

[Update 0] An interesting factoid on this one: According to MyDD, over half the GOP senators up for re-election this year voted against SChip. Hmmm.

Eight days into the first 100 days of Congress, the House passed H.R. 4, a bill requiring the secretary of health and human services to negotiate drug prices. Democrats were keeping their promise, having called for “fixing Medicare.” I heard that promise from the soon-to-be Senator Jon Tester himself – who talked about the need to negotiate prices for prescription drugs and eliminate the gap in benefits that the Medicare Part D ‘reform’ created. No need to detail the response by his predecessor.

Most of you are probably aware that Senator Max Baucus was the proud co-sponsor of that 2003 legislation (Medicare Part D). I personally wrote 3 letters to the Senator prior to the passage of that bill, asking him to reconsider, and specifically asking him to allow reimportation of prescription drugs and negotiation of prices. His first reply was a form letter, the second a lame attempt to address the issues I re-addressed to him, and the third a chest-beating “look what I did” self promotion. One word : Yuck. It was the first of 3 strikes I placed against him. (He has since redeemed himself somewhat with his reassessment of the war in Iraq.)

Well, Baucus is now seemingly between a rock and a hard place. He’s got Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, yet he can’t stomach H.R. 4, so he’s drafted his own bill (S.3) that will allow the secretary to negotiate drug prices. Baucus says that his bill will “untie the hands of the secretary,” so he could “strike a better deal” for some drugs. The key word here is allow versus require. I think we’ll end up with cheaper antibiotics and more expensive everything else drugs.

Maine Republican (and fellow Finance Committee member) Olympia Snow is “surprised and disappointed” that the Senate Democratic leaders don’t want to require negotiations. (Note: H.R. 4 passed with 231 Democrats and 24 Republicans.)

(more..plus your action alert below the fold…) Read the rest of this entry »