Congress

My lovely wife has informed me that “Über” is like so yesterday.

She insists that the bailout henceforth be called the “Pigs in a Blanket Bailout”, due to the amount of pork added to buy enough support for passage.

KagroX at Daily Kos has been posting a summary of the Senate debate on their version of the bailout bill.

A few of the items found tucked into the bill include:

Page 279 — Rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

Page 280 — Mine rescue / mine safety

Page 290 — Motorsports racing track facility

Page 290 — Hurricane Katrina and Gulf opportunity zone

Page 295 — Wool modifications

Page 296 — Permanent authority for undercover operations

Page 297 — Child tax credit

Page 300 — Children and wooden arrows

If the “Page 290” item is what I think it is, then doesn’t that put McCain into a bit of a quandary?  After all, he has (rightfully!) taken pride in his anti-earmark stance, and he has called for the bailout to be launched…..

Seen on the newswires:

[T]he House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved by voice vote a bill that would make the current Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communication Commission ban on cell phone use during flight permanent.

The committee’s action comes as the European Union is moving to allow airline passengers to talk on their cell phones during flight. Some U.S. airlines are experimenting with in-flight Internet access. And some lawmakers worry that domestic airlines might try to get the cell phone ban lifted so they can charge passengers extra to sit in no-phone sections.

"I do believe this is important that we don’t make what is already a crowded and difficult environment for the traveling public and flight attendants" worse by allowing cell phone use in-flight, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., sponsor of the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act.

Normally I’d make a little bit of noise and grumbling over over-regulating life, and the futility of legislating good manners.  However, with the FCC having made noises on lifting the ban of cell phone usage in the air, and with the ban having already been lifted in Europe…I’m not too terribly upset.

The potential for being stuck in the back of a sardine can on a long, transcontinental flight trying to ignore half of several cell phone conversations would almost be enough to get me to find a job which required less travel.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his politics, you gotta give the guy credit for timing.  Quoting the New York Times:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy returned to the Senate on Wednesday for the first time since being sidelined with cancer and was greeted by a bipartisan barrage of whoops, cheers and applause before savoring a legislative triumph.[…]

“I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement released by his office, “and that’s to protect Medicare. Win, lose or draw, I wasn’t going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference.”

The bill would block a 10 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors because of a statutory formula that reduces payments to doctors when spending would otherwise exceed certain goals.

Admittedly he returned to help pass a bill that aggravates Medicare’s dire financial condition…but still, dropping in after some chemo to help ensure your doctor gets paid is a rather dramatic statement.

(In fairness, I should point out that the bill’s failure also wouldn’t have addressed Medicare’s problems, thus supporting my belief that Congress doesn’t really care about doing the right thing; they just want to look good for their constituents.)

An impressive stat from Rasmussen:

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

What amazes me is that despite the 9% rating, there doesn’t seem to be anti-incumbent fever spreading across the country.   You’d think that any sitting congrescritter should be concerned about his or her reelection prospects, regardless of party affiliation.

Oh, but I forget.  This is America, where we have mastered the art of “someone else’s problem”.   Something’s not quite right when, in 435 Congressional districts and 33 or 34 states, polled folks seem to essentially be saying, “my congressman/woman is the best candidate for the job…but all those other jokers need to be kicked out of office.”

Oy vey.  Seen at Raw Story:

“Resolved,” Kucinich then began, “that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate….

“In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power…”

The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: “Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.”

This, of course, will go nowhere.  Depending on how you look at it, Dems either:

• Are practical enough to realize that taking such a polarizing action against an impotent, lame-duck President is a really dumb idea in a hotly-contested election season; or
• Are realistic enough to realize that they lack the support to actually make the charges stick; or
• Lack the chutzpah to actually see the thing through; or
• Some combination of the above.

Seriously, if Kucinich were serious about seeing justice done, he’d be pushing for a way to ensure that pardons couldn’t be issued for Bush and his cronies.   And, even that sort of an act would seem to be doomed to failure by the political need of appearing inclusive to maximize the results of the November elections.

Sometimes, the day job interfering with my extracurricular online reading can be annoying.  For example, I would have been very interested to have read this blog entry from the Palm Beach Post  yesterday:

Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty is taking his campaign to stop auto and property insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates to consumers with bad credit to Capitol Hill.

McCarty will testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at 10 a.m. [Wednesday, 21 May] in Washington about the negative effects of insurance scoring on poor and minority groups.

I would have love to have caught the webcast of the hearing.   The Subcommittee has a web page specifically for this hearing, providing prepared written testimony.  Presumably a transcript of the hearing will be posted there when available.

Looking through the description of the hearing, and skimming through some of the comments, it sounds like the hearing is somewhat better-balanced than the blog post would suggest.  It’s a hearing on HR 5633, a bill to impose a federal ban on insurer’s use of credit information if it proves discriminatory or a proxy for race, ethnicity, etc.

On the surface, it seems like a silly bill, since it prohibits something that’s already prohibited…but it seems that some legislators, regulators, consumer advocates, and attorneys would choose to view the bill as a virtual ban on scoring, prescribed from the federal level.

(If we’re going to start having federal prohibitions on underwriting activities, could we go ahead and start having the option for federal regulation across the board, in lieu of the current patchwork of 57 state regulatory agencies?)

Despite what the blog post indicates, it seems that there are folks testifying on both sides of the issue.  While I may disagree with the pro-prohibition crowd…well the testimony looked like a pretty reasonable depiction of the views on the subject.

This late in an election year, I doubt that it has legs.  However, wacky things can happen, and with the insurance industry almost as unpopular as the President and Congress…well, it’s easy to imagine some federal politicians engaging in silliness to win points with constituents through “protecting” them from the evil insurance industry.

Via the Miami Herald’s Naked Politics blog, I’ve been introduced to the “Fortune 535“, the Sunlight Foundation’s effort to describe the net worth of Congressmen and Senators based on public disclosure documentation.

For example, Connecticut’s delegation looks something like this:

Lawmaker	2006 Net Worth
Rosa DeLauro	$16,485,500
Joe Lieberman	$1,658,540
Chris Dodd	$482,010
Joe Courtney	$233,004
Christopher Shays	$49,503
Chris Murphy	$-32,501

After taking a moment to indulge in the entertainment value of the site (<Homer>mmmm….stats</Homer>), I do wonder whether too much meaning can be drawn from this.   After all, there is all sorts of accounting magic that can take place when evaluating an individual’s wealth.

The question of “does wealth make for a good politician” is an interesting one.   I suspect the answer is “not necessarily”, but I would hope that the folks in charge of the nation’s pocketbook could demonstrate some skill at handling money.

Seen on the wires:

The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to extend until 2013 a federal program that insures millions of homes against floods and to forgive $17 billion in debt the program built up during Hurricane Katrina.

In an issue of concern to major insurers such as Allstate Corp and State Farm, the Senate approved renewing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in a 92-6 vote. Last week, it rejected adding wind damage coverage to the program.

The House of Representatives last year also voted to extend the program, but added wind coverage, and refused to forgive the debt.

Now, the big question is — with a general election this fall, will anything actually happen on NFIP reauthorization?   Or, maybe another way to think of this is: who can get the most votes for getting reauthorization done…and what sort of a mess will be made in the quest to buy voters’ support?

A few days ago, I called for a minimum education requirement for finance reporters in the media. Perhaps I need to issue a similar call for congresscritters. From an Orlando Sentinel blog:

A week ago, [Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)] sent out a press release about the economic-stimulus package pending in Congress. She said the package shouldn’t give $600-per-person checks to residents of Puerto Rico and Guam.

“I do not believe American taxpayer funds should be sent to foreign citizens who do not pay taxes,” Brown-Waite said.

Since then, outraged Puerto Ricans—U.S. citizens since 1917—and Guamanians—citizens since 1950—have demanded an apology.