Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ltl/fb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/bu...rtner=homepage

"In an act of pre-election largess, House and Senate negotiators approved a sprawling corporate tax bill on Wednesday that would [give] corporations and farmers . . . about $145 billion worth of new tax cuts."

"The bill was initially intended to compensate exporters for the loss of $50 billion in tax breaks that the World Trade Organization had declared illegal, but Congressional negotiators approved a 633-page behemoth that doled out tax breaks worth nearly three times the original subsidy."

"[L]eaders said they had more than enough votes to stop a filibuster, contending that the overall tax bill has provisions sought by so many different lawmakers that it was almost assured of final passage by the end of this week."

The only greyish metallic lining: "The one Senate provision that House [members] did accept on Wednesday was a move to limit the tax break for small businesses and self-employed people who buy Hummers and other big sport utility vehicles."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Tell us again what DeLay did wrong?

I find it a wonder that this hasn't gotten more play.

In this particular case? (See here for a sort of recap of what was going on last year). Democrats fled to New Mexico and Oklahoma last year in order to avoid having a quorum to vote on the redrawn maps. DeLay called the FAA (and the Department of Homeland Security, but I'm not sure if the FAA is now part of DoH) to track down their planes so he could help in the efforts to arrest the Dems and haul them back to Austin to vote. Also, he's being admonished for linking political donations to legislation.

The biggest issue, also tied to the redistricting brouhaha, revolves around the PACs that he runs in Texas. The Ethics Committee is holding off on ruling on those until the criminal investigation is over. There was a lot of money laundering going on through the PACs, and the only defense coming out of the DeLay camp has been "we didn't think we were doing anything wrong." Corporations can't give money directly to state campaigns, but they can to "operating costs." Problem is that the PAC ran a fairly lean ship (I think it was one lease and a bunch of cell phones). Other problem is that it's pretty clear that the corporations that gave money could have given a rat's ass about redistricting in Texas. Most were out-of-state companies, and it's pretty clear that the donations were tied to an assumption that they'd get on DeLay's good side if they gave to Texans for a Republican Majority. The DA in Austin has been pretty diligent in pursuing this (two grand jury investigations so far).

I don't know as much about the fourth issue, revolving around DeLay advisors and overcharging Indian casinos for lobbying efforts. (There are some pretty bad e-mails out there that essentially call the Indians morons.) DeLay is entangled in that issue too, and last I heard, one of his former advisors was ducking subpeonas from the Senate.

He was already admonished six days ago for telling another congressperson that he'd give an endorsement to their son's campaign in exchange for a yes vote on last year's medicare bill.

All in all, Tom DeLay is an unethical asshole that will do anything to increase his own power. He also is relentless in his quest to have Republicans dominate the political landscape here in Texas and across the country. I'm surprised more people haven't been paying attention to the redistricting thing in TExas, because that's the model for what he wants to do across the rest of the nation. He tried the same thing in Colorado and Pennsylvania. He's an amazing fundraiser, and as he has been known to say from time to time, he IS the federal government. In this case, I'm for a much smaller government.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That man almost makes Cheney look like an avuncular grandpa figure.

Any idea where the indictments in TX are going? ["a third component of Bell's complaint. It dealt with the fundraising group Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, or TRMPAC, to which DeLay is closely linked. A Texas grand jury last month indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using TRMPAC to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races." -- from article RT linked to]

They're still investigating, and I think that there's another Grand Jury involved. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the corproations that was indicted takes a whiff of the political landscape and rolls over on DeLay in negotiating with the prosecutors. He's vulnerable right now, and while it probably would have been suicide when the investigations first started, right now it's probably a good deal. Several of the DeLay cronies are probably going to end up in jail, but I'd be surprised if they roll over on him. Another insidious aspect of that whole thing is that practically every Republican in the legislature took money from that PAC.

I miss the days of Dolly Madison McKenna. Fucking religious right took over the Republican party back in '94 and they've been assholes ever since.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/bu...rtner=homepage

"In an act of pre-election largess, House and Senate negotiators approved a sprawling corporate tax bill on Wednesday that would [give] corporations and farmers . . . about $145 billion worth of new tax cuts."

"The bill was initially intended to compensate exporters for the loss of $50 billion in tax breaks that the World Trade Organization had declared illegal, but Congressional negotiators approved a 633-page behemoth that doled out tax breaks worth nearly three times the original subsidy."

"[L]eaders said they had more than enough votes to stop a filibuster, contending that the overall tax bill has provisions sought by so many different lawmakers that it was almost assured of final passage by the end of this week."

The only greyish metallic lining: "The one Senate provision that House [members] did accept on Wednesday was a move to limit the tax break for small businesses and self-employed people who buy Hummers and other big sport utility vehicles."

So what are this year's phantom revenue offsets? Or do we now just measure the revenue impact on DeLay's favorite 527 before enacting new tax "incentives".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
He was already admonished six days ago for telling another congressperson that he'd give an endorsement to their son's campaign in exchange for a yes vote on last year's medicare bill.

Just curious - how does this differ from the normal "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" dance?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So what are this year's phantom revenue offsets? Or do we now just measure the revenue impact on DeLay's favorite 527 before enacting new tax "incentives".

I should have taken accounting. This para seems to say they did that, but then again, they didn't:

"The overall measure is technically cost-free, because it would also raise money by tightening rules against tax shelters and imposing new customs duties. But Mr. Ashdown and other critics contend that the full costs have been glossed over and disguised by delaying the starting date of some provisions and scheduling others to end after several years. Once Congress passes a tax break, lawmakers typically extend it when it comes up for renewal."

Is this NYT spin, or is the funding truly illusory?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, it's a great argument - "he said he'd bring us together, and I still hate him, so he lied."

Take us back to those glorious days in early January, 2001, where President Bush decided to sooth the wounds of the hard-fought election by extending an olive branch to the surly Democrats, only to have them spit in his face. I must have been in a coma then, or something.

The sad thing is that even with the way that Bush governed for to that point, the country was ready to come together in the aftermath of September 11. But Bush squandered that opportunity and instead used the "war on terror" for partisan ends, most notably by using the Department of Homeland Security as a tool in the midterm elections.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious - how does this differ from the normal "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" dance?

You can read the report http://www.house.gov/ethics/Medicare_Report.pdf

The Investigative Subcommittee also found that Majority Leader Tom DeLay offered to endorse Representative Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor for the Medicare Bill. In the view of the Investigative Subcommittee, this conduct could support a finding that Majority Leader DeLay violated House rules. The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that it is improper for a Member to offer or link support for the personal interests of another Member as part of a quid pro quo to achieve a legislative goal.

Presumably, pork has a benefit to the other member's constituancy. A deal like this one only benefits the member (and in this case, his immediate family).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
. . . . most notably by using the Department of Homeland Security as a tool in the midterm elections.

Not certain what you mean by this. Is it, he used his vision of how it should be structured and empowered as an argument for electing R's? Or . . . ?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I should have taken accounting. This para seems to say they did that, but then again, they didn't:

"The overall measure is technically cost-free, because it would also raise money by tightening rules against tax shelters and imposing new customs duties. But Mr. Ashdown and other critics contend that the full costs have been glossed over and disguised by delaying the starting date of some provisions and scheduling others to end after several years. Once Congress passes a tax break, lawmakers typically extend it when it comes up for renewal."

Is this NYT spin, or is the funding truly illusory?

Do you remember how they kept the cost of the 2001 tax cuts lower by making some of them phased in over several years, and others were supposed to phase out? Recent legislation (that passed both houses and was signed by the president on a campaign stop in a swing state -- I believe you referred to him having signed legislation recently -- it was probably this, which was signed I think Tuesday but perhaps Monday) extended most of the tax cuts that were supposed to be going away. So, whatever revenue the phase-out of the cuts was supposed to raise is not being raised. I'm sure Congressional members are promising their affected constituencies that there is no way the cuts will get phased out when the time comes.

Even die-hard pro-business Republican tax lawyers I know think this bill is comprised almost completely of pork shit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand your intentional obtusity (obtusiousity? obtuscatoriness?) and will try to make this clearer.

You: The campaign promise to "unite" was hooey.

Me: Not when made. But, when it became apparent that the other side of the aisle was all drinking from the same koolaid cooler, and screaming "he's Hitler's reincarnation!!", (which began in earnest in the last days of the same campaign in which he had made that "uniter" pledge), there was no longer any possibility that anything he could do would effect that pledge, aside from doing everything the Dems wanted him to do, and I doubt that that was his burden at that point.

In this insightful game of "Nonono! They Started It, and I get a Free Trip to Home Base!," you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on those meanie Democrats who contested the election results in Florida.

Beyond the idiocy of this "woo hoo! free pass to fuck 'em" rationale, I'm wondering about your view of the distant history of 2000.

In your recounting, it's almost like the GOPers were quietly, meekly waiting for the Democratic tantrum to die down so that we could get on with the "uniter" method of governing. Do you believe this?

I suppose we could also argue about GWB's "uniter" apprroach to governing by:

* Appointing bipartisan leaders like Ashcroft.
* Immediately pushing through GWB's agenda with no room for Democratic proposals or amendments.
* When the GOP doesn't get its way in a vote, suspending decades of tradition and hold open votes until the wee hours of the morning whilst GOP leaders commit ethical violations bribing members of their own party to ensure passage.
* Etc, etc.

... but since the minority party has been "beating me with a bat, and they did it first!," we don't have to even approach these questions, do we? The solution is an elegant one. Congrats.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Even die-hard pro-business Republican tax lawyers I know think this bill is comprised almost completely of pork shit.

Sounds that way. (More ethanol subsidies? Great. Just what we need. Lower mileage for cars, worn out carburetors, higher overall energy costs to produce a gallon of fuel than what the addition of ethanol will save . . .) Key here is, sounds like it's bipartisan ps. Not that that's any better, of course, but at least they're working together.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious - how does this differ from the normal "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" dance?

There used to be a treasurer in Massachusetts (yes, a Dem) who could expound at great length on the distinction between "honest graft" and "dishonest graft" - the first being someone who made him rich because they wanted to hang out with him, with never a quid pro quo entering the equation. The latter being quid-pro-quos yielding personal benefit, which he would have done of. It was a kind of honor among theives distinction to many, but it is the way the law has been written.

What DeLay did was buy a vote with a private benefit; he entered into a transaction where he explicitly traded something relevant to governing and legislation for benefits that were not so related. Now, if there was no quid-pro-quo, we're back to honor among theives.

But, frankly, I always found it an embarassment to have elected officials who parsed the lines so tightly, and have always supported those who tried to be beyond reproach and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Shouldn't we expect as much from our leaders?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not certain what you mean by this. Is it, he used his vision of how it should be structured and empowered as an argument for electing R's? Or . . . ?

Did you spend 2002 under a rock?

Recall the fight over whether federal employees should lose their civil-service protections when transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, and the way the issue was cynically used to paint Democrats as soft on the war on terror. That's how we got to the Saxby Chambliss ads showing Max Cleland taking it up the ass from Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein somewhere in France.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not certain what you mean by this. Is it, he used his vision of how it should be structured and empowered as an argument for electing R's? Or . . . ?

Cf. RT, supra.

He used the Dept.'s resources to track down legislators he needed to haul back to Austin (against their will) so he could get his redistricting bill through.