« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Today in Washington – July 27, 2010

President Obama wants to reduce criticism of his unpopular government.  It is to be expected, because the American people have little confidence in the Obama Administration and the federal government.  Even left wing Think Tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), has released data that “more than a quarter of the public says they have little or no confidence in government.”  This report is evidence that, even the left agrees, the federal government and the Obama Administration are not implementing policies to turn around the perception that the federal government is non-responsive and too big. 

No wonder the President wants Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act to stifle criticism of government.  From McClatchy:

“And you’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010,” Obama said. “And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the DISCLOSE Act from even coming up for an up or down vote.”

The DISCLOSE Act is a bill that would restrict political speech.  Opponents of the DISCLOSE Act worry that this new act will chill First Amendment activities mere months before Congressional elections.  The Senate will have a vote today on whether to commence debate on the DISCLOSE Act.  The House is expected to take up 22 Suspension votes, including the Senate passed War Supplemental, and a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Pakistan.

The CAP report, Better, Not Smaller, argues that President Obama is presiding over the “lowest rating on record for confidence in federal government.”  The report has some good points, yet they seem to argue that we need better technocrats in government and the elimination of inefficiencies will solve all of our problems.  Conservatives agree that a more efficient government will save taxpayer dollars and restore some confidence. 

I read this report expecting a left wing argument for bigger “better” government, yet this report has some good ideas that most conservatives would support.  Conservatives do have a fundamental disagreement with the left, because many conservatives still are angry with government expansion under TARP, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. 

You would think that CAP and the Tea Party Movement have teamed up when you read the below blurb from the report:

The message to politicians and policymakers is clear. Government will not regain the public trust unless it earns it. And earning it means spending taxpayer money more carefully—and doing what works.

I can’t do justice to this report in a short blog post, but conservatives should take note that the left wing CAP agrees that the American people are mad and disappointed with the federal government and by extension the Obama Administration.  And to CAP’s credit, there are some common sense solutions proposed to perceived federal problems.  For example, a few of the popular and common sense CAP proposals are to:

Require every federal agency to set clear goals that are measured by real-world results.

Reform the federal budget process, so that spending decisions are based on objective evidence about what works and what does not.

Consolidate federal programs where there is significant overlap.

These ideas have the most support in the CAP survey.  These ideas would be a 100-0 propositions with the support from liberal Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).  There right-left agreement on these common sense issues, yet this Administration has not taken actions to use similar ideas to restore confidence of the American people in the federal government.  I bet conservatives and liberals would support a simple bill to eliminate duplicative programs and to force agencies to have measurable goals for both Congressional Republicans and Democrats to review during the appropriations process.  Also, measurable goals for the American people to review may restore some confidence.  If the federal government is going to forcibly take money from the American people, they better spend it efficiently.  Other proposals don’t have the same level of support.

Ensure that people nominated by the president to lead government agencies receive a quick up-or-down confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate. 

This is a backhanded slap at the filibuster rule.  Efficiently rubber stamping the President’s nominees is not a good idea.  You watch these liberals change their tune come 2012, if there is a Republican President and Congress.  Just wait and see the rhetoric at CAP change from a demonizing of the filibuster to the official CAP talking points from 2005:

As early as this week, a “nuclear option” could be invoked to remove the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power. The filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate. The nuclear option is currently being considered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and being pushed by the Religious Right, who would like to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. American Progress has put together this resource guide to help you understand the issues.

The CAP report is interesting.  From a quick scan, it appears that CAP did not engage in blaming the Bush Administration for the Obama Administration’s dismal poll numbers.  The talking point “(insert issue) was inherited from the Bush Administration” is clearly getting tired and old.  The American people are angry and I would have to expect that when even the lefties at CAP feel free to criticize the current President and his percieved ineffectiveness, there is some serious trouble brewing for the party in power this fall.  Maybe CAP and the Tea Party Movement can agree that the federal government is on the wrong track and it needs to change quickly.

COMMENTS

  • Brian Darling

    is very good today – http://www.politico.com/arena/

  • RealQuiet

    Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown are your usual suspects. Scott Brown has already made statements that this indeed is nothing more than the Democrats trying to minimize their losses as they are at a huge fundraising disadvantage right now and need to close the margin. Unbelievable. I know this vote is only to bring the bill to the floor and start debate but let’s kill this thing even before it comes to a final vote. Scheming weasels, UGH!

  • RealQuiet

    Collins and Graham are a no, Lieberman won’t be around to vote for cloture. Only GOP member left is Snowe and even if she voted yea, it would still leave Reid short.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/27/collins-a-no-lieberman-a-miss-on-disclose-vote/

    • renny

      Any Rep. who votes for Disclose has a death wish for him/herself and the party.

      • acat

        the next Congress is sworn in.

        Further, I will believe it’s not going to rise from the grave zombie-style like health care deform did when a small-government POTUS is sworn in and starts reducing the scope of the Fed.

        Mew

  • janis

    would be a good thing? I guess he doesn’t want anyone else to reap the same benefits from all that “foreign influence” that he did. Unless the Gaza Strip and Kenya and Indonesia and Pockeestahn are just 4 of those 57 states.

    Too bad we can’t power our cars with hypocrisy. The level of it from this administration is just awesome.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    Ya know, the DISCLOSE bill sounds similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts… which reared up again in 1918 as the Sedition Act – under Woodrow Wilson!!! (play eerie music).

    That’s the actions of political cowards! You hear that, you yellow-bellied Democrats and RINOs!

  • snowshooze

    Setting The Record Straight On The ?DISCLOSE Act?

    Friday, June 18, 2010

    We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the ?DISCLOSE Act.? Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA?s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We?d like to set the record straight.

    We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA?s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

    Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members? right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings?even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

    The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

    We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn?t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

    Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn?t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

    There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That?s easy to say?unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

    The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That?s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

    Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position?including the Brady Campaign?have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

    No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners? interests will remain NRA?s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

    Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
    Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy