congress

The United States House of Representatives passed HR 1540, a bill that authorizes indefinite military detention of American citizens for simply being suspected of supporting "terrorism". No due process or evidence required - just a unilateral accusation that you may be involved in or supporting terrorism.

I don't have much time to blog right now, so I won't be spending a lot of time on this. But I do want to point out that part of the DOJ/FBI criteria for being a terrorist is having at least one of the following traits: large amounts of ammunition, more than a week's worth of food, a finger that is damaged or missing, etc.

The Senate has again voted on an amendment that would attempt to fix the language in S 1867 that allows for indefinite detention of US citizens without trial if they are deemed hostile by the government.

And many Senate Republicans, including Oklahoma Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, voted against an amendment today where that vote can only be interpreted one way: the vote shows that they undeniably support the notion that government has the power to declare when and where a citizen has the Right to Due Process, and that Due Process can be denied at the government's will.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed Amendment No. 1126 with very simple and very clear language.

On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) offered an amendment to S 1867 to strike the provision that would allow for the unconstitutional detainment of American citizens alleged to be involved in terrorism. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the criteria used by the Department of Justice includes such asinine traits like missing a finger or being in possession of more than 7 days' worth of food at a time.

The amendment failed.

The breakdown by party?

Democrats: 37-16-1

Republicans: 2-44-1

The 61 Senators who voted against the amendment, including Senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe from Oklahoma, should be held accountable for their votes in the 2012 election.

From Ethan S. Harris via BusinessInsider:

The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan. Hence, we expect at least one credit downgrade in late November or early December when the super Committee crashes.

I'm pretty sure the Super Congress won't reach it's goals. Even if it did, it still won't make any real spending cuts, and spending cuts are what's needed for a credible long-run plan.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last couple of weeks, you know that Congress reached a "deal" called the Budget Control Act of 2011. The gist of the deal is this: the debt limit gets significantly raised, the budget gets miniscule cuts, and 98% of the House and 94% of the Senate have no say in the process.

That's right. Unless you're lucky enough to be represented by one (or more) of the 12 appointees to the "Super Congress", you've got no representation as to what budget items should be cut or what taxes should be increased. Sound familiar?

The budget deal is being sold to the American People as a "deficit reduction plan" with debt ceiling increases that are "necessary" to prevent the United States from falling into default. Nothing could be further from the truth. And if you're buying their line, you're being played by both sides of the aisle.

Many Americans are rightly calling for an amendment to require the federal government to pass a balanced budget. Conservatives, though, are selling it as a means to force the government to cut spending. There's just one problem: that won't be the result.

Both Republicans and Democrats love to spend more than the government takes in on their own pet line items. Democrats tend to overwhelmingly support domestic welfare programs where many lower income and elderly Americans live off the taxes contributed by those who have had the drive to achieve success, while Republicans tend to overwhelmingly support foreign welfare and military programs where foreign governments and militaries benefit from direct redistribution of American tax dollars in the name of "aid" and assistance from the U.S. military.

He's obviously missing the ability to apply or consider logic... or perhaps meets or exceeds the negative requirements to be a Congressman...

According to CBS News, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-MD) believes that "[d]ecriminalizing marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels who fund violence along the U.S.-Mexico border."

Mr. Smith, I have a question for you. What kind of logical disconnect helps you reach a conclusion that repealing federal marijuana laws will provide greater revenue for drug cartels when the only reason drug cartels exist is the fact that marijuana is prohibited in the United States?

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) claims that the budget pushed by House Republicans is "extreme".

Yet the federal government will spend more than they spent last year. Only in Washington can you claim to be making budget cuts while increasing the budget over last year. If they tried this in the private sector, they'd be immediately fired and laughed at all the way out of the board room. Maybe that's what the voters should do to all of those who voted yes.

Congress has until tomorrow night to pass a bill to fund the government for just a little while longer. The House passed a bill with $12B in cuts while maintaining military pay, but President Obama has promised a veto and I expect the bill to go nowhere in the Senate.

The Tea Party has been calling for cuts to spending relentlessly (of course, no cuts to their pet programs...), and have even praised the idea of a government shutdown. So much for cutting government spending since a government shutdown will likely cost more than keeping the government running.

There have been numerous reports in the media about how Republicans have been proposing "deep cuts" to the federal budget. I only have one question: since when did an increase in spending from $1.349T to $1.356T count as a spending cut?

Is this like calling a tax increase a tax cut because the other offer on the table would have been a larger increase?