Kennedy Tries to Outdo His Own Stereotype

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has begun to circulate his new health bill, and its going to be a whopping bill for businesses.

Calling the bill, "American Health Choices Act" or AHCA, which is apparently based on NOT giving employer's any choices as it will force employer's to provide health insurance to employees or "face a penalty."

Why is this a bad idea? It is terrible that people don't have insurance, most personal bankruptcies come from medical care, and, let's face it, the medical/health insurance/prescription drug is busted so why not be support a bill that will increase the coverage of working Americans by putting the burden at the hub of working America, the employer?

Mostly because it won't work (more on that later). But also because the one question I've never heard answered well is, "Why?" Sure the job is place where lots of people go, so if you want to cover a lot of people quickly, that's a great place to start. But again, why is it the employer's responsibility? Ostensibly, the employer pays a wage for work. What the employee does with that money is his or her own decision. If there's not enough wage to cover all that the employee needs then the employee is faced with a hard decision, seek a higher wage or make sacrifices. And you know what? The employer faces hard decisions too. No company can do everything they want with the revenue it earns. So it too must face hard decisions. Hard decisions are OK, that's a part of life. Forcing employer's to bear the health-care burden of their employees using the sole logic of "because they're there" is not only wrong its dumb. Kennedy's proposal just hides the cost of the bill. We'll all wind up paying for it in higher prices or lost jobs, but it will be opaque.

Sure, proponents will use the massive profits of the big companies to show that they can afford health care coverage. Unfortunately, those companies already provide heath insurance for their employees. In order to be effective this bill will have to target small businesses, those same small businesses that struggle with payroll and managing cost's to keep prices competitive. Forcing this on small businesses will absolutely kill them. So this bill will never pass unless it exempts small business.

This inherent flaw will not dawn on anyone in the Legislative branch. So this bill will pass with an exemption for small businesses and nothing will change, and the waste goes on.

Since my daddy raised me to never criticize without a solution, here's mine. Rather than fine/jail/sue the employer into solving a problem of the employee, use the sound base fact that lots of people congregate around work. Allow employee's to ban together to get the best price for their health insurance. Then allow multiple work sites to ban together to get even better pricing. Rather than change the law to force employers to foot the bill, change the law to allow people to use the power of bulk shopping to gain affordable access to health insurance.

But again, can our reader out there (Hi Ma) explain why this is a problem for the employer to solve by force of law?

If W's Right, I don't wanna be wrong

President Bush vetoed the new farm bill.

I'm officially giving our President an "atta boy."

Unfortunately it looks like there's enough graft votes in congress to override it.

UPDATE: Looks like America's most inept party can't even do an overwhelming veto right. Looks like congress sent W an incomplete bill, meaning Congress can't override his veto with the correct bill because W didn't review it. Ineptitude thy name is Democrat. Anyway, while the bill will still most likely pass, there's is now time to hope that the White House can kill this thing.

Baseball Fever

While traveling last week I watched some of the Roger Clemens Congressional testimony. Oh my was it bad. Not anything about the "issue," rather what was said.

For the record, no fan of Roger am I. Anyone who would sell their wife out, well I say you're not the Greatest American Hero.

But apparently, I'm alone in my lack of Roger worship. Lets look at Congress' words to the man accused of cheating at his sport, tampering with a witness and lying to Congress.

From Rep. William Lacy Clay,

A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to know what uniform you're going to wear to the Hall of Fame.

Yes, I see how that addresses the issues at hand. Excellent and biting questioning Mr. Clay.

Says Rep Virginia Foxx,

You appear to me about the same size in all those photos," offered Foxx, addressing Clemens without mentioning the source of the material. "It doesn't appear [your] size changed much.

Well, that's enough for me. A couple of pictures provided by Mr Clemens show him favorably, and the scientific eye of the Honorable Foxx says "alls good." May as well wrap up.

If only there was some silver lining in all of this for Mr Clemens. Oh, good here's one. From Rep Elanor Norton from DC,

All I can say, Mr. Clemens, is I'm sure you're going to heaven.

Well at least he'll have that.

There's a long speech here about maybe that part of the problem with our country today is that people who can throw a ball real hard reduce the leaders of said country to giddy school girls.

But my favorite is reserved for the Chair, Rep Henry Waxman.

I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing.

You and me both brother, you and me both. But I wonder why we had this hearing? Why would Mr Waxman feel compelled to utilize the awesome power of a congressional hearing, spend loads of taxpayer money, and waste his, presumably, valuable time when we're at war, facing a recession, in the midst of a homeowner meltdown, etc. Why, why get involved in a game? Who has the ability to command such an act? Did this come at the behest of the President? From the Speaker of the House? Who? Mr Waxman says it came from an even more powerful figure,

The only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.

So the guy who can throw a ball real hard insisted that the leaders of our nation drop what they're doing right now and listen to him. And they did. Really? Can I do this if I feel wronged? Can I summon a congressional hearing? Can all those homeowners call a hearing? I have real problems with the "Protect America Act" can I demand a hearing? I didn't know we could do that. But I get the feeling "we" can't.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go into a dark room and cry.

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

Run RNC

The RNC and the White House want it both ways on the e-mail issue. Law states that staffers doing political work cannot use their White House email, which is why they all have parallel RNC emails (and also why every Congressman has an office just off the Hill to do political/fund-raising work). Hence, if you're doing the work of the people (all of them, not just Republicans) then you use the White House address, if its political, or personal use something different. Everyone knows this, its the law. Using the WH address gives you protections, but is also more public, and you have to obey the law. Using another address surrenders protections, but is more private, and you have to obey the law. Assuming everyone obeyed the law, RNC emails are just another private account independent of the WH. Why should the WH care? Clearly they weren't under WH jurisdiction, or they would have had a WH address. So why then is the White House insisting on having all relevant RNC email's reviewed by WH lawyers before Congress gets them? The way I understand it, the RNC is a private organization with open membership. Clearly some members of the RNC work for the WH, just as some members of AAA work for the WH. However, the way I remember my high school civics, Congress and the White House are equal. So why, in an investigation of a NGO, should the White House get preferred treatment? Unless, of course, WH staffers and RNC staffers were co-mingling their jobs. Maybe giving the RNC inside information or extra access to the WH, who knows? Just speculation, but my bet is that the 5 million "lost" emails aren't all related to Gonzo's woe's. More likely, there are/were many, many embarrassing and potentially illegal emails among and besides the AG references.

But in a legal investigation, the WH can't jump in front of a subpoena just because it may be embarrassed by its own actions. Equal branches boys and girls.

Sick over sick leave

Sen Ted Kennedy is introducing legislation requiring employers to give part and full-time workers up to one week paid sick leave. This is a tough one philosophically, I get that staying home with a child is crucial. However, when Sen Kennedy says,

"As members of Congress, we don't lose our pay or risk our jobs if we stay home because of illness.

He's right, as "members of Congress," which also means, "since we're not employees of a real business." See, Congress never faces a revenue shortfall, nor does it ever face the problem of too many expenses, going out of business, not being able to produce as much because someone's out, etc. You simply cannot compare Congress to business, especially small business.

I fully get that a large percentage of working American's work paycheck to paycheck, and that missing even one lands them in financial dire straights. But I also know that more than half of all businesses fail in the first year, and that the attrition rate in the first five is horrible. Contrary to popular belief, small business' fears and concerns largely mimic employee fears and concerns. A bad revenue period can kill a business, just as losing a paycheck or two can wreck an employee's life. While sick leave is a real problem, I'm not sure that there is much the Government can do. Pushing the expense to employers, by mandate, only means that more businesses will fail, or that the reward for the risk of starting them goes down enough to slow growth, and setting arbitrary numbers, like "less than 15 employees, just means that business will slow down employee hiring to avoid a massive new expense, which only hurts employees. All of these outcomes put even more pressure on employees (less substitution, less hope, etc). If the goal is to help, you have to think through ramifications, not just do what feels good and look away.

There is a problem with sick leave in this country, but when Senator Kennedy compares his experience working in Congress to the problems with low wage employees working for small businesses, I think he's going to do more harm than good. His reference base is just a fantasy for most employees and employers.

Congress looks to move up the biological ladder

Congress, in a move that may signal an end to the era of the "potted plant" (I would use another analogy having to do with getting its rhymes with "halls" back but this is a family blog "Hi Ma!").

Anyway, last week congress passed three bills.

• A bill that overturns a Bush Executive Order that overturned a prior bill (stick with me) that gave Presidents 12 years to turn over all papers. W's Order allowed President's to keep their papers confidential indefinitely and, for the first time, extended "Executive Privilege" to the VP and gave him the same power. Plus, it extended the right to keep public information private to the dead through their designees. The House brought the sunshine, put the pressure on the President to prove why the papers have to be secret, plus allowed sitting President's to override former President's decision to keep papers private, and took away the VP's new superpower. Just a big chunk of Presidential Kryptonite. W threatened to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override. I'm a huge fan of this bill.
• The next bill increased protection for Whistle Blowers. Again under veto threat, can't have people letting the citizens know when the government is messing up, how unimperial. Again, passed with enough to override. Again, big fan.
• The third bill wasn't that big, but is designed to speed requests for info under the Freedom of Information Act. Still, I like it.

Overall, three good bills, all designed to give the citizen more oversight and showing signs of life from congress. Granted, none is particularly groundbreaking, but, you know, baby steps.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

US Rep Michael Honda (D-CA) introduced bi-partisan legislation in January that

calls on Japan to formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the comfort women endured under its Imperial Army during World War II. Not only should Japan’s Prime Minister issue a public apology, Japan must take responsibility unequivocally.

While this was a terrible crime, it feels like a Japanese issue. Why with all that is going on in this nation, does Rep Honda feel that we have the time or inclination to demand that another nation apologize for its own history?

Especially since when it comes to slavery our nation has yet to

formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the Africans endured under its white citizens during the first 100 years of American history. Not only should President Bush issue a public apology, America must take responsibility unequivocally.

Not only that, but can you imagine our response if Japan actually had the audacity to issue such a demand? Now imagine their response to our "demand," I mean, besides this one. Personally, if I were a Japanese PM, despite whatever diplomatic response I may give, I'd think,

"Sure, we'll apologize, again, right after you apologize for slavery, the treatment of your Native American's, Japanese Internment Camps, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc, etc, and as soon as you stop officially sanctioning torture. Yup, we'll be right there."

Isn't there some saying about glass houses (besides being a great album - WWBJD?).

As a US Congressman, Rep Honda should be concerned with the needs of US citizens, here African Americans, rather than worry about the actions of another nation and whether they've sufficiently apologized. Maybe if he attacked a US apology for slavery like he is minding Japan's business. For example, I like what he did with Japanese Internment Camps, this made sense. Look, I would very much agree with Rep Honda if the practice were still going on, but since its not, we have enough going on today to keep any US Rep busy. If he has the time to really worry about these things, then maybe, just maybe he has the time to do tend to the business of the US, things like, I don't know, actually reading the USA PATRIOT ACT before voting on it.

Gone-zales

Looks like AG Alberto Gonzales is in trouble, and maybe even from the GOP. Before getting to the meat of this post (USA PATRIOT and the Potted Plants), I'm a bit confused by AG Gonzales' statements in his press brief on March 13th. In one part he says,

I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

But at the end he says,

I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much.

I'm just confused. If mistakes were made, but the decisions were the right ones, then what were the mistakes?

He also adds,

I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

Good to know that he and OJ are out looking for the real killers.

From what I can gather, the decision to fire the state AG's was a fall back from firing all of them. Why the move to fire any of them? Best guesses are that the White House was moving to take advantage of a USA PATRIOT ACT provision that allows the Pres to nominate new AG's for indefinite terms while avoiding the "Advise and Consent" clause of that pesky ol' US Constitution. The kicker is that the new power came in the USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. That's right, this is the improved version of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Yup, congress neutered itself even more in 2005. What's Potted Plant to do? Just a suggestion, but a potted plat becomes a man when it acts. Scrap the USA PATRIOT ACT, an act that clearly no one has full read, no one fully understands, and an act that clearly has provisions in it that have nothing to do with terrorism, and strip congress of its constitutional authority. Pass a series of bills, succinctly written with well defined purposes.

As always, when you give someone lots of power, you can't be surprised when they use it. Checks and Balances is the cornerstone of our system of Government. The way it's been destroyed is not only criminal, I think its treasonous.

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

Dems learn a lesson in politics

They want desperately to gain authority on Iraq, the problem is they can't. They've tried non-binding resolutions which failed, and now they're looking to put some kind of timetable on the war, and pull in some of W's powers. But political reality is stuffing them. Say's Hill,

"It's a very frustrating time right now. We still don't have the votes."

And that's just for the 60 needed to bring it to the floor, when W veto's that sucker, they'll need 66.

So what's the lesson? It's much, much harder to undo a law you don't like than to let it pass in the first place. Too many people feel that its OK if a bad law passes because you can just change, but they don't understand the math. It takes 51 to pass a law without real opposition. It takes 60 to pass it with opposition, and 66 to pass it with a veto. Said differently, something that barely squeaks by and passes with a marginal vote of 1 (51) needs 9 more votes to undo, or 15 with a veto (you have to garner 30% more votes to override a veto) its just not that easy, and is hugely important in political strategy. The extra vote hurdle is why you have to fight bad laws in the beginning, before the hurdle of the extra votes kicks in. If the Dem's had the moxie they could have worked to keep the War powers provisions where they belong, with Congress, and they could now be acting on both their promises and the peoples expectations. But that would have required making a stand, which just isn't their strong suit.

As it stands, their earlier cowardice is leading to their current impotence.

Tancredo goes after congressional race based caucuses.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) wants to end all race based caucuses. His reason?

Tancredo told The Hill: “You should not have any organization, a caucus especially, based solely on race. I mean on issues? You bet. But on race? Why should we be separating ourselves up into these racial divisions?

“It would be anathema to me if someone wanted to create a white caucus. A race is something over which we have no control. Everything we are told is we should ignore it, that we should try to eliminate that as a distinction in our society,” he added.

Here's my official Stalin Malone Bias Alert (or SMBA if you like), I'm no fan of Tancredo. I disagree with most everything he says. But...he's in the right place on this one. I don't think there needs to be official racial caucuses. His reason above is philosophically correct, and he has an ally in me. Apparently, he'll need all the allies he can get.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, which tracks and governs caucuses, has already cast an unfavorable eye on Tancredo’s proposal. “Congressman Ney would not be supportive of such a concept,” said Brian Walsh, Ney’s spokesman. “He believes that those members of Congress who share similar interests … should be able to form a caucus.”

Since, Me and Tanny (That's what us friends call him) are on the same side, I would like to point out to Rep Ney that skin color is not an "interest." You can, however, be interested in affirmative action, for example, and Tancredo even allows that interest based caucuses are A-OK. Personally, I think its even more insulting for Rep Ney to assume that all blacks have the same interests. I mean, isn't commingling race and issue a bit...wrong? Seriously, see the man not the stereotype.

So while agree that he has a philosophical case, does he have a "legal" one? The way I see it, we have laws forbidding membership based on race/gender for public groups. Public is usually defined as taking government money. I agree. Private groups can do whatever they want. I also agree. Congress is the ultimate public group, right? Maybe. Here's the tricky part.

In 1995, the House abandoned the policy of funding caucuses with taxpayer money. Aides working on congressional caucuses now are paid from the lawmakers’ congressional accounts.

So are caucuses "public" or "private?" Great move in 1995, really like it. I assume it came way back when the GOP was about shrinking government - ahhh the good ol' days. So now that these caucuses are paid by the members, are they private? If they are, does Tancredo have a legal point? Shouldn't private groups be able to do what they want? I honestly don't have a quick answer for this as it relates to members of congress and congressional grounds. As it stands, I agree with him philosophically, but not sure I agree as a matter of process.

Anyway, while it looks like this thing has zero chance, I applaud his efforts, and the fact that he's bringing this to the public's attention.

Quick note, for those of you keeping score at home, MSNBC notes the following race based caucuses: The Dems have the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic caucus with 21 members. While the Republicans have a comparable Hispanic conference with five full members and 11 "associate" members who are not Hispanic.

Funny, no mention of a Republican Black Caucus? Must be a typo.

Earmark's marked.

The Senate voted to curb earmarks, special legislation slipped into spending bills, by mandating that the mark be posted to the internet 48 hours before the bill goes to vote, and 48 hours after the mark is introduces. As part of the post the Senator must include the names of all sponsors and they cannot use earmarks to induce other Senators to vote their way on a bill (I have no idea how they plan to monitor/enforce that last part - I'm sure the all powerful Senate Ethics Committee will have something to do with it, meaning you will never, ever read about a violation of this rule leading to any kind of punishment).

Definitely a "around the edges" move on earmarks. But, also definitely better than before. I particularly like the internet angle. First, sometimes the best reform is sunshine. While not a direct slam to earmarks, making them less secret should slow them down. 96 hours is a long time in this day and age. Lots of time for news/blogs to discover, discuss, and put pressure on those earmarks and who/why they were placed into a spending bill. Second, I believe that the internet is a great tool for a democracy and that the government should by using this tool more aggressively. The people's protection against the government (physical, economic, legal, etc) is oversight. The internet is a fantastic tool for the people to oversee the legislators they entrust with the power to run the nation.

So my hope is that this turns out to be a bit of a Trojan Horse.

The Student Loan fiasco.

Congress voted en mass to decrease the interest rates on student loans. Says SOH Pelosi,

"Our young people should be driven by their dreams, not weighed down by debt."

Great quote! Really. Inspiring, lofty, succinct. Oops, she carried on juuust a bit too far.

"At a time when college tuition continues to skyrocket, this crucial legislation will help remove some of the barriers to a higher education."

And that's the rub. What I still don't get is how throwing more money at the system, which is what lower interest rates do, ground the rocket? Decreasing loan rates will only lead to increased tuition. It's just moving numbers around. Less capital at a higher interest rate, or more capital at a lower interest rate. It's a wash.

The college system is flushed with cash. At the end of fiscal year 200f Harvard had an endowment of $26 billion. With tuition at $38k in 2003, and current undergrad enrollment of 6,700, that's $255,000 in undergrad expenses. If the Endowment makes 10% a year, that's $2.6 billion, more than enough to cover free tuition for all, for example (and Harvard does give free tuition to anyone accpeted from a family with combined income of less that $60k). None of this is to call out Harvard, good for them. Rather to illustrate that the "problem" isn't price. So a priced base solution (especially from the demand side) is going to fail. Period.

I assume the problem is tuition increase. At least I get that from bill sponsor, Rep. George Miller's (D-CA) spokesman,

"There has been a 41% increase in the cost of college after inflation in 2001, and we now have students graduating with record levels of debt."

Before I get too far, I have to make this point again, they still will (see above for the capital/interest example). Anyway, what it looks like to me is that college's can charge whatever they want. They keep raising prices and people keep paying them. When was the last time you heard of a college going bust? Something outside the market is propping them up. Endowments certainly. Maybe I'm not sentimental enough, but I paid my money, I received my education and diploma, I'm done. I don't send more money to Toyota every year just because I bought one of their cars. Federal and State Tax money also play their part. When money just flows in from the fire hose, colleges don't have to be at all careful about spending. And College's use the treat of having to raise tuition to scare people into giving them more money when they do make an economic mistake. The whole system is rigged against the student, including well meaning Democrats and loads of Republican's who stand on the corner and get them to take more money to pay higher tuitions.

If Congress wanted to really help students they should do more to promote Junior (Community) College and Vocational Schools. Create some competition for those student dollars. Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, drop the subsidies. Getting rid of all the props that only help colleges (and this interest decrease does just that - wait for the "you'll pay less interest so you can borrow more language) will force them to act in a way's that bring them into line with free-market theory.

Again, throwing more money into the system is not the answer. When you get your money through a fire hose, you don't need more liquidity. Sometimes economics is simple. If you want more money in the system you lower interest rates. Does anyone in congress think that the students will capture any of this new money? Maybe the banks will if they can get tricky with the financing. All we know for sure is that colleges will capture the bulk of the new money. The same colleges that are floating along on massive endowments while raising tuition every year. I'm assuming that specifically wasn't the plan.

Nice job.

Signing Statement Statement

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent W a letter asking him to say just what exactly he means with his last Signing Statement attached to a postal reform bill. While its clearly rhetorical (I don't imaging W sitting at his desk composing a reply) it did get me thinking. In this 100 hours of doing the people's biznezz, why not add legislation dealing with these Signing Statements? I haven't heard any real good reason for them besides just "I like W and W likes Signing Statements, so I like Signing Statements." Just about everyone else thinks they skirt the Constitution. So now that the Dems are in and we have hopes for Checks & Balances, the Dems should make a move to reestablish the power of Congress. My bet is that there's enough GOPers who are uncomfortable having congressional bill's vetoed sans veto to get it passed. W will veto, which means that Congress must come up with 2/3's, no easy task. But if they do, the White House will sue and the Supreme Court will have to decide. Hopefully with only two years left in W's term and a GOP that just got spanked SCOTUS will realize that a permanent GOP Presidency is not guaranteed and will quit promoting an all powerful Executive Branch.

Granted I'm not hopeful about overturning these Signing Statements. But at least legislation banning them will get focus on them, which will hopefully curb this "well isn't that legislation just the cutest little thing" practice.

100

For all the ham-handed hypocrisy with which Nancy Pelosi opened the 110th Congress, and for as little as I care for most of her immediate plans for the House, much of what she and Harry Reid told Bush today has long been true: "We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq."

Not since World War II has a war been fought with more support from the electorate, and never has the nation's trust in its leadership been so utterly undeserved.

I believe "recalibrate" is the word the Bush administration has used for what I charitably will refer to as their Iraq strategy; and it's a word they only used after the election, almost 3,000 Americans too late.

I give the Congressional leadership credit for raising the political stakes in earnest, and perhaps higher than some of their senior members, such as Carl Levin, are willing to play for. The "put up or shut up" moment for Democrats, however, arrives when they must choose between spending more for the war and hearing in '08 that they hate our troops.

Goin' Postal

Not one week into the new year and W's back at it. Now he wants to read your mail. To a new Postal bill, he adds one of his signature "signing statements":

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Agreed that this doesn't sound like much. But the question remains, if as Tony Snow says, "this is not new," then why add the new language?

And yes Stalin, I admit my bias here. After 6 years of relentless (I said I was biased) attacks on our privacy, I'm not real keen on biting on, "Hey, I'm just sayin'." If its not new, or irrelevant then don't add it. Like my middle school teacher used to say, "When in doubt, KISS." No, she didn't mean "Knights in Satan's Service," but she did mean "Keep It Simple Stupid." It's almost like she's reaching through time to talk directly to W (sorry, couldn't resist the jab, remember I'm biased. Once I admit that, I'm allowed to say anything I want, its the power of honesty).

100

Ethics and lobbying reform: Pelosi, a former ethics committee member, is the sponsor of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act , which ostensibly would restrict representatives and their staff members from accepting trips taken with or paid for by lobbying groups. Civil fines would range from $100,000-$500,000 per offense, and criminal penalties for those who certify restricted travel "knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly" could serve up to 10 years in prison.

"We will cut the link between lobbyists and legislation," Pelosi said at a news conference last month. "I honestly believe that you cannot advance the people's agenda unless you drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C."

GRRRR, sounds as if Congress clearly is getting tough on itself! Worth noting: Who in one year took about 70 percent of privately funded congressional trips? Staffers, not Congress, according to Robert Brodsky at The Center for Public Integrity.

And as American League of Lobbyists president Paul Miller predicts according to the report, "many of the lawmakers who will vote to prohibit lobbyists from organizing or attending congressional trips will be knocking on their doors for campaign contributions next election season."

Say! I thought McCain fixed that?

"Why don't they ask each member to sign a pledge that they won't take [campaign] money from lobbyists?" Miller asked. "The whole thing is hypocritical."

Tonight, according to the AP via Toronto's Globe and Mail, Pelosi will be honored "at a $1,000-a-head concert hosted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the National Building Museum with performances expected from Carole King and others."

Snarlin' Arlen

Is this the lesson Specter learned from '04 and his nail-biter of a re-election? This sorry, so-called populist, "forced-to-purchase" pap from the McCain playbook? A business offers its services on terms that consumers are free to pay for or to pass up. Why should the NFL be any different?