Senators Use Chinese Smoke Screen

Senators hold back bill in China currency tiff

March 29, 2006

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Two U.S. senators said yesterday they would delay for six months a vote on a bill punishing China for restricting its exchange rate, saying they had seen signs of currency reform during a recent trip to China.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, and Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, has drawn strong support from both parties in Congress, where frustration is growing with Chinese policies that lawmakers say hurt American workers and the economy.

The bill would impose 27.5 percent tariffs on Chinese imports if the currency dispute is not settled. The lawmakers said they would delay a vote to no later than Sept. 29. If the pace of China's currency reform slowed before then, they said, they would call for a vote.

During a press conference, Mr. Graham said he hoped that Chinese President Hu Jintao would announce further currency reforms during his visit to Washington next month. He warned that "the jury is still out" and promised to call a vote on his bill if reform was not pursued.
Mr. Schumer said the "Chinese see the fact that manipulating their currency cannot continue."

"We believe that if we hadn't introduced this strong medicine, nothing ever would have happened," he said. "Now that we're on the path to progress, we don't have to fire this so-called 'nuclear weapon,' but can hold it in abeyance, as we carefully watch and wait and expect continued progress."

U.S. lawmakers want China to take steps to allow the yuan to strengthen against the dollar, saying the currency is undervalued by up to 40 percent.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: There are many issues we have with China, but the Senate always pulls the China rabbit out of the hat whenever they want to distract the public. Do not be fooled. China is nowhere the same threat as posed by the Oligarchs.

No Free Meals for Senate Leaches

Senate debates ban on lobbyist meals

By Christina Bellantoni

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

March 29, 2006


Senators hoping to improve Washington's image are spending this afternoon debating a measure to curb the influence of lobbyists.

The Senate was considering a broad measure by Sen. Trent Lott that bans the typical practice of lobbyists treating lawmakers to meals at swanky restaurants and requires members to take an ethics training course, among other things.

This afternoon, lawmakers expedited a dozen amendments to the Mississippi Republican's bill in anticipation of a final vote in the early evening. The amendments tackled elements ranging from corporate jet travel to defining clients of lobbyists.

Senators soundly rejected one amendment by Sen. Russell D. Feingold that defines a lobbyist as anyone employed by a company that has a registered lobbyist on the payroll.

"The era of the free lunch will be over for real," the Wisconsin Democrat said.

He said his amendment was needed to close a loophole that would allow lobbyists to skirt the ban on gifts and meals, but critics, who voted 68-30 against the amendment, said the amendment went "too far" and would literally apply to "millions" of citizens who are not lobbyists.

Read the rest of the article here.

Sens. Obama, Coburn, Kissing Cousins

The Hill

Sens. Obama, Coburn make unlikely duo

By Alexander Bolton

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a fast-rising leader in the Democratic Party, and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), whom conservatives view as one of their most principled spokesmen, have forged an unlikely alliance in the debate on lobbying reform.

Both lawmakers have played prominent roles in the legislative wrangling over how to address lobbying abuses in the wake of lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s crimes. Democratic leaders tapped Obama early on to spearhead the debate over reform, and Coburn has emerged as a leading critic of earmarks, teaming up with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in vowing to challenge colleagues’ projects on the Senate floor.

Coburn has co-sponsored all five amendments that Obama has filed for the lobbying reform package. Obama has crafted a range of proposals:
• A prohibition on paid coordination of lobbying activities.
• A ban on lawmakers’ negotiating future employment as lobbyists.
• A prohibition on advocating for earmarks in which the lawmaker has a financial interest.
• A prohibition on buying votes with earmarks.
• A requirement that earmarks be available for scrutiny during business days.

It is unclear when or whether the Senate will vote on the duo’s amendments. Senate leaders scheduled votes on two different amendments to the reform package yesterday afternoon and had hoped to finish consideration of it quickly.

The unlikely pairing of Obama and Coburn has raised eyebrows in Senate leadership circles and among other observers.

“That’s an odd alliance,” remarked a senior Democratic leadership aide.

But an aide to Coburn said that his boss admires Obama’s integrity.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: Cynicism aside, anytime I read the dripping collegiality as found in this article, the red flags go up. Senators from two opposing parties are not coming together to strengthen the working ethics, but rather to develop unenforceable rules to advance their power.

Jeffry Fisher: Repeal the 17th Admenment

This a short and concise article worth looking at.

http://jeffryfisher.net/Statesman/ElectionLaw/Repeal17.htm

Do away with 17th Amendment

It's the best solution for campaign funding woes


This article appeared in a Denver Business Journal on February 28, 1997

Business News

Commentary
Do away with 17th Amendment
It's the best solution for campaign funding woes

The Denver Business Journal - February 28, 1997
by Junius Peake

Three issues are in the forefront of American political debate: campaign finance reform; reducing the size of the federal government; and devolving power to the states and to the people.

The original framers of the Constitution were smart enough to have figured out a way to meet all three of these objectives. However, in a spate of populism, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the way senators were elected, was ratified, thus negating much of the brilliance which created a fair balance of powers between the federal and state branches of government.

Originally, the United States senators were elected -- two per state -- by their state legislatures; the 17th Amendment transferred their election to statewide plebiscites. This reduced the power of the states, and created another legislative body having many of the characteristics of the House of Representatives.

Repealing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution would have immediate benefits: It would eliminate the need for the huge Senate campaigns we have today; would make the role of state legislators far more important that it is today; and reduce the power and size of the federal government.

The long-term effects of this change, much like the long-term effects of the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax (also ratified in 1913), have resulted in unintended consequences. The shift of political power from state legislatures to the electorate resulted in a concomitant increase in power by the House, which already had been granted sole authority to initiate all federal revenue legislation.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: A basic examination of campaign finance or ethics reform demonstrates a pattern of duplicity that presents the appearance of reform yet always protecting the incumbents. Furthermore, either the intended or unintended consequences of these reforms the result is always the same, a whittling away at our rights. The founding father were far more wiser as the author states, and this can be seen our very inept Senators.

Senators Vote to Restrict Free Speech for Citizen Activists

From Magic City Morning Star

National
Senators Vote to Restrict Free Speech for Citizen Activists
By Christian News Wire
Mar 3, 2006, 10:46

FAIRFAX, VA -- "Today the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed onerous disclosure rules on America's grassroots activists that infringe on several First Amendment protections including freedom of speech, assembly and the ability of citizens to petition the government," stated Kerri Houston, National Spokesperson for The LobbySense Coalition.

"These restrictions are part of a Lobby Reform bill that should be targeted at Congress, not at groups that bring the people's message to Congress."

The original author of the language, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Committee Chair Susan Collins (R- ME) backed away from the grassroots constraints in the bill, but the Lieberman (D-CT) and Levin (D-MI) amendment to regulate grassroots activities passed 10-6.

All seven committee Democrats voted for it (Lieberman, Levin, Akaka (HI), Carper (DE), Dayton (MN), Lautenberg (NJ), and Pryor (AR); as did Republicans Stevens (AK), Voinovich (OH), and Chafee (RI). Voting "no" were Republicans Coleman (MN), Coburn (OK), Bennett (UT), Domenici (NM), and Warner (VA), in addition to Collins.

"What is extraordinary is that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska not only voted for these disclosure and mobilization restrictions, but embraced them. It seems odd that Senator Stevens wants to slap duct tape on the very free-market economic and environmental organizations that have stood behind the policy issue most important to him - America's need for prudent and environmentally sound drilling in ANWR. These "grassroots" include many of our coalition partners as well as the Inupiat and other Alaskan citizen activists in his home state who have gone to the mat for him on this issue," stated Jason Wright, LobbySense Executive Director.

"The bill will proceed to the floor for a vote next week, and the 50-plus members of the LobbySense coalition will continue to be active and vocal against these restrictions.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: This has been a common method used by McCain and his fellow oligarchs, like George Voinovich, cutting the small guy out of politics by restricting freedom of speech. In the end it will be the very rich and big lobbying groups that will have any type of access to elected politicians. Call and write to your Senator and tell them vote no on Lobbying Reform Bill.

Found on Neal Boortz Feb 25, 2004

I found this on Neal Boortz's website concerning the repeal of the 17th Admendment.

BUT ... AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION

There have only been 27 amendments to our Constitution. The last basically said that the congress couldn't raise its own pay without an intervening election. Now there was a Constitutional amendment that recognized the essential truth about today's breed of politicians. Our founding fathers didn't put that in the original because they couldn't think in terms of elected officials staging raids on the taxpayers funds to the extent that they do today.

Read the rest of the article here.

Note: scroll down through the page to find the actual 17th Amendment article.

Hello 17th Amendment -- Goodbye Republic

Hello 17th Amendment -- Goodbye Republic Jim Moore The Serra TimesTuesday March 14, 2006 - 08:21:59 AM,PST An Internet Publication for Real Americans


When is the last time you read, or even glanced through, the U.S. Constitution and its 26 Amendments? Me neither. I’ve had so many other important things to do I haven’t taken time to even think about what happened to the most significant document in American history that made possible our land of freedom and independence.

What happened was that a bombshell, dropped on us in 1913, was more devastating to America than the market crash of ‘29. Why? Because, unlike the crash which lasted only through the 30’s, this bombshell will directly affect our lives, and the viability of the nation, for as long as we have a nation. The bombshell was the 17th Amendment we made to the U.S. Constitution.

Before 1913, the Congress of the United States was functioning in the way our Founders had intended it to function. That is, Senators were elected by their State legislatures, and were representatives of the states, which made up the republic.

Here’s how that arrangement was phrased in the Constitution: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.”

Oh, but wait a minute, yelled the liberal crowd of that day. They charged that the Senate was “undemocratic” (exactly what our Founders intended it to be) and the Senators should therefore be directly elected; that is, by the people. So, thanks to a demo-campaign of “re-education and misinformation” the 17th Amendment was passed.

Now it reads like this: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.”

With the simple changing of five words, the U.S. Senators no longer represented the interests of the State, but of their constituents, exactly like our Representatives do -- or are supposed to do.

And America immediately went from a Republic to a Democracy, just that quick.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: The Senate without question is continuously chipping away at the power of the Executive Branch while growing larger than the House in legislative power. Only repealing the 17th Amendment will return the balance of power the founding fathers created.

17th Amendment bill clears its first hurdle

deseretnews.com Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Sen. Howard Stephenson's controversial bill that would make Utah's U.S. senators more accountable to the Legislature cleared its first hurdle Tuesday, advancing out of the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee on a 3-2 party-line vote.

The Draper Republican says the bill is intended to bring Utah's federal representation back in line with the original intent of the Constitution's framers, which was changed by the enactment of the 17th Amendment allowing for the direct election of senators.

"States have become pawns in the hands of the federal government," Stephenson said.

The bill would allow legislators to give direction to the state's U.S. senators and require the senators to report their progress back to the Legislature.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: Great news from Utah!

From Townhall Jan 25, 2006-3-13

From Townhall Jan 25, 2006-3-13

Comments:

Repeal the 17th Amendment

by CMoore, Jan 25 2006 02:14 PM

As keen as term limits are, most probably the best possible solution would be to repeal the 17th Amendment immediately. Give the States (as institutions, not collections of residents) their representation in Congress back.

While this will not eliminate the lobbying and hob-knobbing, Senators selected by and beholden to state legislatures rather than residents have no need to campaign for reelection. Senators would feel the pressure and need to represent their State's interests rather than pandering to the whimsy of the voting populace. Thus, much legislation that gets passed in the House would likely wither in the Senate.

State representation in Congress (the Senate) was a fundamental tenet in the foundation of our Republic. It was intended to balance the will of the people with the interests of the States. A democratically elected Congress, both House and Senate, has proven inimical to the preservation of the Republic of the United States.

http://tinyurl.com/zq3cm

Comment: Makes great sense.