Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts

Saturday, August 10, 2024

2024 Presidential Election_The Subversion Of Democracy, Courtesy of The Democrat Party Leaders: Pelosi admits to undemocratically forcing Biden off the ticket

 

 

At 13:39 Nancy reveals why she was motivated to force Biden off the ticket he won in a democratic primary process.  

When a very small group of people, independent of a primary process, make this decision to remove an elected candidate after the primary, they show very clearly that they are not a democratic body at all to blatantly disrespect the will of its members, and is therefore fraudulent.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

THE REWARDS OF BEING A SOCIALIST: Pelosi's Wealth Grows By 62 Percent


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.

For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also remained a multimillionaire. He reported that his minimum net worth in 2010 was close to $2.1 million, with zero liabilities. His 2009 minimum net worth was more than $1.8 million.

Forms disclosing the assets and liabilities of lawmakers for the 2010 calendar year were released Wednesday. The forms give a good estimate of lawmaker wealth, though they show ranges and not precise values for stocks, pension plans, vacation homes and other assets of lawmakers.

Pelosi saw her wealth rise due to some stock gains and real estate investments made by her husband, Paul.

Apple stock owned by Pelosi's spouse rose from at least $500,000 in 2009 to $1 million in 2010. The minority leader's husband also took a bigger stake in Matthews International Capital Management — worth at least $5 million last year, compared to $1 million in 2009 — and his investment in some undeveloped residential real estate in Sacramento, Calif., jumped to at least $5 million in value.

Paul Pelosi also has sizable assets in the United Football League, including $1 million in a partnership interest in a Jacksonville, Fla., franchise and $5 million in a partnership interest for the Sacramento Lions. (source)

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Final Tab For Pelosi’s Speakership: $5.34 Trillion in New Debt—Or $3.66 Billion Per Day



(CNSNews.com) - In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66 billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Pelosi was the 52nd speaker of the House. During her tenure, she amassed more debt than the first 49 speakers combined.

The total national debt did not climb above $5.343 trillion (the amount amassed during Pelosi’s four years as speaker) until Feb. 26, 1997, when Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) was serving as the nation’s 50th House speaker.

When Pelosi was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2011, her last full day in the speakership, it stood at 14,014,049,043,294.41--an increase of $5,343,452,800,321.37.

Pelosi served as speaker for four full years, including one leap year, making her time in that office 1,461 days. On average, the federal government added $3.66 billion ($3,657,394,113.84) in new debt for each of those days.

Pelosi not only outstripped her predecessors in the total volume of debt added to the national debt during her tenure as speaker, but also in the rate at which new debt was added. In fact, Pelosi added debt at a rate more than three times faster than her nearest competitor.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), who served from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007, saw $3.06 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74) in new debt added during his tenure, which is more than during any other speakership other than Pelosi’s. But Hastert’s tenure lasted 2,920 days, with the national debt increasing by an average of $1.05 billion ($1,048,556,747.89) for each of those days.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich added $812.4 billion ($812,423,595,162.98) in new debt during a speakership of 1,461 days. The national debt accumulated during Gingrich’s tenure at an average rate of $556 million per day ($556,073,644.88).

When Pelosi became speaker in January 2007 she was emphatic that there would be no new deficit spending.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in her inaugural address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."(source)

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

A'LA THE BEST POLITBURO OLIGARCHY: Pelosi Vacations At 10,000/Night Resort While A Nation Suffers In Depression



Nancy Pelosi’s final days as Speaker of the House were spent at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.

Escorted throughout her trip by a mini security motorcade that included Secret Service and Hawaii County Police officers, Pelosi was seen at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Kailua-Kona, where she received Communion. Parishioners greeted her warmly, Hawaii Reporter was told. Two police SUVs were on guard outside the hotel during her week long stay.

Pelosi, who traveled to Hawaii by private plane, spent the holidays in Kona last year at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that reportedly rents for $10,000 a night.

The Four Seasons Resort Hualalai’s details its luxurious setting and amenities on its web site: “Gloriously revitalised, this natural tropical paradise offers more than ever to explore – with a newly expanded Spa, beachfront dining, fashion boutiques and new Deluxe Suites, in addition to Jack Nicklaus signature golf. Set on the Big Island’s exclusive Kona-Kohala Coast, this showpiece resort captures the essence of Hawaiian design, culture and tradition.”



Pelosi has her share of allies in Hawaii, including Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who she defended during his successful campaign for governor in 2010. Pelosi, a Democrat who will be replaced as House Speaker by GOP Congressman John Boehner in a matter of days, served in Congress with Abercrombie. When Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Mufi Hannemann claimed during the primary that Abercrombie was not effective in Congress, Pelosi issued a statement calling Abercrombie “outstanding, effective and courageous.”

Hawaii Reporter has requested information from the Police on taxpayers’ costs to guard her. Last year, Hawaii county taxpayers paid more than $21,000.

This year, the county estimates have not yet been provided to Hawaii Reporter; the request is pending. However, the Hawaii Police Department does not release the number of police officers escorting Pelosi, how many hours they dedicated to Pelosi’s security detail, or whether they were being pulled from other duties. No figures could be obtained for her Secret Service escorts.

Her trip coincides with President Barack Obama’s nearly two-week family vacation in Hawaii.



Obama’s trip to Oahu has proved much pricier to state and federal taxpayers.

In a Hawaii Reporter story published last week, some of the cost estimates included:

■Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii via Air Force One: $1 million (GAO estimates)

■Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)

■Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800

■Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs

■Local police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)

■Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)

■TOTAL COST: $1,474,200
UNKNOWN COSTS

■Rental of office building in Kailua on canal

■Security upgrades and additional phone lines to private homes where Obama and friends are staying

■Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel

■Surveillance before the President arrives

■Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President
Since the Obama holiday story appeared in Hawaii Reporter, readers on the island of Hawaii point to another plane similar to Air Force One (except with a communications dome atop it) that accompanied the President to Hawaii, is at the Hilo Airport.

In addition, costs should have been added for the USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transported the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment. The flight time between Andrews Air Force Base and Hawaii is at about 20 hours roundtrip, with estimated operating cost of $7,000 per hour (GAO report) for a total of $140,000 per roundtrip. Sources say the United States Marine Corps provides a presidential helicopter, along with pilots and support crews for the test flights, which travel on another C-17 flight at $140,000 for a total of $280,000.

Hawaii Reporter has requested details on the cost of the President’s trip, but the White House will not release any figures, citing security concerns. A spokesperson maintains the costs are in line with other presidential vacations.

Hawaii Reporter has sought to determine the cost of vacations for the current president and last two presidents but it has not received any reply from four emails sent over the last week to the U.S. General Services Administration, the agency that tracks these costs.(source)

The Confidence Shown For Pelosi Is The Worst Record In The US Congress Since 1923


When Rep. Nancy Pelosi lost 19 Democrats on Wednesday's vote to be House speaker, it marked the worst showing for a party's nominee in more than 80 years.

Mrs. Pelosi won the support of 173 Democrats, but 18 others voted for someone else and one voted "present." Rep. John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, won the vote with the support of all 241 Republicans who voted.

According to figures from the House historian's office and the Congressional Research Service, the last time a party's nominee for speaker lost that much support was in 1923. On the first ballot that year the GOP's nominee, Frederick H. Gillett, saw 23 lawmakers support other Republicans. Mr. Gillett still ended up winning the speakership on the ninth ballot.

Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat, garnered 11 votes on Wednesday, and afterward said it was an effort to forge a middle ground between Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Boehner.

Speaker's elections always pit the leaders of the House Republican Conference against the House Democratic Caucus, and from 1945 through 1995 those were the only two candidates to receive any votes.

In four of the seven speaker's elections since then, other candidates have received votes — most often from conservative Democrats seeking to register disapproval with their party's direction. (source)

A NEW DAWN: The GOP House Majority Is Sworn In (19 Democrats vote against Nancy Pelosi)



Nearly 20 Democrats abandoned their party’s pick for speaker of the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a sign of their concerns about supporting the unpopular former speaker and of the difficulty she will have in marshaling her forces in legislative battles to come in the next two years.

Pelosi brushed off the 18 votes for other lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon — 11 of them for North Carolina’s Heath Shuler — in a brief exchange with POLITICO.




“We’re excited about the votes I got,” said the California Democrat, who handed over the speaker’s gavel to John Boehner of Ohio at a ceremony following the roll call vote.

Still, the anti-Pelosi tally dwarfed the number of protest votes cast against leaders of both parties in the recent past, which never break into double digits.

Pelosi’s allies also sought to downplay the importance of the anti-Pelosi votes.

“I think some people had to some venting,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who narrowly won re-election but called out Pelosi’s name when he was asked for his vote. “

In addition to Shuler’s 11 votes, two Democrats — Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.) and John Barrow (Ga.) — voted for Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.); Reps. Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa voted for each other; Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.) voted for Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.); Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) voted for Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.) voted for Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

The first anti-Pelosi vote during the alphabetical roll call came from Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). He rose to answer the call of his name and declared loudly and clearly “Heath Shuler!”

Shuler, who voted for himself, told POLITICO that Democrats will have to follow a more moderate path “if we’re going to go back out and win a majority.”

But Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who was in the Capitol for the opening of the 112th Congress Wednesday, said Democrats made the right decision late last year in tapping Pelosi to remain their leader even after they lost the majority under her leadership in the midterm election.

“I’m happy that she decided to stay,” said Solis, a former California colleague of Pelosi’s. “She represents the heart of the Democratic Party and is very principled.”

Pelosi aides and allies insisted that she did not whip the symbolic vote or take any action to tamp down opposition, and they privately claim that they had “no idea” how many of her colleagues would vote for other candidates.

Democratic sources said California Rep. George Miller, Pelosi’s right hand man, was making calls on her behalf to try to hold down opposition to her on the floor. Getting an accurate whip count was next to impossible Tuesday, as Pelosi opponents largely stayed away from a closed-door caucus meeting for House Democrats.

“My constituents are not very enamored of the minority leader to be, and that was a pretty strong message sent in the election,” he said.

Pelosi has consistently stated that she has “no regrets” over the Democrat’s 63-seat loss on Election Day - the worst suffered by either party in over 70 years - and despite her unpopularity nationally, she remains a powerful force within the House Democratic Caucus and among party faithful.

Backed by liberals - the most important faction among House Democrats - Pelosi easily defeated Shuler’s challenge, pulling 150 votes. Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the number two House Democrat, did not challenge Pelosi for the top spot, instead finding himself running against Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) for minority whip. Pelosi then forged a deal to defuse that battle while keeping both men in leadership.

Intra-party dissent over the speaker’s vote is rare but not new.

In 1997, at the start of the 105th Congress, nine Republicans opposed the reelection of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) by voting “present” or supporting other candidates. Gingrich was reelected, but the vote demonstrated growing unhappiness with the Georgia Republican in GOP ranks. Gingrich stepped down as speaker and retiring in 1998, following Republican losses in the mid-term elections.

In her remarks Wednesday, as she handed the gavel to Boehner, Pelosi vowed to with the GOP on restoring the U.S. economy, where possible, although she warned that her party will not violate its own principles on deciding whether to support any Republican initiatives.

“Our most important job is to fight for American jobs,” Pelosi said. “And so Democrats will judge what comes before Congress by whether it creates jobs, strengthens our middle class, and reduces the deficit – not burdening future generations with debt.”

Pelosi added: “When the new speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the new Republican majority, come forward with solutions that address these American challenges, you will find in us a willing partner. When I was first elected speaker, I called the House to order on behalf of America’s children. As I now prepare to hand over the gavel, I know one thing above all else. We have stood for those children and for their families—for their health, their education, the safety of the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat.”

In addition to Shuler and Altmire, the nine others who voted for Shuler were Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, Larry Kissell of North Carolina, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike Michaud of Maine and Mike Ross of Arkansas.

Pelosi’s camp was ready to put the vote behind her.

“Democrats are looking forward and our top priority is creating jobs for the American people,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. “As we begin the 112th Congress, each proposal will be measured by a simple test: Will it create jobs? Will it strengthen our middle class? Will it reduce our deficit?”(source)

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Queen Wears No Clothes

The Queen Wears No Clothes
April 12, 2007

We are constantly bleated with the cries of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, and CNN, that the American People spoke loudly and clearly last November. "The people want us out of Iraq, NOW!", they rant.

The laughingly-ridiculous notion of actually defunding the military to bring our Iraqi mission to a grinding halt has turned into a serious notion for Pelosi et al. Perhaps it was serious for all this time. However, we were treated to emphatic, wide-eyed promises last year, leading up to the election date, that she wouldn't try to pull us out of Iraq if she was indeed to become Speaker of The House. That she wouldn't allow ANY bills to come to the floor if they involved de-funding our men and women in uniform.

Now that the EXACT OPPOSITE has occurred in just five short months, our vanguard of freedom, [American mainstream media] collectively working to cast her as America's last hope, have ignored yet another Democratic Party lie which results in blood and tragedy. The press just eats up her silly, sad, rhetoric announcing troop funding reductions without batting an eye.
But the media hypocrisy is even older than this past six months in American history. In 1995, a newly-elected 104th Congress was endeavoring to uphold their pre-election promise to bring to the House floor ten items, referred to as the Contract With America. They actually did what they said they would do during the run-up to that election. When the next fiscal year approached, the Congress actually passed bills with slight curbs on the rate of growth of many department budgets.

What? A new Congress actually passing bills based on campaign promises? And what bunch of grown-ups were in control at that time?

Our Leftist Lapdog press breathlessly took their microphones and cameras to Bill Clinton, awaiting some antidote from their leader. "I am still relevant", was all that he could say. That, and that he wouldn't be able to abide by the Congress' legislative designs to balance the federal budget in the proposed 7 years in Newt's blueprints. He said that that would bring too much pain to the country. Of course, seven years later, Clinton was all too happy to take the credit for a balanced budget. Did the media question Clinton's earlier reluctance to pass those deficit-trimming bills? Of course not.

In fact, when Clinton shut down the government by vetoing those initial bills, Newsweek ran a caricature of Newt as the Scrooge on its cover. The press was on the side of the president when the will of the people had put in Republicans at 52.9% against the Democrats' 46.9%. The American media protected the president for trying to thwart honest campaign promises-turned-reality. They painted Gengrich, the Speaker of The House, as conducting a 'contract ON America', heaping much distortion on his quote concerning the health care administration, where he issued a quick statement about letting it, "wither on the vine."

But now the press LOVES the 'will of the people'. And for what? It couldn't be for some perceived greater Democratic majority than what the 104th Congressional Republicans had: it is currently only .8% different of a balance than it was in 1995 (Dems presently enjoy 53.7% in Congress). Who can forget ABC news anchor Peter Jennings making the snide remark when announcing the 1994 election results, huffing that "America had thrown a temper tantrum". No such childish remarks are hurled at Pelosi, of course.

The recitation of all of this Newt vs Clinton, and Pelosi vs Bush serves to illustrate an often-overlooked fact: Clinton lost the Congress in his FIRST off-year election. And he had a willing partner in the American media. President Bush beat back historic forces for 6 years before the press finally won the tug-of-war for congress. They fought like children against the parental guidance of our commander-in-chief. And now, while they're patting themselves on the back for defeating American security, our men and women in uniform stand to lose everything they've fought like warriors to achieve for the past 6 years.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Cloward-Piven Strategy: Sink The US In Debt Further Than Ever To Ensure Collapse

Despite record deficits in Obama's first 2 years in office, analysis shows his spending proposals continue deficit spending throughout the rest of his presidency.

Cloward-Piven

Government liabilities rose $2 trillion in FY 2010: Treasury

The U.S. government fell deeper into the red in fiscal 2010 with net liabilities swelling more than $2 trillion as commitments on government debt and federal benefits rose, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Tuesday.

The Financial Report of the United States, which applies corporate-style accrual accounting methods to Washington, showed the government's liabilities exceeded assets by $13.473 trillion. That compared with a $11.456 trillion gap a year earlier.

Unlike the normal measurement of government intake of receipts against cash outlays, accrual accounting measures costs such as interest on the debt and federal benefits payable when they are incurred, not when funds are actually disbursed.

The report was instituted under former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, to illustrate the mounting liabilities of government entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The government's net operating cost, or deficit, in the report grew to $2.080 trillion for the year ended September 30 from $1.253 trillion the prior year as spending and liabilities increased for social programs. Actual and anticipated revenues were roughly unchanged.

The cash budget deficit narrowed in fiscal 2010 to $1.294 trillion from $1.417 trillion in 2009. But the $858 billion tax cut extension package enacted last week is expected to keep the deficit well above the $1 trillion mark for another year.

BUDGET CUT DEBATE

The latest Treasury report should fuel debate in Congress over spending cuts next year as a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives takes office.

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a compromise bill to fund the government until March 4, 2011. After that, Republicans will have the chance to push through dramatic budget cuts.

"Today, we must balance our efforts to accelerate economic recovery and job growth in the near term with continued efforts to address the challenges posed by the long-term deficit outlook," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter accompanying the report. "The administration's top priority remains restoring good jobs to American workers and accelerating the pace of economic recovery."

Among key differences between the operating deficit and the cash deficit were sharp increases in costs accrued for veterans' compensation, government and military employee benefits and anticipated losses at mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The biggest increase in net liabilities in fiscal 2010 stemmed from a $1.477 trillion increase in federal debt repayment and interest obligations, largely to finance programs to stabilize the economy and pull it out of recession.

The federal balance sheet liabilities do not include long-term projections for social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but these showed a positive improvement.

The report said the present value of future net expenditures for those now eligible to participate in these programs over the next 75 years declined to $43.058 trillion from $52.145 trillion a year ago -- a change attributed to the enactment of health-care reform legislation aimed at boosting coverage and limiting long-term cost growth.

The overall projection, including for those under 15 years of age and not yet born, is much rosier, with the 75-year projected cost falling to $30.857 trillion from last year's projection of $43.878 trillion.

The report noted, however, that there was "uncertainty about whether the projected reductions in health care cost growth will be fully achieved." (source)

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

No Congress Since '60s Makes as Much Law Affecting Most Americans as 111th



However history judges the 535 men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate the past two years, one thing is certain: The 111th Congress made more law affecting more Americans since the “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s.

For the first time since President Theodore Roosevelt began the quest for a national health-care system more than 100 years ago, the Democrat-led House and Senate took the biggest step toward achieving that goal by giving 32 million Americans access to insurance. Congress rewrote the rules for Wall Street in the most comprehensive way since the Great Depression. It spent more than $1.67 trillion to revive an economy on the verge of a depression, including tax cuts for most Americans, jobs for more than 3 million, construction of roads and bridges and investment in alternative energy; ended an almost two-decade ban against openly gay men and women serving in the military, and today ratified a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

For all of its ambitious achievement, the 111th Congress, which may adjourn this week, also witnessed a voter-backlash driven by a 9.6 percent unemployment rate that cost Democrats control of the House and diminished their Senate majority.

“This is probably the most productive session of Congress since at least the ‘60s,” said Alan Brinkley, a historian at New York’s Columbia University. “It’s all the more impressive given how polarized the Congress has been.”

Revenue Gains

As lawmakers wrap up the session, Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. are positioned to complete their best two years in revenue, General Motors Co. has emerged from bankruptcy with more than $23 billion repaid to the U.S. Treasury, and American International Group Inc. was able to sell $2 billion of bonds in its first offering since the company’s 2008 bailout.

The S&P 500 Index has gained 38.9 percent since Congress convened in January 2009, the biggest increase for a two-year congressional session since 1997-1998, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 Index reached 1254.60 yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average 11533.16.

Stimulus money created and saved jobs across the country, helping strapped state governments retain their workforces, according to government analyses. President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers said that in Ohio, for instance, the legislation created 122,000 jobs for teachers, police officers and construction workers.

“These policies carried the economy along during a period when the private sector was not engaged,’ said Ethan Harris, head of developed-markets economic research in New York at BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research.

Election Results

The careers of many lawmakers didn’t fare so well. Fiscally conservative Tea Party activists channeled their frustration with government spending and debt into political campaigns, most often to the benefit of Republicans challenging Democratic incumbents. In the Nov. 2 elections, Democrats lost 63 House seats, costing their party control of the chamber in next year’s Congress. In the Senate, the Democratic majority was shaved by six seats; the party will have 53 votes in next year’s session, Republicans 47.

“What we did was work, and our reward was, ‘Get out of here,’” said Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and outgoing chairwoman of the House Rules Committee. While Slaughter won re-election, five of her New York colleagues were among Democrats defeated.

Partisan Divide

Party-line votes on most of the major measures engendered ill will among Republicans and helped stall in the Senate initiatives requiring significant bipartisan support. Blocked legislation included limits on greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming, a bill the House passed in June 2009, a measure offering undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship and the administration’s attempts to curb growing income inequality with tax increases for higher earners.

Those are unlikely to be tackled next year, when the House’s Republican majority will turn its attention to dismantling the health-care law and cutting domestic government spending by $100 billion.

Congress this year was also unable to approve a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund the government.

“I think it was a disaster,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, of the congressional session.

Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s No. 2 Democratic leader, saw it differently: “This whole two-year session has been dramatic in terms of its achievement and the changes that it’s brought about.”

End of Era

The policies embraced by the 111th Congress suggested the end of an era in Washington, as Democrats pushed to reverse three decades of deregulation that began under President Ronald Reagan, say economists.

“We’ve been in a trend toward an attempt to deregulate the economy,” said Harris. “You’re turning back the clock to an earlier period.”

The scope of regulations approved since Obama took office has made business hesitant to expand and hire new workers, he said. “Business is overwhelmed,” said Harris.

Congress scored its first big accomplishment weeks after Obama’s inauguration with passage in late February 2009 of a $814 billion stimulus bill. It has created or saved 3.3 million jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while also steering more funds to road construction, broadband technologies and renewable energy ventures.

New Customers

The health-care legislation approved last March provided insurers including WellPoint Inc. of Indianapolis and drug- makers such as Pfizer Inc. of New York millions of new customers by requiring that all Americans have health insurance. These industries, as well as medical device-makers, will also face billions of dollars in new fees, and hospitals face a host of new standards designed to help curb soaring costs.

The health-care law is facing legal challenges, with the insurance provision a key dispute.

An overhaul of the rules governing the financial services industry, approved in July, aims to prevent a repeat of an economic collapse that led to the failures of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Washington Mutual Inc. It included $4 billion in aid to help thousands of unemployed property owners avoid foreclosure, while the program has fallen short of its goals.

Congress also passed laws to help ensure pay equity by enabling women to pursue lawsuits claiming they were underpaid, and to empower the federal Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry, which includes restrictions on cigarette marketing.

New Justices

Additionally, lawmakers expanded state programs for health insurance for children, and they confirmed two Supreme Court justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor became the first Latino to serve on the court, and the pair increased to three the number of women among the nine justices.

Following the November elections in which voters handed Democrats what Obama termed a “shellacking,” Congress in a lame-duck session made significant additions to its accomplishment list. Lawmakers approved an $858 billion measure that continues for two years Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels, extends aid for 13 months to the long-term unemployed, provides estate tax relief and cuts by two percentage points worker payroll taxes during 2011.

Congress in its last days also voted to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on military service by openly gay men and women. Yesterday it cleared the biggest food-safety overhaul in more than 70 years, giving the FDA more enforcement power. And the Senate ratification today, 71-26, of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty gives Obama a key foreign-policy victory.

‘Broad Basis’

“What we’ve been able to do in the lame duck has been not just bipartisan by a fingernail, but bipartisan on a broad basis,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat.

From a market perspective, Congress’s biggest accomplishment was probably the tax cuts, with the estate tax breaks the “whipped cream, fudge and cherry on top,” said Ethan Siegal, president of the Washington Exchange.

Investors responded to the health-care and financial- services measures largely negatively, with health care viewed as “big government gone nuts,” he said.

Democrats say it will take years before the public recognizes their achievements. Many of the measures that passed were designed to forestall a bleaker recession, an argument that’s little comfort to many Americans as the nation’s unemployment rate has remained at 9.5 percent or higher for more than a year.

“It was hard to tell people that we accomplished anything important when their lives are so difficult,” said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and outgoing chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee.

Changing Direction

The Tea Party movement, which worked to elect lawmakers advocating a new era of fiscal authority, has already begun to shift the direction of Congress.

Shortly after the election, Senate and House Republicans announced a voluntary ban on earmarks, the funding for pet projects added to bills by lawmakers. The incoming House Republican leadership has promised to turn the focus of the Appropriations Committee from funding government to identifying spending cuts.

Many of those efforts will likely fail in the Democrat- controlled Senate. And the party split between the two chambers is likely to bring the record of congressional productivity to an abrupt end in January.

“There’s just nothing that’s going to be accomplished,” said Brinkley. “What really is disturbing is that this is a period in which there is a lot to be done.” (source)

Friday, November 12, 2010

Pelosi: ‘We Didn’t Lose Because of Me’



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the “overwhelming support” of fellow Democrats in her bid to become minority leader in the next Congress, and says she’s not to blame for the Democrats’ mid-term debacle.

“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning. “Our members do not accept that.”

Instead, the California Democrat attributes the loss of at least 60 seats to high unemployment and “$100 million of outside, unidentified funding.”

“Any party that cannot turn (9.5% unemployment) into political gains should hang up the gloves,” she said.

The NPR interview is one of the first Ms. Pelosi has granted since a small-but-growing number of Democrats began publicly lamenting her decision to seek the top job in the minority. That list even includes some loyal allies, such as Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan.

Among those rooting for Ms. Pelosi to stick around are Republicans, who are giddy at the prospect of reprising in 2012 the attacks they used in the past election cycle, tying Democratic incumbents around the country to the liberal from San Francisco.

Ms. Pelosi’s reply: Bring it on. “The reason they had to take me down is because I’ve been effective in fighting special interests in Washington, D.C.,” Ms. Pelosi said, citing the health insurance and financial services industries. “I’m effective. They had to take me out. I’m also the most significant attractor to support for the Democrats.”

“So, I’m not looking back on this,” Ms. Pelosi said. “They asked me to run, I’m running. We don’t let the Republicans choose our leaders, and again, our members understand, they made me a target because I’m effective, politically and policy-wise.”(source)

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Democrats Pressing Pelosi To Step Aside



WASHINGTON – In a fresh sign of turmoil among defeated Democrats, a growing number of the rank and file say they won't support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a politically symbolic roll call when the new Congress meets in January.

"The reality is that she is politically toxic," said Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, one of several Democrats who are trying to pressure Pelosi to step aside as her party's leader in the wake of historic election losses to Republicans last week.

Pelosi startled many Democrats with a quick postelection announcement that she would run for minority leader. She has yet to draw an opponent for the post. Party elections are scheduled for next week, although a postponement is possible.

In the interim, Pelosi's critics have become more vocal in their efforts to retire her from the party leadership.

There's "starting to be a sense that this may not be as much of a done deal as people might have thought," Rep. Jason Altmire said of Pelosi's quest to remain the top Democrat.

"If enough people come out and voice a little discomfort with the idea of her continuing on, maybe she would reconsider," said the Pennsylvanian, one of a handful of Democrats who said he won't cast a ceremonial vote for her.

The election of a party leader occurs behind closed doors. A separate election for speaker to be held on Jan. 5, a few hours after the House convenes for the first time, is a very visible one. One member of each party is typically nominated, and each lawmaker is then called by name to stand and declare a choice. The event is customarily televised live.

Defections from party discipline are rare in such circumstances, but several Democrats said they would not support Pelosi. They did not specify how they would vote instead.

Pelosi's office declined to comment Wednesday on calls for her to step aside, but she was mounting a robust defense of her record. In an op-ed in USA Today, Pelosi blamed the election results on "the genuine frustration of the American people, who are justifiably angered by the continued high unemployment rate."

Most of the Democrats who say they would not support Pelosi are moderates from conservative districts who have toiled to distinguish themselves from their liberal leader, and who watched dozens of like-minded Democrats go down in defeat after Republicans savaged them in TV advertisements as lapdogs of the San Francisco congresswoman.

Quigley stopped short of saying he would oppose Pelosi on a public vote, but others did not.

"You would find an unusual number of people not voting for the nominee of their party" if Pelosi were the choice, said Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah.

"There's a growing number of people in the caucus saying, 'Why's she running for minority leader in the first place?' We just got thumped in this election in a major way, and to act like we can just go back and do the same thing over again. It just seems like a very obvious situation when change is called for," Matheson said.

Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., another conservative, said through a spokesman that he, too, plans to vote against Pelosi in public and private.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., strongly suggested as much in a statement in which he said he wouldn't back Pelosi "for House Democratic leader or any other leadership position in the Congress."

Democrats lost at least 60 seats in last week's elections, with a handful of races yet to be settled. Many of the defeats came in conservative or swing districts, and many of her critics are lawmakers who survived narrowly.

Altmire won re-election by little more than 2 percentage points, but Quigley ran up more than 70 percent of the vote in his Chicago-area district. Pelosi has "probably been made the scapegoat in all this," he said in an interview, but he added that keeping her as the top Democrat "would make recruitment very difficult and winning back the House in two years nearly impossible."

The prospect of substantial Democratic defections from Pelosi on the first day of the new Congress comes amid a heated debate between liberals and conservatives about the party's future. Many liberals assert Democrats must reinvigorate core supporters by refusing to compromise with Republicans on key principles, while centrists argue they must tack to the middle to win over independent voters.

The divide is complicated by the fact that the party's losses disproportionately hit moderates, purging the ranks of conservatives who call themselves "Blue Dogs," a coalition that lost more than half of its members. Liberals who are Pelosi's natural constituency now make up a greater percentage of House Democrats.

Her decision to seek a new term as party leader has also set off a messy struggle between Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, currently the No. 2 Democrat, and Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the current No. 3.

Hoyer is widely viewed as the voice of moderate Democrats in leadership, although his list of public supporters includes powerful liberals. Clyburn is the most powerful African-American in Congress. The two are competing for the second-in-command position in the minority in a contest that has taken on racial overtones in recent days with the decision of the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Clyburn.

Democratic officials say Pelosi has urged Clyburn to bow out of the race and run for a lesser leadership job, with an additional promise of a newly created face-saving position on a key committee. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss private discussions.

Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Clyburn, declined to confirm Pelosi's move, but said her boss remains a candidate and "The CBC wants to see this come to a vote."

Other Democrats, eager for a smooth transition, note that if Pelosi were to withdraw, it would avoid a face-off between Hoyer and Clyburn.

"It's still in play," Matheson said. But, he added, "without an alternative stepping up and saying, 'Vote for me instead,' it makes it a little more difficult."

Even the timetable for the selection of leaders has become embroiled in the controversy.

Two prominent liberals have called for a delay in the closed-door vote until next month.

"Following the loss of our majority, we should fully understand the causes of our historic losses before we begin the process of rebuilding," Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio wrote fellow Democrats. (source)

Monday, November 8, 2010

House Dems Say: "Enough Of Pelosi"


FOX has obtained a letter being penned by defeated House Democrats that implores House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to step aside.

The letter is now circulating Capitol Hill and has not yet been sent to the Speaker. FOX has obtained draft language of the letter.

In the draft of the letter, the members say that they were "victimized by a national wave of resentment toward Democrats, a wave that ensnared you along with us."

The letter goes on to say "Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House."

The letter says that the defeated members "fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing, they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership, in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting."

The lawmakers also say that "one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton" and calls this a "dark hour."

The letter closes asking Pelosi to step aside.

Full text of the letter below. Unclear who exactly will sign it and when it will go to the Speaker.

Letter from Defeated Members:

Many of us want the chance to run again and reclaim the seats that we lost on Tuesday. With you as the leader of House Democrats, the hangover of 2010 stands no chance of subsiding. Many of us have run our last race but remain committed to our party; we want to help recruit successful candidates to run in our stead. Unfortunately, we fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting.

This is a difficult letter to write, because we admire your commitment, your drive, and your conviction. You have been an historic figure in our great nation, and for that we are all proud, as should you be. Nonetheless, we each experienced how Republican demonization of you and your leadership contributed to our defeat.

It is impossible not to judge the results of November 2nd as anything but a profound loss. We want to recover. Recovery of our majority in the House necessitates new leadership at the top of our party. We believe that you can and will play an extraordinary role in our party, and it is extremely unfortunate that Republicans have taken away your ability to lead as effectively as you are able. Nonetheless, one mark of a strong leader is the ability to discern when it is time to pass the baton. As defeated members, whose party needs to rebuild, we are counting on you to show the strength of your leadership in this dark hour. We ask that you step aside as leader of our party in the House.

With utmost respect, we are.. (source)

Friday, November 5, 2010

Pelosi Will Seek To Stay As House Dem Leader



WASHINGTON – Nancy Pelosi, the nation's first female House speaker, said Friday she will try to keep her spot as leader of the House Democrats despite huge election losses that cost her party the majority.

Pelosi, a California liberal, rejected pressure from moderate House Democrats — and even some liberal allies — who said the widespread defeats cried out for new party leadership.

Pelosi, 70, will seek her colleagues' support to become House minority leader when the new Congress convenes in January. That would keep her atop the Democratic House caucus, which will number about 190 people next year. But it would mark a big drop from being speaker, which carries tremendous power to influence legislation and is second only to the vice president in the line of presidential succession.

House members elect their respective party leaders, although the entire House elects the speaker. That post is almost certain to go Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the current minority leader.

"Our work is far from finished," Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues. "As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back."

Pelosi said many colleagues "have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader."

Dozens of Republican House candidates attacked their Democratic opponents by tying them to Pelosi and suggesting they would do whatever the San Francisco liberal asked.

Several Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts vowed to oppose Pelosi as speaker, but some of them lost all the same.

One who did survive, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, had said he might challenge Pelosi because the party needs a more moderate leader. Shuler noted that he lost his job as Washington Redskins quarterback in 1997 after the team performed poorly.

As the magnitude of Tuesday's election losses sunk in, even some longtime supporters of Pelosi said she needed to step aside as the party leader.

"As good a leader as she has been, I don't think she's the right leader to take us forward," Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told WHAS-TV in Louisville on Thursday. He said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who has ranked second to Pelosi for years, would be "a perfect spokesman for the Democratic Party in the House."

Hoyer is more centrist than Pelosi, and the two have long had a cordial but somewhat wary relationship.

Hoyer might retain his second-ranking status, which would make him the new minority whip. But it's possible that liberals will try to oust him from the shrunken leadership ladder to prevent fellow liberals from being demoted. (source)

Monday, November 1, 2010

Profiles In Collagen: Nancy "El Duce" Pelosi


It took Democrats in the House of Representatives 40 years to become out-of-touch enough to get thrown out of office in 1994. It took 12 years for the Republicans who replaced them to abandon their principles and be repudiated in 2006. Now it appears that the current Democratic majority has lost voter confidence in only four years.

How did this happen? And what does the increasing speed of voter backlash mean for Republicans who will likely take control next Tuesday?

For answers, I decided to chat up Rep. Brian Baird, a six-term Democrat from Washington state. Even though he's never won re-election with less than 56% of the vote, Mr. Baird is retiring because the brutal congressional commute makes it impossible for him to see his twin five-year-old boys grow up. He's not sticking around, like so many former members of Congress, to lobby inside the Beltway. That allows him to be candid about Congress and his party.

"It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."

Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws.

Mr. Baird recalls that he was "very excited" when his party took control of Congress in 2006, but he saw ominous signs early on. Before the 2006 election, he says, Mrs. Pelosi had 30 members working on a rules package to make the House more ethical and deliberative. "We abandoned all that work after the election, and leaders told us we should trust them to clean things up. I don't know a single member of the Democratic caucus who saw the final rules package before they voted on it."

Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."

When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.

"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.

"You don't get real reform by pandering to every special interest. With cap and trade we wound up with a bill that didn't accomplish much, was enormously complicated and expensive." Mr. Baird is especially upset that "good solid members will lose this fall because they took a tough vote for a cap-and-trade bill that never made it through the Senate." He has told environmental groups that they lost sight of the goal of reducing carbon emissions by focusing on the minutia of regulation to achieve it.

For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.

Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?"


Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.

"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.

Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.

He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me.

The health-care bill experience spurred Mr. Baird to push harder for a "72-hour rule" that would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in final form, for at least 72 hours before a floor vote. "Members are too often asked to make decisions on bills that can be longer than telephone books, and are given only a few hours to actually read them," he complains. "Both parties are guilty, and both should stop doing it."

Mrs. Pelosi eventually allowed a 72-hour pause before the final passage of ObamaCare, and Mr. Baird is pleased that Republicans have agreed to adopt the 72-hour rule if they take the House majority. He just hopes they honor it even when it's inconvenient.

Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.

"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer."

In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it."

Although Mr. Baird believes that Republicans blocked compromise on ObamaCare and that tea party activists raised false fears, he acknowledges the political harm that Democrats have done themselves. "It looks like we're going to lose the House, possibly badly, and could lose the Senate," Mr. Baird laments. "We will lose a lot of centrists while the people in the party some voters are most mad at survive in safe districts."

"A lot of rethinking is needed" after Democrats take their drubbing, Mr. Baird says, especially since he anticipates "a huge number of retirements" from Democrats unwilling to serve in the minority. He proposes that the House elect an independent speaker who would help drain partisanship from the body. Britain's House of Commons uses such a model.

Democrats, he says, will also have to recognize why they lost touch with voters. "Back in September, we had pollsters and strategists from my party tell members that the mass of people didn't care about the deficit. The mind-boggling lack of reality coming from some of the people who give us so-called advice is stunning."


I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:

"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." (source)

Monday, October 25, 2010

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’


When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.

The $4.997-trillion increase in the national debt since she took the gavel is more debt than the federal government amassed from the speakership of Rep. Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who became the first speaker of the House on April 1, 1789, to the start of the speakership of Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the 58th speaker, who took up the gavel on Jan. 4, 1995.

The national debt first topped $5 trillion on Feb. 23, 1996, more than a year into Gingrich’s speakership.

Gingrich served as speaker in the 104th and 105th Congresses, officially taking the office on Jan. 4, 1995 and leaving office on Jan. 3, 1999. During that period, according to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased $812.4 billion dollars ($812,423,595,162.98), rising from $4.8 trillion ($4,801,793,426,032.89) to $5.6 trillion ($5,614,217,021,195.87).

Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the 59th speaker, who presided over the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses (serving as speaker from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007), enjoys the distinction of having increased the debt more than any other speaker except Pelosi. During Hastert’s time, the national debt increased $3.1 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74).

Thus far (the 111th Congress will not be done until the end of the year), Pelosi has increased the debt by an average of $2.5 trillion for each Congress she has led as speaker. Hastert increased the debt by an average of about $785 billion per Congress, while Gingrich increased the debt by an average of $406 billion per Congress.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.

"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

“By precedent, appropriations originate in the House, with the Senate following suit,” says the House Rules Committee in an explanation of the appropriations process.

Annual federal expenditures have increased by about $730 billion in the Pelosi era, while annual deficits have increased almost 8 fold. In fiscal 2007, when Pelosi became speaker, the federal government spent $2.73 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $162.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department. In fiscal 2009, the federal government spent $3.52 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.4157 trillion. In fiscal 2010, the federal government spent $3.46 trillion and ran an annual deficit of $1.2941 trillion.

“The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP),” the Congressional Budget Office said in its October Monthly Budget Review. “The 2010 deficit was the second-highest shortfall—and 2009 the highest—since 1945, relative to the size of the economy.” (source)

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Pelosi Confident House Will Pass Health Care Bill



SAN FRANCISCO – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday she's confident the House will pass health care legislation and dismissed Republican criticism that she did not have enough votes for the measure.

"We're very excited about where we are and will not be deterred by estimates that have no basis in fact," she said during a dedication of the renamed Lim P. Lee Post Office in San Francisco. The post office was renamed after the nation's first Chinese-American postmaster.

Pelosi declined to say when House members would vote on a health care bill, or how many votes that she had secured. Although she added that lawmakers were "on the verge of making history."

She also dismissed criticism by House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio that she did not have sufficient votes.

"I'm never dependent on Congressman Boehner's count. I never have," she said to a smattering of laughter from the crowd.

House Democratic leaders are pressing for a vote on their bill as early as this coming week.

The legislation would provide health care to tens of millions who currently lack it. It would require almost everyone to obtain coverage and subsidize the cost of premiums for poor and middle-income Americans.

It would also ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

The health care bill appeared to be on the verge of passing in early January before Democrats lost a special election in Massachusetts to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy and with it, their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

In the weeks since, the White House and Democrats have embarked on a rescue strategy that would require the House to pass legislation that cleared the Senate in December before both houses approve a second bill that makes changes to the first.

But some anti-abortion Democrats in the House have balked at the bill, and it's not clear they will vote for final passage. The bill needs 216 votes to clear the House.

Lesson On Progressives: Globalism And Soros



Health Care Summit: When Owning 2 Branches Of Federal Gov't Ain't Enough