Content by johngalt
Posted at 3:14pm on Nov. 9, 2006 House Leadership Must Change
By johngalt
Over the last 6 years I have been consistently disappointed in the republican membership of the House of Representatives, and their willingness to follow their leadership to the point of self-annihilation. Time after time, when given the opportunity to affect change they have chosen the status quo.
As the rank-and-file settled comfortably into incumbency they began to act like the politicians that they hated. They looked at the comforts that providing pork and expanding government can provide, and they positioned themselves to do both. When their leaders told them that it was the “republican” thing to do; they believed them.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:05am on Oct. 11, 2006 Scared of the Pundits on November 8th
By johngalt
Regardless of whether the Republicans lose the House or the Senate or perhaps miraculously maintain the status quo there are lessons that need to be learned. There is a reason that we are two weeks out of an election and our majority is being threatened. Since we net-citizens are thinking people we need to be more than cogs in the political machine, we need to address the core problems with our party and our obvious estrangement with voters right now.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:03am on Jun. 22, 2006 Why the Line Item Veto is not Conservative
By johngalt
A disclaimer, to start with: I do believe that overt earmarking is a problem in need of a real solution. I believe that excessive spending is one of the top problems that Congress faces. However, I do not think the Line Item Veto will solve the problem; in fact I believe it may weaken our opportunities for real reform.
The Line Item Veto is the wrong solution to a real problem. The problem that Rep. Jeb Hensarling and the members of the RSC are trying to fight is not that the Legislative Branch has too much power, it is that there has been a centralization of power within the Legislative Branch among a handful of Appropriators and the Elected Leadership that make-up the conference committees that draft the appropriations bills that get sent to the President. It is not a case that Congress has too much power; instead it is a problem that a handful of members with seniority have too much power.
Despite this, they are fighting a fight that will result in Congress as a whole abdicating power to the Executive Branch that weakens everybody, including the RSC. This is not a conservative solution to the problem; further centralizing power in the Executive Branch is a solution that would be embraced by FDR and LBJ more than conservatives.
How exactly is the line item veto centralizing power? For starters it is increasing leverage that the President will have in the making of laws. How easy will it be for a President to threaten to "rescind" a $500,000 earmark in exchange for a vote on one of his other priorities? Say a $40 billion Medicare bill, or an $80 billion transportation bill? or for an increase in the minimum wage? Do the potential savings outweigh the potential costs? Is the weighting of the balance of power toward the Executive Branch better for the taxpayers? I do not think so. In fact as a conservative I fear a strong Executive Branch.
What would a conservative solution be: There are numerous earmark reform and spending reform proposals that do not abdicate power, and in fact would be federalist answers to the spending problem.
1. For starter, complete sunshine of all earmarks.
2. Print earmarks in the text of legislation so that members may vote to strike individual proposals.
3. Publish the letters of request that Members send to the appropriations committee so that the public could see what their Members of Congress consider to be priority projects, and we could track the number of request they are making.
4. No earmarks in committee reports; The conference reports are often printed days or weeks after the bills themselves are passed and members are blind to what those reports might include.
5. Term limits on all members of the Appropriations committee that are identical to the term limits that members of the Budget Committee face.
6. Even more boldly, eliminate the Appropriations Committee and create a Subcommittee of Appropriations under each Authorizing Committee
7. Congress could also place limits on no new earmarks in conference committee.
8. They could also require conference committee's deliberations to be televised.
However, once again Congress has chosen to avoid reforming itself. Instead, they are simply disempowering themselves. The thoughts of RSC and the conservatives in the House is, we can not control our own leadership, so therefore let someone else do it.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:59am on May 25, 2006 Congress as Wimp
By johngalt
Promoted from the diaries for the opposing view.
The recent flap over the FBI raid of the Rayburn House Office Building is a simple expression of a larger problem: The incredibly shrinking powers of Congress.
It is not hard to see that Congress has taken on the role of wimp. The dramatic loss of clout that the Legislative branch of government has undergone over the last few decades is shocking. As Congress gets weaker its competitors in the power struggle that our founders created have gotten stronger and, what's worse, it seems that Congress is fine with it, in fact they are encouraging their own demise.
I applaud the Speaker for standing up to the Attorney General yesterday. Sure, it was after he was publicly chastised and egged on by former Speaker Gingrich and "Speaker" Pelosi, but he did finally step up to the plate. Whether he should have in this case, isn't my point, my point is that it is the first time in my recollection that a republican in Congress has actually stood up for the Legislative Branch on the principle of Constitutional powers.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:51am on May 16, 2006 The Weak America
By johngalt
After being a country for 230 years, surviving a civil war and innumerable attacks on our country and ideals, America is a weak country.
Sure we have a $13 trillion GDP about the same size as the rest of the G7 countries COMBINED. Our GDP per capita is 40% higher (roughly $10,000 per person) than the next highest G7 country (Japan - which has 150,000,000 fewer people than the U.S.).
The amount we spend on running the federal government ($2.3 trillion) is more than the entire GDP of all but 3 countries in the world (including the US itself). This has been the long-term trend of our weak little country. Our real GDP per capita tripled from 1900-1950, and it tripled again from 1950-2000. More that 70% of Americans now own their own home. 98% of Americans have at least one television set, 90% have a microwave oven.
And we are getting all this by working less. The average work week has shrunk from 59 hours in 1890, to 40 hours in 1950 to 34 hours in 2001.
All this why we work in better jobs: Since 1970 the 30 best jobs (selected in nationwide polling, of jobs people want) -- including computer scientist, legal assistant, and engineer - have risen from 9% to 13% of total employment. At the same time the 30 worst occupations have declined from 13% to 9% of all jobs.
Despite a growing population our unemployment rate of $4.7% is lower than ever other G7 country and less than half of the unemployment rates in Germany and France. But these are not signs of strength, they are the last gasps of our great nation.
On the cultural front Nike, Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola are some of the greatest brand names in the world. Even in countries that hate us American brands dominate. Individuals that want to destroy us, buy our New Balance shoes and listen to our music and movies. But these are not signs that we have an enduringly strong culture. No, these are the trappings of a soon to be overridden and failed culture, a flash in the pan of history.
What's worse is the ensuing decline of our cherished language. Despite the fact that there is a direct and proven monetary reward for speaking English, we will soon all need to learn Spanish to get by. We can ignore the fact that in 1999, the average employed immigrant who spoke English very well earned $40,741, more than double the $16,345 earned by immigrants who did not speak English at all. The increasing scale of English proficiency and earnings was recorded at every education level from less than high school through master's degree and beyond. (Source: Educational Testing Services, A Human Capital Concern: The Literary Proficiency of U.S. Immigrants, March 2004)
Yet America is weak, and about to be toppled.
Despite all of these fantastic statistics and the consistent trends of our economy and our tradition and culture, we America, are doomed to fail. Our economy and our culture can not withstand the onslaught of millions of un-educated non-English speaking Christians from the south. Our foundations will crumble and our culture and economy will fail.
If America should suddenly be home to an additional $100,000,000 Mexican and Central American immigrants (note: Mexico's entire population is 103,000,000), Hispanics would go from being 9% of the U.S. Population to 31% of the U.S. Population. The result would mean that our companies would no longer make money, people would stop going to church, and our schools would cease to teach English.
I am saddened that our great country which has been tested so often by some truly tough challenges, and to date, always become stronger for the challenge, has managed to get to this weak point.
America, you were a shining city on a hill, you were such a grand experiment. I guess now we know it doesn't work. We are too weak to overcome the challenges that immigration brings.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:01am on Apr. 28, 2006 Too Early to Grade Boehner?
By johngalt
Is it too soon to grade the new House Majority Leader?
Three months into his job, Rep. Boehner has zero successes. We are into the month of May and we still are without a House passed Budget Resolution. The tax and pension bills that have been in conference since the first session of Congress are still not ready for prime-time. The supplemental appropriations bill is bloated and moving slow. The Chairman of the Approps (and Ways and Means, and Judiciary, and Armed Services) Committee seems to have no fear of the leadership. Earmark reform has been weakened to an almost non-existent degree and coupled with a lobbying reform bill that is senseless. But... I suppose we have passed a 527 reform bill that violates the freedom of speech that most republicans used to stand for.
A Leader must be exactly that, a leader, and it seems to this observer that Boehner is more of a manager of chairmen vs. a leader of men.
Perhaps Boehnerland has mis-judged the needs of the House. Maybe the House really wasn't tired of being told what to do from on high. Maybe, the House needs to be told what to do, when to stand, when to sit, and when to vote?
I don't know whether the failure is in leadership, or the failure is with the chairman, or the failure is with the rank-and-file, who when left to their own devices don't really vote like republicans.
Perhaps it is too early to grade Boehner, but it is time to start thinking about it.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:08pm on Apr. 27, 2006 Today is Anniversary of Toomey Vs. Specter
By johngalt
Today, April 27, 2006, marks the two year anniversary of the Pat Toomey V. Specter primary race. For those true-believers that were a part of it, it was a heck of a ride, and what certainly looks like the beginning of the conservative base's willingness to move away from the party leadership. Or perhaps more accurately the first true signal that our President, the RNC, and Rick Santorum were all moving to the left as the base stood still.
I am sure that over these last two years there are many people; both in Pennsylvania and across the country that wish they would have done something differently. Especially after the last few budget cycles, the immigration debate, the death of asbestos reform, and the current proposal to impose a windfall tax on American enterprise.
If more people would have just trusted their own gut feeling rather than listened to Charlie Cook or Stu Rothenberg perhaps Toomey wouldn't have been outspent by $10 million in a primary.
But more importantly, I am sure that more than one good republican wishes he would have ignored the wishes of President Bush and Senator Santorum and voted with his head and heart for Patrick J. Toomey.
As a reminder Toomey ran against the entire establishment from the President and the RNC all the way down to the NRA (who buckled to party pressure and endorsed Specter despite the fact that the Senator had actually voted for the Feinstein Assault Weapon ban and the Clinton Crime Bill).
Despite those obstacles, Toomey only lost by a little over 1% of the vote, and until midnight of election night most people including Arlen Specter thought Toomey was going to win.
In today's climate I have no doubt that Toomey would easily best Specter, and wouldn't we all be happier with that outcome?
I salute Pat Toomey and his team of warriors who fought the good fight on this day two years ago, and wish like many others, that they had won.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:10pm on Jan. 17, 2006 New House Leadership must Include New Staff
By johngalt
The current House leadership race offers the U.S. House of Representatives a unique opportunity to bring in new ideas, new goals, and fresh approaches to old problems. However, none of that can happen without first changing who is in leadership and second hiring new staff.
Since the Republicans took control of the House in 1994 there has been an ever smaller and more incestuous group of leadership staff that have been guiding the conferences ship. Many of the top staff to the leadership have worked for other members of leadership other than their bosses, and many others have never worked for any-member outside of a leader. Once they become part of the fraternity that is the leadership they have amazing job security and move freely from leadership to leadership office, or "cash-out" and head to K-street where they can get paid well for knowing the other members of their fraternity. This form of nepotism stifles ideas, makes anything greater than the most incremental of changes impossible, and is a major reason why we are having new leadership elections in the first place.
As an example of this incestuous behavior, Acting Majority Leader Blunt's own Chief of Staff has worked as policy director for then Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner and policy director to then-Majority Leader Dick Armey. Rep Blunt's Deputy Chief of Staff Mildred Webber has worked for J.C. Watts, Tom Delay and now Blunt.
Now these are just examples and there are many more cases than just these two. The problem isn't that they are bad staffers; in fact I am sure they are brilliant and quite good at their jobs. The problem is the exact same problem that the White House has, there is a lack of new ideas, a lack of energy, a lack of fight, and people over time become committed to an idea and often become increasingly stubborn in fighting for an old idea and closed minded to alternative solutions.
A second problem that has occurred within the House Republican Leadership is of the same vein; too many staffers have never worked in any office other than a leadership office. (Or in Rep. Blunt's case, he has never known anything other than being in leadership). These staffers (and Blunt?) don't know the pressures that rank-and-file members get from their constituents. They don't meet with constituents and local officials. As part of leadership they only meet with each other, some top committee staff, and some of K Street's finest. They have never answered a letter or taken a phone call from an irate constituent. Leadership staff are so focused on macro-policy and the team as a whole that they don't understand when an individual member or group of members disagrees with leadership. Leaders and their staff rely too heavily on "do it for the team" and not enough on helping members of the team do it for themselves.
Therefore, for change to actually occur, the House must do what many folks have been calling on the White House to do... replace the advisors and bring in some ideas and new energy. Of the options that the House has, it would certainly seem that Rep. Shadegg offers the best opportunity for doing just that. Now all we need is 116 members to trust that change is good.