SPEAKER BOEHNER IS MAKING AN ASS OF HIMSELF

John Boehner just made an ass of himself.  He did it this way: "The president "is going all over the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with Senate leaders," while, Boehner argued, "We have moved a bill in the House twice." "We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something," he added. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571323/on-sequester-boehner-tells-senate-to-get-off-their-ass/.

Why, you ask did Boehner make an ass of himself?  Because this is February, 2013 which means we are in the second month of the 113th Congress.  During the 113th Congress has been in session 21 days, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/h1131.html; today will make the 22nd day.  That's right, the 113th Congress convened on January 3rd, now the rest of working America had to suit up and show up for 39 of those 55days.   Assuming they got the two day weekends off. 

 

Boehner would mislead you into believing that the House of Representatives has acted twice in those 39 days.  They haven't.  The bills to which Mr. Boehner referred are the same bills the House GOP spin machine fed Lynn Jenkins to spew out in her email to me.  You recall, H.R. 6365 (a bill by former Representative Allen B. West exempting the military from any budget cuts and H.R. 5652 (that infamous Ryan budget).

So politicians lie, we should expect politicians to lie, and how does this make the Speaker of the House of Representatives an ass, you ask?  Just as Representative West no longer having a vote in the 133th session, so also are all of the bills passed by one chamber but not passed by the other null and void. All bills not passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President expire.  The authority for those bills to continue through the legislative process lapsed with the termination of the session of Congress.

Well, isn't it time for the Senate to get off its ass anyway?  Maybe, but were the Senators to cease endless gridlock and pass a bill pertaining to revenue it would be a meaningless gesture.  What?  It is that little known document, the great secret that Boehner hasn't yet been able to synthesize into his Speakership.  It is called the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution says: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."  It is the job of the House of Representative, of Speaker Boehner, of House Republicans to open up the legislative process and get the ball going on a compromise to avoid sequestration, which is now appropriately called Boehnerquestration. 

 

If John Boehner doesn't know the basics of Article 1 of the Constitution then he is not qualified to be the Speaker of the House.  I suspect he does, he is just making an ass of himself.

Lynn Jenkins Reminds us SHE'S FOR THE 1%

Lynn Jenkins sent me an email describing her position on avoiding the sequester.  In her missive Representative Jenkins noted that she supported H.R. 5652 (112th Congress) as a better solution to avoiding the Boehnerquester.  Now most people will take that at face value, being accustomed to being spoon fed information.  I, however, am not one to accept Jenkins's propaganda machine's output as Gospel.

H.R. 5652 (112th Congress) is terrible legislation that tries to bury the progress made during President Obama's first term.  There is a lot wrong with the bill, and you may see more than one blog on this bill.  It is that bad!

In this piece of work Jenkins turns to one of her favorite topics, protecting Golden Parachutes for the executives that, in the true vulture capitalist tradition, wreck their businesses while skating off with massive ill gotten gains in the form of bonuses and other compensation.

The Dodd-Frank Act §210 puts it this way: "The FDIC may avoid or invalidate certain prior transfers, agreements, leases, or compensation to executives that hinder the ability of the FDIC to carry out its duties."  Those duties are winding down the failed business while providing that claimants get at least as much as they would have received under a bankruptcy liquidation."  In bankruptcy parlance that means the FDIC can reach back and bring those monies back into the estate to be liquidated.

What, you ask is Jenkins's voting record on Golden Parachutes?  Let's review.

From this Blog on June 5, 2010:  Lynn Jenkins never saw a Golden Parachute she didn't like. H.R. 1664, and the title says it all: "To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards." This is another attempt to reign in Wall Street Fat Cats giving themselves big paychecks and bonuses on the taxpayers dime. Lynn Jenkins voted against us and for the Wall Street Fat Cats on roll call 247.

Then on June 10, 2010: H.R. 3269 the CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION COMPENSATION ACT OF 2009 gives stockholders rights some teeth when it comes to executive compensation and golden parachutes. This bill gives the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to make rules regarding these compensation packages. Lynn Jenkins loves those golden parachutes. Again she votes to keep exorbitant executive pay packages and those golden parachutes they way they are. In roll call 686 Lynn Jenkins voted against H.R. 3269.

On September 28, 2010 I wrote:  Lynn Jenkins voted several times to do nothing about those Golden Parachutes being paid out of taxpayer money. She voted against letting shareholders have a mandatory binding vote on exorbitant executive pay practices, H.R. 3269.  She voted against a bill allowing the Treasury Secretary  prohibit financial institutions from paying excessive executive pay from taxpayer money, H.R. 384 and H.R. 1664. She consistently voted against restraints on executive pay for Big Bankers while the Big Banks are being Bailed Out! H.R. 3269 contained one weak provision permitting non-binding shareholder votes on Golden Parachutes, which Lynn Jenkins voted against.

It is clear that at every opportunity to support Wall Street, Big Banks, and the Silk Stocking Financial Sector Lynn Jenkins is with them and against us.  Why she would remind us of her callous disregard for the people during this debate over the sequester is baffling.  She does not represent us, she represents the 1% and you waste your vote on them when you vote for her.