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.

H. Res. 292 - The House Wants U. S. Forces Out of Libya - OR IS THIS A PRETEXT FOR IMPEACHMENT?

House Resolution 294 is the Rule that brought  H. Res. 292 to the floor of the House.  H. Res. 292, introduced by Speaker John Boehner [R-OH], will prohibit President Obama from deploying ground troops in Libya except to rescue a member of the American military.

There was an hour of debate.  Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen[R-FL], the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, controlled time for those in favor of H. Res. 292.    Representative Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] was in charge of  debate for those members opposed to the resolution.

This is kind of funny.  Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was a staunch advocate of the use of military force against Libyan dictator Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi and his regime until President Obama took the action she urged. 

On February 22nd Ros-Lehtinen said "[t]he United States and all responsible nations should show in both word and deed that we condemn the Libyan regime’s actions and that we will not tolerate such blatant disregard for human life and basic freedoms. " 

Then on February 26th she added "The executive order freezing the assets of Libyan regime officials and blocking defense-related exports to Libya is a positive first step, but stronger penalties must be imposed in order to hold the regime accountable for its heinous crimes, and to prevent further violence against the Libyan people." 

Ros-Lehtinen went on to ask for that which Obama has given. "Additional U.S. and international measures should include the establishment and enforcement of a no-fly zone, a comprehensive arms embargo, a travel ban on regime officials, immediate suspension of all contracts and assistance which benefit the regime, and the imposition of restrictions on foreign investment in Libya, including in Libya’s oil sector," she said.

Now she controls debate on a resolution that is a complete about-face from her previously stated position.

The President fares no better with Kucinich.  The Rule, H, Res, 294 named Kucinich, or his designee, as the member in charge of debate. Remember, it was Kucinich who offered up H. Con. Res. 51 claiming that Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act. Kucinich is opposed to any involvement between our military and Libya.  Kucinich is also opposed to Boehner's H. Res. 292.  The Hill reported June 3rd that Kucinich does not see H.Res.292 as a substitute for H. Con. Res. 51.  The article,  by Mike Lillis, quotes Kucinich as saying "There are clear differences, and it is imperative that members clearly understand them because a consequence of voting for one (H. Res. 292) and not the other (H. Con. Res. 51) is an endorsement of the illegal and unconstitutional action that has been taken by the White House." Nonetheless Kucinich voted for Boehner's resolution.

Howard Berman [D-CA] rose in opposition to H. Res. 292.  He said:

There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces.

If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an authorization of the limited use of force.

But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of the intervention.

The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not play around with reporting requirements.

The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the ground in Libya.

But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not the way to legislate.

Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and, ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol.

We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help. Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power?

Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya.

I object to the characterization that U.S. national security interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very much correspond with U.S. national interests.

Lillis reports support for Obama from Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  "Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended the White House on Thursday, arguing that both the Boehner and Kucinich proposals “do not advance our efforts in the region and send the wrong message to our NATO partners."   

H. Res. 292 came to a vote on June 3rd.  The resolution passed on Roll Call 411 by a vote of 268 to 145.

The White House said that "... we feel confident that, A, the President is executing a policy decision that he made in exactly the manner that he said he would; that our consultations have been consistent, and that we’re acting consistently with the War Powers resolution; and finally that we would welcome and support a resolution similar to or exactly like the Kerry-McCain resolution in the Senate."

The Kerry-McCain resolution is S. Res. 194 the pertinent part of that resolution follows.

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) supports the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government based on democratic and human rights;

(2) commends the service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners who are engaged in military operations to protect the people of Libya;

(3) supports the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council;

(4) agrees that the goal of United States policy in Libya, as stated by the President, is to achieve the departure from power of Muammar Qaddafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity, and justice for the people of Libya;

(5) affirms that the funds of the Qaddafi regime that have been frozen by the United States should be returned to the Libyan people for their benefit, including humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and calls for exploring with the Transitional National Council the possibility of using some of such funds to reimburse NATO member countries for expenses incurred in Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector; and

(6) calls on the President--

(A) to submit to Congress a description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Qaddafi's rule, and a detailed plan to achieve them; and

(B) to consult regularly with Congress regarding United States efforts in Libya.

With the House claiming a violation of the War Powers Act and the President insisting that he is in compliance expect D.C. tensions to keep rising.  My best guess is that the Republicans suddenly changing policy positions is a pretext for impeachment.

 

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 53 - SHE VOTED AGAINST THE FIRST RESPONDERS TO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, H.R. 847 is all about providing relief to American heroes. These particular heroes rushed into the World Trade Center after the attack on America, September 11, 2011. The air they breathed was not safe. These folk are sick, suffering, and dying because they did what first responders from any part of America would do. They rushed into harm's way for the sake of others.

Oklahoma's Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who is so ashamed of being a United States Senator that he asks to be called Doctor and not Senator, finally came around to striking a deal on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, H.R. 847. Yesterday morning New York's two Democratic Senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand got down to brass tacks with the Oklahoma Republican. after Oklahoma First Responders got down to brass tacks with him first. Oklahoma's finest, police and firefighters, stood proud with the American heroes who rushed into the WTC after the most dastardly attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor.

Senator Coburn complained about the price tag. Really Doc? As I recall you were part of the filibustering minority in the United States Senate that held the people's business up until you could get an extension of the Bush Era Tax Cuts for the most wealthy American taxpayers. And Doc, that FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE cost $700 billion, which was unpaid for, and added to the deficit, for folks who neither create jobs nor rush into harm's way when the Republic is attacked. Oh Doc, you got it so wrong.

After Senator Coburn used a chain saw to slash $2 billion from H.R. 847 the United States Senate passed the bill by Unanimous Consent.

This bill was first brought up, on a motion to Suspend the Rules, in the House of Representatives on July 29, 2010. Since passage on a suspension of the rules requires a ⅔ majority vote the bill failed. The margin was 255 in favor to 159 opposed with 18 Members not voting.

H.R. 847 returned in regular order, being reported out of the Rules Committee, on September 29, 2010. This time it required only a simple majority to pass. The first margin of victory in the House on H.R. 857 was 268 to 160.

Yesterday. in the waning hours of the 111th Congress, on the last Roll Call vote of that Congress, the pared down version of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, H.R. 847 passed the House by a margin of 206 in favor to 60 against with 168 Members not voting. While only requiring a simple majority by the House, H.R. 847 exceeded the ⅔ majority vote on final passage.

Lynn Jenkins, who also bellyaches for the FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE and complains about unemployment benefits not being paid for, has managed to vote against First Responders at every opportunity. On three votes in the House to do what the Republicans in the United States Senate finally did, pass the bill by Unanimous Consent, and Jenkins said no three times. There is simply no excuse for Lynn Jenkins' voting record in general or her votes on H.R. 847 in particular.

And now a word about the 160 Members who did not vote. Most, if not all, of these Members left Washington to return home for the holidays before the work was done. Shame on them. They were the largest bi-partisan block the House has seen in a long long time. Frankly I expected more from Dennis Moore. Ike Skelton, the best damn Congressman I ever had, stood tall and kept voting to the last. Skelton finished like a pro! Sam Graves and Jerry Moran, like Moore, wimped out early.

The most amazing wimp out of all came from the Speaker of the House - designate, John Boehner of Ohio. Boehner was missing in action for the only Roll Call vote on December 22nd. That, Mr. Boehner, is not leadership.

The Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program is Running In the Red - The GE/ROLLS ROYCE Ad Campaign Implicates Incoming Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon - Are Republicans Restoring Bad Ethics to the House?

In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-84, provision is made for the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program. Specifically Title II § 217 authorizes [s]eparate procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation line items and program elements for the F-35B and F-35C joint strike fighter aircraft.

The Note to 10 U.S.C. 221 speaks to the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program. It says; "In the budget materials submitted to the President by the Secretary of Defense in connection with the submission to Congress, pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, of the budget for fiscal year 2011, and each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary shall ensure that within the Navy research, development, test, and evaluation account and the Navy aircraft procurement account, a separate, dedicated line item and program element is assigned to each of the F-35B aircraft and the F-35C aircraft, to the extent that such accounts include funding for each such aircraft.

That takes us to the line item in the budget for the Joint Fighter Alternative Engine Program. Lines 006 and 007 for the program show that, in thousands of dollars, the FY 2010 Request for line 006, the Joint Strike Fighter Program was $3,997,048 times $1000 for a final figure of $3,997,048,000. That's just a shade under $4 billion. The next figure is the same, it is the amount agreed upon in the Conference Agreement, nearly $4 Billion.

006 Joint Strike Fighter ...........................................$3,997,048.... $3,997,048

007 Advance Procurement .........................................$481,000.......$481,000

Line 007 shows the Advance Procurement in thousands of dollars for the 2010 Calendar Year (CY). So what looks, at first glance, to be a half a million dollars is actually $4.8 million for 2010.

Skip to line item 127 and try and follow the government's accounting. The FY2010 request on line 127, in thousands of dollars, is $1,741,296 or after the multiplier $1,741,296,000. That's $1.7 billion. What the Conference Agreed on was $1,956,296 times $1,000 or $1,956,296,000 or nearly $2 billion. In the line item below the number 0604800N refers to the program element within the budget. Bracketed numbers such as the [$215,000] usually indicate negative numbers. In this case the $215,000 times $1,000 equals $215,000,000 or $215 million by which Congress exceeded the President's request.

127 0604200N Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)....................$1,741,296...$1,956,296
       F136 Development .............................................$[215,000]...$[215,000]

Go back to line 84 and you'll see how this escalates.

084 0604800F Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).....................$1,858,055...$2,073,055

       F136 Development .............................................$[215,000]...$[215,000]

The FY 2010 request for program element 0604800F was $1,858,055 timed $1,000 or $1,858,055,000 that's $1.8 billion. What the Conference Agreed to was $2,073,055 times $1,000 or $2,073,055,000 which is more than $2 billion. The bracketed amount represents the $215,000,000 more than the President requested.

But do these figures add up? The overall authorization was for $3,997,048,000. $3,997,048,000 minus the funds for Program Element 0604800N or $1,956,296,000 equals $2,040,752,000. There's $2,040,752,000 left in the budget for the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Yet the amount budgeted on line 084 is $2,073,055,000. $2,040,752,000 minus $2,073,055,000 equals -$32,303,000.

This program is starting off $32 million dollars in the hole! If Congress had kept with the President's request then $430 million would not have been available. The question is whether Congress would have overrun the budget by the additional $400 million, as they have, or would they have pared spending to conform to the budget?

It is not an idle question. Before the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 became Public Law 111-84 it was first introduced into the House as H.R. 5136. Maine's Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree introduced House Amendment 661 to H.R. 5136. That Amendment sought to eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter's Alternative Engine Program. This is what she had to say about her Amendment on the floor of the House:

"Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any further funding for the alternate F-35 engine.

In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money.

I could not put it any better than the Secretary of Defense put it himself: Given the many pressing needs facing our military and the fiscal challenges facing our country, we cannot afford a ``business as usual'' approach to the defense budget. Tough choices must be made by both the Department and Congress to ensure that current and future military capabilities can be sustained over time. This means programs and initiatives of marginal or no benefit, like the F136 engine, are unaffordable luxuries."

House Amendment 661 to H.R. 5136 failed by a vote of 193 in favor of the Amendment to 231 opposed, with 3 Members not voting. That was Roll Call 316 on May 27, 2010. There were no party line divisions on this vote. The inertial weight of the lobbying power of the Military Industrial Complex held the majority of Members and prevailed. The next Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services voted against the Pingree Amendment.

This debate is not over. The partnership between General Electric and Rolls Royce is advertising their product for the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program. They claim they can save the American Taxpayers $20 billion and reduce the national deficit. We are already over budget and going backwards on a program once decided and awarded. If you're going to save the taxpayers $20 billion don't you have to get back to zero first?

You can read the GE/Rolls Royce AD-STRAVAGANZA at http://www.f136.com/. You will want to pay attention to the Tweets directed to incoming Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, [R - CA] in the advertising. McKeon is firmly planted in the camp advocating the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program.  He's also known for speaking out of the other side of his mouth pandering to the notion of limited government with less spending.  Let's see if we give billionaires a FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE and waste money on the Joint Strike Fighter Alternative Engine Program, which the Pentagon didn't want, then from where will the less spending of the limited government come?  Watch out Social Security!

That seems at least to reflect an appearance of impropriety if not a downright disqualifier. Nancy Pelosi worked to drain the swamp, with costly results to Democrats with Seniority. John Boehner and his team look like they are about to fill the swamp again. It seems as though the Republicans don't realize that their former Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, is facing what amounts to a life sentence for his shenanigans.

DeLay faces a sentence of five years to 99 years in prison for a Texas money- laundering conviction and a two year to 20 years sentence for a conspiracy count as well, plus fines. He is free on bond until his sentencing in a Texas state court on Dec 20. DeLay plans an appeal. DeLay turns 64 next April. 

TRACKING THE MONEY THROUGH JOHN BOEHNER'S PAY FOR PLAY "BOEHNER FOR SPEAKER COMMITTEE" - FINDING THE FAT CATS HOLDING UP THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT

John Boehner's pay for play scheme called "Boehner for Speaker Committee" has largely flown under the radar as Campaign 2010 was deluged in a flood of dark money. Boehner advertised access to his office in return for contributions to this committee. The more you give grants you increased access. That fits the classic definition of pay for play.

Tracking down Boehner's infamous group isn't as easy as going to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org and typing the fundraising group into a search bar. The Federal Elections Commission site was, predictably, less useful. But if you've got a little bloodhound in you and keep searching it can be found.

At OpenSecrets.org I isolated Political Party Committees, then just those of the Republican variety before Boehner for Speaker Committee was listed. When that link was clicked it took me to another page concisely telling me this was an Affiliated Committee with a dollar total of $3,419,111. The detail was revealed by clicking the hyper-link.

The Boehner for Speaker Committee raised $3,419,111and spent $2,833,129. It began with no cash on hand and ended up with $585,981cash on hand. This group shows no debt.

In a glaring error this report shows that the Boehner for Speaker Committee gave no money to candidates for federal office.

In keeping with Campaign 2010's tawdry image of non-disclosed donors this committee did not disclose who gave them the $3.4 million in exchange for varying levels of access to the next Speaker of the House. Those names can be found by reading the quarterly reports.

The summary report is found online at: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/affiliatesdetail.php?pacid=C00478354&cycle=2010.

A link at the bottom takes you to the FEC site showing the original documents. The April 2010 quarterly statement showed the Boehner for Speaker Committee at a standstill having raised no money.

The July quarterly report showed the committee had moved from Ohio to a basement unit on Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. Money started flowing as well. The report shows that $570,300.00 was raised and $431899.99 was spent. $138400.01 remained as cash on hand.

The donors represent a who's who list of fat cats for whom Boehner and the Republicans are fighting to extend the FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE. Here are some of the FAT CATS and what they did to influence politics in Campaign 2010.

James Akers of Middletown, Ohio who gave $1,000 to the Boehner for Speaker Committee. In Campaign 2010 he also gave $9,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $5,000 to the Republican Party of Ohio' $2,400 to Ronald E Hood, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress from Ohio's 18 District; $4,800 to Rob Portman, the former Republican Representative to Congress and current Senator-elect from Ohio; $4,500 to John Boehner; and $2,400 to the once and future Republican Representative from Ohio's 1st, Steve Chabot. Mr. Akers of Middletown, Ohio coughed up $29,900 to Republicans for Campaign 2010, he qualifies as a FAT CAT .

Lindsey Matthews Blaise, a homemaker from The Villages, Florida. OpenSecrets.org reports that Blaise gave $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $5,000 to the Freedom Project, a John Boehner Leadership PAC. Apparently the data didn't get sorted well enough to show this person also gave $37,800 to the Boehner for Speaker Committee. Blaise qualifies as a FAT CAT for giving Republicans $73,200 for Campaign 2010.

Wayne Boich, Jr., a commodity broker, gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $15,000. Boich is a big giver to Republicans. He gave $5,000 to the Building Our Opportunities Together (Republican) PAC; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; $4,800 to Rob Portman; $2,400 to Montana Republican Representative Denny Rehberg; $12,600 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; $5,000 to the Ohio Coal Association (a PAC which gave 24% to Democrats and 74% to Republicans in Campaign 2010); $5,000 to Ohio's Future PAC, a Republican PAC; $4,800 to John Boehner; $4,800 to Republican Representative-elect Bob Gibbs of Ohio's 18th District; $4,800 to Republican Representative-elect Steve Stivers of Ohio's 15th Congressional District. Boich also gave $2,400 to Rob Portman's Democratic opponent Lee Irwin Fisher and $10,000 to Democratic Representative Tim Ryan's Penguin Pac. Boich knows how to hedge his bets. Boich's $81,600 in political contributions makes him a FAT CAT.

Harper Boone, also of The Villages, Florida gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. Boone's other donations were for $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project; $2,400 to Boehner; $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; $4,800 to Rob Portman; $4,800 to former Republican Florida Governor turned Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate Charlie Crist; $2,400 to Republican Representative-elect Richard B. Nugent from Florida's 4th District; and $5,000 to Mitt Romney's Free and Strong PAC. Boone boosted Republican coffers by $92,600 which means he's a FAT CAT.

David Brennan of Naples, Florida gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $12,400. Brennan also gave $10,000 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; another $3,900 to Boehner; $2,400 to Bob Gibbs; $4,800 to Rob Portman; $2,000 to incumbent Republican Representative Steven C LaTourette from Ohio's 14th District; $2,400 to incumbent Republican Representative Jean Schmidt from Ohio's 2nd District; $2,400to former Republican Representative Tom Campbell for his failed bid in the U.S. Senate race; $2,400 to James B. Renacci, the Republican Representative from Ohio's 16th District; $10,000 to the Republican Party of Ohio; and $2,400 to Florida's Republican/Tea Party Senator-elect Marco Rubio. Brennan coughed up $55,100 to prove he's a FAT CAT.

Nicholas Calio may be a fat cat's fat cat. He showed up multiple times on the OpenSecrets.org site. He's listed under the revolving door for his ties as a lobbyist for Citigroup Management Group, a lobbyist for the OB-C Group, and as having worked in the White House in Legislative and Congressional Affairs. He's also listed as a bundler. Bundlers are "people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big 'bundle,'" according to OpenSecrets.org. Cailo gave Boehner for Speaker $10,000. He also gave $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; $2,400 to Boehner; $1,000 to Kentucky Secretary of State Republican Trey Grayson, who lost the primary to Tea Party icon Rand Paul; $1,000 to former Republican forced by the Tea Party to turn Independent Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski; 42 separate contributions of $208 totaling $8,736 to Citigroup, Inc (a PAC with which he has ties); $2,400 to Republican Senator Robert Bennett from Utah; $1,000 to Texas' Republican Senator John Cornyn; and $1,000 to South Dakota's Republican Senator John Thune. Cailo checks in at $32,536 making him a FAT CAT.

Tracy Matthews of The Villages Florida gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. Another person, with the same address, named M'Lissa Matthews sent the National Republican Congressional Committee $30,400. Other mysteriously similar names at this residence also made remittances to Republican interests. The Huffington Post shows that Tracy Matthews gave the National Republican Congressional Committee $30,400; M'Lissa M. Morse gave $2,400 Republican Representative-elect Rich Nugent from Florida's 5th District; M'Lissa Morse gave Boehner $2,400; and Tracy Matthews gave $2,400 to Boehner. The goings on at this Florida residence may be on the up and up but this sure smells fishy. The total contributions from the Tracy & M'Lissa Matthews & Morse combo totals $105,800 making this residence a FAT CAT home.

Wait, it gets better or worse depending on your perspective. M'Lissa Morse also gave $37,800 to the Boehner for Speaker Committee. That raises the residence total to $143,600. Now inquiring minds want to know if H. Gary Morse resides with Tracy Matthews and M'Lissa Morse since the address he gave appears to be for his company, The Villages of Lake Sumter. H. Gary Morse chipped in $37,800 to the Boehner for Speaker Committee. Did that household total just go to $181,400?

The Morse parade just keeps on giving. Next up is Mark Morse, giving the corporate address and giving the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. Then comes Renee Morse, using the same address, and sending the Boehner for Speaker Committee another $37,800. Jennifer Par further muddies up the waters by sending her $37,800 from the Village of Lake Sumter business address used by H. Gary Morse, Mark Morse, and Renee Morse. That's a lot of loot from one address.

R. J. Reynolds Executive Vice President and Attorney Tommy Payne gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $2,500. He also gave retiring Indiana Republican Representative Steve Buyer $2,000. Buyer is retiring because of his wife's poor health; $3,800 to North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr; $100 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; $2,400 to Boehner from the Tommy Payne II that is reporting as the NICONOVUM USA, INC./PRESIDENT - NIC; $4,813 bundled in 14 contributions, 11 at $346, 2 at $366 each and one for $335 to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, apparently for its PAC; and a hedge betting contribution to Democratic AmericPAC for $5,000. The tab on Tommy Payne runs to $25,613 qualifying him for FAT CAT status.

Philip Purcell, President of Continental Investors gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $25,000. He also gave $5,000 to the Republican Party of Illinois; $2,400 to Massachusetts' Republican Senator Scott Brown; $2,400 to Michael Halfacre, the Fair Haven, N.J. mayor who ran for Congress in a losing bid; $4,800 to new Republican Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois; $2,300 to Ethan Hastert in his losing primary bid to run for his father's former seat, Ethan is the son of the former Speaker; $7,000 to Republican Representative-elect Adam Kinzinger from Illinois' 11th Congressional District; $2,400 to Robert Dold, the Republican Representative-elect from Illinois' 10th Congressional District; $2,400 to Rob Portman; $2,400 to Randy Hultgren the Republican Representative-elect from Illinois' 11th Congressional District; and $22,600 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Philp Purcell paid out $78,700 assuring him of FAT CAT status.

Albert and Barbara Siemer of New Albany, Ohio each gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. Albert is the owner of DESCO Corporation a company that manufactures, among other things U.S. Navy Divers' Knives. Barbara is a community volunteer. On Albert's side of the ledger are gifts to the National Republican Congressional Committee for $30,400; Boehner's Freedom Project PAC for $5,000; $2,400 to Patrick Tiberi, the Republican Representative from Ohio's 12th Congressional District; and $10,000 to the Republican Party of Ohio. From Barbara's side, she's given $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; and $2,650 to Patrick Tiberi. The Siemer family gave Republican interests $161,450 making them FAT CATS.

John Snow, the former Secretary of the Treasury, gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. He also gave $10,000 to the Republican Party of Minnesota; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; $4,800 to former Vice President Dan Quayle's son Ben Quayle who is now the Republican Representative-elect from Arizona's 3rd Congressional District; $4,800 to Republican Roy Blunt who is moving from representing Missouri's 7th Congressional District to the U.S. Senate; $2,400 to Rob Portman; $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; and $30,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Secretary Snow gave $125,600 earning his FAT CAT merit badge.

Amber and Justin Wilson from The Villages, Florida each gave the Boehner for Speaker Committee $37,800. Amber is a homemaker and Justin is the Sales Manager for the Villages of Lake Sumter, they are avid Republican givers. On Amber's behalf 30,400 went to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; and $2,400 to Richard B. Nugent. Justin gave $30,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee; $5,000 to Boehner's Freedom Project PAC; another $2,400 to Boehner; and $2,400 to Richard. B. Nugent. The Wilson's gave $153,600 marking them as FAT CATS.

These FAT CATS are holding up the Middle Class Tax Cuts insisting on the FAT CAT TAX BOONDOGGLE. Shame on them.

JOHN BOEHNER'S "CASH-FOR-SPEAKER" PAY FOR PLAY SCHEME

House Minority Leader John Boehner

John Boehner covets the office of Speaker of the House. No other explanation will suffice as he throws dignity overboard and begins the big hustle being touted as the Cash-for-Speaker Program. News of this dubious promotion was broken by Politico's Jonathan Martin, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40380.html.

The shameless selling of access Congressional power makes Harlem's Democratic Representatives shortcomings look inconsequential. And Charlie Rangel's neck deep in hot water.

Wikipedia's reference to "pay to play" says: In politics, pay to play refers to a system, akin to payola in the music industry, by which one pays (or must pay) money to become a player,.

Boehner's promise to Fat Cats is that they will have special access to him, as Speaker of the House, when they give all they can legally give to Boehner and other Republican interests. Whether you are the person giving the cash or the rainmaker delivering the Fat Cats to Boehner and the GOP you get:

Typically, the payer (an individual, business, or organization) makes campaign contributions to public officials, officials, or parties themselves, and receives political or pecuniary benefit such as no-bid government contracts, influence over legislation, political appointments or nominations, special access or other favors. The contributions, less frequently, may be to nonprofit or institutional entities, or may take the form of some benefit to a third party, such as a family member of a governmental official.


The phrase, almost always used in criticism, also refers to the increasing cost of elections and the "price of admission" to even run and the concern "that one candidate can far outspend his opponents, essentially buying the election."


While the direct exchange of campaign contributions for contracts is the most visible form of Pay to Play, the greater concern is the central role of money in politics, and its skewing both the composition and the policies of government. Thus, those who can pay the price of admission, such as to a $1000/plate dinner or $25,000 "breakout session," gain access to power and/or its spoils, to the exclusion of those who cannot or will not pay: "giving certain people advantages that other[s] don't have because they donated to your campaign." Good-government advocates consider this an outrage because "political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations." Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington called the "Pay-to-Play Congress" one of the top 10 scandals of 2008


Incumbent candidates and their political organizations are typically the greatest beneficiaries of Pay-to-Play. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been criticized for the practice. Many seeking to ban or restrict the practice characterize pay-to-play as legalized corruption.


The opposite of a pay-to-play system is one that is "fair and open"; the New Jersey Pay to Play Act specifically sets out bid processes that are or are not considered fair and open, depending upon who has contributed what to whom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_Play

• Conference Calls with Guest Speakers*
• Password protected Website access for political updates and insider briefings*
• A direct line to a personal contact at the "Boehner for Speaker" campaign*
• Access to national meetings with elected officials and policy experts*
• Access to regional and small group events with Republican VIPs**
• Calls from senior level staffers to personally update you and provide information on Republican activities***
• VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions, and interactive panel discussions***
• Meetings with Leader Boehner, and much more***

* Denotes Benefits for $15,000 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $50,000+
** Denotes Benefits for $25,000 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $75,000+
*** Denotes Benefits for $37,800 Contributors or Those Who Help Raise $100,000+

See the document for yourself at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100728_boehner_tabs.html.

All of these nice GOP/Tea Party candidates are running around Kansas and the other 49 States telling us how they plan to get rid of the Democratic Party's debt-ridden and job-killing agenda.

They brazenly omit that it is they, the Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus into record budget deficits, waged two wars off the books, eliminated critical regulatory safeguards leading to the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, and wasted two years saying no to America's Economic Recovery. The Democrats inherited debt and joblessness from these Republicans and they think the American voters will just forget who caused our national trauma?  Rant on Republicans Rant on!

A pig in a poke

If you think Boehner, this Cash-for-Speaker Raw Deal, and his Republican cohorts are going to establish a limited government approach by selling the richest of the rich access to power, then go look in the mirror. Does the reflection remind you of someone who just bought pig in a poke? It should.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 34 - SHE & THE GOP/TEA PARTY TRY TO BLOCK MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS

Yesterday House Republicans, including Lynn Jenkins, voted en masse not to consider H.R. 1559. Roll call 476 provided for consideration of the appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The vote was 243 to 178. Not one Republican voted to bring the bill to the floor to fund military constructions and the Department of Veterans Affairs, NOT ONE!

The bill passed, the bill passed overwhelmingly. Republicans are obstructionists but they are not stupid. Voting no on H.R. 1559 is political suicide. Voting no on roll call 476 was consistent with the arrogance of not governing. Saying no is not governing.

The Associated Press reports this morning that the measure advanced on a vote of 411 to 6. That information is not available on Thomas, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBPaHA8wyvhZsKWPW8Uxp30QpfqgD9H8DNVG0. The House must have been working late last night.

Minority Leader John Boehner offered the only amendment to the bill. He wanted to gut funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's your GOP/Tea Party supporting the troops. NOT! Actually, Boehner does not like the V.A's, lobbying office. How dare them folks who served come back and want to be heard by the Congress. Don't they know they're competing with FAT CATS like the Big Banks, the Insurance Lobby, and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Yeah Boehner, Ms. Jenkins' leader, doesn't have time to hear from the troops. Of course he has led the Party of No into a conundrum. Their demagoguery on spending has consequences. They, who wasted a budget surplus while running up record budget deficits, they who waged two wars off the books, they who removed critical regulations from the financial sector resulting in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and they who have misspent the past two years obstructing the Economic Recovery, it is they who have suddenly found Jesus and can't borrow a dime more to keep this nation afloat.

I think the GOP/Tea Party won't be able to sell this manure come November. In the meantime expect them to rant on.