DARRELL ISSA WANTS TO DISMANTLE THE "EFFLUENT RULE" - MORE SEWAGE FOR EVERYONE COURTESY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

Politico is reporting that the incoming Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republican Representative Darrell Issa has begun pandering to big business as he looks for things to investigate. See, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4EF9419A-BEB3-7585-05E2D9D88A6E95A1.

One of Issa's issues centers around the "Effluent Rule" which Issa says will cost America "$810.8 million annually, resulting in the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs."

That sounds terrible until you think it through. Are these construction firms really saying that they'd rather close their doors than not let sewage run into the public waterways? Darrell Issa is providing the nation of a perfect example of that which trickles down, and it isn't wealth or prosperity.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Civil Enforcement Division has published an online example of a construction site that did not comply with EPA guidelines. The case is called Richmond American Homes and can be found online at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/richmondamericanhomes-infosht.html. Richmond American Homes is owned by M.D.C. Holdings, Inc., which entered into a settlement with the United States, and the States of Maryland, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Here is a list of some of the typical problems found on construction sites owned and operated by M.D.C. according to the EPA.

The types and severity of alleged violations vary for each site but generally include: discharge of polluted storm water to storm sewers or waterways without obtaining an NPDES permit; failure to develop an adequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for minimizing the amount of sediment and other pollutants in storm water runoff from the sites; failure to install or implement appropriate storm water controls or best management practices (BMPs) required by the SWPPP (for example: silt fences were not installed in all required areas; BMPs to prevent sediment from entering storm drains were not installed; no BMPs were installed at construction entrances to prevent offsite trackout of dirt; concrete washout basins were not installed to prevent concrete from flowing into storm drains; portable toilets were located directly on top of storm drain inlets without BMPs to prevent spills from entering the storm drain); incorrect installation of BMPs (for example: silt fences were not properly trenched in; sediment ponds were not completed prior to commencing site grading); failure to keep BMPs in effective operating condition (for example: silt fences and storm drain inlet protections were full of sediment and no longer effective; silt fences had fallen down or had holes; construction entrances needed additional rock); failure to adequately or routinely inspect BMPs to ensure proper operation and maintenance.

M.D.C. paid a fine of $795,000. Apparently Darrell Issa has no problem with port-a-potties being parked over storm drain inlets. After the construction firms let concrete and or mud flow into those drains they aren't of much use anyway. And it isn't the job of the construction industry to be good corporate citizens, to protect the environment, or to build in a responsible manner. Darrell Issa will have them build down and dirty, throw it up quick and cheap, make the profit and move on.

The choice is being made clear by the Republicans of the 112th Congress. They are letting us know in the clearest terms that they are the party of the big business interests. Rather than expect construction firms to do their jobs correctly, Issa wants to let business run wild and ignore the rules protecting the water flowing into our rivers and lakes. That's the water we eventually use to drink, cook, and bathe.

I can just see it now, as Darrell Issa takes credit for all the new jobs our nation's underfunded municipal waterworks will have to create to clean this effluent out of our water and rebuild our concrete and mud clogged infrastructure.

JERRY MORAN, LYNN JENKINS, & DAN BURTON HAVE GOT THE PREEMPTION DOCTRINE WRONG - USA v. ARIZONA, THE SB 1070 CASE

Kansas' Republican Senator-elect Jerry Moran, Second District Representative Lynn Jenkins, and Indiana's Fifth District Republican Dan Burton weighed in to the Arizona SB 1070 with an amicus curiae brief. They joined the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF), Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement (CCFILE) [ § 501 (c) (3) organizations], and the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) [ a § 501 (c) (5) organization.].

Their opening volley is that the federal government's failure to establish a "pervasive" scheme as to employing illegal immigrants means that preemption cannot apply. It is one of the weaker arguments I have read in the many briefs competing for the attention of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Take another case which employs the "pervasive" standard, Gustafson v. City of Lake Angelus, 76 F.3d 778, which was decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal in 1996. This is an aviation noise case from Michigan. Explaining when a statute may be preemptive, the Sixth Circuit said:

"A statute may be construed as preemptive under three circumstances.... First, Congress, in enacting a federal statute, may express a clear intent to preempt state law. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Common, 461 US. 190, 203 (1983). Second, absent express preemption, federal law may have an implied preemptive effect if Congress revealed this intent by "occupying the field" of regulation. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984). There is implied preemption when there is a "scheme of federal regulation . . . so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it" or "because the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn, 458 US. at 153. There is a third type of preemption when state law actually conflicts with federal law. Such conflict occurs where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963), or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, (1941)."

The Hines case is the most important one to focus on because Judge Bolton relied on the case for as precedent and because it speaks directly to the topic which these Amici argue.

The current SB 1070 case on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, U.S.A. v. Arizona, is almost like an echo of the Hines case. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted an Alien Registration Act in 1939. That law required everyone over the age of 18 to "to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any:

other information and details "that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or any agent of the Department of Labor and Industry; and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for "the purpose of ready reference," and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of notmore than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

In short, this statute was an earlier version of Arizona's papers please SB 1070 law.

What Moran, Jenkins, Burton, and their tax-exempt cohorts fail to recognize in their brief is that the Constitution gives the Congress absolute authority to regulate in the arena of immigration. Had their learned counsel fully read Hines, instead of picking and ignoring selected text, perhaps they wouldn't have found themselves out on the proverbial limb. What they want is for the Ninth Circuit to agree that this case is about an area where either the federal government or the states may regulate and ignore that silly old Constitution.

The Hines court went on to say:

Our conclusion is that appellee is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law. We proceed therefore to an examination of Congressional enactments to ascertain whether or not Congress has acted in such manner that its action should preclude enforcement of Pennsylvania's law.

In Hines the Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania Act could not be enforced. In finding that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, Judge Bolton said, in part, that SB 1070 "is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” [citing Hines.] ... Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established."

Judge Bolton added the following footnote 7:

The problems associated with burdening federal resources are even more acute when considered in light of other state laws similar to this provision. (See Pl.’s Mot. at 31-32 (citing to a newspaper article stating that at least 18 other states are considering parallel legislation).); see also North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 458-59 (1990) (Brennan, J., concurring in plurality opinion in part and dissenting in part) (collecting cases where burden of state regulation on federal government was amplified by aggregate potential of multiple states following suit).

While it is clear that the Constitution gives the federal government sole authority over immigration Congress may invite the assistance of the States in the enforcement of those laws. That is essentially the argument made by SB 1070's author Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach. What Kobach and the SB 1070 brain trust overlooked was the permissive nature of that cooperation. In a classic case of being offered an inch and taking a mile the Kobachian version is that when Congress opened the door to the States then all bets were off. You'd think a guy like Kobach would have a greater understanding of Constitutional Law than to come up with that goofy notion.

Gustafson v. City of Lake Angelus was a different sort of case from either Hines or U.S.A. v. Arizona. The latter two cases directly involved an area which the Constitution says the federal government has supreme control, but in Gustafson the Sixth Circuit said: "[W]e believe the United States' sovereign regulation of the airspace over the United States and the regulation of aircraft in flight is distinguishable from the regulation of the designation of plane landing sites, which involves local control of land (or, in the present case, water) use."

There are three ways in which the preemption doctrine can apply. First is the case of express preemptions, where " . . . Congressional intent to preempt must be unambiguous and cannot be inferred from (the) mere fact that (the) federal statute is detailed and complex or because state legislation touches an area of predominantly national concern." Pacific Legal Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, (9th Cir. 1981) 659 F.2d 903.

Second is the case of implied preemptions, where ". . . When a federal statute does not explicitly prohibit state regulation in the same field, congressional intent to preempt may be inferred from nature of federal regulatory scheme or from subject matter being regulated . . . (Pacific Legal Foundation).

" . . in a preemption test the fundamental inquiry is whether local legislation will conflict with national policy . . .; if the activity is of predominantly local interest then state action may be permissible, but if a uniform national rule is necessary then federal preemption will be implied." California v. Zook, (1949) 336 U.S. 725, 728.

The third case is where the state law conflicts with federal law. This is where the instant case belongs. " . . . a conflict between state and federal law . . may arise when the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, (1941) 312 U.S. 52, 67, as cited in Ogden Environmental Services v. City of San Diego, 88 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15264, 15266-15267.

" . . . Even if Congress did not intend to preempt all state legislation in a given field, a state law must be held invalid to (the) extent that it actually conflicts with federal law . . . (Pacific Legal Foundation, supra.).

" . . . State regulations are preempted when a conflict would arise if compliance with both federal and state regulations were impossible or if state regulations stood as an obstacle to achievement of congressional objectives . . . (Pacific Legal Foundation, supra.).

Moran, Jenkins, and Burton are trying to lead the Ninth Circuit down the wrong path, that of express preemption. They seem unable to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Constitution places this case in the third area, that of conflicts.

They will not win their point in an appellate court. The question remains if in the 112th Congress they will try to grant the States the power to regulate in the field of immigration. There is no way the President would sign a bill like that. It would, however, set up another interesting legal battle, the intentional abdication of federal responsibility by Congress. In other words, can Congress, by statute, let the States regulate where the Constitution says the States may not regulate?

Yes, Virginia, we seem to be returning to the Articles of Confederation. And no, Virginia, they didn't work so well before.

THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 55 - WHEN DIGGING HERSELF INTO A HOLE SHE KEEPS DIGGING AND ASKS YOU TO CONTRIBUTE YOUR MONEY TO THE NONSENSE

This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us

Common Sense, and nearly every person you meet, will tell you to stop digging once you find yourself in a hole. Either no one told Lynn Jenkins about common sense or that she's dug herself into a hole. Instead of dropping the shovel and hollering for a ladder or a rope Jenkins decided to blame "liberals" for her confused idea about a statute to outlaw Lame Duck sessions of the Congress - any Congress.

Seriously, when I Googled the Unrepresentative from Kansas' Second Congressional District this is what I saw:

End the Lame Duck Session

Liberals are fighting my attempt to ban the lame duck session.

www.lynnjenkins.com  



That of course took me to a page where Lynn had the audacity to ask for more money. She gets tens of thousands of dollars from her connections with the  Koch's brothers, QC Holdings, and other FAT CAT BANKERS, ACCOUNTANTS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND WALL STREET INTERESTS. She'll neither get a vote nor a single cent from me.

Am I supposed to be this "liberal" of which her website speak?  On some things I am. I support equal pay for equal work, SCHIP, Health Care Reform, and a woman's right to choose. Then again I never saw a free trade agreement that didn't free up our markets to buy more cheap stuff, made by foreigners and putting Americans out of work that I liked. Nor do I think much of tax credits to big business for sending American jobs overseas. Jenkins keeps voting for those offshoring tax breaks.  When it comes to the Second Amendment I find myself strangely in the company of Sam Alito. I think owning a gun is a personal right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and that right can be made applicable to the States via the Incorporation Doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lynn Jenkins just gets it wrong. It is not liberals who oppose her idea, it is reasonable persons who have taken the time to study the institution of the Congress and the Constitution. Jenkins will be opposed by those who know the distinctions between rules, statutes, and the Constitution.

The Constitution

Article I Section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

20th Amendment - Amendment XX

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

The Twentieth Amendment struck out the language I underlined above from  Article I § 4 and replaced it with the language of § 2.

If the 72nd Congress, which proposed the Twentieth Amendment, and the States ratifying the Twentieth Amendment intended to terminate, rather than truncate, Lame Duck sessions then the language they presented would have been different.

Consider the original language of Article I § 3, which was redacted upon adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. Here the framers told the first Senators to get themselves to Philadelphia to begin the first session of the First Congress and to do so immediately. If the powerhouse behind the Twentieth Amendment, Nebraska's Senator George Norris, wanted to kick the former Representatives and Senators out of office and let the new Congress begin, there was an example set by the Founding Fathers.

The Twentieth Amendment would then say that as soon as a quorum of both houses of the newly elected Congress has assembled, the former Congress will adjourn Sine Die. Immediately thereafter the next session of Congress will begin.

The problem is that isn't anything close to what the Twentieth Amendment says.

Lynn Jenkins is having this amazingly public brain fart saying that she can get done by statute what every other semi-educated person in America knows can only be accomplished by amending the Constitution.

This is not new stuff. The Supreme Court spoke to the issue in 1996. The case was United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 where the history of this principle was discussed. The Court said:

In his Commentaries, Blackstone stated the centuries old concept that one legislature may not bind the legislative authority of its successors:

"Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not. . . . Because the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it's [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament." 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 90 (1765)." (Emphasis added).

Did you get that? Lynn Jenkins cannot pass a law that binds future Congresses because the 112th Congress will be equal in sovereign power and absolute authority with the 113th Congress and each successive Congress to follow.

Make no bones about it the 112th Congress can adjourn Sine Die after the elections are over. The 112th Congress can move to make in order a new vote for Speaker of the House for the balance of the term of the first session of the 112th Congress. That way when the Democrats win Lynn Jenkins can make sure that the Democrats will rule in the waning hours of the 112th Congress and respect the will of the electorate. Lynn Jenkins' crazy idea that she can pass a law binding on future Congresses regarding Lame Duck sessions is just nonsense.

It is the kind of nonsense that has her asking for money from those who believe that liberals are attacking Jenkins. Well, Jenkins may not know much about Congress as an institution or the Constitution but she's a true disciple of P.T. Barnum. Yes Sir, there's a sucker born every minute! And Lynn is going after their cash!

And now Jenkins supports the new Tea Party notion of putting in a Constitutional jurisdictional statement for each new bill proposed in the 112th Congress.  Gosh, I can hardly wait.

END OF LIFE COUNSELING - THE TERM "DEATH PANEL" AS PURE PROPAGANDA - & THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ABOUT WHOM NO ONE IS SPEAKING, THE LATE TERRI SCHAIVO.

The Grotesque Overtly Propagandizers (GOP) are renewing their bogus claims about "Death Panels" and the rationing of Medicare. The Department of Health and Human Services put the end of life counseling provision into the CFR.

The New York Times suggests that DHHS conducted a black ops manuver by inserting the end of life counseling provision into the CFR.  The New York Times report is based on an apparent e-mail from Oregon's Democratic Representative Earl Blumenaur, where he makes a gaff in telling his supporters to keep the unbroken news on the down low as not to inflame the passions of the GOP. Earl, always remember and never forget, we favor more speech over less speech, especially when we speak the truth.

The New York Times needs to get real. Tens of thousands of regulations routinely appear in the Code of Federal Regulation without the pomp and fanfare of a press release. The New York Times' conspiracy about non-disclosure of each item in the CFR makes them look more like the National Enquirer instead of a leader of the Fourth Estate. As Jed Clampett would say, "Pitiful, just pitiful."

The end of life counseling gives a person an opportunity to discuss how they want to go. If a person wants everything done to prolong their life, no matter what, then they get to have that put down. Their wishes will be followed. If a person says "don't keep me alive on those damn machines for any longer than a week, I don't want to be vegetable taking up space," then those wishes will be followed.

End of life counseling is about maintaining control of the dignity of life by assuring dignity in death. I have repeatedly told my daughter that if cold beer and ham sandwiches, placed in front of me, remain untouched for more than a day then she should tell the powers that be to pull the plug. They can harvest whatever organs are of use to others or science. Not everyone has had that talk with their loved ones.

Rather than just 'fess up about the last time the GOP dropped the ball by fighting science they Grotesquely and Overtly Propagandize over the so-called "Death Panels". Come on Republicans admit that a rational approach to death is not only wise and  prudent, it is a good thing.

The elephant in the room isn't the symbol of the GOP. The elephant in the room is the legal debacle left in the wake of Terri Schaivo's husband trying to follow her wishes and pull the plug so her brain dead carcass could be buried with dignity.

She didn't get her wishes followed. She got a bunch of religious fanatics, resembling a parade from the Dark Ages, telling her poor grieving family that each autonomic nervous flinch in her failing body was proof that Terri was alive and viable. In my world view science and faith inform one another.  Unfortunately the opposite view took hold in the case of Terry Schaivo. Her family deserved more than the media-political driven load of manure that was dropped on them.

Remember what happened? Congress waded into the tragic circumstances of this brain dead woman, pretending to fight for life, and got the federal courts involved to save her life, a life which was already gone. Despite the efforts of a Republican Congress and a Republican President and his Republican Governor brother, the court's operated as they were intended to function. In the end the plug was pulled. An autopsy settled the debate. Terry Schaivo's brain was shrunken to about the size of a grapefruit - it no longer functioned. She was brain dead.

End of life counseling isn't about the government telling Grandma when she has to die. End of life counseling gives the dying person the comfort of knowing that their passing will be as peaceful as possible, to them and to those they leave behind.

I have seen a lot of death. I have it seen it in the Emergency Room. I have seen it in the Operating Room. I have seen it in hospital rooms and on city streets.  I have been present in the face of death.

A sentiment all who face the Grim Reaper will share is that we don't want anyone selling tickets to the event. Neither do we want the meter on life's expenses to continue running after we have left our shriveling bodies in our journeys to the Great Beyond. Absolutely we don't want politicians, lawyers, judges, and especially not persons on radio and television pretending to be journalists making a circus of our demise.

End of life counseling is a good idea, preparing a Living Will is a good idea.  Talk to your family and loved ones about what you want done when the times comes.  Write those wishes down on paper and sign the thing.  Don't listen to propaganda.  Don't fear the Grotesque Overtly Propagandizers, neither listen to them.  You can always change the radio dial or turn off television's FOX FEARMONGERING. 

May I suggest a good book instead? 

UNEMPLOYMENT REMAINS HIGH - BIPARTISAN HOUSE VOTES FOR BILLS ENACTING A "MAKE IT IN AMERICA" STRATEGY - BILLS DIE IN SENATE - THE SENATE MUST VOTE TO CHANGE ITS RULES SO AMERICA CAN GET BACK TO WORK

Among the slew of legislation which died the stagnant death of inaction in the Senate two bills emerged from the House of Representatives in the 111th Congress that, in ordinary times, look like they'd get a huge chunk of Republican votes. These bills got those GOP votes in the House. Putting people back to work isn't, or at least it ought not, be a partisan idea. In the marketplace of ideas there is plenty of turf to wage the political tug of war while putting American workers back to work making things in America.

House Democrats had a plan which they called the "Make it in America" strategy. Making things in America, enhancing the manufacturing base in the nation, putting American workers back into American jobs, what could be so controversial about this idea?

H.R. 3116, the Berry Extension Act and H.R. 2039, the Congressional Made In America Promise Act each passed the House and each died in the Senate. Meanwhile, unemployment continues at unacceptable levels.

The Associated Press reported on December 28th that "[t]he Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist. American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. In recent years, though, those jobs have become more sophisticated — think semiconductors and software, not toys and clothes."

Read their article at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFY0R9agrMVljqtaB6ccsILSKd3Q?docId=771fbe245e624cbd95ab5a49122dd701.

Think software, not toys and clothes. That means the lower paying jobs are now offshore and the higher paying jobs are following suit. No one on Capitol Hill should look or sound like they are surprised. This is the exact evil that the Democrats Make it in America strategy was designed to combat. House Republicans voted FOR these bills.

The Senate secretly suffocated them in committee. This is a prime example of why the arcane rules of the Senate regarding filibuster and holds must be changed. A minority of one Senator can keep the business of the Senate held hostage and that Senator need not face the glare of public scrutiny because of the overt lack of transparency in the Senate.

H.R. 3116, the Berry Extension Act was introduced by North Carolina Democratic Representative Larry Kissell. Kissell is a member of the House Trade Working Group recently came out against the proposed Korea - U.S. Free Trade Agreement. He said: "We must close the loopholes and incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas, and give our small businesses and manufacturers the fair opportunities they deserve to export their products made here,” said Kissell. “While I and many of my colleagues offered our suggestions and the changes our constituents would like to see in this deal, unfortunately not enough has been done to help protect American jobs."

According to the Congressional Research Service H.R. 3116 would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from procuring specified covered items directly related to national security interests (including clothing, tents, or natural fiber products) that are not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, except to the extent satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of any such product cannot be procured as and when needed.

Kissell is saying that we can grow cotton and turn it into fabric in America. North Carolina used to be a leading center in textile production. As labor made inroads into North Carolina's textile mills the owners of those enterprises began shifting those jobs overseas. That was in the 1980's and 1990's. This is not a new strategy for the mill owners. A century earlier they found cheap labor in the Carolinas and moved the mills down South from New England.

Note to the President: All Free Trade Agreements must include requirement that the other county permit collective bargaining. When we ship our labor organizers to the places our jobs go then we get to level the playing field. When Third World nations start paying their workers what they're worth the incentive to ship American jobs to those nations fades.

H.R. 3116 did not face strong opposition in the House. H.R. 3116 did not face weak opposition in the House. H.R. 3116 was passed on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which of course means that it needed a ⅔ majority to succeed. Not only did no House Republican rise in opposition to the bill, neither was there a call for a Roll Call vote. The list of 69 cosponsors included both Democrats and Republicans. A telling remarks about the fate of the bill was made by Representative Kissell when the bill was being discussed on the floor. He said:

"In January of 2009, shortly after I was sworn in as a freshman Congressman, folks came to me and asked me if I would help extend the Berry Act in homeland security to just the TSA part. Now, I could not understand why this had not been done before, but I was assured it had been tried and had been unsuccessful because there was apparently a lot of special interest that was in opposition to this.

Having worked 27 years in textiles myself, I gladly took on this initiative, and with a lot of help, we were able to overcome the special interest, and we were able to get the extension of the Berry Act to the amendment for the Recovery Act applying just to TSA. We immediately went to work to introduce a bill of legislation that would complete this process by making all of Homeland Security very compliant."

The House of Representatives was able to overcome those special interests. In the Senate the heavy hand of special interest money need only persuade one Senator to kill a bill. We don't know how many Senators actually opposed the bill. We know that the bill died a secret death. Senate Rules must change if America is to move forward.

The House, in the first session of the 112th Congress, led by Republicans can pass this bill again, by a ⅔ majority, and send it to the Senate. Senate Democrats need to change the Senate Rules so that bills like H.R. 3116 can die a public death. Senators killing bills that keep America working can then be voted out of office.

Of course, if the Senate has to conduct the nation's business in public it is likely that bills like H.R. 3116 won't die in committee.

H.R. 2039, the Congressional Made In America Promise Act was introduced by Ohio's Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur. The bill had 22 cosponsors of both parties. This bill is a no-brainer, nonetheless 36 Members voted against it. The lone Democrat voting against the bill was Colorado's Jared Polis. Polis, who usually makes good choices in the Congress got this one wrong. The vote was Roll Call number 521 where the margin was 371 in favor to 36 opposed, with 25 Members not voting.

Simply put the bill applies the Buy American Act to both houses of the Congress. The Congressional Research Service's summary says this bill amends the Buy American Act to apply Buy American requirements to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate, in the same manner as the Act applies with respect to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of a department or independent establishment.

Prescribes a special rule in the case of any product which bears a congressional official insignia (including a mark resembling an official seal) that is acquired for the use of a legislative branch office. Prohibits the head of such office from making a determination under the Act that: (1) it is inconsistent with the public interest to enter into a contract in accordance with the Act; or (2) an article, material, or supply is not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of satisfactory quality.

Applies this prohibition to otherwise exempted manufactured articles, materials, or supplies procured under any contract the award value of which is less than or equal to the micro-purchase threshold.

These two bills are easy. They each got wide bi-partisan support in the House. This isn't the heavy lifting required to roll back tax breaks for shipping our American jobs overseas. These two bills are easy. If Senate Rules don't change then America may get stuck in this prolonged unemployment. That is unacceptable. Urge your Senators to vote, on the first day of the 112th Congress, to change the Senate Rules.

NEWLY ELECTED REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE ARE PRETENDING TO BE THE "NEW AMERICAN MAJORITY" BY HONKERING DOWN WITH THE OLD GUARD - CHANGE YOU CAN DISBELIEVE IN

A new beast is on the streets of the nation's capitol prowling for funds to sate the appetite of incoming Republican Members of Congress for campaign cash. America's New Majority PAC was formed November 16, 2010. According to FEC filings their address was 2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, California. That, amazingly, is the address of JEFF PAC, but more on that later

The e-mail contact for America's New Majority PAC, on the FEC filings is David@the agency.us. Don't go getting all conspiratorial about this. The agency in this case is not "the Agency" or the CIA as your fears may suggest. No this is the unique web address for the Wayne Johnson (not John Wayne) agency out in California.

According to their FEC filings America's New Majority's function is that "[t]his committee collects contributions, pays fundraising expenses and disburses net proceeds for two or more political committees/organizations, at least one of which is an authorized committee of a federal candidate."

The first campaign committee, and the only one on the original filings, associated with America's New Majority is the Denham for Congress Committee. That is Jeff Denham, of JEFF PAC, the newly elected Republican Representative to California's 19th Congressional District. Incumbent Republican Representative George Radanovich announced his retirement December 29, 2009.

Denham, who enters Congress with not only his own PAC, JEFF PAC, but also his own Joint Fundraising Committee, America's New Majority, defeated Democratic candidate Lorain Goodwin. In that race Denham raised $1,241,895, spent $1,176,631, and ended up with $63,561. Goodwin raised $44,492, spent $46,862, which left her in the hole to the tune of $2,370.00. She should be having a debt retirement party, but campaign finance doesn't reward the losers.

In what appears to be a glaring error in the original filing paperwork with the FEC America's New Majority answered question 6 " Name of Any Connected Organization, Affiliated Committee, Joint Fundraising Representative, or Leadership PAC Sponsor" with the answer "None". Now remember that Jeff Denham, of JEFF PAC, and also of Denham for Congress signed this paperwork.

An amended Statement of Organization was filed December 10, 2010. There are some insightful changes as to the nature of the beast. The e-mail for the contact person has changed to kdavis@hdafec.com. That is the e-mail address for Keith A. Davis, a partner in the political accounting firm of Huckaby Davis Lisker. Keith A. Davis is the new treasurer of America's New Majority.

On the amended filing more Congressional campaign committees joined the list as participants in joint fundraisers, they are: Friends of Scott DeJarlais, Dold for Congress, and Renee Ellmers for Congress Committee, , Landry for Louisiana, Marino for Congress, Tom Reed for Congress, David Rivera for Congress, Jon Runyon for Congress Inc., Southerland for Congress, Stutzman for Congress, Yoder for Congress, and JEFF PAC.

Okay, so besides Jeff Denham who are these new Republicans trying to fly deftly in the fine print beneath the radar screen? Steve Southerland is the Republican Representative-elect from Florida's 1st Congressional District. Robert Dold is the Republican Representative -elect from Illinois' 10th Congressional District. Marlin Stutzman is the Tea Party loser to Republican Senator-elect Dan Coates of Indiana, and the man who won for the Republicans the Congressional race in Indiana's 3rd Congressional District. Stutzman succeeds disgraced Republican Representative Mark Souder who admitted to hanky panky with a female staffer. Kevin Yoder is the Republican Representative-elect from Kansas' 3rd Congressional District. Jeff Landry is the Republican Representative-elect from Louisiana's 3rd Congressional District. Renee Ellmers is the Republican Representative-elect from North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District. Jon Runyon is the Republican Representative-elect from New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District. Tom Reed is the newly elected Republican Member of Congress for New York's 29th Congressional District. Reed won a special election and took office in November. Tom Marino is the Republican Representative-elect for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District. Scott DesJarlais is a medical doctor and Republican Representative-elect from Tennessee's 4th Congressional District. David Rivera is the Republican Representative-elect from Florida's 25th Congressional District.

America's New Majority has put together a gala courtesy of the Hammond Group's Tom Hammond and Meredith Hurt. This extravaganza will feature "Special Music Performance by Grammy Award Winner Leann Rimes" at the "Hotel W" in D.C. on January 4, 2011. The event is "Presenting Speaker Designate John Boehner, Majority Leader Elect Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Elect Kevin McCarty and NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions." The invitation may be viewed on the Sunlight Foundation's Party Time page: http://politicalpartytime.org/party/24189/#invite.

Jeff Denham, Steve Southerland, Robert Dold, Marlin Stutzman, Kevin Yoder, Jeff Landry, Renee Ellmers, Jon Runyon, Tom Reed, Tom Marino, and Scott DesJarlais represent change that does not change. They have managed to honker down with the business as usual crowd of old school Republicans, the firm of Huckaby Davis Lisker.

It may be easier to answer the question of who in Republican circles Huckaby Davis Lisker doesn't represent. These are the people who keep the books on the GOP's movers and shakers. They are currently the accounting firm for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. For Campaign 2010 the NRCC paid Huckaby Davis Lisker $230,307 for compliance consulting, according to OpenSecrets.com. See, http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.php?cmte=NRCC&txt=Huckaby+Davis+Lisker&cycle=2010.

Now, remember that Huckaby Davis Lister's Keith A. Davis, the treasurer of America's New Majority, replaced Christopher T. Parana as treasurer at the NRCC following a financial scandal.

Politico reported in 2008 that "Parana took over from Christopher J. Ward as the committee treasurer in 2007, according to other FEC filings. Ward is at the center of an internal investigation stemming from a forged audit the committee sent Wachovia, its principal lender during the 2006 election cycle. The committee has alerted the FBI about the irregularities, but many details of the investigation remain unknown."

Keith Davis was also the assistant treasurer for President George Herbert Walker Bush's two presidential campaigns. He worked on President George W. Bush's campaign in 2004. He has also advised former Texas Senator Phil Graham, Arizona Senator John McCain, along with numerous Republican House members, Arkansas' Mike Huckabee, and Republican PACs.

If you are going to change the way Washington is doing business then you have to change the persons and firms with whom you are doing business in Washington. As the old adage says "birds of a feather will flock together" and these new Republicans are showing that they flock with the likes of the entrenched business as usual crowd.

The American people are shifting paradigmatically. They want government to work for them, not the special interests. Our elected officials, resembling the tail of a comet, are lagging far behind in outer space. When candidates run on issues of change only to honker down at the same feeding trough where their predecessors fattened up, then change is not forthcoming.

Huckaby Davis Lister is a premiere accounting firm on the Republican side of the equation. They deal in compliance. They have won an Aristotle, as Oscar-like award for excellence given out by the American Association of Political Consultants. The Democrats have winners too. Xavier Martinez of Martinez & Associates in Escondido, CA and Brett Smiley of Campaign Finance Officers, LLC from Providence, RI took home Aristotles for their work on behalf of Democrats.

Working within the system is only defensible as an element of change when the elected politician actively works to change the system. The biggest problem we face in Congress today is the corrupting influence of excessive campaign cash being made available by corporate interests, fuzzy PACs, Joint Fundraising Committees, and Dark Interests which evade any real accountability.

Corporations do not have a soul to save, a butt to kick, or a vote to cast. Corporations should have no voice in the election of state or federal officials. The only persons who should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns are registered voters. When we get a Constitutional Amendment making that the law of the land then you will see change.

THOUGHTS ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING AND GERRYMANDERING

Watch the legislatures of the several States now that redistricting is afoot! The Cook Political Report recently made public a couple of charts that reflect political volatility in the marketplace of partisan ideas and ideologies.

Cook's first chart, the 2012 COMPETITIVE HOUSE RACE CHART, lists by party those districts and Members of Congress vulnerable to being picked off. Cook lists three categories, likely, lean, and toss up, for each party. The second chart is Cook's report on HOUSE MEMBERS WHO WON WITH 55% OR LESS.

Missouri, known for being a traditional bell weather state has one District listed as "Lean Democratic" by Cook. That is Missouri's Third Congressional District which Cook gives a Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of D+7.

In Missouri three Members of Congress won their 2010 races with 55% or less of the vote. Kansas City's Emanuel Cleaver held off his Republican opponent Jacob Turk to win a fourth term. This will be Cleaver's fourth term. He has now defeated Turk three times. Cleaver's winning percentage in 2010 was 56.1% The Cook PVI for the Fifth Congressional District in Missouri is D+10.

Republican Vicky Hartzler bested long time Democratic Representative Ike Skelton to win her first term in Congress. Republican redistricting efforts paid off for them in Missouri. I recall when Missouri's Fourth Congressional District was a small pocket of counties immediately to the East and South of Kansas City's Jackson County. Missouri's Fourth Congressional Index has a PVI of R+14.

Today the Fourth Congressional District goes deep into the heart of Southwest Missouri. It includes places like Lebanon, Missouri which used to be in the Seventh Congressional District. The Seventh Congressional District is a Republican Stronghold having produced Representatives Roy Blunt, Gene Taylor, and Durwood G. "Doc" Hall.

Russ Carnahan has been the Democrat representing Missouri's Third Congressional District since 2005. After Dick Gephardt retired Carnahan won the seat in 2004. This will be Carnahan's fifth term. He squeaked by his Republican opponent, Edward Martin, Jr., with a winning percentage of 48.9%. The last time the district lines changed in Missouri was 2003.

The Census Bureau has made available an online map to let you see which states will gain seats and which states will lose. It is located at: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/.

Missouri is going to lose a seat in Congress after the redistricting dust settles. This will set up a contentious redistricting between the Governor, Democrat Jay Nixon, and his Republican controlled legislature. You can bet that in Missouri Republicans will want to continue whittling away at Democratic districts. Nixon will try to shave Republican areas back from seats currently held by Democrats.

The process will be more complicated in other states such as Arizona and Texas. These states have both the legislatures and the executive offices controlled by Republicans. Their dilemma is that each have to add seats and how do they splinter the vote so that the newly districts created are not Democratic? Much of the calculus for the population increase in these states is attributable to Hispanic voters, primarily non-Cuban Latinos. Due to the harshness of the Republican stance on Latinos, especially in these two states, drawing those lines will be difficult.

The Gerrymander

Expect to hear much discussion in the next two years about Gerrymandering. That is the process of drawing district lines to maximize your party's dominance and minimize the oppositions chances at being elected. The term originated in 1812 after redistricting in Massachusetts resulted in a district somewhat resembling a salamander. The name of the Governor, Elbridge Gerry, combined with the reptile to give the process a name.

About.com provides an excellent tutorial for those wanting to learn more about the process of Gerrymandering. Read it online at: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/gerrymandering.htm.