AwfuLaw

2009-03-24T03:12:00.000-07:00

43. H.R.1664: To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.
Sponsor: Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] (introduced 3/23/2009) Cosponsors
(8)
Committees: House Financial Services
Latest Major Action: 3/23/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

I take particular umbrage with the phrase, "compensation not based on performance standards." You see all compensation is based on performance. Even the guy you pay to stay away has to do something to get his pay. He has to stay away. Grayson is obviously referring the AIG executives who received bonuses. It is coming out now that Congress knew about these bonus contracts when they gave AIG their money but they didn't say anything about it at the time. If you wanted to make seven figures worth of bonuses an issue, you should have done so before you handed over eleven figures worth of bailout.

Beyond that, these 90% and 100% taxes being discussed amount to playing dirty pool. The people who agreed to stay on at AIG did so based on those bonuses. I understand where they are coming from. I once left a job and came back for one week to put things in order. I didn't like working there which was why I not only left, but left without another job to go to. I would not have continued my ordeal another week if I hadn't been paid a full month's worth of pay for that one week. It would not have been worth it to me.

And now everyone looking to take government money to assist with financial recovery will be thinking about not taking the money because some dirty trick like this might be pulled on them.

I have an idea for a performance standard-based pay system. How about we withhold your pay until the national debt is paid off. Or even a balanced budget passed. Congressional spending and overtaxation is one of the primary keys to our financial problems right now. Sure AIG is culpable, but bills like this show how as bad as certain companies have performed lately, Congress has performed worse.

Safety Gone Wild

2009-03-19T00:56:00.000-07:00

I am approaching the blog today with a slightly different tack than usual. The bill I am highlighting is trying to improve upon a recently imposed law. It is the original law in this case that is awful. The bill is...

S.608 A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Tester, Jon [MT] (introduced 3/17/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The CPSIA prohibits the sale of products that have not been successfully tested for lead or phthalate content. My understanding of this law is that ANY item intended to be used by children 12 and younger, MUST be tested for lead and phthalate content by a certified testing facility. This applies not only to new retail items, but used goods too. This law, if enforced, would put thrift stores out of business. In addition, items that contain lead by design like the batteries on scooters, and mini-bikes are not excluded. It seems that if your kid, old enough to ride a motorized vehicle, is eating the lead from inside what are usually sealed batteries, you might have bigger problems than anything the CPSIA might hope to fix.

One of the biggest problems with the CPSIA is something this bill apparently does not remedy -- microbusiness. A very large amount of business is conducted by very small home businesses. If you make sock puppets completely of cotton socks, you not only have to test your product, you have to test every variation including color. Each of these tests will cost over $1000. This effectively puts small toy makers out of business or places them at risk of being prosecuted for violation of this inane law.

Certainly, there are many other unintended* consequences of this law which addresses a problem the market has shown signs of tackling on its own. Ever since the series of safety issues raised by certain Chinese imports became national news, toy manufacturers have begun taking steps to advertise how their products are safe.

*I say unintended here although I am not so sure the consequences are unintended. I am guessing if one followed the law back to its inception, one would find that large toy manufacturers who can spread test costs across tens and hundreds of thousands of items, had a hand in crafting and promoting this bill.

Good News

2009-03-05T11:03:00.000-08:00

This blog's stated goal is pointing out the bad things Congress does. Frankly this is an easy job. I usually have to pick and choose between several bad bills and resolutions. I might pick one that is to me the most outrageous of the day, but more often I pick one that tickles my fancy and inspires me at the moment.

Today however, I am going to highlight a bill that surprised me by offering something positive. If you've read my posts, you've noticed a trend -- I'm a free market advocate. Today's bill would move our prescription drug market in that direction. It is far from perfect, but more on that later. For now, here is the bill summary and a link to more detailed information since the full text is not yet available on the LOC website.

H.R.1298 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.
Co-Sponsors: Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1], Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 3/4/2009)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Click here to read an article describing some details of the bill at arkansasmatters.com.

What this bill does, as the linked article makes clear, is to allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada and a short list of other countries. According to the GAO it will save $50 billion over the next decade with more than $6 billion of that being governmental budget savings. Presumably the rest of the savings would be experienced by patient-customers. To be sure, the bill retains lots of nanny-state protections for customers and drug companies, but it is a step in the right direction.

Besides the idea that it doesn't go far enough, the one concern I do have about this bill is this... most if not all of the drugs allowed to be imported are drugs originally produced here in the United States now and sold cheaper internationally because the drug companies are getting most of their profits here at home. I suspect that if this bill passes, the drug companies will simply change the pricing so the price disparity no longer makes it advantageous to order from international suppliers. This would of course lower our costs and be a good thing, but I suspect the GAO hasn't taken this dynamic into consideration, thus the savings will be less than advertised.

What would really save us a lot of money would be doing what libertarian-minded people like Harry Browne and Ron Paul have suggested -- eliminating the FDA completely or drastically changing the way it operates, leaving drug safety to private agencies much like UL monitors electrical appliance safety without tax money.

More spending?

2009-03-03T16:15:00.000-08:00

Today's Congressional activity highlighted by Awfulaw may not be the most egregious example of spending. It might be spending a lot of people approve of. What it isn't, is necessary. And right now, the U.S. government needs to STOP spending new money where it isn't necessary. It's like the crew of the Titanic hearing there is water pouring into the hull and hurrying to make sure dinner isn't late.

H.R.146: A bill to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program for the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2009 House floor actions. Status: At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Holt objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.

Syria: Our Next Iraq?

2009-02-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

We want to rattle sabers and install a new government in Syria? What? We tried that in Iraq. It didn't work. I don't know whether to be heartened by there only being 43 cosponsors or appalled that it garnered that many. Note this bill or one much like it was proposed in the last Congress, so we can take some solace in the fact that it didn't pass then. We can take further solace in the fact that the sponsor is a Republican and they are in the minority in both houses of Congress, especially the House.

H.R.1206 : To strengthen sanctions against the Government of Syria, to enhance multilateral commitment to address the Government of Syria's threatening policies, to establish a program to support a transition to a democratically-elected government in Syria, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] (introduced 2/26/2009) Cosponsors (43)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs; House Ways and Means; House Financial Services; House Oversight and Government Reform; House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Financial Services, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

What's My Motivation?

2009-02-27T12:35:00.001-08:00

A thief's motivation is to separate you and your property thus enriching himself. He may have other motivations, but they aren't important. If Ken Lay had intended on giving the money acquired from the Enron scandal to homeless shelters, he still should go to prison. Likewise, S.470, the summary of which is below, should have a period after the words, "retail goods."

S.470: A bill to combat organized crime involving the illegal acquisition of retail goods for the purpose of selling those illegally obtained goods through physical and online retail marketplaces.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 2/25/2009) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/25/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Note: This summary was from Wednesday's (2/25) Congressional activity page.

A Very Slow Day

2009-02-20T19:40:00.000-08:00

I just about went into shock today when I checked Thursday's action in Congress... TWO, yes 2 items acted on, both sponsored by George Miller and both utterly boring. I am guessing the summary of today's action will be similar, so look forward to a post from me on Tuesday.

A Good Day

2009-02-19T00:10:00.000-08:00

It has been a short week so far with Monday being a holiday and Tuesday Congress did not take action on anything!! President Obama has signed H.R. 1 however, so I can't get too excited about the lack of Congressional action. Maybe they took the day off to rest after spending so much money. It's hard work you know. I heard a Democratic Congressman complaining that the Republicans refused to call it a stimulus bill and instead are stubbornly calling it a spending bill. Guess what? It IS a spending bill. If it happens to do some economic stimulating, it certainly won't be enough to justify the long-term damage this type of spending causes.

It reminds me of the guy with the hairbrained ideas he keeps coming home with. "Honey, I found this new way to make money. And guess what? It will only cost us $4,000 and we only have to get 20 of our friends to do it too! Finally we'll be able to afford to put some money away." And of course, I'm talking about the guy who never manages to get 1 let alone 20 of his friends to sign up. I mean, get real... we're talking about the government here.

So I guess it was a good day, but an AwfuLaw week.

Nano Nano

2009-02-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

Nothing wrong with this, right?

H.R.554 : To authorize activities for support of nanotechnology research and development, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] (introduced 1/15/2009) Cosponsors (21)
Committees: House Science and Technology; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

uh, yeah, actually there is. Private companies are already doing this. It is PORK! Some day's this is just sooooo easy.

We're The Government, So We're Spppecial :-P

2009-02-11T17:03:00.000-08:00

Today's AwfuLaw gives special privileges for the installation of solar power, and only in a vary narrow circumstance.

H.R. 964: To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to exempt any solar energy project on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management from an environmental impact statement requirement.
Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 2/10/2009) Cosponsors (13)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 2/10/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

I like that Rohrabacher has been the co-sponsor of a bill in past Congresses to yank funding for federal prosecution of medical marijuana cases in states that have made such use legal, but what is up with this bill? EIR's or Environmental Impact Reports (or statements) are meant to make sure one isn't adversely affecting the environment. We can assume most BLM-land projects are going to be government projects (although there are private users on public BLM land.) The government is the worst polluter of all* as anyone who lives on or near a former military base can tell you. Presumably BLM land consists of our precious wilderness so if the country's worst polluter were going to build a project on that land, one would think they would be held to a higher standard; not lower.

Further, if the goal here is to encourage solar projects, why not exempt all solar projects from EIR's?

* source: http://www.adti.net/environment/congressRecord_pryan102800.html

Bill of Rights Assault Legislation

2009-02-10T23:36:00.000-08:00

Monday, action was taken on H.R. 45 which aims to further do damage to the 2nd amendment restriction on government to not infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll let the NRA speak for me.

First, here is the bill summary...

H.R.45 Title: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] (introduced 1/6/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Here is what the NRA has to say about the bill...

U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) recently sponsored H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act." The bill is, at its core and as its name implies, a licensing and registration scheme.

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…" [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence.

H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of H.R. 2666, which Rush introduced in 2007. H.R. 2666 contained much of the same language as H.R. 45, and was co-sponsored by several well-known anti-gun legislators--including Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors.

I would like to add that this legislation takes extra effort to point out they are relying on the interstate commerce clause as partial justification for this bill. If you aren't familiar with my strong opinions about the perversion of the interstate commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, I will write about it soon here or post a link here if I post it elsewhere. The very short version of this is however that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Congressional power over interstate commerce to mean they have powers over anything that even remotely affects, or could affect interstate commerce.

Concentrate - Shun Camps

2009-02-08T01:53:00.000-08:00

Today I will lead with the text of today's awfulaw winner...

H.R.645 : To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Sponsor: Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] (introduced 1/22/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/6/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Pay attention.
Homeland sounds a lot like Fatherland.
Centers sounds a lot like Camps.
Military Installations sounds a lot like Martial Law
In conjunction with the signs on the wall for the disarming of American Citizens ala new Attorney General Eric Holder who never saw a gun control law he didn't like.
Nazi Germany had the Nazi Youth, Obama wants an American Youth Corps.

Many will criticize what I just did there saying I am trying to make America out to BE Nazi Germany, or Obama to BE Adolf Hitler; that I am saying they are inherently similar. I am not. In fact, I imagine Obama and the rest of the Capitol Hill gang all have good intentions, or in many cases, don't imagine their bad intentions will lead to serious consequences.

What I am saying is, we ought not lay the conceptual infrastructure to ALLOW a similar catastrophe to occur in the United States. We ought not embrace facism, socialism, communism or any other big, powerful government -ism. We should fight to retain a small government and fiercely independent individuals.

We should make sure the second amendment is restored so that any invading force would have to consider what to do with 300 million armed Americans, but more importantly so the government doesn't get too full of themselves. The founding fathers meant for us to be armed in large part to protect against just such a threat.

We should put an end to the onerous burden being laid on our children in the form of a fake economic stimulus.

We should not be preparing anything that even remotely resembles concentration camps.

We're From the Government and We Want to Help You Stay Healthy

2009-02-06T07:28:00.000-08:00

Today's Awfulaw winner is...

S.391 : A bill to provide affordable, guaranteed private health coverage that will make Americans healthier and can never be taken away.
Sponsor: Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] (introduced 2/5/2009) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: Senate Finance Latest Major Action: 2/5/2009 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Suffering apparently from a back log of bills to put up on the website however, the text of this bill was not yet available. Instead, I visited the sponsoring Senator's website. Here's what I found, in part, at the Senator's website.

The plan, known as the Healthy Americans Act, would:

1. guarantee private health care coverage for all Americans;
2. provide health benefits equal to those that Members of Congress now enjoy;
3. provide incentives for individuals and insurers to focus on prevention, wellness and disease management;
4. establish tough cost containment measures that save $1.48 trillion over 10 years; and
5. be fully paid for with the $2.2 trillion currently spent on health care in America today.

He didn't number them, but I did so I can more easily reference them. There are more details on the Senator's website, but I will leave my criticism to these bullet points. I know you probably have other things to do this week.

1. If the government is guaranteeing health care coverage, it isn't private.

2. Contrary to popular belief, the benefits Members of Congress enjoy are the same as other Federal employees. That is to say, they pay a portion of the premium and pick from a range of plans. However, the number of choices is far less than what is currently available in the marketplace for individuals.

3. Individual and insurers already have the incentive to focus on prevention, wellness and disease management; health and profits respectively.

4 and 5. It is a sign of the times that in order to impress us with a number, the Senator resorts to showing a 10 year savings of 1.48 trillion dollars. If he were to say 148 billion dollars per year on average, it just wouldn't sound like that much. [rolls eyes] It is even more amazing he can predict to the third significant digit how much would be saved. Is he sure his plan won't save say 1.5 or 1.4 trillion dollars over ten years?

Cost containment? Does the Senator truly believe cost containment isn't already being practiced? Does he truly believe his methods won't lead to unintended consequences?

How about the existing dollars claim? His website points out that employers who currently don't offer coverage to employees will be required to pay their employees more than they do now so the employees can cover their newly mandatory health insurance premiums. This is a new expense and I guarantee it will put businesses out of business and employees out of work.

The Horace Grant Anti-Memorial Bill

2009-02-06T00:07:00.000-08:00

Horace Grant was the young man murdered by an Oakland BART Police Officer while a number of people recorded the crime on their cell phones. His name is more well-known than other victims of deadly police brutality because of said cell phone video cameras. Obviously, seeing the video would spur our elected representatives to jump into action to try to win our favor by showing their tough on crime even when the perpetrator is an officer of the law, or maybe, ESPECIALLY when the perpetrator is an officer of the law.

57. H.R.866 : To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence requirements for a law enforcement officer who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence committed while pursuing or apprehending a suspect.
Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] (introduced 2/4/2009) Cosponsors (14)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That's right, in the rare event a police officer actually is convicted of murder or aggravated assault, Rep. Brady wants to make sure the judge and jury have the right to be lenient. Frankly, I had to read this three times to make sure it said what I thought it said. I thought for sure Brady wanted to make sure cops abusing their badges to do harm to citizens could be sentenced to MORE time than the normal sentencing guidelines. Hopefully this bill dies in committee just as surely as Horace Grant died on the BART platform.

Family and Medical Leave of One's Senses

2009-02-05T23:25:00.000-08:00

Wednesday I took another look at Congressional Activity and found there were SO many awful bills, it made it hard to pick which one to write about. This may not be the worst bill considered, but I picked it because I think its flaws are more immediately obvious to most people.

54. H.R.824 : To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and title 5, United States Code, to allow employees to take, as additional leave, parental involvement leave to participate in or attend their children's and grandchildren's educational and extracurricular activities, and to clarify that leave may be taken for routine family medical needs and to assist elderly relatives, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] (introduced 2/3/2009) Cosponsors [8]
Committees: House Education and Labor; House Oversight and Government Reform; House Administration
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

We now find it necessary to grant mandatory time off to go to recitals and football games? Maybe we should hold off on that just in case the economy takes a turn for the worse. What's that? It already has? [Bangs head on table]

Steel Yourself

2009-01-30T15:16:00.000-08:00

After a long respite, AwfuLaw is back. The 111th Congress is now in session and they are wasting no time introducing horrible bills. It is really hard to pick one this time since there are so many awful bills introduced. I decided in the end to highlight Section 1110 of H.R. 1.

SEC. 1110. USE OF AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL.

(a) In General- None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States.

(b) Exceptions- Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case in which the head of the Federal department or agency involved finds that--

(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest;

(2) iron and steel are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or

(3) inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

(c) Written Justification for Waiver- If the head of a Federal department or agency determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b), the head of the department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived.

This is good old-fashioned protectionism. The proponents will point out the U.S. steel jobs saved by this bill. Frederic Bastiat would point out that it is not what is seen that is wrong with this bill, but rather, what is not seen. What you do not see is the number of jobs that will never be created because projects that are not feasible due to this restriction. He would probably point out that H.R. 1 is ugly to begin with and there isn't much point of nit-picking individual provisions. Some of my readers might think the stimulus bill is a good thing though, so I wanted to make my commentary more narrowly focused.

Of course if I were subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 1110, I would use the best steel at the best price available, then if questioned, point to subsection 1, paragraph b. Certainly I would argue, having the project built, employing workers, ensuring quality and all the other benefits are consistent with the public interest.

Foley's Folly

2006-10-03T10:51:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been quite busy and neglected to blog after the recess. I will atone for that partially now with an Awfulaw exclusive. Nothing here is new or unpublished. I have simply researched and put in context, two pieces of content that illustrate nicely the hypocrisy of Mark Foley, the house representative who is at the center of a scandal that might have far-reaching implications for the 2006 mid-term elections. I only searched the 109th Congress.

7/10/2006 -- Mark Foley introduces H.R. 5749 To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect youth from exploitation by adults using the Internet, and for other purposes.

3/8/2006 -- Mark Foley introduces H.R. 4905 To provide for the registration of sex offenders and for appropriate notification of their whereabouts, and for other purposes.

6/30/2005 -- Mark Foley introduces H.R. 3133 To provide for the registration of sex offenders and for appropriate notification of their whereabouts, and for other purposes.

5/18/2005 -- Mark Foley introduces H.R. 2423 To improve the national program to register and monitor individuals who commit crimes against children or sex offenses.

3/8/2005 -- Mark Foley introduces H.R. 1142 To protect children from exploitive child modeling, and for other purposes.

2003 -- Mark Foley, using screen name Maf54 types the following messages to a teenage Congressional Page: (typos left as-is; excerpts only)

did any girl give you a haand job this weekend
good so your getting horny
did you spank it this weekend yourself
cute butt bouncing in the air [after asking about details of how the teen masturbates]
i always use lotion and the hand
well I have aa totally stiff wood now
is your little guy limp...or growing
so you got a stiff one now
um so a big bulge
love to slip them off of you
and gram the one eyed snake
get a ruler and measure it for me

sources:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery
http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf

Another Government Money Pit

2006-08-08T09:52:00.000-07:00

H.R.5832 : To establish the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, to provide funding for the support of fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Gutknecht, Gil [MN-1] (introduced 7/19/2006)
Cosponsors: (4)
Committees: House Agriculture
Latest Major Action: 8/7/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Executive Comment Requested from USDA.

I am surprised this bill is not sponsored by Richard Pombo, nor is he a co-sponsor. The Republican Representative from Tracy, California bragged on May 11, 2006 about acquiring grant money for farmers to help keep our grape, cherry, walnut, and all fruit and vegetable farmers competitive globally. The grant is called the "Specialty Crops Block Grant" program. Maybe he was busy visiting our national parks in his government-subsidized RV rental with his family and couldn't be bothered.

Maybe the problem with this bill is, it doesn't give the money directly to agricultural businesses (corporate welfare) but instead, presumes to take over a part of their business... the R&D side. Maybe he realizes that the best people to conduct research into agriculture are, well, the people who stand to profit if the research is conducted in the best possible way. Maybe he realizes just how inefficient the government is at conducting lofty-sounding research. I doubt it.

Bills like this list findings that are supposed to support the reasoning behind getting the government involved in whatever the bill proposes. Here are the bullet points that supposedly create the need for a new government agency...

(A) agriculture in the United States faces critical challenges, including
impending crises in the food, agricultural, and natural resource systems of the
United States;
(B) exotic diseases and pests threaten crops and livestock;
(C) obesity has reached epidemic proportions;
(D) agriculturally related
environmental degradation is a serious problem for the United States and other
parts of the world;
(E) certain animal diseases threaten human health; and
(F) agricultural producers of several primary crops in the United States are
no longer the world's lowest-cost producers.

I challenge anyone to tell me why any of these findings a) are problems or goals best handled by the government or b) are not already the responsibility of another agency.

Specifically, the disease portions of these findings (B, C (arguable) and E) could be handled by the Centers on Disease Control (CDC.) It also seems to me that we have a huge agency called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is supposed to handle environmental concerns ("Environmental" is right in their name) which would presumably be responsible for item D.

That leaves A and F. Item A is incredibly general and item F is a problem for the business owners to work on. It should be added that the "lowest-cost" declaration is not substantiated with any numbers. It doesn't say if it takes subsidies into consideration or any other factor that might skew the results outside of what one would call free trade.

Oh, and did I mention there were only four items of activity on the Thomas website from yesterday's session. It is pretty sad when I can pick out an awfulaw winner from only four possible items. Sadder still is the fact that there was another one in the running.

Like Mel Gibson Urging People to Support Israel

2006-08-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

H.R.5646 : To study and promote the use of energy efficient computer servers in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike (MI) [MI-8] (introduced 6/20/2006)
Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; Senate Energy and Natural Resources House Reports: 109-538
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2006 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

In a nutshell, any company who needs Congress to tell them to buy energy efficient servers a) isn't going to find out about Congress' urging anyway b) probably deserves to go out of business.

For the longer version, cNet.com had this article which says very well what I would have said anyway.

Gotta Keep 'Em Separated

2006-08-04T10:43:00.000-07:00

H.R.2389 : To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sponsor: Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] (introduced 5/17/2005)
Cosponsors: (197)
Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2006 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Excerpt from text: Except as provided in subsection (b), no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.

Anybody paying attention to current affairs knows what this is about. Congress, or more accurately, their vocal religious constituents, are nervous about Michael Newdow and his Pledge of Allegiance case. This legislation, if passed, would prevent the Pledge from changing based on unconstitutionality.

Hello -- Does ANYBODY remember basic eighth grade civics? The Supreme Court is supposed to determine constitutionality. That is their job. The legislative branch makes the laws, and to keep them in check, the courts can rule they are unconstitutional. This is called checks and balances and it works because of something called the separation of powers.

Maybe reporters should get together and whenever a member of Congress gives a press conference, a designated reporter (picked at random) should ask a question about the Constitution. I have a feeling Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would get a lot of good footage from questions like, "What are the five things guaranteed by the first amendment?" or "Which article of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce?" I have a feeling it would play out much like Rep. Westmoreland, who was asked to name the ten commandments he wanted displayed in Congress. "Ummmm. Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't steal. Ummmmm. I can't name them all."

Sour Grapes

2006-08-03T09:12:00.000-07:00

H.CON.RES.399 : Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory of United States winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting.
Sponsor: Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] (introduced 5/3/2006)
Cosponsors: (150)
Committees: House Government Reform; Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Did I mention I hate Congressional resolutions. It's bad enough when Congress takes time and money to officially congratulate the Miami Heat for winning THIS year's NBA Championship. Now they take time to call attention to a victory thirty years old?

I hate it even more when the sponsor is MY Congressman. You'll excuse me now while I fire of an email to Rep. Thompson.

Just a note to let you know I don't disagree with Thompson on everything. He did vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment which would prohibit federal expense for law enforcement regarding, and prosecution of, medicinal marijuana cases.

Government Buys Crucifix

2006-08-02T10:06:00.000-07:00

H.R.5683 : To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 6/26/2006)
Cosponsors: (2)
Committees: House Resources; House Armed Services Latest Major Action: 8/1/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate.
Status: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

This bill is a blatant attempt to perform an end run around the judiciary branch of the government. You can read about the history of the memorial and the court cases involving the cross at Wikipedia. To make a long story short, the latest court decision was that the cross must be removed. The purpose of this bill is to circumvent efforts by church-state supporters to have a huge religious symbol, a 29 foot-tall-cross, removed from this public memorial since it is owned by the City of San Diego and therefore violates the doctrine of church-state separation. Under the findings section of the bill, as the third of seven items we have an inconspicuous reference to this primary purpose.

The United States has a long history and tradition of memorializing members of the Armed Forces who die in battle with a cross or other religious emblem of their faith, and a memorial cross is fully integrated as the centerpiece of the multi-faceted Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial that is replete with secular symbols.

The key word in the above text is "centerpiece." The cross at Mt. Soledad does not memorialize a certain individual in the memorial like the crosses placed on individual gravesites at Arlington National Cemetary. It casts a religious shadow over the graves of every dead soldier buried at the site. While a majority of Americans are Christians, there are, contrary to the popular saying, atheists in foxholes. This symbol of Christianity stands over even their graves.

Even if you are a Christian, you should understand this country was based on letting each individual make their own decision about matters of faith. When Congress goes to lengths to preserve the religious symbol of one particular faith over all others, they are violating the first amendment, if not in fact (as determined by the courts) certainly in spirit.

Congressional Krispies

2006-08-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a light day in Congress. They only took action on 40 items between the two of them. As such, I was worried I might not find a suitable item to poke fun at. I should have known better.

Consider S. RES. 545, a Resolution referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that would recognize the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg. Resolutions like this are considered and passed in Congress all the time on a daily basis. The point eludes me. I think resolutions are pointless. Passing a resolution, even when it involves a serious issue, which this one does not, does absolutely nothing to improve the lives of citizens and wastes time and resources for which they pay.

No doubt, a ceremony will be held to present a fancy certificate version of this resolution will be held. Family members and company executives will no doubt feel a sense of pride and importance. They will show the framed certificate to their important friends to validate the memory of the father of the corn flake.

In order to make this happen, the support staff of Congress will spend time and money to print copies for the Congressional Record, to coordinate presentation to those concerned, and so on.

For my part, I don't think this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds. I don't think I am alone in this opinion. I think, if this issue were put up for a vote to the general public, it would be overwhelmingly opposed. As such, I think members of Congress should think about what the public would have them do before proposing resolutions instead of actually DOING SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

Or, as Tony the Tiger would say in his best John Stossel impression, "Give me a Brrrrrrrreak !!!"

Don't be hatin' Generics

2006-07-31T16:12:00.000-07:00

H.R.5993
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs.
Sponsor: Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 7/28/2006)
Cosponsors (4)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2006 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Awfulaw comment: As if drugs (the prescription kind) weren't already expensive enough, Representative Emerson and 4 co-sponsors want to prohibit generic pharmaceuticals from being advertised. This makes about as much sense as prohibiting the marketing of used cars. Actually, it makes less sense since you could actually make a case (which could easily be rebutted) for used cars being less safe and less reliable than new cars.

As always, the prescription that will stop this sort of legislation is a Libertarian vote.