Democrats signing blank checks, Bush sets his priorities

[JaJae]

House passes anti-terror legislation

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 19 minutes ago

Anti-terror legislation sailed through the House on Tuesday, the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) took the rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

Democrats said the bill's passage was a top priority.

"Our first and highest duty as members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to "look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars, and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way," said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

In a written statement, the Bush administration listed several objections and said it could not support the measure as drafted, but stopped short of a veto threat.

Democrats have pledged to make fiscal responsibility a priority in the new Congress, but they advanced the bill — their first of the year — without even a bare-bones accounting of the estimated cost. The funding will require follow-up legislation.

Legislation introduced in the Senate a year ago to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission had a price tag of more than $53 billion over five years.

The terrorism legislation is the first of six measures the House is expected to pass in its first 100 hours in session under Democratic control.

Next up is an increase in the minimum wage — set for passage on Wednesday — followed by relaxation of the limits on stem cell research conducted with federal funds and a measure directing the administration to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare recipients.

Next week, the Democrats intend to clear legislation to cut the interest rate on student loans and to curtail tax breaks for the energy industry.

Each of the six bills would go to the Senate, and it could be months — if then — before they reach the White House.

Already, President Bush has signaled he would veto the stem cell bill, which is opposed by abortion foes. House supporters of the measure conceded at a news conference during the day that they do not have the two-thirds support needed to override a veto.

Depending on the outcome of that struggle, said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., "400,000 embryos will either be wasted or utilized to cure a disease."

The House labored over the terrorism bill as the Senate began work on legislation enacting stricter ethics rules — and Democrats continued to gain from last fall's elections.

Officials said that four of Bush's controversial appeals court appointees, their chances for confirmation doomed in the Democratic-controlled Senate, would not be renominated.

The four are William Haynes, William Myers, Terrence Boyle and Michael Wallace, all of whom were prevented from coming to votes last year when the Senate was under Republican control.

"The president is disappointed in this inaction and hopes that the days of judicial obstructionism are beyond us," said Dana Perino, deputy White House spokeswoman.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., saw it differently. "Democrats stand ready to work with the administration to confirm judges who are not extremists, either left or right," he said.

In the House, passage of the anti-terror bill coincided with an email from the Democratic campaign committee touting the party's agenda for its first 100 hours in power, and asking for a contribution for the 2008 elections.

Democrats said the bill would enact virtually all of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and several members of the rank and file remarked that Republicans had failed to do so in five years since planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and scarred the Pennsylvanian countryside.

"Don't be fooled by those who say that this bill is moving too quickly," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (news, bio, voting record), D-Miss. "It has been five years since 9/11. It has been three years since the 9/11 commission issued its report."

"The fact is that the bipartisan 9/11 commission gave the last Congress F's and D's in implementing its recommendations," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. "This Congress is determined to earn its A's in implementing its recommendations."

Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., noted disapprovingly that screeners at the Transportation Security Agency would receive collective bargaining rights under the bill.

And Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the measure "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not yet available.

The legislation directs the Homeland Security Department to establish a system for inspecting all cargo carried on passenger aircraft over the next three years. It also requires scanning of all containers bound for the U.S., using the best available technology. Large ports would be given three years to comply, smaller ports five years.

While much of the debate revolved around the provisions dealing with cargo, the bill also requires the government to take the risk of terror attacks into greater account when distributing homeland security grants to the 50 states.

The measure also would centralize the government's efforts at preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and would take steps to disrupt the black market for nuclear material.

"We will not be safe here as long as the worst weapons can fall into the worst hands," said Rep. Rick Larsen (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

The measure also establishes a new program of grants to make sure local governments can communicate effectively in the event of a crisis.

One of the tragedies of 9/11 was the deaths of New York firefighters who were trapped inside the World Trade Center and could not hear urgent warnings to evacuate that were broadcast on police radios.

A companion measure, to establish a new House subcommittee with jurisdiction over intelligence matters, cleared on a vote of 239-188.

So basically the Dems come in and want to do a handful of things. Some neutral, some very anti-Republican/conservative.

The abridged list:
1. Kiss the 9-11 commisson's ass
2. Waste billions more on Homeland Security in silly ways
3. Raise the Federal minimum wage
4. Possibly raise our Medicare/welfare taxes
5. Lower student loan interest rates
6. Curtail many taxes for the wealthy and businesses
7. Ignore upcoming votes on conservative judges
8. Oh and, relax the federal funding rules for stem cell research.

Now when you read these things you go wow... Kiss the 9-11 commission's ass, there's something Bush would never do! Then you see how they want to waste billions more on Homeland Security and sign a blank check and you go... what about that "more of the same" mantra they were talkin about?

But of all things for Bush to veto, stem cell research? Give me a break. The longer Bush is in office the more I think he's a dyslexic pro-life Democrat.

[motivez]

Can you elaborate on which 9/11 Commission Recommendations you feel we shouldn't implement?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you elaborate on which 9/11 Commission Recommendations you feel we shouldn't implement?

I said I disagreed with some of their recommendations?

I don't disagree with a lot of stuff on that list... I didn't make the list, just presenting it.

For the record I agree with 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and go both ways on 2 just wish it was handled better.

[motivez]

Oh, I thought you were saying that was a part of the "Wasted Money" they wanted to give Homeland Security

[Thorgrim]

Didn't that really bright guy make a post about the house activities for today...hmmm

[6SpeedTA95]

they're going to pass a bill and talk about how to fund it later? great...that means either its a blank check to hand money back to your big campaign contributors or its a bill to look good now that will fall by the wayside later, aka wasted TIME AND MONEY...wow...

Hopefully the senate will put some teeth in it and put some funding estimates on the table.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Oh, I thought you were saying that was a part of the "Wasted Money" they wanted to give Homeland Security

Oh they are gonna waste a ton of money on Homeland Security like a bunch of idiots. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. The Bush administration wasted tons of money on Homeland Security like a bunch of idiots. It's needed though. I just wish we didn't suck at it.

What I'm saying is of all the things for a conservative/Republican to veto.... he's ONLY choosing to veto the stem cell idea. We might as well not even have a friggin Republican in the oval office. What difference would it make if it were Bush or Kerry at this point?

The sad thing is with Bush's approval rating so damn low, I'm willing to bet these things actually help him if they get approved on his term!

[SoFlaJDM]

you agree with "kissing the 9-11 commission's ass"?

[RMNIXON]

And don't forget they still have two years to blame Bush for all their spending!

First cry about safty, "working families" and the children if he tries to block any of it. Then cry about more taxes needed to pay for it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

you agree with "kissing the 9-11 commission's ass"?

I'd rather kiss their ass than pretend they don't exist

If I had to pick the Democratic or Republican stance on this I'd go with the Democrats.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Oh they are gonna waste a ton of money on Homeland Security like a bunch of idiots. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. The Bush administration wasted tons of money on Homeland Security like a bunch of idiots. It's needed though. I just wish we didn't suck at it.

What I'm saying is of all the things for a conservative/Republican to veto.... he's ONLY choosing to veto the stem cell idea. We might as well not even have a friggin Republican in the oval office. What difference would it make if it were Bush or Kerry at this point?

I just read the 9/11 commission post and I did wonder how they will fund that 100% inspection at the ports? As posted: "lets see the devils in the details!"

[Thorgrim]

On loans: I wanted to make a thread about it, maybe I should

But in PA, mid-20s adults with average credit get better MORTAGE RATES than they get for STUDENT LOANS

That's absolutely ridiculous, the bank is giving a better deal than the US government is to attend US state schools

"I'm out of high school, should i quick run out and get a job...should I go get a house and in 4 years ill have equity and a comfortable place to live, or should I use my money towards college and pay more in interest for a piece of paper"

It not only discourages people from going to college, it screws over middle class america

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So basically the Dems come in and want to do a handful of things. Some neutral, some very anti-Republican/conservative.

The abridged list:
1. Kiss the 9-11 commisson's ass
2. Waste billions more on Homeland Security in silly ways
3. Raise the Federal minimum wage
4. Possibly raise our Medicare/welfare taxes
5. Lower student loan interest rates
6. Curtail many taxes for the wealthy and businesses
7. Ignore upcoming votes on conservative judges
8. Oh and, relax the federal funding rules for stem cell research.

Now when you read these things you go wow... Kiss the 9-11 commission's ass, there's something Bush would never do! Then you see how they want to waste billions more on Homeland Security and sign a blank check and you go... what about that "more of the same" mantra they were talkin about?

But of all things for Bush to veto, stem cell research? Give me a break. The longer Bush is in office the more I think he's a dyslexic pro-life Democrat.

Other than the "blank check" on homeland security and i'm torn on the min. wage hike, i'm quite happy with all that.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

they're going to pass a bill and talk about how to fund it later? great...that means either its a blank check to hand money back to your big campaign contributors or its a bill to look good now that will fall by the wayside later, aka wasted TIME AND MONEY...wow...

Hopefully the senate will put some teeth in it and put some funding estimates on the table.

wait.. who's been overspending lately?

according to HR 1 most of the articles involve oversight and allocating the money to more efficient ways


there's another thread with the bill... maybe people should read it and not a biased article

[hsmith]

Bush is such an idiot, if you don't like it veto the fucking bill jackass. That is what the VETO IS MADE FOR.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Bush is such an idiot, if you don't like it veto the fucking bill jackass. That is what the VETO IS MADE FOR.

he can't...there were enough votes to override it.. so if the senate passes the bill, no veto allowed

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

On loans: I wanted to make a thread about it, maybe I should

But in PA, mid-20s adults with average credit get better MORTAGE RATES than they get for STUDENT LOANS

mortages have something the bank can reposses and homes are generally increasing in value.


Now why would the banks give a better rate to an unbacked loan that many people just simply dont repay ?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

mortages have something the bank can reposses and homes are generally increasing in value.


Now why would the banks give a better rate to an unbacked loan that many people just simply dont repay ?

Many people don't repay?

Obviously you're not familiar with the controlling (3rd circuit) court rulings in PA on student loan repayments, very poor and struggling people are forced by court order to repay loans from colleges they graduated or didn't graduate from...

To be able to avoid SL loan repayment, you must prove three things:
1) That you are living not only below the poverty line but below the minimum subsistence levels of surviability
AND
2) That you will be completely unable in the future to ever maintain a job that will produce any excess funds (ie enough for a cell phone qualifies) to pay off your loans, no matter how slowly
AND
3) That you have sincerely and continually tried to restructure your debt or even bankruptcy to pay back as much as you could of the loan

It's an extremely high bar almost no one meets, I don't know WTF you are talking about

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's an extremely high bar almost no one meets, I don't know WTF you are talking about

I believe they even dock SS payments for non-payment of school loans.