Vulnerable Senate Democrats Complain, Obama Is Sucking Up All The Cash

33 Senator seats are up in the 2012 election cycle, 10 Republican seats and 23 Democratic seats and Republicans need a net gain of 3 Senate seats (if a Republican wins the presidential campaign) or 4 Senate seats if Obama is reelected, to take control of the Senate and boot harry Reid out of the Senate majority leader spot.



2012 is crucial for Senate Democrats and they are asking the Obama machine to not lock up and max out their richest Democratic donors, via The Politico.

“We have a huge number of incumbents who are up this cycle and a lot of them have taken tough votes to enact significant portions of this president’s agenda and I think that there is a sense that there should be an all-hands-on-deck approach to keep the Senate in Democratic hands,” said one Democratic official familiar with the meeting.

If Obama's policies were more popular, if his disapproval numbers on specific areas weren't so high (71 disapproval on the economy was reported yesterday), then those Senate Democrats that took those "tough votes to enact significant portions of this president’s agenda" could always ride his coattails but those coattails are not there anymore, so they need money.



Money the Obama team is sucking up in his attempt to save his own job for four more years.

Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Senate Democrats have also asked for at least $10 million in aid from the Democratic National Committee as well as the president’s re-election campaign to help underwrite expensive TV ad campaigns and on-the-ground efforts for crucial Senate races in 2012, according to Democratic sources.



In a recent meeting in Washington, Reid, along with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third-highest ranking Democrat, and Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chairs of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, made their pitch to Messina, according to Democratic sources.



Messina would not agree to the request not to max out big donors, and no decision was made on the amount of financial backing that Senate Democrats will get from the DNC and the Obama-Biden campaign.

Without control of the Senate or the House, Barack Obama, if reelected, would spend fours years as a lame duck president but he doesn't really care if anything gets done, all he cares about is not being a one term president.



Gallup chart 8/17/11



With disapproval numbers like the ones above, it is very likely that Obama will be one term prez and he may just take Senate Democrats down with him.



.

Senate Democrats Throw Temper Tantrum At Media

Despite recent findings from The Hill that show that 68 percent of media reports in a politically biased manner with 46 percent saying the media favors Democrats and only 22 percent believing media favors Republicans, Senate Democrats are still bitterly complaining to the media that they do not report the Democratic position often enough.

When Jonathan Karl, a correspondent for ABC News, asked why Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) had blocked a short-term FAA extension offered by Republicans on the Senate floor Tuesday, Democrats lost their patience.

“There’s a certain naivety that comes with your question,” said Boxer. “The story here today is the fact that our leader is reaching out to [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-Ohio] to say, ‘If we want to resolve a particular issue, whatever it might be, let’s talk about it,’ but not have one side say, ‘Take it or leave it or people will be out of work.’ And the essence of your question doesn’t understand that.”

Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Charles Schumer added their complaints as well.

One reporter asked why Democrats didn’t swallow the cuts to small airports in their states to pass the short-term authorization and then return in September “to fight another day.”

But Reid retorted that Republicans would find other “hostages” to force Democrats to back down on the labor issue.

Democrats charged Wednesday that the media has fallen for the red herring of cutting subsidies to small airports.

“The fact is that you’ve got to dig a little bit behind the surface here of what this is really about,” said Boxer. “Whatever the issue is, this is about government by threats, government by one side making its demands …”

“And these folks falling for it,” Reid interjected, gesturing to the reporters in the Senate radio and television gallery.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is in charge of the Democrats’ messaging operation, then broke in.

“In all due respect, the issue is not essential air service, it’s not even a labor issue, it’s the issue of hostage taking,” he said.

The Politico reports John Boehner's response:

Republicans are pointing to remarks Reid made to reporters Tuesday in which he was open to accepting the House version if Boehner didn’t act on a clean bill.

“The only reason 80,000 jobs are at stake is that Senate Democratic leaders chose to play politics rather than keep their word and pass the House bill,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. “That’s indefensible, and they should end this crisis immediately.”

More reaction from The Daily Caller:

“All it will take to end this crisis is for the Senate to pass the House-approved FAA extension,” Boehner said. “The only reason so many jobs are at stake is Senate Democratic Leaders chose to play politics rather than pass the House bill. I respect the fact that Senators have certain objections, but they have had two weeks to respond to the House bill and done nothing, leaving tens of thousands of workers in limbo. The House has done its job, and now it’s time for Senators to do theirs.”

Republican House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica echoed Boehner’s comments.

“Senate Democrats had a House-passed FAA extension before them for two weeks but chose to do nothing,” Mica said. “Instead of passing this simple bill, Senate Democrats chose to protect outrageous ticket subsidies, as much as $3,720 per ticket in Ely, Nevada, on the backs of 4,000 furloughed FAA employees and thousands more out-of-work airport construction workers.”

Amazingly enough the media reported Democratic complaints and their temper tantrum but still did not get a straight answer to the question itself.

The Lonely Conservative provides the reason why Democrats blocked the short-term FAA extension. Seems the House GOP had stripped out favors to union bosses in their bill.

The Daily Caller provides ample examples, with dates,links and quotes, showing how very accommodating the media actually was in in mimicking the Democratic talking point calling Republicans "terrorists," using terms such as "hostage taking" during the debt deal negotiations.... but that isn't enough for these whining, sniveling, complaining Democratic Senators that simply did not wish to explain why they blocked the short-term FAA extension that passed the House of Representatives, which resulted in the temporary lay off 4,000 workers and potentially thousands more.

So now these Democratic Senators, who are showing how incompetent they are at their own jobs, think they should be in charge of what questions journalists and reporters ask, how they should be phrased and how they should report those answers.

This is your ridiculous item of the day.

.

Democrats Kill Cut, Cap And Balance Act In The Senate

After passage of the Cut, Cap And Balance Act in the House of Representatives, the bill went to the Senate where Democrats proved once again they have no intention of controlling the out-of-control spending in Washington, by killing the Act along a straight party line vote in the Democratically controlled Senate chamber.

The Senate voted 51-46, along strict party-lines, on Friday to kill the House Republicans' "cut, cap and balance" legislation.

The measure would have cut spending by $111 billion in 2012, capped spending over the next decade and prohibited more borrowing until Congress had passed a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

In the meantime, progress appeared to be made in the ongoing negotiations between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner but are being jeopardized by Senate Democrats who are reportedly outraged over a lack of tax increases and are bitterly complaining about being left out of the negotiations.

.

Saturday Cartoons- The News, Cartoon Style

Political cartoons representing the latest news are an entertaining way of describing the week or months events and on a slow Saturday news day, I find it amusing to see some of the great cartoons out there.

Recently Obama was taught a little history lesson, very publicly, by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was like Bambi meeting Godzilla. Netanyahu carried his momentum on with an awesome speech at AIPAC and then received a wonderful welcome by the U.S. House of Representatives, where Democrats and Republicans alike gave him over 25 standing ovations.

Glenn McCoy accurately captured the moment brilliantly.



The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, over 750 days ago and Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was recently quoted as saying it would be "foolish" for Democrats, who control the Senate, to propose a budget for 2012.

Nate Beeler provides the visual for this story.



Jobless claims rose by 10,000 last week and the unemployment rate is at 9 percent. Recent news showed that Texas, over the last ten years, was the only state to hit a private-sector job growth number in the six figures with 732,800 and California had the worst decline by losing 623,700 private-sector jobs. Doing the addition and subtraction, I found that 22 Red States, controlled by Republicans had totaled a 451,600 private-sector job increase from April 2001 to April 2011. 21 Blue States and DC (for 22) totaled a decrease of 2,041,300 private-sector jobs in the same time frame.

Should say something to what policies work better than others and who understands how to increase job creation and who is very good at decreasing it.

Dr. Helen wonders why so many "now hiring" signs are out, yet unemployment keeps rising.

Eric Allie creates the cartoon visual on the new unemployment "normal".



In other news, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, ruled that 46,000 inmates over the next two years be released due to overcrowding in the California prison system.

What Could go wrong? ummmm.... perhaps mistakenly releasing an estimated 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence? Oh and another 1,000 presenting a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were also let out.

Oooops?

Bob Gorrell presents the "get out of jail free" cartoon for this idiocy.



Another week in politics bites the dust.

Cartoons from TownHall Political Cartoons

.

Chuckle Worthy: No Recess Appointments For Obama

A recess appointment is the appointment, by the President of the United States, of a senior federal official while the Senate is in recess. The U.S. Constitution requires that the most senior federal officers must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but while the U.S. Senate is in recess the President can act alone by making a recess appointment.

The Hill reports "GOP forces Senate pro-forma session, blocking Warren recess appointment."

Republicans are preventing the Senate from completely adjourning for the Memorial Day recess. Instead, the chamber will come in for three pro-forma sessions over the next 10 days.

The cursory sessions are a formality that will ensure President Obama does not make recess appointments, a prospect that was considered unlikely anyway because the recess is scheduled for only a week.

Some Republicans feared that Obama would use the recess to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have broad powers over Wall Street.

Most presidents, if not all, make appointments while the Senate is adjourned, especially if they feel their nominee won't be confirmed by the Senate.

It is an end run around the Senate and isn't in any way illegal.

But on a slow news day, I will take my chuckles where I can get them.

.

When Obama Screws The Hooch He Goes Big- Senate Dems To Rebuff Obama On '1967 Lines'

Gotta hand it to Barack Obama, when he screws up, he does it big and not only did the House of Representatives send their own little message to Obama over his ill chosen Israel/palestinian "1967 lines" wording but now Senate Democrats are in major damage control mode and might issue their own rebuke of Obama by supporting a resolution intended as a rebuff to Obama.

The Hill reports:

Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.

More:

Democrats in both chambers are scrambling to fix the damage caused when Obama called for the 1967 borders and land swaps as a basis for peace.

Some Democrats have tried to downplay the rift, but Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress say there’s no denying that Obama made a tactical mistake in handling the relationship.

Talk about an understatement.

Also, according to The Hill, the resolution would show broad consensus within Congress that the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders are not only “indefensible,” as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, but also contrary to U.S. national security interests.


Now, just for fun because I liked it soooooo much:



.

Video- Rand Paul On Libya War: 'The Senate Has Abdicated It's Responsibility'

I've told my caucus, 'Come loaded with all your questions; ask questions in this classified setting. And then if in fact you want to do more legislatively, you're entitled to do it. The War Powers Act we believe is valid, is very clear, setting forth timelines."--- Harry Reid to reporters, Tuesday, March 29, 2011: Source Bloomberg)

12 minute video below of Rand Paul (R., Ky.)speaking on the Senate floor about his proposed resolution reasserting congressional authority regarding the committing of the U.S.. and our resources to war. (H/T The Corner for the video)



Paul talks about the War Powers Act and specifically highlights his proposed resolution is, in fact, the exact words of Barack Obama in 2007 and the purpose of this resolution, according to Paul's office is "the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

....To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

At the 3 minute 48 second mark in the video Rand expresses that "I am appalled that the Senate has abdicated their responsibility".

The specific wording of the War Powers Resolution:

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

What Rand Paul did was attach this amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill that the Senate was to vote on.

This put Harry Reid in the position of having to allow the Senate to be put on record either agreeing with Barack Obama in 2007 or agreeing with him now since he committed our U.S. armed forces to actions in Libya without receiving congressional permission to do so.

So, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did what he does best.. he ran. Reid adjourned the upper chamber and postponed all pending votes until Monday.

NRO reports:

“Paul’s Libya amendment has brought the Senate to a standstill because Reid doesn’t know how to handle it,” one GOP aide tells me. “If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-senator Obama or with President Obama. It’s possible that Reid just yanks the bill or files cloture, seems he may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul’s amendment.”

Following up on the issue, Paul has issued a press release of a letter he has sent both Reid and McConnell:

Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

As you know, Senator Paul recently made a motion to have the Senate vote on the following sense of the Senate:

“The President does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The motion Senator Paul made has the vote as the pending business in the Senate, ready for a vote at any time. He did not ask for extended debate, and his motion would take up a maximum of 30 minutes of the Senate’s time.

Though brief, it would be an important 30 minutes for the Senate. It will be the only 30 minutes spent on discussing and voting on whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution to attack another country without congressional authorization.

We believe the answer is that he does not. We also believe Congress has an obligation to stand up and declare whether or not we intend to hold the President to his constitutional oath.

While we realize there are other matters the Senate had planned to work on, it is our belief that there is very little we are doing that rises to the level of a constitutional question regarding war. Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment.

The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue.

We feel strongly enough about this matter that we are writing to inform you of our intentions. The Senate has already agreed to move a bill on Tuesday morning. In order to ensure our rights are protected, we will serve notice now that upon completion of H.R. 4, we will object to further votes on amendments to S. 493 until such time as the motion on presidential war authority is scheduled for a vote. We are happy to work with the leaders of both parties on the timing of the vote for next week, and would be happy to allow other business to proceed as soon as an agreement is reached.

Lest it be said only Republicans and Conservatives are concerned about Barack Obama's complete disregard for congressional authority over matters of war, Liberals are also highlighting the matter vehemently.

TPM:

The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.

Clinton was responding to a question from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) about the administration's response to any effort by Congress to exercise its war powers, according to a senior Republican lawmaker who attended the briefing.

The answer surprised many in the room because Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions. In doing so, he would follow a long line of Presidents who have ignored the act since its passage, deeming it an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.

Andrew Sullivan:

Many of us supported this president because he promised to bring back the constitutional balance after the theories of Yoo, Delahunty, et al put the president on a par with emperors and kings in wartime. And yet in this Libya move, what difference is there between Bush and Obama? In some ways, Bush was more respectful of the Congress, waiting for a vote of support before launching us like an angry bird into the desert. Hillary Clinton, channeling her inner Cheney, said in a classified Congressional briefing that her administration would simply ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that requires the president to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of the conflict starting. If the congress voted against continuing the war, it would be irrelevant to the administration. Beat that, King George II.

[SNIP]

The president is violating his constitutional duty to enforce the laws (to himself as well as anyone else). He has no constitutional right to simply waive the War Powers Resolution. In my view, we need a debate in the Congress on this as soon as possible.

Glenn Greenwald concludes after his typical diarrhea of the keyboard:

Most Democrats, liberals, and even traditional conservatives and libertarians purported to find such lawlessness outrageous and dangerous during the Bush years. It isn't any less so now.

Bottom line, Harry Reid, as evidenced by the opening quote of this post, agreed that his caucus, his Democratic Senators, were "entitled" to "do more legislatively," in regards to Obama and the War Powers Resolution but when a Republican Senator does just that, using Barack Obama's own words, Reid runs for the hills and refuses to hold a vote on it.

As a side note, I find one particular statement by Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones to be quite disturbing:

But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.

I find that statement incomprehensible. A person should never abdicate their own intellectual thought. A person should never give in to the "he is smarter than me so I will accept whatever he says" mentality.

You listen to both sides of an argument, sometimes another person's view will help you adjust your own thinking, clarify issues you hadn't previously considered and perhaps even change your mind once the facts and opinions are laid out.

But you never, ever, simply give up your right to individual thought.

It is people like Drum that gave way to creation of the term "Obamabot."

“Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are right... but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own.”--- Atlas Shrugged

.

Freshman House GOP Members To Harry Reid: 'your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure '

On top Speaker of the House, John Boehners public statement to Senate Democrats telling them if they really have a budget plan to they should “pass the damn thing” and stop “rooting for a government shutdown,” (Video here) now we have 30 (so far) freshman GOP House members sending Harry Reid a letter telling him "Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure."

Mr. Reid,

We the undersigned call on you and the Senate to pass a long-term Continuing Resolution; a resolution that hears the calls of the American people and makes reasonable, responsible spending cuts.

Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure. You have failed to pass a budget, failed to restrain spending, and failed to put our country on sound fiscal footing.

We do not accept your failure as our own.

The American people did not send us here to fail. Make no mistake: any government shutdown is the result of your lack of leadership. America has a $14 trillion debt and you offered a mere $6 billion in cuts. The House heard the calls of the American people and offered $61 billion in cuts, but the Senate has not sent us a Continuing Resolution in return.

We have received nothing from the Senate except denials of the dire straits of our nation’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is accomplishing what we were elected to do. We’ve cut spending. We’ve terminated wasteful programs. We’ve funded the government.

Mr. Reid, we are letting you know that we will rally on the Senate steps every day until you pass a long-term Continuing Resolution. We call on all Americans to join our fight in restoring our country’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is doing our job, Mr. Reid. The Senate needs to start doing theirs.

Mr. Reid, it’s time to pass a bill.

Bound together and determined,

[Signatures]

Ouch.

Speaker Of The HouseTo Democrats: If You Have A Plan, 'Pass The Damn Thing' And 'Stop Rooting For A Government Shutdown'

Video below:



Video lifted from NRO who provides it in an update:

UPDATE: Video of House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) from Wednesday morning’s press conference. If Senate Democrats really have a plan, he says, they should “pass the damn thing” and stop “rooting for a government shutdown.”

The budget battle continues....

[Update] Freshman House GOP Members in a letter to Harry Reid: 'your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure '

.

Senate Chief Clerk On Budget Repair Bill Vote 'Rules And Statutes' Satisfied

Earlier it was reported widely that the Wisconsin Senate bypassed the standoff with the runaway Democratic Senators that left town to prevent a vote on Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, by stripping the bill of the fiscal components and voting on the rest with a simply majority and not a quorum (having a set amount of Senators present to complete the vote).

Democrats have grabbed onto the argument that the GOP Senate members violated the state's Open Meetings Law, but Senate Chief Clerk Rob Marchant asserts that the requirements of the rules and statutes were satisfied by sending notice to the Conference Committee:

Tonight's Conference Committee was properly noticed. From the Senate Chief Clerk, Rob Marchant:

FYI . . .

There was some discussion today about the notice provided for the legislature's conference committee. In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board. Despite this rule, it was decided to provide a 2 hour notice by posting on the bulletin board. My staff, as a courtesy, emailed a copy of the notice to all legisaltive offices at 4:10, which gave the impression that the notice may have been slightly less than 2 hours. Either way, the notice appears to have satisfied the requirements of the rules and statutes.

I thought you might find this information to be useful.

Thanks.

Rob

Game. Set. Match.

.

WI Budget Repair Bill Passes Senate: Wisconsin Senate Does Their Job Without Runaway Democrats

I was wondering how long it would take the Wisconsin Senate to get back to work despite the deliberate obstructionism of 14 Democratic Senators running away from home like children so they wouldn't have to vote on the budget repair bill and last night my question was answered.

20 days after the 14 Wisconsin Democratic Senate members made a beeline for Illinois so they couldn't be compelled to return to their jobs, Republicans called an immediate conference committee meeting, open to the media, stripped out elements considered "fiscal components" (which is why the majority couldn't vote without at least 1 of the missing Democrats present for a quorum), voted 4-2 to allow the Senate vote to be held on all other portions of the bill, which do not require a quorum, and the Senate voted 18-1 to pass the budget repair bill.

Governor Scott Walker issued a statement addressing the passage of his budget repair bill through the Senate, which now heads to assembly who have already passed the version with the elements just removed, so it is expected to fly through easily.

"The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill and were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused. In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government. The action today will help ensure Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 new jobs."

Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald also issued a statement:

Before the election, the Democrats promised “adult leadership” in Madison. Then a month and a half into session, the Senate Democrats fled the state instead of doing their job.

In doing so, they have tarnished the very institution of the Wisconsin state Senate. This is unacceptable.

This afternoon, following a week and a half of line-by-line negotiation, Sen. Miller sent me a letter that offered three options: 1) keep collective bargaining as is with no changes, 2) take our counter-offer, which would keep collective bargaining as is with no changes, 3) or stop talking altogether.

With that letter, I realized that we’re dealing with someone who is stalling indefinitely, and doesn’t have a plan or an intention to return. His idea of compromise is “give me everything I want,” and the only negotiating he’s doing is through the media.

Enough is enough.

The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job. They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda.

More from JSOnline and NYT.

A little news on why the GOP chose now to make the move on the bill is given to us by Christian Schneider over at National Review:

A letter Democrat Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller sent the governor today, indicating Miller’s unwillingness to further negotiate any details of the bill, was what prompted the GOP’s decision to take the bill to the floor.

“It was like, ‘I’m in the minority, and I’m going to dictate to you what your options are,’” said one GOP source about Miller’s letter. It was just three days ago that Miller had sent Fitzgerald a letter urging more negotiations, despite the fact that Governor Walker had been negotiating with at least two Democrat senators for nearly a week. “With his recent letter, it became clear that all he wanted to do was stall,” said the GOP source.

Another action that provoked the GOP senators to act was Democrat Senator Lena Taylor’s very public decision to have a spring election absentee ballot sent to her in Illinois. The spring election is scheduled for April 5th, which indicated Taylor’s desire to stay out of the state for another month. “That sure didn’t help,” said one GOP source.

Ironic that the runaway WI Democratic Senators watched it all live streamed from their hideaway in Illinois instead of being there to witness and participate in the procedure, yet they are crying foul now.

The lead runaway, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, told the AP "It's a done deal," and there is nothing Democrats can do to stop it.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Miller said there is nothing Democrats can do now to stop the bill: "It's a done deal."

The Democrats may now turn renewed energy toward current efforts to recall eight of the Republican state senators. Six Democratic senators also are the target of recall efforts.

Senate Democrats met late Wednesday night to discuss when they might return. They said they would not be back Thursday, but gave no indication when they might come home.

"We are going to watch and see how the Assembly unfolds," said Sen. Spencer Coggs. "There will be fireworks. There will be a lot of people at the Capitol and so it will be hard to get in and out of the Capitol."

Ezra Klein makes this point:

Assuming Scott Walker’s procedural maneuvering last night was legal — and, as I’ll explain in a moment, there are some questions about that — then it was also legitimate. Certainly as legitimate as the Democrats fleeing the state to deny the Republicans quorum. They did something procedurally extraordinary to stop the bill from being passed, and he did something procedurally extraordinary to get the bill passed.

Personally I do not think it should have come down to any "procedurally extraordinary" actions in the first place. Republicans were handed control, they have the majority, Democrats the minority, both sides should have done their jobs and if the public, after all was said and done and votes were taken accordingly, didn't like what Republicans had done, then voters would be able to rectify that at the next election.

Had Democrats been in control and Republicans ran away from home to hide out rather than allow Senate to function and vote on items that needed a quorum, my heavens we would never have heard the end of it from liberals.

Put the shoe on the other foot and you have people like Klein referring to the action with the word "legitimate" in the same sentence.

Even more ironic than the runaway Democrats having to watch the proceedings from their hideaway, is a comment I see over at Taylor Marsh's blog:

As an aside, can you imagine if Democrats had a majority that they would ever act like this to push their ideology against what the people want?

Excuse me for a second while I laugh my ass off before responding.

Okay, now, a one word response to Ms. Marsh- OBAMACARE (Scroll down at that link to see poll after poll after poll showing exactly how the "people" and their "wants" were completely ignored by the Democratic majority.

I am still laughing at the brass balls it took for Marsh to write that little bit of entertainment and not see the glaring hypocrisy of it.


Better yet, imagine if it were Obamacare protesters that pulled this stunt:

A highly connected source in Wisconsin politics tells Fox Nation all hell is breaking loose at the state capitol.

“Republican leadership was considering calling in SWAT teams or the National Guard. Plans have been set. We have almost completely lost control of the capitol building. Protesters now control the first and second floors and are amassing outside the governor’s office. The third and fourth floors are under control but we’re not sure what side our security is on. Law enforcement is leaking evacuation plans to the protesters. An official tried to evacuate through a secret underground tunnel and was turned back by protesters. No one is safe. Protesters have broken down doors, broken windows, Democrats are helping them into the building and they’re building momentum. They’re robo-calling like crazy, trying to pack as many people into the capitol so the Assembly can’t vote today. Right now there’s no way the Assembly can vote…we can’t secure the Assembly and we can’t protect our legislators. If the protesters fill up the capitol all the way, the governor would have to declare a state of emergency and hold a vote off site.”

Stay tuned for more developments…

UPDATES: Sources say: "Police control the lobby to the Assembly Chambers and they think they are in a position to take back control of the Assembly Chambers. However, right now all they control is the lobby."

Photographer Bob Lee says protesters are being forcibly dragged by police out of the Wisconsin Assembly room. They are dragging and escorting the protestors that are blocking entrance to the assembly now.
Related Stories

Protesters were chanting last night that the world is watching.. yes, it is, watching union thugs and temper tantrums run rampant.

Furthermore Unions are talking about massive strikes to try to shut the state down, well a provision in the bill says if they do that, they can be fired for it.

The reactions to this are coming out fast and furiously, with updates, news, photos and video being provided from a variety of sources. You can keep up with it all over at Memeorandum.

[Update] The death threats begin.

Via 620WTMJ NewsRadio:

Among the threats the Justice Department is investigationg is one that was emailed to Republican Senators Wednesday night. Newsradio 620 WTMJ has obtained that email.

The following is the unedited email:

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

.

Wisconsin Senate Holds Runaway Democrats In Contempt

Wisconsin Senate Democrats have been hiding in another state since February 17, 2011 to prevent a vote on Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill and they were warned to present themselves back to work by 4 pm yesterday or be held in contempt.

Fitzgerald said the contempt resolution was in part a response to a judge's decision Wednesday not to immediately order Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover) to attend the Senate.

Oconto County Circuit Judge Jay N. Conley ruled Wednesday that Holperin appears to be violating a rule that requires senators to attend sessions. But he wrote that it is the Senate - not the courts - that enforce those rules.

"The Senate must enforce Senate rules, if it chooses to do so. It can, also, ignore its own rules, if it chooses to do so," Conley wrote.

Critics of the resolution to hold the runaway Senate Democrats in contempt argue the GOP portion of the WI Senate is overreaching and does not have the legal authority to take such actions, so it comes down to the Wisconsin constitution.

ARTICLE IV. LEGISLATIVE:

SECTION 7.

[Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance.] Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

Critics argue that Section 15 prevents the Senate from having the runaway Dems arrested:

SECTION 15.

[Exemption from arrest and civil process.] Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

Jim Lindgren over at Volokh explains the two sections:

Reading the two constitutional sections together, the courts can’t meddle in legislative affairs by arresting legislators in a civil court case, but each house of the legislature “may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.” Given that force was traditionally used to compel attendance and is still used in the US Senate (which operates under similar Constitutional provisions), there would have to be a reason that I haven’t seen yet why this provision does not authorize force if necessary.

As I noted this afternoon:

Historically, constitutional guarantees against the arrest of members of legislative bodies developed as protections against judicial or executive arrests, not against the power of a house of a legislature to seize and discipline its members. Indeed, this was considered a matter of legislative privilege, and when a house of a legislature remained within its privilege, its disciplinary decisions were considered beyond the review of the courts. The Wisconsin constitutional provision on the arrest of members (Art. IV, s. 15) follows this tradition . . . .

The privilege to compel attendance is just as much a legislative privilege as the privilege not to be arrested in court cases.

Why would commentators assume that the arrest clause and compulsory attendance clause were inconsistent — and that the drafters of both the US Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution were too sloppy to notice it and resolve the tension — and that the arrest clause trumps the compulsory attendance clause? If you just read both clauses according to the language they actually used, they are not at all inconsistent. One applies to court cases in the judicial sphere, the other to house discipline in the legislative sphere. This interpretation is consistent with their language, their purpose, their history, and their logic.

The Journal Times provides the legal summary of the state Senate powers to compel attendance of absent members sent March 3 to Sen. Scott Fitzgerald from James Troupis of the Troupis Law Office.

"Constitutional Authority to Act: Article IV, § 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, provides that each house "may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide." This makes clear that,should each body require, attendance is mandatory. The quorum requirement is not a grant of authority to a minority of the body to prevent it from acting and to frustrate the will of the majority.

Senate Rules Confirm every Senator's Duty to Attend All Sessions: Wisconsin legislators have a non-discretionary duty to attend legislative sessions. The Senate itself has reinforced that constitutional duty. Senate Rule 16 provides that "[m]embers of the senate may not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without first obtaining a leave of absence."

Senate Rules Confer Authority to Compel Attendance: Senate Rule 15, "When a roll call discloses the lack of a quorum...the members present may take measures to procure a quorum...." Senate Rule 84, "[t]he chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees."

The Senate, and Only the Senate, May Act to Enforce the Duty of Attendance: Article IV, § 8 provides that "each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, [and] punish for contempt and disorderly behavior." On Wednesday, March 2, the Circuit Court of Oconto County found that Senator Holperin violated his plain and positive duty to attend Senate Sessions, as provided in Senate Rule 16, but then held that the Senate, and only the Senate, had the right and obligation to enforce the rule of attendance.

Citing Article IV, §8, the court held "[i]t is the State Senate that must enforce its own rules, if it chooses to do so." Barthel v. Holperin, Case No. 11CV100 (Order, March 2, 2011). All 14 absent Senators are subject to the same Court holding. The Senate has clear legal authority to act to compel the return of its members. The Circuit Court explicitly stated, "‘Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings...', and may punish for contempt."

In response to a request from the legislature, the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office came to the same conclusion many years ago. "Members of the assembly, regardless of number, in lawful session, can compel attendance of absent members in such manner...as are authorized by the assembly itself." 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 406 (1929)

Other Legislative Bodies have held Willfully Absent Members in Contempt and Compelled them to Return: United States Senate: United States Senate Rule VI, authorizes a majority of the Senators present to direct the sergeant at arms "to request, and when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators." That Senate rule was invoked in February 1988 when "Capitol Police carried Senator Bob Packwood feet first into the Senate chamber. This occurred after the Senate ordered the arrest of absent senators to maintain a quorum during a filibuster on campaign finance legislation." See U.S. Senate, Compulsory Attendance, at http:// www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Compulsory_Attendance.htm (last visited March 2, 2011).

Alaska. In Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1985), Kerttula, president of the state senate, ordered Alaska State Troopers to compel Schultz, an Alaska state representative, to attend a joint session of the state legislature for the purpose of achieving a quorum. Schultz sued and the district court dismissed the case because the defendants were immune from suit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

New Hampshire. The Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives ordered the House Sergeant at Arms to arrest an absent representative and return him to the chamber in order to secure a quorum. Keefe v. Roberts, 116 N.H. 195, 355 A.2d824 (1976). The absent representative sued and the court held that "the right of a legislative body to have the attendance of all its members and to enforce such attendance, if necessary, is one of its most undoubted and important functions" and that the Speaker in trying to secure a quorum was acting in performance of official duties. "

Governor Walker and Senate GOP members also have another option, explained at NRO.

Basically the bill can be split into parts and certain portions, such as the controversial collective bargaining overhaul, can be passed with a simply majority, without the attendance of the runaway Democratic Senators.

Read the whole thing.

.

Obamacare News: Vulnerable Senate Democrats May Push Roll Back Of Individual Mandate

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall with two Federal judges now ruling that the individual mandate portion of Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional, with one ruling that due to a lack of severability the whole Obamacare law must be declared void, a handful of Senate Democrats are now looking for a way to roll back that part of the law.

Doesn't hurt that the Democrats in question, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana, are all up for reelection in 2012.

Harry Reid has 53 Democratic votes in the Senate and if he loses these four and perhaps more, then Republicans could very well get a simply majority on certain issues, especially issues such as Obamacare to which the majority of the public still opposes as a whole.

That isn't all though.

The Politico:

And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules.

Obamacare has been an albatross around the necks of Democrats with many believing the trouncing or as Obama phrased it, the shallacking, the Democrats suffered in November which cost them six seats in the Senate and the largest gains seen for a party in the House as Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, was partly due to Obamacare and how Democrats and Obama jammed the law through against the opposition of Americans.

No doubt vulnerable Senate Democrats will still have that albatross around their necks in the 2012 elections, with each vote against repeal being used in campaigns against them.

Whether they work with Republicans in repealing the most egregious parts of Obamacare because they see the writing on the wall and know the courts may very well rule against the Obama administration or whether they are doing this to simply save their Senate seats, this is an opportunity to start dismantling as much of Obamacare as possible.

Then if Obama vetoes any legislation that hits his desk which would do just that, that albatross will then be hanging on his neck, visibly, to be used against him in his reelection bid in 2012.

And it will be.

.

Senate Appropriations Committee Bans Earmarks

Giving in to the inevitable, senate Democratic chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) announced the banning of earmarks in any Senate bill for the next two years.

Republicans controlling the House of Representatives had already put their own ban on earmarks, making it clear that any Senate bill which included them would not be passed through the House and in the SOTU speech Barack Obama made recently he vowed to veto any legislation with earmarks, despite the fact that he had made that promise before and still allowed billions in earmarks while Democrats had been in control of both house's of Congress.

Via The Politico:

The earmarking process has been in limbo since Obama pledged during his State of the Union address last week that he would veto any bill that arrives at his desk riddled with the pet projects. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had already outlawed earmarks in the House.

Reid, meanwhile, vowed to fight the White House, telling the president to “back off.” But in the end, Reid was backed into a corner: He couldn’t get a bill with earmarks through the House, and even if he had, the president would have blocked its final passage.

“The handwriting is clearly on the wall,” Inouye said in a statement. “The president has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.”

Inouye said his committee will send each senator a copy of Senate Rule XLIV (44), which is a definition of an earmark.

Text of Rule XLIV below:

1.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.

2.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on a motion to proceed to consider a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the bill or joint resolution, has been identified through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the sponsor of the bill or joint resolution for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, the motion to proceed shall be suspended until the sponsor of the motion or his or her designee has requested resumption and compliance with this paragraph has been achieved.

3.

(a) It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader or his or her designee certifies-

1. that each congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report, has been identified through lists, charts, or other means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified; and

2. that the information in clause (1) has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before such vote.

(b) If a point of order is sustained under this paragraph, then the conference report shall be set aside.

4.

(a) If during consideration of a bill or joint resolution, a Senator proposes an amendment containing a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit which was not included in the bill or joint resolution as placed on the calendar or as reported by any committee, in a committee report on such bill or joint resolution, or a committee report of the Senate on a companion measure, then as soon as practicable, the Senator shall ensure that a list of such items (and the name of any Senator who submitted a request to the Senator for each respective item included in the list) is printed in the Congressional Record.

(b) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution that includes congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits in the bill or joint resolution, or in the committee report accompanying the bill or joint resolution, the committee shall as soon as practicable identify on a publicly accessible congressional website each such item through lists, charts, or other similar means, including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for each item so identified. Availability on the Internet of a committee report that contains the information described in this subparagraph shall satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.

(c) To the extent technically feasible, information made available on publicly accessible congressional websites under paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be provided in a searchable format.

5. For the purpose of this rule-

(a) the term ``congressionally directed spending item means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;

(b) the term ``limited tax benefit means-

1. any revenue provision that-

(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision;

(c) the term ``limited tariff benefit means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities; and

(d) except as used in subparagraph 8(e), the term ``item`' when not preceded by ``congressionally directed spending means any provision that is a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit.

6.

(a) A Senator who requests a congressionally directed spending item, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report (or an accompanying joint statement of managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, including-

1. the name of the Senator;

2. in the case of a congressionally directed spending item, the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity;

3. in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, identification of the individual or entities reasonably anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Senator;

4. the purpose of such congressionally directed spending item or limited tax or tariff benefit; and

5. a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9.

(b) With respect to each item included in a Senate bill or joint resolution (or accompanying report) reported by committee or considered by the Senate, or included in a conference report (or joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report) considered by the Senate, each committee of jurisdiction shall make available for public inspection on the Internet the certifications under subparagraph (a)(5) as soon as practicable.

7. In the case of a bill, joint resolution, or conference report that contains congressionally directed spending items in any classified portion of a report accompanying the measure, the committee of jurisdiction shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with the need to protect national security (including intelligence sources and methods), include on the list required by paragraph 1, 2, or 3 as the case may be, a general program description in unclassified language, funding level, and the name of the sponsor of that congressionally directed spending item.

8.

(a) A Senator may raise a point of order against one or more provisions of a conference report if they constitute new directed spending provisions. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order.

(b) If the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order as to any of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be stricken. After all other points of order under this paragraph have been disposed of-

1. the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report that has not been stricken; and

2. the question in clause (1) shall be decided under the same debate limitation as the conference report and no further amendment shall be in order.

(c) Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this paragraph with respect to the pending conference report by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order under this paragraph shall not be amendable.

(d) All appeals from rulings of the Chair under this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour, equally divided between the Majority and the Minority Leader or their designees. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair under this paragraph.

(e) The term `new directed spending provision' as used in this paragraph means any item that consists of a specific provision containing a specific level of funding for any specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity, when no specific funding was provided for such specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity in the measure originally committed to the conferees by either House.

9. No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly use his official position to introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage of congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits a principal purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or his immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.

10. Any Senator may move to waive application of paragraph 1, 2, or 3 with respect to a measure by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. A motion to waive under this paragraph with respect to a measure shall be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. With respect to points of order raised under paragraphs 1, 2, or 3, only one appeal from a ruling of the Chair shall be in order, and debate on such an appeal from a ruling of the Chair on such point of order shall be limited to one hour.

11. Any Senator may move to waive all points of order under this rule with respect to the pending measure or motion by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. All motions to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall be debatable collectively for not to exceed 1 hour equally divided between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. A motion to waive all points of order with respect to a measure or motion as provided by this paragraph shall not be amendable.

12. Paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this rule may be waived by joint agreement of the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate upon their certification that such waiver is necessary as a result of a significant disruption to Senate facilities or to the availability of the Internet.

Inouye's full statement:

I continue to support the Constitutional right of members of Congress to direct investments to their states and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process that we have established.

However, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them. Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.

The Appropriations Committee will thoroughly review its earmark policy to ensure that every member has a precise definition of what constitutes an earmark. To that end, we will send each member a letter with the interpretation of Rule XLIV (44) that will be used by the Committee. If any member submits a request that is an earmark as defined by that rule, we will respectfully return the request.

Next year, when the consequences of this decision are fully understood by the members of this body, we will most certainly revisit this issue and explore ways to improve the earmarking process. At the appropriate time, I will once again urge the Senate to consider a transparent and fair earmark process that protects our rights as legislators to answer the petitions of our constituents, regardless of what the President or some Federal bureaucrat thinks is right.

Brian Baker, president of the nonpartisan group Taxpayers Against Earmarks issued a statement as well saying "An earmark ban is only the first step to reigning in the massive federal debt, out-of-control federal spending and the broken budgeting process in Washington. We will be watching to make sure that our elected officials don’t break their promises to the American people."

As well they should since Inouye himself is an avid user of earmarks, sending hundreds of millions of dollar back to Hawaii for new roads, grants to local police departments and community development funds, among other things. (Source)

Besides Harry Reid who recently stated Obama should "back off" the earmark issue, there are others just as unhappy over this as Reid, such as both of Alaska's Senators, Democratic Senator Mark Begich and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski are bemoaning this moratorium on earmarking.

"I have said many times before, Alaska is a young state with many needs, and we deserve our fair share of federal funding to develop our resources and our infrastructure," Begich said.

Murkowksi, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she believes it's up to Congress to determine spending. By leaving the executive branch to determine such appropriations, they're ceding power to the White House, she said.

"We are in essence abdicating our constitutional duties, giving cabinet departments and federal agencies the sole power, authority and ability to target and spend taxpayers’ money," she said.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a subtle message to Harry Reid, according to The Hill:

Coburn is also applying political pressure to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has strongly defended earmarks.

“I hope this decision will shift the Senate’s focus from earmarking to oversight and cutting spending," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said in a statement Tuesday. "I hope the rest of the Senate works with, rather than against, Chairman Inouye, President Obama and House and Senate Republicans as we turn our attention away from earmarking and toward the enormous economic challenges facing our country."

.

Obamacare- Republicans Should Force Democrats To Vote With The People Or Against Them

From GOP committee on rules, where items will be posted for transparency allowing the public to see what the GOP in the House of Representatives will have on their agenda:

To be considered during the week of January 10, 2011

• H.R. ___, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

• H.Res. ___, Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law.

News reports show Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare on January 12, 2011 and the expected warning from Senate Democrats, who still control the Senate, is "don't bother", and "we will block it".

First- Republicans campaigned heavily on repealing Obamacare and/or defunding it at every opportunity if the Senate doesn't pass the House's repeal or if Obama uses his veto power should the Senate actually pass a repeal bill (highly doubtful).

Second- Obamacare aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was opposed at the time of passage by a plurality or majority of Americans, whether pollsters used likely voters or simply adults. (Scroll RCP link to see earlier polling from a variety of organizations)

Third- A majority of Americans continue to oppose the Obamacare law, as a whole. On average, 52.8 percent oppose Obama and Democrats' health care law with 40.5 percent favoring it, leaving a spread of 12.3 percent against.

Fourth- Recent polling shows the majority (60 percent)of likely voters want the Obamacare law repealed.

Fifth- Other polling shows that between those that prefer a full repeal and those that want portions repealed, still fall into the majority when added together.

During the debate before Obamacare was signed into law, the liberal left and Democratic politicians continued to cherry pick items from the bill to try to convince the public that polling showed those individual issues were popular.

The problem was and still is, the bill was not passed in pieces and popular smaller fixes to our health care system. It was turned into a monstrosity of almost 2,000 pages long chalk full of unpopular mandates and regulations.

In there lies the problem for Republicans who favor repeal but an even larger problem for Democrats who will fight against any repeal.

Republicans promised to try for a full repeal. Democrats controlling the Senate, or Obama with his veto pen, will not allow that, but this original vote on full repeal will put everybody on record for the voters, in the public eye and transparent on who is fighting for what the majority of Americans want and who is fighting against what Americans want.

After this initial vote, Republicans can, should and probably will start attacking individual parts of the law and target them for repeal votes as well, again, forcing Democrats in the Senate where 23 of them will be up for reelection in 2012 to take a public stand for or against the majority of American voters.

Barack Obama also is up for reelection in 2012 and Republicans need to force him to take a public stand on those same unpopular issues.

To that end, Representative Steve King (R.-Iowa) believes Republicans should include language that prohibits any funding for implementation of Obamacare in literally every appropriations bill that passes the House of Representatives this year.

This would force Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to continuously go on record in favor of something the American people oppose.

Under King’s plan, congressional Republicans would first force a straight up-or-down vote on repealing Obamacare in the House and Senate, but then follow that up by inserting language into all appropriations bills saying that no money from the bill can be used to implement the federal health-care program President Obama signed last year.

“So, my proposal is this then: Each appropriations bill that comes through, we need to put language in it that prohibits any of the dollars that are appropriated in those funds--and I would add to that any funds heretofore appropriated--from being used to implement or enforce Obamacare,” said King.

King acknowledged that his approach would first lead to a showdown with a Senate that has a Democratic majority and is still led by Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who helped enact the Obamacare health-care legislation last year.

“I think that would be a wonderful thing to watch,” said King. “With all of the Senate Democrats that are up for election in 2012, they will have some difficult decisions to make and I think a lot of them already know how they will be if confronted with that eventuality.”

If the Republican-majority House held the line against the Democrat-majority Senate and did not allow any funding for Obamacare in the appropriations bill passed in the coming year, the issue would land on Obama’s desk. As president, he would be faced with a choice of either signing bills that defund Obamacare but fund other government functions, or vetoing bills that fund other government functions because they cut-off Obamacare.

“At some point those bills start to reach President Obama’s desk and then he has to decide whether he’s going to accept the language that prohibits the implementation of Obamacare,” said King. “That’s where the crunch comes.”

Democrats across the board saw in the November midterms, from losing the largest number of seats for a party in the House of Representatives in over 70 years, to watching their majority in the Senate shrink to seeing massive turnovers in state legislative chambers in favor of the GOP, what happens when they ignore the will of their constituents and pass laws opposed by the majority of those constituents.

One has to wonder if they heard the message voters overwhelmingly told them or if over the next two years they are willing to offer Republicans a replay of those results.

Putting Democrats on record consistently throughout the next two years and refusing to allow any appropriation funds to go toward Obamacare until the unpopular aspects of that law can be repealed and/or changed, will fulfill one of the major promises Republicans campaigned on and is smart politically looking forward to 2012.

Voters have shown they remember and they do not appreciate being ignored and in November 2012, Obamacare may very well be the final nail in their coffins and the end to many Senate Democrats' political careers.

.