Isberg wrote that “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February. The systems affected tend to be highly complex, normally requiring at least ninety days for a change of this magnitude for software testing alone; not to mention analysis, design, coding and implementation.”
Discord among Dems 'par for the course,' experts say
Excerpt:
[After] nearly a year after the election, Democrats have little to show for this legislative session, despite holding a majority in both chambers of Congress.
The Democratic leadership, most recently, has butted heads over health care, and, throughout Obama's term, the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats have had a hard time swallowing the massive increases in government spending.
"A lot of citizens and a lot of journalists think that government should be a smooth-running machine. There's never been a smooth-running machine called government," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
The party infighting, Sabato said, is "absolutely expected."
"Where you stand depends on where you sit in American government. So to me, it's par for the course. It always seems more dramatic and important at the time from the perspective of history," he added.
The first nine months of the Obama administration have put to rest any Republican fears of a rubber-stamp Congress. That point was made painfully clear earlier this month in a "Saturday Night Live" sketch chastising Obama for the unfulfilled items on his to-do list.
Democratic strategist Phil Noble says the tug-of-war among Democrats is just the nature of the party, pointing to a quote by Will Rogers, who said, "I'm not a member of any organized party, I'm a Democrat."
House Orders Up Three Elite Jets
Excerpt:
Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.
But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.
The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.
But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.
Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.
An Appropriations Committee staffer said the military was already planning to replace its passenger fleet, and the committee “looked at the request and decided they should speed up the replacement.”
The Gulfstream G550 is a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that “easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.” The company’s promotional materials say, “The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers.”
One member of the House Financial Services Committee asked the chief executives of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC on Wednesday to raise their hands if they were willing to give up their company planes as they pleaded with the committee for a $25 billion bailout. None did.
The symbolism of the perk was potent to several congressmen, who said their constituents would be aghast at the privilege in such troubled economic times.
“It’s almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in a high hat and tuxedo,” Rep. Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.) told the gathered executives. “Couldn’t you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled or something to get here?”
Others questioned whether GM’s Rick Wagoner, Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Robert Nardelli were fully committed to the transformation of their struggling businesses if they were unwilling or unable to see how disturbed taxpayers would be by what they called a powerful sign of corporate extravagance. ABC News also picked up on the subject with an investigative news report.
Congress ‘Hypocrisy’ on Trips Angers Hotel Executives
Excerpt:
The U.S. Senate last month passed a measure limiting “luxury” spending for corporate travel by recipients of federal bailout funds. Two weeks later, about two dozen senators of both parties left town for political meetings on the Florida coast.
...
Over the weekend of Feb. 27, two weeks after the Senate passed the measure, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party fundraising arms for Senate candidates, each held their annual winter meetings in Florida.
Naples Fundraiser
About a dozen Democrats, including Dodd, 64, gathered at the Marriott-operated Ritz-Carlton resort in Naples, Florida. Donors who gave at least $15,000 were invited and offered a “coastal view” room at the group rate of $469, according to the Democrats’ invitation.
At least 11 Republican senators held a similar retreat at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach. Rooms could be had for $475 a night. For another $292, participants could play in a golf tournament. The invitation urged guests to make reservations for the resort’s spa “indulgences.”
Live-Blogging the Bankers’ Showdown on Capitol Hill
Excerpt:
11:01 a.m. | And yet more loans: Mr. Stumpf of Wells Fargo says the bank made $72 billion of new loans in the fourth quarter. “We do business and lend money the old fashion way — responsibly and prudently,” he says. “We are Americans first and bankers second.”
12:00 p.m. | Fannie and Freddie: Rep. Edward R. Royce asks to what extent the mortgage securitization process, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was part of the problem. Mr. Stumpf of Wells Fargo — which originated relatively few of the most exotic kinds of mortgage loans — says that the problem started a long time before 2007 with “crazy things” such as negative amortization loans and so-called liar loans. “There’s no question that Fannie and Freddie played a part in that,” Mr. Stumpf says.
1:44 p.m. | Autos and bonuses: What are these banking chiefs’ views on the viability of the American auto industry? Several executives say that they are supportive of the industry, including by making auto loans.
Back to TARP money received, salary and bonuses, or lack thereof.
Mr. Stumpf: $25 billion. $850,000 salary. No bonus.
Mr. Pandit: $45 billion. $1 million salary. No bonus. He will take $1 salary until Citi turns a profit again.
Mr. Mack: $10 billion. $800,000 salary. No bonus.
Mr. Logue: $2 billion. $1 million salary. No bonus.
Mr. Lewis: $15 billion. $1.5 million salary. No “incentive.”
Mr. Kelly: $3 billion. $1 million salary. No bonus.
Mr. Dimon: $25 billion. $1 million salary. No bonus.
Mr. Blankfein: $10 billion. $650,000 salary. No bonus.
2:06 p.m. | Where’s the money?: Will the banks lose more money? Mr. Stumpf recollects his time as a collector and says that job losses are key to answering the question. Mr. Pandit agrees that unemployment is important; when asked about when credit will flow again, he says “we’re doing everything we can.”
3:42 p.m. | No less anger: A congressman from Texas says the American people won’t have any less anger after the hearing because they don’t know where the money has gone. He asks if the bankers can ascertain the amount of new money that has been lent out directly attributable to TARP. Everybody raises their hands except for Mr. Stumpf, who says all of the loans go into the same pool of capital.
4:16 p.m. | Mark to market: Mrs. Biggert asks whether anyone would do away with mark-to-market accounting. Mr. Stumpf and Mr. Lewis said it should be modified for extraordinary times when there is no market for products.
4:20 p.m. | “Feed the troops”: Representative Joe Donnelly, Democrat of Indiana, tells the bankers to “feed the troops before they feed themselves.” “We are counting on your good judgment,” he says. He also asks the bankers whether they can work with small businesses who are paying their loans but their ratios might be off. Mr. Stumpf says they are working with small companies.
3:30 p.m. | “Mr. Countrywide”: A congessman from Florida doesn’t seem to know who the bankers are. He mispronounces Mr. Dimon’s name and asks the panel who “Mr. Countrywide” is. Mr. Lewis said he is “not Mr. Countrywide.”
Full statement here: Testimony of John Stumpf
President & CEO, Wells Fargo & Company, House Financial Services Committee, February 11, 2009 (PDF)
Excerpt:
Last quarter alone, we made $22 billion in new loan commitments and $50 billion in mortgages – a total of $72 billion in new loans. That’s almost three times what the U.S. Treasury invested in Wells Fargo. With the merger, we have reopened lines of credit to some Wachovia customers who previously had been denied credit.
Democratic Congress May Adjourn, Leave Crisis to Fed, Treasury
Excerpt:
The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.
Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.
One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.
``When you rush to judgment, you usually make mistakes,'' said Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican congressman from New York. ``This is something you can't go on forever without addressing, but Congress in a short span of time is best served by going home.''
'Impeachment light' hearing on Capitol Hill
Excerpt:
Republicans, clearly in the minority at the hearing, expressed suspicion at Democratic motives. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., called it "impeachment lite," where people were given free rein to impugn Bush but not to impeach him.
"It seems that we are hosting an anger management class," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee's senior Republican. "This hearing will not cause us to impeach the president; it will only serve to impeach Congress's credibility."
At one point, a couple of people in the hearing room were asked to leave amid voices of protest.
The committee reminded lawmakers and those testifying that House rules prohibit "personal abuse, innuendo or ridicule of the president." The House Rules and Manual points out that suggestions of mendacity, or accusations of hypocrisy, demagoguery or deception were out of order.
"The rules of the House prevent me or any witness from utilizing familiar terms," Kucinich said. "But we can put two and two together in our minds."
Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, known for his prosecution of Charles Manson in 1970, acknowledged that "I am forbidden from accusing him of a crime, or even any dishonorable conduct" under House rules. But he could still encourage people to read his book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., was less circumspect is asserting that Bush was "the worst president that our nation has ever suffered."
George Will: The gift of doing very little
Excerpt:
Consider Congress's agreeably meager record:
It raised the hourly minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 — less than the $7 entry wage at McDonald's — thereby increasing the wages of less than 0.5 percent of the workforce. Rebuffing George W. Bush, who advocates halting farm subsidies to those with adjusted gross incomes of more than $200,000, the Senate also rejected — more bipartisanship — a cap at $750,000. This, in spite of the fact that farm income has soared to record levels, partly because Congress shares the president's loopy enthusiasm for ethanol and wants more corn and other agricultural matter turned into fuel.
Although Congress trembles for the future of the planet, it was unwilling to eliminate the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. But our polymath Congress continued designing automobiles to make them less safe (smaller) and more expensive. It did this by mandating new fuel efficiency — a 35-mpg fleet average by 2020 — lest the automotive industry design cars people want. And Congress mandated a 12-year phaseout of incandescent light bulbs.
Comment: They did temporarily patch the AMT (doesn't impact me, but needed to be resolved). See earlier CFG posting: Bluto strikes again
The Delta House Congress - The politics of futile gestures
Excerpts:
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures.
....
Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Comment: To be fair, the Republican congress of the previous session didn't do much either!
Answers needed:
A Failure to Lead: The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action
Excerpt:
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.
Comment: To be fair ... the Republicans didn't seem to accomplish much the previous 2 years! (But at least they got a budget to the President!)
In case you are a starry-eyed naivete, you may actually think that Congress exists to pass laws the benefit Americans! Not so ... it's there to embarrass the other side and score points.
Illustration:
Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Cheney
Score 1 for the Democrats!
Republicans keep Cheney impeachment bill alive
Comment: What's this? The Republicans vote to keep the impeachment bill alive? Makes no sense! Or does it!
Excerpt:
The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.
After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them.
Republican lawmakers and aides credited Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for coming up with the idea.
Comment: Score one for the Republicans who "felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad"!
House tied in knots over resolution to impeach Cheney
Comment: This childishness is reminiscent of when my children fought over Legos! Is it any wonder that Congressional approval ratings are so dismal! Want to understand Congressional politics? Look no further than this episode!
A Sarbox for Housing - How to restrict lending to the poor for years to come
Excerpts:
Throughout the 1980s and '90s, Congress prodded, even strong-armed, banks into making more mortgage loans to low-income and minority families. Washington enacted anti-discrimination and community lending laws with penalties against lenders for failing to issue riskier mortgages to homebuyers living in poor neighborhoods or with low down payments and subpar credit ratings. And so it was that the modern subprime mortgage market was born.
Now, and for a variety of reasons, some two million of those loans have gone sour, and the same politicians are searching for villains. Leading the charge is House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, who is accusing banks of "predatory lending"--by which he means making loans to the very group of borrowers that Mr. Frank and his colleagues urged banks to serve.
As early as today, Mr. Frank plans to hold a committee vote on his Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, which would impose new rules and financial penalties on subprime lenders, while providing new lawsuit opportunities for distressed borrowers. "People should not be lent money that's beyond what they can be expected to pay back," Mr. Frank says. Now, there's an idea. Why didn't the bankers think of that?
Mr. Frank's proposal is a trial lawyer's dream. It would forbid banks from signing up borrowers for "overly expensive loans"; require banks to make sure that the consumer has a "reasonable ability to repay the loan"; and insist that loans must be "solely in the best interest of the consumer." This kind of murky language would invite litigation from every borrower who misses a payment. If it becomes law we can expect to see billboards reading: "Behind on your mortgage? For relief, call 1-800-Sue-Your-Banker."
...
No one disputes that there were lending excesses during this decade's housing revels. The Federal Reserve's easy money policy created a subsidy for debt and fed an asset bubble that made borrowers and lenders alike think prices would rise forever. If companies or individuals committed fraud, they should be punished. Meanwhile, federal regulators have been rewriting rules to outlaw the most abusive practices, such as onerous prepayment penalties and disguised balloon interest payments.
But for all the demonizing, about 80% of even subprime loans are being repaid on time and another 10% are only 30 days behind. Most of these new homeowners are low-income families, often minorities, who would otherwise not have qualified for a mortgage. In the name of consumer protection, Mr. Frank's legislation will ensure that far fewer of these loans are issued in the future.
Comment: Congress helped create the mess through "anti-discrimination and community lending laws with penalties against lenders for failing to issue riskier mortgages to homebuyers living in poor neighborhoods or with low down payments and subpar credit ratings" ... and now some want to punish lenders for enabling lower income families to own a home! Amazing!
Reid’s inconvenient theory will get House airing
Excerpt:
On Tuesday the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming announced a hearing:
“A Spark Neglected: Wildfires and Global Warming,” it labeled the proceedings scheduled for Thursday.
“Select committee to examine link between changing climate, frequency and intensity of wildfires,” the description continued.
A committee spokesman said the hearing “was prompted by the wildfires out West and the view of some scientists that the increasing size, frequency and intensity of these fires is affected adversely by global warming.” A panel of scientists will testify.
Comment: while not ever fire was as a result of arson ... at least some were. Read below:
Officials: Boy With Matches Started Fire
Excerpt:
Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.
The boy, whose name and age were not released, admitted to sparking the fire on Oct. 21, Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said Tuesday. Ferocious winds helped it quickly spread.
"He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire," Hecht said in a statement.
Comments: See earlier CFG posting: Blame it on Global Warming. The Democrats are really stretching here to do anything to support their agenda (and their agenda is simply - grab power!).
Some Inconvenient Truths: Rep. John Dingell wants his colleagues to be honest about the costs of tackling global warming
Excerpt:
That being said, Mr. Dingell has made clear to the auto industry that his colleagues are intent on seeing some sort of CAFE hike, and that the industry would do well to support him. "I told them, 'Your best interest is in going with me, and let me tell you why. You are going to hate the bill I give you, but it's going to be a bill with which you can live. If you don't work with me, you'll still get a bill. And you'll hate it. But it will be a bill you can't live with."
So if the current proposals for a climate program aren't workable, what does Mr. Dingell think is the right equation? He says he's committed to a bill that makes drastic cuts--some 60% to 80% emissions reductions by 2050--since anything less won't do much good. He also thinks any climate program needs to include an array of powerful tools that will allow policy makers to truly influence how much energy people use.
All this argues for new energy taxes, he says, because higher energy prices are one of the few things that cause people to cut back consumption. While Mr. Dingell has yet to unveil his broader climate-auto legislation, he has been releasing broad outlines. It will include a cap-and-trade system, but alongside that will be a big new carbon tax (probably around $50 a ton), an estimated 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gas tax, and an end to the mortgage-interest deduction for Americans who own homes larger than 3,000 square feet.
Taxes, he argues, will give policy makers more options in influencing behavior. He uses the example of a gas tax. "Why would I do that? First of all, it means I can reduce the use of gasoline, and I can make it easier for CAFE to work."
But he also explains that it allows policy makers to "differentiate between fuels." By taxing gasoline but not diesel, for instance, he hopes to get more people into diesel cars. That would further reduce emissions, he argues," since diesel gets "about a 20% to 25% fuel benefit."
Finally, Mr. Dingell says new taxes, and the revocation of the mortgage interest deduction, are the only way to truly spread around the sacrifices necessary for significant emissions reductions.
Comments: Yet another tax proposal from the Democrats! As one with a house larger than 3000 square feet this would impact me. I know for a fact that my house is much more energy efficient than a close relative whose home is half the size of mine. See earlier CDF Post on the Representative Dingbat (err ... Dingell) legislation.
Edina mayor may run for Congress ... as a DFLer - Jim Hovland, who's eyeing Ramstad's seat, says the GOP has moved too far right
Excerpt:
Edina Mayor Jim Hovland is a good example of the conflicted and wide-open political nature of the metro area's western suburbs.
A longtime Republican, he is not shy about expressing frustration over what he sees as the extreme nature of the Republican Party these days, calling it "a marching progression to a more consolidated base and a smaller party."
He supports abortion rights and mass transit. He's also thinking about running to replace Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, who announced his retirement after nine terms.
And if Hovland runs, he'll run as a DFLer. Hovland said Friday that he had switched parties.
Earlier CFG: DFL Sen. Terri Bonoff to run for Ramstad seat
Who will run as the Republican?
House condemns MoveOn.org attack on Petraeus, praises general
Excerpt:
By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
The liberal group's full-page ad appeared earlier this month in The New York Times and has served as a rallying point for Republicans. President Bush called the ad "disgusting" and criticized Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the party's nomination, for being afraid of irritating the group.
"Such unwarranted attacks should be strongly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., during brief debate on the resolution.
Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, a veteran Democrat, recounted how he left the Republican Party during the era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., and said that lawmakers have an obligation to criticize their allies as well as their enemies when they go too far.
CNN article
MSNBC article
Comment: I'm not sure which bill this was - I'm looking to see how Ellison voted (but I think I already know!). Image from MSNBC
If anyone can help with the bill # and the vote, please comment. Thanks
I think it is this bill: H J RES 52
