Conference back40::soapbox

Nobody capable of independent thought ever assumed that you socialists would
see the reality of what happened.  Just keep your busy little persona here
in the 'box and leave the real world to those of us who matter.

Bruce

    
    Um, are you saying that what Mr Bill has posted is not true?  
    
    I ask because I was not home last night to watch the news on television
    nor did I get to read yesterday's or today's paper yet nor did I have
    time to watch the news this morning.

    Ah yes.  Frequent flier miles belong to the House Members, so sayeth
    Mr. Newt.
    
    And of course, the Speaker's Spokesperson really does deserve a
    taxpayer provided cappaccino maker for his office.
    
    After yesterday's charade, Newt says the open debate can now begin, as
    he said it would.  (For folks who don't like rules, they sure had a lot
    of them yesterday.)  And I wonder if we'll ever get an accurate
    congressional record as promised?
    
    Next report card in 100 days....  I'm expecting he'll get an A+ on that
    one.
    
    								-mr. bill

     >>   Nope.  Exempted themselves from FOIA and Privacy Act, exempted
     >>   themselves from jurisdiction of EEOC, OSHA, etc....
    
    I think you're being a little hard on this Mr. Bill.  The FOIA cannot
    apply to information dealing with National Security.  And removing
    themselves from the jurisdiction of the EEOC, that to me is prudent at
    best.  We all have seen what EEOC mentality did to the Clinton
    Cabinet!!!
    
    -Jack

|   The FOIA cannot apply to information dealing with National Security....
    
    You shouldn't have said that.
    
|   And removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the EEOC, that to me
|   is prudent....
    
    What part of all laws will apply equally do you not understand?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Point noted...why don't they do a reversal and simply remove the
    barriers and restraints they put on the private sector.  Hiring based
    on competence and all that good stuff!!

>    Point noted...why don't they do a reversal and simply remove the
>    barriers and restraints they put on the private sector.

They can change rules without the President's signature.  They can't change
the law that way without a two-thirds vote.

    >exempted themselves from jurisdiction of EEOC, OSHA, etc....
    
     I'm disappointed by this. They should have to deal with the same crap
    as the rest of us.

    	Why have a new topic for this?
    
    	Are we going to get a new topic each day?

    -.1 my predictions comin' true. Ooops, this probably belongs in that
        topic... :-)

    
    It wasn't perfect.  Newt's speech, while conciliatory for him, was
    too long and not new enough.
    
    The closed rules were a mistake.
    
    Most of Mr. Bill's exceptions, while true, are nits, however.  Several
    of these measures were so obviously good they got broad bipartisan
    support.  I'm not sure about the frequent flyer - actually, I sort
    of think they should get them, but I don't feel strongly about it.
    The test should be, "can this be a corrupting influence ?"  not, "are
    they getting too many perks", and frequent flyer passes.  But this is
    so small a nit, I'd have given in to the Dems on it just to have what
    harmony I could find.
    
    I'd give a low-to-middle B.  They can do better.
    
    They cannot keep this pace when they get to the budget.  Look to the
    Welfare Reform issue for the real politics to begin.  There will be
    numerous proposals, and a murderous climate of budget restraint by
    all parties.  I hope they can pass something bipartisan that the
    President can sign.
    
    Dole & Gingrich are making noises about bringing Gore in (a la
    reinventing government).  I think Clinton should go for this, for
    different reasons.  Gore could become a very important figure.
    
    Fascinating !  Get C-SPAN !!!!!!  Don't eat the processed news Spam
    when you can have the real meat !
    
      bb

    	What would the 103rd congress have gotten for a grade on its
    	first day...

    Federal Government Employees can not keep frequent flyer miles....
    
    Unless they work for the House or Senate.
    
    Mr. Newt, btw, has given himself an eight year reign, while all other
    committee and subcommittee chairs get a six year reign.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Privitize http://www.house.gov/!
    
    								-mr. bill

 >   Fifth, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;  Done, but worked
 >   around quite nicely, thank you.  While proxies are banned, the practice
 >   of "pairing" votes (Senate records votes as "paired" even on floor votes)
 >   continues.  "Pairing" is where two members who know they will vote
 >   opposite on a measure agree to "pair" their votes as a courtesy when
 >   one or the other can not attend a meeting.
    
    Their proposal was only to ban proxies. Proxies occur *only* in
    committee votes, not on the floor.  They never promised to ban pairing.
    Pairing occurs *only* in floor votes, not in committee votes. 
    
    The Republicans considered the use of proxies an abuse of the minority;
    they did not consider pairing an abuse.
    
    
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    
    As for Newt, I thought his speech was brilliant. It was an eloquent and
    articulate paean to democracy, a heartfelt call for tolerance over
    demonization, for cooperation that does not sacrifice principle, for
    renewal that is based on the best of American traditions.
    
    In short, it was a complete repudiation of everything he has done or
    said to claw his way to where he is now. It will be interesting to see
    what side he settles down with. If he's as great a politician as I
    suspect he is, this Newt will dominate over the old bomb-thrower
    because he knows he has to move beyond the Red Meat Rush crowd to
    govern, and to keep Republicans in power once people begin to find out
    who he (and they) really are.
    
    Kit 

    Pairing is recorded by the Clerk on House and Senate floor votes.
    
    Committee clerks are quite capable of doing the same thing in
    Committee.  But given house rules which permitted proxy, it wasn't
    necessary.  With proxy nuked, pairing in committee and subcomittee
    will indeed take place.
    
    It's a game.  I'm not shocked you don't believe it is a game.
    
    And one last thing:
    
|   The Republicans considered the use of proxies an abuse of the minority;
    
    Given proxies were used by majority and minority, it's hard to
    understand how a proxy could be an abuse of the minority.
    
    A typical recorded vote from last year:
    
                                REPUBLICANS
                Mr. Goodling, nay.
                Mr. Petri, nay by proxy.
                Mrs. Roukema, nay.
                Mr. Gunderson, nay.
                Mr. Armey, nay by proxy.
                Mr. Fawell, nay by proxy.
                Mr. Ballenger, nay.
                Ms. Molinari, nay by proxy.
                Mr. Barrett, nay.
                Mr. Boehner, nay.
                Mr. Cunningham, nay by proxy.
                Mr. Hoestra, nay by proxy.
                Mr. McKeon, nay.
                Mr. Miller (FL), nay.
                Mr. Castle, nay.
    
    Proxies are a rational response to schedule conflicts in Committee and
    Subcommitee meetings.
    
    								-mr. bill

 >   Committee clerks are quite capable of doing the same thing in
 >   Committee.  But given house rules which permitted proxy, it wasn't
 >   necessary.  With proxy nuked, pairing in committee and subcomittee
 >   will indeed take place.
  
    We'll see. Fact is, you got in wrong in your original analysis.
      
 >   It's a game.  I'm not shocked you don't believe it is a game.
    
    Don't know your basis for thinking that. My stolid defense of
    right-wing causes, no doubt.
    
 >   Given proxies were used by majority and minority, it's hard to
 >   understand how a proxy could be an abuse of the minority.
    
    Don't talk to me. *I* don't think they were an abuse. At worst they
    were indicative of laziness and refusal to take part in the give and
    take of committee debate.  At best, they were a way to have your vote
    count when you had to be somewhere else. 
    
    Like much of the Contract, the issue is either a (take your choice) 
     1) cyncial 
     2) misguided 
    attempt to focus the unease of the American people on issues other than
    the fundamental one: 20 years of stagnant or declining income for all
    but the rich, which is only marginally affected by the litany of
    boogeymen so successfully trotted out by the Republicans and
    conservative Democrats who have held power throughout the decline. 
    
    In that sense, yes, it's a game.
    
    Kit

    And to clarify where you got mixed up on pairing and proxies:
    
  >  continues.  "Pairing" is where two members who know they will vote
  >  opposite on a measure agree to "pair" their votes as a courtesy when
  >  one or the other can not attend a meeting.
    
    As I said, it does not occur in "meetings", that is in committee. It
    only occurs on the floor.
    
    Further, pairing is a mutual agreement between two Members planning
    opposing votes. Proxies do not require the agreement of anyone. If you
    don't show up, and don't hand in a proxy, your vote doesn't count,
    but the votes of any number of absent members do count, if they handed
    in proxies.
    
    The Republican complaint was that, as the minority, with presumably
    nothing of substance to do in shaping the bills decided on in
    Democratic caucus outsdie of the committee, the best they could do was
    show up and debate -- which they did in larger numbers the Democrats,
    usually.  Then they'd get steamrolled by the already decided-upon bill,
    based on proxies of people who didn't participate in the committee.
    
    As with most red herrings, there was just enough truth to their point
    to make the argument acceptable to many people. Under modest logic,
    their complaint collapses.
    
    Kit

    Kitt:
    
    I get annoyed at the bashing of the contract.  Listen...Passing the
    contract and bringing it to the floor for debate are two different
    things.  I would think you would welcome debate on these issues!!!
    
    -Jack

|   The Republican complaint was that, as the minority, with presumably
|   nothing of substance to do in shaping the bills decided on in
|   Democratic caucus outsdie of the committee, the best they could do was
|   show up and debate -- which they did in larger numbers the Democrats,
|   usually.  Then they'd get steamrolled by the already decided-upon bill,
|   based on proxies of people who didn't participate in the committee.
    
    Interesting claim.  Not supported by the facts.  Checking around,
    Republicans were just as likely to be casting proxies as Democrats.
    Second, even when they were more likely to show up, they were still in
    the minority.
    
    And the most damning.....
    
    Committee on Appropriations
    Committee on Rules
    Committee on Veterans Affairs
    Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
    and on and on and on....
    
    ....DID NOT ALLOW PROXY VOTING.  Proxy voting was at the discretion of the
    Chair of the committee, and those chairs said be there if you want to
    vote.
    
    Now, Committee on Appropriations, is either the most powerful or second
    most powerful committee in the House.  And the most whining I ever
    heard from Republicans were about Rules this and Rules that.
    
    
    Yeah, Proxies are the fifth most important thing to worry about.
    
    
    Talk about a bunch of inside the beltway ninnies who don't have a clue
    what we the people think is important.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Jack,
    
    s'okay by me. As a matter of fact, the Repubs were right about a lot of
    the institutional tyranny of the the Democratic majority -- not that I
    think they wouldn't pull the same crap in a flash, given the chance --
    ever hear of Speakers Reed and Cannon?
    
    And they're right to point out we've got serious problems in this
    country. Problem is, most of their solutions are simply irrelevant,
    circuses to whip up the masses (and maybe a few crumbs, too)
    
    Not much chance any of it will do much good, and a lot of it might do a
    lot of harm.
    
    Kit 

RE: 229.19 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur"

> I get annoyed at the bashing of the contract.  

I'd bet that the next couple of years are going to be rather annoying to you.


Phil

    
    Of course, Mr. Bill is correct that changes to the rules only matter
    immediately to the members, and tangentially, to C-SPAN viewers.  It's
    like the Prex with appointments, a lot of symbolism.  There are so
    many things in life that can only be said by act, no words can do it.
    To show they are in charge, the new leaders MUST change the rules.
    They have no choice.  And they have to do it first.
    
    As to the 103rd, it is to laugh.  It didn't do ANYTHING it's first
    Januray before the State of the Union address.  Compared to the last
    couple, including the 103rd, the B/C grade is honors.  The 103rd would
    get a low flunk.  Tom Foley wasn't fit to follow Tip O'Neill (a very
    good Speaker, though too liberal for me).  It showed all the time,
    particularly on health care.  Gephart would be better.  Bonior might
    actually be a legislative leader, if he ever grows up.
    
      bb

                                                                         
|   Tom Foley wasn't fit to follow Tip O'Neill (a very good Speaker, though
|   too liberal for me).
    
    He didn't.  He followed Jim Wright, who wasn't fit to follow Tip
    O'Neill.
    
    BTW, if Mr. Newt sets his goals at being better than Tom Foley or Jim
    Wright, he will fail.  Not because he won't be better than them, he
    will.  But because setting your goals so low is not smart.
    
    I would hope that Mr. Newt sets his goals to be as good a speaker as
    Tip O'Neill.  Sadly, he has already undone some of the most significant
    reforms that Speaker O'Neill made.  But what's reform when Mr. Newt
    can grab power.
    
    Sadly, it seems to me that Mr. Newt will be a Speaker whose ambition
    isn't to be the best Speaker, but to be a President.  (Bonus points
    for the last House Speaker who ran for nomination for President.)
    
    								-mr. bill

unprecEdented
Yvw.

    
    BTW, just wondering.  If Mr. Newt is such a sci-fi dweeb, how come he
    banned members from using laptops from the House Floor?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
>    BTW, just wondering.  If Mr. Newt is such a sci-fi dweeb, how come he
>    banned members from using laptops from the House Floor?
    
 
 Didn't want them reading Soapbox?




Jim

    re: .24 
    
    Prolly Henry Clay, though I don't think he was speaker when he ran.
    
    Maybe Nickolas Longworth.
    
    Kit

    
    
    Can someone jog my memory please?
    
    I can't remember the note or the grade Mr. Bill gave the pres 2 years back
    after one day, month, 100 days???

    
    Can someone jog my memory please?
    
    What did Bill Clinton promise to do on day one, the first 100 days?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
         "I intend to have a legislative program ready on the desk of
          Congress on the day after I'm inaugurated.  I intend to have
          an explosive 100-day action period."
                                 June 23, 1992.
    
    

    What will become of Bob Packwood now? I haven`t heard anything from him
    since before election.

       
>    Can someone jog my memory please?
    
>    What did Bill Clinton promise to do on day one, the first 100 days?
 
     Slick promised everything! Ask Rush; he's caretaker of the list of
     Clinton promises.


     Monica

    In particular, Clinton promised to submit the Health Care Reform Bill
    within 100 days.  That got pushed back a year.
    
    DougO

    
    I trust the more discerning here understand Mr. Bill's "didn't
    deliver" comes from his peculiar view of the world.  If I order
    2 cords of dry hardwood to be delivered on Tuesday morning for
    my woodstove, and the truck comes at 1:30 PM, is two logs short,
    the top layer is damp because it's raining, and I find one that is
    pine, then in Mr. Bill's frame of reference, I refuse payment for
    non-delivery.
    
    For the rest of us, however, it's a delivery, minus a few nits.
    
      bb

    Talking of dry firewood - why has it been so difficult to get in MA
    this year?  -  How's that for ratholing the topic?

    Things Clinton did more or less within the timeframe included deficit
    reduction, motor voter, abortion funding.
    
    Things he pushed off but got later included national youth service and
    college loan reform.
    
    Things he pushed off and got defeated on included health care and
    campaign financing reform.
    
    Things he decided on his own not to pursue included middle-class tax 
    reduction and defense spending reductions.
    
    Things he caved in on included gays in the military (and arguably the
    health care proposal which was essentially a compilation of the wish
    lists of the medical and insurance industries).
    
    That's an incomplete list from memory -- no doubts others can add items
    in all categories.
    
    Kit  

    too bad his record is a bust with the electorate.  i, for one, am glad
    he didn't get as much done as planned.
    
    jeff

    other parts of Clinton's record:
    
    Issue- the economy.  Situation- well into recovery, fundamentals need
    no change in short run; budget deficit needs to be lessened in the
    medium and long run.  problem- campaign promise to do immediate 'recovery
    spending package'.  action- submits recovery package, goes along when
    Senate waters it down to nothing.  Markets are cautiously pleased.
    
    Issue: trade.  Actions- NAFTA and GATT fought hard, against a major
    democratic constituency (labor); passed.
    
    DougO

    Trade is the one area where I feel Clinton deserves credit.

   >too bad his record is a bust with the electorate.  i, for one, am glad
   > he didn't get as much done as planned.
   

   That's because he took credit where others where due - and the american 
   public wouldn't buy it. Just because you're in office doesn't mean that
   you are responsible for accomplishing the task. Most of his first year
   accomplishments were previous year(s) VETOs.

   Doug.

    Yes DougO, thank God for NAFTA because a upper class tax hike sure as
    hell had nothin to do with it!!!

Heard a good one from Mark Russell this morning on the Today Show.
(Political humorist/satirist).

Said he'd be appearing at the Ford Theater this evening...if congress doesn't
sell it by then.

Among Things You Never Used to See...Newt Gingrich having a debate in the
hallway with a statue...