We're Still at War:

I am adding these two for my birthday since i was not blogging on those days

 Photo of the Day for October 19, 2010

Tue Oct. 19, 2010 1:30 AM PDT

U.S. Army 1st Lt. Paul Worthington (left), a cavalry officer with 1st platoon, Bravo Troop, 1st Squadron, 172nd Cavalry Regiment, listens to an interpreter while speaking with an Afghan National Policeman about security issues during a visit to a National Police outpost in the Jabal Saraj district of the Parwan province of Afghanistan on Oct. 8, 2010. Soldiers with Worthingtonís unit visited the outpost to check on security forces and to conduct an area recon. DoD photo by Spc. Kristina Gupton, U.S. Army.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for October 19, 2009

Mon Oct. 19, 2009 3:01 AM PDT

The battleship USS Missouri (BB 63) arrives at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on October 14, 2009 to begin a three-month, $18 million effort of extensive maintenance and preservation work. Missouri is the last battleship made by the U.S., and was the site of Japan's unconditional surrender ending World War II. (US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Mark Logico.)

Listen to Tom Brokaw! We're Still At War

 

— By Nick Baumann

| Mon Oct. 18, 2010 6:26 AM PDT

— Sgt. Zachary K. Tokomoto, an assistant convoy commander with Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, ground guides a vehicle into the motor transportation lot at Forward Operating Base Geronimo, Afghanistan. | US Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Mark Fayloga.

Tom Brokaw has an excellent op-ed (Read below) in Monday's New York Times. Here's the gist:

Notice anything missing on the campaign landscape?

How about war? The United States is now in its ninth year of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest wars in American history. Almost 5,000 men and women have been killed. More than 30,000 have been wounded, some so gravely they’re returning home to become, effectively, wards of their families and communities.

In those nine years, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion on combat operations and other parts of the war effort, including foreign aid, reconstruction projects, embassy costs and veterans’ health care. And the end is not in sight.

We do a lot of national security, contracting, and military reporting here at Mother Jones. (We also try to keep the wars on peoples' minds with the War Photo of the Day.) But there's only so much one outlet with limited resources can cover. So please, read your Danger Room and your Army Times and your Tom Ricks and your Crispin Burke and so on. Politicians may not be paying attention to the wars. But you can still keep yourself informed. 

 

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Wars That America Forgot About

By TOM BROKAW

Published: October 17, 2010

• 
  

McLeod, Mont

IN what promises to be the most contentious midterm election since 1994, there is no shortage of passion about big issues facing the country: the place and nature of the federal government in America’s future; public debt; jobs; health care; the influence of special interests; and the role of populist movements like the Tea Party.

In nearly every Congressional and Senate race, these are the issues that explode into attack ads, score points in debates and light up cable talk shows. In poll after poll, these are the issues that voters say are most important to them this year.

Notice anything missing on the campaign landscape?

How about war? The United States is now in its ninth year of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest wars in American history. Almost 5,000 men and women have been killed. More than 30,000 have been wounded, some so gravely they’re returning home to become, effectively, wards of their families and communities.

In those nine years, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion on combat operations and other parts of the war effort, including foreign aid, reconstruction projects, embassy costs and veterans’ health care. And the end is not in sight.

So why aren’t the wars and their human and economic consequences front and center in this campaign, right up there with jobs and taxes?

The answer is very likely that the vast majority of Americans wake up every day worrying, with good reason, about their economic security, but they can opt out of the call to arms. Unless they are enlisted in the armed services — or have a family member who has stepped forward — nothing much is asked of them in the war effort.

The all-volunteer uniformed services now represent less than 1 percent of the American population, but they’re carrying 100 percent of the battle. It’s not unusual to meet an Army infantryman or Marine who has served multiple tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Moreover, the majority of those in uniform come from working-class or middle-class backgrounds. The National Guard units and reserve forces that have been called up, some for more than one tour, draw heavily on first responders, as well as farm, factory and service workers.

Their families live in their own war zone. At a recent Minnesota event for military families, I heard Annette Kuyper, the mother of a National Guardsman who had an extended deployment in Iraq, describe how she and other Guard mothers changed their lives while their children were in harm’s way. “We close the blinds on the windows overlooking the driveway,” she said, “so we don’t see the Army vehicle arriving with a chaplain bearing the unbearable news.”

This woman’s son returned safely, but too many do not. As the campaign season careens to an end, military funerals will be held in country burial grounds, big city graveyards and at Arlington National Cemetery. Military families will keep the blinds closed on the windows facing the driveway.

While campaigns trade shouts of witchcraft, socialism, greed, radicalism (on both sides), warriors and their families have a right to ask, “What about us?” If this is an election about a new direction for the country, why doesn’t some candidate speak up for equal sacrifice on the home front as well as the front lines?

This is not just about military families, as important as they are. We all would benefit from a campaign that engaged the vexing question of what happens next in the long and so far unresolved effort to deal with Islamic rage.

No decision is more important than committing a nation to war. It is, as politicians like to say, about our blood and treasure. Surely blood and treasure are worthy of more attention than they’ve been getting in this campaign.

Tom Brokaw, a special correspondent for NBC News, is the author, most recently, of “Boom! Talking About the ’60s.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 18, 2010, on page A35 of the New York edition.

We're Still at War:

Photo of the Day for December 31, 2010
Fri Dec. 31, 2010 2:30 AM PST

Army Spc. Erik Martin uses a footbridge to cross over a river during a dismounted mission to Khwazi village, Afghanistan, Dec. 14. Members of Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul visited the village to survey a site for a future well project. PRT Zabul is comprised of Air Force, Army, Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel who work with the government of Afghanistan to improve governance, stability and development throughout the province. U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson

West Wing Week: "Mailbag Day, New Year's Edition"

Free Download | whitehouse | December 30, 2010 |
In this special edition of West Wing Week, look back over the last year, watch the President sign a law getting those loud TV ads under control, and find out the answers to a couple burning questions from the mailbag.
there is an interactive transcript

The Senate's Long, Twisted, Bumpy Road To Filibuster Reform

Brian Beutler | December 31, 2010, 8:50AM

At some point on January 5, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) will take the Senate floor and begin a process that he hopes will end in the successful use of the "Constitutional option" -- the prerogative of a majority of the Senate's members to rewrite its rules on the first day of a new Congress.

He and his allies have been vocal about their plan. But the actual sequence of events that starts with him giving a speech, and ends with filibuster reform, is obscure, fragile, and extremely complicated. In fact, it's so involved that the "first day" of the 112th Senate could actually last for weeks.

There are myriad unknowns and X-factors that could change the course of events, and even upend Udall's ambitions altogether. But what follows is a list of steps he and the Senate willhave to take to succeed in exercising the "Constitutional option," so called because the Constitution empowers the Senate to write its own rules.

On day one, Udall -- or, perhaps, one of his allies -- will take the floor, armed with a reform package, and object to the continuation of the previous Senate's rules.

If Vice President Biden is sympathetic to Udall -- a big unknown -- he can chime in supportively (what's known as an advisory opinion). That's what Udall wants, and he's pressing Biden to oblige him.

"The group of reform senators is going to file a brief with the Vice President letting him know what we're going to do," Udall told me. "In the past, three vice presidents, have issued advisory rulings at the beginning of the process."

But the process doesn't hang on that question.

Unfortunately for Udall, his rules package will be subject to -- you guessed it -- filibuster. And Republicans will filibuster. In fact their filibuster will probably carry through the end of the first week, and perhaps even a two week recess. So when his patience runs out, he'll have to be prepared with a complicated procedural motion -- a request that the rules package live or die by majority-rule, and that no intervening business interrupt debate on the reforms.

Republicans won't take that lying down. They'll raise what's known as a "point of order" against Udall's motion, objecting to one or more aspects of it. Biden would have to reject the point of order, or, more likely, let the Senate decide who's right and who's wrong. In that case, Democrats will have to move to table that point of order -- and that only takes 51 votes.

That's where Biden comes in again. Democrats will likely ask Biden to rule that if the point of order is set aside by the majority, it constitutes a validation of Udall's procedural scheme. If Biden agrees, and Dems stick together, then the Constitutional option is invoked, and they'll be on a bumpy path to amending the rules by majority vote. If he doesn't, then the minority's obstruction can continue.

Republicans would throw everything and the kitchen sink at this effort, and Biden could make their lives more complicated by ruling against them at some point, perhaps tanking their efforts. Or Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell could intercede and scrap the Constitutional option altogether in favor of a bipartisan package of rules changes, and the whole process will be aborted.

Reformers want to hew closely to the playbook Democrats used in 1975, when they last reformed the filibuster. Back then Democrats invoked the Constitutional option, but, after their threat was proved credible, Republicans budged and agreed to a bipartisan plan that was adopted via the more traditional rules-change process.

All make sense? Good. If you want to read an even more technical explanation of these steps, check out the below memo, passed along by a Hill source, outlining this scenario in Senate-ese.

Possible Procedure for the Constitutional Option

· On the first day of the 112th Congress, a member of the reform group would seek recognition from the Chair. Upon receiving recognition, s/he would say: "Mr. President, on behalf of the following Senators and myself, and in accordance with Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, I send to the desk a resolution and I ask that the Clerk read it." This would be a resolution containing the various reforms to the Senate rules.

· After the Clerk reads the Resolution, the Senator would ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. If there is no objection, the Resolution is on the floor for debate.

· Most likely, there would be an objection. Senate rules require 1 legislative day's notice in writing to amend or modify a Senate rule. The Senator who offered the motion would then address the Chair and send to the desk a motion to amend a Senate rule and ask that the notice be read.

· At some point, the Senate would adjourn, rather than recess, so the reformer's Resolution would comply with the one-day notice rule. (The Senate majority leader determines whether the Senate recesses or adjourns at the end of a day.)

· Reform Senators would need to object to any attempt to transact substantive business or seek a unanimous consent request to that effect. The objective is to ensure that the reformers do not waive any rights to amend Senate rules on opening day by majority vote. Thus, "opening day" could be extended for several days or weeks.

· On the day the Senate returns after an adjournment, the Chair would lay the Resolution before the Senate during the morning hour. At the conclusion of the morning hour, the Resolution would be placed on the calendar. At that time the sponsor of the Resolution would move that the Senate proceed to its consideration. Debate on the motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Resolution would follow.

· Opponents could (a) move to table the reformer's Resolution reaffirming the continuity of Senate rules; (b) move to refer the Resolution to the Committee on Rules and Administration; (c) defeat the motion to call up the Resolution; (d) reject the Resolution outright; or (e) raise a constitutional point of order against the Resolution. Assuming there is a majority in favor of reform, all of these tactics would fail.

· The constitutional challenge would likely come if a filibuster is launched against either the motion to call up the Resolution or on the Resolution itself. After a reasonable period of debate, a member of the reform group would move to cut off debate by a simple majority vote. A point of order would likely be made that the move to cut off debate is contrary to the continuous nature of Senate rules. The Chair would submit the point of order to the Senate because it raises a constitutional question. The point of order is debatable.

· As occurred three times in 1975, a majority could vote to table the point of order, thus upholding the right of a simple majority to end debate on a rules change.

· Throughout these procedural steps, there would be negotiations on the rules reforms that might be able to pass with a supermajority. This is how the filibuster rule was amended in 1959 and 1975 - the looming threat of a majority vote on cloture forced a compromise.

Murkowski certified as winner of Alaska Senate race

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican (AP Photo/Rob Stapleton)

By Becky Bohrer

-

Associated Press

3:26 p.m., Thursday, December 30, 2010

Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller (AP Photo/Chris Miller, File)

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican, officially was named the winner of the state's U.S. Senate race Thursday, following a legal battle that lasted longer than the write-in campaign she waged to keep her job.

Gov. Sean Parnell and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell signed the paperwork certifying her win in the hotly contested race.

The paperwork was expected to be hand-delivered to Washington to guard against possible delays that could keep Mrs. Murkowski from being sworn in with her colleagues on Wednesday.

With certification, Mrs. Murkowski becomes the first U.S. Senatecandidate since Sen. Strom Thurmond in 1954 to win a write-in campaign.

The official margin of victory over her nearest opponent, Republican rival Joe Miller, was more than 10,000 votes.

Mrs. Murkowski waged her longshot write-in bid after losing the August GOP primary to Mr. Miller, a Sarah Palin-backed "tea party" favorite making his first statewide run for public office.

She announced her write-in campaign Sept. 17 — an unprecedented effort in this state that lasted 46 days. Certification came 58 days after the election.

Mr. Miller was expected to announce Friday whether he'll continue his challenge to the state's handling of the election and its counting of write-in votes for Mrs. Murkowski.

Mr. Miller sued in federal court shortly after the hand count of ballots ended. He argued that the state should have adhered strictly to a law calling for write-in ballots to have the ovals filled and either the candidate's last name or name as it appears on the declaration of candidacy written. Spelling, his attorneys insisted, mattered.

The state allowed for ballots with misspellings to be counted towardMrs. Murkowski's total, with the director of the state Division of Elections, in consultation with state attorneys, using discretion to determine voter intent.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline determined the state courts were in a better position to decide the winner initially but blocked the state from certifying the results of the race until the "serious" legal issues raised by Mr. Miller were resolved.

Last week, the state Supreme Court, in an at-times strongly worded 4-0 opinion, called voter intent "paramount" and upheld a lower-court decision that refused to overturn election results favoring Mrs. Murkowski.

Mr. Miller then took his case back to the federal court, but JudgeBeistline refused to second-guess the state's high court, tossing Mr. Miller's claims of constitutional violations and lifting his hold on certification.

Mr. Miller could appeal Judge Beistline's decision, lodge a formal contest of the election results in state court or give up.

New House rules end official commendations

By Stephen Dinan

-

The Washington Times

7:28 p.m., Wednesday, December 29, 2010

With little fanfare earlier this month, the House passed a commending resolution recognizing the University of Wisconsin's football team for making it to the Rose Bowl. But if the team wins, it's likely to have to go without a pat on the back from the country's 435 House members — at least as far as official recognition goes.

House Republicans, who take control of the chamber in January, are planning a rules change that would end most commending resolutions, and in the process could slice down much of the chamber's workload — with the goal, the GOP said, of letting lawmakers focus on the big issues during the key work hours.

"These are not negative things. These are great people, great institutions, but if indeed you're after better time management and you want to compress votes … it is important you take away this kind of stuff," said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican, who served as chairman of a working group on new rules for the House and the Republican Conference.

Out would be legislation such as H. Res. 1767, the official name for the measure that congratulated the Wisconsin Badgers on their 11-1 season and Rose Bowl bid. Also on the chopping block would be commendations for the 100th anniversary of Catholic Charities or the 175th birthday of Mark Twain — both of which passed just hours before the Wisconsin football resolution, which was the last to pass under the old rules.

The changes are part of a new schedule incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, designed to return power to rank-and-file members and streamline legislative business to make it more predictable — and meaningful.

That means a revamped schedule with more time spent back in districts listening to constituents in the middle of big debates and more time spent on committee work in the mornings, voting on floor items in the afternoon, and free by late evening.

The schedule has come under fire from some Democrats and Republicans who say Republicans will be spending less time in Washington, which means less time voting on big issues.

"I promised my constituents I would go to Capitol Hill and work every day to help solve these problems," said Rep.-elect Allen West, Florida Republican. "I hope that the leadership, if it becomes clear that we are not meeting the promise we made to the American people, will modify the schedule."

But Republican leaders counter that much of the time Congress has spent in session in recent years hasn't been devoted to tackling big issues, but rather finding busywork to keep members in town.

Mr. Bishop said that under the old rules, a congressional committee once came to him and urged him to sponsor a resolution commending a group's 120th anniversary. He suggested it might make sense to wait another five years, but the committee said it needed the resolution.

"It is very clear that a lot of committees were told, 'We need to work five days a week, and we don't have enough for five days a week, so we need to find stuff to bring to the floor,'" Mr. Bishop said.

Unlike the Senate, where such resolutions usually pass without consuming any floor time, the House usually subjects them to either a full or abbreviated debate.

That abbreviated process requires a two-thirds vote to succeed and limits debate to 40 minutes. Republican staffers said an analysis done over the summer found that more than half of all bills passed under the abbreviated process in 2010 were commending resolutions.

The Wisconsin resolution was sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin Democrat, whose district includes the University of Wisconsin at Madison and who earned a law degree from the school. During the 10-minute floor debate, she divided her time between praising the team's big victories over Ohio State University and the University of Iowa — "an inspiring comeback" — and pointing to key players, coaches and administrators.

Miss Baldwin's office said she was traveling and couldn't be reached for comment on securing the last commending resolution of the 111th Congress.

Republicans said there still will be chances next year to praise accomplishments during the time offered at the beginning of the legislative day for one-minute speeches.

It's rare, but the resolutions have been occasions for partisan fights in the past.

In March, Republicans led a revolt and defeated a seemingly innocuous resolution to recognize National Public Works Week. Democrats said the GOP was angered by the resolution's praise of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Republicans argue has been a failure, not a success.

Then-Rep. James L. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat, who chaired the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and had sponsored a similar resolution the previous year, said the defeat was "an insult to thousands of public-works professionals."

One area that won't be touched by the new rules is the practice of naming post offices. Those actually require a change in federal law, and lawmakers view them as special plums to be doled out.

In the 111th Congress, 71 post office buildings were renamed, including one in Portland, Ore., in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.; one in San Diego after Cesar Chavez; and one in Indiana, Pa., for actor Jimmy Stewart. All told, they accounted for nearly 20 percent of the bills presented to President Obama over the past two years.

Still, the 71 post offices renamed represented a drop from the 109 post offices named in the previous Congress.

Mr. Bishop quipped that there is an eventual ceiling on those resolutions, too, once all of the tens of thousands of post offices in the country have been named.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. 

Boehner Announces More Staff Assignments for Speaker’s Office

Washington (Dec 30)House Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-OH) today announced additional staff assignments for the Office of the Speaker in the 112th Congress:

Ed Cassidy will serve as Director of House Operations for the Speaker. Cassidy has worked as Senior Advisor and Floor Assistant for Boehner since 2007. Prior to that he served at the House Ethics Committee as Chief of Staff to Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA), and at the House Rules Committee as Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.

Kristen Chaplin will serve as Director of Scheduling & Special Events for the Speaker. Chaplin has worked as Boehner’s executive assistant and scheduler since 2007, and previously served in the White House under President George W. Bush and in Boehner’s personal office.

Johnny DeStefano will serve as Senior Advisor for Member Services & New Member Development. DeStefano served as Boehner’s political director for the past several years and deputy executive director for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) during the 2010 election cycle. Prior to that he worked for House Republican Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH).

Trevor Kolego will serve as Deputy Director of Member Services for the Speaker. Kolego joined the Boehner leadership team in 2007, after previously working as Legislative Director for Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV).

Amy Lozupone will serve as Director of Administrative Operations for the Speaker. Lozupone has served as Boehner’s chief administrative staffer for many years, beginning with his chairmanship of the House Committee on Education & the Workforce in 2001. Prior to that, she worked for the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the House, and as Executive Assistant to the Staff Director at Education & the Workforce.

Danielle Maurer will serve as Director of Member Services for the Speaker. Maurer has worked as Boehner’s member services director since January 2008, when she returned to Capitol Hill after a stint in the private sector. She previously worked for the Office of the Majority Leader under Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX); the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) under then-director Mitch Daniels; and the House Rules Committee under Reps. Gerry Solomon (R-NY)and David Dreier (R-CA).

Anne Thorsen will serve as Director of Floor Operations for the Speaker. Thorsen has worked as Deputy Director of Floor Operations for Boehner since 2006, when Boehner was elected Majority Leader. She held a similar position in the Majority Leader’s office under Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), and worked as Legislative Director for Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) prior to that.

Obama works around Congress on climate change, healthcare

By Jason Millman and Andrew Restuccia - 12/30/10 06:00 AM ET

Republicans are preparing an array of budgetary, legislative and political strategies to fight regulatory action by President Obama.

Without Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a majority in the House, Obama is expected to rely heavily on his executive power to influence policy over the next two years.

To counter that effort, Republicans hope to cut off funding for the new healthcare law and, through legislation, to block efforts by agencies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the Internet.

“We will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said last week.

The White House’s regulatory work already has stirred outrage among Republicans and business groups, which argue the White House is trying to enact policies through regulatory action after failing to win support from Congress.

These include greenhouse gas standards, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net-neutrality rules and the inclusion of advanced care planning in a Medicare rule after a similar provision was scrapped from the administration’s healthcare overhaul when Republicans said the provision would create government-run "death panels." 

White House efforts to issue major regulations are “unprecedented,” said Reed Rubenstein, senior counsel for the environment, technology and regulatory affairs division of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business lobby is devoting significant resources to oversight of the administration’s regulatory agenda, specifically regarding transparency and efficiency.

Rubenstein argues President Obama is “inclined to regulate” and that the Democratic-led Congress has passed broad legislation that allows the administration to issue regulations that fill in key details.

“You end up with sort of a perfect storm,” Rubenstein said. “It brings all of these process issues we’ve been dealing with for decades into focus.”

But Sarah Rosen Wartell, executive vice president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, argues that President Obama’s efforts to exercise his regulatory authority are no different from those of other presidents.

“If you think of the president’s job as somebody who just negotiates policy with Congress, than you have a very limited understanding of the authorities granted to the executive in the Constitution,” she said.

“When the president uses those authorities that the office has been given to accomplish policy objectives, he’s doing something no different than any modern president,” said Wartell, who pointed to similar actions by both President George W. Bush and President Clinton.

Republicans will have ample opportunity to hamstring Obama's agencies in funding battles over the healthcare reform law, experts say. Congress must still appropriate more than $105 billion in reform law funding, setting the stage for Republicans to limit regulatory power.

At the same time, Republicans and some Democrats hope to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions next year. A bill authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would delay the agency’s greenhouse gas authority by two years failed to gain enough support to come up for a vote this year. But Republicans aim to revive a similar proposal next year that would delay the agency’s authority indefinitely, or until a key court case on the issue is resolved.

Republicans have also said they intend to target the FCC’s net-neutrality rules, which ban cable and telephone companies from restricting access to their competitors. Republicans have decried the recent move by the FCC as “regulating the Internet.”

Upton will play a major role in rolling back the administration’s regulations, as his committee has jurisdiction over all three of these issues. House Republicans face an uphill battle, however, since Democrats remain in control of the Senate.

A number of interest groups are planning to aid Republicans’ efforts to target the administration’s regulations.

An influential Tea Party group announced this week it would launch a grassroots campaign to pressure Congress into rejecting “outrageous” regulations by making use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA has been used to void a regulation just once since its 1996 enactment, and Obama would have the opportunity to easily veto any CRA measures without holding up other important legislation. However, supporters of the strategy say the law is effective because it forces members to take high-profile up-or-down votes.

“It’s critical that we create political pressure and awareness that forces Congress to take responsibility for excessive executive power,” said Phil Kerpen, vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity.

The Chamber is expected to continue to argue regulations being imposed by the administration are hampering the economic recovery — an argument with weight, given the 9.8 percent unemployment rate.

In an October speech in Iowa, Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue pointed to what he called a “tsunami of government regulations” that presents a “clear and present threat” to job growth and the U.S. economy.

“[I]f we don’t act now,” Donohue said, “we run the risk of moving this country away from a government of the people to a government of the regulators.”

While any president wields tremendous executive power, efforts to enact policy through regulations do come with some drawbacks, said Steven S. Smith, a congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis. For starters, it won’t amount to many positive front-page headlines heading into the 2012 presidential campaign.

“If you want to build a reputation as an effective president, the regulatory process is not a particularly attractive way to go,” Smith said.

Further, effecting policy through law is preferable because it has much more staying power than regulation.

“Regulation is written in sand,” said Kenneth P. Green, interim director of the conservative American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Regulatory Studies. “The next Republican who gets in can undo a large number of these regulatory actions and overturn them with the exact same authority as he's implementing them.”

Obama's carbon deals kill jobs, benefit Big Business

By: Examiner Editorial 12/29/10 8:05 PM

Jeff Swensen/Getty Images Alcoa lobbies for green government policies here that boost demand for itsÊlight metal, but fights them Down Under where it produces aluminum.

Democrats based much of their 2010 midterm congressional election campaign on the risible claim that Republican candidates wanted to "outsource jobs." Set aside the fact that this claim, repeated in literally hundreds of races, was as ineffective as it was ludicrous. More importantly, President Obama's new carbon control scheme, which begins next week, provides conclusive evidence that it was the Democrats who planned to do the outsourcing.

Carbon limitation laws will send American manufacturing jobs overseas. Carbon emissions, unlike pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, can only be reduced significantly through reductions in output, which necessarily means the loss of jobs, increases in prices, or both. As Obama's carbon limitation program begins next week, with new regulations coming into effect over the next two years, energy-intensive industries will begin weighing the costs and benefits of relocating manufacturing operations to countries -- think China and India -- whose governments do not significantly regulate carbon emissions. This is the last idea we should be raising in corporate boardrooms at a time of 9.8 percent unemployment, but it is apparently a higher priority for Obama than preserving American jobs.

Reuters reported last week that Obama has secured limited industry cooperation to propose his new regulations. He can be counted on to use whatever cooperation he gets as a public relations tool to blunt criticism, just as he did in the health care debate. For although industry resists to a point, it has ways of dealing with the increased costs -- sometimes even of profiting from them -- that are inaccessible to most Americans. For example, AES Corp., an energy company that lobbies for carbon regulation to protect its domestic investments in "green energy," simultaneously builds new coal- and diesel-fired power plants in Chile, Vietnam and India. Alcoa, the aluminum maker, lobbies for costly green policies here in America to boost the use of its light metal, but lobbies against them in Australia, where it actually makes aluminum.

Expect such corporate schemes, of which examples already abound, to become even more common once the Environmental Protection Agency caps carbon emissions. We fully expect that politically clever operators with sufficient resources -- the people with whom Obama is cutting unlegislated deals, as he did with the pharmaceutical industry -- will ultimately be compensated for increased regulation by collecting "green" subsidies at this end of the world while spewing more carbon at the other. And as with Obama's health care reform, American taxpayers and consumers will pay for the result through higher prices and the further weakening of American workers' competitiveness.

House rule would let GOP set 2011 spending

Published: Dec. 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- House Democrats expressed anger at a proposed rule allowing the House Budget Committee chairman to set spending ceilings unilaterally. 

The proposed new powers would allow incoming Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to determine spending ceilings for 2011 without a floor vote, The Hill reported Thursday.

The Hill said the new rule would give Ryan the power to slash spending since the 2011 fiscal year budget limits remain in effect. 

The House is scheduled to vote on the rule after it convenes Jan. 5. 

Democrats said the rule goes against Republican promises of transparency. 

"Unfortunately, the House GOP is reverting back to the same arrogant governing style they implemented when they last held the majority and turned a surplus into a huge deficit," Doug Thornell, spokesman for incoming House Budget Committee ranking Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said.

The rule "flies in the face of the Republicans' promises of transparency and accountability," said Drew Hammill, spokesman for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"This provision is only necessary because of Democrats' historic failure to pass a budget last year. They have nothing but their own ineptitude to blame for this temporary authority," said Brendan Buck, a House Republican transition spokesman.

© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for December 30, 2010

Thu Dec. 30, 2010 2:30 AM PST

Army Chief Warrant Officer Ronald Brooks talks with residents of Khwazi village, Afghanistan, about the site of a well, Dec. 14. Members of Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul visited the village to survey a site for a future well project. PRT Zabul is comprised of Air Force, Army, Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel who work with the government of Afghanistan to improve governance, stability and development throughout the province. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson)(Released)

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for December 29, 2010

Wed Dec. 29, 2010 2:30 AM PST

A soldier mans a security outpost at a construction site. Active duty and reserve component Seabees assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalions 40, 18 and 26 secure and fortify a remote combat outpost on the eastern edge of Khavejeh Molk, Afganistan. The village is located approximately 25 miles north of Kandahar and is being used as a patrol base for the U.S. Army 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment. Combined efforts by joint forces will restrict movement of Taliban insurgents and help secure self-governing efforts in Afghanistan. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Michael B. Watkins

We're Still at War:

Photo of the Day for December 28, 2010

Tue Dec. 28, 2010 2:30 AM PST

Santa Claus, with an assist from one of his "elves," rappels from an HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopter to greet children of the 31st and 33rd Rescue Squadrons at Kadena, Japan, Dec. 17, 2010. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Lakisha Croley

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for December 27, 2010

Mon Dec. 27, 2010 2:30 AM PST

Secretary of the Navy Ray E. Mabus, center, boards a U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey aircraft after speaking with U.S. Marines and Sailors at Forward Operating Base Jaker in Afghanistan Dec. 17, 2010. Senior leaders made a day trip to Sangin and Marjah to speak with Marines and Sailors in support of the International Security Assistance Force. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Lindsay L. Sayres/Released)

Don't Believe the Reapportionment Hype

 

BY REID WILSON

Thursday, December 23, 2010 | 6:27 a.m.

MAX WHITTAKER/STRINGER

Nevada, a perennial battleground, is one of the western states that picked up a congressional seat in the latest reapportionment.

The decennial census has told the same story for the better part of a century--it's a story of exodus from the Northeastern and Midwestern regions and of an exploding South and West, a migration from the cold winters of industrial demise toward the bright sun of economic innovation. But although the media says the population shifts indicate a change in the partisan balance of power, the real story is far more complex. No one should believe that Democrats have had their heads handed to them this decade.

Instead, the reapportionment process foretells a changing dynamic of American politics, one in which minority voters will play an increasingly important and influential role. The eight states that will gain House seats this year appear to give Republicans an advantage, but, in truth, the redistricting playing field is far more level.

Eight states--Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington state--will gain representation when the 113th Congress convenes in 2013, figures released on Tuesday by the Census Bureau showed. On its face, those states appear to give Republicans an advantage; they hold complete control of redistricting in all but Arizona and Washington, where bipartisan commissions will draw the new lines.

The outsized growth of those eight states, however, has come largely from dramatic increases in minority populations, particularly among Hispanic voters. Although exact data on race collected by the 2010 census won't be available for a few months, trends and the American Community Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, demonstrate that those predisposed toward voting for Democrats have constituted the bulk of the new population boosts.

Civil Rights Versus Partisan Gerrymandering

In six of the eight states, minorities now make up more than a quarter of the population. The 2000 census showed that Hispanics and African-Americans constituted 28 percent of the population in Arizona, 31 percent in Florida, 33 percent in Georgia, and a whopping 43 percent in Texas. That growth has continued; the ACS estimated that those groups now make up more than 33 percent of Arizona's population, 36 percent of Florida's, 37 percent of Georgia's, and 47 percent of Texas's. The 2010 census will certainly show those numbers growing again.

Legislators drawing boundaries will have to account for these minority populations, thanks to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision requires certain states and jurisdictions to "preclear" district boundaries with the Justice Department in order to allow for majority-minority districts. Section 5 applies to Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas (it also applies to Louisiana, which is losing a seat this year). This means that those states will have to ensure that their burgeoning Hispanic and African-American populations will have the chance to be districted together in largely Democratic areas. Although such districts already exist, larger minority populations in many cases mean that Republican-held districts will include more voters predisposed toward voting for Democrats.

It's important to note that majority-minority districts aren't always guaranteed Democratic seats. In 2010, Reps. Ciro Rodriguez and Solomon Ortiz, both Texas Democrats, lost to Republican challengers in districts in which more than 65 percent of the population is Hispanic. Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., whose district has a narrowly African-American plurality, barely escaped an upset.

But it's also true that characterizing the nation's eight big-growth states as Republican misses a broader change in American politics: Minority voters and changing demographic trends mean that those states are less reliably GOP than they have been. Washington state is solidly blue, resisting even the 2010 wave toward the Republicans. Florida and Nevada are perennial battlegrounds. President Obama's 2008 campaign saw fleeting signs of hope even in Arizona, the home state of his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain. In 2012, Arizona will certainly top Democratic target lists. And with the exploding Hispanic population, some Republican strategists are worrying about their chances for maintaining their grip on Texas's Electoral College votes over the long run.

The history of reapportionment and redistricting also demonstrates that partisan control of a state's district boundaries means less than the controlling party might hope.

Drawn Into Failure

Consider the last decennial redistricting, when, as now, eight states gained seats and 10 states lost seats. In 2002, the first year in which new lines were employed, Republicans picked up eight House seats nationwide, giving then-Speaker Dennis Hastert a GOP majority of 229 seats. Some of the Republicans who entered the 108th Congress as freshmen looked safe for the long haul--Rick Renzi of Arizona, Bob Beauprez of Colorado, Max Burns of Georgia, Tom Feeney of Florida, and Jon Porter of Nevada.

None is in Congress now. Renzi was indicted on corruption charges; Beauprez lost a governor's race in humiliating fashion; and Burns, Feeney, and Porter lost reelection bids. In the 111th Congress, Democrats held all five of those seats.

The seats first created for the 2002 elections were, largely, swing seats. This year's midterms returned Republicans to four of the five seats. (Only Rep. Ed Perlmutter, the Colorado Democrat, survived.)

Republican success in the 2010 midterms extended so dramatically to state legislatures that the party now controls the redistricting process for 196 seats, four times the number of seats over which Democrats have complete control. But courts have shown an aversion to blatantly partisan gerrymandering not sanctioned by the Voting Rights Act, and if independent voters have proven anything in the last three election cycles, it is that their partisan loyalties are fickle.

In other words, reapportionment by itself is no guarantee that one party or another will reap major rewards. Instead, partisan results depend on data focusing on where minority populations have moved, and this information has yet to be released by the Census Bureau. Legislators themselves, who may hope to bolster their party's majority in Congress, will have to use their pens carefully. Draw a district that has only a small partisan advantage and run the risk of allowing a wave election to sweep a Democrat in office.

Democrats certainly could have gotten better news from the decennial reapportionment. Some of the party's stalwarts will undoubtedly be targets in states that are losing seats, such as Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri. But rumors of a massive Republican sweep are misleading. In fact, in the long run, the voters who guaranteed Sun Belt states their new congressional seats will likely turn those states, slowly but surely, into promising Democratic targets.

History shows that the story of redistricting starts, not ends, with census, reapportionment, and redistricting.

Check out how difficult it is to draw your own districts, courtesy of an excellent game crafted for the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center: We could waste hours playing The ReDistricting Game.