DaVinci 0 #1 January 17, 2007 From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html QuoteDay One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/17/senate.earmarks/index.html "The days of lawmakers slipping pet projects into spending bills at the last minute are ending after the Senate approved a new rule Tuesday forcing members to disclose requests for those "earmarks." The earmarks would have to be posted on the Internet at least two days before legislation comes up for a vote. The new disclosure requirements -- part of an ethics and lobbying overhaul that's expected to come up for a final vote later this week -- passed 98-0." Nice, but what I don't get is this part, "The disclosure rules, proposed by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, were originally opposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who backed language with a narrower definition of what constituted an earmark. But after a procedural vote to shelve DeMint's proposal failed last week -- with nine Democrats breaking ranks -- Reid and the Democratic leadership changed course and backed the new requirements." Why oppose it? The House passed a measure by a 430-1 vote to ban lawmakers from accepting gifts and free trips from lobbyists and discounted flights on private planes. QuoteDay Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. On January 9, the House approved that measure by a vote of 299 to 128. QuoteRaise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step The House voted January 10 to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. While I don't agree, they did it. Also it is almost exactly the same as the bill that was voted down several times. The issue has been tax breaks for small businesses. "Senate Democratic leaders have already signaled they will accept changes designed to shield small businesses from adverse consequences of higher labor costs." If they had agreed to that before, this would have passed years ago. QuoteCut the interest rate on student loans in half. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01/17/student.loans.ap/index.html Even with a little back peddle..Now only certain loans are going to be affected. "During last year's campaign season, Democrats did not spell out that the cut they were talking about passing in the first 100 hours of the new Congress would only affect need-based loans". Still I think a good thing. The best way to help the poor is to make education available. QuoteAllow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Passed the House by a 255-170 vote on January 12. QuoteBroaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/stem.cell.ap/index.html The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures. But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again. While I think Bush should not veto it...I find it hard to give credit for a bill that passed once already. Other stuff... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/12/senate.ethics/index.html I like this :"The Senate on Friday approved a measure stripping taxpayer-funded pensions from members of Congress who are convicted of serious ethics offenses, such as bribery and conspiracy." But I say it should apply to the people currently on pension...Like James Traficant, and Cunningham. Over all they seem to be doing what they said. Now to see if it does good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
