From CNSNews.com:

House Republicans are set to vote later this week on a balanced budget amendment (BBA) that would not cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP or require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the vote would probably take place this Friday.

Cantor said that this version of a BBA, H.J. Res 2 — rather than one that would cap federal spending, H.J. Res 1 — was the version “overwhelmingly” favored by House Republicans.

What is it with the Republican leadership and self-defeating Kabuki theater?  This bill is a spectacularly bad idea for several reasons… First, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is actively whipping against the bill, so it’s an open question whether this turd will even pass in the House. But if buy some miracle it does, the odds of getting the 67 votes needed to pass in Harry Reid’s Senate are about the same as the Miami Dolphins winning the Super Bowl this season.

Second it gives political cover to vulnerable Democrats, who can claim they voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment even though know it has no chance of passing.

Third it paints House and Senate Republicans who favor a tougher version of the amendment, H.J. Res 1, into a political corner. Democrats and their willing allies in the media will trumpet the fact that Republicans have come around to a “reasonable” compromise on the balanced-budget amendment that would have passed save for the objects of few radical extremists.

Finally, and most importantly, under Speaker Boehner’s amendment, federal spending could easily rise to 25% or more of GDP as long as the budget is balanced. This is a recipe for disaster that will ultimately lead higher taxes… We’ve seen this game played out time and again in states that have balanced budget amendments without spending caps — politicians keep spending and raise taxes to pay for it because their state constitution say they have to balanced the budget.

This is how Republicans lose elections, they were winning the debate on fiscal policy, but then they lost their focus and started putting political symbolism over substance. They badly misjudged President Obama’s willingness to cut spending and allowed budget debate to move to secret supercommittee where Democrats will almost certainly torpedo negotiations in and effort to gain a re-election advantage. And now they put forth a hollow balanced budget amendment that Democrats will gladly feign support for, but that has no chance of actually reducing spending or preventing future tax increases… Instead it virtually assures them.

As a result they’re lashing out ordinary Americans who have the temerity to demand Washington change its ways and cut spending – drastically. Politicians and pundits alike have dismissed these people as “extremists” or “racists” and referred to them derisively as “Tea baggers” or more recently “Hobbits” and “Terrorists“. These so-called extremists, aren’t really all that extreme most of them have never been politically active, much less protested anything before in their lives. Most of them are well-informed, well-intentioned people who believe in traditional American values… and yes, there are a few cranks and crackpots who give the rest a bad name.

Regardless they’ve all come together for common reason, they’re deeply concerned that this country is headed in the wrong direction and want to see to it put back on the right track. In the words of Ronald Reagan “The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.”

Let’s be clear about something Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has spending problem… Robin Hood is not going to save from out debt problems. If you look at the numbers, over the last 50 years revenue to the federal government has remained remarkably consistent averaging roughly 18% of GDP. What’s changed is that spending has risen sharply over the last two decades to roughly 21% of GDP under President George W. Bush and now to roughly 25% of GDP under Pres. Obama.

The simple truth is we can’t raise taxes enough to close the current budget deficit much less begin to pay down our $14.2 trillion national debt. We have to cut spending — drastically, that means both sides are going to have to give up some of their sacred cows. Republican are going to have to accept some cuts in defense spending and Democrats are going to have to accept some entitlement reforms. We don’t have a choice in this anymore, our current spending levels are simply unsustainable.

The dirty little secret in this whole debate is that Congress never actually cuts spending, all they ever do is reduce the rate of growth that’s already built into to the government’s baseline budget… and that’s exactly what they’ve done here. There aren’t any real spending cuts in the deal they’ve just agreed to… spending is still going to go up, it’s just going to go up less than would have otherwise. This deal will add roughly $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years.

The truth is if a publicly traded company managed its finances the way the federal government does it would a) go bankrupt and b) the management would be indicted for fraud.

Edit: I should also point out that the latest Gallup Poll of political ideology shows roughly twice as many Americans self-identify themselves as conservative than liberal.

Related

• Analysis: Debt mess shows Washington’s awful side – Associated Press
• Sputter to stall: U.S. economy dips into danger zone for recession -  James Pethokoukis, Reuters
• The Obama Recovery – The Wall Street Journal
• The Tea Party, Right About Everything- Randall Hoven, American Thinker
• Obama’s power grows as debt deadline approaches – Byron York, the Washington Examiner
• Open Letter: Why I Oppose the Debt Ceiling Compromise – Senator Rand Paul
• Debt Deal is a Blank Check – Peter Schiff, CNBC
• Debt deal doesn’t dispel downgrade fear – Reuters

A House ethics panel found senior Democratic lawmaker Charles Rangel guilty of 11 of the 13 counts of House ethics violations lodged against him. The New York congressman wasn’t in the hearing room when the announcement was made.

“This has been a difficult assignment,” said the chairwoman of the panel, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) as she announced the decision. “We have tried to act with fairness led only by the facts and the law, and I believe that we have accomplished that mission.”

The panel of eight lawmakers reached its decision midway through a second day of closed-door deliberations. As the long-anticipated disciplinary hearings began Monday, Mr. Rangel walked out in protest, saying he no longer had a lawyer, and shouldn’t be forced to proceed until he could raise money to hire one.

The panel deadlocked 4-4 on one charge: whether Mr. Rangel’s effort to raise money for a college center named after him constituted an attempt to get a personal benefit. Mr. Rangel had denied that he gained personally from having such a center named in his honor, and some Democrats on the panel had appeared sympathetic to that argument.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the panel’s chairman, said there was “clear and convincing evidence” against Congressman Rangel. The matter now heads to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct which will consider punishment for Rep. Rangel.

I wouldn’t expect much in the way of fireworks, the ethics committee investigation recommended a reprimand from the outset and I wouldn’t expect any worse than censure… which basically public scolding.

Democrats could strip him of his committee chairmanships and assignments if they so chose, but no formal rule on that.

A public trial into ethics charges against New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel began today. Lawmakers cast the proceedings as a necessary exercise to regain the public’s trust in Congress.

The 20-term representative is charged with 13 “very serious” allegations, said Texas Rep. Mike McCaul, the ranking Republican in the House Ethics Committee. The charges are related to allegations Rangel inappropriately solicited donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, left errors and omissions on his financial dicslosure forms, failed to report and pay taxes on rental income for a beach villa, and inappropriately allowed his campaign committees to use a rent subsized apartment.

Rangel attempted to reach a settlement with the committee to avoid a humiliating public trial, but no deal was reached. The start of trial now marks the culmination of a two-year investigation into the charges against him.

The charges against Rep. Rangel include using his office to solicit of contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York; the  acceptance of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem; errors and omissions on his financial disclosure forms; and his failure to report and pay taxes on rental income from a beach villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

If convicted Rep. Rangel could face a range of penalties ranging from censure to expulsion from the House or Representatives.

Bottom line, Charlie Rangel is the poster child for Congressional term limits. If he had any shame he’d resign and save himself and and his party the embarrassment of a trial.

You can read to full Statement of Alleged Violations and supporting documents related to Statement of Alleged Violations on the Ethics Committee’s web site.

House ethics investigators have accused the once-powerful Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) of breaking a series of congressional rules.

Mr. Rangel will have the opportunity to defend himself at a public trial before the House ethics committee beginning next week, according to a statement Thursday from the panel, formally called the House Committee on Standards of Official Contact.

The committee did not detail the charges or its findings. Congressional ethics investigators had been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel failed to disclose $75,000 worth of income he received from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rangel has admitted what he called a mistake on that matter and has paid back taxes.

Lawmakers are required to fill out a financial-disclose statement once a year listing their assets, debts and sources of income. But Mr. Rangel has repeatedly failed to report all of his assets, and he recently filed amended reports that disclosed an additional $500,000 in assets.

Investigators have also been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel used official congressional letterhead for fund-raising letters he sent to corporations and others seeking donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. In addition, investigators were looking at whether Mr. Rangel have violated congressional rules by occupying several rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer. The congressman himself had asked the ethics committee to look into those two matters.

If  he’s found guilty of violating House rules Congressman Mr. Rangel could face a variety of penalties including expulsion from Congress. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out… So far Nancy Pelosi’s “most ehtical Congress ever” has had a rather lackluster reputation on ethics. Even if Rep. Rangel, who turned 80 in June, beats the rap I suspect party insiders will be pressuring to step aside lest they hand another talking point to Republicans come November.

James Richardson has more on the Charlie Rangel’s history of ethical lapses over at Red State.

Related

• Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions – Gallup
• House Democrat calls on Rep. Rangel to resign – The Hill
• Rep. Charles Rangel needs to keep running for office to pay off mounting legal debt – New York Daily News
• Democrats Press Rangel to Settle – Wall Street Journal
• Rangel: Resigning now would be un-American – The Hill
• On your own, Charlie – New York Post
• Rangel says he’s not resigning – Kerry Picket, Washington Times

Eight-term Indiana Rep. Mark Souder announced his resignation Tuesday after admitting to an affair with a female aide who worked in his district office.

Souder, a Republican, will will step down on Friday. He said in remarks obtained by Fox News that he “sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff.”

“I wish I could have been a better example,” he said. “In this poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process. … We are a committed family but the error is mine and I should bear the responsibility. Not only am I thankful for a loving family but for a loving God.”

Multiple senior House sources indicated that the extent of Souder’s affair with the staffer would have landed him before the House Ethics Committee. Sources told Fox News that the aide, identified as Tracy Jackson, a woman in her mid-40s, would accompany the congressman to events and to record ads at a Christian radio broadcast station.

First of all, I’m really getting sick of these so called “family values” politicians who nothing more than bottom feeders… If you don’t walk the walk, don’t talk the talk.

Second, why couldn’t this schmuck have resigned a month ago? Mr. Souder won hotly contested Republican primary just two weeks ago to keep his seat, Republicans will now have to find a replacement for him at the state convention next month.

Anyway, Congressman, just go and don’t let the door hit you were the good Lord split you.

Democratic Representative John Murtha, the chairman of the House of Representatives defense appropriations subcommittee who exercised enormous influence on defense issues, died on Monday.

Murtha, 77, died peacefully at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington with his family by his side, a statement from his office said. He had been hospitalized recently with a gallbladder problem.

As the top Democrat on the House panel that oversaw defense appropriations, Murtha wielded big clout in Congress, making decisions affecting billions of dollars in defense-related spending.

The Pennsylvanian was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in February 1974. He was a former Marine and veteran of the Vietnam war.

It’s bad form to speak ill of the dead so I’ll just say, Godspeed Congressman, rest in peace.

Related

• Rep. Murtha Dead at 77 – FoxNews.com
• John Murtha dies, special election looms – Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
• Rep. Murtha Dies – Mike Memoli, Real Clear Politics
• Murtha dead at 77 – Hot Air
  

POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith’s district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.

Rep. Griffith’s announcement comes on the heels of a wave of Blue Dog Democrat retirements, for the moment his switch has far more symbolic than substantive value… The Democrats still have a 40 seat majority in the House. I do suspect, however, that Rep. Griffith won’t be the last Blue Dog to jump ship. There’s pretty sizable anti-Democrat wave sweeping the country and unless something changes drastically between now and November 2, 2010 Congressional Democrats would appear to be headed for a fall.

The House of Representatives passed Nancy Pelosi’s 1,990 page health care reform bill by a vote of 220 to 215 on Saturday night.

The House of Representatives late Saturday night approved a historic bill to remake the U.S. health-care system, delivering President Barack Obama a key procedural victory on his top domestic priority after a lengthy and sometimes emotional day of debate on the nearly 2,000-page measure.

By a vote of 220-215, lawmakers approved a 10-year, $1.055 trillion bill that aims to put in place near-universal health-care coverage in the United States, would require individuals to buy and most businesses to offer coverage, and expand Medicaid. Poorer Americans would get subsidies to buy insurance under the bill, and insurers would be barred from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The bill would also establish a government-run health-insurance plan option to compete with private insurers — the controversial “public option” strongly backed by Obama but sharply opposed by Republicans.

Just one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted for the White House-backed bill. A substitute bill offered by the GOP failed on a vote of 176-258. The House Democrats’ bill will now need to be melded with a bill awaiting action in the Senate.

Obama said after the vote that the bill “will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.”

The president added that he is “absolutely confident” that the Senate will pass its version of the law, “and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.”

Before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was “an historic moment for our nation and for America’s families.”

House lawmakers began debating late Saturday morning and were immediately caught up in partisan fighting. But House Democratic leaders were upbeat about the bill’s prospects after an early afternoon meeting with Obama, who made a rare Saturday trip to Capitol Hill to press members to pass the measure.

That the bill passed is no surprise, that Republicans helped it pass is… The sad reality here is that if the Republican’s had shown a little political courage and voted present on the Stupak Amendment there’s a good chance the Democrats wouldn’t have been able to find enough votes in their own caucus to pass H.R. 3962, the Health Care Reform bill.

I understand why Republicans essentially had to vote for the Stupak Amendment… Abortion is an important issue to great many voters and if Republicans had voted against the Stupak Amendment they more than likely would have faced a backlash from pro-life voters. Unfortunately, is was a wasted vote, Henry Waxmen and other have pointedly said there’s “no guarantee” the Stupak Amendment will be retained in the final version of the bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) even said during the floor debate on the bill Saturday that he doubts the amendment will survive the conference committee.

Regardless the fight now heads to the Senate where the conventional wisdom says it will be a much tougher fight… Don’t believe it, I fully expect the Senate to pass a Health Care reform bill this year, probably without a so called Public Option, but they will pass a bill. A bill that will put us one step closer to the Democrats goal of a socialized single payer system… A system that does things like this.

Related

• ObamaCare legislation in trouble – New York Post
• Health reformers prepare for Senate hurdle – Financial Times
• Government-Run ‘Public Option’ in Pelosi Health Bill Threatens to Kill Hospitals, Says Democrat Who Voted Against the Bill – CNSNews.com
• PelosiCare could be bad news for the dollar – James Pethokoukis, Reuters

House Democrats acknowledged they don’t yet have the votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system, and signaled they may push back the vote until Sunday or early next week.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters in a conference call Friday that the make-or-break vote on President Barack Obama’s push to make health coverage part of the social safety net could face delay. Democrats were originally hoping to pass the bill on Saturday-and officially, that’s still the plan.

But Democrats have yet to resolve a intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants’ access to medical coverage. They cleared one hurdle Friday when liberals supporting a government-run Medicare-for-all system withdrew their demand for a floor vote.

Hoyer sought to pin the blame for any possible slippage on delaying tactics expected from Republicans, who unanimously oppose the health care remake.

Heh, of course they’re trying to pin the blame on Republicans, it can’t possibly be because of divisions in their own caucus… I mean it’s not like the Democrats have a 256 seat majority in the House or anything… oh, right, yeah, um – never mind.

Dan Perrin has the Whip list here… If you’re in any of their districts, call, fax, e-mail tell them to just say no to Obama/Pelosi care.