Congress Takes A Mulligan...

I want to be careful here not to give too much credit to our lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but it appears the Senate is doing what it can to make last week's angry AIG bonus tax vote in the House go away quietly. After Majority Leader Harry Reid initially tried to bring the Senate version to a vote last week, someone got to him and told him to shut the hell up, and it now appears the Senate will put off a vote on the measure until late next month at the earliest.

What's causing the delay? Embarrassment, mostly. The Senate is treating the House like a naughty child - sending it to its room to think about the bad thing it's done.

I've mentioned this already, but it bears repeating. Last week's knee-jerk reaction in the House to use the tax code as a weapon was immature, thoughtless and potentially dangerous to the nation's recovery. President Obama knows it, and he has said as much. So does most of the Senate. And even some of the members of Congress who voted to tax the bejeezus out of the AIG executives last week are now blasting the very same package this week!

To me, this is a very clear reminder that we do not necessarily send our best and brightest to represent us in Washington. We send ambitious politicians - people who will pander as needed to keep their jobs.

Let this be a lesson to us all.

Congress-What's That Brown Stuff You Stepped In?

If you're lucky, members of the House, it's just mud. But step in it, you did!

I blogged yesterday about what I thought was an asinine move by Congress - to set a 90 percent tax on those bonuses given to AIG executives. I was a bit worried about putting my opinion out there, simply because it was pretty much lockstep in line with Andy Parks, my longtime friend and morning host at WMAL whose opinions are usually somewhat to the right of my own.

In this case, Andy was right. And Congress was wrong. How do I know this? Just take a look at today's Washington Post Op-Ed page...

The main editorial, titled Washington Gone Wild, took lawmakers to task for "currying favor with the public", and went on to say "the House had the feel of a mob scene" and "Elected officials have a responsibility to lead, not just to pander; to weigh what makes sense for the country, not just what feels good."

Two conservative columnists, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer, also (somewhat predictably) attack Congress' actions on the op-ed page in the Post, and even liberal columnist Michael Kinsley points out that all of this current outrage of the AIG bonuses could have and should have been debated by Congress MONTHS ago. Kinsley even finds it tough to give the Obama Administration a pass.

Finally, on the business page of the Post, Steven Pearlstein's column is titled Let's Put Down the Pitchforks. Pearlstein says "the reality is that we can punish the bankers or we can save the banking system, but we can't do both at the same time." He goes on to say:

At the moment, the Treasury is working (and working and working) on ways to entice private capital back into the banking and shadow-banking system by offering government financing and guarantees against losses. Every dollar of private capital that can be attracted back into the system is a dollar that the Treasury won't have to borrow or the Federal Reserve won't have to print. And only with the return of private capital will the government be able to get back the rescue money it has committed.

But how eager do you think private equity and hedge funds will be to invest those billions of dollars if they fear that their participation will subject them to front-page accusations, congressional inquiries and public outrage over how much they might be paying for bonuses or employee travel or office decoration? Will they participate if they think that Congress, in a moment of populist pique, will try to tax back their profits if they earn more than originally expected?

At the end of the day, we still have to fix what's broken. We can't do it without the help of the private sector. And we need our elected leaders to have their heads in the game - not distracted from the conversation because they are too busy poking their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing!

Do You Feel Better Now, America?

Our economy is falling apart, but rather than take positive action to try and solve the problems that we've basically caused for ourselves, we Americans are demanding that our lawmakers shake their fists and seek retribution. So that's what they've done!

The House has voted overwhelmingly to impose a 90 percent tax on 165 million dollars in bonuses that were received by executives at AIG. Never mind the fact that these bonuses were legally negotiated and agreed upon MONTHS before AIG tanked. Never mind that Congress cleared the way for the bonuses to be handed out before word leaked that they had been given. Never mind the fact that no one in either the Bush or Obama Administrations or in Congress tried to negotiate away these bonuses when they were negotiating with AIG. And never mind the fact that there is a good chance this new law, if it passes, won't hold up in a court of law. Congress is out to get its pound of flesh, and by God, it's going to get it!

Do I condone the fact that these executives are getting their bonuses after basically failing at their jobs? No, of course not! But it's far more important that our lawmakers respect the law of the contract in this country than it is to fall prey to what is essentially an angry mob! All that's missing here are the torches and the rope!

These obnoxious blowhards on Capitol Hill are ranting and raving because they are hearing from constituents who want a piece of flesh - they are reacting out of fear and anger. They are giving voters what they want to hear... and they are trying to give their constituents a small measure of "justice". But this is not justice. It's a power trip.

Congressman Barney Frank is demanding that AIG name names. He wants these executives apraded out in the public square - no doubt so they can be figuratively tarred and feathered. Did anyone see the tar and feather scene in "John Adams"? That's what Congressman Frank is demanding be done here.

Contrary to what cliches you may hear, contracts in America are NOT, in fact, made to be broken. If Congress can do this to the "bad guys", then they can do it to you. What if you have a contract that Congress decides is not in the best interests of America. Will they come after you next?

There are good contracts out there and bad contracts out there. But there hasn't been a contract written yet that hasn't been signed by two parties agreeing on something.

We're talking about far more than 165 million dollars. We're talking about working to fix an economic crisis that's several zeroes larger than that, instead of wasting time getting angry just to make each other feel better.

And more importantly - we're talking about having our lawmakers following well-reasoned and thoughtfully-crafted laws instead of changing it up as they go along on a whim of anger to appease voters.

This time, it's AIG. Who's to say the next time it won't be YOU?

Repression As a Political Gimmick

Am I the only person out there who thinks the DC government's crusade to stamp its "Taxation Without Representation" slogan on everything is obnoxious and pointless? Last week, the city council announced plans to rename South Capitol Street in front of Nationals Park "Taxation Without Representation" Street, because the Nats refused to post a big sign with the slogan inside the stadium. Now, the city is asking President Obama to ride with "TWR" tags on his limo in the inauguration. Previously, the city wanted to stamp the slogan on the D.C. version of the quarter, but the U.S. Mint killed that proposal.

I have never understood why the residents of the District of Columbia think a slogan that effectively says "We are repressed" is suitable as the city's primary marketing message. They are shouting a complaint that no one is hearing. People who live in the DC area have spent our entire lives being pounded with "DC Statehood" campaigns, and people who don't live in the DC area either don't know or don't care about the city's complaint.

The city wants a "fair" vote in Congress - ideally by becoming a state, with a House member and two Senators. That, pragmatically speaking, is never ever going to happen, even with Democrats controlling both Congress and the White House. There are more than enough constitutional questions to keep it from happening anytime soon, and you'll never find enough momentum for lawmakers to make it a priority to get the deal done.

And can someone please tell me how repressed the people of Washington, D.C. really ARE? I get the concept that they are being taxed by the government without having a say as to how their taxes are spent. And yes, I know that Congress has the right to overturn DC laws. But that's been the deal from the get-go in Washington. The city, for better or worse, was created that way by design. DC residents do have the freedom of choice to move a matter of a couple of miles if they really feel the need to have that right to vote. No one is making you stay put if it's that big of a deal to you. My father has lived in DC for most of the past 40 years, and somehow managed to avoid caring about having a vote in Congress. And he pays more taxes than most people, believe me!

This whole "Taxation Without Representation" shtick is a political gimmick. Every politician has one - something to hang his hat on to create buzz. Barack Obama's gimmick was "Change you can believe in", and that got him pretty far. I sometimes think DC pushes this whole "vote in Congress" thing just to keep itself in the news. They need something to bitch about.

To me, D.C.'s use of "Taxation Without Representation" speaks a message of snarky bitterness. It thumbs its nose at Congress, and by extension, to the rest of the United States... Ironic, considering the city wants to be INcluded and not EXcluded. I don't know... If I wanted to be invited to a party, I don't think I'd start off by telling the party's host that she's ugly.

But that's just me!

The Fairness Doctrine Is Inherently UNfair!

Now that the election is over, and the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, there will be some movement from within Congress to control the media as well. A frightening number of Democratic leaders want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, a pre-Reagan era regulation that requires broadcasters to give equal access to points of view from across the political spectrum. This would force a station like WMAL to carry an equal number of programs that are left-leaning to counter the station's successful right-leaning lineup.

Proponents say Americans need and deserve to hear from all points of view as it concerns the important events of the day, and that regulating content like this will ensure Americans have that kind of access. There are a million problems with this line of thought, but let me hit you with just a few reasons why the Fairness Doctrine is WAY WAY WAY wrong.

• Congress' approval rating with the public is at 18 percent. Would you want someone who you agree with only 18 percent of the time controlling the remote control in your house? Me neither. I only agree with my wife about half the time, and I still don't control the remote!


• This is a not-so-veiled attempt to get payback on conservative talk radio. A big F.U. to the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world for making liberals' lives so miserable over the past 20 years. The problem is that the liberal argument of conservative unfairness carries no weight. How can you argue the conservative point of view is too strong when the Democrats now control Congress and the White House? Rush Limbaugh may be a painful rectal itch to Democrats, but he is not a cancer.


• If you mess with conservative talk, you're going to kill the ratings for an entire format of commercial radio - an industry that is already having a hard time making ends meet. And you're going to cause great damage to public stations as well. Do you really think successful NPR stations are going to be able to raise as much money as they do now if their listeners are asked to contribute to stations that now have 50 percent conservative content? And if you are a fan of NPR - or Air America, for that matter - Do you really want the government messing with your programming, either?


• I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who bitch about Rush Limbaugh have never even listened to Rush Limbaugh. How can you be harmed by content that are not in any way exposed to?


• The fact is - The market will correct itself without government intervention. The same world that gave us Fox news is now giving us MSNBC. Broadcasters are motivated by money. Money is generated by ratings. People who generate ratings are going to be on radio and TV, whether they are Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

You don't need to blow up broadcast radio and TV to ensure fairness - especially when those mediums are getting their asses kicked by the very home of open opinion - the internet. The web is where opinions of all stripes are being formed in the 21st century - not on radio or television.

We should not be eager to allow the government to decide how much information of a certain political bent is deemed to be enough or not enough. The free market is doing well enough on its own on that score, and any attempt by the Democratic Congress and the Obama Administration to regulate "fairness" will ultimately create the groundswell of conservative noise that they will indeed be endeavoring to mute.

You have rights, people! Protect them!

Can You Believe This Arrogance?

A House panel voted earlier this week to permanently ban cell phone use on airplanes - not because the use of the phones could interfere with the plane's instrumentation, but because it annoys them. Read on...

Cellphone calls on airplanes in flight are not only unsafe, they are obnoxious and they should be permanently banned, according to some members of the U.S. Congress.

Members of the House of Representatives, most of whom board airplanes almost every week, traded horror stories Thursday about their worst experiences with annoying fellow passengers who talk loudly on cellphones before takeoff and after landing. One lawmaker said his wife sat next to a woman who loudly discussed her sex life on the phone.

Another House member topped that with the passenger sitting him behind on one flight who got a "dear John" phone call from either his wife or sweetheart just before takeoff. The begging and pleading was just terrible to listen to, he said. Finally, with the plane ready to take off, a flight attendant had to threaten to have U.S. Marshals drag the man off the plane before he finally put his phone away.

A third House member raised the specter of national security, saying she had witnessed one man use his cellphone camera to take pictures of sensitive parts of the airplane.

With that, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved by voice vote a bill that would make the current Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communication Commission ban on cellphone use during flight permanent.

The committee's action comes as the European Union is moving to allow airline passengers to talk on their cellphones during flight. Some U.S. airlines are experimenting with in-flight Internet access. And some lawmakers worry that domestic airlines might try to get the cellphone ban lifted so they can charge passengers extra to sit in no-phone sections.

"I do believe this is important that we don't make what is already a crowded and difficult environment for the traveling public and flight attendants" worse by allowing cellphone use in-flight, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat and sponsor of the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (HANG UP) Act.

But Rep. John Mica, a Republican, said there are a lot of annoying things on airplanes, including children with dirty diapers and noisy MP3 players, but that does not mean they should be banned.

"You are trying to legislate courtesy, folks, and that just doesn't work," Mica said.

Congressman Mica, I salute you! These lawmakers who don't want to be bothered should not be using their voting powers to try and legislate manners. I try not to use my cell phone in public settings, but when others choose to use theirs, I'm usually successful in tuning them out.

This is another one of those cases where Americans have to realize they have rights... If someone can make the case that the use of cell phones on planes is unsafe, that's one thing. But otherwise, give me a break. Banning public cell phone use goes in the same category as breastfeeding, chewing gum loudly, playing the radio as a high volume when the car windows are down, gunning a car's engine and many other social moronic activities. You may not like any of those things, but none of them rise above the level of annoying... and the bar on legislation should be set higher than annoying.

There are a lot of things that Congress does that annoys me, too... but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to fix their behavior.

How about banning political robocalls? How about saving some trees and some postage and banning Congressional newsletters sent to my home? How about passing a law making it illegal to adjourn Congress at budget time without the budget being passed?

Don't hold your breath. Life's too short as it is.