Because They Can

One of the constitutional anomalies which really annoys me is the status of Washington DC when it comes to representation. Residents of the nation's capital have no senator and only have one representative who has little actual power. For years there have been efforts to change that, but it always falls through because the Republicans want too much to sign off on the deal. As a result, we get scenarios like this playing out on a regular basis.

Rep. Trent Franks’s district in suburban Phoenix is two time zones away from Washington, a fact not lost on D.C. leaders as the Arizona Republican presided Thursday over the latest in a long series of attempts to control social issues in the nation’s capital.

At issue this time was his bill, with 193 co-sponsors, to ban all abortions in the District beyond 20 weeks, except to save the life of the mother.

Adding insult to injury, from the point of view of local officials, was that Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s lone, nonvoting member of Congress — sitting in the front row of a subcommittee hearing room — was not allowed to speak.

Presiding over the hearing, Franks, who frequently cites the U.S. Constitution, said Congress has the authority to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” in the District. He also described late-term abortions as “inhumane” and “torturous,” and he called them “the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today.” [Emphasis added]

There are all sorts of things wrong with this picture. First of all, that Del. Holmes was not allowed to speak was a travesty. Yes, the rules mandate that the minority party gets only one speaker in a subcommittee hearing, and a resident of DC who'd had an abortion at 21 weeks testified. Still, representatives are usually allowed to speak on matters concerning their district without running afoul of the rule. Rep. Franks was not having any of that nonsense. The most he was willing to do was to allow Del. Holmes to sit on the dais with the other committee members, but only if she kept her mouth shut.

Second, Rep. Franks and the GOP have taken to micromanaging affairs in DC, especially on social issues, much to the dismay of the Mayor and City Council. It's the troglodytes' way of scoring points with their basest base without any harm being done to their own district.

Norton and other District leaders have clashed repeatedly with Hill Republicans over abortion, particularly over the policy that prevents the city from spending its own money to pay for abortions for low-income women.

Franks’s bill would go further. It would bar all abortions after 20 weeks, regardless of who pays. The bill is based on model legislation prepared by the National Right to Life Committee, versions of which have become law in six states. [Emphasis added]

And this time around, Franks is going to get away with it, even if the bill goes nowhere in the Senate. He got his soundbites, he got his posturing. All the District and its women got was a thorough dissing.

Just one more reason to vote in November: we need to take back the House and hold the Senate.

It's Good To Be King

While most of us fixated on the midnight rules changes by former President Bush in the last days of his administration, or watched for the preemptive pardons of those members of his crew who signed off on torture or illegal wire tapping, he was busy appointing his BFFs to positions which will continue his legacy well into and even beyond President Obama's term.

Many of the appointments were of the vanity or resume padding variety (how much damage can someone do on the board of the US Holocaust Museum?); some came with the potential of nice paychecks and further influence. The recipients of the largess? Loyal aides and big campaign donors.

Bush made more than 100 such end-of-term appointments to a constellation of presidential boards and panels, such as the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission. Like other presidents, he often turned to close aides and top political supporters to fill the last-minute postings, many of which will outlast President Obama's current term.

Nearly half of Bush's appointments after Election Day were filled by donors who gave a total of nearly $1.9 million to Republicans since 2003, according to an analysis of the postings. At least 20 of the positions were filled by former Bush aides, plus others filled by old hands from the administrations of Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Most of the positions are unpaid and are valued more for their status than for monetary compensation. Yet the appointments show how political connections matter even for the most obscure Washington jobs, and they illustrate the extent to which presidents have an impact well after they leave the White House.

Harmless enough, eh?

Well, the polar bears may not think so, given the Bush's lack of concern for global climate change. Not all of the appointments are so benign, however.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that while many of the appointments owe to vanity or good causes, some are also useful for maintaining political influence. "The real question is not only whether they are paid, but what benefits can they pay out from these boards," she said.

Consider the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, the U.S. government's senior trade advisory panel, which favored several of the free-trade agreements that Bush was unable to push through Congress.

Bush named three members to the panel on Christmas Eve: Carol Ann Bartz, chief executive of Yahoo, who donated about $35,000 to Bush and other Republicans over the past six years; Maria Cino, who organized the 2008 Republican National Convention; and Israel Hernandez, who worked in the Commerce Department and the Bush White House. Their terms last through 2012, allowing them to play a role in influencing trade policy throughout Obama's term.. [Emphasis added]

Atrios refers to those who are perpetually tied to Washington DC as "the Villagers." It appears that one whole subdivision is set aside for those who have served a president well enough to get a lifetime gig.

Nice work if you can get it.

Because He Can

How anyone can be against allowing citizens to vote is one of those unfathomable mysteries that I can never quite get my head around. Oh, I know about our history when it came to women and to blacks, but I thought we had finally moved beyond that. I obviously was wrong. Now, apparently, the defining characteristic is party. From an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post:

SUPPORTERS OF D.C. voting rights have to get 60 votes to advance the bill to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. This cloture motion is technical, but how the senators vote is entirely about principle. It is simply not right that U.S. citizens who live in the nation's capital are denied basic representation in their government. That a procedural gambit would be used to prevent a redressing of this wrong is inexcusable.

The vote is likely to be close, and support is needed from Republican senators. Almost all the Senate's 51 Democrats and independents are said to back the bill, as do at least five Republicans. It helps that the measure is politically neutral, offsetting the mostly Democratic District with Republican-leaning Utah. ...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made no secret of his strong opposition or of his willingness to use any tactic to stop the measure. Those who would follow Mr. McConnell's lead and vote no on cloture should think long and hard about blocking a historic civil rights moment. They should think about what message they are sending to a city with an African American majority or to the nation. Senators who oppose this bill should be willing to stand up and have a debate on its merits on the Senate floor. Moreover, they should make sure that any vote about bringing justice to half a million people is not a matter of political party but of conscience. [Emphasis added]

That Mr. McConnell is opposed to this bill is bad enough, but he even wants to cut off open debate on the Senate floor. Suddenly the "up or down vote" concept has no meaning.

How shameful is that?