Rep. Brad Sherman

This is your Congress:

Today, [Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA) is pressing Geithner for a "chart" of every bailout-receiving executive -- numbers, not names -- who earned a salary of at least $1 million and/or got a bonus of $500,000 in 2008; and every executive who will earn $1 million and/or get a bonus of $250,000 this year.

"I don't think it's just about AIG compensation," Sherman said. "I don't think the American people should be blindsided by bonuses on a Saturday that are going to be paid out on a Sunday. Are you going to give us the chart, or are you going to hide the ball?" Sherman asked, his voice rising.

"I will reflect on the subject..." Geithner began, before being interrupted by Sherman.

"You won't commit to telling the American people how many folks at Goldman Sachs are going to make a million dollars this year?" Sherman said.

"I will think..." Geithner began, before Sherman interrupted again.

"Thank you for thinking," Sherman said, sarcastically. "I will move on."

Sherman then attacked Treasury official Neel Kashkari, the man in charge of doling out the federal bailout, because Kashkari, in testimony before this same committee in December, would not label a $3 million -- or $30 million -- bonus as "inappropriate," Sherman said.

"Is this the guy who should be running the TARP program?" Sherman asked.

"It is not Mr. Kashkari's job to make those judgments. That is my job," Geithner responded, with some anger in his voice. "Mr. Kashkari is an excellent public servant."

What an arrogant clown.

Update: And, oh dear, here's Maxine Waters:

Really, you could replace her with a homeless person off the street and have an equally productive use of Tim Geithner's time.

Get rich quick

Unbelievable:

During a decade in Congress, California Representative Grace Napolitano has pocketed more than $200,000 of political contributions by charging as much as 18 percent interest on money she loaned to her own campaign.

The suburban Los Angeles Democrat made the $150,000 loan in 1998, when she was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Through Dec. 31, her campaign committee has used donations to pay Napolitano $221,780 of interest while reducing the principal by just $64,727, a review of her Federal Election Commission filings shows.

As recently as June 2008, Napolitano held a fundraiser asking supporters and political action committees for money to pay down the 1998 debt. Napolitano, her spokesman and her campaign’s lawyers didn’t respond to requests for comment.

This is your Congress. (via instapundit)

A joke

I read a joke once about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. The details escape me but the gist of it was that during one session of Congress Democrats urged that $1 trillion be given to NASA to build a ladder to the moon. Republicans, self-styled defenders of the taxpayer, argued that such a ladder should cost no more than $500 billion and that private contractors should oversee its construction instead of a government agency.

I think a lot about that joke:

The potential problem involved the roughly 21 million U.S. households that still received television over the air -- that is, without cable or satellite. Elderly, low-income and Hispanic viewers were most at risk of losing reception. If they had older TVs -- and most did -- they would need a converter box for their analog sets. Boxes cost $50 to $80.

Democrats, led by Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, argued in 2005 that because the government was making so much money on the deal, it should help pay for converter boxes. He outlined a program to give consumers two coupons for $60 each to buy the devices. The program would cost about $4 billion.

Republicans balked. To save taxpayer money, they argued, the program should be less generous. They wanted to limit the benefit to low-income households and hold the coupon amount to $40.

Maxine Waters speaks

Your Congress at work (via Stacy McCain):

Remember, the more stuff that government controls, the more power that falls into the hands of idiots like this.

Obama, the law, and respect for the Constitution

In his own words:

[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

Oh dear. The law doesn't change and isn't subject to reinterpretation because someone is gay or old. That's the very beauty of it. It is consistent in what it says and its application -- or at least it should be.

But I can't be too harsh on Obama, both him and McCain -- along with most politicians started ignoring the Constitution a long time ago. As a refresher, here are the powers that are granted to Congress (the body that makes the laws, which you might forget based on all the rhetoric coming from the candidates about various measures they will enact):

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Lastly, just to make sure that this list was meant to be definitive, the 10th Amendment was added that reads, in very plain English:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Got that? That means that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution then it belongs to the States or the people. This is a document that very explicitly lays out a formula for limited government.

Congress is given dominion over international trade, immigration, raising revenue, patents and copyrights, printing money, some limited infrastructure and defense. That's pretty much it. Does anyone in their right mind think that's all Congress currently has oversight of? Does this square even remotely with reality?

All those people that claim the Constitution has been torn to shreds under Bush's watch kind of make me laugh -- they're a bit late to the party.

Oh dear...

It should be little wonder that they are called tax and spend liberals:

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are drawing up plans to toughen oversight of the financial industry and considering introducing another economic-stimulus package in the wake of the government's decision to buy stakes in major U.S. banks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mulling recommendations from several economists that Congress act on an economic-recovery package that would cost taxpayers $300 billion, according to congressional aides, equivalent to about 2% of the country's gross domestic product.

You know, Japan tried this during the 1990s. They paved over half the country and ended up right back where they started, except with more debt (topping 100% of GDP during the 1990s. The US is currently at around 60% I believe).

Then there is this gem:

The lawmakers are also looking to tighten regulation of financial services, with hedge funds, private-equity funds and exotic financial instruments such as credit-default swaps likely to come under greater federal scrutiny.

Relatively lightly-regulated hedge funds seem to have escaped from the current financial crisis relatively unscathed. Funny that. I guess I have to say it again: deregulation is not the problem. Indeed, the evidence only seems to be mounting.