September 26, 2007

Democratic Fade On Ethics Slowly Gaining Notice

The Trojan Horse ethics bill that the Senate Democrats have offered has slowly started to gain the attention of the mainstream news media. Yesterday, ABC joined the party as the Blotter noticed that the public disclosure of earmarking has gone MIA from the Democrats' latest version of the bill (via CapQ reader Stoo):

When no one was looking, someone cut a hole out of the Democrats' much-hyped ethics bill. A watchdog group which caught it suspects the Democrats of undermining their own effort to clean up Capitol Hill.

Dubbed "the biggest reform effort in a generation" by its sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 represented the Democrats' plan "to change the way Washington works." ...

The victim of the edit: a section that would boost public disclosure of earmarking. As it was approved by the Senate, the 2007 ethics bill required senators to disclose not only which earmarks they've requested, but also the name and location of each intended recipient.

For instance, a $1 million earmark for an Army purchase may in fact be directed at a manufacturer in a senator's home state. The bill also required senators to detail the purpose of the earmark.

But the law as Bush signed it requires senators to publicly swear that neither they nor their family will personally benefit from any of the earmarks they have inserted. House members must still disclose the companies who stand to gain from their action.

It's good to see that some of the news media have begun to realize the sham that Harry Reid & Co. pushed into law. Too bad they didn't notice it before it passed Congress and got George Bush's signature. For instance, Robert Novak reported the problem three weeks ago. The British newspaper, The Guardian, reported it back in July. Two weeks ago, Senator Tom Coburn and I discussed it on Heading Right Radio.

It's too late to fix the bill that the Senate passed. However, if enough attention gets paid to the sham, it will keep Reid from disingenuously claiming to have cleaned up earmarks, and perhaps embarrass the Democrats enough to force them to supplement the ethics bill with one that actually raises the bar on Congressional ethics.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/13778

Comments (18)

Posted by NoDonkey | September 26, 2007 9:59 AM

"perhaps embarrass the Democrats enough to force them to supplement the ethics bill with one that actually raises the bar on Congressional ethics."

Is it possible to embarrass the party of institutionalized treason?

One great way to improve Congressional ethics would be for each and every Congressional Democrat to resign and emigrate, effective immediately.

It would be morning again, in America.

Posted by GarandFan | September 26, 2007 10:18 AM

Captain, Harry Reid has no shame. The "Ethics" bill will stand as-is. Reid will point to it with pride.

Posted by Tim | September 26, 2007 10:36 AM

"It's good to see that some of the news media have begun to realize the sham that Harry Reid & Co. pushed into law. Too bad they didn't notice it before it passed Congress and got George Bush's signature"

Who say they didn't and are only reporting on it now?

Posted by whippoorwill | September 26, 2007 11:07 AM

I'm not an expert but my reading of the earmark section 103 of the ethics reform bill President Bush signed says that earmark info has to be placed on the internet in searchable form 48 hours before a vote on the bill. Also, that members must "certify" they or their families don't profit from an earmark.
That sounds a little more than a lick and a promise to me. Would you want them to sign it in blood. Also, most of the watch dog groups have praised this bill as just what Harry Reid claimed it was, the most reform in a generation. As with all things congress there is no doubt it could be improved, but I think your harsh criticism is a little overdone.

Posted by Matt | September 26, 2007 12:49 PM

Captain, you're the smartest (although extremely misguided) con I know. I'm sorry but this has absolutely nothing to do with the post, but I had to get this off my chest.

I still read the blog, but it doesn't matter how reasonable and logical your talking points are, I will NEVER be able to take you seriously until you take that Ann Coulter ad off your website. It makes me sick that you would actually endorse someone who says things like this on a daily basis:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking."

-- thanks for advertising for a woman who insults my mom, calls people she disagrees with politically "faggots", wants american liberal reporters blown up in new york city, and advocates fascism and fundamentalism to the extreme. that's what i call good, sane logic. i guess that's what conservatism has come to.

Posted by Shaprshooter | September 26, 2007 1:03 PM

Matt: ""faggots", wants american liberal reporters blown up in new york city, and advocates fascism and fundamentalism to the extreme. that's what i call good, sane logic. i guess that's what conservatism has come to."

I hope you're as consistent with equating Code Pink, KOS, and DU as spokesmen for the opposition.

Likewise, I hope you're not representative of the conceptual ability of your group, as taught by the public schools. (HINT: a sample of ONE is not representative, particularly when it comes from a polemicist)

(PS: I hope you're not a spokesman for grammar and punctuation as taught by the public schools, either)

I hope you're also "savvy" enough to realize that bloggers have little control over what ads appear on their sites.

Somehow, though, I'm skeptical.

Posted by Captain Ed | September 26, 2007 1:10 PM

I could have stopped the ad from running, but to be honest, I don't usually check the ads that publishers buy. I didn't realize that the ad was for Coulter's book, and I wouldn't have cared if it was.

Ads don't connote endorsement. Hillary Clinton bought ad space on this blog in January, and I let that run, too. PETA used to run ads here all the time, but they seemed to have mysteriously stopped when I posted that I ate a steak dinner every time they bought one from me.

Ads are just that -- ads. I don't give discounts for them, so people pay the going rate. Unless the ad in question publishes libelous material, I don't cancel them.

Posted by Matt | September 26, 2007 1:29 PM

Shaprshooter, thanks for insulting my intelligence... classy. Yes I went to public school, I'm now double majoring at a private college and my GPA is more than respectable. That public education really failed me!

This is the comment section of a blog, not a dissertation.

Posted by swabjockey05 | September 26, 2007 1:41 PM

CE,

Maybe you should apologize to PETA...I kinda liked their bloody meat pictures too. Just like watching the deer eat my wife's vegetable garden...makes my stomach growl.

swabbie

Posted by Old Mike | September 26, 2007 2:08 PM

"it will keep Reid from disingenuously claiming to have cleaned up earmarks, and perhaps embarrass the Democrats enough to force them to supplement the ethics bill with one that actually raises the bar on Congressional ethics."
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one Cap'n, unless you have a nice navy blue uniform you want your face to match.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | September 26, 2007 3:09 PM

Very good Old Mike.


Note the number of retiring Republican congressmen. Is something afoot? Perhaps the stage is being set for an ethics offensive?
Perini Corp., Diane Feinstein and 1.5 bil in defense contracts comes to mind . . .


Then I wake up.


As Bernie Goldberg says, "crazies to the left of me, wimps to the right."

Posted by Shaprshooter | September 26, 2007 7:14 PM

Matt: "Shaprshooter, thanks for insulting my intelligence... classy."

Just the facts, Matt, just the facts.

Matt: "Yes I went to public school, I'm now double majoring at a private college and my GPA is more than respectable."

You insult your own intelligence, and remember that ditsy SC beauty queen...with the 3.75 GPA?

Your self-importance is amazing, and your grasp of the worth of a high GPA is laughable. As for being in a private school, that could be just a laughable.

I should have known, though, that you're still a college student. Hell, you don't even know how blog ads run, as Cap'n Ed had to point out to you: opinions out the wazoo, brain cavity full of mush, and a big mouth to encompass it all.

Here's a clue: we're not your teachers, who've filled you with that BS that your opinion is worthy, regardless of the convoluted logic (if they haven't taught you that logic, reason and objectivity are chimeras).

Nice going, kiddo!

Posted by Scrapiron | September 26, 2007 8:09 PM

Private college = No matter what I do, or don't do, Momma is buying my grades.

Posted by Michael Mannske | September 26, 2007 8:51 PM

Democratic? or Democrats? The two are not equal.

Posted by Drew | September 26, 2007 10:24 PM

I'll believe the Dems on ethics reform when Robert Byrd has his name taken off of all the buildings in W.VA., John Murtha stops earmarking funds to his family and friends (ditto for Diane Feinstein), and Harry Reid stops making land deals in NV.

Posted by TokyoTom | September 27, 2007 9:15 AM

Ed, nice of you to note that the Dems don't seem to be serious about cleaning up pork in Congress. Hardly surprising, given that they would essentially be restricting themselves.

Funny that you somehow managed to forget to note how much MORE serious the Republicans were about keeping pork under control while they were in charge, and all the reforms that they passed under THEIR watch.

Now tell me that the Republicans - who passed on this situation to the Dems - served anyone well besides their own self-interests along the way.

Are there any small-government "conservatives" here, or just hypocrits?

TT

Posted by FedUp | September 27, 2007 10:42 AM

TT I wouldn't be so quick on the hypocrits comments... The Dems ran on several issues, ethics reform (that hasn't happened), transparency,(yeah, we're beginning to see through them) and earmarks - notice that there is MORE??

There is plenty of blame on both sides. Wanna talk Abramoff AND Hsu? Is your argument - they did it, so we can too??

Posted by TokyoTom | September 27, 2007 9:49 PM

FedUp: My point is that BOTH parties are essentially porkers and neither is really looking out for voters' interests.

The pot calling the kettle black is just part of the routine they both use to keep us distracted while they wrestle over who will be the ones to rob us.

True "conservatives" were fed up with the Republicans long ago, and they have responsibility not only for doing a great job of fleecing us while they were in charge, but also for not themselves enacting the very reforms that they now mock the Dems for failing to implement. This is irresponsibility and cynical partisanship at its richest levels.

If the Republicans had cared to manage responsibly, they could have tied up the Dems - but no, the Republicans themselves did not want to face the restrictions they are now happy to criticize the Dems about.

Post a comment