Blog @ MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.

If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.

One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.

The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.

Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.

CEOs Tally Health-Bill Score
Drug Makers and Hospitals Figure to Benefit, While Insurers Brace for a Big Hit

The drug industry stands to gain in a health-care overhaul by getting tens of millions of newly insured customers, while insurance companies — especially those that cater to the individual market — look like they are in for a tougher time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most reports on the official political treason of Arlen Specter were limited to rehashing the current troubles of the GOP or announcing that Specter will now cast his liberal votes for the Democrats rather than the Republicans or more correctly as a Democrat rather than a Republican. It that is what is important or meaningful about this story than he might as well take Snowe and Collins with him. But a blog post at USN&WR may be more on point.

On the flip side, once Franken is seated, the Democrats will have that magical thing, a “filibuster-proof majority.” But that presupposes a level of ideological cohesion that may not be possible in American politics. Will everyone in the Democratic caucus, from Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter all the way through Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, be able to agree on a reform of the healthcare system? On a second stimulus package? On an immigration reform? I’m not so sure.

That is just the final paragraph from the post but ideological cohesion is the theme. How often do you suppose a Congressman’s vote is determined by ideology? Isn’t it more likely that it is based on political considerations? Does party line vote mean political cohesion or mass political cover? Even if a Congressional voter actually votes their conscience you can be certain political survival entered the analysis just like Specter changing to the opposition party.

And where is Joe Lieberman in this discussion? How is what Lieberman did any different from what Specter did aside from the fact the party consideration was essentially reversed. Talk radio and GOP members who expressed an opinion seemed quite pleased with Lieberman’s decision. So is it strictly political how they are reacting to Specter’s decision now?

This is the nonsense that needs to be eliminated from ‘governing’ just as much as corruption, earmarks, pork or any other plague which reduces the process to something less than of, by and for the people.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is good to share those gems we find along the way. This one does not represent any sort of epiphany or great awakening. But it is a reminder of what three Republican Senators might have achieved if not for political maneuvers which made little sense in light of the great risk placed on this nation by foolish legislation.

Who are the three you ask? To be of assistance to readers who may have forgotten (wink, wink) the Senators Three are Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. They caved to the wishes of the opposition party with the lame excuse of being bipartisan. Considering Collins and Specter are on the Appropriations Committee that seems unlikely. Bipartisanship can generally be defined as requiring more than a small percentage of either party to seek a consensus. This was not unlike the few Democrats who opposed this legislation in the House only for fear of being defeated in their next election due to conservative opinion in their respective districts.

True bipartisan efforts would have seen the majority offer genuine opportunity for the minority party to participate in forging this legislation. The gem below expresses what would happen then. Something that may reflect good governance rather than political options that taint the process and fail to effectively represent constituents or discharge the duties of members of Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Conference Reports: About

From the earliest days, differences on legislation between the House and Senate have been committed to conference committees to work out a settlement. The most usual case is that in which a bill passes one Chamber with amendments unacceptable to the other. In such a case, the Chamber that disagrees to the amendments generally asks for a conference, and the Speaker of the House and the Presiding Officer of the Senate appoint the “managers,” as the conferees are called. Generally, they are selected from the committee or committees having charge of the bill.

After attempting to resolve the points in disagreement, the conference committee issues a report to each Chamber. If the report is accepted by both Chambers, the bill is then enrolled and sent to the President. If the report is rejected by either Chamber, the matter in disagreement comes up for disposition anew as if there had been no conference. Unless all differences between the two Houses are resolved, the bill fails. (From “Our American Government”, H. Doc. 108-94, p. 34)

Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter have a lot in common.

All three are US Senators.

All three are listed as Republicans.

All three voted for the pork-laden spending bill HR1.

All three are ranked pro-abortion by Project Vote Smart.

Ranking by Americans for Tax Reform:
Collins: 45 Snowe: 35 Specter: 65

by National Taxpayers Union:
Collins: C- Snowe: D Specter: D

by Taxpayers for Common Sense:
Collins: 50 Snowe: 30 Specter: 20

Ranking by American Civil Liberites Union:
Collins: 71 Snowe: 86 Specter: 57

Ranking by American Conservative Union:
Collins: 36 Snowe: 28 Specter: 40

by GOPUSA:
Collins: 23 Snowe: 23 Specter: 16

Ranking by the National Education Association:
Collins: A Snowe: A Specter: A

Ranking by Citizens Against Government Waste:
Collins: 34 Snowe: 17 Specter: 29

Ranking by Federation for American Immigration Reform:
Collins: 50 Snowe: 44 Specter: 50

Ranking by Nationa Journal, Composite Liberal Score:
Collins: 52.8 Snowe: 55.5 Specter: 52.5

A few things need to be mentioned about the information listed above. It is based on analysis from groups which may or may not be objective or accurate. Project Vote Smart provides a disclaimer indicating they view interest group ratings as biased. The point here is that other GOP members known to be conservative generally score much better than these three. For instance, the composite liberal scores above are among the highest by Republicans in either the House or the Senate and even outpace some Democrats for being liberal.

Snowe and Specter had a dismal showing on matters of immigration during 2007, the last time a so=called reform, aka, amnesty, aka, shamnesty was presented. Collins may have had a better showing on this issue than the other two.

But nothing separates them from the pack better than the current bailout, stimulus, pork, porkulus insane liberal agenda spending bills in the House and Senate. The only three to vote in favor of HR1 in the Senate.

Certainly there are occasions in politics where the puzzling actions of elected officials can be attributed to backroom deals, falling on the sword for the party or some other strategy or tactic for which the reason is not immediately obvious nor shared publicly. It does not appear this is one of those times.

If there is anything conservative about Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter please share that information in the comments section. For it is the view from this blog that over time these three have earned the moniker of RINO.

One additional note should be expressed. The uncertainty of any proposed solutions for the current economic turmoil is understood. What should also be understood is quickly passing massive spending legislation based on fear and loathing does not increase the chances of success. By every report observed lately most Americans do not support the insane spending plans being formed in Washington. Already failures in oversight and other related mistakes support the notion that restraint is needed. If the American voting public allows this insanity to continue we all deserve what we get. Which may in fact be no solutions at a cost no one can afford.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Tell Chuck Schumer you care (Michelle Malkin) 

Link one
Sadly, in their first crucial vote of the 111th Congress, these three moderate Senators showed their true colors; in so doing they not only let down the nation, but also every other Republican in the House AND Senate who unlike them courageously voted against this irresponsible act.

Link two
WASHINGTON (CNN) — An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challenges to any Republican senator who backs the economic stimulus package — the latest public show of dissatisfaction from the right over the massive measure before Congress.

Three GOP senators voted for the $838 billion compromise version of the package that the Senate approved Tuesday, but all three have said they might not vote for the final version.

“The American people don’t want this trillion-dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported [President Barack] Obama in the election,” said Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, an organization that calls for less government spending and lower taxes.

Link three
The actions of the 61 Senators who voted for this bailout plan to funnel money to Democratic constituencies, like unions and blue states, are shameful. But the battle of the bulge has just begun for the Senate and House, who now head into what is known as a conference committee to reconcile the differences between their two versions of the bill. If you thought the measure was bloated before, this stage could balloon the cost as each legislative body fights for its priorities. It should be a good fight. No Republicans supported the House version of the package two weeks ago. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer “is mindful that too much House meddling could torpedo the entire package.” Hear that Congressional Republicans? It there ever was a time to meddle, it’s now.

This roll call vote and whatever happens when both chambers attempt to reconcile the two versions of these PORK bills will determine which members of Congress favor expanded government and government control of the private sector up to and including socialism and those who respect real Americans and their understanding of freedom being supported by individual rights and responsibility not bailouts, handouts and government control over all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —61

NAYs —37

Not Voting - 1

Gregg (R-NH)