Multimillionaires Collecting Millions in Jobless Benefits

With the Republican Study Committee, (think: conservative House members) saying that they still wanted $100 billion in spending reductions as per the GOP's campaign pledges, what will they make of a move to cut unemployment benefits for millionaires? In a written statement explaining why he supports the bill introduced yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said, "Ending this practice will save nearly $100 million and correct a gross injustice against the millions of Americans who are out of work. Congress should pass this bill without delay. If there was ever a common sense spending cut, this is it."

Unemployment insurance for somebody who earns over $1 million a year? That's right, the way the system currently works, they qualify, too. So the safety net provides for people who pull down a million or two -- or even ten million dollars in a year -- did you know that? Here's the scoop from TheHill.com:

"As many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.

This included more than 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with incomes exceeding $10 million. In all, multimillionaires were paid $5.2 million in jobless benefits..."

Vicki Needham at

Now I don't know about you, but I expect anybody who pulls down a 7-or-8-digit income to have acquired some assets and set some of it aside. If you're having trouble making payments on the Lamborghini or Bugatti maybe you could trade it in for something that gets a little better mileage, like a Lexus hybrid, and stop going to restaurants that don't have prices on the menu, until you get your cash-flow going in a positive direction. Mooching off the government at that level is just plain abusing the system even if it's technically legal - for now.

I applaud U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Jon Tester (D-MT) for being willing to take on the injustice. I hope this bill passes both houses of Congress swiftly.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

After earmarks?

GOP leaders, apparently taking cues from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and thrilled to be in a majority in the House of Representatives when the next Congress convenes in January, seem intent on banning legislative earmarks despite reforms initiated during the 110th Congress which brought much-needed transparency and accountability to this relatively small part of the allocation process. In fact, reforms have already reduced earmark spending by about $3 billion, to the point where the process now represents between 1% - 2% of federal spending.

But here's the million dollar question: By what new process will funding decisions be made if earmarks go away? If Congress doesn't specify allocation decisions, then it falls to the executive branch. Will spending choices made by agencies and their politically appointed heads be somehow superior to those made by our elected officials? It may sound like progress at first blush -- it's obviously got the elite GOP messaging teams excited, and right-leaning media commentators love it -- but GOP Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) doesn't think it's a good idea at all.

Inhofe, who says publicly he'll keep right on earmarking, knows the danger in moving away from the recent reforms to adopt a new process under control of political appointees.

Is that "executive branch control" over spending really what the people who assert the government has too much control and that earmarks are simply - and always - pork spending honestly think is the "best way to rein in big government," or is it more sound-bites setting up partisan bickering that will distract Congress from taking up more important challenges?

Look, when it's done away from the light, if the media and other watchdogs fail to follow the money, then earmarking is a system open to abuse and fraud. But are we going to ask Congress to invent a whole new process during a time when the GOP controls the House while Democrats retain the majority in the Senate and prominent GOP Senators are saying that gives too much spending control to the Obama administration?

Oh that should go really quickly.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Rangel declared "guilty" on most ethics charges

The bi-partisan panel of the House ethics Committee considering charges against Representative Charles Rangel (NY-15) has determined that the veteran Democrat and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is guilty in 11 of the 13 counts of breaking House rules they were investigating.

Rangel's appearance yesterday before the subcommittee was highlighted by a self-non-defense, arguing that he needed additional time and funds to be properly represented. The subcommittee, chaired by another Democrat, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-16), was extraordinarily indulgent of Representative Rangel's repeated pleas; Rangel asserted spending approximately $2 million to date on his defense, but that expecting it might still cost half as much again his lawyers were unprepared to move forward, and that any "donated" defense provided by others would likely run afoul of FEC campaign donation limits.

The full House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will hold a hearing to determine punishment and announce their recommendation to the full U.S. House of Representatives.

Consequences for Rangel could range from a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct to a fine and denial of privileges.  The so-called ethics committee is the only House committee exactly split between the two parties, and last acted to admonish then-Represenative Tom DeLay (TX-22) which seems to have resulted in then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert removing three Republicans. Reactions by Democrats arguably left the panel hobbled and ultimately unable to act in the cases of DeLay, Jim McDermott (WA-7), and the infamous Abramoff lobbying scandal, which resulted in such distrust of the GOP that they lost their majority in the 2006 elections.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Congress prefers being lazy to being leaders

A year into President Obama's first term it's obvious Congress is in no hurry to pass reforms, so citizens live with growing risks and financial burdens. "We the People" are supposed to be in control of our government, but our needs are being trampled by a combination of one party largely posturing for political points and digging in their heels, while lobbyists use special interest money to shave off just enough votes from the other party to keep progress at an effective standstill.

Leaving the system as it's always been is laziness, not leadership. That kind of "leadership" would mean we were still colonies of European countries, if not living in caves.

Inaction and apathy rarely help when confronting a crisis; both the runaway costs and growing numbers of uninsured Americans, arguably fostered by flagrant profiteering of health care insurance companies, are parts of the crisis.

The U.S.A. has some of the best doctors, nurses, and medical training facilities in the world, yet a few greedy corporations are exploiting the system at the expense of our standard of living today. To insure that grip on our money, they spend money collected from customers to lobby in D.C. -- well over $1 million every day!

Is Congress hoping to leave this vast, profitable industry to self-regulate, the way they did with Wall Street? Are they really expecting advice from people hoping to make a profit will build a system that protects you and me? Putting solutions off is not only lazy, it burdens out children.

The sooner we fix how we pay for our health care the better off we'll all be. The founding fathers had the courage to face unpleasant truths and act despite the very real risk to their lives by opposing the King of England and his military legions. Are the people in Congress today opposing health care insurance changes scared to face down one money-making industry, or simply greedy?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Barack Obama Issues First Veto Threat To Congress

More from Huff Post: “President-elect Barack Obama made his first veto threat Tuesday in a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats. Obama told his former colleagues that if Congress passes a resolution blocking release of the second half of the financial bailout funds he will veto it, said Sen. Joseph Lieberman after leaving the caucus meeting.”

Republicans in Congress have a lower approval rating than President Bush

Republicans tanking ratings - Real Clear Politics: “Republicans in Congress have a lower approval rating than President Bush, according to the latest Gallup survey (Dec. 12-14, 1008 A).

Just 25% of U.S. adults approve of the job Republicans are doing in Congress, 4 points lower than Bush's 29%. It is the lowest mark for either party since Gallup began polling the approval ratings of Congressional parties in 1999.

Congressional Democrats received a 37% approval rating -- still low, but a 7-point increase from their all-time low at the end of last year.”

The Bailout Bill Fails; The Market Falls - Zennie's Blog Report

http://www.zennie62.com - This is The Blog Report for September 29, 2008, or "The Crash of 29" - the day the stock market saw it's largest one-day drop in American History.
On this day, the market reacted to the failure of the U.S. House or Representatives to pass The Bailout Bill, the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008.
I discuss the implications of this action and the political fallout behind it. Moreover, I take aim at the unintelligent view of people who claim that government's not in the market and should not be. In point of fact, there's no place where Government isn't in our lives. Thus, we must make sure it works.
I also take on Senator John McCain, who deserves blame for the failure of the bill's pasage as much as he believed his involvement would deliver House Republicans -- that did not happen. Senator Barack Obama was smart enough not to try and out-do Senator McCain, but to let the Congressional House do its job.

See it on CNN - click here.

Finally, Impeachment will be heard on Friday - Congressman Kucinich

My respect for Congressman Kucinich has just shot through the roof. Obama/Kucinich 2008

Congressman Jerry McNerney On Iraq, Presidential Race

At the California State Democratic Convention, Congressman Jerry McNerney took a small bit of time to talk with me about the Iraq War and the Presidential Race. He's an uncommitted Superdelegate and as such I tried to get him to explain who he was leaning to and what his criteria were for selection, but he didn't answer that, preferring to focus instead on his reelection campaign.