A second chance for Republicans to act rather than talk
posted at 7:50 am on May 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Congress sent an incomplete version of the farm bill to the White House yesterday, rendering the veto override vote taken in the House meaningless. Democrats in both chambers will now need to shepherd the bill back through votes in order to get an official veto that they can override — which means they have to start at square one. While that reflects poorly on the Democrats, the Republicans hardly have any reason to crow:
The House easily overrode President Bush’s veto of a $307 billion farm bill last night in what appeared to be the most significant legislative rebuff of Bush’s presidency. But a legislative glitch is likely to force embarrassed Democratic leaders to pass the bill all over again today — and prompt a second showdown with Bush next month.
The problem came when a House clerk mistakenly dropped a whole section dealing with trade policy from the 673-page bill before it was sent to the White House. Republican leaders argued last night that the House had overriden [sic] a veto on legislation that had never actually passed the House and Senate. For the sake of legislative integrity, Democratic aides said, Congress is likely to start the whole process again.
Republican leadership aides last night called it a “monumental Democrat screw-up,” but it was Republican disarray that was on display for much of the evening. The bill pitted Republican leader against Republican leader as they argued publicly over another lapse in their commitment to fiscal discipline. As with the first veto override of the Bush presidency, which saved the Water Resources Development Act last year, lawmakers of both parties stepped in to save a law that promised to shower billions of dollars on key constituents and home-district programs.
“The vote on the farm bill has definitely been a challenge, if you look at it as regaining our fiscal brand,” said Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), a member of the GOP leadership.
The foul-up gives Republicans in the House and Senate a second chance. Their first efforts on the farm bill flew in the face of all the high-minded rhetoric regarding fiscal discipline and reform emanating from luminaries such as Tom Cole and John Boehner since the last special-election loss in Mississippi. The GOP wants to carry the mantle of clean government and small government, but majorities of Republicans in both chambers voted for a farm bill laden with pork projects, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies that make no sense in a market where food prices have risen significantly.
Memo to the GOP: we don’t believe your rhetoric any longer. Oh, conservatives still want an end to corruption, a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and spending discipline to go with lower taxes. We just don’t believe that many elected Republicans want those goals, nor do we think that current Republican leadership has any real commitment to them, either.
Want to dazzle us? Want to start rebuilding your credibility? Then stop talking and start taking action. When this farm bill comes back through Congress, oppose its fiscal foolishness. You have an opportunity to demonstrate through action instead of empty rhetoric that you understand the lesson of 2006, and that you will start acting on conservative principles rather than on political expediency. If you act on the latter, you will surely see an even starker lesson in 2008.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well said. How many times does this party have to take a beating at the polls until the real lesson sinks in? Try to be statesmen and stateswomen, not politicians angling for reelection by larding up their constituencies with bribes.
pistolero on May 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Sigh, never going to happen, their are no statesmen and stateswomen any more, only crooked politicians….
doriangrey on May 22, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Not a chance. But at least Bush will get to veto it again!
patrick neid on May 22, 2008 at 8:21 AM
What is the fiscal difference between two parties:
If one says I want to spend your money and they do.
Or
The other says I don’t want to spend your money but does.
Is there really a difference?
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:24 AM
right2bright,
There is a significant difference. If someone doesn’t like you and says so to your face, I at least can respect them for there honesty. If someone doesn’t like you and pretends to be your friend, they are at the very least contemptible.
House Republicans,
Man up and do what you know is right.
wfiguy on May 22, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Captain,
Who are the 100 Republicans that sided with the Democrats on overriding the veto?
wfiguy on May 22, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Very well stated Ed!
A few rays of hope have surfaced in the past couple of days. The governor of Alaska is going to file a law suit against the Bush administrations decision to list the polar bear on the endangered species list (caving to the pressure of junk science compliments of Liberal nutters); Bush vetoed the farm bill that was loaded with pork compliments of both parties; the Democraps received a mouth full of truth regarding the price of gasoline and energy, with the blame firmly planted on Liberal policies despite the Democraps attempts to blame this disaster on Bush.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90QBM4G1&show_article=1&catnum=0
Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn’t as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.
The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.
One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:
I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.
We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.
Stephen Simon amplified:
Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world’s oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:
Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.
Another theme of the day’s testimony was that, if anyone is “gouging” consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers’ anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress’s responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell’s John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:
While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation’s consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.
Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.
Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats’ latest efforts to block energy independence:
HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we’re talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It’s fair to say that they’re not considered part of America’s $22 billion of proven reserves.
HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
HATCH: No, but experts agree that there’s between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that’s good oil, isn’t it?
HOFMEISTER: That’s correct.
HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we’ve seen in the inflation…
HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
HOFMEISTER: I don’t know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.
HATCH: I guess what I’m saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
HOFMEISTER: Yes.
HATCH: But they’re stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.
HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.
The committee’s Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country’s energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.
Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Maybe this is a chance for challengers to take issue with complicit incumbents during any GOP congressional primaries.
Saltysam on May 22, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM
That post was WAY TOO lengthy; sorry folks….
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM
There were 46 votes for the immigration debacle bill that would have sold out this country. That includes the couple of Republicans that joined the dims including the sponsor….Juan McCain. Flush them all and send a message. NIX THE 46.
volsense on May 22, 2008 at 8:55 AM
One of the best yet. We should send the last couple paragraphs to our local Congressmen. But make it clear also that they should show spine on other bills too, not just this one. Pity that they were this way even when they were the majority, or I’d actually be hyped about retaking Congress. Not that I think it’s within reason anyway.
OneGyT on May 22, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I mean one of Ed’s best posts yet.
OneGyT on May 22, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Maybe Cantor could start by talking like a legislative leader rather than a junior advertising rep or, worse, Dick Morris.
If I hear or read the term “GOP brand” one more time I am going to throw up (or throw something).
Stop talking about your goddam brand and start doing something.
BigD on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Since the possibility that OPEC is waging an economic war against us since a military victory is impossible, one of the parties has to rise to represent our best interests. Since the dims are owned by George Soros who uses the dims to lower the American standards and values, there is only one party that has even a minute chance…..GULP.
volsense on May 22, 2008 at 9:18 AM
keemo, don’t worry bro it was perfect. I’ll be doing a copy and paste into my email file.
thanks
of course they won’t know who the flip you are!
patrick neid on May 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I’m not the Captain, but here’s the roll from last night.
steveegg on May 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Well said.
“We have identified the enemy and he is us.”
fossten on May 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM
My rhetorical question was “fiscal difference” not political or social.
The answer is, fiscally the effect is the same. They are both stealing money from us.
Politically, you are correct, the Dems are more honorable (in stating their desires of stealing our money) then the conniving Republicans.
It’s akin to someone busting into your house, guns drawn and saying, “hand over your money” as opposed to a thief in the night, slinking in stealing your money then slinking out.
One is more terrifying, the other disgusting…but both have your money.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Thanks for that. I’m glad to see that my representative had the brains to vote against this atrocity.
Jeff_McAwesome on May 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Cracking me up… Good analogy.
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Maybe when this bloated hog comes back to President Bush, he could just shove it away in a drawer and give the fiscally dumb Repubs some more time to think it over…and let the Dems go crazy…and give this some much needed air time and publicity. Most people still don’t pay any attention unless it’s on the Daily or Tonight show.
marybel on May 22, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I think they would all switch parties if it would allow them to keep their precious power. Hunts or Del Monte, its all Katsup.
ronsfi on May 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM
No problem, Keemo. The more we know, the better. And we conservatives don’t mind reading past the headlines and soundbites.
Bigfoot on May 22, 2008 at 9:52 AM
One of my friends had this to say to me last night:
I’m voting for Obama because I want to live forever!
I replied “what the F are you talking about!”
He replied “(4) years of Obama will make me feel like I have lived forever!”
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Can’t do that. If a bill sits on his desk for 10 days, it becomes law automatically.
fossten on May 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Pfft! Who cares! BEST POST EVER EVER!
Well done Keemo. Ed or Allah should copypasta that into a full HA article.
wearyman on May 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM
And to further Keemo’s post I’m surprised that the rest of the world is not blaming us for the current high prices. If we buy the canard that the price is all based on demand generating primarily from China and India they have an excuse for importing their oil–they basically don’t have very much domestically. (I say canard because while prices have more than doubled for crude in the last year from $60 a barrel to the current $134 demand has only gone up about 3% while supply has kept a pace.)
We on the other hand are the world’s third largest producer willfully declining to be the largest because of our egocentric bans on drilling etc. If that were not insidious enough we then drain the world’s export market of fungible oil by taking 40% of that supply (39 million barrels). We use 20-21 million barrels a day importing 15 million.
We are the cause of high prices worldwide. If tomorrow we were to stop importing oil the price would collapse as the world found itself in extreme over supply. Had we drilled in ANWR ten years ago we would have an extra one million barrels a day. If nothing else that is money that would stay inside the US rather than going overseas.
If there ever was a conspiracy this would make a good one. When stupidity is this rampant and sanctioned something is up.
patrick neid on May 22, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Let’s not call this the “Farm Bill”.
Let’s call it what it truly is:
Take note that “Bioenergy” is a big push of the Global Warming Zealots. Meanwhile, the bioenergy push is causing more harm than good to humanity worldwide.
Those myth-believing zealots are trying to destroy this country while appearing “moral” as they do so.
Wake up, Neo…
P.S. I already expect those commenters who don’t believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to accuse me of being a “myth-believing zealot trying to destroy this country while appearing ‘moral’ as he does so”. So don’t go there…I’ve beaten you to the punch, and God is who He says He is.
Red Pill on May 22, 2008 at 10:00 AM
yes.. it was a lowly clerks fault.. not the legions of amendments and sub-committees and committees it goes through..
so is this the first of it’s kind? of first of it’s kind, that’s been caught..
DaveC on May 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM
thanks for the info, Keemo..
DaveC on May 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM
See the names of the 100 Republicans who voted to override.
paul006 on May 22, 2008 at 10:18 AM
You are right…but only if it is actually reported in the MSM.
Of course you are preaching to the choir here, but this needs to be (edited down) front page news, and it won’t be.
And the CEO of Shell stated, we are not a free market, the restrictions on productions preclude that.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Maybe this is what you are suggesting: Was it “caught” to give the Republicans a chance to “review” it and then change their vote?
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 10:47 AM
that the version signed by congress is different from the version the president signed.. (or vetoed, in this case)
is this the first it happened? or first time it’s been noticed..
DaveC on May 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I think I’m going to send Dean Heller a contribution today as a sign of my appreciation for voting Nay.
p0s3r on May 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Thanks for the kind words folks… Needless to say, I’m not capable of writing such reports; for more on this subject, go to powerlineblog.com… The boys at powerline are brilliant.
Off to work I go; you all have a great day.
Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM
It is so amazing what has happened to the Repubs in the last few years. They just don’t get it. They don’t understand why they keep losing elections. They think its all because they are too conservative and they shift to the left. I really hope the “wake-up” call comes soon. Perhaps a major loss of seats in November will do it. They may just interpret that as a need to move further left. Not smart! Idiotic, actually.
scottjenn on May 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I found myself agreeing with a Democrat during the Farm bill Veto speeches (Ron Kind–WI). I felt “weird.” Like I’d done something wrong.
scottjenn on May 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Okay, then I will suggest it.
I think this is the way for the Republicans to back out of this misstep. I think you will see Republicans back away from the bill and Bush’s veto will stand.
By a point of order, they could say it was clerical and that the bill voted on was complete (which it was).
Since they all “discussed” and the “missing” sections were after the vote, the bill’s vote would still stand.
Or they can take the legalistic approach, which will give them time to survey the public, and hold it up for another vote.
Notice the mistake was after the vote. The senate voted on the complete bill.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM
First glance at the Republican list: Especially disappointing to see Capito and Blackburn among the yeas, since all I really knew about them previously was that they were supposed to be rising young female conservative stars, almost VP material already. Glad my own Rep, Dreier, voted “no.”
It’s reaching the point where the Congressional Republicans seem to begging for us to put them out their misery.
CK MacLeod on May 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Compare Keemo’s post with the AP’s version:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080521/D90Q9U601.html
You would think the Dems were out last defenders against the Evil Oil Companies!!!
kcluva on May 22, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I say let’s help them with their wish. Accountability, accountability, accountability. Time to clean House and Congress from the viruses that have infected our party.
trs on May 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I was only musing at if it happened before.. with only part of a bill signed but the missing amendments would be on the books..
DaveC on May 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I’m with the bloggers who called for a windfall profits tax on the farmers.
obladioblada on May 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Got it, and you were more right then me. Looks like the Dems did this on purpose. Good call.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM