Good Money Bad Politics

The 110th Congress of the United States has been seated since Jan 3rd, 2007, our esteemed congress members are paid $169,300 a year for their efforts and labors. Now we all understand that there is a presidential race going on, but here are some interesting statistics.

John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.

Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3

Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6

Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.

One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:

John McCain $129,600

Barack Obama $88,425

Hillary Clinton $65,250

I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.

Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.

Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes

Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.

Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.

Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)

In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:

John McCain missed only 9% of the votes

Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes

Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.

But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.

Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.

Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.

Good sources of data for voting records are:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:

Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N

~Finntann~

Small towns, Guns, and Religion: What's the problem?

What's the problem? The problem isn't that the response from both sides of the democratic campaign is patronizing and demeaning, the problem is that the issue, for the most part, is completely irrelevant. It is a distraction from the issues at hand.

We are debating not over the loss of American jobs, the flight of industry overseas and the loss of our manufacturing base, but are debating semantics. We argue over the sound bite and whether or not the remarks were 'elitist', we argue over the choice of words 'bitter' and 'cling'.

Recognize this for what is is... a distraction, the opportunistic politics of the circling shark sensing blood in the water, and we are in a frenzy.

I listened to Obama's speech, there is a longer excerpt than what I had previously seen available on Huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

as well as a the full 51 minute recording, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html

What I found most striking was that this was not the well rehearsed and eloquent speaker I had heard in the more widely televised speeches, but seemed far more off the cuff, with Obama struggling for the appropriate words or phrase to convey his thoughts.

I found other portions of the speech far more disconcerting than the "bitter and clinging" parts... specifically his comment that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

It gives me pause, and causes me to wonder if he has an accurate self-assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.

Focus on the issues, not the sound bites. The issue is not whether or not a particular candidate is elitist or demeaning, they all are, these are not the issues that will make or break America. The issues are not a stark black and white, good and evil, although many try and make them out to be so. The issue is which candidate has the best overall platform, that in its totality will be best for the country.

And that, I will leave to you to decide.

~Finntann~

Carter, Hamas, and Khaled Mashaal

According to Al Jazeera Hamas has confirmed that former President Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Mashaal the leader of Hamas sometime between April 13th and 21st.


All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.


So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.


The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.


Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.


According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."


Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."


According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."

First let me recognize and praise President Carter's humanitarian and international electoral work.

In the field of international diplomacy he seems to have a much more mixed record. President Carter has often been accused of meddling in affairs of state, operating against the interests and policies of our nation.

It is US policy to isolate Hamas, an organization, reasonably placed, on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. Carter's plans to meet with the leader of Hamas would seem counter-productive to that stated goal.

Former President Carter is a member of the Elders and this was originally supposed to be a visit by Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Annan (all members of the Elders), but according to the Carter Center the others have decided "that the timing was wrong".

For a look at a real interesting curiosity (I haven't decided what I think about this yet), go to:

http://www.theelders.org/elders/

It is curious that despite widespread advice against this meeting Carter continues to persist with his plans.

I would urge President Carter to reconsider and not to meet with Khaled Mashaal.

However, and I have poked around a bit doing some research, I can find no legitimate reason to actually stop him. He may be misguided and completely off-base, but he has the right to travel to Syria and meet with whoever he pleases as a private citizen, so long as he doesn't provide financial or material aid to the organization it all seems completely legal.

The administration should publicly and loudly avow that President Carter is neither a representative of the US government nor can he speak as such.

Finntann

Whose election is it anyway?

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that a foreign national just raised $2.5 million for an American presidential candidate?

Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098

Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:

11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...

Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?

I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.

Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.

My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.

Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.

Some quotes attributed to Elton John:

“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."

“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”

As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.

The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:

Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162

How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?

Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.

But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.


Finntann