Menendez & Torricelli: The Company You Keep

Herb Jackson had an interesting piece in The Record today about Senator Bob Menendez's newest ally as chair of the DSCC: Disgraced former Senator Robert Torricelli. If President Obama was serious about getting the stink of corruption and special interests out of politics, Menendez picked the wrong guy "to be helpful".

Here Jackson discusses Torricelli's recent campaign donations:

The DSCC was the biggest single recipient, getting $135,000. Other recipients included the Bergen County Democratic Organization, which got $44,000; and $10,000 contributed in 2003 to the campaign of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who left office this year facing accusations he tried to sell the appointment to fill President Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

So, Torricelli donated to indicted Joe Ferriero's BCDO machine and indicted Blagojevich. Jackson posted the invite on his blog. One has to wonder if Senator Roland Burris was among the unspecified "Members of the Senate Democratic Caucus".

Folks need to remember that several of those involved with Torricelli in the past pled guilty to illegal campaign activity. Simply stated, Torricelli's campaign contributions don't pass the smell test at this point and haven't for years.

How Menendez, having to fend off his own corruption accusations in 2006, could choose Torricelli as his go to guy in North Jersey is baffling if improving the culture in Washington is actually a goal. At least at first glance, this is simply more of the same money conquers any principle fundraising. Such a shame.

Our Military Industrial Nightmare

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done the unthinkable: he's had the gall to recommend cutting military programs that aren't needed and shifting money to ones that are. The horror.

Here's how Gates sums up his view:

"When programs are out of control, when they're six years late, when they're twice the cost that they were originally forecast, something has to be done. Something has to give," Gates said.

That makes sense, to normal people, but the same article provides a clear example of how messed up Washington thought is:

"There are certain policy decisions Congress has a say so in, and we are going to have a say," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who wants to buy up to 60 more of the F-22 fighter jets, said Tuesday.

That's 60 planes the Pentagon doesn't want, at $150 million a piece. Now, our Representative Scott Garrett and both Senators Menendez and Lautenberg have been guilty of getting money for programs the Pentagon doesn't want, but never to the tune of $9 billion dollars.

The problem is Congress as a whole ignores the Pentagon all the time. We need body armor, Congress gets us a new plane. What's going to make this fight even more bizarre than normal is the fact Gates's proposal isn't even cutting the budget. He's telling Congress we're changing what we're buying to what we need.

The early criticism just reinforces that Congress has been sucked into buying what they're told by lobbyists we need as opposed to the Pentagon. It's tragic that Congress will borrow whatever it takes to make their campaign donors happy.

It wasn't even 50 years ago that Eisenhower coined the phrase Military Industrial Complex. For those that forgot his prophetic warning, here it is:

Habeas Quote of the Day

From the AP story detailing the first of what is to be many court rebukes of the logic for holding prisoners without charges at Guantanamo Bay:

"Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true," the court wrote.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also had this to say:

"The government insists that the statements made in the documents are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case," the court wrote. "This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true."

Part of the reason Representative Scott Garrett and Senator Frank Lautenberg should have their commitment to the Constitution brought into question this Election were their votes to suspend Habeas Corpus via the Military Commissions Act of 2006(Garrett, Lautenberg).

It has been nearly two years since the MCA passed. Nearly two years that individuals who may have been falsely accused of terrorist ties have been locked up unjustly. These are years of life we cannot give back to the people we stole them from.

We're coming up on 232nd birthday of our Nation. When we declared our independence, we cast aside many things of British rule. However, one we kept was Habeas Corpus. As the light of the free world, it's been nearly two years since the world saw our own Congress take away one of the fundamental rights of free people everywhere.

As more and more of these wrongful detentions come to light, these votes will look worse and worse.

What a Couple of Weeks

Well, it's been a few good weeks for me. The major project I was working on is done and I got a little trip in there. A few interesting things went on while I wasn't watching, so let's get to it:

1. Representative Scott Garrett has continued his quest to blame Democrats for all that is wrong with the economy. During a speech largely aimed at Democrats, he also continued his practice of misrepresenting facts when it comes to numbers. Garrett stated that gas had not yet crossed $2 a gallon on Election Day in 2006, sitting around $1.90.

Had Garrett or his staff bothered to check with Energy Information Administration they'd know gas was at $2.20. While no one denies, prices have gone up, why exaggerate the truth? Either it's an honest mistake, or a continued pattern of misrepresentation that raised it's head when Garrett was misrepresenting income levels during the SCHIP debate.

2. Shockingly, Garrett and Senator Bob Menendez issued a joint statement regarding a bill to help veterans. This was written up by the folks over at Blue Jersey and Herb Jackson of the Record. It's nice to see partisanship put along. As noted by Jackson, Garrett's efforts in this area haven't gone anywhere since November. Hopefully, Menendez coming on board might help get it done.

3. Garrett led the fight against the housing package that went through the Financial Services Committee, which will be voted on by the House this week. Of particular interest was Garrett going against a proposal to give an automatic 10% equity if someone refinances their loan through FHA. I've checked with folks in both parties, and all agreed with Garrett that on face value the proposal seemed a little over the top and rather unfair to those without the opportunity.

4. Garrett went on television to argue against regulating deceptive advertising and double billing by credit card companies.

5. Camille Abate, candidate for the Democratic nomination, put up a biographical video on YouTube.

6. The Bergen County Freeholders were ripped by the Record for voting as a block the majority of the time. It's a bit ridiculous that the Freeholders claim they have an open process when they schedule their meetings at times when no one can make it.

More to come...

Props to Menendez & Garrett

In my earlier post about the '08 hopefuls health care plans, I noted that no one makes a strong case on our behalf about the differences in cost of living when it comes to Federal programing and tax rates. Well, our own Senator Bob Menendez did make the case with regard to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. He distributed a chart showing the differences between several locales and it was reprinted in the Record.

And, for all of you who enjoy Greenwood Lake or rely on it for your business, Representative Scott Garrett secured $250,000 in funding to help clean it up. In his press release he had this to say:

“I’m proud to be a part of this community-wide effort to preserve and protect Greenwood Lake. The growth of the aquatic weeds has reached a critical state, putting the Lake at risk, and with it, the creatures that inhabit it and the businesses that rely on it as a regional tourist attraction.”

On these issues, we have been well served by our representation down in Washington.

Immigration: So Now What?

With the death of the immigration bill, most people are left with a simple question: So now what? The plight of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in our nation is a very real situation, and this bill tried to do too much at one time and everybody on the fringes got so mad it really isn't a surprise it failed. Now that the Bill is dead, pundits say nothing significant is going to be done until 2009. Unfortunately, we now have 4% of our nation's real population left in limbo. Their status may not be legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they're here.

There was a tremendous amount of disappointment from our Senator Bob Menendez, a champion of the reform. Our Representative Scott Garrett loved this outcome, and seems to believe any reform must punish the undocumented. The Economist had an accurate take on the stance taken by him and many other Republicans.

That most Republicans would be against reform was a given: although a handful of them helped to craft the bill, most Republican legislators, and the bulk of Republican voters, saw it as an “amnesty” for those who broke the law by sneaking into the country. They were not persuaded by yet more promises to fix the border. Nor, however, did they propose any alternative measures for dealing with the people already working in America.

For many Republicans, it seems, this is a good issue for them to rally the base and raise money; a solution is not as beneficial to them as the problem existing. It's estimated that in the 1990's, the number of illegal immigrants increased a net amount of 500,000 a year (incoming; less deaths, returns, legalization, etc.). With the INS's estimate of 7 million illegals here in 2000, and an estimate of 12 million illegals being reported last year, the net increased to over 800,000 a year while the Republicans held a grip on Washington.

By the end of 2009, that means we're looking at roughly 14.5 million people. We were already talking about a population larger than that of New Jersey and Connecticut combined; we might as well throw on New Hampshire while the politicians in Washington twiddle their thumbs and raise campaign cash.

So what do we do?

With an estimated price tag of $41 billion a year, a mass deportation program (finding, jailing, deporting) is off of nearly everyone's table, except for people like Garrett (how else do you punish an illegal alien?).

Relying on the Feds to come up with some sort of meaningful ID system seems dicey. There's already a 3 million passport backlog they're dealing with; coming up with 12 million more IDs seems unlikely.

Building the "fence" is a giant waste of taxpayer money, that does little more than let Congress say "Look, we built a fence. We're doing something." Meanwhile, people will go around and under the boondoggle.

Going after the employer seems to make sense, but with so many people working for so many different places, it seems unlikely enforcement will be effective.

So what do we do?

The 14th Amendment might have a clue:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

States already must provide equal protection of the law to anyone within their borders; would the States be within their rights to grant residency to illegals if they choose?

Granted, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to come up with a uniform law of naturalization to Congress. However, I'm not talking about citizenship or a path to citizenship, I'm talking about non-transferable residency. There isn't anything in the Constitution that says States couldn't determine residency, at which point the Tenth Amendment defers to the State. After all, the States seem to be the ones who benefit and suffer the most from the presence of the undocumented.

On the positive side, States receive sales tax from the individual (if it applies), income tax from those they buy things from, and taxes from those who employ them. On the negative, States pick up the tab to fund schools, medical care and social services for the undocumented. So wouldn't it make sense to let places like Texas, California, and New Jersey craft a workable solution for ourselves? It could go either way, throw them out or let them stay, but at least there would be something.

There are more questions than answers with this issue, but while Washington is in a state of self-inflicted paralysis over immigration, why not give the States a shot? Communities have started taking their own steps anyway, ranging from housing crackdowns to creating worker centers, what would the States do? On many policy issues States have been the experiment lab, where a Federal policy is then crafted on their best practices, so why not now?

At the very least, it would make for one heck of a Supreme Court case.

Menendez Blocks Earmark Reform

This happened back on March 26th, but I just saw the video yesterday (h/t Nightfly). When I first watched the video, due to the sound not being synced properly, I thought maybe somebody was doing a dub job. Senator Bob Menendez was attacked about corruption during the campaign, so I thought it might be something like "The Junior Senator from the most corrupt state in the nation blocks Congressional corruption reform, hardy har har."

Then I looked it up in the Congressional Record, and the text matches. This is no joke, and nobody should think it's a good thing or back Senator Menendez on this. I even went to Menendez's website to see if he explained the action, which he did not (his website is a lot better than Garrett's).

Read the bill yourself, it's short and straight forward. If you want an earmark, you have to put your name on it. Seems simple enough, and it's what voters wanted when they voted out the Republicans. Here's the video, and while you're waiting for Menendez at the end, ask yourself, why would he object to this?