navydad, "The Dems don't want the public to comprehend this legislation, just embrace it."
To be perfectly honest, I doubt YOU comprehend this legislation. You just complain about it. But if you're interested in reading it, here it is. As far as scanning cargo goes, I read the legislation to mean that it calls for searching every incoming container for the presence of radiation and density consistent with atomic elements. I don't know how much that's likely to cost, how much time it will take, and how much additional equipment and personnel it will require, but it sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. One also has to ask... what are the potential costs of NOT doing it?
Can you answer that? I don't think so.
More to the point, I think you think the question is only legitimate to ask if the GOP backs the legislation. But I don't see it that way. Rather, I think it is an important question to ask regardless of who asks it. In that regard, I again point out that the bill passed by a vote of 299-128. Compare that with the vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq, which passed the House 296-133. Ever since then the authorization vote has been characterized -- at least by the GOP -- as having "bipartisan support". The Dems have never been able to shake that characterization. And with good reason -- it's largely true.
And I would argue the same is largely true now. And if you have a problem with that, maybe you should take it up with Boehner and Blunt. Apparently they weren't able to reign in their troops. In contrast, Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn were. They kept their coalition together almost to the person. You have to hand it to them, they did what they needed to do. This time around anyway.
It is indeed ironic -- not to mention hypocritical -- that the Dems used the tactics that the GOP perfected over the last several years to pass their "100 hours agenda", after promising more transparency and higher ethics and all that. Then again, the GOP promised to do the same thing back in 1994. What happened with that? Not much, IMO. Over the years the GOP renegged on almost all of their promises -- certainly the main ones. In contrast, the 2006 Dem strategy worked exceedingly well: they managed to pass everything in their initial agenda by large margins (some larger than others) while saving the ethics issue for last. The Senate, on the other hand, considered the ethics first, and passed it handsomely (96-2). The upshot is... now the Dems in the House can use it like a club until their House GOP colleagues acquiesce. And they can do so without lasting political ramifications. They've already largely accomplished what they said they were set out to do. Everything else they can blame on GOP obstruction. And considering the margins (and the level of presidential approval), it might work. In fact, it probably will.
The hammer in someone else's hands isn't so pleasant, is it? You have to hand it to the Dems -- it was a masterpiece of political maneuvering. They kept their promises within reason and achieved them all (or are likely to), at least through the House. That makes the House the battleground of acquiescence (at least on this one very important issue) and the Senate the battleground of comity on all sorts of issues that still haven't come up. And guess what -- of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2008, 21 of them are currently held by the GOP. That's more than a little scary.
Frankly, I am ashamed of the GOP. I agree with (most of) the ideals of the party, but the practice in recent years has been nothing short of embarrassing. It has been as if any means employed are necessarily justified by the desired ends. And that, to me, is not what democracy is about. It should be the other way around, IMO -- in other words, you have to justify your goals politically (which is to say, popularly) and your means legally (which is to say legislatively and judicially). Anyway, assuming ethics reform passes the House in a similar fashion as it passed the Senate (which I suspect it will eventually, because there's no up-side for the GOP if it doesn't), the Dems will be pretty much done picking off the low-lying fruit -- i.e., the issues that were served up like softballs underhanded to them. Then the games will really begin. It should be an interesting couple of years. That being said, though, we are starting from a hole -- a hole we have dug for ourselves. And to the extent that you really believe "the American electorate is a bunch of deluded idiots", that hole gets deeper. I can't think of anything more obvious in politics than to avoid calling your electorate a bunch of idiots -- at least until AFTER the elections, lol!
Look, the DemocRATs "first 100 hours" was symbolic, just like these stupid surrender resolutions. The House, led by Blinky Piglosi, passes a bunch of b/s bills, and forwards them to the Senate, where the majority either die, or are altered beyond recognition.
They've whined and whined about this cargo b/s for years, knowing full well what occurs with cargo containers before they're sealed at their origin. If this is such a security crisis, then why is it allowed to go "unchecked?" It doesn't.
Blinky and Reid-tard are all show. They will continue to whine about how the Republicans are obstructing business, and the DBM will carry their water. So much for civility and bipartisanship...
So, this new congress did more in 100 hours than the last congress did in 6 years. Any complaints should be addressed to the old congress.
Look, the DemocRATs "first 100 hours" was symbolic
That's because Liberalism is all about symbolism over substance.
The House, led by Blinky Piglosi,
Blinky? LMAO, keefer.
Mark, when did the cost of something ever stand in the way of Democrat stupidity? Their two standard answers to virtually every problem are (a) we aren't spending enough money on it, and (b) the right (read that as "good") people weren't in charge.
I responded to a statement on another blog yesterday about how Bush and Cheney wouldn't be able to find a hole big enough to hide in when the American people realize the actual costs of this war, to which I responded:
What these kooks don't understand is how this will affect small biz. I'm sure all they think about is how the public will view them as being strong on defense...puke.
SOMEONE will need to pay for of the inspection and adminisration of such and it won't be uncle sam, no, it'll be passed on to the port administrator who will pass the cost on to the shipping company who will pass it on to the freight forwarding company who will pass it on to the consignee who will pass it on to........what a bunch of crap. If only the average American understood this principle there wouldn't be a DemocRAT party...period.
If this gets past GW, I'll be very surprised and dissappointed since it will affect my business tremendously.
If this gets past GW, I'll be very surprised and dissappointed since it will affect my business tremendously.
Mine too, Navy. About half of what I sell is produced in the pacific rim.
Fortunately, we have a President who does care - and with his veto pen, he'll be able to give the crackpot Democratic ideas the burial they deserve.
We can only hope that Bush will actually use that veto pen. If he does, be prepared for a major conniption from the Dems, who will howl about how he just about never used it when his party held Congress (and not totally without merit, since a few of those pork-laden spending bills deserved a veto). Dubya, please let us know, is there a spine in there?
Inspect each bit of cargo coming through our ports?
We don't even inspect every person coming into this country. If the Dems (and some 'Pubs, too) really want security, let them get behind the border fence.
pmercer,
Yes, the new Congress has shown they are much more efficient than the last Congress in wheel-spinning...
navydad: "Fortunately, we have a President who does care - and with his veto pen, he'll be able to give the crackpot Democratic ideas the burial they deserve."
Perhaps it's worth keeping in mind that the bill passed by a vote of 299-128 (70%), and was supported by something like 70 Repubs. That suggests two things: (a) if the bill is that awful, Boehner did a crappy job of mustering his troops, and if he doesn't shape up; (b) it sounds fairly veto-proof.
Additionally, if Bush gets out his veto pen the Dems will come back with the stats Mark mentioned -- that it will cost, "$21 billion over five years which translates into about half the entire homeland security budget for this year."
$21 billion over five years also translates to a little over $4B per year, which is about what the Iraq war is costing every two weeks. The Dems have been very successful with the argument of, "why are we spending so much over there and so little over here to keep us safe?"
Spook indicated, "The American people will NEVER fully understand the costs of this war unless we lose it. Then the current costs will look like chump change." I suspect that's true. Then again, if Bush vetoes this bill, the Dems will use the same argument against the GOP: the cost will seem like chump change if another attack occurs here in America.
Finally, doesn't the Senate have to weigh in on this? I would hope that they would do so with more careful consideration and assemble a version that makes more sense. It seems to me that there is some good stuff in it. It's not just about inspecting cargo, it also mandates more risk-based distribution of funds, better sharing of information among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, fund communications improvements so that all first responders can talk to each other over "interoperable" systems, and create a new select committee designed to better integrate U.S. intelligence oversight with the appropriations process.
Personally, I'm very skeptical about the cargo monitoring. That could be a tremendous albatross. Likewise, the new select committee might not be such a hot idea, either (then again, the less control Sylvestre Reyes has the better as far as I'm concerned). But I have a hard time finding fault with the other issues. At least on the face of them.
Rico
First off. The American public hasn't a clue how this bill, if it makes it past GW will affect our economy, however negligible to the consumer, but to us small biz owners, it will be much like a tak hike which cannot be absorbed at the retail level.
The Dems don't want the public to comprehend this legislation, just embrace it.
This lack of understanding by the Dems brings me and my conservative allies down to a more cynical tone when we see them introducing backdoor legislation that feels and looks good, yet has a negative affect on the wholesale consumer...ME.
Tax hike...sorry!
Just $21 billion to protect our ports. Each month they spend almost that much in Iraq building schools. Don't our children also deserve the fruits of our labor?
Republican priorties are so out of whack, they may never recover as a true party.
I'm betting that we could get our government to inspect every single item coming into our ports over the course of a year, and it would still cost less than one week of this war, which has only succeeded in creating vast numbers of terrorists.
navydad, "The Dems don't want the public to comprehend this legislation, just embrace it."
To be perfectly honest, I doubt YOU comprehend this legislation. You just complain about it. But if you're interested in reading it, here it is. As far as scanning cargo goes, I read the legislation to mean that it calls for searching every incoming container for the presence of radiation and density consistent with atomic elements. I don't know how much that's likely to cost, how much time it will take, and how much additional equipment and personnel it will require, but it sounds like a worthwhile endeavor to me. One also has to ask... what are the potential costs of NOT doing it?
Can you answer that? I don't think so.
More to the point, I think you think the question is only legitimate to ask if the GOP backs the legislation. But I don't see it that way. Rather, I think it is an important question to ask regardless of who asks it. In that regard, I again point out that the bill passed by a vote of 299-128. Compare that with the vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq, which passed the House 296-133. Ever since then the authorization vote has been characterized -- at least by the GOP -- as having "bipartisan support". The Dems have never been able to shake that characterization. And with good reason -- it's largely true.
And I would argue the same is largely true now. And if you have a problem with that, maybe you should take it up with Boehner and Blunt. Apparently they weren't able to reign in their troops. In contrast, Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn were. They kept their coalition together almost to the person. You have to hand it to them, they did what they needed to do. This time around anyway.
It is indeed ironic -- not to mention hypocritical -- that the Dems used the tactics that the GOP perfected over the last several years to pass their "100 hours agenda", after promising more transparency and higher ethics and all that. Then again, the GOP promised to do the same thing back in 1994. What happened with that? Not much, IMO. Over the years the GOP renegged on almost all of their promises -- certainly the main ones. In contrast, the 2006 Dem strategy worked exceedingly well: they managed to pass everything in their initial agenda by large margins (some larger than others) while saving the ethics issue for last. The Senate, on the other hand, considered the ethics first, and passed it handsomely (96-2). The upshot is... now the Dems in the House can use it like a club until their House GOP colleagues acquiesce. And they can do so without lasting political ramifications. They've already largely accomplished what they said they were set out to do. Everything else they can blame on GOP obstruction. And considering the margins (and the level of presidential approval), it might work. In fact, it probably will.
The hammer in someone else's hands isn't so pleasant, is it? You have to hand it to the Dems -- it was a masterpiece of political maneuvering. They kept their promises within reason and achieved them all (or are likely to), at least through the House. That makes the House the battleground of acquiescence (at least on this one very important issue) and the Senate the battleground of comity on all sorts of issues that still haven't come up. And guess what -- of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2008, 21 of them are currently held by the GOP. That's more than a little scary.
Frankly, I am ashamed of the GOP. I agree with (most of) the ideals of the party, but the practice in recent years has been nothing short of embarrassing. It has been as if any means employed are necessarily justified by the desired ends. And that, to me, is not what democracy is about. It should be the other way around, IMO -- in other words, you have to justify your goals politically (which is to say, popularly) and your means legally (which is to say legislatively and judicially). Anyway, assuming ethics reform passes the House in a similar fashion as it passed the Senate (which I suspect it will eventually, because there's no up-side for the GOP if it doesn't), the Dems will be pretty much done picking off the low-lying fruit -- i.e., the issues that were served up like softballs underhanded to them. Then the games will really begin. It should be an interesting couple of years. That being said, though, we are starting from a hole -- a hole we have dug for ourselves. And to the extent that you really believe "the American electorate is a bunch of deluded idiots", that hole gets deeper. I can't think of anything more obvious in politics than to avoid calling your electorate a bunch of idiots -- at least until AFTER the elections, lol!