But first, some loose ends to tie up.
As indicated in the House Actions update for last week, Smith introduced a bill that he claimed would revitalize rural development. He made a press release about it, and there was a brief TV report on his announcement:
Smith Introduces Bill to Revitalize Rural Communities
Bill aims to revive rural communities
The text of the bill was finally posted on THOMAS:
H. R. 1839
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 15-year recovery period for nonresidential real property in rural areas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR NONRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IN RURAL AREAS.
(a) In General- Subparagraph (E) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 15-year property) is amended by striking `and' at the end of clause (vii), by striking the period at the end of clause (viii) and inserting `, and', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
`(ix) any nonresidential real property placed in service in a rural area (as defined in section 1393(a)(2)).'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of this Act.
He’s right that this isn’t a “magic bullet”. There are a lot of factors that go into determining if a business is going to be placed in areas where the population is small and getting smaller. This will benefit the rural business owners presently in place if passed. I’m awaiting the CBO’s estimate of what this will cost. If there are no Paygo offsets indicated to cover any lost revenue, this may be dead in the water. We shall see. Any tax experts out there are welcome to comment.
----------------------------------------------------
Also in last weeks House Actions update, I pointed out the fact that Smith voted against H.R. 137, a bill strengthening the prohibition of animal fighting.
This week, the Kearney Hub published this letter to the editor on Smith’s vote:
Rep. Adrian Smith voted against cracking down on barbaric and illegal dog fighting and cockfighting. The House approved the measure 368 to 39.
The National Sheriff’s Association backed the bill because animal fights spawn narcotics traffic, corruption, violence and illegal gambling.
The poultry industry also endorsed the legislation to prevent the spread of avian diseases, including bird flu.
We are disappointed that Smith voted otherwise.
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO of the Humane Society of the United States
Washington, D.C.
I did a quick search and found this article that states:
More than 500 groups have endorsed the bills, including all major humane organizations, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Sheriffs' Association and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all 50 states, states HSUS literature.
The bill establishes a felony-level penalty of up to three years of jail time for any interstate or foreign transport of animals for fighting purposes, according to research.
Dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states, states the HSUS website.
To vote against this bill was, as I said, essentially Smith saying he hates your dog. I can’t even begin to imagine the reasoning behind voting against such a bill!
------------------------------------------------
Now to an email I received from a reader.
I was informed that during at least one appearance by Smith this week, he made direct remarks slamming Nancy Pelosi. As we can all remember, he and other Republicans tried to use her name to scare people during the campaign into thinking she was pure evil - she wanted all your income, wanted gays married, wanted all babies to be aborted, and wanted the terrorists to take over America.
Smith apparently decided to spread one flat out lie that was long ago corrected, and to join his colleagues in giving very misleading information on recent events.
First, Smith apparently once again spread the lie that Nancy Pelosi wanted taxpayers to pay for her to fly to California on a big plane. I had previously mentioned this issue after watching the live floor statements during a bill being debated that had nothing to do with this matter, but which the Republicans used to try and spread the lie as quickly as possible.
Here are the facts: Nancy Pelosi never made the request for the bigger plane. She also wasn’t the one that asked for a plane in the first place. This was a rule implemented after 9/11, and one that Speaker Hastert used.
This Think Progress blog entry explained the whole matter, where the White House was actually defending Pelosi against the Republican attacks. But I wish to point out the statement released by the Senate Sergeant at Arms:
Statement of the House Sergeant at Arms
As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.
In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.
Adrian Smith should be ashamed of himself for continuing to spread such a lie.
Next, Smith apparently made a comment on Pelosi’s trip to Syria. The Republican spin machine has been working overtime on this issue, with the media lapping it right up.
But their contentions are completely misleading and not giving the full truth on the matter. The fact that Smith is joining right in doesn’t surprise me. They want to play politics. They could care less about the reality of the matter.
Here are the facts: Nancy Pelosi did go to Syria and did meet with President Assad. But while she is being assailed for her visit and criticized for going in the first place, there is silence on the other visitors to talk with President Assad over the last week.
Right before Nancy Pelosi went, three members of Congress went to Syria: Rep. Robert Aderholt of Ohio, Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania. Right after Nancy Pelosi left, Rep. Darrell Issa of California paid a visit.
All of these Congressmen are Republicans.
Republicans part with Bush on Syria diplomacy
BEN EVANS
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.
"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Haleyville. "It doesn't mean you're weak in your policy or that there's no problems ... We just wanted to let them know that the lines of communication are open and if we can find some common ground on some issues we need to go forward on that."
Bush sharply criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for leading a delegation to meet with Syria's president, Bashar Assad.
The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by Aderholt and GOP Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.
Returning on Wednesday, the lawmakers said they made clear to Assad that they support Bush and were not representing the administration. But they said they felt it was important to maintain dialogue.
"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."
Washington accuses Syria of backing Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups it deems terrorist organizations. The Bush administration also says Syria is contributing to the violence in Iraq by allowing Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory and is destabilizing Lebanon's government.
The lawmakers said they pressed Assad to clamp down on terrorism and to cut off support for Hezbollah. They also discussed human rights, Israel and Lebanon, they said.
"None of us in the Congress work for the president," Aderholt said. "We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line."
A White House spokesman, Alex Conant, said the administration tries to deter lawmakers from both parties from engaging Assad.
"We discourage all visits to Syria because it's a state sponsor of terror," he said. "A lot of officials have gone, and it hasn't changed the Syrians' behavior."
A recent Washington Post news article further states: “Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip.” Furthermore, those with her stated that Pelosi stuck to the Bush policy line regarding Syria and their ongoing sponsorship with terrorists."
And Nancy Pelosi’s trip is not a first for a Speaker of the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert went to Columbia. While there, he allegedly told the leaders he met with to circumvent the Clinton White House and work directly with Congress. You can read the entire report on this issue:
Wash. Post left out full extent of Hastert's circumvention of Clinton admin. in working directly with Colombians
On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, it was reported that John Boehner made a statement that shows the mentality of the far-right on this matter.
“It’s one thing for other members to go…but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president.”
Source: Columbus Dispatch
Is he talking about her position or the person?
While diplomacy is the job of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch has the duty of oversight, and making trips is part of this oversight.
And last night, it was reported that these contacts last week may have bore fruit. In a region where talks have not been happening, a London paper apparently reported that President Assad stated he would work for an agreement between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel for the release of 3 Israeli soldiers kidnapped last year. Palestinian President Abbas then told French TV that one of them would be released very soon.
You can watch the video reports:
In Syria’s Trouble?
Talking Heads of State
By Smith joining in with the spin on this matter, he actually adds to the division in this country. How pathetic. The fact is that talking with Syria (and Iran) were recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. Talk does not equate weakness. Refusing to talk, and calling the others names, is the worst thing we could ever do when it comes to bringing peaceful solutions to our world, and especially that region. We talked with the Soviets during the Cold War, and it’s those talks that kept full blown war from breaking out. The recent release of the British soldiers through talks is also an example of how talks work.
Smith needs to stop playing the partisan politics and stop misleading his constituents.
3 comments:
You are correct in what you say about the media. Some are braver than others about documenting and questioning what Smith is doing. Unfoirtunately, to simply write about his votes and actions in WDC is editorializing, and most papers won't do that in a story.
That will be written as an editorial piece, as the papers' opinion or view on his work.
What has to happen is during a town hall meeting or some other public event that is covered as a media event, someone needs to ask questions and force Smith to answer them.
Then, most reporters will grab a hold ot if and address it in the story.
Many newspapers are unwilling to "attack" just one elected official.
Thats why bloggers like you are needed to keep his feet to the fire.
First you say this:
Too many times, politicians do things like this for photo ops and make themselves appear to be doing something. The fiasco with Walter Reed Hospital has probably resulted in every Tom, Dick and Adrian Smith descending on the place. Do they really need 535 members of Congress stomping through there day in and day out?
Then you say this:
While diplomacy is the job of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch has the duty of oversight, and making trips is part of this oversight.
you can't have it both ways can you? oh thats right its your blog
I am so glad you brought this up, “Mike”. It’s my pleasure now to provide you with a fact-filled lesson here.
Is there a difference between the two statements? Absolutely!! How you ask? Well, let me explain.
You see, “Mike”, it is the job of Congress to provide oversight. Part of deciding who oversees what is determined by who gets assigned to what committees. Each committee has subcommittees then, which focus on specifics within the committee. There are so many things to focus on that these assignments are crucial. It is then the job of each member to make sure that they do the best job they can within the focus of those committees.
Now, let’s look at the examples you pulled from. The statement about Smith was in regards to his big announcement that he was going to tour Walter Reed Hospital. This was right after the news reported on the conditions of that hospital. As I stated, they didn’t need everyone going through there. Members of committees directly connected to the facility should have, but not those with no assignments related to WRH. It’s one thing to visit wounded from your district, it’s another to take the providers away from doing their jobs to guide yet another tour for politicians during a high-profile time like that.
The trip to Syria was a completely different story. You have a White House refusing to even talk with certain countries (even though over and over and over there are experts and other world leaders saying it’s what needs to be done). Talk does not mean you suddenly become best friends with enemies. We talked to the Soviets during the Cold War. We talked with the Koreans during the entire Korean War (Bill Richardson has been in North Korea talking at the request of the President this last week!). So, several members of Congress went over last week, both Republicans and Democrats, to try and open a dialogue (just as the Iraq Study Group recommended).
Let’s look at the committee assignments now:
Adrian Smith:
- Agriculture - Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry; Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture.
- Budget Committee
- Science & Technology - Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
Not one of those are defense, terrorism, international affairs or homeland security related. None of them have anything to do with WRH. You may say the Budget Committee does, but they get their cues from the other committees when it comes to determining funding. The other committees do the oversight.
Now, let’s look at visitors to Syria, who reiterated the President’s position on sponsoring terrorism, and discussed talks with Israel and human rights issues (for brevity, I only list the relevant committee assignments):
Nancy Pelosi (D): Speaker of the House
Robert Aderholt (R): Appropriations - Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Frank Wolf (R): Approriations - “Ranking Member” on the State & Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Also, Co-Chair of the Human Rights Caucus.
Joseph Pitts (R): Religious Prisoner’s Congressional Task Force, who’s roll is to “advocate for international religious prisoners suffering persecution by appealing directly to foreign government leaders to secure the release of key religious prisoners and to help change hostile policies.”
Darrel Issa (R): International Relations - Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, and the Subcommittee on The Middle East and Cental Asia. Also, Select Committee on Intelligence - Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counter Intelligence
Keith Ellison (D): Judiciary - Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. (He’s also the first Muslim in Congress, and can be a good asset when dealing with Muslim nations).
Tom Lantos (D): Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Co-Chair of the Human Rights Caucus,
David Hobson (R): Appropriations - Defense Subcommittee.
So you see, these were members of Congress doing their jobs. They were overseeing things that have a direct connection with their committees.
So, in summary, there is a big difference here. I might also add that if Adrian Smith does take that trip he say he wants to take to Iraq, that’s also a waste of money. He needs to leave that to other Republicans. Like Mike Pence, a member of the House Armed Services Committee who just went over with Senator John McCain and said a market square in Baghdad was just like one in Indiana.
Let me know if you need any further help in understanding the difference here. I’m happy to help. Oh, and tell UW/Russ hello for me!!
Post a Comment