Dems introduce 'anti-cronyism' bill

[julialnyc]

Dems introduce 'anti-cronyism' bill:
Pelosi, Waxman Introduce Anti-Cronyism Bill

9/27/2005 11:06:00 AM

To: National Desk, Congressional Reporter

Contact: Brendan Daly of the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, 202-226-7616 or Karen Lightfoot of the office of Congressman Henry A. Waxman, 202-225-5051

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, Congressman Henry A. Waxman and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi introduced the Anti-Cronyism and Public Safety Act, which would prohibit the President from appointing unqualified individuals to critical public safety positions in the government.

"President Bush has handed out some of the country's most difficult and important jobs - leadership positions in public safety and emergency response - to politically well-connected individuals with no experience or qualifications," Rep. Waxman said. "This common sense legislation will end this practice and ensure that public safety is back in the hands of those who are trained and experienced in protecting the public."

The bill would require any presidential appointee for a public safety position to have proven, relevant credentials for that position. In addition, the legislation bars from appointment to an agency any individual who has been a lobbyist for an industry subject to the agency's authority during the preceding two years.

"As Hurricane Katrina tragically demonstrated, serious consequences result when unqualified cronies are appointed to federal public safety positions," Pelosi said. "The Bush Administration's culture of cronyism comes at the expense of public safety. It is unconscionable and must stop immediately - it is literally a matter of life and death. This legislation is critically needed, and I thank Mr. Waxman for his strong leadership in protecting the American people."

Subject to the bill are specific senior-level emergency preparedness offices at the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as any position with the primary function of responding to a direct threat to life or property or hazard to health.

For more information, visit http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov .

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Printer Friendly Format

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. I would bar fundraisers, not just lobbyists. Nominated.

[Call me Deacon Blues]

2. Well, you can bet that this one

will end up the round file. That's ok, if it makes the Repugs look bad. We'll get the real one passed in 2006.

[ThumperDumper]

9. True, but it's a smooth move on the part of the Dems. n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. How sad that this is even necessary

"...any presidential appointee for a public safety position have proven, relevant credentials for that position."

This should be a given. The fact that it's not should be cause for immediate impeachment. :(

[julialnyc]

4. I would love to see 2006 re-election repukes vote against this

and have it run across their states on commercials by the dem opponents

[charlie]

5. I like that they call it what it is

and not something tepid and mealy-mouthed. Anti-Cronyism and Public Safety, indeed.

[julialnyc]

7. me too! it also makes anyone look like a fool who votes against it

N/T

[sui generis]

6. I love it - a backhanded smack down

and in the next presidential campaign we'll of course point out that we had to take the drastic action of proposing this legislation for the safety of all Americans.

In the last election when they said they convinced the shivering sheep that they were the best bet for our safety and national security, they neglected to mention they were going to literally put a horse-shit manager in charge of FEMA.

[kath]

8. Sounds like the 1st part mentioned is "anti-cronyism", while the 2nd part

might go at least a little way toward eliminating those "fox guarding the henhouse" situations that have been SO rampant during this misadministration.
("In addition, the legislation bars from appointment to an agency any individual who has been a lobbyist for an industry subject to the agency's authority during the preceding two years".)

gawd, Bushco sucks in so many ways...

[julialnyc]

10. we should write them to thank them for this

N/T

[bee]

11. The R's will ignore it. just like they're ignoring the ethics bill

in the house right now. 82 sponsors.. not one repub.
This from the "party of ethics and morals". They wear their hypocrisies with pride these days.

[DemocracyInaction]

12. Wow--ya' mean Dems woke up and leaned to play the game finally?

Now that this issue has been hitting all over the news it's just astonishing that instead of our Dems just sitting there, picking their butts and doing the "we'll just let them hang themselves" routine (which as of date has not ever worked), they actually took a swig of "political" manuevering. This is EXCELLENT because it reinforces the public's notion that Bush not only did squat for the Katrina hurricane but that now all it is is a cash cow for cronies and these people will get fucked over again!!! Some times ya' just want to send our Dems an e-mail and say "good---have a smiley face for that---now that wasn't so hard to do was it?--see a backbone isn't that hard to come by".............

[julialnyc]

15. right????

N/T

[julialnyc]

13. I need a little lesson on bill passing

how many votes does it take to get a bill to be heard and voted on....and if it doesn't get put before congress can we see who voted against it?

[Ian David]

14. Bet the GOP will vote for this in 2008 when we elect a Democrat President!

I'm tempted to suggest "revenge legislation" when we win in 2008.

For example, adding "Bush" to the list of words you can't say on TV.

Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker Tits AND BUSH!
http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml

"Bush" sounds like a pubic reference to me, you know.

In fact, I think "Tits" should be removed from the list and replaced with "Bush."

Write your congressman today!

Sorry, I have strayed far from the original topic.

Please don't reply to this, or we'll start a new sub-thread.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. heh, heh, heh. Can we make it applicable to the local level too?

[SharonRB]

17. I'm glad they're doing this, but we all know it will go nowhere

[geomon666]

18. How about....

prohibiting appointment of unqualified individuals...to any government position?! Then the president could fire himself!

[Greyhound]

19. K & R

[ComerPerro]

20. That's fantastic. And, as other have mentioned, if we extended this to

the whole federal government, the entire GOP would have to step down. Especially the Bush administration.

[mzmolly]

21. So the Dems ARE fighting?! Hmmm.

GO DEMS!!! :toast: Awesome !!

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. The GOP are soooo not going to go for that lobbyist limitation language!

The bill would require any presidential appointee for a public safety position to have proven, relevant credentials for that position. In addition, the legislation bars from appointment to an agency any individual who has been a lobbyist for an industry subject to the agency's authority during the preceding two years.

It's that lobbyist-limiting part that will especially make this non grata to the GOP and probably some Dems - that revolving door has been a staple and indeed a prized employment perk for a long time. Hey, they expected to get paid very well indeed for all their "hard work"!

Bush, of course, will fume over the idea that anyone would DARE to suggest that they have any say in his appointments.

[julialnyc]

24. but I'm glad they are doing this

if nothing else the fact that these people have so much control needs to be pointed out as often as possible.

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. I agree completely. The GOP will have to VOTE AGAINST curbing corruption

and that will be on their record.

It's about damn time the Dems picked themself up from their long nap and got moving. The Repubs have had it their way without much of a fight for much, much too long.

[Karenina]

31. It should be FIVE YEARS

to give the mold and rot sufficient time to dry out! :evilgrin:

[Rex]

23. Waxman is a bulldog!

I love that guy! Never gives up. IMO, Pelosi needs to run for POTUS or VPOTUS.

[Mr_Spock]

25. Yeah, like the CRONY government will do anything with this

:eyes:

[Blue-Jay]

26. Gee....people should be QUALIFIED for their jobs?!?!

Who'da thunk it?

[julialnyc]

27. Force legislators to read bills they vote for

Force legislators to read bills they vote for
http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_594.html
Sun, 22 May 2005, 09:04 UCT
An interesting (and very sensible) idea from the USA: make it obligatory for legislators to read the text of bills they vote for, before they vote for them:
We hold this truth to be self-evident, that those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have not represented their constituents. They have misrepresented them.
And since Congress has repeatedly committed “legislation without representation,” strong measures to prohibit these Congressional misrepresentations are both justified and required.
To this end we have created the “Read the Bills Act of 2005 (RTBA).”
RTBA requires that...
Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
Congress cannot waive these requirements.

[smartvoter]

28. Cool! Nominated nt

[brentspeak]

30. Great idea.