Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dems introduce 'anti-cronyism' bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:36 PM
Original message
Dems introduce 'anti-cronyism' bill
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I would bar fundraisers, not just lobbyists. Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Call me Deacon Blues Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThumperDumper Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. True, but it's a smooth move on the part of the Dems. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
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. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. I like that they call it what it is
and not something tepid and mealy-mouthed. Anti-Cronyism and Public Safety, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. me too! it also makes anyone look like a fool who votes against it
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. we should write them to thank them for this
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bee Donating Member (894 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocracyInaction Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
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".............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. right????
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bet the GOP will vote for this in 2008 when we elect a Democrat President!
Edited on Tue Sep-27-05 04:01 PM by IanDB1
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. heh, heh, heh. Can we make it applicable to the local level too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm glad they're doing this, but we all know it will go nowhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geomon666 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. How about....
prohibiting appointment of unqualified individuals...to any government position?! Then the president could fire himself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
19. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. So the Dems ARE fighting?! Hmmm.
GO DEMS!!! :toast: Awesome !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. It should be FIVE YEARS
to give the mold and rot sufficient time to dry out! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-05 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
23. Waxman is a bulldog!
I love that guy! Never gives up. IMO, Pelosi needs to run for POTUS or VPOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
25. Yeah, like the CRONY government will do anything with this
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
26. Gee....people should be QUALIFIED for their jobs?!?!
Who'da thunk it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julialnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
28. Cool! Nominated nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
30. Great idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC