Posts Tagged ‘Ways and Means Committee’

Rand Paul and Online Poker

May 19th, 2010 by John Feehery

Photo credit: Jamie Adams

It was interesting to go to a Ways and Means Committee meeting on the possibilities and pitfalls of online gambling in the aftermath of Rand Paul’s huge victory in Kentucky.

Paul is a libertarian, and by definition should be in favor of doing away with the prohibition of online gambling.  His father, Ron Paul, is a co-sponsor of legislation that would do just that.

Paul also has ample reason to change the current Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The law could have a negative impact on para-mutual horse race betting, an industry important to the home state of Churchill Downs.

The hearing exposed both the philosophical and practical problems with the current law.  Philosophically, as Republican primary voters are clamoring for more freedom from the federal government, this law says simply that American adults are not capable of handling the temptation of Internet gambling.

Now, that may be true for a small percentage of Americans.  And it may be true that a small percentage of Americans can’t handle the temptation of sniffing glue.  But we don’t ban glue because of those fateful few whom have decided that sniffing it is the best use of glue.  Nor should we use the resources of the federal government to throw people in jail because they want to play poker in their own homes.

Life is Complicated For Speaker Pelosi

March 6th, 2010 by John Feehery

The resignation of Congressman Eric Massa complicates the life of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  And her life is already pretty complicated.

Of course, it means one less vote for a health care bill that Congressional Democrats are trying to get through a reluctant House.

And one vote is a big deal, because it looks like pro-life Democrats aren’t going to swallow what the Senate passed late last year.

The Democrats have constructed a complicated scheme to pass health care, overly complicated in my view.  The House has to somehow pass a Senate bill that includes a huge new tax increase on labor union health plans and abortion language that is still unacceptable to Bart Stupak.

Then they are going to pass another follow-on bill that will somehow reverse that labor union tax with so-called “reconciliation” instructions that the Senate then will theoretically take up and pass with 51 votes.

But first, the Senate has to hope that the Senate parliamentarian decides that whatever the House passes somehow fits in with the Senate rules, not a certain proposition.

And if the Parliamentarian decides that it is not kosher, well, then, Joe Biden has to step in and create a new precedent that will give the Republicans ample cause to shut the Upper Chamber down for a while.

Why Pelosi Stuck With Rangel

March 4th, 2010 by John Feehery

Charlie Rangel is not crazy.  He may be liberal.  He may be corrupt.  He may be a partisan.  But he is not crazy.

The same cannot be said of Pete Stark, the man who will take Charlie Rangel’s place.

This reminds me a little bit of when Tom Foley had to find a replacement for Dan Rostenkowski during critical moment in the Clinton health care push, and put Sam Gibbons in the Chairman’s Chair.  Gibbons was not nearly as crazy at Pete Stark, but he wasn’t nearly as competent as Rosty, and Hillary’s health care died as a result.

Pete Stark is certifiable.  He has a penchant for disparaging just about everybody.

He once told a constituent: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg, it wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”  He Called Blue Dog Democrats, the folks he needs to pass his health care bill,  “brain dead.”  He said the Bush Administration sent soldiers “to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”   According to Gannet, during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War, he called fellow liberals Tom Lantos and Stephen Solarz ‘hostile militant guys,’ suggesting their votes were ‘as a matter of convenience’ for Israel.”  He claimed that the children of one of his African American colleagues were “all born out of wedlock.”