house republicans are cry-babies

Yeah, we said it.

Minority Leader John Boehner and his Republican caucus are being a bunch of cry-babies.

They really want to blame the economic recovery plan's failure in the House on a "partisan" speech by Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Give me a break.

Whatever happened to putting "country first?" Or is that just a campaign slogan for John McCain and the Republicans? Instead of doing the right thing, they took their toys and went home when big, bad Pelosi hurt their feelings.

Only 65 Republicans voted for the bill. 140 Democrats voted in favor. You can see how your representative voted here.

By the way, the stock market took a plunge today as the Dow Jones saw the largest-ever single-day drop: nearly 780 points.

house republicans elect boehner minority leader

Yesterday, House Republicans voted to instate Rep. John Boehner of Ohio to the position of minority leader. Boehner took over as majority leader earlier this year after Tom DeLay's resignation. With the Democrats now in control, Republicans elected to keep their once interim leader by a vote of 168-27. One vote was cast for North Texas Rep. Joe Barton, who previously withdrew from the race.

Shortly afterward, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, won a 137-57 vote to keep his post as whip, which will be the No. 2 GOP job when Republicans become the minority party in January. Blunt is currently the No. 3 House Republican; he defeated Arizona conservative Rep. John Shadegg despite sentiment for fresh leadership faces and concerns that Republicans had strayed from their conservative principles.

Capitol Annex has information on Texas Republicans that were elected to the leadership.

pelosi officially speaker; hoyer elected majority leader

House Democrats spoke unanimously today in electing Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California to the highest ranking position in Congress, Speaker of the House.

Her choice for Majority Leader, Rep. John Murtha, was beaten out by Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer. Hoyer won the secret-ballot vote 149-86. Pelosi and Hoyer pledged to put aside differences and move Congress forward with the new Democratic majority. Said Hoyer: "The Republicans need to know, the president needs to know and the country needs to know our caucus is unified today."

North Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Ennis dropped out of the race for minority leader, leaving Republicans to decide between Rep. John Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. That vote will be held tomorrow.

Read more on the leadership elections at Three Wise Men.

Is the Voting Rights Act Still Needed in Texas?

The Supreme Court's decision on redistricting in Texas (see "Supreme Court Rules on Redistricting" below) highlights the importance of the Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act, passed in a 1965 and amended 10 years later, targets states with a long history of racial discrimination at the ballot box and three states, including Texas, with large populations with limited English skills. The law will expire next year unless Congress votes to extend it.

Until last week, Congress was prepared to vote on the issue, and most observers assumed it would pass. But several Texas Republicans in the House of representatives balked, saying they wanted to change the law.

What kind of changes?

A rebellion broke out, mainly over two issues: the law's special requirements for certain states and districts, mostly in the old segregated South, and the law's requirements that foreign-language ballots and interpreters be provided in precincts where substantial numbers of voters are struggling with English.

So where does that leave the bill?

The vote has been indefinitely delayed, causing fear among some that Congress will drag its feet until the law expires.....

"I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," declared Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock.

Yeah, and when a sixty-five-year-old southern white man tells you that you can take it to the bank.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bob Ray Sanders thinks the court's decision increases the liklihood that the act will ultimately be passed:

Well, the one positive in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas redistricting case was that one of the gerrymandered districts -- the 23rd, which runs from San Antonio to El Paso -- must be redrawn because it did violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting strength.

I argue that the impact of minority voters was lessened in at least two other districts affected by the Republican's 2003 redistricting plan. That includes blacks in southeast Fort Worth [emphasis mine].

But the court allowed those districts to stand. The court's declaration that the 23rd District violates the law takes away the Republican argument that there are no vestiges of voting rights discrimination in Texas. Once again, the Supremes have made it official.

All of that sounds encouraging, but let's face it-- with GOP approval by the African-American community hovering somewhere around minus two percent, the Republicans aren't worried about wooing the black vote.

Originally, the Republicans thought that they had widespread support within their own party for renewal, and saw this as a chance to highlight their support of minority rights to the Latino community. It's just bad timing that almost simultaneously the Supreme Court is telling us the GOP diluted Latino voting strength to win a few seats to Congress.

House Majority Leader John Boehner says the VRA will be back.

...[Boehner] a Ohio Republican, said Congress would return to the matter after a weeklong July 4 recess. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said party members were "holding our fire and patiently waiting for the Republicans to work out their politics."

So do you think all those pundits, who spent days trying to convince us that the debate over Democratic plans for withdrawal from Iraq were signs of party disunity, will be highlighting the Republican missteps on the Voting Rights Act? No, neither do I.

Republican Priorities - More Gifts for the Rich

The estate tax reduction bill that the Republican House passed on Thursday was a compromise. If the GOP-led House had its way, there wouldn't be an estate tax, as they have repeatedly proven over the years by passing countless bills to eliminate it. But after the Senate failed last week in its attempt to eliminate the tax altogether, House Republicans are trying the back door.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, explained their persistence.

"Americans are being taxed almost every moment of their lives. My goodness, when they are dead, do we have to tax them again?"

Apparently, Congressman Boehner has been channeling the deceased and is really feeling the pressure. Who knew?

By a vote of 269-156, the House approved a bill that would eliminate the estate tax on individual estates up to $5 million ($10 million per couple) with annual adjustments. Yeah, you read that right. The same Republican rubber stamps who haven't voted an increase in the minimum wage for nine years, are so concerned Paris Hilton might have to downgrade from a Lamborghini to a Mercedes, that they decided to index the exemption to keep pace with inflation.

The bill also greatly reduces the tax on wealthier estates. Estates of $10-25 million would be taxed at the same rate at those on capital gains, currently 15% but due to rise to 20% in 2011. Why the rate change? It seems an unnecessary charade when the Republicans will obviously fight tooth and nail to keep that increase from ever happening. But by inserting sunset clauses in the reductions, they can mask the true costs of these bills, chronically underestimating the size of future deficits.

Congressional tax experts estimated that if the changes become law, only 5,100 estates would face taxation when the changes are fully in effect in the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011. The Internal Revenue Service levied taxes on more than 30,000 estates in 2004, the most recent figure available.

Okay, maybe Alice Walton won't get everything she asked for, but the legislation still means billions in savings for America's ruling class. And the rest of us?

The Joint Tax Committee estimated the cost at $283 billion through 2016. But the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said the full cost would be about $750 billion for the first 10 years it takes effect.....

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said it would benefit the "richest of the rich" while adding to the nation's debt and forcing deep spending cuts in key domestic programs.....
"What we're doing today is ... jeopardizing the resources to pay for health care and education, and even our national defense because some of you believe the richest of the rich should be protected from an equitable distribution of tax liability," Rangel said.

And no Republican bill would be complete without a little pork thrown to special interests, so the bill also contains a reduction in timber taxes to increase it's chance of passage in the Senate.

North Texas Congressmen will be holding town meetings this summer all over the metroplex. I think they have a little explaining to do.