Scandal and the Filibuster

Anyone flipping through the news recently has heard something about the resignation of Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) in response to an emerging sex scandal, and the cloud growing over Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), who stepped down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee after it was revealed that he had improperly accepted corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean and failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. Speaker Pelosi promised to eliminate the "Culture of Corruption" supposedly fostered by the Republicans and demonstrated by Former Representative Mark Foley's "wide stance" scandal, when the Democrats took control in 2006. Now, 4 years and almost two election cycles later, that "Culture" has failed to vanish. Was Pelosi insincere in her campaign promise, or has she failed? 

The point is practically moot by now, as the scandals have only added to a growing anti-incumbent tide, which is threatening to wash away not only many Democrats in swing districts, but many Republicans as well. A general perception that the 111th Congress has failed to make good on the 2008 promise of "Change", public misgivings about the debacle that Health Care reform has become, and the influence of the Radical "Tea Party", will likely all contribute to making 2010 a very turbulent election year.

About two weeks ago, an interesting story appeared, and I regret not having addressed it before today. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) single-handedly delayed passage of an emergency jobs bill which would have, among other things, funded the Federal Health Care benefits that have kept both unemployed workers and the medical industry alive during these pressing times. The one-man filibuster meant that the spending measure, which required unanimous consent to pass, was delayed several days as Bunning tried to get an amendment passed that would pay for the bill without borrowing funds. He certainly had a good point, and that point was that the Senate should hold true to the "Pay-as-You-Go" legislation it has passed and stop piling up our country's debt. But keeping millions of Americans in financial limbo against the opposition of all 99 other Senators was not the appropriate way to go about making that point. Bunning's request to remove a tax loophole from the paper industry to earn the required $10 billion was finally accepted in order to break the stalemate, but he really should have either gotten it into the bill in the first place or waited to get it passed separately. I read somewhere that a bill that included a provision closing the loophole was actually on the docket for this week, but Bunning had to have his way. Many of Jim's Republican colleague's have criticized his misadventure as ill-conceived, and I don't blame them. There is a fine line between blocking wasteful "Keynesian" spending and impeding the government's duty to serve the people, but Senator Bunning must have missed that. Actions like his have led to the unfair branding of the GOP as the "Party of No", and I hope we can avoid situations like this in the future.

In other news, I will be serving as a messenger in the Florida House of Representatives over this Spring Break. It will be a great honor to serve the elected representatives of my state.

SCOTUS, POTUS, SOTU, NASA

My attempt at parallel structure in the title kind of fell apart after I realized the State of the Union Address didn't have a second S in the standard acronym. No matter.

At the beginning of last week, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC to declare certain limits on the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns unconstitutional. Though this change is controversial, and not without problems, I believe it has its merits. First of all, Unions have been working the system since time immemorial. By manipulating union due payments from members, unions have been able to far exceed spending limits on political campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, previously had no access to such extralegal methods. Now, the methods employed by the unions have been legalized, while corporations have gained access to the same. In addition, the court ruling seems to increase transparency in campaign spending. Corporations and Unions must now run independent ad campaigns and disclose in those ads who is sponsoring the campaign. This allows the American voter to see which organizations support which candidates. Other potential positives, like the ability for lesser known and third party candidates with unique solutions to seek out corporate and union sponsorships, may also come from this ruling. The negatives involved here are obvious. Many people believe that rising campaign costs are limiting people without immense personal funds from competing in elections; depending on how things go, this ruling could either contribute to that trend or even the playing field by giving less wealthy candidates the ability to partner with groups that support their ideals. While the issue of campaign costs is a very legitimate concern, the most prominently voiced issue is that of "foreigners dominating American politics", as Obama, in a dangerous rebuke of the Supreme Court, claimed during the SOTU. This issue is barely relevant, and is likely an attempt at rabble-rousing, as the only foreigners who could possibly benefit are those holding American companies, and even then the Supreme Court continues to uphold the ban on campaign spending by foreigners.

Overall, Obama's SOTU address seemed like an apology for the Health Care fiasco. Following Scott Brown's election, Obama has tried to distance himself from the more radical aspects (public option) of reform, and focused instead on the economy and the vital aspects (stopping "pre-existing conditions" from being a coverage issue) of his prize project. In addition, Obama went out of his way to support measures, like nuclear energy, that he had previously opposed, likely in an attempt to win support from the increasingly disenchanted Independents who helped him win in 2008. Though I support Obama's shift in focus, I believe it is a sign that he is wavering in his ideals in order to appeal to the American people and save his chances at re-election, a move that is sure to bother many on the Left who see such actions as treasonous.

My final topic for tonight is the changes to NASA's budget in Obama's 2011 budget. I support the idea of a goal-shift at NASA from a moon-oriented plan, to a broader deep-space effort as envisioned by the "Flexible Path" option proposed by the Augustine Commission and endorsed by the President. However, the plan Obama has laid out gives no clear outline for the development of manned vehicles, and it effectively ends the Constellation Program, abandoning the Ares I and V rockets and the Orion capsule that were in development (with billions of dollars spent already), and leaves the jobs of thousands of people working on the project in my home state of Florida in jeopardy, a situation that Obama assured them (in a visit to Canaveral during his campaign) would not occur (Space-related industries make up a huge part of Florida's economy). I have no issue relegating low-Earth orbit launches to commercial ventures, as I'm sure it will lower costs for NASA in the long run, but leaving plans for future exploration in limbo is just wrong. Back in the early 70's, budget issues led to the cancellation of the Apollo program and Von Braun's ambitious plans for further exploration. Now, 40 years later, we're still stuck piddling around in orbit, and we cannot let US government actions prevent mankind's spread to the stars again.
The recent focus shift was needed, but so is money. Obama's budget gives NASA several billion more dollars, but relegates a larger portion of NASA's overall spending to Earth Observation. This is a worthy cause, as NASA satellites have helped improve life on Earth in ways as varied as combating forest fires and monitoring Antarctic melt. But with something as vital to the future of mankind as NASA, there should be no trade-offs. The money allocated to Earth Observation should stay, but Congress, especially Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), a former astronaut whom I deeply admire as a public servant, must lead the charge by amending the budget to increase funding for Exploration. If budget issues remain, Obama's proposed spending freezes in other areas could be expanded, or *gulp*, a small tax of some kind could be created to bolster NASA's budget.