Senate rejects trade promotion authority for Obama (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Democrats banded together on Tuesday to reject a Republican amendment that would give President Barack Obama "trade promotion authority" to negotiate new market-opening agreements.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell offered the measure because he said it was vital for U.S. job creation.

"Without trade promotion authority, there will be no other trade agreements. We all know that," McConnell said.

"And that's why I've been a strong advocate for granting this president the same trade promotion authority that every other president has enjoyed since 1974."

The measure failed on a vote of 55-45.

Obama has not asked for trade promotion authority, which expired in 2007 and also is known as "fast track" because it puts trade pacts on a quick path to congressional approval.

An administration official said Obama will seek the authority "at an appropriate time," but pursuing the measure now would slow down action on South Korea, Colombia and Panama trade deals expected to go to Congress in coming weeks.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee subcommittee on trade, echoed that concern.

He said lawmakers needed more time to craft new negotiating objectives for the White House, rather than just renew the expired law through 2013 as McConnell proposed.

"There is a lot of interest on our side of the aisle in working on this issue, but I would urge colleagues to resist the McConnell amendment," Wyden said.

However, many Democrats are wary of any new trade deals whether Obama or a Republican is in the White House.

Senators have been debating whether to renew two expired trade programs in what business groups hope is a prelude to action on the South Korea, Panama and Colombia pacts.

One, the Generalized System of Preferences, waives duties on thousands of goods from developing countries. The other, Trade Adjustment Assistance, provides income and retraining assistance for workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition.

McConnell criticized Obama for insisting Trade Adjustment Assistance be approved before submitting the trade deals.

"Still, I and others have agreed to allow it so we can finally move ahead on these vital trade deals," he said. "And it's my expectation ... that the president will stop dragging his feet and soon submit all three of them for a quick approval."

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; editing by Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

GOP-led states change voting rules ahead of 2012 (AP)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – After years of expanding when and how people can vote, state legislatures now under new Republican control are moving to trim early voting days, beef up identification requirements and put new restrictions on how voters are notified about absentee ballots.

Democrats claim their GOP counterparts are using midterm election wins to enforce changes favorable to Republicans ahead of the 2012 presidential election. They criticize such legislation, saying it could lead to longer lines in Democratic-leaning urban areas and discourage people from voting.

Supporters say bolstering ID rules helps prevent fraud. And at a time when counties face tough budgets, they contend local elections officials don't have the money to keep early voting locations staffed and opened.

The process of changing voting rules may be nonpartisan on the surface but it is seething with politics just below the surface.

"We've had nothing short of a rhetorical firefight for years between the folks who are worried about fraud and folks who are worried about disenfranchisement — a firefight which is pretty much neatly broken down between the two major parties," said Doug Chapin, an election expert at the University of Minnesota.

While states typically adjust voting rules ahead of presidential elections, this year provides an opportunity for new Republican governors and GOP majorities to legislate on election issues.

Put simply, Chapin said: "What's happening in 2011 is just as much about what happened in 2010."

New voting rules recently cleared state legislatures in what have traditionally been presidential battlegrounds, creating partisan rancor.

Plans to reduce the number of days to cast an early ballot cleared the Republican-controlled swing states of Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia also lopped off advanced-voting time. North Carolina has a pending proposal. And Maine has done away with a policy that allows people to register at the polls on Election Day before casting ballots.

Each party, when in control, seeks to rewrite the rules to its electoral advantage.

Although the reality may not be so cut and dried, both parties believe a looser voting regimen benefits Democrats because it increases opportunities for Hispanic, black, immigrant and poor people — harder to reach for an Election Day turnout — to vote.

Democratic voters held an edge in early voting during the 2010 elections, despite the unfavorable climate for the party nationally and the eventual Republican gains.

Voters in 32 states and the District of Columbia can cast a ballot in person before Election Day without having to give a reason.

Georgia and Ohio had some of the longest early voting time periods. Georgia had 45 days, while Ohio had 35. The new laws bring the two states closer to the typical timeframe, which is about two weeks before the election.

The move to shrink the early voting window in some states comes as others have pushed to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Five states — Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — recently passed strict photo ID laws. At the beginning of the year, just two states — Georgia and Indiana — required that voters must show a photo ID in order to have their vote counted.

Other legislatures are rewriting their state's election laws in other ways.

Florida rolled back its early voting time to one week from two in an overhaul that also makes it more difficult for groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Boy Scouts of America to conduct voter registration drives.

Ohio's top elections chief, a Republican, acknowledged that changes to voting rules have invited an overreaction from each party.

"Both sides of the political spectrum have found it advantageous from a fundraising point of view, from a motivating their base point of view, to call into question the confidence in the election system," Secretary of State Jon Husted said in an interview.

While Ohio's overhaul bans local boards of elections from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot requests to voters, Husted has agreed to have the state send the requests to voters in all counties in 2012.

Ohio's law is not yet in effect, and opponents are working to get a proposed repeal question on the fall 2012 ballot. The legislation ignited debate early this summer on the floors of the state's GOP-controlled General Assembly.

View the original article here

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad (Daily Caller)

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) will submit a new ethics complaint against Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, The Daily Caller has learned.

The complaint, which will be filed on Thursday with the Office of Congressional Ethics, takes issue with DNC ads that appear to violate House rules.

Thursday’s complaint will be the second the RNLA has leveled at Wasserman Schultz. Earlier this week the group sent a letter to the OCE about a 30-second ad touting President Barack Obama’s jobs plan. The video featured footage from Obama’s Sept. 8 speech to a joint session of Congress.

House ethics rules prohibit members of Congress from using footage of official House proceedings for political purposes.

The letter that will be sent Thursday doubles down on the original complaint, targeting newly-released Spanish-language ads in Tampa, Denver, Miami and Las Vegas. The ads proclaim in Spanish: “In the face of Republicans, the President can’t do it alone. Read the plan. Stand together for more jobs.”

The RNLA letter calls for an immediate investigation by OCE and the House Ethics Committee. (RELATED: Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz for DNC ad)

“The Obama Administration, the DNC and the Democrat leadership in the House believe in rules only as they apply to others,” RNLA Chairman David Norcross said in a statement.

“At a time when the president and the House Minority Leader repeatedly plead for bi-partisanship they spare no effort to be confrontational wherever and whenever possible,” Norcross said. “They certainly don’t let House rules stand in their way.”

Follow Amanda on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad

Rick Perry goes on the attack, refers to Mitt Romney as 'Obama-lite'

TheDC Interview: US ambassador to Syria on what comes after Assad, witnessing regime's brutality

Sam Brownback to endorse Rick Perry Thursday

Google's Eric Schmidt faces barrage of questions from senators

View the original article here

Senate blocks House disaster aid bill (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-led Senate blocked a House bill Friday that would provide disaster aid and keep government agencies open, escalating the parties' latest showdown over spending and highlighting the raw partisan rift that has festered all year.

In a tit-for-tat battle, the Senate used a near party-line vote of 59-36 to derail the measure passed earlier by the Republican-run House. That bill would fund federal agencies and provide $3.7 billion in disaster assistance, partly paying for that aid with cuts in two Energy Department loan programs that finance technological development.

With the support of 10 GOP senators, the Senate had voted last week to provide $6.9 billion in disaster aid and no cuts to help pay for it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., offered a compromise Friday that would accept the House's lower level of disaster spending but lacked the loan program cuts. Republicans refused to let the chamber approve it, but the Senate will consider it Monday, when Republicans seem likely to prevent Democrats from getting the 60 votes they would need to prevail.

The dispute pitted GOP objections that the disaster spending would worsen the government's budget problems unless savings were included against Democratic complaints that cutting the energy loan programs would stifle the economy and cost jobs.

The fresh round of brinksmanship came with lawmakers facing two deadlines. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's fund for disaster victims could run out of money early next week, even as claims from Hurricane Irene and other recent disasters continue to accumulate. And Congress has completed none of the 12 annual spending bills for the federal fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, meaning agencies would have to close their doors that day without fresh funding.

"We've agreed to their number on FEMA," Reid said. "I mean, do they want the government to shut down? Do they want FEMA to close?"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats want to continue the Washington custom of financing emergency spending by adding to colossal federal deficits.

"If there's any lesson we can draw from the debates we've been having here over the last six months, it's that the American people won't accept that excuse anymore," McConnell said. "The whole, `that's the way we've always done it' argument is the reason we've got a $14 trillion dollar debt right now."

Besides its emergency aid, the measure the House passed early Friday would temporarily prevent a federal shutdown by financing government agencies from the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year through Nov. 18. It was approved by a near party-line 219-203 vote.

White House spokesman Jay Carney faulted House Republicans for the deadlock, saying they had passed legislation knowing it would die in the Senate, just as they had during last month's fight over extending the federal debt limit.

"The fever hasn't broken — the behavior that we saw this summer that really repelled Americans continues," Carney said.

Republicans blamed Democrats, saying the House-passed bill had enough money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and that Democratic opposition to it was all about politics.

"The American people are sick and tired of political games," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "Shutting down the government and cutting off essential programs that our people rely on is bad enough, but leaving disaster-stricken families and communities in the lurch in their hour of greatest need is simply reprehensible."

It was unclear how the standoff would be resolved. The House and Senate had both planned to take next week off, but neither seemed likely to risk accusations of ignoring the thousands of Americans victimized by natural calamities or of allowing the government to shut its doors.

House passage represented a reversal from an embarrassing setback the chamber dealt its Republican leaders on Wednesday. On that day, the House rejected a nearly identical measure, shot down by Democrats complaining its disaster aid was too stingy and conservative Republicans upset that its overall spending was too extravagant.

The bill the House approved Friday morning contained just one change — an additional $100 million in savings from cutting a second Energy Department loan program, this one aimed at sparking new energy technologies.

That is the same program that financed a $528 million federal loan to Solyndra Inc., the California solar panel maker that won praise from President Barack Obama but has since gone bankrupt and laid off its 1,100 workers. The Obama administration had praised Solyndra as a model for green energy companies, but now Congress is investigating the circumstances under which the government approved the loan.

The gridlock over the spending bill was the third time this year the two parties have clashed over legislation whose passage both sides considered crucial.

In April with just hours to spare, the two sides reached agreement on a bill that averted a federal shutdown and provided money for government agencies through September. Then this summer, they battled for weeks before finally approving legislation extending the government's borrowing authority and narrowly preventing a historic federal default.

Against a backdrop of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections and angst over the country's dismal job market, this year's clashes have been intensified by the infusion of dozens of tea party Republicans who often show little inclination to compromise.

Wednesday's defeat of the spending bill was only the most recent time they have made life difficult for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. And it underscored the challenges ahead this fall as Congress tackles efforts to fix the economy, create jobs and try to control the $14 trillion national debt.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Hey Democrats -- To Cut Spending You Actually Have to Cut Spending (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | When will Democrats learn that cutting spending means they have to cut spending?

Congress is playing chicken with a stopgap funding bill that will continue to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other disaster-relief agencies through the end of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Competing bills offered in each house differ in the amount of supplemental funding as well as whether that funding should be paid for with spending cuts in other areas or whether it should be simply added to the debt.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has crafted a $7 billion package and moved it through the Senate with the help of several conservative Republicans. Whether he will be able to count on their support as the Congress reconciles the differences between Reid's bill and the House-approved measure is uncertain, but Reid appears ready to rumble with his political opponents over it.

"We're not going to cave in on this," Reid said according to an Associated Press report.

Nice approach to compromise there, senator.

Disasters cannot be predicted, of course, and the federal government has an obligation to assist whenever possible, but the spending cannot come without cost. Whether the level of supplemental funding is $3.5 billion as proposed by the House or $7 billion as the Senate suggests is irrelevant. Congress always will appropriate whatever is needed in times of disaster. The point here is that it should not be added to the deficit to accomplish it.

For too long, the federal government has just borrowed money whenever needed with no consideration to how it would be paid back. This "$3 billion here, $7 billion there" attitude over the decades has painted us into the debt corner we are faced with today. The days of making the easy decision to simply borrow the money are over. It's time for the difficult choices.

There is definitely a need for additional disaster funding, especially after the wide-spread catastrophes that hit Joplin, Mo., earlier this year, plus the hurricane damages that struck the East Coast and Gulf regions. Whatever added funds Congress may add to disaster relief need to be offset in some other area of the federal budget. It's what the American people have to do when they face an unexpected expense and it's high time to federal government learns to do the same.

View the original article here

Is Congress Capable of Getting Anything Done in a Timely Manner? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | What is Congress doing? That was my first question when I read that the disaster aid bill passed by the House was blocked by the Senate. I know the House is led by Republicans and the Senate is led by Democrats. The Senate voted primarily along party lines. This means Republican's passed the bill in the House and Democrats refused to pass the bill in the Senate. That's got to be a huge blow to everyone suffering from the recent natural disasters.

Of course, it's not so much the refusal to pass the disaster aid bill. It's more Congress' refusal to pass anything. Everything passed this year has been passed just as the clock was set to expire. That's not the making of an efficient government. In fact, I think this is the most inefficient government I've ever seen.

It narrowly averted a shutdown and debt limit breach in August only to have to revisit the high deficit and a potential shutdown in September. If it does pass a measure to keep the government open it will only last until Nov. 18.

Doesn't Congress have anything better to do than keep revisiting the same issues? I don't want to see this budget issue come up again in November, then in December and January. In fact, it could keep doing this until the end of this presidential term. In which case, I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't see a second term. I'm not sure he'll see a second term anyway. His idea of "hope and change" certainly wasn't my idea of hope and change.

I do know that I'm sick and tired of reading about the same issues. The federal deficit, the budget, and the disaster aid relief should have been decided and settled months ago. You'd think with a split party Congress they'd come up with some awesome compromises that would benefit the American people by reducing the deficit, helping those who have been harmed by natural disasters, create jobs, and reduce unemployment. Instead, I guess they're just focused on the 2012 elections, their own salaries, and pork.

Congress is just simply not getting anything done. Along with the disaster aid bill, Congress needs to pass 12 other financial bills before Oct. 1. It has one week to do it. I think it will get it done, but I think it will get it done on Sept. 30 at 11:59 p.m., and I, along with the rest of the American people, will be livid.

View the original article here

Democrats working to undercut Perry, Romney (AP)

WASHINGTON – Democrats are sharpening their arguments against the two candidates leading the Republican presidential field, hoping to soften up Rick Perry of Texas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts before next year's general election.

Democrats want to undercut the economic records that Perry and Romney developed while serving as governors of their respective states. They also hope to tie Republicans to the tea party and raise concerns about their support for Social Security for seniors.

Republicans won't settle on a challenger to President Barack Obama for months, but Democrats are trying to turn next year's election into a choice between Obama and his opponent.

Obama's weakened standings in the polls and a struggling economy make it likely that next year's campaign will turn negative and draw sharp contrasts between the candidates.

View the original article here