In case you thought campaign season was over, Jim Holbert has begun to run for the 2010 Democratic nomination to represent Kentucky’s fifth congressional district.

The seat is currently held by Republican Hal Rogers. Holbert’s independent campaign for the seat in 2008 fared pretty well, though he did not unseat Kentucky’s longest serving representative. Holbert’s new campaign site will be up soon at HolbertforCongress.com.

Holbert has posted comments on H.R. 549, the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007, and S. 505, the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007, arguing that teachers should get a deduction of $2000 per year per teacher, due to the costs of computer equipment and other materials, which they often purchase directly out of pocket.

It’s good to see someone out there working for the betterment of the country as he sees it. It’s a little scary to realize that campaign 2010 is already underway!

Below are the votes on H.R. 549, the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007, and S. 505, the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. Click to read Mr. Holbert’s comments, vote, comment yourself, learn more, or edit the wiki articles about the bills.

This morning – this morning – we heard from Jerry Trudell, Energy Independence candidate against incumbent Peter Welch for the at-large congressional seat in Vermont.

He wrote in to point us to his Web site, presumably for inclusion in the Bailout Rogue’s Gallery. Check it out here.

But Welch was returned to office last night.

Here’s why you should vote, even if you think your favorite candidate is already destined to win or lose.

And while a lot of people treat this as the end of the political season, it’s not. It’s the beginning of the policy season – the season when things actually happen.

Your mental attitude may be different tomorrow morning, but no matter what happens in the election, the material changes begin when Congress returns on November 17th, perhaps to consider an economic stimulus bill. Things really change in January when the 111th Congress convenes and the new president is sworn in.

So this election thing has been fun – for good measure, here are all posts tagged John McCain and Barack Obama – but it’s a mistake to put politicians first.

The vote is just a prelude to the policy changes to come, which is our bread and butter on WashingtonWatch.com. Keep watching.

The Internets are seeing much ado today about some remarks Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made early this year on coal and greenhouse gasses. A snippet is in the video at right. (Ignore the red captions and exclamation marks – if you can!!!!)

Senator Obama describes a carbon cap-and-trade system pretty accurately. He concludes with some provocative language, though: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

A cap-and-trade system is actually supposed to avoid bankrupting anybody by driving the market to discover the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gasses. This is something Senator Obama recognizes and wants to foster.

That being said, all the carbon cap-and-trade programs we’ve seen so far look to be huge undertakings that will cause significant economic dislocation. And, yes, “significant economic dislocation” means bankruptcies and job losses for some unfortunate businesses and people.

The two most expensive bills proposed in the current Congress are carbon cap-and-trade bills: S. 2191, the America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (cost: about $17,000 per U.S. family) and S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (cost: over $12,000 per U.S. family). Those are big expenses for the nation to absorb.

Ultimately, the answer to the question, “Would a President Obama Bankrupt the Coal Industry?” is . . . : wrong question!

You should decide for yourself whether you want a carbon cap-and-trade program in this country, you should watch what Congress and the next president do, and you should give your opinion to your elected representatives early and often.

These words from Thomas Friedman’s Saturday opinion piece on the presidential candidates certainly rang true:

Watching them in the context of the meltdown of the financial system was like watching a game show where the two contestants were kept off-stage in a soundproof booth and brought out to address the audience without knowing the context.

As noted here: “In a Sea of Deficits, the Candidates Are on Spending Autopilot, neither major-party candidate has talked about the cuts in government spending that probably need to happen.

“Both candidates are whispering sweet nothings about all the spending they’ll do, but that’s a bit of a siren song considering how much debt we’re swimming in.”

Here’s a special WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for this week. Subscribe here.

email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On Voting The long, somewhat exhausting presidential campaign wraps up tomorrow. Pundits are treating the election as fairly well decided, and many Americans may pass up their chance to vote because of that. Tomorrow is also when many Americans will turn away from politics and public policy until the next round of elections. But failing to vote is a mistake, and simply voting is not enough. The chance that a single vote will alter the presidential election is obviously very small. So why vote? The are many reasons. Obviously, your vote can effect “down-ballot” candidates and issues. The outcomes of elections affecting your local area are not already known. But there’s another reason to vote: Each vote sends a signal to the political parties and to the candidates who get elected. When a lot of votes start going to a third party, for example, the major parties learn that they need to move in the direction of that party. Your vote for or against the winner helps set his or her margin of victory, which forms the political landscape he or she will tread. We’ve done a little bit on the WashingtonWatch.com blog to inform your vote on federal candidates, revealing what your Members of Congress and Senators have done with regard to the recent financial services bailout, for example. Members of Congress and Senators who voted to exempt financial derivatives from state gambling regulation – a partial cause of the financial crisis – are listed here. And then there are the House Members who changed their votes between Monday and Friday of a single week to pass the bailout legislation. Whether you’re inspired by these issues or others, your vote in the election matters. Regardless whether your vote will change the outcome of the presidential election, you should vote. But voting is not enough. Most readers of this newsletter already focus on the policymaking that goes on year ’round. Congress will return in just a couple of weeks, in fact, possibly to consider economic stimulus legislation. We do our best in this weekly email to highlight what goes on in Congress. The Web site has lots of ways to keep track of what’s moving in Congress and being debated among citizens. Multiple RSS feeds allow you to follow specific bills, issue areas, every bill introduced – whatever may interest you. (Learn more about RSS feeds here.) Voting doesn’t dispense with your obligation to monitor the public policies of the country. It’s just the beginning. We hope that you will continue to use WashingtonWatch.com as a way of keeping an eye on what happens in Washington. And thank you for doing your civic duty by voting. (Please forward this email to people who need encouragement to vote, and who might like to know about a resource like WashingtonWatch.com.) Displayed below are new, updated, and passed items with their cost or savings per family. New Items S. 1007 The United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact of 2007 Costs $0.56 per family S. 3179 The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute Land Conveyance Act Costs $0.00 per family S. 3384 The Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2008 Costs $0.32 per family P.L. 110-436 To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes Saves $16.25 per family S. 2448 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 Technical Corrections Act Costs $1.44 per family S. 3474 The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2008 Costs $5.02 per family Updated Items S. 1193 The Albuquerque Indian School Act Costs $0.05 per family H.R. 5680 To amend certain laws relating to Native Americans, and for others purposes Costs $0.05 per family P.L. 110-385 The Broadband Data Improvement Act Costs $1.95 per family Passed Items none email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | privacy | contact | log in WashingtonWatch.com P.O. Box 77576 Washington, D.C. 20013

There were a lot of good reactions to yesterday’s post about candidates for federal office with responsibility for at least part of the financial crisis.

We listed House members and Senators who either voted for, or didn’t object to, a law freeing up financial services firms to offer these wagers known as “financial derivatives” without being subject to gambling regulation. The result has been a financial and economic disaster of as yet unknown proportions.

If you reviewed the list carefully, you noted that both Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) stood by and let the law pass in 2000. It went through the Senate on “unanimous consent” and they failed to object. Given their responsibility to know what is on the Senate floor and what it does, it’s fair to find them blameworthy.

In case you’ve been in a coma, McCain is the Republican nominee for president. Biden is the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee. (Neither Barack Obama nor Sarah Palin were serving in the House or Senate when the law passed, so they’re off the hook on this one. Same with independent candidate Ralph Nader.)

But there are some other presidential candidates out there that were around when the table was set for this part of the financial crisis.

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney are the Libertarian and Green Party candidates for president respectively. They were both serving in the House of Representatives in 2000 — both representing districts in Georgia, in fact — when the vote happened on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.

Libertarian candidate Bob Barr voted NO. (Here again is the House vote.)

McKinney did not vote; she was one of 80 members who declined to register an opinion. It’s hard to know whether this was some kind of protest or if lots of Members of Congress were prioritizing Christmas shopping, but in this case it looks good for her. Even if all the non-voters had voted No, the bill still would have passed.

Particularly in the case of Barr, this tells you something about outsiders, and I think it tells you something good. The get-along, go-along types who have made it to the top of the heap in U.S. politics both participated in the creation of the country’s current economic woes. The people who don’t play ball both voted against that. There’s something to be said for not getting along.

A third-party vote signals to the major parties that you’re dissatisfied with they way they’re doing things. You’ve got reason to be, considering the role of McCain and Biden in precipitating the financial crisis. There’s another thing to consider when you go to the polls next week.

In 2000, Congress passed a law barring states from regulating credit default swaps under their gambling and “bucket shop” laws. This set the stage for the market in “financial derivatives” that are a big part of what is causing the economic meltdown today.

One hundred fifty-five of the Members of Congress who voted for this law are still serving—and they’re up for reelection next week. You might want to take their votes on credit default swaps into account when you go to your polling place.

The Senate passed the bill on “unanimous consent.” Everyone just agreed to let it go through, including 22 Senators who are up for reelection.

Below is a list of the current Members (all of them up for reelection) who voted to let gambling be treated like a financial service, and the Senators up for reelection who allowed the bill to go through.

Click on your state to see if your representatives helped create today’s economic problems: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or Wyoming. (See all House votes here.)

For some background, give a watch to Sunday night’s very interesting and insightful 60 Minutes piece on credit default swaps and how they played into the financial crisis. Essentially, they’re side bets that allow people to wager on financial outcomes without having to buy assets.

The 60 Minutes story points to a section in H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That bill was folded into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, a massive spending bill, passed in haste at the end of the 106th Congress.

(Sound familiar? Congress passed a similar huge spending bill a few weeks ago.)

Now, is it unfair to blame House members and Senators for letting this small provision through in such a large bill? Heck No! They collectively let the annual spending process get out of control. This lead to the gigantic bill with the derivatives gambling provision in it, which is now a cause of our economic collapse. They should be held responsible individually for the results, and hiding from their responsibility in collective shirking will not do.

Recapping, the following list includes House Members still serving who supported the Consolidated Appropriations Act and Senators currently up for reelection who allowed it to pass (plus a couple who voted for it in the House). The bill preempted state gambling regulation on financial derivatives. These folks have responsibility for at least some of the economic mess we’re in today.
(more…)

Back in late August/early September, I did a brief assessment of the presidential candidates’ legislative activity – one window onto how they might behave in the White House. Oh, and one for the V.P. candidate, too.

Here are the posts on Senator McCain’s priorities, Senator Obama’s priorities, and Senator Biden’s priorities. My brief follow-up on the Democratic candidates is here.

I’m not the only one who thought of looking into their legislating, of course. Donny Shaw at OpenCongress has done an assessment of the legislative accomplishments of the two presidential candidates. It’s quite thorough, including the 109th Congress and amendments sponsored by either candidate, which can be significant.

(But my analysis came out first! Whaddya want, quality or . . . speedity . . . ?)

Looking further, the Obsidian Wings blog has a similar analysis. It’s good, too. Quite a bit better than you’d expect from a blog named for something that will never fly.

So there’s more perspective on the candidates’ legislating. No guarantee of what it tells you, but it tells you something.

Here’s a bad rap video about a bad dance that’s so bad – and it’s combined with such a ridiculous hucksterish money-making scheme – that I just had to share it with you.

What really makes it preposterous is that the producer of the video – a nobody named Bob Brown (not Bobby Brown) – is trying to get YOU to sell it to Obama supporters for him.

Friends, I have the right product at the right time, and I could have made a deal with a Distribution company to distribute my DVD and life would still be fine for me. But I’m cutting you in on this deal.

I SINCERELY WANT TO HELP AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND FAMILIES MAKE AN EXTRA $3,000 OF INCOME THIS HOLIDAY SEASON. I am a single father of a 23-month old son. I know what it means to need extra money to provide the best Holiday Season for your family.

I am offering you the opportunity to buy a master copy of my “Can you do THE OBAMA DANCE” DVD with the RESELL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

It’s $14.95 – an 80% discount from what he ordinarily would charge you. So, that’s, like, almost free! And you can make $3,000!

It’s all part of the circus that is election season. I suppose this guy has a chance of making money off this scheme. After all, people believe what politicians tell them. Why shouldn’t they believe Bob the Rapper? This huckster would be as good as anyone to take care of the investment banking crisis.