(So why do we gotta be so boring? . . .)

It’s never been more clear that politics is entertainment.

Take a look at this post on Gawker.com. It’s liberals being mad at conservatives for taking a jab at President Obama because he ordered spicy Dijon mustard for his burger. In other words, it’s about nothing at all, but it’s got lots of people interested.

What we do here is much more substantive and slightly more boring. We’re like the financial section of the paper rather than the sports page. But while others are distracted by “Dijongate,” you’re at least half-aware that Congress and the President will be spending about $30,000 per U.S. family between now and the fall.

The bottom line: If you’re reading this, you’re smarter than the average American. And if you don’t care what condiment the President puts on his burger, you have good taste!

Republicans in the House and Senate are calling for the conference committee on the economic stimulus bill to be televised. It’s a fascinating idea.

A conference committee is a meeting among representatives of both the House and the Senate to work out differences between the two bodies on similar legislation. Both the House and Senate have now passed different versions of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and they need to figure out what the final bill will look like.

I have been to conference committee meetings before as a staffer. Senators, Representatives, and their top staff members huddle in a smallish room and go through the bill hashing out the final product.

Contrary to popular belief, the ones I’ve attended were not in smoke-filled rooms. But they are closed, “insider” affairs. What goes in and what comes out are largely pre-determined by back-channel discussions before the actual meetings.

If conference committee meetings were televised, members of the conference committee would be constrained to explain what they were doing and why. That would be a good thing.

There is some risk in how these ideas are being put forward. Republicans threaten the goals of the transparency community (in which we count WashingtonWatch.com) if they use transparency as a partisan cudgel against Democrats and President Obama.

Republicans should pair their push for openness while Democrats are in control with a pledge to openness of their own. Any openness precedents set now should hold in any Congress, regardless of partisan control.

I’ve got my TiVo ready. Let’s get on with the show!

To the delight of some, the Blagojevich scandal is already taking the smell off the rose of the incoming Obama administration.

It’s a near certainty that White House Chief of Staff-designee Rahm Emanuel was involved in discussions with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who planned to sell the U.S. Senate seat that the President-elect recently vacated. The honeymoon is already ending for the candidate of hope and change, Barack Obama.

To others, these charges are nothing but scurrilous slander. It’s a given that representatives of the President-elect are going to talk to the governor responsible for appointing his successor in the Senate. Even if tapes reveal that Emanuel talked with Blagojevich in frank language about the Senate seat, they won’t show any wrongdoing or wrong intention.

If you hold either of these views, this post is for you, because there is an entirely different way to think about the latest political news/scandal.

L’affaire Blagojevich and any repercussions are just politics doing its work: distracting the public’s attention from what really matters – the nation’s policies.

Last week, the Congress debated a multi-billion dollar bailout for an industry in crisis. The cost of the proposal was about $50 per U.S. family. By early March, the Congress must decide how hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent ($thousands per family) as it completes the annual spending process that it kicked down the road back in September. More than $800 per family in spending on Hurricane Katrina relief is still being moved around.

But many Americans don’t even know that their money is being spent – never mind how much – because they focus only on politics. All they know are the scandals and personalities that occupy the front pages and the squwaking heads on cable.

If you hold strong opinions about the Blagojevich scandal and its effect on national politics, you just might be a victim of politics this way. While you watch the drama on the brightly lit stage, the federal government is fishing money out of your pocket and spending it on things you don’t even know about.

Now, it’s perfectly alright to attend to politics, but if you do, you probably buy the newspaper for the sports section. It’s about entertainment.

If you read the financial page or local news – if you want to know about things that affect your life and well-being – you’re the kind of person we work for at WashingtonWatch.com. You look past the scandal and want to know about the policies that are being created and implemented by the federal government. This is the place for you.

We don’t have everything you need to know yet, but we’re working on it. There will be a time when the majority of “political” news is not about politics at all, but about the policies, the ideas, and the spending to support them. This stuff is plenty entertaining – and important. The public can handle intelligent debate about issues.

So maybe you were drawn to reading this post by the idea of scandal in the new Obama Administration. If you were, consider this your invitation to focus on the real policies of the federal government. Turn away from the clash of partisan politics that shouts to steal your attention.

You can sign up here for the WashingtonWatch.com weekly newsletter and familiarize yourself with the policies debated in Congress each week. Or keep reading this blog to learn about many more dimensions of public policy-making. Lots of RSS feeds serve up many dimensions of the issues. You can comment on bills, ask questions of the community, and so on.

Or you can make fun of Rod Blagojevich’s hair!

Voters took a scythe to the Members of Congress who switched their votes to pass the financial services bailout legislation in October and those whose votes in 2000 set the stage for the financial crisis.

Except . . . it was a very dull scythe. Maybe one without a blade.

Of the 59 people featured in our Bailout Rogues Gallery – Members of Congress who switched their votes between Monday and Friday of the same week to pass the bailout legislation – 57 ran for reelection and 55 won. That’s a retention rate of about 96.5% – pretty much exactly in line with historical retention rates. So you people must not have been very mad about that.

As to the Members of Congress and Senators who voted to do away with state regulation on financial derivatives, the story is about the same in the Senate. Eighteen of 20 running were reelected, a 90% retention rate.

But it’s a little different in the House. One hundred forty-three in this bunch ran for reelection and 135 of them won. This is a retention rate of 94.4% – at the low end of recent historical averages. If you count the three Members of Congress who ran for Senate and lost, the rate drops to 92.5%.

All of these numbers are probably statistically insignificant, so there’s nothing to see here. What this illustrates is how insulated Members of Congress and Senators are, even in elections. You vote based on lots of things, and one or two particular votes – even coming near election time – are unlikely to dislodge all the other reasons we choose one candidate over another.

That’s why – broken record – it’s important to monitor events between elections. Watch the bills that come to the House and Senate floors and let your representatives know what you think.

One of the keys to WashingtonWatch.com is good data about federal legislation. A reason why WashingtonWatch.com is not a much better resource is because it’s very hard to get good data out of the legislative branch.

So it’s nice to see that a new Open Senate Project is joining the Open House Project. These are both efforts to improve the workings of the Congress and make it more transparent to the public.

Over the past year-and-a-half plus, the Open House Project has developed a list of recommendations for the House, some of which have gotten some traction, as discussed in this retrospective on that work.

Now, here’s the dirty, and unfortunate, little secret: It is against Congress’ institutional interests and Congressmembers’ individual interests to be more transparent. Information is power, and giving the public access to the really good, really timely information about Congress’ workings would dramatically reduce their freedom of action.

So, while they will say nice things and make nice gestures about transparency, Members of Congress and congressional leaders will not give up power all that easily. Roadblocks of all kinds will get in the way of these projects, and ultimately information will have to be taken from Congress. Congress won’t just hand it over.

Getting leaders to talk favorably about transparency and take small steps in that direction is a start, though. At the very least, these efforts will lay traps for the politicians whose natural habitat is still the cigar-smoke-filled room.

Kudos to the Sunlight Foundation for building on the Open House Project with Open Senate.

If you think Washington politics is restricted to the debates among politicians, think again.

Politics pervades everything. Washington is a gurgling swamp of people grasping for power and pursuing their varied interests. People don’t just get together and agree on the best policies for the country and move forward with them.

A comment here on the site has reminded me once again of how pervasively political this town is.

(more…)

. . . Or for those who preferred the “rescue package,” the Members of Congress listed below are a group who saw the light. Or they were strong-armed by their party leadership. Or they horse-traded their support for some benefit to themselves or their districts.

Each of these explanations may be true in one or another case. Americans will tend to prefer the story that fits the ideological and policy positions they already had, just like most people think that the winner of last Thursday’s debate was the vice presidential candidate they already liked.

But, with just a month to go before the election, the passage of the financial services bailout gives voters a chance to make clear their preferences in Washington’s policies, and in the behavior of their representatives.

Below, we’ve compiled the list of congressmembers who changed their votes between Monday and Friday last week. Collectively, they allowed the $700,000,000,000 financial services bailout bill to pass and become law. We’ve also listed their opponents in the upcoming election, who may gain or lose ground based on the incumbent’s treatment of this very important issue.

Click below to jump to your state and see if your representative, or someone that represents friends or family members, was one of the now infamous vote-switchers. And what are you going to do about it? Give them a piece of your mind? Donate to them or their opponents? Write a letter to your local paper? That’s up to you.

[Update: In collecting images and data for this posted, we originally treated Rep. Julia Carson as the representative from Indiana's 7th District. Her grandson Andre Carson took her place when she passed away, and his image and information has now taken the place of hers below. Embarrassing error.]

[Update II: A list of all votes in order of state and congressional districts is here.]

[Update III: A Web site for Vermont challenger Jerry Trudell has been added. Yes, a wee bit late.]

Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont.

(more…)

The Senate passed bailout legislation this evening by a vote of 74 to 25. Senators McCain and Obama both voted for it, as did Senator Biden. National Journal has a good story on the wheeling, dealing, and lobbying that pushed the Senate in favor.

It’s unclear whether the goodies added to the bill “sweeten” it in a way that will get it through the House, or if the backscratching represented by the bill coming out of the Senate will give more offense to the public and House members who opposed the bailout.

Without specific information about what is in the package passed in the Senate, it is impossible to estimate the cost of the overall bill. But it is large.

Below is the vote in the Senate. If you don’t know which Senators are yours, find the name of a U.S. state on the front of an envelope that has been delivered to your house, then find that state below . . . .

(more…)

As we’ve done with Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Democratic vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), this week we take a look at the legislative activities of Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL), the Democratic candidate for president.

Of the three, Obama is the most prolific legislator as far as bills introduced, but the least successful at getting them passed. None of his 59 bills have become law.

Senator Obama has had successes as a legislator, of course. In the government transparency movement (of which this Web site is a part), there is a great deal of fondness for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (aka the Coburn-Obama bill). Passed in the 109th Congress, it created a federal government Web site that reveals where all that federal spending goes. A follow-on in the current Congress is S. 3077, The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.

Senator Obama’s recent bills reflect a focus on energy issues and health care and benefits for military veterans, though he has bills in a wide variety of areas.

One or two are of particular interest. S. 2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007, is probably the most controversial. It would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce global poverty, but many believe it would do much more.

I made fun of the House version of a bill Obama has introduced in the Senate. That’s S. 976, The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007. The bill’s statement of purpose makes some exaggerated claims about what it will do, winning it membership in the “And a Pony” club.

With that, here are Senator Barack Obama’s legislative priorities, as expressed by his actions in the current Congress. It’s one of many snapshots of this contender for the presidency.

PASSED INTO LAW

none

INTRODUCED BILLS

S. 114
The Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act

S. 115
The Oil SENSE Act

S. 116
The STEP UP ACT OF 2007

S. 117
The Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007

S. 133
The American Fuels Act of 2007

S. 433
The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007

S. 453
The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007
Costs $0.02 per family

S. 674
The Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act of 2007

S. 692
The VA Hospital Quality Report Card Act of 2007

S. 713
The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act of 2007

S. 737
The Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007

S. 767
The Fuel Economy Reform Act

S. 768
The Fuel Economy Reform Act

S. 795
The Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007

S. 823
The Microbicide Development Act

S. 906
The Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007

S. 976
The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007

S. 1067
The Healthy Places Act of 2007

S. 1068
The Healthy Communities Act of 2007

S. 1084
The Homes for Heroes Act of 2007

S. 1151
The Health Care for Hybrids Act

S. 1181
The Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act

S. 1222
The STOP FRAUD Act

S. 1271
The Homecoming Enhancement Research and Oversight (HERO) Act

S. 1306
The Lead Free Toys Act of 2007

S. 1324
The National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007

S. 1389
The Climate Change Education Act

S. 1430
The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act

S. 1513
The Predominantly Black Institution Act of 2007

S. 1574
The Teaching Residency Act

S. 1713
A bill to provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor of Rosa Parks

S. 1790
The Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007

S. 1811
The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2007

S. 1817
A bill to ensure proper administration of the discharge of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder, and for other purposes

S. 1818
The Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act

S. 1824
The Hospital Quality Report Card Act of 2007

S. 1873
The Improving Emergency Medical Care and Response Act of 2007

S. 1885
The Military Family Job Protection Act

S. 1977
The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007

S. 1989
The Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007

S. 2030
A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists

S. 2044
The Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007

S. 2066
The Back to School: Improving Standards for Nutrition and Physical Education in Schools Act of 2007

S. 2111
The Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act

S. 2132
A bill to prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of children’s products that contain lead, and for other purposes

S. 2147
The Security Contractor Accountability Act of 2007

S. 2202
The Renewable Fuel Standard Extension Act of 2007

S. 2224
The Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2007

S. 2227
The Success in the Middle Act of 2007

S. 2330
The Veterans Homelessness Prevention Act

S. 2347
The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act

S. 2392
The National STEM Scholarship Database Act

S. 2428
The National STEM Scholarship Database Act

S. 2433
The Global Poverty Act of 2007
Costs $0.03 per family

S. 2519
The Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2007

S. 3047
The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Act of 2008

S. 3077
The Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008

S. 3142
The Preventing Stillbirth and SUID Act of 2008

S. 3358
The Improving Food-borne Illness Surveillance and Response Act of 2008

When Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) was announced as Senator Barack Obama’s (D-IL) running mate, I did a quick scan here of his legislative priorities in the current Congress. Now, for the start of the Republican convention, here’s one on Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

(We’ll look at Barack Obama in a week. Without a record as a federal legislator, Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) won’t get a similar analysis, but we’ll be looking for tidbits on her as well.)

Senator McCain has introduced 21 bills in the current Congress. Just one of them has passed into law. That is S. 327, the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act, which was passed as a part of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008.

This law authorizes a study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement. It’s not a significant piece of legislation, and the life of a farm labor organizer is not the usual fare for a Republican, but it probably appeals to some of McCain’s home state constituencies, which include Mexican-American immigrants and the children of immigrants and farm workers who have established themselves as U.S. citizens.

Much of McCain’s legislating is oriented toward his home state, with native American issues and Arizona land issues joining interests of Senator McCain’s like military reform, campaign finance regulation, and a smattering of other things. Boxing regulation has been a McCain hobby horse for some time.

Senator McCain has introduced only one bill in 2008. This is the fuel tax holiday he proposed at the beginning of the summer. McCain’s 2008 is the portrait of a man campaigning for the presidency. (I hasten to add that quantity is not an important metric of a representative’s work. One good bill is worth a thousand pieces of symbolic legislation or 10,000 bad bills passed into law.)

With that, here are Senator John McCain’s legislative priorities, as expressed by his actions in the current Congress. It’s one of many snapshots of this contender for the presidency.

PASSED INTO LAW

S. 327
The Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act
was passed as The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Public Law 110-229

INTRODUCED BILLS

S. 32
The Defense Acquisition Reform Act of 2007

S. 83
The Rail Security Act of 2007

S. 84
The Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2007
Costs $0.32 per family

S. 85
The Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007

S. 86
The Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Act of 2007
Costs $0.00 per family

S. 166
The Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007

S. 192
The Lobbying, Ethics, and Earmarks Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

S. 463
The 527 Reform Act of 2007

S. 478
The Federal Election Administration Act of 2007

S. 519
The SAFE Act of 2007

S. 531
A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the “Bennett Freeze”
Costs $0.00 per family

S. 663
A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the statutory designation of beneficiaries of the $100,000 death gratuity under section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, and to permit members of the Armed Forces to designate in writing their beneficiaries of choice in the event of their death while serving on active duty

S. 722
The Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007

S. 744
The SAVE LIVES Act

S. 952
A bill to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to provide funds for training in tribal leadership, management, and policy, and for other purposes
Costs $0.04 per family

S. 1255
The Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2007
Costs $0.00 per family

S. 1304
The Arizona National Scenic Trail Act
Costs $0.01 per family

S. 1900
A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

S. 2172
The Saffron Revolution Support Act of 2007

S. 2890
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday