Dick Durbin's Timely Trades

The Chicago Sun Times has a story today that raises some serious questions about how Senator Dick Durbin used information he learned during the course of his Senatorial duties.

As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.

The article goes onto point out that within days the S&P, along with most of the market, began to tank. Durbin got out just before and got himself back in at the beginning of October. Durbin's spokesperson claims that Durbin was merely acting in a prudent manner. The timing is awfully suspicious however.

If you're keeping score, Durbin now joins Charlie Rangel as a Democrat embroiled in a financial scandal. He also joins John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leaders embroiled in scandal. We'll see if the MSM notices that the party that claimed they would "drain the swamp" of corruption has most of its leadership knee deep in it.

Dick Morris' Prophetic Words

I remember right after the November election that Dick Morris pointed out how difficult it was going to be for the Democratic Congress to govern. The problem, as he saw it, was the many competing factions that make up the Democratic party: The Blue Dogs, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the group allied with Soros and the Nutroots. While all of these groups fall under the Democratic umbrella, they all have competing and varying agendas. As Morris predicted, the Democrats' problem all along has been getting all of them on the same page. This is the underlying story in their continued fumbling of the Iraq issue. The agenda of the Blue Dogs (called Bush Dogs by the Nutroots) is divergent from that of the Soros wing. Without everyone on the same page, the Democratic majority no longer functions like any sort of a majority.

Some if it has come to a head this week as Democrats are pointing fingers at each other for their lack of any coherent agenda.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker's "iron hand" style of governance.

Democrats in each chamber are now blaming their colleagues in the other for the mess in which they find themselves. The predicament caused the majority party yesterday surrender to President Bush on domestic spending levels, drop acherished renewable-energy mandate and move toward leaving a raft ofhigh-profilelegislation, from addressing the mortgage crisis to providing middle-class tax relief, undone or incomplete...

The real problem from the beginning is that much of the Democratic victory came in Republican districts and with many of the Democrats in those districts moving to the right of their counter parts. Their leadership, on the other hand, is almost exclusively made up of traditional Northeast or West Coast liberals. From Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, to Ted Kennedy, those are the leaders of the party. Their liberal traditional agenda is not something that will get the likes of the Blue Dog Democrats re elected.

On Iraq, this problem is most pronounced. There is a group of almost seventy Congressional Democrats that make up the Out of Iraq Caucus. They are almost exclusively Soros types. Their goal is the immediate withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. This group willing to cut off funds if necessary, and they are so extreme in their views vis a vis Iraq that many times they are unwilling to support bills with a timeline if it isn't quick enough in their estimation.

On the opposite end of the ideological spectrum for the Democrats lie the Blue Dogs. This is a group of forty plus moderates who's position tends to match that of the Republicans. Here is how their position is described.

With Democrats in charge again, the Blue Dogs have played a key role in halting an emerging plan to place strict conditions on war funding. Their revolt helped beat back that proposal, by Pelosi ally John Murtha, D-Pa. Leaders are now considering a watered-down version.

Without unity from all these groups the Democrat's majority becomes a minority.

The Democrats face the same sort of problems on budget and tax issues. Whether it was Charlie Rangel's so called mother of all tax hikes, or any number of budget proposals from David Obey, the leadership has had difficulty getting the Blue Dogs on board with much of their liberal agenda. Where they have been able to get the Blue Dogs on board, they have then faced the threat of a veto from the President.

The Democrats have given nothing more than a token effort to any social issue besides federal funding of stem cell research. That's because on social issues the leadership's position is no more tennable.

Their ideas about marriage, abortion, and, to an extent, the death penalty, and Gun Control are sometimes more compatible with the Republican way of thinking. This viewpoint is supported by the Pew Research Center and their study "Beyond Red Vs. Blue"

The Republicans, on the other hand, have become nearly unanimously united. They have almost entirely coalesced behind the surge strategy and have never wavered in their demand for so called clean spending bills.On the budget, they haven't been quite as united however the President suddenly realized what a tool the veto is. As such, the Democrats haven't been able to get much of any budgetary agenda through. In the most recent battle over the budget, the Democrats have become so frustrated that they are now resorting to threats.

Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Mr. Bush - but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties.

Obey's remarks to The Associated Press came two days after White House budget director Jim Nussle promised Mr. Bush would veto Democrats' omnibus spending bill for exceeding Mr. Bush's budget by $18 billion.

Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true - that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the Democrats threaten, I am reminded of the last time a President took on Congress on the budget.

These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government as Reagan had done in the 1980s. Clinton did not back down, however, and eventually had his budget passed...

I suspect another President will also win this particular budget showdown. All in all, those words uttered by Dick Morris are quite prophetic.

The SAVE Act and My Favorite Yogi Berra Quote

Yogi Berra once said this...

in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

I get that feeling when breaking down the SAVE Act. There are frankly very few laws that sound bad in theory. That unfortunately is not true in the debate over illegal immigration. Most of the proposed laws to deal with illegal immigration weren't just bad in practice but in theory. Whether it is driver's licenses for illegals, the mass amnesty of last summer's comprehensive bill, or the mass amnesty of the DREAM Act, most of the bills that deal with illegal immigration are bad even in theory. Not so with the SAVE Act, this bill sounds absolutely wonderful in theory. Here are the particulars as enumerated by one of my readers.

8000 more Border Patrol agentsMore Judges, courts, and detention centers. Border fencing and vehicle barriers (where needed), and all-weather surveillance roads in conjunction with high tech surveillance equipment including satellite surveillance, infra red, and seismic detection. It requires construction along the border to take into account environmental and private land use needs.Requires development of a national strategy to secure the borders and all ports of entry to the United States by December 31, 2010.

This Bill even has accountable and transparent financing of the effort built into it giving power of oversight to the Comptroller and Inspector Generals to keep Congress appraised.This bill is going to receive some stiff opposition from organizations like LULAC and LaRaza, and incumbent Democrats beholding to the illegal immigrant population communities, and incumbent Republicans beholding to employers pressing for cheap illegal labor. They will try to fight this Bill. This SAVE Act offers the Independent voters in America the first real opportunity to flex their newfound muscle by supporting this Bill and pressing their representatives to vote for this legislation.

Here is how Numbers USA analyzed the most important part of the bill, the verification system of employees by employers.

provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify employee eligibility. E-Verify has already achieved tremendous success, but is currently voluntary and offers little incentive for employers to participate. This puts users at an economic disadvantage when it is only being used by a fraction of U.S. employers and competitors continue to hire illegal aliens.

All of this sounds great "in theory" however...

in theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice
there is

Sure, it all sounds great that we will finally have a system where employers can verify the legal status of all of their employees. In practice that system will be done by a new government bureaucracy. In practice, most government bureaucracies fail in their mission and become counter productive. In theory, the DMV sounded like a great idea. In theory, Medicare was a great idea. In theory, social security was a good... all right that would be taking things too far. Still, the difference between whether or not most bills become good bills isn't theory but practice.

Yet, no one is asking the sort of critical questions necessary to figure out how to resolve all the potential nightmares that this bureaucracy may bring. Here is what Numbers USA says.
The SAVE Act will broaden and enhance border security and interior enforcement. With a number of border security Democrats and Republicans already agreeing to co-sponsor, this bipartisan effort may be Congress’s best chance to achieve substantial immigration reform this Congress.

Here is how Michelle Malkin sees the bill.

There are, believe it or not, a few Democrats who have their heads screwed on straight when it comes to immigration enforcement. Several were elected last fall; the open-borders lobby has conveniently ignored them.Referring of course to Congressman Heath Shuler who is the main sponsor of the bill.

Here is the word from Tom Tancredo's PAC.

Well, now there is a bipartisan immigration bill that actually reforms our immigration system rather than just opening our borders and granting amnesty. We need to put the pressure on members of both parties to support this bill!

Even John Murtha showers this bill with nothing but fawning accolades.

This bipartisan bill will help our law enforcement agencies provide tighter border security and give our employers the resources they need to verify documented and undocumented workers,” noted Murtha.

No one is talking about exactly how this bill will be carried out. What will the new bureaucracy look like? How will it carry out its mission? How will this bureaucracy be any different than Social Security which was supposed to do the exact same thing? Everyone is just impressed how in vague theory it will secure our borders and help verify employees legal status. Just because it will do this in theory doesn't mean it will do it in practice.

No one is talking about any of these vital issues because we finally have a piece of legislation vis a vis illegal immigration that actually sounds good in concept. Most people take its goals at face without ever asking how the bill will be carried out to accomplish them. Just because a bill has good intentions, and this one clearly does, doesn't mean that the bill will accomplish those goals.

Everyone is fawning over this bill like it is the prom queen and no one is asking any critical questions. If we don't ask any critical questions then we will fawn over yet another counter productive bureaucracy.