The world must most certainly be upside down.  For if not, then how does one explain that the “best” budget of the Bush Presidency, in terms of its ability to waste American tax dollars frivolously, has been passed through a Democrat-majority Congress.  Bear in mind, please, that this functional reality has little to do with the ability of Congressional Democrats to tighten their belts and significantly more to do with the fact that the Democratic leadership seems to have wholly kowtowed to President Bush.  Columns from the Wall Street Journal and the National Review’s David Freddoso examine this point.

First, from the Journal editorial today:

“Both sides are claiming victory, which usually means that taxpayers are the losers. That’s less true this year because Mr. Bush has used his veto power to back Congress down from its typical excesses.”

. . .

“House Republicans voted against the omnibus bill en masse, but the truth is that many of them and their Senate brethren privately wanted it to pass as much as Democrats did. They want their earmarks too. Ray LaHood of Illinois is typical of those GOP appropriators who helped to drive their party into the minority by spending like Democrats. They look good only in comparison to Democrats, who have shown this year that their claims of “fiscal discipline” are entirely phony, except when they refer to raising taxes.

The larger lesson of this year is that divided government has its uses. By using his veto pen, and with the help of House Republicans in particular, Mr. Bush has been able to reduce the rate of spending growth and continue to shape policy. The Schip health care vetoes were especially important in showing Democrats that the GOP couldn’t be easily rolled, despite a media assault and GOP Senate surrender. That’s more than we expected, even if it’s not as much as Mr. Bush might have achieved. May we have even more virtuous gridlock next year.”

And then the National Review piece from yesterday:

“After a full year of partisan rancor and insubstantial political votes taken on the House floor, [Pelosi's] Congress is crashing on several important deadlines this week as members prepare to leave for Christmas. And Pelosi is about to be owned by the Republican minority.That’s right: By the end of this week, she will likely have lost five major legislative battles, almost simultaneously.”. . . “In essence, Democrats are capitulating on the Iraq question for a second time this year, after being elected with a clear mandate to hasten the unpopular war’s end — a bitter double-defeat that comes after dozens of symbolic votes on the war. And Democratic House members will be voting (probably today) to start a process that they know will continue the war funding — voting for it before voting against it. It will enrage the Left and, oddly, make President Bush — who has never understood, negotiated with, nor cooperated well with even Republican congresses — appear to be some kind of legislative mastermind.”

. . . 

“One of the Democrats most promising issues this year has been the State Childrens’ Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). They have sought to turn the Clinton-era program, a subsidy for poor children, into a free lunch for the middle class. Republicans, who hoped merely to extend the current program beyond the next election, were pummeled rhetorically for their resistance to the change. Yet after last night’s negotiations, sources on the Hill say that they are about to get exactly what they wanted — another extension of the program, as it exists, through March 2009.”

One could only hope to see the faces of embittered liberals when they read the bit about President Bush as a ‘legislative mastermind’.  Nonetheless, other than pontificating and the projection of blame (see our own Congressman Murphy’s characterization of the U.S. Senate as a “threat to democracy as we know it“), the Democrat-controlled majority seems to be blessedly ineffectual.  We join the WSJ in hoping for continued mediocrity from the Congress in 2008.

There are many things that define the Romneys, but “off message” isn’t one of them.

The Hartford Courant is reporting that Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell is considering a bid for re-election in 2010 and may form an exploratory committee in the coming weeks to investigate the possibility of a run for a second full term as Governor of Connecticut. 

We had an issue with people being able to register at the site last week which has since been resolved.  Opening up the forum here - what do you think?  Register, log in, and join the discussion.

It’s been a strange and winding couple of weeks for Connecticut’s Speaker of the House, Jim Amann of Milford. He first announced that he was planning to form an exploratory committee for a 2010 gubernatorial bid.  This announcement was soon followed by the emergence of criticism for a $1000/minute special session on December 5th that the Speaker called to resolve technical legislative matters.  And then this past weekend, the Speaker suffered a double whammy as the New Haven Register wrote of a so-called “slush fund” that Mr. Amann uses to shuttle additional taxpayer dollars to his hometown of Milford while the Hartford Courant’s Kevin Rennie took the Speaker to task for using the aforementioned special session as a magnet for his Christmas Party fundraiser.  The common thread throughout these stories is a gruff, indignant attitude of entitlement that one would expect from a spoiled teenager, rather than the Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives.

Speaker Amann started floating word of his potential run for Governor despite the rumblings that ever-evasive Attorney General Dick Blumenthal will finally be seeking the Governor’s Chair in the 2010 election cycle.  Commenting in a Journal-Inquirer article by Keith Phaneuf, the Speaker exhibited an almost abashed sense of modesty, saying: “I know I’d be a good governor,” and “I think I have strong support because of my fairness”.  Amann blamed the two decades of independent or Republican rule in the State on a Democratic staple: diversity.  “We are a party of tremendous diversity, but we are also a party that unfortunately can’t always get around our diversity,” he said. “We split our base”.  Indeed, under the executive guidance of Speaker Amann, the Democratic “SuperMajority” pitched a budget that would have dramatically increased the size of Connecticut bureaucracy - even by Connecticut standards - and increased the tax burden on small business owners and many dual-income families in our State.  The Speaker’s leadership was on display as the plan, when put before the people of Connecticut in a Quinnipiac poll, was less popular than both the House Republican “No Tax Increase” Budget and the Governor’s budget.

Further insight into an Amann Administration was evidenced by the now infamous $55,000 one-hour session of the CT House on December 5th.  You see, the historic House Chamber was under renovation to install a sprinkler system.  Workers had constructed elaborate scaffolding to reach the ceiling.  The Speaker’s call for a full scale session required that the State of Connecticut pay overtime to workers as they removed the scaffolding and then put it back up after the 60 minute event was completed.  $55,000 later, plus an additional estimated $10,000 for staff and related expenses as figured by Republican Leader Larry Cafero, and all of the sudden Speaker Amann just wasted a heap of hard-won tax dollars - by the taxpayer, not the State mind you - on an essentially pro forma session that they could have held in the parking lot.  According to the Hartford Courant editorial on the issue, the Speaker was quoted thus: “We’re the majority party. I make the call for the session,” he said.  He added: “When he [Mr. Cafero] becomes speaker, he can do what he wants. That’s how democracy works.”  Yes, Connecticut - this man wants a promotion.

And yet, despite all that, the Connecticut taxpayer has been screwed so many times that the sense of outrage is almost numb at this point.  That is, until former Senator Kevin Rennie picked up his pen, and by Sunday evening the outrage had returned.  Turns out that the good Speaker needed a full fledged session for an entirely different reason - straight from Mr. Rennie: “Amann needed a full-dress special session that day because he had tickets to sell to lobbyists. Amann’s sixth annual holiday party was scheduled for the same day as the special session”.  And further: “It looks like the legislature wasted $55,000 so the speaker could create a rare busy December day at the Capitol to boost the box office at his Christmas party.  The event raised $35,000. Swim Across the Sound gets the proceeds after expenses. There’s no refund to the taxpayers.”  Mr. Amann, we want our money back.

Were this not enough, it was revealed that the Speaker has a so-called “slush fund” from which he funds favored projects, that - shock! - just happen to be located in Milford.  The New Haven Register carried the banner on this one, and the article really speaks for itself:

“Amann justified the contingency funds, saying he’s getting “peanuts” compared to past years when leaders received more than $5 million annually. Amann said he receives more requests for the funds than he can satisfy, and his priority is to help out programs in his community.

He defended the process, saying there is a “ton of paperwork,” and the state Office of Policy and Management must sign off on distributing the money. He also defended that a majority of the causes to receive his funds are in Milford.

“I’m proud of what we’ve done for Milford. What, is the speaker not supposed to bring home money to his hometown?” Amann said.

“I represent Milford. It’s my first priority,” added Amann. “I have no apologies for trying to help the Red Cross and Kids Count.”"

This man wants to be our Governor.  Its an idea so preposterous that it lends even further weight to the old adage - “if you are in government long enough, you can eventually make yourself believe anything.”  And in this case, the Speaker seems to honestly believe that it is his right, as Speaker, to basically do whatever the Hell he wants - and if you criticize him, you’ll get some reflexive modification of the phrase: “You can’t tell me what to do.  I’ll do what I want.”  And this guy thinks he deserves a promotion.

…Case-in-point, this new television ad running in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.