Poorly Run Organizations...

Michael Ramirez, Investors Business Daily

Nancy Pelosi Already Knows

It looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is up to her old tricks again.

At this time last year she had "scheduling conflicts" when General Petraeus went to Washington to meet with the US House of Representatives and provide them with classified information and expert analysis of the situation in Iraq. Ms. Pelosi's spokesmen said that she just forgot about the meeting and didn't realize she had the conflict until that very morning. So I wondered if we should start up a collection fund so she could get a pda or blackberry or something. It just seemed like a pretty big deal to miss out on classified information from a four star general, especially at a time when Congress was debating including a withdrawal timeline in a war funding bill. Luckily I had an astute commenter point out that the Speaker probably already knew what the general was going to say, so there was no reason to grace him with her presence.

Well, now General Petraeus is scheduled to visit Congress again. Just like my commenter noted last year, Nancy Pelosi has already made up her mind as to what she wants the general to say:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Here's What Nancy Pelosi Missed

After meeting with both houses of Congress, with one notable exception, General Petraeus then gave a public briefing to the media. He said it was similar to what he told Congress, just without the classified info he gave in that meeting- information that Speaker Pelosi missed out on.

Here is a rundown of the pertinent points:

WHO IS THE PROBLEM?

-Al Queda

Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq

-Extreme Militias

There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation

-Sunni Insurgents

while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

WHAT OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT?

-It's Brand New

It is in fact important to recall that the government of Prime Minister Maliki is Iraq's fourth government in as many years.

-Unity Problems

it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation.

-It Needs Time

The focus of Multinational Force Iraq is, of course, on working with our Iraqi counterparts to help improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with the tough political issues that must be resolved.

HOW'S THE SURGE GOING?

-Good, Though We Just Got Started

We are still in the relatively early stages of our new effort, about two months into it, with three of five Army surge brigades and two additional Marine battalions on the ground, and the remainder of the additional combat forces scheduled to be operating in their areas by mid-June.

Baghdad is the main effort, and we continue to establish joint security stations and combat outposts in the city and in the belts around it. The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.

In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year
Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.

-Fighting, And Casualties, Increase As We Reenter Areas We Withdrew From In The Past

Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence, as well as the enemy's greater use of certain types of explosive devices, have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more.

-It's Hard When All That's Reported Are The Car Bombs

As I mentioned, we generally in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of sort of incremental progress. Again, that is not transmitted at all. Of course it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

ARE YOU SURE AL QUEDA IS THERE?

-Yes, Absolutely

It is clearly the element in Iraq that conducts the sensational attacks, these attacks that, as I mentioned, cause not just horrific physical damage -- and which, by the way, have been increasingly indiscriminate. Secretary Gates noted the other day that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis, and I think that that is an accurate statement. They have killed and wounded and maimed countless Iraqi civilians in addition to, certainly, coalition and Iraqi security forces, and they have done that, again, without regard to ethnosectarian identity.

That significance of al Qaeda in the conduct of the sensational attacks, the huge car bomb attacks against which we have been hardening markets, hardening neighborhoods, trying to limit movement and so forth -- those attacks, again, are of extraordinary significance because they can literally drown out anything else that might be happening
So this is a -- you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one.

...Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

-Iraqis Die

My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.

What Diplomacy Means to Speaker Pelosi

Someone needs to get Speaker Pelosi a PDA. The ones equipped with the appointment reminder alerts.

Or maybe she just needs a reminder of who our enemies are.

Remember how Speaker Pelosi went to Syria recently, and was roundly criticized for doing so? The criticism revolved around her playing president and changing our national foreign policy. Even publications that basically agreed with her intent nonetheless realized her actions were a grave mistake. The NY Times agreed with Ms. Pelosi's view that the US needs to open dialogue with Syria, despite that country's elbow-deep involvement in worldwide terrorism, assassinations in Lebanon, and supplying the very IED's that are killing soldiers and citizens in Iraq. The idea is that even though Syria is nominally an enemy to the United States, we should still meet with them.

Now juxtapose that with what occurred in Congress this week. Congressional leaders succeeded in passing an Iraq war funding bill that also called for troop withdrawal by October, perhaps sooner. It was a divisive debate, and had a razor thin margin of victory.

The administration opposes the bill, and the president has vowed to veto it. The four star general overwhelmingly approved by the Senate to oversee military operations in Iraq opposes it as well. In fact, General Petraeus envisions a lengthy stay in Iraq.

General Petraeus travelled back from Iraq this week to visit the Congress and update them on the status of the "surge" policy enacted in January. Listening to the experts would seem to be a good idea, wouldn't it? The Senate apparently agreed and scheduled the meeting. But it seems that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi the House of Representatives initially declined to accept the general's offer of expert analysis. When some in Congress protested, leadership changed direction and set up the meeting.

What happened next is why someone ought to start up a collection or something so that Speaker Pelosi can get herself a PDA. According to CNN,

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized "first thing (Tuesday) morning" she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday

See, if only she had a PDA she could have known that she had a conflict when she set up the meeting in the first place. I hear they even make cell phones with scheduling capabilities too. Maybe she should get one of those.

"Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami" wasn't sure what it was exactly that took precedent over meeting with the four star general, but apparently another "Democratic aide with knowledge of her schedule" was able to tell CNN in another story that,

Anticipating a close vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi skipped Wednesday's briefing with Petraeus to lobby for passage

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's why. She couldn't attend the meeting she set up with the commander of US forces in Iraq because she was lobbying members of Congress to vote against his recommendations.

Is it possible that Ms. Pelosi doesn't really need a high tech scheduler after all? Could it be that she simply couldn't be bothered with a face to face meeting with General Petraeus because she had her own agenda to further? Obviously she doesn't agree with what the General is doing in Iraq, so what's the point in even discussing it with him?

Except that she just flew halfway across the globe to meet face to face with a man that is doing things in Iraq that she presumably disagrees with. Things like blowing up our soldiers and killing innocent civilians. She maintains that we should have normal, open relations with men like him, men that are enemies to our country. But if that man is a US general who just flew halfway across the globe to meet with her, apparently open relations aren't needed.

An Incovenient Consensus

The results are in, and it doesn't look good for Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. A sampling of major newpaper editorial boards reveals that the Speaker's trip to Damascus was better left to those elected to do that sort of thing.

The Washington Post:

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

The Chicago Tribune:

After she met with Syria's thuggish president, Bashar Assad, she issued this doozy: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

It is also, administration officials quickly pointed out, the road by which arms are shipped to terrorists -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and insurgents in Iraq.

The New York Times:

There is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead.

USA Today:

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

The Boston Herald:

Normally, there’s no objection to members of Congress of either party meeting with officials of foreign governments. But Syria is not a normal government. In addition to exporting terror, its agents have tried to maintain control of Lebanon by assassinating opponents there.

A trip like Pelosi’s effectively rewards an outlaw Syria for nothing. What the “negotiate no matter what” crowd forgets is all the previous failed attempts to get Syria to negotiate seriously. They make new attempts and comments like Pelosi’s “the road to Damascus is a road to peace” nothing but rank foolishness. From 1993 to 2005, there have been many more than 20 high-level visits to Syria for nothing.

Thanks Speaker For The Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Not too long ago Speaker Pelosi announced her strategy for not only balancing the budget, but also to change the atmosphere of Congress and improve its reputation. She vowed to seek out areas of "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" that had plagued the previous legislators.

Well, Speaker Pelosi has gone out and shown the nation exactly the kind of legislative leader she is. Showing top form, she identified a number of extraneous spending measures snuck into a non-related bill. Here are some examples of this "waste, fraud and abuse":

$250 Million for milk
$120 Million for shrimp
$75 Million for peanuts
$25 Million for spinach
$15 Million for rice

Were these spending measures discussed and debated on their merits? Were they pinpointed by Congress as special situations in need of federal monetary assistance? No, they were snuck into a totally unrelated bill in hopes it would pass without anyone noticing. This fits in perfectly with Speaker Pelosi's campaign against "waste, fraud, and abuse."

Too bad she's the one responsible for them.

You see, Ms. Pelosi wanted to pass a bill that would force the US to leave Iraq. Problem is, she wasn't sure she had enough votes to get it passed. Rather than debate the bill on its merits, Ms. Pelosi resorted to bribery. Each one of these spending projects is earmarked for the home districts of Representatives who for whatever reason were on the fence leading up to the vote. The bribes total $20 Billion.

I hope it was worth it.

Our New Minimum Wage

As promised, during the House of Representatives' first 100 (working) hours the federal minimum wage was raised. Immediately after its passage questions were raised as to why American Samoa was exempted from the wage increase. Some representatives pointed to the fact that one of the largest employers in American Samoa, Del Monte, is headquartered in San Francisco, which just happens to be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district. These representatives waxed indignant at Speaker Pelosi's hypocrisy, especially considering her vocal proclamations of presiding over the most ethical Congress in history. Congressional leadership initially defended American Samoa's exemption, saying that the US territory had always been exempted from the federal wage standard. However, within days these leaders promised to change the bill to include American Samoa.

Despite the public brouhaha, I don't think anything unethical happened here, unless you count giving in to political pressure in order to save face as being unethical. For you "follow the money" folks, the Washington Times reported that Del Monte has not given a penny to any Democrat in the last five years. What I do think happened is that Speaker Pelosi and other House leaders listened to American Samoa's non-voting representative, Eni Faleomavaega, when he said that the minimum wage could "devastate the local economy". Or perhaps they read Del Monte VP Melissa Murphy Brown's warning that the wage hike would "severely cripple the local economy."

Interestingly, the sponsor of the bill, Representative George Miller, argued that American Samoa doesn't need to be covered by the minimum wage because a Labor Department committee reviews the island's minimum wage every two years. It would seem that this committee has historically agreed with Rep. Faleomavaega and VP Brown and allowed the current wages of $2.70 per hour to remain. It is instructional to note that listening to local elected officials, local business leaders, and providing some federal oversite and auditing functions has for the past 50 years settled on a local minimum wage far different than the one Congress has arbitrarily set. Unfortunately, because of its inevitable passage, the new federal minimum wage has put many American Samoans in danger of losing their job.

Nancy Pelosi on Iraq Withdrawal

Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to talk alot? But that in all that talking not really say anything? Case in point, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation what would happen to Iraq if the US were to follow her plan to withdraw in the next 4-6 months. Her reply used up 443 words by my count, but not one of them answered the question. Mr. Schieffer had to ask and re-ask the same question 4 times, and Speaker Pelosi used 443 words to say absolutely nothing.

Why not, I wonder?

This letter was printed in the Times-News Monday, January 22, 2007

Nancy Pelosi on Taxes: Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer last Sunday. They spoke about a few things of importance, and I'd like to address one of them here.

Mr Schieffer asked Speaker Pelosi if it would be possible to balance the budget without raising taxes. I thought her answer was pretty good:

I think you can put many thing--everything on the table and start by saying that there's $300 billion in taxes which are not collected in our country each year. Can you imagine that? You can probably start, also, with cutting waste, fraud and abuse. Congressman--well, no, Chairman Henry Waxman has taken the lead on that issue as chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Waste, fraud and abuse, collect taxes that are not collected, close corporate loopholes--you start there, you can find some money to make investments in education, which brings more money back into the Treasury than any initiative that you can name. If the president's willing to join with us in fighting waste, fraud and abuse, collecting the taxes and closing the loopholes, we can start there.

This is certainly better than the last answer she gave to this particular question. However, Mr. Schieffer didn't rest. He then asked the all important direct question, "Are you promising no new taxes for anybody?"

Speaker Pelosi's answer is...interesting.

No, I'm talking about tax cuts for many in the middle class. We've had tax cuts for small businesses to provide health insurance to their workers, R&D, making permanent and modernizing research and development tax credit for small business. We are talking about helping families with the higher education of their children. We're talking about tax credit...

SCHIEFFER: So you're talking about more tax cuts?

Rep. PELOSI: We're talking about tax cuts for the middle class. And as we review what we get from, again, collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the Treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money--$500,000 a year--might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children.

SCHIEFFER: So what you're talking about is you may have to raise taxes for some people in the upper income levels in order to cut taxes for some below them?

Rep PELOSI: What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle income families.

Let's be clear that "repealing a tax cut" is the same as a tax increase. So Speaker Pelosi is advocating higher taxes for those that make over $500,000 in order to lower taxes on those that make less than $500,000. I fortunately fall into that "below" category, so that'll be nice. But what does that mean? Isn't that sort of a wealth redistribution scheme? A Robin Hood, steal from the rich to give to the poor kinda deal?

But let's be honest here. All of you other "below" category people out there, take a look at your paycheck for a minute. Look at your withholdings. You'll see state taxes, federal taxes, and then you'll see withholdings for Medicare and Social Security. I'm a poor, single-income father of three, so those first few boxes don't amount to very much. It's the last two that really hit my wallet the hardest, and I can't do anything about it. Speaker Pelosi's plan won't do anything about it either, because those things aren't included when politicians talk about "taxes". That's because in theory you and I will get all that money back when we retire. We'll get our own Social Security income and get to use Medicare for all our health needs. Or at least 80% of our health needs. The rest we'll have to cover ourselves. With our Social Security money. That is, if either one of those programs still exist by then.

My other question is is there enough "waste, fraud and abuse" to not only balance the budget, but to then invest more into education as she proposes? Of course there is! But is anyone in Congress really going to do it? I hope so, and I applaud Ms. Pelosi for at least talking about it.

100 Days- Rep Pelosi Bans Smoking

This is probably a minor thing, but CNN reports that Speaker of the House Pelosi has banned smoking in the Speakers Lobby. I say hurray for Ms. Pelosi. Here is how she justifies the move:

"Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."