Lawmakers Seek Transparency From Supercommittee 16SEP11

THE "super committee" is not constitutional, and there will no doubt be court challenges once they present their recommendations to Congress. Until then, if you want to contact them here is the link
http://deficitreduction.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact 
The newly formed congressional supercommittee's 12 members are charged with finding more than $1 trillion in budget savings this fall. Their clout could attract more campaign contributions, and lawmakers are demanding greater accountability for the money the panel's members take in.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has a mixed voting record when it comes to campaign finance reform, but he is adamant about making the six Republicans and six Democrats on the deficit-reduction supercommittee more accountable.
"They have before them only everything in the federal budget and everything in the U.S. tax code," he says. "It's enormous power, it's an enormous role, and obviously everybody in Washington, D.C., and beyond, every special interest, is going to be lobbying them."
Those lobbyists will also possibly make generous contributions at the many fundraisers that members of the supercommittee have scheduled this fall. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the supercommittee, says he "canceled a bunch of fundraisers" because the committee responsibilities have taken up so much time. As far as ethical problems regarding the fundraising, he says he's leaving that up to others.
"Every member needs to decide," Portman says.
Earlier this week, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told the Boston Globe he'd decided not to do any fundraising while he serves on the supercommittee. However, possibly out of deference to colleagues who do plan to raise funds, Kerry downplayed his decision when asked about it.
"I think that too much is being made out of that. People are doing business here in the United States Senate all the time," he says, "and unfortunately, because of the nature of politics, they have to raise money too. So I'm not going to get into that discussion."

How Super Is The Deficit-Cutting Committee?

Explore what each of the 12 members of the supercommittee is bringing to the negotiating table.

Other members of the supercommittee say they have no plans to alter their fundraising schedules.
"My view is, anything that was scheduled before I was appointed to the supercommittee, I'm going to continue with that schedule," says Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. "And I'm not going to add any new items in a fundraising capacity to my schedule."
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) points out that unlike senators, who face re-election every six years, he and other House members have campaigns to finance every two years. He says he would happily stop raising election money if he heard his opponents weren't raising money, or if he didn't have to pay for campaign activities.
"Until then, I think it's important for me to do everything that I've done in the past, and do it as transparently and as openly as I've always done it," Becerra says.
Campaign-finance watchdogs say holding fundraisers is not so much the issue.
Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation says the problem is that, because of reporting rules, nobody will know who gave supercommittee members money, and how much, until mid-January — two months after the panel completes its work. Allison says that helps special interests give money more discreetly.
"Even if you're not having a fundraiser, they can write you a check. It's not like you have to have an event for somebody to send you some money," he says. "I think it's disclosing the contributions that's really important, and that's what we have to see from these members while they're sitting on this committee."
Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA) teamed up with another House Democrat and a Republican last week to introduce the Deficit Committee Transparency Act. It calls for the supercommittee to create a website where any meetings with lobbyists would have to be posted within 48 hours. Loebsack says campaign contributions would also have to be reported.
"Whatever they receive, in terms of $500 or above, to themselves or to their leadership political action committees, I want that reported within 48 hours," he says.
Loebsack says they "haven't heard from leadership on either side of the aisle yet" in response to the legislation. A letter sent to the supercommittee's co-chairmen asking them to adopt the 48-hour rule has gone unanswered.

Related NPR Stories

Boehner Pushes GOP Ideas On Overhauling Taxes Sept. 15, 2011

A Potential Superhero For The Supercommittee Sept. 13, 2011

Deficit Panel Meets, Vows To Get The Job Done Sept. 8, 2011

Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’ 15MAI11

ron paul is a warped and twisted person. The fact that he is elected time after time speaks poorly of his constituents, a majority of them have to be as warped and twisted as he is. Here is his latest rant via ThinkProgress....
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Watch it:

As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul’s crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document’s text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution’s unambiguous words limited to “extreme liberals.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that “It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically.”

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul’s fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul’s apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.

Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution’s words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.