In Washington, a bi-partisan group of Senators proposed creating a commission tasked with crafting a deficit reduction plan.  Yet, nine Republican legislators who co-authored this legislation ended up voting against it. It is hard to understand how someone could sponsor a bill – but then vote against it.

In Saint Paul, in bi-partisan fashion legislators passed a law to restructure the General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) program designed to cover the indigent.  The initial vote was an overwhelming 125 to 9.  Yet, after a gubernatorial veto, the override vote was 86 to 47 (three votes shy of the required two-thirds needed for an override). How could so many legislators switch their vote on this bill?

On ethics, hypocrisy is also evident. A few years ago, Democrats railed against the ethical transgressions of several Republican congressmen and derided what they termed to be a “culture of corruption” in Washington. On several occasions they called for unethical Republican legislators to step down from leadership positions. Now, as they are in control of Congress, Democrats are singing a different tune.  Democrat Charlie Rangel of New York, the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, has been found to have violated ethics rules by taking trips funded by private corporations. It also appears that he did not properly disclose all of his sources of income – as required by ethics rules- and that he failed to pay taxes on $125,000 of income from rental property. At the least, Rangel should be asked to step away from his chairmanship until these issues are resolved. But Democratic leaders are defending instead of denouncing Rangel. When it comes to ethics both parties express outrage only when the transgressor is from the other party.  But when they have a miscreant in their own midst they seem to take the attitude that “he may be a crook – but at least he’s our crook.”

Ugghh.  That is my two cents.

Tim Penny