Jobs, not health care, should be the focus of Congress and the president, U.S. Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Genoa Township) told the Westerville Area Chamber of Commerce Tuesday.

“That’s where the focus should be — jobs and the economy,” Tiberi said.

As I’ve been saying our focus in Congress should be on creating an environment friendly to job-creation.

Yes, Pat Tiberi can shove out news releases with the best of them. But the sticky bit is that Tiberi belongs to the very body he says must move into action. Pat Tiberi could help remedy what he says is Congress’ woeful inaction on American jobs by putting down the mike and picking up a pen. Instead of simply complaining that the Congress isn’t doing what he’d like, Pat Tiberi could do what members of Congress usually do when they see a problem: introduce a bill to resolve that problem.

In the 111th Congress of 2009-2010, has Pat Tiberi introduced any bill with any focus whatsoever on jobs? No.
Has Pat Tiberi introduced any amendment or even symbolic resolution with any focus whatsoever on jobs? No.
Has Tiberi even introduced any bill or amendment or resolution that could create (as he put it) “an environment friendly to job creation”? No.
Heck, has Tiberi even created any budget earmarks that would direct money to his district to create jobs there? No.

Pat Tiberi has introduced seven bills to the U.S. Congress since he was last elected. Five of these are entirely symbolic bills that don’t accomplish anything, but only make declarations (like Tiberi’s declaration that “jobs should be the focus of Congress”): to celebrate an Antarctic treaty forged 50 years ago, to congratulate a local soccer team for winning a game, to rename a post office, to name September “Brain Aneurysm Month”, and to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the use of telescopes for astronomy. Two bills introduced by Pat Tiberi since he last got elected accomplish something: one bill would give one particular family an immigration exemption, and another would review unidentified corpses to determine their veteran status.

That’s all Patrick Tiberi has to his name in the 111th Congress. For a time when so many residents in his district are losing their jobs, Pat Tiberi is writing bills to commemorate telescope usage, rename post offices and recall the glory days of South Pole diplomacy. Although he chastises everybody else in Congress for failing to do anything about American jobs, he doesn’t lift a finger to solve the problem himself.

“A new Rasmussen poll out just this past week says that 57 percent of Americans–I am talking about likely voters; that is how they polled this, likely voters–said this recently passed health care law, in their opinion, is bad for our country. So 57 percent of Americans feel the law that was forced down the throats of the American people, with the American people screaming: Do not pass this law–even today, 57 percent of Americans, as they learn more and more about what is in the law, believe it is bad for the country. That is actually the highest level of pessimism about this law since the law was passed in March.”

Personally, I didn’t hear anyone screaming when health care reform was passed. I heard a couple of people pouting, but that’s it. The poll didn’t say whether Americans feel that the law was forced down their throat either.

But, let’s say for the sake of argument that 57 percent of Americans really do think that the health care reform legislation is bad for the nation. What exactly do they think is so bad about it?

What has happened as a result of the passage of health care reform that’s caused you trouble? What specific problems have you seen as a result of health care reform?

There, one of the crew says that the boat has sprung a leak. It’s just a little bit of water on the floor, though, so people are expressing their doubts. One guy says that he just spilled his drink.

The water keeps rising, though, and by the next morning, the boat is starting to list. No one, except a crazy guy sitting up high on the mast, questions that the leak is there any more. However, there’s a big argument about what should be done.

The first mate suggests that everyone starts to bail water, but the three biggest paying anglers balk at the idea. “How am I supposed to catch any fish when I’m fiddling around with a bucket?” one asks, and the others nod in agreement.

The water rises higher. Even though some people are bailing, it’s not enough, and even the big fishermen are getting nervous. Still, they refuse to act. “I’m not going to stop fishing and pick up a pail until those other fishermen do it,” says one. “Well, I’m not going to stop fishing until he does it,” says another. A third fisherman turns his back on the conversation and humphs, casting a line into the increasingly stormy seas. “I’ll only stop fishing,” he says, “when I see everyone else on this boat bailing water. Why should I bother bailing water when there are two other people with big buckets who aren’t using them?”

The dynamic that’s leading to the sinking ship in this story is also leading to the roasting of our biosphere, and David Vitter is playing the role of the obstinate fisherman. Yesterday, he introduced S. 3699, legislation that would make it against the law to regulate carbon dioxide emissions until China, India and Russia regulate emissions.

Senator Vitter seems to think that the United States should not lead as an example to other nations, but follow other nations in a race to the bottom.

Now, finally, the drill site seems to be finally closed off… just in time for the gusher of greed to open back up again. Already, politicians are beginning to act as if the Deepwater Horizon disaster never happened, and are introducing legislation on Capitol Hill in order to bring dirty oil money flowing to their political allies.

An example is Jo Bonner, who has introduced the Strengthening Our Share Act, H.R. 5945. The purpose of the legislation is plainly all about the money. Its explicit purpose is to make it U.S. law that Gulf Coast states get a bigger share of profits from from offshore drilling.

Is it a surprise that Jo Bonner is from Alabama, a Gulf Coast state?

How much longer before we start hearing the chants of drill baby drill again?

A case in point is Obama’s recent activity on the Patriot Act, the foundation for the government’s system of surveillance against the American people. President Obama is sending representatives to Capitol Hill to urge for the expansion of the power to spy on American’s Internet use through National Security Letters that are not even approved by a court of law, but certified by the very law enforcement officers who are directing surveillance to take place. Obama’s effort to expand the spying powers of the Patriot Act are aimed at Americans’ use of the Internet, to go beyond simple communications to encompass practically everything we do online.

This summer, Barack Obama gave a speech to a Netroots Nation gathering, asking liberals to have patience with him, because he just needs more time to work on fulfilling his promises. Obama’s attempt to make expand unconstitutional spying powers, however, should serve as a reminder to liberals that Obama has been using much of the time he’s had in the White House so far to actually make things worse.

In the 2012 election, why should liberals work to help to give Barack Obama more time to take America in the wrong direction?

The legislation sounds non-controversial, doesn’t it? If only that were the case.

The bill, H.R. 6010, was crafted in response to the revelations earlier this year that the Obama Administration had crafted a list of American citizens who would be targeted for assassination. The citizens were suspected of connections to terrorists who were planning attacks against the United States. “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans,” said Admiral Dennis Blair.

Being a suspect, however, is not the same thing as being guilty of a crime. Our nation’s Constitution grants all people, including American citizens, the right to a fair trial before they are judged guilty and punished. A criminal prosecution cannot consist of a committee of government bureaucrats deciding that a person seems to be guilty. The Sixth Amendment reads, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

It may seem inconvenient to have to apprehend criminal suspects and put them on trial. On the other hand, being assassinated without a chance to confront one’s accusers is inconvenient as well.

The following members of Congress have joined Kucinich in supporting H.R. 6010:

John Conyers
Keith Ellison
Bob Filner
Raul Grijalva
Jesse Jackson
Peter Stark

The United States Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of religion in American politics. Religion is only mentioned twice in the Constitution, each time forbidding government from using its powers for purposes of religious imposition: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” goes the first constitutional declaration, and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” goes the second constitutional declaration.

But with the introduction of H. Con. Res. 274, a good portion of the members of the House of Representatives are engaged in an effort baldly against the First Amendment, engaged in making a law respecting an establishment of religion. If passed, the bill would make a declaration of Congress that “it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand,” and would “encourage the public display” of the phrase “In God We Trust” in every public building and in every public school.

As any student of comparative religion knows, the monotheistic figure God is a particular feature of Abrahamic religion, incompatible with dozens of religious traditions from around the globe including Native American religious tradition, and also incompatible with the religious viewpoint of millions of secular, agnostic and atheist Americans. H.Con. Res 274 is a direct challenge to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Those who support the bill are brazenly sidestepping the Constitution, using government power to establish one religion in all government buildings, one religion in all public schools, one religion over others and over none.

The following is a list of congressmen and congresswomen who have signed on to officially support H.Con.Res. 274. It’s not a short one:

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA, District 4) — principal sponsor
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL, District 4)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO, District 2)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA, District 5)
Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH, District 7)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN, District 6)
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL, District 6)
Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC, District 3)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD, District 6)
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL, District 13)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL, District 9)
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT, District 1)
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA, District 2)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN, District 7)
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL, District 1)
Rep. John Boozman (R-AR, District 3)
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA, District 9)
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL, District 2)
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA, District 10)
Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC, District 1)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL, District 5)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL, District 13)
Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN, District 5)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA, District 44)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI, District 4)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA, District 7)
Rep. Shelley Capito (R-WV, District 2)
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA, District 6)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, District 3)
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO, District 6)
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK, District 4)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX, District 11)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL, District 4)
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX, District 7)
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY, District 4)
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN, District 2)
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI, District 3)
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK, District 5)
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA, District 4)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC, District 5)
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ, District 2)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ, District 5)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA, District 11)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX, District 1)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA, District 6)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX, District 12)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO, District 6)
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX, District 4)
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS, District 3)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX, District 5)
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA, District 2)
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI, District 2)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA, District 52)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS, District 2)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX, District 3)
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC, District 3)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH, District 4)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY, District 3)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA, District 5)
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA, District 1)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN, District 2)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO, District 5)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA, District 4)
Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH, District 5)
Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY, District 26)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ, District 2)
Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL, District 16)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX, District 24)
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA, District 8 )
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA, District 22)
Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI, District 11)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC, District 10)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC, District 7)
Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA, District 25)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA, District 5)
Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI, District 10)
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA, District 42)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL, District 1)
Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS, District 1)
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC, District 9)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX, District 19)
Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX, District 22)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN, District 6)
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA, District 6)
Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL, District 12)
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV, District 3)
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT, District 0)
Rep. David Roe (R-TN, District 1)
Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY, District 5)
Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-AL, District 3)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR, District 4)
Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL, District 18)
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ, District 3)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA, District 9)
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID, District 2)
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO, District 4)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE, District 3)
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX, District 21)
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL, District 6)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS, District 4)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE, District 2)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA, District 5)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX, District 13)
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS, District 4)
Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH, District 12)
Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH, District 3)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI, District 6)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR, District 2)
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN, District 3)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY, District 1)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC, District 2)
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA, District 10)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK, District 0)

That promise is being tested by legislation proposed by Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards. The legislation, H.R. 6028, would make it illegal for the federal government to protect the grey wolf as an endangered species.

That’s not just bad news for wolves. It’s bad news for Americans who understand the role of objective scientific analysis as a foundation for government policy. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act was to protect the remaining biological wealth of our nation from the whims of commerce and cultural prejudices against certain creatures and habitats. A solid process was established for fact-based analysis of the status of American wildlife, so that effective remedies could be applied instead of simply allowing civilization to take its course.

The legislation introduced by Chet Edwards would re-establish the arbitrary, science-free approach to managing our nation’s natural resources. H.R. 6028 would set a precedent of protecting (or not protecting) endangered species according to the preferences of lobbyists, and the powerful interests they represent. In such a political environment, very few endangered species would stand much chance of survival.

Only 15 percent of Democrats voted against the amendment. About 82 percent of Democrats in the House of Representatives voted in favor of allowing the expansion of offshore drilling, despite the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and two new oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico this week alone. 3 percent of House Democrats didn’t bother to vote on the matter at all.

Representative Hastings said, “Congress is voting this week on legislation, the CLEAR Act, that is stuffed full of unrelated items, legislation that will kill American jobs and raise energy prices. Simply put, Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise taxes and increase spending. The bill imposes a new $22 billion energy tax and has over $30 billion of new unrelated mandatory spending.”

Hastings is following the lead of Chaffetz, who a day earlier stated, “Although the Clear Act (H.R. 3534) is being advertised as a bill to establish new laws and regulations in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Democrat majority is using it as a vehicle to push through nearly $1.5 billion dollars a year in unrelated spending.”

Compare these two statements, and one thing becomes clear right away: The Republicans haven’t got their story straight. Doc Hastings claims that there’s $30 billion dollars of spending “unrelated” to the oil spill in the Clear Act, but Jason Chaffetz had already stated that there was only $1.5 billion dollars in “unrelated” spending. Those numbers don’t match – not even close. Are the Republicans just making these numbers up?

Looking more carefully at Republican claims about the supposedly unrelated spending in the Clear Act, we see that the allegations are completely unfounded. The spending that the Republicans refer to is directly related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Chaffetz claims that an Ocean Resources Conservation Fund and a Land and Water Conservation Fund created by the legislation are “unrelated spending”. That’s balderdash, as the Land and Water Conservation Fund would go to protect and restore coastal wetlands that have been devastated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (and the many other smaller Gulf of Mexico oil spills that have taken place this year). The Ocean Resources Conservation Fund, well, the name speaks for itself. How could anyone argue that this year’s immense Gulf of Mexico oil spill and ocean conservation are unrelated?

Scrutiny is also due to Hastings’s claim of a new $22 billion dollar energy tax in the Clear Act. It’s not a tax, actually. It’s a fee that oil and gas corporations would be required to pay in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to drill in waters that belong to the people of the United States. The fee would then be directed toward remediation of the ecological damage caused by oil spills. In arguing against this fee, Hastings is in essence suggesting that the American people ought to go on paying the bill of oil spill cleanup and recovery. He’s merely trying to obscure that fact by using the emotion-provoking word “tax”.

There are problems with the Clear Act. It doesn’t go far enough in restricting the dangerous practice of gathering fossil fuels through offshore drilling. However, it’s not accurate to portray the legislation as stuffed full with unrelated spending. That’s just a talking point the Republicans in the House of Representatives are using to justify their continuing support for big oil companies – and it’s a talking point that isn’t supported by the actual content of the legislation.