“Supermajority-lite” Congress stunned by Omnibus failure, and faces opposition on stealth legislation in DC Voting Rights Act

The first sign of “over reaching” is when you begin to lose the support of your own ranks. And evidently, the sticker shock of all the big spending ugly ducklings lined up in a row is beginning to show, threatening the anticipated smooth passage of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.

The resistance to the Omnibus spending by some outspoken Democrats – including Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin – has resulted in an emergency five-day stopgap spending measure passed by Congress to prevent an embarrassing government shutdown in Obama’s first months in office.

The failure left Democrats fretting about how they would perform when dealing with more contentious and complex legislation sought by President Obama on health care, energy, taxes and education.

“What does this mean for the Obama agenda?” said the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. “We need to get this straightened out.”

Republicans and others said some Democrats were clearly experiencing sticker shock over the combined costs of the new Democratic agenda, with the $410 billion measure coming on the heels of the $787 billion economic stimulus and just ahead of the $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 and money this year for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~~~

This year was supposed to be different. Senate Democrats gained seven seats in November, with one more waiting in the wings, moving well beyond the narrow 51-to-49 divide that had hindered them for two years. And a handful of Republicans were willing to side with them in the current spending fight.

But at least four Democrats balked, citing the bill’s earmarks, its overall cost or its provisions on Cuba policy. That left the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, standing uncomfortably on the floor Thursday night without the 60 filibuster-breaking votes he had thought were in his pocket only hours earlier.

Even Mr. Reid seemed uncertain Friday about where things had gone wrong. “The Senate is the body it is,” he said. “It is sometimes difficult even for those of us who serve here to fully comprehend.”

Even in the House, where Pelosi commands a substantial majority and the Republicans are but a footnote in power, resistance to the omnibus reigns supreme as both Dems and GOP argue about their respective earmarks.

But the omnibus is not the only piece of legislation frustrating the Dem supermajority-lite.

With Congress sleight of hand, troublesome and controversial amendments riddle the DC Voting Rights Act, stuffed with steal legislation having nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

Yes yes, I know this is run of the mill legislative trickery… aka known as bipartisan “compromise”. But that “compromise” generally “compromises” the nation’s average Joe Blow.

The Senate version (S160) sailed thru at the end of February with a 61-37 vote. But few of the 19 amendments (four of which were accepted that were offered up to patch the bill have received the necessary press. Surprise surprise…

It is not just the Senate where an increase in Democratic ranks is proving to be no guarantee of legislative success. After the Senate overcame decades of resistance and passed a bill that would give the District of Columbia a Congressional vote, House Democrats now find themselves unable to advance their version because Republicans are threatening to extract a vote on gun rights as the price. Many Democrats seem ready to go along, fearing a rebuke by the National Rifle Association more than the disappointment of their own leaders.

Those advocating for the Constitutionally controversial DC voting rights are chagrined at the amendments that may take down their cause. Most apparently are zeroing in on the gun rights language, per the Chicago Tribune a few days ago.

Before the bill passed the Senate last week, lawmakers added language concerning gun rights that could delay, undermine, or even scuttle the bill. And beyond that, opponents have vowed an immediate court challenge.

~~~

With Democrats the majority in both houses of Congress, there never seemed to be a better time for action. But the gun-rights language tacked to the bill Thursday created complications.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), the sponsor of the amendment, said the measure is needed because of steps the district took to regulate guns in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that struck down the district’s near-absolute ban on handguns. But opponents say the language would gut all district gun regulations.

Despite the gun language, the voting rights activists were ecstatic at the Senate victory, and predicted easy House passage.

What most worrisome is the issue that no one appears to be objecting to… and that’s the stealth legislation attached to the DC Voting Rights Act to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine in stages.

While the media, and some of our resident liberals here, proclaimed we conservatives had no need to be concerned when Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) rider – the Broadcaster Freedom Act – was tagged onto the DC Voting Rights bill as an amendment and passed.

What was less reported was that Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) amendment *also* passed.

SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.

(a) Clarification of General Powers.–Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.

(b) Severability.–Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

The effect was to slam the door shut, and pad the lock, on what used to be constructively known as “the Fairness Doctrine”, and open a side door to achieving the same via stages.

Stage one? Affirmative action broadcasting licensing. Newsbusters tried to give the world a heads up in their Feb 27th article by Seton Motley.

One tremendous problem with this amendment, with the Censorship Doctrine itself and in fact with virtually every aspect of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s broadcast licensing requirements is that they are all completely nebulous. President Barack Obama’s FCC can interpret these regulations in any direction it wishes, which more than likely bodes poorly for free speech on the radio.

And the worst part of the Durbin Amendment is the possibility that Obama’s FCC may now be empowered to prematurely pull the broadcast licenses of radio stations they deem as failing to meet these new “Fairness” Doctrine-esque guidelines. Several lawyers who do this for a living see this rider’s wording as amorphous enough to allow for this interpretation.

This would be absolutely devastating to talk radio. Stations currently carrying Conservative and Christian talk would be perpetually under the FCC gun – never knowing when the regulatory hammer would fall and crush their businesses. They would feel tremendous pressure to change formats so as to be able to stay on the air.

And no one would be able to justify the enormous expense of getting into talk radio if their lifeline – their broadcast license – could be pulled capriciously at any time.

These licenses would then be awarded to more “diverse” owners who show a greater desire in meeting the Obama FCC’s definition of the “local” and “public interest.” You know, ACORN activists and MoveOn.org hosts who couldn’t cut the mustard on National Public or Pacifica Radio.

As I pointed out before in a previous thread comment, this legislative tack is in keeping with Obama’s doublespeak on the Fairness Doctrine… on one hand saying he opposes it, but then proposes how he does, indeed, intend to make the airwaves “fair”. Via Ortiz:

“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

1: i.e. ownership caps – a new definition of “monopoly” by Obama’s FCC?

2: regulations on “network neutrality” – with Obama’s FCC being the neutrality “judge”

3: and “increasing minority ownership”.

Durbin’s amendment puts a serious dent into achieving these goals… all without calling it the Fairness Doctrine, and topped with the chutzpah of sly attempt to fool the public into believing this nonsense by including DeMint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act.

Just how stupid do these elitists think we are?

The House bill version of the DC Voting Rights Act (HR157) is still in the early stages, just coming out of committee, and is – at this writing – sans any House amendments. Pelosi is on record supporting the voting rights for the DC House Rep, and I have no doubts she’s way okay with the rest of the stealth legislation tacked on to the Senate bill.

But there’s few that are talking about this broadcasting affirmative action action as a bone of contention in the house. And that really has me worried.

Since House and Senate bills must be reconciled after passage, the big question is if the House GOP and the 2nd Amendment conscious Democrats decide to “compromise”…. delaying this attack on 2nd Amendment rights while blatantly sacrificing the 1st Amendment instead.