A Lump of Coal

As one of Mr. Rogers' constituents, I signed up to receive his legislative updates via email. The most recent one is a textbook example of the way Rogers spins his D.C. behavior to make it look like he cares.

After fighting tooth and nail to block expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Rogers voted to support a watered-down version and happily patted himself on the back for it.

Today, the House of Representatives approved an SCHIP extension that incorporates legislation I co-authored earlier this year to fully fund and modestly expand health coverage for millions of poor and low-income children through March 2009. This is a significant victory that protects the needs of the children of America's working poor. The President is expected to sign this measure into law this week.

This measure provides for a clean extension of SCHIP and recognizes our responsibility to ensure that the children's health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally, or families who already have private insurance.

This legislation increases the programs' funding and keeps the focus where it belongs, on helping low-income kids. The bill fully funds the existing program for an additional 18 months. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the funding increases will ensure that no State would have to reduce their SCHIP benefits package or change their current SCHIP eligibility standards due to a lack of federal funding.

The kindest way to describe this is, ah, somewhat misleading. Here's a fact-based analysis of Rogers' message:

1.) It's not clear what Rogers is referring to when he talks about the previous SCHIP legislation he co-authored. If you find it, please let me know. It is clear that he doggedly repeated Bush talking points (no coverage for illegal immigrants, adults or "wealthy" families) all through the fall. This is most likely what was "incorporated" into the final version of the bill.

2.) "Fully funding" SCHIP is a misleading term. Earlier this year, the Bush administration placed considerable eligibility restrictions on the decade-old SCHIP program. Based on these restrictions, 14 states will actually have to drop children from SCHIP coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation's Daily Health Policy Report offers a good summary:

The measure does not address an SCHIP policy directive announced in August by CMS that states must enroll 95% of children in families with incomes up to 250% of the federal poverty level before expanding eligibility, The Hill reports. Acting CMS Administrator Kerry Weems said that the Bush administration would not require states to disenroll children from the program despite the requirement. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that Weems' statement contradicts the policy, adding, "Perhaps CMS officials are reading their
directive differently than the rest of us."

An analysis by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute's Center for Children and Families found that 14 states provide SCHIP coverage to children in families with incomes greater than 250% of the poverty level and that they "will likely be forced to roll back their eligibility levels at some point before August 2008
or assume new coverage costs with state funds." Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) on the House floor Wednesday said, "Because of the president's executive order, kids in those states will actually come off the rolls in August." The National Governors Association on Monday sent a letter to Congress asking it to "address the issue raised in the ... guidance issued by CMS" (Young, The Hill, 12/20).

Translation: the new rules will force some children out of SCHIP coverage, since a number of states now cover families with incomes over 250% of the federal poverty level. This is especially true in the Northeast, which has much higher costs of living.

3.) Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families also noted that the requirement to cover 95% of eligible children is unrealistic:

No means-tested program where people have to apply and be reviewed for eligibility has reached this high standard of participation. In fact, Medicare, which is not means tested and where people are enrolled automatically, has a participation rate of about 95 percent. By comparison, the low-income subsidy for the Medicare part D prescription drug benefit, which is means tested, has a participation rate of only 43 percent. SCHIP and Medicaid participation rates are considerably higher—about 63 percent and 79 percent, respectively—but state-level participation rates vary widely and are difficult to measure accurately due to data limitations.

Translation: the 95% rule is an unrealistic standard; even if states try to meet it, there is no accurate way to determine participation rates.

4.) According to Rogers, the final version of the bill excludes adults, illegal immigrants and families with private insurance. There are plenty of posts that cover this in detail, but in a nutshell,

* the SCHIP bills that Bush vetoed did not cover adults. Back in 2005, though, the Bush administration urged states to expand SCHIP coverage to very low-income adults -- so Rogers and Dave Camp co-authored a letter supporting Michigan's participation in this program. Ah, how quickly they forget...

*the SCHIP bills that Bush vetoed did not cover illegal immigrants. In fact, an early version would have required a five-year waiting period for legal immigrant families. This is fear-mongering, pure & simple.

* Families at this income level ($42,925 a year for a family of 3) who have private insurance coverage are most likely getting it through an employer. With the spiraling cost of health insurance, more companies are requiring employees to shoulder a bigger share of the cost. For this hypothetical family, SCHIP coverage may well be more affordable than private coverage. Does Mr. Rogers really intend to micromanage that family's spending choices?

[Remember, SCHIP isn't "free" health care -- it requires premiums and co-pays that are tied to income level. ]

So you can see that this is just another Rogers Special: light on fact, heavy on emotion, and totally useless for working families.

Slap-Happy

Deary me. Mike Rogers lost the vote on the new energy bill in a big way (314-100). To repair his fragile self-esteem and garner a little press attention for, um, losing the vote, Rogers decided to vent about the way the bill was sent down Pennsylvania Avenue for Bush's signature -- in a Toyota Prius.

According to the Freep, the vehicle choice didn't go over too well with Rogers or his GOP buddy Candice Miller:

"It is a huge slap in the face, calculated, I believe, just to demonstrate their complete disregard for the domestic auto industry," said Rep. Candice Miller.

Rep. Mike Rogers called the Prius delivery a "slap in the face of every American autoworker."

Oh, really?

( It's Christmas. Sharing is good. So we won't mock Mike for sharing his talking points cheat sheet with Candy... we will, however, take him to task for manufacturing an unrealistic hissy fit.)

It seems to me that the auto industry doesn't share Mr. Rogers' indignation (or they're at least smart enough not to share it in public):

Chrysler’s president, James E. Press, said he welcomed the new legislation and hoped it would remain the single national standard that auto companies must meet.

“Now we get some better clarity where the road goes and how steep the hill to climb is going to be, and we’re going to have fun,” said Mr. Press, formerly Toyota’s top executive for North America. “We’re committed to meeting these standards and doing our part.”

Other manufacturing executives had an equally positive outlook on the bill, like Osram Sylvania CEO Charlie Jerabek.

But even though the energy bill has not changed the direction of lighting research, most manufacturers are relieved to have a federal standard in place.

“If each state passed its own rules for light bulb efficiency, we’d have to make 50 different types,” Mr. Jerabek said. “Now we can all standardize our production techniques.”

Hmmm. Sounds like manufacturers are okay with national standards. Wasn't Mr. Rogers recently in a tizzy about those awful Californians having their own emissions standards?

Bottom line? According to the non-partisan National Commission on Energy Policy, the bill's provisions for improved fuel efficiency and renewable fuels will result in

*Reduction in U.S. oil use of 2.8 million barrels a day by 2020, and 5 million barrels a day by 2030, over business as usual.

*U.S. Consumer fuel savings of $71 billion per year in 2020, and $161 billion in 2030, using approximate current prices ($90/barrel oil, $3/gallon gasoline).
*Reduction of transfer of wealth abroad of $73 billion per year in 2020 and $129 billion in 2030.

*Reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 320 million metric tons in 2020, and 675 million metric tons in 2030.

*Reduction in passenger vehicle emissions by 15% in 2020 and 30% in 2030 under what they otherwise would be.

*Reduction in 2020 of approximately 4% of projected total net U.S. CO2 emissions versus what they would otherwise be.

This is a deeply needed step forward for our country and our world. Quit whining, Mr. Rogers.

Jingle Bells a la Mike Rogers

Dashing through DC
With a gang of lobbyists
Love that K Street cash
Forget constituents

How can I get one more
Gerrymandered term?
What fun it is to wheel and deal
And watch the voters squirm.

Oh, incumbent, incumbent
It’s really quite a scam
Voters pay, you get to play
Off in Afghanistan

Blaming all the Dems
For our country’s ills
You say no to S-CHIP
And you laugh at CAFÉ bills

You say you’re Intel Guy,
Know lots ‘bout terrorist stuff
In Pakistan, you are the man
But you don’t come home enough

Oh, incumbent, incumbent
It must have been a bummer
The NIE says Iran’s nuke-free
No photo ops there in your Hummer

cross-posted at LivingBlue

The Twelve Days of Christmas

'tis the season and all, so I figured a little updated holiday song would be a nice change from all that policy wonking...

Mike Rogers’ Twelve Days of Christmas

On the first day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
A gerrymandered di-i-strict

On the second day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Two photo ops

On the third day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Three big checks

On the fourth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Four K Street pals

On the fifth day of Christmas, special interests got me off
Mark Foley’s Christmas card list

On the sixth day of Christmas, special interests took me out on
Swell Potomac cruises

On the seventh day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Scary Pakistani pals

On the eighth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
“No” votes on S-CHIP

On the ninth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Money for my CHOMP bash

On the tenth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Money for MIKE R PAC

On the eleventh day of Christmas, special interests gave to me
Californians to blame

On the twelfth day of Christmas, special interests gave to me,
Lots of trips to Iraq

Energy Sap

Mr. Rogers is at it again: pontificating on national issues, blaming the Democrats and neatly avoiding any actions that might actually solve a problem.

(if this was Variety, this post would no doubt be titled, "Slacker Solon Talks Smack, Sasses Speaker, Slams Left Coast")

Today's example of RogersLogic is brought to you courtesy of the House energy bill that passed yesterday. The bill, which passed 235-181, raised standards for fuel economy, appliances and light bulbs, and also promoted the development of alternative fuels.

Mike Rogers voted against it. And this is what he said:

"Innovation is the key to solving the energy crunch and getting Michigan back on its economic feet. Taxation and wasteful spending take us backwards, deeper into an ocean of foreign oil and sky-high gasoline and heating oil prices. That translates into 'no new jobs for Michigan' as well as bad news for the entire country." — Rep.
Mike Rogers, R-Brighton.

I agree that innovation is key to solving the energy crunch. And lots of folks think that alternative energy sources could be a huge boost to the MI economy, including Governor Granholm, Thomas Friedman, and -- hey! -- Ethanol Guy Mike Rogers, who earlier this year raved about lithium ion batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.

So how does Mr, Rogers make this leap of logic, equating improved fuel efficiency with taxation and wasteful spending?

Well, despite all of the useful bits contained in the bill, it didn't address the issue of whether states should be allowed to set their own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. So it looks like Mr. Rogers is out to protect us (yet again!) from those Evil Californians:

"California would still be allowed to design American cars, and the only thing worse than that is to have Congress designing our cars," Rogers said in a statement.

"American families ought to decide what cars they want to drive, not the state of California where extremism continues to damage the manufacture of American cars and hurt American workers."

I'll type slowly so that Mr. Rogers can follow along.

1.) Until yesterday, the CAFE standards hadn't changed since 1975. Remind me again how the U.S. auto industry has been doing during that time?

2.) Californians are Americans, too. They (and their Republican governor) have agreed on ways to protect their environment. They are also a substantial automotive market. Mr. Rogers should stop being a Big Government control freak and let the market provide vehicles to meet the demand.

3.) What are you putting on the table, Mr. Rogers? You criticize A LOT. You haven't come up with any viable alternatives. You haven't secured much in the way of research dollars for our state's universities. You're happy to talk about ethanol, while letting all those corn stalks provide cover for your cozy relationship with Big Oil.

Don't be a sap, Mr. Rogers. Do the right thing: leave the politics behind and help our state take the lead in alternative energy research and manufacturing.

Amway = Security

Dick (Mr. $26.22 per Vote)DeVos will be the keynote speaker at the Second annual Michigan Homeland Security Venture and Angel Capital Symposium, which takes place tomorrow at Cleary University.

The Press & Argus article noted that

While not an expert in homeland security, DeVos is a Grand Rapids-area businessman, president of Windquest Group and the son of one of the founders of Amway Corp.

DeVos' talk is expected to focus on the value of investment in protecting the homeland, and about Michigan's growing role in the field.

[For a much funnier take on what promises to be theater of the absurd, I tip my hat to Eric B. at Michigan Liberal for his post "How to Wage War... and Make Money!"]

Now, you probably know that Mike Rogers is never far away when there's a big, steaming serving of pork 'n' cash available. So let's count the connections:

1.) Rogers is a major supporter of Cleary University ("Semper Coulter"). For FY08, he asked for the following goodies for Cleary:

• $1,040,000 for road construction at Cleary University


• $461,000 to Cleary University for equipment upgrades & technology instruction for high school students through Cleary's partnerships with local public and charter schools


• $225,000 to construct a community recreation center on the Cleary campus

Pretty sweet for a satellite campus of a university with less than 800 students!

Both Rogers and Cleary University are founding partners of the Livingston Economic Club , which ponied up $30,000 for Ann Coulter to speak last October.

2.) Moving right along, we come to the Michigan Homeland Security Consortium. For those of you unfamiliar with the MiHSC, it's a kind of Chamber of Commerce for security companies. Mike Rogers was the keynote speaker at its kickoff meeting on September 11, 2006. The MiHSC mission:

To drive the development and growth of the Homeland Security Industry within the State of Michigan, placing it at the forefront of the State’s economic revitalization.

Fair enough. We need something to revitalize our state's economy. And yet... I always get a little queasy when folks start to talk about national security as a growth industry. Mike Rogers, for one, is an old hand at linking security and profit. In 2004, the City Pulse carried this story:

“I believe there’s a great opportunity for Michigan companies in Iraq,” Rogers told a dozen businessmen at a Michigan Manufacturers Association meeting in Lansing on Monday, May 17. “This economy has the potential to give out $600 billion a year. The Iraqis are fast becoming a consumer population. In my entire life, I’ve never seen so many satellite dishes on roofs.”

Rogers, a former FBI officer and strong supporter of the Iraq invasion, has traveled to Iraq three times since the country’s government was overthrown in April 2003. During a one-hour briefing on “Doing Business in Iraq” with Bush administration senior official William H. Lash as guest speaker, Rogers painted a glowing picture of the prospects for economic gain in this combat-scarred country. [skip]

But during a discussion prior to the business briefing, Lash and Rogers downplayed reports about rising security concerns for foreigners. “It’s just like walking in a rough neighborhood anywhere in America,” Rogers said. (5/19/04)

3.) DeVos' brother-in-law Eric Prince is the CEO of Blackwater USA, which is intimately familiar with the amazing profit opportunties offered by the security industry (see this helpful House Oversight graph of Blackwater contracts during the Bush administration).


4.) DeVos has contributed to indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's campaigns AND his legal defense fund. He also spent quite a bit of time hanging out with uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who now resides in a minimum-security federal prison after being convicted of fraud, tax evasion & conspiracy to bribe public officials. (H/T to Liberal Lucy for an earlier post that showed us the money.)

Interestingly, Mike Rogers has also spent some quality time with Messrs. DeLay and Abramoff. During the tenure of former Majority Leader DeLay, Rogers served as a hand-picked deputy whip in the Republican leadership & raised record-breaking amounts of moola as chair of the RNCC finance committee. In 2006, Rogers’ PAC, the MIKE-R Fund, made $10,000 worth of donations to DeLay's PAC. Rogers is also one of six Congressmen who accepted money from Abramoff’s PAC and refused to return it.

Isn't it nice that Dick & Mike have so many things in common?

Mike Rogers Hearts Big Government

In the category of Posts You Will Probably Never See Here, I offer this example from The World Around You:

Shockingly, my Representative, Mike Rogers made me proud last night in voting to override President Bush’s veto of the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. As Mary Orndorff points out, he had a few earmarks in there, but regardless of what motivated him, it is one of the few opportunities I have had to say thank you to Rep. Rogers.

Yes, that's the Alabama Mike Rogers who voted to support health insurance for low-income children.

See, our Mr. Rogers won't support SCHIP because it would let states make decisions that Federal Mike may not like.

Mr. Rogers is so very, very concerned about how the federal government is managed, he's trying to force the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to include two specific drugs in its formulary. A letter from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumers Union, the National Women's Health Network and other consumer groups opposed Rogers' legislation, stating that

"Congress should set broad policy objectives and standards for Medicare, but
congressional intervention regarding coverage policies for specific medical products would set a terrible precedent."

[skip]

"It would encourage companies making medical products as well as medical specialty organizations to constantly ask members of Congress to override scientific evidence and spend taxpayer dollars needlessly on products whose sale would benefit those companies or specialties more than they benefit patients."

In fact, Mr. Rogers is SO concerned with Guv'mint sovereignty that he wasted no time in contacting the media to express his outrage over a decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the Bush administration's fuel efficiency standards.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, sharply criticized the ruling.

"This reckless decision overturns an important increase in fuel efficiency and an essential improvement in vehicle safety," Rogers said. "It is further proof of why we need a real energy bill that embraces innovation and stops California politicians and
judges from designing American cars and trucks."

Boy, the nerve of those California politicians! (Not to mention the 11 other states, two cities and four environmental groups that initially sued the administration and joined the appeal.)

But wait -- what about Mr. Rogers' legislative buddy, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)? She's a California politician. She and MR have co-sponsored all kinds of legislation that would extend the reach of the federal government: things like health information technology mandates, creating a new biomedical R&D division within HHS, and the above-mentioned drug formulary.

Oh, and they thought it would be great to push for a bill to make computer servers more energy-efficient. The bill passed, including "a sense of Congress that it is in the best interests of the United States for purchasers of computer servers to give high priority to energy efficiency."

So I guess this means it's OK for California politicians to design stuff like CMS drug formularies -- just as long as they agree with Michigan politicians like Mr. Rogers.

The Company You Keep

In local news, Livingston County parents were invited to attend a seminar on internet safety yesterday. Representatives from the LivCo Sheriff's Department, the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children educated parents on ways to protect their children from online predators.

There's no question that this is a great program. There are some seriously nasty people out on the internet -- the more opportunities to educate and empower children (and their parents), the better.

According to the Press & Argus, the seminar was hosted by Mike Rogers (though the WLNS report doesn't refer to him as the host and his own website doesn't mention it at all).

My point?

Well, do you remember disgraced former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley (R-I Heart Teen Boys), who resigned from the House last fall after he was caught sending sexually explicit emails to at least one underage Capitol page? Prior to his resignation, he and Mike Rogers served together as Deputy Whips for Roy Blunt (R-MO). Deputy whips aren't chosen by lottery -- they're hand-picked by the Whip to enforce the party line. Rogers, in his "leadership" capacity, also spent two years chairing the RNCC finance committee. He co-hosted a fundraiser for Katherine Harris (oh, my!) with Mark Foley and Henry Hyde(R-IL) at Mark Foley's Washington home.

Once the Foley story broke, Rogers repeatedly stressed that he had nothing more than a professional relationship with Foley (and he wasn't too thrilled with the endless CNN loop of Rogers and Foley walking together in D.C.). So Rogers didn't want to 'fess up to hanging out at Foley's house? OK, fine.

The problem is that, as he so often reminds us, Rogers is a former FBI agent AND a father. You have to wonder why a law enforcement professional and parent of young children didn't say a word about Foley's behavior. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's no law saying "pedophilia is OK, as long as the creepy guy at the keyboard is a loyal, productively fundraising Republican."

Even worse, Mr. Rogers stayed quiet when it came out that a good many in the GOP leadership (Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds, other representatives and senior staffers) had known about the Foley emails for months before it became public.
When he's at home, Mr. Rogers says that he's a leader who champions children's safety. When he's in Washington, his actions show that he's a politician who puts party loyalty ahead of family values.

Rogers Sides With Democrats

Here's our headline winner from Wednesday's post. It's an amusing little headline, pithy yet vague; unlikely to be seen in an actual Gannett-owned newspaper; it offers infinite possibilities and brings a smile.

What more could you want on a Monday morning?



(Apologies for the delay in posting this -- it was a chauffeur-intensive weekend. I don't recall having such an active social life when I was a kid...)

Pork by any other name...

Mike Rogers is proud to be an opponent of earmarks. His earmark tangle with Rep. Murtha (D-PA) earlier this year made a lot of headlines; in June, he wrote a guest column in the Lansing State Journal stating that

every dollar the federal government spends should be vetted, offered in a transparent way, and open for debate. If we turn the lights on the earmark process, we can work to protect Americans against the abuse that has brought us considerable misuse of the public's hard-earned dollars.

More recently, Mr. Rogers was reportedly cranky about the first S-CHIP bill because it contained "improperly disclosed" earmarks for Tennessee hospitals serving a large number of low-income adults (um, it also contained a $1.2 billion earmark for MI healthcare over a 10-year period, but that's another story).

Now, I am all for the government being responsible when it spends my money. And I don't have a problem with Representatives helping out their districts. In fact, it's a Representative's job to help out the district.

A closer look at earmarks shows that they aren't quite so helpful. Earmarks fund projects that aren't competitively bid. Sometimes, they fund projects that the recipient department (HHS, Defense, etc.) haven't even requested. And it wasn't until this Congress that House members were required to provide disclosure when they inserted an earmark (the Senate can still earmark anonymously).

So I wasn't impressed to read yesterday's Press & Argus story about a $1.6 million earmark for Brighton-based Lowry Computer Products' base security system to allow the military to better track trucks on military bases.

I was even less impressed when I found that in July, Rogers asked for $4 million for Lowry's base security system project. This earmark was to fund proof of concept tests and perform a demonstration project on a security system that would allow the military to better track who and what is on base.

From Lowry's website, you can see this that is a very successful company. They offer a variety of commercial RFID, wireless and bar code applications; their clients include General Mills, International Paper, Lexmark, Sony and 3M. They also have a lot of experience with government contracts:

For more than fifteen years Lowry has supplied the U.S. Government with technology products and services. All Lowry solutions are backed by a nationwide
service network and supported by a specialized staff that is highly trained in the Government market. Lowry currently holds two Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) issued by the Army Contracting Agency (ACA). One BPA is for RFID EPC Class 1 smart labels and the other for EPC Class 1 printers and RFID label design software.

I'm glad that there's a strong, healthy company in Brighton, a bright spot in the otherwise not-so-good economic picture for our region.

The question is, why does an already successful business need almost $6 million in earmarked funds?

It seems that Lowry isn't alone. The New York Times reported that

House lawmakers still tacked on to the military appropriations bill $1.8 billion to pay 580 private companies for projects the Pentagon did not request.

[skip]

The House version of the military bill includes 1,337 earmarks totaling $3 billion, the most Congressional earmarks in any of the spending bills passed this year. A conference committee is now reconciling House and Senate versions. The Senate added $5 billion in earmarks, but it is difficult to determine the sponsors because it has no disclosure rules.

Fully-disclosed pork is better than anonymous pork -- but it's still pork!

Don't take my word for it. The same Times article quoted Rep. Flake (a/k/a The Club for Growth's Poster Boy:

“Pork hasn’t gone away at all,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, an earmark critic who cites the “circular fund-raising” surrounding many of them. “It would be wonderful if this was a partisan issue, with Republicans on the right side, but it is really not. Many of these companies use money appropriated through earmarks to turn around and lobby for more money. Some of them are just there to receive earmarks.”

Congressional earmarks are for programs that are not competitively bid, and the Bush administration has complained that they waste taxpayer dollars and skew priorities from military needs, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror.

Some in Michigan's own GOP are critical of Mike's penchant for earmarks. From Livingston County's own Republican Michigander, here's a post titled "Can't go along with this, Mike":

I know earmarks is how the game is played. I know that this is an attempt to bring home the bacon to the 8th district. The problem is the game itself, and Mike had a good chance to be a hero. [skip] This was a good chance for Mike Rogers to request no earmarks and once again call out the democrats, as well as the Ted Stevens acolytes in the GOP side of the house, and bring some fiscal responsibility to the party which - until recently - carried that banner. The system is broke, and this was a good chance to fix it.

Mr. Rogers, why is it OK for you to play both sides of the fence? If you're against earmarks, show some leadership and don't weasel them in. If you think they're fine when properly disclosed, then don't get on your partisan high horse and criticize Democrats who do the same thing.