The President's speech - American Job Act

The president's speech motivates me to start my blog back. I saw some things in the speech that I needed to comment on. I'll wait to comment in detail until I can read the speech, but some things need immediate attention.

My first comment - did you notice that there was no Republican response? Apparently, they read my blog post from January (here) A response tonight would have been premature as President Obama's speech had not been publi8shed. The R's could have written a speech a few days ago, making some guesses about what the president was going to say. Instead the let the president have his say. Hopefully this trend will take off and we won't have a response every time the president speaks.

My second comment is regarding the congressmen who were absent. One of my senators had indicated he would not be there. I think this is disrespectful. While I may not like the current president and don't agree with most of his ideas, I do believe he deserves a certain amount of respect because of his office. I intend to send him a note indicating my displeasure.

I noticed that the president said this bill would be paid for. However, the devil's in the details. He said he would challenge congress with paying for it as a part of their upcoming budget. To me, that sounds like he's hoping they will pay for it.

I noticed that the President did not blame Republicans, past or present, for the problems. Too often he has done that and too often while he's on the campaign trail he complains about Republicans. Hopefully, he won't do this when he starts pushing this bill.

Overall, I did like the fact that the President spoke. I believe this president has been reluctant to lead too many times in the past. Instead this time, he is introducing a bill. I may not agree with it, but at least he's started the process.

 I will be reading the jobs act in the near future and will publish my thoughts.

Rep Gowdy sees his term in office as a lost opportunity

Most of my readers probably don't know Rep. Gowdy. He's one of the congressmen swept into office last year on a conservative wave. He represents my part of SC, a traditionally conservative area, and beat out Rep. Bob Inglis in the primaries. I can't be certain who I voted for in the primaries, but I know I voted for Gowdy in the general election.

Earlier this week, Gowdy said he saw his first six months in office as "a lost opportunity." (Source: Greenville News). Gowdy acknowledged that be "really did not have a frame of reference because [he'd] never served in the Legislature before." And he noted that "There’s more civility in a criminal trial (his former job was a prosecutor) than there is in politics."

Well, Rep Gowdy, I guess I see this as a lost opportunity too, if you decide to give up. Let me remind you that there was a lot less civility in the primary fights in your discussions about then-Rep. Inglis (and most of it was deserved). Part of the reason I and others like me voted for you is that you had never been in legislature before, we were tired of the ever compromising status-quo.

That's not to say I don't believe in compromise, I do. But I also know (as do you) that we will not fix our budget problems simply raising taxes on one group of people. "Shared sacrifice" needs to actually be shared and that means cutting spending.

I'm going to trust that the Greenville News caught you on a bad day, after a budget battle that left everyone unhappy. And, having a deal that no one likes, is not necessarily a good solution (some people call that compromise - I call it a mess). Instead, I look to you and others like you to lead, to look ahead to what's coming and take the necessary action to really resolve matters, not just make it easier on some politicians until after the next election.

I sympathize with how hard your job is on a day-to-day basis. I know you don't "like the travel between Washington and [your] home in South Carolina, where [your] family is living." But as you said, you knew the job was in Washington when you ran for election. There is certainly "a role for a fact-centric ... hopefully persuasive, argument" in Congress like you dream of. Unfortunately, sometimes it will be uncivil. You knew that too, back at election time.

I hope you will take this as helpful criticism and go back and finish the job you started, the job you were elected to do. It will be hard, as we expect you to hold ground on reducing spending and many will paint you in a bad light because of that. But we are depending on you.

Budget crisis solution - Mr. Pruitt style

Watching the mess in Washington made me think of a solution. It involves Mr. Pruitt - the teacher I had for wood shop in the 8th grade. I think some of his teaching solutions would help out.

Mr. Pruitt taught at Hughes Middle School and at the time, only boys took the class (I think my younger sister was the first girl to take wood shop. Mr Pruitt retired soon after that, I don't think he could handle girls). 8th grade boys being what they were, they would occasionally get in fights. When this happened, Mr. Pruitt would put the chairs in a circle and we would all stand around while he encouraged the two boys to go at it. They would walk around with fists up, looking at each other. Mr. Pruitt would push one towards the other and they would both back away. As Mr. Pruitt would say, one was scared, the other was glad.

I think his solution to the budget crisis would be similar. He'd get a group of citizens to stand around the Capitol and let Congress go at it until they finished the job we hired them to do. He'd push the Democrats and watch the Republicans back away. One would be scared and the other would be glad.

At the end of the day, we'd have a budget. It might not be the best budget, but it would be a budget. And no one would be pointing fingers. I think Mr. Pruitt could solve a lot of our problems.

Should we treat congressmen like everyone else?

Yesterday, I posted some comments about the shooting in Arizona. One major concern I have is for the democratic process in this country, that congress will start interacting with constituents less than they have in the recent past.

Seems a congressman from my very state has already begun to think that way. Jim Clyburn, from the Charleston SC area, thinks congress should be treated differently than common people like you & me. It seems that Clyburn is uneasy going through airports (how that's related to a parking lot shooting, I'll never understand). Specifically, he said “We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else." (see more about his time on Fox News yesterday in this post).

In looking at this, I'm reminded of two quotes from "The Miracle at Philadelphia", a book on the writing and ratification of our constitution. It said "in America, one saw a member of congress seated in a stage coach beside a laborer who had voted for him." It also said  "here the equality of man... was put into practice, accepted as an everyday fact."

Sadly, some in Congress see themselves as more equal than the rest of us.

A New Day for Consumers?

That's what the NY Times headline says in this article. And I'm sure we'll hear that from a lot of politicians, how they have saved the consumer from so much grief from the big-bad banks. You see, congress has passed a new law (well, details are still being ironed out between the House and Senate) legislating how banks can act on your behalf. But I find interesting the details of the new law.

The NY Times lays out several areas of "change" in the new bill. It shows how a new Consumer Bureau has been created with the Federal Reserve that "would write and enforce rules for most banks, mortgage lenders, credit-card and private student loan companies." Well, I'm glad a new agency was created so that more government money can be spent (hopefully the sarcasm in that comment comes through - the Federal Reserve has been doing this for years).

But the new law goes further, in allowing the consumer to get his/her credit score for FREE! Yes, the guys singing the free credit report song have been upheld by the government. Well sorta. You see, you always could get your credit report for free (3 per year). And the only way you can get your score with this new law is if you apply for credit and were harmed by your score. The NY Times points out that "nothing is stopping you from asking for the score, even if you like the rate or result of your application." Actually, that's always been true. The last time I applied for a loan (car loan circa 2004) I asked to see my credit report and score. I sat down with the loan agent and went through it line by line. (I told them I wouldn't buy the car unless they did).

Mortgages will be changed (or not) by the new law. Mortgage companies will now have to verify your actual income. The article accurately points out that "most lenders have learned that lesson by now or have ceased to exist. Prepayment penalties will now be illegal on certain types of loans. Seems to me that with a little education, consumers would have eliminated these previously. Simple rule - don't accept loans with prepayment penalties. Isn't HUD supposed to do some education like this?

There are a few more items in the bill being worked on, but when you get down to the details, they really don't do much either. This is a lot like the much-bally-hooed CARD act of 2009 (see my comments here) that "changed" the way credit cards were managed. When you look at the details of that law, you'll find it was much softer that the changes the Federal Reserve had ALREADY ENACTED. It just gave more time to the credit card companies.

You'll hear a lot about this new bill in the coming weeks and months. I suspect you'll hear a lot about it during the upcoming election cycle. But remember, we would all be better if congress stayed out of it, and made the appropriate EXISTING agencies do their job.

Your comments are welcome.

Mr. President, what's the rush?

* Forgot to thank Chuck for his link to the LA Times article. Thanks Chuck.

A couple of days ago, my wife asked me what the proposed healthcare bill would do to our medical coverage. The truth is, I don't know. I've heard lots about what it might do. I know that some proposed Medicare legislation will cut the payments for MRIs and "could affect the availability of MRIs and other tests particularly in rural areas." (see here) It's only logical that the same would be true of the proposed overall healthcare legislation.

I also know that the president thinks that sometimes "maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." He also thinks "that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care." (see here) While I actually agree with him on both of these fronts, I'm very sure I don't want the government involved in the decision. I also think that might be why some people pay into insurance in the first place, so they can have expensive life saving treatment when they need it.

But what scares me the most about the locomotive pushing its way through congress, is the need for speed. Why is it that this bill must be pushed through? If the health care bill is important (and it is), it's important to do it right. Instead, many in congress have laughed at the idea of actually reading the bill they will be voting on.

Take for example, Congressman Hoyer from Maryland. He said he's "laughing because ...(he doesn't) know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill." (see here). I also heard that the leaders of both houses of congress have said they won't read the bills, but I could not confirm those reports.

The last time a bill was pushed this hard, we ended up with the so-called-stimulus package. That bill wasn't read by most members of congress either. There are several organizations that are suggesting congress should actually know what it's voting for - "Let Freedom Ring is a conservative backed site that is attempting to get our representatives to read the bill before they vote on it. Backed by liberal organizations, ReadTheBill.org is pushing the same thing." (reference here)

I also think that we, you and I regular people, should have a chance to read the bill. We should know what our representatives know (or in this case, what they don't know). We should be able to examine the pros and cons and we should advise them on how we feel, so they can make the hopefully-intelligent decisions we have sent them to make.

Credit Card Bill

You may have heard that the congress has passed a new bill, changing the way credit cards work. Congress is working to protect consumers, who have been bearing the burdens of the companies (who else would bear the burden? See the bottom of this note). No matter that the Federal Reserve had already tightened a lot of the rules, congress wanted it's name on a bill.

The new law (to be signed soon) will make it harder for people under age 21 to get cards, and "it would also ban rate hikes unless a consumer is more than 60 days late -- and then restore the previous rate after six months if minimum payments are made." (According to CNN) There are other items reported to be in the bill, I found a good list at the Simple Dollar (this site). He even some predictions as to what might come about in the future. Some of bill's line items include restrictions on raising interest rates without a 45 day notice, putting a stop to double-cycle billing, which hit me back in April 2007 (see here). Teaser rates that last a couple of months would be gone for good.

So what do you think of this new bill? I'll share my opinion. I don't think much about it. And neither should you. Not that I think bad about it, just that I haven't wasted many brain cycles thinking about it.

I'm one of the freeloaders, the folks who charge using their credit card, then pay it off each month. I never (except in April 2007) get hit with interest rates, fees, etc. In fact, I get reward points which I trade in on free travel, so I'm making money off the cards (well, not much). I pay no annual fee and therefore, I'm getting a free ride. The credit card companies are making this money by charging fees on other people. They charge interest, late fees and annual fees.

So this sounds like a reverse "tax", much like the lottery (see my note here), a Robin Hood thing - take from the rich, give to the poor. So this legislation seems like a good idea, right?

Actually, I think it's not a good idea. First, there seems to be some hypocrisy here. We're telling credit card companies they've been bad corporate citizens, but we're not telling the consumers they've been bad. Isn't that a little one-sided. Additionally at a time when we're trying to encourage our banks and financial institutions to be cut their expenses and be more liquid, we are cutting one of their tools to increase their liquidity. If they can't make a profit "on the backs of the consumers," how will they make a profit? If they don't make a profit, they will go out of business and then who profits? Certainly not the consumer.

Many conservatives have been saying that a likely change will be increases in annual fees. People like me will suddenly see new fees where they had none before. The Simple Dollar (another reference) disagrees. No problem, I'll change cards or eliminate them all together.

You may say that it's fine for me to suggest I'll change or eliminate cards, what about those who can't afford to do that? They have a super high balance and bad credit and can't get new cards. My answer is simple, if you can't afford the stuff you bought, you shouldn't have bought it. Credit cards are nothing more than a way of deferring payment on something. If you can't afford it today, what makes you think you can afford it a month from now? Instead of paying $25 a month for that big LCD TV, why not save $25 a month and pay for it in cash?

One thing is certain, this new legislation will make credit cards less attractive. Those with poor credit are less likely to get cards, because the companies can't charge the exorbitant fees. And those who pay the cards off monthly are likely to see less benefits. In reality, this is probably a good thing. Which brings me back to the original statement. Why did congress do this? Most of the line items in this bill were already set to take effect next year due to the changes made by the Federal Reserve. So why all the ranting and raving? Because congress wanted to have their name beside something good.

Seems like much ado about nothing.

The State of the Union Lite - Part 2

Well, I guess my message yesterday, really didn't get through. I fully expected some different responses. In reviewing what I wrote, I guess I watered it down somewhat.

My major beef this year (and last) is why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view?

Typically, the response just sounds bitter. The response is written ahead of time without hearing what the president has to say. Who are they fooling? That's not a response, it's a presponse. It's like voting on a trillion dollar bill without reading it. But that gets to the economic spending package again.

The Republicans have a chance to show that they can be in politics without being bitter. They can take the high road and NOT have a presponse every time the president grunts (no disrespect to the president intended). Yes, the Democrats did it for 8 years, but that's no excuse.

Will this happen? I seriously doubt it.

The State of the Union - Lite

Last night was President Obama's first address to Congress. I admit, I did not watch, nor have I read the transcript. I watched a couple minutes of his Chief of Staff's explanation of what he said, and I watched the 11 o'clock news and saw some of the president's comments. I also did not watch Gov. Jindal's response, but I did see him talking as I flipped channels. I intend to read both speeches.

However, I wanted to make some comments similar to my comments from a year ago (seen here).

The purpose of the State of the Union, as prescribed by the Constitution, is to "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President. I'm not sure why, but the press all billed this as NOT the State of the Union, maybe because this administration is still new. He does need more time to evaluate before he makes an assessment. I wish more time had been spent evaluating things before the economic spending package was passed, but that's another story. I respect the president for addressing congress.

But I do have four specific problems:

1) This is supposed to be an address to congress. While I didn't watch, I suspect most of the speech was addressed at the TV cameras.

2) It's supposed to be "from time to time". Recent tradition has been to do this every year. Maybe President Obama will change things, we really don't need it every year. The current administration is still too new to make a "state of the union" speech, but I'll give a pass on that.

3) Why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Typically, the response just sounds bitter. The response is written ahead of time without hearing what the president has to say. Who are they fooling? That's not a response. It's like voting on a Trillion dollar bill without reading it. But that gets to the economic spending package again.

4) The political pundits. I didn't listen last night. I'm sure they said how great the speech was and how President Obama reassured everyone. How he inherited the debt (and ignored that he's doubled it) and that this is the worst recession since 1929 (or was it 1982?). I'm sure there were some pot shots taken on Fox. Where in the Constitution does it say that political pundits are required and can we please only make it "time to time"?

It will be a couple of days at best before I can digest the President's and Governor's speeches. Not sure if I'll blog about them, but I do intend to read them.

Economic Spending Plan - Too big to fail?

My frequent readers will know that I like cute titles. I thought of a couple for this post "Part Deux - No Duck" or "Like Prego - It's in there!" I decided to be somewhat sincere instead and ask the question - is the economic spending plan too big to fail?

Last week I heard comments that there was a bailout for Hollywood in the plan. Seems movie theaters weren't making enough money and actors were underpaid. I think the spending plan was to buy leftover popcorn after the movies were over. However, on more research, it looks like that has been removed.

I also heard there was spending in the plan for starving artists. Always looking for a handout, the NEA had some $$ placed in the bill for them. I have no idea if this is in or out. My question is, if this stays in, do I get a choice on what is deemed "art"? Or at least the government? Somehow I doubt the artists will allow that.

Included in the plan is (was?) money to re-sod the grass on the National Mall (I was there last summer, it needs it), money for Head Start, Pell Grants and college loans, money for new computers for the State Department, and restrooms in national parks.

There's also money for infrastructure. There's a list of infrastructure projects at this WSJ site, but some include a waterfront duck pond park and dog park, a senior center and aquatic facility, sports parks, and life style centers.

This bill is turning out to be worse than a bill signed by the previous president that included a tax break for wooden arrows. And the current president is running around like Chicken Little, saying the sky will fall if we don't sign this bill now. Many will say that this is politics as usual, but I thought we were promised change in this administration.

Mr. President, here's the change I suggest. Don't press for this bill. If it gets through congress (it probably will) it should not be signed. Instead, pull out pieces that are good (there might be some in there). Explain why it's good (e.g. it creates jobs) and package it as a bill by itself. Have congress pass the bill and then sign it. Instead of one big bill have several smaller bills.

I seriously doubt President Obama will have time to read my blog today (I hear he has a busy day planned), so I'll ask you, my reader, to pass the word around.

My final thought on this for the day is a quote (Mark Twain? Will Rogers?) that said "As long as congresss is in session, your wallet isn't safe."

Fly or drive?

A couple of weeks ago, the heads of the three big auto companies (GM, Ford and Chrysler) showed up in Washington singing the old "Brother can you spare a dime" song. Trouble is, they showed up in private jets. Congress railed them and sent them packing back to Detroit without a dime to show.

Looks like this time they've learned a lesson and will drive instead. (see here). I know I will have folks who disagree, but I'm not sure that having them drive is better.

The question is, if you were a stock holder, how would you want Mr. Wagoner to spend his day, driving or conducting business. Oh sure, he could go in a big car, hire a driver and sit in the back and conduct business. I can see him shuffling papers, talking on the cell phone with a fax and computer on his passenger side desk at 70 mph. But doesn't it seem that he would be more productive in an office where he could walk around even if it was at 30,000 feet.


It certainly was bad PR to show up in a private jet and ask for money. But I think the congressional reaction was a little off key on this one.

The State of the Union

I promise, I will get back to my presidential platform building soon, I just had a few pet peeves pop up and I can't stand it..



Tonight was the State of the Union address. As required by the Constitution, the President must "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President.



I have several pet peeves with this whole setup. If I do this right, I will offend my conservative friends as much as my liberal friends.



First of all, this is supposed to be an address to congress. For most of Bush's 50 minutes, he did pretty good at this. But then he lapsed into talking to the TV.



Second, it's supposed to be "from time to time". Bush has done a pretty good job speaking to the American people when it's required, do we really need a State of the Union every year?



Third, why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Frankly, the few times I've listened to (or read) the response, it just sounded bitter. This year, the Democrats even carried it further, generating a pre-sponse in some cases and generating a written response immediately after they President spoke. Who are they fooling? That's not a response.



Lastly, the political pundits. I made the mistake of listening to two tonight. One called Bush's speech and understandably marginal speech by a lame duck. Give me a break. Walter Cronkite didn't use that many cliche's. Even Dan Rather could be more original.



None of this addresses the CONTENT of the speech, rather it addresses the STYLE of the speech and it's responses. Maybe if there was truly some content, I would have commented on it.

I approved this message - Foreign affairs

I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.

But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.

My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)

I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).

I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.

Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.

It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.

I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.

Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.

Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.

South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.

That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.

Impeachment

Yesterday when I should have been working, I instead procrastinated and went off on some odd tangents. I wanted to list the presidential candidates (17 of them) and then I saw Dennis Kucinich and beacuse of his funny sounding name ended up looking at news about him. He's proposed an impeachment of VP Cheney. So what does impeachment really mean?

Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.

Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.

The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.

At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.

So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.

In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).

There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.

Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)

Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.

There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.