Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) made headlines as the first Democrat to call for the ethically challenged Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) to resign. And she seems to have opened the floodgates.

Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID), my congressman, became the second Democrat to demand Rangel's resignation today. "I think it was appropriate for Rep. Rangel to step down from his post as a committee chair pending the investigation, but I always prefer to let voters decide whether or not someone should keep his or her seat. However, now that the investigation is complete, and provided the facts are as alleged, I think it’s clear that he should resign from Congress." Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that it's Rangel's choice alone to make. As a party leader, Hoyer has to be a good diplomat and really can't call for a Member's resignation without a conviction, so this is about as damning a statement as he could make under the circumstances. And he made it.

It would obviouslly be helpful to the party if Rangel would step aside, and it would help his district too. Seniority usually helps a district, but once a member's lost his gavel and caucus credibility as Rangel has, there are no benefits to seniority left. If Rangel left now, a new member could begin to build up seniority of their own. His refusal to resign or at least retire is proof that he doesn't have the best interests of his constituents at heart.

That said, this is a legal matter, and legally, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Justice is justice and due process is due process, so I'm more inclined to agree with Hoyer than I am Minnick and Sutton. Rangel has the right to a committee trial if he wants it, even though it would yet again prove that he values himself over his party. I certainly want him to resign and I will be apalled if the Ethics Committee cuts him a deal, but I can't in good conscience declare that the process doesn't matter and that he MUST resign.

But here's hoping, and I'm certainly glad to see Minnick and Sutton stepping forward. The last two ethics investigations to get this far both ended with the accused's eviction, and Rangel said moments ago that he expects to get a trial rather than a plea bargain, so whether he resigns or not things do not look good for "the Chairman."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted that thousands of Americans will be in showrooms looking at new cars thanks to the "Cash for Clunkers" program that goes into effect today.

Congress allocated $1 billion toward the Car Allowance Rebate System as part of the the supplemental war funding appropriations bill Congress passed in June. Representatives Betty Sutton (OH-13) and Bruce Braley (IA-01) were the key House sponsors of this program.

Here are the basic guidelines:

$3,500 voucher

• New vehicle must get at least four miles per gallon more than the trade-in.
  
• A new truck must get at least 2 miles per gallon more.
  

$4,500 voucher

• The new car gets at least 10 miles per gallon more than the trade-in.
  
• The new mini-van, small truck or SUV gets at least five miles per gallon more than the trade-in.
  
• The new full-size pick up or cargo van rated at 15 miles per gallon or more, gets at least two more miles per gallon than a similar trade-in.
  

Condition of the trade-in:

• Must be driveable
  
• Have been owned and insured for at least a year.
  
• Any vehicle built after mid-1984; or a large work truck no newer than 2001.
  
• Any Category 1 or 2 vehicle (car, minivan, SUV, light pick up) with a combined MPG of 18 or less. This does not apply to category 3 trucks (large pickup trucks and cargo vans).

This website answers frequently-asked questions about the program in greater detail.

I've been hearing radio ads in central Iowa suggesting that some car dealers will match what customers get from the government through "Cash for Clunkers." New car sales have fallen dramatically during this economic recession.

The government vouchers are available until the money runs out or November 1, but according to a Bleeding Heartland commenter, the largest Toyota dealership in Iowa expects money to run out within a couple of weeks because of the huge consumer demand. LaHood hinted today that Congress may approve additional funding after the initial $1 billion has been exhausted.

Braley and Sutton were well-intentioned, but I would have liked to see this bill focus more on energy efficiency gains as opposed to just moving new cars off the lots. If Congress does appropriate more money toward this end, I hope they will be open to some constructive suggestions for improving the bill. A Siegel wrote an excellent critique of "Cash for Clunkers" at Get Energy Smart Now (a blog I recommend bookmarking).

There's more...

I guess on the heels of Governor Dean's announcement for Super D's to start declaring, 3 jumped at the chance.

Former New Jersey Governors Jim Florio and Brendan Byrne pledged their support to Hillary Clinton today, after being chosen Thursday as add-on superdelegates.

Their show of support comes the same day US Rep. Betty Sutton announced she too would support Clinton as a superdelegate.

There's more...

I've been in meetings this morning with various liberal groups, as well as on the Hill at a few member offices.  I learned very little that's actionable, but one thing that is happening is a big caucus meeting today on trade.  I've been able to look at a copy of the talking points handed out to members last Thursday, and there's very little there that we haven't seen.  I'm sure that a huge point of contention is going to be the discussion over side letters versus reopening the FTA agreements.  I think that the promise a few weeks ago was that the Peru and Panama agreements would have to be reopened, but that may not be the case.

We'll know more in a few hours, after the members are done with the meeting and start talking.  Passions are high on both all sides.  This is very painful for the New Democrats and Charlie Rangel, I don't think they expected this level of opposition and anger.  They thought they could just roll the single-issue groups and frankly, if it were up to those groups, they would have been correct.  What the neoliberals are encountering is internet politics and a kickass freshman class.

There's more...

This is from Inside Trade and I got it from Lexis, so I can't provide a link.  But I'm beginning to think that the 'deal' announced on trade actually was just a press conference and a Rorschach Test mashup.  Here's what I mean.

Lawyers for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are exploring ways to make the new free trade agreement template "legally binding" without reopening the Peru and Colombia free trade agreements, according to House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Jim McCrery (R-LA).

He acknowledged that this would require convincing Democrats such as Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI), who last week said the new template announced May 10 requires the reopening of already signed FTAs.

What was announced was an agreement to move forward on trade based on specific principles, and Sander Levin was a key figure bringing credibility from labor.  There was no legislative language because there was no legislation or new trade deals to vote on.  All this 'deal' consisted of was a set of principles around which negotiations would happen.  Apparently Sander Levin thought that this meant trade deals before Congress would be reopened, while business lobbyists and the Bush administration did not.  Each side saw what they wanted to see in the announcement, and now it appears that this disagreement wasn't resolved in the 'deal'.  So what exactly was this except for a press conference?

I'm not sure, but Rangel is really mad.

"I think there's a lot of misunderstanding with the agreement," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, told PBS' Nightly Business Report. "I cannot see how anybody would be upset in the Democratic Party, except for one thing: they were not included when we had the press conference."

Well since the only thing that proponents really seemed to have in common was this press conference, I suppose that his perspective makes sense.  Or maybe this was his first bad day since.

I will say that Rangel would have a lot more credibility if he had actually managed to get the minimum wage increase through that the Democratic leadership promised.  That is a popular and obvious piece of legislation, as well as a campaign promise that Bush promised he'd sign.  The only thing holding it up is wrangling from Rangel, Baucus and Senate Republicans, who will crumple if forced to filibuster.  The minimum wage hike will happen, I'm sure, but it's clear that his priorities are out of whack since he's not actually expending enough effort to make it happen.  He's too busy cutting bipartisan trade deals that don't actually seem to be anything but press conferences.

There's more...