The 11 Republican senators who voted in favor of moving ahead with the treaty Tuesday were Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).
All also voted in favor of ratification Wednesday, as did Gregg. In addition, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) voted for the treaty, pushing the total yes votes to 71.
Some of these were people who got beat or who are leaving the Senate (like the Crying Man Voinovich). Others are pieces of Moderate Garbage who just vote because they think they are making history (like that dumb piece of garbage Snowe). Shocking is that Scott Brown has lived up to the liberal caricature of him as an empty headed male model who can't think three feet in front of him. Other names are familiar moderates who want to trade security for pork, like DICK Lugar and Susan Collins, and of course the Pork Queen Lisa Murkowski.
Disgusting. Like the Ohio Senate Republicans, it appears the US Senate republicans are froth with libs who need constant watching and serious pruning. They cannot be trusted.
Even a spineless pro amnesty hack like Lindsey Graham call you spineless! From the Hill:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) lashed out at fellow Republicans Tuesday for a "capitulation ... of dramatic proportions" to Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the lame-duck Congress.
Graham said Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for allowing ratification of the New START Treaty and other legislation in the period before new lawmakers are sworn in in January.
"When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," Graham said on Fox News radio. "This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn't have passed in the new Congress."
Gosh Lindsey, you appear to be growing a spine as you are going to be up for election in two years or so. Hmmm....He does make some good points though:
"I can understand the Democrats being afraid of the new Republicans; I can't understand Republicans being afraid of the new Republicans," Graham lamented on WTMA radio. "They're not opportunities to take everything you couldn't do for two years and jam it. It's literally what they're doing, across the board. And after a while, I stop blaming them, and I blame us."
Graham blamed outgoing Republican senators in particular.
"They have used the power of the Senate against the minority, and we have, quite frankly, a handful of us have been letting them do it. And a lot of the people who are doing this got beat. And that's what makes me so upset," he said. "It makes me disappointed that, with a new group of Republicans coming in, we could get a better deal on almost everything."
Yeah, people like the maggot sucking infested with pork and waste in his veins, joke of a Republican George Voinovich. I wish he would leave Ohio and never come back. He makes me ill to consider myself a Republican. The big tent should not include such a self serving, spineless, no conscience maggot like Crying George. George Voinovich has betrayed the present and future security of this country, along with mindless male model Scott Brown in doing stupid things like voting for the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell and the START Treaty. Morons!
Democrats are trying to move for Rangel to get an even lighter punishment that censure: a reprimand. This for a man who flaunted power and who circumvented the tax code he helped write. Rangel has been corrupt for many years, and censure is light considering the length and depth of his crimes. However, the same people who said they wanted to 'clean the swamp' appear to just want to give Charlie a sponge bath instead of an acid shower:
Rep. Charles Rangel lobbied colleagues against long odds Thursday in an effort to receive punishment milder than censure by the House for ethical misconduct.
A half-dozen supporters spoke on Rangel's behalf at a closed-door Democratic meeting hours before the House was to discipline the New York Democrat for financial and fundraising misconduct. But Rangel would need to overcome the 9-1 vote for censure from an ethics panel that has five members from each party.
"I think it's important for members on both sides of the aisle to support the work of the committee," said Republican Rep. John Boehner, who will become the House speaker in January.
Nonetheless, Rangel backers were pushing for an initial vote on a reprimand instead of censure.
If the House votes for censure as expected, Rangel will have to walk to the front of the chamber and stand before his colleagues while Speaker Nancy Pelosi — in one of her most solemn duties — reads him the censure resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed four different versions of the controversial immigration bill known as the DREAM Act without a hearing on any of them, drawing outrage from the top Republican on the committee that would have handled the package.
The Nevada senator, who narrowly escaped a defeat in the November election, has pursued an unusual approach to advancing the bill that gives young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military a pathway to legal status.
Since September, his deputy Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has introduced four slightly different versions all bearing the same name. Reid has moved them all to the calendar -- he appears to be teeing up for a test vote, which could happen sometime later this week, on the latest version introduced on Tuesday.
"Democrat leaders, in their rush to pass an unpopular bill during the lame-duck session, have completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee. They have introduced four separate versions of the same bill and, without any committee review, placed each and every one of them on the legislative calendar," the statement said. "This unusual approach creates a chaotic situation, one that makes it more difficult for the public and their representatives -- as well as the press -- to review this deeply controversial measure."
OK, we have covered why DREAM is really a nightmare. But, obviously, the elitist know it all statists like Reid and Durbin still don't get it. The American people are tired of this political manuevering for something that should at the least get a hearing before being moved forward. Let's hope that the Senate Republican pledge to block anything before budget and taxes holds firm.
The new START treaty should not be passed by the Senate, in fact, it should not even be brought up right now. There are way too many ambiguities and disagreements, even between the Russians and the US of A. And the fact Obama wants it shoved through now indicates that there is something rotten in Denmark. From Heritage:
While the meeting took place behind close doors, the President had this to say about his two-hour chat with the Democratic and Republicans leaders of the House and the Senate:
I reminded the room that this treaty has been vetted for seven months now; it’s gone through 18 hearings; it has support from senators of both parties; it has broad bipartisan support from national security advisers and secretaries of Defense and secretaries of State from previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican; and that it’s absolutely essential to our national security. We need to get it done.
If only we knew what the treaty actually meant.
Indeed, six months after Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee formally requested access to the negotiation records to clarify a crucially important ambiguity in the treaty, New START’s implications remain unclear.
Steven Groves has shown how the treaty’s reference to “the interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive arms” in the preamble is ambiguous and has been interpreted very differently by the United States and the Russian Federation. The Obama administration and the Russians not only disagree about the meaning of the preamble, they don’t even agree about its legal status. While the State Department maintains the “preambular language is not legally binding,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says it is “legally binding.”
The Obama administration’s continued refusal to grant access to the negotiation record prevents an informed debate and deliberation in the Senate, thereby obstructing the Senate’s constitutionally mandated role to provide “advice and consent” on all U.S. treaties. As Marion Smith has argued:
This denial is tantamount to refusing the Senate an honest debate and undermines the Senate’s role in providing advice and consent. For many on the Left, however, the lack of debate is not a problem since the virtues of arms control are assumed and any debate is viewed as divisive partisanship. But Senators and the American people should not accept this misunderstanding of the Senate’s function. Policy arguments are not disruptive to the legislative process; informed debate is essential to deliberation.
Like President Washington who enabled Senators to exercise fully their constitutional role by providing negotiation records surrounding the Jay Treaty, President Obama must help the Senate resolve any lingering ambiguities before any vote takes place.
Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near NATO borders this spring. This revelation comes amidst the Obama Administration’s efforts to pass New START, a strategic arms control agreement with Russia, in the “lame duck” session of the Congress.
Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Council of the Federation (the upper house of Russia’s parliament) foreign affairs committee, brushed off the news, stating, “We have relations of trust now with our American partners and don’t take any steps without informing our partners and consulting with them.” He does not say that the WSJ report is untrue.
However, the Russian Federation has no interest in eliminating its massive tactical nuclear weapons arsenal, which is 10 times stronger than the U.S.’s. That is why Russia insisted that tactical nuclear weapons are not mentioned in New START.
During the Bush Administration, Russia used its advantage in tactical nukes to intimidate NATO members Poland and the Czech Republic into cancelling the ballistic missile defense plans on their territory. Moscow threatened to deploy Iskander short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between the borders of Poland and Lithuania. With Washington’s support, the threat tactics failed.
For decades, NATO allies have relied on the U.S. strategic nuclear weapons to deter Soviet and later Russian aggression. This mechanism is often referred to as “expended deterrence,” as it extends the U.S. nuclear might to protect its allies. However, because the U.S. withdrew almost all of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, leaving its NATO allies still within range of Russia’s superior tactical nuclear arsenal, the U.S. extended deterrence is threatened. Allies may think that the U.S. will not use its strategic weapons if they are attacked.
So, Barry is looking to further emasculate our defenses in Europe, thereby ceding most of Europe to Russian control and domination. Not since FDR and co. allowed Stalin to take over Europe and keep German occupied lands has the United States so willingly sold out her allies. This is a bad idea that needs further discussion, at the very least, and ramming it down a lame duck session is not good government.
“Most of the (legislation) being dealt with right now should be held over until 2011, because we should be focused on jobs, taxes, and debt reduction,” Nelson says. “I think we can hold off on START; I don’t want it to crowd out taxes, debt reduction, and jobs.”
Yeah, it is true. In a time when Americans want Congress to forget the fluff and go for substance, Harry Reid opens the lame duck session in the Senate with a boring, meandering 6 minute speech about Nevada football. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Obviously, Dingy One, you did not get the message. Check out the video here at Real Clear Politics. Here is the commentary from RCP:
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) talks about Nevada's win over Boise State on Friday. Reid explain the highlights of the game and running into a player during church.
"This memorable, remarkable win means so much," Reid said during his floor speech. This speech took place on Monday during the lame duck Senate session.
Seriously, when are we going to quit proclaiming it this day or that congrats and simply stick with the business of running the country and saving the economy? Oh wait, that will be in January. Nevada, just remember, you elected this moronic buffoon again. I mean, do we really need to find out about Harry Reid's dingy jocklove on the floor of the Senate? I say no.
House Republicans will scrap the committee set up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate global warming, the panel’s top Republican announced Wednesday.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) made official what many had already expected – the GOP majority will axe the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi created in 2007.
“This hearing will be the last of the select committee,” Sensenbrenner announced.
Good, investigating the causes of a hoax just wastes the taxpayer dime anyway, I say.
They typically suffer, like with the children being disqualified from health coverage by the SEIU. Well, the Statists are doing their "for the children" dance again, this time on illegal immigration. Mark Krikorian puts the lie to the assertions of the Left:
The core principle behind this amnesty proposal is that it is aimed at those who have grown up here and are, psychologically and emotionally, Americans. In the words of America’s Voice, a hard-left open-borders group, the beneficiaries of the measure are “patriotic young Americans in all but paperwork.”
There’s no doubt that this is the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. That is precisely why DREAM has been dangled as bait for the more general amnesty proposals described as “comprehensive immigration reform,” with amnesty advocates brandishing the situation of these young people as justification for a broader amnesty. (Though no one seems to have stopped to ask: If such a comprehensive bill would provide amnesty for all illegals, then why would we need DREAM?)
Nonetheless, now that the amnesty crowd has belatedly decided to move ahead on DREAM as a standalone measure, many in the public and Congress are open to the idea of addressing the situation of such young people. But the DREAM Act, in every one of its iterations over the years, has four fatal flaws.
1. The act is billed as legalizing those brought as infants or toddlers, and yet it covers people brought here up to age 16. The examples used by advocates are nearly always people who were brought here very young. The student-body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez — who was “coincidentally” revealed to be an illegal alien just as the DREAM Act lame-duck effort got under way — came here at age three. Harvard student Eric Balderas was brought here at age four. Yves Gomes was brought here at 14 months, Juan Gomez at two years, Marie Gonzalez at five, Dan-el Padilla at four, and so on.
So why set the age cutoff at 16? If the point is to provide amnesty to those whose identity was formed here, then you’d need a much lower age cutoff. I have a 15-year-old, and if I took him to live illegally in Mexico (and living illegally is a lot harder to do there than here), he would always remain, psychologically, an American, because his identity is already formed. The Roman Catholic Church and English common law set the age of reason at seven. That, combined with a requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a much more defensible place to draw the line. Unless, of course, you’re just using those who came as young children to bootstrap a larger amnesty.
2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.
And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out in “Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act,” the measure “prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process.” This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.
3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration.
4. Finally, all amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case, both those brought here as children and the adults who subjected them to this limbo. Any serious proposal to legalize young people brought here as infants or toddlers would need to prevent the possibility that their parents and other adults responsible for bringing them here illegally would ever receive any benefit from the amnesty, namely, future sponsorship as legal immigrants.
Serious flaws that should be addressed before moving forward. Krikorian sums it up succinctly:
these young people are simply poster children who have been used for years to try to justify a general amnesty for all illegal aliens. And when the DREAM Act fails, as it will, Pedro Ramirez and his fellows will need to ask the pro-amnesty politicians and lobbying groups why they were sacrificed on the altar of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
This is a very important question. Sadly, the answer may be no. They can't seem to articulate what common sense tells us. Even with overwhelming evidence, they have trouble making a cohesive argument for the Bush Tax Rates being extended (again, note the vocabulary here. We are not talking about more cuts, but keeping things the same rate). To wit:
Reich advocates “extending unemployment benefits for struggling families without a breadwinner” because “these families need the money. The rich don’t.”
This is the Democrats’ argument in a nutshell. It seems very persuasive on the surface, however shaky it is underneath. But cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues, as Reich assumes. How the tax-rate battle in Congress turns out may depend on how well the Republicans answer such arguments.
These are not new arguments on either side. They go back more than 80 years. Over that long span of time, there have been many sharp cuts in tax rates under presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. So we don’t need to argue in a vacuum. There is a track record.
What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called “tax cuts for the rich” led to increased tax revenues — with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.
Most important of all, these tax -rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.
These are the facts. But facts do not “speak for themselves.” In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn’t matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing.
Democrats already understand the need for articulation. Robert Reich is only one of many articulate Democratic spokesmen. But where are the articulate Republicans? Do they even understand how crucial articulation is? The outcome of this lame-duck session of Congress may answer that question.
We have this video from the floor of the House. Here is the text of the situation:
Monday, the presiding speaker was California's Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson.
When Indiana Republican Rep. Steve Buyer sought recognition to speak for.... ...five minutes about some pending veterans legislation, she said no. He revised his request to one minute.
Looking confused and taking verbal directions from someone off-camera, Richardson again denied the request.
Buyer persisted, growing outraged that one sitting representative was highhandedly refusing to recognize another, even for one minute. "This is why," Buyer declared, "the American people have thrown you out of power."
1. COMPETENCE matters! You don't even know why you aren't letting the guy speak. Talk about a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" moment. 2. Why not let him speak? I thought this was "the people's House.
According to a letter written by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), House Democratic Leadership is thinking of attaching the DREAM Act Amnesty bill to an immigration-related bill he introduced. The Help HAITI Act would allow the Department of Homeland Security to offer permanent residency to orphaned children who came to the United States after the devastating earthquake earlier this year.
Rep. Fortenberry has earned an A-grade from NumbersUSA and is a cosponsor of four of our 5-Great Immigration Bills offered this Congress.
“I’m at a total loss. This is about helping the children in the wake of the earthquake,” Rep. Fortenberry wrote.
“After these families have opened their hearts and homes to some of the world’s most vulnerable children, this security is the least we can give them. The House of Representatives should affirm this by passing the Help HAITI Act, free of unrelated, controversial measures.”
According to Congressional Quarterly, a Capitol Hill publication, even though Rep. Fortenberry didn’t mention the DREAM Act in his letter, one of his aides said that was the controversial bill his letter referred to.
I thought Democrats were for helping people, not using them as human shields and political cover. Oh wait, this is reality, as opposed to the mainstream media smoke and mirrors. My bad. Here is a list of Dimocrap Senators who might be on the fence:
SEN. JIM WEBB OF VIRGINIA 202-224-4024; 703-573-7090. Staff says “he hasn’t made a public statement.”
SEN. KENT CONRAD OF NORTH DAKOTA 202-224-2043; 701-258-4648. Staff says “he hasn’t released a statement.” Conrad has voted against the DREAM Act in the past.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN OF NORTH DAKOTA 202 224-2551. He voted against the DREAM Act in the past. Staff says he “hasn’t taken a public position.”
SEN. MARK PRYOR OF ARKANSAS 202-224-2353; 501-324-6336. He voted no on the DREAM Act cloture vote in September. Staff says he is “likely” to vote no again, though he hasn’t made an official public statement yet.
SEN. JON TESTER OF MONTANA 202 224-2644. Staff says he has voted against the DREAM Act in the past and “he will probably vote against any bill that has amnesty in it.”
SEN. MAX BAUCUS OF MONTANA 202-224-2651. He has opposed the DREAM Act in the past and is a “likely no” again in this session.
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL OF MISSOURI 202-224-6154. She opposed the DREAM Act in the past and staff says she has made no statement changing her position otherwise.
"This is America. I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian." -- Stephen Colbert testifying to Congress about American farms
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), ranking member of the Senate Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, today released the following statement on the stand-alone unemployment insurance extension:
“Over the past two years, our nation has borrowed $123 billion to pay for unemployment insurance extensions, our national debt will have increased by almost $4 trillion, and Democrats have passed a $2 trillion health care bill as well as a stimulus bill now estimated to cost more than $860 billion. Too many of my Democratic colleagues have tried to portray Republicans as being opposed to providing assistance to workers suffering during this recession – but they know that accusation is not true.
“We have simply asked that we start to do the same thing families around the nation are doing – make tough choices about our finances. Enough is enough – we must address our out-of-control spending. Unfortunately my Democratic colleagues recently blocked an amendment, offered by Sen. John Thune, which would have paid for the unemployment insurance extension without borrowing money on the credit card of our children and grandchildren.
“Prior to the July 4th recess I approached Majority Leader Harry Reid and said I would vote for extending unemployment insurance if Democrats would be willing to use $15 billion of the estimated $40 billion in unspent stimulus monies to pay for half of the stand-alone unemployment insurance extension. He rejected my offer even though Democratic leadership was going to take $10 billion from the stimulus to help pay for business tax breaks just days earlier. If Leader Reid had accepted my compromise instead of playing political games, this extension would have passed two weeks ago – averting much of the suffering and uncertainty that has plagued those who receive unemployment insurance.
“The fact is most Americans would rather have a job than collect unemployment insurance. In spite of extension after extension, as well as the passage of the stimulus bill in February 2009, people are still asking ‘Where are the jobs?” The answer is right in front of us: pass a robust surface transportation reauthorization bill. The transportation construction industry supports more than 3 million American jobs. Unfortunately, this sector of our economy is in its worst condition since World War II – unemployment is a staggering 20 percent, two times the general U.S. unemployment rate of 9.5 percent.
“President Obama and Leader Reid are on the stump talking about creating jobs and extending unemployment insurance, but they are in the bunker when it comes to the highway bill. I cannot understand how they can continue to ignore this issue at a time when unemployment continues to grow and we have a proven job creator at our fingertips. We must put political gamesmanship aside and put Americans back to work, just like President Reagan had the courage to do in 1982.”
John Boehner is working hard to keep the people of his district and the nation informed of the horrendous things going on in DC. In this latest update, he discusses that for the first time in modern history, there will be no budget from the House this year:
In light of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) announcement this morning that House Democrats will not pass a budget this year – failing to fulfill what he has called “the most basic responsibility” of governing – the following important fiscal health warning has been issued:
THE BUDGET HAS BEEN
CANCELLED
WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 HAS BEEN CANCELLED DUE TO WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS’ OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING SPREE.
AN APOLOGY FOR THIS BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FORTHCOMING AT THIS TIME.
BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WILL BE INTERRUPTED:
Imposing the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and boost our economy
Reining in the out-of-control spending spree that is killing American jobs
Carrying out the “most basic responsibility of governing”
Stopping middle-class tax hikes that will sock family budgets at the worst possible time
Providing the leadership on jobs and the economy that Americans say is sorely lacking
Protecting our kids and grandkids from the enormous debt burden Washington has placed on them
We reserve the right to notify you of additional consequences that may arise in light of this budget failure, which is unprecedented in the modern era. In the interim, please brace for more spending, more debt, more tax hikes, more broken promises.
For families and small businesses looking for a government that listens to the people it serves and respects their hard-earned money, House Republicans are offering better solutions to cut spending now and help small businesses put people back to work.
Think that blows? Oh, it gets worse. Obamacare is really going to hit Ohio hard:
Just in time for the upcoming three month anniversary of the signing of President Obama’s new health care law, the state of Ohio has determined that taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for millions of dollars in additional costs to expand Medicaid under the new law. The Columbus Dispatch reports:
The sharp Medicaid expansion under the new federal health-care law will cost Ohio taxpayers $1.45 billion from 2014 through 2019, according to projections released to The Dispatch yesterday by the state.
Job and Family Services spokesman Benjamin Johnson said the agency estimates that Ohio's cost in 2014 will be $190 million and $267 million the next year. By 2019, the state cost will reach an estimated $332 million.
As Ohio prepares to face an estimated $8 billion budget deficit in an already difficult economy, this additional burden is the last thing the state needs. Throughout the debate over health care, Congressman Boehner and fellow Ohio members of Congress repeatedly warned Governor Ted Strickland (D) about the unfunded mandates that could be forced on Ohio under the president’s plan. On October 20, 2009 the members wrote:
Many other governors, Democratic and Republican, have gone on the record with their clear opposition to this plan due to the harmful effect it will have on the people of their states. As Dennis Smith of the Heritage Foundation wrote recently: 'One day perhaps, Congress will realize that expanding Medicaid comes at the expense of other state and federal priorities including education and the child welfare system. As Medicaid grows, funding for other programs shrink, which in turn, increases demand for Medicaid to become the source of funding for those other programs. Only the governors have the clout to push back and break the vicious cycle that. . .threatens to bankrupt the states.'
For this reason, we respectfully ask that you express clear opposition on behalf of our state to the legislation moving through Congress.
Despite these warnings, Gov. Strickland refused to stand up for Ohio taxpayers, and instead enthusiastically endorsed the president’s proposal. Now taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab.
The more that Ohioans learn about all the mandates, tax hikes, and Medicare cuts in the president’s new health care law, the more they want nothing to do with it. Recent surveys have found that 59 percent of Ohioans want the president’s costly new health care law repealed.
Earlier this week, House Republicans adopted an idea from Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on AmericaSpeakingOut.com that would have repealed the unconstitutional individual mandate at the core of the president’s health care law and offered it for an up or down vote in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rallied her members to defeat the measure 187-230.
John Boehner, Matt's Congressman, Great American, and House (for now)Minority Leader presented a letter today to the annoying one Barry Obama in which over 100 economists basically said, "uh, Mr. President....your economic policy blows." Here is the story:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) brought along a statement signed by 100 economists underscoring GOP policies to a meeting with President Barack Obama Thursday morning.
Boehner presented Obama with a letter from himself, accompanied by a statement signed by more than 100 American economists calling for immediate action to rein in federal spending to boost the economy and create more private sector jobs.
In his letter to the president, Boehner said that “failing to pass such legislation — and failing to pass a budget in the House this year for first time since at least 1974 — means squandering an opportunity to begin to provide the discipline economists say is needed.”
The top House Republican joined with his Senate counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to discuss coming legislative priorities with the preisdent.
Boehner noted that though he and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have written to the president “on several occasions this year” to request House votes on the administration's spending cut legislation, noting that none of those proposals have passed.
The statement worried that too many of the jobs created in May were temporary government jobs, calling these figures “a source of disappointment and alarm.”
The economists claimed to be “disturbed” by reports that for “the first time in modern history” the U.S. House of Representatives could fail to propose a budget this year, mirroring a GOP talking point in recent weeks as well.
Today I gave the President a statement signed by more than 100 economists urging both parties to cut spending now to boost private sector job creation. The need is clear. The May jobs report showed only 41,000 new private-sector jobs. The national debt is now more than $13 trillion. Congress’ failure to pass a budget means we’re missing an opportunity to cut spending and provide the fiscal discipline that economists say is needed to create jobs and grow the economy.
"If the president won’t push his own party in Congress to produce a budget and cut spending, then who’s in charge? This is a failure of leadership – the kind of leadership the president promised to provide. Every American family knows that in tough times, a budget is even more important — not less important. It’s time for the President to lead and the Congress to stop the out-of-control spending right now.”
You can read the text of the letter and signatories here. Economist Statement Text of letter:
Dear Mr. President,
Enclosed please find a statement signed by more than 100 American economists urging that bipartisan action be taken immediately to rein in federal spending in order to boost our economy and create much-needed private-sector jobs.
Republicans have offered and continue to offer ideas on ways to immediately eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending by the federal government. In addition, Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and I have written to you on several occasions recently to say we stand ready to work with you in a good faith manner to force immediate votes in the House on spending cut legislation you send to Congress using the rescissions authority you already have as president. But to date, such legislation has been neither passed by the Democratic leadership nor offered by the administration.
Failing to pass such legislation – and failing to pass a budget in the House this year for first time since at least 1974 – means squandering an opportunity to begin to provide the discipline economists say is needed.
Republicans stand ready to work with you to take immediate action to rein in federal spending so we can begin to boost private sector job creation and end the legacy of debt being passed on to our children and grandchildren.
Respectfully,
John Boehner (R-OH) House Republican Leader
June 10, 2010
ECONOMISTS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: REIN IN SPENDING NOW TO CREATE AMERICAN JOBS
The jobs report released last Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor was a source of disappointment and alarm. Of the 431,000 new jobs in May, 95% were temporary government jobs created by the Census Bureau. Only 41,000 private-sector jobs were generated, and the civilian labor force shrank by 322,000. In addition, 46% of those out of work have been jobless for six months or longer – the first time in history that such a dire statistic has been recorded for the American economy. Efforts to spark private-sector job creation through government ‘stimulus’ spending have been unsuccessful. Small businesses face an array of new challenges imposed on them by the federal government, including the threat of tax hikes and the newly-enacted health law, which will discourage hiring, increase the deficit, and raise health care costs, according to the chief actuary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
As economists deeply concerned about our nation's future, we urge a change in direction. To support real economic growth and provide the spark needed to support creation of private-sector jobs, immediate action is needed to rein in federal spending, prevent job-killing tax hikes through the expiration of current tax rates, and reverse the harmful effects of the health care law on small businesses, the engine of job creation in our economy.
We are disturbed by reports that rather than taking such action, Congress will not even propose a budget this year – the first time in modern history that the U.S. House of Representatives has failed to even pass a budget. Such a failure will mark a massive missed opportunity to help our economy grow and create private-sector jobs. Failing to restrict spending growth will further balloon the national debt, impede economic growth, and threaten our nation's long-term economic health.
This issue cannot simply be deferred to a presidential commission. As last week's jobs report illustrates, action is needed now to begin to slow government spending and support the creation of new private-sector jobs. For the sake of millions of Americans who remain out of work – and future generations of Americans, who will carry the debt burden we are accumulating today – we respectfully urge that the leaders of both parties take action immediately to eliminate unnecessary federal spending, prevent tax hikes, stop regulatory threats to job creation, and enact reforms to put our nation back on a true path to prosperity.
Not even putting out a budget? Sounds like a wink and a nod and trust us....NAW BABY NAW.
We are due for another showdown in Congress. Today, the Senate will be handling a resolution by Lisa Murkowski (AL-R), barring the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. It is a referendum on who should make policy, elected lawmakers or unelected bureaucrats and trial lawyers and judges appointed for life.
Here is the text of the resolution. 012110 Disapproval So, if you don't want Team Obama to come and hook you up to a breathing meter to regulate your carbon emissions, or to hook up your car to a device that functions like those breathalyzers or inhalators (no I don't mean inhalers, Mr. President, I mean those machines that drunk drivers have to breathe in to start and maintain engines)except that it will shut off your car after so much carbon dioxide has been released, then you need to flood the Senate with your calls. Don't let them unleash lederhosen wearing Carbon Cops to come out and get us.
Democratic leaders are scrambling to prevent the Senate from delivering a stinging slap to President Barack Obama on climate change.
They have offered a vote on a bill they dislike in the hopes of avoiding a loss on legislation Obama hates. The president is threatening to veto a resolution from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would ban the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.But if the president were forced to use his veto to prevent legislation emerging from a Congress in which his own party enjoys substantial majorities, it would be a humiliation for him and for Democrats on Capitol Hill.
So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and other Democratic leaders are doing what they can to stop it.
They are floating the possibility of voting on an alternative measure from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia, which they previously refused to grant floor time, Senate sources say.
A spokeswoman for Reid declined to comment on the offer. But Democrats on Wednesday thought it was good enough to win a crucial vote on the Republican resolution.
Murkowski, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is using the Congressional Review Act, an element of the Contract With America, which allows Congress to overturn executive branch regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers. The Review Act expedites a floor vote.
Republicans don’t have the two-thirds majority they would need in both chambers to overturn an Obama veto. But Republicans say passing the resolution through one chamber would be a big win.
“Anything close to half the Senate says this is a congressional responsibility and not the administration’s, that’s a strong message from the country to the president,” said Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), referring to the EPA plan to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Democrats suffered a serious setback Tuesday when Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce panel, announced he would vote for Murkowski’s resolution. He joined Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are co-sponsors of the measure.
If Republicans keep their conference unified, that would give them 45 votes for Murkowski’s proposal, with a handful Democrats, such as Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.), in play as potential allies.
Rockefeller said EPA regulation of carbon could have a “devastating” impact on West Virginia. He threw his support to Murkowski after his leaders denied him a vote on his alternative bill resolution, which would prevent the EPA curbing carbon emissions for two years from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories.
Murkowski’s resolution is broader, blocking EPA regulation of cars and trucks, not just industrial plants.
A Murkowski aide said the senator would prefer to focus on exempting stationary sources but Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on a narrow plan, such as Rockefeller’s.
“The Congressional Review Act is like going nuclear, but you have to go nuclear— otherwise you can’t get around the opposition of the Democratic leadership,” said Robert Dillon, Murkowski’s spokesman.
However, this is not a slam dunk, and needs YOUR support:
Environmental group lobbyists expressed confidence Wednesday that Murkowski’s resolution would not garner 51 votes.
“I think we’re looking pretty good on this,” said David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club. “It’s not really about preserving the right of Congress, it’s about killing climate legislation.”
Passage of the resolution would have dealt a severe blow to Obama’s plan to pass climate change legislation this year, he said.
Reid could hold a floor vote on Rockefeller’s resolution in the fall, after the fate of comprehensive energy and climate legislation is decided this summer.
If Murkowski’s resolution passes, it faces an uphill struggle in the House.
Call and email Congress. Stand up to the thought police and Breathing Bullies.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH) []issued the following statement on his vote against cloture on the financial reform bill:
“Although I am pleased with the fair and open process my colleagues used to advance this bill – senators were allotted enough time to offer amendments, there was substantial bipartisan debate, and all amendments were germane – this financial reform legislation still does not include all the things needed to strengthen and restructure our financial system.
“I voted no on cloture for several reasons, but first and foremost it is because this bill fails to address the catalyst of the 2008 financial meltdown – the bursting of the mortgage and housing bubble. It does not get to the root of the problem, and also over-reaches its regulatory scope. The issues with the now-government owned and operated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are numerous, yet none are addressed in this bill. Additionally, an increase in regulations will cost Ohioans jobs, hurt businesses that are not connected with the meltdown, and harm credit at a time when job recovery is still just inching forward. The Consumer Bureau is like an octopus, reaching its tentacles into various sectors and pulling others, who are not a part of the problem, into government regulation.
“I am disappointed that many of the amendments offered by my colleagues that would have addressed these issues, as well as my other concerns with the bill, were not adopted. It is as if my colleagues want to put a band-aid on a wound that obviously needs emergency surgery.”
The following reasons are why Sen. Voinovich voted no:
The now-government owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed in the midst of the financial crisis and continue to drain taxpayers for billions of dollars. Just this month, Fannie and Freddie requested an additional $19 billion of taxpayer monies to fund operations, bringing the total government assistance to roughly $145 billion, yet these two entities are not addressed in the bill.
The lack of sound underwriting standards produced a flood of mortgages that ended with homeowners in foreclosure, yet this is not adequately addressed in the bill.
The new Consumer Bureau is far too wide in its regulatory scope and will result in overburdened businesses that had nothing to do with the financial crisis facing heavy and unnecessary new regulations.
State attorneys general are permitted wide authority, likely to be abused for political purposes, in enforcing new federal consumer rules.
Many businesses with no connection to the financial crisis will be punished and forced to adhere to new regulations that increase their costs and reduce available credit to consumers.
Dear Residents of the Ninth Congressional District,
Thank you for voting for me and returning me to Congress for the past 28 years. During my years in Congress, while serving as your representative, we have accomplished the following, of which I am very proud:
(1) Congress has increased spending to unsustainable levels. When I began my service to you, the U.S. was about $1 trillion in debt. This year I expect that we will have increased our debt to over $14 trillion. I feel this is one of my greatest accomplishments.
(2) Congress has bailed out (greedy) banks, (greedy) Wall Street firms, and auto companies (which employ hard working men and women).
(3) Congress has hired more Federal workers than at any other time in the history of the United States. I am permitted to hire 18 full-time staff members for my office alone, as are all other members of Congress. When I started, my pay was $69,800 per year. Today it is $174,000 per year. The Federal Government is now the nation's largest employer. Including contract employees which the government pays for, there are over 14 million federal workers. Not counting contract workers, the government writes pay checks to over 2.5 million workers, the largest amount ever. When I began my career in Congress, there were barely 1 million workers on government payrolls. We've come a long way.
(4) Government workers are paid more than all you chumps in the private sector. The average federal government worker now makes $67,691 plus $40,785 in benefits. Private sector employees average $60,046 and much less in benefits. A government janitor, for example, makes $30,000 while one in the private sector makes $24,000 per year. I'm so happy I've been able to take care of government (union) workers and that there are so many of them now. Thank you all for paying for not only my salary, but for the salary of my staff and all the government workers.
(5) We have now placed control of your health care in the good hands of the Federal Government. My vote helped to ensure that your treatment options when you are sick will be determined by the Federal bureaucracy.
(6) We have successfully limited the energy supply of our country and, during my 28 years in Congress, my votes have helped to ensure that we are more dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply each year. In 1981, just before I came to Congress, 43.6% of our oil came from foreign sources. Today, with my help in voting against new drilling in our country, 66.2% of our oil comes from foreign sources. I'm particularly proud that we are sending billions of dollars each month to our enemies.
(7) Finally, I'm proud of the fact that only 52% of our citizens have to pay income taxes and that, because of my votes and those of my fellow Democrats in Congress, 48% of our citizens get a totally free ride. Haven't we made this the greatest country in the history of the world?
I hope you appreciate all I have done for you these past 28 years. I know that, since I do so many nice things for my constituents, you will all continue to blindly vote for me when I am up for re-election.
From Matt's Congressman, Minority Leader, and Great American John Boehner:
With Washington Democrats’ job-killing agenda more unpopular than ever, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) outlined better solutions to tackle the immediate challenges facing the American people during the weekly GOP leadership press conference:
“It’s been a long year for the American people. We’ve seen American families and small businesses struggling all year in a very difficult economy and all that they’ve gotten from the Democrats here in Washington is more spending and more debt piled on the backs of our kids and grandkids. The American people are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ but when you begin to look at the policies being outlined by this Administration, it’s not just all the spending and the debt It’s this national energy tax which will kill jobs in America and ship them overseas. It’s their government takeover of health care.
“Republicans have offered better solutions all year long. Whether it was a budget that had a lot less spending and a lot less debt. Whether it was our ‘all of the above’ energy bill, which will give us cleaner air, cheaper energy and more energy. Our proposal on health care was a common sense way of bringing down costs and not increasing the cost of health care like the Democrats’ proposals. Our better solutions are going to continue to be brought out day after day because the American people are looking for common sense solutions to deal with the problems that they face. Republicans have been responsible in offering those policies all year and we will continue to do so in the new year.”
