Not to mention YES to affordable health care benefits for members of Congress.
So, it was OK to vote to burn billions if not trillions on a ginned up war. It was OK to vote for trillions in bailouts for a bunch of thieving financial crooks and sharks. Now these very same sharks are earning billions and giving themselves fat bonuses again. Hopefully someone bothered to ask them to pay back the bail out bucks.
Our tax dollars are paying for all of the above including BMW level health care insurance for members of Congress. If John McCain had to find his own health care insurance company, like so many other Americans, he would be turned down because of pre-existing conditions. If he would be lucky enough to find a willing provider, McCain would be out of pocket thousands of dollars for or bankrupted by treatments desperately needed but not covered or flat out denied by his plan.
Why are we paying for top notch care for our esteemed lawmakers when many of them are against the same for us? If they say no to us, we should say no to them and demand that the federal government rescind all taxpayer funded health care coverage for members of Congress. Let our revered leaders buy their own freaking insurance like a vast number of Americans have to do. Some may learn they cannot afford to pay for it and college tuition for their kids.
Before you read another word, you need to know one thing, elected officials are held to a higher standard.
When an elected official speaks for or against public policy, the microphone they use has an unprecedented ripple effect. When they speak falsely or misconstrue the truth, they are harming both the public discourse and public policy. So, elected officials are held to a higher standard.
That's why it is troubling to read Media Maters for America's report that John Culberson spread misinformation on cap-and-trade policies in an article he wrote in The Hill.
Media Matters for America pulls out this specific quote from the article:
Rep. Culberson: "The ACES Act is more restrictive and would cause even greater economic damage. The cost to Texas ratepayers alone could reach $20 billion in added electricity costs, which is an increase of over $600 per year in utility bills, according to a study commissioned by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas." (TheHill.com, 5/20/09)
According to the Center for American Progress: "A national renewable electricity standard, a key piece of the clean energy legislation currently before Congress, would save households and businesses in every state billions of dollars in electricity and natural gas bills... The numbers come from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who earlier this year analyzed a renewable electricity standard that would aim to have 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by
2025. They found that this standard would save families and businesses $95 billion in electricity and natural gas bills through 2030 and spur new investments and hundreds of thousands of new clean-energy jobs." The study found that Texas in particular would save $693 per household and $21.1 billion in residential, commercial and industrial savings over 20 years.
In addition, Culberson claimed cap-and-trade policy is bad for both the economy and consumers. In the Hill article, he claimed (with out citing any study) the ACES act would stifle domestic energy and manufacturing sectors.
Seems that baseless statement also fails the truth test.
In 2007, the American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) commissioned a report on "the effects of a cap-and-trade law similar to that proposed by the Obama administration" using a "worst-case scenario...what they term the 'high-cost case' forecast." In his op-ed, Rep. Barton touted NAM's opposition to cap-and-trade because of its high cost. But an analysis of the ACCF/NAM report by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst found that under cap-and-trade, Rep. Barton's home state of Texas "would experience healthy economic growth."
Solutions are hard to come by in our hyper partisan world. Debate is good. Disagreement is good. When we debate and disagree, we get better public policy. The problem isn't when we disagree, its when we agree and an elected official goes public with false statements or mistruths. I don't think Rep. Culberson was malicious in his article, but he was wrong. Hopefully Culberson, with the correct information, will not only correct his statements, but will also will change his ill advised position on environmental and economic policy.
Of course Media Matters for America has more information about the proposal here. News like this is hard to write about as it breaks, if you were following me on twitter, you would have seen this story last night. Hint hint.
Markos Moulitsas ("Kos") founder of Daily Kos recently observed that his two year old daughter had reached a Republican stage in her development because the majority her vocabulary consisted of two words: "NO!" and "MINE!"
Indeed. At least Markos understands that his two year old will grow out of her stubborn and selfish phase.
But those of us who live in Republican run states do not have the luxury of believing in or hoping for the evolution of maturity where our childlike NO! and MINE! lawmakers are concerned.
According to a source cited over at Daily Kos Kay Bailey Hutchison will not give up her U.S. Senate seat while running for governor.
This morning when I opened the Houston Chronicle, one of the front page articles immediately grabbed my attention.
Texans Rip Budget Yet Add to Cost
The online edition reads:
Texas lawmakers rip budget, but seek millions
The Houston Chronicle does not single out Republicans, of course, because Texas Democrats added to the budget's costs as well. However, the Democrats are not bellowing and bellyaching about the stimulus budget while the Republicans continue to 24/7.
What hypocritical jackasses. Do Republican lawmakers actually believe they can continue to fool us with their double talk and embarrass us by their endless clown shows?
I find the results of the poll to be so embarrassing and alarming that I had to force myself to post this diary.
Meet the base of the Texas Republican Party, folks.
There is, of course, nothing actually wrong with one being a Muslim but the implication where seriously misinformed and low information voters are concerned is highly disturbing. Do they honestly not know Obama's religion or do they choose to ignore the truth?
The bias against Muslims is bad enough and we have G.W. Bush and his fanatical right wing neonut base to thank in demonizing all members of this religion. W.'s reckless and careless language about "Islamic Fascism" has served to paint all members of the faith as potential terrorists.
The poll conducted this month by the University of Texas found that less than half the state's voters, a majority of whom support John McCain's candidacy, could correctly identify the religion of the Democratic presidential candidate. Obama has been a member of the same Christian church in Chicago for more than 20 years, and he faced controversy earlier this year when controversial statements from the church's former pastor appeared online.
When asked Obama's religion, 22.7 percent of the respondents said Muslim, while 45 percent correctly said Protestant.
A new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQRR) Poll confirms what people on the ground have been whispering. John Culberson is at risk of losing his job.
The new GQRP poll has Mike Skelly within 5 points of Culberson, and his message of change, energy independence, and ending business as usual in Washington is resonating with the district.
The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll has the race at 44% to 49% with a 4.9% margin of error. With 9 days left, momentum is clearly on Skelly's side.
On the heels of a Houston Chronicle-Zogby poll showing Michael Skelly closing in on John Culberson in the race for the Texas 7th Congressional District, the Skelly Campaign today released a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQRR) poll showing Skelly trailing Culberson by only 5 points, 44% - 49%, with 3% for the libertarian candidate and 4% undecided.
A Skelly victory would be a huge upset. In 2004, Culberson defeated John Martinez by 31 points. 2006 was only marginally better. Two years ago, Culberson beat Jim Henley by 21 points.
The district is trending Democrat, but a 26 point swing in 4 years is astounding. The reason appears to be the rapid erosion of the Republican brand and base.
The GQRR poll shows that Skelly is winning decisively (46%--40%) among independents, a key indicator of his broad based support. Additionally, the poll shows that with over half (56%) of the district citing the economy, jobs, and the financial crisis as their top concern in the upcoming election, Skelly maintains a 46%--42% advantage over Culberson among economically-conscious voters.
Michael Skelly's campaign has raised enough money this cycle that it can now give politicians shiny awards. For absolutely stinking, of course.
In "Award," Michael Skelly blatantly tells voters what ABC News recently reported about Culberson's desperate attacking. Basically, it stinks. It's not a very good logical argument by Representative Culberson's campaign, and the candidates' real aggregate experiences should matter more than singular votes and circumstances.
Look at the ad for yourself:
Two weeks remain left until election day, and voters are already at the polls. It's crunch time, and this ad tells viewers what John Culberson is like...at crunch time.
John Culberson is looking a little bit desperate with a new ad that insinuates that Michael Skelly, the Democrat making his first attempt to become involved in public service, helped cause the financial crisis. While Skelly's wind energy company did get some tax breaks, I think it's pretty hard to argue that the 3rd largest wind company in the USA helped cause a financial CRISIS. We may have needed more Skellys to actually start booming companies in order to avoid such a crisis.
The local ABC 13 fact checked John Culberson and the results aren't pretty for the incumbent:
Early voting has started, and now more than ever is a time for political candidates and their campaigns to speak with complete integrity. We should have nothing less than the truth while we make our final voting decisions. Mr. Culberson's campaign, unfortunately, fails to understand this.
Michael Skelly is running one of the best challenge races in the country. Skelly is running an incredible campaign focused on who he is: a forward-looking pragmatist that knows how to blend job creation with good progressive policies.
He helped start the Horizon Wind Energy company from scratch -- a company that is now the third largest wind energy company in the country. His ads -- of which we have many linked to at the bottom of this post -- are sleek, new, and effective.
He is also one of the top Democratic fundraisers in the country, who has shown that he has more than enough money to be competitive against Culberson. Culberson, for his part, is a nobody in Congress. He voted "no" on the bailout knowing that he was in a tough race, and he needed to protect himself.
The destruction wrecked by Hurricane Ike on Harris County put this race -- along with all down-ballot races in the area -- in question. No one is sure how effective a GOTV campaign can be where people are still clearing debris from their yards. Nevertheless, the race remains a must-watch not only here in Texas, but around the country.
Here are some links to previous coverage of the race on Burnt Orange Report:
On the heels of Jack Abramoff's conviction and sentencing, Mike Skelly praises the federal judge's decision and criticized John Culberson for voting against the investigation that brought Abramoff to justice.
"Jack Abramoff was at the center of a culture of corruption that John Culberson enabled," said Skelly. "By voting against a Congressional investigation into Jack Abramoff, Culberson sent a very clear message: business as usual in Washington, no matter how crooked, is fine by him."
"John Culberson is a classic DC insider, the kind of politician who would stand with a corrupt lobbyist instead of with the taxpayers he was elected to represent," added Skelly.
In 2006, Culberson voted against an immediate investigation by the House Ethics Committee into the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Just a reminder of what's at stake for this November.
