Peter Roskam is angry about the high price of gas in Illinois – so angry that he is now blaming the Illinois government for the problem. On his website this week, he laments:
“Our refinery capacity is woefully inadequate—roughly 150 refineries are on-line today compared with more than 300 in 1980. With demand ever-increasing, we desperately need to focus more attention on enabling the growth of the refining industry. This is one step we can take toward increasing domestic energy production, and one step that will bring us closer to a more secure homeland.”
Here’s what’s missing from the equation: the shutting down of refineries was a strategic decision by the oil industry to keep supply down so that prices did not go too low. Much of this happened under the watchful eyes of the Reagan/Bush I regimes. Of course, the Clinton/Gore years really did very little to address the impending energy crisis despite Gore’s re-emergence as an energy/environment guru. And, even if refinery capacity increases, this will do nothing to move us “closer to a more secure homeland”. In fact, it might even do the opposite. Think about it: if we can refine more oil, don’t we need to bring it in? Or will it magically appear? Sometimes I really wonder if Peter is that dense or he truly believes his constituents are.
But perhaps what’s most glaringly missing is the dreaded “C” word – conserve. Why is there so little talk about energy conservation? All we hear about is increasing supply. Long-gone are the days and the lessons of the early 1970’s when we all turned our thermostats down, slowed down to 55 on the highways (something that shockingly increases MPG ratings) and other conservation practices. Our society today simply cannot be asked to sacrifice anything – just ask the soldiers in Iraq when they return home about all the sacrifices they are seeing in their hometowns.
The reality we face as a society is that no amount of energy – no matter where it comes from – can keep up with current demands. We are going to need to face some serious changes in consumption if we are going to successfully land from this energy crash we are in.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Peter, the environment and national security.
Here’s what Rep. Roskam has to say this week:
“In a scary throwback to the Clinton Administration, the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill passed last week in the House diverts US intelligence resources away from critical national security missions to study global climate change. While climate change is worthy of study, US intelligence services are supposed to be focused on threats to our national security, not threats to the environment…While global climate change is a serious concern we should be watching closely, this environmental phenomenon is being researched by more than a dozen other federal agencies. The subject of global warming is by no means getting the cold shoulder from the federal government.” (Italics mine)
First of all, it pretty much looks beyond hope that Peter will be able to see anything good from the Democrats, and that is frightening. Forget about the fact that finally there is a call to accountability that the Republican-controlled House and Senate basically just ignored to the peril of our nation. But to call global warming an “environmental” phenomenon with all that we now know is a joke; at least, Peter, admit that the evidence seems to indicate global warming is a consequence of human industrial waste. And if Peter can’t make the connection between global warming, carbon-emissions, energy resources, poverty and war, he really is dim.
The timing of his statement, however, is particularly interesting, given that the Director of National Intelligence himself declared that climate change is a national security issue. As written in the Boston Globe just this past Sunday:
“In a letter written last week to the House Intelligence Committee, Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, said it was ‘entirely appropriate’ that the intelligence community prepare an assessment of the ‘geopolitical and security implications of global climate change’…But intelligence officials have already recognized the importance of studying how crises caused by climate change, such as famine and rising sea levels, could affect the security of the United States. Even as Congress was debating whether to order a national intelligence estimate, intelligence agencies had planned to include a discussion of global warming in a report next year on US security challenges through 2025…Last month, a report written by several retired generals and admirals concluded that climate changes posed a ‘serious threat to US national security,’ and could further weaken unstable governments in developing countries.” (see http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/13/intelligence_chief_oks_global_warming_study/ for full article).
Perhaps most disappointing for me is Peter’s shameless partisanship. Routinely he has been trying to invoke the names Pelosi and Clinton to scare people, when it is more than clear that “Bush and Cheney are in charge” are the words that are scaring most of the world and hurting almost all the good that America can stand for. Peter himself has quickly become a “scary throwback to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzalez policies run amok of 2002-2006”. He must be one of the only one’s left who doesn’t see that this is a dead regime, and even most Republicans are just waiting for them all to go away.
“In a scary throwback to the Clinton Administration, the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill passed last week in the House diverts US intelligence resources away from critical national security missions to study global climate change. While climate change is worthy of study, US intelligence services are supposed to be focused on threats to our national security, not threats to the environment…While global climate change is a serious concern we should be watching closely, this environmental phenomenon is being researched by more than a dozen other federal agencies. The subject of global warming is by no means getting the cold shoulder from the federal government.” (Italics mine)
First of all, it pretty much looks beyond hope that Peter will be able to see anything good from the Democrats, and that is frightening. Forget about the fact that finally there is a call to accountability that the Republican-controlled House and Senate basically just ignored to the peril of our nation. But to call global warming an “environmental” phenomenon with all that we now know is a joke; at least, Peter, admit that the evidence seems to indicate global warming is a consequence of human industrial waste. And if Peter can’t make the connection between global warming, carbon-emissions, energy resources, poverty and war, he really is dim.
The timing of his statement, however, is particularly interesting, given that the Director of National Intelligence himself declared that climate change is a national security issue. As written in the Boston Globe just this past Sunday:
“In a letter written last week to the House Intelligence Committee, Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, said it was ‘entirely appropriate’ that the intelligence community prepare an assessment of the ‘geopolitical and security implications of global climate change’…But intelligence officials have already recognized the importance of studying how crises caused by climate change, such as famine and rising sea levels, could affect the security of the United States. Even as Congress was debating whether to order a national intelligence estimate, intelligence agencies had planned to include a discussion of global warming in a report next year on US security challenges through 2025…Last month, a report written by several retired generals and admirals concluded that climate changes posed a ‘serious threat to US national security,’ and could further weaken unstable governments in developing countries.” (see http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/13/intelligence_chief_oks_global_warming_study/ for full article).
Perhaps most disappointing for me is Peter’s shameless partisanship. Routinely he has been trying to invoke the names Pelosi and Clinton to scare people, when it is more than clear that “Bush and Cheney are in charge” are the words that are scaring most of the world and hurting almost all the good that America can stand for. Peter himself has quickly become a “scary throwback to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzalez policies run amok of 2002-2006”. He must be one of the only one’s left who doesn’t see that this is a dead regime, and even most Republicans are just waiting for them all to go away.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Roskam and the supplemental spending veto
Poor Peter Roskam. With President Bush now vetoing the supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Roskam is now having to justify and defend the veto as a protective measure to keep politics out of government. “I am deeply disturbed when politics trumps national security”, he said in his weekly column that is heard no WLS-890 AM Radio. As is so often the case, I agree with Peter about politics trumping national security, and I detest when I see elected officials put partisan politics above the responsible of governing, but really, how many of our elected officials are truly interested in governing these days. The big joke (if it weren’t so serious), of course, is that the practice of politics trumping not just national security but pretty much every governmental agency these days has been the policy of this White House Administration. As Sen. Leahy and Rep. Waxman are finding, the FDA, Education, Justice, and EPA have had their integrity not just questioned, but thoroughly ruined by the politics of Rove et.al. Rove was the mastermind of Mission Accomplished; people need to be reminded that this Administration has gotten so many things wrong, and now Roskam wants to accuse “the Democrats” (nice move on the language here, as well) of playing politics?
If Peter were serious, himself, he would be stepping up to the plate and putting full funding and national security higher than tax cuts as a priority (poverty and greed are the seeds of terrorism). He would take time to remind people that we are at war, not just our military, and that we should all be making sacrifices. He would reject the on-going farce that this war finding is "supplemental", but instead should be included and accounted for in the regular budgeting process. Instead, he would like to blame Nancy Pelosi while encouraging the frivolous consumerism with messages of keeping your money to yourself.
Here’s the full weekly message:
The Troops Lose When Politicians Play Games Congressman Roskam's Weekly Column, WLS 890 AM Washington, May 2 - Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat Majority passed their micromanaging Iraq supplemental bill Thursday of last week, but it was sent to the president for his consideration Tuesday of this week. That bill contains funding that our troops need to fulfill their missions in the field. What was the holdup?The bill was held so the Democrats could create a political spectacle and to give their supporters from Moveon.org fodder for protests. Speaker Pelosi waited to send the bill to the president’s desk until this week to mock the president’s declaration of “mission accomplished,” which occurred four years ago this week. Even if she knew the president was going to veto the bill, she should have sent it to the White House the day after it passed so Congress could get back to business drafting a clean funding bill that will support our troops.The Speaker’s excuse for the delay was that she needed more time to review it. She said, “It’s a major piece of legislation and you have to go through it word for word and line by line.” Shouldn’t that have been done before it was offered on the floors of the House and Senate? Was the Speaker unaware of the contents of the bill before she brought it up for final passage in the House?
If Peter were serious, himself, he would be stepping up to the plate and putting full funding and national security higher than tax cuts as a priority (poverty and greed are the seeds of terrorism). He would take time to remind people that we are at war, not just our military, and that we should all be making sacrifices. He would reject the on-going farce that this war finding is "supplemental", but instead should be included and accounted for in the regular budgeting process. Instead, he would like to blame Nancy Pelosi while encouraging the frivolous consumerism with messages of keeping your money to yourself.
Here’s the full weekly message:
The Troops Lose When Politicians Play Games Congressman Roskam's Weekly Column, WLS 890 AM Washington, May 2 - Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat Majority passed their micromanaging Iraq supplemental bill Thursday of last week, but it was sent to the president for his consideration Tuesday of this week. That bill contains funding that our troops need to fulfill their missions in the field. What was the holdup?The bill was held so the Democrats could create a political spectacle and to give their supporters from Moveon.org fodder for protests. Speaker Pelosi waited to send the bill to the president’s desk until this week to mock the president’s declaration of “mission accomplished,” which occurred four years ago this week. Even if she knew the president was going to veto the bill, she should have sent it to the White House the day after it passed so Congress could get back to business drafting a clean funding bill that will support our troops.The Speaker’s excuse for the delay was that she needed more time to review it. She said, “It’s a major piece of legislation and you have to go through it word for word and line by line.” Shouldn’t that have been done before it was offered on the floors of the House and Senate? Was the Speaker unaware of the contents of the bill before she brought it up for final passage in the House?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Roskam's Tax Day Message
Last week, Rep. Roskam's "Tax Day" Message leaves one with the perception that all of our tax dollars are wasted. His full message:
Washington, Apr 17 - Tax Day is upon us. That time of year when (normally anyway) the weather starts to get warmer, the flowers start to bloom and the government sticks its greedy hands in your pockets to take your hard-earned money to pay for increasingly bloated public programs. Where does the money go? Bridges to nowhere, rainforests in Iowa and hundreds of programs the federal government has little to no right to finance with your money. It reminds me of an anecdote about Congressman Davy Crockett during his tenure in Congress called Not Yours to Give. In the story, Crockett is influential in defeating legislation in the House that would have spent taxpayer money to help a private citizen because Crockett was told by one of his constituents that taxpayer dollars are not Congress' to give. I take Col. Crockett's words to heart and am in Congress to fight to keep more of those dollars in your pockets so you aren't cutting big checks every April 15 to pay for someone else's spinach farm, shrimp boat or peanut storage device.
In this spirit, I will leave you with a great quote from President Ronald Reagan:
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15"
- Congressman Peter J. Roskam
If he didn't sound so serious, this would be laughable. To suggest that the Democrats are at fault is to deny reality. The “Bridge to Nowhere” was a pet project of a powerful Republican Senator (Stevens of Alaska). The "Spinach pork" he is referring to is a supplemental item to help the spinach farmers who were hit hard by the tainted spinach recall that, as we now know, was allowed to get as bad as it did because of a neglectful FDA. This qualifies as "supplemental" more than the defense items as this was truly unplanned for, whereas the war is hardly something we didn't expect (it is shameful that Bush et.al. continue to leave the war budget out of its annual budgeting process). Many of the other items added to the budget have to do with veterans benefits (which we now know have been horribly under-funded) and children's health plans (if we can't work to support health for our children, what are we fighting for?). To call for fiscal responsibility in the face of rapidly-emerging tales of fiscal mismanagement on the part of Bush and the Republicans over the past 6 years, and suggest that it is Democrats who have been wasteful is certainly a Bush-type statement - completely disconnected from reality. And to drag out an old Reagan quote that questions the patriotism of Democrats is unacceptable. Many of us are tired of the partisan blame-game, and now more than ever, to blame the Democrats (especially from someone who won with 51% of the vote) suggests that Roskam does not take the challenges we face as a nation seriously.
Washington, Apr 17 - Tax Day is upon us. That time of year when (normally anyway) the weather starts to get warmer, the flowers start to bloom and the government sticks its greedy hands in your pockets to take your hard-earned money to pay for increasingly bloated public programs. Where does the money go? Bridges to nowhere, rainforests in Iowa and hundreds of programs the federal government has little to no right to finance with your money. It reminds me of an anecdote about Congressman Davy Crockett during his tenure in Congress called Not Yours to Give. In the story, Crockett is influential in defeating legislation in the House that would have spent taxpayer money to help a private citizen because Crockett was told by one of his constituents that taxpayer dollars are not Congress' to give. I take Col. Crockett's words to heart and am in Congress to fight to keep more of those dollars in your pockets so you aren't cutting big checks every April 15 to pay for someone else's spinach farm, shrimp boat or peanut storage device.
In this spirit, I will leave you with a great quote from President Ronald Reagan:
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15"
- Congressman Peter J. Roskam
If he didn't sound so serious, this would be laughable. To suggest that the Democrats are at fault is to deny reality. The “Bridge to Nowhere” was a pet project of a powerful Republican Senator (Stevens of Alaska). The "Spinach pork" he is referring to is a supplemental item to help the spinach farmers who were hit hard by the tainted spinach recall that, as we now know, was allowed to get as bad as it did because of a neglectful FDA. This qualifies as "supplemental" more than the defense items as this was truly unplanned for, whereas the war is hardly something we didn't expect (it is shameful that Bush et.al. continue to leave the war budget out of its annual budgeting process). Many of the other items added to the budget have to do with veterans benefits (which we now know have been horribly under-funded) and children's health plans (if we can't work to support health for our children, what are we fighting for?). To call for fiscal responsibility in the face of rapidly-emerging tales of fiscal mismanagement on the part of Bush and the Republicans over the past 6 years, and suggest that it is Democrats who have been wasteful is certainly a Bush-type statement - completely disconnected from reality. And to drag out an old Reagan quote that questions the patriotism of Democrats is unacceptable. Many of us are tired of the partisan blame-game, and now more than ever, to blame the Democrats (especially from someone who won with 51% of the vote) suggests that Roskam does not take the challenges we face as a nation seriously.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Lonely Guy
Imagine how it must feel to be Peter Roskam right now. During teh campaign for this congressional seat, he brought in President Bush and VP Cheney to help get him over the top (or at least bring the the money to make it happen). And now, his colleagues are running like rats from a sinking ship away from the Bush machine. Yesterday's Gonzalez testimony is just the latest, but certainly not the last of this. Rep. Waxman and his committee on Oversight will surely continue to expose fiscal mismanagement just as Sen. Leahy's Judicial Committee has exposed rather shocking ethical mismanagement that, as we saw yesterday, was not just some lapse in judgment but fairly strategic. Of course, Karl Rove continues to be at the center and sooner or later, he will be exposed for all to see.
So what does one of the few Rookie Republicans do? Join Republican colleagues who are now distancing themselves from the Bush Machine that fully controlled them until the Democrats took charge in Congress? Or does he stay loyal? It looks like, with Roskam's silence on these issues, he stays loyal. It's too bad - of all the Republicans who would be in a position to re-introduce the issue of integrity into the party, it would be someone newly-elected: he or she would not have to explain the inactions and complicitness of a previous term.
At the same time, www.govtrack.us calls Peter a "moderate Republican" based on the bills he has sponsored/co-sponsored, based on his sponsorship of a sum total of two bills. Of course, Congress really hasn't tackled any of the tough issues yet, so we'll keep tracking this one.
So what does one of the few Rookie Republicans do? Join Republican colleagues who are now distancing themselves from the Bush Machine that fully controlled them until the Democrats took charge in Congress? Or does he stay loyal? It looks like, with Roskam's silence on these issues, he stays loyal. It's too bad - of all the Republicans who would be in a position to re-introduce the issue of integrity into the party, it would be someone newly-elected: he or she would not have to explain the inactions and complicitness of a previous term.
At the same time, www.govtrack.us calls Peter a "moderate Republican" based on the bills he has sponsored/co-sponsored, based on his sponsorship of a sum total of two bills. Of course, Congress really hasn't tackled any of the tough issues yet, so we'll keep tracking this one.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
What does Peter do now?
With congress out of session again, it seems like there's not much for Peter to do. A quick look at his .gov website has a new posting about a new hydrogen fuel station opening up in the area, and that some day we will all have a choice to make between gas and hydrogen (although perhaps 15 years too late, and really, how much should it be a choice, given the consequences? And, for those who may look at some of these issues in a partisan manner, the Clinton/Gore years really did not do nearly enough in my book to address energy/environment/climate change).
But, Peter does have some serious problems that I think we need to keep the pressure on, and basically they have to do with how is he going to effectively distance himself from what is becoming the fiasco of the Bush Administration? Thanks to the Democratic Congress, we are seeing an Administration that is third-rate in the Attorney General's office, that tries to hide official White House business in RNC e-mails, that doesn't know how to compromise on important issues like funding for the wars, that rejects hard science on both environment and healthcare (specifically HIV-prevention), and continues to say the war in Iraq is going well despite bombings now taking place in the green zone. Of course, this says nothing about why we are there in the first place (it's amazing how Bush/Cheney/McCain talk about how vital this war is, as if Iraq attacked us).
To date, Peter has done nothing to distinquish himself as a representative of integrity. He seems as much as anything to be a waterboy for Bush.
But, Peter does have some serious problems that I think we need to keep the pressure on, and basically they have to do with how is he going to effectively distance himself from what is becoming the fiasco of the Bush Administration? Thanks to the Democratic Congress, we are seeing an Administration that is third-rate in the Attorney General's office, that tries to hide official White House business in RNC e-mails, that doesn't know how to compromise on important issues like funding for the wars, that rejects hard science on both environment and healthcare (specifically HIV-prevention), and continues to say the war in Iraq is going well despite bombings now taking place in the green zone. Of course, this says nothing about why we are there in the first place (it's amazing how Bush/Cheney/McCain talk about how vital this war is, as if Iraq attacked us).
To date, Peter has done nothing to distinquish himself as a representative of integrity. He seems as much as anything to be a waterboy for Bush.
Friday, April 6, 2007
A Quiet Week, perfect for recess appointments
With Congress taking a break for a week, not much was happening in Washington other than President Bush making a few minor recess appointments (such as appointing a big financial backer as Ambassador to Belgium, despite just removing his name from consideration of congressional approval because of his financial backing of the despicable "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ad campaign that assaulted John Kerry's military record, appointing a woman to the Office of Management and Budget despite her record of hostility towards regulations, and the appointment of a new deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration who has been a known champion of partially privatizing social security, the very program he is now in charge of administering).
It really is quite amazing that this administration continues to do so little to try and reverse the downward spiral it is on as it continues to act unilaterally and perhaps even illegally. All of which leads us back to our own elected official - Peter Roskam. Regardless of whether one is Democrat or Republican, all of congress should be outraged at this relentless assault on their powers. "Recess" appointments are meant to give the president powers to put people in vacant positions when congress is on extended leaves (and ideally when the position is unexpectedly vacated). It is not meant to circumvent the powers of congress. Of course, Clinton did the same thing when he appointed an ambassador to a position who was being challenged by congress because of his sexual orientation, and while it would be easy to say that these are not the same thing, really, they are. It is a misuse of the power of the presidency.
Will Peter speak up - not for his party, but on behalf of the autonomy and authority of the House of Representatives? Of course not! Would he have spoken up if this were Clinton and a gay ambassador? Probably. And here is his (Roskam's) own lapse in integrity.
What we need to be looking for in the next election is a candidate who can serve based on some values of integrity, not party loyalty. So far, Peter shows us clearly that he is not up to the task.
It really is quite amazing that this administration continues to do so little to try and reverse the downward spiral it is on as it continues to act unilaterally and perhaps even illegally. All of which leads us back to our own elected official - Peter Roskam. Regardless of whether one is Democrat or Republican, all of congress should be outraged at this relentless assault on their powers. "Recess" appointments are meant to give the president powers to put people in vacant positions when congress is on extended leaves (and ideally when the position is unexpectedly vacated). It is not meant to circumvent the powers of congress. Of course, Clinton did the same thing when he appointed an ambassador to a position who was being challenged by congress because of his sexual orientation, and while it would be easy to say that these are not the same thing, really, they are. It is a misuse of the power of the presidency.
Will Peter speak up - not for his party, but on behalf of the autonomy and authority of the House of Representatives? Of course not! Would he have spoken up if this were Clinton and a gay ambassador? Probably. And here is his (Roskam's) own lapse in integrity.
What we need to be looking for in the next election is a candidate who can serve based on some values of integrity, not party loyalty. So far, Peter shows us clearly that he is not up to the task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
