This past Sunday, July 1, I participated in an event sponsored by Greenpeace in Glen Ellyn. Greenpeace has targeted Peter Roskam's district as one of thirteen in the nation to exert pressure on congressional representatives to take action on global warming. (An article appeared in the Glen Ellyn News this week - see http://www.chicagosuburbannews.com/glenellyn/homepage/x272477232 for the article. You can also see more about Greenpeace's initiative at http://www.projecthotseat.com/ )
A little background: In January, Roskam voted against a bill that would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and impose a fee on companies that extract oil from the Gulf of Mexico. This bill also would set aside $14 billion to fund renewable energy sources. His rationale: the bill "make domestic production and exploration more expensive", and create market instability. In February of this year, he did support the authorization of the EPA to spend $10 million on research alternative fuels. His very first successful amendment was to put a caveat to this: the $10 million has to come from already approved funds.
So let's get this straight: No new money for development of alternative/renewable energy; no asking the oil companies to pay their fair share of taxes (despite the fact that the General Accounting Office has already found the oil companies doing business in the gulf have been avoiding paying royalties and fighting the government - Bush's own Interior Department - to fight this. One citation: "Anadarko (an oil company digging for oil in the Gulf), which earned $4.8 billion in profit last year on sales of $10.2 billion, is arguing that Congress guaranteed oil companies a special incentive for drilling in deep water under which the companies could avoid paying the standard royalty on much of what they produced in the Gulf of Mexico. The Interior Department has adamantly argued that the incentives were never supposed to apply when oil prices climbed above about $34 a barrel." See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/business/03royalties.html?ex=1330578000&en=9439b715868df11c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
In addition to no new funds for development, not one word about conservation; not one word about the record profits of the oil companies over the past two year; not one word about how much of the new exploration is far deeper for a cruder product that is much more costly to refine; basically, not one word about the fact that no matter where you look, oil is running out and people need to wake up.
More troubling than all this, however, is the laissez-faire attitude about global warming. In the Glen Ellyn News article, "Roskam underscored the importance of determining the exact science behind global warming". This is such a dangerous position to take. Any scientist will affirm that it is not possible to prove unequivocally what is causing global warming. The best that can be done is to show that models and predictions about global warming tied to carbon emissions have been extremely accurate. But, there is no test lab; we don't have an alternative planet on which to do a control to see what happens when we do decrease carbon emissions. The only way to prove this is to actually decrease carbon emissions and see if that makes a difference. But Roskam and others don't see it that way - cynically because that's the way some of his cronies and even big consumer constituents want it that way.
Here's what I'd argue: let's all commit to fully developing and utilizing renewable and cleaner energy while also decreasing our consumption. If global warming continues, and proves to be unrelated to carbon emission, at least we will know for certain, and we will become a less consumptive, and more creative society with cleaner air. Isn't that better than Peter's wait and see until it's too late mentality?
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Leaving the Party System
Increasingly, I have become disillusioned with our two-party system. As early as 1797, John Adams predicted that party members would become more loyal to the party than the greater good of the country. I think that day ahs been here for some time, but now it is truer than ever. George W. Bush has never been interested in the greater good; it seems his interest has been in doing what it takes to keep 51% of the population behind him so he can stay in power.
Now as we enter into another election cycle, I am not really seeing much hope. Other than possibly Obama, most of the major candidates seem to be promoting status quo politics - big money rules. Yes, there are some differences in policy, but not much offered in the way of process, and pretty much a "divide and conquer" mentality.
John Farmer, a political columnist for The Newark Star Ledger, wrote a column this week that speaks to this. Some excerpts (to see the whole column, go to http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/farmer/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1182486656153150.xml&coll=1)
"Until recently, our major parties, Democrat and Republican, enjoyed a presumption that they represented not only the best in modern political thinking but also the interests of individual Americans and the nation. It's been hogwash for some time.
They've been conning us. And as the number who proclaim themselves Republican or Democrat declines, it's clear the public is catching wise. There is, in fact, no evidence either party can be trusted to serve the interest of ordinary people or the nation. In other words, the only wise way to regard them is agnosti cally, no longer on faith or ancient allegiance.
There was a time when the two parties competed by seeking to expand their ranks, a strategy that required compromise, a bit of bipartisanship, even the inclusion of members of the rival party in the presidential cabinet. All that changed with the new "base" politics, premised on the belief that the country is irreconcilably divided between liberal and conservative interests and the party that best ral lies its "base" wins.
The strategy appealed particularly to Republicans who believed, correctly I think, that most Americans lean right of center, and was exploited masterfully by George W. Bush's political consigliere, Karl Rove. This easy division of the U.S. electorate has been a gold mine for the new class of political consultants -- liberal as well as conservative -- who came to prominence as party machines declined.
They transported the same oversimplified campaign lingo and tactics -- demonizing the opposi tion in 30-second TV commercials -- from campaign to campaign. The "base" is always receptive, and the money's good.
When I talk to groups, I like to ask if there any "rock-ribbed Republicans" or any "yellow dog Democrats" (they'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican) in the audience. If there are, I suggest they get together later for a drink because they have so much in common. They're both dupes if they be lieve their party has their interest at heart.
The sorry truth is the Republican and Democratic parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of vast and powerful economic interests that don't give a damn about you and me. Blame it on the power of money in politics and the inability of either party to get its message across without millions that only huge economic interests can provide. "
So, while I see Roskam as perhaps one who most epitomizes what is wrong with the system (he demonizes people like Nancy Pelosi; he places blame on pork spending and earmarks on the Democrats, despite the no-bid contracts and "bridges to nowhere" that are as much, if not more so, practices of Republicans, especially from 2001 to 2006, when his party pretty much ran everything), I must confess that the suggestion to simply vote for a Democrat as the solution is not enough for me. I'll be looking for someone who see both and multiple sides of an issue, and engage those sides towards real and lasting solutions.
In my next posting, I'll write about the HIV-testing clinics we have started to do in Wheaton as part of my work with The Mosaic Initiative (www.mosaicinitiative.org). It's an example of bringing people together despite differences, and exposes where the real fault lines are in our society. I know this much - the fault lines of division are no where near where our political leaders would like us to think they are, and if we don't speak up about this when our candidates are running for office, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Now as we enter into another election cycle, I am not really seeing much hope. Other than possibly Obama, most of the major candidates seem to be promoting status quo politics - big money rules. Yes, there are some differences in policy, but not much offered in the way of process, and pretty much a "divide and conquer" mentality.
John Farmer, a political columnist for The Newark Star Ledger, wrote a column this week that speaks to this. Some excerpts (to see the whole column, go to http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/farmer/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1182486656153150.xml&coll=1)
"Until recently, our major parties, Democrat and Republican, enjoyed a presumption that they represented not only the best in modern political thinking but also the interests of individual Americans and the nation. It's been hogwash for some time.
They've been conning us. And as the number who proclaim themselves Republican or Democrat declines, it's clear the public is catching wise. There is, in fact, no evidence either party can be trusted to serve the interest of ordinary people or the nation. In other words, the only wise way to regard them is agnosti cally, no longer on faith or ancient allegiance.
There was a time when the two parties competed by seeking to expand their ranks, a strategy that required compromise, a bit of bipartisanship, even the inclusion of members of the rival party in the presidential cabinet. All that changed with the new "base" politics, premised on the belief that the country is irreconcilably divided between liberal and conservative interests and the party that best ral lies its "base" wins.
The strategy appealed particularly to Republicans who believed, correctly I think, that most Americans lean right of center, and was exploited masterfully by George W. Bush's political consigliere, Karl Rove. This easy division of the U.S. electorate has been a gold mine for the new class of political consultants -- liberal as well as conservative -- who came to prominence as party machines declined.
They transported the same oversimplified campaign lingo and tactics -- demonizing the opposi tion in 30-second TV commercials -- from campaign to campaign. The "base" is always receptive, and the money's good.
When I talk to groups, I like to ask if there any "rock-ribbed Republicans" or any "yellow dog Democrats" (they'd rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican) in the audience. If there are, I suggest they get together later for a drink because they have so much in common. They're both dupes if they be lieve their party has their interest at heart.
The sorry truth is the Republican and Democratic parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of vast and powerful economic interests that don't give a damn about you and me. Blame it on the power of money in politics and the inability of either party to get its message across without millions that only huge economic interests can provide. "
So, while I see Roskam as perhaps one who most epitomizes what is wrong with the system (he demonizes people like Nancy Pelosi; he places blame on pork spending and earmarks on the Democrats, despite the no-bid contracts and "bridges to nowhere" that are as much, if not more so, practices of Republicans, especially from 2001 to 2006, when his party pretty much ran everything), I must confess that the suggestion to simply vote for a Democrat as the solution is not enough for me. I'll be looking for someone who see both and multiple sides of an issue, and engage those sides towards real and lasting solutions.
In my next posting, I'll write about the HIV-testing clinics we have started to do in Wheaton as part of my work with The Mosaic Initiative (www.mosaicinitiative.org). It's an example of bringing people together despite differences, and exposes where the real fault lines are in our society. I know this much - the fault lines of division are no where near where our political leaders would like us to think they are, and if we don't speak up about this when our candidates are running for office, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Do Conservatives Know about Conservation?
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
