The Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) has evaluated the FY2008 appropriations bills and determined that Congress inserted 12,881 earmarks worth $18.3 billion into FY2008 spending bills. Congress also documented more than $20 billion in presidential earmarks.
Evaluating the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, Norm Coleman leads the list with $10,780,000 solo earmarks while Keith Ellison and John Kline have requested zero earmarks.
Solo earmarks may not tell the total story, since funding can also cross-district needs. Kline for example did not assign his name to any project while all of Ellison earmarks were ones that the President wanted. Looking at the delegation in this manner, Kline would be first followed by Bachmann at $3,787,600; Walz in third at $9,562,500, then Ramstad at $12,472,300, and on.
Not all earmarks are pork-barrel spending.
They can be good projects that “promote the general Welfare” for the citizens. Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution is clear … Congress controls the purse .. (No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law).
Bush’s FY2009 budget is a sham.
Yet as TCS documents above, presidential earmarks outnumber Congressional earmarks.
For example, Bush knows that the continuation of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System (and other similar projects) will be funded by Congress. By not including these dollars in his request, he understates what funding is required to make the fiscal imbalance not as large as it is. Water and other related projects requests totaling about $1.8 billion -- some date back to 2000 (or essentially throughout Mr. Bush's presidency) -- are awaiting funds.
South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D], Iowa Congressman Steve King [R] and Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz [D] have issued a joint statement of support for the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System project that would serve the three states.
The Lewis & Clark Regional Water System will deliver safe drinking water from aquifers near Vermillion, S.D., to roughly 300,000 people in a 5,000 square mile area.
Lewis & Clark will be funded … and it will be an earmark in the budget … and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is not “pork-barrel” wasteful project.
It’s a game. And part of the game may be who will sign their name to the earmark ?
I question how John Kline can say that he serves the people when he does not support any earmarks. I am proud that Tim Walz is fighting for our well being.
Why do I mention Ron Carey ? When The Club For Growth issued their RePork Card on House of Representatives votes on earmarks, Carey was quick to issue a press release condemning Walz. Will he be so quick now to acknowledge Coleman’s use of earmarks ? (More on the RePork Card in a future commentary.)
We can debate about what is wasteful spending … I question $97,000 to continue the "Lighten Up, Iowa" anti-obesity initiative, but believe that is in the country’s best interest to have a clean water supply. It will be easy for people to denounce earmarks, but we need a serious discussion about what the projects are.
Showing posts with label Kline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kline. Show all posts
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Will Congress go Wimpy with Economic Stimulus Legislation ?
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” – Ronald Reagan, U.S. President
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." -- J. Wellington Wimpy, a character in the old Popeye comic strip.
For those of you to young to know Wimpy, he was a habitual deadbeat mooch, so widespread was his reputation for continually deferring his financial obligations that he had difficulty borrowing enough for lunch.
Congress must have missed the news, but it looks like they may be offering a free lunch ... not for the needy, but for the protected masses.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported “CBO [Congressional Budget Office] foresees a fiscal 2008 deficit of $219 billion, or about 1.5% of GDP. That's up from $163 billion last year, or 1.2% of GDP, and up about $65 billion from what the CBO projected as recently as last August. Most of the change from August is due to the one-year Alternative Minimum Tax fix passed in December -- the previous "baseline" assumed 23 million new AMT victims would be welcomed into the fold this year.”
This means that once again the deficit will increase from the prior year.
Now, that projection was before today’s news that economic stimulus package has been devised that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200 and also provides tax incentives for businesses. Or as The Wall Street Journal reports “generous tax breaks” for business.
That’s the hook. Like a good game of switcheroo, the headline is tax rebates, but the tax give-aways get buried in the story. What should be a short term, temporary fix to address housing/energy consumer issues may be being used to apply significant changes to benefit business. At this stage, it may be too early to know the details but there was consideration of a number of changes including how long a business may carry forward losses. Some of these changes may have little to do with what caused the economic slowdown yet certain members of Congress have a propensity to exploit the situation.
In fact, under the guise of the economic climate, a number of bills have been introduced.
H.R. 5109 The Economic Growth Act of 2008 which is cosponsored Michele Bachmann and John Kline and has as one of its main points to lower the Corporate Tax Rate to 25% (effectively a 28% rate cut);
HR 5105 which besides the same Corporate Tax Rate cut also includes the elimination of the Estate Tax and makes the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.
HR 4995 which is cosponsored Michele Bachmann and John Kline and also includes the Corporate Tax Rate reduction.
It was just last year that President Bush was uttering the phrase "income inequality" acknowledging that corporate executives bonuses and golden parachutes have gotten out of hand.
Now, we have Republicans in Congress pushing to reduce Corporate taxes instead which I have previously discussed as illogical.
The proposed plan is that business will get 1/3rd, yet since the changes involve the tax code, there is no incentive for the business to take immediate action. Business may elect to wait until customer activity picks up before deciding to increase employment or investment in equipment/facilities.
The missing piece is the lack of extension of unemployment insurance and food-stamp benefits. These programs would have caused an immediate impact. That is a double-whammy. By not including these in this legislation while the problem grows means that there may be need to address this in a few months.
In my view, this plan will only add to the deficit without generating maximum benefits. If business needs incentives, Congress should consider waiving the Social Security matching portion for all new hires – this would encourage businesses that will increase employment levels as business picks up. (Since Social Security is currently “loaning” money to the government for other operations, this deficit will be increased based on true government spending – not being hidden by borrowing Social Security funds.)
This plan must be approved by Congress. Legislation that is passed in haste, can cause more harm than good. Let’s heed Reagan’s words, Government may not solve this problem, but could actually make things worse.
Congressman Tim Walz stood for fiscal responsibility in his AMT vote (and a survey of Republicans supported his vote ). Congressman Walz needs to exercise the same discipline … as certainly, Bachmann and Kline will reward business.
As those of us who remember the Popeye cartoons will recall, Wimpy was usually refused … and it’s time that Congress not be Wimpy.
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." -- J. Wellington Wimpy, a character in the old Popeye comic strip.
For those of you to young to know Wimpy, he was a habitual deadbeat mooch, so widespread was his reputation for continually deferring his financial obligations that he had difficulty borrowing enough for lunch.
Congress must have missed the news, but it looks like they may be offering a free lunch ... not for the needy, but for the protected masses.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported “CBO [Congressional Budget Office] foresees a fiscal 2008 deficit of $219 billion, or about 1.5% of GDP. That's up from $163 billion last year, or 1.2% of GDP, and up about $65 billion from what the CBO projected as recently as last August. Most of the change from August is due to the one-year Alternative Minimum Tax fix passed in December -- the previous "baseline" assumed 23 million new AMT victims would be welcomed into the fold this year.”
This means that once again the deficit will increase from the prior year.
Now, that projection was before today’s news that economic stimulus package has been devised that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200 and also provides tax incentives for businesses. Or as The Wall Street Journal reports “generous tax breaks” for business.
That’s the hook. Like a good game of switcheroo, the headline is tax rebates, but the tax give-aways get buried in the story. What should be a short term, temporary fix to address housing/energy consumer issues may be being used to apply significant changes to benefit business. At this stage, it may be too early to know the details but there was consideration of a number of changes including how long a business may carry forward losses. Some of these changes may have little to do with what caused the economic slowdown yet certain members of Congress have a propensity to exploit the situation.
In fact, under the guise of the economic climate, a number of bills have been introduced.
H.R. 5109 The Economic Growth Act of 2008 which is cosponsored Michele Bachmann and John Kline and has as one of its main points to lower the Corporate Tax Rate to 25% (effectively a 28% rate cut);
HR 5105 which besides the same Corporate Tax Rate cut also includes the elimination of the Estate Tax and makes the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.
HR 4995 which is cosponsored Michele Bachmann and John Kline and also includes the Corporate Tax Rate reduction.
It was just last year that President Bush was uttering the phrase "income inequality" acknowledging that corporate executives bonuses and golden parachutes have gotten out of hand.
Now, we have Republicans in Congress pushing to reduce Corporate taxes instead which I have previously discussed as illogical.
The proposed plan is that business will get 1/3rd, yet since the changes involve the tax code, there is no incentive for the business to take immediate action. Business may elect to wait until customer activity picks up before deciding to increase employment or investment in equipment/facilities.
The missing piece is the lack of extension of unemployment insurance and food-stamp benefits. These programs would have caused an immediate impact. That is a double-whammy. By not including these in this legislation while the problem grows means that there may be need to address this in a few months.
In my view, this plan will only add to the deficit without generating maximum benefits. If business needs incentives, Congress should consider waiving the Social Security matching portion for all new hires – this would encourage businesses that will increase employment levels as business picks up. (Since Social Security is currently “loaning” money to the government for other operations, this deficit will be increased based on true government spending – not being hidden by borrowing Social Security funds.)
This plan must be approved by Congress. Legislation that is passed in haste, can cause more harm than good. Let’s heed Reagan’s words, Government may not solve this problem, but could actually make things worse.
Congressman Tim Walz stood for fiscal responsibility in his AMT vote (and a survey of Republicans supported his vote ). Congressman Walz needs to exercise the same discipline … as certainly, Bachmann and Kline will reward business.
As those of us who remember the Popeye cartoons will recall, Wimpy was usually refused … and it’s time that Congress not be Wimpy.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Survey of Republicans supports Walz AMT position
Tim Walz expressed concern about his vote against HR 3996 – the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 -- "It's an ad made in heaven for them".
My response was that the First District finally had a Fiscally Responsible Congressman.
Congressman Walz may be at ease … Republicans and Democrats support his position.
A survey of 1,527 likely voters conducted December 10-13, 2007 of the most competitive 65 congressional districts – 25 held by Democrats and 40 by Republicans - (which I presume included Minnesota’s First District) revealed an interesting response …. Not from supports of Democrats, but from Republican supporters.
Although Sleaze and Smear will be his opponent in next November’s election, his job will be to educate the voters on what the vote really concerned. The newspaper headlines were that millions of middle class taxpayers would be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Fear was working overtime.
But the question was not should the AMT be changed, but what about the lost revenues ?
The House Democrats had one idea … a fiscally responsible idea. In the end, Walz could have caved to re-election concerns and joined the Republicans or he could do --- what he did do – the right thing.
Read the following questions and you will see the real debate and how people responded.
Q.49 As you may know, last month the House of Representatives passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. It also makes more families eligible for the child tax credit and makes combat pay tax deductible. And it allows those using the short form to deduct their local property taxes. To pay for the lost revenue, the bill increases taxes on hedge fund managers and investors who currently pay a tax rate half that applied to ordinary income. Do you favor or oppose this bill?
Democrats favored this bill 64 to 23; while Republicans favored it 61 to 21.
Q.50 Now let me read you some statements about this bill passed by the House of Representatives. After I read them, please tell me whether you agree more with the first statement or the second statement, even if neither is exactly right.
The Democratic candidate says, this bill provides critical tax relief for 55 million middle class and working class taxpayers at a time of a weakening economy and growing financial pressures on families. I support it because the bill does not increase the deficit. It is paid for by closing tax loopholes and asking wealthy hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rate as those with ordinary income.
OR
The Republican candidate says, this bill abuses the legitimate goal of protecting those about to be hit by the AMT, but it is packed with special interest goodies and raises taxes on investors that will hurt our economy at a time of uncertainty. I am opposed to any tax increases at this time. This country can't afford politically motivated tax increases that could push us into recession.
Democrats supported the Democratic position 63 % and the Republican position 33 %.
Republicans supported the Democratic position 54 % and the Republican position 40 %.
The Senate took a different approach, so the survey asked this question :
Q.52 As you may know, recently the Senate passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. To avoid raising any taxes to pay for the lost revenue, the bill will increase the deficit by $50 billion next year. Do you favor or oppose this bill?
Democrats narrowly favored this bill 45 to 44 while the Republicans opposed the bill 44 to 52.
That’s right, people especially Republicans are concerned about the deficit.
If Walz was concerned about questions for re-election, the question need to addressed to Norm Coleman, Michele Bachmann, and John Kline -- “Why are you voting to run up the deficit against the wishes of Republicans?”
Two points.
First, the AMT problem has not gone away. The bill that was passed fixed 2007 but not 2008. Now is the time to address it. There is no doubt that some of the stock market concern relates to the uncertainty of the AMT. A quick resolution will stabilize the situation. PAYGO is the only way that makes sense. Walz is right.
Second, as Congress considers a stimulus package, attention must be given to the deficit. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is a Republican appointed by President Bush, said longer-run tax measures could actually hurt the economy. "A fiscal program that increased the structural budget deficit would only make confronting those challenges more difficult." Foolish suggestions like Michele Bachmann’s misleading titled Middle Class Job Protection Act HR 4995 that uses the current economic climate to push the long standing objective of lower corporate tax rates makes no sense.
My response was that the First District finally had a Fiscally Responsible Congressman.
Congressman Walz may be at ease … Republicans and Democrats support his position.
A survey of 1,527 likely voters conducted December 10-13, 2007 of the most competitive 65 congressional districts – 25 held by Democrats and 40 by Republicans - (which I presume included Minnesota’s First District) revealed an interesting response …. Not from supports of Democrats, but from Republican supporters.
Although Sleaze and Smear will be his opponent in next November’s election, his job will be to educate the voters on what the vote really concerned. The newspaper headlines were that millions of middle class taxpayers would be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Fear was working overtime.
But the question was not should the AMT be changed, but what about the lost revenues ?
The House Democrats had one idea … a fiscally responsible idea. In the end, Walz could have caved to re-election concerns and joined the Republicans or he could do --- what he did do – the right thing.
Read the following questions and you will see the real debate and how people responded.
Q.49 As you may know, last month the House of Representatives passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. It also makes more families eligible for the child tax credit and makes combat pay tax deductible. And it allows those using the short form to deduct their local property taxes. To pay for the lost revenue, the bill increases taxes on hedge fund managers and investors who currently pay a tax rate half that applied to ordinary income. Do you favor or oppose this bill?
Democrats favored this bill 64 to 23; while Republicans favored it 61 to 21.
Q.50 Now let me read you some statements about this bill passed by the House of Representatives. After I read them, please tell me whether you agree more with the first statement or the second statement, even if neither is exactly right.
The Democratic candidate says, this bill provides critical tax relief for 55 million middle class and working class taxpayers at a time of a weakening economy and growing financial pressures on families. I support it because the bill does not increase the deficit. It is paid for by closing tax loopholes and asking wealthy hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rate as those with ordinary income.
OR
The Republican candidate says, this bill abuses the legitimate goal of protecting those about to be hit by the AMT, but it is packed with special interest goodies and raises taxes on investors that will hurt our economy at a time of uncertainty. I am opposed to any tax increases at this time. This country can't afford politically motivated tax increases that could push us into recession.
Democrats supported the Democratic position 63 % and the Republican position 33 %.
Republicans supported the Democratic position 54 % and the Republican position 40 %.
The Senate took a different approach, so the survey asked this question :
Q.52 As you may know, recently the Senate passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. To avoid raising any taxes to pay for the lost revenue, the bill will increase the deficit by $50 billion next year. Do you favor or oppose this bill?
Democrats narrowly favored this bill 45 to 44 while the Republicans opposed the bill 44 to 52.
That’s right, people especially Republicans are concerned about the deficit.
If Walz was concerned about questions for re-election, the question need to addressed to Norm Coleman, Michele Bachmann, and John Kline -- “Why are you voting to run up the deficit against the wishes of Republicans?”
Two points.
First, the AMT problem has not gone away. The bill that was passed fixed 2007 but not 2008. Now is the time to address it. There is no doubt that some of the stock market concern relates to the uncertainty of the AMT. A quick resolution will stabilize the situation. PAYGO is the only way that makes sense. Walz is right.
Second, as Congress considers a stimulus package, attention must be given to the deficit. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is a Republican appointed by President Bush, said longer-run tax measures could actually hurt the economy. "A fiscal program that increased the structural budget deficit would only make confronting those challenges more difficult." Foolish suggestions like Michele Bachmann’s misleading titled Middle Class Job Protection Act HR 4995 that uses the current economic climate to push the long standing objective of lower corporate tax rates makes no sense.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Dick Day for Congress Campaign theme :
“Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems”
Dick Day has penned an interesting commentary in the Mankato Free Press : “I’d like nothing better than for voters to speak up, to voice their toughest criticisms and their most honest frustrations without fear that they’ll be judged, silenced or ignored.”
Great … here’s my criticism … you are hiding from the REAL ISSUES by focusing on illegal immigration.
I thought you knew what the REAL ISSUES are based on the Day’s campaign website , “I want to hear what you really think about the war in Iraq and the troop surge. I want to know if you support traditional Social Security or are intrigued by new options. Where should our tax dollars be targeted? How are health care plans and school systems meeting your needs?
Please explain why you focus on illegal immigration when the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll (released the same day your commentary was published) stated that the top priorities that Congress needs to address are :
#1, The war in Iraq;
#2, Health care; and
#3. Job creation and economic growth.
Your assertion that "I understand why Congress is nervous about the illegal immigration debate — they’ve chosen not to address the problem" … is not completely factual.
It has been addressed --but not resolved -- due to the obstructionist control provided by the Senate’s filibuster procedure.
Comprehensive immigration reform was debated as part of S 1639 but when a number of Senators including Minnesota’s Norm Coleman voted NOT to allow the bill to go forward, it stopped. So blaming “Congress” is too broad of a statement … blame the Senate … and if you feel so strongly, then as I outlined previously, run for the US Senate. Further, the border fence is being built and additional border patrol agents are being hired. (Read about it here.) Lastly, President Bush has spoken passionately about this issue and made it a top priority link . Bush has promoted this issue throughout his presidency, and while the Democrats are currently being blamed, the fault lies with the obstructionists.
Your obsession with the immigration issue has successfully produced campaign publicity, however, it has more importantly been a diversion for you not to discuss the REAL ISSUES.
Voters know how current First District Congressman Tim Walz voted on every roll call vote taken, but can you tell the voters how you would have voted ?
Let’s just look at some of the BIG ISSUES.
HR 6 - Energy Independence and Security Act was signed by the President with Congressman Walz affirmative votes. Do you side with Republicans Bachmann and Kline who voted against the bill (in preliminary form Roll Call 40 and in final form Roll Call 1177 ?)
HR 2419 - Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (aka Farm Bill) which has been passed by the Senate and the House. 35 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation. Does this legislation coincide with your question of "subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers".
HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (aka SCHIP) 12 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation while House members Bachmann and Kline voted against the bill. Bush vetoed the legislation. The underlying question is at what level of poverty should this program be capped? Bush limits it to 200 % above the poverty line, but some states – which may have more poverty than the national average – want it higher. For example, the Republican-controlled legislature in Ohio approved legislation for a 300% cap.
It is important for voters to know your opinion and not just assume that you would be against this based on your vote in the Minnesota legislature this past session [SF2171] and against expansion of Minnesota Care in 2005 [SF2278].
HR 3648 - Mortgage Debt Relief Forgiveness Act of 2007 was signed by the President. Do you side with Republican Bachmann who voted against the legislation or the 165 other Republicans who supported this bill ?
In some ways, this legislation is a death knell for the FAIR Tax (or FLAT Tax) agenda as it raises the value of the home mortgage deduction thus eliminating any chance of Income Tax Reform.
HR 3996 - Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 (known largely for side-stepping the Alternative Minimum Tax [ATM] question). Initially, the legislation provided for fair tax assessment for Hedge Fund Managers and Corporate Executive Deferred Compensation which was opposed by the Republicans (Bachmann, Kline, Ramstad, and Coleman) but once that provision was withdrawn it was approved over the exception of Democrats McCollum, Peterson and Walz.
If you are concerned about Social Security funding implications, the ATM question is more pressing as the Republicans in Congress for the past six years have extend the problem out one year at a time without addressing the long term impacts. And it will have to be addressed again as the president's five-year budget plan would permit the number of AMT taxpayers to explode again in 2008. This problem is a true example of your comment - “We deserve better than status quo politics — today’s “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” brand of government that ignores any issue that can’t be solved in a sound bite.” Since McCollum, Peterson and Walz wanted to balance the ATM tax cuts with equitable tax revenue generation, I would state that they are not ignoring the problem.
HR 3074 - Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 which Coleman and Ramstad approved but Bachmann and Kline voted against . This bill will approve projects that directly impact the First District (which may meet your question of pork barrel projects), but also prohibits the use of federal funds to implement the Administration's cross-border pilot program to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks into the U.S.
Obviously, the first session of the 110th Congress addressed many other issues, but these are just some of the key issues that relate to the questions that your website implied that you wanted to discuss - how tax dollars should be spent.
The voters in the First District need to know if Dick Day is a Michelle Bachmann, Norm Coleman, John Kline or Jim Ramstad –type Republican. Since you are concerned about “massive social service programs, subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers, pork barrel projects, and schooling, health care”, these pieces of legislation should tell us how you really feel.
From these issues, voters can decide … Will Dick Day be part of the Solution or part of the Obstruction ?
After all, we certainly don’t want a “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” Congressman.
Great … here’s my criticism … you are hiding from the REAL ISSUES by focusing on illegal immigration.
I thought you knew what the REAL ISSUES are based on the Day’s campaign website , “I want to hear what you really think about the war in Iraq and the troop surge. I want to know if you support traditional Social Security or are intrigued by new options. Where should our tax dollars be targeted? How are health care plans and school systems meeting your needs?
Please explain why you focus on illegal immigration when the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll (released the same day your commentary was published) stated that the top priorities that Congress needs to address are :
#1, The war in Iraq;
#2, Health care; and
#3. Job creation and economic growth.
Your assertion that "I understand why Congress is nervous about the illegal immigration debate — they’ve chosen not to address the problem" … is not completely factual.
It has been addressed --but not resolved -- due to the obstructionist control provided by the Senate’s filibuster procedure.
Comprehensive immigration reform was debated as part of S 1639 but when a number of Senators including Minnesota’s Norm Coleman voted NOT to allow the bill to go forward, it stopped. So blaming “Congress” is too broad of a statement … blame the Senate … and if you feel so strongly, then as I outlined previously, run for the US Senate. Further, the border fence is being built and additional border patrol agents are being hired. (Read about it here.) Lastly, President Bush has spoken passionately about this issue and made it a top priority link . Bush has promoted this issue throughout his presidency, and while the Democrats are currently being blamed, the fault lies with the obstructionists.
Your obsession with the immigration issue has successfully produced campaign publicity, however, it has more importantly been a diversion for you not to discuss the REAL ISSUES.
Voters know how current First District Congressman Tim Walz voted on every roll call vote taken, but can you tell the voters how you would have voted ?
Let’s just look at some of the BIG ISSUES.
HR 6 - Energy Independence and Security Act was signed by the President with Congressman Walz affirmative votes. Do you side with Republicans Bachmann and Kline who voted against the bill (in preliminary form Roll Call 40 and in final form Roll Call 1177 ?)
HR 2419 - Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (aka Farm Bill) which has been passed by the Senate and the House. 35 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation. Does this legislation coincide with your question of "subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers".
HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (aka SCHIP) 12 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation while House members Bachmann and Kline voted against the bill. Bush vetoed the legislation. The underlying question is at what level of poverty should this program be capped? Bush limits it to 200 % above the poverty line, but some states – which may have more poverty than the national average – want it higher. For example, the Republican-controlled legislature in Ohio approved legislation for a 300% cap.
It is important for voters to know your opinion and not just assume that you would be against this based on your vote in the Minnesota legislature this past session [SF2171] and against expansion of Minnesota Care in 2005 [SF2278].
HR 3648 - Mortgage Debt Relief Forgiveness Act of 2007 was signed by the President. Do you side with Republican Bachmann who voted against the legislation or the 165 other Republicans who supported this bill ?
In some ways, this legislation is a death knell for the FAIR Tax (or FLAT Tax) agenda as it raises the value of the home mortgage deduction thus eliminating any chance of Income Tax Reform.
HR 3996 - Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 (known largely for side-stepping the Alternative Minimum Tax [ATM] question). Initially, the legislation provided for fair tax assessment for Hedge Fund Managers and Corporate Executive Deferred Compensation which was opposed by the Republicans (Bachmann, Kline, Ramstad, and Coleman) but once that provision was withdrawn it was approved over the exception of Democrats McCollum, Peterson and Walz.
If you are concerned about Social Security funding implications, the ATM question is more pressing as the Republicans in Congress for the past six years have extend the problem out one year at a time without addressing the long term impacts. And it will have to be addressed again as the president's five-year budget plan would permit the number of AMT taxpayers to explode again in 2008. This problem is a true example of your comment - “We deserve better than status quo politics — today’s “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” brand of government that ignores any issue that can’t be solved in a sound bite.” Since McCollum, Peterson and Walz wanted to balance the ATM tax cuts with equitable tax revenue generation, I would state that they are not ignoring the problem.
HR 3074 - Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 which Coleman and Ramstad approved but Bachmann and Kline voted against . This bill will approve projects that directly impact the First District (which may meet your question of pork barrel projects), but also prohibits the use of federal funds to implement the Administration's cross-border pilot program to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks into the U.S.
Obviously, the first session of the 110th Congress addressed many other issues, but these are just some of the key issues that relate to the questions that your website implied that you wanted to discuss - how tax dollars should be spent.
The voters in the First District need to know if Dick Day is a Michelle Bachmann, Norm Coleman, John Kline or Jim Ramstad –type Republican. Since you are concerned about “massive social service programs, subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers, pork barrel projects, and schooling, health care”, these pieces of legislation should tell us how you really feel.
From these issues, voters can decide … Will Dick Day be part of the Solution or part of the Obstruction ?
After all, we certainly don’t want a “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” Congressman.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why is John Kline pushing Gutknecht’s agenda ?
The November elections should have sent a message to John Kline, but apparently he does not realize why so many voters turned away from his party’s message. No, I am not talking about Iraq, but instead fiscal discipline.
The Republican Study Group, whose members advocated a fiscal and social conservative agenda and included John Kline as a member, has seen their membership dwindle. What do Chocola (IN), Beuprez(CO), Northrup(KY), Pombo(CA), Hayworth(AZ), Hostettler(IN), Sodrel(IN), Ryan(KS), Taylor(NC) and of course, our own Gil Gutknecht have in common … all defeated Congressmen who were members of the RSG. And on the Senate side, when Mark Kennedy, Rick Santorum(PA), Mike DeWine(OH) and Conrad Burns(WY) were in the House, they also were members of the RSG. These people were not rookies, but candidates that had principally ran campaigns that promised fiscal discipline.
The Republican Party advertised itself as advocating smaller government and market-based responses -- not mandates. The voters see the rising deficit, earmark spending and corruption and realized that accountability belonged to those that promised to address our fiscal future.
Now, Kline has introduced HR 349 [Title: To amend the Clean Air Act to require all gasoline sold for use in motor vehicles to contain 10 percent renewable fuel in the year 2010 and thereafter, and for other purposes.]
To those of us in the First District, we’ve heard of this legislation before … essentially it is the same as H.R.4357 which Gil Gutknecht talked about ad nausea over the past two years. Gutknecht’s bill had 44 co-sponsors (plenty of those Representatives are now longer in Congress) and was issued during a Republican controlled Congress. Kline’s bill has seven cosponsors and will need plenty of support from the Democrats if it has any chance of being turned into law.
So the first question is, is this legislation necessary ? Or, are market-based actions not working such that mandates are required ?
US News and World Reports did a Special Report “Overselling Ethanol” in their February 12 edition.
Consider the following statements from that report.
“Even though the ethanol industry profited handsomely last year, it continued to benefit from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
… in 2005, when, with gasoline prices ratcheting higher, Congress wrote into its big energy bill a renewable fuel standard, an unprecedented mandate requiring refiners to double the amount of ethanol they blend into the nation's gasoline by 2012.
… ethanol tax breaks—now at 51 cents per gallon—the government sent $2.5 billion last year to the flush oil industry to blend ethanol it would have needed anyway.
Nearly half of the gasoline being sold in the United States now contains 10 percent ethanol. But that leaves half the market open to conquest. Some 76 ethanol refineries are now under construction, including in such unlikely states as New York and Oregon, adding to the 112 already squeezing fuel from corn. By some counts, 200 more have been proposed.
… growth in ethanol gobbled up 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop. That surpasses all the corn Americans consumed last year—whether in cereal, corn-syrup-sweetened soda, or on the cob. And the strain has become severe on the nation's primary use of corn—as feed for dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and chickens. Meat, dairy, and egg producers are reeling from corn prices that have doubled in one year—now trading above $4 a bushel for the first time in more than a decade.
Because of its lower energy content, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive as far as 1 gallon of gasoline. Consumer Reports calculates E-85 ended up costing motorists about a dollar extra per gallon last year because of the need to buy more fuel.”
So, in summary, Congress has already mandated a 2012 date, half the goal has already been met, and the industry is building refineries in response to market needs. In the end, consumers may pay more for other corn-based products and yet not realize a reduction in fuel consumed.
For the fiscal conservatives, this appears to be another tax break -- that at one time was a necessary inducement to start the industry -- but now is costing the taxpayers.
So now to the second question, why would Kline offer this legislation? If you read his press release that announced the legislation, there is a picture of Kline with representatives of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.
Ah, huh … so is it all about campaign donations?
The US News and World Reports also states : “The Renewable Fuels Association have increased its lobbying spending 60 percent in the past seven years. The 10 largest ethanol producers and their trade groups have handed out $4.7 million in federal campaign contributions since 2000, says the Center for Responsive Politics.
Com’n Kline … stand up for responsible government spending that does not require mandates to reward your political cronies with tax breaks.
The US News and World Reports concludes with an assessment from Lee Lynd, Dartmouth College engineering professor and cellulosic pioneer. “Ethanol would make its greatest dent if Americans drove less and highly efficient cars were deployed widely.”
Improving CAFÉ standards and advancing fuel cell technology would do more to address our energy needs than hyping ethanol production.
The Republican Study Group, whose members advocated a fiscal and social conservative agenda and included John Kline as a member, has seen their membership dwindle. What do Chocola (IN), Beuprez(CO), Northrup(KY), Pombo(CA), Hayworth(AZ), Hostettler(IN), Sodrel(IN), Ryan(KS), Taylor(NC) and of course, our own Gil Gutknecht have in common … all defeated Congressmen who were members of the RSG. And on the Senate side, when Mark Kennedy, Rick Santorum(PA), Mike DeWine(OH) and Conrad Burns(WY) were in the House, they also were members of the RSG. These people were not rookies, but candidates that had principally ran campaigns that promised fiscal discipline.
The Republican Party advertised itself as advocating smaller government and market-based responses -- not mandates. The voters see the rising deficit, earmark spending and corruption and realized that accountability belonged to those that promised to address our fiscal future.
Now, Kline has introduced HR 349 [Title: To amend the Clean Air Act to require all gasoline sold for use in motor vehicles to contain 10 percent renewable fuel in the year 2010 and thereafter, and for other purposes.]
To those of us in the First District, we’ve heard of this legislation before … essentially it is the same as H.R.4357 which Gil Gutknecht talked about ad nausea over the past two years. Gutknecht’s bill had 44 co-sponsors (plenty of those Representatives are now longer in Congress) and was issued during a Republican controlled Congress. Kline’s bill has seven cosponsors and will need plenty of support from the Democrats if it has any chance of being turned into law.
So the first question is, is this legislation necessary ? Or, are market-based actions not working such that mandates are required ?
US News and World Reports did a Special Report “Overselling Ethanol” in their February 12 edition.
Consider the following statements from that report.
“Even though the ethanol industry profited handsomely last year, it continued to benefit from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
… in 2005, when, with gasoline prices ratcheting higher, Congress wrote into its big energy bill a renewable fuel standard, an unprecedented mandate requiring refiners to double the amount of ethanol they blend into the nation's gasoline by 2012.
… ethanol tax breaks—now at 51 cents per gallon—the government sent $2.5 billion last year to the flush oil industry to blend ethanol it would have needed anyway.
Nearly half of the gasoline being sold in the United States now contains 10 percent ethanol. But that leaves half the market open to conquest. Some 76 ethanol refineries are now under construction, including in such unlikely states as New York and Oregon, adding to the 112 already squeezing fuel from corn. By some counts, 200 more have been proposed.
… growth in ethanol gobbled up 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop. That surpasses all the corn Americans consumed last year—whether in cereal, corn-syrup-sweetened soda, or on the cob. And the strain has become severe on the nation's primary use of corn—as feed for dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and chickens. Meat, dairy, and egg producers are reeling from corn prices that have doubled in one year—now trading above $4 a bushel for the first time in more than a decade.
Because of its lower energy content, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive as far as 1 gallon of gasoline. Consumer Reports calculates E-85 ended up costing motorists about a dollar extra per gallon last year because of the need to buy more fuel.”
So, in summary, Congress has already mandated a 2012 date, half the goal has already been met, and the industry is building refineries in response to market needs. In the end, consumers may pay more for other corn-based products and yet not realize a reduction in fuel consumed.
For the fiscal conservatives, this appears to be another tax break -- that at one time was a necessary inducement to start the industry -- but now is costing the taxpayers.
So now to the second question, why would Kline offer this legislation? If you read his press release that announced the legislation, there is a picture of Kline with representatives of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.
Ah, huh … so is it all about campaign donations?
The US News and World Reports also states : “The Renewable Fuels Association have increased its lobbying spending 60 percent in the past seven years. The 10 largest ethanol producers and their trade groups have handed out $4.7 million in federal campaign contributions since 2000, says the Center for Responsive Politics.
Com’n Kline … stand up for responsible government spending that does not require mandates to reward your political cronies with tax breaks.
The US News and World Reports concludes with an assessment from Lee Lynd, Dartmouth College engineering professor and cellulosic pioneer. “Ethanol would make its greatest dent if Americans drove less and highly efficient cars were deployed widely.”
Improving CAFÉ standards and advancing fuel cell technology would do more to address our energy needs than hyping ethanol production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}