With the Primary election tomorrow, everyone is running to their base and in the 4th Congressional District, that means that Chris Smith has Congresswoman Michele Bachman sending out robo calls for him in his primary race against Alan Bateman:Didn't you know that Chris Smith is a powerful voice fighting to protect our freedoms? She also lets us know that he's co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the federal healthcare legislation, you know the law thats helping Chris Christie balance his budget without hurting seniors even more? If you weren't voting for Chris Smith before, I'm sure you're running out to the polls now. Bachman may want to pay attention to what is happening in her own back yard.
I knew Gooch didn't live in the District she's running in. Bateman lives in the 12th, too? Interesting ... - Promoted by Rosi
In New Jersey, apparently you do not need to live in a Congressional district in order to run for Congress to represent that district. Now that it is primary election season, I have been seeing a bunch of signs on the roads for challengers to incumbents (the only signs I've seen for incumbents have been in my lawn and a friend's lawn).
So in my neck of the woods I'm seeing a lot of signs for Anna Little (tea party Republican or as I like to call her Michele Bachmann 2.0) and Diane Gooch (Mrs. Hedge Fund). As I was driving down into the 4th district I saw signs for yet another tea party Republican Alan Bateman who wishes to challenge (according to his website) "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) Chris Smith.
One thing that both Diane Gooch (running in the 6th district) and Alan Bateman (running in the 4th district) have in common is that they both live in the 12th district. I've only lived in New Jersey a few years and I understand that the law is different elsewhere, but it makes sense to me that you should live in the district that you want to represent. To be fair Alan Bateman did run for Congress in his own district (unsuccessfully) but why not stick to the district you live in?
I do realize that New Jersey is very gerrymandered (especially Monmouth County), but wouldn't the best way to be in touch with a congressional district you wish to represent. Perhaps it's time to update our election laws and require a candidate to live in the district.
Congressman Chris Smith is one of five members of Congress who appealed to the President of Uganda to oppose a proposed law that would execute people who are gay.
Rachel Maddow has been all over this story and this video segment can bring you up to speed:
In their letter, the members referenced Ronald Reagan in an effort to persuade the Ugandan President:
We were deeply troubled to learn of legislation being considered in the Ugandan parliament that would reportedly penalize a single act of homosexual conduct with a life sentence and a mandatory death penalty if the person is HIV-positive.
While we understand that the legislation is being amended, we still urge you to oppose it.
President Ronald Reagan famously referred to the U.S. Constitution as a "covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind." In this spirit, we, as elected officials, aim to advocate for human liberty and dignity around the world.
As such, we ask that your government continue to make it clear that you are opposed to such legislation and that you do everything within your constitutional authority to stop such legislation from becoming law in Uganda.
What is striking is that the letter invokes the Manhattan Declaration, which is a statement of religious principles by three prominent Christian leaders, Charles Colson, Robert George, and Timothy George. Among other things, the Declaration calls homosexuality immoral and includes a long explanation of why homosexuals should be denied the right to marry.
Certainly an interesting document to reference in this situation. Regardless, Congressman Smith still deserves kudos for stepping up and taking a stand on this offensive legislation being considered in Uganda. I'll put the letter they sent below the fold. The next step for Congressman Smith is advocating for gay rights here at home.
While an emergency ruling was expected yesterday, there are conflicting reports on whether a decision will come today as CNN says or if we will have to wait until tomorrow as Foxnews says. Here's how we got to this point:
Sean is 9. Five years ago, when he was 4, his mother and Goldman's wife, Bruna, took him to her native Brazil for a two-week vacation. She never returned. Instead, she divorced Goldman and married a Brazilian from a prominent and politically well-connected family.
Bruna and her new family ignored a New Jersey court ruling that ordered Sean returned to his father, and they fought Goldman's legal efforts to regain custody. When Bruna died last year in childbirth, Sean's Brazilian family moved to adopt him.
As he awaits the court's latest ruling, David Goldman is in Brazil hoping to bring his son back home. Here is the AP story bringing you up to speed:It's been a roller coaster ride as Goldman he has fought to get his son back. The Brazilian courts have ruled to return his son, only to have other justices step in and delay the ruling. Now Congress is starting to apply economic pressure to push a decision and it seems like some in Brazil are getting concerned:
Congress, angry with Brazil's failure to abide by international kidnapping agreements, has stalled a multi-billion dollar trade deal. And Brazil Attorney General Luis Inacio Adams issued a statement supporting Goldman, worrying about "damage [to] the reputation of Brazil before the international community."
Here is what the David Goldman had to say about the whole ordeal:
"It should be so simple shouldn't it? Just a parent and a child," he said. "Not two countries, not big governments, not judges. It's just the right of a parent and their child."
For Goldman's sake, I hope today is the day. I know it won't be real for him until he has his son on that plane returning home to New Jersey.
The healthcare debate has allowed Congressman Chris Smith to get a good deal of attention and he now has a new distinction according to catholics.org along with Congressman Bart Stupak for getting their amendment included in the health bill that passed:
It is men and women like Bart Stupak and Chris Smith who are the models of public service for all Catholics and other Christians.
By late Monday, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado had collected more than 40 signatures from fellow members who vowed they would not vote for a combined House-Senate health care bill if it contains language "that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law."
It really is pretty amazing that while Congressman Smith pushed for this during the years that his party held the White House and controlled Congress, it took the Democrats taking control to have him get the results. It still remains to be seen whether the language of the Stupak amendment survives a conference committee, but it has made it this far.
Ah Congressman Chris Smith. He's doing his best to make sure he stays on the all abortion, all the time message. It's almost like he's having his own debate about heatlhcare and it comes complete with his own facts, statistics and theories. Here's the video and we'll look at the highlights following:Redtory thinks the Congressman's comments and conspiracy theories put the GOP touted death panels in the rear view mirror:
Never mind Sarah Palin's ridiculous "Death Panels" meme that was flogged to boredom by the mainstream media, sheesh, that's so last month's old news. The Democrats' wimpy, industry prostituted healthcare reforms now grinding through the congressional sausage factory have been re branded as the "Abortion Industry Bailout Bill of 2009" - a heinous piece of legislation according to Congressman Smith that will "cause hundreds of thousands of additional abortions per year" - apparently through a wickedly clever combination of marketing, public subsidies and government funding of mysterious "new venues" (for abortions).
Oh, you may think Rep. Smith is a crackpot, but he confidently asserts he's got "empirical evidence" on his side verifying that flaunting wads of cash in front of "vulnerable women" who feel they have absolutely "nowhere else to turn" has been proven to "tip the scales" in favour of incentivizing them to expeditiously liquidate their fetuses rather than turning to a local "pregnancy care center."
Smith has been totally over the top with his rhetoric throughout this debate. This video was just a continuation of the attacks he has offered over the past few months, which he used at the conservative Values Voters Summit recently:
Smith predicted that abortions could rise by as much as one-third because of the massive abortion subsidies and mandates found in HR 3200 and the Kennedy and Baucus bills.
"Never have I been more concerned about the promotion of abortion coming out of the White House," Smith said. "The unborn child and his or her mother are more at risk now than ever, since Roe v. Wade itself."
He added that Obama and his administration have been "demonstrably false and extraordinarily misleading" in talking about abortion and the health care bills.
This is becoming common place for Smith to attack and distort the healthcare debate. Smith also said in his video comments that what the Republicans are doing is "healthy disagreement" and the President should stop labeling it as bickering. So using rhetoric like "death panels" and "abortion bailouts" are healthy disagreements? Come on. He made sure to also hit the media mentioning all stations but Fox for not "fairly" covering all sides of the debate as he put it.
Check out this interview and exchange on CNN between the host Rick Sanchez and our very own Congressman Chris Smith. Sanchez came to the table very well prepared and informed on the bill to debate the specifics with Smith:
As members of Congress headed home for break, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed out their version of the healthcare bill. They wanted to arm members of Congress with the facts, so they put out district by district breakdowns:
The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 7th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 18,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 8,100 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 800 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $30 million in uncompensated care each year; and 21,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.
You can see the benefits by district for each member of Congress:
You can see the full bill text and a summary put out by the committee as well. If you support this bill, your member of Congress needs to know about it. If you call, get your member of Congress to take the pledge. Our representatives are being inundated with phone calls and emails opposing healthcare. We need people who support the healthcare overhaul to start putting some action behind the talk, otherwise we'll be counting the time until the next chance to do something about healthcare.
Obama misled Pope on his abortion agenda, congressman charges
I'm sorry, I missed the introduction of that agenda by the President. Smith is actually talking about the current healthcare debate going on in Congress. We'll let the headline go because the news service needed to get the remarks of Congressman Smith to give them the opportunity to come up with the headline.:
In remarks on the House floor last week, Congressman Chris Smith argued that President Obama purposely misled Pope Benedict XVI when he said that he "wants to reduce abortion" at their July 10 meeting.
Smith recalled the president's statement to the Pope and pointed out that Obama has repeated it several times to different audiences. And yet, Smith charged, Obama?s actions have not aligned with his words. "He says one thing and does precisely the opposite."
Smith is using the latest talking point for why we can't have healthcare reform, that is actually meant to promote more abortions and he made sure that people were clear in what he means:
Rep. Smith concluded his remarks by encouraging his fellow congressmen to vote against the health care bill and insisting that "[t]here will be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths."
As Congressman Chris Smith has said regarding the stealth abortion agenda, "This is the big one!"
So by the Congressman's logic, anyone who wants to get healthcare coverage to people is secretly trying to advance the "stealth abortion agenda." I really thought we were trying to get people healthcare coverage. I'm so naive. Thanks for educating me on that one Congressman Smith. These latest comments are actually a continuation of Smith's attacks on the President. But Smith still wasn't done. He sent this press release out the other day continuing the rhetoric and scare tactics warning against any compromise on healthcare at all:
"Just as Americans are beginning to more fully appreciate and more fully understand the colossal threat posed by Obamacare to the culture of life including a massive expansion of abortion and rationing for the sick and frail elderly, some in Congress are now trying to cobble together a phony "compromise" on abortion mandates, and abortion funding," the congressman began. "While we have yet to see the language, please beware."
See it doesn't really matter whether the President talks about the economy, healthcare or stem cell research, Smith turns it into an attack over abortion to fit his own agenda.
Republicans like to talk about fiscal responsibility. They have been known on more than one occasion to use the public's fear of deficits as a rhetorical bludgeon. What works for rhetoric doesn't always work for policy. New Jersey's House Republicans refused to vote for pay-go legislation this week. Instead, opting to tow the party line:
For too many years, reckless budgetary policies put our nation at risk and contributed to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Now, Congress has an opportunity to change the direction of our country's annual budgets by building strong statutory safeguards that limit the level of annual government spending.
The principle of "pay-as-you-go" is very smart and simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. Setting reasonable spending guidelines will guarantee a bright future for generations of Americans. Currently, our national debt stands at an unprecedented level of $11.2 trillion. This amount will keep rising each year we have an annual deficit. To eliminate our deficits we must spend within our means.
Apparently, the principle of spending as you go only works for Adler's Republican colleagues when they are giving speeches on the rubber chicken circuit.
I went through the FEC filings to see how our House members are fairing with their fundraising efforts. First here are some observations
Congressman Adler raised the most money in the 2nd quarter with over $518K, followed by Congressman Pallone and then Garrett.
Congressman Pallone has the most Cash on Hand by far and away with over $3.7 million. He has twice as much as the next member, Congressman Rothman who is followed by Pascrell and then Lobiondo.
Congressman Adler raised the most form individuals at over $267K, followed by Pallone, Garrett and then Rothman.
Congressman Adler raised the most from PAC's at over 250K, followed by Pallone, Lance and Frelinghuysen.
The members of the NJ delegation that raised more from PAC's than individuals were Congressmen Andrews, Payne, LoBiondo, Frelinghuysen, Pallone and Lance.
Congressional Quarterly has analyzed the roll call voting patterns of members of Congress since 1953. The three principal studies involve:
The frequency with which lawmakers vote with the president when he clearly indicates his preferences (Presidential Support).
The frequency with which they vote with their party, on occasions when a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats (Party Unity).
And the frequency with which they show up and cast "yea" or "nay" votes (Voting Participation).
And here are the NJ members on the House side:
Pres Support
Party Unity
Participation
John Adler
88
86
97
Rob Andrews
96
99
99
Rodney Frelinghuysen
58
80
99
Scott Garrett
15
98
97
Rush Holt
96
99
98
Leonard Lance
69
74
100
Frank Lobiondo
77
65
100
Frank Pallone
96
99
96
Donald Payne
88
99
96
Bill Pascrell
96
95
89
Steve Rothman
96
99
98
Albio Sires
96
97
97
Chris Smith
77
64
97
And the numbers for our Senators:
Frank Lautenberg
97
100
99
Bob Menendez
97
100
99
Lance and LoBiondo are two of only sixteen members to participate in 100% of the votes. Only thirteen other Republicans gave less support to President Obama than our very own Scott Garrett. Smith and LoBiondo are sixth and seventh for the lowest party unity with Lance ranking 22nd. Menendez and Lautenberg are both tops in party unity with 100% support.
As an admitted political junkie, I find the PolitickerNJ.com website to be an excellent source for the news of New Jersey politics. Less appealing, of course, is the comments section, which largely consists of right wing political operatives and blowhards ranting about the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. Recently I came across a comment which called for primary challenges in 2010 aimed at Republican Representatives Leonard Lance, Chris Smith, and Frank LoBiondo, all of whom voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act ("Waxman-Markey bill") on Friday. This commenter, under the pseudonym "Kempite," railed against these congressmen, calling upon a conservative Steve Lonegan type to overthrow them in the primaries:
First that individual must commit themselves to sound environmental protections and policies that unlike Cap-and-Trade are both reasonable and effective and they must also be a proponent of legislative restraint who believes in the enumerated powers of the constitution, adheres to the principles of our free market economy and understands that our nation's defense and security is an effort that requires proactive policies as opposed to reactive measures.
The above excerpt moved me to write in defense of the Clean Energy Act. I hope those reading won't mind -- this is going to be long.
Okay. Kempite calls for sound environmental protections that fall within Congress's enumerated powers under the Constitution. First of all, he fails to explain what, exactly, about the American Clean Energy Act is not sound. For that matter, he fails to explain how Congress is exceeding its Constitutional power with this bill. Perhaps that's because the Act is clearly within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The actions ordered by Congress under the American Clean Energy Act clearly fall within the definition of regulating commerce among the several states that has been established my numerous Supreme Court cases. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, the Court ruled that Congress could regulate commerce within states as long as the things being regulated had "such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce" that their regulation by Congress was necessary. Then in Wickard v. Filburn the Court ruled "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" Even the limits placed on Congressional power more recently by United States v. Lopez do not apply here, as the regulations enacted by the Act obviously deal with the economy and commerce, unlike the handgun law struck down by that case. So I'm calling Kempite out on that. This bill is far from unconstitutional.
He also calls for representatives that respect the free market economy. Well, you know what? I agree. I respect the free market economy, and the bank bailouts made me tremendously uneasy. But sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary actions to be taken by the government. He may not be aware of this, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative when he was elected. He sought to balance the budget and ultimately opted to continue deficit spending with some inhibitions. But Roosevelt recognized that in the midst of the biggest economic downturn in the history of the United States, there were extraordinary circumstances that required extraordinary actions to be taken by the government. His New Deal policies were designed to save the nation from the woes of the Great Depression; where the free market failed catastrophically, our government of the people, by the people, and for the people stepped in. We are facing some similarly extraordinary circumstances right now. First off, we are in the middle of an economic crisis. The free market has failed us. Am I advocating bringing socialism to the United States? Of course I'm not; I don't think the banks or car companies should be permanently nationalized, and I favor free enterprise in general. But we are in such disastrous circumstances right now that it has become necessary for our government - of the people, by the people, and for the people - to step in and save us.
Look, I'm not favoring an economy dominated by the state. I'm simply saying that you people have to recognize that under certain circumstances the principle of "that government is best which governs least" falters. In the current economic circumstances, it surely falters. Furthermore, we are facing an equally pressing crisis in the form of climate change. Maybe those far-right-wingers don't believe in the science of global warming, but on this issue I prefer to trust scientists who know what they're talking about over Bible-thumpers who know next to nothing about the science of our environment. Scientists have determined that global warming is caused in large part by the voluminous emissions of greenhouse gases by our burning fossil fuels and releasing pollutants from our factories combined with deforestation. The negative effects of global warming are alarming to say the least. It's not just sea levels rising a few inches and some glaciers melting. This will affect the economy plenty. Studies show that agriculture will be severely harmed by global warming, right here in the United States and around the world. For that matter, changes in precipitation patterns will dramatically alter the distribution of our water supply right here in the U.S. This, of course, is in addition to the dismaying problems posed by the extinction of numerous animal and plant species, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the ongoing deforestation across the world.
I find it somewhat interesting that Kempite and other right wing commenters are treating the American Clean Energy Act as though it is the most liberal piece of legislation ever passed by the House. Perhaps they haven't been paying attention, but this bill is a compromise. Reps. Waxman and Markey deserve a lot of credit for writing a bill that could be agreed upon by a majority of congressmen.
Kempite claims that the bill is neither reasonable nor effective. Of course, he or she completely fails to back this claim up once again. I posit that the bill is both reasonable and effective. John Boehner and other Republicans have greatly exaggerated the increase in energy costs that the average household would experience. Why, exactly, should we trust Boehner's estimates over those made by the nonpartisan CBO or the EPA, who intensely studied the bill to determine the cost per household? It's their job to do so, and I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than those submitted by a partisan politician like Boehner. Boehner's numbers, of course, ignored the offsetting benefits of the legislation in an attempt to make the cost seem greater than it actually is. He claims that the bill would drive jobs out of the United States. Funny, he didn't have any qualms about voting for NAFTA, which has dramatically increased the national trade deficit and thus caused net job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In any case, the most accurate number is probably that provided by the CBO, which estimates that the average household will pay $175 more per year in energy bills. This, as Rep. Markey astutely noted, is about the same as the cost of buying a postage stamp every day.
So the bill is reasonable. But is it effective? After reading about the bill extensively, I have decided that it certainly has the potential to be effective. One of the bill's key components is an unprecedented hard cap on carbon emissions. Needless to say, it's about time we started taking some action in this regard. The cap will certainly have a dramatic effect; it requires that companies cut carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels). This is an attainable goal, and more importantly, the bill will replace the vast majority of America's carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption with clean and renewable energy in just four decades.
Don't believe that these goals are attainable? Analyses by the Energy Information Administration within the Department of Energy have determined that in most regions of the U.S. our generators are utilizing coal-fired capacity about seven-tenths of the time but are utilizing natural-gas-fired capacity only one-tenth of the time. Switching from predominantly using coal-fired capacity to predominantly using more efficient natural-gas-fired capacity by 2020 would, when combined with gradual increases in the use of renewable energy sources, meet the 17% benchmark easily and cheaply. And keep in mind that while we are switching to more energy-efficient sources like natural gas, the renewable energy sector will be gradually increasing. Indeed, the bill would require electric companies to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Again, this is not a difficult benchmark to meet. The EIA has already projected that, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("stimulus package") passed earlier this year, renewable energy will be at 14% by 2012. With the extra incentives provided by this bill, we can expect to meet the 20% benchmark easily, which, as I said before, will combine nicely with a switch to efficient natural gas to meet the mandated carbon emissions cap. (And let's not forget that 17% is quite significant - that emissions reduction is equal to taking 500 million cars off the road.) A gradual expansion of renewable energy, with the present investment by the federal government and the private investment spurred by the incentives in this bill, will transform our energy economy in four decades, and hopefully go a long way toward combating the crisis of climate change.
And of course there's the "trade" part of the "cap-and-trade" program, in which companies may purchase a limited quantity of carbon offsets rather than reducing their emissions, and trade these offsets among themselves. The most important point to consider here is that, first of all, the offsets that will be sold by the EPA will not gut the emissions reductions made by other companies, as they will be limited. Also, scientists and analysts predict that by 2020 clean energies will be affordable as alternatives to purchasing offsets - in particular, efficient natural gas (as mentioned above) and biomass co-firing. Democratic amendments to the bill have included the creation of a Clean Energy Bank and the creation of the Cash for Clunkers program.
So, this bill will result in major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and increased investment in clean energy, while helping us kick our addiction to foreign oil. So what's the downside? A crippling cost passed on to the American people in their electric bills? No, the nonpartisan CBO says the average household would pay about the cost of buying one postage stamp per day, and there are plenty of protections for lower-income Americans in the bill.
Okay, but will the bill kill jobs, like the Republicans are warning us? An exhaustively researched report by the Center for American Progress shows that those Republican claims are unfounded (or, in less genial terms, bulls***). The combination of the Clean Energy Act and the "stimulus" from earlier this year can potentially generate up to $150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments in the United States by 2020. What's more, this $150 billion in spending would be dominated not by the government but by the private sector, according to the report. This new investment would generate a net increase of 1.7 billion jobs - that's right, a net increase. Unlike NAFTA, which destroyed more American jobs than it created, the stimulus-Clean Energy Act tandem would create more jobs in clean energy than it would destroy in the fossil fuel sectors of the economy. According to the report, even if investment in fossil fuels declined by the same amount that investment in clean energy increased, only 800,000 jobs would be lost in the fossil fuels sector, which would be supplanted by about 2.5 million jobs in the clean energy sector. Now that's exciting. Even more exciting, perhaps, is the data showing how there would be a net increase in job opportunities in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Where fossil fuel industries only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in spending, clean energy industries generate 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending. And according to the report, right here in New Jersey we would see a net increase of 48,000 jobs and a net increase of $4.6 billion in investment revenue.
So: Sorry, Republicans, but you're dead wrong. And I'm with you on the general principle of free enterprise, but there are times when the government has to step in to solve a crisis where the free market has failed. This climate change crisis is one of those times. And, unfortunately for you, your arguments against this bill fall flat. It's reasonable, setting attainable goals at low cost to taxpayers, and it's effective, greatly decreasing carbon emissions and transforming an economy based on inefficient fossil fuels into an economy based on clean, efficient, and renewable energy - all while causing net job growth in the private sector in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. And it's certainly constitutional. Voting for this bill should have been a no-brainer. I can certainly see why a fiscal conservative would be concerned about how universal healthcare would inflate the budget - hell, I'm still on the fence on that - but this bill pays for itself.
Kudos to Reps. Lance, Smith, and LoBiondo and everyone else who voted for this bill. And thanks to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, Science Progress, ClimateProgress.org, and other sources for the information that I used in this diary.
We hear he's turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed.
It's one thing if he makes a deal with Vern Buchanan in Florida or Chris Smith in New Jersey, but we're hearing that he's offering to protect Republicans who have been slated as major DCCC targets, like Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Bill Young (R-FL), Leonard Lance R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA).
This is not a deal to get universal health care passed, which I could certainly forgive. This is a deal to vote for A. The Iraq War, B. Bailing out European banks via the IMF, and C. Covering up abuse photos. There's not much reason any Democrat should vote for it, much less make a deal to protect Leonard Lance.
Let's hope the rumor is not true, or the DCCC has the guts to tell Rahm he's not their boss.
A South Jersey congressman says civilian employees must get paid the same for doing the same work regardless of where they're located on the new "mega" military base.
But Rep. John H. Adler said that's not the case for about 2,600 engineers, firefighters, mechanics and other employees at Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base, who get paid less than their counterparts at the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst because of differing pay scales.
The three installations are being fused into a joint base and are scheduled to be under the Air Force's control by Oct. 1.
There is bi-partisan co-sponsorship behind an effort to change that with New Jersey Congressmen including Democrats Adler, Rob Andrews and Rush Holt joining Republicans Chris Smith and Frank LoBiondo. The bill would ensure pay parity for Federal Employees Serving at Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst::
The bipartisan legislation consolidates the Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst as one joint installation into Ocean County, which is located in the higher (New York) cost area. The legislation will ensure that:
No civilian employees lose pay due to the consolidation.
All civilian employees are paid equally for jobs performed regardless of where they work on the Joint Base.
The Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst offers competitive wages for displaced civilian employees at Fort Monmouth, NJ.
In introducing the legislation, Congressman Adler released a report showing the need for the change and the unique situation the base presents:
The new Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst (JB-MDL) is one of 12 joint bases, and is unique in a couple of ways.
1. It is the only tri-service installation, combining major Air Force, Army, and Navy installations into one Joint Base. The new joint base includes the former McGuire AFB, Fort Dix, and Lakehurst NAES.
2. It is the only joint base that crosses over two separate locality pay1 areas affecting civilian employee2 pay. The former McGuire AFB (Air Force) and Fort Dix (Army) are located in Burlington County, which is in the Philadelphia pay area (21.25% locality pay) and the former Lakehurst NAES (Navy) is located in Ocean County, which is in the higher New York pay area (27.96% locality pay).
You can view the whole report here. The Joint Base meets the criteria for placement into the higher locality pay area of Ocean County, but that process would take years to complete. They are combining the bases in October, so unless the change is made before then, Lakehurst employees will make nearly $3,000 more than their counterparts at Mcguire and Ft Dix.
"Mr. Obama is on his way to becoming the abortion president. Virtually everything he's done through executive order and through appointments and through other policies promote the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers."
And in case the words aren't enough, here's the video:And this statement was after the murder of Dr. Tiller. How does this rhetoric promote their cause and advance the debate? So much for trying to find a common ground and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Chris Smith would rather lob rhetorical bombs apparently. Maybe it's just meant to stoke the flames of a certain segment of people. But if you're so pro-life and need to use rhetoric, why not condemn people trying to take the life of others because they don't agree with what they do, which is by the way legal under the law of the land.
"Christie might as well propose a law requiring the rivers to run with whiskey and the mountains to be made of ice cream."
- Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine, commenting on the absurdity of Chris Christie's tax and spending proposals.
If politics is theater, than the 2009 Republican gubernatorial primary was akin to a Tony Award winning show on Broadway. Since the silly season accelerated last February with Chris Christie's formal entrance into the race, several moments stick out as worthy of inclusion on a list of the Top Ten Moments in the 2009 GOP Primary.
Click on the headline to read the list, and feel free to offer favorite moments of your own.
...the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.
The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.
The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.
But of course, Scott Garrett couldn't bring himself to oppose Hate Crimes giving these protections and this time he wasn't alone as Chris Smith joined him voting no:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
Here is video of Congressman Holt speaking in favor of the bill and giving a shout out to Garden State Equality in the process:
The legislation did pass 249-175 and now heads to the Senate. There's no reason why anyone should lose a loved one to a hate crime and this legislation will help prevent that. As opposed to when President Bush helped stop the bill in Congress last year, President Obama has said he will sign the bill into law.
Now, with President Obama's budget coming up for a vote, another opportunity has presented itself for these three "moderates" to show if they are truly moderate or if they are comfortable being out of the mainstream.
Maybe the no button got stuck, because rather than showing their moderate credentials, they opposed both the President's budget that passed and their own party's effort which failed:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
The budget passed 233-196 with a party line vote in opposition from the NJ delegation. There were also two Democratic budget alternatives that did not pass. At least the Democrats can say their members sometimes voted for Republican budgets and priorities under President Bush (even when we didn't agree with those votes). This vote is just further evidence that the lack of bipartisanship is a uniquely Republican attribute.
The Republicans couldn't even get the members of their own party to support their version of a budget. Lance, LoBiondo and Smith opposed that reckless effort, but Frelinghuysen and Garrett went along for that ride off the cliff. In fact, 38 GOP lawmakers voted against a plan supported by their own leadership. It appears the party of no can't even figure out how to say yes to their own plans anymore.
During the campaign season, Leonard Lance portrayed himself as a "moderate" - yet there has been little in his votes that can be classified as anything other than "toeing the party line". Both Chris Smith and Frank LoBiondo recently received solid grades for their votes last year regarding issues important to the middle class - and yet Smith has the highest 2009 grade of the NJ republicans on such issues, which is a paltry 63%.
President Barack Obama has presented these three New Jersey Republicans who consider themselves both moderates and mavericks an opportunity to demonstrate their moderation and independent thinking, and advance the country forward at the same time. Of course, Cao "threatened" to vote with the Democrats on the stimulus bill, but ended up voting no as the republican party's chief deputy whip, California Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy, stood near Cao during the entire vote.
However, with Obama's budget fairly certain to pass the House anyway, it would show that on a vote where the outcome is not likely in doubt that Lance, LoBiondo and Smith stand with America as opposed to extremists like their colleague Scott Garrett.
