Marsha Blackburn (my congressman) ranks 11th in the House of Representatives for pro-economic growth voting according to the 2006 Congressional Scorecard from the Club for Growth, receiving an 88.
Not bad to be 11th out of 429 representatives!
For comparison, my senators Frist and Alexander ranked 32nd (73) and 26th (78) respectively.
Unless you are from Oklahoma, one or more probably both of your senators voted to increase prices of virtually everything in America. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 passed the Senate last week by an astounding 94-3.
The only Senators voting against this item from the liberal agenda:
Those not voting:
Dear Senator [insert name],
I hope that whatever you traded for your "yes" vote on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is worth the price increases and lost jobs that are certain to follow.
I hope that whatever you traded for your "yes" vote on this plank from the liberal platform is worth the damage you have done to your relationship with your constituency.
It is often said that Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress because they quit acting like conservatives. Too bad you apparently haven't learned any lessons from recent history — a trait usually exhibited by liberals.
Regards
In the case of Sen. Corker, who does not have a webform so I can contact him electronically, I wrote the above verbiage in a letter and affixed a big green sticker that says:
My Congressional contributions
will be made through the
Club for Growth
www.ClubforGrowth.org
That should get the message through.
Over at Farmer for Congress (whom I endorse) there is a debate going on about my Congressman, Marsha Blackburn. There are complaints that she votes for omnibus spending bills and globalization.
Marsha takes a lot of heat from a lot of people, including (occasionally) me, but I take slight umbrage at these accusations and feel I must insert some rationality into the debate.
Yes, when bills get to the floor she usually votes along party lines but what you don't see is the monumental amount of work she does behind the scenes to cut out the fat before the bills get to that point. Why do you think the Club for Growth gives her a score of 95 and ranks her 15th in the House?
She is one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment we have in Washington.
She went to the Mexican border and visited the Minutemen early in their efforts to bring attention to the crises of national proportions and supported their cause, taking up the rallying cry to bring safety to America.
For years, taxpayers have been able to deduct a portion their state income tax payments from their federal tax burden, leaving a heavier load to those of us living in states without a state income tax. As a freshman in the House, Marsha was successful in getting taxpayers in states that don't have an income tax (e.g., Tennessee!) an equitable tax break -- one of her stated objectives when she first ran. A freshman!
You may blame globalization for manufacturing loses at home, but you'll be wrong. From 1995 to 2002, manufacturing was down over 15% -- in China! (Didn't see that one coming, did you?)
Poverty is lower under Bush. You may hate No Child Left Behind (I do), but scores are rising. The economy has been doing incredibly well under Bush. Unemployment has been at near-record low levels.
My biggest complaint with Marsha is that she doesn't understand technology and votes with the RIAA, but that's just a matter of education.
I will continue to vote for Marsha as long as she continues to act just as she has in the past.
And remember:
If you want to vote for a politician that always votes the way you want them to, run for office.
- AlphaPatriot
Technorati tags: Marsha Blackburn, Club for Growth.
Crossposted to TennWatch
| Lawmaker | Lawmaker | Lawmaker |
| Aderholt (AL-04) | Lewis, Jerry (CA-41) | Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03) |
| Buyer (IN-04) | Northup (KY-03) | Simmons (CT-02) |
| Emerson (MO-08) | Otter (ID-01) | Simpson (ID-02) |
| Hobson (OH-07) | Paul (TX-14) | Sweeney (NY-20) |
| Jones, W. (NC-03) | Rogers, H. (KY-05) | Walsh (NY-25) |
Those with a gray background in the table above actually sit on the powerful Appropriations Committee.
And so the Club for Growth offers the following points in their analysis:
Technorati Tags: RINO Watch, Wasting Taxpayer Money, Line Item Veto, United States Budget, Appropriations Committee, Club for Growth.
If you believe that then take a click over to The Skeptical Optimist who posts Pie Chart of Who Owns the Debt, and Bar Chart of Who’s Been Buying It. Fascinating stuff.
Following that, something else you've heard so often that it has become accepted truth: our manufacturing base has been eroded by NAFTA and offshoring. Clothing factories have closed and towns are left destitute. Soon America will have no manufacturing base at all.
Except that NewsBusters tells us Psst: The Manufacturing Sector Is on Its Longest Winning Streak in Over a Quarter Century. Money quote:
You have to go back almost 27 years to find a longer streak than the 36-month tear we're currently on. ...Both stories courtesy of Club for Growth Blog, here and here.The fact that the current 36-month streak has occurred at a time of unprecedented hypercompetition on a global scale is all the more impressive.
The milder forms of it have yielded economic stagnation where and whenever tried: England in the 1970s; France today. The more impatient strains--"socialism in a hurry," as Lenin reputedly called communism--did nothing but plunder economies and destroy lives. Their fine leaders ordered the deaths of more than 100 million people--Lenin and Stalin (40 million), Mao (60 million) and Pol Pot (2 million), not to mention that syphilitic dictator of the German National Socialist Party, Adolf Hitler (11 million directly, another 35 million through the war he started).I am no longer surprised by my liberal friends who still believe that socialism is a good idea, in spite of its horrific track record. They believe that humans are by their very nature "good" (even those that have read Lord of the Flies) and that socialism has just been poorly implemented to date (blaming hundreds of millions of deaths on the individuals, not the system). They continue to have hope that an ideal society is possible and I applaud that. We should never lose our spark of idealism and hope, else we become cynical and bitter.By all rights socialism should be dead, sealed in a steel vault and buried in Hell. Yet the disease lives. You might even say it's spreading when you look at the ascent of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Ken Livingstone in London and the "progressive" American Net-based left (which says Hillary Rodham Clinton is too far right). What accounts for socialism's reappearance? To discover the answer, we must ask another question. Why do so many people around the world hate its opposite--free-market capitalism?
Old news, but worth repeating (since the mainstream press is in denial): U.S. GDP growth for the first quarter clocked in at a whopping 4.8%. Remember that this figure is typically revised upward weeks later. Look for a final tally of 5.0+%. Gosh, what else is there to say about the roaring U.S. economy? Oh, yes. Unemployment is safely below 5%, and--wonder of wonders--even the New York Times admits that wages are rising faster than inflation.
But what continually astounds me is their insistence that capitalism is evil, and that encouraging capitalism through tax cuts does more harm than good. They ignore history and don't won't recognize current conditions — a booming economy as a result of tax cuts in spite of horrendous drains in the forms of a terrorist attack and a protracted war.
Most astonishing is that they refuse to see that a small business-friendly environment encourages innovation and enables movement between classes. And rather than seeing the great opportunities inherent in the capitalist society they decry the "gap" between rich and poor.
Socialism equals stagnation. That is human nature. I don't weep about it, I celebrate the possibilities created by exploiting ambition coupled with imagination. It is the magnificence of Man.
[HT to Club for Growth]
Technorati Tags: Socialism, Leftists, Liberals and Other Silliness, Tax Cuts, Economy.
"If the election were held today, which party would you rather see win control, Democrats or Republicans?"The telemarketers were obviously targeting die-hard Republicans and didn't want to deal with debating anyone, even a past "you can count on him" contributor.I replied, "That would depend on the candidates that were running." (This is not a lie. I'd vote for quite a few Dems before I'd ever vote for an Arlen Specter or Rudolph Giuliani.)
"Thank you sir, have a nice evening."
Yep, no more money for a party that supports liberals instead of true conservatives. Now I donate only to the candidate, especially those backed by the Club for Growth, or select PACs.
Technorati Tags: Political Fundraising, Politics, Club for Growth.
Last September Congressman Steve King cast one of only 11 votes in both houses against the billions earmarked for Katrina relief and rebuilding. King justified his vote by saying the legislation lacked "fiscal responsibility" and that he couldn't support "... blank check spending without accountability ..."
The SC Journal responded with scathing criticism, saying "America needs to get money - both public and private - into the pipeline immediately, then trust that those charged with distributing the funds do so prudently." The SC Journal actually trusted government to spend billions quickly, yet wisely.
It appears that the Sioux City Journal has not only learned its lesson, but is willing to eat crow:
Well, after reading an Associated Press story about a report that details how perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in Katrina disaster aid have been misspent, it appears we were wrong and King was right about his vote on the $52 billion.Hat Tip to the Club for Growth newsletter, which notes:The report issued Monday by the Government Accountability Office and the Homeland Security Department's inspector general paint an appalling picture of how huge amounts of federal aid was squandered through overcharges, poor accounting and abuses. Among the GAO findings: 900,000 of the 2.5 million applicants who received aid under an emergency cash assistance program based their requests on duplicate or invalid Social Security numbers or false addresses and names.
Kudos to King, who was elected with Club member support in 2002, for standing up for the taxpayers and to the Journal for recognizing his efforts.It's good to see a politician stick to his fiscal promises, especially when it's a Club-endorsed politician. Which is why every time I get a request for funds from the Republican Party I write, "I give directly to Club for Growth endorsed candidates" across it and mail it back to them.
Technorati Tags: Katrina, Government Waste, Club for Growth, Steve King.
A realistic Senator? What next, we should believe in the Easter Bunny?
Technorati Tags: RINO.
Yesterday I said that Club for Growth president Pat Toomey had some explaining to do and today he did just that. I participated in a conference call with bloggers that Pat Toomey hosted, which lasted just under 30 minutes. Not having a voice recorder I had to type fast, but I believe I've accurately recorded some of the highlights below. [I'm using block quotes to indicate what Pat said, but almost everything is paraphrased — I'm not that good of a typist.]
The Club for Growth thinks that the blogging community can have an impressive impact on the political process.Overall, I'd say that Pat did a pretty good job.The Laffey/Chafee contest will be the highest profile Republican race this cycle and will be a defining race for the Republican party. The party is in grave danger of losing its commitment to smaller government. The core issue is "what does the Republican party stand for, if anything."
Lincoln Chafee is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. He cites concerns about the deficit but consistently votes for and cosponsors legislation that massively increases spending. He is tied to unions, is against education reform and is "bad on pro-growth and economic freedom issues."
Steve Laffey, on the other hand, has signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. He not only supports the Bush tax cuts but supports making them permanent, including elimination of the Death Tax. He is for free trade and school choice.
Moreover, he shows a willingness to rock the boat and will shake up the establishment in Washington. Pat can see him standing on the senate floor with Tom Coburn to block wasteful spending.
Pat wrapped up his presentation by saying that in his senate race in 2005 bloggers played a key role in energizing the base across the country, raising consciousness and helping to raise funds.
Leon Wolf (from RedState, I assume?) questioned the wisdom of putting up a strong challenger in a liberal state like Rhode Island. "Can Laffey win in Rhode Island and won't a Democrat be infinitely worse?"
Pat responded that the Club is absolutely convinced that Steve Laffey can win. They have done extensive polling and it must be remembered that Laffey won the mayor's race in a city in which only 14% of the voters are registered as Republican.
In addition, they believe that Chafee will lose in the next general election, partly because of the NRSC's attack ads on Laffey. Polling indicates that the negative campaigning on the part of the national Republican party against another Republican has backfired by making Republican voters less likely to support Chafee.
Another blogger (I didn't catch the name) noted that if we lose, we will have a Democrat that votes the way that Chafee does and lose the times that Chafee votes with the caucus.
Pat responded that Chafee does not always vote with his party and, considering Chafee's positions, the damage will be minimal. Moreover, taking down Chafee would send a vital message to the rest of the Republicans and will have a positive impact on the party and the voting as a whole.
Another asked Pat to respond to the Opinion Journal piece which said that Laffey had increased taxes.
Pat said that the Club didn't cut candidates any slack in this area and had taken a close look at Laffey's tax increases. They came to the conclusion that Laffey had come into office within weeks of city defaulting on its debts. The city couldn't borrow any more money because it basically had no credit. The only other option was to go into receivership and allow the state to take over management of the city's finances, at which time taxes would have been increased anyway. By stepping in, Laffey was able to prevent the city from going bankrupt, exposed union corruption and got spending under control.
Pat also noted that when Chafee was mayor, he raised taxes without his city being under threat of bankruptcy.
Pat concluded by urging supporters and bloggers to take a swing at the NRSC so that maybe they'll spend time bashing Democrats instead of Republicans. He said that Club for Growth membership is free and members can donate to Steve Laffey through the Club. He also noted that only a candidate and a PAC has full First Amendment rights during a political race.
On the subject of raising taxes, Laffey's campaign site echoes what Pat said:
When he stepped into office in January, 2003 the City had the lowest bond rating in the country and was near bankruptcy. The City was borrowing at 8.25% , triple tax free for 3 month notes (a tax equivalent rate of 15%). The Market has taken note of Mayor Laffey’s actions to restore financial stability to the City, and in less than 6 months from the Mayor’s taking office, the rates were reduced to less than 1% - an 85% decrease saving taxpayers $1 million in borrowing costs. Even more notable was the bond rating which went from the lowest in America in January of 2003 back to investment grade in less than two years!On the subject of campaign contributions to Democrats (the other of the concerns raised by the Opinion Journal column), my research indicates that this was minimal. A token $200 contribution to Jesse Jackson (link) could easily be explained as a business decision, as Laffey was president of the half-billion dollar financial services firm Morgan Keegan which is headquartered in the majority black city of Memphis. The 1994 $250 contribution to a Democrat senatorial candidate could be explained in much the same wayIn the two and one-half years since taking office, Mayor Laffey has led Cranston forward by leaps and bounds. He had his proposed 2003/2004and 2005/2006 budgets approved unanimously and his 2004/2005 budget approved 8-1 by the City Council. Furthermore, he trimmed the City costs by several million dollars and was able to propose a tax freeze for the 05/06 fiscal year.
In 1995, Laffey gave $1,000 to presidential candidate Lamar Alexander and added another $500 in 1999 (link). In 2001, he gave another $1,000 to the Rhode Island Republican Party and supported president Bush in 2004 with yet another $1,000 (link). Heck, he even supported Chafee in 2002 with a $200 contribution.
In my lifetime I've seen how good organizations go bad after a period of time. Examples include unions, AARP and, to some extent, the NRA. So I am naturally suspicious of organizations like the Club for Growth.
However, after listening to Pat Toomey and taking a quick poke around the internet, I remain a staunch supporter of the Club for Growth. I believe that they remain true to their mission and will join in their support of Steve Laffey. And I'll ask that you do the same.
More at Ankle Biting Pundits.
HT to Lawyer Ken for sending me the original Opinion Journal article yesterday.
Update: RightWing Nation was also on the call and tells us why it is important to support Laffey:
It would send a strong, clear message to the national party, that we are sick of big government Republicans who are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats. No GOP challenger has beaten a GOP incumbent in a primary for twenty-five years, so even a strong showing in the primary would be a wake-up call to the Washington establishment.Damn fine reasoning.
Update 2: Leon at RedState finally gets his post up. It's a thoughtful piece that disagrees with the Club. I disagree with Leon and will support the Club in this matter, but Leon's reasoning deserves a careful read.
But now the conservative Wall Street Journal writes this:
The Club for Growth, a political action committee with a reputation for backing conservative challengers against liberal Republicans, endorsed Steve Laffey over incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican primary. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey, the Club's president, explained the main reasons for the endorsement. Mr. Chafee is among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, wrote Mr. Toomey. He consistently opposes tax cuts, citing the growing fiscal deficit, but then votes to increase federal spending. By contrast, the Club sees Mr. Laffey as a Reagan conservative who will support making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut wasteful spending, expand trade, reform insolvent entitlements and fix the tort system.So far there has been no response by Club president Pat Toomey on the Club's blog or in a letter to the editor.But if Mr. Laffey hopes to win the hearts of conservatives nationwide by unseating Senator Chafee, he'll first have to explain a few things about his own record. As mayor of Cranston for the past three years, Mr. Laffey has increased taxes three times. The city now has one of the highest property tax rates in the state, and Mr. Laffey has said Cranston may "need" an additional tax hike in 2007. And while living in Tennessee in the 1990s, he gave money to Democratic senatorial candidates who ran against former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson and the current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He even made a campaign contribution to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
In all my years in politics, I've never sensed such anger and frustration from our volunteers--those who do the hard work of door-to-door mobilization that Republican candidates depend on to get elected. Across the nation, wherever I go to speak with them, their refrain is the same: "I can't tell a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Our base rightly expects Republicans to govern by the principles--lower taxes, less government and more freedom--that got them elected. Today, with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, there is a widening credibility gap between their political rhetoric and their public policies. ...I've spoken many times on the importance of electing true conservatives, not just someone who wears the "Republican" label. The fiscal conservatives in congress are frustrated by the defection of RINOs who are more interested in politics that good policy.To succeed in the future, the Republican Party must get back to basics. We need, in effect, another Republican takeover of Congress, reaffirming a commitment to less government, lower taxes and more freedom. As in 1994, this revolution will be driven by the Young Turks of the party--the brave backbenchers more inspired by Reagan than the possibility of a glowing editorial on the pages of the New York Times.
Support the candidate, not the party. My political contributions, such as they are, will not go to a national party. They will go to individuals that are endorsed by organizations like the Club for Growth. I highly recommend that you do the same.
Every citizen believes federal spending is out of control. Conservatives are outraged that their party has the majority and continue to "spend like drunken sailors". Liberals are outraged that cuts being proposed are for domestic programs rather than decreasing military spending.
Of the recent House legislation to reduce the budget by $51 billion dollars, the Libertarian think tank CATO sent this out in their Daily Dispatch:
Only by the pretzel logic of Washington can this bill be considered a "cut." Here's what's really going to happen: Spending will still grow, but only slightly slower. Instead of spending a total of $7.8 trillion in entitlement programs over the next five years, the GOP proposes to spend $7.75 trillion. That's a total difference of 0.6 percent. This is not starving the beast. This isn't even a tummy rumble.But CATO ignores the difficulties involved. Just because Republicans have a majority does not mean that conservatives are in control. This case was eloquently made by Representative Marsha Blackburn in her weekly newsletter just before the vote:
We're just about to begin debate on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I will tell you that this will be a very tight vote. We have 20 or so Republicans who have not supported these very reasonable reductions in government growth and spending and almost every single Democrat has opposed them. Some have called our effort to slow the growth of Medicaid in this bill from 7.3% to 7.0% a cut -- so you can see what we're up against. Only in Washington would a 0.3% reduction in growth be called a cut!Note that the Blue Dogs did not support the spending reductions and a number of "Republicans" voted against it!We're talking about $53.9 billion in reductions over several years in a yearly budget of $2.4 trillion. I believe we should go even further in reducing spending, but we'll find out shortly if there is any support from across the aisle to join us in that effort.
I'm including both some background information on the legislation, and an article I wrote with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina asking the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition to support the bill. The Blue Dogs are House members who talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, but have done little to demonstrate they mean what they say. We hope they'll support this bill.
It is not enough to put a Republican in office, we must elect conservatives. Conservatives that know about fiscal responsibility. Conservatives that will take the side of the taxpayer and not side with the Democrat party.
Give up on the GOP if you wish — Republican is a meaningless label. But do not give up on conservatives. Support and vote the man, not the party.
As an aside, I'll make another endorsement of the Club for Growth, an organization that identifies fiscal conservatives and asks members to support them. Marsha Blackburn was endorsed by the Club and she has done us proud.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the Club for Growth or CATO other than being a member of both organizations.
BTW, Marsha does a bang-up job of utilizing electronic media to communicate to her constituency (and the rest of the world). In addition to her frequent newsletters, she has blogged at RedState.org and is a guest blogger at Bill Hobbs place this week (in spite of a bad case of bronchitis!).
The Agitator puts it well:
This is smoke and mirrors. It's a cheap stunt by the GOP to deflect public criticism that doesn't really change much of anything. All the conference committee did was remove the earmark for the bridges. Alaska will still be getting the same obscene amount of money from the federal government, it's just that the state won't be required to use it to build those two particular bridges. It'll be up to the executive and the state legislature to decide how to spend it.HT to Club for Growth Blog.
Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill. ...Just how RINO (Republican In Name Only) are these RINOs? Michelle Malkin informs us that all 25 are members of the GOP Main Street Partnership, a group of "moderate" Republicans backed by, among others, billionaire socialist George Soros.The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it.
Looking at the list of all the members of the organization reveals few no real surprises. Lincoln Chafee, Norm Coleman and John McCain are all members. What is revolting is that Arlen Specter is a member, the same Arlen Specter that Bush chose to back in 2004 against true conservative Pat Toomey.
Which is why I will not send another dime to the National Republican Committee. I will continue to give my money directly to candidates that are backed by groups such as the Club for Growth (which backed Toomey, who is now President and CEO of the Club).
But back to the Traitorous 25. Here is a list of 24 of them, culled from anwr.org:
| Representative | Telephone | Fax |
| Jeb Bradley (NH-1st Dist.) | 202-225-5456 | 202-225-5822 |
| Sherwood Boehlert (NY-24th Dist.) | 202-225-3665 | 202-225-1891 |
| Nancy Johnson (CT-5th Dist.) | 202-225-4476 | 202-225-4488 |
| Christopher Smith (NJ) | 202-225-3765 | 202-225-7768 |
| James Sensenbrenner (WI-5th Dist.) | 202-225-5101 | 202-225-3190 |
| Timothy Johnson (IL-15th Dist.) | 202-225-2371 | 202-226-0791 |
| James Leach (IA-2nd Dist.) | 202-225-6576 | 202-226-1278 |
| Wayne Gilchrest (MD) | 202-225-5311 | 202-225-0254 |
| Sue Kelly (NY-19th Dist.) | 202-225-5441 | 202-225-3289 |
| Charles Bass (NH) | 202-225-5206 | 202-225-2946 |
| Bob Inglis (SC-4th Dist.) | 202-225-6030 | 202-226-1177 |
| David Reichert (WA-8th Dist.) | 202-225-7761 | 202-225-4282 |
| Mark Kennedy (MN-6th Dist.) | 202-225-2331 | 202-225-6475 |
| Christopher Shays (CT-4th Dist.) | 202-225-5541 | 202-225-9629 |
| Michael Ferguson (NJ-7th Dist.) | 202-225-5361 | 202-225-9460 |
| Jim Saxton (NJ-3rd Dist.) | 202-225-4765 | 202-225-0778 |
| Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-8th Dist.) | 202-225-4276 | 202-225-9511 |
| Rosco Bartlett (MD-6th Dist.) | 202-225-2721 | 202-225-2193 |
| Mark Kirk (IL-10th Dist.) | 202-225-4835 | 202-225-0837 |
| Michael Castle (DE-at large) | 202-225-4165 | 202-225-2291 |
| John Schwarz (MI-7th Dist.) | 202-225-6276 | 202-225-6281 |
| Jim Gerlach (PA-6th Dist.) | 202-225-4315 | 202-225-8440 |
| Tom Davis (VA-11th Dist.) | 202-225-1492 | 202-225-3071 |
| Jim Ramstad (MN-3rd Dist.) | 202-225-2871 | 202-225-6351 |
Anwr.org also has a copy of the letter sent by the traitors.
And if you are concerned about the impact on Alaskan wildlife, check out these graphics that I excerpted from the original:
First, how big is the ANWR? Answer: about the size of South Carolina.
But wait! Only 2,300 acres are needed for oil equipment. That's less than four square miles, represented by the tiny red dot in the green area of the coastal plain below.
I'm fairly certain we can do this without upsetting a few caribou. Now if we could only get Republicans to rule like they were the party in charge . . .
More fun facts! To equal the energy produced by the estimated one million barrels of oil per day from the ANWR, you would need:
In a speech to a group of conservative academics and policy experts, DeLay blamed the runaway spending of recent years on minority Democrats. When he took questions, the first came from a senior official at the American Conservative Union, who asked DeLay, "How large does the Republican majority in the House and Senate need to be before Republicans act like the fiscal conservative I thought we were?"Bless him, those are the kinds of questions our free-spending politicians need to be asked!
The Club for Growth, a conservative group that funds like-minded candidates for Congress, has turned the highway legislation into a bumper sticker for the GOP's fiscal failings. "Too many Congressional Republicans have veered away from the limited government agenda that got them elected to the majority in Congress. They have approved pork-barrel highway bills worse than the Democrats used to give us," says one appeal to supporters.My congressman, Marsha Blackburn, was a Club for Growth candidate and shows it by fighting for reigning in fiscal spending.
Which is why my money now goes to organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, and not one cent goes to the national Republican Party.
| Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills | |
| 2005 | 13,997 |
| 2004 | 10,656 |
| 2003 | 9,362 |
| 2002 | 8,341 |
| 2001 | 6,333 |
| 2000 | 4,326 |
| 1999 | 2,838 |
| 1998 | 2,100 |
| 1997 | 1,596 |
| 1996 | 958 |
| 1995 | 1,439 |
Meanwhile, President Bush travels to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and compares himself to Reagan.
I'm sorry, Mr. President, but while your foreign policy has been exactly right your domestic policy proves that you are no Ronald Reagan.
The Club for Growth blog is live-blogging the debate. Start at 9 am for the morning debate and then go to the continuing coverage post.
Interestingly, Club for Growth tells about the defeat of a smaller version of the Coburn Amendment which received only 13 "no" votes on a move to kill it (one of them was actually a Democrat!).
Meanwhile, Power Line reports that Patty Murray (D-WA) actually threatened senators who are speaking up in support of the Coburn Amendment. To paraphrase:
... we on the Appropriations Committee will take a "long, hard look" at any projects in your state.Incredible! This is precisely the kind of behavior that we need to change in Washington!
I plan to offer an amendment to H.R. 3058, the Treasury, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, that would transfer funding from a wasteful pork project in Alaska to the much-needed repair and reconstruction of the "Twin Spans" bridge in Louisiana.The Club for Growth is promoting the amendment with a Key Vote Alert:
According to published reports, the Alaskan pork project costs $220 million for a 5.9-mile bridge connecting Gravina Island (population 50) to the Alaskan mainland. The cost of the bridge alone would be enough to buy every island resident his own personal Lear jet.Instapundit thinks it's a good idea:
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more I think that the Coburn Amendment is a big deal. It's setting the precedent whereby members of Congress go after each other's taxpayer-shafting pork projects rather than turning a blind eye and engaging in logrolling.More details at RedState.org who says that the Coburn Amendment is A Hill to Die On:
Make NO mistake - the establishment Republicans are terrified of this bill. The chutzpah of the little people demanding an end to one of the most immoral acts of Congress - earmarked pork spending - has got some in quite the tizzy.Hat tip to Power Line, who says:Word is that some are trying to stop the Coburn Amendment from even reaching the floor for a vote.
The Coburn Amendment may prove to be a historic rallying point for the forces of limited government and fiscal sanity. Then again, it may not. But it's a good place to start. ...As the citizen outcry grows, somewhere in heaven Reagan is smiling. Get this started by writing your Senator. Now.If there is to be a war, why not let it begin here? Write your Congressman.
Don't get me wrong, I'm tickled pink that Bush didn't nominate gun-grabbin' Gonzalez, but to pass over great picks like Priscilla Owen and (my fav) Janice Rogers Brown? And talking about gun-grabbers, does anyone know anything about Miers' stance on the Second Amendment? The War on Guns notes that Miers speaks supportively of Project Safe Neighborhoods. That's a strike against her right there.
I thought I voted for a conservative — twice. President Bush has demonstrated that he is on the liberal end of that label — twice.
Let's see how the 'sphere is reacting:
This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers' top two credentials:[HT to Just a Bump in the Beltway]Loyalty...and a little inside information.
So far as I can tell, Miers' qualifications include a tolerable resume and a fierce loyalty to President Bush. And in an administration predicated on loyalty and cronyism, that's all it takes.
But my initial reaction is that it's unfortunate (but not surprising) that for both Supreme Court nominations, the president has chosen well-connected insiders with ties to the executive branch, rather than individuals who are more likely to bring a more "independent" perspective to issues of government and especially presidential power. And appointing his "personal lawyer" from Texas seems very Lyndon Johnsonish, and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism. On the other hand, I'm please that Miers is (a) not from an elite law school; (b) not a federal judge; and (c) spent the vast majority of her career outside the beltway. All good things to bring new perspectives to the Court, and, in the case of (b), break a silly tradition [that Justices MUST be from the federal bench] that has evolved.
Here's another question - when Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she'd be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don't think so. To use a phrase, conservatives really have no "skin" in this game, and quite frankly many likely wouldn't be disappointed if she's rejected, which will at least give the President a chance to nominate someone that could fire up conservatives.
The reports are that senators on both sides of the aisle. Well, if that is the criteria on which she was chosen, that is very disappointing. That is not a position of leadership, but of bowing to pressure.
While President Bush is not playing from a position of commanding strength, to say the least, at the moment, virtual surrender to the Democrats on something this important is hardly necessary.
Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
You know, just when I thought that the worst possible move that the Bush Administration could make would be to nominate Alberto Gonzales, he goes and shows me up.
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection. ...You want a candidate who has "Souter" written all over her? You want a candidate who can't be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.
Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination. "Stealth" nominees have not turned out well for Republicans.PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer -- she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.
Bill Kristol was just on Fox, saying, "it's hard to see this as anything but a flinch from a fight."[HT to Club for Growth Blog]He added that it sends a very bad signal for Bush to pass over distinguished conservative women with strong records who have been fighting for constitutionalism for years for someone with no record. I agree.
What is it professionally that qualifies Harriet Miers for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this A) an affirmative action hire, or B) another instance of Bush Administration cronyism or C) both A & B?
Last Friday, Right Wing News polled 14 bloggers about the upcoming nomination. It is interesting that five of them specifically mentioned Miers as the choice "you really hope Bush doesn't pick". So 1 out of 3 bloggers specifically rejected Miers before she was even nominated!
Blue State Conservative is "having a hard time finding a blogger happy with Bush choice." Ditto!
Time to write my Senator, for all the good it will do. Although I have hope, encouraged by a post from SCOTUSblog:
I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
Meet Sharron Angle, candidate for Congress in Nevada's 2nd congressional district. From the Las Vegas Sun:
She has been staunchly anti-tax, and was the loan [sic] legislator to vote against a property tax relief measure this session.It's people like this that we need in Congress, no matter where you are from. Which is why she received an endorsement from the anti-tax organization Club for GThe measure caps property tax increases on single family homes at 3 percent and businesses at 8 percent, but instead of voting for it, Angle said she plans to push a petition to create a Proposition 13 in Nevada again in 2006. ...
She also has been a consistent "no" vote on spending increases in the Legislature.