Tag Archives: Blaine Luetkemeyer

H.J.Res.46: it’s not an emergency

26 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Everybody knows it.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Today in the United State House of Representatives:

H.J.Res.46 – Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

House – 02/25/2019 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 144 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 46 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 93
H RES 144 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Feb-2019 3:30 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 46) relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019

—- YEAS 229 —

Clay
Cleaver

—- NAYS 193 —

Hartzler
Graves (MO)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)

—- NOT VOTING 9 —

Wagner

The text of the resolution:

116th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. J. RES. 46

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOINT RESOLUTION

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

The final vote in the House:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 94
H J RES 46 YEA-AND-NAY 26-Feb-2019 6:32 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019

—- YEAS 245 —

Clay
Cleaver

—- NAYS 182 —

Hartzler
Graves (MO)
Long
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)

—- NOT VOTING 5 —

Wagner

Thirteen republicans don’t agree with Donald Trump (r).

So much for the past concerns of Missouri republicans about executive overreach and the separation of powers.

Oh, silly me, *IOKIYAR

“Trump is wrong about everything”

* it’s okay if you’re a republican

Has McCaskill chosen the wrong “bipartisan” issue?

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

At this still, admittedly, early date, Claire McCaskill, Missouri’s Democratic Senate incumbent, is running eight points, 44-52, behind wet-behind-the-ears AG Josh Hawley, who is probably her best known challenger from among the GOP primary lineup. How can this be, you ask? McCaskill’s got the money, she’s been working hard to make sure that out-state Missourian’s know that she understands rural “Missouri values,” trekking from one town hall to another, tacking carefully and skillfully to the center in an effort to cultivate those famous moderates we keep hearing about – although we rarely seem to see them nowadays.

But recent events leave me wondering if McCaskill’s might have honed in on the wrong issue in order to prove her non-partisan bona fides. I’m referring to her support for a Republican bill that would once again deregulate banks. As Garry Rivlin and Susan Antilla of The Intercept describe it:

… the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, […] represents the greatest threat to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law since its passage in 2010. The bill would relieve all but the country’s largest dozen banks of increased scrutiny and ease mortgage rules imposed after the financial crisis. It would undermine fair lending rules designed to counteract race discrimination and weaken the Volcker rule, which limits a bank’s ability to make speculative trades with federally insured deposits. …

In spite of the fact that bank earnings have continuously surged since 2010, proponents speciously insist that, due to the act, banks “are suffering and so, by extension, are consumers, businesses, and the economy at large.” Part and parcel of the GOP belief, reinforced by the Liar-in-Chief in the White House, that if you say it, it will be so, reality be dammed.

Many of the red-state Democrats who support the bill, like McCaskill, purport to buy into the argument that Dodd-Frank needs to be revised to help suffering community banks that the law has, they assert, disadvantaged. However, as Rivlin and Antilla report, “A 2017 FDIC report shows that deposits in community banks have grown in each of the past six years. Another report showed that 96 percent of the country’s 5,294 community banks were profitable, as of the third quarter of 2017.” If you’re interested in learning more about the problems with this legislation, including the effect on community banks, noted economist Jared Bernstein spells some of them out here in greater – but not too lengthy or ponderous -detail.

The issue for McCaskill, though, could go beyond pandering through bad policy, and might actually cost her politically. Consider, for example, the speculation that banking champion GOP Rep. Ann Wagner may be vulnerable this time around. It’s true that there are several reasons other than her dedication to fighting for the banks that so generously fund her that might leave her in a little shakier position than in the past. Her district has changed somewhat, she plays shy with her constituents in an effort to avoid controversy – and dim any potential sunlight on her priorities. There is, of course, also some indication that the hard-core Trumpies may not totally buy her Trump-MAGA conversion and are likely put off by her coy country club Republican aura.

But it’s equally true that there’s somewhat louder discussion than in past years about Wagner’s single-minded efforts to gut the financial rules, the fiduciary rule that protected investors from dishonest financial advisors in particular. People aren’t always as stupid as politicians think they are, particularly when it involves financial survival issues. And don’t forget, lots of Trump’s so-called populist voters were motivated by anger at Wall-street and the big banks – and there are those among them who are feeling a bit disillusioned right now.

McCaskill should take care – linking herself with folks like Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer, big-time Missouri shills for the banking industry, might just prove to be the proverbial millstone that could harm more than it helps with contrary voters. Oh, and there’s always the damage the actual policy may do to all of us. Don’t any of these Democratic fools playing the bipartisan game remember 2008?

ADDENDUM: Kevin Drum points out that the Dodd-Frank roll-back will also gut provisions that prevent racial redlining, voicing his – and my dismay – that any Democrats – are you listening Senator McCaskill – are supporting this piece of drek.

Missouri GOP House members go into hiding when Trump shows his true colors – about skin color – while GOP Senator Roy Blunt soft peddles the story

20 Saturday Jan 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been a couple of weeks since President Racist Moron sent us spiraling down toward a government shutdown by expressing his goal of importing prosperous, wealthy white Norwegians – who have little reason to come to the U.S. – instead of brown folks from S**thole countries – who actually need the haven that the United States has traditionally offered the oppressed, poverty stricken folks who flocked to these shores and helped build a strong, wealthy country where the middle class grew and prospered as never before. During this time, I’ve been monitoring the newspapers and congressional press releases to find out how our representatives in Congress have responded to Trump’s racist babblings – and I’ve found out just about nothing to let me know how our GOP profiles in political cowardice stand on the issue. However, today, Salon has posted an article that tells us what each member of Congress has had to say about this destructive and ugly piece of “telling it like it is,” as some of the more racist “deplorable” Trump supporters would have it:

  • Blunt, Roy (R–Sen.): Condemn
  • *McCaskill, Claire (D–Sen.): Condemn
  • Clay Jr., William “Lacy” (D–HR): Condemn
  • Cleaver, Emanuel (D–HR): Condemn
  • Graves, Sam (R–HR): No response
  • Hartzler, Vicky (R–HR): No response
  • Long, Billy (R–HR): No response
  • Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R–HR): No response
  • Smith, Jason (R–HR): No response
  • Wagner, Ann (R–HR): No response

Although GOP Senator Roy Blunt, as befits a junior member of the Senate Leadership, did make a statement, you might be struck, as I was, that it focused on the pragmatic aspects of Trumps words – addressing his competence in securing GOP goals, rather than his bankrupt moral world view:

Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, suggested the president’s inability to refrain from incendiary statements was detracting from his agenda.

“It’s an unacceptable view of the world, and it’s an unacceptable thing to say,” Mr. Blunt told KMBZ, a radio station in the Kansas City area. “You would expect the president to lead in determining how you filter your thoughts, rather than to continue to say things that take a lot away from what’s actually getting done.”

Compare the measured words of Blunt – who carefully avoided any overt reference to Trump’s racism, to the unequivocal tweet Democratic Claire McCaskill issued,:

It is unacceptable, repugnant, and morally bankrupt for a President of this great nation to call the countries of Africa “shitholes”.   9:32 AM – 12 Jan 2018

 I understand the need for political pragmatism, going along with a bad deal to avoid a worse deal – and I appreciate Blunt’s willingness to sorta, maybe imply that Trump isn’t really a great “dealmaker,” but for many of us racism, arguably the original sin that lies at the heart of American democracy, is the line that may not be crossed. Which means that I also understand the reticence of our Missouri House members to speak out – Republicans in general, not just in Missouri, have been calling out to more or less covert racism via code words and dogwhistles for years.What can these already compromised politicians do or say to credibly face down the beast they have enabled and continue to enable in order to benefit their wealthy patrons.
Of course that last sentence doesn’t even address the possibility that many of our elected Missouri representative may actually endorse Trump’s nasty racial sentiments.

 

 

Which Missouri pols helped knife net neutrality – and how much did they get paid to do it?

16 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Last Wednesday 107 members of the U.S. House sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai urging him to revoke net neutrality regulations that have guaranteed that the big ISPs must treat all digital content equally, whatever it is and wherever it’s hosted. Without such rules broadband companies such as AT&T and Comcast can favor one website over another and charge users more to view certain material—such as streaming movies. They can potentially even censor political material they don’t like. In short, net neutrality is the backbone of the open internet we have all come to depend on. Without it, the digital community faces bleak times.

And Republicans want to destroy our thriving Internet culture – so much so that they wrote a letter to Trump’s FCC head lackey urging him to get down to business.

The letter was made public by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Vice Media’s Motherboard has – so far- deciphered 84 of the 107 names (the writing is not always legible and a typed list of signatories was not included in the release) and listed them along with the amount of money each has received from the telecom industry over the years.

Two Missouri members are clearly listed among the telecom toadies who signed the letter:

  • Blane Luetkemeyer (R-3), total telecom payola: $105,000
  • Billy Long (R-7), total telecom payola: $221,500

Although there are only two Missouri House members whose signatures grace the letter, over the years, there haven’t been too many Missouri GOPers who have been very friendly to the idea of the open internet – and almost all have been liberally rewarded for toeing the telecom line when it comes to net neutrality.

GOP Senator Roy Blunt alone has received $1,283,416 from the big three telecoms over his career (yes, you read that right – over a million dollars). Only John McCain took a bigger payout. And Blunt delivered for his bosses in the past – spouting the usual unsupported twaddle about how net neutrality is bad for jobs and innovation. Jobs. You gotta give it to ol’ Roy – he’s more than willing to mouth whatever predigested magic formula Republicans have decided to use against everything their patrons tell them to oppose whether it makes sense or not.

To be fair, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill has taken over $500,000 dollars from the same folks since she went to Washington. As a report prepared by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) has noted, “the industry’s attempt to gain favor with lawmakers is not partisan. Entrenched telecommunications companies liberally spread money and attention to everyone who holds office.”

So, what did they get from McCaskill? While she supported the nomination of Pai as FCC Chairman and has tried to straddle the issue in the past, she has, as of today, indicated that she will support legislation to restore net neutrality – which, of course, can only pass if Democrats succeed in taking back the Congress in 2018. In the long run, though, McCaskill knows that destroying the Internet is a bad deal – both for her constituents and for her politically – and she’s not nearly as mercenary as her GOP opposite number.

Even though Democrats have benefited from telecom efforts to buy congressional votes, it is nevertheless still true that, as the CRP observes, “alignment with the ISPs is currently drawn along party lines.” Republicans take their obligations to their donors seriously, probably because they get lots more money from them. If you’re curious about how many pieces of dirty silver your Missouri GOP House member has received from the telecom industry as the price for selling out their constituents, you can check the CRP tally for every House and Senate member.

Depressing, no?

Luetkemeyer, Wagner want to help Equifax roll consumers

20 Wednesday Sep 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Immediately after the recent Equifax hack that potentially put close to 150 million Americans at risk for identity theft, I wrote about how the event proved that Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-2) bias against any regulation of the financial industry, and especially her vendetta against the oversight role of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was contrary to the interests of the everyday Americans she ostensibly serves. Surely, I thought, these folks can be made to realize that enabling more disaster in the wake of disaster may be going just a bit too far.

Well no. The concept of wise stewardship always seems to  be too difficult for the Republican brain, as evidenced by this little financial tidbit in the LA Times:

Even as millions of consumers grapple with fallout from the Equifax data breach, Republican lawmakers are quietly backing legislation to deregulate credit agencies and make them even less accountable for wrongdoing.

Bills are pending in Congress to limit class-action damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and to give credit agencies more latitude in profiting from identity theft protection products.

The legislation is part of sweeping efforts by Republican lawmakers to reduce oversight of banks and other financial-services firms, and to cripple or eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has notched a successful track record of holding industry players accountable for unfair and illegal practices.

And who’s the engineer steering this “quiet” anti-citizen effort? Why no one other than Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3), a member, along with Rep. Wagner, of the House Financial Services Committee, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, which just held hearings on the proposed legislation – possibly inspired by successful , and, for the profitable credit reporting agencies involved, expensive, oversight exercised by the CFBP in the recent past. Luetkemeyer declared that the new legislation would ” streamline regulatory requirements and eliminate inefficiencies” and “better allow financial companies to serve their customers.”

Sadly for Luetkemeyer’s credibilty, the response of the LA Times reporter, David Lazarus, is closer to the truth when he observes that what “the legislation would do is reward credit agencies with greater regulatory elbow room and diminished accountability for screw-ups.” As far as I’m concerned, they’ve got far too much of that elbow room already – as Lazarus notes:

Consumer advocates say the Equifax breach should serve as a wake-up call for Americans that the three leading credit agencies — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — are focused primarily on earning cash from people’s personal information, not keeping such information under lock and key.

“Consumers are not customers of these companies — they’re commodities,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “We have no say over what they do with our data.”

There are, of course, Democrats on on the Financial Services Committee and its various subcommittes; Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay (D-1) serves on Luetkemeyer’s subcommittee, for example. But they’re there as representatives of the minority party in a congress which Republicans have publicly determined to run solely in service of Republican druthers, and, given the amounts of cash that the financial industry throws at sympathetic members of these plum committee posts, the Democrats are not likely to be heard if they do stand up. Same reasons hold when considering the inevitable death march of a Democratic bill offered in response to the Equifax farce, the Freedom from Equifax Exploitation Act.

Actually, the proposed Democratic legislation, mild as it is, probably doesn’t go nearly far enough. Michael Kevin Drum who has long noted the essentially abusive nature of our credit reporting system and urged greater regulatory oversight of the credit reporting agencies, observesd last week that:

… The credit reporting agencies have gotten away forever with treating consumers like bothersome children: screwing up their credit records, ruining their lives, making it deliberately difficult and expensive to lock accounts, and making money off the whole thing by offering “insurance” against problems that they themselves cause. Someone in Congress who allegedly cares about ordinary working folks should introduce a bill to regulate the hell out of these folks. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it’s hard to think of any industry that more richly deserves it.

Well somebody in Congress does care – Democrats mainly – but a fat lot of good it’ll do us. Because financial industry toadies like Luetkemeyer and Wagner are sitting pretty in their well-funded catbird seats and they aim to keep that campaign cash cushion well-padded.

Which Missourians voted for or against the Trump-Schumer/Pelossi deal

08 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The House of Representatives voted today to pass a bill authorizing 15.25 billion dollars in emergency relief aid for the victims of hurricane Harvey; it was attached to a continuing resolution that would raise the debt-ceiling and fund the federal government through Dec. 8. The vote tally was 316 yeas and 90 nays. All ninety nays were Republicans including the five six Republican members of the Missouri House delegation.

The Senate voted on the measure on Thursday and passed it on a 80-17 roll call vote. Both Missouri Senators, Republican Roy Blunt and Democratic Claire McCaskill, voted for the measure.

McCaskill’s vote is no surprise, but ol’ Roy? Maybe no surprise there either. It’s not necessarily a case of the the tiger changing its stripes – it’s just that some of those stripes are more attractive than others. In short, Blunt is a pragmatist, a corrupt, power-seeking, self-interested pragmatist, true, but he does understand what’s involved in raising the debt ceiling. And he knows that the economic nightmare that would result from a default would not serve anyone’s interest.

In 2013 Bunt indicated that he couldn’t support using the urgent need to raise the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to deny funds to Obamacare, remarking that “I think holding the debt limit hostage to any specific thing is probably not the best negotiating place.” So now he’s reversed himself, showing admirable flexibility; the new circumstances, he implies, justifies the contingency. He observed that that tying the debt ceiling to Harvey aid is “one way to do it, ” i.e., raise the debt ceiling, a crucial must-do, adding that the need to address the destruction left in the wake of the hurricane is “another reason as to why you’d want to keep the government open.” Even though it looks like a flip-flop, Blunt’s consistent about one thing. No debt ceiling default. Ever.

Sadly, the other members of the Missouri GOP delegation don’t get it. Perhaps it’s because they don’t actually understand that extending the debt ceiling has nothing to do with increasing Government spending, but simply permits Treasury to pay the bills Congress has already run up.Or maybe they want their constituents to believe that they had a “fiscally responsible” reason for voting to leave Harvey victims high and dry (so to speak), while undermining the functioning of the federal government and maybe even wrecking the heretofore sterling credit worthiness of the United States.

Here’s a sample of the debt flim-flamming we’re hearing from our Missouri congressional representatives:

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2): “I promised the people of St. Charles, Jefferson, and St. Louis counties that I would go to Washington to cut up the government’s credit card and put a stop to wasteful federal government spending.”

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3), also thinks that raising the debt limit so that Treasury can pay the bills that he and other congressmen have already run up represents a failure to “curb future spending.”

(You’d think that folks who’ve worked so assiduously as Luetkemeyer and Wagner to assist the financial industry would understand what the debt ceiling is and how it works. But, evidently, you’d be wrong.)

Rep. Billy Long (R-7) explained his “no” vote by declaring that “simply raising the debt limit is not the answer to fixing our nation’s fiscal mess. (Note to Billy: nobody said it was. The answer, that is, to a supposed fiscal mess. Different topic totally).

Give Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) points for originality: she purports to think that extending the debt ceiling for three months “freezes defense spending at current levels and ties the hands of our Defense Department, preventing them from making desperately needed investments to meet the threats we are facing.” Nu-uh, Vicky! Talk about deflecting from the actual topic.

What really puts these excuses to the lie is the fact that House and Senate leadership wanted to go for an eighteen month extension of the debt limit. They were hoping to avoid the inconvenient messiness that would be sure to ensue when the limit has to be negotiated again at the very beginning of the midterm political season come December. Are you willing to bet good money that had that deal come down the line, all of these GOPers – even go-along-to-get -long types like Wagner – would have oppposed it?

And, in case you are persuaded by occasional claims that these folks were willing to vote “yea” on Harvey relief, but balked at voting on the debt ceiling because they believe the debt ceiling vote ought to be “clean,” with no need-to-pass riders, just think back to the behavior of almost all of these stalwarts when it came time to take debt ceiling hostage during the Obama years. Dead-enders, every one of them.

Addendum (9/9/2017, 11:56 am): You will notice that there’s nothing in the post above about the positions of Jason Smith (R-8) and Sam Graves (R-6). That’s because I couldn’t find anything. Too early? It struck me that the absence of online info about these two lawmakers actions is pretty predictable. Takes them a while to issue a statement if they ever do. Don’t their constituents care? Do folks in their districts just reflexively vote Republican, relieving them of any obligation to take care with their votes or to explain them? Do I need to subscribe to their newsletters? Do they have newsletters? Guess I’ll have to check it out.

Bipartisanship gone bad: The Israel Anti-Boycott Act

20 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720 and H.R.1697) is very bad legislation. It’s also that rarity, a bill that truly has bipartisan support. It’s laws like this proposed legislation, I suspect, that gives being bipartisan a bad rep.

The bill essentially bans boycotts or economic sanctions against countries “friendly” to the U.S. , specifically, but not necessarily limited to, Israel:

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or
  • requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

The legislation would levy significant fines not only for participating in boycotts or sanctions, but also for simply requesting information about such actions. Legislation like this would have precluded the boycott of South Africa that was at least partly responsible for the fall of apartheid. People on the left and on the right oppose this bill for much the same reason: it is improperly coercive, too broad in scope, and violates the Constitution. If its support is bipartisan, so is its opposition.

Who opposes the Israel Anti-Boycott Act?

The ACLU wrote in a letter to the Senate that “the bill would punish businesses and individuals based solely on their point of view. Such a penalty is in direct violation of the First Amendment,” adding that:

“… this bill cannot fairly be characterized as an anti-discrimination measure, as some would argue. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prevents businesses from discriminating against customers based onrace, color, religion, and national origin. This bill, on the other hand, aims to punish people who support international boycotts that are meant to protest Israeli government policies, while leaving those who agree with Israeli government policies free from the threat of sanctions for engaging in the exact same behavior. Whatever their merits, such boycotts right ly enjoy First Amendment protection.

The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, on the other end of the political spectrum, is in perfect agreement:

Whatever one thinks about the BDS [i.e., boycott, divestment, and sanctions] movement and related international efforts to pressure Israel to change its occupation policies, it is deranged to try to criminalize protected political speech and association. As the ACLU points out, that is what this bill does. This legislation is plainly unconstitutional, and I assume it would be struck down in court if it were ever signed into law, but the deeper problem is that so many elected representatives think it is appropriate and desirable to trample on the constitutional rights of Americans to defend another government’s illegal occupation. …

J-street, a liberal Jewish lobbying group that advocates for a two-state solution to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians but which has stopped short of endorsing boycotts and sanctions, also opposes the legislation. In an email to congressional staffers, the J Street Vice President of Government Affairs, Dylan J. Williams, wrote that in its present form, the bill would:

…undermine decades of US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bolster the settlement enterprise and harm the prospects for a two-state solution. […]

[…] we recommended that Members consult with free speech experts on possible Constitutional concerns with the bill. Accordingly, I want to make sure that you saw the letters issued by the ACLU yesterday opposing both the Senate and House versions of the bill on the grounds that they would impose penalties in “direct violation of the First Amendment.”

So who does support this bill?

AIPAC. But that goes without saying.

Who else? At least 237 members of the House of representatives, 63 of whom are Democrats, are cosponsors of the bill, and 45 Senators, 13 of whom are Democrats, are also cosponsors . Others will probably, due to either conviction or the pressures of the prevailing political wisdom, help vote it into law.

Missouri Supporters

As for whom in Missouri supports this legislation, here’s the list of House cosponsors from our fair state: Rep. Wagner, Ann (R-2), Rep. Sam Graves (R-6), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4), Rep. Jason Smith (R-8), and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3). And in the Senate, who else but that consummate bipartisan wannabe, Senator Claire McCaskill, has signed on. So far, at least, Senator Blunt is keeping his hands off this one. Do you think he might actually have a few Constitutional scruples?

McCaskill’s presence is the most easily explained. She’s good at the political calculus and you can bet there’s some payoff here, or at least she hopes there will be, in 2018. The woman’s great strength is her pragmatism. It’s also, alas, her frequent downfall.This case falls into the latter category.

What really bothers me, though, are all those Republicans in the House who support this bill. Don’t most Missouri conservatives get all teary-eyed about the right of bakers and the like to refuse to do business with the LGBT folks – or whoever else their personal Jesus tells them to dis? Yet they don’t want to let businessmen or individuals who have moral qualms about the activities of foreign countries refrain from doing business that supports those activities? It’s not exactly the same question – there’s lots of issues to unpack here – but, on the surface at least, it seems just a little hypocritical.

More importantly, weren’t lots of these chuckleheads elected during the Tea Party “uprising” by voters who went around in tricorner hats waving pocket copies of the Constitution? It was pretty clear, even at that time, that few Tea Partiers had actually bothered to read the document and fewer still understood it, but don’t you think that the folks they sent to Washington ought to at least show a little deference to the legal underpinnings of of our great Democracy?

*2nd to last paragraph slightly revised for clarity (12:03, 7/21/17).

True believers

15 Monday May 2017

Posted by in US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s no such thing as a “moderate” republican.

FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver’s place) is keeping a running tally of the votes in Congress and how they align with Donald Trump’s wishes:

Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump
An updating tally of how often every member of the House and the Senate votes with or against the president.

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) [2014 file photo].

In the House of Representatives [How often a member votes in line with Trump’s position]:

Jason Smith R MO-8 96.6%
Billy Long R MO-7 96.6%
Sam Graves R MO-6 100.0%
Emanuel Cleaver D MO-5 12.0%
Vicky Hartzler R MO-4 100.0%
Blaine Luetkemeyer R MO-3 100.0%
Ann Wagner R MO-2 96.6%
Wm. Lacy Clay D MO-1 14.3%

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2015 file photo].

Representative Billy Long (r) [2013 file photo].

Voting for Donald Trump’s agenda 96.6% of the time is an unqualified endorsement. 100% is a true believer.

In the U.S. Senate [How often a member votes in line with Trump’s position]:

Roy Blunt R MO 100.0%
Claire McCaskill D MO 45.0%

Well, look at that, Roy Blunt (r) is no moderate.

Roy Blunt (r) [2016 file photo].

There’s no such thing as a “moderate” republican. They own Donald Trump (r) and his agenda.

Time to exorcise the NRA’s 2nd amendment demon?

03 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Representatives Sam Graves (R-6), Vicky Hartzler (R-4), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3), Billy Long (R-7), Jason Smith (R-8), and Ann Wagner (R-2). The entire Republican Missouri U.S. House lineup. Remember each one of these names next time there’s a mass shooting and Republican Senator Blunt or some other NRA apologist comes out and says, as Blunt did after one or another in the spate of mass shootings we have experienced in the past few years, that the problem isn’t guns, it’s mental illness.

These five congresspeople voted today to rescend an Obama administration rule that prohibited the sale of guns to mentally ill persons. Specifically:

The House voted 235-180 largely along party lines Thursday to repeal an Obama-era rule requiring the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries to the federal firearms background check system after they’ve been deemed mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs.

The rule, when implemented, would affect about 75,000 recipients of disability insurance and supplemental insurance income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. It applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age.

What’s really rich is that GOPers explained their vote by saying they were worried that the rule “stigmatized” folks with disabilities and “unfairly” deprived them of their 2nd amendment rights. This, mind you, is coming from the very people who think every Muslim is a terrorist until proven otherwise. Folks who  don’t turn a hair when 100,000 people with totally legal visas are denied entry to the U.S. because they are Muslim. And they’re worried that denying guns to people too ill to handle their own affairs is overkill.

Maybe we should give blind drivers licenses so that they don’t feel unduly stigmatized.

Or we could permit folks on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns – oh, wait. I forgot the same cast of characters made sure that we already do just that.

Which members of the Missouri congressional delegation are for or against Paul Ryan’s Medicare phase out plan.

19 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have written here about the fact that House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan is planning to take advantage of Trump’s election to push his Medicare privatization plan, a plan that will essentially destroy Medicare as we know it. Please find below a checklist of Missouri politicians categorized by their response to  Ryan’s privatization plan.

This list will be updated and reposted as politicians make their positions clear (or don’t).

Note that even if a particular politician indicates that they don’t support Ryan’s privatization phase out, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t open to fiddling with the system in often destructive ways. I also indicate which House members voted for or against the Ryan plan earlier when it was included in the proposed 2015 House budget and which have negative or positive voting records in regard to Medicare related issues.

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who will oppose Ryan’s latest effort to destroy Medicare:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) (see here for source and discussion).

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who have been contacted but have not committed to a position on Rep. Ryan’s phase out plan at at this point.

Roy Blunt (R) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19).Blunt has a record of voting for legislation that undercuts Medicare.

Rep. Sam Graves (R) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19 (list up dated regularly)). Graves  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-5) (Source: TPM list as per 11/19) Cleaver voted against the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. His voting record is mostly pro-Medicare.

Members of Missouri’s U.S. Congressional delegation who have not yet been contacted about their current position on Ryan’s Medicare phase out plan.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-1) Clay voted against the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. His voting record is mostly pro-Medicare.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4) Hartzler voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. She has a record of mostly voting to weaken weaken Medicare.

Rep. Billy Long (R-7) Long  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) Luetkemeyer  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-8) Smith  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. He has a record of mostly voting to weaken Medicare.

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-4) Wagner  voted for the 2015 Budget proposal that included a similar privatization plan. She has a record of mostly voting to weaken weaken Medicare.