SCORECARD
...a new, simple guide for when they have questions about how their lawmakers voted on controversial measures such as the TARP bill, auto bailout, cap and trade, food regulations and health-care reform bill.
A new congressional scorecard details votes by House members on key measures, many of which have been cited by the tea-party movement as evidence of growing federal government control and excessive spending.
The scorecard, created by Army Reserve veteran Dave Kittley using information from Govtrack.us, also features a red label next to each member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in Congress.
CPC was set up in 1991 by then-Rep. Bernie Sanders, in conjunction with Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Institute for Policy Studies. Its statement of purpose reads:
"The Progressive Caucus is organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and the powerful.
Our purpose is to present thoughtful, practical solutions to the economic and social problems facing America. Our people-based agenda extends from job creation to job training, to economic conversion, to single payer healthcare reform, to adequate funding for the AIDS crisis, to environmental reform, and to women's rights. …"
The CPC promotes a strong "progressive agenda," what it calls "The Progressive Promise – Fairness for All."
It advocates a strong public option in health-care reform, fair-trade agreements, abolishing provisions of the Patriot Act, guaranteeing Social Security benefits, minimum-wage increases, extending the Voting Rights Act, elimination of "all forms of discrimination" based on sexual orientation, complete pullout from the war in Iraq, reaffirming the nation's engagement in the United Nations, debt relief for poor countries, eliminating "environmental threat posed by global warming" and implementing strict campaign finance reform laws.
I mention on another post the concept of "Negative Rights" versus "Positve Rights." I just heard about it this week, but it is an important concept.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, "Negative Rights" are those that exsist unless someone takes them away: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms -- in other words, the Bill of Rights. "Positive Rights" are those things that you only have if someone else provides them: health care, housing, etc -- in other words, "Anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the undying gratitude of Paul." It is not a matter of being able to get whatever housing or healthcare or whatever someone can provide for himself -- it is a matter that someone else has to sweat and toil and have the fruits of his labor involuntarily taken from him in order to give it to someone else.
Equal oportunity does not necessarily mean equality of outcome.
These socialists are not particularly concerned with the welfare of anybody, they are just concerned with the power they will have.
Yep Matt, couldn't agree more. My view has shifted a bit on the subject of the Republican Party, of which I have always been a member, always voted straight ticket. It's my observation that the party has been co-opted and many key members bought out. That is why we are seeing this odd support for really destructive unconstitutional legislation being supported by Republican in office. They've been corrupted. I still believe in the conservative platform of the Republican Party, but I will no longer vote for ANYone who has the backing of the Republican Party. Too likely they are in someone's pocket or WILL be.
ReplyDeleteThis next election I will be voting out all incumbents and voting for true conservatives outside the Republican Party, of which there are many. I would say that most true conservative candidates ARE now on the outside of the party, because so many of them have seen what's happened to the party and opted right out of it. A pity, but it's the Constitution that must be guarded, not political parties. I suppose at some point it is inevitable that they will all become corrupted. Historically speaking, that is what always happens.
"This next election I will be voting out all incumbents and voting for true conservatives outside the Republican Party"
ReplyDeleteDitto, monkeyweather. ^5
There are still many conservatives in the Republican Party. We just need to avoid those who are not conservative.
ReplyDeleteBe careful of considering people outside the Republican Party just because they are outside of it -- that is a pretty good guarantee of keeping a Democratic majority.
Get involved on the local level. Do what you can to be sure that conservative candidates are the ones who are running. Fight the rinos by all means, but don’t consider party membership a kiss of death, either.
The trouble with voting only for those outside the GOP is that, as Matt said, it is almost a guarantee of a continued Dem majority, because it will split the conservative vote.
ReplyDeleteI would dearly love for an actual American Conservative Party to spring, fully-formed from the forehead of the Tea Partiers, but that is not going to happen.
And if we vote as though it has happened, then the 'progressives' will be laughing up their sleeves as conservatives collapse in disarray while they make so many changes in the government that it gets to the point where only an actual armed insurrection will fix it.
By all means, vote out the 'Dem-Lite' types wherever found, and be ready to vote out the ones you vote in if they do not live up to the ideals they espouse during gampaigns.
As Ronald Reagan said, we do not need a third party: we need a revitalized Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteReagan also famously stated in 1962: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."
ReplyDeleteThat's how I feel about the Republican party. After a lifetime of boasting the "R" next to my name, I walked away when they ditched conservatism to become "democrat lite".
I'm an registered Independent. I'll vote that way. There's a good chance I will not vote for a lawyer. I will not vote for a career politician. I will not vote for a party hack. Chances are VERY good that I will not vote for an incumbent.
We need people in Congress who have actually produced something other than hot air.
We need term limits. Now. End the congressional gravy train; discontinue pensions, health care, and other benefits these fat cats enjoy. Let them return home to their constituencies after 4 years, or 8 years, and actually live by the laws they impose on everyone else.
The Constitution never intended for these people to serve for decades. We will never curb corruption without term limits.
I'm not voting FOR a Republican to PREVENT a democrat from gaining office. No. Absolutely not. If the candidate can't earn my vote on the merits of his/her convictions, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
We've been "settling" for these RINOs for decades! It must stop. They only way to retake the Republican party is to STOP supporting/voting for stinky candidates.
/clambering down off of my soapbox, dusting off my clothes, and pouring another cup of coffee...