There are only 55 Tea Party members in the House and only 51 are returning. So, what is the issue when they are known to be anti-tax and anti-freedom.
By Roxana Tiron and James Rowley
November 08, 2012
Of the 55 members of the Tea Party (click here) caucus who ran for House seats on Nov. 6, at least 51 will return for the 113th Congress starting in January. Defeated were freshman Representatives Joe Walsh and Allen West, members of the House caucus, and Roscoe Bartlett, a 10-term Maryland Republican. Another caucus member, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, is in a runoff with Republican Charles Boustany. Not all Tea Party-backed lawmakers have joined the caucus....
The 113th Congress is convening in 2013. I don't know but I am sure numerologists have a doomsday scenario for that reality. Each Congress has a duration of two years. The 113th Congress is from January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015. A lot of threes in there. That has to mean something somewhere. Maybe it means the three branches of the legislative activities of our government actually work together to get the business of the nation done. You know the Senate, House and Executive Branch.
To begin being anti-tax means there is no government because in order have a government there has to be tax. It is just what it is. War alone, a national defense costs money. It just does. Whether it is a government function or an ideological privatized function it still requires money. So, to be anti-tax is not possible.
The Tea Party is purchased by the wealthy. It represents probably less than 2% of the population. When it comes to governing they are have no interest in the other 98% of the USA citizens.
TUESDAY, DEC 11, 2012 08:37 AM EST
Koch Brothers, Tea Party cash drives Michigan Right-to-work Law (click here)
Why did Gov. Rick Snyder buckle on an anti-union law? Just look at his big-money donors
The Tea Party is a SPECIAL INTEREST party. It just is. It dearly doesn't represent the majority of Americans. They back crony interests without a second thought.
There is no way the Tea Party is going to do anything, except, to continue to marginalize the Middle Class and cast citizens into poverty. This problem in the House and within the GOP will result in a return to recession. The Tea Party is not at all reasonable. They are not interested in good governance to support a strong economy. The Tea Party panders to the priorities of the Koch Brothers and nothing else. What works for Koch, works for them.
The current bill before the House seeks to continue to stabilize the USA economy, continue the expansion of the economy, continue to combat unemployment while reversing and ending corruption. It seeks to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax which is historic all by itself. The AMT has a been a problem for many years and this is finally being addressed.
The way to ending the national deficit and shrink the national debt is to expand the economy, the tax base and the growth of all the country's economic sectors. This while finding a way to tax those able to pay which does not at all hurt the economic growth our recovery relies upon. Estimates of new revenues according to the bill now before the House is $800 billion over ten years. That is not nothing. If it is not nothing, then what is the problem?
I have to laugh at the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is suppose to mean the government is on a fixed income and they have to make the budget fit the income. Where does it say that? Where does it say a Balanced Budget Amendment stops tax increases? It doesn't and given the taste for 'slick government' by the Republicans no one should assume that will ever be the case. It is grossly unrealistic. In five years the cost of living alone will cause the federal government to shrink and shrink and if Republicans think sequester is bad now, just wait until the Balance Budget Amendment kicks in.
The point is, forget about any movement on the bill before House by any Tea Party member. Example: Marco Rubio, Senator. The Senate bill passed by 89 votes and Rubio voted against it. Huh?
President Obama won Iowa's six electoral votes by 5.8%. Senator Harkin stood with Americans like me that believed $250,000 was the cut off to return the Clinton Tax Rates. So, he felt strongly it was a lousy deal. I have to agree. Sincerely. But, I am sure the Veep would say it was the best the Senate Dems could do.
Senator Carper felt the same way, "Unfortunately, (click here) the deal the Senate passed this morning is not the grand bargain that I, and many of us, had hoped for, and that's why I ultimately voted against it."
Senator Bennett is also a strong supporter of alternative energy, especially wind. He is young, vital and sees the future as a high priority in his focus.
Senator Grassley wanted a bill to contain spending. Let me get this right. It was okay to raise the taxes on all Americans, but, the spending had to come down besides. Gotcha.
“It'd be one thing to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, (click here) but that’s not what this deal does. It's a fiscal farce to raise taxes and hurt economic growth only to fuel more government spending with record deficits and debt. People at the grass roots want Washington to spend less, not more. Failure to deal with spending lets them down. Spending restraint ought to be more than a wishful new year’s resolution with no way to be certain it’s kept....
Senators Lee, Senator Rand Paul and Rubio are all Tea Party members of the Senate. Both Paul and Lee are 2010 Senators. They are just anti-government, except, for their paychecks. Wait a minute, Rubio was a 2010 Senator. Yeah. A Tea Party surge into the federal government and state legislatures. They won't be up for reelection until 2016.
Richard Shelby of Alabama said: “I do not support this agreement," Shelby said in a statement. "Our economy needs spending restraint by the federal government and fundamental tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare and lowers individuals' rates.
I don't mind what Senator Shelby said. I believe that is true. However, I think it is remiss to ignore the pitfalls of a recession. That is the only reason I would disagree with Senator Shelby. He is correct, there has to be expansive changes to the tax code. Unfortunately, for as correct as he is, there is literally no common ground for that approach. Those sound principles are literally gone from the legislative priorities. So, while I agree with Senator Shelby, his vote was a statement and not reality.
Senator Shelby's partner from Alabama wanted to stop the tax increases on low income. Alabama has many low income folks. Sessions was correct. Alabama also receives a lot of federal dollars for health care. Public health care.
A statement from Sessions read: (click here) “This legislation is necessary to prevent a large and painful tax increase from falling on the vast majority of Americans. Its enactment will end a long period of uncertainty that would weaken or even reverse economic growth. Now, it is important that we place our focus directly on the real cause of our nation’s looming debt crisis: the continued surge in spending.”
I know these men care about their constituencies and have the faith of their people to represent them, but, what I don't understand is why the citizen / voter is not empowered to move out of poverty through union representation. I am quite sure Senator Sessions and Shelby want their people to be less impoverished, yet, in that reality they still hold back in endorsing organized labor to improve the working circumstances of their people. I hate it that Alabama is as poor as it is. I find their reality and inability to empower themselves in increased economic standing very sad.
I think that covers it. The Tea Party really needs to be defeated. In all honesty, with the whooping the GOP took in 2008, the wealthy and those wannabee wealthy saw an opportunity to cash in on the opportunity to create a new image without sincerely backing qualified people.
By Roxana Tiron and James Rowley
November 08, 2012
Of the 55 members of the Tea Party (click here) caucus who ran for House seats on Nov. 6, at least 51 will return for the 113th Congress starting in January. Defeated were freshman Representatives Joe Walsh and Allen West, members of the House caucus, and Roscoe Bartlett, a 10-term Maryland Republican. Another caucus member, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, is in a runoff with Republican Charles Boustany. Not all Tea Party-backed lawmakers have joined the caucus....
The 113th Congress is convening in 2013. I don't know but I am sure numerologists have a doomsday scenario for that reality. Each Congress has a duration of two years. The 113th Congress is from January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015. A lot of threes in there. That has to mean something somewhere. Maybe it means the three branches of the legislative activities of our government actually work together to get the business of the nation done. You know the Senate, House and Executive Branch.
To begin being anti-tax means there is no government because in order have a government there has to be tax. It is just what it is. War alone, a national defense costs money. It just does. Whether it is a government function or an ideological privatized function it still requires money. So, to be anti-tax is not possible.
The Tea Party is purchased by the wealthy. It represents probably less than 2% of the population. When it comes to governing they are have no interest in the other 98% of the USA citizens.
TUESDAY, DEC 11, 2012 08:37 AM EST
Koch Brothers, Tea Party cash drives Michigan Right-to-work Law (click here)
Why did Gov. Rick Snyder buckle on an anti-union law? Just look at his big-money donors
The Tea Party is a SPECIAL INTEREST party. It just is. It dearly doesn't represent the majority of Americans. They back crony interests without a second thought.
There is no way the Tea Party is going to do anything, except, to continue to marginalize the Middle Class and cast citizens into poverty. This problem in the House and within the GOP will result in a return to recession. The Tea Party is not at all reasonable. They are not interested in good governance to support a strong economy. The Tea Party panders to the priorities of the Koch Brothers and nothing else. What works for Koch, works for them.
The current bill before the House seeks to continue to stabilize the USA economy, continue the expansion of the economy, continue to combat unemployment while reversing and ending corruption. It seeks to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax which is historic all by itself. The AMT has a been a problem for many years and this is finally being addressed.
The way to ending the national deficit and shrink the national debt is to expand the economy, the tax base and the growth of all the country's economic sectors. This while finding a way to tax those able to pay which does not at all hurt the economic growth our recovery relies upon. Estimates of new revenues according to the bill now before the House is $800 billion over ten years. That is not nothing. If it is not nothing, then what is the problem?
I have to laugh at the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is suppose to mean the government is on a fixed income and they have to make the budget fit the income. Where does it say that? Where does it say a Balanced Budget Amendment stops tax increases? It doesn't and given the taste for 'slick government' by the Republicans no one should assume that will ever be the case. It is grossly unrealistic. In five years the cost of living alone will cause the federal government to shrink and shrink and if Republicans think sequester is bad now, just wait until the Balance Budget Amendment kicks in.
The point is, forget about any movement on the bill before House by any Tea Party member. Example: Marco Rubio, Senator. The Senate bill passed by 89 votes and Rubio voted against it. Huh?
By WSJ Staff (click here)
Eight senators voted against the tax bill that passed the Senate. They were: Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa; Tom Carper of Delaware; Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa; Mike Lee of Utah; Rand Paul of Kentucky; Marco Rubio of Florida; and Richard Shelby of Alabama. Here are their comments.
President Obama won Iowa's six electoral votes by 5.8%. Senator Harkin stood with Americans like me that believed $250,000 was the cut off to return the Clinton Tax Rates. So, he felt strongly it was a lousy deal. I have to agree. Sincerely. But, I am sure the Veep would say it was the best the Senate Dems could do.
Senator Carper felt the same way, "Unfortunately, (click here) the deal the Senate passed this morning is not the grand bargain that I, and many of us, had hoped for, and that's why I ultimately voted against it."
Senator Michael Bennett is a champion for good values. He believed the bill was not good for the USA and stood shoulder to shoulder with Harkin and Carper. Senator Bennett is fighting hard to solve the farmer and immigrant problems. He wants sincere immigration reform.
December 17, 2012
A recent widespread push in Colorado for immigration reform (click here) has been welcomed with open arms from a $1.5-billion agriculture industry in Weld County that’s battled existing regulations as much as or more than any other. Earlier this month, a diverse and bipartisan group revealed the “Colorado Compact” — an effort spearheaded by Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., aimed at getting the ball rolling on discussions for federal immigration reform. Colorado — with an estimated 180,000 undocumented immigrants — is now the fourth state to put forth such a document. Because of that push, Colorado Agriculture Commissioner John Salazar and others, including …
Senator Grassley wanted a bill to contain spending. Let me get this right. It was okay to raise the taxes on all Americans, but, the spending had to come down besides. Gotcha.
“It'd be one thing to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, (click here) but that’s not what this deal does. It's a fiscal farce to raise taxes and hurt economic growth only to fuel more government spending with record deficits and debt. People at the grass roots want Washington to spend less, not more. Failure to deal with spending lets them down. Spending restraint ought to be more than a wishful new year’s resolution with no way to be certain it’s kept....
Senators Lee, Senator Rand Paul and Rubio are all Tea Party members of the Senate. Both Paul and Lee are 2010 Senators. They are just anti-government, except, for their paychecks. Wait a minute, Rubio was a 2010 Senator. Yeah. A Tea Party surge into the federal government and state legislatures. They won't be up for reelection until 2016.
Richard Shelby of Alabama said: “I do not support this agreement," Shelby said in a statement. "Our economy needs spending restraint by the federal government and fundamental tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare and lowers individuals' rates.
"Instead, this package raises taxes, increases spending, and will lead to more borrowing. This deal is certainly no cure-all; rather, it falls far short of the measures necessary to promote job creation, economic growth, and fiscal stability.”
Senator Shelby's partner from Alabama wanted to stop the tax increases on low income. Alabama has many low income folks. Sessions was correct. Alabama also receives a lot of federal dollars for health care. Public health care.
A statement from Sessions read: (click here) “This legislation is necessary to prevent a large and painful tax increase from falling on the vast majority of Americans. Its enactment will end a long period of uncertainty that would weaken or even reverse economic growth. Now, it is important that we place our focus directly on the real cause of our nation’s looming debt crisis: the continued surge in spending.”
I know these men care about their constituencies and have the faith of their people to represent them, but, what I don't understand is why the citizen / voter is not empowered to move out of poverty through union representation. I am quite sure Senator Sessions and Shelby want their people to be less impoverished, yet, in that reality they still hold back in endorsing organized labor to improve the working circumstances of their people. I hate it that Alabama is as poor as it is. I find their reality and inability to empower themselves in increased economic standing very sad.
I think that covers it. The Tea Party really needs to be defeated. In all honesty, with the whooping the GOP took in 2008, the wealthy and those wannabee wealthy saw an opportunity to cash in on the opportunity to create a new image without sincerely backing qualified people.
