House Republicans are in the process of drafting an alternative budget proposal. Nothing has been finalized but the representative who will write the proposal, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has a draft that includes the end of Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a system of vouchers for seniors to buy private insurance. Also included is a plan to privatize social security, turning your savings over to the wall street speculators who caused the recent financial collapse.

It is urgent that you contact Peter Roskam today and tell him to reject any plan that would take away your Medicare and Social Security.

You can contact Peter Roskam in Washington at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Received a Tweet from Peter Roskam  wanting to know what I thought about his floor speeech regarding the estate tax, which Peter and other wingnuts like to call the “death tax”.

Well. I always want to do my part to help my Congressman so here goes.

First off,  I was  pleased to hear him name publicly one by one the interest groups to which he is beholden: U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, etc.

I was also impressed by Peter’s emotion, the passion that this issue arouses in him. Thought his hairpiece was going to fly off at the end ;) .

What troubles me deeply, however, is that it it is only taxes on rich people that can get Peter aroused this way.  Not homeless veterans on the streets of DuPage County, not children in Wood Dale without adequate health care, not torture and illegal detention authorized by the President and Vice President in Washington. Nope. Just taxes on rich white people in Wheaton, or in this case, rich dead white people in Wheaton.

The truth about the estate tax, which Peter Roskam is unwilling to share with you, is that the estate tax will affect only 0.24 percent of all people who die in 2009, individuals who die with an estate valued at $3.5 million or more or married couples (heterosexual) with an estate of $7 million or more. What’s really sad is that Peter Roskam has chosen to use his seat in Congress, OUR seat in Congress, to represent the financial interests of only that tiny fraction of the residents of his district.

Repealing the estate tax, as Roskam, would have us do, would cost billions in reduced revenue, necessitating either increased taxes on the poor and middle class or major reductions in spending. Cuts to the bloated defense budget, of course, are off limits, to Peter and his Republican colleagues, so cuts would have to be made for things like college financial aid, food stamps, Medicare, veterans services, childrens’ health care – all those programs to help poor and middle class families that Peter has fought against so vigorously during his time in office. More than likely, it would be a combination of both increased taxes and reduced services that would be required to give this expensive gift to a few very wealthy dead people.

So, thanks, Peter for letting me know about your speech.  I honestly have to say though that I didn’t care for it much.

When it comes to earmarks, Peter Roskam’s message is “do as I say, not as I do”.

Last fall, Peter Roskam got together with a bunch of fellow Republican extremists who were feeling desperate about their party’s chances in the upcoming 2008 elections after 7 horrible years of mismanagement, malfeasance, and downright criminality by their President, George W. Bush. They decided the only answer was to bring back Ronald Reagan from the dead and so they founded a kind of Ronald Regan resurrection club.

They called their club “Reagan 21″ . This is what they had to say about their club:

Republicans have a proud tradition of upholding Ronald Reagan’s principles of liberty and a vision for the 21st Century. That vision is an America that espouses individual freedom, free enterprise, and common-sense values. Americans are crying out for leadership with courage, principle, and integrity. Reagan 21, a new conservative group uniting Republican leaders from both chambers of Congress, was formed to fill this leadership void. Reagan21 presents a positive alternative to the current majority in Congress.

Now I could fill a book about Reagan’s “common-sense values (remember Iran-Contra, Reagan’s brutal war in Central America, his opposition to gay rights, his indifference to the poor and to persons with AIDS?) but that is not the point here. The Reagan 21 club proclaimed its emphasis on Integrity and Ethics, presumably because the Jack Abramoff model of the previous few years wasn’t working for them anymore:

Americans deserve to have elected officials who represent them, including Members of Congress, abide by the highest possible standards of professional conduct and personal ethics. No Member of Congress should engage in any activity in which there is or could be a conflict of interest between his or her official duties or activities on behalf of his constituents and any personnel interest of that Member. This duty to avoid conflicts of interest is critical to public confidence in the integrity of our nation’s government. To effectuate this duty, Members must not only aggressively avoid any conflict of interest but also any activity in which there could be even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

One of the ways the Reagan 21 club proposed to promote ethics and integrity in Congress was to end the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are Congress’s way of bypassing the executive branch agencies and allocating funds directly to specific favored pet projects. Earmarks in an appropriation bill are often called “pork”. Citizen’s Against Government Waste, an advocacy group formed to “eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government”, identified 7 criteria for identifying pork:

  • Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
  • Not specifically authorized;
  • Not competitively awarded;
  • Not requested by the President;
  • Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
  • Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
  • Serves only a local or special interest.

Senators and Congressmen often rail against pork spending but tend to like it because it can be a way of making themselves popular in their home district, effectively buying votes with highly visible projects that would not other wise be funded.

Here’s what the Reagan 21 club has to say about earmarks:

Recognizing this critical duty, House Republicans in 1994 pledged to “re-establish the bonds of trust between the United States Congress and the American people.” Regrettably, we failed to achieve and maintain this goal. Now Congress must reinvigorate its efforts to reestablish those bonds of trust and hold every Member to a zero tolerance standard in which no self-dealing or appearance of impropriety whatsoever will be tolerated.

One of the main culprits of self-dealing is the practice of “earmarking.” The 1981 transportation bill contained only 10 earmarks. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 that contained 121 earmarks, saying, ‘I haven’t seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.’ In 2005, Congress passed a transportation bill that included an astonishing 6,371 earmarks at a cost of $27.3 billion.

The year before Republicans took the majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, there were 1,400 earmarks. Last year, there were more than 14,000.

So we see that, while most Republican complain about pork and try to blame it on the Democrats, they have been, in actuality, big pork fans. But the Reagan 21 Republicans said that all was going to change. They were going to end earmarks. Yes that’s right, Roskam signed on to a group that declared its intent to pursue a full ban on earmarks, whose members subscribed to a set of core values that included ending all earmarks.

So. How’s Roskam doing in his quest to bring integrity back to Washington by ending the practice of earmarks. Sad to say, not so good. As of today, Roskam’s house website lists a whopping $163, 086, 569 in earmarks for FY ’08 and FY ’09. Mr. Roskam really does like his pork, all his pretensions about being a fiscal conservative to the contrary.

I can only speak for myself but this kind of pisses me off. I’m sure there are many worthwhile projects included in Roskam’s long list of earmarks but we have been listening to Roskam lecture the Democrats in Congress on wasteful spending every time they try to do something to help folks who are truly suffering and all the while Roskam is buying votes back home with these projects that bypass the normal appropriations process.

If it makes you mad too, I’d suggest you give Roskam a call and ask him “what’s with all the pork?” Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Peter Roskam is not telling you the truth.

Today (December 19th), Roskam published on his House web site a brief news item announcing “ROSKAM PROTECTS 70,000 IL-6 RESIDENTS FROM ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX”. This was in regard to the Democratic plan to relieve middle class taxpayers of liability for the Alternative Minimum Tax beginning in the coming tax season.

What Roskam is not telling you is that he and his Republican colleagues absolutely refused to vote for the measure until provisions were removed from the bill that would have closed loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to escape paying taxes by keeping assets offshore and allow some investment fund managers and venture capitalists to pay much lower tax rates than ordinary taxpayers.

(more…)

Walt Zlotow at Heartland Progressive published a great letter to Peter Roskam regarding his support for Bush’s War against Iraq. Great job, Walt. I wish I could write like you. Keep it up and lets get us a new Representative.

LZ at Reluctant Activist 3:1 also just published a good letter to Roskam’s Chief of Staff inquiring about Roskam’s views on torture. Keep writing.

Wonder if Old Rubber Stamp is finally beginning to get the message that his constituents abhor torture and needless wars.