Roskam Spends Tax Dollars on Another Political Mailing to Scare Constituents

On November 5, 2009, in Barack Obama, Deficit, Mortgage Crisis, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Roskam Mailer 20091104_1_sm

Roskam Mailer 20091104_2_sm

Roskam Mailer 20091104_3_SM

More mail from Peter Roskam yesterday. This time a piece designed to scare me about the national debt.  On the back, next to Roskam’s signature, it tells me “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense. This is a service to the the citizens of the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois.” Right next to the pretty glossy photo of rich white people walking in a park, probably in Wheaton.

So how is this a service? A service to the residents of the sixth might be a mailer that told the victims of the Bush financial collapse how to get job re-training and unemployment benefits, and food stamps, and suicide counseling. No, this is a political message, designed to help Roskam’s party defeat the efforts of President Obama to make things better for ordinary Americans.  Pretty ironic when you think about it – Roskam’s spending our tax dollars to print and mail this political message railing about the national debt and excessive spending. What an ass. Based on their polling, Roskam and his Republican colleagues believe that debt and budget deficits are one area where President Obama is potentially vulnerable and so they’re wasting our money on propaganda like this.

Roskam says that “we’re at near historic debt levels, the likes of which have not been seen since WWII: the national debt is over $11 trillion dollars and growing rapidly.” Well, that’s true enough.  But where did all that debt come from? The New York Times’  David Leonhardt did a great job analyzing the growth of budget deficitsback in June: America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making.

It all began when George Bush took office in 2001. As the last Democratic president left office, he handed President Bush a booming economy and a budget surplus projected at $800 billion annually through 2012. Under Bush, the nation plunged into recession in 2001 and the country was forced to increase spending on economic relief while tax revenues decreased. Meanwhile Bush started two expensive wars, one of them inargueably elective, and spent billions on a Medicare prescription drug benefit that was largely a gift to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. So as spending soared and tax revenues decreased, what does Bush do: why give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, further decreasing revenues and increasing the deficit.

Bush’s economic policies resulted in his second recession, the present one, that began in 2007. Again tax revenues plummeted and safety net spending increased.  And then then the mortgage and banking crisis, a product of Bush’s anything goes anti-regulatory policies. Bush is forced to bailout the banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to prevent a global economic collapse, further increasing the deficit. Bush leaves office and hands President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars with no end in sight, and an economy in ruins.

Leonhardt breaks down responsibility for the deficit like this:

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

So about 10 percent of the present deficit is attributable to President Obama’s policies: 7 percent to economic stimulus to pull the nation out of the economic crisis he inherited from an incompetent Repupublican administration and 3 percent related to his new domestic programs. 3 percent!

If Peter Roskam were serious about reducing the deficit he would:

  • Stop wasting tax dollars on political mailings and telephone campaigns
  • Start working to repeal the irresponsible Bush tax cuts
  • Start working to disengage the country from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that he has supported and to reduce military spending to reasonable levels
  • Get behind the President’s efforts to fix the healthcare system
  • Stop working for more tax breaks to the wealthy like an end to the estate tax

But then we all know that Roskam is not serious about reducing the deficit. His only interest is in using it to make things more difficult for the President in hopes of boosting his party’s political fortune.

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 

Anti-Labor Peter Roskam Abandons Air Safety in Favor of Union Busting

On May 27, 2009, in Air Safety, Organized Labor, Peter Roskam, by RSR
1

Peter Roskam has, from time to time, styled himself as an advocate for air safety. You may recall how in late 2007,  Roskam sent a much-publicized letter to the FAA’s Henry Krakowski, expressing  concern about the adequacy of staffing levels in the air traffic control system in the light of a couple of then recent near misses in the skies surrounding O’Hare Airport.

Roskam was correct in his assertion that there have been staffing issues . Those problems are a legacy of his own Republican party’s union busting activities.

In 1981, Republican President Ronald Reagan fired the majority of  U.S. air traffic controllers during a strike of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) for better pay and working conditions and a work week more conducive to safety.  Because so many of the current population of controllers were hired at the time of the PATCO strike, a large number are now approaching retirement age.

In 2006, under Republican President George Bush, the Bush FAA  further complicated the matter.  When an impasse developed in contract negotiations with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (the successor to PATCO), the Bush Administration imposed a new contract that included staffing cuts and lower starting pay for controllers. The Bush intervention prompted a surge in retirements that caught the FAA unprepared.

As in many areas of government, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are now left to clean up the mess left by the Republicans ideological misadventures.

This past week, the House voted on H.R. 915, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009. The bill provides funding for the FAA’s operations and for for improvements to the air traffic system through 2012. According to Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

The bill contains several provisions critical to improving air safety. It directs the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors, creates an independent Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office within the FAA, provides funding for runway safety programs, calls for additional inspections of overseas aircraft repair stations, and requires the FAA to study and update its regulations regarding flight-crew fatigue.

The bill also attempts to rectify the unfair treatment that air traffic controllers have received at Republican hands. Again, according to Rep. Oberstar:

It is extremely important that there be a fair resolution of the controllers’ concerns. The best technology in the world will not improve our air traffic control system if the workforce operating this technology is distracted by resentments over unfair treatment. H.R. 915 mandates a new dispute resolution process, patterned after Postal Service regulations, to make it clear that labor-management disputes between FAA and its organized employees are governed by a fair and impartial process, including binding arbitration. This new process would apply to the ongoing dispute between the controllers and FAA. The Obama administration has announced that it will begin negotiations with Air Traffic Controllers to resolve this dispute. I am hopeful that this will begin a process leading to a new contract acceptable to both parties.

H.R. 915 also amends the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to clarify that employees of an “express carrier” shall only be covered by the RLA if they are employed in a position that is eligible for certification under FAA’s rules, such as mechanics or pilots, and they are actually performing that type of work for the express carrier. All other express carrier employees, such as truck drivers and baggage handlers, would be governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This change would remove the disparity in current law that Federal Express drivers are governed under the RLA, which requires organization for collective bargaining on a nationwide basis, while drivers for UPS and other express carriers are governed by the NLRA, which permits organization on a local basis.

The provision in the RLA that Oberstar refers to is apparently a result of FEDEX’s past efforts to thwart organization of its employees.

H.R. 915 passed the House on Thursday 5/21 by a vote of 277-136, mostly along party lines. The bill must now be considered by the Senate.

Peter Roskam voted against H.R. 915.  The strength of his ideological stance against organized labor trumped whatever concern for air safety he may possess.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Roskam Vote on DRILL Act Proves His Energy Posture a Farce

On July 21, 2008, in Energy, Environment, Friends of Peter Roskam, Gas Prices, Peter Roskam, Peter Roskam's Corporate Agenda, Presidential Race 2008, by RSR
0

Peter Roskam has spent a great deal of time touting his Energy VISION Act around the district lately. The act is supposed to be a plan to eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports in response to the crisis of high energy costs that has been caused by the last 8 years of war and mismanagement by George Bush enabled by Roskam and his Republican colleagues in Congress.

Roskam, who has attempted to block House Democrats at every turn in their efforts to develop a sound energy policy based in heavy emphasis on alternative, renewable sources of energy and increase energy efficiencies, now wants to implement a plan that he says will end our dependence on foreign oil in 15 years. Roskam’s plan emphasizes drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in currently protected areas of the outer continental shelf (OCS), which he says will ultimately yield a combined total of 3.9 million barrels per day.

This past Thursday Democrats gave Roskam a chance to put his money where his mouth is by bringing H.R. 6515: Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 to the House for a vote. Instead, Roskam and his Republican colleagues blocked the measure.

Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made the following statement about the legislation defeated by Roskam and his colleagues:

Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands. With Americans being pummeled by $4 a gallon gas, it is high time America did just that,” stated Rep. Hoyer. “However, after months of suggesting that the only answer to bring down gas prices is more drilling, House Republicans today showed their true colors by blocking the DRILL Act – a bill which would have decisively and responsibly increased domestic oil production.”

Specifically, the DRILL Act would speed up the leasing process of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), an area of land west of the federally-protected Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that contains an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil to ANWR’s 10.4 billion. The bill also incorporates the ‘Use It or Lose It’ legislation, which simply requires oil producers to drill on the leases they already have or relinquish them so that another company can produce the oil there. Finally, it would call on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of Alaskan oil and gas pipelines, so products will get to market sooner, and it ensures that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks, not be exported to other countries.

“In addition to promoting responsible drilling, this bill tells the oil companies to drill on the leases they have, or let somebody else do it – but don’t just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon,” stated Hoyer. “I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let them start on the land they already have, which will bring oil to the market more quickly.”

Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and the Outer Continental Shelf on which they are not producing oil and gas. Eighty-one percent of estimated oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters are already available for development – 311 million acres. These reserves are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption (7.5 billion barrels per year).

Roskam instead proposes a plan that:

  • Allows oil companies to sit indefinitely on their existing leases without drilling while prices climb even higher allowing them to increase their future profits
  • Puts highly sensitive ecosystems at risk of irreversible damage
  • Makes no assurance that oil ultimately produced will make it into gas tanks in this country
  • Relies on questionable math in its calculations regarding future energy independence

It is clear that there will be real action taken regarding the nation’s energy crisis until we elect a Democratic president this fall and increase the Democratic majority in Congress. Roskam and the Republicans are in Big Oil’s pocket and can be counted on to do absolutely nothing to help Americans who are suffering through this crisis.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Signs on to Preparatory Effort for War Against Iran

On June 22, 2008, in George Bush, Iran, Iraq, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Peter Roskam has signed on as co-sponsor to H. CON. RES. 362, a resolution intended to dramatically escalate tensions between the United States and Iran and take another step toward George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s dream of yet another war, this one against Iran.

This resolution, if passed, would express:

the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony

Further provisions include:

  • Declaring that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is vital to our national security interests and must be dealt with urgently
  • Urging the President to impose sanctions on banks and energy companies doing business with Iran
  • Demanding that the President initiate immediately and dramatically an international effort to increase pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend uranium enrichment activities by imposing a blockade
  • Urging the president to “lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America’s vital national security interests in the Middle East.

All of this language, of course, is highly ironic, given that it is the United States that has disrupted peace in the Middle East through its unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that the U.S. has been attempting to destabilize Iran for years, and that the U.S. Middle East policy is pretty much all about the U.S. maintaining hegemony in the region. The U.S. has been complicit in nuclear proliferation in the region and our “friend and ally” in the region, Israel, has been a nuclear power for years. If anybody poses a real nuclear threat of obliterating anyone else it is the threat that Israel poses to Iran. Israel has a right to defend itself. But does not Iran also have that same right? Iran has no history of aggressive war in the region. Both the U.S. and Israel do. Who is posing the real threat to peace and stability?

What this is all about mostly, is winning the U.S. election this fall, even if doing so has to mean armed confrontation with Iran, or at least threatening such confrontation.

Just as when Bush attacked Iraq, this build-up is all being based as an attempt to enforce United Nations resolutions. But the chief of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency denies that there is any urgent danger. Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview:

“I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,”

“A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said, emphasizing that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.

“If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.”

Just as in the case of the war against Iraq, Bush & Roskam & company are basing their campaign for a new war on lies. Iran has renounced the use of nuclear weapons as contrary to Islamic law and the United States’ own intelligence estimate concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Despite this the United States has continued feeding the IAEA incorrect reports of nuclear sites.

Bush’s war against Iraq has brought the U.S. economic misery, cost thousands of young lives, and is rapidly leading us to $5/gallon gasoline. Meanwhile it has cost Iraq a million excess deaths due to violence, almost a third of them at the hands of the U.S. War against Iran will bring more of the same, and worse.

If you live in the 6th district and want to stop this chain of agressive wars, please contact Peter Roskam and demand he renounce his support for Bush’s new war against Iran. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Goes Shopping

On May 30, 2008, in Congressional Elections, Peter Roskam, by RSR
1

Peter Roskam held a campaign event at the Jewel in Elmhurst yesterday. I say a campaign event. Peter would tell you he’s just staying in touch with his constituents. I suspect that as the election draws closer you won’t be able to pick up a six pack of a frosty beverage at the 7-11 without having to shake hands with your Congressman who just wants to listen to your concerns.

Here’s what the puff piece in the Elmhurst Press had to say:

A handful of residents patiently stood in line Tuesday to spend a few minutes speaking with U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-6th District, of Wheaton.

Roskam visited the Jewel-Osco at 153 E. Schiller St. in Elmhurst from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. as a way to connect with residents, he said.

“Washington, D.C., can be an echo chamber, and I want to make sure I’m listening to the district I grew up in,” Roskam said.

Residents spoke to Roskam about everything from community issues to national ones like high gas prices, the war in Iraq and Social Security concerns.

Elmhurst resident Carol Chlystek said she appreciated Roskam’s efforts to connect with the community that he represents.

“I think it’s interesting that he came out to the community,” Chlystek said. “I spoke to him about international relations and education issues. He was very perceptive to my ideas.”

Around 35 people waited to speak to Roskam for as long as they needed. Roskam recently held a similar event in Bartlett, said Brian McCarthy, Roskam’s district director.

Greg Ryan of Elmhurst said he and his family decided to take time of their day to meet with Roskam because they support him.

“I’ve known Peter Roskam for a while and have been aware of Peter Roskam’s record for a while,” Ryan said. “I’m very impressed. … His heart and mind are in the right place.”

McCarthy said residents were free to talk to Roskam about absolutely anything on their minds, calling the event a “fair game.” He added the events happen a few times a month.

After meeting residents at Jewel-Osco, Roskam and his team and Elmhurst Chamber of Commerce & Industry Director John Quigley walked up and down York Road to meet with business owners.

“He stopped in and was a very nice man,” said John S. Rezny, president of York Furrier, 107 N. York Road. “I’m a supporter, and he wanted to know about the businesses and the climate.”

Isn’t that special. Did you check out the food prices while you were there Peter? Did you talk to any food stamp recipients and explain why you had voted against giving them an increase?

Sadly, I wasn’t present at this event. I apparently wasn’t on the handpicked list of safe Republican voters who were given advance notice. Next time you come to Elmhurst Peter, come down to the Jewel on the south side, where the Democrats shop.

Since I couldn’t attend Peter I need to give you my questions here:

  • Why do you keep voting to support George Bush’s war against Iraq and sending our young men and women there to die?
  • Why do you continue to vote in favor of George Bush’s continued practice of torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners and endless detention without trial?
  • Why do you disrespect the sacrifice of the men and women who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan by voting against providing the support they need on their return – support like the new G.I. bill.

You can just drop me a note Peter and I’ll publish your answers for all to see. Othwerwise, I’ll just catch up with you the next time I go out to buy eggs.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam, George Bush Attempt to Block Increased Funding for Food Aid to Poor

On May 22, 2008, in Economic Justice, George Bush, Peter Roskam, Poverty, by RSR
1

The House voted overwhelmingly last week (5/14) in favor of the long-awaited Farm Bill which included substantial improvements in funding of food programs to help the poor.

Among the food program provisions are improvements to the food stamp program:

• Increasing the $10 minimum monthly benefit (unchanged for 30 years) to $14, and indexing it for inflation
• Increasing and indexing the standard deduction for households of three or fewer
• Removing the cap on the deductible amount of child care expenses in eligible households
• Indexing the food stamp household asset limits ($2,000; $3,000 for households with elderly or
disabled), which have gone unchanged for decades
• Allowing more families to save without penalty by excluding education savings and tax-preferred
retirement accounts from food stamp asset limits.

In my opinion any President or Congressman who would oppose these modest provisions for the poor is without heart and without conscience. Peter Roskam voted against them. President Bush then vetoed them today. Then Roskam voted against them again.

There has been a bit of a snafu regarding the veto and the veto override today. It seems that a clerical error resulted in an incomplete copy of the bill being sent to the President so it seems the exercise will have to be repeated. That gives Roskam a chance to vote again and redeem himself. Please call him and ask him to quit being a creep and vote to help our brothers and sisters who are hungry. Roskam can be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-4561 or in Bloomingdale at (630) 893-9670.

Then go and read Ellen of the Tenth’s post on the farm bill vote. She “scooped” my usual sources and I first learned about the vote last week from her blog. Ellen shares some insight on what its like to depend on food stamps.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Page 1 of 41234