Ronald Reagan, Terrorist

On February 6, 2010, in Republican Party, Terrorism, Wingnuts, by RSR
0

Today is Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday. We thought it might be a good thing to take a look the real Ronald Reagan, rather than the pantomime Reagan always being trotted out by conservatives. Here then is Bill Moyers excellent 1987 film on Reagan’s illegal terrorist war against the people of Nicaragua. Reagan funded his war by secret illicit arms sales to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, all, absurdly, in the name of fighting Communism. In doing so he violated the law and acted in direct opposition to the will of Congress, subverting the constitution and creating a shadow government. And he is held up as a hero by so-called conservatives for it. We think that conservatives have a little difficulty distinguishing right from wrong & the good guys from the bad guys.

After you’ve had a chance to view the video, you may want to follow-up by reading about the connection between Reagan’s Contras and the crack cocaine crisis in the United States in the early 1980s.

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: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Worried and Confused, Peter Roskam Adopts Obama as Running Mate

On October 21, 2008, in Congressional Elections, George Bush, Peter Roskam, Presidential Race 2008, by RSR
1

I haven’t found much time for blogging lately. I’m transitioning to a new role at work and when I haven’t been working I’ve been transfixed by the Presidential contest and our rapid descent into recession or worse. But when I saw this little ad on the Huffington Post today it shocked me into activity. Yes, Peter Roskam, desperate for your vote in what appears will be a Democratic landslide year, is attempting to ride Obama’s coat tails into a second term. And yes, this is the same Peter Roskam who is serves on John McCain’s Illinois leadership team. I nearly aspirated my Diet Pepsi when I saw this.

Apparently Roskam is not sure his nasty campaign of of character assaults against Jill Morgenthaler is going to fail in much the same way that John McCain’s nasty campaign against Obama is failing. Roskam would like you to believe that voting for both Barack Obama and himself would be a reasonable thing to do. It would not. Here’s my “voter guide” to explain why.

  1. Roskam is helping to lead John McCain’s campaign in Illinois. He wants John McCain to become President. He wants this because he and John want to do very different things than Barack Obama. They would like to see less rather than more regulation of the financial institutions that got us into such trouble during the “anything goes” Bush years. They want to privatize Social Security, turning what’s left of your retirement funds over to Wall Street, not because it’s good for you, but because its good for Wall Street. They want to abolish the minimum wage and regulations providing equal pay for equal work. They don’t like government regulation generally and would work against rules protecting workers from hazards in the workplace or protecting our environment for our children and our  children’s children. They want to continue the trend of redistribution of wealth that has taken place during the Bush years – taking more and more from the middle class and transferring it to the very wealthy. They will do this through regressive taxation – relieving large corporations and wealthy individuals of the obligation to pay their fair share, transferring that burden to the rest of us. They continue to embrace the failed “trickle down” theory of Ronald Reagan in spite of it’s obvious failure. They want to appoint extremist judges to the Supreme Court and take away every woman’s right to chose, banning abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake (you heard McCain say it in the last debate). They want to continue to undermine the religious freedom that we enjoy in this country by further eroding the wall of separation that has existed between Church and State since the foundation of our nation. They want to continue to allow big oil companies to grow richer at our expense by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels rather than implement strategies to conserve and develop alternative sources. And they would continue the Bush pattern of military aggression aimed at controlling the world’s scarce resources rather than engaging in cooperative action with other nations to solve the serious problems the world faces.
  2. Peter Roskam has not raised a single objection to all the many abuses of the Bush administration: the lies that were told to justify the ridiculous war against Iraq, the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, the illegal domestic spying, the outing of Valerie Plame, the politicization of the Justice Department, the Abramoff scandal, the looting by government contractors in Iraq, and on and on. By his silence, Roskam bears moral responsibility for all of them. Roskam is without a moral compass.
  3. Peter Roskam has done nothing in Congress except obstruct the efforts of the majority to tackle our problems. He has consistently used his vote to set up roadblocks to Democratic eforts to tackle problems such as the health insurance crisis, high energy prices, global warming, the shrinking middle class, and the plight of the poor. In order to succeed in office, President Obama will need legislator who will work cooperatively with him. Hyper-partisan Peter Roskam is not such a person.
  4. Roskam is insensitive to the needs of the poor and the middle class. He has consistently used his vote to aid the wealthiest americans and large corporations at the expense of the rest of us. On the basis of his voting record, Roskam was awarded the grade of F by themiddlelass.org and the grade of D by the Sargeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.
  5. Rather than use his vote to address the needs of his constituents, Roskam consitently votes for the benefit of large corporations. He has vote the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position 100% of the time. In return the the Chamber is running false adds, like the one below, claiming that Roskam is fighting for better health care. In fact, Roskam has voted multiple time against the expansion of the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program and against parity in mental health benefits. Peter Roskam is an enemy of efforts to provide better healthcare to all Americans. He has demonstrated by his votes that he is only interested in protecting the pocketbooks of his corporate sponsors.

I urge Obama voters who might seriously consider voting to re-elect Roskam to take a close look at his voting record. There’s lots of links here that can help you do that.Even the solidly Republican Chicago Tribune has endorsed Roskam’s opponent. Roskam has used his office to serve special interests rather than to serve the majority of his constituents. He does not deserve to be returned to Washington.

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

Peter Roskam’s $163 million in Earmarks

On August 1, 2008, in Earmarks, Ethics Reform, Peter Roskam, Reagan 21, by RSR
2

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.

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