AZ Congressional Delegation

Misplaced Congressional Priorities: Pork for the Pentagon but Not for Children

by

Pentagon-moneyby Pamela Powers Hannley

During the Bush II Era, excessive deficit spending was no big deal for Republicans. Congressional Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, and even current “budget hawk” Paul Ryan “spent money like drunken sailors”– particularly when the spending benefited the 1% (remember the tax cuts we couldn’t afford?) or corporations (two wars, Medicare Advantage, off-shoring jobs, more tax cuts, privatization, etc.)

But as soon as a Democratic President occupied the White House, the siren song became: We must tighten our belts and live within our means! Cut government jobs…er… spending! Cut Social Security… er… “entitlements”! 

This austerity screed intensified after the Democratic “shellacking” in 2010 when Teapublicans took control of the House of Representatives and the budget, and Senate Teapublicans began playing games with people’s lives by filibustering everything. (No wonder Congress has a 16% approval rating.)

For the past few months, Congress has been weighing the pros and cons of budget cuts and pork barrel projects. Food stamps and schools lunches are on the chopping block, while the Congress considers passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, which authorizes $640 billion more in defense spending than the Pentagon asked for. (This action was passed by the House Armed Services committee last week; the full vote in the House of Representatives is scheduled for today– Wednesday, June 12.) More details about Pentegon pork after the jump.

Q: Is It Fear or Expedience That Separates Politician From Principle?

by

Posted by Bob Lord

A: It doesn't matter. Either way it's short-sighted and wrong.

It's not always clear what drives politicians to ditch their own principles when voting or taking a position on an issue. It often is fear of political repurcussions. That's what the apologists typically refer to when they defend a wandering pol. "just think how he/she would have been attacked if he'd voted for that bill!"  If anyone questions a rep's "independent" or "bi-partisan" votes, the apologists are quick to explain how these are "tough districts." Translation: You can't stick to your principles if you represent a tough district. What hogwash. Fear-based decision making doesn't play. Never has. Never will.

Poverty by the Numbers Report Reveals a Cruel Nation

by

Flag-99-862-sig-sm72by Pamela Powers Hannley

As Republicans in Congress are poised to cut billions from the food stamp program, a new report about poverty in America reveals how many millions of Americans need social safety net programs like food stamps.

Ever since President Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty in 1964, capitalists and their Republican lackeys have been working hard to dismantle the collection of progressive policies that Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed– food stamps, Head Start, Medicaid, Medicare, low-cost student loans, work study programs and more.

In 1964, the rate of poverty in the US was 20%; with the War on Poverty in full swin, it had dropped to 11% by 1973. Now, thanks to the slow dismantling and defunding of anti-poverty programs, the US poverty rate is 15%, according to the new report published by The Nation and Bill Moyers; 46.2 million Americans are living in poverty. This translates to a family of three with an income of less than $17,916. The most impoverished Americans are children with 22% of all American children living in poverty; this includes 39% of African-American children and 34% of Latino children. Women are far more likely to be poor than men, and that scenario is gradually worsening.

Highlights– or lowlights, depending upon how you look at it– of the report after the jump.

Sign Grijalva’s petition against the Keystone pipeline

by

by David Safier This may be the first time I've actually enjoyed watching a video by a congressman. Grijalva is not a scientist — he admits as much in the video — but he dons a lab coat and plays one in this enjoyable and informative 3 minute explanation of some of the downsides of … Read more

Sinema too Republican? Votes to Reduce Banking Regulations

by

Rep_Kyrsten_Sinema,_Official_Portraitby Pamela Powers Hannley

Citigroup knows how to schmooze Congress– and how to write legislation, apparently.

Ever since the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reinstated some regulations on Wall Street gamblers in 2010, the banksters have been trying to reduce or eliminate those regulations.

The newest chapter in this banking regulation saga finds Citigroup writing the latest round of financial regulations and wining and dining Congressional representatives– including Arizona Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Kyrsten Sinema– to make the legislation happen. In Sinema's case, it worked. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, she voted with Republicans to allow  the Citigroup Protection Act… er… relaxed banking regulations to move out of committee.

I have been in Arizona long enough to have seen Sinema rise through the ranks of the Arizona Legislature and move to the US Congress. When she was in the State Senate, I enjoyed watching her Facebook posts cracking on Arizona Teapublicans and the video speeches where she openly challenged recalled Senate President Russell Pearce. Although I backed her for Congress because of her strong stance on women's issues, I'm seriously disgusted with her overall performance in Congress.

For months, Maricopa County members of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) have been urging Sinema to support the Financial Speculation Tax (AKA the Robin Hood Tax), which would charge a tiny fee on every Wall Street trade– generating billions of dollars, while reducing risky, computerized micro-trades.

Not only has Sinema not supporting the Robin Hood Tax, her recent vote exempts many Wall Street trades from any regulation. This is the wrong direction for the American people. How many Wall Street bankers live in CD9? How many people who would benefit from the revenue generated by the Robin Hood Tax live in CD9? It's time for Sinema to do the math. Voting with Wall Street is a vote against her constituents in Arizona.

If you live in CD9, it's time to call Sinema and tell her you thought you were voting for that fiery State Senator– not the banksters' handmaiden.