Morton School District 709 Referendum on April 5th—I’m voting NO!!!


A week ago this post would have been more difficult to write than it is today. I was somewhat torn over the issue. I was a teacher in Illinois for several years. I was an elected school board member in Arizona for four years. I can’t remember ever voting against a school referendum before this year. On April 5th, I will vote NO on the Morton School District Referendum!

When I was elected to the school board, we had 3 elementary schools, one junior high school, and one high school. The district which is located northwest of Tucson has approximately 550 square miles within its boundaries. (I didn’t remember this figure. I looked it up, as well as other information, at the district website while writing this post.) The district was a rapidly growing district that had money problems because the State determined, by a formula, how much money we could spend and that formula didn’t take into account rapid growth to the extent that it should have.

Soon after I moved to the area, the district passed a referendum to build additional schools. During my four years on the board, we built three elementary schools, one junior high school, and a high school. According to the referendum, we were suppose to build four elementary schools but we didn’t have sufficient money for the fourth. When I left the board, having decided not to run for reelection, we had six elementary schools, two junior high schools, and two high schools. We doubled the number of schools in four years! The school population was around 6,000 when I retired from the board.

Today, according to the website, there are 12 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, and three high schools—a vocational high school has been added. The 2010 student population is listed as 12,916. The peak student population occurred in 2005 when there were 13,343 students. Since that high, the student population has declined slightly each year. The decline from 2009 to 2010 was one student.

I was born and raised in Morton. I attended Jefferson Elementary School—the only elementary school at the time—Morton Junior High, and Morton High School. I believe I received a good education. My GPA in college was higher than my GPA at Morton High. I received my bachelor and master of science degrees in five years of college and then taught high school students in three school districts within Illinois. I was certified to teach in both Illinois and Arizona although I never taught in Arizona.

I have empathy for both teachers and school boards. I know the work involved because I personally experienced it at both levels. I also know that buildings per se do NOT improve education within a school system. I’ve known systems that had everything they needed and wanted and yet they provided, what I considered, a poor education. I have known systems that had to scrimp in all areas and yet they provided, what I considered, a good education. Buildings don’t education!

I have divided my reasons for opposing the referendum into three sections although reasons one and two tend to merge together. They are:

1) neighborhood schools

2) the smell factor

3) the economy and spendoholics

The three reasons:

1) neighborhood schools

The school district has four elementary schools. Three of the elementary schools are receiving building funds through the referendum. Jefferson Elementary, which is the oldest school and the smallest population-wise (I believe this is true. I tried to find the building population and could not find it.), receives no referendum funds. Many within the school’s boundaries believe the intent of the board is to close the school at a later date. The school board denies that and claims that no decision has been made. My belief, as a former teacher and a former school board member, is that no decision is a decision. The decision through inaction and denial is that the building will be closed. A firm statement either way—it will stay open and will be one of our elementary schools or it will be closed at a future date and be replaced by—is necessary for me to even consider voting yes. Uncertainty is NOT an option. The school board needs to demonstrate some integrity!

2) the smell factor

The treatment of this referendum just does NOT pass the smell test. The district for months talked about how every school in the district needs major work—the junior high doesn’t have enough bicycle racks. They discussed closing Jefferson, moving the Jefferson students to the junior high, moving the junior high students to the high school, moving the students from one of the elementary schools to the high school with the new junior high school students, building a new elementary school, building a new high school. It was a long term plan. Or at least, it was suppose to be.

Then, we get a referendum to add on to three of the four elementary schools and nothing else. Everything else is in limbo. What happened to the long range plan? What’s going to happen to Jefferson? Are we going to build any new schools? What future referendums are we going to be asked to support? Who knows?

As I wrote on my March 24th post, “At the end of the last letter to the editor, the following was printed on page A5:

‘This edition, March 23, will be the last edition the Morton Times-News can print letters to the editor concerning the April 5 election.’

As I also wrote on that post, I sent a letter to the editor offering to post any letters in relation to the April 5th election dealing with the board of trustee election and/or the school district referendum. Meanwhile, the editorial board of the Peoria Journal Star, which is owned by the same conglomerate that owns the Morton Times-News, published an editorial in support of the referendum. This is the same editorial board that supports the murder of unborn babies and supports the “right” of 17 year-old girls to buy murder pills (also referred to as “morning after pills”) over the counter.

My letter to the editor offering an opportunity to continue the debate was not published. But that’s not all. A strange thing happened within that Wednesday March 30th edition. Even though the previously week the paper had declared that “This edition, March 23, will be the last edition the Morton Times-News can print letters to the editor concerning the April 5 election,” a letter to the editor dealing with the April 5th election was printed.

On page A4 of the Wednesday, March 30, 2011 edition of the Morton Times-News it stated,

“LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

School board gives answers

As members of the Board of Education in Morton we are encouraged by the healthy debate surrounding the referendum ….” WHAT!!! What ever happened to “This edition, March 23, will be the last edition the Morton Times-News can print letters to the editor concerning the April 5 election.”??? An exception was made for the school board!!! Does this pass the smell test??? NOT to me!!!

The moment I saw that letter my decision to VOTE NO was confirmed!!! This is Chicago style politics in the village of Morton and it stinks!!! The school board needs to demonstrate some integrity! The local newspaper needs to demonstrate some integrity!

3) the economy and spendoholics

School referendums do not occur in a vacuum. At the present time the federal government is a spendoholic increasing our national debt daily. The debt has passed $14 trillion and is racing to pass $15 trillion. The State of Illinois is a spendoholic. Its debt is estimated to be $15 billion this fiscal year. The State has been violating its own Constitution for several years by NOT balancing the yearly budget.

Instead of cutting spending, the State increased the State income tax by 67%. The State increased the State income tax by 67% and we, the citizens of Morton, had no direct say in the matter. The village of Morton recently increased the village’s portion of the sales tax by approximately 14% and we, the citizens of Morton, had no direct say in the matter. Now, the school board wants to increase our property tax. This time, we DO HAVE a direct say in the matter. We can say “TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!”

No tax is imposed in a vacuum. We do NOT have unlimited funds to hand over to governments!

Do you really believe the State will impose sanctions if the new gymnasiums are not built? Do you really believe that there are no alternatives if we do not build extra classrooms? I, as well as other social science teachers, taught in portable class rooms for a number of years before St. Charles Unified School District 303 built a new high school. In Arizona, the elementary school in my neighborhood had portable classrooms both before and after the three new elementary schools were built. Jefferson has extra space according to the district. Can’t the elementary school boundaries be redrawn? The district owns the building across from one of the other elementary schools. Can’t it be utilized? How can we really know if this expansion is beneficial until we know the long range plan?

As Sherlock Holmes has said: “I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” page 8 From: A Scandal in Bohemia

As Sherlock Holmes has also said: “Data! Data! Data!” he cried impatiently, “I can’t make bricks without clay.” page 289 From: The Copper Beeches

Also, it would be wise to consider what the State might do to cut State spending. It may well cut funds that go to schools. It already owes schools money that it doesn’t have. The State might allow schools to cut such programs as daily physical education rather than cutting core curriculum subjects such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. After all, the students aren’t required to show competence in physical education as they are in such areas as reading, writing, and arithmetic. If something has to fall to the wayside because of cost restraints, what do you think it will be? Finally, if the State think we need gymnasiums so badly, I’d ask them to return the money they confiscated with the 67% income tax increase. We can then use that money to build the needed gyms!

In short, this is not a plan. This is, at best, a segment of a possible plan. Show us the plan! We might show the school board the money. Until then, as far as I’m concerned, no plan; no money!

Morton Trustee Election April 5th—candidates I’m voting for


Note: I originally intended to write about both the Village Trustee Election and the referendum to finance additional building in the Morton School District in the same post. I decided to separate the two and post each individually. Today, the Morton Village Election. Tomorrow, the Morton School District Referendum.

The Morton Trustee Election:

“Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:40 PM

To: Donald Vance

Subject: Re: Video gambling packet 3

I appreciate your communication, but if you cannot get your argument on one page (or two at most), you do not have an argument. I do not open large e-mail packets, and large U.S. mail packets go unopened into the trash.

Sorry,”

I received the above e-mail from one of the present members of the Morton Village Board. More on this e-mail later.

The election for members of the Morton Village Trustee Board is April 5th. There are four candidates running for election. Three of the four will be elected. This is the first election, since the election for mayor six years ago, that there are more candidates than positions available—a competitive election.

The four candidates in alphabetical order are:

1) Dan Acton—a new challenger

2) Randy J. Belsley—a new challenger

3) Anthony Huette—an incumbent

4) Stephen E. Newhouse—an incumbent

I have not seen a lot of information about the candidates and, as far as I know, there was only one public forum for the candidates. One of the problems I have observed since moving back is the absence of political competition. I have ideas of why that is true but this post is not to deal with that specific issue.

Since I moved back, there have been three controversial issues in which I have been involved. They are:

1) Selling beer and wine in grocery stores—specifically Kroger’s and Wal-Mart.

2) Prohibiting restaurants and taverns that sell alcohol by the drink at the location from having up to five video gambling machines.

3) Establishing a business district where the Village of Morton has eminent domain over approximately 99% of the businesses and between 1/3 and ½ of the land mass of the village.

When these issues were current, I posted extensively on them. Therefore, I will not go into detail on the three issues.

I opposed issues one and three. I supported issue two.

I do not know the positions of the two challengers. I do know how the two incumbents voted.

Trustee Huette voted:

1) To allow the two grocery stores to sell beer and wine.

2) To prevent video gambling machines within the community.

3) To establish a business district where the Trustees may confiscate up to almost ½ of the property within the village through eminent domain.

Trustee Newhouse voted:

1) To allow the two grocery stores to sell beer and wine.

2) Oops. Trustee Newhouse did not vote on this issue. He was the only Trustee who was absent for this vote.

3) To establish a business district where the Trustees may confiscate up to almost ½ of the property within the village through eminent domain.

Concerning Trustee Newhouse, it is also my impression that he very much wants to run for mayor when the current mayor retires. And no, I can not prove this to be true. I have years of political experience and it is the conclusion I have reached while dealing with the present village board. Again, it is my impression and not an established fact, to my knowledge.

Because of the votes of the present incumbents on issues of major importance to me, I will not support either of the two incumbents. I am supporting Dan Acton and Randy J. Belsley.

Oh yes, concerning the above quoted e-mail, which, once again, stated:

“Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 3:40 PM

To: Donald Vance

Subject: Re: Video gambling packet 3

I appreciate your communication, but if you cannot get your argument on one page (or two at most), you do not have an argument. I do not open large e-mail packets, and large U.S. mail packets go unopened into the trash.

Sorry,”

As background:

I have a master of science degree in political science and know something about the political process, elected government officials, and the operations of governments. I have also been an elected public official and have run for more than one political office.

As an elected public official, I would never tell a citizen that “If you cannot get your argument on one page (or two at most), you do not have an argument.” That’s utter and complete nonsense! If a citizen needs five minutes to talk to me or one to two pages of an e-mail or packet to communication with me, he gets it. If a citizen needs two hours to talk to me or one hundred pages of an e-mail or packet to communication with me, he gets it. I am his elected representative. His positions on the issues are important to me. What he has to say is important to me in reaching a valid decision on issues of the day. I may not agree with his arguments but it is my obligation and my responsibility as an elected public official to hear him out. I may not vote the way he wants me to vote but it is my obligation and my responsibility as an elected public official to hear him out.

That Mr. Newhouse is part of, an important part of, the democratic process. And yes, the above e-mail was sent by Stephen E. Newhouse.

Which leads to the following:

To me, it is the epitome of arrogance to declare that the length of a communication is the criterion for the determination of the value of that communication. To me, it is the epitome of contempt to declare to a citizen of this community that the length of a communication is the criterion for the determination of the value of that communication.

Mr. Newhouse, you are no longer a manger at Caterpillar demanding of a subordinate a summation of a problem. I am not your subordinate! The other citizens of this community are not your subordinates!

You are the public servant. I can tell you emphatically that it took me more time and effort to research and write the information presented than it would have taken you to read the material—it may have taken significantly longer to understand and grasp the material. Do you really believe that your time is more valuable than mine? Do you really believe that I used my valuable time to give you the privilege of not opening an e-mail or of throwing a mailed packet unopened into the trash? What arrogance! What contempt!

I do not know why Trustee Newhouse was not at the meeting when the vote was taken on the issue. I do know that in my four years as an elected public official I never missed a meeting of the board. Never! I do know that if Mr. Newhouse had been at that scheduled meeting I was going to address the board specifically about the e-mail he had sent to me and tell him the same things that I have just written. I do know that recently some cowardly Democratic Senators from Wisconsin fled the State to avoid voting on a bill that they knew would pass. And I wonder why Mr. Newhouse did not fulfill his responsibility and attend this important, scheduled board meeting.

Regardless, once I read the original e-mail, I knew that Mr. Newhouse would never receive my vote for any public office. In my opinion, Mr. Newhouse, you don’t deserve it!!! Sorry!

Letters to the Editor silenced two weeks before the spring election

I didn’t intent this post for today. However, it seems appropriate to take action.

Background information:

Morton, the village I live in, is having both a contested village trustee election and a school referendum vote Tuesday, April 5th. There are four candidates for three positions for the village trustee election. Someone is going to lose. This is the first contested election for positions on the Village Board since the election for mayor six years ago. The school district wants authorization to spend over 12 million dollars to improve three of the four elementary schools. Although denied by the district, some voters are concerned that the fourth and oldest elementary school was left off of the referendum because it will subsequently be closed at a later date .

Meanwhile, Morton has two weekly newspapers. I rarely read one of them because it is seldom actually delivered. (Either that, or someone steals it before I get to it.) Both papers deliver on Wednesday. The paper I always receive is the Morton Times-News. This paper is owned by GateHouse Media, Inc. which also owns the Peoria Journal Star.

I opened the March 23rd edition of the Times-News yesterday and on page A4, the editorial page, read the following:

“A political letter regarding an upcoming election will be run two issues prior to the election to give the opponent an opportunity to respond the following week.” Now wait a second! The election is April 5th. Two issues prior to the election would be Wednesday March 30th and March 23rd. March 23rd was yesterday! I planned on writing a letter to the editor about the village trustee election. That possibility has just been precluded!

What does this two week exclusion mean? Let’s take an example. Steve Newhouse is an incumbent trustee running for reelection. Over the last four years, there have been three contentious issues where I was involved. The first was allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine. The second was to prevent alcohol selling establishments (bars and restaurants; not grocery and liquor stores) from having up to five video gambling machines. The final issue was increasing the village sales tax, at almost 99% of the businesses in the village, by about 14%.

From today until the election, Steve Newhouse can say anything to the electorate without being challenged through a letter to the editor—the easiest and probably the most beneficial method to reach the entire voting community. For example, Mr. Newhouse could tell an audience of tavern owners that he voted in opposition to the prohibition against video gambling machines. He could tell another group that he voted for the prohibition. Still another group that he didn’t vote on the issue. Which answer is the correct answer? How many are going to do the necessary research to find out the truth? If you are a village voter, do you know the answer?

I do. I have a CD of that board meeting. It was on 12/21/2009. Mr. Newhouse was not at the meeting and therefore he did not vote on the issue. Should any candidate be given a two week window where he could possibly mislead the voting public without an serious repercussions? Does this newspaper policy seem appropriate if the goal is to give the citizens of the community the opportunity to voice their opinions?

Another question? Did the paper publish this policy in the previous issue and I simply missed it? I didn’t recall ever reading this policy before yesterday. Consequently, I checked pages A4 and A5 of the March 16th edition of the paper. You guessed it! This policy is not stated on those two pages. If the 23rd of March was the last edition that a letter dealing with the trustee election would be printed, shouldn’t we have been informed of that decision in the March 16th edition?

By the way, in the March 23rd edition, no letters were printed in relation to the trustee election. However, three letters were published in relation to the school referendum—one in opposition to the referendum and two in favor of the referendum. At the end of the last letter to the editor, the following was printed on page A5:

“This edition, March 23, will be the last edition the Morton Times-News can print letters to the editor concerning the April 5 election.”

Can or will? Why can’t the paper print letters about the referendum in the March 30th edition? Is it physically impossible to do so? Would it be appropriate to inform the public of that decision BEFORE the March 23rd edition?

Finally, trustee Newhouse just happens to write his own column for the Morton Times-News. His column for the March 23rd edition is on page A6. At the end of the column it reports the following: “Stephen Newhouse is a Morton Village Board trustee with planning and zoning responsibilities. He agreed to write a column for the Morton Times-News to offer his perspective about village happenings.” Is it appropriate for a village board candidate to be given a forum during the campaign season when NONE of the other candidates seem to have been given the opportunity for the same forum?

Because of the above, I have decided two things. First, my post on Wednesday, March 30th will be the letter to the editor that I had planned to write for that edition of the paper. Also, I will write a second post dealing with the school referendum which I had not planned to write. Secondly, today I am mailing the following letter to the editor to the Morton Times-News. Do you think it will be published in the March 30th edition?

The letter to the editor:

Donald L. Vance
(my address)
Morton, Illinois 61550
(309) [my phone number]

Morton Times-News
P.O. Box 9426
Peoria, Illinois 61612-9426

Letter to the editor

Are you serious! In the March 23rd edition, you have the unmitigated gall to announce that that same March 23rd edition was the last time any letters to the editor dealing with the April 5th election—both in relation to candidate elections and the school referendum—would be published.

If you can’t or won’t fulfill your civic responsibility as a local paper, I will. Please provide the following information through this letter to the editor to the citizens of Morton.

http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/ will post on March 30th comments by the author of this blog in relation to the village trustee election and to the school referendum. From March 31st through the early morning of Tuesday April 5th, excluding Sunday, the blog will post up to five letters to the editor per day dealing with either the trustee election and/or the school referendum.

For convenience sake, the blog will use the same requirements that the Morton Times-News uses.

Letter policy: “Letters should be 200 to 300 words and legible (typed if possible). Letters must contain the author’s name, signature (e-mail from your personal computer if contacting by e-mail—my addition) and phone number for verification. The author’s name and city will be printed.” I “ … reserve the right to edit all letters for style, length or libelous material. Letters will be published on a space available basis.” (Up to five per day.) “Letter writers assume responsibility for the accuracy of facts and figures stated in the letters.” I “ … have the right to choose which letters to publish.”

Letters may be e-mailed to me at hokey47051@mypacks.net or mailed to Don L. Vance, P.O. Box 481, Morton, Illinois 61550. All letters received by April 4th at 6pm or earlier will be considered for posting.

If no letters are received or available on a particular day, I will post one of my regularly planned posts. This is your opportunity to still speak out on these two important matters. Whether or not you use it is up to you.

Thank you

Don L. Vance
http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/
As is my practice, this letter to the editor has been posted on my blog—post date was March 24th.

2 Calls for Action—STOP the MURDER


Two more time sensitive e-mails:

From: Americans for Life—the Committee to Save One Million

http://www.americans4life.org/

“Dear Concerned American,

The unborn.

They need protection.

If you don’t believe that innocent, defenseless babies still in the womb aren’t worthy or your time and effort to protect, then I know this email won’t change your heart.

But if you, like me, hold the belief that the life of an unborn child is precious, then I hope you will take the next few minutes to read this email and hopefully complete the Americans for Life survey.

You see, almost 4,000 babies are aborted every day in America ... over 1 MILLION defenseless lives ended each year.

This has to stop.

That’s why I am leading Americans for Life and their Committee to Save 1 Million to rally support for the Life at Conception Act.

The Life at Conception Act gives legal recognition to what you and I already know -- unborn children are living humans with the same right to life as you and me.

Ironically, this legal way to stop abortion in America is within the very Roe v. Wade ruling that (illegally and immorally—my addition) overturned state laws against abortion back in 1973.

The Court noted if Congress ever declared that life begins at conception, then unborn babies would have the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

The Life at Conception Act does exactly this.

But to pass the Life at Conception Act, it will take an outpouring of support from pro-life Americans like you and me.

Please give a few minutes of your time to help Americans for Life move closer towards passing a Life at Conception Act by completing the Committee to Save 1 Million survey prepared for you.

http://www.americans4life.org/aflnsurvey.aspx?pid=ng5”

“And while we’re at it, defunding Planned Parenthood and the abortion funding in ObamaCare is priority number two.

We may not be able to force President Obama to sign any pro-life legislation, but we sure can remove funding for abortion from legislation that he is likely to sign to keep the government running.

Which gives you and me a great opportunity in this new political climate.

And to make this happen, Americans for Life plans to launch a massive campaign that includes TV and radio ads, phone calls, emails, and faxes, you name it.

Washington will be flooded with the pro-life message.”

"By completing the Committee to Save 1 Million's survey, Americans for Life will send your voice directly to your Representative and Senators demanding they stand up for the unborn and do everything in their power to pass a Life at Conception Act.

Innocent babies are being killed every day in our nation.

Americans for Life is here to put an end to it.

Will you take a stand with us?

Can I count on you?

Click here to take our survey right away.

http://www.americans4life.org/aflnsurvey.aspx?pid=ng5

Sincerely,

Jonathan Ball,
Executive Director, Americans for Life”

From: http://www.americans4life.org/aflnsurvey.aspx?pid=ng5

“Dear Pro-life American,

All life is sacred, especially the lives of innocent, defenseless babies growing in the womb.

It is time to pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion in America! Please support Americans for Life in their battle to protect the unborn by joining the Committee to Save One Million.

Because stopping the wholesale slaughter of innocent life will require the full-scale mobilization of pro-life Americans and a flood of grassroots outrage, I need you to immediately fill out the Committee to Save One Million Survey to rally support for a Life at Conception Act.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Ball,
Executive Director, Americans for Life

1) Do you believe Human Life begins at Conception? My answer: Of course it does. It is a scientific fact and even some liberals privately admit it. Why is it that a President, who claimed he was going to use science to reach decisions, ignores that scientific fact? Because he LIES!!!

2) Do you believe innocent, defenseless life growing in the womb needs legal protection? My answer: OBVIOUSLY!!!

3) Do you support a Life at Conception Act which enshrines in law that unborn children are Human Beings just like everyone else? My answer: Yes and then we need to replace judges and Justices who refuse to use the Constitution of the United States to reach decisions. Or better yet, remove their authority, which they stole, to declare laws unconstitutional because that authority is NOWHERE within the Constitution!

4) Do you support cutting off all taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers?” OF COURSE!!!

Please note: the choices given in the survey are 1) yes 2) no 3) unsure.

Second e-mail:

We did this earlier this month. It’s time again to bombard Congress with phone calls. Calling their local district offices has more impact than calling Washington D.C.

From: Concerned Women for America

http://www.cwfa.org/

“Dear Friends,

We are within striking distance to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and we need your help! On Thursday, March 24, we will have a Call-In Day to defund Planned Parenthood. We are asking everyone to take just a couple of moments to call or visit their district offices and encourage their representative or senators to substantially cut out-of-control Washington spending, defund Planned Parenthood, and support the pro-life and pro-family provisions contained in H.R. 1.

The House, Senate, and President Obama are negotiating now on which programs will receive federal funding. Important decisions will be made soon!

Our national debt currently stands at an unprecedented 14 trillion dollars, and the federal government borrows more than 42 cents on every dollar it spends.

Despite being a billion-dollar-a-year corporation, Planned Parenthood receives $363.2 million, 33 percent of its income, from taxpayers. It is the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing about one-fourth of all abortions in this country. The income from these abortions generates over one-third of its revenue.

It’s no wonder that Planned Parenthood is spewing venom over the very real possibility of losing its federal funding. They have launched a massive advertising campaign and used the liberal mainstream media to make Americans believe that poor women will not have any health care available to them if Planned Parenthood does not receive our money! (Planned MURDERHOOD does NOT provide health care!!!!! They are MURDERERS!!!!! In a just society they would be in jail instead of running around in the halls of Congress begging for our money so that they can continue their MURDEROUS, SINFUL, IMMORAL deeds. What is wrong with this society!!! One MILLION plus MURDERS a year and they want our money to continue their dastardly MURDERS!!!—my addition)

Americans are not gullible. We urge you to contact your representatives and senators in your home district on Thursday, March 24, and urge them to substantially cut out-of-control Washington spending, defund Planned Parenthood, and support the pro-life and pro-family provisions contained in H.R. 1.

Click here:

http://capwiz.com/cwfa/dbq/officials/

to find the contact information for your members of Congress.

Blessings,

Penny Nance
Chief Executive Officer”

Bonus comment from one of my regular e-mailers:

“You will like this one!!!

Solution to the problem in Libya: They want a new Muslim leader, I say give them ours.

Solves 2 problems.”

If only it was that easy!!!

Contact Illinois State Senators to repeal video gambling


I received the following e-mail last week. Since it is time sensitive I’m posting it today. I don’t want to be cynical but I have my doubts about the motives for this proposal by the Democratic leader of the Senate. (I pray that I am wrong about his motives.) I don’t think he has suddenly seen the light. The original law allowing video gambling was passed a year plus ago. Since then, others laws have been proposed to increase gambling even more. The original law has recently been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Appellate Court because the law contained more than one topic which is prohibited by the Constitution. A Peoria Journal Star editorial called it a procedural violation of the Illinois Constitution. I think this might be an attempt to make the court case moot by removing the most contentious portion of the original law.

That said, I’m all for ending video gambling as described in the original law. For that matter, I’m all for ending any and all forms of legalized gambling in the State of Illinois. However, it should be done Constitutionally. I’ve written before about “shell” bills and why they are unconstitutional. This proposal is also occurring through a “shell” bill. When is the Illinois General Assembly ever going to actually follow the Constitution of the State of Illinois?

The e-mail:

From: Illinois Family Institute http://www.illinoisfamily.org/

“IFI E-Alert: Support SB 17 to Repeal Video Gambling

by David E. Smith, IFI Executive Director -Illinois Family Institute

In 2009, the Illinois General Assembly passed and Governor Patrick Quinn signed into law, a bill allowing liquor-serving establishments to have up to 5 video gambling machines. The bill was and continues to be highly controversial. The law allows cities and counties to pass ordinances banning video gambling machines. Eighty communities and counties have passed bans. Ironically, the city of Chicago already had such a ban.

Earlier this week, State Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) announced

http://www.suntimes.com/4350080-417/ill.-senate-president-moves-to-repeal-video-gambling-law

that he was introducing SB 17, a bill that would repeal the state’s troubled video gambling law.

Take ACTION: Click HERE

http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=728&issueid=19565&atid=18682&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=true

to send your lawmakers an email or a fax to encourage them to support SB 17 to Repeal Video Gambling.

Background

Video gambling is rightly called the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling. There’s no skill required, and studies have found that video gambling is highly addictive.”

“Illinois lawmakers are wrong to think that they can mitigate our state’s revenue shortfall by expanding predatory gambling. Moreover, it is morally indefensible for the State to approve, license and promote an industry that thrives on the exploitation of the citizens its constituted to serve. Creating thousands of citizen losers to create a revenue stream is terrible (and immoral—my addition) public policy.

Gambling addiction is linked to bankruptcy, home foreclosure, depression, and white-collar crime, all of which lead to family stress and can lead to domestic violence, divorce, and suicide. Playing these kinds of odds against your constituents is not good public policy.

Video gambling in our state is not worth the costs to the state in broken lives and shattered families. Please take a few minutes today to do this simple call to action.

Take Action

http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=728&issueid=19565&atid=18682&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=true”

I did. Below is my e-mail to my State Senator:

Heading: “repeal of the law allowing liquor-serving establishments to have up to 5 video gambling machines”

Body of the e-mail: “I understand the repeal of this law is a possibility. When I checked the S.B. number that I was given, this looks like another “shell” bill which was the same method used to pass the law in the first place. I believe such action to be unconstitutional both as done originally and as now appears to be the process chosen to be used to repeal it.

I strongly support the repeal of this law. I do not support an unconstitutional method to do so. Let’s follow the Illinois Constitution and repeal this horrible law with three readings of the actual law over three days.

It’s way past time for the General Assembly to show the integrity that all citizens should demand from their elected (or appointed) representatives.”

Communism, Socialism, Fascism and the United States of America


This was not my intended post for today. I just received this e-mail over the weekend and the teacher in me requires that I post it. It is relevant to the budget discussion we have been engaged in concerning the federal 2010-2011 budget and the proposed 2011-2012 federal budget.

First some definitions:

Means of production:

1) land
2) labor
3) capital
4) entrepreneurship

Communism:

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 233.]

Fascism:

1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts a nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 422.]

Socialism:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism …. [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition; Merriam-Webster, Incorporated; Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. © 1995; page 1114.]

One of the difficulties that many people have in distinguishing the three systems is that they have both political and economic elements.

Fascism and socialism both have centralized governments. However, in fascism private ownership of the means of production is allowed by the government. The government, nevertheless, establishes extreme controls over those private enterprises. In socialism there is no private owner of the means of production. Communism also does not allow private ownership of the means of production. In contrast to the other two though, there is no government in the final stage of communism according to Marx. The society in general determines all aspects of the society. How this is done is never realistically explained and no communist system has ever occurred on a large scale because no large scale government has ever ended itself voluntarily.

Thus,

Fascism:

1) Strong centralized government
2) private ownership of the means of production is allowed but strongly regulated by the central government

Socialism:

1) Strong centralized government
2) No private ownership of the means of production

Communism according to Karl Marx:

1) No government, centralized or otherwise
2) No private ownership of the means of production

From: Human Events

“Dear Fellow Conservative,

Only a few decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, all too many Americans have forgotten the horrors that stood behind it. A recent survey found that only 53% of American adults believe that capitalism is better than socialism. (An unbelievably low percentage considering that there is absolutely no question that the free enterprise system—capitalism—is vastly superior to and vastly more beneficial for most of society than is ANY form of socialism, communism, and/or fascism—my addition.)

And while progressives, including President Obama, scoff when conservatives denounce what is currently coming out of Washington as ‘socialism,’ socialism it is. (Actually a mixture of socialism—ownership of GM, Chrysler, and Nationalized Healthcare—and fascism—extreme regulation of the banking system, energy sources, and education. By the way, all three of these systems emphasis the control of education to gain control of the people within the society. America beware of nationally controlled education!—my addition)

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Socialism, Kevin D. Williamson provides a historical and contemporary analysis of socialist policies—including Obamacare and other up-to-the-minute examples—and explains why they inevitably lead to economic catastrophe and political repression, while benefiting a privileged few.”

From: https://members.humaneventsonline.com/visitor.php?offer=2274

The above is an audio commercial but worth listening to and reading from!

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam—available at selected outlets


I’m changing direction today. Some background:

I wrote my book, for personal reasons, while living in Tucson. It took three years to write. After it was written, I didn’t do anything with it. After moving to Morton, I decided to get it published. I wanted to publish it myself but had no idea how to accomplish it.

I settled on using a publisher that basically was a cross between self publishing and a regular publishing house—using their publishing knowledge, but I having control of the finished product. One thing that had to be done my way was the number of pages per chapter. I could accomplish that goal under this scenario.

I put my manuscript into the print format they wanted used, paid a printing company to put my Word file into PDF format as required, and sent it off to them. I received notice that I had not done the margins correctly according to their printer (It turned out that the publishing company outsourced the printing of the book.) and I had to redo the copy. They included some technical directions for doing so that I, as a non-computer person, didn’t fully understand.

I redid the copy as I understood the directions. To do so, I also rewrote sections of the book by adding material so that each chapter would have the number of pages intended. I went back to my printers to have this new file put into PDF format and brought the directions I was given with me. I asked them to check to see if they thought I had followed the directions that I had been given. They said it looked good to go!

I sent the PDF off once again. The publisher sent it back as before. Same story. The margins were not correct for their printing presses. I responded that I needed a less technical explanation that I could understand because I wasn’t going to keep doing some hit or miss process until I stumbled onto the correct, acceptable final product. They replied back that the directions I received originally were the only directions I was going to be given.

I said, “It can’t be done! It won’t be done. I’m not wasting anymore time with this. You’ve not fulfilled the contract. I’ll do it myself!”

And I did! I went back to the printer and asked if they printed books. They didn’t, but they did outsource to a company in St. Louis. I gave them a copy of the PFD, an employee worked with me to design a back cover (The original publishing company had designed the front cover.), I bought ten ISBN’s—one for this book and nine others for other books I hoped to eventually write and publish—and they sent the material to the printer they worked through. This printer had no problem with the margins and the book was printed.

I had already copyrighted the material even before I started contacting publishers. I re-established the copyright by providing two printed copies of the finalized book and started selling it. As explained in a previous post, the State of Illinois and I had a disagreement on how I would file and pay the required sales tax. I wanted to do it by mail; the State wanted me to do it over the internet. Since I don’t trust the internet and we couldn’t reach an agreement, I stopped selling the book in Illinois. I stopped July 1st of 2009.

Then, earlier this year, I received a small royalty check from the original publishing company. The one who could not print my book because the margins were wrong! How was it possible for me to receive a check for a book that could not be printed? Turns out it could be because it was.

One afternoon soon thereafter, I googled (actually, binged) “The Black Sword” and there it was “shop for the black sword.” And under that heading, a picture of the front cover of my book.

I clicked the picture and websites were given that were selling my book. None of the websites given was my website. None of the websites were selling my book that I had published. All were selling my book as published by the first publisher who could not print my book because the margins were wrong. How did that happen?

They were selling both a hardcover and a paperback edition and they were selling the paperback edition for a lower price than I am! Now that’s a dilemma! I’m in competition against my own book and my price is being undercut!

I was torn between posting about this discovery or just letting it slide. However, I’ve had some potential buyers in Illinois ask to buy the book. They couldn’t because I can’t sell to Illinois residents without dealing with the State. And I won’t do that!

So, until I move from Illinois, which may be soon, I’ve decided to let anyone interested know about this opportunity. If you’d like to buy my book through the internet, which is the only way an Illinois resident can buy one (I imagine you may order one from a Barnes and Noble store too.), as far as I know, here are some outlets that are selling my book and some prices as of March 18th.

Oh yes, I occasionally buy things from Barnes and Noble although I don’t like to make purchases through the internet. I broke down and bought my own book in a hardcover edition. The book, as far as I can tell, is identical to mine except for information in relation to the publishing company, the spine, and the back cover.

If you’re interested:

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam—available at selected outlets

1) From http://www.amazon.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sword-Donald-L-Vance/dp/1602666067/ref=sr_1_7_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300473837&sr=1-7

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (hardcover)

List Price: $19.99
Price: $14.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
You Save: $5.00 (25%)

(When I purchased my hardcover copy, the price at Amazon was slightly higher than at Barnes and Noble. The price has been lowered since then so that it is now lower than the Barnes and Noble price.)

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sword-Donald-L-Vance/dp/1602666059/ref=sr_1_7_title_1_p?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300473837&sr=1-7

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (paperback)

List Price: $11.99
Price: $10.19 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
You Save: $1.80 (15%)

2) From http://www.barnes&noble.com/

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Black-Sword/Donald-L-Vance/e/9781602666061/?itm=3

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (hardcover)

List Price: $19.99
Price: $15.27
(You Save 23%)

Spend $25, get free shipping

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Black-Sword/Donald-L-Vance/e/9781602666054/?itm=2

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (paperback)

$11.99 List Price
$9.98 Online Price
(You Save 16%)

Spend $25, get free shipping

3) From: http://www.alibris.com/

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=10284870

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (hardcover)

From:

$13.28
List price: $19.99
You save: $6.71 (34%)

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (trade paperback)

From:

$7.10
List price: $11.99
You save: $4.89 (41%)

4) From: http://www.promiseangels.com/

http://www.promiseangels.com/donald-l-vance/the-black-sword/SKU/97732

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (hardcover)

Our Price $14.79
Retail Value $19.99
You Save $5.20 (26%)

http://www.promiseangels.com/donald-l-vance/the-black-sword/SKU/97733

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (paperback)

Our Price $8.99
Retail Value $11.99
You Save $3.00 (25%)

5) From: http://www.deepershopping.com/

http://www.deepershopping.com/item/donald-l-vance/the-black-sword/97732.html

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (hardcover)

Our Price $14.79
Retail Value $19.99
You Save $5.20 (26%)

http://www.deepershopping.com/item/donald-l-vance/the-black-sword/97733.html

The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam (paperback)

Our Price $9.35
Retail Value $11.99
You Save $2.64 (22%)

A Poll and public service information—support Governor Scott Walker and smart phones used to track your children!


The Senate last night passed the Continuing Resolution extension for another three weeks until April 8, 2011. I have more to say about the budget. Until then:

I just received this e-mail yesterday. It’s a little late but I’m posting it for a specific reason. Read on!

Poll: support Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker?

“March 4, 2011

Help! The Wisconsin Tea Party Groups need our help by participating in the following poll .... please take a minute and do this.

Hi everyone. Can you please forward this poll information to your members ASAP so that we can get represented in this poll? I am tired of seeing the news show poll results that do not reflect what the average working man and woman in WI have been telling us.

Last week Thursday I saw both Representative Vos and Kerkman and they informed us that the left has been bogging them down with emails and phone calls ... outnumbering us 8:1. They know what we tell them when they see us, but when it comes down to what people are actually contacting them and saying ... it is very much weighted against the Budget Repair Bill and Governor Walker. We don’t want the legislators to let us down so we can’t afford to let them down either!

Thanks,

Greg

Vote in this poll ... the teachers union is getting all their members to vote ... we need balance. Send the link to your friends.

Click here: http://www.journaltimes.com/polls/html_e7df0506-44fc-11e0-b687-001cc4c002e0.html#pd_a_4647768%23pd_a_4647768%23pd_a_4647768


From: http://www.journaltimes.com/polls/html_e7df0506-44fc-11e0-b687-001cc4c002e0.html#pd_a_4647768%23pd_a_4647768%23pd_a_4647768

“Do you approve of the job Governor Scott Walker is doing?

Posted: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 12:41 pm”

Results as of 3/17/2011, in the early morning

“Thank you for voting!

Strongly approve 40.27% (128,190 votes)

Approve 4.64% (14,774 votes)

Disapprove 2.14% (6,819 votes)

Strongly disapprove 52.95% (168,542 votes)

Total Votes: 318,325”

This poll is totally meaningless! It is not scientific, it allows people from outside of Wisconsin to vote, it has been going on for over two weeks. So, why am I posting it?

I’m posting it to demonstrate what I’ve been saying for years. The only poll that counts is the poll that occurs on election day. Scott Walker was elected less than five months ago. He is doing exactly what he said he would do when he campaigned. Do you think he pulled the wool over the eyes of the voters? Do you think the voters have buyers’ remorse? Do you think Democratic Senators ran from the State like cowards because they thought the people of Wisconsin would support them and their vote in the General Assembly?

There is a movement to recall the Governor and Republican Representatives. I don’t know the recall procedure in Wisconsin. Illinois just passed a recall procedure for recalling the governor which isn’t very good. In Arizona, a recall can’t occur until the elected official has been in office for two years, if he has a four year term. Regardless of the procedure, do you really think the recall is going to be successful? I don’t! All it will do is cost the State—a State that has money problems already—time and money.

All of this demonstrates how little respect many Democrats have for the democratic process. Scott Walker, as well as a majority of Republicans in both Houses of the General Assembly, won the last election. Rather than actually debate and vote on a bill they disapproved of, every single Democratic Senator fled the State. Every single one! People opposed to the bill called in sick, abandoned their obligations to their employers and in the case of teachers their obligations to their students, and occupied the capitol and its building. They bussed in supporters from other States. They used name calling as their modus operandi. They screamed, they shouted, they complained. And when they lost, as they knew they would, they threatened the lives of legislators (which, last time I knew, is against the law), began recall petitions, and filed court cases against the law. And they are the ones who claimed to be acting democratically in contrast to the “dictatorial” actions of Governor Scott Walker? Really!?

So, remember the results of this poll if there are recall elections. So, remember the results of this poll if Governor Walker runs for reelection. Does this unscientific poll truly reflect the will of the people of Wisconsin?

I also received this link yesterday. Watch the video!

“Smart phone DANGER!!!

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vARzvWxwY&feature=player_embedded”

54 Republicans Vote Against the Continuing Resolution!


From: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/15/54-republicans-vote-against-house-bill-to-fund-govt-for-three-more-weeks/

“54 Republicans vote against House bill to fund government for three more weeks

By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller
Published: 3:49 PM 03/15/2011
Updated: 4:26 PM 03/15/2011

The conservative wing of the Republican House caucus took a swipe at GOP leadership Tuesday, with 54 GOP members voting against the House bill to fund the government for three more weeks.

The funding extension is needed to keep the government running while the House and Senate negotiate a long-term spending plan. Eighty-five Democrats joined Republicans to pass the measure.

The bill, which passed 271-158, cuts about $6 billion from the federal budget and will move onto the Senate, where it is also likely to pass, despite conservative opposition in that chamber as well.

Encouraged by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth to oppose the bill, the GOP defectors complained that the three week extension did not withhold funding for the health care law, Planned Parenthood and other programs.

‘I am convinced that a vote for the CR (Continuing Resolution—my addition) is a vote to not fight against ObamaCare,’

Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann said in a statement encouraging other members to join her in opposition. ‘The time has come to take a stand.’

After the vote, Florida Rep. Allen West—a Tea Party-backed freshman member who voted against the measure—said he couldn’t support the bill in good faith.

‘People have to be able to sleep with themselves. I know that I can look myself in the mirror and explain my vote very well to my constituents back in South Florida,’ West said. ‘We have got to start making some of the hard choices and decisions. That’s adult leadership.’

That line—‘adult leadership’—was reminiscent of a comment made by House Speaker John Boehner, who said at the beginning of the term that he would be having an ‘adult moment’ with new members of Congress about spending and the debt.

On the other side of the aisle, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the vote was a discouraging sign for the negotiation process between the parties on a long-term spending agreement.

‘You can’t come to an agreement on any kind of compromise with 54 people who won’t compromise with their own leadership,’ Hoyer said. (Who wants compromise on this issue? We NEED to drastically CUT the budget including, but certainly not limited to, ending ALL funding to Planned MURDERHOOD! Does anyone really believe that the Democrats are willing to do ANY meaningful compromises? The Democrats had almost a full year to pass a budget with huge majorities in both Houses and DID NOTHING!!!—my addition)

The Senate will take up the measure this week and must pass it onto President Obama before funding runs out at midnight on Friday.

Alex Brown contributed to this report.”

From: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/14/schumer-to-boehner-ditch-the-tea-party-join-us/

“Schumer to Boehner: Ditch the Tea Party, join us! (The WORST mistake he could possibly make in this area!—my addition)

By Jonathan Strong The Daily Caller
Published: 3:38 PM 03/14/2011
Updated: 12:34 AM 03/15/2011

Top-ranking Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer is urging Republican House Speaker John Boehner to ditch the Tea Party and join a coalition that includes Democrats to work around conservative lawmakers on spending cuts.

‘It is becoming clear that the path to a bipartisan budget deal (The Democrats DON’T want a bipartisan budget deal! They had a year to reach a bipartisan budget deal and DID NOTHING!!!—my addition) may not go through the Tea Party at all. In order to avert a shutdown, Speaker Boehner should consider leaving the Tea Party behind and instead seek a consensus in the House among moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats,’ the New Yorker said in a written statement.

Schumer’s mischievous overture to Boehner comes as a still small, but burgeoning rebellion among House conservatives, including many in the freshman class, is endangering a three-week spending bill designed to avert government shutdown while Boehner negotiates a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama.

Conservatives want Boehner to take a harder line in negotiations with Democrats over spending cuts. (A MUCH harder line!!!—my addition)

Schumer said conservative unease over another three-week spending bill shows a long-term deal between Republicans and Democrats may not be possible. (GOOD! The time for “deals” is long past!—my addition)

‘Republicans’ decisions to abandon the three-week proposal negotiated by their own party’s leadership suggests that Tea Party lawmakers are unwilling to accept anything short of the extreme cuts (They are NOT extreme! Labeling them so does NOT make it so!—my addition) in the House budget, even if it risks a shutdown. (Why is a shutdown a bad idea?—my addition) This is a bad omen that shows how difficult it will be for Speaker Boehner to bring the Tea Party along for any long-term compromise,’ Schumer said. (Again, who wants a compromise with Democrats who could not or would NOT write a budget for almost a year when they had significant majorities in both Houses?—my addition)

Asked about Schumer’s remarks, a spokesman for Boehner sought to put the spotlight back on Democrats. ‘If he’s looking to criticize someone, Senator Schumer should buy a mirror. It is the Democrats who run Washington that have refused to provide any spending plan other than the status quo, and the status quo just isn’t acceptable to the American people,’ said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

From: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html

H.J.RES.48

Latest Title: Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 3/11/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.167

House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 48 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived.

H J RES 48 RECORDED VOTE 15-Mar-2011 3:32 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes

Republicans

Ayes: 186

Nays: 54

Not Voting: 0

Democrats

Ayes: 85

Nays: 104

Not Voting: 3

Passed: 271 Ayes to 158 Nays

Ayes: 271

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire (Democrat)
Austria
Baca (Democrat)
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow (Democrat)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley (Democrat)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA) (Democrat)
Bishop (NY) (Democrat)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren (Democrat)
Boswell (Democrat)
Boustany
Brady (PA) (Democrat)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA) (Democrat)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield (Democrat)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps (Democrat)
Cardoza (Democrat)
Carney (Democrat)
Carson (IN) (Democrat)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL) (Democrat)
Chandler (Democrat)
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper (Democrat)
Costa (Democrat)
Courtney (Democrat)
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar (Democrat)
Culberson
Davis (CA) (Democrat)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio (Democrat)
DeGette (Democrat)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch (Democrat)
Diaz-Balart
Dicks (Democrat)
Dingell (Democrat)
Doggett (Democrat)
Dold
Donnelly (IN) (Democrat)
Doyle (Democrat)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel (Democrat)
Farenthold
Fattah (Democrat)
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez (Democrat)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich (Democrat)
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (Democrat)
Himes (Democrat)
Holden (Democrat)
Hoyer (Democrat)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee (Democrat)
Israel (Democrat)
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Keating (Democrat)
Kelly
Kildee (Democrat)
Kind (Democrat)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell (Democrat)
Kline
Lance
Langevin (Democrat)
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski (Democrat)
LoBiondo
Loebsack (Democrat)
Lowey (Democrat)
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján (Democrat)
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson (Democrat)
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY) (Democrat)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud (Democrat)
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC) (Democrat)
Miller, Gary
Moran (Democrat)
Murphy (CT) (Democrat)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens (Democrat)
Palazzo
Pascrell (Democrat)
Paulsen
Perlmutter (Democrat)
Peters (Democrat)
Peterson (Democrat)
Petri
Pingree (ME) (Democrat)
Platts
Polis (Democrat)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC) (Democrat)
Quayle
Quigley (Democrat)
Rahall (Democrat)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR) (Democrat)
Rothman (NJ) (Democrat)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger (Democrat)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes (Democrat)
Scalise
Schiff (Democrat)
Schilling
Schock
Schrader (Democrat)
Schwartz (Democrat)
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman (Democrat)
Shimkus
Shuler (Democrat)
Shuster
Simpson
Sires (Democrat)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA) (Democrat)
Speier (Democrat)
Stark (Democrat)
Stivers
Terry
Thompson (CA) (Democrat)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen (Democrat)
Visclosky (Democrat)
Walden
Walz (MN) (Democrat)
Wasserman Schultz (Democrat)
Webster
Welch (Democrat)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu (Democrat)
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

Nays: 158

Ackerman
Akin (Republican)
Amash (Republican)
Andrews
Bachmann (Republican)
Baldwin
Bartlett (Republican)
Barton (TX) (Republican)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek (Republican)
Berman
Blumenauer
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN) (Republican)
Campbell (Republican)
Capuano
Carnahan
Chabot (Republican)
Chaffetz (Republican)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Duncan (SC) (Republican)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Flake (Republican)
Fleming (Republican)
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ) (Republican)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett (Republican)
Gingrey (GA) (Republican)
Gohmert (Republican)
Gowdy (Republican)
Graves (GA) (Republican)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (Republican)
Hanabusa
Harris (Republican)
Hastings (FL)
Heller (Republican)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp (Republican)
Huizenga (MI) (Republican)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL) (Republican)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (Republican)
Jordan (Republican)
Kaptur
King (IA) (Republican)
Kucinich
Labrador (Republican)
Lamborn (Republican)
Landry (Republican)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long (Republican)
Lynch
Mack (Republican)
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter (Republican)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney (Republican)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul (Republican)
Payne
Pearce (Republican)
Pelosi
Pence (Republican)
Pitts (Republican)
Poe (TX) (Republican)
Rangel
Rehberg (Republican)
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell (Republican)
Ross (FL) (Republican)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schmidt (Republican)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Slaughter
Smith (NJ) (Republican)
Southerland (Republican)
Stearns (Republican)
Stutzman (Republican)
Sullivan (Republican)
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton (Republican)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velázquez
Walberg (Republican)
Walsh (IL) (Republican)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
West (Republican)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC) (Republican)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

Not Voting: 3

Conyers (Democrat)
Giffords (Democrat)
Sanchez, Loretta (Democrat)

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

“So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line ….’” Isaiah 28: 16-17a (NIV)

“This is what the Lord says: ‘Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed.’” Isaiah 56: 1 (NIV)

“‘For I, the Lord, love justice ….’” Isaiah 61: 8a (NIV)

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Tartarus putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.” (Whose authority do they despise? GOD’S authority!—my addition) II Peter 2: 4-10a (NIV)

“WOE TO THOSE WHO CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL” Isaiah 5: 20a (NIV)

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5: 20 (NIV)

“EVIL MEN DO NOT UNDERSTAND JUSTICE” Proverbs 28: 5a (NIV)

“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.” Proverbs 28: 5 (NIV)

“TO FEAR THE LORD IS TO HATE EVIL” Proverbs 8: 13a (NIV)

“To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.” Proverbs 8: 13 (NIV)

“Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.’” Mark 8: 34-38 (NIV)

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

2 Petitions & a Boycott—Remove $105 billion for nationalized healthcare, No citizenship for illegal immigrants, boycott Sanctuary Cities


I received the following e-mails yesterday. The first one has already occurred but will occur again so I’m posting it along with the others.

“FROM CONGRESSMAN JOHN FLEMING, M.D. AUTHOR OF H. RES 615

URGENT REQUEST FROM CONGRESSMAN JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
AUTHOR OF H. RES 615

On Wednesday the House votes on whether to do another short-term continuing resolution (CR). (It passed!—my addition) This CR currently contains no provision to cut spending on the health care bill endorsed by the President. (Nor did it remove funds for Planned MURDERHOOD!—my addition) There is approx. $105 billion identified in that bill that will fund over 150 new agencies. (Agencies for the nationalized healthcare fiasco!—my addition) However, cutting this funding would require waiving a House rule that doesn’t allow such an amendment on a CR.

So I ask you an important poll question. Please go to my website and register your preference. http://fleming.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=1140

“Do you favor Congress waiving its own rule that would allow us to add an amendment that would eliminate up to $105 billion of advanced funding for the government takeover of health care even if this amendment may not pass the Senate and could result in a government shutdown?”

I remain committed to continue to work aggressively in Congress to repeal what I firmly believe to be an onerous and unconstitutional health care reform law and support market-based solutions to our health care needs.

Sincerely,

JOHN FLEMING, M.D.
Member of Congress

P.S. If you’d like more information, please take a minute to visit my website at www.fleming.house.gov or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/repjohnfleming or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/repfleming

http://fleming.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=1140

(Even though the Continuing Resolution passed, I still recommend going here and voicing your opposition to the spending of this money. If this Continuing Resolution also passes in the Senate, this issue will be back in three weeks. If it doesn‘t pass in the Senate, it will be back almost immediately.)

From: Minuteman PAC

“Texas Mulls AZ-Style Illegal Immigration Law

Former Houston police officer Rick Salter, who was shot in the face by an illegal immigrant in 2009, and who speaks through paralyzed vocal chords, was among those urging Texas lawmakers to pass House Bill 12 this past week. Under this compromise plan working its way through the Texas Legislature, state and local police officers would be allowed—but not required unlike AZ’s SB 1070—to help enforce federal immigration laws. This legislation would help police identity illegal immigrants who commit crimes in Texas and also nix ‘sanctuary cities’ by prohibiting policies that keep police and criminal investigators from providing immigration enforcement assistance. Opponents argue that it would lead to racial profiling (which is nonsense!—my addition), detract from ‘real’ police work (Protection of the citizens of the State of Texas IS REAL police work!—my addition) and give license to rogue agents who want to harass immigrants.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, DC, an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants live in Texas—that’s roughly 1/11 of the entire illegal immigration population in the United States!”

From: http://www.minutemanpac.com/signpetetion.asp

“SIGN THE PETITION

Minuteman PAC Border Security Pledge

Whereas, the invasion of America by 20 million illegal aliens imperils our national security, undermines our national sovereignty, and threatens to bankrupt our nation; and

Whereas, the so-called ‘path to citizenship’ Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and the DREAM Act were nothing more than amnesty bills that will reward 20 million lawbreakers with all the benefits of U.S. citizenship and must not be reintroduced in the 112th Congress; and

Whereas, public opinion polls show that a huge majority of Americans oppose illegal alien amnesty, but the U.S. Senate insists on advancing legislation that most American citizens and taxpayers overwhelmingly reject; and

Whereas, the U.S. Congress has so far failed to respond to the illegal alien invasion with any kind of effective crackdown on the chaotic and violent lawlessness at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Therefore, I, the undersigned American citizen, pledge to vote in the future against any candidate for the House or Senate who supports, in any guise, illegal alien amnesty or who fails to enforce the ‘Secure Fence Act’ of 2008 and other emergency measures to secure our borders NOW.”

“Contact Us:

Email: info@minutemanpac.com
Minuteman Political Action Committee
P.O. Box 131327
Houston, TX 77219-1327”

From: http://www.minutemanpac.com/inner.asp?z=70

“Sanctuary Cities: Dangerous & Deadly

In our efforts to promote American security and sovereignty, Minuteman PAC has specifically identified and verified a number of U.S. cities whose city governments continue to refuse enforcement of federal immigration laws. Instead these cities, through their indifference or even outright intentional harboring of illegal aliens, have thumbed their noses at federal laws in the face of our growing vulnerability to domestic terror attacks.

In a post-9-11 world, this indolence toward enforcing federal law and ensuring domestic security is unforgivable.

Therefore, we call on all freedom-loving American patriots to boycott—whether through business or travel—the following U.S. cities:

Anchorage, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Fresno, CA
Los Angeles, CA
National City, CA4
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL3
Cicero, IL
Cambridge, MA
Orleans, MA
Portland, ME
Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD
Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI
Minneapolis, MN
Newark, NJ1
Trenton, NJ1
Durham, NC
Albuquerque, NM
Aztec, NM
Rio Arriba, County, NM
Santa Fe, NM
New York, NY
Ashland, OR
Gaston, OR
Marion County, OR
Austin, TX
Houston, TX
Katy, TX
Virginia Beach, VA
Seattle, WA
Madison, WI

Sources:

Congressional Research Service, ‘Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement,’ Aug. 2006: http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0912-crs.pdf

‘Coalition seeks immigrant sanctuaries; services wouldn’t hinge on legal status.’ Asbury Park Press 1 Mar. 2007.

‘Havens for illegals; Advocates recruit ‘sanctuary cities’.’ The Record 1 Mar. 2007.

‘Preparations underway for immigrant march.’ ABC7 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=4128549

‘National City named sanctuary city.’ San Diego Union-Tribune 1 Oct. 2006.”

Democrats, Republicans, NO Budget, Who’s to Blame?


A reminder from my February 15, 2011 post:

“First, let’s clarify a few things in relation to the federal budget.

1) The President proposes the federal budget.

2) Congress writes and passes the federal budget.

3) At the present time, the fiscal year begins on October 1 of the current year and continues until September 30 of the next year.

4) President Bush’s first proposed budget was for fiscal year October 1, 2001-September 30, 2002.

5) President Obama’s first proposed budget was for fiscal year October 1, 2009-September 30, 2010.

6) Once a President takes office in January after his election the previous November, he may propose changes to the current budget. However, it is Congress which must approve those proposed changes.

7) IT IS CONGRESS WHICH HAS ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!!! NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!”

Furthermore, The present fiscal year budget—2010-2011—should have been passed before last October 1st and therefore before the November election of 2010. At that time, the Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate by large margins and therefore should have been able to pass a budget. The budget was the responsibility of the Democrats. The Democrats failed in their responsibility to pass a budget. Also, the House of Representatives has passed a proposed budget. The yearly budget is presently in the hands of the Senate having been passed in the House! The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans! The Senate is currently controlled by the Democrats but not by the margin they previously held! The 2011-2012 budget is suppose to be passed before October 1 of this year! Why are we still dealing with the 2010-2011 budget?

The continuing resolution that is now funding the federal government expires March 18th. Unless the Senate passed a budget last night we are approaching another impasse. (Okay. I checked the tops stories on the web and none mentioned the budget being passed. I didn’t expect it to happen.) As I posted yesterday, H.R. 1, the House passed budget bill, was easily defeated in the Senate. The bill needed 60 votes to continue and didn’t even receive 50. All Republicans voted for the bill except for three conservative Senators—Senators DeMint, Paul, and Lee who wanted even larger cuts than the $61 billion in the House bill—and all Democrats voted against the bill. The substitute Democratic bill received even less votes than the Republican House bill with all Republicans voting against the bill and a few Democrats also voting in opposition.

The Democrats had approximately one year to pass a budget bill in 2010, including during the lame duck session after the November election, and couldn’t or wouldn’t pass one. The Republicans in the House of Representatives in approximately two months passed a budget bill—H.R. 1. The bill is now stalled—dead in the water—in the Senate.

The Republicans gained over 60 seats in the House of Representatives in the November election. At least one of the mandates coming out of that election was for Congress to CUT federal spending. The House bill cut proposed federal spending by $61 billion—less than 2% of the proposed 2010-2011 budget. Some conservatives, including me, do not believe those cuts are enough, although they are a start. The Democrats in the Senate refused to cut even that small amount. They called the cuts “mean spirited.” Their substitute bill drew even less support than the Republican bill even though the Democrats still hold a six vote majority in the Senate—47 Republicans to 53 Democrats. The bill is now stalled—dead in the water—in the Senate.

Who is to blame for this impasse? As far as I am concerned, the voting public has before them the obvious conclusion. THE DEMOCRATS!!!

Six months into this budget year and the budget bill is now stalled—dead in the water—in the Senate. Why? Because of THE DEMOCRATS!!!

Just another obvious example of why it is time to TAKE BACK the NATION!!!

Senate vote on H.R. 1—fiscal year 2010-2011 budget


There are actual two votes posted. The first is the vote on H.R. 1 which received no votes from Democrats and then the vote on the Democrat’s amendment to H.R. 1 which received no votes from the Republicans.

From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00036%3Cbr%3E

From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00036

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 1 )
Vote Number: 36
Vote Date: March 9, 2011, 03:00 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5

Vote Result: Bill Defeated

Measure Number: H.R. 1 (Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 )
Measure Title: A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 44

Vote Counts: NAYs 56

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs—44

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs—56

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

From: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP00149:

S.AMDT.149
Amends: H.R.1
Sponsor: Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] (submitted 3/4/2011) (proposed 3/9/2011)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
In the nature of a substitute.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S1265-1306
STATUS:

3/9/2011:

Amendment SA 149 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Inouye. (consideration: CR S1491)
3/9/2011:

Amendment SA 149, under the order of 3/8/2011, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, the amendment was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 42 - 58. Record Vote Number: 37.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Inouye Amdt. No. 149 )
Vote Number: 37
Vote Date: March 9, 2011, 03:26 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 (Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011)
Statement of Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

Vote Counts: YEAs 42

Vote Counts: NAYS 58

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs—42

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs—58

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Federal government’s fiscal year 2010-2011 spending explodes into even larger deficits!


A reminder from my February 15, 2011 post:

“First, let’s clarify a few things in relation to the federal budget.

1) The President proposes the federal budget.

2) Congress writes and passes the federal budget.

3) At the present time, the fiscal year begins on October 1 of the current year and continues until September 30 of the next year.

4) President Bush’s first proposed budget was for fiscal year October 1, 2001-September 30, 2002.

5) President Obama’s first proposed budget was for fiscal year October 1, 2009-September 30, 2010.

6) Once a President takes office in January after his election the previous November, he may propose changes to the current budget. However, it is Congress which must approve those proposed changes.

7) IT IS CONGRESS WHICH HAS ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!!! NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!”

Furthermore, The present fiscal year budget—2010-2011—should have been passed before last October 1st and therefore before the November election of 2010. At that time, the Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate by large margins and therefore should have been able to pass a budget. The budget was the responsibility of the Democrats. The Democrats failed in their responsibility to pass a budget. Also, the House of Representatives has passed a proposed budget. The yearly budget is presently in the hands of the Senate having been passed in the House! The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans! The Senate is currently controlled by the Democrats but not by the margin they previously held! The 2011-2012 budget is suppose to be passed before October 1 of this year! Why are we still dealing with the 2010-2011 budget?

From the Peoria Journal Star, March 11, 2011, page A8, we have the following headline: “February federal budget deficit sets record.” From the article:

“Washington, D.C.—The government ran the largest-ever budget deficit for a single month in February. The shortfall kept this year’s annual deficit on pace to end as the biggest in U.S. history. The widening deficit reflects the impact of the tax-cut package President Barack (Hussein—my addition) Obama and congressional Republicans brokered in December.”

“February’s deficit of $222.5 billion eclipsed last February’s previous record by nearly $2 billion. (That means the increase from February of 2010 to February of 2011 was approximately .9%!—my addition) The full-year deficit would exceed 2009’s record deficit of $1.41 trillion. ($1.5 trillion total deficit for the 2010-2011 budget according to the article. This budget, of course, has NOT yet been passed!—my addition)

And it would mark the third straight year of $1trillion-plus deficits.”

First, do the people who write these stories have any economic knowledge? “The widening deficit reflects the impact of the tax-cut package … brokered in December.” How do they know this to be true? There was a tax cut. However, the major accomplishment of the brokered deal was a CONTINUATION of the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000’s. That continuation is NOT a tax cut! Therefore, the continuation COULD NOT increase the deficit in and of itself.

Secondly, if the tax cut in December was responsible for the increased deficit in February, was there a tax cut just before the 2nd largest monthly deficit in history—the February 2010 deficit of about $220.5 billion! The difference between the February 2010 deficit and the February 2011 deficit is .9%. Is that really a significant difference between the two February deficits?

Thirdly, if the tax cut in December was responsible for the increased deficit in February, why was the monthly deficit in January—immediately after the December tax cut—the SMALLEST monthly deficit in the five months of the current fiscal year, according to the bar chart included with the story? Does that make sense? Did we really go from the smallest monthly deficit of the current fiscal year immediately into the largest monthly deficit in history as reflected by a tax cut when both monthly deficits occurred AFTER the tax cut?

Is there a reasonable explanation for this February spike other than the December “tax cut?” How about this? Most taxpayers pay too much to the federal government over the course of the year in federal income tax withholdings. I counsel my clients to either break even or owe money. But, most don’t. They use the system as a forced savings account. As one client told me, “My tax refund is my splurge money!” Some large tax companies even “loan” (rip-off) their clients their tax refund so that the clients receive the money quicker.

However, I do tell my clients, if they are going to get a refund, to file early and file often. (Okay! I don’t tell them to file often. But they should file as early as possible.) I also tell my clients, who owe money, to file on April 15th or the latest date possible which would be April 18th this year. Could it be that both spikes in February are the result of people receiving tax refunds from the federal government and not the result of any tax cuts? That is, increased federal spending by the federal government in February occurred as the government returned money collected originally as income by the federal government but now that money is returned to its rightful owners as a government expense? Don’t these people understand our economy?

Furthermore, The federal government is no longer just returning money withheld from the taxpayer. Now, the government is also giving money to many taxpayers as a means of wealth redistribution. For example, a taxpayer who has three children under a certain age is given $3000 in a child tax credit. Taxpayers may receive an earned income credit. And most filers receive a “making work pay” credit among numerous credits available to selected individuals.

Using one of my own clients as an example, they are a married couple with three dependent children.

This is the way their 2010 tax return was filed:

Adjusted gross income: $35, 849
Itemized deductions: $16,348
Exemptions: $18,250
Taxable income: $1,251
Tax: $126

Two of their three children are eligible for the child tax credit. Therefore:

Child tax credit: $126
Tax owed: $0.00

Federal income tax withheld: $703
Making work pay credit: $800
Earned income credit (3 children): $1585
Additional child tax credit: $1874

Total refund: $4962
Total of refund that was based upon credits and not money withheld: $4259
Total credits received: $4385
(includes the $126 in a credit previously used to reduce the tax liability to zero)

Think that was good? Last year they had a bad year income wise. They owed zero taxes and received $6,834 in cash from the above three credits. There are numerous other credits available to select individuals. The three mentioned are three of the most common and the most used. Close to 50% of all filers last year paid NO federal income tax and many of them received “free” money (free to them not free to the other taxpayers who don’t benefit from these programs) from the federal government through various credits.

The federal government has helped select people buy automobiles, homes, rental houses, and various other things through the federal tax system. The tax system is no longer used to just collect money to operate government. It is used to redistribute wealth. I would venture a guess that most Februaries in recent years have shown large deficits between incoming and outgoing money in comparison to other months of the fiscal year.

The article had a bar graph of the monthly deficits from February 2010 through February 2011. Naturally, the deficit varied from month to month. However, every month had a deficit. Remember, the federal budget for this current fiscal year has not yet been passed by Congress. We are, nevertheless, still spending money and spending MORE money than we are taking in in revenue. Remember also that on my February 26th post, it was pointed out that the federal government borrowed 40% of every dollar spent in fiscal year 2008-2009. 40%!!!

As I pointed out in a previous post, if the Republicans are successful in cutting the proposed budget with a projected deficit of $1.5 trillion by $61 billion, that cut would be less than 2% of the deficit! LESS THAN 2%! And the Democrats are calling these proposed cuts “mean spirited?” Are they serious? We need to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the current budget and hundreds of billion dollars more, if not the full $1.65 billion projected deficit, in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011-2012.

The government CAN NOT spend us into economic solvency!!! If it could, the government should give every legal, adult American citizen $100,000 each to spend as he/she wishes. No, wait. The federal government HAS NO MONEY!!!

Just another obvious example of why it is time to TAKE BACK the NATION!!!