Marcy Kaptur told the Obamacare "Lie of the Year"

Well, it's official. President Barack Obama is responsible for the "Lie of the Year" according to Politifact.

Graphic courtesy of
The Heritage Foundation

"PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice."

But Obama isn't the only one responsible for this Obamacare lie. Every other person who told the lie should be on the hot seat as well, including our own representative, Marcy Kaptur (D-9th District).

Here's what Kaptur said:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur

"The goal is to try to get you into a plan that you pick, where you feel you have very carefully monitored care, that you participate in, so nobody's left out, nobody's rejected and you have choices. That sounds like a much better system than we have today for so many people. If you like what you have, you keep it…"

And just so you're sure nothing is taken out of context, here is the press release from her office and here is a screen shot of it as well:

That wasn't the only time she lied. Here's another example:

"The whole intention of the law is to relieve some of the worries that seniors face," Congresswoman Kaptur said. And, "you keep the insurance that you have if you like it."

She told that one to a bunch of seniors - seniors! - in a telephone town hall. Again, here is the link to the statement on her own website and here is the screenshot of it:

The big question now is this: Will anyone hold her responsible?

Honor Flight of Northwest Ohio decides to risk arrest to visit WWII Memorial

This post went up late last night at Ohio Watchdog:

IT’S A GO: Honor Flight of Northwest Ohio will make their scheduled to trip D.C. after all.

By Maggie Thurber | for Ohio Watchdog

Never mind the shutdown. An outpouring of support from across the country — and the willingness of guests and volunteers to risk arrest — helped Honor Flight of Northwest Ohio proceed with its scheduled Oct. 9 trip to theWorld War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.

“We’d been watching the issue for several weeks,” said Lee Armstrong, the group’s president. “We planned the flight back in May, but knowing they were talking about a government shutdown on October 1, we kept watching and told our volunteers to be ready.”

Honor Flight is a national nonprofit that gives veterans free transportation so they can see war memorials. More than 3,500 veterans from across the country are scheduled to visit the memorials this October.

Watching and waiting gave them time to see what happened when Honor Flight groups from Mississippi and Iowa refused to let barricades at the monument stop them from visiting and paying tribute Tuesday.

On Wednesday, more veterans moved the barricades to gain access and the National Park Service issued an announcement that, despite the government shutdown, the memorial would remain open to veterans under the First Amendment.

Armstrong was told Tuesday by a woman at the National Park Service who refused to give her name that if his Honor Flight group crossed the barricades that had been set up, they were going to be arrested.

When he questioned if they were really going to arrest a bunch of 90-year-old veterans, she told him to “have a good day,” and then hung up, he said.

“We have several individuals on this flight who are prominent members of the community. We didn’t want to risk having them arrested,” he said. So they announced the potential cancelation of the trip on their webpage, but not before sending emails to local congressional representatives, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate and the White House objecting to the threat of arrest.

And that’s when the media frenzy started, Armstrong said.

Continue reading...

Guess who introduced one of the most expensive bills to Congress this year?

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) routinely scores legislation based upon how much money the bill will spend or save. During this 113th Congress, more than 2800 bill have been introduced in the House and Senate.

They recently did a top 10 list of the bills that would enact the largest spending increases - and guess who ended up on the list?

Our very own Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

Her bill, H.R. 188, to create a new Civilian Conservation Corps, comes in at $16 billion, making it the sixth most expensive bill introduced so far. She introduced it on January 4th and it was referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training on March 23rd.

The official title:

21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act: To authorize the President to reestablish the Civilian Conservation Corps as a means of providing gainful employment to unemployed and underemployed citizens of the United States through the performance of useful public work, and for other purposes.

So Kaptur wants the federal government, which is trillions of dollars in debt, to spend another $16 billion each year to hire people to do work like planting trees, clearing paths and trails in parks and preventing forest fires. Oh - and while they're doing the work, the government will provide housing and transportation for them as well.

Why don't we just hire a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them up?

This would not 'solve' the unemployment problem. It just takes more money from the productive people (those individuals and businesses who are paying taxes) and diverts it to the government for 'busy work.'

And what happens when companies and individuals have less money? They don't hire people to do work for them.

It's a vicious cycle: the more the government takes, the less the people have to spend on purchasing, which means the less demand for products which means the less need for new employees to create the products which means less hiring.

Some would say that government can stimulate an economy by creating a demand. While that is technically true on a temporary basis, it doesn't lead to real growth. We've seen that in the green energy boondoggle where the companies fail the minute the government subsidies (fake demand) end.

So, given the facts of history, why would we spend $16 billion a year for the next four years to pay people to do busy work when we know it won't address the real problem of a lack of jobs?

Economist Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, has the answer (emphasis added):

Back in the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration hired more young men in the Civilian Conservation Corps than there were in the U.S. Army. But that never brought unemployment down into single digits at any point during that entire decade. As late as the spring of 1939, the unemployment rate was 20 percent.

Government-created jobs did not mean a net increase in jobs then -- or now. But this is only mundane reality. What makes a great political talking point is government coming to the rescue of the unemployed by creating jobs. That talking point helps politicians get reelected, even if it does nothing for the economy in general or for the unemployment rate.

Indeed.


Here's what NTUF said about the bill:

In 1933, President Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) as one New Deal solution to mass unemployment during the Great Depression. Through 1943, when it was disbanded, the public program employed a total of 2.5 million men to develop natural resources in rural areas (on government lands) and to build infrastructure for conservation purposes. The CCC provided workers with food, clothing, medicine, and barrack-style housing. Workers received a monthly stipend and the the majority of an enrollee's wages would be sent to their families back home.

Now, almost eighty years later, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) has introduced legislation to reestablish the CCC. H.R. 188 would employ an unspecified number of jobless citizens to construct and maintain public works. The bill authorizes the President to provide enrollees with "subsistence, clothing, medical attendance and hospitalization, and cash allowance, as may be necessary, during the period they are so employed." Workers would not only labor on projects similar to the original CCC but also on control of plant disease and pests. There is also a provision that would allow the President to assign tasks not explicitly outlined in the bill as he sees fit, as long as it employs otherwise unemployed people.

Here is the complete list of the top 10 most expensive bills introduced to Congress so far:

* H.R. 676, the Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act
Sponsor: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Cost: $1.16 trillion

* H.R. 1200, the American Health Security Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Cost: $824.5 billion

* S. 627, the Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act
Sponsor: Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Cost: $108.5 billion

* H.R. 870, the Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Cost: $100.5 billion

* H.R. 1617, the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act
Sponsor: Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Cost: $45.6 billion

* H.R. 188, the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act
Sponsor: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Cost: $16 billion

* H.R. 152, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Cost: $10.02 billion

* H.R. 808, the Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Cost: $10 billion

* H.R. 974/S. 387, the MOVE Freight Act of 2013
Sponsors: Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV)
Cost: $5.6 billion

* S. 108, the IDEA Full Funding Act;
Sponsor: Senator David Vitter (R-LA)
Cost: $5.4 billion

*** Bills are scored as introduced. The NTUF scores are preliminary, subject to change, and annualized.

Marcy Kaptur thinks Obama is "worst socialist ever"

This was a tweet from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, preserved by the Sunlight Foundation:

Marcy Kaptur (D) @RepMarcyKaptur

Barack Obama is the worst socialist ever. Dow Touches 15000 on Jobs Data http://t.co/sGa4Es4kAG via @WSJ

Deleted 1 day ago after 8 seconds, originally posted via Tweet Button

You'll note that it only stayed up for 8 seconds before it was deleted.

So what does she mean by this?

Well, the article, S&P Tops 1600 on Jobs Data, says this:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 142.38 points, or 1%, to 14973.96, after touching an all-time intraday high of 15009.59. It closed at a record.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, meanwhile, pushed through the 1600-point level, 13 years after it surpassed 1500. The index rose 16.83 points, or 1.1%, to 1614.42. The Nasdaq Composite Index climbed 38.01 points, or 1.1%, to 3378.63.

So clearly, socialists do not want individual investors to have wealth or get wealthier, right?

In order to be the 'worst' socialist when the stock market rises, what other conclusion could there be?

And who are those investors?

Well, they're not all 'evil rich white guys,' that's for sure.

They're you and me. They're union workers with pensions invested in mutual funds and various stocks.

They're public employees like teachers, and fire fighters and police who all rejoice when their funds gain money and provide a return on their investment for those funds will cover their costs after retirement.

They're the young entrepreneur with a start-up company who relied upon venture capital funds that came from investors who made money from this very stock market.

The question no one ever seems to ask Rep. Kaptur is why she so identifies with socialists?

But with this tweet, why is she so disappointed with the stock market doing well? Doesn't she like that her constituents and their retirement accounts are making money?

What kind of a representative wants her constituents to LOSE money?

And did she really just criticize the president for a good stock market? Is the president really responsible? Or is it that she believes his actions can NEGATIVELY impact the market and result in a loss for all her constituents?

Does she want President Barack Obama to be a 'good' socialist as opposed to the "worst" one? She must obviously believe he's a socialist if she's grading him as the "worst" ever.

Why does she think the president is a socialist?

And since she supported him and encouraged others to vote for him, why does she want a socialist as the president of the United States?

Was it meant as a joke as some are implying? Is she making the claim that he's not a socialist with the stock market doing so well?

You know they say some of the truest things are said in jest...

Regardless, there's a reason why the website detailing the the deleted tweet is called "politiwoops."

Time to end corn-based ethanol production

Rep. Marcy Kaptur has, for years, pushed ethanol fuel on us and the nation. She's advocated its use and voted to mandate it for our gas supply. But new research shows it's not anywhere near as 'good' or as environmentally friendly as she claims it to be.

Mark Perry, a University of Michigan - Flint economics professor and scholar at The American Enterprise Institute, wrote an interesting column called "Production of Corn Ethanol as an Automotive Fuel Source Should Cease," (MLive, January 16, 2013). The National Center for Policy Analysis provides this summary:

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) justification for mandating an increase in E15 production, a fuel comprised of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline, is weaker than ever, says Mark Perry, a University of Michigan at Flint economics professor.

* A recent American Automobile Association report found that using E15 causes accelerated engine wear.
* Accelerated wear on the internal parts of a combustion engine results in costly repairs for consumers who believed they were being environmentally-friendly.
* Ethanol produced from corn is the only widely-available biofuel that meets federal guidelines.

Enacted in 2005, the Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing ethanol production capacities and predicted that the biofuel industry would be booming by now.

* As a fuel source, corn ethanol is far less efficient than gasoline, providing 27 percent lower fuel economy than traditional gasoline.
* After a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit companies receive to produce ethanol, it still costs 70 cents more per gallon.
* With 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop being used to produce ethanol, retail food prices for the average American have increased.

While the ethanol lobby has claimed that the production of ethanol will move America toward energy independence, the National Research Council found that it requires significantly more water in its production process than gasoline, as well as requiring large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides that deplete water and soil quality.

* The EPA refuses to rescind the ethanol mandate and has set production to increase from 13 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
* By 2022, the nation's entire corn crop would be devoted to ethanol production.
* Advances in cellulosic ethanol, which is made from wood chips, switchgrass and other sources, could reduce demand for corn.

For these reasons and more, I agree with Perry. Now the question goes to the politicians. Will they 'trust the science' or keep pushing an agenda that is rooted more in politics and control than the actual environment?

My bet is on the latter.

Marcy Kaptur owes us an explanation for voting against an audit of the Federal Reserve

I rarely agree with Marcy Kaptur. She first appeared on the ballot the first year I was able to vote and she's been my representative in Congress for all of my adult life.

She's a Democrat - and one of the most liberal ones - so it's no surprise that I disagree with her positions, policies and votes.

But I agreed with her support of a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. She co-sponsored legislation in 2009 to authorize an audit, though that bill was never brought before the House for a vote.

So it was a welcome relief when she co-sponsored H.R. 459 - a bill to 'audit the Fed' - that is essentially the same as the 2009 bill.

Last week, the House voted on H.R. 459 and it passed by a vote of 327-98. The 98 against the bill included one Republican and 97 Democrats.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that Kaptur - a sponsor - voted AGAINST the bill.

She's railed against the lack of transparency and the collusion of the Federal Reserve with the 'evil banksters' for years now. Why in the world would she vote against a bill she's supported for at least three years?!?

She wasn't alone - seven other Democrats, also sponsors, voted no as well. Dennis Kucinich, the primary opponent she defeated, remained consistent and supported the bill. I can only wonder what his supporters will say about this.

None of the eight flip-floppers have provided a statement.

Regardless of our political affiliation, one thing constituents should be able to count on is consistency in the positions of those we elect - even when we disagree.

Marcy Kaptur owes all of us an explanation and we should demand it now.

Here is a link to her contact page. Her Washington telephone number is (202) 225-4146. Her Toledo telephone number is (419) 259-7500. She also has a toll-free number (800) 964-4699.

If you find out why she flipped on this issue, be sure to let us know.

Kaptur a 'no' vote on banning sex-selection abortions

Rep. Marcy Kaptur joined fellow House Democrats to vote against a bill that would ban sex-selection abortions.

In order for H.R. 3541 to pass, it needed a two-thirds majority. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition. The final vote was 246-168 with 17 not voting. Rep. Bob Latta voted for the measure.

Republicans voted for the bill 226-7. Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions by a vote of 161-20.

Kaptur told Roll Call that she thought the bill was superfluous:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, for instance, said she thinks the bill is superfluous, as the Hyde Amendment already bans the use of certain federal funds for abortions.

“I found it unnecessary,” the Ohio Democrat said. “The Hyde Amendment is the governing law of the land, and it is sufficient ... The government shouldn’t make decisions for any family regardless of what that decision is and it shouldn’t be involved in funding it unless the life of the mother is at stake, rape or incest.”

Now if she would just be consistent on those two positions - not voting in favor of "superfluous" bills and "that government shouldn't make decisions for any family," we'd be getting somewhere.

Yet she voted in favor of federal funding for a Tea Pot Museum - how much more superfluous can you get?

And she voted in favor of Obamacare which is the biggest government intrusion on individual decision-making in decades!

Sadly, she'd rather claim a 'principle' (that she doesn't adhere to otherwise) than do the right thing by voting in favor of this bill, superfluous or not.

But on top of her failed logic, she's actually wrong. The Hyde Amendment only bans the use of certain federal funds for abortions. This bill never even addresses funding. It makes it a criminal offense to perform an abortion that is sought based upon the sex of the child, among other things.

Here is the summary of the legislation, as introduced:

Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 - Imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to: (1) perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent; (2) use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; (3) solicit or accept funds for the performance of such an abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the United States or across a state line for the purpose of obtaining such an abortion.

Authorizes civil actions, for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages, by: (1) fathers, or maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, of unborn children who are the subject of an abortion performed or attempted through any of the above violations; and (2) women upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted with a knowing or attempted use of force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.

Authorizes, to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this Act, injunctive relief to be obtained by the women upon whom such an abortion is performed or attempted, spouses or parents of a woman upon whom such an abortion is performed, or the Attorney General (DOJ).

Deems a violation of this Act to be prohibited discrimination under title VI (Federally Assisted Programs) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Violators of title VI lose federal funding.)

Requires a medical or mental health professional to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement authorities. Imposes criminal penalties for a failure to so report.

Prohibits a woman having such an abortion from being prosecuted or held civilly liable.

Excludes from the definition of "abortion" actions taken to terminate a pregnancy if the intent is to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or remove an ectopic pregnancy.

What could be more plain? And how could she get the purpose of the bill so wrong?

Supposedly pro-life, Kaptur says it's "unnecessary." In light of this



and this:



how can she possible say the legislation is "unnecessary"?????

Kaptur is not a stupid person. I believe she just needed an excuse to vote with her party and she decided to hide behind a non-existent connection to the Hyde Amendment while, at the same time, didn't mind being hypocritical about government not making decisions for us.

Just remember this in November.

Allen West calls Marcy Kaptur a communist

Actually, Rep. Allen West didn't single out Rep. Marcy Kaptur, but he did say that our congress has communists in it.

That may be a surprise to some of you, but to those who follow the positions and teachings of the Communist Party, it makes perfect sense to call people who share the same positions by that name.

Here's the story:

Allen West created an apparent controversy when he stated at a Florida event, "I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." Democrats decried West's comment--and even the Communist Party USA slammed the Florida congressman.

However, West is not backing down, sticking with his claim even though he won't name specific names.

"The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus," West's communications directors writes in an email. "The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren't proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom."

Marcy Kaptur is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown was a member before being elected to the Senate.

And, as Alo Konsen points out in the comments:

Don't forget that Marcy is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Hot Air also has an article on the subject, with additional details about what West said and meant.

A look at the campaign finances in Ohio's CD-9

We were having a discussion the other day about the upcoming November election pitting incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur against Republican Samuel 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher and Libertarian Sean Stipe in Ohio's newly-drawn 9th Congressional District.

Eventually the discussion boiled down to money. The group had few expectations of Stipe, but questions about Wurzelbacher and Kaptur.

Will Wurzelbacher be able to compete financially with Kaptur?

The general consensus was no.

Will Wurzelbacher's celebrity status as 'Joe the Plumber' lead to more contributions - or will his status be enough to overcome Kaptur's fundraising?

Again, the consensus of the group was no. In fact, with the district leaning even more Democratic as a result of the redrawing, the bigger question of the group was who would be Kaptur's replacement.

But I wondered ... just how much of an advantage would Kaptur have financially? So I decided to look at the campaign finance reports for the three. The most recent reports are the pre-primary filings which went through Feb. 15th.

Marcy Kaptur, Kaptur for Congress

Since Ohio lost congressional seats, two Republican and two Democrat districts were combined, so Kaptur faced long-time Cleveland-area incumbent Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary. Her fundraising and expenditures clearly reflect that this was her most costly primary challenge.

She started 2012 with just over $700,000 cash on hand. As of the end of 2011, for this election cycle, she'd raised $277,553.01. Not surprisingly, $216,000 of that was from political action committees (PACs) and other candidates.

When a candidate receives a contribution that is more than $200, they must itemized the donation and include the contributor, address, employer and occupation. As of her year-end report, Kaptur had received just under $14,000 in non-itemized contributions. That means that her reported $52,600 in individual contributions were all over $200. Not surprisingly, there are a number of individual contributions from lawyers, union employees as well as employees of companies impacted by her work on the all-powerful Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees of defense, agriculture and transportation/housing.

Her pre-primary report shows her raising another $89,002 but spending $372,684, clearly reflecting the television advertising she purchased.

As of the pre-primary, she'd raised $366,555.01 and spent $479,993.42 this election cycle, leaving her with $422,910.87 on hand.

Another requirement of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is that donations of $1,000 or more received after the pre-primary filing but before the election must be reported within 48 hours of receipt. This is called the 48-Hour Notice Report. Between Feb. 21 and March 5, Kaptur reported another $104,300 in donations via these reports. And remember, that was just contributions over $1,000.

The only unusual donation listed, at least to those of us in the Toledo area, is a $500 contribution from a Clear Channel government affairs employee in Washington, DC. This is unusual only because of her long-time refusal to come on the local Clear Channel talk radio station 1370 WSPD.

Her expenditures were routine for a campaign - postage, phone, campaign fundraising expenses, printing, yard signs, etc. She spent just under $275,000 to a single firm for 'campaign advertising' which is probably the television buys, though it could include other types of ads (radio, newspaper) as well.

Kaptur did hire 10 campaign field workers throughout the new district and, as of the pre-primary report, had paid out $26,000 to them at a stipend of $2,500/month.

Samuel Wurzelbacher, Joe for Congress 2012

Not surprisingly, Samuel 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher didn't raise anywhere near the amounts that Kaptur did. This is partly due to his status as a first-time candidate versus hers as an incumbent, as well as his lack of a high-profile primary race.

Wurzelbacher's campaign is Joe for Congress 2012. As of the end of the year, he'd raised just over $50,000. Unlike Kaptur, the majority of his donations - 76% - come from donors giving under $200. He had only one itemized donation from within the district but did receive $2,000 from the Frost for Congress campaign (Westlake, OH) and $2,500 from the Move America Forward PAC.

As of the pre-primary, Wurzelbacher raised another $11,219.40, with 51% of that being from itemized donations (over $200), but most of that was the result of a single $2,500 donation from Herman Cain. The Western Representation PAC also donated $2,500. Wurzelbacher did not file any 48-Hour Notice reports.

Wurzelbacher's campaign finance filings do show some internal issues, perhaps due to his first-time candidacy status. Wurzelbacher was originally listed as the campaign treasurer. On December 14, the campaign filed to name Nick Marvet the treasurer. But on Feb. 24th, the FEC sent a 'failure to file' notice because the campaign had not filed the pre-primary report by the deadline. On Feb. 28th, the campaign filed again naming Wurzelbacher the treasurer.

Wurzelbacher's expenses show some interesting items. His campaign hired and paid several different fundraising firms a 15% fee for the donations they garnered on his behalf. This is a standard amount for political fundraising.

He also paid a campaign manager $9,500, less than what Kaptur spent on her field reps.

Wurzelbacher's largest expense on his reports is his own salary - roughly a third of his total expenditures so far. He's paying himself $3,842 bi-weekly (after taxes) for a total expended as of the pre-primary of $20,210. As this is a salary, he's also paying taxes and unemployment insurance on himself.

While this is certainly permissible, it is unusual and many donors tend to think twice about contributing to candidates who are paying themselves a salary from the campaign funds.

There was one other filing item that was of interest. On March 9th, the FEC requested more information from the campaign. The first financial report showed a starting balance of $7,000. The FEC requested the documentation for that amount. The Joe for Congress 2012 campaign was given until April 13th to respond with the information.

On Saturday, as I was doing the research, I did send an email to the Wurzelbacher campaign to ask about the change in treasurer as well as the salary. Again, it is certainly permissible for a candidate to pay himself a salary, but I wanted to know if donors were being told about the salary when, or prior to, their donating.

I had planned to publish this post Sunday morning. However, I received a note back from the campaign on Saturday afternoon telling me they'd forwarded my request for more information to the right party.

I understand how campaigns are, so I waited and on Sunday morning, I received a reply from a gentleman indicating he was the general consultant for the campaign, telling me that "Joe has been on a missions trip lately and he does not campaign on Sunday's, so he's been tough to get a hold of recently. We will get you an approved statement first thing in the morning for your blog post."

So again I waited. At 8:53 a.m. I received the following:

Thanks for your patience on this. To clarify, the monthly salary is $3842/month.

Also, here is a statement from Joe in regards to your two questions below:

"I'm a blue-collar worker, just like the majority of voters in the 9th District. As a common working man, I don't have a bank account with millions of dollars that I can pump into a campaign. Currently, I'm campaigning full time, and the FEC has provisions in place that allow everyday Americans to run for office and be provided a reasonable salary. This monthly salary has been reported upon in the press and been approved by the FEC."

"Since before the primary, we had made the decision to revamp and relaunch our campaign. We are currently in the middle of that process and are excited about where the campaign is headed."

As I replied to the campaign, this doesn't answer the question: Are donors told that the candidate is receiving a salary from the funds raised either when, or prior to, donating?

Additionally, while the campaign states that Wurzelbacher is being paid $3,842 per month, his filings show otherwise, as I'd detailed in my email to them. The following is a list of the salary payments:

$1,000 on 11-10-11
$3,842 on 12-15-11
$3,842 on 12-31-11
$3,842 on 1-2-12
$3,842 on 1-3-12
$3,842 on 2-7-12

While the statement provided doesn't explain, it does address the issue of the treasurer and all campaigns, but especially first-time ones, go through organizational transitions.

But when your campaign finance reports show that you're paying yourself $3,842 twice each month, responding that you're taking $3,842 once a month requires further explanation.

So, I itemized the payments for them in an email and asked them to clarify. When I get a response, I'll share it here.

Sean P. Stipe, Sean Stipe for Ohio

Sean Stipe is the Libertarian candidate in OH-9. He was uncontested in his primary and did not meet the monetary threshhold for filing with the FEC.

Summary

It is not surprising that Kaptur gets higher-dollar donations, and more of them, than Wurzelbacher. She is an incumbent and sits on the appropriations committee. The question is whether or not her pre-primary support for a highly-contested primary race will carry over into the general election.

Will her supporters and donors look at the district, which is now even more favorable to a Democrat, and decide she doesn't need the money - at least, not as much as other candidates in swing, or targeted, districts?

Will they think that Wurzelbacher is a serious threat to her?

Will Wurzelbacher's celebrity status be more of a challenge than the money her last opponent, Rich Iott, brought to the race?

While Wurzelbacher didn't need a lot of money for the primary, will he be able to capitalize on his celebrity and raise anywhere near the quarter of a million that Kaptur has on hand?

Will the fact that he pays himself a salary negatively impact his fundraising?

***
SIDE NOTE:

Over the weekend, several of us were talking and I asked about the salary issue. While one person didn't have a problem, the other five did. But the one who didn't have a problem with it wanted to know if he was paying all his withholding taxes. I informed her he was - and unemployment insurance as well.

She then questioned whether or not Wurzelbacher would be able to file for unemployment after he loses.

It's a good question and one I don't have any answer to. If you know, please share.

End Side Note
***

The next filing date for the candidates is April 15th for their quarterly report ending March 31st.

Kaptur late with property taxes?

Sharing this story on the Democratic Primary for the 9th Congressional District here in Ohio:

The Campaign for Primary Accountability is lending a helping hand to Rep. Dennis Kucinich in his primary by attacking Rep. Marcy Kaptur as delinquent on her Ohio property taxes.

The Super PAC is up with a district-wide $116,000 buy that accuses the Toledo-based congresswoman of being late on her Ohio property taxes nine times, while noting that taxes on her Washington, D.C. condo have been paid in full.

It's an effective strike against Kaptur because the main case against Kucinich has been that he's been AWOL from Cleveland and more focused on his national causes and ambitions. This, at least, raises a counterpoint, highlighting Kaptur's 15-term reign.

CPA Super PAC spokesman Curtis Ellis said the bipartisan group chose to target Kaptur because Kucinich is more willing to buck party leaders.

But whoever is successful in next week's primary won't see any more help in the general, since CPA's only goal is to shake up primaries dominated by one party.

Read the entire article here.

Kaptur needs to learn math

Recently Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH9) appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box" and proved her ignorance of both the economy and the problems facing Medicare. She stated her position that all we need to do to solve the huge budget Medicare budget is 'grow the economy.'

Even when David Walker, a former Social Security and Medicare trustee, said that wasn't possible, she insisted. Walker said (emphasis my own):

There’s a simple four-letter word Washington needs to understand–it’s called math. The math doesn’t work. We need more revenues but we’re going to have to renegotiate the social insurance contract and health care is a much bigger problem than social security but it has to get renegotiated, too.

But Kaptur, despite being shown to be wrong, stuck to her mantra:

...if we can lift people’s economic lives, where they’re working again and paying into those funds, believe me, you’ll see growth and you’ll see security in those funds.

She even says that Obamacare, which will add thousands to the Medicare rolls, will help contain costs. How embarrassing: she expects the costs to go down when thousands are added as recipients. Walker is right that she needs to understand math.

I don't know what's scarier: that she said it; that she obviously believes it; or that she gets elected spouting such illogical and contrary positions.

Here is the video with the transcript below:

KAPTUR: The most important step we can take to assure all of our social insurance programs and earned benefit programs are solvent in perpetuity is to get people back to work. Our focus has to be on economic growth and investment in this country. President Obama has laid out a road map for that. I’m anxious to walk down that road, because here in Ohio, northern Ohio, from Cleveland through Lorraine to Toledo, we see the results of the automotive industry recovering. It is magnificent. Let me tell you, it’s lifting revenues in all accounts, in order to help us fund our school systems.

ANCHOR: Congresswoman, hold on a sec. David Walker, is she correct? Could we grow enough so Medicare would become solvent? At what rate would the United States have to grow?

WALKER: As a former trustee of Social Security and Medicare and knowing something about the government’s finances, I can tell you there’s no way that will work. You would have to grow the economy by double-digit real GDP growth, achieve full employment for decades and that still–that’s not going to happen. That’s just not going to happen. There’s a simple four-letter word Washington needs to understand–it’s called math. The math doesn’t work. We need more revenues but we’re going to have to renegotiate the social insurance contract and health care is a much bigger problem than social security but it has to get renegotiated, too.

ANCHOR: Ma’am, is your party ready to renegotiate the social welfare contract?

KAPTUR: I think what President Obama did with the affordable health care plan was to put us on a track for prevention and to save some of the costs that are burdening us as an economy on the health care side. Those changes are going to lock in. In terms of Social Security, which is an earned benefit, as well as Medicare, if we can lift people’s economic lives, where they’re working again and paying into those funds, believe me, you’ll see growth and you’ll see security in those funds. But when you have so many people sitting on the sidelines, we’ve got to have programs to put people back to work, building bridges, here in Ohio–having idle people doesn’t help the economy grow. We have to keep our shoulder to the wheel, and invest and create jobs in this country.

SORKIN: We need to get the economy back in order, there’s no question. Having said that, as David just said, the math doesn’t work. Ultimately, you have to somehow fix the safety net, and what it means probably is making the safety net a little less safe.

KAPTUR: I’ll tell you if we didn’t have the trade deficits that are wiping out most of our GDP growth we would have more job creation in this country, so I respectfully disagree with the gentleman.

ANCHOR: You believe that with job creation…we could pay for Medicare?

KAPTUR: I do.

ANCHOR: Glad we have have you on the record on that.

WALKER: Based on realistic assumptions, Medicare is underfunded $37 trillion and Social Security is underfunded $9.2 trillion, and those numbers go up 2 trillion to 3 trillion a year on autopilot because of the power of compounding. That’s where we’re at and Congress better start doing its job, because Greece is not far off.

KAPTUR: We need investment in this country, sir, if so many jobs hadn’t been outsourced more people would be working and, if we could open more of the closed markets of the world, we could sell more of our goods to China and Japan. Why does a Cherokee cost $85,000 in China? If we could manufacture…

SORKIN: Ma’am, I apologize, the issue, it’s not an either/or.

ANCHOR: Andrew lost his mike so we’re having a ‘squawkward’ moment here.

SORKIN: That is the longest mike. Sorry, the point is it’s not an either/or proposition, it’s a combination and that ultimately is where we’re going, congresswoman, with this question. Everything you said you could agree or disagree with, depending on where you are politically, but we need to grow the economy, but the other issue is dealing with these entitlements. It sounds like you’re not prepared to deal with them.

KAPTUR: My primary focus is putting people back to work, because I understand the drag that this level of unemployment puts on this economic growth, and from what I’m hearing you say you don’t have much of an interest to reemploy the Americans sitting on the sidelines and want to work.

ANCHOR: No, that’s completely false. The spirit of our question was whether or not you are interested in talking about entitlement reform in a way that would ultimately help the budget in the long-term. There’s nothing in any of the requests we suggested here that we don’t want people to get back to work.

KAPTUR: I’m glad to hear that.

WALKER: Actually, I do believe we need more investment but if we don’t start dealing with structural deficits we have bigger economic, much bigger unemployment, much bigger underemployment problems in the future.

Kaptur's true colors: supports OccupyWallStreet, agrees with American Nazi and American Communist parties

Our congressional representative, Marcy Kaptur (D-OH9), is obviously happy to see the Occupy(fill in the blank) protests. She hates banks - calls them 'banksters.'

On the floor of the House, she said the occupiers had "found the right piece of geography. They have their eyes on the right subject."

She told local TV station WTOL

"I'm glad they've got the spotlight focused on Wall Street which is the problem. The way the banking system is structured and what they just did to the American people."

Of course she's glad they're focused on Wall Street - it means they're not focused on Congress!

I've seen quite a number of comments from angry protesters bemoaning the fact that 'people' on Wall Street are not going to jail for what they've done (though they rarely can describe in any detail what, exactly, it is that they should go to jail for). But the primary reason 'all' those people aren't going to jail is because what they've done was not illegal.

You may think it is immoral and unjust, but that doesn't make it illegal.

In order for it to be illegal, there has to be a law prohibiting what they did. And Congress, who writes the laws and provides for the regulation of the banks and sets the penalties, knows that most of what the protesters object to was not illegal.

This is not to say that there are no illegalities whatsoever, but writing a sub-prime loan isn't illegal. Offering variable mortgage interest rates isn't illegal. Thinking that people entering into loans and mortgages would actually understand the obligation they were taking on isn't illegal. In fact, these things were a direct result of the laws Congress passed.

Think about it - government mandated that banks include unemployment insurance as income for the purposes of getting a mortgage. Is it really a good idea for an unemployed person to take out a mortgage for a home? Probably not. But if you're a bank and you think the borrower is an unacceptable risk because they don't have a job, too bad! The government has now forced you to count unemployment compensation as income.

So when the borrower couldn't find a job and the unemployment ran out, the bank was left with a loan it couldn't collect - and foreclosure proceedings usually ensued.

This specific scenario is a direct result of the laws Congress wrote, but the occupiers choose to blame the banks and the investors who followed those rules rather than the ones who wrote them.

So it's no wonder Rep. Kaptur is glad they're focused on something other than the source of the problem!

Interestingly, despite railing against Wall Street, OpenSecrets.org shows that she and her PAC accept campaign contributions from companies traded there, investment firms, and lobbyists who represent the financial industry - though the majority of her contributions come from labor unions and, more recently, defense contractors.

Kaptur also told WTOL that what the occupiers are doing is "healthy."

Sanitation experts would disagree.

But if Kaptur is so approving of what the occupiers are doing, she should be asked:

* why she supports the disrespect of the American Flag;

* why she supports anti-Semitism;

* why she supports defecating on a police car;

* why she supports 'killing and eating the rich';

* why she supports calls for violence;

* why she supports people who wave signs that say "if Jesus returns kill him again"'

* why she supports people who sing "f*** the USA";

* and why she is aligning herself with the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party.

Yes, this from the same representative who has an article linked on her official Congressional website that describes the TEA party movement as a "war on America." Don't believe me? Here is the screen shot:



She 'officially' supports calling tea party protesters "terrorists" and referring to the tea party as a "jihad."

Strange how she believes tea party protesters were conducting a 'war on America' but supports 'occupiers' who are aligning themselves with Nazis and Communists and are calling for the destruction of our economic system, by violent means if necessary.

Or maybe it's not so strange after all. Perhaps it's just her true colors shining through.

'Joe the Plumber' makes it official - files for Congress

Joe Wurzelbacher, also known as 'Joe the Plumber' who questioned Barack Obama on the campaign trail and got him to admit that he believes in redistribution of wealth, has filed a campaign committee Joe for Congress 2012 with the Federal Elections Commission.

I'd heard that he was meeting with former candidates for Congress, including Rich Iott, and that he'd talked with several campaign consultants.

If I'm reading the new congressional district maps correctly, Wurzelbacher will not be in the 9th Congressional District, the seat currently being held by Marcy Kaptur, which means a primary against incumbent Rep. Bob Latta if he runs as a Republican.

UPDATE:
According to an interview with the local daily, he said he'd announce his intentions by Oct. 25th. He said he that if he runs, he would seek the 9th Congressional District seat even though he doesn't live in it.

Washington vs. the real world (or where solar art trumps the national debt)

The discussions by politicians in Washington, D.C. over the debt limit have me extremely frustrated.

First there is the whole 'default' and doom-and-gloom scenario. You know, where President Barack Obama and the Democrats are saying that failure to raise the debt limit will mean the United States will default and send the world into chaos, even though that wasn't the case when George W. Bush was president.

In 2006, every single Democrat voted no to raising the debt ceiling. That also means that Republicans who were in office then voted in favor of it.

Today, the Dems are saying the world will end without an increase and the Republicans are saying 'only if we cut spending, too.' At least the Republicans seemed to have learned from the past several elections and the Tea Party movement consisting of members of all political parties demanding a fiscally conservative approach for the federal government.

But the whole 'default' discussion isn't really relevant. When you reach your limit on your credit cards, you don't declare bankruptcy - you just have to stop using them for purchases. As long as you can make the required payments, your card isn't cancelled and you don't 'default.'

This is the same as the U.S. government. While they may not be able to borrow any more money, they don't have to default on the loans - at least, not as long as they make their payments. As Cato explains:

The Treasury Department estimates that the federal government will collect a bit more than $203 billion in taxes during August — roughly $36 billion just in the first three days. But, during August, the federal government is expected to spend $307 billion. That is why we have a problem.

If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.

This will almost certainly hurt. But it's not the same as default. During August, interest payments on the federal debt will total roughly $29 billion, meaning that there will be sufficient revenue to meet our obligations to creditors. If the Obama administration is truly worried that we might not do so, they could always support legislation by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) that would require the Treasury Department to pay our creditors first.
...
In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

It's a matter of priorities, as this article from the Washington Post explains, but setting priorities is, apparently, a 'heinous' choice for the President:

“You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. If Congress raises the debt ceiling without a long-term plan for reducing the federal deficit, he added, “they’ll never solve the problem, and we’ll end up like Greece.”

Obama’s advisers have said that prioritizing some payments over others is impractical and would be chaotic. Money comes in and flows out at an inconsistent rate.

“You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Just what does he think the rest of the world - and the citizens he's supposed to represent - are doing?!?

But that's not all - as Mark Steyn explains:

In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

And he's right. You and I (and our descendants for probably more than a generation) are the ones expected to the foot the bill for this debt, as Steyn, with his irreverent sense of humor and irony, demonstrates:

On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

Think about the spending. We've got elitist politicians in DC bickering over the debt limit and saying they can't guarantee that granny is going to get her Social Security check in August, yet they're handing out $1 million for 'solar art.'

Seriously. The regional transit authority, along with the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, is going to jointly design a solar panel to be used to help offset the cost of lighting the administration building. TARTA hasn't calculated exactly how much per year the solar panels are going to save, but they're going ahead with the project anyway. Isn't that grand?

For reference, the solar panels on the I-280 bridge (also a 'gift' from our 'esteemed' representative) cost $1.5 million and were 'projected' to save $9,721 per year in energy costs. When you do the math, you'll find that project will take a little more than 154 years to break even. And those solar panels only have a lifespan of about 20 years.

No wonder TARTA hasn't done the calculations!

Really now, if we're truly in need and at risk of default, shouldn't the federal government put a hold on such 'unnecessary' expenditures? Wouldn't even our representative, Marcy Kaptur, agree that NOT spending money to put a solar array on a TARTA building so they can, hopefully, save money is the wiser course of action - at least until the debt limit is addressed?

And how many other expenditures of this nature have been made over the past several months? A simple Google search for "representative announces grant" produced 9.8 million hits in .2 seconds. That's a lot of spending!

Washington elitists don't live in the real world - at least, the ones insisting on raising the debt limit don't. Even Republicans, who are holding the line and insisting on spending cuts and no tax increases, are only talking about cuts 'over the next 10 years.'

We all know that those cuts aren't guaranteed and that future congresses can decide to eliminate then and spend away. We've got history to show us this potential is actually the norm. Besides, if they can't stop spending on superfluous stuff today, what makes us think they've got the intestinal fortitude to stop in the future?

Raising the debt ceiling to solve our financial predicament is the equivalent of raising the blood-alcohol level to solve drunk driving. It doesn't work and we all know it - how can our politicians not know this, too?

Logic and common sense are completely lacking in the discussions, but fear-mongering, political posturing and rhetoric are rampant. We'd never survive if we ran our personal finances this way - and fortunately for our country, the majority of Americans not only recognizes this, but is speaking out and holding the elitists accountable.

Where does Kaptur stand on Obama and War Powers Act?

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives held three votes relating to President Barack Obama's legal requirement, under the War Powers Act, to request authorization from Congress for his actions in Libya.

The Constitution gives the authority to declare war to the Congress. But, recognizing the need of Presidents to act in certain cases, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which allows a President to commit U.S. forces to actions so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. It also forbids those forces from remaining more than 60 days without an authorization from Congress or a declaration of war.

President Obama committed U.S. forces to actions in Libya, and did notify Congress within the 48-hour limit, but has failed to obtain authorization from Congress as required.

Friday, a vote was held on House Resolution 292:

Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes.

It passed 268-145 with 45 Democrats voting in favor and 10 Republicans voting against. Rep. Maxine Waters voted present. Some Republicans who voted against this measure voted, instead, for Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's stronger measure which would have directed the President to remove all troops from Libya within 15 days of passage.

That measure, House Continuing Resolution 51 (titled below) failed 148-265 with 87 Republicans voting in favor.

Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya.

The other vote, on H. Res. 294, also passed 257-156.

Providing for consideration of H.Res. 292 declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya, and for consideration of H.Con.Res. 51 directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Libya.

And how did our representative vote on these critical measures to enforce the law and uphold the Constitution?

She didn't.

She was no-vote on all three items because she was in Toledo eating hot dogs with President Obama - and touting the 'success' of the auto bailout.

It is interesting to note that when President George W. Bush asked for authorization from Congress for the actions in Iraq, House Joint Resolution 114, she managed to be present to vote no.

While some will say that it is important for our local representative to be present when the President is in her district, that seems to only apply when the president is of the same party as the representative. So that is a political consideration, not one related to the actual job of being a representative of a district.

I'm of the opinion that casting votes is the only job for which a representative is elected and 'skipping' a vote, especially on such critical issues as compliance with the Constitution, is a dereliction of that duty.

So her constituents are left with no idea of her position on upholding the Constitution and whether or not she supports forcing the present to comply with the law.

Sadly, too many of them don't care and will continue to support her regardless.

Campaigning on financial - not auto - bailout makes more sense

U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) is in Toledo today with President Barack Obama celebrating the 'success' of the auto bailout by touring the local Chrysler Group Llc plant.

First, repaying one loan with the proceeds of another one isn't really that much of an accomplishment, though some might say that being able to obtain private loans to pay back the public - taxpayer-sponsored - ones might be a step in the right direction.

In fact, Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne called the trip 'tacky':

"It's incredibly tacky stuff. I'm being brash. You pay them back and you shouldn't be celebrating. Cut them a check and send them home. And say thank you."

And the sentiment at General Motors is similar:

“No one at GM is happy” that it is “going to be used as one of President Obama’s success stories,” a source familiar with the internal dynamics of GM’s business told The Daily Caller, adding that the car company is not exactly on the same page as the White House in terms of declaring victory.

GM’s “not hanging a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner and they shouldn’t either,” the source told TheDC, citing current economic and industry woes.

“GM is not in a position to declare victory,” the source added.

And they have a valid point. By the President's own admission, the auto bailout is going to cost taxpayers $14 billion. The spin, though, is that since this is less than expected, it's a good thing.

Think about it - the government decided to bailout two companies expecting to lose more than $14 billion in the process. There's a reason no private investors wanted a part of that!

Instead of touting the bailout, why aren't Obama and Kaptur touting the success of Ford which didn't need a bailout and in April reported their largest first quarter profit since 1998??? Perhaps because there is no political gain to celebrating the success of a company that isn't dependent upon government largess? But I digress....

If the 'success' of the auto bailout is worth campaigning on, will Kaptur and Obama campaign on the actual success of the bank bailouts?

According to this article in The Atlantic,

In fact, taxpayers fared far better through their "investment" in the banking industry than they did in the auto industry. As of the Treasury's March bailout program update, the auto bailout is expected to cost taxpayers $15 billion. Meanwhile, the non-housing-related financial industry bailout is expected to provide the government with a net gain of $157 billion. Obviously, the taxpayers were far better off rescuing the banks than they were rescuing out the auto companies.

Wow! The bailout of the financial industry is going to result in taxpayers having a PROFIT of $157 billion. From both a jobs and company profits standpoint, the financial industry has performed much better since its bailout than the two auto companies.

Isn't that something to celebrate? Isn't that a 'success'? Isn't that worthy of bragging and use on the campaign trail? Especially since the President's number 1 concern is jobs?

Apparently not.

You see, these two auto companies failed because of "flawed business and strategy decisions that had built up over decades" - but they employ union workers - a key constituency of Democrats.

Compare that to the image of 'fat-cat' bankers, as Kaptur and the Dems so demonize, and it's no wonder the average American might react better to the ploy of claiming success on the auto, rather than the bank, bailouts. But as The Atlantic article points out:

If the U.S. suffered the collapse of its financial infrastructure, the economic damage would have been far more catastrophic than if a few large auto manufacturing firms had failed. Moreover, it wasn't just the Wall Street high rollers who were rescued: hundreds of thousands of employees working at small banks and at big bank regional branches across Main Street America were spared.

The article says the proper response to the campaign claim of success in the bailout is to ask how success is defined:

The fact is, you can save just about any company if you throw enough money at it. In the case of most banks, this money really just served to provide funding until the panic subsided, after which time many banks promptly repaid the government, with interest. Ultimately, the bank bailout will turn a profit for taxpayers. If there is any sort of bailout that could be called a success, it's that sort.

Meanwhile, the auto bailout is expected to cost taxpayers $15 billion. The auto companies were not on the verge of collapse due to anything having to do with the financial panic or the housing bubble. Instead, they failed due to flawed business and strategy decisions that had built up over decades. So the government threw a huge wad of cash at some companies with fundamental problems. They recovered after revamping their operations and using that cash to plug some holes. Is that really so impressive?

It's not. But since Rep. Kaptur has made a point over the past several years of painting banks and Wall Street as the enemy, she certainly can't let facts get in her way.

And we cannot expect the local daily newspaper to question her on this. Can you imagine Blade Politics Writer Tom Troy asking Marcy to explain why a program that lost $14 billion of taxpayer dollars is good while a program that made taxpayers a profit of $157 billion - and saved more jobs - is bad? I didn't think so.

But at least Kaptur's position is consistent in her hypocrisy. She - correctly, in my opinion - voted against the bailout of the financial industry. Yet she - incorrectly and inconsistently - voted in favor of the auto bailout. As far as I can tell, she's never been asked by any main stream media outlet to explain her contradiction in principle.

So I suppose her celebration of her special interest today should come as no surprise - while I expect she will continue to smear, malign and insult the industry that is actually making money on behalf of all Americans.

She is NOT representing us. A true 'representative' would share with us the cost consequences of the bailouts and stand firm, based upon the evidence, that one (financial) was clearly better for the nation than the other (auto). But Kaptur is acting contrary to what the facts of the issues are and only acting on behalf of the minority of her constituency who benefit from her types of decisions. That's what gets her elected.

It's a shame that it's come to this - our founding fathers would be appalled.

***Side Note: Also today, they'll be celebrating the fact that Fiat, an Italian company, is purchasing the government's share of stock in the company. From politicians and a political party that routinely focus on American companies and how foreign companies are stealing all our jobs - doesn't that strike you as more than 'a bit' hypocritical as well?

Think the media will ask them to reconcile this particular aspect with their previous positions? Or will they go along with the spin about how this is really good for America - and Obama, Kaptur and the Democrats in particular?

And what in the world will all those union members do with their "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign" bumper stickers???

America could not have been created if DISCLOSE Act was in place in 1775

My friend Bill Collier penned this editorial and I wanted to share it with you. It's a perspective I've not yet seen in print and an important one to note:

I was talking to my friend Ralph Benko, who is a lawyer and a Constitutional scholar, and he brought up the fact that all (or at least MOST) of the newspaper articles and pamphlets, pro and con, for the revolution, including the pamphlet, “Common Sense” (which launched the Revolution,) were anonymous. If the Disclose Act had been in place, these would not have been written and America would not have become independent.

I agree with Ralph’s point of view here, and I think people who love freedom should be shouting this from the roof tops- “The Disclose Act would have prevented America’s Founders from even starting their Revolution!”

Later, as we saw the problems with the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, which led to the ratification of the Constitution, were all written anonymously and if they had not been written then there would have been no Constitution, and who knows what would have happened.

I have seen fewer more un-American pieces of legislation than the Disclose Act- it is an Act as INTOLERABLE as anything our Founding Fathers would have opposed, like the Stamp Act, not merely for the specific provisions, which are onerous and burdensome, but because by enacting such a “law” Congress is straying outside of its legal powers and it giving itself the POTENTIAL power to decide what defines free speech and what does not, and what types or forms of private associations, whether for business or what have you, enjoy the protection of our most basic and fundamental right of freedom of association!

read more....

And then Warner Todd Huston, another blogger friend, has chimed in with this:

But, as it turns out, Democrats excluded some of the biggest spenders on political ads and campaigns in the country, most of them their patrons. In a manager’s amendment the Democrats excluded any organization that has over 1 million members. That leaves Big Labor free and clear of these new disclosure rules. It also leaves the National Rifle Association free of the new requirements.

And this is precisely what makes the whole thing unconstitutional. It is true that Congress has made rules requiring disclosure of campaign donations and it is also true that the courts have declared it constitutional. But those laws were all levied equally on everyone. The laws affect everyone that donates a certain amount of money and higher, for instance. This law treats some donations as necessary of disclosure while affording other donations the luxury of secrecy.

The Constitution of the United States has always been conceived as one that affects everyone equally. But if the courts let this law stand, then we will be solidifying into law the concept that Congress can make laws that discriminate against some Americans while giving other Americans more freedom. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

Read more....

According to GovTrack, this is how Ohio representatives voted on the bill:

Aye OH-1 Driehaus, Steve [D]
No OH-2 Schmidt, Jean [R]
No OH-3 Turner, Michael [R]
No OH-4 Jordan, Jim [R]
No OH-5 Latta, Robert [R]
Aye OH-6 Wilson, Charles [D]
No OH-7 Austria, Steve [R]
No OH-8 Boehner, John [R]
Aye OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Aye OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
No OH-11 Fudge, Marcia [D]
No OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R]
Aye OH-13 Sutton, Betty [D]
No OH-14 LaTourette, Steven [R]
Aye OH-15 Kilroy, Mary Jo [D]
Aye OH-16 Boccieri, John [D]
Aye OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]
Aye OH-18 Space, Zachary [D]

Where's Marcy? Congresswoman fails to show for health care meeting with constitutents

I thought about calling this post, "Where in the world is Marcy Kaptur" - with apologies to Carmen Sandiego, but I realize that not everyone is familiar with the children's character.

But with recent events, it's certainly a good question to ask about our Congressional Representative.

According to numerous reports, here is what occurred:

* The week of March 22nd, President Barack Obama's Organizing for America sent out an email that Marcy Kaptur would be holding a meeting to answer questions about the health care bill. The email indicated that the meeting would be at 2 p.m. at the Toledo Lucas County Library downtown branch.

* Several members of the local tea-party-like group, Children of Liberty, who are on the email list, decided to share the notice with the group, encouraging people to show up and take advantage of the opportunity to have their questions about the bill answered.

(Side Note: many of these members have been trying to months to get answers about the health care bill from Marcy...)

* Several media outlets mentioned the meeting.

* The meeting, however, was not to be.

* Children of Liberty member John recounts his efforts to find out about the cancelled meeting:

I got word at around 8:50am that the event was canceled!!! . WWWHHHHHTT?

I called the Library at 9am, the room was reserved by Rep Kaptur, and the attendance estimate she gave to the Library when she reserved the room was 15 people.

Over the next ½ hour, I had several calls from people who were also planning on attending. They had called Rep Kaptur’s office and the Staff told them, “there wasn’t anything on the schedule and they didn’t know anything about it”.

What’s the deal?

I checked back with the Library about 9:30am, I was told that someone from Rep Kaptur’s office had just called and canceled the room (Hhmmm, I wonder if there’s a cancellation fee?)

I told the Library that we had several people coming from all around town and it would be impossible to let them know of the cancellation. I then asked if I could have the room, and we could at least continue some of the meeting without Rep Kaptur.

I indicated that I would be more than willing to pay for the room at its usual rate, and I’d be more than happy to accept the room set up for the original meeting; The Library will check into it.

An hour later (About 10:30am), I checked back with the Library, They’ll let me have the room, no problems. I indicated that I anticipated approximately 50 guests, but due to the Cancellation confusion, it could be less. (They need the guest count so they can supply the correct number of pre-paid parking passes)

At noon, when the Library opened, I meet with the Library Staff, they showed me the room (McMaster), and I signed the contract.

In reviewing the contract with the Library Staff, they made it clear that because this is a public facility, this cannot be a private meeting, and any meetings held in this room are automatically open to the public.

I arrived back at the Library at 2pm, where I found several people waiting to get in for the original 2pm Meeting that Rep Kaptur scheduled. None of these people were aware that Rep Kaptur had canceled.

I briefly explained that for some unknown reason, at 9:30 this morning, Rep Kaptur canceled the meeting and the hall.. At 10am, I reserved the room and planned on continuing the Health Care Q&A, but unless Rep Kaptur showed up, there wouldn’t be any “A” portion of the “Q&A”.

* Absent the Congresswoman, her constituents recorded the questions with the intent of sharing the video with Kaptur and getting answers to the questions.

* While she couldn't made the event she'd scheduled, a member of her staff was present and 'furiously taking notes.'

* Several reports after the fact had staff from her office claiming that the scheduled meeting was a 'private' one.

I can only wonder if this is the modus operandi for those who voted for the atrocious health care bill: meet only with people who agree with your vote while ignoring and avoiding the majority who opposed this measure.

Should the group receive any answers to the questions posed on the video, I'll report that, as well. But I'm not holding my breath!

UPDATED: How Kaptur will justify her 'yes' vote on health care

UPDATE: As of Sunday morning, Rep. Marcy Kaptur confirmed she will be a 'yes' vote for the health care bill.

Watch her interview on WTVG here.


Original post from March 20, 2010 at 8:28 a.m.:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur has been claiming to be undecided on the health care bill currently being discussed in the House of Representatives.

She says that she wants to ensure that any language relating to the issue of abortion supports current law which only has government funding when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.

However, according to Roll Call, she 'doesn't want to be a problem,' for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

What???

I firmly believe Marcy will tow the party and vote (if there is a vote) in favor of the bill. She's too much of a party loyalist to do otherwise, even if she fails in getting her way on the abortion language.

Knowing that so many in her district oppose this, how will she justify going against the wishes of her district and her own position on abortion? She's already told us:

Kaptur said she believes health care reform legislation would reduce the total number of abortions and reduce the number of premature births and birth defects by providing coverage for pregnant women.

And here, from The Blade:

Asked whether she would oppose the bill if the abortion language was not clarified to her satisfaction, Miss Kaptur said she is weighing the number of abortions that occur annually with the number of infant deaths and premature and underweight births that can be attributed to inadequate health care resulting from the lack of health insurance.

"If we do a better job through the insurance system, we can save lives," she said.

My prediction is that she is going to say that the 'lives saved' by government control of health care will outweigh the 'lives lost' by funding abortion.

Of course, this is completely contrary to the usual liberal claim of 'if it saves even one life,' when instituting various other rules and laws.

And while I'm not Catholic, Marcy is. I doubt this type of justification sits well with her religious upbringing.

What's important to remember is not the specific issue of abortion. Nor is it about Marcy's Catholic faith. This is really about an elected official who states a position on an issue and is given the chance to stand up for that position.

This is about staying true to your principles, regardless of what the specific principle is.

Marcy has taken a public and well-known stand on an issue. Does she maintain her principled stand on that issue or sacrifice it to partisanship by going along with a vote necessary for the success of her party and president?

My prediction is that she'll go along, especially after saying that she 'doesn't want to be a problem' for Pelosi.

Kaptur votes for Slaughter Rule

Michelle Malkin has the story...

And so does American Spectator:

Earlier this afternoon, House Democrats voted down a Republican measure that would have prevented the use of the "deem and pass" strategy, or Slaughter rule, paving the way for the House to pass the Senate bill without directly voting on it.

Here's the Roll Call Vote.

Basically, our representative, Marcy Kaptur, has decided that a vote is not necessary - that all the House has to do is 'deem' the health care vote to have taken place and passed, despite the fact that the Constitution requires a vote.

Wouldn't it be nice if you and I could do something like this? I know I'd like to 'deem' my taxes paid...

Additionally, this email was sent out by Rep. Eric Cantor's press secretary:

All –

The House just voted on the Cantor Resolution “That the House disapproves of the malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership has thereby discharged the duties of their offices.” Those who voted against the resolution denounced Democrat leadership for their use of the “Slaughter Solution” to deceive the American people.

Final Vote: 232-181
R: 0-171
D: 232-10

To put it more clearly, the following 10 Democrats just denounced Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, Whip Clyburn, Conference Chairman Larson, and DCCC Chairman Van Hollen and the rest of the Democrat Leadership.

Rep. Boren
Rep. Childers
Rep. Giffords
Rep. Kissell
Rep. McIntyre
Rep. Mitchell
Rep. Minnick
Rep. Perriello
Rep. Shuler
Rep. Taylor

Note the absence of Marcy's name....