Some Vote Ideas . . .

Format for printing
Submitted by FreedomDemocrats on Sun, 2009-07-26 10:07.

Just a follow up to my post about a new vote scorecard for Congress. Here's a quick brainstorm.

The vote against releasing the second half of the TARP bailout.

The FDA regulation of tobacco bill, which includes a ban on all non-menthol flavored cigarettes. And maybe the second vote on the conference version.

The vote to restore PAYGO rules, although Republicans criticized it for being full of holes. So maybe the Republican substitute or their modification through the motion to recommit?

There's also the big votes like the energy bill, the budget resolution, the supplemental, and the host of appropriation bills already passed this year. There's also a series of amendments from Flake to strip out earmarks. And resolutions asking for an investigation into the ties between the lobbying firm PMA and the distribution of earmarks.

So what would you all be interested in knowing? More Republican amendments to cut across the board spending? Do you think we should throw in Flake's anti-earmark amendments? What issues am I missing?

FreedomDemocrats's blog »

2nd Amendment

#7284 On Sun, 2009 07 26 10:20 FreedomDemocrats said,

Forgot this vote on protecting a Senate amendment to the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights that would protect the 2nd Amendment on all public lands.

login or register to post comments

re: earmarks

#7285 On Sun, 2009 07 26 11:35 b psycho said,

IMO the anti-earmarks thing is overblown. Yeah, it's annoying and wasteful, but they don't really make much of a dent. For the scorecard it depends on how many votes are being considered for it.

login or register to post comments

re:earmarks

#7287 On Sun, 2009 07 26 12:05 thesilentconsensus said,

I would argue that earmarks are not overblown at all. If they won't bother to eliminate small wasteful expenditures, I fail to see how they can be trusted to eliminate large wasteful expenditures

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Three Simple Votes

#7286 On Sun, 2009 07 26 11:49 FreedomDemocrats said,

Here's a quick scorecard of three simple votes. I think this is a good step toward what I want to see to judge the current members. I remembered there was a vote on requiring an exit strategy for Afghanistan by the end of the year, which I want to throw in.

- Anti-TARP Bailout (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll027.xml)
- Pro-2nd Amendment (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml)
- Pro-Afghanistan Exit Strategy (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll453.xml)

In each vote, about 100 Democrats supported the more libertarian friendly position. Anti-TARP got 99. I pick these votes as “simple” compared to Republican amendments to cut spending across the board that don’t even get full GOP support. These votes are basic. And I think they hit the big issues. Foreign affairs, corporatism, and full support of the Bill of Rights.

About 40 members didn't vote in all three votes, some because they won special elections. Others just didn't show up to vote. Eleven voted with the more libertarian friendly position on the two times they did vote, including Flake (who wasn't around for the Afghanistan exit strategy vote). Setting those folks aside, we have:

26 members (D and R) who voted "right" on all three.
235 members (D and R) who voted "right" two out of three times.
98 members (D and R) who voted "right" only one out of three times.
34 members (D and R) who voted "wrong" all three times.

Of note, Republican Congressman Kirk, who's now running for the Illinois Senate Seat, was one of (I think the only) Republican to vote "wrong" all three times. I don't always like the Club for Growth, but I'd really like them to go after the guy in the primary.

Here's the list of the 26 good guys (and gals):

Democrats (19): Berkley (NV), Costello (IL), Courtney (CT), Dahlkemper (PA), DeFazio (OR), Driehaus (OH), Grayson (FL), Heinrich (NM), Hill (IN), Hodes (NH), Johnson (GA), Kagen (WI), Maffei (NY), Massa (NY), Michaud (ME), Perriello (VA), Schrader (OR), Walz (MN), and Welch (VT).

Republicans (7): Coble (NC), Duncan (TN), Johnson (IL), Jones (NC), Paul (TX), Rohrabacher (CA), and Whitfield (KY).

Looking back over the numbers, I can see that it was the Afghanistan Exit Strategy vote that made the biggest difference between the 3's and the 2's.

As another note, of the 19 Democrats, I count 7 freshmen elected in 2008 and 7 sophomores elected in 2006. I think that says something about the new blood in the party.

login or register to post comments

Audit the Fed

#7291 On Sun, 2009 07 26 12:53 FreedomDemocrats said,

And just a quick note looking at the Audit the Fed Bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207) and the above 26 members.

Democrats also cosponsoring Audit the Fed: Berkley (NV), Courtney (CT), Dahlkemper (PA), DeFazio (OR), Grayson (FL), Johnson (GA), Kagen (WI), Maffei (NY), Massa (NY), Michaud (ME), Perriello (VA), Walz (MN) and Welch (VT). 13 out of the original 19.

Republicans: Coble (NC), Duncan (TN), Johnson (IL), Jones (NC), Paul (TX), Rohrabacher (CA), and Whitfield (KY). 7 out of the original 7.

So we only dropped six: Costello (IL), Driehaus (OH), Heinrich (NM), Hill (IN), Hodes (NH), and Schrader (OR). And that is if you want to use Audit the Fed as a litmus test.

On another topic, Frank's bill to legalize online gambling (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2267) has the following from the above list after the three simple votes: Berkley (NV), Courtney (CT), Driehaus (OH), Hodes (NH), and Perriello (VA) as the Democrats plus Paul (TX) from the Republican side.

login or register to post comments

2nd Amendment Mistake

#7292 On Sun, 2009 07 26 13:39 FreedomDemocrats said,

Was trying to dig up more information on some of the members and found this: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003126476

"At least 11 House Democrats (not including freshmen) who have typically sided with gun-control advocates on past votes this time around favored allowing state and local gun laws to take precedence over federal law in national parks.

Those 11 were Reps. Adam Smith of Washington, Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Gregory W. Meeks of New York, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Hank Johnson of Georgia, Melissa Bean of Illinois, Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island and Diana DeGette of Colorado."

So strike Courtney, Berkley, and Johnson from the three simple votes, or at least put an asterisk.

login or register to post comments

Regarding across-the-board cuts

#7288 On Sun, 2009 07 26 12:12 thesilentconsensus said,

I find across-the-board cuts to be the worst way to balance a budget, because it treats good expenditures the same as indefensible expenditures. I've heard the analogy that it's the equivalent of using a grenade to clean out your garage. I agree with that, and especially for us, given that we don't view all spending as equally bad, I would not recommend making that vote a criteria on the scorecard

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Other recommendations

#7289 On Sun, 2009 07 26 12:21 thesilentconsensus said,

Other votes I recommend using:

1. Cutting F-22 Funding
2. Votes to strike earmarks. Regardless of how small they are, earmarks are inherently inefficient since they involve concentrated benefits with dispersed costs
3. Omnibus bill
4. The recent conceal and carry vote across state lines (no being correct)

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Conceal and Carry

#7290 On Sun, 2009 07 26 12:43 FreedomDemocrats said,

Why is no the correct vote for conceal and carry?

login or register to post comments

States

#7293 On Sun, 2009 07 26 15:23 thesilentconsensus said,

As far as libertarian Democrats are concerned, states should not be able to force each other, through the federal government, to accept each other's laws. Similar to McCain proposing people be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines, thereby undermining state regulations by enabling insurance companies to park themselves in the least regulated state. If individual states wish to allow their citizens to buy health insurance from another state, that's fine, as the state sets the regulations to begin with and it can choose to undermine them if it wishes. The same applies to conceal and carry across state lines: if individual states want to honor permits from another state, they can do so, as has been done. It should not be forced on them through the federal government

In the interest of disclosure, I will say that I tend to be for gun safety laws, and would not support this on a state level either, but such does not rise to the same fundamental level as the federal government forcing it

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Full Faith and Credit

#7294 On Sun, 2009 07 26 15:51 FreedomDemocrats said,

Some would argue that the "full faith and credit clause" actually does allow the federal government to force states to accept each the laws of other states, to a degree. Similarly, I think you could argue that federal regulation of interstate commerce allows for the federal government to ensure that people can buy goods and services, including health insurance, from other states.

login or register to post comments

Not Unconstitutional

#7295 On Sun, 2009 07 26 16:22 thesilentconsensus said,

I'm not suggesting that either of those acts would be unconstitutional. I'm just saying they shouldn't be enacted

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

More ideas

#7296 On Sun, 2009 07 26 18:23 thesilentconsensus said,

On the SCHIP bill, votes on amendments to make it more indidivualized and market-oriented

Weapon Acquisition reform bill

Relevant budget resolution votes

The Silent Consensus

login or register to post comments

Step in the right direction

#7299 On Tue, 2009 07 28 11:25 b psycho said,
While searching through legislation I found this medical marijuana bill. It'd reclassify marijuana and explicitly bar the feds from interfering in states where it's legal.  I'm not sure how far that legislation has to go, but it or a similar bill could be an indication.  For scoring purposes I'd see it more as "if you aren't willing to even go THIS far against the War on Drugs..." than a traditional up or down.
login or register to post comments