Archive for August, 2007

Gabby’s 2%

Published August 28, 2007 Democrats , Earmarks , Ed Pastor , Fiscal Responsibility , Gabby Giffords , Harry Mitchell , John Murtha , Nancy Pelosi , Raul Grijalva , Taxes 1 Comment

The Club For Growth recently released their 2007 RePORK Card, rating members of Congress for their fight against pork barreling that has bloated the size of the federal government. Not surprisingly, Gabby Giffords came in at the bottom rungs of the report.

The RePORK Card is a summary of how members of Congress voted during all 50 amendments offered so far this year to strike out earmarks for various pieces of legislation. At the top of the list, scoring 100% (meaning they voted in favor of all 50) were Fiscal Conservatives Jeff Flake, John Shadegg, and Trent Franks. But how Arizona’s other self-described Fiscal Conservative rank? A measley 2%. Meaning that Gabby Giffords voted against 49 out of 50 amendments to strike-out pork. Harry Mitchell joined her at 2%, while Arizona’s veteran liberals Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva rated at 0%. So much for her claim to be fiscally responsible and independent from the party-line.

But really it is all just part of a larger list of lies that Gabby has fed her constituents about her so-called fiscal self-restraint. In fact Gabby has shown no restraint at all when it comes to spending her districts hard-earned tax dollars. Gabby has thus far requested over $327,000,000 in pork, making her the biggest spend-thrift of any member of Congress from Arizona. But this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Only one Democratic Congressman vote for more than 20% of the anti-pork bills, and that was Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored a 98% for fiscal responsibility. Every other Democrat voted numerous times to uphold a process that has been cause for many Congressional scandals.

In all the promises the Democrats made in 2006 to control spending in Washington, none have been followed through. It is all a part of the larger ultra-liberal agenda of Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha that Gabby is being groomed for.

If Gabby can’t control her thirst for dirty money, then how can anyone from Arizona trust her to represent them in an honest manner?

Gabby The Bench Warmer

Published August 23, 2007 Border Security , Gabby Giffords , Illegal Immigrants , Immigration 0 Comments

For a member of Congress who represents a border state, whose district is on the border with Mexico, Gabby Giffords is having a very difficult time staking out a position on border security. Recently there has been controversy over the Border Patrol placing a permanent highway checkpoint along I-19, a highway that leads to Mexico, which sits in Gabby’s district. The checkpoint would be placed about 30 miles north of the border.

Many constituents in her district are angry about the proposed location out of fear that it would cause illegal aliens and smugglers to start tracing new routes into the country by going through peoples backyards and neighborhoods. Gabby has been asked time and again on what her position is on the issue, and her continued answer is, “I think all options should be on the table.”

In 2006, Gabby campaigned on the issue of border security, saying that she was the better candidate that would take Arizona’s concerns to Washington and secure the border. Yet when she is asked about her position on a very important issue, Gabby cannot seem to find the words that say “I support” or “I am against”.

Gabby has said, “I’m not going to sit back and not do everything in my power to bring the maximum amount of border security to Souther Arizona.”

Yet that is exactly what she seems to be doing right now - nothing. She is trying to be all things to all people by not taking a position on the issue so she doesn’t make anyone angry. Sadly for her, this is an issue she can’t play bench warmer with. Her constituents won’t let her.

The Hypocritical Oath

Published August 17, 2007 Congress , Earmarks , Fiscal Responsibility , Gabby Giffords , John Murtha , Nancy Pelosi , Pork , Raul Grijalva , Steny Hoyer 0 Comments

When Gabby Giffords ran for Congress last fall, a common theme of her campaign was fiscal discipline. She said she would go to Washington and stop the out-of-control spending. Since arriving in Washington, however, Gabby’s oath to control spending has not only become hypocritical, it is a down right lie.

In her campaign she said, “I pledge that I will fight to restore these middle class tax cuts if elected to congress.” Yet one of the very first votes she cast as a member of the House (other than voting to elect ultra-leftist Nancy Pelosi Speaker) was to implement the largest tax increase in United States history. That hike totals $39,200,000,000 over the next 5 years, a sum is going to cost her own constituents an additional $2,701 each year in taxes.

In just her 8 months as a member of Congress, she has shown no regard to reforming the legislative earmark process. In fact, she has requested over $327,000,000 in earmarks alone making her the biggest pork barrel spender of any of the 8 Representatives and 2 Senators that Arizona has in Washington. Gabby is requesting more money in Congressional Pork that her counterpart Raul Grijalva in neighboring District 7, who has requested $178,000,000 in earmark projects. Grijalva was rated by National Journal in 2006 as the 3rd most liberal member of the House, yet Gabby still claims the title of fiscal conservative.

Recently Gabby was presented with the opportunity to support landmark legislation that would begin cutting off air to the earmark process. Gabby’s Republican colleague Jeff Flake introduced a measure that restricts states with bridges in need of repair from receiving transportation earmarks. This bill comes in the wake of the Twin Cities bridge collapse. U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters joined Flake in support of this initiative, heavily criticizing pork spending related to the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge. Peters has noted that transportation earmarks go nowhere near roads or bridges, and instead are spent on projects for bike paths or hiking trails.

Yet Gabby, the so-called fiscal conservative is standing in strong opposition with John Murtha to Flake’s amendment saying that the pork needs to be kept in various spending measures.

But guess who Gabby has decided to point the finger of blame too on Congress’ fiscal mess? None other than the GOP. At the end of July, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer joined with a group of members from the Blue Dog Coalition (Gabby’s fraternity) releasing a short video attacking the GOP because Republicans have been critical of the amount of spending that has taken place since the Democrats took power in January. Gabby was one of the six Blue Dog members to join Hoyer in releasing this video.

“Over the last seven months, Democrats have begun to restore fiscal responsibility and sound the alarm on the fiscal tsunami that threatens to drown our nation in the not-too-distant future if we fail to act,” Hoyer said in a statement with the release of the video.

The video was released to You Tube at this URL, but conveniently enough, it has been removed by the user.

Gabby is quick to attack other for too much spending, but when it comes to her own fiscal irresponsibility she, nor any of the Blue Dogs have a thing to say about it. It is yet another of Gabby’s forgotten campaign pledges to the people of District 8.

Her oath to be a fiscal conservative has in just 8 short months become a lie.

Forgetting the truth

Published August 16, 2007 CHAMP Act , Democrats , Earmarks , Gabby Giffords , Health Care , Hillary Care , Illegal Immigrants , Medicare , SCHIP 2 Comments

While Gabby Giffords is on recess from the House this month, she will continue to deceive the good people of her district by saying that what she is doing for them in Congress is to their benefit. She will be holding 3 public forums in Green Valley, Bisbee and Tucson to discuss the “improvements” to Medicare that was passed in the Democrats first step towards a new form of Hillary Care - The Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act). These forums are likely to be an hour long lecture in which Gabby makes the case for a health care reform package that in fact does nothing to help children nor seniors.

As these forums are about Medicare, it is a sure chance that each of them are going to be packed with senior citizens. Gabby is going to assure them that the CHAMP Act is improving their Medicare coverage, but conveniently forget to mention that the bill she voted for makes cuts to the programs funding to pay for the other half of the bill, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Now suppose that one of the seniors in the room actually paid attention (and most of them do) to the content of the CHAMP Act, and questions Gabby about that cut to Medicare? What would her response be? The usual bullet shield that Democrats use to protect themselves from a wave of criticism…the children. She is going to tell a room full of senior citizens that they are losing funding to their health care because the Democratic Congress believes that it can handle health insurance better than insurance companies can. Companies that have been providing it for years, making the United States the worlds best health care system. So Gabby is going to be telling these seniors is that the federal government will do a better job by cutting one program to fund another?

Of course Gabby will also forget to mention to these seniors that CHAMP is also funded by a tax increase on low-income Americans. And what constitutes someone as a “child” according to CHAMP? Someone as old as 25 years-of-age. And who else can receive health care from this program? Illegal immigrants. That’s right. There is a provision in the bill that would allow people who entered this country illegally to latch onto a program paid for by tax hikes and Medicare cuts. All will be conveniently left out of Gabby’s speech in these forums.

Lets not overlook the fact either that this bill is packed fat with pork. Every piece of legislation the new Democratic Congress has passed in its 8 months in power has been loaded with billions of dollars in earmark projects. Gabby has had no reservations about requesting earmarks as she has over $327,000,000 in pork attached to various House bills. But somehow Gabby still claims to be fiscally conservative. She’ll probably tout being fiscally responsible in these forums, while again forgetting to mention the truth.

Gabby’s tax-paid campaign

Published August 8, 2007 Franking , Gabby Giffords , Immigration , Roll Call , Taxes 1 Comment

It might sound crazy to assume that the mainstream news media in Arizona doesn’t do a good job of reporting what is going on in Washington, D.C., but that is exactly what Gabby Giffords believes.

In early July, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call released a report on the 51 House freshmen and their spendings during the first quarter (January-March) on “Franking’s”. Franking’s are mass mailings sent out by members of Congress to constituents in their districts, that are paid for through office budgets, which are taxpayer funded. The Blue Dog Coalition member, Gabby Giffords ranked as the 6th-highest-spender on franked mail, consuming nearly $40,000 in just her first three months in office. Since March she has spent another $40,000, making a grand total of $80,000 spent in just 7 months in office. Still trying to pass herself off as a fiscal conservative, she claimed that she is “very frugal” about her mailings.

So what exactly is in these mailings? Well one of the franks that she sent to the 8th District was a 4-page piece that had her picture in color 4 different times. Another was a piece that declared “Giffords fights for overhaul of immigration laws”. Wonder if her next mailing will talk about how she recently cast a vote in favor of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which gives illegal immigrants government health care benefits?

Gabby has said that these mass mailings need to be colorful and flashy, otherwise the constituents who receive them might just toss it out as junk mail. The more colorful, the more expensive - so much for fiscal responsibility.

Gabby’s defense, however, is that she feels it is her job to keep her constituents fully informed on the issues. Does Gabby not know about something called a newspaper? The internet? Television? If any of her constituents don’t have access to any of the above, they could always write her. There is nothing wrong with concerned citizens writing their Representatives or Senators in DC and receiving a personal, written response. Every Congressional office does it multiple times a day, and there is nothing wrong with it. That is honest government.

But mass mailings are something entirely different. Gabby’s colleague on the Hill from Arizona, Congressman Jeff Flake has said franked mail is campaign mail in disguise, and that freshmen in Congress are told to be careful with how many staffers they hire so that there is an extra one or two hundred thousand dollars in the bank for these mass mailings. Flake said that this is “blatant campaign mail.”

That begs the question, who is it receiving these mailings? Who is Gabby really interested in “spreading the word too”? Surely not solid Republicans, because they are going to see right through her. Of course her strong Democratic supporters don’t need them because they are already behind her. So who is left? The independents. The swing-voters. Gabby has to convince them that she is doing good things in DC because it will be their votes that make the difference in 2008. That right there is campaigning with tax-dollars.

So much for fiscal responsibility. So much for honest government. So much for a lot of things Gabby had promised.

Who’s Gabby really working for?

Published August 3, 2007 Border Security , Gabby Giffords , Health Care , Immigration , Nancy Pelosi , Taxes 0 Comments

Is it any surprise really that since Gabby has taken office she has created a pattern of voting that encourages illegal immigration and favors amnesty for people who have violated the sovereign laws of the United States of America? Well anyone who cast their vote for her last fall might be in a state of shock right now, considering she ran on a platform that put her in the light of wanting to end illegal immigration.

She has now sided with the Democratic party leadership on 3 major immigration legislative initiatives, effectively sinking whatever those bills were meant to accomplish.

1. She cast a vote in favor of HR 800, allowing illegal immigrants to form unions, at the same time stripping unions of the right to democratic process with secret ballots.

2. She cast a vote against full funding of a border fence.

3. She has now cast a vote in favor of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which gives illegal immigrants government health care benefits, while at the same time paying for the program by choking off funding to our senior citizens Medicare program and slamming honest, hard working Americans with a tax hike.

Lets not forget either that Gabby has claimed to be independent of the party line and a fiscal conservative, granting her admission to the Blue Dog Coalition. But since taking office, Gabby has done nothing even remotely close to be fiscally conservative or independent of the most liberal members of the Democratic Party. Her actions have done little to represent the people who elected her from a state that doesn’t believe in ultra-liberal ideals. It begs the question, who is Gabby really working for?

Nancy Pelosi has Gabby fitted neatly into her pocket, and Gabby is just fine with that.

Giffords Insurance Co.

Published August 2, 2007 Congress , Democrats , Gabby Giffords , Health Care , Nancy Pelosi , Taxes 0 Comments

Like a good puppet of the Democratic Party leadership, and pawn of the most liberal members of the United States House of Representatives, Gabby Giffords continues to show what kind of tricks she has up her sleeve. These tricks are used to dupe the people of Arizona into believing that what she does is for the greater good of the country.

This time, she and the Democrats are using one of the most deceiving tricks in the book - “it’s all for the children.” Unfortunately for the children, Gabby and her Democrat colleagues are using them as an excuse to push their ultra-liberal agenda.

Yesterday, the Democrats rammed an “Inclusive Health Care Bill” through the House 225-204, mostly along party lines. The bill is designed to increase funding to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $50,000,000,000. This program is something the White House and most people support in theory, but it is quickly losing backing because of the Jokers still left in the card deck.

In an opinion piece Gabby had published today in the Arizona Daily Star, Ms. Giffords said, “The Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (the CHAMP Act), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday, makes critical improvements to Medicare while cutting wasteful spending.”

What Gabby has conveniently failed to mention is that the “critical improvements” to Medicare is a major cut from the programs funding. In her own defense, Gabby justifies this move by claiming that letting insurance companies compete for lost cost savings has let these companies make too much money. But if you read between the lines, Gabby is really saying that she believes the government can handle better what the free market has already been doing for a number of years. It is a direct endorsement by Gabby for letting the federal government balloon its spending and introduce socialism to the United States health care system.

“This is not just about helping low-income children. This bill today seems to be spending government funds to lure middle class, upper middle class, even wealthy, perhaps, families, to opt out of private health coverage and go to government health coverage,” said Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

Gabby and her liberal friends on the hill have forgotten to tell us why there is such strong opposition to this bill, other than the fact that it lets the government slowly encroach on the private sector. Why? Because if everyone knew the truth the Democrat-controlled Congress would sink even lower…

1. It introduces a tax increase on low-income Americans
2. The bill plans for pay for the increased funding to the program by putting a tax increase on tobacco. This tax hike was not even discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee which has the jurisdiction over changes to the tax code.
3. The bill is designed to give free health care to “children”, but it considers a child to be as old as 25 years-of-age.
4. It contains provisions that will aid illegal immigrants
5. There is a lack of anti-fraud provisions

For someone who claims to be a fiscal conservatives, Gabby’s backing a tax increase, on low-income Americans of all people, strikes her out. For someone who claims to want to see an ethical Congress, Gabby’s backing of skipping right over the Ways and Means Committee to introduce tax hikes, strikes her out. For someone who wants to see honest and open government, Gabby’s backing of a bill that claims a 25 year old to be a child and not talk about it, strikes her out. For someone who claims to be strong on border security and immigration reform, Gabby’s backing of a provision to aid illegal immigrants, strikes her out. For someone who claims to be a strong supporter of closing loopholes in government programs, Gabby’s backing of a bill that lacks anti-fraud provisions strikes her out.

It would seem that a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition would see the flaws in a bill like this. A bill that in no way, shape, or form is fiscally responsible, nor small government minded. But when you’re a member of the exclusive Pelosi Protégé program, what would you care about sticking to your “principles”?

a

Contact Gabby Watch

gabbywatch@gmail.com