The Missouri Democratic Party is calling on Republicans to stop standing in the way of measures like the one that passed the U.S. House today that will save over 3,000 jobs in Missouri for teachers and others.
Republican Roy Blunt did not even show up to vote on the measure today, and Todd Akin, Jo Ann Emerson, Blaine Luektemeyer and Sam Graves voted no a bill that will save over 3,000 jobs in Missouri and lower the Federal deficit. [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll518.xml]
In response to Republicans' unwillingness to help hard working Missourians, Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Craig Hosmer released the following statement:
“The fact that Roy Blunt could not even show up to support Missouri jobs speaks volumes about his priorities, and his Missouri Republican colleagues ended up voting against jobs for the people they represent. It makes no sense for Republicans to vote against lowering the Federal deficit and saving over 3,000 jobs in our state. They are doing nothing more than playing politics at the expense of hard-working Missourians and their families."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Democrats criticize Blunt for missing jobs bill vote
When the U. S. House of Representatives voted today on a bill to keep teachers and police officers working, Seventh District Congressman and U. S. Senate candidate Roy Blunt was a no-show as the Missouri Democratic Party pointed out in the following news release:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Speaking of Blunts, has anyone heard anything from Matt's cousin Jack since the Primary Election.
There was no deficit lowering going on. The alledged reductions were in four years which will never see the light of day. Can you really spend money you don't have today and justify it by saying I will reduce my dining out starting in four years. I'm not condoning Blunt's failure to vote, but am criticizing the presentation of the facts as presented.
What? That bill takes our tax money we pay to the federal government, and gives it to states as a Band Aid fix so they can continue living beyond their means. Sure, it helps a few union employees keep their jobs temporarily, but it helps them at everyone else's expense. There's no reduction of the deficit involved either. Randy, you're really muddying the waters of political discussion here by posting such a convoluted spin job of a release. Blunt helped "hard working Missourians" by staying home and not voting "yes" on this bailout of union employees (using tax dollars we don't really have). He could have gone to Washington and voted "no," but the bill would have passed anyway.
As Reason delicately put it, Congress Takes Food from Poor People to Win Teachers Union Votes.
According to an AP article they link to this Band-Aid for the November elections will "lower the Federal deficit" by cutting funding for food stamps (in the future, as Anonymous @8:33 pointed out).
With it's "sure to pass" in the House status, I can see why Blunt had better things to do than vote on this dog's breakfast.
(Quite seriously, the political landscape would be somewhat different if the Democrats were passing relatively "clean" legislation; it's one thing to vote principles but quite another to support colossal messes like this and Obamacare).
Clean? How about just honoring his promise to post legislation online so the public can review it three or five days before he signs it? Then we could have seen that the stimulus funds for education and city union workers comes with strings -- like the states now have to increase funding each year for education no matter if they can afford it or not. There is an excellent rundown of some of the finer points of the law in the Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421613093659730.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The government presents this as helping children, but it's just making things worse in the long run, and forcing states to give up control of a portion of their budgets. This must be a dream come true to the union folks. How can the state legislatures agree to accept the federal funds if that means they'll require future legislatures to abide by the terms they agree to for this bailout? I couldn't find any local news outlets giving this kind of info to the public before the bill was signed -- it was all about "look how nice this is for our children." And then Obama ran to sign it rather than giving us a time to review the final bill before it became law. Now what?!
And where are Blunt's ideas? He won't vote on whats presented so where are his solutions? Oh I remember trickle down economics and him getting massive lobbyist money. He wasn't there because he was probably on a vacation paid for by a lobbyist.
Anonymous @6:34 AM:
It's OK to ask what Blunt's alternatives are but pointless to construct a strawman by putting words into his mouth (doubly pointless to recycle propaganda from the '80s!).
It has perhaps escaped your attention, but Blunt has a Senate seat to win in this thoroughly Purple state. Based on his recent appearances here and there I suspect he'll be taking few vacations from now to the November elections.
I have no idea where Congressman Blunt was when that vote was crammed down America's throat, but I would guess he was doing something better than wasting time and money to rush off to Washington just to vote against the Democratic majority. When will they get the message "Stop the Spending!" Just stop it!!!
Thank you Mr. Blunt for being outside the beltway when being there would help no one at all.
I'm sure Randy and his bias for teachers and unions is happy with the vote...it turns my stomach
I heard a Democratic senator say on television a few days ago, "It's ONLY 26 BILLION" and he wasn't joking...just a casual conversation...
The Democrats still don't get it. And even if they lose in November, they still won't...they'll just start planning to get back in power and start all over
8:00: I heard Jack took a sabbatical...
Post a Comment