PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dateline: January 10, 2016
.
PETE AGUILAR [D-FONTANA] GETS TAX CREDITS PAID FOR BY TAKING FUNDS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY – BOB CONAWAY HAS HAD ENOUGH & ANNOUNCES RUN FOR 31st CONGRESSIONAL SEAT
.
Consolidated Appropriations Act into H.R. 2029 tax package passed 318-109, with 241 Republicans — virtually the entire GOP Conference — and surprisingly (to some who aren't watching) Congressman Pete Aguilar (CD-31) voted for [with his republican buds Paul Cook (CD-08) and Pete Knight (CD-25)]. So what say some? The bill voted on by Aguilar took $150 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund–WHY???
.
So Aguilar’s, Cook’s and Knight’s buds will get tax credits of $622 billion over the next 10 years while our local senior voters get the financial shaft.
.
Aguilar, who will get his automatic Congressman's salary raise this year, seems to have forgotten that social security recipients received NO Cost Of Living (C.O.L.A.) increase for 2016 AND the fact that since H.R. 2029 is a TWO YEAR appropriations bill, there will be no cost of living increase in 2017 for Social Security recipients, already facing increases in premium for Part B coverages.
.
Bad vote Pete, Paul and Steve. For Pete, bad company to keep and a fraud to those 17% of the registered voters who elected him (the turnout in 2014 was a paltry 34% despite the campaign and its supporters spending $2.2 million to get out the vote).
.
The bill republican push for the bill was to lift the longstanding ban to export U.S. oil–too bad Aguilar, Cook and Knight know little about oil exports. Alaskan crude has been shipped to the far east for a long time. With oil at a 10 year low and with our ally Turkey helping ISIS flood the world market with stolen which is further depressing price per barrel, does anyone have a clue what they are doing? Flooding the world market with more oil will bring down the value of energy stocks, upon which many retiree's pensions are based.
.
Pete Aguilar’s attack on seniors does not stop there. Pete Aguilar (again joining republican Paul Cook and Steve Knight) voted for H.R. 1470 (also called H.R. 2) which (1) Limits choice of physicians in traditional Medicare, (2) Imposes a deductible that cannot be covered by MediGap Insurance to try and force patients to join a private plan (where there is no control over premium and a limit to the doctors seniors can chose from), (3) raises Medicare’s costs by driving more patients into private Medicare plans [setting up in effect a voucher system, which will be fixed by what Congress wants to pay, leaving increases in premium in the future something for the seniors to pick up].
.
Heh, Pete’s, Paul’s and (the other) Pete’s medical coverage are paid for by the taxpayer–what does he care about seniors?
.
Seniors can't trust Pete Aguilar. I am a senior. I need to find a way to retire him before he does more damage.
Bob Conaway for Congress
Committee address:
22269 Miramot Road
Apple Valley CA 92308
(760) 617-8305
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Congressman Paul Cook (CA-08), Steve Knight (CA-25) Increased the Debt by Giving or Reviving Tax Breaks to Special Interest Without Telling Us Where They Will Get the $
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget [http://crfb.org/category/blog-issue-areas/tax-extenders] said about the "Tax Extender Bill" that Congressman Cook just voted for:
"Although lawmakers have been adding to the debt repeatedly for the past few years, the $680 billion tax deal is easily the largest step backwards and is comparable in magnitude to the deficit reduction lawmakers enacted between 2011 and 2013. The deal easily swamps the net savings from the 2013 Ryan-Murray agreement, almost equals the revenue raised in the fiscal cliff agreement, amounts to three-quarters of the sequester savings, and is more than two-thirds of the savings from the Budget Control Act spending caps. ...
.
Lawmakers announced a negotiated package of business and individual tax breaks will cost about $680 billion over ten years. After interest, the cost will be closer to $830 billion over ten years.
The deal largely focuses on reviving tax breaks that expired at the end of 2014, making some permanent and extending others for either two or five years. However, it also permanently extends three refundable tax credit expansions that would have expired in 2017, originally enacted in the 2009 stimulus bill. The bill also pauses or delays three taxes from the Affordable Care Act, opening the door to further delays or possible repeal of the taxes, undermining the health care law's deficit-reduction and cost-control efforts. ...
With debt already around its highest level as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) other than around World War II and estimated to grow with no end in sight, the least one could have hoped for from lawmakers would be to stop digging the hole deeper. But 2015 proved even that low bar to be too lofty a goal. ..."
.
Paul Cook & Steve Knight's vote for the Tax Extender Bill is unconscionable . Pelosi called it “practically an immorality in terms of ... how it damages the future,” later saying, “These massive giveaways to the special interests and big corporations are deeply destructive to our future." Hoyer called it “extraordinarily irresponsible,” explaining that “it makes almost sure that we will have to continue some type of disinvestment in our country because of lack of resources."
.
The tax extender bill is explicitly exempted from the PAYGO rule that requires that every new bit of spending (and tax cuts are certainly a form of spending) be offset.
Republicans want to crush the priorities important to most people in the 25th and 8th Congressional Districts. Republicans want to use the deficit (that they just added to) as a way to demand cuts to programs that they don’t like—those that help the vets and retirees on limited incomes, children, the working poor & middle-class and their families.
"Although lawmakers have been adding to the debt repeatedly for the past few years, the $680 billion tax deal is easily the largest step backwards and is comparable in magnitude to the deficit reduction lawmakers enacted between 2011 and 2013. The deal easily swamps the net savings from the 2013 Ryan-Murray agreement, almost equals the revenue raised in the fiscal cliff agreement, amounts to three-quarters of the sequester savings, and is more than two-thirds of the savings from the Budget Control Act spending caps. ...
.
Lawmakers announced a negotiated package of business and individual tax breaks will cost about $680 billion over ten years. After interest, the cost will be closer to $830 billion over ten years.
The deal largely focuses on reviving tax breaks that expired at the end of 2014, making some permanent and extending others for either two or five years. However, it also permanently extends three refundable tax credit expansions that would have expired in 2017, originally enacted in the 2009 stimulus bill. The bill also pauses or delays three taxes from the Affordable Care Act, opening the door to further delays or possible repeal of the taxes, undermining the health care law's deficit-reduction and cost-control efforts. ...
With debt already around its highest level as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) other than around World War II and estimated to grow with no end in sight, the least one could have hoped for from lawmakers would be to stop digging the hole deeper. But 2015 proved even that low bar to be too lofty a goal. ..."
.
Paul Cook & Steve Knight's vote for the Tax Extender Bill is unconscionable . Pelosi called it “practically an immorality in terms of ... how it damages the future,” later saying, “These massive giveaways to the special interests and big corporations are deeply destructive to our future." Hoyer called it “extraordinarily irresponsible,” explaining that “it makes almost sure that we will have to continue some type of disinvestment in our country because of lack of resources."
.
The tax extender bill is explicitly exempted from the PAYGO rule that requires that every new bit of spending (and tax cuts are certainly a form of spending) be offset.
Republicans want to crush the priorities important to most people in the 25th and 8th Congressional Districts. Republicans want to use the deficit (that they just added to) as a way to demand cuts to programs that they don’t like—those that help the vets and retirees on limited incomes, children, the working poor & middle-class and their families.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Paul Cook's & Steve Knight's H.R.3668 - California Minerals, Off-Road Recreation, and Conservation Act--H.R. 3668 Contains (1) Unfunded Mandates, (2) Giveaways to Corporate Donors, (3) Guts California Sovereignty, (4) Gives Away Use of Public lands without Any Compensation (for starters)--Do Cook & Knight read these Crap Bills?
What does H.R. 3668 really do?
To the superficial envios & off-roaders, it sounds like we get more wilderness areas & off road areas
So what is it really?
1. THE ONLY new areas that have any proviso in the law for acquisition expenses, is Mojave Trails Special Management Area (Sections 603 & 604 of the Bill) and the Sand to Snow National Monument (Section 703 & 704 of the bill)--the problem?? NO funding; this is another Republican unfunded mandate and taking of private lands
2. The "Release of California School Land" strips the California Land Commission of jurisdiction - Problem? Its another Republican use of federal power to strip the State of its sovereignty AND AGAIN, its another unfunded Republican mandate and taking of private property without compensation
3. The "Valid Existing Rights Conversion (Section 807)is a gifting of easements to the power lobby(PG&E, Edison & SoCalifornia Gas)--again the problem (we get no money from them for the USE of our public lands again despite the billions they make--another act of corporate welfare by the Republican police state)
4. Release of Reversionary interest to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Section 801)--lands which they used, but did not own, Cook's & Knight's bill is giving away in perpetuity, again collecting NOTHING for the use of public lands and water, with NO conservation mandates
.
Wow--bad law dudes
Note: Mr. Cook (for himself and Mr. Knight) introduced the bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources-- see full text at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3668/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr3668\%22%22]}&resultIndex=1#toc-HA80A6C832758444A9F15C22FA2470065.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Congressman Paul Cook Shows he's No Patriot & an Even Worse Policy Maker
In a recent newsletter from Congressman Cook, he brags about voting for HR 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015. He really should be ashamed of himself.
First, the law will bring from England its laws on who pays attorney fees in litigation (maybe Cook should run for the British Parliament, not Congress again!)--one which requires the loser to pay his or her own attorney AND the attorney of the side that wins. The American rule requires each side to bear their own attorney fees [absent some special statute or contractual provision]
Second, this bill is, like all of Cook's votes, sided in favor of large corporations and companies. How? If we are going to shift to a system of loser paying attorney fees, we should make ALL parties who prevail on frivolous claims (including plaintiffs who defeat frivolous defenses) entitled to attorney fees ON TOP of whatever damages they get--HR 758 only gives defendants (typically large companies) attorney fees.
From the American Bar Association, a few more critical thoughts--It is a bad law for three reasons.
First the law was drafted in an empirical and historical vacuum WITHOUT the input of the judicial branch. The Rules Enabling Act was established by Congress to assure that amendment of Federal Rules occurs only after a comprehensive and balanced review of the problem and proposed solution is undertaken by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That review was not done.
Second, there is no demonstrated evidence that the existing sanction rule (called Rule 11) is inadequate and needs to be amended. Judges have all sorts of punitive tools in their arsenal
Third, by ignoring the lessons learned from ten (10) years of experience under 1983 mandatory version of Rule 11, Congress incurs the substantial risk that the proposed changes harm litigants by encouraging additional litigation and increasing the court costs and delays.
.
Paul Cook is a clueless wonder...now another chapter in that book....his HR 758 vote.
First, the law will bring from England its laws on who pays attorney fees in litigation (maybe Cook should run for the British Parliament, not Congress again!)--one which requires the loser to pay his or her own attorney AND the attorney of the side that wins. The American rule requires each side to bear their own attorney fees [absent some special statute or contractual provision]
Second, this bill is, like all of Cook's votes, sided in favor of large corporations and companies. How? If we are going to shift to a system of loser paying attorney fees, we should make ALL parties who prevail on frivolous claims (including plaintiffs who defeat frivolous defenses) entitled to attorney fees ON TOP of whatever damages they get--HR 758 only gives defendants (typically large companies) attorney fees.
From the American Bar Association, a few more critical thoughts--It is a bad law for three reasons.
First the law was drafted in an empirical and historical vacuum WITHOUT the input of the judicial branch. The Rules Enabling Act was established by Congress to assure that amendment of Federal Rules occurs only after a comprehensive and balanced review of the problem and proposed solution is undertaken by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That review was not done.
Second, there is no demonstrated evidence that the existing sanction rule (called Rule 11) is inadequate and needs to be amended. Judges have all sorts of punitive tools in their arsenal
Third, by ignoring the lessons learned from ten (10) years of experience under 1983 mandatory version of Rule 11, Congress incurs the substantial risk that the proposed changes harm litigants by encouraging additional litigation and increasing the court costs and delays.
.
Paul Cook is a clueless wonder...now another chapter in that book....his HR 758 vote.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Oversight Reports for Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) Reports Overruns & Ongoing Problems Paul Cook's HR 832 Does Not Address
Veterans Benefits Management System overruns..... $579.2M to $1.3B & NOTHING COOK did by pushing for HR 832 will improve claim processing & benefits delivery!!
In February 2013, the VA could not provide reasonable assurance the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) would meet its goals of increasing claims processing accuracy to 98 percent and eliminating the disability claims backlog by 2015.
.
"Since September 2009, total estimated VBMS costs increased significantly from about $579.2 million to approximately $1.3 billion in January 2015. The increases appear due to inadequate cost control, unplanned changes in system and business requirements, and inefficient contracting practices".
.
The result?? "The VA could not ensure an effective return on its investment and total actual VBMS system development costs remained unknown.
.
"VBMS did not fully provide the capability to process claims from initial application to benefits delivery".
.
"Users lacked training needed to leverage the enhanced functionality provided. System response-time issues resulted from rapid software enhancements while system disruptions were due to inadequate service continuity practices. Until these issues are addressed, VA will continue to lack assurance of meeting its claims processing accuracy and backlog elimination goals by the end of 2015".
.
Paul Cook is clueless--in fact the bill he touts as his solution [HR 832 which this blogger commented on June 11, 2015], does nothing to increase capability to process claim forms (just study the system) and does nothing to train the users to leverage the additional functionality already provided.
Source: https://www.causes.com/posts/962287-veterans-benefits-management-system-overruns-579-2m-to-1-3b?
Saturday, September 12, 2015
ANOTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE for CONGRESS: WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL STANDARD OF WHEN & HOW WE HANDLE DNA EVIDENCE
Grits for Breakfast: A reluctant scoop: Changing intepretations of DNA ...: DNA has often been referred to as the gold standard of forensic evidence. And when comparing a single sample to a suspect, that's true. ...
Friday, July 31, 2015
Paul Cook's Newsletter Misrepresents What HR 2898 is about--
The Congressional Budget Office says [https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50389]
1) H.R. 2898 would direct the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to convert water service contracts with water districts in 17 western states to repayment contracts if a contractor requests it. Water users that choose to convert their contracts would be required to accelerate repayment of their share of the capital costs of constructing the affected projects. Under the bill, existing repayment contractors would have the option to repay their share of capital costs on an accelerated schedule.
Based on information from the BOR, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct spending by a total of $883 million over the 2016-2025 period. Under the bill, offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, would increase by $721 million over the next 10 years from accelerated repayments (net of annual payments that would otherwise occur under current law). Comment: No one is saying IF the water service contractors can afford this nor how much it will increase water costs or increase our water bills!
.
2) H.R. 2898 also would repeal the authority to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (SJRRSA) which CBO estimates would reduce federal costs by $162 million over the next several years. Comment: So the environmental policies passed into law to protect our fisheries and water supplies are getting repealed
.
3) Additionally, because the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) expects nonfederal contractors would finance accelerated payments with bonds exempt from federal taxation, they estimate that enacting the legislation would lead to a decrease in revenues of $89 million over the 2016-2025 period. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken nor does it say that there are bonds and a market for same!!
.
4) H.R. 2898 also would allow the BOR, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to respond to drought conditions in western states by authorizing appropriations for projects to store water and by accelerating reviews of permit applications and environmental studies for new water projects. The bill also would decrease amounts authorized to be appropriated by repealing the SJRRSA. Based on information from those agencies, and assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase discretionary spending by $398 million over the 2016-2020 period and by $784 million over the next ten years. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken!!
.
5) H.R. 2898 would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting the ability of the State of California to enforce its own water management and wildlife preservation laws. Comment: Cook uses federal law to wipe out control of intra-state water resources--so much for Californians right to govern!
1) H.R. 2898 would direct the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to convert water service contracts with water districts in 17 western states to repayment contracts if a contractor requests it. Water users that choose to convert their contracts would be required to accelerate repayment of their share of the capital costs of constructing the affected projects. Under the bill, existing repayment contractors would have the option to repay their share of capital costs on an accelerated schedule.
Based on information from the BOR, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct spending by a total of $883 million over the 2016-2025 period. Under the bill, offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, would increase by $721 million over the next 10 years from accelerated repayments (net of annual payments that would otherwise occur under current law). Comment: No one is saying IF the water service contractors can afford this nor how much it will increase water costs or increase our water bills!
.
2) H.R. 2898 also would repeal the authority to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (SJRRSA) which CBO estimates would reduce federal costs by $162 million over the next several years. Comment: So the environmental policies passed into law to protect our fisheries and water supplies are getting repealed
.
3) Additionally, because the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) expects nonfederal contractors would finance accelerated payments with bonds exempt from federal taxation, they estimate that enacting the legislation would lead to a decrease in revenues of $89 million over the 2016-2025 period. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken nor does it say that there are bonds and a market for same!!
.
4) H.R. 2898 also would allow the BOR, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to respond to drought conditions in western states by authorizing appropriations for projects to store water and by accelerating reviews of permit applications and environmental studies for new water projects. The bill also would decrease amounts authorized to be appropriated by repealing the SJRRSA. Based on information from those agencies, and assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase discretionary spending by $398 million over the 2016-2020 period and by $784 million over the next ten years. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken!!
.
5) H.R. 2898 would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting the ability of the State of California to enforce its own water management and wildlife preservation laws. Comment: Cook uses federal law to wipe out control of intra-state water resources--so much for Californians right to govern!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)