Tuesday, June 06, 2006

 

Sue Kelly receives a grade of ZERO on seniors/retiree issues

You would think that since Sue Kelly is a senior citizen herself, that she would be responsive to the needs of seniors and retirees and fully represent this segment of her constituency. However, according to a Congressional Voting Record issued by the Alliance for Retired Americans for the year 2005, Sue Kelly not only receives a failing grade, but receives a score of ZERO. I guess that Kelly can however take some solace in her lifetime score from the organization which tops out at a whopping 8%. Yes that's 8% as in eight percent, not a typo, no zero was left off, 8%.

If Kelly had been representing her constituents rather than pushing the conservative Bush/GOP big business agenda, perhaps she'd receive a higher score. The next time she's in the district holding one of her "look how wonderful I am" seminars for seniors, ask her why her voting record on retiree issues is so atrocious. Your actions speak louder than your words Rep. Kelly.

Comments:
The Alliance for Retired Americans picks and chooses certain votes and through their "progressive movement" glasses views any vote which is against their liberal ideology as anti-retiree. Lets take some examples of how they do this.
1)The Republicans pass a budget and what does the Alliance for Retired Americans call it? "The Anti-Retiree Budget." They sound very non-partisan. And their reasons for opposing the budget resolution? Because "the fiscal policy threatens the financial stability of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds." No reasons on how it does this, other than cutting spending (which is why Republicans were elected and will continue to be elected) and because it gives tax cuts to supposedly the wealthiest of Americans. When will liberals understand that Americans are for cutting domestic spending and for cutting taxes. I am not nearly one of the wealthiest of Americans and my taxes were cut. Republicans will continue to be elected because they are the ones who support cutting taxes. The Democrats will only promise to raise your taxes.
 
Her voting record is ZERO on pretty much any issue of importance to the Hudson Valley.

It's time for her to go.
 
Let's see, since W has been in office, he's taken a $200B-ish surplus, and pissed it away into a $2.8 TRILLION deficit. Gee that doesn't sound very financially stable or responsible to me. Republicans "say" they are for cutting spending, then go and give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. The estate tax gets all this handwringing about how folks will lose the family farm, but in reality ( a concept foreign to most GOP supporters) not ONE family farm or business has been lost solely because of the estate tax. Recent reports of just who has been bankrolling the lobbying in favor of repealing the estate tax has revealed 18 or so of the wealthiest families in America, families like the ones that own WalMart, Mars Candy, Campbell's Soup, Gallo Wine. Repealing the estate tax would net these families about $71B, and in the process, adding that amount to an already staggering deficit. For an unbiased look at the estate tax, you can look here...
http://www.factcheck.org/article328m.html

Yes tax cuts are good, if they are distributed fairly. They are good when you can AFFORD to run the government even without that revenue coming in. If, however, you choose, as Mr. Bush and his Congressional enablers have, to finance the running of the government by running up the nation's debt, then tax cuts are NOT good. (This would be like quitting your job and living on credit cards, to put it in terms even a Republican can understand.) Peekskill voter has conveniently forgotten that he got tax cuts and reduced gov't spending under Bill Clinton, who financed the cuts by increasing taxes (by just 1%) on the super wealthy, but I guess that doesn't count, because Clinton a) is a Democrat, and b) he got oral sex. (Obviously something peekskill voter has been jealous of ever since...)

And I didn't even mention the drug company written Medicare Part D bill (which Sue voted in favor of, BTW) that pretty much guarantees that taxpayers will pay top dollar for drugs, because, as written, the law FORBIDS Medicare from bargaining the price of drugs down.

Anyone who believes that Sue and the rest of the GOP are looking out for the little guy is a willfully ignorant fool.
 
Let's see, since W has been in office, he's taken a $200B-ish surplus, and pissed it away into a $2.8 TRILLION deficit. Gee that doesn't sound very financially stable or responsible to me. Republicans "say" they are for cutting spending, then go and give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. The estate tax gets all this handwringing about how folks will lose the family farm, but in reality ( a concept foreign to most GOP supporters) not ONE family farm or business has been lost solely because of the estate tax. Recent reports of just who has been bankrolling the lobbying in favor of repealing the estate tax has revealed 18 or so of the wealthiest families in America, families like the ones that own WalMart, Mars Candy, Campbell's Soup, Gallo Wine. Repealing the estate tax would net these families about $71B, and in the process, adding that amount to an already staggering deficit. For an unbiased look at the estate tax, you can look here...
http://www.factcheck.org/article328m.html

Yes tax cuts are good, if they are distributed fairly. They are good when you can AFFORD to run the government even without that revenue coming in. If, however, you choose, as Mr. Bush and his Congressional enablers have, to finance the running of the government by running up the nation's debt, then tax cuts are NOT good. (This would be like quitting your job and living on credit cards, to put it in terms even a Republican can understand.) Peekskill voter has conveniently forgotten that he got tax cuts and reduced gov't spending under Bill Clinton, who financed the cuts by increasing taxes (by just 1%) on the super wealthy, but I guess that doesn't count, because Clinton a) is a Democrat, and b) he got oral sex. (Obviously something peekskill voter has been jealous of ever since...)

And I didn't even mention the drug company written Medicare Part D bill (which Sue voted in favor of, BTW) that pretty much guarantees that taxpayers will pay top dollar for drugs, because, as written, the law FORBIDS Medicare from bargaining the price of drugs down.

Anyone who believes that Sue and the rest of the GOP are looking out for the little guy is a willfully ignorant fool.
 
It seems as if the ARA calls it as they see it and this administration and Republican led Congress has been very hostile towards seniors. Face it Peekskill Voter, your conservative Republican Party is all about satisfying the big-business and very wealthy segments of our society at the expense of the middle class who have to pay for the Bush/Kelly/GOP sellout of America.
 
In response to comments:

Promising to cut taxes is the easy part - everyone likes lower taxes. The hard part is saying where you are going to get the money from to replace that lost to tax cuts.

The uninformed sometimes argue that you get the money back trough a more vigorous economy. The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) found this to be untrue and that you only get 30% back. In other words, for those into conservative economic theory, the Laffer curve has two sides and the CBO has found we are on the wrong side.

Bill D'Avanzo
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?