Who Voted What on the Bailout

by: Eric Luedtke

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:43 PM EDT

Via Maryland Politics Watch:

Voting for the Bailout Bill: Wayne Gilchrest, Chris Van Hollen, Steny Hoyer, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes.

Voting against the Bailout Bill: Roscoe Bartlett, Elijah Cummings, Donna Edwards.

Ruppersberger blowing smoke to MD students on sex ed

by: AdvocatesForYouth

Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:33 PM EDT

Hey all. I thought I would share the experience that one young person had last week lobbying her Maryland representative to end abstinence-only education funding and start comprehensive sex ed funding. Advocates for Youth had 70 young people from around the country in last week for training, and set them loose on Capital Hill last Tuesday to meet with their Senators and Representatvies.

(This is crossposted at our new blog, Amplify. We're in beta-testing now, but if you type in "amplify" under userid and password when you click the link, you can come in for a sneak peak)

During Lobby Day, our group had a rather frustrating meeting with a Ms. Jobina Brown, legislative aide for Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD, 2nd District).  First of all, the fact that Representative Ruppersberger is a Maryland Democrat and is not currently co-sponsoring the R.E.A.L. Act (Responsible Education About Life--legislation supporting comprehensive sexuality education for youth) is COMPLETELY unacceptable.  Maryland's HIV rates are over double the national average, our teen pregnancy rates are 7% higher than the national average, and we rank in the top 6 states for highest number of teenage abortions (National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, The Alan Guttmacher Institute). But what really aggravated me were the reasons Ms. Jobina Brown listed for why Reprentative Ruppersberger is not currently sponsoring the R.E.A.L. Act:

1. Representative Ruppersberger wants to see where the party leadership votes.
2. Representative Ruppersberger wants to hear the "facts" from both sides.
3. Representative Ruppersberger hasn't heard anything from his constituents regarding this issue.

Hmmm.  Thank you for articulating Representative Ruppersberger's reservations, Ms. Brown.  If I may take a moment to respond...

1. As an official elected by the people in order to represent them, perhaps it would be best if Mr. Ruppersberger concerned himself a bit more with advocating on behalf of the health and safety of his district's youth than keeping in step with the DNC foxtrot.  And really, abstinence-only education has been the Bush Administration's political pet.  Do you really think the Democratic Party is going to be quick to hop in bed with Dubya on this?  
2. The facts from both sides, how quaint.  The facts are that 13% of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the U.S. are among youth, 10,000 young Americans become infected with an STI every year, and teen pregnancy in our country is on the rise.  The facts are that the Department of Health and Human Services, the Kaiser Foundation, Mathematica, and a Congressional Review all found that abstinence-only education does not work.  The fact is that the $167 million going to support ab-only through CBAE and Title V funding is the largest ideological earmark in our country's history.  The fact is that youth have a right to access the information that will keep us healthy and safe, the information that will keep us alive.
3. Representative Ruppersberger needs to be held accountable to his constituents, as do all elected officals.  Please take the time to call or write Representative Ruppersberger's office.  Click here for his office's contacts and to see if he represents your district.  Next time we meet with anyone from Mr. Rubbersberger's office, I don't want his legislative aide to be able to say that she hasn't heard from his constituents.  I want her to say that District 2 residents stated loud and clear that we care about the public health crisis that is killing our generation.  I want her to say that teenagers have kept the phone ringing and the mail-sorting interns busy, and that Representative Ruppersberger has become a strong supporter of ending abstinence-only funding and supporting comprehensive sexuality education for all youth.

And all you non-Marylanders, find out if your Senators and Representatives are currently supporters of the R.E.A.L. Act.  If they are, call them up and say thank you.  If they're not, give 'em hell.

The Bush Dog Campaign and Maryland

by: Isaac Smith

Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:39 PM EDT

As you may know, the dynamic duo of Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers are currently engaged in a campaign directed at certain moderate and conservative Democrats who have been voting with the Bush administration on key issues, including Iraq and the warrantless wiretapping law. Called "Bush Dogs," after the fact that many of these Democrats are members of the Blue Dog caucus, these Dems have capitulated over and over to the Bush administration -- creating, in Stoller's words, a working conservative majority in Congress. As progressives, we have to do something to get them to start voting with their party and with the American people, who want to bring our troops home from Iraq and don't want Bush's Justice Department to have unchecked surveillance powers. Already the camapaign has generated some buzz; check out Open Left to see for yourself.

Now, of the 30 or so members listed as Bush Dogs, none are from Maryland -- but that's not to say this campaign shouldn't concern Marylanders. If it hadn't been for Donna Edwards, Al Wynn would likely be on that list as well -- though apart from Iraq and warrantless wiretapping, he's still a problematic Democrat. Likewise, Dutch Ruppersberger (like Wynn) made a similar list in the American Prospect a few years ago for his votes against the middle class:

After the 2000 census provided a redistricting opportunity, Maryland's Democratic General Assembly, according to The Almanac of American Politics, literally designed the district for Ruppersberger, who had served both as a prosecutor and as Baltimore County executive (the job once held by Spiro Agnew). First elected in 2002, Ruppersberger won the seat last time with 67 percent of the vote. “I have the most conservative of the Democratic seats held by members of Congress from Maryland,” he insists. “We were able to get the seat back because of my moderate record.” Maybe; but John Kerry carried the district comfortably, 54 percent to 45 percent. Yet Ruppersberger has one of the most pro-Republican records in the House on pocketbook issues. A personal friend of Charles Cawley, president of the financial giant MBNA, Ruppersberger championed the bankruptcy bill and garnered $17,250 from the financial industry. He also voted to cap lawsuits, and for estate-tax repeal. On his bankruptcy vote, Ruppersberger explains, “It was a hard bill, and I put in several amendments that would exempt people with medical bills” from going bankrupt. His amendments lost, but he voted for the bill anyway.

In fairness, Ruppersberger voted against the warrantless wiretapping bill, but did vote for continued war funding without enforceable benchmarks this year.

Defunding Cheney, and a Bleg

by: Isaac Smith

Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:02 PM EDT

You've probably been reading the massive Washington Post series on Vice President Dick Cheney's control over virtually everything that happens in the White House, from torture policy to taxes to energy. (If you haven't yet, please do -- and be prepared to swear promiscuously.) Not coincidentally, Cheney has lately been claiming that his office is exempt from executive branch rules about classified information because, as you've no doubt heard as well, he says he's not part of the executive branch. As usual, the Daily Show provides the appropriate explanation:

Dick Cheney exists neither in the executive branch nor the legislative, yet simultaneously in both. He is neither man nor beast, yet has elements of the twain. He is at once everything and nothing, substance without form, shape without motion, time without reason... he is the Highlander.

LNG Plant Bill Fails in Senate

by: Isaac Smith

Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 01:41 PM EDT

You may recall that Sen. Ben Cardin had proposed a bill in the Senate to require that construction of new liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals first get approval from the affected communities -- this in response to a LNG terminal in Sparrows Point near Baltimore getting federal approval over the objects of the locals. Unfortunately, the Senate rejected the bill yesterday:

The Senate voted, 56-37, late Tuesday to reject Cardin's amendment to the energy bill now being debated by the Senate. The Maryland Democrat expressed disappointment but vowed to press on against a two-year-old law that gives ultimate authority for locating new LNG terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Now it looks like it'll be up to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, whose district includes Sparrows Point, to insert similar legislation in the House version of the energy bill. 

Thursday Open Thread

by: Isaac Smith

Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:01 AM EDT

Jockey - Preakness 2003 originally uploaded by moondawg. 

Some news items for today:

• Gov. Martin O'Malley is dispatching Labor Secretary Tom Perez to neighboring states to see how slot machines could help the racing industry. O'Malley is also talking with Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker Mike Busch about a possible compromise with respect to slot machines and closing the projected budget deficit.
• Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger endorsed Hillary Clinton for president at an event in Baltimore County yesterday, joining Gov. O'Malley and Sen. Barbara Mikulski.
• Speaking of Miksulski, she has written a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling for tougher action against sexual assault in the military, citing reports of 500 servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan having been attacked since 2002.
  
• The head of the Port of Baltimore, Brooks Royster, is resigning, alluding to disagreements with the O'Malley administration.

Open Letter to Steny Hoyer, Dutch Ruppersberger, Barbara Mikulski, and Ben Cardin

by: Isaac Smith

Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:20 PM EDT

What have you to fear?

Last night, the House and the Senate, yourselves included, voted to approve continued funding for the war in Iraq without language mandating a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq over the next year, and without mandating that the President require that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks in order to receive continued aid. While it was clear that President Bush was going to veto anything that fell short of giving him carte blanche to carry on the war as he sees fit, I was nevertheless astonished at how quickly the Democratic leadership in Congress capitulated to his demands.

But what have you to fear? This is a President who now regularly gets approval ratings in the upper 20s, who now rubs elbows with James Buchanan and Richard Nixon in the bottom tier of American presidents. This is a war that a sizable majority of Americans want to see ended, and soon. And with good reason: it has cost too many lives, it has done nothing to strengthen our national security, and it has severely damaged the good name of the United States. Over six months ago, the Democrats were given control of Congress with the clear task of bringing the arrogance and incompetence of this President to heel, and many of us, particularly in Maryland, were eager to see some change of policy that would lead to our troops coming home and a new focus on the real security needs of this country.

So what happened? I understand, as Rep. Hoyer said on the House floor yesterday, that there simply aren't enough votes to pass the bill that most Democrats, and most Americans, want. And it'll be a long, hard slog to end this war, one that will probably require a new president to bring about. But what point was there in signing off on this no-strings-attached funding bill, thus handing President Bush an undeserved victory and prolonging a failed policy? You will say, perhaps, that it would be irresponsible to leave the troops without adequate supplies, and that you would be subjected to harsh criticism from the Right. To that I answer: 1) How "responsible" is it to let the President hold hostage our men and women in uniform by saying, if he doesn't get his funding exactly on his terms, the troops will suffer? And 2) The Republicans, simply put, are on the wrong side of history; we cannot let ourselves be cowed by people who have proven themselves so wrong on something as so vital as national security. The days of Democrats running scared from national security debates are (or at least should be) long past.

Having said all that, I hope that Rep. Hoyer's assurance that this bill, as compromised as it is, is only a first step toward ending this war, is true. I, and many other Marylanders, expect to see you all get on the offensive again, and make it clear that, if nothing else, Democrats want to end this war, and Republicans want to see it go on indefinitely. I concede that, unless the GOP revolts en masse against the President in September, that we will not likely win the next war funding debate. But there is defeat and there is honorable defeat; and next time I hope you choose the latter, by refusing to give your assent to a failed policy.

The American people are on your side. So what have you to fear?