John Carter Watch

Blog update.

2009-06-17T00:22:00.005-05:00

I'm not going to have time to make long posts on this blog anymore -- too many other things going on in my life. I will leave the blog contents online for a while -- but, more importantly, I will continue to provide short updates on what Rep. Carter is up to via my Twitter account (follow me here: @profsteed).

Keep up the good fight and turn Texas blue!

UPDATE 6/24/09: It looks like I'll probably be joining the bloggers over at Eye on Williamson, so while I won't be posting here anymore, the longer posts will continue (interspersed with the posts of other bloggers at EOW). And again, be sure to follow my much more frequent updates on Twitter (see above). -- JS

Another vote update.

2009-06-17T00:07:00.003-05:00

HR 729 ("Phylicia's Law") just passed the House by a vote of 319-60 (84%-16%). The law is designed to "help keep students safe on school-run, overnight, off-premises field trips." The law requires schools that sponsor such trips "to develop, and provide to parents whose children are to be taken on such trips, written safety plans that include: (1) policies on curfews, room checks, and chaperone qualifications; and (2) emergency procedures to be followed when a serious injury or death occurs."

Hard to see how anyone could oppose this sort of thing -- and as you can see by the vote tally, an overwhelming majority supported it.

But not John Carter. He voted against it.

Go figure.

Not very friendly.

2009-06-16T13:35:00.004-05:00

Rep. Carter just "unfriended" me on Facebook, presumably because my views differ from his and his other "friends."

I have been commenting on Rep. Carter's FB page for a while now, and I've always tried to be civil and rational -- though admittedly a few heated exchanges have erupted between me and some of his supporters. And while most of my comments have been somewhat critical of Carter, I have also tried to acknowledge when he's done or said something worthy of praise. What has always struck me as odd, though, is how quickly and often Carter's supporters have called for Carter to "unfriend" me, whenever I expressed a contrary opinion -- with the implication always being that my views would be more welcome elsewhere (and are not welcome on Carter's FB page).

Granted, Carter can be "friends" with whomever he chooses. But this is his regular "profile" page -- it is not a "supporter" page, where one is invited to "become a supporter." I would've thought that a public figure -- a government representative of TX-31 -- would want to hear the views of his constituents, even if they differed from his own. Perhaps especially if they differed from his own.

So much for "public service." It seems Rep. Carter is not interested in intelligent public discourse with constituents who might disagree. Rather, he's more interested in surrounding himself with supporters -- to whom he can feed complaints about, and criticism of, the Obama administration, while offering very little by way of positive or productive ideas or alternatives.

Is that what we want from our Representative?

Voting Update

2009-06-12T19:43:00.003-05:00

Here's a rundown of Rep. Carter's recent votes in the House:

HR 1256 - Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - This is the bill providing the FDA with the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. The FDA regulates all kinds of food and drugs that are much less toxic and harmful than tobacco, but the tobacco lobby has managed to hold off regulation of their product until now. The bill passed the House with a vote of 307-97 (76%-24%). John Carter voted no.
HR 1886 - The Peace Act - This bill authorizes democratic, economic, security, and social development assistance for Pakistan, among other things. This is important for fighting terrorism in that region, and the bill passed 234-185 (56%-44%). John Carter voted no.
H RES 453 - Recognizing the Significant Accomplishments of the Americorps - Normally I wouldn't pay any attention to these sorts of resolutions, because most of the time I think they're basically inconsequential and unimportant. But I wanted to highlight this one because usually these resolutions pass unanimously, or by extremely large margins, and this one is no exception. Americorps has done a lot of great work over the years, and deserves this recognition -- and this resolution passed by a vote of 359-60 (86%-14%). But John Carter voted against it.
HR 2751 - Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act - This is the bill providing incentives to people to upgrade their vehicles for better fuel efficiency, sometimes called the "cash for clunkers" plan. This is good for the environment and for consumers. The bill passed 298-119 (72%-28%). John Carter voted no.
HR 1736 - International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2009 - This is a very popular bill that establishes a committee to identify and coordinate international science and technology cooperation to strengthen "the domestic science and technology enterprise," and to support U.S. foreign policy goals. The bill passed by a huge margin -- 341-52 (87%-13%) -- but once again, you guessed it: John Carter voted no.
Finally, there is HR 1709 - Stem Education Cordination Act of 2009 - This bill establishes a committee under the National Science and Technology Council to coordinate the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education activities and programs of all Federal agencies, among other things. This bill was the most popular of those listed here, passing by a vote of 352-39 (90%-10%). Yet, once again, John Carter voted no.

That's your TX-31 representative at work. If the GOP has become "the party of no," I think it's safe to say that John Carter is one of the biggest no-no's of the bunch. No?

Vote ABC (Anyone But Carter) in 2010!

Some good news.

2009-06-12T18:49:00.002-05:00

Rep. Carter is co-sponsoring a bill that actually sounds like a pretty good idea. HR 2249 would

require states to mandate disclosure of information on hospital charges. The bill directs states to establish and maintain laws requiring disclosure of information on hospital charges and provide individuals with information about estimated out-of-pocket costs for health care services . Additionally, the bill requires hospitals and health plans to make such information available to the public.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Gene Green (D-TX) and Michael Burgess, M.D., (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) -- so it appears to be a thoroughly Texan piece of legislation.

I don't know the details, but again, it seems to be a pretty good idea, from what little I've seen.

So kudos to Rep. Carter for doing something worth applauding!

Awaiting the Apology

2009-06-11T20:07:00.000-05:00

EOW explains.

Bottom of the barrel.

2009-06-03T14:08:00.005-05:00

UPDATE II: It gets worse. All of what I say below can be disregarded (or read, merely to put what I say here into context). It appears Rep. Carter is engaging in pure deception. His Tweet (cited below) was identical to a post he made to Facebook, which -- on Facebook -- was accompanied by a link to a WSJ article. But that article makes it quite clear that Obama has firmly opposed the tax that Carter claims Obama is "open" to. The headline of the WSJ article ("Obama said to be open to taxing healthcare benefits") is technically accurate, because someone did "say" that Obama was open to this tax. But the headline is obviously misleading -- upon reading the actual article, one finds that the WH has asserted that Obama firmly opposes such a tax. Either (a) Carter knows this and has deliberately joined the WSJ in this deception, by going a step further to claim that Obama is in fact "open" to the tax (and not merely that he has been "said" to be open to it), or (b) Carter has been sloppy and failed to read the article, and has passed on (and heightened) the deception out of ignorance. Either way, the claim that Obama is "open" to this tax is a deception. Carter ought to be called out on it.

Original post:
I think Rep. Carter is running out of ammo. He's scraping the bottom of the barrel now, to come up with ways to attack Obama (or the Dems). And it looks a bit desperate and weak. Here's his latest Tweet, as an example (you can follow him @JudgeCarter):

Obama is open to taxing healthcare benefits to help cover the $600B shortfall for his healthcare overhaul. So much for that 95% tax cut.

How weak is this? Well, I can think of two things wrong with it, right off the bat.

First, Obama is "open" to this tax. Carter wants to attack Obama for merely being "open" to a tax -- it hasn't been proposed by Obama, or promoted by Obama, or signed into law by Obama. It isn't even being actively, currently considered by Obama. He's merely signaled that he is open to considering it. Yet Carter seems to think this is a strong enough basis for criticism. In fact, he seems to think it is a strong enough basis for insinuating that Obama was not being entirely honest about, or that he has somehow failed to remain true to, his claims about providing a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Ridiculous.

Second, even if Obama was actually signing into law a new tax on healthcare benefits, it wouldn't be a basis for this insinuation. Obama promised (and delivered) an income tax cut to 95% of Americans. He never promised, or even hinted or implied, that there would never be the possibility of new or increased taxes elsewhere. Carter is going out of his way to conflate the income tax cut with the possibility of a tax on healthcare benefits in order to suggest that Obama has been dishonest or has failed in some way. Again, ridiculous.

And weak.

And, of course, note that Carter is not offering any new ideas or alternative policies for consideration. It seems weak attacks from the bottom of the barrel are all he's got lately.

We really need new representation in 2010, don't we?

UPDATE: Just thought of another reason this attack is weak -- and maybe even disingenuous or dishonest, on Carter's part. If I understand it correctly (as I recall), the tax on healthcare benefits would run against businesses -- that is, the $$ businesses use to pay for employee healthcare is not currently taxed, and the idea here is to tax that $$. This would not be passed on to employees in any way, though I suppose the cost could be passed on to consumers indirectly. The point is that the tax won't have any direct impact on regular folks, and even the indirect impact is likely to be negligible. Certainly not enough to erase the income tax cuts, as Carter suggests. But I'll admit, I could be wrong about how I understand this -- and it has to be reiterated that such a tax is NOT in the works. Obama is merely "open" to it, remember? Hardly something to get upset about....

No to jobs. No to schools. No to the environment.

2009-05-17T14:10:00.002-05:00

A great new bill was passed by the House a few days ago. It will provide money for badly needed new schools, which will create jobs (employing people to build these new schools, etc.) -- and it requires that the new schools be "green" construction, etc., so it's good for the environment (and stimulates businesses that provide "green" goods and services, which is again good for the economy). For more about the bill, see here.

The bill passed the House 275-155 (or 64%-36%), so it was quite popular, passing by a fairly wide margin.

But, of course, our own Rep. Carter voted against it.

Surprise, surprise.

Just one more reason to vote against John Carter in 2010.

Finally, a dose of sanity.

2009-05-14T09:28:00.002-05:00

I do have to agree with this nugget from Rep. Carter, which he posted to both Facebook and Twitter:

"One of the greatest things about being an American is that you can disagree politically during the day, and go share a beer at night."

I do wonder, though -- does this mean Carter is willing to go have a beer and hang out with a Marxist? Somehow I'm doubtful of this....

Nutball?

2009-05-13T12:57:00.002-05:00

The Austin Chronicle wants to know if Rep. John Carter is a nutball.

Well, we know he's a far-right-winger. We know he spouts off like a nutjob sometimes. We know his economic proposals are a bit nutty.

Hmmm. Sounds like a nutball to me.

Vote ABC (Anyone-But-Carter) in 2010 -- let's get rid of the nutball!

Pro-Reckless Mortgage Lenders

2009-05-12T10:26:00.003-05:00

Last Thursday, the House passed HR 728 ("Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act"). This bill is designed to better-regulate the mortgage industry, to prevent the sort of reckless lending practices that contributed to the recent housing bubble and its collapse (i.e., the economic crisis we're currently facing). The bill passed by a 300-114 margin (72%-28%), so it was pretty popular -- that is, a pretty strong majority thought it was a good idea.

But (again) not John Carter. He voted against it. Apparently, Carter thinks the lending practices that helped to get us into this financial mess are perfectly acceptable.

I wonder if everyone who has lost a job -- or everyone whose home value has taken a nosedive -- would agree. Somehow I doubt it.

Vote ABC (Anyone-But-Carter) in 2010.

What's he thinking?

2009-05-12T10:20:00.003-05:00

The House passed S 386 ("Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act") last Wednesday, by a 367-59 (86%-14%) vote. For more about what this bill does, see here. I can't find any good reason to oppose this bill -- and, in fact, every Democrat and 117 Republicans agreed that it was a good idea.

But not John Carter. He sided with the extreme minority and voted against it.

Wouldn't you like to know why? Me too.

Something good. Finally.

2009-05-04T11:17:00.002-05:00

At long last, there is something positive to say about Rep. Carter's behavior in Congress. He voted "yes" -- along with 87% of the House -- in favor of passing the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act.

This was a consumer-friendly piece of legislation that was pushed hard by Obama -- he brought it up during his campaign repeatedly -- and it's good to see so many GOPers getting behind it, instead of playing obstructionist politics.

Kudos to Rep. Carter for getting it right this time.

Doesn't get it.

2009-04-30T04:29:00.002-05:00

Congress passed a new Hate Crimes bill. Rep. Carter voted against it, of course.

I'll admit -- I don't have strong feelings one way or another on this sort of legislation. I'm somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, I think prejudice is wrong, and violence that is motivated by prejudice is particularly distasteful, and deserves special attention. On the other hand, I think it's a bit tricky to try to determine what a person's motivations were when they acted out -- and it might be hard to prove that prejudice was behind the action -- and that just seems like a can of worms we might think twice about opening.

But what really amazes me is that Rep. Carter can still manage to miss the boat entirely, even on an issue where I might be quite open to, or at least respectful of, his opposition. Had Carter taken the position (as is often taken by conservatives) that a "hate crimes" bill is akin to policing our thoughts -- well, that would've been a bit overstated, but I could've been respectful of the underlying principle.

Instead, Carter had this to say:

"The sentence for any crime committed against an individual should be identical regardless of any group with which the victim may be identified."

Now, here's the thing: I agree with what Carter is saying here. Sentencing should definitely be consistent and without regard for the identity of the victim. (I only wish Carter saw it this way when it comes to the death penalty!)

But Carter is missing the point completely on this legislation. The Hate Crimes bill is not about the identity of the victim -- it's about the motivations of the criminal! The bill reclassifies a crime as a "hate crime" (which comes with a stiffer punishment) when that crime is motivated by prejudices based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The identity of the victim might play a role in helping to prove that the crime was indeed motivated by prejudice -- but the punishment is all about the prejudice-as-motivation. That's why it's called a hate crime.

So Carter's characterization of the legislation misses the mark. He doesn't get it. Even when there might be a reason to accept or even support his vote, it turns out his position is still all messed up!

Again: No to Public Safety!

2009-04-28T09:43:00.002-05:00

So...after displaying more concern for defending right-wing extremists than for Homeland Security, and after voting against a hugely popular measure designed to improve public safety, Rep. Carter has now (again) voted against public safety.

Seriously: what is this guy thinking?

HR 1746 ("Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act") amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to: (1) increase the amount guaranteed to each state under the pre-disaster mitigation program; (2) require the President to award financial assistance under the program on a competitive basis; (3) eliminate the current termination date for such program (September 30, 2009); and (4) authorize appropriations for the program through FY2012.

In other words, this Act provides government assistance to help prevent and/or mitigate the effects of disasters before they occur. Gee, I wonder how useful that might have been in, say, Louisiana, a couple years ago...? And the Act provides for competitive awards of the aid -- something free-market conservatives should appreciate. (Unless they really do prefer no-bid contracts, as demonstrated by the Bush Administration.)

Yet John Carter chose to oppose the bill. Was he joining with a massive GOP opposition that might indicate there is something worthy of concern, hidden somewhere in the legislation? Nope. The Act passed 339-56, or with 86% of the vote.

That's right. A hugely popular Act designed to provide for better public safety was passed -- and our John Carter voted against it.

We need a candidate to emerge -- NOW -- to run against Carter in 2010. Please.

No to Public Safety. No to Security.

2009-04-27T09:21:00.004-05:00

Congress voted on the Cops Improvement Act last week. The Act amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the authority of the Attorney General to make grants for public safety and community policing programs.

Now, I don't know much more about this legislation other than the description above. But apparently it's a pretty popular measure. It passed by a vote of 342-78 -- or, in other words, it passed with 81% of the vote.

And it's about public safety and community policing programs -- that's a good thing, right?

I would've thought so. But our Rep. John Carter voted with the extreme minority, and said "No" to public safety and community policing programs.

Add this to the fact that Carter seems more concerned lately about defending the reputations of right-wing extremists against the concerns of Homeland Security, and it's fair to say that Carter is looking a bit weak when it comes to safety and security issues.

Joining the Nuts.

2009-04-24T15:06:00.002-05:00

Rep. John Carter is teaming up with Rep. Michelle Bachmann as an official right-wing nutjob. I don't have time for more commentary -- just read this article.

Vote Anyone-but-Carter ("ABC") in 2010.

Off the Deep End

2009-04-22T20:46:00.003-05:00

I've been busy and unable to post much lately, but I just had to make time for this.

It seems our Rep. Carter is going off the deep end over the recent Homeland Security report that named right-wing radicals as a possible threat to security. Here's what Carter had to say:

Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela.

Now, normally I would try to be measured in my response. But how stupid can you get.

Here's the thing: this report was ordered by the Bush administration. And just a couple months ago (January), HS released a report that expressed concern about left-wing groups. Moreover, some of the right-wing nuttery that's been going around lately (have you seen the Glenn Beck crowd?) really is cause for concern.

So...the only reason for Carter to say what he's saying is (a) he's ignorant and uninformed about current events surrounding this report (see above); or (b) he's throwing in with the right-wing nuts and trying to make "backlash" hay out of the HS report. I'm thinking it's (b) -- after all, Carter's statement includes the ever-popular right-wing comparison of Obama's administration to Communists and socialists.

This is not the guy I want representing me in Congress.

Where is Carter on Secession?

2009-04-16T11:24:00.002-05:00

The right-wing tea parties yesterday included a lot of talk about and support for Texas secession. Even Gov. Perry himself, in fact, seemed to come out in support of secession.

Rep. Carter clearly supported the tea parties.

So this begs the question: Does Carter support Texas secession?

Conservatives (and Gov. Perry) have made this an issue. Carter's constituents deserve to know where Carter stands. Don't we?

Take a minute and contact Carter's office (see sidebar on the right), and ask him for an answer.

Doesn't care about actual security.

2009-04-16T11:08:00.003-05:00

A Homeland Security report says we should be somewhat concerned about right-wing extremists. Seems reasonable, considering the fact that some right-wingers -- even elected officials! -- have used revolutionary rhetoric lately to express their opposition to the Obama administration. (I can't link to it, but Sen. Cornyn asked on his Facebook page if the tea parties could constitute "another shot heard 'round the world" -- which certainly qualifies as revolutionary rhetoric if you ask me.)

But John Carter thinks Homeland Security's concern is "outrageous." Presumably, Carter objects to the security assessment because it names right-wing extremists as a possible threat. I wonder, though: did Carter object when Homeland Security expressed concern about left-wing extremists just a few months ago (right after Obama took office)? Doubt it.

Seems to me that we should be concerned about domestic security, regardless of where the threat is coming from. But apparently Rep. Carter cares more about partisan politics than actual security -- the only explanation for objecting to a security assessment that identifies right-wingers as a potential threat.

That's not an attitude we want in our representative, is it?

Wrongheaded.

2009-04-14T09:58:00.002-05:00

Where is John Carter on this chart?

That's right. Just 38% of Americans have confidence in GOP leaders -- people like Rep. John Carter -- when it comes to handling the economy. And for good reason, too. After all, the GOPers have done nothing but obstruct the recovery agenda, call Obama a "communist," and propose neo-Hooverite solutions.

The real question is: Why do 38% still approve?!?

And again.

2009-04-10T09:47:00.002-05:00

I'm going to have to stop reporting on this sort of thing. It appears there's no end to it.

See here for an explanation of what I'm talking about.

Obliviously ethnocentric.

2009-04-09T09:27:00.001-05:00

Ah, those Texas state law makers. You gotta love 'em.

Right back at it again.

2009-04-07T20:12:00.002-05:00

Yet again John Carter is taking credit and getting publicity for bringing money to his district -- even though that money comes from the stimulus bill that Carter opposed. (For just a few more examples of Carter's hypocrisy, see here, here, and here.)

At least this time the news article mentions that Carter voted against the stimulus bill. But Carter's response to this is as follows:

"This project is one I wanted to spend money on."

That's right. Carter acknowledges that he opposed the stimulus bill, but skirts that fact by claiming he supported this project.

Don't get me wrong. I support this project, too. And maybe Carter is honest in his support for it. That's all well and good.

But isn't it just a smidge disingenuous to make public announcements about funding acquisitions -- to garner publicity and to take credit for those acquisitions -- when the simple fact is that the money would not have been there if John Carter had gotten his way.

You see, not only did Carter vote against the stimulus bill -- but he also supported a spending freeze.

So tell me: how do you (a) support a spending freeze and (b) vote against the stimulus bill that contains this funding, but then (c) turn around and claim that you supported this funding???

Apparently, it's all in a day's work for Rep. Carter.

Good News

2009-04-03T17:13:00.002-05:00

In the interests of even-handedness, I do try to report when John Carter is doing something that is good and praiseworthy. For example, though I point out the phoniness when Carter takes credit for securing funding in a bill that he voted against, I do still try to note that the funding in question was, indeed, a good thing to secure. (See this post, for example.)

So, following in this vein, I thought I would point out that Rep. John Carter has -- thankfully -- refrained from boarding the crazy train currently being driven by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. So long as Carter recognizes this craziness for what it is, and refrains from supporting it, we can name at least one thing to respect about him. That's good news.

But as soon as Carter's name is added to this list, we'll know for sure that he has gone around the bend.

On the Wrong Side

2009-04-03T11:41:00.002-05:00

Here is John Carter's recent vote record on bills that are getting little attention in the news:

On the GIVE Act (description here), John Carter voted no. Thankfully the Act passed 275-149 (65%-35%).
On the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (description here), John Carter voted no. Thankfully the Act passed 298-112 (73%-27%). More about this bill here.

On both of these important bills -- one promoting greater participation in volunteerism and public service, and the other promoting better government regulation of a harmful and addictive drug -- John Carter was on the wrong side of the vote.

Replace John Carter in 2010.

Neo-Hooverism

2009-04-03T08:53:00.004-05:00

Apparently, John Carter is stupid enough to support the alternative budgets proposed by the GOP:

Carter says “there were two excellent alternatives to the Obama Budget, one by the House Republicans and another by the Republican Study Committee. Both balanced the budget, reduced the federal deficit, and provided tax cuts for job growth – all three elements missing from the Obama plan.”

But of course, the budget put forward by the House Republicans originally had no numbers. Then it was followed up by Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, which contained ridiculous graphs that made claims about future spending that had no basis in reality.

Yet Carter thinks, apparently, that Ryan's budget was "excellent."

As for the RSC alternative, it basically amounted to more tax cuts and a spending freeze. We already saw how that worked out, back when Herbert Hoover tried it in 1929-1932 -- such policies plunged us deeper into the Great Depression. Repeating Hooverism seems a little stupid, doesn't it?

But more importantly, the RSC budget called for huge, drastic cuts in popular government programs. Here's how one commentator puts it:

"a vote for the RSC budget puts a congressman on the record for cutting more than a trillion dollars from Medicare over the next ten years, cutting more than a trillion dollars from Medicaid over the next ten years, cutting all other non-Defense programs to less than half their size in ten years, and offering massive tax cuts to rich people."

Yet again, our own John Carter claims that this budget was "excellent." In fact, he voted for it. (I wonder: how do voters in Williamson County feel about this?)

Luckily, Obama's budget passed -- but it did so without any GOP votes. That's right: Carter voted against it. He claimed that passing Obama's budget means "we've strapped an unbearable yoke on our children and grandchildren." But all the talk about how Obama's budget will hurt our grandkids has already been debunked.

Carter has once again demonstrated that he isn't fit for office. He's advocating neo-Hooverism and claiming that numberless, make-believe budgets are "excellent."

It will be a perfect sort of justice, after the economy has begun to recover under Obama's policies -- proving Rep. Carter and the rest of the GOP wrong -- when we vote John Carter out of office in 2010.

Stay tuned....

2009-03-26T12:13:00.003-05:00

The GOP is proposing an alternative budget, which basically consists of undoing the stimulus, imposing a "spending freeze," and giving more tax cuts to the wealthy.

Yes, I'm serious.

I'll get back to you as soon as I know whether our beloved John Carter is supporting this thing.

Can he and the rest of the GOP really be this stupid?

UPDATE: It's crucial to point out here that, after railing so hard against Obama's proposed deficits, the GOP's alternative budge would likely produce deficits that are just as large -- they freeze spending, but they cut taxes in numerous places, resulting in huge reductions in revenue. Obviously, GOPers don't actually care that much about deficits, despite all their protests. (We know this already after the Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations.) What they really care about is looking out for the interests of the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

Stimulus good. Carter bad.

2009-03-26T11:04:00.004-05:00

Here are a couple new graphs:

Note that these graphs show the projections of where GDP and unemployment would've been had the stimulus package failed to pass.

In other words, according to these official projections from the CBO, the stimulus was a good thing. GDP and unemployment numbers are projected to be better than they otherwise would've been.*

And of course, John Carter voted against the stimulus, advocating instead that we do nothing. Need I say more?

* I realize, of course, that one could argue that on both charts both GDP and unemployment "become equal" to what they would've been, with or without the stimulus, in 2015 -- and therefore the stimulus is a waste because it results in increased deficits with no longterm payoff. My answer to this is twofold: (1) The interim years matter. It makes a big difference to American families, throughout the 2009-2012 years, to have GDP and unemployment at better numbers rather than worse ones. It might be true that the numbers will equalize by 2015 -- but the thousands of families who avoided unemployment, and the benefits to all Americans derived from improved GDP numbers, make the stimulus package a good idea. (2) These projections end at 2015 -- but the stimulus is designed to invest deeply in infrastructure, for increased longterm growth. Even if it's true that the numbers equalize in 2015, this does not mean that the stimulus was a "waste" -- because it is quite probable that productivity will be much higher, post-2015, than it would've been without those infrastructure investments provided by the stimulus. For example, we won't see the increased productivity resulting from investments in education for at least 10 years -- that is, until years after 2015. For at least these two reasons, the argument that the stimulus was a "waste" (just because the projections show "equalization" in 2015) is without merit.

Ignorance or dishonesty. Take your pick.

2009-03-24T09:47:00.003-05:00

Carter is trying to blame our current economic crisis on Bill Clinton, and on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Here's what he said at a recent speech:

"(Former President Bill) Clinton started the groundwork for the problem with easy credit," [Carter] said. "Soon we were seeing more homes sold than ever before by a factor of five. These mortgages were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were private corporations, but their packages of mortgages were sold all over the world and treated as if they had the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But they had no definable value. ... There were billions of dollars in credit that couldn't go on the market."

This is just garbage. Pure partisan garbage.

The "easy credit" that Carter refers to has a lot (everything?) to do with deregulation of the finance industry. President Clinton was indeed supportive of this deregulation -- but it is either ignorant or dishonest of Carter to try to lay the blame at Clinton's feet. The principle piece of deregulating legislation was pushed by Phil Gramm and Dick Lugar -- both Republicans. (Many people believe Phil Gramm is the #1 person to blame for this mess.) And we all know that it is the GOP that loves deregulating everything. Even if Clinton had opposed the deregulation, he faced a Republican-dominated Congress that probably could've overridden his veto. And it was the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration that continued these deregulatory attitudes and policies, leading to our current predicament.

As for Fanny and Freddy -- well, conservatives have been trying hard for some time to blame these institutions for our current mess, primarily because these institutions are popular among Democrats. Most conservatives have given up on pushing it, however, because this GOP myth has been thoroughly debunked. (See here, here, and here, for example.)

Not John Carter, though. He still wants his constituents to believe that Clinton and Fanny/Freddy are to blame. In other words, he wants you to think it's all the Democrats' fault.

So, let's get this straight: We've had a GOP congress for 12 of the last 14 years, and a GOP presidency for the past 8 years, leading up to this economic meltdown. And the Federal Reserve had been led, until just three years ago, by conservative free-marketeer Alan Greenspan (who recently admitted that his deregulatory ideology turned out to be flawed).

Yet John Carter wants you to believe that conservative deregulatory dogma and the GOP had nothing to do with where we are right now. According to Carter, it's all the Democrats' fault.

There are only two possibilities here: either Carter is utterly ignorant of the history and economics of the situation, or he is being dishonest about things.

Not exactly what we want in a Representative, is it?

Again? Really?

2009-03-24T09:30:00.002-05:00

It appears Ft. Hood will receive $333,000 for "range re-vegetation" from the stimulus spending package. This is a good thing. I support this, because it is good environmental policy.

And here's our John Carter, swelling his chest with pride:

“I am pleased to have once again secured funding for practices that will improve Fort Hood’s training facilities, as well as our environmental and water quality,” Carter said.

That's all well and good. But wait a second.

Taking credit for securing an earmark, after criticizing earmarks?

And taking credit for securing funding in a spending bill, after voting against that spending bill?

Yep, that's our Rep. John Carter. Makes you proud to call him your U.S. Representative, doesn't it?

I know. Me neither.

Updates.

2009-03-23T09:17:00.003-05:00

EOW picked up some of the slack while I was taking some time off for spring break. (Thanks guys!)

Check out John Carter's latest shenanigans here. And I'll be back with more posts on Carter soon.

Meanwhile, here some other news updates:

CAP has a great study on the state of American political ideology.
Lawrence Wilkerson tells some truths about Guantanamo.
Lifehacker has some tips about reducing your water use. (We're in a drought here, remember?)
And a review of the new Aptera is available. (Can't wait until I can get one of these here in Texas!)

Down time.

2009-03-13T12:43:00.002-05:00

There hasn't been much Carter news this last day or two, and spring break is now upon us -- so I might not post anything over the coming week. Don't worry, though: we'll be back on Carter Watch very soon.

It works.

2009-03-12T11:12:00.004-05:00

This graph tracking GDP is the best visual proof I've seen that government deficit-spending works:

Hoover thought that reduced spending and a balanced budget would rectify the downward spiral. He was wrong. FDR was elected in 1932 and immediately began to implement New Deal policies (i.e., big government deficit-spending, mostly on infrastructure). As you can see from the graph, GDP began its turnaround almost immediately. There is a "dip" in GDP that occurs in 1937-38 -- but this is a result of FDR's decision to scale back on government spending, due to political pressure from conservatives who thought the spending was too much. (Obviously they were wrong, too.) Then spending ramps up again in 1939, as part of the build-up for WWII, and the GDP once again begins to climb.

The GOP/conservative myth-making machine wants you to believe that FDR's spending programs made the Great Depression worse. Some conservatives even claim that FDR caused the Depression -- which is, of course, patently false, as it clearly began before FDR was even elected. Conservatives want you to think that FDR failed to correct the Depression, and that it was only WWII that saved us -- but they fail to acknowledge that it was the spending associated with WWII that did it.

Don't believe the myths. As a rule, balanced budgets are preferable. But when recessions (or depressions) are upon us, big government spending works.

It's OK to argue over where the spending goes -- over the merits of pet projects and earmarks, etc. We definitely want our spending to be responsible.

But the conservatives who want to do nothing -- the conservatives who claim flatly that the spending is "too much" -- well...they're just wrong. Don't listen to them. They're either ignorant, or they're lying. Spending works.

How progressive are you?

2009-03-12T06:51:00.002-05:00

Take the test to find out.

And check out this interactive map.

Good Congress. Bad Carter.

2009-03-11T14:16:00.004-05:00

More and more lately, the public is approving of what Congress is doing:

Too bad John Carter is voting against most of what Congress is doing....

Most people agree.

2009-03-11T12:14:00.002-05:00

According to some new studies:

• By a margin of almost nine to one, Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” (79 percent agree, 12 percent neutral, 9 percent disagree).

• More than three in four Americans (76 percent) also agree with the president’s argument that “America’s economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.”

• Nearly three in four Americans believe that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers,” (73 percent agree, 15 percent neutral, 12 percent disagree).

• Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

Or, another way of putting it: most Americans agree with and support President Obama's and the Democrats' plans and proposals.

Meanwhile, John Carter is out of step on these issues. It's time for a change in 2010, no?

Carter will not help you.

2009-03-11T10:09:00.002-05:00

A lot of Texas families are likely to be in need of some assistance over the next year or two, while the economy recovers. That means more families in need of unemployment, Medicaid, child support, student loans, etc.

But John Carter will not help you. In 2006, Carter cast a key vote on H RES 653. The bill cut over $40 billion from these programs over the next five years -- which means it's still impacting us today, when we could really use that money. The bill barely passed, 216-214, on the strength of the GOP majority in the House, and with the help of John Carter's vote. (It barely passed the Senate, too, with Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.)

Now, thanks to Carter and the Republicans, millions of people who are struggling to make ends meet have it just a little bit harder....

Obama is good for you.

2009-03-11T09:23:00.002-05:00

Why Texan Republicans should support Obama and his programs.

Quote of the day.

2009-03-10T13:14:00.001-05:00

If you go out and interview these people working on this road in Maryland... these people are thrilled. They are thrilled that they are working in March on a good paying job building roads, which is what they were trained to do. That's going to be happening all over America. So the idea that this is socialism -- it is not socialism, it is economic development. It is going to provide an economic engine around communities all over American for jobs; good paying jobs; and help people pay their bills. I don't call that socialism.... We are the model for the world when it comes to infrastructure. We are the model for the interstate system. I don't call that socialism. Our $40 billion [for the Department of Transportation]: not socialism. It is good paying jobs that is going to drive the economies in a lot of states and a lot of communities.

-- Obama transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, a Republican.

Outrage.

2009-03-09T12:34:00.002-05:00

The global economy is failing, and the GOP's response is to do nothing.

John Carter agrees, and also wants to do nothing.

Express your outrage by contacting Carter (see sidebar on the right) -- and by voting him out of office in 2010.

Tough luck.

2009-03-09T09:13:00.004-05:00

Home sales for the last quarter of 2008, here in Williamson County, were the lowest they've been in five years -- and home prices have reverted to 2005 levels. That means that (a) people who need to sell their homes are having trouble doing so, and (b) many of them are struggling to break even, if they're lucky enough to find a buyer. All of this contributes to higher foreclosure rates.

Meanwhile the unemployment rate in Texas has seen a huge upswing and is now at 6.4%. Texas lost almost 76,000 jobs in January alone. This too contributes, of course, to higher foreclosure rates.

As of January, the foreclosure rate in Texas is 1 in every 967 mortgages. Not as bad as states like California and Nevada -- but still bad.

Now, most conservatives will say "Tough luck" to these homeowners who find themselves facing foreclosure. My conservative friends say "It's their own fault for getting in over their heads."

But the homeowner who just lost her job didn't do anything wrong. And neither did the homeowner who still has a job and needs to relocate, but can't find anyone to buy her house.

And maybe conservatives ought to step back and think about how this effects them. More foreclosures means fewer people who will qualify later to buy homes (their credit will no longer be good enough). It also means fewer people able to get loans for other major purchases. It also means more pressure on banks to tighten their lending practices (because they're carrying too many defaulted loans), and that means less buying power even for consumers who didn't foreclose. It also means fewer loans for business start-ups. In short, all of this is bad for the local economy.

We all suffer, because we're all economically interconnected.

But John Carter doesn't get it. Despite all this, last Friday John Carter voted no on the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Luckily, the Act still passed (no thanks to you, Mr. Carter). Apparently, John Carter says "Tough luck" to those homeowners who have lost their jobs, or who can't find buyers. And he also says "Tough luck" to the rest of us, too, who are negatively impacted by this upsurge in foreclosures.

What's the proper response to this? Well, John Carter will be running for reelection in 2010. It seems only fitting that we all get together on Election Day to tell him "Tough luck."

Vote no on John Carter in 2010. He's no good for Texans.

At it again.

2009-03-06T11:35:00.003-06:00

Apparently, John Carter LOVES to take credit for the money coming to Texas from the recently passed stimulus package -- even though he voted against it!

He's done it before, and now he's doing it again.

Here's the latest:

[Round Rock Mayor-pro tem Joe] Clifford, who serves on the CAMPO board of directors, thanked U.S. Rep. John Carter, state Sen. Kirk Watson, and state Rep. Diana Maldonado for their efforts to ensure the [FM 1460] project was included in the $1.2 billion worth of projects approved by the [Texas Transportation] Commission.

"This improvement is much needed," said Carter (R-TX31), who was instrumental in appropriating highway funds for Texas in ARRA, as one of only two Texans on Transportation Committees in the U.S. House.

Wow. That Carter sure has a great PR team, doesn't he? I mean, here he is, getting credit for securing earmark funding for highways in Texas in ARRA -- otherwise known as the stimulus bill. And he's even talking about how badly the improvements and funding were needed!!

Yet there is no mention of the fact that Carter has been criticizing earmarks and the stimulus package lately. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Carter voted against the stimulus.

The money and the improvements are much needed. This is good for jobs and transportation in Williamson County. In other words, the stimulus package is good for us. Carter is basically admitting this here.

What isn't good is Carter's attempts to take credit for the good being done, when in fact, if he had his way (according to his votes and rhetoric), those good things wouldn't be happening.

News updates.

2009-03-06T10:33:00.003-06:00

More GOP obstructionism.
Unemployment hitting 25-yr high (8.1%).
Large numbers are struggling with mortgage payments. (But of course John Carter voted against providing any assistance.)
Former Reagan economic advisor thinks we'll need even more stimulus.
Obama might face difficulty in Afghanistan.
A prominent conservative advocates investigations and prosecutions for the former Bush administration.
And could Bush be charged with war crimes?

Calling Carter out.

2009-03-05T00:36:00.009-06:00

John Carter has taken to the Round Rock Leader to bash Obama and his economic proposals. Maybe Carter hasn't heard, but as of this writing Obama's job approval rating stands at 61%, the public trusts the Democrats more than the Republicans to fix the economy, and 58% of Americans disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling their job. (That's you, Mr. Carter.)

Or maybe Carter does know all this, and that's why he's trying desperately to attack Obama and Obama's proposals.

Let's take a look at what Carter says -- and see if we can't shed some light on things as we go.

Here's how Carter begins:

It took President George Bush eight years in office, seven years at war, the economic slowdown after 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, the biggest increase in federal education spending ever with No Child Left Behind, the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare, the start of the recession in 2008, and the $750 billion Wall Street bailout last fall to rack up $2.75 trillion in federal red ink.

It took President Barack Obama just 38 days to beat that record.

Talk about a dubious beginning. Right off the bat, Carter is either ignorant about a few things, or he's deliberately misleading you.

First, I'm not sure how Carter is concluding that Bush racked up only $2.75 trillion in "federal red ink." He doesn't tell us what kind of math he's using. But if you wanna talk about Bush's "federal red ink," it makes sense to look at the overall federal debt, and how much it grew under Bush, from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009.

According to the official numbers, under Bush the debt grew from $5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. That means Bush racked up approximately $4.9 trillion in "federal red ink." Not $2.75 trillion, as Carter claims.

Playing a little fast and loose with your figures, Mr. Carter? Obama's got nothing on Bush so far, when it comes to big spending. And there's also the fact that Obama's deficits are projected out over the next two years -- Carter's trying to act like Obama already spent all that money in 38 days. (A bit disingenuous of you, Mr. Carter.)

Second, let's not forget that Obama is trying to deal with a massive economic problem he inherited from Bush and the congressional Republicans (who held majorities through most of Bush's time in office).

Remember back in 2002, when the Republicans were trying desperately to claim that the recession at that time was all Clinton's fault -- that Bush had inherited the problem? Bush claimed this himself at the time. Funny how suddenly, when the problem is ten times bigger, GOPers like John Carter want to say that the guy who has been in office for only 38 days is the one we should point fingers at. We're supposed to be mad at Obama after 38 days, for his fast-acting spending proposals (designed to stimulate our economy), while ignoring all the binge spending of the past eight years.

Is this really how you want to begin your argument, Mr. Carter? Sloppy math and shifting the blame?

Carter continues:

Hiring Democrats to straighten out the federal deficit turned out to be the same as hiring Foster Brooks to inventory the liquor store.

Let's ignore the cheap attempt at humor. Notice how Mr. Carter again slyly avoids the hard fact that the federal deficit that needs "straightening out" was created by Bush and Republicans -- including Carter himself! Also, notice that Mr. Carter seems to suggest that Obama and the Dems were supposed to have "straightened out" Bush's deficits in just 38 days -- while also facing an economic collapse of historical proportions!

Do you mind if we give them more than a month to work on this problem you created, Mr. Carter?

Carter says more about Obama's proposed spending amounts, then says:

We are now on a course straight for national bankruptcy and a catastrophic devaluation of the U.S. dollar unless we can turn this around over the next couple years.

Gosh. A "course straight for national bankruptcy"? I wonder, Mr. Carter -- did you ever speak up with such grave concern during those eight years of record-level deficit spending when your man, Bush, was in office? Did you speak out and warn us about "national banckruptcy" back then?

Somehow I suspect the answer is no.

Moreover, Carter doesn't seem to understand some basic economics. Did you know that devaluing the dollar can actually be a good thing -- can actually help the economy in times like these? Think about it: if the dollar is high, we can buy more stuff from other countries, but other countries can buy less stuff from us. That means more imports than exports -- a trade deficit that puts U.S. businesses on the losing side. But if the dollar is low, then other countries can buy more from us -- more exports than imports -- which can help U.S. businesses and potentially revive the economy. (Yes, this is overly simplistic as an explanation -- the point is that a devalued dollar can potentially help recovery.)

Too bad Carter doesn't seem to understand this. Instead, he's just using cheap, misleading scare tactics.

He continues:

And what are we getting for this sacrifice?

The so-called stimulus bill spends less than half of its $787 billion in the next two years to help us out of recession - and contains thousands of earmarks - in spite of the President's statement to the contrary.

Whoa! Wait a sec. This is just too much. There's no way that Carter is merely uninformed here. I think he's being deliberately deceptive.

That's right: John Carter is intentionally misleading us, his constituency.

The stimulus package includes about $400 billion in tax cuts -- tax cuts that will go to the middle class, right here in Williamson County -- starting almost immediately and continuing through the next two years. There's no way that Mr. Carter doesn't know this. That's why the bill "spends less than half of its $787 billion" -- because less than half of the stimulus bill involves government spending in the first place! The rest of it is tax cuts! Carter keeps talking about these high dollar amounts as though it is all "spending," when in fact much of it isn't.

Mr. Carter can't possibly be unaware of this, which means he's being dishonest about it.

Why would you try to distort things like this, Mr. Carter? Don't you want your constituency to know about the tax cuts they'll be receiving? Don't you want to reassure us that help is on the way?

Apparently not. Apparently you're more interested in scaring us. Even if it means misleading us.

And it gets worse. Carter complains about earmarks, and says:

Specific language to pay for a high-speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas with federal tax dollars might not be an earmark in Chicago, but don't try to sell that to folks in Texas.

Enough. Now I will call you an outright liar, Mr. Carter. You are officially spreading lies. There is no such "specific language" in the stimulus bill. I challenge you to find it and show it to us -- I know it's not there, because people I trust have looked. (Anyone can look at the bill for him- or herself.)

You are the one trying to "sell" something to us folks here in Texas, Mr. Carter. And it's a crock. Now, how can we believe anything else you're going to say in this article?

Yet still, Carter continues:

The White House budget not only is a world-record in deficit spending, it raises taxes in the middle of a recession.

That is the same formula attempted by Presidents Herbert Hoover in 1930 and Jimmy Carter in 1978, with disastrous economic results.

Boy -- I just can't tell anymore whether Carter really doesn't know the full truth, and is innocently misinforming us, or whether he does know the full truth and is deliberately deceiving us. It's hard to continue giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, Hoover raised the highest marginal tax rate to 63% just before leaving office, in 1932. (Not 1930, as Carter claims.) Carter claims this had "disastrous economic results" -- but in fact the economic recovery began shortly thereafter, in 1934. FDR implemented big government spending to stimulate the economy and raised those taxes even higher in 1936, to almost 80% (to offset the big spending). Then, fearing too much deficit spending (and the political wrath of conservatives), FDR cut back and the recovery stalled in '37-'38. Conservatives love to claim that FDR's big spending didn't get us out of the Depression -- that instead WWII did -- but they always fail to explain how WWII accomplished this feat. How did WWII pull us out of the Depression? By eliciting renewed increases in government spending. Big spending was working until FDR cut back (thanks to conservative pressure) -- then spending worked again when FDR charged forward in the run up to WWII.

In other words, big spending works.

Oh, and by the way, the top tax rate was over 90% by the end of the War -- raised again to offset the big spending. And without causing "disaster" as Carter claims.

As for Jimmy Carter in 1978, I'm not sure what Carter's talking about. The highest tax rate stayed constant at 70% throughout Jimmy Carter's term in office. The only tax plan I know of in 1978 was to cut taxes for lower income brackets, and to close some loopholes at the top. But the top marginal rate stayed the same. Are you just making stuff up now, Mr. Carter?

As for "disastrous effects," the poor economy in the late '70s and early '80s had nothing to do with tax increases, as Carter claims. It was all about runaway inflation and oil prices.

We did suffer a recession in the early '80s -- but once in office, Reagan enacted the largest deficit spending since WWII. Yes, he also cut taxes instead of raising them (thereby contributing to the fastest growth of our federal debt the nation had ever seen). There's a big debate over whether the recovery in the mid-'80s was the result of the tax cuts or the big spending. But the bottom line is this: there's no basis for claiming that a tax hike on the highest brackets will be (or ever was) "disastrous."

And there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that big government spending works in times like these. It was the solution in the '30s and '40s, and it was at least part of the solution in the '80s.

Too bad you don't seem to know this, Mr. Carter -- or that, if you do know it, you choose to be dishonest about it.

Still, Carter continues:

The Obama tax plan calls for a new environmental tax, a "cap and trade" system. Under this plan, businesses that produce carbon emissions such as power companies or livestock producers would pay a new federal tax on those emissions.

Only in truth, they won't be paying them - you will, in your power bill, at the grocery store, and at the gas pump, as these businesses pass along these higher production costs in the form of higher consumer prices.

This is so misleading! Cap-and-trade is not a federal tax that will simply be passed on to consumers -- the whole point of the cap-and-trade system is for companies to "trade" these costs with other companies, in contrast to a simple carbon tax scheme. (See here, here, and here.) Moreover, even if costs are passed on to consumers, that is precisely what we should want in a true free market system. We pay the costs either way -- either we pay the costs of unfettered pollution and a ruined environment, or we pay the costs of capped pollution and a saved environment. If we think saving the environment is a worthy goal, then in a free-market democracy we should want to incorporate the costs of saving the environment into the market -- and allow and encourage businesses to freely exchange those costs with one another.

How can we possibly continue to support our representative if he doesn't understand these things? It should be his job to explain this to us, instead of just trying to mislead and scare us.

Carter also tries to claim that cap-and-trade has been a "disaster" in Europe -- but this (again) is not true. (See the links above.) Then he makes this audacious claim:

The final result of this world-record spending spree is that the Obama administration budget and stimulus package creates the largest deficit - using any and all definitions - in U.S. history.

Ummm...no. An extremely common way to measure deficit spending is as a percentage of GDP. And as a percentage of GDP, Obama's deficit would be half the size of the deficit in 1945. So this is just false, plain and simple.

Why would Carter make a claim that is so easily proven wrong? Is that how low his regard is for his readers and voters? He just assumes we won't know any better, and that he can lie with impunity?

Still more:

We needed to pass reasonable legislation to help our economy get back on track, but going on this kind of a spending binge is not the way to do it.

These bills, if left in place, will not only fail to combat this recession, but will kill future job growth, and lead to a permanent loss in the value of the dollar.

Again, where was Carter when Bush was on his spending binge for eight years, back when we didn't have any good reason for such extravagances? Oh yeah: he was in the Republican majority in Congress, approving that binge every step of the way.

And if Carter understood economics, he would understand that the tax increases are designed to offset the spending -- and that any potential longterm harmful effects on job growth will be countered by the expected rise in GDP as the economy recovers. (We've already covered Carter's lack of understanding about the value of the dollar.)

Show us that you actually understand what's going on here, Mr. Carter. And if you oppose it, give us actual reasons for opposing it, instead of scaring us with half-truths and misinformation.

In conclusion, Carter offers his solutions:

We can begin by simply eliminating every earmark - both Republican and Democrat - from both the stimulus bill and the budget.

We should continue by dropping the tax increases, especially the outrageous "cap and trade" proposal.

The finishing touch should be a simple spending freeze on the budget for a year.

Yet every one of these common sense solutions was rejected by House and Senate Democrats.

Hmmm. Am I missing something? It seems to me, here, that Carter's proposal is that we do nothing. All that is left, after you eliminate additional spending and tax increases, is extended tax cuts for everyone.

That's it.

Excuse me, but don't you realize, Mr. Carter, that even with your spending freeze your plan still involves record-level deficit spending? The deficit is already at a record level (Bush put it there). Freezing spending and extending tax cuts for everyone -- including the very wealthy -- will simply keep the deficit at its current record level, while doing nothing to stimulate the economy.

Carter claims deficit spending is the enemy, but he proposes we continue it at record levels. He berates Obama for supposedly doing little to spur a recovery -- while his own proposal is to do nothing.

Is that what you call "common sense," Mr. Carter? Excuse me for being a little confused. I don't think you make any sense.

How many voters here in Williamson County think that the proper response to our economic meltdown is to do nothing?

Again, according to polls, the public trusts the Democrats more than the Republicans to fix the economy. Obviously they have very good reasons for doing so.

Voters in Williamson County have a choice. We can reelect John Carter in 2010, and reward him for his ignorance, scare tactics, and deceptions -- and his do-nothing proposals. (And don't forget the obstructionist politics and hoping for the country to fail.)

Or, we can find someone else who will tell us the truth, treat us with respect, and who will work with the new administration to help us get out of this mess.

I know what my choice will be.

UPDATE: Turns out Carter isn't the first Republican to tell the lie about Obama out-deficit-ing Bush in his first 38 days. This is apparently a new (false) GOP talking point. Read more about just how wrong it is.

UPDATE II: Turns out, in fact, that Obama's budget is actually a deficit reducer, over the long haul. But we can't expect Carter to pay attention to these details, can we? It's much easier for him to just repeat the GOP talking points.

Taxes in context.

2009-03-04T15:24:00.004-06:00

Let's just put all those right-wing howls about Obama's "socialist" tax hikes to bed, shall we? Here is a chart that shows the top tax rate through U.S. history:
That's right: the top tax rate under Eisenhower (that socialist!) was 90%. Under Nixon (socialist!) they were 70%. For most of Reagan's (socialist!) administration they were 50%.

Obama is talking about raising them back to 39.5% -- same as they were all through the '90s, and still much lower than they were through the boom years of the '50s and '60s.

Seriously. Aren't we all getting just a little tired of these right-wing scare tactics?

Republicans used to be sensible.

2009-03-04T10:29:00.003-06:00

Take Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. Here's what the consummate "sensible Republican" said about the Constitution:

I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

Makes sense, to anyone who knows anything about the law and legal history. But these days Republicans generally subscribe to a fairly radical* view of constitutional interpretation known as "originalism," which (in a nutshell) holds that the meaning of the Constitution is NOT what the Supreme Court says it is, but what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean (or, alternatively, what people at the time of the Founding Fathers understood it to mean). As a result, Republicans hate it when their own president (Bush Sr.) nominates a sensible conservative like Justice Souter, and are only happy when they get radical conservatives like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas.

Eisenhower also said:

to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government.

Sounds sensible, no? In other words, the federal government should do what "the mass of the people" wants it to do. And it should employ reason and moderation. But Republicans -- from Nixon to Reagan, to GWB, and all their right-wing supporters -- have instead employed secrecy and radical, unlawful action, rather than political processes, reason and moderation. (Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra -- and we're just beginning to understand GWB's radicalism.) And of course, the real leader of the Republicans these days is Rush Limbaugh** -- certainly not the exemplar of reason or moderation.

Want more evidence that the sensible Republicans like Eisenhower have become an endangered species? Well, here's Eisenhower again -- from the same letter quoted above:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws...you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few...Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

That's right: Eisenhower thought the radical conservatives who wanted to do away with Social Security and labor laws, etc., were "a tiny splinter group" -- and "stupid." Yet today, these radical conservatives dominate the Republican party. They rose as a movement that began with Barry Goldwater, took power under Reagan, and culminated in the failed presidency of Bush Jr. The sensible Republicans like Eisenhower have been marginalized, silenced, driven almost to extinction. The radicals dominate the GOP -- and John Carter is one of those hardcore radicals.

But maybe, with any luck, Eisenhower will turn out to be right after all. Maybe the Bush administration signaled the collapse of radical right-wing conservatism -- maybe, if we're lucky, the radical Republicans are on their way out, never to be heard from again in our political history. If we're lucky, maybe the Republicans will return to Eisenhowerian sensibleness.

We can hope -- and we can help them on their way out, too. Vote for somebody other than John Carter in 2010, for example. Consign the radicals to the history books, once and for all.

* I use the word "radical" here because originalism -- as conservatives tend to construe it -- stands outside the historically mainstream view of the law and constitutional interpretation. There have been very, very few so-called originalists on the Supreme Court, and the Court's institutional approach to constitutional interpretation has always been that "the Constitution means what the Court says it means." Yes, many justices throughout history have referred to "original intent" or "original understanding" in their reasoning for a particular decision -- but there's a big difference between (a) occasionally relying on these "original" factors to support a decision and (b) adopting the "originalist" dogma as the singular, proper view of constitutional meaning. The former is commonplace; the latter is radical.

** Rush is embracing his role as leader of the Republicans, too, recently telling journalists that "the antidote to Obamaism" is "conservatism, as articulated by me."

Love it.

2009-03-03T21:48:00.003-06:00

The new logo for projects funded by the Obama stimulus package:

And here's a great article on Obama's tax cuts.

Help in hard times?

2009-03-03T09:27:00.006-06:00

None of the economic news is good lately. We're fortunate, here in Texas, that things aren't quite as bad as they are in other parts of the country -- but things are still bad. Unemployment numbers right here in Williamson County have increased steadily since April of last year -- from about 7,000 to about 11,500 (the unemployment rate has risen from about 3.5% to almost 6%). The trends are the same in the greater Austin area, and in Texas statewide. And that's just as of December 2008. The Texas Workforce Commission doesn't have the current figures available on its website.

With this in mind, let's take a look at some of John Carter's votes over the past couple years, shall we? I mean, we're interested in what our representative has been doing to look out for those of us who might be struggling financially right now. Right?

Well, in July 2007, the House passed HR 1980 -- "To Authorize Appropriations for the Housing Assistance Council" -- by a vote of 350-49 (or 88%-12%). A full 134 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. But not John Carter, who voted against it.

On that very same day, and by the very same vote margin, the House passed HR 1982 -- the Rural Housing and Economic Development Improvement Act, authorizing appropriations for HUD (low-income housing assistance). Again, 134 Republicans voted in favor of the bill -- but John Carter voted against it.

A couple weeks later, the House voted on HR 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act -- a bill designed "to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States." This time 143 Republicans voted in favor, and the margin was 367-57 (or 87%-13%). But once again, John Carter voted against it.

Apparently John Carter doesn't care about helping those who are struggling financially -- or about making the United States more competitive in the world economy.

But maybe you don't care about housing assistance either, or about "21st century competitiveness." Okay. Are you a small business owner? Or do you care about promoting small businesses? Do you care about the fact that, in September 2007, John Carter was again in the minority when he voted against the Small Business Investment Expansion Act (HR 3567)? The Act passed with 82% of the vote -- including 112 Republicans -- but Carter opposed it. Despite the fact that his constituency here in Williamson County includes a large number of small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Is John Carter doing anything to look out for the interests of Texans?

For many Texans who have lost their jobs, services like Medicaid have become increasingly important lately -- providing much needed medical care for families who have lost their employer-based health insurance. In April 2008, just as the unemployment numbers were beginning their steady rise, the House passed HR 5613 -- the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. Once again, the bill passed by a wide margin: 349-62 (or 85%-15%). And once again, John Carter voted against it.

A month later, Carter again voted against housing assistance (HR 5937) -- even where (again) 83% of the House voted in favor. But this time, Carter also voted against the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act (HR 6074), which, among other things, sought "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal." This Act passed with 79% of the vote, including 103 Republicans. But apparently John Carter is ok with oil-producing cartels, and doesn't care about protecting consumers.

By October of last year, things were really starting to look bad everywhere. Carter's record on helping those falling on hard economic times was already abysmal, as you can see above -- but would he turn things around, now that the economic crisis was reaching new heights?

Ummm...no.

In October, the House passed HR 6867, "to provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation." The vote was 368-28 (or 93%-7%). Our representative, John Carter, was part of the 7% minority voting against the assistance. That's right: as unemployment was on the rise right here in his own Williamson County, John Carter voted against providing much needed assistance to his own newly unemployed constituency.

And in addition to all of the above, let's not forget that John Carter voted against the stimulus package, which seeks to create 3.5 million new jobs -- including 269,000 jobs right here in Texas. (And by the way, for those of you worried about "bigger government," more than 90% of these new jobs will be in the private sector -- in other words, big government spending does NOT automatically equal "bigger government.") In other words, not only is John Carter voting against assistance for those who have lost their jobs -- he's also voting against the creation of new jobs.

The economy is bad right now. And there's a good chance it could get worse (see here, here, and here). Unfortunately, we cannot count on John Carter to look out for our interests. He's a right-winger who regularly votes against helpful legislation, even when it has broad bi-partisan support. Luckily, in a democracy, we have the opportunity to chose our leaders. Let's choose somebody else in 2010.

Hard-core conservative. (Yikes!)

2009-03-02T15:13:00.004-06:00

According to ontheissues.org, John Carter ranks as a "hard-core conservative." (See that little red dot in the far-right corner of the graph? That's where Carter sits.)

You can take the quiz yourself to see where you fall on this graph. And if you find yourself to be more moderate or liberal than Carter (not hard to do, from the looks of things), then you ought to consider voting for someone else in 2010.

FYI, Obama won 43% of the vote in Williamson County -- clearly, a hardcore conservative like Carter is not very representative of Williamson County voters.... If we can't get a Democrat in office, we should at least have a more moderate voice. No? Especially considering the failures of the hardcore conservatism of the Bush years, of which Carter was a part....

Are you a student?

2009-03-02T13:28:00.002-06:00

Everyone is facing hard economic times right now. But if you're a student, things look particularly bad. Think about it: the job market sucks, so your chances of finding decent longterm employment coming out of school don't look so hot right now. And to top it off, you probably have a chunk of student loans that you'll have to start paying back pretty soon.

Good thing Congress voted to lower the interest rates on federal student loans, right?

That's right. Two years ago, in January 2007, Congress voted 356-71 (83%-27%) to lower those interest rates for student loans. Bill authors said a borrower with $13,800 in student loan debt would save $4,400 over the life of the loan.

Sure sounds good, if you're a student right now. No?

Of course, it should be mentioned that Rep. John Carter voted AGAINST the bill....

Dirty secrets.

2009-03-02T11:38:00.002-06:00

Here's the voice of the Republican party:

"The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it."

When the nation is facing a severe economic crisis, can we really entrust our leadership to Republicans who are hoping that our president fails?

Republicans -- including Mr. Carter -- pushed to water-down the stimulus bill, then voted en masse against it. They are acting as obstructionists, trying to force failure onto Obama's attempts to address our crisis.

You can vote for hope and success by voting John Carter out of office in 2010.

Seriously?

2009-02-27T14:53:00.004-06:00

Apparently Republicans prefer Sarah Palin as their presidential candidate for 2012.

I have to say that that would be perfectly fine by me. I would love to see Obama trounce his competition to win a second term....

FYI, here are Obama's current approval ratings:

UPDATE: Ok, so maybe they favor Romney over Palin. Who knows. My money says that, whomever the GOP favors, they'll be facing the odds of Walter Mondale (in '84) in 2012.

The truth about Obama's taxes.

2009-02-27T14:13:00.006-06:00

As mentioned earlier, John Carter has tried to scare people by suggesting that Obama's plan for the country includes a whole bunch of new taxes. Here's what he said:

“When you mention cap and trade, you must remember that’s a tax burden -- by their estimate about a $1.2 to a $1.5 trillion additional revenue from taxes. That’s a tax that we didn’t get told the value of. He may be able to say if you are a wage earner making $250,000 thousand a year and you won’t pay any more taxes, I don’t know, I’m skeptical. If you’re earning money from any other source than wages where you have to pay any types of capital gains I’m afraid you are going to pay a significant tax burden.”

First, Carter claims that cap-and-trade involves new tax burdens -- but this is just wrong. Such a claim reveals Carter's ignorance or misunderstanding of cap-and-trade. (See here for an explanation of what cap-and-trade really means -- it's actually a free market-based policy.)

Second, Carter says he's skeptical that Obama's plan would raise taxes only on the wealthiest individuals -- Carter suggests, by implication, that Obama would actually raise taxes on those making less than $250K/yr. But this is another misrepresentation, as the middle classes will in fact start to see tax cuts by April 1st.

All that's left, then, for Carter to scare you about is the tax hikes on the wealthiest classes. But Kevin Drum explains how the income-tax increase on the rich is actually quite modest and fair. And as for capital gains taxes -- the Obama plan simply returns the capital gains tax rate to what it was prior to the Bush administration. According to conservatives, you have to lower taxes to encourage investments -- so they'll claim (predictably) that raising the capital gains tax is a Really Bad Idea. But I seem to recall investment activity being much better in the '90s than it has been since the Bush tax cut of 2003. So I can't see what we have to fear about a capital gains tax rate that looks more like the one we had in the '90s, before Bush came along.

Clearly Carter is blowing a lot of smoke here over taxes. And my point is basically preemptive: If Carter, over the next few weeks or months, tries to scare you some more over taxes, don't listen to him. What he's saying probably isn't very reliable.

Having it both ways.

2009-02-27T08:48:00.005-06:00

From the Killeen Daily Herald:

Several Central Texas communities were awarded several million federal dollars Thursday designed to aid affordable housing projects throughout the area.

U.S. Rep. John Carter's office released a list of more than $3 million in grants district-wide.

--

In a separate release issued by the office Thursday, a total of $3.6 million of capital fund awards will be sent to communities throughout the district as well. In that release, the city of Killeen will receive more than $260,000, while Temple will receive more than $575,000, Belton $283,000, Copperas Cove $176,000 and Gatesville $119,000.

Here's what Carter said about the grants, according to the KDH:

"Keeping up and improving our public housing also adds to our job base, which is a positive for the entire community," Carter said in a statement.

So true, John. So true. It almost sounds like you are in favor of this sort of thing. Or, at the very least, it sure seems like you want to take some credit for it -- you know, by making sure your name is attached to the money in newspaper articles, for example.

The problem is that this HUD money comes directly from the recently passed stimulus bill.

And as we all know, John Carter voted against that stimulus bill, along with the rest of his GOP buddies.

In other words, if Carter and the GOP had their way, we wouldn't be getting any money -- we wouldn't be "keeping up and improving our public housing," nor would we be adding to our job base.

But now that the Dems have passed the bill, and the Obama administration has acted swiftly to implement it, and to distribute the funds, John Carter is more than happy to talk about all the good stuff that this money is going to do for us.

There's something not quite right about that. No?

Not for liberty?

2009-02-26T14:28:00.002-06:00

Turns out that a new study shows that, while conservatives claim to be in favor of individual liberty (and against "big government" interference with that liberty), conservative magazines don't actually bear this out:

Conservatives say they are for small government and individual liberty, but a content analysis of leading conservative magazines shows that most have preponderantly failed to take pro-liberty positions on sex, gambling, and drugs. Besides many anti-liberty commissions, the magazines may be criticized for anti-liberty omission—that is, failing to oppose anti-liberty policies. Magazines investigated include National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise, and The American Spectator. We find that National Review has had the strongest record on liberty on the issues treated, while the others have preponderantly failed to be pro-liberty or have even been anti-liberty.

Surprise, surprise.

(H/T Yglesias.)

On Health Care.

2009-02-26T12:55:00.005-06:00

There's been a lot of talk about health care reform lately. Let's take a look at Rep. Carter's record on this issue, shall we?

In 2003 and 2004, Carter voted YES on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. This is, of course, part of the GOP's program of "tort reform." The GOP claims that medical lawsuits must be restricted because they lead to high malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, and are thus the biggest factor in rising health care costs -- but this is not true. The real reason GOPers want to limit lawsuits is that it protects corporate insurance and health care providers and the wealthy class (to which most doctors belong), while also hurting plaintiffs' attorneys (who tend to be a big source of financial support to the Democratic Party). Who's the real loser in tort reform? You, the consumer -- because it means you are less able to be compensated when the hospital or doctor causes you harm.
Also in 2003, Carter voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. The GOP argument was that these Canadian drugs were not regulated by the FDA and might be unsafe. (So much for the usual GOP disdain for regulation -- suddenly regulation is the good guy!) Moreover, the government claimed that introducing Canadian drugs into the U.S. marketplace would be anti-free market, because there wouldn't be a "level playing field" (because the Canadian drugs did not face the same regulatory hurdles). Of course, the GOP doesn't care about level playing fields when it comes to trading with Latin America or China (where companies don't face the same regulations or human rights protections). The truth is, the GOP wants to protect pharmaceutical corporations from having to lower their prices to compete with Canadian drugs (so much for the free market). Who loses out? You, the consumer -- because you have to pay higher prices when filling your prescription. Oh, and just to pour salt in the wounds, Carter then voted YES on limiting prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
In 2006, Carter voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. Because apparently the last thing we want is to provide medical care for our poorest elderly citizens. If Grandma has pneumonia -- which might not be an emergency, but could later prove fatal -- she's not getting treatment unless she can come up with that co-pay, doggonnit! Oh, and by the way, the costs of having to treat the problem later -- when it does become an emergency -- will be much higher, and those higher costs will then be passed on to the rest of us, when we could've shared the much lower costs of earlier treatment, if it had been allowed. Who loses? You guessed it: you do, again. Though not as much as Grandma.
We've covered this, but in 2007 and 2008, Carter voted NO on extending S-CHIP. Because besides saying no to Grandma, we also want to say no to little Timmy, whose parents make too much to be covered by Medicaid but still can't afford private insurance. What will happen to Timmy when he goes untreated? He'll end up with more serious medical problems that eventually require more serious care (perhaps even emergency care) -- and those much higher costs will probably be passed on to the rest of us anyway, eventually. Who loses? You, the consumer -- because instead of sharing in the relatively low costs of early childhood care, you'll end up sharing the much higher costs of postponed care. And of course, who knows what little Timmy's losses will amount to.
Also in 2008, Carter voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. Who knows what the GOP's reasoning is here. I suspect that, as usual, the real concern is for protecting the corporations again (insurance and health care providers). As usual, the loser is you, the consumer -- not only because you won't be able to get good care yourself, if you have a mental health issue, but because the people around you (friends, family, co-workers) will be less able to get that care. And which malady do you think has a greater negative affect on a person's life and those who are part of it: a broken leg, or depression?

Clearly, Carter's record on health care isn't very good. The American Public Health Association (the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health) gave Carter a rating of ZERO back in 2003, indicating a pretty strong anti-public health record.

On the upside, though (depending on who you ask), Carter did manage to secure over $1 million in earmarks for health-related programs within his district. So there's that, at least.

Really helping the military.

2009-02-25T23:35:00.002-06:00

As I've looked through Rep. Carter's record, it appears he is genuinely interested in looking out for the military. This is not a bad thing in and of itself -- after all, though I consider myself a dove-loving peacenik, I do think our military should be well compensated and cared for.

So here's my proposal: If Rep. Carter really wants to help out our soldiers and their families, he should graduate from small-time legislation (like focusing on state residency requirements) to doing something serious about the Feres doctrine.

If I were a Congressman serving a district that had a military base, and I really wanted to show how much I cared about the well being of those serving at that base (and elsewhere), then abolishing the Feres doctrine would be my top priority.

Mr. Carter?

Ummm...huh?

2009-02-25T20:58:00.008-06:00

So there's this site called Human Events that bills itself as the "Headquarters of the Conservative Underground." Whatever that means.* It's the sort of place where you'll see numerous ads for Ann Coulter's latest tract, or for joining the NRA.

Anyway...Human Events attended Obama's speech and gathered reactions from some of the GOPers in the room. Here's their bit from John Carter:

Rep. John Carter (R-Tx.) was concerned with the likelihood of Democrats raising taxes. Carter told me, “When you mention cap and trade, you must remember that’s a tax burden -- by their estimate about a $1.2 to a $1.5 trillion additional revenue from taxes. That’s a tax that we didn’t get told the value of. He may be able to say if you are a wage earner making $250,000 thousand a year and you won’t pay any more taxes, I don’t know, I’m skeptical. If you’re earning money from any other source than wages where you have to pay any types of capital gains I’m afraid you are going to pay a significant tax burden.”

Before I say anything, go back and read that again. Or if you already read it a second time, go ahead and read it a third time. Or a fourth. Then, in the comments below, see if you can tell me what the heck Carter is even saying here -- because I can't quite get a bead on it.

Seriously. Capital gains? Has Carter been paying any attention to the stock market for the past 3-4 months? At this point, I think most people would LOVE to pay more in capital gains taxes -- so long as they had some capital gains to tax in the first place!

Best I can tell, Carter's floundering here -- and for lack of anything better to say, he's just trying to scare people by throwing around "taxes" as many times as possible.

Not much of a reaction to what has been roundly applauded as an effective and optimistic speech by the president.

* Seriously, what does this mean? Conservatives have dominated the political scene since 1980, for crying out loud. Right-wingers write op-eds in the NYT and the WaPo (not to mention the WSJ, of course); they own talk radio; and they have their own mainstream TV news channel. Isn't it the height of disingenuousness to posit yourself as an "underground" movement when you're not? Answer: Yes. Yes, it is.

UPDATE: It gets worse. I didn't catch this the first few times I read Carter's statement, but it turns out that he really doesn't seem to understand the whole cap-and-trade thing. He claims this is a "tax burden" -- but that's actually wrong. Kevin and Ezra explain what cap-and-trade is all about. Sure would be nice if our representative understood a few things before trying to scare people with the Tax Boogey Man.

The new GOP meme?

2009-02-25T14:05:00.005-06:00

Here's John Carter in reaction to Obama's speech last night:

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said Obama's focus on a brighter future helped lift the gloom of the past several weeks. "I was glad to see him be positive and start being inspiring and hopeful again," Carter said. "He got elected because he inspired hope."

Nice words, right? Or, at least they seem to be. At first glance. But on second thought I think this might be a case of killing someone with soft praise. A backhanded compliment that is really designed to undermine or derrogate its object.

Here's what I mean: Anyone who's paying attention lately can see that there is a new talking point emerging among conservatives. The talking point seems to be that Obama has been too pessimistic about the economy. Too pessimistic about "America." Go read Jindal's speech and you'll see this coming through loud and clear. Jindal talks incessently about how Americans have always overcome difficulty -- and he clearly insinuates that Obama has somehow acted as though America might fail this time, in the face of our current economic crisis. One of Jindal's main points seems to be that the GOP offers hope and optimism, contrary to the pessimism Obama is peddling.

Er...wha'?

This is classic Rovian politics -- try to turn your opponent's strength into a weakness -- the sort of cynical partisan hackery we supposedly put behind us when we finally got rid of the Bush administration. But apparently the GOP is still applying this tactic full-force. The idea, I suppose, is to turn the guy who epitomizes HOPE (remember this?) into the guy who somehow signifies doom and gloom, simply because he's tried to give the country some straight talk about just how serious our current crisis is.

What a load of manure. Don't buy it. Obama is still a man of hope and optimism, as anyone who actually heard (or read) his speech can attest.

Let's give ol' John Carter the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was sincere in his praise, shall we? Otherwise, we have to assume that Carter is engaging in the same old cynical political gamesmanship that characterized so much of the Bush-Rove era. And we don't want to do that. That would be depressing.

Don't believe anything John Cornyn says.

2009-02-25T10:07:00.002-06:00

This isn't about John Carter -- it's about John Cornyn. But it was too good to pass up.

Here's Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) on his GOP colleague:

"I don't believe anything John Cornyn says. I've had miscommunications with John Cornyn from, I guess, the first week of this current session of the Senate. He either doesn't understand English or he doesn't understand direct: 'I'm going to run,' which I said to him in the cloakroom of our chamber."

Earmarks.

2009-02-25T08:38:00.002-06:00

Here's Rep. Carter back in 2007:

You want an honest, open government that isn’t spending your tax dollars, through earmarks for secret projects, anonymously buried in lengthy legislation and hidden from the public. The American people deserve transparency in spending, and that means transparency across the board.

This is good and true. I applaud Carter for these words.

Ahem. Just one small problem....

In 2008, Rep. John Carter had 16 solo earmarks totaling nearly $9 million, and signed on 13 times with other members of congress for earmarks totaling over $116 million. That's roughly $125 million in earmarks in 2008 alone!

Now, the thing is, I'm not categorically opposed to earmarks. Some of the money Rep. Carter secured is for repairing parks damaged by floods in his district. That's not so bad. Really. And the fact is that our representative is supposed to look out for us, and in part that means trying to secure federal funds -- where necessary -- for us, his constituency.

What is bad -- stupid, really -- is the GOP fixation with criticizing earmarks from some kind of self-constructed sanctimoniousness. John McCain did it throughout his presidential campaign, and apparently John Carter likes to do it too.

But isn't it just a little hypocritical and ridiculous -- and a little dishonest, no? -- to self-righteously harp on the earmark issue when you're busy securing $125 million in earmarks yourself?

Who cares about animals? Or safety?

2009-02-25T07:44:00.004-06:00

The Captive Primate Safety Act (HR 80) passed the House with 77% of the vote. The bill restricts the interstate transport of primates -- i.e., it is designed to curb the practice of keeping primates as pets, in the interests of safety for both the animals and humans. The sponsor of the bill said, "Today we have taken an important step toward the welfare of humans and animals."

Rep. Carter voted against it.

Obama's speech.

2009-02-25T07:36:00.002-06:00

Personally, I was deeply satisfied with it. And it turns out other people liked it too:

A CNN poll showed 2/3 of viewers had a positive reaction -- with 85% saying the president's speech made them more optimistic about the direction of the country over the next few years.

And a CBS poll showed that 62% of speech-watchers approved of President Obama's plans for dealing with the economy before the speech. Afterwards, the number increased to 79%. Moreover, before the speech only 35% thought Obama's economic plans would personally help them. After the speech, that number jumped up to 52%.

Meanwhile, I thought Jindal's response was...well, kinda weird. And it turns out even his fellow conservatives, including David Brooks and the Fox News crowd, didn't like it too much.

Say no to healthy kids.

2009-02-24T15:45:00.002-06:00

Rep. Carter voted against providing health care for kids.

The legislation is designed to provide government-sponsored coverage to an additional 4 million uninsured children, and it was signed into law by President Obama a couple weeks ago.

But not before Rep. Carter and most of the GOP voted against it.

Two key bits that voters ought to know about the new law: 1) it covers children in families that make too much for Medicaid, but struggle to buy private insurance. This is important because it means the program is not just throwing more money at poor people who are already "on welfare" -- rather, it is aimed at helping good working families who make too much for "welfare," but who still struggle to afford decent health care for their kids -- because, as we all know, health care and health insurance are both gallingly expensive. There are a lot of good, hard working Texans -- and more pointedly, good Texan kids -- who need this assistance. It's in our collective interest -- for the future of Texas and the nation -- to have healthy kids. No?

2) The cost of the program is covered by a 61-cent increase in the federal tax on cigarettes. This is important because it means we're making those who cause and contribute to health problems pay for part of the increased costs of health care that they are causing or contributing to. It is debatable whether we want to hang our health care coverage on a cigarette tax -- I think it's problematic to think that we're basically depending on people to continue smoking, in order to fund health care, when ideally we should be looking for ways to eradicate smoking altogether (which, if accomplished, would effectively defund this health care program) -- but setting those problems aside, there is a rational basis for making the contributors to bad health pay for health care for kids. And it's also worth pointing out that the program does pay for itself -- it's not just some new, unfunded piece of government spending.

So why did Rep. Carter vote against it? Maybe he's just looking out for the smokers...?

GOP myth-making.

2009-02-24T15:21:00.005-06:00

It seems Rep. Carter is continuing to peddle the GOP-generated myth that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are the agencies "that got us into the mortgage crisis situation" (according to a Carter spokesperson).

This is baloney. See here, here, and here, for the real story.

Do all those Williamson Co. homeowners who were able to get into a home, thanks to Freddie and Fanny, want their U.S. representative to go around blaming them, and their federally-backed home loans, for our current economic crisis?

Pay now, pay later. Whatever.

2009-02-24T15:10:00.003-06:00

This is a bit odd. Maybe a little crazy. In case you hadn't heard, it turns out Rep. Carter has introduced a bill "to eliminate all IRS penalties and interest for paying taxes past due."

Carter's rationale apparently is that, if congressmen are allowed to pay back taxes without penalty (pointing to the Rep. Rangel fiasco), then everybody ought to be able to do so.

But isn't this exactly backwards?

If there are no penalties for paying your taxes late, then what is to stop people from paying them late -- over and over again? What is the incentive to pay them on time? Suddenly the government is faced with a revenue collection crisis...because Rep. Carter thinks "regular folks" and U.S. representatives ought to be treated equally?

Here's a thought: Why don't we make the U.S. representatives pay the same penalties that "regular people" have to pay, if they pay their taxes late?

Imposing late fees and penalties is a good idea -- we want to discourage late payment. Equal treatment is a good idea too -- we don't want to play favorites. But why is Rep. Carter acting as though we have to pick between these two good ideas? Can't we have both? Seriously. What's going on here?

On Elder Abuse.

2009-02-24T14:39:00.006-06:00

Rep. Carter recently voted against the position of his own party. (See the WP.) Typically, as a progressive, I would anticipate approving of a vote that ran contrary to the GOP position -- but not this time.

The vote was over H R 448: "To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes."

This bill passed the House 397-25, with 125 Republicans voting in favor of it. Did you catch that? In other words, the bill passed with 94% of the vote!

But Rep. Carter was one of the 25 Republicans (one of the mere 6%) who opposed the bill. (The Dems voted unanimously in favor of it.)

What could possibly be his reasoning? And I wonder how our Williamson County senior citizens would feel about this....

Welcome.

2009-02-24T13:58:00.001-06:00

I'm a progressive individual affiliated with a number of progressive organizations, living here in Williamson County, who is interested in what our U.S. Representative, John Carter, is up to these days. There's a lot going on in our county -- and in our nation -- right now, given the current economic situation and the early efforts of the Obama Administration to address that situation, so I figured other Texans might be interested in what Rep. Carter is up to, too. I've created this blog as a repository for news of Rep. Carter's words and actions, so that my fellow Texans can see what he's up to without having to dig too hard. (I'll do the digging for you.)

The goal here is not to "go after" Rep. Carter. I'm no partisan hack, and I don't want this to be a hatchet job. The goal is simply to "report" on what he's doing, for the sake of transparency and accountability. Yes, I'm a progressive -- most of the time I'm probably going to be somewhat critical of his positions. I predict that I will often try to show why I think his positions are wrong for Texans and the U.S. in general. But I'll also try to give credit where credit is due.