Tonight, Rep. Cheri Bustos showed her true colors. While often speaking of seeking "common-sense solutions" and "bipartisanship,"Bustos cast her most extreme vote yet. Bustos voted to allow late term abortions, even at the point in which the unborn child can feel pain.
With her vote tonight, Cheri Bustos voted against 80% of Americans who believe that late term abortions should be banned. Bustos voted against protecting millions of innocent lives from the excruciating pain that SCIENCE has proven the unborn can feel at 20 weeks.
Maybe if Bustos hadn't received almost $600,000 from pro-abortion groups and donors, she could have voted with 80% of Americans who support this "common-sense" bill.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Cheri Bustos Votes to Support Millionaires, Billionaires and Big Oil
I just read the Congressional Progressive Caucus "Back to Work" budget. You can read that here: CPC Budget
On the campaign trail we heard Cheri Bustos say the following would be her principles in Congress:
1. Ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay more of their fair share of taxes.
2. End tax breaks and incentives for big oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas.
3. Protect Social Security and Medicare.
4. Cut down on waste, fraud and abuse.
If those were her principles, then why did she vote AGAINST the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget? According to their website, their budget would do the following:
1. Enact a Fair Individual Tax:
• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K
• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)
• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages
2. Enact a Fair Corporate Tax:
• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas
• Enacts a financial transactions tax
• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment
3. Protect Health Care:
• No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security
• Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing waste and fraud
By voting against this budget, it's safe to say that Cheri Bustos isn't really against low taxes for millionaires and billionaires. It's safe to say that she's okay with tax breaks for big oil companies. She's also open to cutting social security and medicare. She doesn't prioritize cutting government waste. She clearly doesn't think that tax breaks for companies that outsource are that big of a deal either, otherwise she would have voted for this bill.
Cheri should explain why she didn't support this bill. Exactly what was in it that she disagreed with?
At the bare minimum, the local media in her district should be asking these questions.
On the campaign trail we heard Cheri Bustos say the following would be her principles in Congress:
1. Ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay more of their fair share of taxes.
2. End tax breaks and incentives for big oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas.
3. Protect Social Security and Medicare.
4. Cut down on waste, fraud and abuse.
If those were her principles, then why did she vote AGAINST the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget? According to their website, their budget would do the following:
1. Enact a Fair Individual Tax:
• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K
• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)
• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages
2. Enact a Fair Corporate Tax:
• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas
• Enacts a financial transactions tax
• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment
3. Protect Health Care:
• No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security
• Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing waste and fraud
By voting against this budget, it's safe to say that Cheri Bustos isn't really against low taxes for millionaires and billionaires. It's safe to say that she's okay with tax breaks for big oil companies. She's also open to cutting social security and medicare. She doesn't prioritize cutting government waste. She clearly doesn't think that tax breaks for companies that outsource are that big of a deal either, otherwise she would have voted for this bill.
Cheri should explain why she didn't support this bill. Exactly what was in it that she disagreed with?
At the bare minimum, the local media in her district should be asking these questions.
Rep. Cheri Bustos: Budget Nihilist
From Wiki:
I recently stumbled upon this entry from RedState.com: Rep. Bill Owens: Budget Nihilist .
It said exactly my thoughts regarding my own member of Congress, Cheri Bustos.
From the talking points we heard on the campaign trail and her family history, blue dogs like myself knew that Cheri Bustos wasn't interested in actually fixing any of the problems in DC.
With her father being the chief of staff to high profile U.S. Senators and one of the biggest lobbyists in the country, we knew she was only interested in getting elected and then re-elected.
That's why when she had the chance to support a budget to fix America's deficit and fund transportation projects that our district desperately needs, she took the stance of a budget nihilist.
Out of the 4 Democrat budgets and 2 Republican budgets, Cheri Bustos voted against all of them.
By not submitting her own plan to Congress and rejecting all proposed budgets, Cheri Bustos told our district that a budget doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if America gets out of debt. It doesn't matter if we fix our roads or bridges. It doesn't matter if the Rock Island Arsenal employees get sequestered. It simply doesn't matter.
If she believed it mattered, then she would have voted for a plan or submitted her own. But rather than putting our district -- no, no, OUR FAMILIES who depend on jobs, defense, and transportation ABOVE her re-election plans.
Phil Hare didn't care and Cheri Bustos doesn't either.
Nihilist may refer to:
- one who believes existence has no objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, see nihilism
I recently stumbled upon this entry from RedState.com: Rep. Bill Owens: Budget Nihilist .
It said exactly my thoughts regarding my own member of Congress, Cheri Bustos.
From the talking points we heard on the campaign trail and her family history, blue dogs like myself knew that Cheri Bustos wasn't interested in actually fixing any of the problems in DC.
With her father being the chief of staff to high profile U.S. Senators and one of the biggest lobbyists in the country, we knew she was only interested in getting elected and then re-elected.
That's why when she had the chance to support a budget to fix America's deficit and fund transportation projects that our district desperately needs, she took the stance of a budget nihilist.
Out of the 4 Democrat budgets and 2 Republican budgets, Cheri Bustos voted against all of them.
By not submitting her own plan to Congress and rejecting all proposed budgets, Cheri Bustos told our district that a budget doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if America gets out of debt. It doesn't matter if we fix our roads or bridges. It doesn't matter if the Rock Island Arsenal employees get sequestered. It simply doesn't matter.
If she believed it mattered, then she would have voted for a plan or submitted her own. But rather than putting our district -- no, no, OUR FAMILIES who depend on jobs, defense, and transportation ABOVE her re-election plans.
Phil Hare didn't care and Cheri Bustos doesn't either.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Bustos' First 3 Bills Have 0% Chance of Passing
So the fabulous Rep. Cheri Bustos has now introduced 3 bills since her inauguration in January. Problem is...according to Govtrack.us, they all have a 0% chance of passing Congress and 2 of the 3 have only a 1% chance of making it out of committee...
What's funny...Bustos had this to say about Bobby Schilling when he had only been sworn in for 5 months:
"My problem with Bobby Schilling is that he has yet to pass a single bill, a single bill. I don't think he's even passed a single bill out of committee yet."--Cheri Bustos at her campaign announcement in June 2011.
Will Bustos pass a bill by June? We'll see. But right now, it looks like she has a 0% chance.
Monday, February 11, 2013
That was quick...Bustos Loses Key Staffer After Just 30 Days
QCNews.org has the story here --- http://QCNews.org
But I guess Jerry Lack, Rep. Cheri Bustos' District Director, has turned in his two week notice. Lack, who is generally a well respected and pleasant person, told a QCNews.org source that he felt Bustos was not prioritizing the in-district operations like she was with the DC office.
Has Bustos "gone DC" already?
That was quick.
But I guess Jerry Lack, Rep. Cheri Bustos' District Director, has turned in his two week notice. Lack, who is generally a well respected and pleasant person, told a QCNews.org source that he felt Bustos was not prioritizing the in-district operations like she was with the DC office.
Has Bustos "gone DC" already?
That was quick.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
More on the Bustos illegal coordination allegations...
I don't know how this skipped my radar, but it did.
Apparently, Bustos and House Majority were also accused of coordination before election day -- click here to read the story in the Galesburg Register-Mail. The Bustos campaign uploaded b-roll footage to YouTube, which was, in turn, used in a House Majority Pac advertisement to support her.
The Schilling campaign filed a claim with the Federal Election Commission, but it was thrown out because YouTube is considered the "public domain" and there was a lack of evidence to prove coordination between the two groups.
Considering the fact that John and Ali Lapp are married and involved in both organizations (respectively), isn't it pretty clear that there was some type of coordination? Don't think they could have possible coordinated between the campaign and the House Majority Pac? Here are some easy ways they could have hypothetically "coordinated" but not "coordinated."
Ex. 1
John Lapp, at the dinner table with his wife Ali, gets a call from Cheri Bustos. Ali overhears him say, "Oh no! That's horrible! You mean we don't have enough money to put on TV in Rockford this week? Well I guess we will just have to pull our ads down..."Ali Lapp then proposes to have House Majority Pac purchase ads in Rockford attacking Bustos' opponent.
Ex. 2
John Lapp "forgets" and leaves polling and messaging data on the desk in the family office room. Ali, accidentally looks at it, thinking it is from House Majority Pac. Ali Lapp then uses that information to tailor an effective message, without having to pay for polling data.
It's not hard to put this all together and understand what really happened. The local press should at least ask tough questions.
At the very minimum, it was inappropriate and a conflict of interest for Ali Lapp to spend money on races that her husband was involved in. How do we know that he isn't promising outside help to his clients as an incentive to sign with him?
Apparently, Bustos and House Majority were also accused of coordination before election day -- click here to read the story in the Galesburg Register-Mail. The Bustos campaign uploaded b-roll footage to YouTube, which was, in turn, used in a House Majority Pac advertisement to support her.
The Schilling campaign filed a claim with the Federal Election Commission, but it was thrown out because YouTube is considered the "public domain" and there was a lack of evidence to prove coordination between the two groups.
Considering the fact that John and Ali Lapp are married and involved in both organizations (respectively), isn't it pretty clear that there was some type of coordination? Don't think they could have possible coordinated between the campaign and the House Majority Pac? Here are some easy ways they could have hypothetically "coordinated" but not "coordinated."
Ex. 1
John Lapp, at the dinner table with his wife Ali, gets a call from Cheri Bustos. Ali overhears him say, "Oh no! That's horrible! You mean we don't have enough money to put on TV in Rockford this week? Well I guess we will just have to pull our ads down..."Ali Lapp then proposes to have House Majority Pac purchase ads in Rockford attacking Bustos' opponent.
Ex. 2
John Lapp "forgets" and leaves polling and messaging data on the desk in the family office room. Ali, accidentally looks at it, thinking it is from House Majority Pac. Ali Lapp then uses that information to tailor an effective message, without having to pay for polling data.
It's not hard to put this all together and understand what really happened. The local press should at least ask tough questions.
At the very minimum, it was inappropriate and a conflict of interest for Ali Lapp to spend money on races that her husband was involved in. How do we know that he isn't promising outside help to his clients as an incentive to sign with him?
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Illinois Review: CONGRESSWOMAN BUSTOS GRATEFUL TO NANCY PELOSI'S PAC
From Illinois Review:
Quad Cities - Newly-elected Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-East Moline) says she's indebted to Nancy Pelosi's House Majority PAC for helping her and the Democrats win back the seat Republican conservative Bobby Schilling won in 2010. She's included in the House Majority PAC's new ad boasting about the Democrats eight pickups in 2012, but no, she's not asking for donations in the ad. That would be illegal.
Most certainly Bustos knows she also has Illinois House Speaker and Illinois Democratic Party Chairman Mike Madigan to thank for drawing the district's new boundaries to make it more Democrat-friendly. Sounds like she doesn't credit Madigan with too much campaign dollar help, though.
And we thought candidates weren't supposed to coordinate efforts with Super PACs. Silly us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)