Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Dirt on Sean Hannity? Scam?

Before I share this, I want to say that I used to believe what Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin said. I believed they had the interests of America. I have watched Limbaugh blatantly lie. The same with Mark Levin. Now I have found this article that is backed up by credible sources painting a very bleak picture of Sean Hannity.

I look at the records that the people have that they have supported. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain. They were all with their own set of corruption. Now we have Sean Hannity being caught  running a scam on his charity. Here is the article:

Conservative pundits like FOX New's Sean Hannity can expect to take some flack from writers on the left. But when a "fellow" conservative writer calls his charity "a huge scam," it may be time to take a closer look.
Sean Hannity has been traveling the country on his so-called “freedom concert” tour for years. These shows are promoted as benefit concerts by an organization known as Freedom Alliance to raise money to send the children of servicemen who died in Iraq to college. The organization proudly touts convicted con artist, Oliver North, as one of its co-founders.
According to conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, less than 4 to 7 percent of the money donated to Hannity's Freedom Alliance "charity" in the past two years actually went to the causes for which donations were solicited.
Hannity's Freedom Alliance is supposedly "raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets." According to recent reports, the truth is that millions of the money donated was spent to "ferret the Hannity posse of family and friends [about the country] in high style."
In other words, Sean Hannity is using the wounded American heroes he claims to champion as tools to enrich himself and surround himself in luxury. Most of the money goes to pay for luxury jets and fleets of limousines for Hannity and his entourage, as well as other administrative costs that far exceed the usual ratio of costs to charitable outlays for legitimate charities.
The Washington Post stated that Hannity's charity received a grade of "F" by the American Institute of Philanthropy for failing to deliver less than one third of its proceeds to intended recipients. That is well below the 75% required to be considered a legitimate charity.
According to Schlussel, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000. Meanwhile, Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, Hannity's "charity" has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.
Based on its 2006 tax returns, Freedom Alliance reported revenue of $10,822,785, but only $397,900 (a measly 3.68%) of that was given to the children of fallen troops as scholarships or as aid to severely injured soldiers. The tax forms filed by Freedom Alliance in 2008 show a similar pattern of misuse of funds.
According to Schlussel, the 2008 Freedom Alliance tax forms, which were signed in November 2009 and filed only recently, showed that Hannity's organization "took in $8,781,431 in revenue and gave $1,060,275.57 total-or just 12%-to seriously wounded soldiers and for scholarships to kids of the fallen." Media Matters looked into Schlussel's claims and stated, "her numbers seem to check out.  If her assertions that Hannity has made false claims in raising money for the charity are also true, that would be scandalous."
Meanwhile, tonight, Sean Hannity will be honored with an award for this “outstanding community service" by a radio talk show host at Talkers Magazine’s convention.
Editors at The New York Times and the Washington Post have said in recent months that their papers need to do a better job of picking up on stories right-wing web sites are pushing.  Schlussel's investigation into Hannity and Freedom Alliance would seem like a good place for the Post and Times to do some digging - unless, of course, they only intend to follow up on conservative attacks on liberals.
Regardless of whether or not Schlussel's assessment of Hannity's charity is correct, it is always advisable to take a close look at any organization soliciting for donations before making a contribution. You have a right to know whether your money is spent helping the cause you donated to, or lining the pockets of millionaire punks like Sean Hannity.
 
For more info:
  by Orlando Examiner  Gary Patin

I do not know if this is true, but after watching the atrocities of Levin, Limbaugh amongst others. I would not be surprised at all. I do not trust any of them anymore. I am so fed up with misrepresentations that I could spit.
~Dennis

Open Letter Regarding Romneys Conservatism

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 29, 2012

Dear Fellow Conservatives:

At the end of last month, nine Massachusetts leaders representing a broad coalition of conservative activists penned an open letter in support of Mitt Romney and outlined his commitment to the values that we hold dear.  We felt that the letter that they wrote was very effective in helping many voters understand that Mitt Romney was a pro-life and a pro-family governor and that his record serves as public validation of his commitment to those same policies as President of the United States.

In light of the fact that in the past few days Newt Gingrich has used inflammatory language to mischaracterize Governor Romney’s record on the issues of life and family, we decided to re-release that same letter from those Massachusetts leaders under our own signature.

The full content of the letter is included as follows, and we hope that you will not be discouraged by the destructive campaign tactics of Mr. Gingrich:

December 30, 2011

Dear Conservative Friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts.  As you know, Mitt Romney served as the governor of our state from January 2, 2003 to January 3, 2007. During that time, we worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept.  To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts. The following is not an endorsement of Governor Romney but our account of the facts to set the record straight.

Staunchly defended traditional marriage.  Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the November 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state.  More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage.  He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples.  Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney had bogus Party A and Party B marriage licenses printed and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex “marriages” when asked or be fired. As May 17, 2004 (the SJC’s declaratory judgment date) approached, the Governor’s Office of Legal Counsel issued provisional advisory instructions to the justices of the peace and prepared revised license applications. These executive actions did not result in the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples before May 17. The new policies were carried out only after and as a direct result of the judiciary’s final action in Goodridge on May 17. They did not generate same-sex marriages; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The governor does not issue marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Only the town clerks can do that. But the governor can issue one-day justice of the peace authorizations to an individual who wants to perform a marriage ceremony but is not a licensed minister, town clerk or justice of the peace. The governor’s office issues thousands of those in a four year term with the only criteria being that the individual doing the ceremony is in good standing and the parties getting married have a valid marriage license.

Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with substantial results.  In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed.  Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

Provided strong, active support for a record-setting citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The petition drive collected the largest number of signatures in Massachusetts history.

Rallied thousands of citizens around the state to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment. In November of 2006, Gov. Romney held the largest State House rally in Massachusetts history with over 7000 supporters of traditional marriage.

Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing the ultimate pressure on the legislators to vote.  The SJC unanimously ruled that the Legislature must vote and the historic vote was taken on January 2, 2007 winning legislative support. This cleared a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

Fought for abstinence education.  In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students.  Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

Affirmed the culture of life.  Governor Romney vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research.  He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

We do not agree with the claims that Gov. Romney is responsible for tax payer funded abortion under the Massachusetts health care system. That blame lies solely on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payment for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In 1997, the Court reaffirmed its position that a state-subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”

Stood for religious freedom.  Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care.  Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, wrote that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion.  While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share.  It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart.  In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney was right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not.  He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth.  In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office.  As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful.  We certainly are.

Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts


Thursday, February 23, 2012

Gingrich's Liberal record

Here is an article that once again exposes just how bad Newt Gingrich has been for America. His horrible character with his family is just not enough apparently. His so called apologies have been accepted but take a look. For me, this country is doomed if they can not look at people with an honest approach:

Is Newt Gingrich liberal?  You better believe it.  In fact, he has a long record of standing for just about everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be against.  Newt Gingrich has long supported an individual mandate for health care, he supported the Wall Street bailouts, he supported the funding of Planned Parenthood, he did a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi and he has made tens of millions of dollars lobbying for liberal causes.
 In addition, he has a personal life which will make him unelectable when put up against Barack Obama in a general election. 
So what in the world are Republicans thinking?  This is not the guy to hitch our wagon to.  Are Republicans really going to nominate a guy who co-sponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi?  Newt Gingrich is so liberal that someone needs to tell him that he is in the wrong political party.  Newt Gingrich is not just a RINO ("Republican In Name Only").  He is a progressive socialist and a consummate Washington insider.  He represents everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be fighting to get out of Washington.

If you plan on voting for Newt Gingrich, please read the rest of the information below first. 

The following are 10 reasons why Newt Gingrich is liberal....

#1 Newt Gingrich was promoting the principles of Obamacare before Obamacare was even invented.  Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet a huge percentage of them are supporting a candidate that was pushing an individual mandate way before Obamacare was ever even invented.
In June 2007, Gingrich made the following statement....

“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”
That doesn't sound very conservative.

Gingrich says that he will repeal Obamacare, but back in 2008 Gingrich wrote a book entitled "Real Change" in which he endorsed an individual health care mandate.

So should we believe what Gingrich is saying now or should we believe what he has been saying for nearly 20 years?

#2 Before he was running for president, he was running around the country with Al Sharpton promoting the socialist education policies of the Obama administration.

#3 Back in 2008 Gingrich actually did a television commercial with Nancy Pelosi in which he declared that "our country must take action to address climate change".

#4 Not only that, Gingrich also has promoted the idea of a "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme.  Back in 2007, Gingrich said the following....
“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
#5 While he was in Congress, Newt Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi.  

#6 As we have seen during the recent debates, Gingrich openly supports amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

#7 In 2008 Newt Gingrich declared that he would have voted for the TARP bailout if he was still a member of Congress.

#8 While Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House the amount of taxes collected by the U.S. government soared from $1.001 trillion to $1.511 trillion.

#9 Newt Gingrich is a big time Washington insider that is often paid huge sums of money for doing next to nothing.  Gingrich has said that he was paid $300,000 for "work" that he did for Freddie Mac, but according to Bloomberg he actually earned somewhere between $1.6 million and $1.8 million between 1999 and 2008.

So what did he do for Freddie Mac?  Gingrich claims that he warned Freddie Mac about the housing bubble, but the report by Bloomberg disputes this....
None of the former Freddie Mac officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Gingrich raised the issue of the housing bubble or was critical of Freddie Mac’s business model.
It turns out that much of the "work" that Gingrich was expected to do never actually got done....
Former Freddie Mac officials familiar with his work in 2006 say Gingrich was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.

He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said.
#10 The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of "moral values", but they are getting ready to send someone to the White House that has a track record that would make Bill Clinton blush.

The following is how a recent Business Insider article described the "skeletons in the closet" from his personal life....
Newt's personal baggage is either weird or scary. He married his high-school geometry teacher. He cheated on her and divorced her while she had cancer. So he married Marianne Ginther six months later. But that wasn't to last.


Gingrich conducted a tawdry affair behind her back with one of his staffers while making political hay out of Clinton's affair with a White House intern. He then divorced Marianne and married the staffer. 
How in the world can Republicans be supporting this guy?

For more on the personal life of Newt Gingrich, please check out this video.

We desperately need to educate Republicans about this guy while there is still time.

His lobbying and promotion of the housing crisis and the health care mandate have helped to make him a wealthy man, but they have also put him outside the conservative mainstream on most issues.


So I will conclude by saying two things: Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.


He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.

*Posted by "The Moral Collapse of America"




 I have looked at Newt Gingrich. He is Obama in a more diabolical way. He endorses the Socialists policies and yet says he is a Conservative. No way.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The True Unemployment Rate? 36%




John Hayward

The True Unemployment Rate: 36%

Workforce participation is the metric that really matters.
by John Hayward
02/20/2012


How would you define “unemployment?”  Statistics on unemployment are bandied around in the media all the time.  Changes in these statistics are hailed as good or bad news for the President, with varying degrees of emphasis from the news networks, depending on which party the President belongs to.  But what do these statistics truly measure?

Would you define “unemployment” as measuring “people who want a job, but can’t get one?”  This is, broadly speaking, the definition embraced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The trick to making those numbers dance lies in measuring “people who want a job.”  The widely reported U-3 unemployment metric, currently standing at 8.3 percent, is very aggressive in shaving off people who have not made recent efforts to find work.  It is further distorted by massive “seasonal adjustments,” which made over a million people vanish into thin air last month. 

This is why the official unemployment rate gets lower when the American workforce contracts.  Workforce contraction is a very bad thing.  People who simply cannot find work, and languish on unemployment insurance for years, are the last thing a prosperous country needs… but those people don’t count in the official unemployment rate.  For example, if everyone under the age of 25 abruptly stopped looking for work, it would be an economic disaster, but the official unemployment rate would go down, because the pool of people looking for work would get smaller. 

(That’s not quite as far-fetched an example as it might sound, incidentally.  Even the heavily-massaged U-3 unemployment rate currently sits at 23.2 percent for ages 16-19, and 13.3 percent for ages 20-24… and it’s about two percent higher for young men.  Policies that increase the cost of labor, such as minimum-wage increases and mandated benefits, have a particularly punishing effect on young entry-level workers, since their labor has less intrinsic value than experienced older employees.)

This is precisely what has been happening under Barack Obama.  The workforce is contracting with horrible speed, but it has the beneficial side effect of making the official unemployment rate go down a little, although 8.3 percent is still pathetic.  The Administration bounces happily before the cameras and announces its policies are “working,” and job creation is now “on the right track,” even as their best months post job creation only slightly in excess of population growth – and they’ve only had a few such months.  Pundits begin wondering if the old political rules that say re-election is impossible with unemployment over 6 or 7 percent might not apply to this President, if he can campaign on a slowly declining unemployment rate.

Another side effect of the way our unemployment statistics are prepared, and reported, comes when America's employment picture is compared to the figures from other nations.  Are the unemployment statistics reported from, say, Greece or Italy calculated in precisely the same manner as the American U-3 rate?  If not, then how can we make valid comparisons between them?

Since the concept of people who aren’t looking for work is so fluid, and some of those people have clearly been persuaded not to look for work because of job-destroying government policies, it might be more logical to measure unemployment using the standard incorrectly offered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the U-3 rate: “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force.”  That’s what the U-3 rate claims to measure, but it doesn’t, not by a long shot. 
What is the current percentage of working-age Americans, eligible to participate in the civilian labor force, but not currently working?  Answer: 36.3 percent.

That’s the worst labor participation rate in three decades, and it’s part of the worst employment picture we’ve seen since the Great Depression.  Labor force participation is the number we should really be looking at, even more than the unemployment figures cooked up on the monthly basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Those figures have their uses as well, but it seems reasonable to measure the overall health of the economy by the number of people who simply are not participating in the labor force.

This would always be a much higher number than the BLS unemployment statistic, even when the economy was humming along at maximum power.  There are always going to be working-age people who drop out of the labor force, for reasons that have nothing to do with the nation’s overall economic health.  The labor force participation rate hasn’t exceeded 67 percent in the past decade, so we would be looking at a true “unemployment” number that bounces between roughly thirty and forty percent.  The difference between good and bad percentages is relatively small, which makes the true “unemployment” figure less sexy for news coverage, and therefore less useful to politicians… but it’s more logical to measure small changes in a large, accurate number than big changes in a small, largely fantastic number.

Writing at Red State, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending, offers an eye-popping chart measuring the effect of President Obama’s “stimulus” policies on workforce participation:
Jordan writes in support of the Jobs Through Growth Act, a package of dramatic reforms that includes a flat tax with two low rates, reduced corporate taxes, regulatory relief, and increased domestic energy production.  Those are the sort of changes America needs to make, if we want to do more than fiddle with imaginary unemployment numbers, whose very definition is subject to “adjustment” on a massive scale.  Those who define “unemployment” as “the number of working-age Americans who aren’t working” should waste no time on small reforms.


John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Perspective is everything isnt it? Things are not getting better under Obama. Good article by John Hayward


Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Rick Santorum's Voting Record...are you aware?

I am not a Rick Santorum hater. I do not see him on many levels as a President. How you vote is a window into the soul of how you would Govern. Here is his record of his support. Is this what you want?

NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.
 
Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Defense and Foreign Policy
Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions.   If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program

Nominations
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge

Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

Guns
Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform
Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.

Immigration
Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000.  Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Waste
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt
.
Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Energy
Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.



I personally am shocked and appalled by what he has done while claiming to be a conservative. Rick for President? Does this represent you? I am not a purist, looking for perfection. Being a Senator is different than Governing. A Governor is not in the legislative branch. You can determine a Governor by his vetoes. A Legislator (Congressman or Senator) by their votes. This record does not represent freedom. It does not represent fixing a budget or fiscal responsibility which is what we need now. To top it off, he is not even on all the ballots.

Mitt Romney fixed a state economy. He balanced a budget and he cut 341 social programs. He is the best choice.