Joe Knollenberg finally spoke. It was cryptic. But Joe Knollenberg said he supported President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending in 21,500 more troops.
Joe's statement's were unremarkable as usual. They included phrases such as:
Joe Knollenberg: "we also need to acknowledge that some positive things have happened in Iraq. . ."
Joe Knollenberg: "turning sovereignty over to the Iraqis . . . is a big deal."
Joe Knollenberg: "Fostering democracy in the heart of the Middle East was important. "
( Joe Knollenberg forgot to mention that The Bush/Knollenberg War in Iraq has fostered an increase in terrorists in Iraq.)
Since one of our frequent readers often asks us to evaluate other members of Congress, we will do so -- the Republicans who, like Joe Knollenberg, support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq almost uniformly ignored the language of the resolution and instead rambled on about WWII or Vietnam, or Al Qaeda (funny how they don't talk about Osama Bin Ladin anymore). Not a single one of them disputed the validity of the language of the resolution itself.
The resolution asked 2 simple questions:
1. Do you support the troops
2. Do you oppose Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000?
Voting NO like KNOllenberg can only be interpreted as meaning that 1)he does not support the troops; and 2) he does support Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Which WishyWashyWay Will Joe Go Today?
The Detroit News is reporting that Knollenberg is going to vote NO on the House Resolution that supports the troops and opposes President Bush's escalation of the War in Iraq by sending over 21,000 more troops to the area.
Specifically, the resolution they are voting on this week reads as follows:
- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
- (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
- (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The second part of the resolution says that Congress disapproves of Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. By voting NO, Knollenberg is saying that he Supports Bush's plan to "Stay the Course" and just add more combat troops.
The vote is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, each member of the House has been alloted 5 minutes to explain their position on the vote.
Knollenberg hasn't spoken yet. Apparently Knollenberg isn't important enough within his own caucus to be allowed to speak within the first half of the debate.
Heck, Joe kNOllenberg even voted NO to even debate the resolution. (See Rollcall Vote #97.) kNOllenberg does not want to have an open or honest debate on the issue. Maybe because he realizes that his position is completely out of step with his constituents.
Monday, February 12, 2007
House To Vote on Resolution Opposing Bush's Escalation of the War in Iraq
The U.S. House of Representatives will spend the week debating whether or not the House should support or oppose Bush's plan to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.
The resolution is artfully crafted in that it makes 2 clear and direct assertions -- that those who vote for it support the troops, but oppose Bush's decision to send over 20,000 additional troops.
Specifically, the resolution reads:
Vietnam Iraq.
The resolution is artfully crafted in that it makes 2 clear and direct assertions -- that those who vote for it support the troops, but oppose Bush's decision to send over 20,000 additional troops.
Specifically, the resolution reads:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the
decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy
more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
According to CNN, the vote is scheduled for Friday, February 16, 2007.
Between Tuesday and Friday, each Member will be given 5 minutes to speak in support or opposition to the resolution.
There is no announcement on Joe Knollenberg's official website regarding how he plans to vote. Perhaps he still can't make a decision about whether or not to escalate the war inThursday, February 08, 2007
Oh What a Tangled Web They Weave...
In an earlier post, I presented information about Joe Knollenberg's "close" connection with the corrupt Randy "Duke" Cunningham who resigned from Congress in shame after taking over $ 1 million in bribes from lobbyists.
Before moving on from that matter, I thought it would be a good time to include a little more information on the connection between Joe Knollenberg, Mark Valente -- the lobbyist for whom he did the favor, and various other scandal ridden Congressmen.
In the earlier post, we provided information that Mark Vallente, a lobbyist, had worked with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham to get a cap removed on legal fee reimbursement's made by the DC School Board. Although numerous Republicans and even the White House opposed lifting the cap, Joe Knollenberg, the chair of the committee overturned the cap.
In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.
But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.
Joe Knollenberg, Mark Vallente, John Shimkus, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay
It is always nice to know that some people are just generous to a fault. Looking at the FEC data, it seems that Mark Vallente is one of those people. Mark Vallente and his wife have given tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Republican Candidates and PACs.
Few people may recognize the name "Mark Vallente", but anyone who has followed politics in the last few years certainly know the names of Mark Foley and Tom Delay. Many people in Southeast Michigan may recognize the name of Joe Knollenberg, and a few would probably say that the name John Shimkus seemed familiar.
Well, John Shimkus was in charge of Congress's Page Board. He was responsible for the pages. In the Fall of 2005, he was told about Mark Foley being too "friendly" with a page. Shimkus went with Jeff Trahndel to meet with Foley. Shimkus never brought the issue up to the "Page Board" which consists of other members of Congress. Instead Shimkus reportedly told Foley to stop it.
The Washington Post reported
In the run-up to the elections last fall, many people were calling for Hastert, Reynolds, and Shimkus to resign alongside Foley since they were the ones who "covered-up" Foley's actions.
Needless to say, other than Foley, none of them voluntarily resigned. Apparently the Republican Party didn't pressure them to resign.
So if you have heard of Shimkus, that could why his name was familiar. Or it could be from the news reports that noted that his campaign treasurer was also a powerful lobbyist in Washington DC's Republican circles. That lobbyist was Mark Valente.
A lobbyist running a campaign? Now that's cozy.
So we know that Shimkus and Valente were close. We also know that Shimkus was "close" to Foley. We also know that Knollenberg has done at least one favor for Valente.
That started me thinking about the possibilities if this Tainted Troop may have some other connections as well. Of course if you want to get to the root of things, follow the money.
Oh, and Valente was actually the treasurer of 9 other Republican leadership PACs.
Mark Valente is a Very Generous Donor to Republican Campaigns
Now, there is nothing wrong with being generous in giving to political campaigns. It would be wrong however if there were some quid pro quo, i.e., that a lobbyist gave or raised money for a candidate in order to get a favor from the candidate. (Particularly when some "favors" are worth millions of dollars.) Looking at the money trail is interesting.
The data I looked at was from the FEC website. According to that data, and I haven't checked their math yet, it seems that Mr. Valente has given $ 59595 to Republican candidates and PACs while his wife Claudia has given $57,470 since 1996. That is a lot of money. And there may be even more. I've noticed some discrepancies in the FEC data which I'm deciphering now. Plus, those amounts don't count whatever they may have raised for candidates by hosting fundraisers.
What is really interesting is that there every single GOP Member in Michigan's Congressional Delegation has gotten significant donations from Mr. Valente -- including Joe Knollenberg. (I'll post a table summarizing these donations shortly.)
Oh, and Mr. Shimkus -- the friend of Foley -- was also the recipient of some very generous donations by Mr. Valente.
Even more interesting is the tie between Mr. Shimkus' PAC fund (separate from his individual campaign committee) was also a recipient of money from Mr. Valente. And also from Tom Delay.
Then there is that little matter of Shimkus' PAC giving donations to Republican Congressman Roskam -- in excess of federal campaign laws! The FEC lists the "Committees who Gave to This Candidate" and for Roskam, the page lists a donation from the John S. PAC of $3000.00 on 2/22/06 and $5000.00 on 3/27/06. The limit is $5000.00.
Roskam, by the way, used to work as an aide to Tom Delay. As with Duke Cunningham, Delay resigned from Congress in shame too. He has been fighting charges that he laundered campaign money through the RNC.
So, while treasurer of Shimkus' PAC, that PAC made contributions -- to a candidate who is a good friend of Tom Delay -- in excess of FEC limits on contributions.
And then of course there is all the money that Delay gave to his loyal band of Republicans. Much of which was run through Delay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (also known as ARMPAC).
Oh. Here is where the fun really starts. Who gave what to whom? Who accepted what from whom? Was there quid pro quo? Stay tuned. That will be in the next episode. Oh what a tangled web...
Before moving on from that matter, I thought it would be a good time to include a little more information on the connection between Joe Knollenberg, Mark Valente -- the lobbyist for whom he did the favor, and various other scandal ridden Congressmen.
In the earlier post, we provided information that Mark Vallente, a lobbyist, had worked with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham to get a cap removed on legal fee reimbursement's made by the DC School Board. Although numerous Republicans and even the White House opposed lifting the cap, Joe Knollenberg, the chair of the committee overturned the cap.
In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.
But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.
The story of how the lawyers' advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress -- and unelected players -- who take a personal interest in District legislation.
In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg(R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.
Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap -- his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.
The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg
"The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg
Joe Knollenberg, Mark Vallente, John Shimkus, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay
It is always nice to know that some people are just generous to a fault. Looking at the FEC data, it seems that Mark Vallente is one of those people. Mark Vallente and his wife have given tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Republican Candidates and PACs.
Few people may recognize the name "Mark Vallente", but anyone who has followed politics in the last few years certainly know the names of Mark Foley and Tom Delay. Many people in Southeast Michigan may recognize the name of Joe Knollenberg, and a few would probably say that the name John Shimkus seemed familiar.
Well, John Shimkus was in charge of Congress's Page Board. He was responsible for the pages. In the Fall of 2005, he was told about Mark Foley being too "friendly" with a page. Shimkus went with Jeff Trahndel to meet with Foley. Shimkus never brought the issue up to the "Page Board" which consists of other members of Congress. Instead Shimkus reportedly told Foley to stop it.
The Washington Post reported
GOP leaders have said they referred the matter promptly to Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who heads a three-lawmaker panel that oversees the House page program."So, Shimkus was one of the Republicans who knew about Foley, but didn't stop him from his activities. It seems that protecting their majority in Congress was more important to them than protecting young boys and girls. Shimkus knew of Foley's activities for nearly a year before it became public.Shimkus questioned Foley, but at that time, he had seen only suspiciously friendly e-mails, not the explicit instant messages revealed recently. In one e-mail to the former page, for example, Foley asked for a picture of him. The boy reportedly told an associate that he considered the request to be "sick," but Foley convinced Shimkus that the exchanges were innocent, Shimkus and Republican leaders said.
Republicans appeared to have kept the matter under wraps. Rep. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.), the only Democrat on the House Page Board, said yesterday: "I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House page, and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter."
In the run-up to the elections last fall, many people were calling for Hastert, Reynolds, and Shimkus to resign alongside Foley since they were the ones who "covered-up" Foley's actions.
Needless to say, other than Foley, none of them voluntarily resigned. Apparently the Republican Party didn't pressure them to resign.
So if you have heard of Shimkus, that could why his name was familiar. Or it could be from the news reports that noted that his campaign treasurer was also a powerful lobbyist in Washington DC's Republican circles. That lobbyist was Mark Valente.
A lobbyist running a campaign? Now that's cozy.
So we know that Shimkus and Valente were close. We also know that Shimkus was "close" to Foley. We also know that Knollenberg has done at least one favor for Valente.
That started me thinking about the possibilities if this Tainted Troop may have some other connections as well. Of course if you want to get to the root of things, follow the money.
Oh, and Valente was actually the treasurer of 9 other Republican leadership PACs.
Mark Valente is a Very Generous Donor to Republican Campaigns
Now, there is nothing wrong with being generous in giving to political campaigns. It would be wrong however if there were some quid pro quo, i.e., that a lobbyist gave or raised money for a candidate in order to get a favor from the candidate. (Particularly when some "favors" are worth millions of dollars.) Looking at the money trail is interesting.
The data I looked at was from the FEC website. According to that data, and I haven't checked their math yet, it seems that Mr. Valente has given $ 59595 to Republican candidates and PACs while his wife Claudia has given $57,470 since 1996. That is a lot of money. And there may be even more. I've noticed some discrepancies in the FEC data which I'm deciphering now. Plus, those amounts don't count whatever they may have raised for candidates by hosting fundraisers.
What is really interesting is that there every single GOP Member in Michigan's Congressional Delegation has gotten significant donations from Mr. Valente -- including Joe Knollenberg. (I'll post a table summarizing these donations shortly.)
Oh, and Mr. Shimkus -- the friend of Foley -- was also the recipient of some very generous donations by Mr. Valente.
Even more interesting is the tie between Mr. Shimkus' PAC fund (separate from his individual campaign committee) was also a recipient of money from Mr. Valente. And also from Tom Delay.
Then there is that little matter of Shimkus' PAC giving donations to Republican Congressman Roskam -- in excess of federal campaign laws! The FEC lists the "Committees who Gave to This Candidate" and for Roskam, the page lists a donation from the John S. PAC of $3000.00 on 2/22/06 and $5000.00 on 3/27/06. The limit is $5000.00.
Roskam, by the way, used to work as an aide to Tom Delay. As with Duke Cunningham, Delay resigned from Congress in shame too. He has been fighting charges that he laundered campaign money through the RNC.
So, while treasurer of Shimkus' PAC, that PAC made contributions -- to a candidate who is a good friend of Tom Delay -- in excess of FEC limits on contributions.
And then of course there is all the money that Delay gave to his loyal band of Republicans. Much of which was run through Delay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (also known as ARMPAC).
Oh. Here is where the fun really starts. Who gave what to whom? Who accepted what from whom? Was there quid pro quo? Stay tuned. That will be in the next episode. Oh what a tangled web...
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Is Joe Knollenberg Tainted with Corruption? Part I.
I am deep into researching campaign contributions and gifts and trips, etc., that have been accepted by Joe Knollenberg.
We've already discussed Joe Knollenberg's propensity for lobbyist paid luxurious vacations, but just how close is Joe Knollenberg to corruption scandals like the one involving shamed Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the $$$ millions he took in bribes from Defense Contractors. We know that Joe Knollenberg was on some committees with Duke Cunningham.
Or how close is Joe Knollenberg to the scandal ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Joe Knollenberg & The Duke Cunningham Corrpution Scandal
Brent Wilkes was the defense contractor that conspired with Duke Cunningham and who gave Cunningham more than $ 630,000 in bribes. In exchange, Cunningham steered millions of dollars in federal contacts to Wilkes' companies including ADCS and Group W.
This is not small change. Since 1996, Wilkes' brought in at least $95 million in government contracts.
While, the Duke wasn't the only Congressman to receive money from Wilkes or
Joe Knollenberg was the 10th largest recipient of money from Wilkes, his companies, and his employees for the period of 2000 - 2005.
According to the FEC, the following entities received considerable sums of money:
In the article, Lowry states:
In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.
But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.
We've already discussed Joe Knollenberg's propensity for lobbyist paid luxurious vacations, but just how close is Joe Knollenberg to corruption scandals like the one involving shamed Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the $$$ millions he took in bribes from Defense Contractors. We know that Joe Knollenberg was on some committees with Duke Cunningham.
Or how close is Joe Knollenberg to the scandal ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Joe Knollenberg & The Duke Cunningham Corrpution Scandal
Brent Wilkes was the defense contractor that conspired with Duke Cunningham and who gave Cunningham more than $ 630,000 in bribes. In exchange, Cunningham steered millions of dollars in federal contacts to Wilkes' companies including ADCS and Group W.
This is not small change. Since 1996, Wilkes' brought in at least $95 million in government contracts.
While, the Duke wasn't the only Congressman to receive money from Wilkes or
Joe Knollenberg was the 10th largest recipient of money from Wilkes, his companies, and his employees for the period of 2000 - 2005.
According to the FEC, the following entities received considerable sums of money:
- NRCCC $68,000
- Duke Cunningham $55,750
- John Doolittle $35,000
- Duncan Hunter $27,500
- Tom Delay $26,000
- Jerry Lewis $22,000
- Bush-Cheney 04 $16,000
- Henry Bonilla $15,500
- Ben Gilman $13,000
- Lindsay Graham $13,000
- Joe Knollenberg $12,000
- Billy Tauzin $12,000
- Jerry Weller $10,000
- Larry Craig $8,000
In the article, Lowry states:
Lowry goes on to discuss how it seems to have become commonplace for Congressman to exchange favors and federal money to lobbyists in exchange for gifts, vacations, and campaign contributions. Lowry says:This is a corrupting process because it depends on congressmen prioritizing special interests, slipping earmarks into bills with no debate, and getting rewarded for it with campaign contributions. In the case of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R., Calif.), who has resigned following bribery charges, the sleaze slid into outright criminality. Defense contractors who had almost no business got smart and began larding Cunningham with contributions and under-the-table payoffs. Suddenly, the firms won federal contracts funneled to them through earmarks championed by Cunningham.
Cunningham might have been exceptional in his lack of subtlety, but other congressmen work much the same way. Last week, it was revealed that Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.), inserted an earmark into a transportation bill that forced Amtrak to haul additional private freight cars or forgo $8.3 million in additional federal dollars. The freight cars in question belonged to ExpressTrak, a company whose owner is a big Knollenberg donor. Knollenberg now says he is going to rescind the earmark, showing that some members of Congress are still capable of being shamed.
This trading of contributions for official favors is ingrained in the appropriations process. It is part of the scandal around former GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. A Washington Post analysis shows that eight of the 20 top recipients of contributions from Abramoff and his team sit on appropriations committees. One e-mail exchange between Abramoff and an associate, Tony Rudy, has Rudy asking whether a Native American tribe can fund a hunting trip for congressional staff as a “thank you ... for the approps we got.”It is no coincidence that earlier this year, Joe Knollenberg voted against ethics reforms in the House that would have limited his ability to give out such earmarks.
In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.
But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.
The story of how the lawyers' advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress -- and unelected players -- who take a personal interest in District legislation.
In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg(R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.
Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap -- his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.
The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg
"The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg
In Part II of this series, we will continue to discuss -- or perhaps the better term would be "disclose" -- Joe Knollenberg's connections to the corrupt Duke Cunningham and numerous corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Joe has no faith in American ingenuity
This is an interesting article. Joe is fighting raising CAFE standards, even though our mileage standards are the lowest in the world, even below China. I guess Joe has no faith in American ingenuity.
The Royal Oak Tribune published this article about Joe's fighting raising the CAFE standards because it would hurt the Big 3. If we had been raising CAFE standards through the years, the Big 3 wouldn't be in the mess they are in and they'd be competing on mileage with the foreign transplants and probably profitable. Anyone else think Joe is shortsighted?
The Royal Oak Tribune published this article about Joe's fighting raising the CAFE standards because it would hurt the Big 3. If we had been raising CAFE standards through the years, the Big 3 wouldn't be in the mess they are in and they'd be competing on mileage with the foreign transplants and probably profitable. Anyone else think Joe is shortsighted?
Friday, February 02, 2007
The New York Times has an article on Joe
and how he's being targeted by the DCCC in '08: http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/01/30/cq_2204.html
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Knollenberg Votes NO on Ethics Reform
Here is the real reason that Congressman Joe Knollenberg voted NO on the ethics reform bill that passed the house last month -- he likes to take lobbyist paid vacations.
The AP reported that between 2002 and 2005, Joe Knollenberg took three lobbyist funded trips worth nearly $12,000.
That doesn't include the weeklong trip to Hawaii he took last January.
The reason Joe Knollenberg voted NO on ethics reforms is because he wants more free trips from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.
(The AP story is no longer available for free online, but this link contains a partial reprint.
The AP reported that between 2002 and 2005, Joe Knollenberg took three lobbyist funded trips worth nearly $12,000.
That doesn't include the weeklong trip to Hawaii he took last January.
The reason Joe Knollenberg voted NO on ethics reforms is because he wants more free trips from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.
(The AP story is no longer available for free online, but this link contains a partial reprint.
Joe targeted by DCCC
The Detroit News ran an article on 1/31 stating that Joe Knollenberg is targeted by the DCCC as being vulnerable in '08. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/METRO/701310425/1022/POLITICS
Also, the CQ has an article with the same premise, that Joe is in the target of the Democrats in '08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/01/michigan_gop_rep_knollenberg_d.html
The Detroit News article also has a quote from Joe's spokesperson saying that Joe doesn't support price controls on drugs. I guess Joe thinks that negotiating prices is the same as price controls. Makes me think Joe is just plain stupid. Anyone that buys in bulk knows to try to negotiate the price of what they're buying. I wonder if Joe has ever negotiated a better price for anything he's bought in his personal life when he bought a lot of something.
His spokesperson again reiterates that Joe is pro life. Joe may be pro birth, but he is definitely not pro life. If he were, he'd support universal health care and be against the escalation of the war which is killing thousands of American service people and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Also, the CQ has an article with the same premise, that Joe is in the target of the Democrats in '08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/01/michigan_gop_rep_knollenberg_d.html
The Detroit News article also has a quote from Joe's spokesperson saying that Joe doesn't support price controls on drugs. I guess Joe thinks that negotiating prices is the same as price controls. Makes me think Joe is just plain stupid. Anyone that buys in bulk knows to try to negotiate the price of what they're buying. I wonder if Joe has ever negotiated a better price for anything he's bought in his personal life when he bought a lot of something.
His spokesperson again reiterates that Joe is pro life. Joe may be pro birth, but he is definitely not pro life. If he were, he'd support universal health care and be against the escalation of the war which is killing thousands of American service people and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Knollenberg Doesn't Think "Healthcare" is an Issue
After writing about how Knollenberg doesn't even list "Iraq" as an issue on his list of issues on his website, I noticed he doesn't list "healthcare" as an issue either.
Knollenberg must be out of touch with this District if he doesn't think "healthcare" is an issue.
Knollenberg: Stay the Course In Iraq
In an effort to discern Knollenberg’s position on Bush’s war in Iraq, I reviewed all of the public statements I could find. I searched the Congressional Record, Knollenberg’s own website, and I also conducted a google search for information from newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc. What I found confirms what has already been stated on this site. Apparently, the war in Iraq is not an important issue to Joe Knollenberg.
Knollenberg doesn’t even list "Iraq" as an “issue” on his webpage.
He has made only a handful of comments on the issue and has nothing in writing.
Knollenberg doesn’t even list "Iraq" as an “issue” on his webpage.
He has made only a handful of comments on the issue and has nothing in writing.
Knollenberg Supports Escalation
I only found 2 statements in the Congressional Record:
- THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ -- (November 03, 2005)
If you click the link you will see he is basically saying the war is going well.
The only other statement I could find was one he made when he voted to approve the Authorization to use Military Force against Iraq:
- AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2002)
Again, if you click the link you will see that Knollenberg seems to just be reading reading George Bush’s talking points into the record. There doesn’t appear to be any original thought involved. Unfortunately, like Bush, Knollenberg didn’t do his homework. If he had, he would have known that those “aluminum tubes” were not related to nuclear weapons. This was a line from Bush’s September 12, 2002 presentation to the UN – but that information had already been debunked by Bush’s own experts in both the Department of Energy and the State Department. So Knollenberg was making false statements into the Congressional Record.
We do know that Knollenberg has accepted over $110,000 in campaign donations from defense department contractors. That is less than his friend Duke Cunningham, but then again, Cunningham is now in jail for accepting bribes.
Press Statements
Bush gave his speech on escalating the war in Iraq on January 10th. The next day, the Detroit News ran a brief article quoting a few Congressional Reps from Metro Detroit regarding their position on Bush's speech. The article, entitled "Bush gets cool reception in Michigan.
Even former staunch supporters of Iraq policies are hesitant to accept president's plan", quoted Knollenberg as saying:
Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills offered "conditional support," but
without real progress in Iraq "within 90 days," he said, "we really have to
evaluate what we're going to do."
Radio station WWJ AM has a similar statement attributed to Knollenberg on their webpage:
“``His leadership is on the line here and he knows it,'' said Rep. Joe
Knollenberg, a Republican from Oakland County's Bloomfield Township. The
congressman said he would only offer ``conditional support'' for the plan and
wanted to see significant progress in the next three to four months.”
USAToday has an article regarding the June 16, 2006 vote in which Knollenberg voted to
“reject[s] setting a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, labels theThere is no statement or additional information about Knollenberg. It is just a list of who voted Yea and Nay.
Iraq war part of the global fight against terrorism and praises American
troops”.
Then there is the January 25, 2007 Free Press article which quoted Knollenberg as saying:
My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.
On October 1, 2005, the Oakland Press reported that Knollenberg put out a press release stating:
"Pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan now would be absolutely detrimental to the safety and security of all Americans," he stated. "We owe it to those serving overseas and their families, as well as the Iraqi and Afghan people, to continue in our fight against terrorist extremists. "We have made good progress in the war on terror, and God willing, the Iraqi people will soon have the ability to defend themselves. "Until that time comes, however, the U.S. must stay the course and not simply stand by while terrorists and dictators exploit innocent people and threaten our security here at home."
On December 15, 2005, The Oakland Press reported on a group of constituents who went to Knollenberg’s office to discuss bringing home the troops.
Knollenberg thinks that any withdrawal of troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan would be dangerous for the safety of Americans, said his press secretary, Jennifer Hing.
"He feels that by calling for and giving any sort of timetable for withdrawal, we give terrorists the upper hand on the war," she said. "He agrees with the president when he says the withdrawal of the troops will come when the Iraqis say they are ready."
The Oakland Press ran an article back on March 25, 2004 where they quoted Knollenberg as saying:
Despite demonstrations to the contrary, most Iraqis don't want Americans to leave until their country is again "safe,. . .
They article said that Knollenberg indicated he was ‘encouraged by the scenes of progress he witnessed around Iraq’, but then they quote him as saying:
"We rarely got outside military compounds," he said. "We drove through Baghdad but didn't get out."
The Oakland Press Article goes on to state: “Knollenberg reported signs of an improving economy, including growing numbers of cell phones and satellite dishes.” Too bad Congressman Knollenberg didn’t realize that those cell phones he was so pleased about have been used to detonate the bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) that have been maiming and killing US troops.
Analysis of Knollenberg's Statements
Knollenberg Says He Supports the Troops But His Votes Show Knollenberg Does NOT Support the Troops
The November 2005 statement implies that he supports the troops. I certainly support the troops. Every American supports the troops. But taking a closer look at his “support” for the troops I found:
- Rep. Knollenberg voted to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon's own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor's costs in Iraq were unreasonable.
- Rep. Knollenberg opposed expanding access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage.
- Rep. Knollenberg voted against granting a bonus to grant a $1,500 bonus to every American service member serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, including National Guard and Reserve forces.It seems that Joe talks the talk but he doesn’t walk the walk. Knollenberg says he supports the troops, but he votes against them.
Knollenberg Still Says Stay the Course in Iraq
Knollenberg hasn’t said much about the war in Iraq, but what he has said has been 100% in line with President Bush.
Knollenberg even uses Bush’s line about how important it is to STAY THE COURSE.
Knollenberg hasn’t said or done anything contrary to Bush’s plan.
Conclusion
Knollenberg’s most direct statement has been to “STAY THE COURSE” in Iraq.
He hasn’t said or done anything to counter that position.
KNOLLENBERG still advocates “STAY THE COURSE”.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Congressman Knollenberg Avoids Taking A Position on the Iraq War
Congressman Joe Knollenberg has avoided taking a position on George Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq.
The January 25, 2007 Free Press quoted Knollenberg as saying:
So, does that mean that Knollenberg is supporting the escalation in troops?
Does it mean that Knollenberg is opposed to the escalation?
Isn't everyone's patience thin? Doesn't everyone want to see real progress?
The January 25, 2007 Free Press quoted Knollenberg as saying:
My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.
So, does that mean that Knollenberg is supporting the escalation in troops?
Does it mean that Knollenberg is opposed to the escalation?
Isn't everyone's patience thin? Doesn't everyone want to see real progress?
What is Congressman Knollenberg's position on escalation of the war in Iraq?
More importantly, why won't he tell us?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Armenia or America? : Part III
Joe Knollenberg has many lobbyists ringing his line like Right-to-Life and the NRA, but one group has Joe on speed dial. Thats right, ANCA. (Who?) Why... the Armenian National Committee of America of course. Hear what Michigan ANCA leader Ralph Kouritijian had to say about Joe, he gushes, "Rep. Knollenberg is a true champion of so many of the important issues of concern to the Armenian American community. This gathering was an opportunity for us to thank the Congressman for his leadership and for all of his tireless work."
But that's Armenia. What about what America thinks?
Ouch. Not the ringing endorsement he gets from Armenia.
But Joe Knollenberg has a vested interest in Armenia. He had no problem answering the questionaire sent by Armenpac (The Armenian-American Political Action Committee). He got 100%, always siding with Armenia's interests.
Yet here in the 9th Joe doesn't do so well, first of all he refuses to even answer Project Vote-Smart's questionaire which helps Americans make informed voting decisions (at least Armenian-Americans have that chance). Pontiac is a majority-minority city, yet what does the NAACP think of Joe Knollenberg? Well he sides with some of his constituents in Pontiac, 22% of the time. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America give Joe a mere C.
So again, which is it Armenia or America?
But that's Armenia. What about what America thinks?
The National Review: "Last week, it was revealed that Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.), inserted an earmark into a transportation bill that forced Amtrak to haul additional private freight cars or forgo $8.3 million in additional federal dollars. The freight cars in question belonged to ExpressTrak, a company whose owner is a big Knollenberg donor. "
Political Affairs: "powerful Republican Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Michigan), who led the way in blocking meaningful ethics and lobbying reform in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, accepted trips to Hawaii from lobbyists and campaign contributions from convicted Republican Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio) and resigned former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay."
Ouch. Not the ringing endorsement he gets from Armenia.
But Joe Knollenberg has a vested interest in Armenia. He had no problem answering the questionaire sent by Armenpac (The Armenian-American Political Action Committee). He got 100%, always siding with Armenia's interests.
Yet here in the 9th Joe doesn't do so well, first of all he refuses to even answer Project Vote-Smart's questionaire which helps Americans make informed voting decisions (at least Armenian-Americans have that chance). Pontiac is a majority-minority city, yet what does the NAACP think of Joe Knollenberg? Well he sides with some of his constituents in Pontiac, 22% of the time. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America give Joe a mere C.
So again, which is it Armenia or America?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Bush Proposes Another Attack on the Middle Class
One of the key topics in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address is a proposal to TAX your health care insurance benefit — assuming that you are one of the lucky ones who has health insurance.
One of the last benefits left — health insurance — is now hanging by a thread as it is and if Bush gets his way, employers won’t provide it at all.
Not only does Bush want to increase your income taxes by taxing you for your employer paid health insurance, but he wants to eliminate the tax incentive that companies get to provide that health insurance to their employees.
This does not address the root cause of the problem. This will not increase the number of people who have health insurance. (Although the White House asserts that an extra 5 million will be able to afford health insurance under their plan — they neglect to account for the millions that will lose their health insurance because employers will stop providing it.)
This is another attack by George Bush on the Middle Class.
Will Joe Knollenberg stand up against George Bush on this Health Care Scam?!?
One of the last benefits left — health insurance — is now hanging by a thread as it is and if Bush gets his way, employers won’t provide it at all.
Not only does Bush want to increase your income taxes by taxing you for your employer paid health insurance, but he wants to eliminate the tax incentive that companies get to provide that health insurance to their employees.
This does not address the root cause of the problem. This will not increase the number of people who have health insurance. (Although the White House asserts that an extra 5 million will be able to afford health insurance under their plan — they neglect to account for the millions that will lose their health insurance because employers will stop providing it.)
This is another attack by George Bush on the Middle Class.
Will Joe Knollenberg stand up against George Bush on this Health Care Scam?!?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Bush's Health Insurance SCAM
Bush's Health Care Plan Will TAX Middle Class Health Insurance Plans.
What Does Joe Think About that TAX Increase on the Middle Class?
President Bush is expected to focus his State of the Union Speech tomorrow on domestic issues in an attempt to raise his approval ratings.
The President knows that Iraq is a disaster and that the American people no longer believe anything he says about the fiasco he created over there. Everytime he gives a speech on Iraq, his approval ratings drop even further.
So, in a last ditch attempt to save his Presidency, he is expected to announce a new health care plan for the Country and a new energy policy. We will focus on his "health care plan" today and tackle his "energy policy" in another post.
The Bush Health Care Plan Is Really Just a TAX on Middle Class Health Insurance
Unfortunately, Bush's "Health Care Plan" is really just a TAX INCREASE on the middle-class wrapped up in pretty words and topped with a bow.
Here is what Bush's plan would do -- for those of you fortunate enough to get your health insurance from your employer, Bush's plan will eliminate the tax benefits to your employer for offering the benefit AND will impose a TAX on YOU because they will consider the benefit part of your income (so you would pay income tax on your healthcare benefits).
So, rather than make health insurance more affordable for everyone, he is going to make it more expensive and less likely that anyone will be able to get it from their employer.
The result would be that those with good health care would be TAXED on their health care benefits. So the middleclass worker who gets their health insurance from their employer would see their income taxes increase.
Also, the other result is that the employers would lose a tax break for offering the insurance as a benefit and thus many employers would stop offering healthcare insurance for their workers.
So those middle-class workers that get their health insurance from their employer would likely see that benefit eliminated in the very near future.
For those that don't have health insurance, Bush's plan would give families a tax deduction between $7,500 and $15,000 for them to buy health insurance and pay co-pays, etc. Of course if you can't afford to buy health insurance today, Bush's plan will not make it any more affordable to you. Getting a tax deduction -- particularly for those that don't itemize their deductions anyway -- would not make insurance more affordable.
Bush's plan would merely reduce the number of middle class families that would get health insurance through their employers. Those who did continue to receive the benefit would be subject to an increase in their income taxes.
The Bush Healthcare Plan is no healthcare plan. It is merely another example of the war on the middle-class. The wealthy are taking advantage of the average working family. Multi-millionaire CEO's wouldn't even notice the difference in costs. But the average working family would find healthcare more and more expensive and less and less accessible.
Regarding Bush's Plan, Senator Kennedy has said,
What Does Joe Think About that TAX Increase on the Middle Class?
President Bush is expected to focus his State of the Union Speech tomorrow on domestic issues in an attempt to raise his approval ratings.
The President knows that Iraq is a disaster and that the American people no longer believe anything he says about the fiasco he created over there. Everytime he gives a speech on Iraq, his approval ratings drop even further.
So, in a last ditch attempt to save his Presidency, he is expected to announce a new health care plan for the Country and a new energy policy. We will focus on his "health care plan" today and tackle his "energy policy" in another post.
The Bush Health Care Plan Is Really Just a TAX on Middle Class Health Insurance
Unfortunately, Bush's "Health Care Plan" is really just a TAX INCREASE on the middle-class wrapped up in pretty words and topped with a bow.
Here is what Bush's plan would do -- for those of you fortunate enough to get your health insurance from your employer, Bush's plan will eliminate the tax benefits to your employer for offering the benefit AND will impose a TAX on YOU because they will consider the benefit part of your income (so you would pay income tax on your healthcare benefits).
So, rather than make health insurance more affordable for everyone, he is going to make it more expensive and less likely that anyone will be able to get it from their employer.
The result would be that those with good health care would be TAXED on their health care benefits. So the middleclass worker who gets their health insurance from their employer would see their income taxes increase.
Also, the other result is that the employers would lose a tax break for offering the insurance as a benefit and thus many employers would stop offering healthcare insurance for their workers.
So those middle-class workers that get their health insurance from their employer would likely see that benefit eliminated in the very near future.
For those that don't have health insurance, Bush's plan would give families a tax deduction between $7,500 and $15,000 for them to buy health insurance and pay co-pays, etc. Of course if you can't afford to buy health insurance today, Bush's plan will not make it any more affordable to you. Getting a tax deduction -- particularly for those that don't itemize their deductions anyway -- would not make insurance more affordable.
Bush's plan would merely reduce the number of middle class families that would get health insurance through their employers. Those who did continue to receive the benefit would be subject to an increase in their income taxes.
The Bush Healthcare Plan is no healthcare plan. It is merely another example of the war on the middle-class. The wealthy are taking advantage of the average working family. Multi-millionaire CEO's wouldn't even notice the difference in costs. But the average working family would find healthcare more and more expensive and less and less accessible.
Regarding Bush's Plan, Senator Kennedy has said,
But Kennedy said he was concerned that the tax changes could undermine
employer-provided coverage while failing to do enough to help the uninsured.
Congressman Charles Rangel, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said
This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured.
What is Congressman Knollenberg's position on Bush's Healthcare Plan?
Since he votes with Bush over 90% of the time, it is a safe bet that Knollenberg supports the President's Plan to increase taxes on the middleclass and to eliminate their healthcare insurance benefits.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Armenia or America? Part Two
We all know of Joe Knollenberg's love of Armenia. But how much does he love America? The country that did after all elect him to his $165,200/yr gig. Well look and see.
Congressman Knollenberg stepped before his peers to discuss the need to help our men and women in uniform on January 11th of this year. He said, "Madam Speaker, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation that speaks to our commitment to our Nation's veterans...My legislation would simply make the COLA for veterans with disability benefits automatic each year. Furthermore, this important legislation also has no budgetary impact. In fact, both Congress and the President assume the increase in their budgets. Madam Speaker, Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries receive an automatic COLA and our disabled veterans deserve the same. Thank you."
ZzzzzzzzzZzZZzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzz...
Sorry about that. Congressman Knollenberg seemed to go through the motions but where was the passion? That lightning in a bottle had when it was Armenia not America on the table? On December 6th, Congressman Knollenberg had that passion, he let everyone know his thoughts loud and clear and Armenia was listening...
Sounds a lot more impassioned than helping out our troops now doesn't it?
It seems Congressman Knollenberg feels a duty to Armenia following his being honored by their President. Why doesn't he feel this duty to us here in Michigan? Joe it is me, not the poor shlub in Yerevan (Armenia's capital and largest city!) who has "Knollenberg" on their ballot.
Since he is so responsive to Armenia since his receiving the "Order of Mkhitar Gosh" maybe we Michiganders need to honor him with some Order of something? An order of fries and a Coney and maybe he'll care about us??
Congressman Knollenberg stepped before his peers to discuss the need to help our men and women in uniform on January 11th of this year. He said, "Madam Speaker, today I am introducing an important piece of legislation that speaks to our commitment to our Nation's veterans...My legislation would simply make the COLA for veterans with disability benefits automatic each year. Furthermore, this important legislation also has no budgetary impact. In fact, both Congress and the President assume the increase in their budgets. Madam Speaker, Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries receive an automatic COLA and our disabled veterans deserve the same. Thank you."
ZzzzzzzzzZzZZzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzz...
Sorry about that. Congressman Knollenberg seemed to go through the motions but where was the passion? That lightning in a bottle had when it was Armenia not America on the table? On December 6th, Congressman Knollenberg had that passion, he let everyone know his thoughts loud and clear and Armenia was listening...
"Mr. Speaker, I encourage Turkey to honor their commitments and implement important economic, regional, and political advancements in order to gain membership in the European Union (EU)... It is a well-known fact the regional policies of Turkey cause strain in the South Caucasus region and unfairly harms the welfare of their neighbor country, Armenia. The European Union has
repeatedly called for the cessation of the Turkish Blockade of Armenia as well as normalization of relations between the countries. However, these two pre-conditions to entering the EU have been blatantly ignored by Turkey. The blockade, now in its thirteenth year, is the only blockade of a fellow Council of Europe state. This is simply unacceptable, and I implore the EU to stand firm in their recommendations to Turkey in order to ensure these iniquitous economic practices are eliminated. Mr. Speaker, Armenia is a friend of the United States; and too many countries throughout the world. Yet, Turkey refuses to see the benefits Armenia brings to the South Caucasus region. This refusal has led to fierce tension within the region, as well as unfair economic outcomes that only harm Armenia. Before Turkey can become a member of the European Union, they must first acknowledge their mistakes, foster cooperation in the South Caucasus region, and respect their neighbor, Armenia...Turkey, with a history of bullying their neighbor, does not deserve membership until they change their ways."
Sounds a lot more impassioned than helping out our troops now doesn't it?
It seems Congressman Knollenberg feels a duty to Armenia following his being honored by their President. Why doesn't he feel this duty to us here in Michigan? Joe it is me, not the poor shlub in Yerevan (Armenia's capital and largest city!) who has "Knollenberg" on their ballot.
Since he is so responsive to Armenia since his receiving the "Order of Mkhitar Gosh" maybe we Michiganders need to honor him with some Order of something? An order of fries and a Coney and maybe he'll care about us??
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Joe's Defends lowest Mileage standards in the world
Joe just doesn't get it. His defense of current CAFE standards in the January 20 Oakland Press proves that Joe needs to go. http://tinyurl.com/28yyem. Joe thinks that raising CAFE standards will bankrupt the Big 3. Had the Big 3 moved on their own to increase mileage on their vehicles and competed on fuel efficiency through the late 90's they wouldn't be in the position they find themselves today. Our fuel efficiency standards are lower than in China.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Armenia or America?
Joe Knollenberg is proud of his service to Armenia. Yes, Armenia not America. If you are unaware of where that is located don't worry so is everyone else not from Armenia. But Armenia is a country wedged between many of our closest allies like Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
On Congressman Knollenberg's website he gushes with pride for what he has done for Armenia.
In fact Congressman Knollenberg is helping America become much more like Armenia. For instance. Congressman Knollenberg opposes raising the minimum wage. This helps America stay much more inline with Armenia where GDP per capita is only $5,400/per Armenian.
Congressman Knollenberg has valiantly fought terrorists the world over, regardless of what anyone thinks. This thinking is mirrored in Armenia, their government says "underlying the very nature of US-Armenian relations was Armenia’s unconditional support for the United States in its campaign against the international terrorism on the wake of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington."
How else can we become like Armenia? Armenia seems to have so much to offer. Well, with Congressman Knollenberg helping to ship American jobs overseas (possibly even to Armenia) Michigan's unemployment rate has jumped to 7.1% almost that of Armenia at 7.6%!
Everyday Joe Knollenberg is helping to turn America into Armenia. So to Armenians or Americans throughout the 9th let's thank Joe Knollenberg for helping everyday Armenians/Americans and Armenian-Americans succeed. Maybe one day we too can even further replicate Armenia - and with Congressman Knollenberg at the helm pretty soon we will be just like Armenia!
On Congressman Knollenberg's website he gushes with pride for what he has done for Armenia.
"I am committed to strengthening the relationship between the United States and
Armenia .
As Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I help lead an organization of Members of Congress who are interested in supporting Armenia , strengthening the ties between our two countries, and affirming the Armenian
Genocide. I am also able to support Armenia through my position as a senior member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which determines the amount of foreign assistance countries receive each year.
In the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation to grant Permanent Normal
Trade Relations status to Armenia . The bill was signed into law in 2004.
Furthermore, in the 109th Congress, I have introduced H.R. 3361, the South Caucasus Integration and Open Railroads Act of 2005. This legislation would prohibit U.S. funding from going toward the construction of a new railroad in the South Caucasus region that purposely excludes Armenia . It currently has 85 cosponsors."
In fact Congressman Knollenberg is helping America become much more like Armenia. For instance. Congressman Knollenberg opposes raising the minimum wage. This helps America stay much more inline with Armenia where GDP per capita is only $5,400/per Armenian.
Congressman Knollenberg has valiantly fought terrorists the world over, regardless of what anyone thinks. This thinking is mirrored in Armenia, their government says "underlying the very nature of US-Armenian relations was Armenia’s unconditional support for the United States in its campaign against the international terrorism on the wake of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington."
How else can we become like Armenia? Armenia seems to have so much to offer. Well, with Congressman Knollenberg helping to ship American jobs overseas (possibly even to Armenia) Michigan's unemployment rate has jumped to 7.1% almost that of Armenia at 7.6%!
Everyday Joe Knollenberg is helping to turn America into Armenia. So to Armenians or Americans throughout the 9th let's thank Joe Knollenberg for helping everyday Armenians/Americans and Armenian-Americans succeed. Maybe one day we too can even further replicate Armenia - and with Congressman Knollenberg at the helm pretty soon we will be just like Armenia!
No Show Joe
Joe was a no show today at Rochester College. Shawn, Joe's staffer from his Farmington Hills office, was Joe's stand-in. He read a short statement from Joe.
One thing is clear, Joe is a short-term thinker. He's for alternative energy, but against raising CAFE standards. What he doesn't seem to acknowledge is that our mileage standards in the United States are the lowest in the world, way below the Chinese. I doubt that if we had been constantly raising our mileage standards through the years our economy here in Michigan woul dbe in the shape it is now. We have the technical know-how in the country and we could be leading the world in mileage standards, but not with Joe in Congress.
One thing is clear, Joe is a short-term thinker. He's for alternative energy, but against raising CAFE standards. What he doesn't seem to acknowledge is that our mileage standards in the United States are the lowest in the world, way below the Chinese. I doubt that if we had been constantly raising our mileage standards through the years our economy here in Michigan woul dbe in the shape it is now. We have the technical know-how in the country and we could be leading the world in mileage standards, but not with Joe in Congress.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Reminder of Knollenberg appearance on January 19
This is a reminder that Knollenberg is appearing at a Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce event on Friday, January 19 from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m., and there is a protest against his stand on Iraq being organized to take place outside at 7:15 a.m.
The college is located on Avon Road just east of Livernois. The Rochester Eccentric will most likely be covering this event with a reporter and a photographer. Ten people would be a good showing.
As there is limited seating, please RSVP to the Chamber at 248-651-6700 so they know how many to plan for.
Details of the event:
Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce
January 19, 2007
Legislative Update
7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Rochester College (in the RAC Theatre)
800 W. Avon
Rochester Hills, MI 48307
No charge
Protest will take place at 7:15 a.m.
The college is located on Avon Road just east of Livernois. The Rochester Eccentric will most likely be covering this event with a reporter and a photographer. Ten people would be a good showing.
As there is limited seating, please RSVP to the Chamber at 248-651-6700 so they know how many to plan for.
Details of the event:
Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce
January 19, 2007
Legislative Update
7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Rochester College (in the RAC Theatre)
800 W. Avon
Rochester Hills, MI 48307
No charge
Protest will take place at 7:15 a.m.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Joe votes no on negotiating lower drug prices
Anyone surprised? I didn't think so. 24 Republicans crossed over and voted for passage, but Joe voted with 169 of his friends.
If it passes the Senate, there's an excellent chance Bush will veto it, along with the stem cell bill, and it's far from veto proof. It's great that we're passing all this important legislation, but if Bush finally starts using his veto power, we're going to have to do it all again once we have a Democrat in the White House.
Here's the full language of the bill:
A BILL
To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. NEGOTIATION OF LOWER COVERED PART D DRUG PRICES ON BEHALF OF MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Negotiation by HHS- Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to noninterference) and inserting the following:
`(i) Negotiation of Lower Drug Prices-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged to PDP sponsors and MA organizations for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals who are enrolled under a prescription drug plan or under an MA-PD plan.
`(2) NO CHANGE IN RULES FOR FORMULARIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.
`(B) CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as affecting the Secretary's authority to ensure appropriate and adequate access to covered part D drugs under prescription drug plans and under MA-PD plans, including compliance of such plans with formulary requirements under section 1860D-4(b)(3).
`(3) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the sponsor of a prescription drug plan, or an organization offering an MA-PD plan, from obtaining a discount or reduction of the price for a covered part D drug below the price negotiated under paragraph (1).
`(4) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS- Not later than June 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on negotiations conducted by the Secretary to achieve lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and the prices and price discounts achieved by the Secretary as a result of such negotiations.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall first apply to negotiations and prices for plan years beginning on January 1, 2008.
If it passes the Senate, there's an excellent chance Bush will veto it, along with the stem cell bill, and it's far from veto proof. It's great that we're passing all this important legislation, but if Bush finally starts using his veto power, we're going to have to do it all again once we have a Democrat in the White House.
Here's the full language of the bill:
A BILL
To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. NEGOTIATION OF LOWER COVERED PART D DRUG PRICES ON BEHALF OF MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Negotiation by HHS- Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to noninterference) and inserting the following:
`(i) Negotiation of Lower Drug Prices-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices (including discounts, rebates, and other price concessions) that may be charged to PDP sponsors and MA organizations for covered part D drugs for part D eligible individuals who are enrolled under a prescription drug plan or under an MA-PD plan.
`(2) NO CHANGE IN RULES FOR FORMULARIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.
`(B) CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as affecting the Secretary's authority to ensure appropriate and adequate access to covered part D drugs under prescription drug plans and under MA-PD plans, including compliance of such plans with formulary requirements under section 1860D-4(b)(3).
`(3) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the sponsor of a prescription drug plan, or an organization offering an MA-PD plan, from obtaining a discount or reduction of the price for a covered part D drug below the price negotiated under paragraph (1).
`(4) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS- Not later than June 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on negotiations conducted by the Secretary to achieve lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and the prices and price discounts achieved by the Secretary as a result of such negotiations.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall first apply to negotiations and prices for plan years beginning on January 1, 2008.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Knollenberg Votes NO on Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Congressman Joe Knollenberg voted NO today on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Knollenberg opposed this Act which would have provided funding for life-changing and lifesaving medical research on embryonic stem cells -- even though the stem cells would otherwise be destroyed.
What a waste.
SUMMARY AS OF: 1/4/2007--Introduced.
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo.
Limits such research to stem cells that meet the following ethical requirements:
(1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment;
(2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and
(3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.
Knollenberg opposed this Act which would have provided funding for life-changing and lifesaving medical research on embryonic stem cells -- even though the stem cells would otherwise be destroyed.
What a waste.
Knollenberg's Response to President Bush's Speech on Escalating the War in Iraq
"Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills offered "conditional support," [to the President's Plan] but without real progress in Iraq "within 90 days," he said, "we really have to evaluate what we're going to do."
Since President Bush generally says that you are either with him or against him, Knollenberg is certainly not against him, so he must be with him. Lockstep.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Joe skips another vote
Unbelievable! Is he going to sit out the whole 110th Congress? Joe didn't vote on the minimum wage bill today, which passed with a number of Republicans joining the Democrats. Maybe he thinks no one in the 9th district works for minimum wage, but he's wrong.
Maybe he thinks if he never votes "no" no one will notice that he's not voting at all.
Maybe he thinks if he never votes "no" no one will notice that he's not voting at all.
Knollenberg Sends Letter to 2008 GOP Hopefuls Encouraging Them to Oppose Increasing CAFE
Congressman Knollenberg has just sent a letter to the GOP's 2008 Presidential candidates urging them not to support any increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles.
Knollenberg said that increases in CAFE "would have devastated tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in electoral vote rich states". He fails to mention the devastation that trade and tax policies, that he has supported, have had on the auto industry.
It would be difficult to find ANY legislation to protect the environment that Knollenberg has or would support.
Joe skips vote on implementing 9/11 commission recommendations
Joe's name is among those not voting on HR 1 to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Wonder what he was doing that was so important that he couldn't show up to vote.
Check out this thread on MichiganLiberal: http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7856
And the documentation of the vote:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/15/
Check out this thread on MichiganLiberal: http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7856
And the documentation of the vote:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/15/
Monday, January 08, 2007
Joe Votes No on Ethics Reform
On H.R.6, passed in the House during the first session of the 110th Congress, Joe voted in lockstep with other Republicans, as expected. Although Titles III, IV and V passed by both sides of the aisle -- Civility, Fiscal Responsibility, and some miscellaneous sections -- not one Republican voted Yes on Title V to adopt the rules. In addition, 48 Republicans voted Yes on Title II, Ethics, however, Joe was one of 152 Republicans voting No. After what went on during the 109th Congress, it's mindblowing that any Congressperson wanting to stay in office the next time around would vote No on ethics reform, which comprised a number of sections under Title II. Maybe Joe was hoping for another trip to Hawaii. Following are the topics falling under Title II of H.R. 6:
Title II. Ethics
SEC. 202. ENDING THE K-STREET PROJECT.
SEC. 203. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.
SEC. 204. VALUATION OF TICKETS TO SPORTING AND ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS.
SEC. 205. RESTRICTION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.
SEC. 206. LOBBYIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPATION IN CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.
SEC. 207. FURTHER LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL.
SEC. 208. EXPENSES FOR OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL.
SEC. 209. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE.
SEC. 210. CLERICAL CORRECTION.
SEC. 211. ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE.
SEC. 212. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.
SEC. 213. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
SEC. 214. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES.
SEC. 215. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM.
SEC. 216. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
SEC. 217. SEPARATE ORDER: NUMBERING OF BILLS
Title II. Ethics
SEC. 202. ENDING THE K-STREET PROJECT.
SEC. 203. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.
SEC. 204. VALUATION OF TICKETS TO SPORTING AND ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS.
SEC. 205. RESTRICTION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.
SEC. 206. LOBBYIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPATION IN CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.
SEC. 207. FURTHER LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL.
SEC. 208. EXPENSES FOR OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL.
SEC. 209. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE.
SEC. 210. CLERICAL CORRECTION.
SEC. 211. ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE.
SEC. 212. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.
SEC. 213. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
SEC. 214. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES.
SEC. 215. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM.
SEC. 216. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
SEC. 217. SEPARATE ORDER: NUMBERING OF BILLS
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Knollenberg to appear at Rochester College
Knollenberg is appearing at a Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce event on January 19 from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m., and there is a protest against his stand on Iraq being organized to take place outside at 7:15 a.m. The college is located on Avon Road just east of Livernois.
The Rochester Eccentric will most likely be covering this event with a reporter and a photographer. Ten people would be a good showing.
If you can attend, please RSVP to 248-652-8781 (I have left the name of the person organizing this off).
Details of the event:
Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce
January 19, 2007
Legislative Update 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Rochester College (in the RAC Theatre)
800 W. Avon
Rochester Hills, MI 48307
No charge
The Rochester Eccentric will most likely be covering this event with a reporter and a photographer. Ten people would be a good showing.
If you can attend, please RSVP to 248-652-8781 (I have left the name of the person organizing this off).
Details of the event:
Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce
January 19, 2007
Legislative Update 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Rochester College (in the RAC Theatre)
800 W. Avon
Rochester Hills, MI 48307
No charge
Let's See What Joe Has Done For Us Lately. Oops. Looks Like He Hasn't Done Anything At All!
Glancing at Congressman Knollenberg's website today gives a fresh look at how he represents the District. He doesn't. Actually, he doesn't do much of anything.
The last report on his website is dated October 17, 2006. Apparently he has been hard at work for the last 10 weeks doing nothing at all.
Then there is his list of speeches. Why look, he hasn't given a speech since March 2, 2005. Nearly 2 years ago. At least we know he isn't out giving speeches. And we know for sure he isn't out talking to his constitutents. The last time any of us saw him it was his picture on a milk carton.
There isn't anything on his website regarding a plan to succeed in Iraq. He did state that "Despite an unrelenting drumbeat of negative news, Iraqis and coalition forces make substantial progress in freedom, safety, health, and development."
Gosh, apparently if it wasn't for the press reporting negative things we wouldn't be losing in Iraq. Of course, it is also the Pentagon and the National Intelligence Agencies that are reporting that the place is going to hell. Apparently we are just not supposed to look behind that curtain.
There isn't anything on his website regarding his plan to help Michigan's auto industry.
There isn't anything on his website regarding the threat of global warming. Oh wait. There is something. Oh look, he supports global warming. He doesn't think it is a threat.
It is time now for the 110th Congress to start.
The last report on his website is dated October 17, 2006. Apparently he has been hard at work for the last 10 weeks doing nothing at all.
Then there is his list of speeches. Why look, he hasn't given a speech since March 2, 2005. Nearly 2 years ago. At least we know he isn't out giving speeches. And we know for sure he isn't out talking to his constitutents. The last time any of us saw him it was his picture on a milk carton.
There isn't anything on his website regarding a plan to succeed in Iraq. He did state that "Despite an unrelenting drumbeat of negative news, Iraqis and coalition forces make substantial progress in freedom, safety, health, and development."
Gosh, apparently if it wasn't for the press reporting negative things we wouldn't be losing in Iraq. Of course, it is also the Pentagon and the National Intelligence Agencies that are reporting that the place is going to hell. Apparently we are just not supposed to look behind that curtain.
There isn't anything on his website regarding his plan to help Michigan's auto industry.
There isn't anything on his website regarding the threat of global warming. Oh wait. There is something. Oh look, he supports global warming. He doesn't think it is a threat.
It is time now for the 110th Congress to start.
That means his vacation time is over and Joe Knollenberg can go back to sleep again.
Here is How To Track Joe Knollenberg's Voting Record in Congress
The Washington Post has compiled a helpful database of Congressional votes.
This page lists the key votes and how Congressman Knollenberg voted.
The WP keeps this site up to date so it will be useful for tracking Knollenberg's votes. Of course, it may just be easier to know what President Bush wants because Knollenberg has pretty much voted exactly as he has been told to do by President Bush.
In fact, the WP lists 17 "key" votes -- votes on major bills and resolutions and of those 17, Knollenberg only strayed away from his party vote on 1 bill. On one other Bill he failed to vote. So ignoring the one in which he failed to vote, his record on those other 16 key bills is that he votes the Party Line 93.75% of the time.
We'll follow up here with some helpful statistics and some discussion on his key votes. Stay tuned.
This page lists the key votes and how Congressman Knollenberg voted.
The WP keeps this site up to date so it will be useful for tracking Knollenberg's votes. Of course, it may just be easier to know what President Bush wants because Knollenberg has pretty much voted exactly as he has been told to do by President Bush.
In fact, the WP lists 17 "key" votes -- votes on major bills and resolutions and of those 17, Knollenberg only strayed away from his party vote on 1 bill. On one other Bill he failed to vote. So ignoring the one in which he failed to vote, his record on those other 16 key bills is that he votes the Party Line 93.75% of the time.
We'll follow up here with some helpful statistics and some discussion on his key votes. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Knollenberg Announces He Will Run For Re-election in 2008
Although he hasn't accomplished a single thing in the 110th Congress yet, the Detroit Free Press is reporting that Joe Knollenberg has announced that he will run for re-election in 2008!
Perhaps even more interesting is that Congressman Knollenberg has not made a single public statement regarding the loss of 3 Michiganders in Iraq this week. They may not live in his District, but these brave souls gave their life for a mission that Knollenberg sanctioned. It seems he would at least owe their families an expression of sympathy.
Perhaps even more interesting is that Congressman Knollenberg has not made a single public statement regarding the loss of 3 Michiganders in Iraq this week. They may not live in his District, but these brave souls gave their life for a mission that Knollenberg sanctioned. It seems he would at least owe their families an expression of sympathy.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Knollenberg Supports Privatizing Social Security
George Bush is still trying to change social security into a program with private accounts rather than the current system of guaranteed benefits.
Joe Knollenberg supports privatizing Social Security.
Privatizing social security is just the first step towards the Radical Right's plan to eliminate Social Security altogether.
The Radical Right does not believe the Government should have any entitlement programs -- and Social Security is an entitlement program.
If the Republicans control Congress for 2 more years, they will change Social Security and, based on their current plan, likely force the program to become bankrupt in just a few years.
Joe Knollenberg supports privatizing Social Security.
Privatizing social security is just the first step towards the Radical Right's plan to eliminate Social Security altogether.
The Radical Right does not believe the Government should have any entitlement programs -- and Social Security is an entitlement program.
If the Republicans control Congress for 2 more years, they will change Social Security and, based on their current plan, likely force the program to become bankrupt in just a few years.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Look at All the Corrupt and Incompetent Congressman that Knollenberg Cavorts With
Based on this list of suspects, there really is a culture of corruption in D.C.
And Joe Knollenberg is just as guilty as the rest of them.
--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MI-09: Joe Knollenberg
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert
And Joe Knollenberg is just as guilty as the rest of them.
--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MI-09: Joe Knollenberg
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Lawbreaker not a Lawmaker!!!
Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI-09) sent out a mailing to voters in the 9th Congressional District --- the problem is that it wasn't informational, it was campaign promotional material!!!
It looks like a piece of campaign literature, reads like a piece of campaign literature, but was mailed under the guise of "official business".
Notwithstanding the legality of such a mailing, it illustrates the poor judgment that Congressman Knollenberg has consistently shown when it comes to being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars.
Joe Knollenberg has not only shown contempt for the voters and taxpayers of the 9th District by sending out campaign propaganda under the guise of being official government business, but he may also have broken the law.
It looks like a piece of campaign literature, reads like a piece of campaign literature, but was mailed under the guise of "official business".
Notwithstanding the legality of such a mailing, it illustrates the poor judgment that Congressman Knollenberg has consistently shown when it comes to being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars.
Joe Knollenberg has not only shown contempt for the voters and taxpayers of the 9th District by sending out campaign propaganda under the guise of being official government business, but he may also have broken the law.
39 USC 3910(a)(6)(A) states:Voters Deserve to Know When Their Lawmakers become Lawbreakers.
(6)(A) It is the intent of Congress that a Member of . . . Congress may not mail any mass mailing as franked mail--
(i) if the mass mailing is postmarked fewer than 60 days (or, in the case of a
Member of the House, fewer than 90 days) immediately before the date of any . .
general election . . . in which the Member is a candidate for reelection
Knollenberg Supports Privatizing Social Security!!
Joe Knollenberg wants to destroy Social Security by creating a system of private accounts rather than guaranteed benefits.
In response to a questionairre submitted to candidates by the AARP, Knollenberg said he wants to revise the system so that "workers" would "begin investing a portion of their payroll taxes into a private, 401K-style savings plan. . . "
Knollenberg is even opposed to allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices!!!
Whose side is he on? Not our side, that is for sure.
In response to a questionairre submitted to candidates by the AARP, Knollenberg said he wants to revise the system so that "workers" would "begin investing a portion of their payroll taxes into a private, 401K-style savings plan. . . "
Knollenberg is even opposed to allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices!!!
Whose side is he on? Not our side, that is for sure.
Knollenberg claims "Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained"
JOE KNOLLENBERG is Public Enemy #1 for Senior Citizens.
Knollenberg has consistently voted to cut benefits to Seniors and now he wants to force Seniors to risk their social security checks in the stock market.
The Real JOE KNOLLENBERG Said:
"Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained."
Help fight against Joe Knollenberg!
We need to Get Knollenberg OUT of Congress Before He Takes Away All Benefits from All Seniors.
Knollenberg has consistently voted to cut benefits to Seniors and now he wants to force Seniors to risk their social security checks in the stock market.
The Real JOE KNOLLENBERG Said:
"Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained."
(Detroit News, February 1, 2006)
Help fight against Joe Knollenberg!
We need to Get Knollenberg OUT of Congress Before He Takes Away All Benefits from All Seniors.
Monday, March 20, 2006
ZERO = Review & Analysis of Knollenberg's Work Over the Past 14 years in Congress
Looking back at Knollenberg's own account of what he has accomplished during the last 14 years reveals [confirms] what many tax paying Americans fear -- he has done nothing other than collect a paycheck, take all expense-paid-by-Jack Abramoff-lobbyist vacations, and give our hard earned tax payer money to his friends (through earmarked money spelled out in various budget/appropriation bills).
Looking at his own website we can see what he has done over the past 6 years:
~ 1.5 Floor Speeches Per MONTH
~0.6 Other Speeches Per MONTH
He does list about one Press Release per week but those are not only written by and distributed by someone else (and so they require no work by JOE) but they are usually just summaries of Press Releases the Republican Party has issued and say nothing about JOE specifically -- they are just general statements, e.g., Congress Convened today, etc.
What is he doing the rest of the time? 1.5 floor speeches per month? School kids give more speeches than that. Also, don't be mislead by the fancy title "Floor Speech". Most are tributes to people like George Hamilton or recognizing the existence of some obscure industrial trade group like the National Truck Equipment Association.
How about his impressive 0.6 other speeches? That means he gives a speech to some outside group about once every other month. Thank goodness for the boy scouts -- otherwise it seems he would never be invited to speak anywhere.
I am not in Congress and I get invited to speak more than that. Most Congressmen and Congresswomen get invited to speak to outside groups constantly. JOE either doesn't get invited or doesn't accept any such invitations. Either way no seems to be lining up to ask him to speak to their group. Apparently most folks know he doesn't do anything so why bother asking him to come talk about not doing anything. Heck, an empty chair would be better than that.
Although his work record is sparse at best over the past 6 years, there is little or no record of Knollenberg having done anything before 2000. Is it possible he did even less in the first half of his tenure?
Based on our analysis, it seems he works between 90 and 200 hours per year. That means we pay him between $800/hr to $1200/hr. That is more than even the most overrated, overpriced Washington lobbyist.
Plus, we have guaranteed him a free pension and healthcare for the rest of his life. How many of us have the same benefits?
Looking at his own website we can see what he has done over the past 6 years:
~ 1.5 Floor Speeches Per MONTH
~0.6 Other Speeches Per MONTH
He does list about one Press Release per week but those are not only written by and distributed by someone else (and so they require no work by JOE) but they are usually just summaries of Press Releases the Republican Party has issued and say nothing about JOE specifically -- they are just general statements, e.g., Congress Convened today, etc.
What is he doing the rest of the time? 1.5 floor speeches per month? School kids give more speeches than that. Also, don't be mislead by the fancy title "Floor Speech". Most are tributes to people like George Hamilton or recognizing the existence of some obscure industrial trade group like the National Truck Equipment Association.
How about his impressive 0.6 other speeches? That means he gives a speech to some outside group about once every other month. Thank goodness for the boy scouts -- otherwise it seems he would never be invited to speak anywhere.
I am not in Congress and I get invited to speak more than that. Most Congressmen and Congresswomen get invited to speak to outside groups constantly. JOE either doesn't get invited or doesn't accept any such invitations. Either way no seems to be lining up to ask him to speak to their group. Apparently most folks know he doesn't do anything so why bother asking him to come talk about not doing anything. Heck, an empty chair would be better than that.
Although his work record is sparse at best over the past 6 years, there is little or no record of Knollenberg having done anything before 2000. Is it possible he did even less in the first half of his tenure?
Based on our analysis, it seems he works between 90 and 200 hours per year. That means we pay him between $800/hr to $1200/hr. That is more than even the most overrated, overpriced Washington lobbyist.
Plus, we have guaranteed him a free pension and healthcare for the rest of his life. How many of us have the same benefits?
EVICT JOE FROM CONGRESS!!!!
AN EMPTY CHAIR WOULD REPRESENT US BETTER THAN JOE's EMPTY HEAD!!!!
AN EMPTY CHAIR WOULD REPRESENT US BETTER THAN JOE's EMPTY HEAD!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
