The House Vote - How The Locals Voted

First the vote::

After months of partisan impasse, the House on Monday approved a budget agreement intended to head off a potential government default, pushing Congress a big step closer to the conclusion of a bitter fight that has left both parties bruised and exhausted.

Despite the tension and uncertainty that has surrounded efforts to raise the debt ceiling, the vote of 269-161 was relatively strong in support of the plan, which would cut more than $2.1 trillion in government spending over 10 years while extending the borrowing authority of the Treasury Department. It would also create a powerful new joint congressional committee to recommend broad changes in spending -- and possibly in tax policy -- to reduce the deficit.

All but one member of the Pennsylvania delegation to The House voted for the bill - Congressman Doyle. In a press release he explained his vote:

I voted against S. 365 because I believe it will kill jobs and choke off economic growth while making life harder for the Americans who are struggling the most.

I believe the federal government’s skyrocketing national debt is a problem the United States must fix – and that it will require substantial sacrifice for us to do so – but I strongly oppose the approach taken in this bill, which I believe to be both counterproductive and unjust.

I recognize that we need to cut spending as part of the solution. That’s why I voted last week for Senator Reid’s plan to cut $2 trillion in spending over the next ten years. But the Republican cuts-only approach won’t stop the growth in the national debt, it won’t grow the economy, and it won’t create jobs.

In fact, spending cuts in the middle of an economic crisis slow the economy down and choke off job growth – as recent economic figures for the second quarter have shown.

Unless we grow the economy, spending cuts won’t get the deficit under control. That’s why I believe that Congress must enact a more comprehensive approach that includes tax reform along with spending cuts.

The other reason I opposed the debt limit bill was my belief that getting deficits and the debt under control should be accomplished with shared sacrifice, and not by dumping all of the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society. So, for example, this bill doesn’t ask profitable companies and the wealthiest Americans to share the sacrifice through higher taxes. On the other hand, it makes cuts in student loan programs and eliminates the firewall for defense after only two years. That’s not my idea of shared sacrifice.

I voted twice to raise the debt – once for a clean debt limit increase with no strings attached, and once for the Reid plan, which would have raised the debt limit and cut $2 trillion in spending. I am deeply pleased that, in the end, Congress didn’t allow our government to default on its obligations, but I couldn’t support a bill that I believe will do real, substantial damage to our economy, deny essential aid to struggling households, and slow or stop the creation of American jobs.

Congressman Jason Altmire, our other local Democrat in the House, voted in favor. His explanation:

Addressing this nation's fiscal responsibilities can't be done by listening only to the views of extremists of either political party. All along, I've called for a centrist approach to reduce spending and lay the groundwork for long-term deficit reduction. This package makes the responsible cuts in Washington's long history of over-spending without harming Social Security, veterans' benefits and military pay. Because this debt limit increase does not put us back in this situation six months from now, this bill provides a sense of certainty to our financial markets that have been unhappy with the process involved with fulfilling our credit obligations. The American people wanted compromise, a solution from the middle, and today Democrats and Republicans delivered that to them.

Mystery of The Missing Altmire Op-Ed SOLVED

This is gonna give you a chuckle. I promise.

This morning I wrote about this complaint found on the Op-Ed page of the Tribune-Review regarding a pair of opinion pieces written (one each) by Congressman Mike Doyle and Congressman Jason Altmire. Scaife's braintrust complained that the two were too similar. I wanted to (as I often do) check their work. Usually, when I check their work I find they've spun a few things - and I can only assume they do that hoping no one will check. But this time, I couldn't.

Why not?

As I wrote this morning, I could easily find Doyle's opinion piece (it's here), but I could not find Altmire's.

So I contacted his office today asked them about it. Where was the Congressman's opinion piece about the CFL lightbulbs? I couldn't find it anywhere, I told them. Is there anyway I could see a copy? I further asked.

They sent me the piece (see below) and told me that while they submitted it to The Trib and then The Trib rejected it for publication.

So before we get on with the piece itself, let's mull this over for a second. Altmire's opinion piece is submitted to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for publication. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review rejects said opinion piece and then criticizes it in print sometime later. They're the only ones who have access to it and so they're the only ones who can assess whether it is, in fact, similar to the other opinion piece they claim it resembles. In short they're the only ones who could know whether they're telling the truth.

Until now, that is.

Remember, this is the braintrust's complaint about the two pieces:

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions.

The two opinion pieces do cover similar ground - as well they should. They are talking about the same thing.

Both point out similar facts:

• Old style incandescent light bulbs waste 90% of their energy generating heat
• George Bush signed the original law in 2007
• New style incandescent light bulbs have been designed that meet the 2007 standard
• And so there is no "ban" on incandescent light bulbs - just inefficient ones
• Thomas Edison invented the light bulb

Altmire's op-ed is posted below, by the way. Do something the Trib doesn't want you to do - read it for yourself. Check my work.

Can someone show me the "nearly word for word in spots" similarities the braintrust is complaining about? Where are they? Apart from the obvious and banal congruencies ("Thomas Edison", "incandescent light bulb" and so on) I couldn't find any "nearly word for word" matches. Can you?

Think of it this way, if the two pieces were, in fact, so close that they ended each other's sentences, doncha think The Trib would be pointing them out to you sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase? They didn't. They couldn't. They're spinning this. Badly.

Anyway, here's Altmire's opinion piece the Trib (the one The Trib rejected then criticized in public):

When Thomas Edison first successfully tested a carbonized thread light bulb in 1879, it was a technology so revolutionary that the light bulb became the very symbol of innovation. Today, 132 years later, the image of a light bulb is still routinely used as an illustration of American ingenuity and scientific breakthrough. The technology that Edison pioneered, the incandescent light bulb, remains by far the most popular source of light in American households.

It is therefore not surprising that reports of a ban of the incandescent light bulb have caused a political firestorm and a public outcry. There have even been reports of organized efforts to hoard the remaining supply of the incandescent bulbs before the ban takes effect at the end of this year.

The topic has become especially popular on the political circuit, with members of Congress and presidential candidates making the “light bulb ban” part of their standard stump speech.

Adding to the public outrage is the fact that, as a result of the reported ban, consumers would be required to purchase and use expensive compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), some of which contain mercury and emit a lesser quality of light than standard incandescent bulbs.

The story goes that the government has banned the inexpensive bulbs produced by American companies and enjoyed by consumers for more than a century, and will now force consumers to use much more expensive, less illuminating lights that pose a significant health hazard, the compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). No wonder politicians are climbing all over themselves to defend the incandescent light bulb.

There is only one problem – none of it is true. The incandescent light bulb is not banned, nor will it be next year or thereafter. Consumers will continue to be free to buy the light bulb of their choice. American companies will continue to manufacture and market incandescent bulbs available to every American.

So, why the misconception about the so-called “ban”?

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the provisions of this bipartisan legislation was to establish energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. This was done primarily to reduce the strain and prevent overloads on our nation’s electrical grid, and to make energy more efficient, dependable and cost-effective for consumers.

Under the 2007 law, some household light bulbs are required to be approximately 28 percent more energy efficient. For the most commonly-used light bulbs, the phase-in occurs over a three-year period beginning in 2012. For example, by next year, a 100 watt incandescent bulb must emit the same amount of light using only 72 watts. The law does not specify what type of technology manufacturers may employ to achieve these standards, nor does it require consumers to purchase any specific type of light bulb.

Incandescent bulbs produce light by heating filament inside gas. This is nearly identical to the technology that existed in the initial Edison-inspired bulbs first made commercially available in the 19th century. These bulbs remain popular, but they are incredibly inefficient as a source of light. In fact, ninety percent of the energy produced by a standard incandescent bulb goes toward heat – only ten percent produces light. Of course, few consumers buy a household light bulb to use as a source of heat, so it makes sense that we should look for ways to make the bulbs more energy efficient than the bulbs Edison pioneered 132 years ago.

Some light bulb manufacturers have chosen to supplement their incandescent bulbs with other technologies, such as the CFL or the increasingly popular and potentially revolutionary light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs. Both technologies continue to evolve and will undoubtedly play a major role in America’s energy future, as will other technologies yet to be discovered. But what about the incandescent bulb?

As a result of the 2007 law, several large and small American companies, some of which have put down roots in western Pennsylvania, have developed energy efficient incandescent light bulbs that meet the new standards. Some of the new incandescent bulbs are already on the market, and many others will be available in time for the 2012 transition. These new bulbs have the same look and emit the same type of light as traditional incandescent bulbs, but they last much longer, offer substantial energy savings for the consumer and greatly reduce the burden to our nation’s electrical grid. So not only is the incandescent light bulb not banned, it has been improved and is now better than ever. Most important, it will still be made by American workers, for American consumers, for years to come.

Throughout our history, Americans have always risen to the challenges of the ever-changing global marketplace. Recently, American auto makers innovated and adapted to new fuel efficiency standards by producing fuel efficient cars that appeal to American consumers, resulting in General Motors surpassing Toyota this year as the world’s largest automaker.

Similarly, the quick transition to meet the new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is yet another example of American ingenuity and innovation at its best. Without a doubt, others around the world are also researching and producing advanced light bulbs to compete with our American-made products. Just as Thomas Edison put America at the forefront of the development and manufacture of lighting technology in 1879, the American innovators of today continue to lead the way in the research and development of exciting new lighting technologies, like LEDs, as well as improving upon the popular technologies of the past, like the still-available incandescent light bulb.

Not Sure What To Make Of This

From Sunday's Trib:

PENNED BY POLTERGEISTS? Democrat U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle of Forest Hills and Jason Altmire of McCandless should consider consulting a specialist in paranormal activity.

Their offices appear to have been invaded by ghost writers.

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

The congressmen's offerings are so similar -- nearly word for word in spots -- that it has us highly suspicious that the two men regurgitated Democrat talking points for their op-ed submissions. We just thought we'd shed some light on the matter.

The only problem?

I can't find Congressman Altmire's op-ed defending Energy Independence and Security Act. I've googled:

• Atmire "Light bulb"
• Altmire "Energy Independence and Security Act"
• Altmire CFL

And couldn't find anything. Nothing. Nada. The null set. That doesn't mean it's not out there, of course. Just that I couldn't find it. It's a mystery. Usually the trails to the sources the braintrust uses are quite easy to follow; Heritage Foundation, AEI, Washington Times and so on. But none of my usual tricks worked this time. And I can't imagine even the Trib making something like this up.

If you can find it, please drop me an email with the link. I want to see how similar they are. Or if you can explain what the Tribune-Review is doing here, editorializing on something no one else can see, drop me an email on that, too.

That being said, we'll talk about CFLs, Thomas Edison, and Mike Doyle's easily found opinion piece for a bit. Here's the trib:

Both supposedly penned recent opinion pieces defending the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The controversial law effectively bans Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb as we've known it in favor of supposedly more efficient but also more expensive and hazardous alternatives, namely the compact fluorescent light bulb.

They make three points here:

• The CFL bulb's efficiency is questioned
• The CFL bulb is more expensive
• The CFL bulb is more hazardous

The Michigan DEQ has a page up describing the savings achieved by switching from an incandescent to a CFL. Over the course of the life of the CFL bulb the savings are substantial. That takes care of bullets one and two. What about the third? How hazardous is the CFL bulb?

Luckily, there's been work on that, too. From a page called Three CFL Myths Busted:

Myth: Compact fluorescent bulbs are a major safety hazard because they contain mercury.

Fact: Yes, it's true that CFLs contain tiny amounts of mercury, and if a bulb breaks you will be exposed to the neurotoxin. But, just how dangerous is a broken bulb? Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory set out to answer that question. They compared how much exposure you'd get from breathing in the amount of mercury released from a broken CFL bulb to how much mercury you'd take in from eating Albacore tuna.

If you do a common sense job of cleaning up (open the windows, clean up, and remove the debris), then your mercury exposure would be the equivalent of taking a tiny nibble of tuna, according to Francis Rubinstein, a staff scientist at Berkeley Lab. What if you did the worst job possible, say closed all the doors and smashed the bulb with a hammer? It's still no big deal, says Rubinstein, who points out that it would be the equivalent of eating one can of tuna.

Hmm - at worst it's the mercury equivalent of eating one can of tuna? Only ONE CAN? AND it saves money?

We already know The Trib's not really interested in facts that conflict with their politics, but I would have thought that the Trib would be in favor of saving money.

I guess not.

Again, if you have any info as to the whereabouts of the Altmire editorial please drop me an email. I'd love to see it.

Hey, We Got Tweeted Yesterday!

Someone named Tim who tweets under the name (and I am not kidding on this) "Supermanhotmale" tweeted this Altmire post yesterday. Whoever this "Tim" is, he's got about 53,000 followers.

As a result of that tweet to so many followers, we had a spike of about 1300 hits yesterday.

In the spirit of full disclosure (and many thanks to Maria for the research on this) the tweet message was regarding the 16 Democrats who voted for HR3 rather than Altmire specifically.

But still it was exciting to see how far and how wide my blog post went.

Thanks, "Tim" whoever you are!

Update on HR3

The House voted overwhelmingly for HR3 last night. 235 Republicans voted for it (no Republicans voted against) and were joined by 16 Democrats.

Jason Altmire (D-PA) among them.

Huffingtonpost has an update:

A closer look at a House bill marketed to the public as a "common-sense" ban on taxpayer-funded abortions reveals an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to restrict insurance coverage for and reduce access to abortion.

H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act," would go beyond making the Hyde Amendment, which has already banned federally-funded abortions for the past 30 years, a permanent federal law. The legislation, sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), would also enact strict procedural requirements for private insurance companies that cover abortions and deny tax credits to small businesses that purchase health insurance plans offering abortion coverage. Eight-seven percent of private insurance plans currently include such coverage.

Further, H.R. 3 would eliminate privately funded insurance coverage for abortion in the state-based exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. The policy team at NARAL Pro-Choice America estimates that 13.5 million women who receive health coverage through Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs would permanently lose access to abortion coverage if the measure, facing a floor vote Wednesday, passes.

Which it did. And after the bill passed, Huffingtonpost posted:

“Members of Congress who supported this egregious assault on women will hear from outraged Americans through phone calls, protests, petitions, and most importantly, at the ballot box in 2012,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “As this legislation moves to the Senate, we also will mobilize our members to urge their senators to stop this bill in its tracks.”

If you're feeling like you need to discuss this with Congressman Altmire, his contact info can be found here.

Congressman Altmire Votes FOR HR3

From The Weekly Standard today:

The House of Representatives voted today on the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which bans direct federal funding of elective abortions and federal funding of insurance policies that cover elective abortions, such as policies that will be offered by Obamacare's exchanges in a few short years. The final tally was 251 to 175. Sixteen Democrats broke from their party to vote in favor of the bill. There weren't any Republicans who voted "no."

And they helpfully included a list of the Democrats who voted WITH the Republicans on this:

Altmire (PA)

Boren (OK)

Costello (IL)

Critz (PA)

Cuellar (TX)

Donnelly (IN)

Holden (PA)

Kaptur (OH)

Kildee (MI)

Lipinski (IL)

Matheson (UT)

McIntyre (NC)

Peterson (MN)

Rahall (WV)

Ross (AR)

Shuler (NC)

Luckily, the list is alphabetical so we don't have to search very far to find Jason's name. It's right at the top. Here's the roll from thomas.gov, in case you're interested in the full list.

According to thinkprogress, this is what Jason Altmire voted for.

First there's the redefinition of rape. From thinkprogress:

The bill sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) faced serious backlash after he tried to narrow the definition rape to “forcible rape.” By narrowing the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.

But Mother Jones writes:

After jettisoning controversial legislative language narrowing the definition of rape for the purposes of abortion law, House Republicans are attempting a backdoor maneuver to ensure that solely victims of "forcible rape" are eligible for federal funding if they seek abortions.

And then:

The backdoor reintroduction of the statutory rape change relies on the use of a committee report, a document that congressional committees produce outlining what they intend a piece of legislation to do. If there's ever a court fight about the interpretation of a law—and when it comes to a subject as contentious as abortion rights, there almost always is—judges will look to the committee report as evidence of congressional intent, and use it to decide what the law actually means.

In this case, the committee report for H.R. 3 says that the bill will "not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape." The bill itself doesn't say anything like that, but if a court decides that legislators intended to exclude statutory rape-related abortions from eligibility for Medicaid funding, then that will be the effect. [emphasis in original.]

This is how the Department of Justice defines "Statutory Rape":

Statutory rape is a general term used to describe an offense that takes place when an individual (regardless of age) has consensual sexual relations with an individual not old enough to legally consent to the behavior. Stated another way, statutory rape is sexual relations between individuals that would be legal if not for their ages. In accordance with the FBI definition, this Bulletin characterizes statutory rape as nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent.

So if the bill becomes law, and some 19 year old guy seduces a 14 year old girl who then becomes pregnant, she wouldn't be eligible for any federal funds for an abortion. If she can't afford it herself (which is to say, if she doesn't have a few hundred bucks floating around) and she doesn't want to be pregnant, she's plain outta luck. She's gonna give birth. Girls from wealthy families probably won't have to deal with this issue, of course. Girls from poor families, surprise surprise, will.

Then there's the Rape Audits:

Because H.R. 3 bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” Essentially, the bill turns Internal Revenue Service agents into “abortion cops” who would force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” that compelled an abortion.

On this Mother Jones reported:

In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee..., Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans' "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they'd have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.

Wait, wait. Isn't this the political party that wants to reduce the power and reach of the federal government?

This is what Jason Altmire voted for.

This is a democracy and he's an elected official. So if you had thoughts (either way) about this bill and its redefinition of rape and how it turns the IRS into "abortion cops", you have the right to discuss those thoughts with your elected officials.

If you're looking for contact information to ask Congressman Altmire about his vote, it's found here.

Feel free to contact him.

Jason Altmire And The EPA

We'll start, yet again, at Chris Potter's slagheap:

[US Rep. Tim] Murphy is among 95 cosponsors of House Resolution 910, the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" being discussed in the House today. As such, he joins such devotees of reason as Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, the guy who apologized to BP after the gulf oil spill. This is not great company to be in, especially on matters of energy policy and science.

The upshot of the bill, in fact, is to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from acting on the science of climate change. Specificially, the bill bars the agency from issuing "any regulation concerning, tak[ing] action relating to, or tak[ing] into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change." [Link to thomas.gov in original corrected]

Potter says, a paragraph later:

HR 910 is, in fact, all about the power of positive thinking. It seeks to void a series of previous EPA actions, including a 2009 finding that "greenhouses gasses ... endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." HR 910 formally deems that this finding is "repealed and shall have no legal effect."

Poof! Problem solved! In the unlikely event this bill became law, the EPA couldn't regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, because the scientific basis for doing so would have been repealed.

Here's the part of the legislation that voids the finding:

(4) CERTAIN PRIOR AGENCY ACTIONS- The following rules and actions (including any supplement or revision to such rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect:
`(A) ...
`(B) `Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act', published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

And here's the summary of that December, 2009 finding:

The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a).

These Findings are based on careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009.

And this is from the overview:

Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the ‘‘air pollution’’ referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse gases are referred to as ‘‘well-mixed greenhouse gases’’ in this document (with more precise meanings of ‘‘long lived’’ and ‘‘well mixed’’ provided in Section IV.A).

The Administrator has determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports this finding. The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding.

This is what the House Republicans voided by majority vote.

Aye, but it's not only Republicans who are looking to overturn science by legislative fiat.

From the NYTimes:

If there was any doubt about which Democratic House members are worrying most about their re-election prospects in 2012, one only had to look at yesterday's roll call vote on the Republican bill to strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Nineteen moderate and conservative Democrats joined 236 Republicans in supporting the bill, which was sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). Not coincidentally, some had close calls during last year's Republican wave, and most are significant GOP targets in this election cycle.

Guess which conservative Democrat is among those 19?

Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire, who won re-election by 2 percentage points in 2010 and will either be targeted through redistricting or with a tough challenger.

This is disappointing to say the least. Science is science. It simply can't be overturned by a 236 Republicans and 19 Democrats sitting in the United States House of Representatives.

In Case You Missed It

From ThinkProgress:

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day. As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP).

From Thomas.gov, here's the description of what happened:

3/1/2011 3:34pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the Keating motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the Committee on Appropriations to report the bill back to the House forthwith with an amendment which inserts a section prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company.

And that's what was voted down. The amendment was to prohibit tax benefits for Big Oil. The Oil Companies, by the way, are doing just fine. Take a look at ExxonMobil. From Climateprogress:

The hearing also focused on the billions of dollars in subsidies granted to profitable oil companies each year. Despite $19 billion in profits in 2009, ExxonMobil escaped the U.S. tax man entirely, finishing the year without paying a single red cent in American corporate income taxes. Unrest in the Middle East is pushing profits for big oil even higher as prices climb up to the $100 per barrel threshold. Subsidies for such a profitable industry make little sense. As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) lamented, “subsidizing oil companies to drill for oil is like subsidizing a bird to fly or a fish to swim.” Markey also lambasted the oil industry’s claims about its job creation He highlighted that during the past five years, the top five American oil companies fired 10,200 American workers but walked away with $485 billion in profits. [Italics in original]

The link back to Thinkprogress quotes this piece from Forbes.com that originally said:

No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Though ThinkProgress updates:

Forbes has updated its article to include a statement from Exxon: "Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a 'substantial 2009 tax liability.' How substantial? 'That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we.'" [emphasis added]

Trust us, they're saying. We pay tons of taxes but we just won't tell you how much. Trust us.

Anyway, back to the roll. Among those 13 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP (in thinkprogress' words) "to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil" there was a very familiar name.

Congressman Jason Altmire, Democrat from Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District.

Congressman Altmire In The News

From yesterday's Trib:

GOP'S ANTI-ALTMIRE EFFORT UNDER WAY. Jason Altmire received a reminder on Wednesday that Republicans already have their sights set on his congressional seat in next year's election.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launched a "robocall" campaign targeting Altmire and other Democrat U.S. representatives considered vulnerable in 2012 by the GOP.

The robocalls criticize the Dems for voting against a GOP-backed bill to fund the federal government for the rest of the year.

The calls reference the Democrats' support of the stimulus package two years ago, saying the congressional members who voted for big spending then are opposing big cuts now.

Altmire, of McCandless, isn't Pennsylvania's only U.S. House member in the GOP's cross hairs. Mark Critz of Johnstown was criticized for voting against the funding bill in radio ads airing in his district that were funded by the conservative organization Crossroads GPS.

Please note the subtle rifle imagery. Republicans have their "sights set" on Altmire and he's not the only one in the "GOP's cross hairs."

Ah, the new civility! It's at the P-G, too!

Of course the P-G has a little bit more to the story:

If you live in the Fourth Congressional District, that might be the National Republican Campaign Committee on the line. The group is targeting 10 Democratic incumbents, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, who voted for the stimulus bill two years ago with robocalls to remind their constituents of the vote and spit some venom about the bill itself -- which, depending on which economist you ask, either saved us from a second Great Depression or was a giant, sauce-laden slab of wasteful pork. The call also points out that Altmire voted against House Republicans' slash-and-burn government funding bill that passed early Saturday.

The P-G has the text of the robocall, by the way:

Hi, I'm calling from the National Republican Congressional Committee, 320 First Street SE, Washington, DC 20003, 202.479.7000 with an important political message. This call is a recording. Two years ago this month, your Congressman Jason Altmire helped pass Obama's stimulus. He promised it would create jobs and improve the economy, but instead Pennsylvania's unemployment rate has gone up almost 20 percent. You thought Altmire would've learned his lesson after his big-spending stimulus failed, but last week he voted against a budget bill that actually cut spending, choosing to spend more money we don't have. Call Jason Altmire at 202.225.2565 and tell him he doesn't get it... You want jobs, not more debt to pay. Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. 202.479.7000

Meanwhile, Altmire is bragging on his non-liberal credentials at his website:

An independent study of Congressional voting records released today by National Journal – a non-partisan publication – found that U.S. Congressman Jason Altmire’s (PA-04) voting record in 2010 places him 15 slots to the right of center in the U.S. House of Representatives for the second year in a row. Congressman Altmire’s voting record in 2010 was more conservative than 54.2 percent of House Members’ voting records. Congressman Altmire is also currently the only member of the House who has never missed a vote in Congress over the past four years.

National Journal evaluated 93 different key votes in the areas of economic, social and foreign policy to formulate its ratings. A chart showing National Journal’s 2010 vote ratings for centrists in Congress is available here. For more information on Congressman Altmire’s voting record, click here.

I dunno. I am thinking that if he's being targeted from the right, he might not want to alienate too too much whatever friends he might have on the left by touting his non-liberal street cred.

But what do I know?

Health Care Reform Vote: A Tale Of Three Representatives

The P-G today writes about how our three local members of the House of Representatives voted on the Repealing Giving Our Jobs a Lethal Injection of Socialism That Is Poisoning Our Economy And Our Freedom Health Care Law Act.

The results are not suprising. Republican Tim Murphy voted for, Democrats Doyle and Altmire against. The P-G's opening:

The vote itself is a legislative dead end, but U.S. House Republicans on Wednesday began what they hope is a road to reshaping the new health care overhaul law with a vote to repeal it.

By a 245-189 margin, the new GOP-controlled House kept a central promise of the fall campaign, though the Democratic-controlled Senate has said it will not consider repeal and President Barack Obama has vowed to veto it.

The symbolism was nonetheless important to Republicans in setting the tone as their pledged health care work gets under way.

"Putting up the vote this way we're going to, in other words, take a roll call of members of Congress and say: 'Do you agree that there's more wrong with this bill than right?' " said Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair. "Then we're going to lay that out as our marker on the field and start from there."

A large chunk of the article was devoted to Altmire. Here's why:

Mr. Altmire presented a curious case as one of several Democrats who voted against the health care overhaul law last year, then refused to back an outright repeal. Mr. Altmire, who has a background in health care as a former lobbyist for UPMC, said he still sees serious problems with the law -- but a political exercise like this isn't the way to solve them.

Conservative groups such as American Crossroads -- which spent tens of millions backing Republicans in the November elections -- have attacked Mr. Altmire and other Democratic "no" votes on the initial bill for the apparent inconsistency in not backing a repeal.

If you head over to his congressional website, Altmire explains:

I voted against the 2010 health care reform bill because I believe it is a flawed, partisan proposal that will, on the whole, do more harm than good. The law has numerous provisions that will result in higher costs for families and businesses, and it does little to correct the inefficiencies and control the costs in our current health care system. It also lacks serious quality improvement provisions that would make our health care system work better for everyone.

A paragraph later:

However, I will not waste the time and resources of the American taxpayers by engaging in a purely partisan exercise that has no chance of becoming law. Additionally, I will not diminish the health care coverage of millions of Americans by voting to repeal the positive provisions of this law that have already taken effect, including closing the Medicare prescription drug donut hole; guaranteeing health insurance coverage for children with pre-existing conditions; banning lifetime insurance caps and rescissions; and offering free preventative care for seniors. Make no mistake, a vote for complete repeal is a vote to raise out-of-pocket costs for every Medicare beneficiary and take away private health care coverage for Americans with chronic health conditions.

So in general, Altmire agrees with Murphy, that the bill does more harm than good, though he won't vote to diminish coverage, reopen the donut hole, etc.

Here's some of the type of heat Altmire is getting. From the National Review Online:

Alex Cortes, chairman of DefundIt.org, has been leading an effort by conservative groups urging these Democrats to support repeal. He released the following statement today, praising Boren and Ross:

If only their colleagues had their same intellectual consistency and recognize the common-sense reality that if you are truly against something, then you will take the actions necessary to get rid of it. Thankfully there are still several hours left before the vote and I suggest some persuasive tea time may be in order.

Cortes told National Review Online that any Democrat who opposed the original bill and didn’t vote to repeal it would be engaging in “the heart of dishonesty” and warned that every politician who opposed repeal did so at their own peril because “the American people are on our side.”

Not surprisingly, the NRO's last line is not entirely accurate. A CNN/Opinion Research Poll from late December found that while 50% of those polled opposed the Health Care Reform bill, they were not all opposed for the same reason. Oddly enough, of those opposed 13% said it was "not liberal enough." 43% were in favor of the bill.

With a bit of arithmetic, we can conclude that only 37% oppose the bill because it goes to far, while 56% (a nice majority, by the way) think it's OK or it doesn't go far enough.

Something for Congressman Altmire to think about.