Tea Party Speech
http://travishankins.com/tea-party_071509.htm
Official Website
http://travishankins.com/index.htm

Friends, please go to the linke above. This man is amazing. It is awesome to have somebody running for Congress who understands the Constitution and his duty.

Here are his stances on key issues:

Sanctity of Life: "As your Congressman I will fight to:

-End Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood
-Stop Federal Funding and Practice of Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research
-Overturn Roe V. Wade
-Pass a Constitutional Human Life Amendment

I am 100% Pro-Life!

Life is sacred because we are created in the image of God. Yet today, abortion is the most common surgical procedure. Since the inception of legalized abortion by Roe v. Wade, over 50 million innocent unborn lives have been ended. Abortion not only destroys the lives of innocent children while causing life-long damage to their mothers, but it destroys the moral fabric of our society.

Life begins at conception. This is not a matter of faith, but a matter of fact. Embryology and medical experts agree that a new and unique human with its own distinct genetic code is formed at the moment of fertilization.

Enshrined in our Declaration of Independence are our inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is evident that Life is the most foundational freedom Americans are granted by God. Government is instituted among men to protect our unalienable rights, none more important than our Right to Life.

I am committed to restoring the sanctity of Life and protecting life at every stage."
(http://travishankins.com/life.htm)

Taxes: "As your Congressman I will fight to:

-Make Tax Cuts Permanent
-Cut Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and Dividends Tax
-Implement Optional Flat Tax
-Flat Tax
- Abolish the income tax
- Abolish the IRS

Politicians are addicted to our money. They increase taxes as high as they think they can get away with. They tax every aspect of our life. Yet, that is not enough for them. They then raid our Social Security money and spend that. That is still not enough for them. They then borrow more money to spend and have the audacity to stick us with the bill. Even then it is not enough for the politicians. They then simply print more money to spend. Deficit spending is a hidden tax on us because it makes our money considerably weaker creating higher prices.

Everyone is willing to pay their fair share in taxes. For most, there is a real sense of pride to work hard and then pay a small share of their money to invest in the future prosperity of our nation. Americans take pride in seeing their tax dollars at work funding legitimate functions of our government such as national defense and safer roads."
(http://travishankins.com/taxes.htm)

War: "Peace through Strength"

"War is H***. War always must be the very last viable option. Not only do we lose a great deal of precious life and blood on the battle field; but at home we always lose some of our civil liberties.

War is a friend to big government and tyranny. Government always expands and increases its power in a time of War. The loss of Liberty that results is rarely reversed.

To ensure that we never needlessly go to War and that we preserve our freedom; we need to re-implement a couple of key concepts that have served us well in the past and will serve us well in the future.

The first is No Nation Building. The United States Armed Forces is for War. This may sound crude but our Military is for killing and breaking things. That is their proper role. Our military right now all across the globe are serving as security guards, policeman, farmers, construction workers, teachers, trainers, central planners, and aid workers. This is not their mandate. This is not what they should be doing.

I certainly understand the temptation to use our military to nation build. Our Armed Forces are made up of the finest people on Earth and we have the ability and the heart to use our military assets for humanitarian reasons. We can and do make a difference.

The problem is that when we focus our military on humanitarian missions and nation building; then we lose focus of our main objective which is destroying our enemy and protecting the United States of America. It would be nice to be able to do both nation building and protecting the United States but the reality is that we simply are not capable of accomplishing both objectives. We must realize that we cannot solve all the world's problems.

We must refocus our efforts on making our Armed Forces combat ready. We are spread too thin and we are in too many countries. When we try and use the armed forces for nation building, it ultimately weakens our national security and creates more problems than what we started with.

We are too politically correct when it comes to war. We are so afraid of the tag "occupiers" that we start nation building before we have even won the war and as a result we STILL have not secured the peace. In Afghanistan for example we wanted to put an Afghan "face" on the War by putting our Afghan allies in the lead. We were ordered to have our Afghan allies with us at all times in the hunt for Bin Laden and when we caught him we were to hand his body to the Afghans so they could claim credit. We were desperate to make it seem that this was Afghanistan vs. Al-Qaeda and that we were there just helping our allies. We didn't want to claim sole ownership of the War and we paid the price. We had Bin Laden surrounded and our Afghan allies then turned on us, arranged a traditional cease fire with Bin Laden and he escaped the Tora Bora mountains and into Pakistan. Our unfortunate desire for playing politics has cost American lives in the 2004 Battle of Fallujah, dealing with the Mahdi Army, dealing with the Sunni uprising, and dealing with Iran, etc…

If we had not had this politically correct attitude then both Wars would have ended 5 years ago. The War or Terror is our War. It is our job and responsibility to engage and defeat our enemy.

We are too risk adverse. It seems we go to war then we do not want to get our hands dirty. The over reliance of proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan has prolonged both wars and weakened our National Security. You can't fight war without risking American lives. If there is a job that needs to be done then we must be ready and willing to do it ourselves. We do a huge disservice to our men in harms way when we make them rely on a proxy. We must quit thinking we can take cheap shortcuts. War is not cheap and it is not easy. Do it right, responsibly, and quickly or do not do it at all.

Even our special forces have been afflicted with this no risk mentality. During the battle of Tora Bora, a unit of the 5th Special Forces Group from Ft. Campbell, KY were within a couple miles of where Bin Laden was sighted yet they were ordered by higher ups not to engage the enemy, but simply to observe. We instead relied on our Afghan "allies" and air power and the job did not get done.

We are too bureaucratic. We have huge problems with layers of bureaucracy and chain of command. We need to reform our military and make it lean and efficient. Many commanders lack the equipment and spare parts that are needed to be combat ready."
(http://travishankins.com/war.htm)

By Sam Wamsley

As a former staffer of a U.S. Congressman Mike Sodrel (IN09), I followed and have continued to follow the progress of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The program was developed with the overlaying intentions for tracking the movement of all livestock and exotic animals for recreation, domestic use and commercial sale. Underneath, it is a poorly thought out and dangerous program designed to dissolve the property rights, privacy rights, religious rights, and the agricultural foundation of America heritage.

The USDA’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS), if made mandatory, will require computer tracking chips to be placed on animals from your daughter’s horse, to every child’s 4H project, to the local home grown farmer down the street who raises beef for his family.
Along with the tracking chip, owners would have to register an animal’s location with the government and update the government within 24 hours of the animal’s movement off of the registered land, or if the animal goes missing, dies or losses its tracking chip. In essence hundreds of thousands of equestrians would be limited to their back yard because of bureaucracy.

The NAIS is at best a feel good program that will do virtually nothing to safeguard animal health, its alleged purpose.

• Rather, NAIS will drive small farms, ranches, family businesses, and Amish and Mennonite communities out of business.
• The program will increase our vulnerability by reducing options for decentralized local foods, by expanding the roll of inhumane corporate farms.
• It will destroy personal property rights. The program considers all chipped animals as part of the “national herd,” and indicates the government’s vision is that no one will be allowed to own animals or do anything with them without the government’s permission.
• It will destroy personal privacy rights. The infrastructure whose price will be born by the tax payer and animals owners will allow the government to conduct a large-scale computer aided surveillance of U.S. citizens under the guise of public health. Imagine, through this program the government will learn your movements, your business dealings, your family practices and habits, your religious customs and beliefs and you will be forced to sacrifice your personal privacy, which is your right, just so you can own an animal.
• This program will open new vulnerabilities to our national security. Not only will the top 5-10% of corporate farms own the majority of the of the nations food supply, over crowding animals in inhuman stock yards making the animals more susceptible to disease and poisoning but also the advent tracking chips will expose our nations livestock to a whole new type of attack, hackers.
• Lastly, NAIS will carry with it a price tag and expansion of government that can only be borne by the consumer through food costs, owner in farming costs and taxpayer due to administrative costs.

No program with so little promise should be worth the disintegration of civil liberties, exposure to disease, high cost/low value and bureaucracy. Urge your U.S. Representative and Senator to put an end to this program. Show your support for your Rights, local food and farms, and the human treatment of animals. Attend the USDA’s Listening Session in Louisville, KY on Friday, May 22, and voice your opinion. You can preregister at http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/federal-updates.

Count on conservative Republicans to raise the bar higher than the Democrats. Although elected in ‘06 on a platform that proclaimed reform, Democrats have done little in the way of substantively reforming the process of pork barrel spending. It took House Republicans to call for a one year hold on earmarks and it took House Democrats to turn them down on the offer.

Although the problem of pork barrel spending is a blight in both parties, Republican candidates at every level are taking the initiative to call for a suspension of earmarks until real reform can be put in place. In Indiana three congressional candidates have taken up the call for reform by calling for a zero-earmark policy until changes can be made. Former Republican Study Committee chairman Mike Pence has announced that he will not be making any appropriations request for fiscal year 2009 because “…it is clear to most Americans that the way Congress spends the people’s money is broken, especially when it comes to earmarks.”

The two other candidates calling for a moratorium on earmarks are Luke Puckett, running against Joe Donnelly (D) in CD 2, and Mike Sodrel, facing off against Baron Hill (D) in CD 9. Puckett is advocating for a two year suspension of the earmark process and Sodrel released a statement on Friday calling for a 1 year suspension stating “Earmarks can be beneficial when much needed dollars are sent to local communities, but the system needs to be fair, responsible, and transparent.”

By: Brian Sikma

“Congressman Donnelly Opposes Democratic Budget” states the headline of the most recent press release from Rep. Joe Donnelly (D). To be strictly and technically accurate, that statement is true. In a roll call vote on March 13, Donnelly (and the two other Indiana Blue Dogs, Hill and Ellsworth) voted against HCR 312, the Democrat supported budget resolution for fiscal year 2009.

HCR 312, the Democratic budget resolution, is the largest tax increase ever. If enacted, taxes will rise by about $682 billion. The Heritage Foundation did a study of how those taxes would impact individual congressional districts both from a tax standpoint and from an economic standpoint. Tax increases have two affects, first, they directly take money from the taxpayer, second, they have economic costs like job losses and increased production costs which are passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

In Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District, Rep. Donnelly’s district, the impact of the tax increase would be an additional $1,618 in taxes per taxpayer. Counting the economic costs would mean that individual taxpayers are out a total of $3,148 per capita as a result of the tax increase. It is also estimated that 2,111 jobs would be lost in the 2nd District as a result of the Democrats budget. Click here to see the data for your own congressional district.

To look at the entire situation surrounding that dismal budget resolution, however, presents a slightly different picture. Rep. Donnelly and his fellow Blue Dogs have proclaimed themselves to be fiscal conservatives. At times they have cast conservative votes. There is a difference though between casting occasional conservative votes or even just conservative votes on key votes, while neglecting the overall series of actions that a true fiscal conservative would take.

On March 12 the House considered and voted on a resolution to consider HCR 312, the budget resolution. That March 12 resolution was not the budget resolution, but if it had been defeated it would have at least slowed down the passage of the actual budget resolution. On that roll call vote, Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill, and Brad Ellsworth joined their Democratic majority and voted to allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.

Here is why that vote was not a good vote: everyone who voted on that measure realized that even if they voted against the actual budget resolution, the tax raising unemployment generating budget resolution would pass because a Democratic majority controls the House. Therefore, if one was going to be wholly principled on the matter, he or she would have to vote against the initial resolution and the actual budget resolution.

Donnelly and his fellow “conservative” Democrats were only half-principled on this matter of the budget and it is disingenuous of them to portray themselves as advocates of the hard-working middle class American.

Last week Congress voted on whether or not the FISA law should be brought into the 21st Century. FISA, a law governing the use of wiretaps and other measures used in surveillance of foreign individuals, was enacted in 1978 and it contains some serious loopholes that terrorists and their accomplices can use to escape detection. In order to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States, FISA had to be modified after 9/11. After the Democrats took control of Congress the law expired and Democrats decided that the political hot potato (so-called warrant-less wiretapping) was a little to hot to warrant a long term solution.

In late January Congress passed a 15 day extension of the law. That extension ran out last week so Congress once again had the chance to permanently update our intelligence laws for the 21st Century. Unfortunately, House Democrats were either confused about what needs to take place or were apathetic to passing legislation that would protect the American people. Two of Indiana’s very strong Republican candidates currently running against incumbent Democrats took the opportunity this vote provided to clarify how they differed from their opponents on the issue of national security.

Down in the 9th district Mike Sodrel had this to say about the vote:

“It is irresponsible for House Democrats to refuse to move the Senate’s bipartisan bill and let the Protect America Act expire.

“Democrats in Congress have decided to go home instead of doing their job by providing the tools our intelligence people need to protect Americans from terrorists”.

Up in the 2nd district Luke Puckett had this to say about the subject:

“Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline. Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. Expiration would lead to the loss of important tools our workforce relies on to discover the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad.”

Puckett’s opponent, Joe Donnelly (D), played an interesting role in last week’s events. On Wednesday morning Donnelly bucked party leadership and joined the Republicans on a roll call vote on the subject. In the afternoon, however, Donnelly changed his position and joined his party leadership in the afternoon vote on the bill. Either Joe Donnelly doesn’t know what his position is or he’s just not interested in protecting the American people and providing our national intelligence agencies with the legal tools that they need.

This fall the choice for voters accross America will be clear: The Republican candidates have pledged to do whatever it takes to win the defining conflict of our era, the Democratic candidates have continually failed to decisivly act on key proposals that have real consequences for our security.

This post also on Hoosier Access.

I'm doing something a blogger should not do. I shouldn't post so many posts in one day only to neglect it the next day but my schedule has been very busy lately so I'm going to just post this stuff now and hopefully you'll be able to digest it.

Bob Novak, a Washington based political reporter, wrote a very revealing article on the recent failure of the House Democratic Majority to permanently bring America’s intelligence gathering laws into the 21st Century.Apparently the sticking point for some in the Democratic Majority in the House was that trial lawyers were arguing against the bi-partisan Senate passed bill that put in place a long-term fix to the terrorist loophole. Some trial lawyers have helped bankroll Democratic candidates.

By not working for a real solution to this problem, House Democrats have effectively put the interests of trial lawyers and big donors ahead of the safety of the American people.

Luke Puckett does not support short-term fixes that don’t deal with the underlying problem.

As a Congressman, Luke Puckett will stand up for the most important special interest group: The American people. Often this group is overlooked and under-represented in the offices of K-Street lobbyists. It’s time for real, common-sense solutions that keep America safe.

Baron Hill has officially decided to see re-election to Congress. What a surprise. From a habitual politican we've been expecting this for a long time.

The Hoosierpundit has this interesting post on the subject.

Mike Sodrel also has a new website that you will want to check out. It's a pretty snappy website.

Joe Donnelly, the Blue Dog Democrat from Indiana's 2nd District, won't get off easy this fall. Earlier in this cycle there was speculation that he would get off easy if no challenger emerged. That has all changed now.

Luke Puckett, a successful small business owner from the east side of the district, has decided to run for Congress on a platform of common-sense solutions. Luke Puckett believes that real solutions don't come from Washington, they come from the heartland and he's running to promote those solutions in Washington.

Here is some news coverage of the announcement:

Remember what we were told at the beginning of the 110th Congress? Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declared that with the Democrats in control Congress would be returning to a 5 day work week. Presumably this decision was made to show that now that the Democrats ruled the Hill, the peoples business would be accomplished. This of course all being contingent on the people wisely agreeing with the Democrats ideas. Well, the work week that started Monday, Jan 28th wasn't five days long. In fact it started on the 28th and went to the 29th. That's a 2 day work week, not a 5 day work week. The reason the week was so short was because the Democrats had their annual party retreat starting on Wednesday.

A party retreat, or even short work week, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Members of Congress are human, inspite of the fact that some would have you think otherwise, and require breaks from their work just like the rest of us. The problem with this particular break though was that in hurrying out the door and off to their retreat, House Democrats failed to act responsibly on a very important issue that impacts the security of all of us.

Since assuming the majority in 2007, House Democrats have played kick-the-can with the Protect America Act. This legislation remedies a flawed FISA court ruling placing greater restrictions on the actions of U.S. intelligence agencies when those agencies seek to gather information from international phone calls that pass through the United States. Contrary to the popular interpretation, U.S. intelligence is not eavesdropping on phone calls between American citizens. The Protect America Act simply authorizes and codifies legal protections for intelligence agencies and private sector telecommunication companies that work or assist in the work of gathering intelligence from international suspects. The actions of the intelligence agencies do not violate any part of the Constitution.

Of course the facts can't get in the way of politics and Democrats and their liberal friends such as MoveOn.org have publicly turned this issue into a campaign against the Bush administration's waging of the War on Terror (better named the Islamic Terrorists' War on Freedom). Privately, however, Democrats have faced the dilemma of governing as opposed to the campaigning that earns them big bucks from George Soros types.

With U.S. intelligence agencies facing a very severe limitation on their power to gather critical pieces of information, the President called on Congress in the summer of 2007 to pass legislation remedying the problem. In August the Democrat controlled House and Senate passed the Protect America Act. They set the law to expire in 6 months.

Six months later Congress, instead of passing a permanent solution solving this problem and allowing our intelligence forces to plan ahead and continue to protect us, has passed a 15 day extension. A fifteen day solution to a national security problem just so House Democrats can head out on their merry little retreat and deal with the problems later is conduct unbecoming for the majority party of the legislative body that deems itself "the people's House."

While this may be the kind of tactic that one should expect of some of the older Democratic lawmakers, it certainly isn't what freshmen Democrats such as Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) promised voters when they ran for election in 2006. In both cases, the then candidates ran on a platform of changing the culture of Washington. Specifically, Joe Donnelly stated that "As your congressman, I am determined to make sure that our men and women serving both here and abroad have the tools, training, and leadership they need to protect us here at home and to pursue and defeat our adversaries abroad."

Rep. Donnelly, those who protect America need more than a 15 day extension on a tool that is utterly critical for them to do their job and keep America safe. They deserve better, your constituents deserve better, America deserves better.

Back in December I missed an opportunity to bring to your attention a very critical vote that Indiana's three Blue Dog Democrats cast. The vote was on the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, a measure with funds and regulates how our intelligence agencies carry out their duties.

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D), Rep. Baron Hill (D) and Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D) all joined the Democratic Leadership in voting for the Act. What makes their vote a bad vote? The bill didn't just fund the intelligence agencies, it also imposed new regulations that would make it harder for the brave men and women who work hard to keep America safe to do their job. The bill-HR 2082-specifically denies agencies the power to use water boarding and other hard interrogation techniques that have earned the title of "torture" from our well meaning liberal friends.

I am not in favor of torture and neither are the individuals who voted against this bill. What conservatives and Republicans are in favor of is protecting the American people. If we have scare some Islamofascist thug into thinking he is drowning in order to gain important information from him, then we need to do that. When the lives of innocent potential victims are on the line, it is not torture to compel an individual to reveal as much as they know about a terrorist plot.

Torture is when you disfigure, maim, or otherwise inflict permanent physical or psychological damage on the victim for no other reason than to punish the person. It is not torture to inflict physical discomfort or psychological terror in order to obtain information that can and will save lives.

On Joe Donnelly's campaign website the sitting congressman declares:

"We face threats everyday from our enemies who are committed to causing harm to Americans both at home and to our allies and interests overseas. As your congressman, I am determined to make sure that our men and women serving both here and abroad have the tools, training, and leadership they need to protect us here at home and to pursue and defeat our adversaries abroad. "

In voting to deny intelligence agencies the tools they need, Joe Donnelly effectively left the American people a little more vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

By: Brian Sikma

At a recent Congressional hearing Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) questioned whether or not an economic stimulus package is necessary and whether or not such a package would violate the semi-sacred PAYGO rules embraced by Hill and his party. With the economy entering a slow down Hill doesn't seem to understand that tax cuts help the middle class and alleviate the financial burden that they bear.

When the economy slows down, the solution isn't to raise taxes, the solution is to look for ways to allow individuals and businesses to keep more of their own money and use that money to generate economic growth. Tax revenues are not tied to tax rates, they are tied to economic health and tax cuts and responsible spending promote economic growth.

The PAYGO concerns raised by Hill illustrate his willingness to raise taxes at a time when that would be exactly the wrong move. PAYGO rules don't restrict Congress's options to balancing the budget to a tax increase. The also allow Congress to reduce spending in order to balance the budget. The Democrats now control Congress, yet they have failed to demonstrate their fiscal responsibility.

In December the House passed a massive spending bill that contained 9,000 earmarks. As Americans carefully assess their personal expenditures during this economic slowdown House Democrats felt that more irresponsible spending was the way to go. Baron Hill and his colleagues need to stop their irresponsible ways and start governing like adults.

Here is a video of Baron questioning whether or not we need economic stimulus and musing on how PAYGO should take precedent over tax cuts:

Somewhere overseas Baron Hill sweats it out in the jungle working hard for the American taxpayer. Okay, maybe not sweating hard, but he is overseas enjoying a trip with his wife and a few other members of Congress on your nickel. How's that for fiscal conservatism?

You can read a pretty interesting review of the trip over at Hoosierpundit.

A salient point that I want to bring up here is that Baron Hill missed the recent send-off of Indiana's very own 76th Infantry Brigade because of his trip. Every member of Indiana's congressional delegation was present in Indianapolis with other state officials to wish God-speed to the 76th on its departure to defend freedom. This was the largest deployment of Indiana National Guardsmen since World War 2. It should be noted that Mike Sodrel was present for the send-off.

This isn't the first time that Baron has let our troops down though. Check out here.

By: Brian Sikma

The January 9th edition of the Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article on Indiana’s 9th congressional district race between the sitting congressman, Baron Hill, and the congressman seeking re-election, Mike Sodrel.

Of interest to readers is the brief interview the writer did with an average pro-life voter in the 9th district. Like most Hoosiers, folks in the 9th district are solid, dependable, and hard working people who are conservative to the core. When they say they’re pro-life, they mean that they are pro-life; no caveats, no special rules to jump through. It is understandable that the self identified pro-life voter interviewed in the article is a little confused about where Baron Hill stands on the pro-life issue.

Baron has gone to Washington and voted for pro-choice legislation that has put him at odds with two things: 1) the views of the voters back home and 2) the views of Baron Hill as expressed to some of the voters back home. If you are going to be pro-choice, come out and say it. Don’t bait and switch the voters. Don’t run one way when you are home and then another way when you’re with Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi.

Click here to read the Wall Street Journal article.

Click here if you want to know what specifically makes Baron Hill pro-choice.

By: Brian Sikma

"Congressman Donnelly Votes to Allow Hoosier Taxpayers to Keep More of their Money." So blares the headline of a press release issued by Rep. Joe Donnelly's (D-IN) Congressional office. The press release touts Joe Donnelly's vote to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax for the next year so middle income families will not be hit with a tax designed decades ago to insure that the very rich contribute something in income taxes.

This vote is a good vote, but unfortunately Joe Donnelly voted against fixing the AMT before he voted to fix the AMT. On December 19th, Donnelly joined 351 other House members in voting to protect American taxpayers from a tax increase. Just two days earlier, on December 17th, Joe Donnelly voted with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the wishes of Speaker Pelosi to adjourn the session without passing AMT relief.

According to the press release, Donnelly declared that "With the increasing costs of energy, health care, and education, the last thing Hoosiers need is to be paying higher income taxes." That is true, but why did Joe Donnelly vote to adjourn the session when his constituents needed him to fight for tax relief?

Joe Donnelly is part of a Democrat Majority that has failed to pass necessary spending bills, welcomed illegal immigrants, stolen a floor vote, tried to raise taxes on energy companies and spent more time fighting with the President over Iraq than paying attention to cleaning up the culture of corruption that exists in the earmark process.

To top all of this off, the PAYGO spending rules heralded by Donnelly and the rest of the Democrat Majority had to be violated in order to pass AMT reform. The Democrat Majority can't even govern itself according to the rules it laid out at the beginning of the year. If you can't govern according to your own rules how can you expect to effectively govern the rest of the country?

By: Brian Sikma

Congressional leadership is ready to wrap it up for the year, but business isn’t finished and that’s causing something of a stir on Capitol Hill. On December 17th the House voted on a resolution to adjourn the session before Christmas. However, the unfinished business of AMT relief is holding things up. The Senate and House have passed bills that would keep middle class families from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax next year, but the Senate version doesn’t include a way to offset the predicted loss of revenue.

The attempt to pass a resolution adjourning for the year failed because some House Democrats voted against their leadership and voted to stay and finish the job.

The gripe that some House Democrats have is that if they vote on and pass a Senate version of the AMT relief bill, they will break the pay-as-you-go rules instituted by the new majority at the start of the session. By not offsetting the tax relief with either new taxes (as Blue Dog Democrats want) or spending cuts (which would be the wiser course of action), the Democrats will break a promise that they made to the American people: we will be fiscally responsible by instituting a rule that requires us to pay for what we are buying.

All three of Indiana’s Blue Dog Democrats voted in favor of adjourning before Christmas even if it means not covering the cost of AMT relief either through tax increases or spending decreases. Baron Hill, Joe Donnelly, and Brad Ellsworth voted in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to violate their promises to constituents. That’s the same kind of rubber stamping each of these congressmen accused their opponents of doing.

In 2006 the American people elected a Democratic majority that promised to be fiscally responsible. Now, the Democratic Congress is proving that they can’t control spending. Middle class families need to be protected from the AMT, and Congress needs to take a long hard look at its spending priorities.

By: Brian Sikma

Yes, you read the title correctly. Congress just increased the fuel efficiency of American automobiles. That news comes straight from a very reliable source: Rep. Baron Hill's occasional e-mail newsletter titled "Baron's Briefings." Prepared and sent at taxpayer expense, it amounts to nothing more than a press release that starts with the words "Dear Friend".

According the letter, the recently passed H.R. 6 will "increase American energy independence, strengthen national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy and create new jobs, and reduce global warming." Now, apparently all of these good results come about because of one main thing that Rep. Hill (D) is very proud of: the new CAFE fuel standards.

Established in 1975 under a Democratic Congress and a big-government Republican president, CAFE standards mandate that a particular manufacturers fleet of vehicles meet a specific standard for fuel efficiency worked out from a weighted formula. H.R. 6 mandates a 40% increase in CAFE fuel efficiency standards by 2020.

Increased fuel efficiency sounds like a good thing, and in many cases it is. But as is typical with any effort to centrally plan an intricate portion of an economy, merely mandating that fuel efficiency will be raised does not mean that the consumers will benefit. Certainly there has been a trend towards increasingly favorable views of more fuel efficient vehicles since gas prices started their rise a few years ago, but that trend has been market driven. That's a key concept: Market driven. What it means is that the individual choices of hundreds of thousands of consumers are collectively having an impact on the way businesses work. It means that the people, and not the bureaucrats, are deciding how much they are willing to pay for more fuel efficient vehicles.

With a mandate to increase fuel efficiency, automotive manufacturers could be forced to engineer their vehicles to meet federal standards and not market desires. Why is this a bad thing for consumers? Well, it means that although you may be willing to pay $2,000 extra for a more fuel efficient car, if the technology for making that vehicle meet federal fuel efficiency standards costs $4,000, you lose. Either you pay the extra money now or go without a new car.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against fuel efficiency because we certainly need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it's one thing for the consumers to make their demands heard through the marketplace and another thing for the federal government to come in and arbitrarily determine what automakers have to do.

Until Baron Hill learns that people, and not the government, can best make their own economic choices, southern Indiana will continue to have a Congressman with misguided good intentions.

By Michael Brady


When U.S. Representative Baron Hill, D-IN, was defeated in 2004 by Mike Sodrel, he went to work as Senior Advisor (1)for mCapitol, a Washington, DC, lobby firm. According to Congressional records, Hill earned $237,500 (2) in 16 months at mCapitol, even though House ethics rules prevented him from lobbying his former Congressional colleagues for one year.

After winning a rematch against Sodrel in 2006, Hill is back in Congress, and it didn’t take long for mCapitol to see a return on its investment.

According to the Courier Journal (3), and a review of federal lobbying records by the Majority Accountability Project (http://www.majorityap.com/), Hill won House approval for at least $625,000 in federal earmarks for mCapitol clients.

The Courier Journal reported on August 20 that Hill garnered $375,000 for Schneck Medical Center in Seymour, IN, and $250,000 for Next Wave Systems of Pekin, IN. Schneck Medical Center paid mCapitol $30,000 in lobbying fees through the end of 2006, while Next Wave has paid $40,000 through June 30, 2007.

Official lobbying records report that mCapitol’s lobbyist assigned to Schneck Medical Center was Ryan Guthrie (4), Hill’s longtime chief of staff. When Hill joined mCapitol in February, 2005, Guthrie was hired with him (1), as a company Vice President. After Hill’s 2006 victory, Guthrie left mCapitol to rejoin him as Chief of Staff.

Since the Indiana Democrat reneged on a pledge to release all his requests for federal funding, it’s impossible to know whether Hill sought even more taxpayer funds for mCapitol clients.
Not long after his election, amid a clamor over reforming the process by which members of Congress obtain federal funds for pet projects, Hill pledged to make public all his funding requests.

“Most people know about the ‘highway to nowhere,” Hill told the News and Tribune (5) in January, 2007. “So I think that if people knew about the ‘highway to nowhere’ up front by having to declare what you’re trying to get money for, they know that would stop this kind of thing from going on.”

But in April, 2007, Hill told the Indianapolis Star (6) he would not release those “requests despite earlier statements because (he wanted) to respect the privacy of those who have come to them asking for help.”

The paper reported Hill was likewise asked if he would disclose "a list of every earmark request you make this year."

"If I believe in transparency, I ought to be able to share it with you," the article said Hill replied in November.

Hill’s office tried to explain the about-face by saying he “misunderstood the question and only promised to disclose his requests that receive funding.”

Hill is the freshmen Democrat with the most prior experience in Congress. Hill served three terms in Congress before his 2004 defeat, and was a member of Democrat leadership as Chief Deputy Whip, making his claim to have “misunderstood” the question less than credible.

1. http://www.mcapitol.com/2005_02_09.html
2. http://www.legistorm.com/memberdisclosure/Rep_Baron_Hill/765.html
3. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NEWS02/708200411/1025
4. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/firmlbs.asp?txtname=mCapitol+Management&year=2006
5. http://www.news-tribune.net/local/local_story_012212409.html
6. New lawmakers mum on funding requests Reps. Ellsworth, Hill backpedal on revealing who sought federal money: By Maureen Groppe, IndyStar Washington Bureau[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070402/LOCAL19/704020407l] "WASHINGTON -- Two freshly elected congressmen who pledged to make their requests for special spending transparent are now joining most other Indiana lawmakers by keeping their so-called "earmarks" secret. The controversial spending practice occurs outside the normal authorization process, providing millions to universities, airports, transit systems, municipal governments and private companies. Critics, however, label the spending political pork. U.S. Reps. Baron Hill, D-Seymour, and Brad Ellsworth, D-Evansville, say they are not releasing their requests despite earlier statements because they want to respect the privacy of those who have come to them asking for help."

On Saturday, September 9th, the New York Times ran an ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. The ad however, was not just your average issue oriented advertising. Quite to the contrary, the MoveOn.org advertisement stooped to the level of calling Gen. David Petraeus "Gen. Betray Us." This ad was run on the eve of Gen. Petraeus's and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's appearance before Congress for the purpose of bringing the Congress up-to-date on the status of the War in Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus was overwhelming approved by the U.S. Senate to the post of commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I). As a four star general he has exhibited the highest qualities ever found in an American Warrior. Calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor is simply unconscionable.

Many Republicans have spoken out against the MoveOn.org ad. Democrats have so far been very silent. In fact, although some Democrats have stated that they respect Gen. Petraeus, they have not come out in opposition to this despicable ad.

Rep. Baron Paul Hill (D), accused Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) of being a rubber stamp for the President. Now Rep. Hill has a chance to distinguish himself from Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. While his party's leadership has refused to condemn MoveOn.org, Rep. Hill should use this opportunity prove to Hoosiers that he's not been bought and paid for by MoveOn.org.

The values of MoveOn.org are contary to the Red, White, and Blue values that we as Americans hold. Every politician, every elected leader, no matter what their political stripe, should be jumping at this opportunity to condemn the actions of an organization that claims to control their party while at the same time tearing down the character of one of our most respected and patriotic military leaders.

This Letter to the Editor was posted in the New Albany Tribune on September 2, 2007.


Reader: Hill blocks sunlight

How quickly things change. Less than a year ago, candidate Baron Hill promised voters of Indiana’s 9th Congressional district that, if elected, he would work to clean up the culture of corruption in Washington. Many Hoosiers interpreted that as taking a stand against the wasteful “earmark” process that siphons billions of tax dollars into projects of dubious merit.
Yet this year, according to a tally kept by the Heritage Foundation, Rep. Hill and his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives submitted more than 32,000 secretive “earmark” requests. These requests provide employment for an army of lobbyists who have created Washington’s “pay for play” culture.

The thinking among members of Congress seems to be that if they make it harder for the taxpaying public to find out what earmarks are being requested, they can claim success in cleaning up the mess. It hasn’t drawn much attention, but the Library of Congress’ respected Congressional Research Service — long the official source of earmark data — has stopped identifying the source of earmark requests. It is now up to each individual member to tell us what earmarks he or she requests. Whose idea was that?

We do know that, this year, Rep. Hill and his colleagues used earmarks to support a mountain of questionable expenditures, including $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which helped finance the World Toilet Summit; $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C.; $100,000 for the Richard Steele Boxing Club in Henderson, Nev.; and $1 million for the Waterfree Urinal Initiative.

Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson had it right when he recently said that earmarks need to be “in the open, for all to see and evaluate, and their use needs to be significantly limited.” But Hill, a former lobbyist and self-described “conservative Democrat,” keeps his earmark requests secret. Who is he representing, anyway?

Rep. Hill’s insistence on secrecy is hard to square with his pledge to clean up the “culture of corruption” he was so happy to denounce. For my part, I hope Hoosiers will pay close attention to this issue and take note of just exactly what their representatives are doing, as well as what they are saying.

It is a critical time in our nation’s history. We’re fighting wars abroad. We’re securing our homeland against terrorist attacks. Our largest social programs face insolvency. It is past time for politicians like Hill to get serious about these enormous challenges — and to reveal to us their actual priorities.

Rep. Hill has let us down. He has elected to keep his spending priorities secret, and to keep us in the dark about what occupies his time and attention. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And, despite his campaign promises, Hill is blocking that sunlight.

— Todd C. Young, Attorney at Law, Paoli

Last week AP ran a national story on how Democrats in Red States are worried that if Hillary Clinton wins their party's nomination, her divisiveness will drag down Democratic candidates further down the ballot. In fact, some are saying that the drag could be as much as 3 or 4 percentage points. Quoted in the article was Indiana State Rep. Dave Crooks (D) who was one of the few Democrats that the AP interviewed who was willing to go on the public record as having concerns with a Clinton candidacy. Now, the Indy Star has run an article by Mike Smith, Indiana State House AP reporter, reiterating the same concerns expressed in last week's national AP story.

According to Smith:

"But William Kubik, a political science professor at Hanover College in Jefferson County, agrees with Crooks.

"I think Democrats in this state are very worried about her being the nominee," Kubik said. "I think other candidates would be much better for local Democrats simply by virtue of the fact that they won't generate the sort of negative response that will get Republicans to turn out in large numbers.

"She would not only have a hard time winning the state, but I think she would also hurt the ticket all the way down." "

Hillary may have garnered two articles, one of them nationwide, but she's not the only Democratic leader that conservative Democrats are worried about.

Bloomberg ran a story just yesterday on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and how some freshman Democrats are worried that any appearance of a strong relationship with the Speaker will hurt the re-election prospects next year.

""I don't anticipate her coming to my district,'' said first-term Democrat Christopher Carney, whose northeast Pennsylvania district gave Bush 60 percent of its vote in 2004.

"It's not that she's unwelcome, but she doesn't play as well in Pennsylvania's 10th District as she would'' in California, Carney said. "

So she's welcome but she doesn't play well? What Rep. Carney is saying is that if the voters of his conservative district found out that Nancy Pelosi and he could possibly be close workmates on Capitol Hill, they may not be too friendly towards him at the polls next year. With Congressional poll numbers plummeting, the story noted that Speaker Pelosi's personal poll numbers are tied with *drumroll* Vice President Cheney!

I'm looking forward to seeing what will happen if Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton visit Indiana's three conservative congressional districts currently held by Democrats. Can you imagine how helpful a picture of Sen. Clinton, Rep. Pelosi, and Rep. Baron Hill would be? It would help 9th District voters really visualize what kind of congressman they have.

As Democrats are beginning to realize that liberal values from either New York or California are not going to play well in conservative areas, Republicans would do well to learn what does play well in those areas. Bad news for your opponent is not good news for you unless you know how to use that information to buttress your position. Republicans can't sit back and wait for Democrats to self implode; that simply won't happen.

What Republicans need to do is imitate, Ronald Reagan and run on conservative common-sense principles. It won't be enough to just pay lip-service to the principles of limited government, low taxes, less government regulation, and the important cultural and spiritual values like the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and parental rights. No, if we're going to win and then continue to maintain a majority, we're going to have to throw cautious political calculation to the wind and pursue an aggressive agenda of common sense.