We Didn't Send You to Congress to Be a Blue Dog, Annie (part 3)

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that there's a huge US spy program that is able to collect all manner of data, including our phone call records.

I've never had contact with anyone I knew was a terrorist - yet I'm on an airline watch list. I'm allowed to fly, but not unmolested. Every time I fly, I get hauled out of line, felt up, wanded, and everything I have with me is searched: computer bag, purse, and checked baggage. Why? I don't know. I can't find out either, because no one will admit that I'm even on a list, because that's protected information, thanks to the Patriot Act. I can't find out how I got on a list or how to get off - because there is no list. Frisking me at airports keeps the rest of you nationally secure - middle aged women being such a big terrorist threat and all.

Neither the CIA or the Dept. of Fatherland Security can stop actual terrorist attacks, probably because they're too busy spying on US citizens. Since the beginning of the good old USA, whenever the opportunity arose, there were those brave patriots who thought the answer to any threat was spying on their fellow Murkins.

This week, there was an amendment to the bloated Defense Appropriations bill that would have limited the NSA's (National Security Agency) ability to collect electronic data, including phone call records.
It was called the Amash amendment. Most of us thought it was a fine idea. We don't like the idea that we're being spied on. Obama, of course, supports the spying, as do many in leadership. Surveillance means big bucks being shoveled at contractors, and they certainly wouldn't want to interfere with that.
The amendment failed, on a vote of 217-205.

Here in NH, our Congresswomen were split. Carol Shea-Porter voted for the amendment:

This week, after very careful analysis and meetings with those pro and con, I voted for the Amash Amendment. As we have all seen in the last few months, government intelligence activities are in dire need of more transparency. I voted for the amendment because it would have helped keep our government accountable to the people and still allow for the collection of necessary information.

Annie Kuster, who ran for Congress as a progressive, got there, and settled in as a Blue Dog, voted in favor of continued surveillance.

"Rep. Kuster strongly believes we can and must protect both our national security and our constitutionally protected right to privacy, and she is committed to conducting vigorous oversight of our country's intelligence operations. She supports a bipartisan measure that would ban the NSA from acquiring the content of Americans' phone calls and emails without undermining counterterrorism tools that help keep our country safe," Kuster spokesman Rob Friedlander said in a statement Wednesday night.

Pre-election progressive Annie was concerned about military spending, war, surveillance, etc. Blue Dog Annie marches in lockstep with the wingnuts on the far right, far too often. 

Kuster has surrounded herself with bad advisors from the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. She didn't have to. I don't know why she felt the need to veer sharply to the right the minute she landed in DC. I do know this: many of her former supporters are disgusted, and will not contribute to her fundraising for 2014. Groups that supported her last time are disgusted, and won't support her again. If only the NH Democratic Party were smart enough and strong enough to encourage someone strong to mount a primary challenge against Kuster. They aren't. 

O'Brien doesn't have a chance, but if Charlie Bass wants his old seat back, he's likely to win it. 

We didn't send you to Congress to be a Blue Dog, Annie. 

We Didn't Send You to Congress to be a Blue Dog Annie, Part 1
Part 2



Honorable Mention: Kuster joins No Labels



Newspaper stories about this vote:  Concord Monitor and the Union Leader

Annie We Didn't Send You to DC to be a Blue Dog, part 2

Proud 2 join bipartisan colleagues in advancing #FarmBill - imp step fwd 4 farmers/consumers/rural communities in #NH 1.usa.gov/107mxw4
— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) May 16, 2013

As you can see, Congresswoman Kuster is PROUD of her vote. 

Hey, kids, guess what is in that vote? Some drastic cuts to the food stamp (SNAP) program. From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

On May 15, the House Agriculture Committee passed its 2013 farm bill, H.R. 1947 (the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, or FARRM).[1]   The bill would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) by almost $21 billion over the next decade, eliminating food assistance to nearly 2 million low-income people, mostly working families with children and senior citizens. 

and

The bill’s SNAP cuts would come on top of an across-the-board reduction in benefits that every SNAP recipient will experience starting November 1, 2013.  On that date, the increase in SNAP benefits established by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) will end, resulting in a loss of approximately $25 in monthly SNAP benefits for a family of four.  Placing the SNAP cuts in this farm bill on top of the benefit cuts that will take effect in November is likely to put substantial numbers of poor families at risk of food insecurity.The majority of the bill’s SNAP cuts come from eliminating a state option known as “categorical eligibility.”  Congress created this option in the 1996 welfare law, allowing states to provide food assistance to households — primarily low-income working families and seniors — that have gross incomes or assets modestly above federal SNAP limits but disposable incomes in most cases below the poverty line.

In other words, if you're a low wage working family but you have a CAR - you're gonna have to figure out a way to feed that car to the kids. 

• The bill would terminate SNAP eligibility for several million people.  By eliminating the categorical eligibility state option, which over 40 states have adopted, the bill would cut nearly 2 million low-income people off SNAP. 
• Several hundred thousand low-income children would lose access to free school meals.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 210,000 children in low-income families whose eligibility for free school meals is tied to their receipt of SNAP would lose free school meals when their families lose SNAP benefits.

This is what Congresswoman Kuster is proud to have voted for. 

Some quick NH poverty facts. Living in poverty: 

12% of  children.

9% of seniors.

10% of women. 

26% of single parent families. 

The overal poverty rate is 8.7%. The extreme poverty rate is 4.4%. 

9.6% of NH residents live with food insecurity. 

44, 000 New Hampshire children receive SNAP benefits. 

Ann Kuster voted, proudly, against the poor, the elderly, women, single parent families, and above all the children of our state. 

The excuse for all of this is reining in "out of control program growth." Funny how they never say that about weapons spending. Tell your Congresscritter you want cuts to the Pentagon budget, not cuts that take food away from children. 

The bill goes to the full House next. There's plenty of time to make a bunch of noise about this. If you live in Kuster's district, be sure to express your displeasure. And start thinking seriously an actual progressive candidate to run against her in the primary next year. 

Kuster's offices: 

137 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone: (202) 225-5206

18 North Main Street, Fourth Floor

Concord, NH 03301

Phone: (603) 226-1002
Fax: (603) 21010
Hours: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday - Friday

70 East Pearl Street

Nashua, NH 03060

Phone: (603) 595-2006
Fax: (603) 595-2016
Hours: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday - Friday