This page was last updated on February 23, 2012.
Democrats Will Choose Nominee for US Congress from New 12th District; Randy Shannon; Progressive Democrats of America – PA 4th CD Chapter; February 20, 2012.
You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here.
From 2004 to 2008, the BCT published at least 17 letters from Mr. Shannon. I found none since 2008. You can find my critiques of those letters here, here, here, here, and here. In addition to what you learned about Mr. Shannon’s positions here and in his letters to the editor, consider the following exchange on a fellow BCR member’s Facebook wall (9/27/11).
Lefty #1: “Capitalism has to go. Merely taxing/regulating always fails in the end.”
Mr. Shannon: “Divide and conquer. Take down the crazy bankers first.”
Rather than a full-blown critique, below are my comments about selected excerpts. For those portions I did not address, I recommend you do some fact-checking if you plan to use the info. For that matter, don’t accept what I write either. It’s important for all of us to do our own research to learn whom we can and can’t trust.
“Leo W. Gerard, United Steelworkers international president, said in announcing his endorsement of Critz last month that the congressman ‘has tirelessly fought unfair trade deals and job-killing currency manipulation by China.’”
[RWC] Since Mr. Gerard is not a U.S. citizen (He’s a Canadian.), why should any of us care about his position on U.S. issues? Here’s why. Mr. Gerard is a foreign national running a political-advocacy business with over 600,000 members, 2010 revenue of $277 million, and that spent over $6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” The citizenship issue is not important because of what Mr. Gerard preaches; it’s important because of his position and the power of that position to affect local, state, and federal policies. You can find more about this at the bottom of a previous critique. It’s also necessary to note truth in advertising would require USW management to change its business’ name. According to “Steelworkers a minority within their own union,” as of 2005 less than one-third (about 180,000 out of about 600,000) of USW “members [are] employed in the primary and fabricated metals industries.”
“The Allegheny County Democratic Committee endorsed Altmire by a vote of 122 to 63 on February 12th. Other county Democratic Committees will vote by secret ballot in the coming weeks.”
[RWC] A “secret ballot?” Aren’t these guys among those who support the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (aka card check), a labor-union-management scheme to do away with a secret ballot when it comes to employees voting for union certification?
“Both candidates describe themselves as ‘conservative’ Democrats. Altmire has voted approximately 50% with the Democratic Party while Critz has voted approximately 75% with the Democratic Party. As predicted in a Beaver County Blue article last year, Can the Democratic Party Survive the Blue Dogs, Altmire has shifted to a more conservative voting pattern.”
[RWC] I have yet to see Messrs. Altmire and Critz “describe themselves as ‘conservative’ Democrats,” but who knows? That said, it’s fair to say Messrs. Altmire and Critz are not Beaver County Reds Democrats either. While Democrats hold a voter registration advantage over Republicans in Mr. Altmire’s district (current 4th district), the Democrats who vote in general elections are not “Kucinich Democrats” and would not look favorably on anyone whom they knew to vote very “liberal,” “progressive,” et cetera. Remember, despite Democrats holding a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans, John McCain beat Barack Obama in Beaver County in 2008. Further, in 2002 and 2006, the Republican candidates for governor lost by much smaller margins (52% to 45% in 2002 and 55% to 45% in 2006) in BC than would be expected (67% to 33%) given the Democrat registration advantage. The same was true in 2004 when George W. Bush lost to John Kerry in BC by only 51% to 48%. Finally, in 2010 in Beaver County, Republican candidates took back both the PA governorship (56% to 43%) and one of PA’s U.S. Senate seats (52% to 47%).
“The Republican Congress has introduced many bills to cut essential government program [sic] and to undermine social security and medicate [sic]. Last May Altmire voted with the Republicans on HB1213 to Repeal and Defund the State Healthcare Exchange program. Critz voted no with 183 other Democrats while Altmire joined 5 Democrats to vote against healthcare.”
[RWC] Mr. Shannon accuses Republicans of trying “to undermine social security [sic].” I don’t recall Mr. Shannon complaining when, during a lame-duck session of Congress after the 2010 election, a Democratic-majority Congress and President Obama enacted a “payroll tax holiday.”
Regarding the “payroll tax holiday,” I just learned I was snookered by the media (left & right) and our elected representatives (left & right). Ever since the passage of H. R. 4853 in December 2010, we heard about how the “employee portion” of the SS tax would drop from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011. (You can learn about the myth of the employer portion of Medicare and SS taxes in a critique of a Shannon letter-to-the-editor in 2008.) This consistent reporting from all sides caused me to note we were cutting the only funding source for a program already in financial trouble. Unfortunately, at the time I did not read the bill myself. I occasionally redo my research and while doing that for this critique I found my previous understanding of H. R. 4853 was wrong. Under Title VI, Section 601, I found the following: “TRANSFERS TO FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE TRUST FUND.—There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) amounts equal to the reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the application of subsection (a). Amounts appropriated by the preceding sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.” In other words, the general fund would transfer to SS an amount equivalent to the tax revenue “lost” by the so-called “payroll tax holiday.” All the “payroll tax holiday” did was switch from which of our pockets the SS tax would be taken and necessitate issuing even more federal debt. As a result, even those of us not subject to the SS tax will end up paying SS taxes plus interest via the transfers from the general fund. Not only was there no tax-rate cut, ultimately we end up paying more than we would have otherwise because we will have to pay the interest on the Treasury-issued debt required to fund the scam. This deception reminds me of “Three-Card Monte” or a shell game.
As for H.R. 1213 (not “HB1213”), the provision of Obamacare this resolution sought to repeal [H.B. 3590, Sec. 1311(a)] gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services a blank check to provide “ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.” Does any reasonable person believe any bureaucrat should have a blank check for any program?
“The Republicans introduced the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would make working people pay for the deficit by cutting Medicare. Altmire voted with 25 Democrats for HJR2 while Critz voted with 161 Democrats against the measure.”
[RWC] For someone so concerned about Medicare, I don’t recall Mr. Shannon complaining about Obamacare cutting Medicare spending by about $500 billion over 10 years. In any case, below is House Joint Resolution 2 (Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.). Please let me know if you can find where the resolution says it “would make working people pay for the deficit by cutting Medicare.”
“‘Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
“‘Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
“‘Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
“‘Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
“‘Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
“‘Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
“‘Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
“‘Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’.”
“The Republicans introduced a bill to block raising the debt ceiling. Altmire voted with 4 Democrats to support HJR77 while Critz vote with 181 Democrats opposing the measure.”
[RWC] Here’s what Mr. Shannon didn’t mention because he hopes we’re ignorant about the debt ceiling bill (“Budget Control Act of 2011,” S 365). Congress approved S 365 on August 2, 2011, and President Obama signed the bill the same day. House Republicans voted 174-66 in favor of S 365 while Democrats voted 95-95. S 365 approved a debt limit increase of about $2.1 trillion in three installments. The first installment of $400 billion went into effect with the passage of S 365. Theoretically, the last two installments could be stopped if Congress passed a disapproval resolution and Mr. Obama signed it. This provision of S 365 was purely for show and here’s why. First, even if the Republican-majority House passed such a resolution, the Democrat-majority would not. Second, even if pigs were flying and both houses of Congress passed the resolution, Mr. Obama would veto it. Third, since overriding the veto would require a 2/3’s majority in both houses, there’s no way Congress would override the veto. Therefore, when anyone voted for or against HJR 77, they knew their vote would have absolutely no effect on the scheduled debt-limit increases.
The sole reason for the disapproval provision was to provide cover for those representatives/senators who allegedly felt they had to vote for S 365 but represented constituents who would not be happy with the vote. The provision gave these people the ability to “disapprove” of the last two installments without worrying about their vote having any effect on the debt limit increase.
“According to a recent Beaver County Times article by J.D. Prose the new district voters are registered 52% Democratic, 38% Republican and 10% independent. The new district contains more voters from the old 4th District than from the old 12th District.”
[RWC] The BCT article was an opinion piece in which Mr. Prose claimed the info was “provided by Altmire’s camp.” Mr. Prose, however, didn’t tell us who “Altmire’s camp” is. Was it Mr. Altmire’s official staff, his campaign staff, a group that supports his candidacy, who? Mr. Prose has quite a habit of using anonymous sources.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.