Charles Hamilton – 9/29/06

This page was last updated on October 2, 2006.

Santorum’s sorry record; Charles Hamilton; Beaver County Times; September 29, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I have been reading the recent articles written about our upcoming senatorial election. Many words have been written about U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and his stand on certain issues. The following is the way Rick Santorum voted while in Washington, D.C.”

[RWC] All of the alleged votes below make sense unless you’re a liberal. Since Mr. Hamilton didn’t provide bill numbers, I didn’t waste my time trying to verify Mr. Hamilton’s claims below. For the sake of argument, though, let’s assume they’re correct.

“Voted against family medical leave.”

[RWC] Good. The government should not mandate which benefits a business provides its employees.

“Voted against increasing government grants by closing corporate tax loopholes. This cost working families $8.8 billion in Pell Grants.”

[RWC] So-called loopholes are provisions built into the tax code, and most of us benefit from at least one loophole or another. Remember, exemptions for dependents, deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations, IRA deductions, childcare credits, medical expenses, et cetera are loopholes. I wonder if Mr. Hamilton supports closing these loopholes.

Regarding “working families,” aren’t the vast majority of families “working families?”

FYI, the estimated Pell Grants for FY 2006 were over $17 billion. Is Mr. Hamilton asserting there should be an increase of over 50%?

Finally, Sen. Santorum should have voted to eliminate Pell Grants altogether. Because they are grants, not loans, they do not have to be repaid and amount to income redistribution. Further, the federal government has no constitutional role regarding education.

“Voted against the patients’ Bill of Rights (July 2000).

[RWC] There were a bunch of bill around this time that said something about a patients’ bill of rights. I have no idea which of these Mr. Hamilton is referring to.

“Supported raising Social Security to begin at age 70.”

[RWC] Given Socialist Security is in financial trouble and people are living longer, this would appear to make sense. It also would not be the first time. Lest we forget, the SS retirement age for full benefits was increased from the original 65 to 67 a long time ago.

“Voted to increase Medicare eligibility to age 67. (This causes people between ages of 65-67 to pay two additional full years of hospitalization.”

[RWC] As with Mr. Hamilton’s SS claim, this would appear to make sense. My only gripe would be that Sen. Santorum didn’t propose to phase out Medicare over the next few decades.

“Voted for an act that would have stripped an employee of overtime payments.”

[RWC] When I last commented on this during 2004, an analysis showed there would be a net increase of about 1,000,000 employees eligible for overtime pay. Note that I’m not sure Congress actually voted on this. If I recall correctly, the Department of Labor simply updated the existing rules.

“He should be ashamed of his record. He has shown that his concerns lie behind the 2 percent wealthiest people and the major corporations. It’s time for a change.”

[RWC] If Sen. Santorum’s “concerns lie behind the 2 percent wealthiest people,” these folks need a new champion. Why? The top 1% of federal income tax filers pay 34% of total taxes paid while the top 5% pay 54%. The bottom 50% pays only 4% of total taxes paid.

Mr. Hamilton continues the trend. To date, not one Santorum bashing letter, regardless of author, has given us any reasons to vote for Bob Casey, Jr.