Sneaky Pete strikes again

Sneaky Pete is at it again. Last time I wrote about him he was introducing and bragging about an amendment that he previously voted against (and that doesn't do anything). Now he is cosigning letters urging legislative provisions that he previously voted against. It appears his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

What I’m referring to is the fact he just cosigned a letter written by Republican swing seat battler Heather Wilson urging Pelosi to immediately pass the Senate’s legislation to raise the minimum wage. In the letter they say specifically,

“We believe it is past due for a raise in the minimum wage, which is why many of us joined in supporting a stand-alone minimum wage bill in the House. . . .

. . . we believe considering the Senate amendment is the quickest and most effective means of giving low-income workers a pay increase. Workers who make $10,700 per year while working 40 hours a week do not care if a bill to increase their wages originates in the House or Senate, or if such legislation includes tax incentives for their employers. They simply care if their wages are raised.

Madam Speaker, we believe it is time the minimum wage is increased and a bipartisan solution is within reach. We urge you to bring this compromise package to the House floor for a vote and raise the minimum wage without further delay.”

I agree with the letter's underlying premise that the minimum wage must be increased. The problem is that hypocrite Roskam voted against raising the minimum wage in the first place. The Republicans have been in power for over 10 years without once raising the minimum wage and now hypocrite Roskam is telling Speaker Pelosi, who with Democrats has made raising the minimum wage one of her top priorities, how workers need to have the minimum wage raised immediately. How someone can have the audacity to sign such a letter after voting against raising the minimum wage is beyond me.

Sneaky Pete needs to be asked if he thinks it is so important for the minimum wage to be raised immediately regardless of what else such legislation includes, why did he vote against it? And why do I have this sinking feeling that hypocrite Roskam will end up voting against raising the minimum wage when it finally gets out of conference? We’ve already seen during the last campaign how this guy will flip-flop and say anything to anyone to get elected, but his voting record shows through his hypocrisy and reveals the compassionless extreme conservative he really is. His record speaks for itself and we're not letting him fool us with his empty talk.

Roskam passes meaningless amendment he previously voted against

Sneaky Pete is at it again. Yesterday his office sent out a press release praising his work in passing an amendment that he claims will save taxpayers $10 million. He goes on to talk about how great alternative fuels are, despite the fact he voted last month against collecting taxes owed from oil companies to fund development of alternative fuels.

The problem is that his amendment and press release is a complete farce. If I can get wonkish for a second, his basis for claiming to have saved taxpayers $10 million is that his amendment makes the new spending conform to pay-as-you-go (known as pay-go) budget rules, which requires new spending to be offset by reductions in spending (or increases in revenue) elsewhere. But the thing sneaky Pete doesn’t mention is that the House already passed pay-go budgeting rules. I know he is a new member and all, but how is it possible he missed the fact that the Democratic led House of Representatives already adopted pay-go budget rules for all of their legislation – a rule he voted against? Here are just a few samples out of the tons of articles and media devoted to this:

“House Adopts Pay-as-You-Go Rules” Washington Post, 1/6/07.

“Day Two: House passes new budget rules. Democrats push to increase spending only with cuts in other funding” MSNBC, 1/5/07.

“Congresswoman Melissa Bean Hails Return to Pay-as-you-go Budget Rules,” from the office of Roskam’s neighboring congressional colleague, 1/5/07.

So basically, sneaky Pete offered an amendment to follow rules that everyone already agreed to follow – and is now trying to claim credit for it. There is a reason why his amendment passed by voice vote, which signifies that not a single member objected to its passage. That reason is because it doesn’t do anything new. The only reason he was even allowed to offer such an amendment is because the non-controversial bill (it passed 400-3) came to the House floor under an open rule which meant there were no limits on amendments that could be offered, no matter how pointless they were. If there were limits I assure you that such a pointless amendment would have never been allowed.

And what makes bragging about this pointless amendment especially ridiculous is the previously mentioned fact that Roskam actually voted against the original pay-go budgeting rule which passed last month 280-152. So he literally voted against this rule before he submitted an amendment for it. Talk about flip-flopping.

All of this brings me to a completely all together different subject. Some of you may noticed me use the term sneaky Pete throughout this post. I’ve actually adopted this from a reader who used this nickname on an earlier comment. I’ve been thinking for quite some time that we need a good nickname for Roskam – and sneaky Pete certainly sums him up in regards to this amendment. I haven’t been able to come up with anything catchy myself, especially as I do not want to make any personal attacks on this blog. The purpose of this blog is strictly to follow Roskam’s votes and policy. In that vein, the sneaky Pete label here refers to his legislative actions in bragging about an amendment that 1) doesn’t do anything and 2) is in support of a rule he previously voted against. But does anyone else have any suggestions for a good label/nickname? Keep in mind “way too conservative Roskam” isn’t very catchy – although it is certainly true!

Roskam breaks promise on environment

I've already bashed Roskam for his vote to give tax breaks for oil companies instead of working for clean energy solutions, but there has been 2 new developments since then. First of all, President Bush made clean energy and reducing oil consumption by 20% a major part of his State of the Union address the other day. Second, I came across this letter in today's Chicago Sun Times. Until then, I didn't even realize that Roskam had signed a pledge to support clean energy during the his campaign. Can we trust his word on anything? We'll see how the rest of his term goes, but breaking a campaign pledge and harming our enviroment in the first 100 hours is not a good start.

Roskam's vote for Big Oil

U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) did not support the Clean Energy Act despite his campaign promise to work toward a new energy future. Almost a year ago, President Bush acknowledged that we are ''addicted to oil.'' Unfortunately, instead of being invested in clean energy solutions, billions of taxpayer dollars have been used to subsidize big oil companies at a time of record profits for the oil industry.

On Jan. 18, the U.S. House took the first step and passed legislation that will repeal $14 billion in Big Oil handouts and use that money to fund the clean energy technologies that reduce our dangerous dependence on oil. Unfortunately, Roskam voted against the Clean Energy Act despite his signature on a New Energy Future promise that he signed during his election campaign. One can't help but wonder how Roskam will keep his promise to put us on a path to a new energy future when his very first vote cast on energy policy is in favor of the oil companies.
LuCinda Hohmann,
field associate,
Environment Illinois

Social Security

The purpose of this website is mainly to track the way Roskam is wrong on most issues, but there is something else about the man that really motivates me to get him out of Congress - his complete lack of character. This is highly evident when analyzing where he stands on Social Security.

Coming into 2005 with Republican majorities in Congress, privatizing Social Security was President Bush’s top domestic priority. Of course the American people rejected privatization, which would have cut benefits and put their retirement security at risk. Facing widespread rejection towards the privatization proposal, Republicans like Roskam tried to hide their position.

He said he would privatize Social Security in an NTU Survey, a conservative anti-tax group, but then said in an AARP survey that he was against privatization. A clear flip-flopping contrast in opinion. When he was in the state house, he ducked out on a vote that would have revealed his position despite making all the other votes that day.

But lack of character doesn’t end with distorting his position, rather than just ducking the Social Security issue he actually had the audacity to distort and attack his opponent on the issue. In ads he accused Tammy Duckworth of wanting to raise Social Security taxes. The problem was that his accusation was completely made up. He cited an AARP response, but the AARP denied this and in fact sent out thousands of letters saying that Roskam’s ads were false.

He again falsely accused Tammy Duckworth of wanting to give welfare and Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, this time using the Chicago Tribune as a source. The problem, it was a false statement the Tribune never said. The Tribune responded with an editorial, “Don’t quote us on that” calling out Roskam’s lies, as did Senator Obama in this clip.

Clearly Roskam has no scruples about distorting others positions and saying whatever will appeal to the particular crowd he is speaking to. His next opponent should be ready for more Roskam distortions. Luckily for us, the Democrats have taken Congress and it appears Bush’s privatization plan isn’t going anywhere. The easiest and most common sense reform for Social Security is to lift the $90,000 cap on Social Security taxes.