Skip to main content

Exactly how has John Carney spent his time in Congress?

John Carney:  a legislative agenda
the focuses on making it easier to
import women's footwear and easier
for the President to invade any country
he might be interested in.
Not passing meaningful legislation, that's for damn sure.

During his first two years in the US House, up until April 2012, Representative Carney had sponsored exactly six pieces of legislation and three amendments to other people's bills.  Two of his amendments passed, which is good, because nothing else Carney sponsored got anywhere.

Here's the list, courtesy of Open Secrets:


Meanwhile, after sponsoring nothing since 31 January of this year, Represenative Carney suddenly got busy in April, sponsoring no fewer than twenty-five pieces of legislation, virtually all designed to temporarily remove tariffs from a variety of pharmaceuticals, footwear, and inkjet cartridges.  Yeah, that's right:




FYI all have been referred to committee, where they continue to languish.

Among Representative Carney's groundbreaking co-sponsorships in his first term are such winners as:




Now I suppose it is entirely possible that Representative Carney was so busy working on representing Delaware citizens on other critical pieces of legislation that he just didn't have the opportunity to do much in the way of introducing legislation.

Let's check.

We will find that Rep. Carney expressed his displeasure with some parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by voting to exempt corporations from reporting requirements in the original law.  Wouldn't want corporations to have to write too much, would we, sir?

Oh, and Rep. Carney found time not once but no fewer than four times to vote for extending provisions of the Patriot Act in whole or in part.  Damn those unpatriotic civil libertarians, anyway.

He also found time to vote for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that includes the provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, while he voted against such horrible pieces of legislation as requiring the President to follow the War Powers Act in committing troops abroad, or reducing the Defense budget at all, or even a Balanced Budget Amendment (which, oddly, he had sponsored in a very similar bill a few months earlier--see above).

For completeness sake, Rep. Carney also voted to allow the President to commit ground troops into Libya if so inclinedagainst ending the war in Afghanistan, and to raise taxes on Social Security recipients.

Just thought you'd like to know how one-party representation of Delaware is working out in our Congressional delegation.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, you cannot run around showing what out elected officials do! This is Delaware and we play nice, you know, the Delaware Way.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...