It's Time to Chuck CHUCK

U. S. Congressman Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee has proven that he missed why he was elected to Congress and doesn't deserve another term.  The voters elected him because they were fed up with all the political partisanship and fighting in Congress.  They wanted someone who would work to solve problems.  What they got was an uncompromising political robot who can only speak in sound bites and read off a script.  It's time we got someone who understands the issues and can compromise with both parties to solve the nation's problems.

Unwilling to Compromise,
Chuck Fleischmann votes against revised
Budget Control Act of 2011

August 2, 2011 - Rep. Fleischman stated that, “I have said all along that a debt ceiling raise must be accompanied by a Balanced Budget Amendment and significant budget reforms.  While ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’, and an earlier version of the ‘Budget Control Act’, did these things, the bill put forth today did not do so.  As Senator Marco Rubio said this weekend, ‘Compromise that is not a solution is a waste of time.’ Unfortunately, the bill today did not provide real, long-term solutions.”

The above actions by Rep. Fleischmann demonstrate how out of touch he is with the reality of our political system.  Speaker Boehner worked tirelessly with his party, the President, and the Democrats to work out a "compromise" solution to get past the Tea Party's artificial debt crisis vote to decide whether or not the United States government would default on its debt for the first time in the nations history.  One can argue whether or not a Balanced Budget Amendment would work or even be good for the country, but that was not even seriously considered by most members of Congress.  Rep. Fleischmann voted for an earlier bill that included that amendment, but everyone knew that it would never pass both houses of Congress.  It was presented to give Tea Party Republicans cover for the folks back home.  What Rep. Fleischmann has failed to do is recognize this and work for the best compromise he and his party could get in reducing spending and raising the debt ceiling to prevent default. 

Rep. Fleischmann voted no against the compromise bill.  By doing so he took the position that he would rather see the government default on its debt, than vote against some made-up mandate from his Tea Party supporters.  He didn't care that a debt default would end up costing the government more in interest payments on the debt; payments that would more than wipe out any savings from the spending cuts.  The real agenda seems to be to starve the government of so much revenue that it will be forced to do away with Medicare and Medicaid and cut back Social Security, all of which were proposed in Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal. 

Rep. Fleischmann has refused to even consider any revenue generation to help the government reduce the debt and maintain the safety net that so many of his constituents rely on.  He has opposed returning taxes on the wealthy back to the level they were during the Clinton Administration when we had a surplus and near full employment.  He is opposed to dropping the tax loopholes and subsidies (gifts) for the major oil companies for drilling, even though they are making record billions of dollars profit. 

Below is a chart provided by PBS economics correspondent, Paul Solman in an August 16, 2011 broadcast of the NewsHour, Making Sense of Financial News.  The chart was used in questioning people about the economic disparity that exists in the U. S. today.  Most people were surprised at what the truth was.  The chart is divided into five sections, with each section representing 20% of the population based on wealth.  The top 20% (yellow) control 84% of the wealth of the nation, the next 20% (blue) control only 11% of the wealth, the next 20% (magenta) control 4% of the wealth, the next 20% (green) control .2% of the wealth, and the bottom 20% (orange) control .1% of the wealth of this country.  This shows that the bottom 40% of the nation control only .3% of the wealth, the bottom 80% only 15.3% of the wealth.  Since the Clinton Administration the wealth of the top 20% has approximately quadrupled while the gain for the rest has remained flat or declined.  Somehow this doesn't seem fair.