He sounds good, he looks good; but is what he’s saying really best for our country and for his District?
Ryan Votes
In other Representative Ryan news, he joined ten other representatives in the minority in voting aginst the funding for the Coast Guard (HR 3619, Yes – 385; No – 11). He also voted with the minority against solar energy with his vote on HR 3585 the Solar Technology Roadmap Act (Yes – 310, No – 106).
Is this a man representing his District or positioning himself for higher office?
Blue Cross and Blue Shield also mailed their customers an 11% rate increase and a pre-written, postage paid letter to send to their Senator to argue against a public option on the same day.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=165184567449&id=20957686338&ref=nf
Here’s another link, but I don’t think it has the same images.
Sorry, this is the link.
As you point out the question is whether he is representing his “His district”
Does his district have a need for more coast guard funding?
Is his district likely to receive funds for solar reserach?
So why should he vote “Yes” on issues on issues that will primarily benefit California at the expense of his district’s taxpayers?
It sounds like you need a little education Id. Paul Ryan’s District extends to Lake Michigan where the Coast Guard patrols. The Coast Guard is responsible for the following according to their website (http://www.uscg.mil/top/about/) “For over two centuries the U.S. Coast Guard has safeguarded our Nation’s maritime interests in the heartland, in the ports, at sea, and around the globe. We protect the maritime economy and the environment, we defend our maritime borders, and we save those in peril.” As such it would have multiple roles that would impact on his District. I might also note, that of the 365 Representatives voting Yes, there would be many whose Districts do not lie on or near any water protected by the Coast Guard, yet their Representatives saw fit to vote for this bill.
In terms of solar research there are hundreds of laid off GM workers including engineers and a massive GM plant in Janesville that could be put to use given the right projects and investments.
It sounds to me like you are against saving stranded boaters or swimmers, protecting our borders and are also anti-worker and anti-business too.
Then please educate me? How underfunded is the lake michigan coast guard? How many lake michigan boaters are not being rescued as a result of underfunding? Oh, and what is the purpose of the bill? Not a word in the executive summary relating to rescuing boaters or swimmers. The bill; however, does provide 2.4MM for the Great Lakes coast guard to study the impact of using U.S. Flagships in trade with Canada. Undoubtedly, an important expenditure but I’m more troubled with the reduction of libility limits on oil shipping reducing the minimum exposure to $12 mm from $ 50 mm. Great for Exxon, but given the fact that that Exxon does not maintain its corporate headquaters I don’t see that as being so great for Ryan’s district.
Undoubtedly you will educate me as to why I’m incorrect.
However, it does limit liability for oil shippers to 12 MM. Won’t Exxon be happy?
“In terms of solar research there are hundreds of laid off GM workers including engineers and a massive GM plant in Janesville that could be put to use given the right projects and investments.”
I’m sure the 100s of unemployed workers will be enamoured with the incentives on photovoltic products that the bill will give them as well as the reduction in their recycling costs for their photovoltic products.
However,They will probably be less optimistic about the absence of the word “jobs” from the entire bill. This bill primarily provides a process for awarding research grants and creating databases. I seriously doubt that many of GM line workers will be taking part in that research. But they “could” right? So its probably worth the 350MM expenditure for this year.