Progressive Action Score: 13A score of 13 means that Rep. Walsh has acted to support 13% of a slate of progressive policies in the 109th Congress.
Progressive, forward-looking actions Rep. Walsh has taken to merit a PAS of 13:To members of Congress, talk of patriotism comes easy. But what about action to preserve what is great about America? What about protecting the symbol of America, the bald eagle itself? On September 29, 2005, a slim majority of member of the United States House of Representatives voted for H.R. 3824, an attack upon the landmark law that brought the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Without the Endangered Species Act, the American bald eagle would probably not exist any more, except on the backs of our quarters and as a graphic on Republican web sites promoting corporate pollution.
We've seen the American bald eagle fly, and we think that it is worth protecting. So does Representative Walsh, who voted NO in a courageous stand for the Endangered Species Act.
The Climate Stewardship Act is the most significant American
legislation yet to address the threat of global climate change. The CSA proposes market-based methods of promoting clean alternatives to
America's current Industrial Age systems for transportation and energy. Under the CSA, emissions of greenhouse gases would be reduced over a
five year period back to the levels produced in the year 2000. Although the CSA offers only minor controls, it is an important first step in keeping the problem of preventing the emissions of gases
related to global climate change from growing worse than they already are. It is supported by environmental activists and strongly opposed by pollution industries and the Bush Administration.
The House of Representatives last voted on the CSA in March 2004, unfortunately failing to pass the bill. Fortunately, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland has reintroduced the act in the 109th Congress as H.R. 759. For lending support to the CSA by cosponsoring H.R. 759, Rep. Walsh has taken an important progressive stand.
Progressive political actions that Rep. Walsh could have taken but unfortunately chose not to take:- Rep. Walsh failed to vote "no" on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Walsh swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Walsh failed to oppose H.R. 6166, which is a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.
Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.
All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Walsh betrayed the dream of America by allowing this bill to pass into law without a vote of opposition. It bears saying again: Rep. Walsh has betrayed the dream of America.
- By voting "no" on the Farr Amendment, Rep. Walsh voted to keep Section 102 in H.R. 418, giving a Bush administration bureaucrat the ability to nullify any law without judicial review of that decision. Where I come from, they call that dictatorship.
- The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Rep. Walsh failed to vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, empowering the Bush administration to continue to dismantle American liberties and erect a Big Brother edifice in their place.
- By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Walsh voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Walsh has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.
- Rep. Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 2412, which would provide more information to the public about contacts between lobbyists and politicians, and which would slow down the revolving door of politics in which politicians move into cushy corporate jobs after they retire in exchange for favors. What is Representative Walsh's problem with ethics?
- Rep. Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 40, which would acknowledge the injustices of slavery and racial discrimination and establish a commission to study them.
- Rep Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 63, which would make Election Day a federal holiday to make it easier to get out and vote.
- Rep. Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 550, a bill which would sensibly require the establishment of a backup paper record of votes for those times when electronic voting machines fail. Why is Rep. Walsh unwilling to protect the bedrock of democracy, Americans' faith that every vote counts?
- Rep. Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 952, which would put an end to the practice of "extraordinary rendition," in which Bush Administration officials send people into the custody of certain nations, knowing full well (some would say intending) that they will be tortured there. Extraordinary rendition is another stain on the moral clarity of the United States. It is a horrible irony that in a "War on Terror," the United States government would allow the use of terror as a tool. Why is Rep. Walsh unwilling to stand against American complicity in the use of torture?
- James Walsh has not yet signed on as a cosponsor to H.R. 1157, which would keep government agents from riffling through your bookstore receipts and library records without your permission or knowledge. Why is Rep. Walsh standing against privacy, against individual liberty, and with Big Brother? That's not a rhetorical question.
- James Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 1440, which would keep members of the Federal Communication Commission from using their appointed positions to censor cable, satellite or internet programs they consider to be indecent. These "narrowcast" programs are accessed only by those who specifically request them, so why should the government make it their business to keep people from seeing what they want to see? Why has Rep Walsh not yet lent support to this sensible, freedom-defending bill?
- We may think we live in modern times, but the U.S. Constitution still does not guarantee that individual rights shall apply equally to men and women. Without such a constitutional guarantee, all it could take is a rogue judge or an emboldened conservative Congress to take women's rights away by a simple majority vote. On the other hand, this nation is still encumbered with unfair legal notions that, all other things being equal, give mothers custody advantages over fathers. The current state of unequal protection is unfair to both women and men, and devalues our common underlying humanity.
James Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.J. Res 37, which would amend the United States Constitution to simply state the following: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." It's simple, it's obvious, and it's about time something was done to enshrine this principle in the Constitution for men and women alike. When will Rep. Walsh step out of the Stone Age and take this important stand for equality?
- Rep. Walsh has not yet cosponsored H.R. 567, which would preserve and protect the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from short-sighted, unnecessary development.
Contact Rep Walsh by E-mail, Phone (at 202-225-3701), or Fax (at 202-225-4042) to ask why they have chosen not to take the progressive path in these matters.
| | Regressive Conservative Score: 54A score of 54 means that Rep. Walsh has acted to support 54% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 109th Congress.
Regressive, destructive, and downright unAmerican actions Rep. Walsh has taken that contribute to a RCS of 54:
Rep. Walsh voted YES on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Walsh swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Walsh voted for H.R. 6166, a bill that makes a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution makes an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.
Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.
All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Walsh betrayed the dream of America by helping to push this bill into law. It bears saying again: Rep. Walsh has betrayed the dream of America.
The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Unfortunately for the Amercan tradition of liberty, the Patriot Act reauthorization passed, with Rep. Walsh casting a craven YES vote.
Section 102 of H.R. 418 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to nullify any law she or he deems necessary to build roads and fences in the vicinity of a national border. Furthermore, Section 102 of H.R. 418 makes it legally impossible for any court or agency of the government to review the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to nullify any law. In short, Section 102 places the Bush administration untouchably above the law.The Farr Amendment would have stricken this language, and only this language, from H.R. 418, making a vote against the Farr Amendment a vote against the rule of law. Shame on you, Representative Walsh, for voting "no" on the Farr Amendment. You stand in disgraceful historical company among those who favor arbitrary dictatorship. That's downright unAmerican.
Representative James Walsh has decided to support H.R. 997, a bill that would declare English to be the official language of the United States, would mandate that official government business be conducted in English only, and presumptively declare that workplaces in the private sector follow these rules too. Look, just because Rep. Walsh seems to have some kind of personal problem with brown-skinned "ethnic" people who speak a different language than English doesn't mean that such prejudice should be pushed on the rest of the country. The United States of America has always been a nation of multiple origins, multiple cultures and multiple languages. Legislating diversity away will not make it disappear. On the contrary, this legislation will only divide the nation into a privileged English-speaking clique and an untouchable caste of non-English speakers who are denied access to government, to civic participation, and even to the private workplace. This is not what America stands for. Shame on you, James Walsh, for demeaning the standard of openness that has made this country great.
By voting for the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, Rep. Walsh voted to keep a ruling of a federal court from being enforced. Why? Because a judge decided that a religious monument on the grounds of the Gibson county courthouse was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over others. Rep. Walsh has apparently decided that any personally distasteful court ruling can be overturned, just because. That's not the rule of law. That's an arbitrary violation of the separation of powers. And, in this case, it allows pushy and vocal religious groups to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's not just wrong, it is downright unAmerican.
By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Walsh voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Walsh has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.
At a time when our budget deficit is soaring, George W. Bush and the Congress should be finding ways for the American people to fulfill their responsibilities to future generations. That means that we must pay our way: when Bush and the Congress propose and pass large budgets, they must provide for their payment as well. Yes, this means taxes. But while the Republican-controlled Congress is allowing the government's budget to spiral wildly higher, it irresponsibly suggests that we ought to cut taxes. And to make matters worse, the taxes they propose to cut are taxes paid by those who can by definition afford to pay them: the wealthy. Nobody has to pay a penny for anything up to a million dollars they get in income when a relative dies. But H.R. 8 would permanently eliminate income taxes on any unearned money over a million bucks that people receive as part of an inheritance. You and I won't get that kind of inheritance: it's the already filthy rich who will benefit. At this time of budget deficits, we shouldn't be cutting away these sorts of taxes. It's not fiscally prudent. It's radically regressive. By supporting this legislation, Representative Walsh has decided to act in an irresponsible manner that is fiscally dangerous to us all.
|
