Open Secrets. com reports that Congressman Miller is WAY behind in fundraising this election cycle! Seems that, as of June 30, he has only raised $245,030 in contributions. The average Republican congress-type has raised over $1 million. Seems also that Mr. Miller has spent $286,790-- a bit of a deficit perhaps? No, no, wait, there's some change in the bank: Cash on Hand: $64,122, with no debts.
Odd expenditure:
Okaloosa County Republican Exec Committee: $1200 (isn't the committee supposed to be contributing to him?)
Any news lately from Miller?
No stories found for Jeff Miller.
Let's see what he reported about that boondoggle to Okie-Dokie County with V-P Cheney back a few months..... h-m-m-m-m.... nothing there for the rental of the FWB Fairgrounds, the use of sheriff's deputies and police officers, travel to the area......
Showing posts with label Jeff Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Miller. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
16 July 2008
Congressman Jeff Miller, Fax: (202) 225-3414
Congressman Robert Wexler, Fax: (202) 225-5974
RE: Bi-Partisan Congressional Activity, Investment in Energy Alternatives
Dear Messrs. Miller & Wexler:
Can it be? Two very diverse members of the US Congress—one of the most conservative and one of the most liberal—agree that it is time to quit the bi-partisan bickering and get to work on helping the struggling middle class of America? I almost fainted, but, there it was, in print from each of your July 15 email newsletters!
You each agree, as I am sure many other members of Congress do, that we need to invest in long-term energy alternatives including but not limited to bio-fuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, nuclear, and hydroelectric. The question is how will each of you lay aside the partisan swords and help bring about the true changes that America needs?
The Pickens Plan may be a start. See www.pickensplan.com. Mr. Pickens touts the Plan as a “bridge to the future—a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives” that will “buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.” He says that “building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years.” Can you two leaders join his “call for change” and help to “set a new course for America's energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency [by] breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability”?
Congressman Jeff Miller, Fax: (202) 225-3414
Congressman Robert Wexler, Fax: (202) 225-5974
RE: Bi-Partisan Congressional Activity, Investment in Energy Alternatives
Dear Messrs. Miller & Wexler:
Can it be? Two very diverse members of the US Congress—one of the most conservative and one of the most liberal—agree that it is time to quit the bi-partisan bickering and get to work on helping the struggling middle class of America? I almost fainted, but, there it was, in print from each of your July 15 email newsletters!
You each agree, as I am sure many other members of Congress do, that we need to invest in long-term energy alternatives including but not limited to bio-fuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, nuclear, and hydroelectric. The question is how will each of you lay aside the partisan swords and help bring about the true changes that America needs?
The Pickens Plan may be a start. See www.pickensplan.com. Mr. Pickens touts the Plan as a “bridge to the future—a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives” that will “buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.” He says that “building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years.” Can you two leaders join his “call for change” and help to “set a new course for America's energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency [by] breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability”?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Red Herring Miller?
Relying on argumentum ad misericordiam and a red herring, Rep. Jeff Miller’s arguments about drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) posited in his last weekly newsletter fell flat and, like much other debate about high gas prices, is disingenuous. He states that while he was on vacation last week his constituents’ number one concern was high gas prices. He then implies that by opening ANWR and the OCS for oil and gas exploration and building new refineries that Americans would save an estimated .70 cents to $2.50 per gallon. That’s bunk.
Gas prices have not just now begun to rise. Gas prices have been on the rise for many years, years in which a Republican House and Senate had the reigns. When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. Six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year. When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office. Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress from 1994 until 2006. Past and present Republican leadership is just as much to blame for our current situation as any seated Democrat today.
While high gas prices have many of us rethinking our budgets and daily travel, to argue that the cause of today’s gas prices is a failure of Democrats to “pass common-sense energy legislation” is just wrong. Energy policy was a central theme of the 2004 debates between Bush and John Kerry and will certainly be a highlight for Obama and McCain this election season. However, the true argument should be short-term versus short-term and long-term versus long-term. Short-term fixes will require diplomacy, controlling current supply-and-demand, and retrofit of current refineries. Long-term solutions include exploration, construction of better production infrastructure, renewable energy sources, and improved alternative fuels.
The Senate is now considering one climate change bill and, basically, we may end up back at square one with no relief in sight from rising gas prices on the short or long term. Voters should be diligent and informed during this upcoming election. We all are better served by elected officials who compromise and work across the aisle rather than those who mock their opponents and obfuscate the issues.
Gas prices have not just now begun to rise. Gas prices have been on the rise for many years, years in which a Republican House and Senate had the reigns. When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. Six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year. When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office. Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress from 1994 until 2006. Past and present Republican leadership is just as much to blame for our current situation as any seated Democrat today.
While high gas prices have many of us rethinking our budgets and daily travel, to argue that the cause of today’s gas prices is a failure of Democrats to “pass common-sense energy legislation” is just wrong. Energy policy was a central theme of the 2004 debates between Bush and John Kerry and will certainly be a highlight for Obama and McCain this election season. However, the true argument should be short-term versus short-term and long-term versus long-term. Short-term fixes will require diplomacy, controlling current supply-and-demand, and retrofit of current refineries. Long-term solutions include exploration, construction of better production infrastructure, renewable energy sources, and improved alternative fuels.
The Senate is now considering one climate change bill and, basically, we may end up back at square one with no relief in sight from rising gas prices on the short or long term. Voters should be diligent and informed during this upcoming election. We all are better served by elected officials who compromise and work across the aisle rather than those who mock their opponents and obfuscate the issues.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Taxpayers for Common Sense: A Different Take on HR 5658, As Lauded by Miller
PENTAGON PORK LARDS SPENDING BILL
Weekly Wastebasket: Volume XIII No. 21 - May 23, 2008
http://www.taxpayer.net/about/
"As they considered the massive emergency Iraq supplemental spending bill this week, Senators cut some of the worst earmarks and bloated spending. But they ignored billions of weapons pork lining the coffers of big defense companies.
Some of their cuts were responsible. The budget scalpel excised an earmark by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Kit Bond (R-MO) that reversed the administration’s efforts to kill the $1.8 billion extension for the FutureGen clean-coal power project in Illinois. The earmark would have continued a cooperative agreement between the Energy Department and a consortium of private investors to build the plant, even though the consortium includes a Chinese company that would “ultimately be able to use the technology developed with taxpayer dollars to build plants in China,” according to Roll Call.
However, billions of dollars for new weapons were approved by the Senate, despite these programs being controversial, unwanted by the Pentagon, or having little or no relation to the Iraq war. Last year, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee basically admitted that they were going to use the emergency spending bill to stuff in additional items that didn’t fit in the defense spending bill. And they did. Here are the top three we found in the current supplemental:
C-17 – The legislation appropriates $3.6 billion for 15 new C-17’s that the Pentagon really doesn’t want and which have little to do with military operations in Iraq. This funding has more to do with keeping Boeing’s Long Beach production line open into the summer of 2010, than Iraq. It is also a gift to Boeing and gives them time to find more international buyers for the aircraft.
C-130J – The emergency spending bill provides $1.8 billion for 18 new C-130J transport planes that, until recently, the Pentagon wanted to eliminate. While we are aware that one C-130J has been lost in Iraq, the Air Force argues they need many more because increased stress on the aircraft’s airframes has caused them to age faster than expected. Sounds like they are just shopping to fill their weapons wish list.
CV-22 – The bill provides more than $500 million for the CV-22 Osprey. The money has been added despite limited use of the aircraft in Iraq. In reality, the money will help fund the recent DoD plan to purchase 141 CV-22 aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, and 26 for U.S. Air Force units operating with Special Operations Command. The plan involves buying up to 33 CV-22s per year from 2008 to 2013.
For several years, the Pentagon has used the emergency spending bills as a slush fund to pad the overall Defense budget for weapons programs that don’t need to be replaced or are unrelated to the war. The Senate bill continues that trend.
Cutting funding for weapons not necessary to fight the war in Iraq seems like a great place to start in an effort to get us closer to the President's initial request. And the $6 billion for the three new weapons programs mentioned should be the first to go."
As I mentioned... there is definitely more to this story!!
Weekly Wastebasket: Volume XIII No. 21 - May 23, 2008
http://www.taxpayer.net/about/
"As they considered the massive emergency Iraq supplemental spending bill this week, Senators cut some of the worst earmarks and bloated spending. But they ignored billions of weapons pork lining the coffers of big defense companies.
Some of their cuts were responsible. The budget scalpel excised an earmark by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Kit Bond (R-MO) that reversed the administration’s efforts to kill the $1.8 billion extension for the FutureGen clean-coal power project in Illinois. The earmark would have continued a cooperative agreement between the Energy Department and a consortium of private investors to build the plant, even though the consortium includes a Chinese company that would “ultimately be able to use the technology developed with taxpayer dollars to build plants in China,” according to Roll Call.
However, billions of dollars for new weapons were approved by the Senate, despite these programs being controversial, unwanted by the Pentagon, or having little or no relation to the Iraq war. Last year, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee basically admitted that they were going to use the emergency spending bill to stuff in additional items that didn’t fit in the defense spending bill. And they did. Here are the top three we found in the current supplemental:
C-17 – The legislation appropriates $3.6 billion for 15 new C-17’s that the Pentagon really doesn’t want and which have little to do with military operations in Iraq. This funding has more to do with keeping Boeing’s Long Beach production line open into the summer of 2010, than Iraq. It is also a gift to Boeing and gives them time to find more international buyers for the aircraft.
C-130J – The emergency spending bill provides $1.8 billion for 18 new C-130J transport planes that, until recently, the Pentagon wanted to eliminate. While we are aware that one C-130J has been lost in Iraq, the Air Force argues they need many more because increased stress on the aircraft’s airframes has caused them to age faster than expected. Sounds like they are just shopping to fill their weapons wish list.
CV-22 – The bill provides more than $500 million for the CV-22 Osprey. The money has been added despite limited use of the aircraft in Iraq. In reality, the money will help fund the recent DoD plan to purchase 141 CV-22 aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, and 26 for U.S. Air Force units operating with Special Operations Command. The plan involves buying up to 33 CV-22s per year from 2008 to 2013.
For several years, the Pentagon has used the emergency spending bills as a slush fund to pad the overall Defense budget for weapons programs that don’t need to be replaced or are unrelated to the war. The Senate bill continues that trend.
Cutting funding for weapons not necessary to fight the war in Iraq seems like a great place to start in an effort to get us closer to the President's initial request. And the $6 billion for the three new weapons programs mentioned should be the first to go."
As I mentioned... there is definitely more to this story!!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Miller's Middle-Class Grades
2008 Final grade to be released 03.2009
2007 -F
2005 -F
2004 -F
2003 -F
2007 -F
2005 -F
2004 -F
2003 -F
H.R. 5715, Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008
TOPICS: College tuition, Community college, Debt & Bankruptcy, Education, Saving for college, Student loans; NAY
H.R. 5613, Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008; TOPICS: Health Care, Hospitals, Medicaid, Public health; NAY
H.R. 5351, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008; TOPICS: Consumers, Corporate taxes, Efficient technology, Energy & Environment, Energy conservation, Global warming, Green buildings, Green jobs, Oil, Renewable fuels, Utilities; NAY
H.R. 5140, Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008; TOPICS: Consumers, Corporate taxes, Economic stimulus, Mortgage lending, Tax cuts, Tax Fairness, Workplace & Job Creation; YEA
H.R. 4137, College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008; TOPICS: College tuition, Education, Energy conservation, Pell Grants, Student loans; NAY
H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 [Revised bill]; TOPICS: Health Care, Medicaid, Sales taxes, SCHIP; NAY
H.R. 3548, Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2008; TOPICS: Drug safety, Government Accountability, Prescription drugs; YEA
H.R. 1424, Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; TOPICS: Employment discrimination, Health Care, Medical research; NAY
2007
H.R. 4040, Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007; TOPICS: Capping damages, Consumers, Product liability; YEA
2007
H.R. 4040, Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007; TOPICS: Capping damages, Consumers, Product liability; YEA
H.R. 3996, Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007; TOPICS: Alternative minimum tax, Child tax credit, College tuition, Corporate taxes, Income taxes, Mortgage lending, Pay-go, Tax cuts, Tax Fairness; NAY
H.R. 3688, United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of 2007
TOPICS: Consumers, Food safety, Outsourcing, Trade agreement, Workplace & Job Creation
No Vote
TOPICS: Consumers, Food safety, Outsourcing, Trade agreement, Workplace & Job Creation
No Vote
H.R. 3580, FDA Amendments Act of 2007; TOPICS: Consumers, Corporate Accountability, Deceptive advertising and marketing, Drug safety, Food safety, Health Care, Prescription drugs;
YEA
YEA
H.R. 2895, Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007; TOPICS: Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Downpayment assistance, Housing, Mortgage lending; NAY
H.R. 2831, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007; TOPICS: Civil Justice, Employment discrimination, Workplace & Job Creation; NAY
H.R. 2669, College Cost Reduction Act of 2007; TOPICS: College tuition, Education, Pell Grants, Saving for college, Student loans; NAY
H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act of 2007; TOPICS: Contracting, Government Accountability; NAY
H.R. 1257, Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007; TOPICS: Corporate Accountability, Executive compensation, Shareholder rights; NAY
H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007; TOPICS: Health Care, Medicaid, Sales taxes, SCHIP; NAY
H.R. 800, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007; TOPICS: Right to organize, Unions, Workplace & Job Creation; NAY
H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; TOPICS: Coal, Consumers, Corporate taxes, Efficient technology, Energy & Environment, Energy conservation, Global warming, Green buildings, Green jobs, Heating fuel, Job training, Oil, Pollution, Renewable fuels, Tax cuts, Utilities; NAY
H.R. 6, CLEAN Energy Act of 2007; TOPICS: Corporate taxes, Efficient technology, Energy & Environment, Global warming, Green buildings, Oil, Renewable fuels; NAY
H.R. 4, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007; TOPICS: Health Care, HMOs and insurance companies, Medicare, Prescription drugs; YEA
WHO DOES THIS MAN REPRESENT?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Miller vs. Small Businesses
Government should support small business development, not the growth of the federal administration. This week, the US Congress passed H.R. 5819 to reauthorize the “Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Research” programs. The bill passed with a vote of 368-43, with 75% of House Republicans voting for it. However, Representative Jeff Miller, chose to vote against small business development.
The programs are a 25-year-old government-wide initiative that have funded 85,000 projects for $18 billion, about $2.3 billion annually, and are the largest source of federal support for private-sector technological innovation. Funding for the programs comes from federal agencies with research and development budgets. The 11 largest agencies, such as the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and NASA, must reserve 2.5% of their budgets for the SBIR/SBTTR programs. Small businesses can receive grants to assist in developing technologies that will serve the research and development needs of those federal agencies. Priority is given to applications from companies in rural areas and depressed areas, from veterans, and from energy-efficient organizations.
The Bush administration opposed the resolution saying, basically, that it reduced funding for priority federal agency research activities, provided subsidies for business development, and that it could lead to inappropriate set asides for venture-capital businesses. Why would Representative Jeff Miller vote against 85% of his colleagues in Congress, against privatization for research and development, and on the side of an administration headed by a President with a 71% disapproval rating?
The programs are a 25-year-old government-wide initiative that have funded 85,000 projects for $18 billion, about $2.3 billion annually, and are the largest source of federal support for private-sector technological innovation. Funding for the programs comes from federal agencies with research and development budgets. The 11 largest agencies, such as the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and NASA, must reserve 2.5% of their budgets for the SBIR/SBTTR programs. Small businesses can receive grants to assist in developing technologies that will serve the research and development needs of those federal agencies. Priority is given to applications from companies in rural areas and depressed areas, from veterans, and from energy-efficient organizations.
The Bush administration opposed the resolution saying, basically, that it reduced funding for priority federal agency research activities, provided subsidies for business development, and that it could lead to inappropriate set asides for venture-capital businesses. Why would Representative Jeff Miller vote against 85% of his colleagues in Congress, against privatization for research and development, and on the side of an administration headed by a President with a 71% disapproval rating?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Jeff Hates the Environment
The League of Conservation Voters recently released scorecards for Congress. How did Jeff do? Poorly:
Jeff Miller (REP), 10%
Not only did all of the Democrats do better than all of the Republicans, With one exception, all of the Democrats did more than twice as good as all the Republicans. And most of the Democrats voted in favor of the environment more than four times as frequently as most of the Republicans.
I wonder how many of these Republicans own property that will be beachfront property when most of Florida is under water because of global warming? I'm just saying...
Jeff Miller (REP), 10%
Not only did all of the Democrats do better than all of the Republicans, With one exception, all of the Democrats did more than twice as good as all the Republicans. And most of the Democrats voted in favor of the environment more than four times as frequently as most of the Republicans.
I wonder how many of these Republicans own property that will be beachfront property when most of Florida is under water because of global warming? I'm just saying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
