Category: Bruce Braley

Braley Bytes

Here is another installment of my new series of articles dealing with Iowa’s so-called “representative” of the First District in the U.S. House, Bruce Braley.  I’ve changed the title of the feature from “Braley Bites” to the less provocative sounding “Braley Bytes” because I’m still trying to get Braley to hand me a juicy federal grant so I can finally quit working for my money like a sucker.

Braley Continues Assault On Constitution & Our Children

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[.] The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [Emphasis added.]

When Bruce Braley and his cohorts in Congress read words like those from the framers of the Constitution their brains must translate it into those squawking trombone sounds of the adult characters in the “Peanuts” cartoons.  From Braley’s vote for Obamacare to his signature piece of legislation, the “Debt for Clunkers” program, just about everything that Braley has done since he was elected has been an affront to constitutionally defined federalism as spelled out in the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.  With his yes vote on the painstakingly named “XXXXXX Act of XXXXXX” (it was rushed through so hastily, that that is it’s official name!) Braley keeps his Constitution-trashing streak going.

Not satisfied with the record amount of deficit spending that they had already inflicted on future generations of Americans (i.e. our children, who must pay the bill, plus interest) congress was rushed back to DC by the Democrat leaders for a special session in order to spend even more money.  The “no-name bill” they voted on (H.R. 1586, by number) was a $26.1 billion “bailout.” 

$10 billion was to go to pay the salaries of teachers, long known as stalwart supporters of the Democrat Party.  (Since Braley voted to give them the money, I guess that the $7,500 that the American Federation of Teachers gave Braley this election cycle was a good investment.)  Another $16.1 billion went to the extension of Federal Medicaid matching rates.  Education and healthcare are duties that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and to the people and are definitely not any of those “few and defined” “external objects” that Madison referred to.  But I guess Braley knows what the Constitution means better than one of the guys who wrote it.

Lange Moving Into Striking Distance?

Although unseating an entrenched incumbent like Braley is a difficult task, in fighter-pilot terminology, Braley better “watch his six.”  A new poll shows that upstart Republican challenger Ben Lange may be closing in on the big-spending politico.  The poll, commissioned by the American Future Fund, shows Lange trailing “Clunkers” Braley by only 4.4 points among those who identified themselves as “certain to vote.”  While the poll did show Lange still trailing by 11 points among the entire sample in the Democrat-leaning district, it also showed that only 39% of those in the district thought Braley “deserved re-election.” Apparently not listed as an option in the survey was Libertarian candidate Rob Petsche, so it’s unsure how he’ll affect the election.

A Dam Dilemma

Delhi Dam during July flood (Iowa State Patrol photo)

In my last post I mentioned the Delhi Dam which ruptured during recent flooding.  Whether or not to rebuild it (and how) has become somewhat of hot button issue here in Iowa.  The dam is owned and maintained by the Lake Delhi Recreation Association.  Homeowners on the lake paid dues to the association.   Since the dam was a privately owned structure, should taxpayer funds be used to rebuild it? 

Some citizens and politicians, like Governor Culver and U.S. Representative Bruce Braley, say yes.  On the day after the dam failed, Governor Culver assured, “We’re going to throw everything we have at it, in terms of federal and state resources.”  Others disagree.  Ed Failor Jr. of Iowans For Tax Relief said, “It isn’t the obligation of taxpayers to alleviate risk from our society.  By having private ownership of that dam, they assumed risk.”  I’m inclined to agree with the second camp. 

That’s not to say that I don’t think that Lake Delhi should be rebuilt.  I love Lake Delhi.  For all the talk of this being a “private” lake, it was very much a public asset.  I didn’t own a cabin on the lake, yet I spent many hours fishing and pleasure boating with friends there in my youth. I frolicked at Freddy’s Beach.   I dined at the Pizza Place and Camp-O.  I camped along its shores at Turtle Creek County Park.  I hope to do so again someday with my kids.  I just hope that the dam will be rebuilt in a responsible manner.  (My friend strandediniowa over at Between Two Rivers blog stole some of my thunder on this, but I’ll soldier on.  His post, too, is worth a read.)

There are plans for a new dam to produce hydroelectricity.  It should be possible to find investors (a power company perhaps) to help finance such a project.  Granted it would take longer to scrape the money together and the Lake Association would have to be more creative than if “rich” Uncle Culver or Braley just whip out the taxpayer’s money, but in the long run it would be better for everyone.

The lake is important to Delaware County.  So, if local voters decided to throw their own local tax money at this with a bond issue or something (if that’s even possible) I think that might not be too bad.  At least it would localize the cost to those who most benefit from it.  If the state DNR lent some expertise to the project, I probably wouldn’t lose much sleep.  Even if the state and local government do get involved somehow, the project definitely doesn’t require Bruce Braley’s sack of borrowed Chinese blood money. 

Braley said, “My job is to help identify and secure all potential federal resources to assist those individuals and businesses in the 1st District who are eligible to help recover from the recent flooding.”  Bull crap!  According to the oath he swore before God, his job is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”  The Constitution doesn’t give Congress authority to rebuild a privately-owned dam on an intrastate lake.

Small-town lawyer Ben Lange, who is challenging Braley for the First District seat, seems to get this.  In a statement, the Republican Lange expressed sympathy for flood victims but explained: “Based on the facts as I now understand them, I believe the repairs will require the state and local governments, working in concert with the private sector, to fix the Delhi dam. Despite the political pressure to reach an alternative conclusion, I simply do not believe the federal government should be involved with this local issue because it is a privately-owned dam on a recreational lake.”

Lange continued, speaking of the fiscal ramifications of this and similar usurpation by Congress: “I was disappointed, but not surprised, to read Rep. Braley’s statement yesterday, in which he said that we need to spend federal money to bailout a private entity now, and ‘then tough choices are going to have to be made.’ I respectfully disagree with the Congressman; our nation has reached a point where tough choices need to be made now. Rep. Braley’s ‘spend first, think later’ approach to this issue is exactly what is wrong with Congress as a whole, and the kind of thinking that has gotten this country into the fiscal mess we are in today.” 

I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Props to Lange for taking the constitutional high road rather than the pandering political easy road on this issue.

Let’s rebuild Lake Delhi.  But let’s do it right; let’s do it local.

Welcome Representative Braley!

In the day and a half after I posted “Braley Bites” I had five views of my blog from Washington DC, including two from house.gov (U.S.  House of Representatives) domain names.  A similar phenomenon occurred when I posted “Bruce Braley Buffoonery” and “An Open Letter To Rep Bruce Braley.”  I’m beginning to think I’ve got fans in high places.

Let me follow a hunch and extend a hearty welcome to Representative Braley or (more likely) a couple of his staffers.  I’m glad to have you here!  Anyone with an open mind is welcome.

Let me start off by saying I have nothing against Braley personally.  He may very well be a nice person in private.  I don’t know; I’ve never met him.  It’s his public policies that I don’t like.  Unfortunately, the progressive policies that he promotes affect me quite intimately: taking the bread from my mouth through taxation, subverting the Constitution I swore to defend, and wrapping the noose of interminable debt around the necks of my children.  It’s hard for me not to take umbrage at all that I’m afraid.

But I hope that you find the blog enjoyable and enlightening.  So long as you’re here though I would ask that you please patronize my advertisers, to generate revenue for my site.  You see, unlike you, I don’t have swarms of armed thugs to take other people’s money for me and I can’t borrow money from the Chinese in my children’s name.

Or maybe I could forgo all that ad revenue stuff and you guys could just hook me up with a big, fat federal grant.  Watch how fast I change my tune from “Braley Bites” to “Braley’s Brilliant” then!

Braley Bites

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce what will be a recurring feature on this blog titled “Braley Bites.”  Each installment will deal with Bruce Braley, Iowa’s so-called “representative” of the First District in the U.S. House.  The “bites” comes from each one being a small, “bite-sized” news snippet, but since I’m no big fan of Braley, you can take it a couple of different ways.  Here’s the first installment:

Lange Outraises Braley In Second Quarter

According to financial disclosures released this month, challenger Ben Lange raised more money in the second quarter than the incumbent Braley.  Lange, a small-town lawyer from Independence, raised $108,587 while Braley only raised $106,678.

While those numbers are similar, where the money came from are polar opposites.  85% of Lange’s donations came from constituents here inside Iowa’s 1st District.  Compare that to Braley, who had 88% of his contributions come from out-of-state. Incredibly only six actual constituents donated to Braley this past quarter, according to the disclosures.  Braley relied heavily on political special interests for donations, whereas 96% of Lange’s support came from individual contributors.

While Iowans are already voting for Lange over Braley with their wallets, that doesn’t mean Lange can breathe easy.  Braley has $632,385 in his war chest, while Lange only has $110,296.  Braley helps wield the resources of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and will use them to fund his own campaign.  And since Braley is one of the most consistently liberal votes in Congress, unions and other liberal special interests from across the country will be dumping truckloads of money into the race to ensure Braley’s victory.

Bruce Braley Buffoonery

Here U.S. Representative Bruce Braley gets schooled when he appears on Fox Business. The best line is when the host tells Braley that his voting record looks like “a porn site for liberalism.” Thankfully, whoever put this montage together edited out all the double-talk and b.s. (i.e. Braley’s responses).

An Open Letter To Rep. Bruce Braley

Dear Representative Braley:

The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and they] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Given your support for every federal intrusion into the private market and into the personal decisions of average Americans, from “Cash for Clunkers” to Obamacare, apparently you disagree with Madison on the role of the federal government.

Perhaps, like a generation of “progressives” in both parties, you believe that the Constitution’s “general welfare clause” gives Congress authority to meddle in every aspect of human existence. As Roger Pilon, founder and director of Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, put it during testimony before Congress, “The general welfare clause [was intended] to ensure that Congress, in the exercise of any of its enumerated powers, would act for the general rather than for any particular welfare.” It was to ensure that any law would uniformly apply to all Americans rather than benefiting only politically-favored groups, as is now common practice.

Perhaps you believe that the Constitution’s “commerce clause” gives Congress such authority. But the commerce clause was to allow Congress to smooth out the hodgepodge of competing protectionist policies of the several states, making the United States into a free trade zone. Again, Pilon: “Not remotely did the Framers intend that the clause be converted from a shield against state abuse–its use in the first great commerce clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)–into a sword enabling Congress, through regulation, to try to bring about all manner of social and economic ends.”

Perhaps you can quote Supreme Court rulings that bolster your big-government contentions. But, decisions from an appendage of the federal government, ruling to expand the power of that same government are not surprising and not compelling.

More likely perhaps, like Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois admitted (and no doubt many of your other colleagues who won’t admit it), you simply don’t “worry” or care about the Constitution that you swore an oath to support, defend, and “bear true faith and allegiance to.” Like you, I once took an oath to support and defend the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike you, I take it seriously.

By your actions and the usurpation that you advance, you, Sir, have proven yourself to be a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution. The yoke of oppressive debt levels that you are placing on my children and unborn grandchildren proves that you are also an enemy of basic human decency. Therefore, be advised: I intend to use all peaceful and legal means at my disposal to see that you are unseated.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Cashner
[Address removed]

[Hat tip to Between Two Rivers blog for the Phil Hare link.]