align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditfacebookglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

FW: [9-12-melbourne] Fwd: [SnDL] BAD VOTE BY SEN. RUBIO

From: Bob W.
Sent on: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:50 AM
Yet another disappointing vote from Marco Rubio.


Subject: [9-12-melbourne] Fwd: [SnDL] BAD VOTE BY SEN. RUBIO
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun[masked]:50:24 -0400





[]  

Please call Senator Marco Rubio today and tell him how dissapointed we are on his vote for Big Sugar. Will congress stop spending money? Was Senator Rubio really the Tea Party Candidate? Or... did the New York Times make him the Tea Party Candidate? Is Senator Rubio listening to his freind Jeb Bush? Tell us Senator Rubio are you really fiscally conservative like Senator DeMint, Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Mike Lee?
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WE ARE BROKE !!!!!!!!
Senator Rubio
[masked]

CATO INSTITUTE
Big Sugar Wins in the Senate
Posted by Tad DeHaven

Today we have yet another example of Republicans and Democrats teaming up to protect a special interest at the public’s expense. A few hours ago the Senate voted 50-46 to kill an amendment from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) that would have phased out subsidies and supports for the sugar industry.

A Cato essay on agricultural regulations and trade barriers explains what 50 senators just voted to defend:

The big losers from federal sugar programs are U.S. consumers. The Government Accountability Office estimates that U.S. sugar policies cost American consumers about $1.9 billion annually. At the same time, sugar policies have allowed a small group of sugar growers to become wealthy because supply restrictions have given them monopoly power. The GAO found that 42 percent of all sugar subsidies go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. To protect their monopolies, many sugar growers, such as the Fanjul family of Florida, have become influential campaign supporters of many key members of Congress.

U.S. food industries that buy sugar are harmed by current sugar policies as well. The employment in U.S. sugar growing is 61,000, which compares to employment in U.S. businesses that use sugar of 988,000. Thus, one small industry benefits from current sugar regulations, while industries that are more than 10 times larger are damaged…

Another problem is the environmental damage caused by U.S. sugar policies. Large areas of the Florida Everglades have been converted to cane sugar production because of artificially high sugar prices. These wetlands have been greatly damaged by land drainage, habitat destruction, and the phosphorous in fertilizers used by sugar farmers.

Of the 48 Democratic senators who voted, 32 voted to kill the amendment. And here I thought Democrats were supposed to be concerned about the environment and creating jobs. The Republican side did better with “only� 16 out of 46 voting to kill the amendment. Of note, Marco Rubio (R-FL), a tea party favorite and potential running mate for Mitt Romney, was one of the 16. An obvious sop to the powerful Florida sugar lobby, Rubio’s vote in favor of maintaining the federal government’s Soviet-style sugar racket is an all-too-common example of a politician choosing parochialism over principle.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 2nd Sessiion as compiled through Senate LIST by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Amdt. No. 2393 )
Vote Number:
119
Vote Date:
June 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
Required For Majority:
1/2

Vote Result:

Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number:

S.Amdt. 2393 to S.Amdt. 2392 to S.Amdt. 2391 to S. 3240

Statement of Purpose:

To phase out the Federal sugar program.

Vote Counts:
YEAs
50
NAYs
46
Not Voting
4

Vote Summary
By Senator Name
Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea

Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Not Voting
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Not Voting
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay




--
    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." 
    Samuel Adams, [masked]), known as the "Father of the American Revolution."





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Barbara Knick ([address removed]) from Brevard 912.
To learn more about Barbara Knick, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy