Bud Cramer joined two other Alabama congressmen in voting for an anti gasoline ”price gouging” bill.  Such legislation is nothing more than counterproductive demagoguery that ensures gasoline supplies will be quickly depleted during a crisis due to artificially low prices.  Supposedly Bush will veto the bill.  Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

Just to prove that Congress is more interested in stoking undue anti-petro sentiment than it is in keeping prices low for consumers they did not include wording that would temporarily suspend federal gas taxes during a crisis.  It deserves being mentioned that the federal tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon.  States add an average of 20.8 cents per gallon in taxes.  So even at $3 per gallon just over 13% of the price you pay goes to the government.  By comparison most oil companies earn profit margins in the 10% range, which (if their gas business is just as productive as the whole company) means that about 10% of the price of a gallon of gas is profit for the oil companies.  It’s pretty clear that the government is the one gouging consumers.

And America’s obsession with expanding the past time of victimhood continues.  The legislation would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include attacks against gays, lesbians and the disabled.  The President has threatened to veto the bill.  It’s kind of funny how, now that the Dems are in control of Congress, he has suddenly found that veto pen.

Other than Artur Davis, Alabama’s entire delegation (including Bud Cramer) voted against the bill, which passed 237-180.

I’m of the opinion that any hate crimes legislation is not necessary in the first place.  Criminals don’t commit crimes against you because they like you.  The rationale for committing crimes is certainly not uniform and doesn’t fit nicely into little federally created boxes.  For example, the VaTech killer railed against “rich” kids.  The Columbine shooters were losers who loathed the cool, well-adjusted kids.  Should we make the wealthy and the attractive federally protected victim classes as well?

Big news out of North Alabama, U.S. Representative Bud Cramer (D) now has a Republican challenger for the 2008 race.

On April 17, local attorney E. Ray McKee, Jr., announced his candidacy for the 2008 election to the House of Representatives Fifth District, a seat currently held by Cramer (D-Ala.). McKee, a Republican, holds a Ph.D in electrical engineering and is recently retired from the U.S. Government. His main platform is the enactment of the Fair Tax Bill into law.

In 2006 Cramer ran unopposed.

I’m going to try to exercise a bit of restraint and not immediately endorse Dr. McKee, but his strong support of the FairTax makes it hard.  I called his office as soon as I read the article, but he had left for the day and will call me back Monday his receptionist assured me.  I’m going to try to schedule a time to sit down with McKee and find out about the rest of his platform.

I’m not eager to see Cramer replaced.  He is a very moderate, fiscally responsible Democrat.  He isn’t a grandstanding media whore like some politicians.  But his persistent refusal to cosponsor the FairTax Bill despite strong support from within his district bothers me.  I’ve traversed the fifth district, from Florence to Scottsboro and in between, and found that there are lots of people who already like the FairTax and many who like it once they learn about it.

Cramer’s staff has been responsive and polite and I was even able to meet with his District Director and D.C. Legislative Director to discuss the bill.  I’ve talked to numerous others who have called, faxed, and emailed his office requesting that he sign on as a cosponsor.  He has not done so.

Certainly anyone who opposes Cramer faces an uphill battle.  Cramer sits on a $1.7 million war chest and hasn’t been really threatened for his seat since 1994 when he only received 50% of the votes.  Since then he has enjoyed comfortable margins of victory.

More to come after I talk with McKee…

From the Decatur Daily:

A bill that prohibits animal fighting and abuse is halfway through Congress.

The House of Representatives approved the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act on Monday.

Co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, the bill would make it a federal crime to knowingly buy, sell, transport, deliver or receive any animal in interstate or foreign commerce for fighting. The legislation also increases the maximum sentence for these crimes to three years in prison.

“No animal should ever be trained or used for fighting,” Cramer said. “This bipartisan bill will help put an end to this cruel practice.”

…

Last year, Decatur was home to high profile case of alleged animal abuse when Lucky, a severely injured dog, was found in a trash bin. The dog’s extensive injuries were consistent with animal fighting and abuse. Trial for the man charged with Lucky’s abuse is on this week’s Circuit Court trial docket.

Anybody who reads this blog with some degree of frequency knows my position on personal liberty and freedom.  But, there is no place in civilized society for people who force animals to fight.

Amazingly, 39 legislators, including Alabama’s Mike Rogers, voted against the bill.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Alcee Hastings has stepped down as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s subcommittee on oversight.

Hastings, D-Miramar, who was appointed to the subcommittee chairmanship two months ago, said he was relinquishing the post because he has since been appointed chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe - commonly known as the Helsinki Commission - by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

…

The panel’s new chairman is Rep. Robert “Bud” Cramer, D-Ala.

Bud Cramer voted in favor of the House’s non binding anti-surge resolution.

The Government Dependency Fair Minimum Wage Act passed in the House today by a vote of 315-116.  The act calls for the federally mandated minimum wage to be increased to $7.25 per hour over the next two years.

The entire Alabama delegation voted for the bill.

There’s a check in the minus column for Rep. Cramer.

Update: Talmadge pointed out an error in my original post (see comments) and I have modified the content.

Reps. Bud Cramer (D-AL) and Robert Aderholt understand that the outcome of the midterm election is a mandate for change, not a mandate for a leftist agenda.

[They] have different theories on the message voters sent Tuesday, but neither believes it had anything to do with the Democratic agenda.

…

“The mandate is for change,” said Cramer.

“The people don’t like the way this place is being run, and they want us to work differently, to work together,” said Cramer, who has been in Congress since 1991. “If our new leadership doesn’t show that we are reacting to Tuesday’s message, then our new leadership is off on the wrong foot.”

If there are more people like Bud Cramer in the Dem Party the GOP will have a tough time wresting control away.

The dynamics (in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) were much more partisan,” Cramer said. “Each side seemed to be calling shots based on how they could set the other side up.

“I’m sick and tired of it.”

I think that is the prevailing attitude across the country.

Aderholt had some advice for the presumptive Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

“She has to remember that she has several in her majority that are more moderate.”

So…

Will the Dems play this opportunity straight, maybe following my advice from a couple of days ago, or will they try to please their leftist base at the risk of upsetting a majority of the country and gift wrapping 2008 for the GOP?

Using the data in The Washington Post’s “Congress Votes Database” I analyzed Bud Cramer’s voting record from 1991 to now to see how much he votes with (and against his party).  I only included votes in which both parties took an official position, which excludes 23 votes from consideration.

Since 1991 Cramer has voted 8,853 times.  Those votes break down as follows:

• 4,037 (46%) - Both GOP and Dems took the same position
• 3,067 (35%) - Cramer voted with the Dems
• 1,749 (20%) - Cramer voted with the GOP

Or, when only the 4,816 non-consensus votes are considered:

• 64% Dem
• 36% GOP

The following chart shows how Cramer’s voting in those non-consensus votes has changed since 1991.

From 1991 to 1994 he voted with the Democrats about 80% of the time.  After the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 he has consistantly voted with the Democrats only 60% of the time.  I wonder if we can expect a similar shift if the Democrats take the House back this fall?

WASHINGTON — In an unusual grass-roots uprising, liberal Internet activists are pressing dozens of Democratic House members without serious challenges in November’s election to transfer nearly one-third of their campaign cash to the party’s challengers against potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents.

The effort reflects both the belief among Democratic activists that the number of House seats the party can gain is steadily rising and the concern that a shortage of funds may prevent Democrats from maximizing these opportunities.

…

The targeted Democrats include Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts ($2.3 million in his treasury), Robert E. “Bud” Cramer of Alabama ($1.6 million), Adam B. Schiff of Burbank ($1.4 million), and Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois ($1.3 million), according to the MyDD calculations. Rep. Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts easily topped the list with $4.9 million in the bank.

So far, there is little indication that the incumbents are heeding the call from the activists. Some of those with large accounts are considering bids for higher office. But the activists argue that they should be focused less on their personal aspirations and more on the broader party interests.

Why would Cramer, a staunchly conservative Democrat, want to aid “liberal Internet activists”?