Blue Louisa: A blog Covering Central Virginia & national politics from a progressive perspective
Dave Brat in Virginia’s 7th District, and other Republicans, have called on Trump to lessen “burdensome regulations,” and make “it possible for people to once again buy the low-premium coverage they prefer.” (Dave Brat, “We Still Can’t Get Healthcare Right,” March 27, 2017).
President Trump responded by recently expanding “short-term,” inexpensive health plans, known as “skimpy” policies. They became available on the ACA Exchanges in October.
As Dave Brat has called for– these “skimpy” policies increase competition, lessen regulation, but they also gut consumer protections. “Skimpy” plans don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions, or cover 10 Essential Benefits on the ACA– such as ER care, prescription-drugs, mental-health/ substance-abuse counseling, cancer treatments, etc. Some doctors call these “skimpy” policies “junk insurance.”
The Trump administration says “skimpy” plans are good for young/ healthy people. However, young people who get critically injured in car accidents, have substance-abuse issues, acquire youth cancers (testicular cancer, or leukemia), might be left high and dry on “skimpy” plans.
Also, economists warn if younger/healthier people pull out of the ACA– premiums may skyrocket for sick and older folks left on Exchanges. And buyers beware: ‘Skimpy” plans historically have been falsely marketed–promising to cover conditions that in the fine print (few read) are not actually covered.
Dave Brat is also advancing high-deductible Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to add competition in the healthcare marketplace. These accounts, often invested in the stock market, allow consumers to save for medical care tax free. People who rarely get sick/ injured make out best with HSAs.
Brat’s biggest contribution to healthcare is that he co-sponsored a bill raising dollar limits people can contribute to HSAs each year– up to $9,000 for individuals and $18,000 for families. The higher your earnings, the higher your tax deduction with HSAs, so these accounts clearly favor wealthier consumers.
Abigail Spanberger, also running for congress in the 7th District, wants to increase competition in health care, too. Spanberger wants to maintain coverage of the 10 Essential Benefits in the ACA for all Americans, as well as protections for pre-existing conditions. She also believes Medicare X (which is not universal health care) would compete on Exchanges with private insurers, encouraging them to lower overhead and thus premiums.
Medicare X would be a public option on ACA Exchanges, which consumers could voluntarily buy at any age. This plan uses the same doctor networks in traditional Medicare (the popular seniors government healthcare plan) but would also cover maternity/pediatrics.
Importantly, Medicare X would not touch the Medicare Trust Fund, or change its solvency, because consumers would pay premiums. But Medicare X would be affordable, because unlike private insurers, it doesn’t have high overhead. That’s because it doesn’t have to pay shareholder profits/ big CEO bonuses, or spring for expensive TV ads/ fancy PR.
Importantly, Medicare X would be rolled out in rural areas first, since rural areas have little competition on the Exchanges and many rural hospitals are struggling to survive.
Knowing how candidates define “competition” in healthcare helps constituents be more educated voters.
Editor's Note: This originally appeared in Richmond2Day, and has been reposted here with the author's permission.
Like most current Republicans, Representative David Brat (VA-7) offers considerable misrepresentation of his background and talents. He labels himself as the only economist in the Congress. This claim might have redeeming value if Brat’s academic writings were on economic subjects, such as a study of the Federal Reserve, the economics of development, or the mechanics of the housing market. But his major academic writings are not in the field of economics.
Even as a legislator Brat has little influence on economic issues. He has sidelined himself by joining the minority Freedom Caucus of Republicans and is not a major player on any of the economic/commerce committees. To ingratiate himself with the Republican leadership he parades the standard Republican talking points. Like most Republicans he was critical of the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that it would increase government debt. Like most Republicans, he is silent about the impact on the debt of the Republican tax bill of 2017. Nor has Brat complained about the fact that the bill makes tax breaks for corporations and the 1% permanent, while middle class tax breaks will expire shortly.
If he is not an influential legislator, what kind of economist is former professor Brat? Not a very ethical one according to recent commentary from the world of economists. It seems Brat plagiarized major parts of a paper he published. Typical of Brat’s research interests, this paper was not about trade, or monetary policy, or other typical subjects of the “dismal science.” No, this bungled paper was a rewrite of the theme of his doctoral dissertation.
His doctoral dissertation copies German philosopher Max Weber’s thesis highlighted in his 1905 book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber proposed that Protestantism was one of the major influences associated with the rise in the Western world of market-driven capitalism and the bureaucratic nation-state. He argued that it was the basic tenets of Protestantism which gave capitalism a boost. To Weber Protestant religious values were inherent to the spirit of capitalism. Or, as Brat wrote in his dissertation “the Protestant effect may simply be viewed as the absence of the negative Catholic effects” he described earlier (p. 118).
His dissertation goes on at great length about the failures of Catholic societies. His dissertation is really not about economics at all but drifts into the literature of sociology. To substantiate Weber’s thesis, Brat’s dissertation compares England and Protestant Germany to Catholic France. After discussing comparative education and government systems Brat opines that France is less capitalistic because of its lack of scientific inventions in the 1800s and weak organization of its academic institutions. Not much core economics here, but Brat offers a not so subtle attack on Catholic institutions.
In the current campaign, Brat’s weak background and glaring prejudices are beginning to erode his base. His fundraising is anemic. Vice President Pence recently threw him a life line via a fundraiser in Washington. His staunch support of the Administration raises eyebrows.
His avoidance of town halls and his decidedly weak performance at the only candidates’ debate fades his academic image. His lack of grasp of the issues during this debate did not help. His academic plagiarism makes it difficult for him to separate himself from the ethical problems of the Administration. While Brat likes to characterize himself as an economist, he has not shown much economic sophistication in voting for increased government debt or parroting the Republican promise to cut Social Security and Medicare. Brat’s claim to be an economist is as hollow as his lack of compassion.
Brat’s opponent, Abigail Spanberger, could not be more different. She is a former CIA officer, who is used to collecting information and presenting it in a factual way to policy makers. She has practical operational experience in national security and foreign policy. She has accumulated significant labor and other endorsements including that of veterans in the 7th District and national media attention. She also has the advantage of being born and raised in Virginia. Her practical experience and openness versus his reliance on Republican talking points has moved the needle in the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District from leaning Republican to a toss-up
Editor’s Note: Ockams Razur is a nom-de plume of one of the Culpeper Dems, and this piece originally appeared in the DailyKOS, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission. So be sure to give them some love over there.
Watching Dave Brat campaign on a platform of brazen, unmitigated dishonesty has been one of the most demoralizing experiences in all my years as a voter. Not only because my Congressman has abandoned any concern for telling the truth, but because he actually expects his constituents to believe him.
The way he faked a Washington Post “4-Pinnochio” fact check of his opponent, Abigail Spanberger, was an insult to anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking ability.
His Pavlovian debate performance made a mockery of civil discourse and showed that he is wholly uninterested in (or incapable of) engaging in an earnest exchange of ideas. His TV spots—like the ironically titled “Double Down” ad—pollute the air with insipid, facile and repetitive lies that have been routinely disproved.
Does he honestly believe people are going to buy this?
Yes. Yes he does.
In fact, Dave Brat not only thinks his supporters are dumb enough to believe it, he’s counting on it. And to be perfectly honest, I can see why. He’s run a laughably inept, infuriatingly dishonest, and notoriously lazy campaign.
He’s made no real attempt to reach out to people in this community, nor to make his presence known beyond road signs and purchased media. And the feeble, half-hearted outreach attempts he does make result in egregious unforced errors. (Consider the incident from the Congressman’s visit to Chesterfield County Jail on October 17. When an inmate opened up to him about her struggles with drug addiction and her concerns for rebuilding a life after confinement, he tried to one-up her by unloading his own problems.)
He’s the very model of incompetence, and he’s proven time and again that he’s woefully undeserving of a seat in Congress. In a perfect world, Dave Brat’s re-election prospects would be abysmal.
Yet the race is still considered a toss-up.
So, he maintains course and speed. His lies about his opponent continue unabated (and easily refuted). His community engagement remains sparse, exclusionary, and secretive. His deceitful approach hasn’t changed one bit, even when exposed for the farce that it is. Because he thinks he’s getting away with it. He’s counting on the ignorance and indifference of his base to nullify any consequences for it, and to carry him to a third term.
In short, Brat voters, he not only thinks you’re all idiots, he needs you to be. Boy I sure hope you let him down on November 6.
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in Richmond2day, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Rep Brat’s recent tone-deaf comments at the Chesterfield jail underscore that as the Tea Party Spokesman for the 7th District he only sees labels, not people. He made the same point during the debate in Culpeper failing to address himself to the centrist campaign of Abigail Spanberger, but trying to label her as “Nancy Pelosi.” Even the bipartisan crowd at the Beer Hound laughed in unison at his weak debate technique.
Dr. Neviaser’s column in the last edition of the Culpeper Times trotted out more labels while also claiming Brat’s vote for the Republican tax bill was good for the economy. But in fact it will blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget. The government debt is rising as we speak.
Now when President Reagan increased the debt, at least he bought something – more equipment for the U.S. military. The bill Brat supported bought nothing. It gave tax revenue back to corporations and the 1%.
This inequity explains why our industrial and farm incomes have not grown. From 1997 to the present the top 10% received all of the U.S. income growth and the bottom 90% received nothing.
BTW where is your tax money Brat gave to the top corporations going? The financial news is the companies are recycling it through the stock market. After all, CEOs receive bonuses if the stock price increases. Do consider that when you go to the polls this November.
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the Culpeper Times, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
The most important election in our lifetimes is just nine days away.
The only debate between Dave Brat and Abigail Spanberger was held on October 15th here in Culpeper. Due to a lack of any legislative accomplishments that helped Culpeper families, Dave Brat unsuccessfully tried to tie his opponent to Nancy Pelosi 25 times. That’s all he had.
In a nutshell:
“I question again if Congressman Brat knows which Democrat he is, in fact, running against. I am not the Democrat that supported single payer in the primary, I am not Nancy Pelosi, and I am not President Barack Obama. I am a woman who grew up in Henrico County, who grew up in this community, who was taught service, hard work, and a commitment to the belief that the American people can be anything, and we will lead the way in this world, and that’s who I am.
“I returned four years ago because I wanted to get my kids closer to my parents, closer to my in-laws, closer to my family, and I am committed to this community. I am committed to making it stronger, and I am committed to policies that make sense and that are fiscally responsibility because to me it is absolutely hypocritical to have someone stand on stage, talk about fiscal responsibility, after adding 1.9 trillion dollars to the deficit, after voting against hurricane relief, after voting against the omnibus bill, after voting against budget after budget because he didn’t want to add to the deficit, but when it came time to give 42 billion dollars in tax breaks to the pharmaceutical companies, there he was.”
Representative Brat, and his Super PAC allies, like Paul Ryan’s cynical Congressional Leadership Fund, savagely and cruelly attack Abigail Spanberger with lies and distortions because Brat has no record to run on. During his four years in Congress, he has introduced only one bill that has been signed into law – renaming an arboretum at the Veterans hospital in Richmond. He spends most of his time prating on extremist radio shows. He brags about his carefully-staged photo ops instead of getting out into his district and answering the questions of his constituents.
By Election Day, Abigail Spanberger, will have held more than 150 meet and greets all over the ten counties in the 7th District that have been open to everyone.
It is quite easy to discover where she stands on the issues. Her website, www.abigailspanberger.com, is detailed and totally transparent. She discusses all the issues important to our citizens: healthcare and the opioid crisis, preventing gun violence (not abolishing the 2nd Amendment), protecting Social Security and Medicare, promoting jobs, the economy, and public education, pushing for immigration reform while opposing open borders and sanctuary cities, reforming Federal marijuana laws that would allow states to enact marijuana laws without federal interference. Promoting good governance and strong national security and foreign policies, civil rights and equality, campaign finance reform and an end to gerrymandering. Protecting the environment and diversifying our energy resources. Promoting technology and providing rural broadband. Actually fighting for veterans.
Brat’s insistence that “we don’t know what Spanberger stands for,” is patently ridiculous. Don’t just take my word for it. Look these things up for yourselves. Where does Dave Brat stand? He is very vague.
Vote like your lives, the lives of your children, and your grandchildren depend on it. The choice is clear.
“I want to serve this community. It’s the community that made me who I am. And, I ask for your vote on November 6th. Abigail Spanberger is my name.”
Editor’s Note: this was submitted to the Culpeper Star Exponent, and should appear in this Sunday’s issue, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Yes, I’m very fond of the fact that she supports many issues I care deeply about. She supports working to prevent insurance companies from doing away with plan protections due to preexisting conditions, she supports women having the right to choose what happens to their own bodies, and she supports protecting our country’s natural resources from pollution. The list goes on and on.
Abigail Spanberger had my vote months and months ago, but for once in my life – because of a few fleeting but noteworthy interactions – I’m sitting down and writing more than just a quick “Vote for so-and-so” social media post about a political candidate.
My wife and I are new parents. Other parents reading this know what I mean when I say parenthood is often all-consuming. In the days before our daughter, JuneBug as we call her, when my wife was perfectly round-bellied and we both had no idea how full our lives were about to become – we talked about how we were bound to become less politically active. Between both of us working full-time, trying to keep our home somewhat presentable, and caring for Junie – we often end our nights on the couch watching old episodes of “The Office” and being too exhausted to climb the stairs up to our room. Needless to say, our premonitions about our diminished energy for politics was more than true.
Lucky for us, we have some incredibly enthusiastic and energetic friends when it comes to positive change in today’s wounded political climate. So many of them were posting about Abigail on social media. They were attending fundraising and meet and greet events, posting photos of themselves canvassing together, and encouraging friends to do their research about this individual working so hard to “flip the 7th.” I found myself thinking, “Who is this woman?”
So, my wife and I started attending events where we got to meet and interact with Abigail. Each time, she was incredibly personable. At Virginia Pride she crouched down on our blanket we’d laid out on the grass on Brown’s Island and kissed our baby girl. She laughed as Junie tugged at her hair and seemed to have to be almost pulled away by her assistant who seemed eager to get Abigail to their next destination, no doubt feeling the pressure of the less-than-two-months-until-voting-day. Abigail, who proclaimed herself to be a lover of babies, seemed entirely present in that moment with us – with our family, kissing our JuneBug’s perfectly plump cheeks.
Our next meeting was just days ago. My (chosen) Mother and ginormous Abigail Spanberger supporter was co-hosting a Meet and Greet and Fundraiser – the Spanberger campaign’s 136th. As the evening was winding down, Abigail found her way to where my wife and I were standing, blowing raspberries at our JuneBug. She seemed to remember us, and held out her arms to Junie. We all chatted with ease – Abigail never once asking overly personal questions that we are too-often asked, like “Did you adopt?” “Which one of you carried her?” or the dreaded “Which of you is the mother?” – To which we always reply, “both of us.”
After snuggling our wide-eyed, fresh-from-a-nap-but-still-sleepy baby for a few minutes, JuneBug leaned toward me the way little ones do when they’re tired and are ready to be in the arms of a parent. Abigail said, “Oh you want to go back to your Mama?” And that right there. That sealed the deal for me. I wanted to do more than vote – I want to help encourage others to do so as well.
You may be thinking “Really? That’s it?”
But, so often, I’m overlooked as a Mom. My wife, still breastfeeding, is so clearly a mother. It could be that folks don’t know my wife and I are a couple – or they’re afraid to acknowledge it for fear of offending us if they are wrong – but, we do all the things any straight couple with a kid does in public. We hold hands, I’ll smooch her on the top of her head as we shop for groceries, or we’ll both play peek-a-boo with JuneBug while waiting in line at a coffee shop.
Abigail sees and acknowledges my family — literally the biggest part of who I am. Abigail hasn’t shied away from being vocal regarding her opinion on civil rights or LGBTQ equality. More and more, as I listen to her speak, or listen to what my LGBTQ family is saying about her – I learn something remarkable about her: she not only supports Virginia’s LGBTQ community, she interacts with us with the familiarity and ease only a true friend of our vibrant and thriving community could.
Her name is Abigail Spanberger, and on November 6th, she’s got this mom’s vote. I hope she has yours too.
Editor's Note: this letter originally appeared in Richmond2day, and has been re-posted here with the author's permission.
I was one of the lucky few who was able to get a ticket to the debate of two of the 7th district Congressional candidates in Culpeper. I prefer to see people in person than through the filter of the television. Putting political theater aside, I tried to focus on the issues important to me: prescription drug costs, CTE education, and the cost of college.
I was first impressed by Ms. Spanberger’s opening message of optimism as there is simply too much division in our country right now. She also had specific data to share which I appreciate more than rhetoric.
I did not know that the corporate tax cuts resulted in $42 billion going to the top five pharmaceutical companies. She also pointed out that prescription drug costs are 80 percent lower at the VA than in a commercial pharmacy. This made me wonder why Mr. Brat has not pursued legislation to address this issue to help all of us, not just veterans.
Ms. Spanberger’s knowledge of pending legislation made her appear more like an incumbent than someone new to politics. She had clearly done her homework and prepared well. Mr. Brat stated, “We’ve done the right thing on the education front,” but he voted against a bill funding career and technical education. Our CTE program is very important here in Louisa and I was disappointed that he did not support funding it.
He seemed unconcerned that there is now more student loan debt than credit card debt in our country. We have got to help our young people have a future. Ms. Spanberger cited a current bill in committee that would allow students to refinance their loans and provide incentives for employers to help students pay off their debt. Finally, over a 90-minute debate each candidate spoke approximately 45 minutes.
During the course of his time Mr. Brat referred to Nancy Pelosi at least 21 times. It was out of place since so much of the discussion was about issues affecting those of us who live here in the 7th. He did not seem to understand who he is running against. His repeated use of Pelosi’s name became so comical that those in attendance laughed out loud the longer it went on. I was embarrassed for him.
After seeing the candidates in person having to answer the exact same questions, the choice for me was clear: Ms. Spanberger has earned my respect. She is an earnest, well prepared candidate interested in the issues affecting those of us living here in the 7th district and her opponent is out of touch with the district.
For these and many other reasons I will be voting for Abigail Spanberger for Congress and I hope each of you will carefully research the candidates on issues important to you. Your vote is an important responsibility.
Editor’s Note: This originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been reposted here with the author’s permission.
Without hesitation, I will be voting for Abigail Spanberger for Congress. She has more energy and drive than virtually any candidate for political office I have known over the years. A natural leader, she appreciates making decisions based on documented facts - not “alternative facts” - and has made a concerted effort to meet face-to-face with hundreds of 7th District residents to understand their needs. Most of all, her common-sense positions on Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, the economy, education, the workforce, broadband, and public safety are of central importance to the residents of the 7th Congressional District.
Abigail is willing to work across the aisle with members of both parties in Congress to seek the best outcomes for our community and our nation. Today we are raised to think that when opinions differ, one person has to win and the other has to lose. We are not accustomed to working out win-win solutions because it is much harder to do and requires more effort. The win-win outcomes, however, should be worth it to all that are involved. We can come up with better solutions. As Abigail believes, whether in parenting, employment settings, business transactions or political situations, we must ask probing questions to get down to the root cause of our differences. Then we must talk to each other. This exemplifies “reaching across the aisle”. We, the people of the 7th District, are tired of our elected representatives digging in their heels and saying “no” to opposite party members. This is unacceptable behavior and one that needs to be changed.
Abigail is the one to make that change. She understands that with great power comes great responsibility to the people of the 7th Congressional District. She has served her country and community and has put her life in danger for citizens of the United States. She grew up in Henrico County and understands local issues important to us. And above all, she is not taking money from corporate PACs.
Voting is how we raise our voices and let our current elected officials know that not working across the aisle has failed to produce any meaningful results for regular people and that we have had enough. Join me in voting for Abigail Spanberger for Congress. She will work for ALL of us.
William E. Quarles, Jr.
Editor’s Note: this letter was submitted to the Goochland Gazette, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
It’s all too familiar. We see the Trump Administration and the rest of the Republican Party chipping away at our liberties in various ways. We see this, and some of us have seen it coming for a long time but how many people don’t know and or bother to find out how our civil liberties are being attacked. When it’s too late they’ll be wondering what happened. I made observations of the local political social media and came to some unsettling conclusions.
There are various forms of censorship, so let’s start with something that everyone’s familiar with and bring it closer to home; the Facebook page of Dave Brat. Brat won the vote to become the Republican Congressman of the 7th District of Virginia in 2014. He’s coming to the end of his second term and struggling to get re-elected for a third. He is doing whatever he can to reach that goal; constitutionality and ethics only seem to get in the way.
The constituents of the 7th District have complained to Brat for a long time about access to his office simply to express their concerns about various legislation. They have had reasonable expectations for Brat to listen so he can represent their interest in Congress. That’s his job, his only job and he must do it because of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”Brat continues to be inaccessible and simply by not listening, he establishes just a “little bit” of censorship. He’s probably hoping that “little bit” of censorship will carry him a long way.
We already know about the Trump model of censorship on his Twitter account, where people who disagree with him were blocked. The courts ruled that action unconstitutional because he is currently the President of the United States and is required to allow public access.
Dave Brat has had his own share of controversy with his Facebook page when, last year, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that Sara James – who handled his social media communications and events, along with being his campaign manager for about 3 months– was trolling his Facebook page using aggressive and “unkind” comments to constituents while still being paid by Brat’s campaign. That didn’t seem to bother Brat in the least. For all the times that he’s mentioned ethics, you would think that he would be capable of making a better moral decision about attacking the constituents of the 7th District from his office.
There were also concerns raised about Brat’s Twitter account, earlier this year, where “Likes” were adjusted by his staff to place him in a better light.
Using staff members to intimidate people from posting their views is a form of censorship. This is a bullying tactic taken directly from Donald Trump’s playbook, except that Brat isn’t brave enough to do it on his own.
Adjusting “Likes” on his Twitter account is a step up on his Censorship Ladder. It’s not exactly deleting words, but when someone “Likes” on a social media platform, they’re making a statement. They’re expressing themselves and are relying that no one – especially Dave Brat – will resort to “abridging the freedom of speech.” And yet, that is exactly what he’s doing, “abridging the freedom of speech.” This is undeniable. I would also say that this is immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional.
We might as well take a look now at what happens on the next step of Dave Brat’s Censorship Ladder by returning to his Facebook page to examine current activity. The “Sara James” like trolls seem to have increased both in number and venom. On the surface it would seem that the attacks are organized, and I suspect that they really are. The venom takes the usual form of name-calling, and in some instances, taking someone’s last name and morphing it into forms that are purposely obscene. Brat has claimed that obscenities have been directed at him but it appears that a constituent who posts any opposition to Brat’s Republican stance is simply getting their “just” reward and are beneath his responsibility to represent.
My reason for believing the trolls are organized under Brat is that there have been exchanges when someone posts a comment to Brat that is unflattering or seen as negative; at that point an exchange occurs when the trolls attack the person who commented. There is a trail of comments, then at some point, the original comment the person made remains, but their responses to the replies from the trolls have been deleted. This kind of censorship is intended to discourage posting comments that aren’t favorable to Brat. And, a good question to ask is:
Why does Dave Brat allow his staff to delete constituent comments at will?
Suppression of Voters by Depression of Voters!!!
We can see further expansion of Brat’s Censorship Ladder by taking a further look at this step. If you disagree with Brat, if you ask legitimate questions about policies and positions, if you reference a real news item that contradicts Brat’s position (instead of FoxNews or InfoWars), or interject a meme or that is critical of Brat, Trump, or the Republican Party, then you should get ready to be blocked or have your comment deleted.
Have these things actually happened? Unfortunately, the answer is yes!!
Numerous comments get posted that take issue with Brat’s policies and positions. His Facebook page itself is deceiving because it gives the impression that the comment has been posted – unless you refresh the page and you go back to look at your own comment – you wouldn’t know that the comment was deleted. Depending on the topic, the number of comments, and the identity of the commenter (sometimes specifically targeted), the rate of comment deletion can be as high as 18%. Sometimes comments get deleted after a few weeks even though there hasn’t been any activity during that time, that is – no one has posted additional comments. The question that now comes to my mind changes slightly:
Why would Dave Brat, a Republican Congressman, who is supposed to represent the voters of Virginia’s 7th District be deleting the comments of his constituents? Doesn’t he want to hear from them? Shouldn’t he be taking his responsibility seriously of preserving “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances?”
His Town Hall meetings have been inadequate for communicating with the voters because of his inability to address constructive criticism and legitimate concerns along with his morbid fear of confrontation. He leaves his constituents to the obscurities of his Facebook page with at least one troll guarding each post and waiting to intimidate and delete.
This is what censorship looks like on Dave Brat’s Facebook page.
Voters from the 7th District have a number of concerns. Most of the topics are important but for each constituent one topic may have the highest priority. Racism has been a concern, not only in Virginia, but across the nation. The incidents of verbal and physical assault have been increasing in number and intensity. Since we don’t have Town Hall meetings and are relegated to Dave Brat’s Facebook page “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” it’s Brat’s duty and responsibility, under the Constitution, to acknowledge the voters’ concerns about racism.
Certainly, that’s the least he can do. Since Corey Stewart, who has leanings to and favors White Supremacists, is on the ballot as a Republican candidate for Senator of Virginia. Any mention of that candidacy, with a reference to an article from the Washington Post about him, results in deletion of that comment. Brat hasn’t even had any significant posts about how to reduce violence and discrimination against minorities. He doesn’t do that, but he does delete comments that question his stand on racism.
This is what censorship looks like on Dave Brat’s Facebook page.
A fairly innocuous example of a comment is a simple link to a JPEG file containing a meme. Specifically, there is a meme that is a photograph of a skeleton in a relaxed pose on a park bench. The comment associated with the photo is: “What’s left of the US after Brat and the GOP. No profanity. No bad language of any kind.” There’s sufficient precedence for this type of expression and the freedom to use it. Simply a meme that is relatively indistinguishable from any other, except that it was posted on Dave Brat’s Facebook page where the constituents of the 7th are provided this venue as the only option “to petition the government for a redress of grievances” and to express their concerns and dissatisfaction any number of ways – including a skeleton sitting on a park bench.
Dave Brat is too sensitive to that kind of material?
Dave Brat is currently the Republican Representative in Congress for the 7th District of Virginia and can’t cope with an innocent meme.
This is how we get censorship on Dave Brat’s Facebook page.
Probably the most sinister activity by Brat extends to yet a higher step in his Censorship Ladder. We all know someone who has more than one Facebook account, and we all know someone who chooses to remain anonymous. There are good reasons for anonymity, and there are a number of nefarious reasons as well. The nefarious would apply to the trolls on Brat’s Facebook page who engage in intimidation tactics against those who dare to question the policies of Dave Brat and the rest of the Republican Party.
Having multiple Facebook accounts isn’t unconstitutional or illegal. Supposedly, it’s against Facebook policy, but no one really cares too much about that; besides, that doesn’t rise anywhere near in severity to the censorship that Brat exercises against his constituents who have the right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” on the only available venue where he’s safe from personal contact. A legitimate and extremely serious question to ask now is: How does Brat know that a constituent has another Facebook account within one hour of its creation?
This goes well beyond censorship. The 4th Amendment states that the “right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ….” In addition to violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments, perhaps we should be looking into violations of the Constitution by Brat – and in his name. Rather than explaining this as extraordinary clairvoyant capabilities, my inclination is to assume the worst, a deliberate violation of the “right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ….” After all, Brat has an excellent track record of abusing the constituents of Virginia’s 7th District. Why not include intruding on and invading their privacy as well?
Those who blindly support the policies of Dave Brat, Donald Trump, and the rest of the Republican Party should be looking behind their backs and wondering whether they will be subjected to the same violations of their Constitutional rights, because it would only be a matter of time. If Brat does it to someone else, you only have to wait a while before he’ll be looking for you. For all the peddling of his Judeo-Christian ethics, I find little evidence that he has any kind of ethics. If you don’t look, you won’t see.
Everyone, Save Your Rights!!
Editor’s Note: this piece originally appeared in Richmond2day, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
1- If you are worried about the effect climate change will have on your children and grandchildren, you better vote for Abigail Spanberger. Brat opposes Federal Government action to alleviate climate change and has supported legislation to prevent such federal action.
2- If you believe you have a promise from the United States Government to provide you Social Security and Medicare when you retire, you better vote for Spanberger. Dave Brat wants to drastically reduce these programs.
3- If you think that something needs to be done to reduce gun violence, you better vote for Abigail Spanberger. Brat opposes any restrictions on gun access, even for suspected terrorists or persons adjudged to be a threat to themselves or others.
4- If you believe that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care, you better vote for Spanberger. Brat voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. He favors personal Health Savings Accounts (i.e., self insurance) instead.
5- If you want to save the environment, you better vote for Abigail Spanberger. Brat has acted to restrict EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
6- If you think that legislative action must be taken to fix our immigration system, you better vote for Abigail Spanberger. Dave Brat opposes comprehensive immigration reform.
7- If you think that public education is vital to the future of the United States, you better vote for Abigail Spanberger. Brat supports using public education money for school vouchers.
8- If you believe that all woman should have access to specialized women's health care, you better vote for Spanberger. Dave Brat favors defunding Planned Parenthood and other family-planning organizations.
9- If you are worried about the national debt, you better vote for Spanberger. Dave Brat has knowingly voted to increase our indebtedness by $2.5 trillion and pushes tax loopholes that will further increase the debt.
Editor's Note: this letter has been published here with the author’s permission.
Congressman, Dave Brat (VA-7th District), recently met with inmates to talk about their problems with drug addiction. In an amazing tone-deaf comment, he told them he doesn’t have an easy life either, citing attack ads as he campaigns for a third term. Brat is a poster boy for the lack of empathy Republican office holders show these days. Brat’s opponent, Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer, is calling him out and stressing the real needs of this semi-rural district. This race has moved from Leaning Republican to a Toss Up.
The District’s voters remain concerned that Brat is fully on board with the administration’s misrepresentation of America’s great immigrant tradition. Both Brat and Trump have declared that foreign nationals who entered the United States are “public enemy number one.” Brat misrepresents the reality that the law differentiates among various categories of people who present themselves at the border and tars all with the brush of illegal border crossers, whether they have visas or valid asylum claims, such as those who come from places like China, Central America, Nepal and the Horn of Africa. They each want to hunt down and deport these “menaces.”
Brat has no problem with the administration policy to tear families apart at the border and now thousands of youth and children are housed in temporary concentration camps all over the county. The Administration plans to expand the “Family Destruction Program” ” to even more categories of immigrants and border crossers. The objective is to eliminate border crossers by making the U.S. appear as cruel and unattractive as the circumstances in the failing states of Central America. Thus, America needs to look more inhumane than the gang violence in, say, Honduras.
Of course, Brat and other members of the minority Freedom Caucus are wedded to the misrepresentation that immigrants take jobs away from Americans. I am assured, however, that no one in our local high school is studying to work in a pig slaughterhouse, or the farm fields of the hot and humid south, or as crab meat pickers around the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, time and time again, when local jurisdictions drive off migrant workers, food is left to rot in the fields.
Recently, Brat has taken his anti-immigrant rhetoric to the next level. In an Associated Press interview on the shrinking availability of migrant labor, Brat wholeheartedly concurred with the Administration’s goal of drastically continuing to reduce the number of immigrants. Brat said he did not think the current labor shortage would weaken efforts to restrict immigration.
Citing that about 10 million Americans are not in the labor force, Brat called for improved education and imposing work requirements on food stamp recipients to get more of these Americans into the workforce. “The answer is not to bring in 10 million folks from abroad,” Brat said. Brat the Cruel argues that if the number of immigrants drop by 10 million, then the 10 million people on welfare can find jobs.
He apparently has no idea who is on welfare: women, children, the disabled. The welfare mother in Grayson County is not the kind of person who could pack up and move to the Chesapeake Bay to start picking crab meat. The child on welfare in Nottaway County cannot drop out of school to start picking apples in Rappahannock County. The disabled man in Culpeper County cannot move to Fairfax County and trim hedges.
Besides being heartless and cruel, Brat has little influence in the House, even if he were interested in representing his district by dealing with health care, exploding government debt, and jobs. Brat may have gone to seminary, but it obviously didn’t stress empathy. The voters are beginning to see the Trump/Brat projection of America the Cruel is not a projection of our better angels. That is why the Democratic challenger Spanberger is gaining considerable traction.
Editor's Note: this op-ed originally appeared in the DailyKOS, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Dave Brat in Virginia’s 7th District, and other Republicans, have called on President Trump to lessen “burdensome regulations,” and make “it possible for people to once again buy the low-premium coverage they prefer.” (Dave Brat, “We Still Can’t Get Healthcare Right,” March 27, 2017).
President Trump responded by recently expanding “short term,” inexpensive health plans, known as “skimpy” policies.
As Dave Brat has called for—these “skimpy” policies increase competition and lessen regulation, but they also gut consumer protections. “Skimpy” plans don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions, or cover 10 essential benefits on the ACA such as emergency room care, prescription drugs, mental health/substance abuse counseling, cancer treatments, etc. Some doctors call these “skimpy” policies “junk insurance.”
The Trump administration says “skimpy” plans are good for young/ healthy people. However, young people who get critically injured in car accidents, have substance-abuse issues or acquire youth cancers (testicular cancer, or leukemia), might be left high and dry on “skimpy” plans.
Also, economists warn if younger/healthier people pull out of the ACA premiums may skyrocket for sick and older folks left on exchanges. And buyers beware: ‘Skimpy” plans historically have been falsely marketed, promising to cover conditions that in the fine print (few read) are not actually covered.
Dave Brat is also advancing high-deductible Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These accounts, often invested in the stock market, allow consumers to save for medical care tax-free. People who rarely get sick/injured make out best with HSAs.
Brat’s biggest contribution to healthcare is that he co-sponsored a bill raising dollar limits people can contribute to HSAs each year—up to $9,000 for individuals and $18,000 for families. The higher your earnings, the higher your tax deduction with HSAs.
Abigail Spanberger, also running for Congress in the 7th District, wants to increase competition in health care, too. Spanberger wants to maintain coverage of the 10 essential benefits in the ACA for all Americans, as well as protections for pre-existing conditions. She also believes Medicare X (which is not universal health care) would compete on exchanges with private insurers, encouraging them to lower overhead and thus premiums.
Medicare X would be a public option on ACA Exchanges, which consumers could voluntarily buy at any age. This plan uses the same doctor networks in traditional Medicare (the popular government healthcare plan for seniors) but would also cover maternity/pediatrics.
Importantly, Medicare X would not touch the Medicare Trust Fund, or change its solvency, because consumers would pay premiums. But Medicare X would be affordable, because unlike private insurers, it doesn’t have high overhead. That’s because it doesn’t have to pay shareholder profits/ big CEO bonuses, or spring for expensive TV ads/ fancy PR.
Importantly, Medicare X would be rolled out in rural areas first, since rural areas have little competition on the exchanges and many rural hospitals are struggling to survive.
Knowing how candidates define “competition” in healthcare helps constituents be more educated voters.
Editor's Note: this letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
In this election, we the people (you and me) have the opportunity to elect one of our senators and our member of Congress for the 7th Congressional District. The choices for the Senate are Tim Kaine or Corey Stewart and for the House of Representatives, Abigail Spanberger or David Brat.
Actually, there is only one choice you have to make. Do you support moving forward to solve the many serious issues facing our country and our community such as access to affordable healthcare, including prescription drugs and protection of coverage of pre-existing conditions, updating our rural infrastructure like broadband and for policies that would attract new economic development and good paying jobs for Central Virginia?
Or do you surrender your vote to those who have no vision or ideas and who are wedded to the vestiges of the past and use wedge issues to divide us?
Stewart and Brat are ideologically attached at the hip and are goose-stepping in circles to keep their base riled up, distracted, and misinformed. They have no fresh ideas and aren’t really interested in solutions—only rabble-rousing.
Stewart and Brat have repeatedly supported the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and blocking expansion of Medicaid in Virginia. The Republican plan was supposed to be a repeal and replace strategy, but in practice it was repeal and bury. Brat has no plan! A vote to repeal was a vote to kill any protection of existing conditions which is exactly what Dave Brat did and what Stewart supports! Dave can run but he can’t hide from his voting record!
On the other hand, Kaine and Spanberger each bring their own unique knowledge, government experience and leadership skills to find practical solutions to our problems and are capable of working across the aisle.
For me, the politics of hate has no room in Central Virginia. The time has come to leave our troubled past behind. So, I am voting for moving forward with Tim Kaine and Abigail Spanberger and I encourage you to join me!
Editor's Note: this originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission
These are conservative values that most of us respect: Fiscal responsibility, intelligent leadership, respect for the Constitution and traditional institutions, law and order, respect for the Ten Commandments and other ethical and moral principles, competence, merit, advanced planning, making changes carefully and thoughtfully, conserving resources, “gentlemanly” and “ladylike” behavior such as respect for other people and ability to listen to their views, thoughtful consideration of issues, and many more.
Abigail Spanberger embodies these conservative values, and much more.
The Republican Party is no longer the party it once was. It has abandoned these conservative values in favor of a cult-like allegiance to its leader, who does not manifest these principles.
The support of Republican members of Congress for this dictatorial leader demonstrates that they share his values and have “gone off the deep end.”
Elect Abigail Spanberger Nov. 6 to be our next Congressional representative for the 7th District.
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Most people watching last month’s Kavanaugh confirmation saw a group of elderly white men putting on a hypocritical spectacle, certainly not an honest, impartial and open hearing. After Dr. Ford was questioned by a woman, Rachel Mitchell — a female prosecutor of sexual crimes, who was brought it specifically to tone down the bad optics of a group of clueless old men on the Senate Judiciary Committee grilling a survivor of sexual assault, things got interesting.
Starting with a recess featuring Senator Graham's over the top display of fake outrage, followed by Kavanaugh’s testimony. The angry face he presented to the world in his opening rant … I mean statement wasn’t something new; with classmates from his Yale days describing him as a belligerent heavy drinker. So it came as little surprise to watch him shamelessly lie under oath about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook.
And if you were wondering why Senator Lindsay Graham suddenly took over the questioning of Kavanaugh from Ms. Mitchell, it was because he realized that after she asked a few basic questions, that Kavanaugh had already committed perjury. And given her line of inquiry, he was about to perjure himself even further.
Mitchell wasn’t just interrupted by Graham; her questioning was completely terminated by him and his GOP colleagues. That was the whole point of Graham erupting in fake outrage and his Senatorial buddies conspiring to make sure that Mitchell did not get another crack at Kavanaugh.
The melodrama behind Senator Graham's fake outrage was to distract the public from what he was really doing. Like a good magician; with lots of smoke and fire so you don't pay attention to the little man behind the curtain. Graham could not directly silence Mitchell, so he silenced her in another way to prevent her from asking relevant questions.
A point touched upon earlier by former FBI director, James Comey in a New York Times op-ed, where he sais that Kavanaugh’s testimony regarding comments in his high school yearbook, (detailed here) amount to a “flashing signal to dig deeper.” The reason is simple: “Little lies point to bigger lies.”
Which brings up, what else is Kavanaugh lying about, and why is this administration and the Senate Replicant’s so desperate to keep his records from being publicly available?
One clue comes from one of the few documents that the Drumpf administration made publicly available, a memo to Ken Starr, where he went out of his way to harass Bill Clinton —declaring that “it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear” — a clear sign that the rage we all saw during his testimony was not an aberration, but rather a life long pattern of behavior.
What we saw during his testimony was a view into the soul of Trumpism. It’s not about “populism” — it would be hard to find a judge as anti-worker as Brett Kavanaugh. Instead, it’s about the rage of white men, upper class as well as working class, who perceive a threat to their privileged position. And nothing makes a man accustomed to privilege angrier than the prospect of losing some of that privilege, and in his case, those privileged roots are precisely why he’s so angry.
And despite Dolt45’s assurances after Kavanaugh’s testimony that he would give the F.B.I. “free rein” in its week long probe of Ms. Ford’s allegations, it was another one of his lies. With the New York Times reporting that the White House had asked the F.B.I. to question only four witnesses, and neither Kavanaugh nor Dr. Ford were on the list.
As far as anybody outside of the White House, and Senate Judiciary Committee circles can tell, this is who the FBI’s “limited in scope” investigation actually interviewed.
A point made clear by Senator Harris’s subsequent post confirmation interview with current FBI director, Christopher Wray this week.
At this point, you’re probably asking, with all that baggage, why didn’t the Replicant’s just go with another conservative Supreme Court candidate?
Because Kavanaugh is a life long political operative; who’s Forrest Gump-like encounters included representing Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the court case which ended the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election, and has been involved in nearly every ideological flash point since 2000, and likely why he was promoted from clerk to circuit court justice during the Bush era.
More importantly; are his beliefs that nothing the president does is illegal, that they can’t be investigated, sued or indicted. Deep seated ideological convictions which were first outlined in an article that he authored in 2008 for the Minnesota Law Review. Where he stated that certain burdens should be “excused” for sitting presidents, burdens like indictments, and civil suits. Kavanaugh believes that presidents should be free from being sued while in office—a position he, rather inconveniently, did not hold while working for Ken Starr.
And with the Gamble vs. US case coming up during the Supreme Courts current session, and with likely investigations of the president, his staff and Republican members of Congress, along with Presidential pardons also likely to wind up on their docket, it’s clear that not just any Federalist Society stooge could assure them that they never will be held accountable or prosecuted.
Last week, at a rally in Mississippi, Donald Trump, savagely mocked sexual assault survivor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to the absolute delight of his supporters. Later that same day, we learned about the shenanigans of Trump, his father and his family that may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars of tax fraud, thus exploding the myth of the self-made man.
Closer to home, our Congressman, Dave Brat is just as much a divider as this man he worships. Earlier this year, in an interview on Richmond’s Lee Brothers show, Brat said, “I like bringing everybody together. I went to seminary, and I’m going to run positive, on the issues.”
Really? Have you looked at what he’s been posting on his Facebook pages lately? Have you looked at how his supporters respond to comments from the constituents who disagree with his stance on issues that affect them?
It’s exceedingly ugly. He blatantly lies about his opponent’s stance on issues, and accuses her of directing teenagers to leave a nasty note at his house—something that apparently scared him to death—but her denouncing the act, apologizing and banning the culprits from her campaign wasn’t good enough.
He’s also lied about her mere attendance at the Chesterfield Town Hall as being evidence of her protesting, rabble-rousing and condoning cursing during a prayer—all photoshopped lies.
Polling suggests that the No. 1 issue facing citizens of the 7th District is health care. Where does Dave Brat stand on the primary cause of individual bankruptcy in America? At every opportunity, although claiming otherwise, he has voted to turn his back on supporting Virginians with pre-existing conditions.
He voted for the so-called “American Health Care Act,” which would have allowed insurers to add surcharges to 3.4 million Virginians with pre-existing conditions: Up to $4,270 for asthma, $17,060 for pregnancy, $26,180 for rheumatoid arthritis and $140,510 for metastatic cancer.
If House Republicans had succeeded in passing the American Health Care Act—the Obamacare repeal bill—49,700 people in Brat’s district would have lost health coverage.
And how about issues affecting veterans? Brat held his first town hall in more than a year, quickly cobbled together after Abigail Spanberger met with more than a hundred people at an open Veterans for Spanberger rally a few days before.
You only got in to Brat’s, maybe, if you RSVP’d in advance. Perhaps 40 people attended—you could tell from the pictures there were many empty seats.
Brat spoke for less than three minutes, then outsourced the proceedings to Rep. Phil Roe of Tennessee for the next hour and a half.
Brat knows nothing about veterans’ issues. The reality is that he joined other Republicans in blocking these bills: Clay-Hunt Suicide Prevention Act, Health Benefits & Retirement Pay Restoration, Wounded Veterans Job Security Act, Veterans Retraining Act, Homeless Veterans Reintegration, Disabled Veterans Home Accessibility Act, Job Corps Act, Torture Veterans & Victims Relief and Veterans Business Center Act.
Yes, Dave Brat did that.
Brat has walled himself off from his constituents. A member of the far-right minority caucus in the House, he is totally ineffective as a representative of the 7th District. He ignores the majority of us.
Watch him in action when he debates Abigail Spanberger in Culpeper on Oct. 15. Watch on Comcast Channel 10 or Fios channel 21. Unless, of course, he proves cowardly and withdraws, as he has done in Richmond.
The madness can end on Nov. 6—but only if you vote.
Editor’s Note: This originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Virginians are always at a crossroads in November. With elections every year, we are faced with making choices that affect our lives for years after the vote is cast. We need to think of what’s best for us, while keeping in mind the well being of our state and nation. Some of us are Democrats. Some of us are Republicans. Many of us are independents who make up our minds after Labor Day.
In Virginia, we have had a strong economy for many years. Our governors understand that the state of our Commonwealth is tied to the state of our economy. They have worked to put the economy at the top of their priorities.
Not so for our other Virginia representatives. Congressman Dave Brat has morphed into Eric Cantor and become a mouthpiece for special corporate interests outside our state. In fact, he doesn’t even bother to come to our county these days and certainly doesn’t represent our interests or those of the state of Virginia.
He has consistently voted to limit the jobs of our largest state employer – the federal government. Federal employees and contractors live and pay taxes in Virginia and add a lot to the state and local coffers.
Brat’s support for offshore oil drilling on our coastline threatens our military bases as well as two of our other major industries in Virginia – tourism and the fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs already created for Virginians by the military, tourism and fisheries, many more than the number of hypothetical jobs created by offshore drilling. Ask yourself, whose interests is Brat representing there? Just check his political action committee donations.
As a congressman, Brat has tried to destabilize the country and its institutions.As a Trump supporter, he has been complicit inAmerica losing its role as the top global military, political and economic power. He is a do-nothing congressman.
Locally, what has Brat done for Louisa? I can recall only one thing. A couple of years ago, he got an EPA exemption for existing water wells for the town of Louisa. One thing in four years – not a good track record. We have a good alternative this year. Congressional candidate Abigail Spanberger is committed to helping the citizens of the 7th.
She has publicly committed to defending Medicare and Social Security and opposing ANY cuts to these programs. Mr. Brat and the Republicans are looking to cut Medicare and Social Security to reduce the deficit they created with the huge tax cut for the wealthy they passed earlier this year.
The annual salary of a member of Congress is $174,000. Too much for people who don’t do their job? Abigail Spanberger thinks so and is a strong advocate for the No Budget, No Pay Act, proposed legislation providing that members of Congress would receive NO salary unless Congress passes a multi-year budget which is their primary responsibility.
Contrary to what the TV ads say, Mrs. Spanberger has no ties to terrorists. In fact, she has a security clearance granted to her as a CIA field operative. Believe me, getting a clearance at this level requires a great deal of scrutiny and an extensive background check. Not everyone passes muster. Guess who does NOT have a clearance at this level - Mr. Brat.
So…who you gonna trust?
Editor’s Note: This letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
Before you vote, remember what the Democrats have done for you and other people in the country. Even the ones who seem to think the Democrats are horrible and a threat to your freedom benefit from the work of Democrats.
Here is a list of what you have. Thanks, Democrats.
• 8 hour work day
• 5 days a week
• 40-hour work week
• Safe working conditions
• Health insurance
• Equal pay laws
• Child labor laws
• Collective bargaining
• Overtime pay
• Family medical leave
• Paid holidays
• Lunch Time
• Morning and afternoon breaks
• Holiday and weekends off
And let’s not forget Medicare and Social Security. These are only a few benefits from a Democrat government.
Suzanne B. Johnson
Editor’s Note: This letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
What Dave Brat says:
“There is no doubt that we must be good stewards of the environmental treasures with which we have been blessed. As a father, I understand that the welfare of future generations depends on it.”
What Dave Brat has done.
Dave Brat sponsored, cosponsored or voted for–
1-(HR 2157) to deprive a president of authority to ban oil drilling on the continental shelf.
2-(HR 806) to weaken EPA’s ability to enforce clean air standards.
3-(HConRes 119) to declare that a carbon tax is bad for the economy
4-(HR 3281) to dispose of federal reclamation projects.
5-(Amendment to appropriation act) Prohibits EPA from enforcing Chesapeake Bay clean-up goals.
6-(HR 1119) to lower emission standards for coal-burning plants.
7-(HJRes 38) to allow coal mines to pollute rivers and streams.
8-(HR 1525) Discourage enforcement of the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Act.
9-(HR 3880) to ban EPA from dealing with climate change.
10-(HJRes 36) to allow flaring of gas on Bureau of Land Management oil leases.
11-(HR 1901) to cancel tax credits for developing alternative sources of energy.
12-(HR 5538) to further reduce EPA’s ability to protect the environment.
13-(HR 4544) to ban the EPA from eliminating air pollution that affects health in other countries.
14-(HR 637) to prevent EPA from addressing greenhouses gasses in enforcing the Clean Air Act.
15-(HR1314) to eliminate EPA’s Renewable Fuel Program.
–opposed President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
–supported the United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate accords.
Is Dave Brat a good steward of our only planet?
Editor's Note: this originally appeared in Richmond2day, and has been re-posted here with the author's permission.
While working on a collaborative effort between CHIP of Roanoke and Virginia Tech to study how low income affects kindergarten preparedness, I began to understand the struggles many Virginians face in growing up poor and how the majority of impoverished individuals cannot rise above food security let alone financial security.
Since then, I have had little hope for change and have been frustrated with my representative, Dave Brat. Congressman Brat’s loyalty to wealthy constituents and willful, unabashed, detachment from large segments of Chesterfield County is hurting families. Poverty is hazardous for children impacting health and learning. The south has the greatest number of low-income families.
Thankfully, Abigail Spanberger, who is running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District, understands the need for life-saving programs like Medicaid and CHIP. She has used facts to drive action and policy professionally and if elected, I believe she will start giving priority to those in most need and preserve vital support organizations so children can reach their maximum potential regardless of income.
Editor’s Note: This letter was originally published in the Blackstone Courier-Record and has been reposted here with the author’s permission.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.