Tea Party hypocrisy

[chuam]

Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, a Tea Party favorite and president of the House Republicans’ freshman class, got off to a slow start as a legislator but finally introduced his first bill last week.

His draftsmanship should please the people who chant “read the bill” at political rallies, because H.R. 2774 is only one sentence long. In its entirety: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Legal Services Corporation Act is repealed.”

This one sentence says a great deal about Scott, because it is a transparent attempt by the young lawmaker to defend a company in his district that discriminates against U.S. citizens in favor of Mexican migrant workers. Scott introduced the bill abolishing Legal Services exactly three days after it became public that Legal Services had won a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination that Georgia’s Hamilton Growers “engages in a pattern or practice of regularly denying work hours and assigning less favorable assignments to U.S. workers, in favor of H2-A guestworkers.” Hamilton also “engages in a pattern or practice of discharging U.S. workers and replacing them with H-2A guestworkers,” the EEOC determined.

In a broader sense, Scott’s bill gets at what has long troubled me about the Tea Party movement: It is fueled by populist anger, but it has been hijacked by plutocrats. Well-intentioned Tea Party foot soldiers demand that power be returned to the people, but then their clout is used to support tax cuts for millionaires. They rally for tougher immigration laws, but then their guy in Washington helps corporations to fire U.S. workers and hire foreign nationals.

During his successful campaign to unseat moderate Democrat Jim Marshall, Scott ran a tough-on-immigration message. According to his hometown Tifton Gazette’s report at the time: “Scott said Congress has ignored its responsibility to secure U.S. borders and that he has voted for tough immigration bills that included making English the official language, seizing the vehicles of illegal immigrants, placing tougher standards for employers to verify that employees are legal U.S. citizens and chaired the committee on citizenship verification for voters. . . . He said that jobs here was the biggest draw for illegal aliens coming into the country and that making it more difficult to obtain them would curb the influx of illegal aliens.”

Given that, you’d think Scott would have sided with the 17 U.S. citizens in Georgia who claimed Hamilton Growers illegally dumped them in favor of Mexican workers on H-2A visas.

Legal Services took their case (one of three active cases it has against big growers in Scott’s district), and on July 29, it put out a news release announcing victory. (Settlement negotiations are underway.)

On Aug. 1, Scott introduced his bill.

H.R. 2774 would end the government practice, dating to the Nixon administration, of providing legal assistance to low-income people pursuing equal justice under the law: women seeking protective orders against abusive partners, homeowners fighting foreclosure or predatory lending, and similar civil actions.

“We are at a point where Congress must look at programs and ask, ‘Is this absolutely necessary?’ ” Austin said in a statement when I asked for elaboration. Noting that state and local governments, bar associations and pro bono lawyers help to subsidize legal aid, he argued that “eliminating federal funding for the LSC will not eliminate free legal aid for the poor. This bill simply takes this duplicative and unnecessary program off the federal taxpayers’ dole.”

Still, even a number of Republicans see value in Legal Services. Though House Republicans have proposed a 26 percent cut in Legal Services’ current budget of $379 million, 68 of them joined Democrats in defeating an attempt this year to defund Legal Services.

Phyllis Holmen, executive director of Georgia Legal Services, said she has never spoken with Scott and “hadn’t been aware of his views on Legal Services” before he introduced his bill. She said it’s common for growers to call their members of Congress for help when a Legal Services client sues them.

If Scott were true to his Tea Party roots, he would have told the growers to get lost. He would have trumpeted the case as evidence that Americans are willing to do the dirty jobs that businesses claim only foreigners will do. As one of the American plaintiffs put it: “We worked hard at our jobs and really wanted the work, but Hamilton didn’t want Americans to work in their fields.” Americans, after all, would be more likely to know the laws and to complain if they’re being exploited.

Instead, Scott chose to side with a large employer of foreign migrants in his district — against his out-of-work constituents.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp;jsessionid=F3F98378491E43D6119E3D4DB1348A37? item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinion s%2fhow-rep-austin-scott-betrayed-his-tea-party-roots%2f2011%2f08%2f09%2fgIQAoKnQ5I_mobile.mobile&cid=578815&spf=1

[Ethan kills]

Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, a Tea Party favorite and president of the House Republicans’ freshman class, got off to a slow start as a legislator but finally introduced his first bill last week.

His draftsmanship should please the people who chant “read the bill” at political rallies, because H.R. 2774 is only one sentence long. In its entirety: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Legal Services Corporation Act is repealed.”

This one sentence says a great deal about Scott, because it is a transparent attempt by the young lawmaker to defend a company in his district that discriminates against U.S. citizens in favor of Mexican migrant workers. Scott introduced the bill abolishing Legal Services exactly three days after it became public that Legal Services had won a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination that Georgia’s Hamilton Growers “engages in a pattern or practice of regularly denying work hours and assigning less favorable assignments to U.S. workers, in favor of H2guestworkers.” Hamilton also “engages in a pattern or practice of discharging U.S. workers and replacing them with H-2A guestworkers,” the EEOC determined.

In a broader sense, Scott’s bill gets at what has long troubled me about the Tea Party movement: It is fueled by populist anger, but it has been hijacked by plutocrats. Wellintentioned Tea Party foot soldiers demand that power be returned to the people, but then their clout is used to support tax cuts for millionaires. They rally for tougher immigration laws, but then their guy in Washington helps corporations to fire U.S. workers and hire foreign nationals.

During his successful campaign to unseatmoderate Democrat Jim Marshall, Scott ran a tough-on-immigration message. According to his hometown Tifton Gazette’s report at the time: “Scott said Congress has ignored its responsibility to secure U.S. borders and that he has voted for tough immigration bills that included making English the official language, seizing the vehicles of illegal immigrants, placing tougher standards for employers to
verify that employees are legal U.S. citizens and chaired the committee on citizenship verification for voters. . . . He said that jobs here was the biggest draw for illegal aliens coming into the country and that making it more

difficult to obtain them would curb the influx of illegal aliens.”

Given that, you’d think Scott would have sided with the 17 U.S. citizens in Georgia who claimed Hamilton Growers illegally dumped them in favor of Mexican workers on H-2A visas.

Legal Services took their case (one of three active cases it has against big growers in Scott’s district), and on July 29, it put out a news release announcing victory. (Settlement negotiations are underway.)

On Aug. 1, Scott introduced his bill.

H.R. 2774 would end the government practice, dating to the Nixon administration, of providing legal assistance to low-income people pursuing equal justice under the law: women seeking protective orders against abusive partners,
homeowners fighting foreclosure or predatory lending, and similar civil actions.

“We are at a point where Congress must look at programs and ask, ‘Is this absolutely necessary?’ ” Austin said in a statement when I asked for elaboration. Noting that state and local governments, bar associations and pro bono lawyers help to subsidize legal aid, he argued that “eliminating federal funding for the LSC will not eliminate free legal aid for the poor. This bill simply takes this duplicative and unnecessary program off the federal taxpayers’ dole.”
Still, even a number of Republicans see value in Legal Services. Though House Republicans have proposed a 26 percent cut in Legal Services’ current budget of $379 million, 68 of them joined Democrats in defeating an attempt this year to defund Legal Services.

Phyllis Holmen, executive director of Georgia
Legal Services, said she has never spoken with Scott and “hadn’t been aware of his views on Legal Services” before he introduced his bill. She said it’s common for growers to call their members of Congress for help when a Legal Services client sues them.

If Scott were true to his Tea Party roots, he would have told the growers to get lost. He
would have trumpeted the case as evidence that Americans are willing to do the dirty jobs that businesses claim only foreigners will do. As one of the American plaintiffs put it: “We worked hard at our jobs and really wanted the work, but Hamilton didn’t want Americans to work in their fields.” Americans, after all, would be more likely to know the laws and to complain if they’re being exploi

Instead, Scott chose to side with a large employer of foreign migrants in his district — against his out-of-work constituents.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp;jsessionid=F3F98378491E43D6119E3D4DB1348A37? item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinion s%2fhow-rep-austin-scott-betrayed-his-tea-party-roots%2f2011%2f08%2f09%2fgIQAoKnQ5I_mobile.mobile&cid=578815&spf=1



Chuam I never get in the middle of ypur discussions and a lot of times I think you are making some good points. Although, a lot of your posts seem to be some huge artilcle you copy and pasted with no talking points or rebuttle on your end. It kind of looks like you just want people to start shit with eachother. Just my .02 cents, I'm not trying to be a dick.

[FISHKILL]

Chuam maybe i am missing part of what you are saying, but it looks like what he is repealing is the authorization and funding for Legal Services, removing "fre" government service from the back of the taxpayers, whisch IS directly in line with Tea Party mentality. How would that affect the case with growers if it has already been decided ? I am assuming the Legal Services Corporation is either a government entity or is paid by the goverment for taking these cases.

I don't get free legal services. Why should I have to pay for anyone elses ?

[fitz]

x2

“We are at a point where Congress must look at programs and ask, ‘Is this absolutely necessary?’ ” Austin said in a statement when I asked for elaboration. Noting that state and local governments, bar associations and pro bono lawyers help to subsidize legal aid, he argued that “eliminating federal funding for the LSC will not eliminate free legal aid for the poor. This bill simply takes this duplicative and unnecessary program off the federal taxpayers’ dole.”

[Marcus]

That's exactly what he's doing, Ethan. He is attempting to denigrate an entire movement based upon the actions of a few.

Chuam, did you REALLY have an expectation that the Tea Party would be pure and devoid of any corruption or hypocrisy??? Did you REALLY think that corrupt politicians wouldn't attach themselves to a movement in order to get elected??
Why don't you focus your efforts to root out the rampant corruption and hypocrisy within your beloved Democratic Party? I mean, after all, don't you want to eliminate your own party from being chastised for it's actions? It would keep you busy for a quite a while, too.
You could also focus your efforts on the Republican party. I mean, between the two, you could be busy 24/7.
But no, you and the MSM wants to focus on the Tea Party. Because, it's ideals are a threat to the status quo. No matter that it is NOWHERE NEAR as full as corruption or hypocrisy as the Dems or Reps, you want to solely focus there.
Why? Because you are a cheerleader for the status quo?? You like BIG gov't, wasteful spending, and liberty trampling laws?? Because the TV tells you too??
Tell us, Chuam, what ideals of the Tea Party do you find unpalatable enough to spend so much time trying denigrate them while ignoring the HUGE problems within your beloved demorat party? Talk about hypocrisy...:rolleyes:

[chuam]

That's exactly what he's doing, Ethan. He is attempting to denigrate an entire movement based upon the actions of a few.

Chuam, did you REALLY have an expectation that the Tea Party would be pure and devoid of any corruption or hypocrisy??? Did you REALLY think that corrupt politicians wouldn't attach themselves to a movement in order to get elected??
Why don't you focus your efforts to root out the rampant corruption and hypocrisy within your beloved Democratic Party? I mean, after all, don't you want to eliminate your own party from being chastised for it's actions? It would keep you busy for a quite a while, too.
You could also focus your efforts on the Republican party. I mean, between the two, you could be busy 24/7.
But no, you and the MSM wants to focus on the Tea Party. Because, it's ideals are a threat to the status quo. No matter that it is NOWHERE NEAR as full as corruption or hypocrisy as the Dems or Reps, you want to solely focus there.
Why? Because you are a cheerleader for the status quo?? You like BIG gov't, wasteful spending, and liberty trampling laws?? Because the TV tells you too??
Tell us, Chuam, what ideals of the Tea Party do you find unpalatable enough to spend so much time trying denigrate them while ignoring the HUGE problems within your beloved demorat party? Talk about hypocrisy...:rolleyes:

You and others on here do a fine job of attacking the democrats. A little balance from someone pointing out the foibles of the other side is good.

If there is corruption in the democrats I stand behind rooting it out as I would expect those with a right leaning to do to their party and those with a tea party leaning to do also.

Pointing out the hypocrisy brings it to light that there are no end all be all politicians or political parties.

[Marcus]

You and others on here do a fine job of attacking the democrats. A little balance from someone pointing out the foibles of the other side is good.

If there is corruption in the democrats I stand behind rooting it out as I would expect those with a right leaning to do to their party and those with a tea party leaning to do also.

Pointing out the hypocrisy brings it to light that there are no end all be all politicians or political parties.

I point it out in both the dems and Reps. My focus is on the corrupt establishment because they are the ones that are bringing America down. You seem to only focus on the Tea Party itself, but there's not a lot of establishment members there. There are a few who have latched themselves on when it was advantageous but their voting records and actions surely doesn't reflect Tea Party principles. A couple are Rick Perry, John Boener?, Sarah Palin?, and Mark Rubio...Can't think of anymore at the moment.
So why do you only focus on the Tea Party?

[chuam]

Here's another for you marcus:

Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan

Tea Party aligned Georgia Rep. Tom Graves (R), who castigates Washington for fiscal irresponsibility, reached an out of court settlement Wednesday after he was sued for defaulting on a $2.2 million loan -- which his attorney argued is the bank's fault for lending him the money in the first place.

Graves and his business partner Chip Rogers -- who is the state Senate's Republican majority leader -- took out a $2.2 million loan from the Bartow County Bank in 2007 to buy and renovate a local motel. The project soon went belly-up.

The bank, which has since failed and had its assets taken over, sued Graves and Rogers for defaulting. The two Republicans then countersued, "accusing [the bank] of improperly declaring the loan in default after reneging on a promise to refinance it at more favorable terms," according to Jeremy Redmon and Aaron Gould Sheinin of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution .

In June, Simon Bloom, the attorney for Graves and Rogers, argued in a court filing that the default was the bank's fault because it lent the pair the money knowing full well they couldn't pay. Bloom cited a deposition in which bank officials saw Graves and Rogers' financial records, and then had them sign personal guarantees so they'd "'have some skin in the game' presumably meaning a sense of personal obligation for the debts ... even though they clearly could not fulfill the obligation." Graves and Rogers said they were unaware of that particular filing.

The case was settled out of court on Wednesday, and a Graves spokesman called the case "fully resolved in an equitable and fair manner."

Talking Points Memo on FacebookGraves and Rogers bought the motel through a limited-liability company, which they transferred to John Edens in 2009. They say that as a result they're not responsible for the loan repayments -- or for the $41,500 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest owed the town and county for the motel. The AJC reports that Edens fell behind on electricity payments and had to shut the motel down. He then stripped it of anything of value.

The city says the abandoned site has become a nuisance, and estimates it would cost $100,000 of taxpayer money to tear it down.

Graves, who won a special election in 2010 to replace Rep. Nathan Deal (R), voted against the House bill to raise the debt ceiling on August 1st. TPM readers will also remember Graves' dire warnings about President Obama's mechanical "autopen" that he feared could one day be used to sign phony legislation.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/tea_party_rep_bank_should_have_known_i_wouldnt_be_ able_to_repay_22_million_loan.php?ref=fpa

[toptuna]

obama is a hypocrite.

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/fbi-Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed/2011/08/10/id/406824

and a fabricator

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Obamasmother-AnnDunham-cancertreatments-JannyScott/2011/07/18/id/403971

[Marcus]

Ok...and still you haven't answered my question.

It's not like it's not hard to find instances like this in the all the resources and investigated journalism of the MSM and the Whitehouse are focused upon discrediting the tea party. According to them, everything is the tea parties fault, even the S&P downgrade of our debt...which is utterly ridiculous. You're concerned about 2.2million when the current gov't is throwing away TRILLIONS. Just so you know...1Trillion equals One million million.

[ocean_314]

What a bunch of garbage, chum post something that is 100% complete and true.

Many loans were made for real estate on adjustable loans..thank you Bill Clinton.

The banks pushed these loans with a promise of refinancing when the loan came due in a few years.

In this case the bank went under and all its assets where assumed by another bank. This bank then refused to refinance the loan breaking the contract between the parties.

The same thing has happened to millions of other people.

[mepps1]

You and others on here do a fine job of attacking the democrats. A little balance from someone pointing out the foibles of the other side is good.

If there is corruption in the democrats I stand behind rooting it out as I would expect those with a right leaning to do to their party and those with a tea party leaning to do also.

Pointing out the hypocrisy brings it to light that there are no end all be all politicians or political parties.

I can't think of anyone here that is as partisan as you with the exception of Captaindubious. Or perhaps, Cbozo.

If "there is corruption in the democrats" (sic), you are the last one to point it out or acknowledge anything of the sort. So on what basis would anybody really believe that you "stand by rooting it out"? How can you even preface that with an "if"? Corruption is clearly the norm in both parties!

I think it's sad that political debate has settled into Ford v. Chevy or White Sox v. Yankees or Raider v. the civilized world. You're buying a brand name that means almost nothing.