Blames the President and Democratic leaders for "taxing and spending too much." Oversimplifies the national debt with his credit card analogy. Misrepresents healthcare reform with standard GOP talking points.

He talks about "what we need" but offers no plan on how to get there.

Subject: What's the deal?
Between Jason Chaffetz and You

Joseph Puente
Today at 9:03pm

I was starting to think that you were an open-minded person. You accepted Dave Iba back into your online fold. But, apparently you're not comfortable with people who base their civil philosophy on facts and not rhetoric.

Are you more interested in people kissing up to you and telling you that you can do no wrong than hearing all sides of an issue?

You represent me as much as anyone else in the Third District. I have every right to be heard and to offer counterpoints to people whose political opinions are based on the paranoid ravings of uneducated, ill-informed right-wing talk radio hosts and conspiracy theory web pages.

These people that support you so blindly are the ones that don't bother to keep you in check. The ones that don't bother to research your claims and warnings and figure out when you're just towing the party line at the expense of the truth. You need at least one person who's has the courage to call you out when you put politics ahead people and that's going to take a degree of courage on your part. Do you have it?

How many hostile posters do you give a pass to? People who respond to honest opinions with name-calling and insults? Like the bigoted social darwinist Mark Stephens. Is that behavior acceptable to you? Is that how you behave behind closed doors? Is that the example you set for your children?

I don't think you kicked me off because of the quantity of my posts. I think you just don't like what I have to say or the fact that I provide credible sources to back it up.

You would rather regurgitate the latest political disinformation that you get from your dear leader Boehner--which he got from whatever lobbyists he serves ahead of his own constituents--than deal in facts. For every naive person who praises your honesty, I have an example of when you have lied to and mislead them.

http://www.jasonwatch.org/critique.htm

What's it going to be, Jason? Are you going to do the courageous thing, the decent thing and take the criticism along with the hollow praise? Or are you going to take the cowards way out, like one Alaska governor who obviously can't take the pressure of public life?

True Christians can have opponents but never enemies.

Sincerely,

Your constituent, one who voted for you.

Mr. Joseph L. Puente

Moroni, Sanpete County, Utah

In all fairness, some valid points are made in the video vis-ˆ-vis statements by the President and others in the administration when the ARRA was first signed about the speed of its implementation and the effect that it would have. Obama is certainly not the first politician to have to backpeddle when things didn't go as smoothly as expected but the doom and gloom tone of the video is obvious, intentional and aimed at the electorate.

I want to give kudos to some of Mr. Chaffetz' Facebook friends, for their comments in response to this video:

Mike Stewart I'm sorry, but videos like this are pretty much worthless as far as real information goes. It's made to rile people up and play off of emotions rather than intellect.

I really don't care for Obama at all, but, these cut and paste jobs just don't do it for me.

Tim Walter How many ads did we see where the DEMS made a villain of Pres. Bush simply by using his own words against him? Turn about is fair play.

Vanessa Swenson Fair play? Dishonesty and half truths? These ads on both (all) sides use the same tactics that anti-Mormons use.

Honesty is not this type of "fair play" politics.

It was wrong when Thomas Jefferson used this type of politicking against Adams. It was wrong when the Bush campaign did it in 2004. It was wrong when the Obama campaign did it in 2008.

Honesty doesn't bend, even in politics.

Bryan Kingsford Congressman -- I'm disappointed that you'd resort to such misleading propaganda.

Please focus on correct principles and don't let politics destroy your character.

The Congressman also criticizes the Democratic majority on the House Committee on Rules: "The Democrat majority has changed this traditionally open process and severely limited the number of amendments, restricting the quality and quantity of substantive debate on issues important to the American people."

More minority belly-aching and apparently oblivious to identical GOP practices when they were the majority party.

The third amendment is worthy of Kudos though: "...calls attention to the massive increases in federal government debt in recent years. Since the national debt is skyrocketing and is expected to continue to increase to even more dangerous levels over the next several years, this amendment transfers $1 million from the Council of Economic Advisors to the Bureau of the Public Debt, which is the Treasury agency responsible for issuing and administering the national debt that is held by the public. This increased funding enables the Bureau to handle the dramatically increased work load due to handling ever increasing amounts of new federal debt."

Joseph Puente: You know what else contributes to budget deficits? A lousy economy. Escalating the war in Afghanistan. Unemployment (people who are out of work can't pay taxes). But take a look at those bars above the line? Pay-as-you-Go (signed into law by George H.W. Bush in 1990) made that possible. It took 7 years before we saw a surplus. The 2nd Bush administration let PayGo lapse so they could pass Medicare Part D and spend money like it grew on trees in the name of "keeping us safe." There's plenty of blame to go around.

On June 9 President Obama called on Congress to bring PayGo back. Has anyone in Congress gotten the ball rolling on that? Complaining about the deficit is easy. Implementing a practical solution to the problem takes guts. PayGo would be a terrific first step. It worked before, I think it can work again. What do you say, Congressman?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/

Dave Iba Congressman Jason Chaffetz kicked me off of his "friends" list for making a "one term Jason" group. Super profesh. Jason. Can't take heat. (Facebook status post)

Dave Iba I just got de-friended by Jason her[e] on facebook for posting this group on this[his] wall. I emailed him and said that I thought it was un-professional to not let me see what [my congressman] is up to. He replyed and said that the Facebook group was for campainging only. Then gave me a few links to where I could get info. He can't take critisim. But he is so quick to give it out. We need someone to that looks out for our intrestes not a media whore wanting to only better himself. He needs to play the role of Congressman, not journalist. Please invite all of your friends that live in his district or any of your friends that are living in Utah to rase awarness. (Wall post on "One Term Chaffetz" Facebook group)

Joseph Puente "Joseph, I appreciate your passion and I know we disagree on a few things (that is okay), but I am going to ask that you somewhat limit the number of postings on my FB site. I don't want it to be dominated by any one person, and I have the perception that the large number of postings by you on my site is turning in to a bit much. I hope you understand and I send this to you confidentially. Thank you, Jason Chaffetz" (Facebook status and "One Term Chaffetz" wall post)

Dave Iba This is the exact letter I got from him... it all it's detail. Titled "Information"

The FB page is campaign oriented. If you would like congressional information, please visit www.chaffetz.house.gov or www.twitter.com/jasoninthehouse.

So, I guess he wants me to follow his twitter, which I do. Basically he is saying, I have a few people who like me and I don't want you guys letting them know the truth.

My response to the Congressman's e-mail:

I wrote back saying simply: "I only keep up the pressure because I care. ;-)"

Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." (emphasis added)

One's birthright as a citizen is not defined by the citizenship status of one's parents. Parents aren't even mentioned in the Amendment.

In order to deny citizenship to someone "born... in the United States" under the circumstances outlined in the legislation, an amendment to the Constitution would be the only way to make that happen.

This is really disappointing coming from Chaffetz as he's been a strong proponent of abiding by the constitution in regard to the census and Congressional oversight of the District of Columbia.

Dave Iba Jason, I was sitting in that hearing today. I was sitting right behind Holbrooke. Your twitter makes it sound like they wouldn't let you spake [sic] because you were asking "hard Q's". Your question wasn't even relevent to the subject. Even though the chairman told you to keep your question on topic you kept talking off subject... Even another Congresswoman butted in and said you should have a priviate conversation about that subject. i found your remarks rude and out of place. I was hoping someone from my district would have represented me in a good way. Your facts about the Afghan literacy was so incorrect my boss cringed. I work at the Embassy of Afghanistan and i just want to say I was disapointed.

Interesting reminder that individuals often perceive themselves in a more favorable light than those around them.

Kudos for a very informative lecture.

Kudos for standing against items not related to war spending.

I provide examples of how the stimulus creates jobs in response to accusations of wasteful spending.

Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) stimulus report

American Made Cryo-Freezers

Why Coburn and the rest of the GOP are just blowin' smoke

Take this with the recommended gigantic grain of salt... still an interesting read though.

Are you kidding me?

Chaffetz sticks to the party talking points in his response while saying the President is "proposing... to raise taxes" despite his promise not to do so on "95% of Americans."

The President has said nothing about raising taxes. Unfortunately, Fox News' primary audience prefers to be placated rather than informed so they're just going to take Chaffetz at his word because he's a Republican and Republicans don't lie... right.

His "Government run, taxpayer subsidized, Chinese financed healthcare system" certainly has a ring to it but that is not what the President is proposing. Of course, those are the GOP talking points. They are engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign because that's easier than putting forth any effort into actual healthcare reform, be it challenging the majority's proposals based on actual facts and figures or presenting more than a token healthcare plan of their own.

"Code words" = "I don't like what I'm hearing so I'll read into it an interpretation that I'm pretty sure my constituents really won't like."

I expect doublespeak from just about any politician but these transparent accusations in the face of actual facts is really disappointing. Chaffetz isn't the only one accusing the Dems of using "code words." It's all part of the GOP's strategy. Hatch said "Empathy" was code for "Activist."

Sestak is decidedly disadvantaged in this debate for two reasons. 1) Numbers are boring, even if they're accurate. 2) This is Fox News where rhetoric will always win out over reality.

Kudos for holding the President to his promise of transparency.

Chaffetz sent out a letter on June 5 criticizing the stimulus package for being too big and ineffective. He also claims that "The President projected that his stimulus package would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%." (emphasis added) Chaffetz provides no source for this assertion and I have found no direct quote from the President or anyone on his staff to that effect.

Following the election then President-elect Obama's transition team acknowledged that unemployment was expected to exceed 8% in 2009. Chaffetz also refers to the PresidentÍs banchmarks, offering only a link to a bitmap image on his web site instead of charts that are available from the Office of Management and Budget which optimistically predicted a 2009 unemployment rate of 8.1%. n.b. These estimates were made in January prior to the economic outlook getting more pessimistic, which the President's economic staff has acknowledged all along. One tenth of a percent may not be much but in an age where accurate information is readily available, no one can afford to distort information by even the smallest of margins.

Chaffetz goes on to say of his bitmap, "the following graph shows that the President was claiming that the impact of the stimulus package would be immediate."

The President never claimed, in words or graphics, that the impact of the stimulus bill would be immediate. There is nothing in the image to indicate its source and the document itself is only named "stimulus graph.bmp." Chaffetz is most likely counting on his constituents to take him at his word and not question his statements, numbers or motives.

The graph is from a january 10, 2009 report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" prepared in part by Christina Romer, Chair Nominee Designate, at the time, of the then President-elect's Council of Economic Advisors. The report and graph contained in it predates the Obama administration by at least 10 days and was written over a month before the final details of the stimulus package were made public. The statistics used in it were most likely based on economic forecasts from the last quarter of 2008, when we were only just realizing that we were even in a recession. During the following month the language and fiscal details of the stimulus bill went through so many changes and adjustments that the data and the graph presented in that January 10 report were rendered completely inapplicable to the final legislation.

It's like blaming an author because the movie based on his best-selling novel has a different ending from the book. Most novelists are left out of the production loop once their work has been optioned by a movie studio. The same thing happens when the President proposes legislation to Congress. He has little if any control over how the final legislation is going to turn out even if the Legislative Branch is dominated by the same party.

As for Chaffetz' insistence that the stimulus package is both too big and ineffective, there are some reputable economists, including former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who think that the stimulus package is too small to be effective. As I have said in a previous post on "The Angle,"(4:39) this is because the authors of the stimulus legislation kept making compromises at the request of Republican members of Congress in the interest of bipartisanship and GOP support of the stimulus when it came time for the final vote. After all that compromise, most Republicans, including Chaffetz, voted against it anyway.

For a man who's paid--in his own words--"a very handsome salary," you'd think he'd put forth the effort to write his own opinions. I guess it's just easier to let others to your writing and your thinking for you.

April Fools?

This is in reference to a new cigarette tax. It didn't get much press because most people understand that it's a voluntary tax and revenue from said tax goes to expand health insurance for children. You'd think a Mormon would not be apposed to this legislation. But, of course, this Mormon is a member of the True and Everlasting Party (n.b. the subject matter of this link is quite dated).

jasoninthehouse:http://bit.ly/gW7oI A bill I am sponsoring. I will be introducing it soon (9:09 AM May 7th from web)

bit-link destination: "Support the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act" by Michelle Malkin

joepuente: @jasoninthehouse There are few things more embarrassing than a congressman who doesn't know what taxes are (or is just pretending not to). (1:05 PM May 7th from web in reply to jasoninthehouse)

kcpw.org: "Congressman Chaffetz Concerned about Federal Spending, Cap and Trade" by Elizabeth Ziegler

Puente's Utah Perspective:
Counterpoints to KCPW Chaffetz article

"The freshman lawmaker paints himself as an outsider."

And yet he's as much of a rubber stand to the Republican cause as Chris Cannon.

"...fiscal conservatives are being excluded from some of the most important conversations."

And yet they contributed a large number of adjustments made to the stimulus package designed specifically to appeal to the GOP conference and they voted against it anyway.

"...Chaffetz describes as the single-largest tax increase in the nation's history. He believes creating a national greenhouse gas cap and trade system will be too costly."

I'll refer you to my post on Keeping Chaffetz Honest. Either he doesn't know the meaning of the word tax or he's just pretending not to. Obviously the latter and for purely partisan reasons.

Washington Times: "CHAFFETZ: Expose cap-and-trade costs" by Jason Chaffetz

Washington Times Op-Ed recycles material from April 14 Daily Herald Article

Puente's Utah Perspective:
"Chaffetz Still Banging the 'Cap and Trade is a Tax' Drum"

Chaffetz claims that President Obama "proposes a net tax increase on businesses of $327 billion over 10 years" but offers no details as to when or where the President made such a proposal. I tried Googling the phrase... and all I could find were links to Chaffetz' own vague accusations in other media outlets and a reference in the April Newsletter for the Utah Taxpayers Association that speaks of the President's "massive tax increases on businesses in general" (emphasis added).

That "in general" monicker raised a red-flag for me. My guess is that Chaffetz and other conservatives are taking this figure of "$327 billion" from some official source (that I haven't been able to find myself) and, like cap-and-trade, are arbitrarily calling it a tax (which begs the question, where are they getting this number from?)...

Deseret News: "Utahns list proposals for climate bills" by Lee Davidson

Key Quote: "Cap and trade is a tax - a great big one," Chaffetz said.

Puente's Utah Perspective:
"It Started Out Making Sense..."

Here's another article about Chaffetz' Sunlight bill and similar efforts by Matheson.

Chaffetz let out the ol' Cap and Trade is a tax" bullet point. I twittered him:

joepuente: @jasoninthehouse Once again: Cap & Trade is NOT a tax. Taxes are levied. Purchasing Carbon Credits is voluntary. http://tinyurl.com/notatax (10:38 PM May 12th from web)

tinyurl destination: Deseret News Article

Chaffetz never responded to that tweet.

Here's the breakdown:

1) He thinks Cap and Trade is the "wrong direction" for America. Does he suggest the right direction? No.

2) Still claiming Cap and Trade is a tax--and using the same discredited numbers.

3) "There are alternatives and better ways to move this forward..." He says he wants to leave the environment better than how he found it. Does he offer any alternatives? No.

4) The need to put pressure on developing countries like China, India and Indonesia to raise their environmental standards. Kudos! Seriously.

5) He talks about being proactive and adding incentives so we can move toward green technologies but "those technologies have not yet been fully developed."

What does he think Cap and Trade is? It's a market based solution offering monetary incentives to advance the development of cleaner energy!

Here are a couple of episodes of "Nova" that specifically address the development concerns of renewable energy.

"Saved by the Sun" Duration: (53:08) Premiere Date: 04/24/2007 TV Rating: TV-G

"The Big Energy Gamble" Duration: (52:27) Premiere Date: 01/20/2009 TV Rating: TV-PG

6) He says he doesn't want to hamper our ability to be productive and penalize Americans (GOP Rhetoric: penalize=tax). How would cap and trade hamper productivity? He doesn't say.

7) Jason refers his viewers to HR 2300, the American Energy Innovation Act, put forth by the GOP as an energy bill that "does not tax Americans" (neither does Cap and Trade). HR 2300 does not put a cap on carbon emissions but claims to reward clean energy solutions.

I gotta give kudos to the GOP for actually proposing an alternative instead of just complaining about Democratic proposals.

8) Jason refers to his bill HR2353 requiring energy companies to itemize cap and trade costs (which he calls a "tax increase," of course) in customer bills (again claiming the increase will be in the hundreds of dollars). I give kudos to this measure in the interest of transparency.

9) Jason says this is not the right time to do cap and trade. When would be the right time? He doesn't say.

10) Jason admits that he does not believe in "global warming" and that he thinks it's "a farce."

I'm puzzled by anyone who says that they don't "believe" in global warming or climate change. These are scientific concepts, not fairy tales. To say "I don't believe in global warming" is political posturing. And I have serious concerns with anyone who would politicize a scientific matter for the sake of their own ideology. The majority of the scientific community acknowledges the reality of human-influenced climate change. Those scientists who claim that they don't "believe" in climate change are largely on the fringe of the scientific community and are not usually taken seriously... except by other people who don't "believe" in climate change and can't get a credible scientist to back them up.

I'd like to recommend that Jason, and anyone else reading this, to take ten minutes to watch this enlightening video (embedded below) produced by a public school science teacher about climate change, beliefs and the fact that we are all in the same test tube while this climate change experiment is being conducted.

11) Jason speaks of climate change as simply a natural phenomenon--which also happens to be the default position of many Republicans and other conservatives. Go figure--and that we just have to learn how "to deal with it."

Cap and Trade, clean coal, green technology, carbon capture and offsets are how we deal with climate change.

Chaffetz pays lip service to the need for conservation "and those other things." Could he be more indifferent to these legitimate concerns about the environment?

This also resulted in a spirited and mostly civil discussion thread.

What is it about conservatives that makes them associate wealth with wisdom?

Kudos because at least he's talking to some of them.

Which one? The one where the debt is increased to fight an illegal war under false pretenses and consolidate political power through fear? Or the one where domestic issues like the economy and healthcare are finally given long overdue attention?

If raising taxes isn't helpful, what is? He offers no solution but sticks to the GOP party line of "cutting spending."

A BRIEF HISTORY OF
The Fairness Doctrine (Time Magazine)

The Fairness Doctrine:
How we lost it, and why we need it back (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting [FAIR])

There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn't require that the balance of a station's program lineup be anything like 50/50.

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine's repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren't, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views...

"...the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response "could be as much as five to one," said [Andrew Jay] Schwartzman...

...the Fairness Doctrine was no panacea. It was somewhat vague, and depended on the vigilance of listeners and viewers to notice imbalance.

History of the Fairness Doctrine (PBS.org)

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:
U.S. Broadcasting Policy (Museum of Braodcast Communications)

Kudos because it's the thought that counts.

February 5, 2009: GOP Wields More Influence Over the Stimulus Bill

February 9, 2009: By Slim Margin, Senate Advances Stimulus Bill

"Senate Republicans leveled their grievances amid an outcry by some House Democrats and governors and mayors from around the country, who accused Senate Democrats of caving to Republican demands by reducing the aid to states in the bill...

"Supporters of the bill called it a good compromise."

February 13, 2009: GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed

New York Times Stimulus Coverage