Categories: world

Beto O & # 39; Rourke often voted for Republican legislation, shows the analysis | American news

Beto Rourke's spiritual drive for the United States Senate in Texas last month has led to powerful voting in the democratic party position to appoint the outward-facing congress in Texas as a 2020 presidential candidate who, as the party's standard carrier, would offer a vision of American contrasting with Republicans. However, a new analysis of congressional vote from the non-profit news organization Capital & Main shows that, as R & R; Rourke represented one of the most solid democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has often voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump-government priorities. Capital & Main has examined the 167 votes, Rourke has thrown into the house as opposed to the majority of his own party during his sixth year in the congress. Many of these voices were not progressive disagreements along with other left-wing legislators, but instead voted to help pass Republican sponsored legislation. Sign up for the new American morning informationRourke has voted for GOP bills as his fellow democratic legislators said the reinforced republican anti-tax ideology, torn off at ACA, weakened Wall Street regulations, strengthened the fossil fuel industry and strengthened Donald Trump's immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have laid legislation behind R & D, supporting major banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump's immigrant group. During the former administration, Barack Obama's vithus statements issued two GOP bills supported by the 46-year-old Democratic legislature. Rourke voted for Republican legislation…

Beto Rourke’s spiritual drive for the United States Senate in Texas last month has led to powerful voting in the democratic party position to appoint the outward-facing congress in Texas as a 2020 presidential candidate who, as the party’s standard carrier, would offer a vision of American contrasting with Republicans.

However, a new analysis of congressional vote from the non-profit news organization Capital & Main shows that, as R & R; Rourke represented one of the most solid democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has often voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump-government priorities.

Capital & Main has examined the 167 votes, Rourke has thrown into the house as opposed to the majority of his own party during his sixth year in the congress. Many of these voices were not progressive disagreements along with other left-wing legislators, but instead voted to help pass Republican sponsored legislation.

Sign up for the new American morning information

Rourke has voted for GOP bills as his fellow democratic legislators said the reinforced republican anti-tax ideology, torn off at ACA, weakened Wall Street regulations, strengthened the fossil fuel industry and strengthened Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have laid legislation behind R & D, supporting major banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s immigrant group. During the former administration, Barack Obama’s vithus statements issued two GOP bills supported by the 46-year-old Democratic legislature.

Rourke voted for Republican legislation – which sometimes ended with a majority of Texas Democratic legislators in Congress – underlines its membership in the new democratic coalition, parliamentary faction in line with business interests.

Rourke did not answer questions from Capital & Main about his votes.

Rourke was one of a number of younger democratic candidates who ran unexpectedly strong campaigns in traditional Republican states during the 2018 half-yearly election. His speech, grassroots gathering and rejection of the company’s PAC money helped his campaign to build a strong online succession among activists hoping that the election would lead to a Democratic Senate majority.

In recent weeks, the opportunity for a Rourke Presidential Reference has been reinforced by former Obama assistants and fundraisers, as well as Third Way – a finance industry-funded thin tank that previously made headlines that led Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren away. He has also been promised by former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tooth from the Center for American Progress, a democratic tunnel, whose officials recently entered the Republican Tax and Immigration Legislation that Mr Rourke voted for. Much of the party’s elite in support of an O & # 39; Rourke candidate has not mentioned his political record or agenda.

Over the past two years, O & # 39; Rourke was among the fifths of all legislators who voted against his own party’s positions. FiveThirtyEight has estimated that O & # 39; Rourke in the same period has voted for Trump’s administrative position about 30% of the time. The site said it is above what analysts predicted would come from a legislator representing a district as democratic as the Rourke s. In comparison, the Rourkes Congress District votes more democratically than most Massachusetts districts, according to the Cook Political Report .

Each poll examined below was one where Rourke broke from the majority of the legislators in his own party.

Consumer Protection

Since 2010, the Consumer Protection Agency (CFPB) was created during repetitions of Republicans who have sought to help the financial industry to limit its authority. Sometimes they have found an Allies in O & # 39; Rourke.

In one instance, the Texas Democrat helped the GOP challenge with the agency’s bulletin, claiming its “authority to drive auto lenders whose policies harm consumers through illegal discrimination”. [19659003] Republicans in 2015 introduced legislation to repeal that directive. Human rights groups like the NAACP opposite GOP action and House Democrats said it was designed to stop “latest actions to eradicate discriminatory practices among auto lenders.” Obama White House said it strongly opposed the Republican bill.



Beto O & # 39; Rourke at a debate with Ted Cruz in Dallas, Texas on September 21st. Photography: POOL / REUTERS

Rourke officially sponsored the bill and voted for it. Echo GOP’s approach to CFPB, the Democrats appealed to the “lack of transparency” agency, which claimed to have created “uncertainty, criticism of CFPB conclusions and has made loans more expensive for borrowers”. While the Rourke later voted against using the congressional review act to kill the CFPB regulation, the original bill he voted to set for GOP to suspend it under Trump.

Also in 2015, Rourke voted for a republican bill as Democrats said would weaken lending disclosure protection for home loan borrowers. The Obama administration agreed to issue a veto threat explaining that the GOP Bill aimed at “unnecessarily delaying the implementation of key consumer protection aimed at eradicating opaque lending practices that contribute to risky mortgages, harming homeowners by removing private law to actions for violations and deficits the nation’s financial stability “.

The bill was supported by Rourke, who said: “I think it’s a practical, short-term compromise that will provide long-term benefits to consumers in the United States.” He claimed that GOP legislation would allow regulators to “continue working with banks to ensure they are ready to fully comply with the law” and “ensure that” consumers applying for home loans get all the information they need. “

Fossil Fuel and Energy

During his senate race, O & Rourke is proud of his rhetoric about the threat of climate change. In Congress he has questioned the safety of natural gas fragments, and he has high ratings from the United Nations.

Rourke has also cast important voices with the Republicans to increase the fossil fuel sector, whose carbon dioxide emissions are at the root of the climate crisis.

For example, O & # 39; Rourke was one of just a handful of House Democrats who voted for the repub equal bills to lift the 40-year oil supply.

During the debate, the debate to abolish the ban claimed the report of the Democrats that “the extreme approach taken by this bill repeals not only the raw export restrictions, but also guarantees that no export restrictions – for some reason – could be implemented or enforced in the future”. The democratic report added that “the bill can have potential major consequences for consumers, the environment and climate change.”

O & # 39; Rourke voted twice to lift the ban.

At the same time, the Rourke republican voice helped down democratic legislation to prevent drilling in eastern Gulf of Mexico, and he baked a separate GOP invoice to accelerate natural gas exports.

He also supported GOP legislation as Democrats said designed to protect the user industry. Republicans said the measure was designed “to ensure reliable electricity service and reduce the risk of fires and fire hazards caused by inadequate vegetation management” in areas where power lines cross federal countries. Repeating charges made by Democrats in the Bill Report, Arizona Democratic Representative Raúl Grijalva, said in the floor the debate: “The bill denies responsibility for companies that start forest fires or cause other damage. This is nonsense and shifts an incredible burden and risk to US taxpayers.” [19659003] O & # 39; Rourke was one of 69 Democrats who supported the bill that passed.

Immigration and criminal justice

In representing the border town of El Paso, Rourke has been an unspoken immigrant immigration lawyer. His Senate Campaign Website says he wants to “review the Dream Law and ensure that undead immigrants who came here as children, so-called Dreamers, find a permanent home and citizenship in the United States.” It also stated that he wants to “end militarization of our immigration system.” The Rourke this month made headlines that entered the Trump Administration’s immigration policy.

However, he was one of a group of Democrats who broke party leaders to support Republican legislation to refrain from requiring customs and border guards and job seekers to take polygraph tests – a proposal that was part of the Trumpad Administration’s plan to mount an expulsion force.

A report from the government’s accountability agency noted that the CBP uses polygraph tests as part of the background statements for the employment “to mitigate the risk of employee corruption and suspected” and recommended the Agency to consider expanding the tests.

In April 2017, the Trump Administration issued a notice to refrain from the police tests to accelerate the employment of thousands of new CBP agents. Critics immediately raised red flags – the American Immigration Lawyers Association said there was a plan “watering up employment standards”. Tom Jawetz Immigration Deputy Vice President for the Center for American Progress told Univision that “many agents handed in advance who had not gone through a polygraphy collaborated with cartels and exposed to corruption”. James Tomsheck, CBP’s former head of internal affairs, called the idea of ​​exemption “prevention” in light of what the polygraph tests had found.

Two days after the Trump administration memo, the Republicans of the immigration sheriff Representative Martha McSally of Arizona led legislation to allow the polygraph testers to abstain. Democrats protested protested.

New Mexico Democratic Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, President of Congressional Spanish Kaucus, said: “Eliminating the critical polygraphic requirements of some CBP applicants undermines only our nation’s security, considering the agency’s historical association with organized crime, cartels and corruption. “She claimed that” no other federal law enforcement authority in the country – not the FBI, DEA, ATF or Secret Service – make any exceptions to their polygraph exam “.

The Democratic Congress Luis Gutierrez declared that: “The voter for this bill votes to support and implement Donald Trump’s views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border and his imagination of a mass deployment force.”

Rourke chose to join the Republicans at the vote for the bill, which passed. He said the measure was necessary to “help speed up the recruitment process and provide the CBP Commissioner with additional authorities to recruit and hire qualifying CBP officials and border police groups”.

During the same two-month stretch, Rourke also broke from his party to support GOP legislation which, according to GovTrack, would “add to kill or attempt to kill [of] a law enforcement officer on the list of aggravating factors in federal death penalty” .

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said the bill was “an unnecessary and misguided attempt to police the law enforcement officers’ unfortunate deaths and could ultimately exacerbate the existing tension between law enforcement and the communities they serve, especially African Americans.”

Democratic representative Jerry Nadler of New York claimed that it would change the basic threshold for the death penalty by impos [ing] a death penalty for attempted m

Rourke was one of 48 Democrats to join Republicans to support the legislation that passed.

Wall Street regulation

Rourke has a somewhat mixed record of financial issues, according to the watchdog group of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR). Sometimes he has voted with Democrats for to protect existing provisions. Nevertheless, he has often helped GOP in some of his efforts to deregulate Wall Street.

In 2014 and 2018, Rourke voted for example GOP bill votes containing provisions that weakened the so-called Volcker Rule aimed at

In 2017 and 2018, Rourke also voted for:

  • GOP legislation as Democrats said would provide financial institutions to protect themselves from bank investigators.

    • 19659049] A package of Republican bills that Democrats said would reduce independent audits of companies, deregulate exchanges and high-frequency trading.

    • A Republican bill to allow larger numbers of bankowners to take on more debt.

    • And a republican bill that the Democrats said would “eliminate meaningful, clear information to consumers about their privacy rights, including their ability to opt out from having their information sold to unaffilable” Rourke has helped improve Obamacare, expanding Medicaid and add a public alternative to competing with private insurance. Sometimes he broke up with the majority of House Democrats to help Republicans try to get rid of the Health Care Act, and in one case he supported a GOP bill. Democrats said they should design Trump- The administration’s attempt to replace Obamacare.

      ACA established the independent payment advice to recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending. According to the Non-Party Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the language that created the Board prohibited it from proposing rationalization, reduced benefits, higher prizes ell Limited privileges.

      Despite these safeguards, Republicans led by former Vice President Sarah Palin pointed to the Board soon as evidence that Democrats aim to create “death panes”. Because mythology spread over conservative media, the Republicans in 2015 and 2017 repeated legislation to overcome these fears and eliminate the board. O & # 39; Rourke lost his party and voted twice with Republicans to kill the board. He also officially supported both actions.

      In addition, when the Republicans pressed to replace ACA with Trumps US Health Care Act (AHCA), Rourke voted for Republican legislation to provide special tax credits for Cobra benefits – an initiative the Democratic Representative Richard Neal of Massachusetts said where “simply a back door for states to discriminate against existing conditions”.

      Taxes

      In 2017, Rourke joined in his party and voted against Trump’s tax-reducing package. His senate campaign website quoted the deficit concerns about the tax cuts cost.

      But that was not the end of history. Within a few months, the Republicans began pushing a new package of tax cuts like democratic groups, such as the Center for American Progress, considered “tax fraud 2”. Part of that package was a suggestion that a critical Los Angeles Times editor said “would cut out a new tax protection for starter companies”. The Center for American Progress identified these provisions as one of the internal aspects of the tax package.

      As Democrats attempted to present a united front against the new tax cuts in the GOP, R & R; members of the House of Democrats, Texas, and most of the Democratic delegation in Texas broke to vote for the GOP legislation. He supported the initiative, even though the Congress’s budget office warned that the bill would increase the deficit.

Share
Published by
Faela