The Senate passed the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (S. 2663) today by a margin of 79 - 13. The bill calls for establishing a consumer database for complaints, provides for increased civil penalties for hazardous products, increases the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and provides protection for whistleblowers who bring information to the public light on dangerous products.

How did Saxby and Johnny vote?

Both Georgia senators voted in favor of the bill. The 13 senators voting against the bill were all republicans, including DeMint from South Carolina.

The Democratic Policy Committee has a very good overview of the provisions in the bill.

The Senate will continue debate today over the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act. Yesterday, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed S.AMDT.4096, which would have stripped Section 21 from the bill. Section 21 provides protections for whistleblowers. I guess DeMint doesn’t like people who shed light on corporate wrongdoing.

I wonder if Senator DeMint saw the film “The Insider,” starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino. The film is about Jeffrey Wigand, a whistleblower who worked for the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. He is the one who testified that CEOs of big tobacco lied to Congress about the addictive nature of cigarettes. I suppose Senator DeMint doesn’t care for Dr. Wigand or else he would not be opposed to offering whistleblower protection for others who bring vital information to the public’s attention.

Where do Saxby and Johnny stand on whistleblowers?

Yesterday, they both voted against a motion to table (kill) DeMint’s amendment. Fortunately, the amendment was tabled without their support. I guess they don’t care for whistleblowers either.

Debate began yesterday on the Senate floor over the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007 (S. 2663). The debate is proving to be a rather contentious one. Advocates of the bill contend it strengthens current legislation by creating important consumer protections, including a consumer database of product hazard information, more uniform lead standards (remember the toy recall), increased protection for whistleblowers, and increased fines to deter manufacturers from putting hazardous products on store shelves.

Who supports the bill (without amendments)?

The following groups support the CPSC Reform Act:

• Consumer’s Union, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, Kids in Danger, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Citizen to name a few.

Who opposes the bill?

The following groups are fighting passage of the bill

• National Manufacturing Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, and leading the way in the Senate is Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Jim DeMint’s Smear Campaign

DeMint and the Republican Steering Committee manufactured a document titled, “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the CPSC “Reform” Act. The document has been characterized as half-truths, deceptive and containing outright falsehoods. Public Citizen has posted a complete rebuttal of DeMint’s claims.

To understand the outrageousness of DeMint’s claims, just consider reason number 1: the CPSC Reform Act “makes it legally impossible to fire disruptive employees.” That is a direct quote from the document circulated by DeMint. Do you actually think the bill contains language that makes it “legally impossible” to fire a disgruntled employee?

My favorite claim in the document is that the bill “massively increases fines.” Do you know what the current fines are for putting hazardous products on store shelves? Current fines are capped at $1.8 million. That’s like fining a person driving a Lexus 100 mph in a 55 mph zone $5.00. The current cap is pocket change to large manufacturers.

What will Saxby and Johnny do?

Well, it’s pretty clear where Saxby an Johnny stand on the CPSC Reform Act. In a vote in the Senate today to table the DeMint amendment, which would have gutted the consumer protections in the bill, Saxby and Johnny voted NO. I guess they’re on the same page as DeMint. But, this should not come as any surprise given their voting record in support of corporate interests.

One of the most important elements of the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (S.886) is that it would nullify Executive Order #13233 signed by President Bush in 2001. The Society of Professional Journalists sums up Bush’s order this way:

The order gives former presidents and their assignees the right to prevent the release of presidential papers — forever. It also allows a sitting president to block the release of a former president’s records, even after that former president has signaled his approval. It requires that those who challenge the action of either a former president or the sitting president seek redress in court.

Bush’s implementing Executive Order #13233 is consistent with a regime that covets secrecy and disdains democracy. Siding with the Bush regime is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who is currently holding up the bill in the Senate.

Who supports S. 886?

Here is a partial list of supporters to the Presidential Records Amendments Act of 2007:

• the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, Center for National Security Studies, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Government Accountability Project, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Freedom of Information Coalition, Public Citizen, and Society of Professional Journalists

Who opposes the legislation?

The following folks are fighting passage of S.886:

• the Bush regime, Senator Jeff Sessions, elected officials that want citizens uninformed of their actions, elected officials who pay only lip service to the concept of “transparency”What will Saxby and Johnny do?

What will Saxby and Johnny do?

I’ve written both Saxby and Johnny regarding S.886, but at this time have not received a reply. I encourage you to write both Georgia senators and make your voice heard on this extremely important piece of legislation.

What did Nathan do?

On 14 March 2007, the House voted on H.R. 1255, amendments to the Presidential Records Act. The House version of the bill nullified President Bush’s Executive Order #13233. The bill passed by a margin of 333 - 93, with a large bipartisan support. However, Representative Nathan Deal voted against the bill. It appears he favors secrecy to transparency when it comes to our nation’s leaders.

The House voted Thursday to issue contempt of Congress citations for Joshua Bolton and Harriet Miers for their lack of cooperation in the investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys. Here is the text of H.Res. 982:

Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

The bill passed by a margin of 223 - 32 votes. So, I was wondering how my Ninth District of Georgia congressman, Nathan Deal, voted on the bill. I checked the roll call vote at house.gov and to my surprise Nathan did not vote on the bill. Where was Nathan? Was he ill? Doesn’t he know that refusing to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary is serious business? I guess not.

Instead of voting, Nathan probably joined John Boehner (R-OH) on the steps outside the house in “protest.” See if you can find him in this photo from the New York Times. It’s kinda like playing “Where’s Waldo?” Is that Nathan in the back row?

The Republicans on the House steps contended that they had more important things to do like grant immunity to telecoms for cooperating with the government to conduct illegal wiretaps. In argument, we call this “begging the question.” Seriously doesn’t Nathan believe the “rule of law” is an important concept in our democracy? Doesn’t it concern him that the firings of U.S. attorneys may have been politically motivated? Wouldn’t he want to get to the truth of the matter? These are not trivial questions.

Instead of being led around by others like Boehner, Nathan needs to take a stand and cast a vote (up or down, you know this phrase) on important issues.

This is the first installment of the “Show me the Money” segment on Georgia Politics Watch. I was visiting opensecrets.org yesterday and discovered one of the biggest contributors (over $84,000) to Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson is Troutman Sanders. So, I asked myself, “Who are these folks and why do they take such a liking to Saxby and Johnny?”

Let’s take a closer look:

• Troutman Sanders employs over 600 lawyers.
• Troutman Sanders represents primarily corporate interests.
• Troutman Sanders likes pharmaceutical, insurance, banking, utilities and similar industries.
• Attorneys at Troutman Sanders probably like talk radio.
• Attorneys at Troutman Sanders probably dislike Erin Brockovich.
• Attorneys at Troutman Sanders probably would not like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, “Crimes Against Nature.”

Troutman Sanders actually employs folks that work closely with Saxby as political aides. All in all, Troutman Sanders, Saxby and Johnny seem to be one happy ideological family.

But there’s more. In my investigation of Troutman Sanders I found this interesting case from an article on Lexis/Nexis. The article is found in Insurance Law & Litigation Week, 21 January 2008. Check out the headline from the article:

Life insurance policy excludes coverage for fatal bee sting

Tommie Hall died. Tommie was stung by a bee, suffered anaphylactic shock, cardiac arrest and died. You see, he was allergic to bee stings. His widow, Jennifer, was the beneficiary to his life insurance policy worth about $280,000 in benefits. MetLife was the company that administered the policy.

Jennifer contacted MetLife and submitted a claim for the benefits. MetLife denied the claim because Tommie’s allergy to bee stings was a “preexisting disease.” Jennifer took MetLife to court and immediately lost. Her attorneys then appealed the decision to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the case before the appeals court, MetLife’s attorney, Lowell Kass, is joined by Troutman Sanders. What was the firm thinking? That this is just another “frivolous lawsuit” brought by grieving widow? I’m not sure, but they did good. The appeals court ruled in favor of MetLife and the insurance company was “off the hook” for the 280 large.

I’m not particularly interested if the court made the right decision in the case. I’m more interested in what you do after the verdict comes down. Do you get in your Mercedes, drive to the country club, order a round of martinis, and “high five” the CFO of MetLife? Do you begin working on water cooler jokes about the guy who was stung by a bee, died, and his widow got nothing? Life is indeed stranger than fiction.

The bottom line is this: Saxby, Johnny, and Troutman Sanders make one heck of team for corporate interests. How well do they represent your interests?

The Senate passed the FISA Amendment Act of 2007 today by a vote of 68 to 29. The bill includes immunity for phone companies that participated in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program. As expected, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson voted for the bill’s passage.

I received an email from Johnny on 5 February and he said this about S.2248:

“I believe the assistance of private telecommunications carriers is essential to carrying out the intelligence-gathering contemplated in FISA, and those who assist the government in tracking terrorists should not be punished with lawsuits. “

What does Johnny mean by “tracking terrorists”? Does this include domestic spying on U.S. citizens? Does this include scanning emails of U.S. citizens? Does this include tracking U.S. citizens’ activity and searches on the web? Does this include eavesdropping on phone conversations of U.S. citizens to overseas relatives? What exactly does Johnny mean? Could his rhetoric be any more ambiguous?

I’m wondering if Johnny has heard of Mark Klein, former AT&T technician, that released information that AT&T entered into an agreement with the government to install computer equipment designed to spy illegally on Internet traffic.

Johnny says that telecommunications companies that cooperate with the government should not be subject to lawsuits. If the telecoms are not doing anything illegal, why would they fear lawsuits? We do live in a country that supposedly supports the “rule of law.” If the telecoms are doing something illegal, like assisting the government in circumventing the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, then why shouldn’t they be held accountable?

I know, some of you are thinking that in an “age of terrorism” and with an “axis of evil” nearby, why shouldn’t the government have broad powers of search and seizure? Shouldn’t we give up our civil liberties during a “war on terrorism”?

The problem with Johnny’s approach, and that of Saxby, is that they fail to make clear what precisely they are asking the American people to give up in the way of liberty and freedom. A little honesty and clarity would help. Do they approve of the government scanning our email? Do they approve of the government tracking our activity on the web.

If those are the practices Johnny and Saxby support, in the name of national security, just be honest and tell Georgians and the American people that is what you mean.

On 22 January 2008, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced Senate Bill S.2542, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act of 2008. This bill would require credit card companies to include, on monthly bills, the following statement:

“Minimum Payment Warning: Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance.”

Additionally, the monthly statement must include information about how long it would take to pay off a credit card debt making only minimum payments and the amount of interest a cardholder would pay making only minimum payments. Here is a sample from S.2542:

“A one thousand dollar ($1,000) balance will take 17 years and 3 months to pay off at a total cost of two thousand five hundred ninety dollars and thirty-five cents ($2,590.35) . . . This information is based on an annual percentage rate of 17 percent and a minimum payment of 2 percent or ten dollars ($10), whichever is greater.”

The bill also requires credit card issuers to provide a toll-free telephone number available between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., 7 days a week, to provide consumers with the opportunity to speak with a person, rather than a recording, in order to ascertain the amount of time and interest it would take to pay off their balance making minimum payments.

Why introduce this legislation?

Senator Feinstein contends that the legislation “is intended to ensure the people who need it the most will get the information they need – every month – to make intelligent financial decisions (source).” Indeed, only “one in six families with credit cards pays only the minimum due every month (source).” Consumer debt, excluding mortgages, has reached $2.4 trillion dollars in the United States and over 8% of U.S. households have over $9,000 in consumer debt.

This legislation amends the Truth in Lending Act and is intended to provide information to consumers to assist them in making important financial decisions and help them escape the burden of credit card debt. The bill is based on the assumption that knowledge is power.

Who might support this legislation?

These folks support S.2542:

• consumer advocacy groups
• millions of consumers unaware of what it “costs” to make minimum payments on credit cards
• consumers and citizens who rely on accurate information to make informed decisions

Who might oppose this legislation?

These folks oppose S.2542:

• Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, American Express and Discover (and other issuers who may see reduced profits if passed)
• free market ideologues (they oppose most regulation on business)

What will Saxby and Johnny do?

That’s a good question, but I think I have a good idea where they will shake out on this piece of legislation. So, what do you think they should do with S.2542? Support or oppose? Let them hear your voice on the legislation. Contact Johnny or Saxby and take a stance for Georgians on this important bill.

Welcome to the Georgia Politics Watch blog. As a U.S. citizen and resident of the state of Georgia, I am interested in how Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) represent the interests of Georgians and the nation in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, I will focus attention on my House Representative, Nathan Deal (R-GA).

Why another political blog? There are several reasons.

First, the Atlanta Journal Constitution fails miserably in covering bills before Congress and how passage of such bills impacts the lives of U.S. citizens. Moreover, there is little coverage of how Georgia’s two senators and representatives vote on bills in Congress.

Second, I scoured the web looking for a site that gathers information on bills in the Senate and how Chambliss, Isakson and Deal promote, oppose, and/or vote on those bills. I had no luck. Georgians elected Chambliss and Isakson and, in a democracy, they should be informed of the senators’ activities. After all, the two will come up for re-election at some point (Chambliss in November).

Finally, the bills Chambliss, Isakson and Deal promote or oppose impact our lives on a personal level. Issues of health care, education, national security, war, immigration, and so forth have significant bearing on our private lives and our future.

So, this site will focus on pending legislation, its impact on Georgians, and whether Chambliss, Isakson and Deal support or oppose the legislation and why. Then, it’s up to you to contact your senators and make your voice heard on the issues.