Congress Report Card

The legislator I am grading based off of my criteria is Debbie Stabenow. The Criteria I
have come up with, that best fit what I think a senator must have, are: openness and
accountability to the public; promoting laws that are consistent with the constitution; and having
the best interest of the people of the legislators state at heart.
The first thing she will be graded on is openness and accountability to the public. She
did not demonstrate this attribute on at least one occasion in 2009. Jim Bunning proposed an
amendment that would require the legislative language and a cost estimate of a health care
reform bill to have been posted on the internet three days before the committee voted on it. This
would have given the public knowledge and understanding of what was going on in the Senate.
Stabenow voted against this amendment leading one to think she does not support openness
and accountability to the public. Based on this, I would give her a C-. There is a chance that
there was a good reason for her choice, but in my opinion, it is more likely that she simply
wanted the legislation to progress without the public getting in the way. That is not the kind of
openness that I am looking for..
Promoting laws that are constitutional is a popular principle that needs to be followed.
On April 21, 2014, the Clean Water Act was revised without congressional vote, by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers. This change, called the Notice
of availability regarding exemption from permitting under section 404 (f)(1)(a) of the Clean Water
Act, was an attempt to bring all bodies of water, even as much as a small farm pond, under
federal jurisdiction. Some argue that this violated peoples fifth amendment rights by taking
away their rights to their property without due process of law, and they would be right. The
Congress voted on a Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter
8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Corps Engineers and the EPA
Relating to the Definition of Waters of the United States Under Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. Stabenow voted nay on this, which means that she supported the government agencies
manipulation of this law without congress having any say in it. Furthermore, she supported
depriving people of their rights to their land, rights that they had been given in the constitution. I
think it is safe to say that she has earned an E on this criterion.
The third grade that I will be giving her is based on how much she has had the best
interest of the people of her state at heart. Stabenow proposed an amendment to the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. It would have extended federal subsidies for green
energy, including alternative fueling stations, biofuels, refined coal, energy-efficient appliances,
and wind power. These subsidies do not come out of thin air, they come out of the pockets of
taxpayers, regardless of whether they support green energy or not. These subsidies have been
costly; many of the businesses that they supported have not been able to produce many jobs
and some have even gone bankrupt. This has not been in the best interest of the people of
Michigan, because, first of all, we do not even know if Michigan businesses benefitted from
these subsidies as much as Michigan residents paid in taxes; secondly, these subsidies have
been a very poor investment of Michiganders dollars, given the lack of jobs created and the
number of business failures that followed, such as Solyndra. I give her a D for this.
The overall grade I would give Ms. Stabenow is a D due to her not promoting
government openness, supporting laws that are unconstitutional, and promoting increased
taxation for something that has not proved to be beneficial to businesses and workers in
Michigan.