Monday, October 4, 2010
THE CASE AGAINST LYNN JENKINS CHAPTER 42 - SHE'D RATHER FOLLOW THE PARTY LINE THAN SERVE CONSTITUENTS
This is Lynn Jenkins, she does not represent us
H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act, will make money available under the Agriculture Department's Rural Utilities Services (RUS) so they can make loans to their customers to purchase and install off the shelf energy saving technology. That could be dual pane, low E, argon filled windows, roof top solar-electric systems, energy efficient electric water heaters, or small wind turbines. Rural customers are facing increased electric utility costs and this is a bill that let's tem get affordable loans to reduce those costs. That's a good idea, right? That would be included in an "all of the above approach" to solving our energy concerns, right? Well apparently not for Lynn Jenkins.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the RUS will be able to leverage $993 million into between $4 billion and $5 billion in loans to local electric cooperatives. CBO estimates RUS will spend $800 million over the next four fiscal years. There are no Pay-As-You-Go considerations because enacting H.R. 4785 does not impact direct spending or revenue. We're making loans here not handouts, it does not affect direct spending. H.R. 4785 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Here is an opportunity for a Representative to Congress whose district is largely rural to vote for a program that will let people borrow money to go their local farm center or hardware store and buy the technology to reduce their electric bill.
The bill defines rural as a community of less than 50,000 population and not contiguous, or next to, an urban area. The loans bear a 3% interest rate. That's got to be a winner for a Representative from a largely rural district. But not for Lynn Jenkins who voted against H.R. 4785 on roll call vote 530 on September 16th. The margin was 240 to 142.
Electric Utilities only gave Lynn Jenkins a mere $4,250, so this is probably Lynn Jenkins following the party line. Lynn Jenkins votes with the Party of No 95.40% according to the Washington Post. See, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/J000290/
When Lynn Jenkins is voting "no" with the Party of No she is voting against her constituents living in rural Kansas. H.R. 4785 has been sent to the Senate.