PA 11th CD happenings

Congressman Lou Barletta's disater relief bill was passed by the House of Representatives with a poison pill built into it. We will see if the Senate takes it up next week. The funding offset is “the  lower rate and the refunds will be paid for by eliminating federal funding for political party conventions” Good luck with that.

His opponent Gene Stilp is a master of free media.

 The pig bus covers up 47% of the Romney bus.

This headline from KP is great:

Gene Stilp’s Bus Challenges Mitt Romney’s Bus to a Fight

From Stilp: Where's Mitt Romney? I had some serious questions for him, but he apparently wasn't on his own bus trip.
But then again, where is Lou Barletta? I have a few questions for him also.
I'll debate whichever one of them is willing to step up and defend their lock step positions on Medicare, Social Security, Jobs, etc. Anywhere. Anytime.

Barletta has a duty to constituents to debate Stilp Kevin Blaum In the Arena

Lou poses with the VP Nominee

 Maybe Barletta should bring Paul Ryan to the district to help him get reelected. Ryan is real popular with people that have Medicare.

 

 Update: 

Barletta Spox Shawn Kelly takes issue with my "poison pill" comment.

I noticed in your posting about Rep. Barletta’s Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2012 that you referred to the eliminating of political party convention funding as a “poison pill built into it” that will doom the bill in the Senate.

I respectfully disagree. You might not be aware that the Senate recently voted for a measure that does just that.

On June 21, 2012, the Senate voted 95-4 for an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn. This amendment, S.AMDT.2214, is “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction.” You can learn about that amendment here: http://thomas.loc.gov/. Search for S.AMDT.2214.

If the Senate was willing to add that amendment to another bill by such a overwhelming margin, it stands to reason that they would support a bill that includes that language to begin with. Therefore, to call the inclusion of such a provision a “poison pill” is incorrect because the Senate has already shown a willingness to pass a similar measure.

Shawn