We cannot expect elected officials to raise millions of dollars to run their political campaigns and then do what is always in the best interest of the American people (special interest groups have unequal access and unequal influence). Your current representative to the U.S. House of Representatives (Lizzie Fletcher), had to raise over $3.6 million in the 2022 election - do you think she feels an obligation to return the favors to the many that contributed? Will she always vote in the best interest of the American people and not for a special interest group? Maybe she will, but the vast majority of Congress do not - it is obvious given the status of the country (see Report Card). Some detail on some of her votes.

The Debt and Lizzie

A recent poll (January 2024 , Main Street Economics), showed that the vast majority of Americans are concerned about the U.S. debt: "More than nine of every 10 voters (91%) said neglecting to act on the problem of the national debut would have long-lasting financial impacts on their lives." So what is the Congress' and Lizzie Fletcher's answer (who voted yes for this bill)? They passed in June 2023 a bill called the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which instead of adding $20 trillion (yes trillion, $20,000,000,000,000) to the debt over the next 10 years would add only $18.5 trillion to it. Congresswoman Fletcher commented “I am committed to ensuring Congress addresses our country’s debt and spending responsibly while protecting the American people. For these reasons, I voted yes today.” Status quo Congress and Lizzie likely will not make the hard cuts to reduce the debt to safe levels.

Open Borders

The vast majority of Americans believe that the current Congress and administration are handling immigration poorly (See poll below). During the Biden administration over 6.2 million illegal immigrants have crossed the border, putting massive pressure on border towns and other communities across the U.S. So, why did Lizzie vote no to the "Secure the Border act of 2023"? Lizzie claimed that it would “effectively end asylum and violate existing refugee law.” This is not accurate. The proposed law (H.R. 2) would have done a lot to end asylum fraud (false claims regarding asylum) - for example, the bill denies people the ability to claim asylum unless the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer who processes them believes their ultimate case would more likely than not be accepted.”

The bill would have ended the “catch and release” program. Under existing law, immigrants who can make a “credible” claim of being refugees can stay in the U.S. while that claim is assessed — and if granted asylum, they are allowed to stay. ” The problem with existing law is that while the claims are being processed, the immigrant lives in the U.S. and most never return for a hearing – “catch and release.”

Example 2 of Lizzie seemingly to support Biden's open border policy is how she voted on the resoultion :Actions - H.Res.957 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration's open-borders policies. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

She voted "no" to the above. Tap the above link to see for yourself. Some democrats did vote no for it: 14 of them (probably from the border states).

What is amazing to most Americans is that our government promotes open borders. Our elected officials cannot agree to secure the nation. What are we missing? I can assure everybody that my strategy of electing only those that agree not to take special interest money AND agree to only 2 terms (house), 1 term (senate) would not result in an open borders policy. Because that which is best for our country IS NOT open borders.

Inflation Reduction Act

Why would the Congress pass a bill which spends billions on environment protection and more money for IRS agents, among other things, and call it the Inflation Reduction Act - Lizzie voted for this bill.

This has been a common practice in Washington - include diverse topics on a single bill. It would not be politically wise to vote no to reducing inflation (but there may be a good reason to vote no if there is wasteful spending hidden somewhere in the bill on a topic unrelated to inflation). And to make matters worse, the experts agreed that the bill would do very little if anything, to reduce inflation. The CBO and the Penn Wharton Budge Model estimated that the Act would have no statistically significant effect on inflation. PWBM is a nonpartisan, research-based organization at the University of Pennsylvania that creates economic analysis of public policy’s fiscal impact. Lizzie claimed it would reduce the deficit by $300 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said $100 billion.

Bills Lizzie Sponsored 2023-2024

Commentary by Me, on bills Lizzie has sponsored

By the way, before any American votes. They should review high profile legislation that their elected officials voted on.

I have looked at some of the bills that Lizzie sponsored and based on my research so far, no big problems being solved here. Certainly, not big spending bills and many seem honorable to me. But I do not see a bold attempt to solve the massive problems the country faces (mounting deficits, healthcare affordability crisis, struggle to pay much higher prices, no border, ...).

One of the bills appears not even necessary (HR 782) and the other (HR 913), seems ok. Neither result in increased in spending by government (this is good). HR 782 is a bill that allows women who live in States where abortion is illegal to go to States where it is legal - but there is no current law that prohibits this, so what am I missing? HR 913 provides that some monies from wind and offshore drilling projects be used for coastal restoration. Seems great. No new government spending and taking care of the environment with revenues from a for-profit project. More details below on these below. HR 1497, this bill is a few lines related to expediting the exportation of natural for allied countries. Bill HR 2573 "Protecting Reproductive Freedom Act" reaffirms that the abortion pill is FDA approved and a reminder that federal law pre-empts state law with respect to dispensing the abortion pill.

HR 2559 Strengthening Community Care Act via bipartisan legislation to renew federal funding for community health ceCommunity Health Centers play an essential role in providing health care to vulnerable populations in Houston and more than 30 million Americans across our country,” said Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher. This bill extends funding through FY2028 for the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF) and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Fund. The CHCF supports grants for outpatient health care facilities that provide care to medically underserved populations; the NHSC Fund supports the provision of scholarships and student loan repayment awards to health care providers who agree to work in areas with health care provider shortages. Yes Lizzie there are 27 million uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured. The entire healthcare system needs to be restructured - see my solutions tab.

1)H.R. 782 "Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act" in summary would allow a woman to obtain an abortion in a State where abortions were legal, even if abortions were illegal in the State she lived in. BUT, THIS IS ALREADY LEGAL

(see plannedparenthood.org). As you know the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Some States have banned abortions and some allow it. But it is certainly is legal to cross the border into a different State where it is legal to have an abortion. SO WHY DID LIZZIE SPONSOR A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THIS? I DON'T KNOW.

Text - H.R.782 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act”.

SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE ABORTION SERVICES PROHIBITED.

(a) Interference Prohibited.—No person acting under color of State law, including any person who, by operation of a provision of State law, is permitted to implement or enforce State law, may prevent, restrict, or impede, or retaliate against, in any manner—

(1) a health care provider’s ability to provide, initiate, or otherwise enable an abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the service is to be provided to a patient who does not reside in that State;

(2) any person or entity’s ability to assist a health care provider to provide, initiate, or otherwise enable an abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the service is to be provided to a patient who does not reside in that State, if such assistance does not violate the law of that State;

(3) any person’s ability to travel across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the service is to be provided;

(4) any person’s or entity’s ability to assist another person traveling across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the service is to be provided; or

(5) the movement in interstate commerce, in accordance with Federal law or regulation, of any drug approved or licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a pregnancy.

2) Reinvesting In Shoreline Economies and Ecosystems Act of 2023 or the RISEE Act of 2023

This bill increases revenue streams provided to states from offshore wind projects, offshore oil and gas leases, and onshore energy and mineral resources. States must use the revenue for specified purposes, such as coastal restoration, conservation, or infrastructure.

Specifically, the bill requires revenues generated from offshore wind projects carried out under a lease entered into on or after January 1, 2022, to be deposited into accounts for the U.S. Treasury, the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, and adjacent coastal states. Currently, this revenue is deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The Department of the Interior must disburse the revenue to a state in an amount that is based on a formula that is inversely proportional to a state's distance from the offshore wind site.

In addition, the bill removes the cap on the amount of revenue generated from offshore oil and gas leases that may be shared with states under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.It also eliminates a fee under the Mineral Leasing Act that Interior currently collects to administer the onshore revenue sharing program.

3) American Gas for Allies Act, HR 1497

This bill deems the exportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for allied countries to be consistent with the public interest for purposes of the National Gas Act during the next three years. Thus, the bill allows such exports to be expedited during that time period. In order to be expedited, the LNG export must be for (1) a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or (2) any other foreign country if the Department of State determines that the export of LNG to that country would promote the national security interests of the United States

4) Protecting Reproductive Freedom Act, HR 2573

This bill expresses the sense of Congress that (1) medication abortion is appropriately approved and regulated under federal law, and (2) federal law preempts any in-person dispensing requirements or telehealth restrictions with respect to medication abortion under state law.

5) H.R.2559 — 118th Congress