An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
It has been said often, either fight the enemy in a true war theater on the battlefield with real war tactics or fight them at home. Brussels and Paris and in the United States in Boston and San Bernardino to mention a few, the hybrid war gets real expensive. These costs are rarely measured or questioned. We are also not measuring the cost of freedoms are giving up. Add in the cost of the cyber war…..well….going back much earlier than 9-11-01 the costs cannot be calculated.
DailyBeast: Every European who flies frequently knows the airport in Zaventem, has spent time in the ticketing area that was strewn with blood, limbs, broken glass, battered luggage and other wreckage.
It was another attack on aviation that pulled the United States into the conflict sometimes known as the “global war on terror” in the first place. Since then, airports and airplanes have remained a constant target for Islamic militants, with travelers being encumbered by new batches of security measures after each new attack or attempt.
After the ex-con Richard Reid managed to sneak a bomb aboard a transatlantic flight in December 2001, but failed to detonate the explosives, American passengers were forced to start removing their shoes on their way through security. After British authorities foiled a 2006 plot in which terrorists planned to bring liquid explosives hidden in sport drink bottles aboard multiple transatlantic flights, authorities strictly limited the quantity of liquids passengers were allowed to carry. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab snuck explosives hidden in his underwear onto a flight on Christmas Day 2009, he ushered in full-body scans and intrusive pat-downs.
Those are the misses. There have been hits, too. In August 2004, two female Chechen suicide bombers, so-called “black widows,” destroyed two domestic Russian flights. In January 2011, a suicide bomber struck Moscow’s Domodedovo airport in an attack that looked almost identical to the one that rocked the airport in Brussels: the bomber struck just outside the security cordon, where the airport is transformed from a “soft” target to a “hard” one. Just months ago, the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS)—the perpetrator of the Brussels attacks—destroyed a Russian passenger jet flying out of Egypt’s Sinai, killing 224 people.
The targeting of airports and airplanes has been so frequent that in lighter times—back when the terrorists seemed so much worse at what they do—some pundits openly mocked their continuing return to airplanes and airports. In one representative discussion from early 2010, a well-known commentator described jihadists as having a “sort of schoolboy fixation” with aviation.
But the reason for this targeting, of course, is neither mysterious nor quixotic, and it’s one the jihadists have explained for themselves. Following the November Paris attacks, ISIS released an infographic boasting that its slaughter on the streets of Paris would force Belgium “to strengthen its security measures … which will cost them tens of millions of dollars.” Moreover, the group claimed, “the intensified security measures and the general state of unease will cost Europe in general and France in specific tends of billions of dollars due to the resulting decrease in tourism, delayed flights, and restrictions on freedom of movement and travel between European countries.”
And that was before the group successfully attacked the Brussels airport, despite those costly new security measures.
Even before 9/11, jihadists saw bleeding the American economy as the surest path to defeating their “far enemy.” When Osama bin Laden declared war against the “Jews and crusaders” in 1996, he emphasized that jihadist strikes should be coupled with an economic boycott by Saudi women. Otherwise, the Muslims would be sending their enemy money, “which is the foundation of wars and armies.”
Indeed, when bin Laden first had the opportunity to publicly explain what the 9/11 attacks had accomplished, in an October 2001 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Taysir Allouni, he emphasized the costs that the attacks imposed on the United States. “According to their own admissions, the share of the losses on the Wall Street market reached 16 percent,” he said. “The gross amount that is traded in that market reaches $4 trillion. So if we multiply 16 percent with $4 trillion to find out the loss that affected the stocks, it reaches $640 billion of losses.” He told Allouni that the economic effect was even greater due to building and construction losses and missed work, so that the damage inflicted was “no less than $1 trillion by the lowest estimate.”
In his October 2004 address to the American people, dramatically delivered just before that year’s elections, bin Laden noted that the 9/11 attacks cost Al Qaeda only a fraction of the damage inflicted upon the United States. “Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event,” he said, “while America in the incident and its aftermath lost—according to the lowest estimates—more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million dollars.”
Al Qaeda fit the wars the United States had become embroiled in after 9/11 into its economic schema. In that same video, bin Laden explained how his movement sought to suck the United States and its allies into draining wars in the Muslim world. The mujahedin “bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt,” bin Laden said, and they would now do the same to the United States.
Just prior to 2011, there was a brief period when jihadism appeared to be in decline. Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group that later became ISIS, had all but met with defeat at the hands of the United States and local Sunni uprisings. Successful attacks were few and far between.
Valentin Bianchi/AP
Representative of those dark times for jihadists, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released a special issue of its online magazine Inspire celebrating a terrorist attack that claimed no victims. In October 2010, jihadists were able to sneak bombs hidden in printer cartridges onto two cargo planes. Due to strong intelligence efforts, authorities disabled both bombs before they were set to explode, but the group drew satisfaction from merely getting them aboard the planes.
“Two Nokia phones, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us,” the lead article in that special issue of Inspire boasted. “On the other hand this supposedly ‘foiled plot’, as some of our enemies would like to call [it], will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures.” The magazine warned that future attacks will be “smaller, but more frequent”—an approach that “some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts.”
The radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, writing in Inspire, explained the dilemma that he saw gripping Al Qaeda’s foes. “You either spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package in the world,” he wrote, “or you do nothing and we keep trying again.”
Even in those days when the terrorist threat loomed so much smaller, the point was not a bad one. Security is expensive, and driving up costs is one way jihadists aim to wear down Western economies.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda’s envisioned world of smaller but more frequent attacks proved unnecessary for the jihadists. Less than two months after the special issue of Inspire appeared that celebrated an at best half-successful attack, the revolutionary events that we then knew as the “Arab Spring” sent shockwaves through the Middle East and North Africa.
This instability would help jihadism reach the current heights to which it has ascended, where the attacks are not only more frequent but larger. Unfortunately, the United States—blinded at the time by the misguided belief that revolutions in the Arab world would devastate the jihadist movement—pursued policies that hastened the region’s instability. The damages wrought by these policies are still not fully appreciated.
As it watches these two sets of foes exhaust each other, Al Qaeda believes that its comparative patience will pay off. It believes that its own time will come.
CR: As Americans ominously observe the raging fire of suicidal immigration policies implemented by our European friends across the pond, one of the first questions on their minds is: how many of these Islamic radicals have been admitted to our country? The answer is we don’t even know how many people in total have come to our country since 2013 because the Department of Homeland Security has refused to publish that data or make it available to Congress.
It is already March 2016, yet the public and members of Congress still do not have any of the immigration data for 2014, much less 2015.
While data on refugees can be pulled from the State Department’s database (when it is working) and information on some non-immigrant visas can be pulled from the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, the public is in the dark as to the number of people who have been granted green cards in total (and the breakdown by country) without access to the annual “Yearbook on Immigration Statistics” from the Department of Homeland Security.
It is already March 2016, yet the public and members of Congress still do not have any of the immigration data for 2014, much less 2015. Typically, the statistics are published during the spring of the following year. The release of data has gotten progressively slower since the INS was restructured into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, but the Obama administration has consistently stonewalled on publishing data. For example, it wasn’t until last week that HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement published its 2014 report on refugees. But even Obama’s DHS had the 2013 data posted by June of 2014. Why is there still no data on 2014 two years later?
With evidence from Census data indicating a surge in immigration overall and a spike in immigration from the Middle East, why is it that in a first world country we don’t even know how many people have come in since the advent of ISIS? Given the terrorism threats and the growing population from the Middle East, wouldn’t it be nice to know how many people from predominantly Muslim countries have been granted green cards over the past two years?
Given the influx of Central American illegal immigrants, shouldn’t we know how many were granted asylum and how many children were granted Special Immigrants Juvenile Status, which leads to a pathway to citizenship?
Given Obama’s unprecedented move of advertising and recruiting immigrants to become naturalized citizens last year, shouldn’t we know how many have signed up and from where they originated?
The notion that even members of Congress don’t know the details of who is being added to our civil society until two years later is patently absurd and dangerous. Congress should have the full reports the following year and topline data every month.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough members of Congress who care enough to exercise proper oversight over this administration’s violation of our sovereignty.
John Kerry and Barack Obama finally declared ‘genocide’ with regard to Islamic State but why stop with ISIS? What about Bashir al Assad but mostly what about Mahmoud Abbas? For the Obama White House, Iran certainly does not matter either.
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. Full speech here.
What is worse a war, nuclear weapon or genocide? Dead is dead.
May: In the Yemeni port city of Aden earlier this month, Islamists attacked a Catholic home for the indigent elderly. The militants, believed to be soldiers of the Islamic State, shot the security guard, then entered the facility where they gunned down the old people and their care-givers, including four nuns. At least 16 people were murdered. Such atrocities are no longer seen as major news events. Most diplomats regard them – or dismiss them — as “violent extremism,” a phrase that describes without explaining. On America’s campuses, “activists” are deeply concerned about “trigger warnings” and “microaggressions.” Massacres of Christians in Muslim lands, by contrast, seem to trouble them not at all. More here.
Sure they do get it right on Islamic State, when Germany is forecasted as a future target as a matter of sampling.
Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BfV), warned that the Islamic State was deliberately planting jihadists among the refugees flowing into Europe, and reported that the number of Salafists in Germany has now risen to 7,900. This is up from 7,000 in 2014 and 5,500 in 2013.
“Salafists want to establish an Islamic state in Germany.” — Hans-Georg Maaßen, director, BfV, German intelligence.
More than 800 German residents — 60% of whom are German passport holders — have joined the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Of these, roughly one-third have returned to Germany. — Federal Criminal Police Office.
Up to 5,000 European jihadists have returned to the continent after obtaining combat experience on the battlefields of the Middle East. — Rob Wainwright, head of Europol.
Going back to 2013: BBC: UN implicates Bashar al-Assad in Syria war crimes, “The UN’s human rights chief has said an inquiry has produced evidence that war crimes were authorised in Syria at the “highest level”, including by President Bashar al-Assad. It is the first time the UN’s human rights office has so directly implicated Mr Assad. Commissioner Navi Pillay said her office held a list of others implicated by the inquiry. The UN estimates more than 100,000 people have died in the conflict.”
None of the names have the record or reputation of Justice Scalia. Changing the balance of the Supreme Court is in fact in jeopardy. If all the Justices had the resolve and dedication to the historical spirit of the Constitution as did Scalia. If they did….final opinions and decisions would have been quite different and America would not be angry with a branch of government.
FreeBeacon: The family of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has donated only to Democratic campaigns.
Garland, the current Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, does not appear to have ever donated to political parties, candidates, or causes.
However, his wife and daughter have contributed only to Democrats.
Merrick married his wife, Lynn Rosenman, in 1987. In September 1992, Lynn made a $200 donation to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Services Corporation.
One month after the donation, Merrick provided assistance to Bill Clinton for a presidential debate. This information appeared on a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, the Washington Free Beaconreported Thursday.
“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988,” Garland wrote of his political activity. “I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974.”
Merrick’s daughter, Rebecca, has also made at least one donation to a Democratic politician.
Rebecca made a $500 contribution to Elizabeth for Massachusetts, the campaign committee of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), in December 2011.
The New York Timeswrote that if Garland is confirmed, it would result in the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.
Gun rights proponents have said that Garland should not be confirmed because of his record opposing gun rights as a federal judge, the Free Beaconreported Wednesday.
The Beacon also reported that Garland generally sides with labor regulators at the expense of businesses.
Juanita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said that her group has “great concerns” about Garland’s record of siding with government regulators.
TruthRevolt: President Obama has whittled down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to five — four of whom have donated to his own political campaigns.
According to the Free Beacon, the five federal judges to be interviewed for the position include:
Sri Srinivasan (who has donated $4,250 to Obama), Jane Kelly ($1,500 to Obama), Paul Watford ($1,000 to Obama), Ketanji Brown Jackson ($450 to Obama), and Merrick Garland, who has not donated to Obama.
None of the judges are major political donors and the contributions made to Obama account for the majority of each judge’s political giving. The donation from Jackson is the only federal political contribution she made that was large enough to be included in election filings.
Jackson’s donation, according to FB, can be explained by the fact that she worked as an attorney for the Obama 2008 campaign:
On her official questionnaire filed with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee she disclosed that she “was an election poll monitor for both the primary and general elections on behalf of Lawyers for Change, Obama for America Presidential Campaign.”
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, reaffirmed the senate’s vow that none of the president’s nominees will be confirmed:
“Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn’t getting confirmed. Everybody. The White House knows it. Senate Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the press knows it,” Grassley said during a committee hearing on Thursday.
Still, one wonders what Obama thinks is to be gained by putting forth candidates who have financially contributed to his past campaigns.
Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 1997 and chief judge since 2013, didn’t earn any income on top of his judicial salary in 2014, according to the most recent financial disclosure report that he filed last year. He didn’t report any outside income the previous two years.
If he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court, Garland would get a pay bump. As of 2016, federal appeals judge earned $215,400. Associates justices earned $249,300.
Related: Read Garland’s financial reports filed in 2013, 2014 and 2015
His reimbursed travel from 2012 to 2014 was limited to one or two trips annually to Harvard Law School, his alma mater, and Yale Law School. He participated in moot courts and career forums.
Garland reported no gifts, no financial agreements and no financial liabilities. He serves on the board of directors of the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit, but he holds no other positions with nonprofits, private companies or other organizations.
Garland’s financial holdings include a mix of bank accounts, trusts, brokerage accounts and IRAs. Judges don’t report the precise value of their accounts, stocks and other assets, but instead list a range. They must report their own investments as well as those of a spouse and any dependent children, and the reports don’t specify which holdings are joint or individual.
He is also very PRO-labor: In nearly two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Merrick Garland has rarely ruled against the National Labor Relations Board. But when he has overturned NLRB’s decisions, departing from his typical deference to federal agencies, he has done so to the benefit of labor unions.
The month before Scalia’s death, the high court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could decide whether public-sector employees can be required to pay union fees.
After arguments in January, the U.S. Supreme Court was seen as leaning 5-4 against labor. But Garland’s appointment to the court would likely flip the court. And if Garland has an opportunity to rule on the case, his vote could give a victory to the California Teachers Association and confidence to public-sector unions concerned that the decision could jeopardize future revenue from dues.
Since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined roll call votes to help identify which members of Congress have defended taxpayer interests and which have backed down on their promises of fiscal responsibility. The Ratings separate the praiseworthy from the profligate by evaluating important tax, spending, transparency, and accountability measures. CCAGW applauds those members of Congress who stood up for taxpayers and ignored the temptations of satisfying local or special interests. However, those who supported a big-government agenda should be prepared to face the consequences for their spendthrift behavior.
CCAGW’s 2015 Congressional Ratings, for the first session of the 114th Congress, scored 100 votes in the House of Representatives and 35 votes in the Senate. By comparison, CCAGW rated 85 votes in the House of Representatives and 13 votes in the Senate in the second session of the 113th Congress.
CCAGW rates members on a 0-100% scale. Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19% Hostile; 20-39% Unfriendly; 40-59% Lukewarm; 60-79% Friendly; 80-99% Taxpayer Hero; and 100% Taxpayer Super Hero.
HOUSE AND SENATE BREAKDOWN
In 2015, 17 lawmakers (15 senators and two representatives) earned the coveted title of Taxpayer Super Hero by achieving the highest possible score of 100 percent: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.), as well as Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).
In 2014, 17 lawmakers (nine senators and eight representatives) received a perfect score.
There are 36 Taxpayer Heroes in the Senate, an increase of 57 percent from the 23 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014. In 2015, there are 152 Taxpayer Heroes in the House of Representatives, two more than the 150 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014.
On the other end of the spectrum, 26 representatives had a score of zero and 25 senators had a score of zero. In 2014, one representative had a score of zero and 30 senators had a score of zero.
The first session of the 114th Congress was the first time since 2007 that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. As a result, there were many more victories on behalf of taxpayers than in prior years, but numerous amendments to cut wasteful spending even further were defeated.
VICTORIES
House
Repeal of Obamacare. H.R. 596, which would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, passed by a vote of 239-186.
Elimination of Duplicative Climate Change Programs. During consideration of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Ca.) offered an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for the Government Accountability Office to identify certain overlapping climate science-related initiatives. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 187-236.
Repeal of the Medical Device Tax. H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015, which would repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax included in Obamacare, passed by a vote of 280-140.
Congressional Approval of “Major Rules.” H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015, which would require Congress to approve all regulatory proposals with an economic impact greater than $100 million (“major rules”), passed by a vote of 243-165.
Senate
Elimination of the Federal Estate Tax. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) offered an amendment to eliminate the federal estate tax. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 54-46.
Solar Panel Rebates. During consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to establish a rebate program for individuals and businesses for the purchase and installation of solar panels on residential and commercial properties. The amendment failed by a vote of 40-58.
Obamacare for Members of Congress. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment to compel all members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and all political appointees to obtain their health insurance on the individual healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 52-46.
LOSSES
House
Prohibiting Federal Employment for Delinquent Tax Debt. H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, would make existing and future federal employees with “delinquent tax debt” ineligible for employment with the federal government. The bill was rejected by a vote of 266-160 (284 votes were needed for passage).
Across-the-Board Cuts to Appropriations Bills. There were seven amendments in the Ratings to make across-the-board spending reductions in appropriations bills, but they all failed. For example, during consideration of H.R. 2028, the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent across the board was rejected by a vote of 159-248.
Essential Air Service (EAS). During consideration of H.R. 2577, the FY 2016 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to eliminate funding for the EAS. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 166-255.
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization. The Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 597, passed in the House by a vote of 313-118. This vote, along with several amendments related to the Export-Import Bank, are included in the Ratings, as CCAGW has long opposed this corporate welfare program.
Senate
Keystone XL Pipeline Veto Override. After the House and Senate voted to approve the Keystone project, the Senate failed to override the president’s veto by a vote of 62-37, five votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.
Repeal the Individual Mandate in Obamacare. During consideration of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment to repeal the individual mandate in Obamacare. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-45 (60 votes were needed for passage).
Repeal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). During consideration of H.R. 1314, Trade Promotion Authority, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to eliminate the extension of the TAA program. The amendment failed by a vote of 35-63.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
CCAGW also analyzed ratings based on party affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee.
The averages were: Senate Republicans – 93 percent, up 8 percentage points from 85 percent in 2014; Senate Democrats, including Independents – 5 percent, unchanged from 2014; House Republicans – 82 percent, down 2 percentage points from 84 percent in 2014; House Democrats – 4 percent, down 5 percentage points from 9 percent in 2014; House Republican Study Committee – 86 percent, down 1 percentage point from 87 percent in 2014.
CCAGW congratulates the members who stood by taxpayers and championed fiscal responsibility throughout the first session of the 114th Congress and encourages the constituents of the non-Heroes to demand better results in the 2016 election and beyond.
