[Nfbmo] FW: Reply from Senator McCaskill

DanFlasar at aol.com DanFlasar at aol.com
Fri Apr 1 22:08:35 UTC 2011

    Your subject line gave away the game.  It looks  like campaign screed 
to me, but in all honesty, it's really no different from  those I received 
from Sen. Kit Bond and Sen. Jim Talent.   I don't  recall what I received from 
Sen. Jean Carnahan since she was in such a short  time.
    But I have to admit that Sen. Bond at least comes to see  us every time 
we come to DC, sits down with us and gives us a relatively  straight 
answer.  I find this surprising and gratifying because his general  politics and 
mine are so far apart.  I wasn't surprised at  the boiler-plate from Talent 
and Bond because I didn't expect much from  them.  I guess that since I share 
more political views w/ Sen. McCaskill, I  am as dismayed by her lack of 
contact - either in DC or by email - as I was  grateful for Sen. Bond's 
     Speaking personally, I hope she 'gets it'  soon.  I think it's clear 
to me why Bond wins so easily and it isn't  entirely due to his political 
In a message dated 4/1/2011 4:58:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
GWunder at earthlink.net writes:

Can anyone  guess, from this response I've just received, what it was I was
writing to  the senator about? I remember 25 years ago getting a tremendous
laugh at a  meeting of the Board of Directors when I'd read a letter from  a
little-known one-term state representative that went something like  this:

Dear Mr. Wunder:

Thank you very much for writing me to  express your views about this issue
which is of so much importance to you.  Please be assured that I always
welcome whatever my constituents have to  say and I will keep your views in
mind if and when you're issue comes  before the House of Representatives for
a vote.

Please be assured  that my door is always open in my attempt to be 
to your needs.  Again I thank you for writing me about this issue which is 
the utmost  importance to you.

I wonder if there is much difference between that  letter and the one you
will see below? Frankly I am surprised. I am  reminded of the days when I
would correspond with Sen. John Danforth and  his letter would either say I
support this, I haven't yet made up my mind,  or I oppose this but 
your opinion just the same. I also remember  dialogue which led to his
changing his position on at least one occasion  and the changing of my own
position on another. I'm not sure this letter  will lead to any kind of
dialogue. I welcome your comments.


From: senator at mccaskill.senate.gov  [mailto:senator at mccaskill.senate.gov] 
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 4:34  PM
To: gwunder at earthlink.net
Subject: Reply from Senator  McCaskill

April 1, 2011

Dear Mr. Wunder,

Thank you  for contacting me regarding your priorities for the federal
budget.  I  have heard from many Missourians about the funding of various
federal  programs during the current debate on our budget.  Your input  is
valuable to me as Republicans and Democrats attempt to negotiate  a
compromise to complete a spending bill that will fund the government for  
rest of the year.

I am extremely concerned about the federal  deficit and debt, and I have 
working to rein in both since I came to  the Senate four years ago.  
the deficit is going to require  holding down spending across the board, in
addition to eliminating  loopholes and distortions in the tax code.  I am
proud of my work with  Republican Senators Jeff Sessions (AL) and Bob Corker
(TN) seeking to put  in place sensible spending caps, as well as the many
other efforts I have  pursued, such as fighting to enact pay-as-you-go
spending rules, which are  now law.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in Congress have proposed  to reduce 
deficit by focusing nearly exclusively on the 12% of the  federal budget 
comprises non-security discretionary spending.   This is the portion of the
budget that funds roads, schools, hospitals, and  housing.  In February,
Republicans in the House of Representatives  passed a bill, H.R. 1, that
would cut $60 billion from non-security  spending in 2011.

H.R. 1 was neither realistic nor responsible, and it  was simply too narrow.
It would have imposed unsustainable cuts on many  programs that are vital to
hard-working Missourians and Missouri  communities.  Massive cuts included 
the bill to the Social Security  Administration would actually increase the
deficit in the long run because  it would reduce resources to fight fraud.

I firmly believe that we need  to reduce federal spending and, in fact,
opposed an alternative to H.R. 1  that was proposed that failed to 
restrain spending.  The  reality is that very few programs will see funding
increases this year, and  any increases will be offset by cuts elsewhere in
the budget.   However, I will not support the gutting of vital programs as
the House  suggested.

As someone who has been focused on addressing  our federal budget crisis
since I came to the Senate, I welcome the renewed  focus on government
spending.  I know that Missourians recognize that  addressing the deficit
will require shared sacrifice and compromise, and  that it cannot be a
process driven by ideology.

Again, thank you for  contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in
the future if I can  be of further assistance to you on this or any  other



Claire McCaskill
United  States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources  that can help
Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf,  please sign 
for my email newsletter at  www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  

More information about the NFBMO mailing list