Roll call vote: Senate rejects Cash-for-Clunkers aid to charities and poor
Thought you be interested in this roll call vote on Sen. Tom Coburn’s proposal to allow traded-in Cash-for-Clunkers cars to be used to assist charities and poor families. Here’s the text of the proposal:
SA 2304. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3435, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SECTION __X. ASSISTANCE TO CHARITIES AND FAMILIES IN NEED.
Section 1302 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1909; 49 U.S.C. 32901 note) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting “or for donation to a charity”; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2)–
(A) in subparagraph (A), strike “For each” and insert “Except as provided in subparagraph (C), for each”;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (B) the following:
“(C) DONATION TO CHARITY.–For each eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer may dispose of such vehicle by donating such vehicle to–
“(i) an organization that–
“(I) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, including educational institutions, health care providers, and housing assistance providers described in such section; and
“(II) certifies to the Secretary that the donated vehicle will be used by the organization to further its exempt purpose or function, including to provide transportation of individuals for health care services, education, employment, general use, or other purpose relating to the provision of assistance to those in need, including sales to raise financial support for the organization; or
“(ii) a family that does not have sufficient income to afford, but can demonstrate a need for, an automobile.”.
Who could be against such an amendment? 56 Senators who torpedoed Sen. Coburn’s proposal. Here’s the breakdown:
***
Meanwhile: Senate clears $2 billion “clunkers” extension.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Galling, Appalling Waste of “Cash for Clunkers” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- “Cash for Clunkers” Complicated, Money Running Out: Mark Levin Asks, “If This Simple Program Is So Complicated, What Will Happen with Government Running Health Care?” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Democrats Say Clunkers Not to Be Used For Charities or the Poor | Political Lipskip
- A Small Corner of Sanity - An Online Oasis for Conservative Thought
- Michelle Malkin » Roll call vote: Senate rejects Cash-for-Clunkers … | Cash For Clunkers
- Quick Hits: Sotomayor, Clunkers, Barack Wilson, Liberty Candidates, and Random Thoughts :: Liberty Maven
- Senate Sellout!! - The Grumpy Republican
- Senate Sellout!! - Grumpy Republican Blog-Backup site
- Truth v. The Machine » Archives » Kloubachar and Franken vs. The Poor
- And the Wheels of the Clunker Go Thunk, Thunk, Thunk: “Cash for Clunkers” Ending… Again « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Holy Mackerel… Cash for Appliances? Son of ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program Could Be Another Clunker « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Politics
Legal Insurrection
» Yes, It Really Is That Bad
Riehl World View
» Burka Barbie w/ Western Outfits And Removable Head?Stop The ACLU
» It’s Burkha Barbie! No, Seriously. I’m Not Kidding. ReallyWeekly Standard
» Beamer: Why'd Obama Recuse Himself on Terror Trials?AmSpecBlog
» Elsewhere in the Enviro-Activist MediasphereNewsBusters.org
» Tax Increase Campaign Item 3: Wars Cost Money And Rich Must Pay, MI Senator Levin Tells Bloomberg
Wow. How telling. But I’m sure the Dems had a PERFECTLY good reason for voting against the measure. /sarc
Coburn wants to out these hypocrital democrats and show them for what they are. His tatics are working. Not bad for a redneck from Oklahoma.
It’s obvious they care nothing about the poor. Only about power.
What a waste. I can’t believe these losers.
Another proof bi-partisanship is dead and buried in our so called congress. Good to see our Mississippi Senators came down on the right side.
Obama declaring the angry right terrorist and sending them to jail in 3..2..1…
(I’m not kidding)
Proof that dim’s care nothing about poor and charities. They just want power.
Something else Coburn said. This money is about buying cars. What if a family doesn’t need a car, but needs a new refrigerator. Why can’t they use that money for that purpose?
Maybe one those trolls that pass by here every so often can enlighten us on the reasoning behind this. They seem to sooo intune with the democrap mindset.
because that wouldn’t serve the UAW
From the angle of conserving and recycling—
I have always said that many people are naturally conservationsists and for recycling/reusing where possible…not just the fraud “greenies” we have making money of environmentalism today.
My parents (of the depression & WWII generation) are the best at taking care of their things and reusing even the least little nail or screw if need be.
They know how to conserve and reuse for their own good and the good of our land.
I say all of that because if you are a truly into conserving, reuse, and not wasting what you have, you would be all for reissuing these “clunkers” to charity groups so that can use them in whatever way they see fit.
But every NO vote (except one R and one I) to Coburn’s amendment is a Democrat….you know, the one’s for recycling and saving the environment.
Clearly shows that conserving is just a way to get power for them and not truly about conserving at all. They are not consistent on the issue unless it brings them power in some way.
Also shows how cold-hearted they are towards charity in this country.
They think they can do better.
This is just one more thing that makes me sick about our government this week! (& every week since January)
Oh…thanks to Tom Coburn for trying and for outing the hypocrites in the bunch!
They’re destroying some perfectly good vehicles that could be a boon to some poor family. What if one of those vehicles was My Mother The Czar?!
Well now if this didn’t part the veil on the motivations of these people.
Hey another question to ask your Senator at the next town hall.
“Senator, why did you oppose this amendment that would have helped charities and the poor?”
Watch the puppet dance.
They should have noted that the cars could have gone to ACORN! The Dems would have voted for that!
The purpose of the legislation is to get these gas guzzling high-polluting cars off the road so we can protect our national security right? Fail
I think we see now that the true intention is prop up Government Motors and the auto industry.
Good political move on the Senate Republicans to get this vote on record.
These are the recyclers right?
Morons.
Another sad day for our Republic. The democrats who “rule” are heartless.
I see that idiot Kudlow now thinks that Cash-for-clunkers is a good think. He must have fallen off the wagon again. The dems sure know how to roll..
Step 1- UAW takes members dues and campaigns for dems.
Step 2- Tax payers bails out the UAW who now own big part of the auto industry.
step 3- Tax payers give people $4500 to buy cars from the UAW.
step 4- Perfectly good cars are destroyed.
Step 5- The UAW uses this $4500 from tax payers to help elect dems in the next election.
Pretty obvious this was a pay off to the UAW.
Once again, Florida cancels its’ vote out!
Nelson (d) – understandable – He’s a (d)
Martinez (R-ino) – voted right on the little stuff, to no avail.
Martinez needs Michelle to share some of her “Malkins” on the big stuff!
Cash for Clunkers gets recharged!
So I assume oil prices will come crashing down tomorrow!
Right? Right? Right?
The rejection of this amendment stinks!
1. The program isn’t helping the environment at all.
2. The program isn’t reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
3. I hate seeing videos of those cars being destroyed for no reason!
I thought they wanted to redistribute the wealth to help the poor. Guess not. So toss the poor and charities under the bus. I doubt that any of them care about the environment either, since it is just another excuse to raise taxes. This just stinks. None of these people care about any Americans.
The Feds will get my 80s model 30 mph diesel Mercedes when they pry it from my cold, dead hand…
*facepalm*
The only thing that this congress is interested in, is votes from the poor, not helping them. Oh, the liberals campaign and talk of programs to “help” the poor, but it’s all empty promises. The poor, now, are worse off than they were in the ’50s. They keep voting for the promises that never come. Every election, it’s the same thing. Meanwhile, the poor end up worse off, under the thumb of “government programs”, like welfare and dumb-downed schools. Charity gets cars to help the poor? Oh, no. Can’t have that.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Don’t worry about the poor. When thy cant afford a car that they would have been able to afford before CFC, the gov’t will just create a new program, say 2 billion to buy them cars. Then they will loose a billion and spend another 4 billion to fix it.
As I said Saturday on another thread here, The car I had my eye on for an upgrade went from $2200 to $4200, faster than you can blink…takes care of me upgrading, thanks to the Giverment. I’m surely the only one effective like that.
/sar.
Some of us “poor” have more self-respect than to take giverment hand outs.
I do see your sarcasm referring to government waste. Could very well happen with these clowns in office at the present.
I would like to see some real facts that demonstrate how many dollars were spent to save each mile per gallon. It appears that some of the cars turned in and some of those purchased do not have that much of a delta in the mpg rating. Just another way to waste other people’s money (oh yeah, and to keep those UAW contracts afloat).
This is also a bit unseemly in that the only people who can afford the new cars either have great credit or cash on hand. Many who have clunkers don’t have the means to trade in and move up.
It’s because they are against charities. Charities get in the way of government programs, is what Obama thinks. Instead, charities provide the services government can’t do, often with government money.
Obama seems them as the enemy.
My stupid senators Snowe and Collins sided with the dimrats? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Notice…the most vocal of the “Bleeding Heart” liberals, ya know, Boxer, Conrad, Cantwell, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Kerry, Kohl, Murray, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, all voted “No.” In order to get “aye” votes from these classless neer-do-wells, one would have to slip in an Abortion amendment, and do it in the dark of night.
They really DO want people to rely on government for EVERYTHING. Besides, any money from the CFC program that would benefit the poor, or charities, is less money that would be available to pay off or enrich the members of congress, their friends, families, cronies, and unionistas.
Yeah…call me cynical….
It would be nice if your state Republican party gave those two the boot or at least force a lawsuit to have the R removed after their names and replaced with a “?”
Just sayin’…
We don’t need Dr. Utopia’s Ism.
Newsflash: The terms “Republican” and “conservative” are not congruent. There are only a handful of folks with an “R” next to his name whose arguments are actually based upon that long-forgotten ancient writing called United States Constitution. Just sayin’…
They do. But the wealth must go through their sticky liberal hands first, some of wealth slipping into their own pockets.
Oh, go on, put the “D” there, they are more comfortable with that crowd anyway. They should at least get no funding from the the RNC and RNSC.
Is this not enough for folks to at least consider a 3rd party? If not this, then what would be?
HA! I’ll see your three stupids, and raise you three more.
Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid.
Another all-time dumb-ass congressional brain fart.
I can’t support the no votes, it makes me sick.
Please report my feelings to flag@whitehouse .gov
They’re so worried about the poor having healthcare, but what good will it do if they have no means of getting themselves to the doctor?
the dems don’t want people to support charities unless they are FORCED.
Looking at BHO’s tax returns – my family who makes well under 100K gave a larger percentage and one year even gave more CASH than he did.
they are pathetic.
Matt, not quite. Easily fixed. The middle class and higher will be purchasing new cars for poor people and we will also be paying for their insurance.
See how this works?!
Dnc all i can say is waa! Flag my kansas butt.
Pathetic that my two moronic senators voted no on this amendment. I plan to give them an ear-full. Not that they care. They’re just part of the liberal machine. That’s all that matters to them.
And great job Sen. Coburn. This would have been a very good thing had it passed, but even in it’s demise, it sheds more light on the dark, soul-less leftist democrats in the senate.
Ten reasons for “nay”:
10. The auto industry doesn’t get to reap benefits when old cars get fixed. Except for auto parts stores and salvage yards and auto mechanics and private owners and used car dealers—y’know, nobody.
9. Barack Obama doesn’t care about charitable people. (Mike Myers suddenly looks uncomfortable, steers conversation in other direction.)
8. You know how much scrap metal is going for these days? The money from all that scrap will fix our deficit woes in no time.
7. The plan is to use the old cars for creating a protective coral reef around Martha’s Vineyard, stimulating the local diving economy. Duh.
6. Fewer used cars means more money in remaining used car sellers’ pockets, a boon for that neighbor down the block with twelve cars—never the same ones for very long—taking up your parking space…
5. AAA will get to you faster now.
4. Obama wants to give rednecks free attractive shells to replace the old, ugly, rusty shells on their lawns which have been out there for, like, twenty years now. Is there no end to his generosity?
3. This encourages charities to turn in all their used cars for new ones. Makes working on them a lot easier.
2. The amendment did not include eligibility for MTV’s Pimp My Ride.
1. ACORN doesn’t like to share.
When I said “ten,” I didn’t necessarily mean “top ten.”
This makes for an easy call, “Why does Senator John F’n Kerry hate poor people? Many of those poor people need a car to get to their stimulus job. Many need a car to transport sick relatives to ER’s for free care. For some, owning a car will help lift their spirit of hope to drive away and escape their gloomy life of dependency.”
Well… if these drivable vehicles cannot go to poor people then can we at least get one good demolition derby out of them?
Once again Collins and Snowe show their true colors.
Hellooo? Maine Republicans? Can you stop electing Dems in Rep clothing?
Hey Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich – TAKE A HINT FROM ARLEN!
Speaking of George Voinovich, it’s a good thing he’s retiring next year – he wants to start a new Civil War.
Turns out that story about Congress buying itself three luxury jets was completely and totally false.
It’s actually eight jets.
B-b-but… I thought it was the Republicans who hate poor people… that’s what people keep telling me… SIGH… it’s just getting so hard to keep up with this stuff these days…
Seriously though, what possible reason could one have for saying “No, I don’t think those vehicles should be donate-able…” Cars make it easier for people to go to work– aren’t we trying to ease unemployment and stimulate the economy?
Kayne West, George W Bush doesn’t care about Black People…
The Democrat Party doesn’t care about Poor People.
Now we just need a person to go on video….where’s Zoe?
Gee, guys. Oil prices are still above $70.
I guess the oil speculators don’t think cash-for-clunkers will reduce oil demand.