Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Are Local Representatives Protecting San Diego Interests?

Are Local Representatives Protecting San Diego Interests?

By Lucas Eaves

3-minute read

US Capitol Building

In the final voting session before the election break, Congress saw its fair share of partisanship and finger pointing. In the voting record, three of the four votes fell strictly down party lines for San Diego representation. The fourth vote, a six month stopgap, was approved by all San Diegan representatives. San Diego residents have three Republicans and two Democrats representing them. Are local representatives protecting San Diego interests?

A Six Month Stopgap (HJ Res 117)

Passing with a large majority, both the House and the Senate passed a measure to fund the government for the first six months of Fiscal Year 2013 at an annual rate of $1.047 trillion. This number may seem large, which it is, as it is more than the 2012 spending levels. This stopgap measure is necessary because Congress has failed to enact any of the twelve regular appropriations bills for the Fiscal Year that began on October 1.

What does this bill mean for the American people? Federal workers will not see a pay raise anytime soon because wages will be frozen for a third consecutive year. However, there is a major increase in funds to process claims for disabled veterans. Furthermore, Congress has also increased funds for initiatives to fight wildfires, modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and provide further security for federal computer systems.

All five San Diego representatives voted yes for the passage of this bill.

Government Spy Powers (HR 5949)

The House sent the Senate a bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) through 2017. Here is how this bill affects Americans:

The law authorizes the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance without specific warrants of phone calls, emails, and other contacts between foreigners that pass through telecommunication switching points in the US. The key to this part of the bill is the word foreigners. The bill does not authorize surveillance of two US citizens communicating. However, the language of the bill does open up to the possibility that communication between citizens and foreigners could be monitored.

The bill also authorizes a secret FISA court to issue blanket warrants for spying on communications between US and foreign locations and continues the requirement that strictly domestic spying on Americans be authorized by the FISA court on a case-by-case basis. On a positive note, any surveillance conducted without a specific warrant that inadvertently picks up communications by an American must be expunged or disregarded. The secret FISA court is made up of current federal judges.

FISA was enacted in 1978 to govern the domestic collection of foreign intelligence with a goal of protecting Americans’ civil liberties. San Diego’s three Republican Representatives, Brian Bilbray, Duncan Hunter, and Darrell Issa, voted to approve this bill while Democrats, Susan Davis and Bob Filner, voted no on it.

Budget Control (HR 6365)

HR 6365 is a Republican initiative directing President Obama to send Congress specific spending cuts to replace the $110 billion in blind, across-the-board cuts in military, foreign-affairs, and domestic spending scheduled for January 2013 under the 2011 Budget Control Act.

The bipartisan deal struck in 2011 that averted a government default required $110 billion in across-the-board cuts as part of the $2.7 trillion in deficit reductions laid out in the bill over ten years. Half of the $110 billion is to come from the Pentagon budget. Majority Leader Eric Cantor believes if the cuts go forward they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term security, including reductions in shipbuilding, aircraft, and missiles; shrinking our current armed forces to levels not seen since the 1930’s.

The vote on the bill was a strict party-line vote with San Diego representatives. Republicans voted for the measure, which passed in the House 223-196. Democrats voted no.

Democratic Alternative to Budget Control

As many would guess, this vote went the complete opposite way of the original Budget Control Bill. This Democratic alternative was the only bill defeated during the week. Democrats purposed the $110 billion in blind cuts come from a combination of tax increases on the wealthy and targeted spending cuts.

The bill would have enacted the so-called “Buffett Rule” which sets a minimum tax rate of thirty percent on households with at least $1 million in income from salaries and/or investments. Furthermore, the bill sought to extend the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000 while allowing them to expire for income over $250,000.

Democrats Susan Davis and Bob Filner supported this measure.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Are Local Representatives Protecting San Diego Interests?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us