webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Bucshon, L Rep 5%

---

an 12 24

Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN) — who is also a doctor — has thoughts on Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Department nominee, RFK Jr.'s, debunked claim that vaccines can cause autism

Speaking with Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN), CNN's Boris Sanchez asked whether these kinds of falsehoods should matter when it comes to nominees for an incoming administration.

"You mentioned that you are a physician," Sanchez said to the Indiana lawmaker. "Donald Trump's pick to lead health and human services — RFJ Jr. — has made a number of comments in the past expressing skepticism over vaccines, alluding to a potential link between vaccines and autism. In your professional opinion, are any of those comments he's made in the past valid? Do you have concerns that a vaccine skeptic is going to lead HHS?"

:{READ MORE:A civil war is brewing between top Trumpworld figures that could affect your future

Boschon replied, "Well, first of all, I don't have any concerns. He needs to make his case in front of the US senate. His past comments and what he might do in the future are two separate things. But the reality is a statement that autism is linked to vaccines has been widely debunked for a long time. In fact, the physician, I think, from Great Britain that put that in a paper and tried to make the connection actually had his license taken away from him because his research was found to be inaccurate. So. those statements are not true. They've been debunked from a medical standpoint for a long time. But I think it's on the nominees to make their case in front of the US Senate and answer those questions in a public forum and see where it goes."

The CNN host then asked, "Do you think senators should support someone that has said things like that in the past — falsehoods about vaccines — to promote them to the top post overseeing the nation's health system?"

Boschon said, "Well, let me tell you, if the US Senate didn't approve of anyone who had made statements in the past that were either factually incorrect, or people didn't have knowledge of the subject they were talking about, you wouldn't have Cabinet secretaries or anybody else confirmed."

The Indiana lawmaker continued, "So I think that it's on the candidate and the nominee to make their case and explain themselves and explain what they've done. I don't have any concerns at all about the nominee until he explains himself, and you don't want to litigate this publicly in the media, you want to see what they have to say in a public forum. So I don't have any concerns depending on the actions of the nominee once they're HHS secretary. but I think it'll be fine. I think that some of the things that are out there that he has said are widely debunked, and I think most people know that."

READ MORE:Trump being sent signals it's 'going to be ugly' if some nominees don't drop out: NBC

---

https://redgreenandblue.org/2019/02/06/71-republicans-house-panels-looking-climate-change-science-denying-numbskulls-data/

71% of Republicans on House panels looking at climate change are science-denying numbskulls (with data!)

Published on February 6th, 2019

TAGGED: BIG OIL, CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE DENIAL, CONGRESS, GOP WAR ON SCIENCE, LOBBYING

There are two kinds of numbskulls: the ignoramus kind and the calculating kind. The first kind truly believes the climate crisis is a hoax. They swallow the fabrications, smears, and other propaganda that the fossil fuel industry and its purchased media, phony think tanks, and congressional puppets have saturated us with for decades. The second kind don’t privately reject what scientific evidence shows is happening with the Earth’s climate; they just choose to publicly adopt the climate-science-denying stance for whatever economic gains and political advantages it offers them.

by

**Meteor Blades**

With a Democratic majority now running the House, both the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s environment subcommittee (with the actual words “climate change” newly added to its name) will begin hearings on the climate crisis Wednesday, both at 10 AM ET.

Twenty-nine Republican numbskulls on these two panels will shower us with their usual denier nonsense. And while the 12 other Republicans assigned to those two panels aren’t quite as stubbornly resistant to the overwhelming evidence of climate change, their environmental voting records are so grotesquely destructive that they might as well be deniers, too. They vote to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; drill everywhere offshore; research “clean coal”; push to keep extracting dirty coal; bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Power Plan and other programs; repeal weatherization funding for low-income people; and on and on, ad nauseam.

Having these Republican representatives officially discussing the climate crisis and questioning witnesses is like appointing people who think the stars are painted on a giant backdrop to run an astronomy conference. None of them has any business even being in the room. There is no sugarcoating their stance: It’s lethal.

And for the past decade they have done everything in their power to block or eviscerate climate-friendly legislation or agency rule-making and to stop any climate hearings from happening at all. Stunning that they think shutting people up about climate change will make it vanish. They won’t be able to shut people up this week, but they will waste time with their own jabber, just as they have used their political clout to waste time in addressing the climate crisis.

[**Related: GOP Rep forces Air Force to DESTROY a new weather satellite. Because climate change.**]

In a moment, we’ll examine the records of these deniers and their Democratic counterparts on the two panels in some detail. Included in this scrutiny are theLeague of Conservation Voters’ lifetime environment scores for each member and information about fossil fuel campaign contributions (coal, oil, and gas) covering the representatives’ entire congressional careers, as calculated by Open Secrets. Deciding whether a representative qualifies as a climate-science denier was achieved by referring to A Guide to the Climate Change Deniers in Congress,the Center for American Progress’s Climate Deniers in the 116th Congress, Mother Jones magazine’s Here Are the Races to Watch if You Care About Global Warming, and my own original research.

But, first, a bit of background.

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, chaired by Democratic Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, has yet to announce who it will invite to its hearing. The Natural Resources Committee has invited seven witnesses to testify: North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper; Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker; Kim Cobb, professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech; Nadia Nazar, co-founder of the Zero Hour movement and co-organizer of the Youth Climate March; Elizabeth Yeampierre, steering committee co-chair for the Climate Justice Alliance; Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus and an advisory board member of the Climate Mobilization; and Paula DiPerna, a special adviser to CDP North America Inc.

We may also learn this week who will serve on the Select Committee on Climate. That body—pushed into existence by representatives and grassroots advocates who favor a “Green New Deal” to accelerate the transformation of the country’s energy, transportation, and agriculture systems—will be chaired by Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida. What its role amid committee turf battles will turn out to be is anyone’s guess. It was gutted in the process of its creation by being barred from issuing subpoenas or drafting legislation, something that hadn’t hampered its predecessor’s work before the Republicans demolished it eight years ago.

How the select committee’s eventual hearings may differ from those of other committees and subcommittees is uncertain. But one thing you can be sure of is that Republican leaders will pack its slots on the select committee with still more deniers. Not a difficult task, since more than 100 of  them taint the House with their idiocy. The more relevant question is how many of the select committee’s Democrats will prove to be climate hawks and climate owls.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Previously known as the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy, the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change has 22 voting members—9 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Half served on the subcommittee in the previous Congress.

One good omen: No Democrat named to the panel challenges the consensus of climatologists that human activity is the chief cause of the accelerating changes threatening to upend civilization, wipe out vast numbers of species on land and sea, and generate titanic destructive forces across every continent. Two definite climate hawks, Rep. Nanette Barragán of California and Rep. Don McEachin of Virginia, are new to the subcommittee, the latter being a vigorous congressional advocate of environmental justice.

The Democrats’ scores are encouraging. It is, however, important to note that positive LCV scores are only one measure of environmental soundness and no guarantee that a member will initiate or stand up for the type of climate policies so desperately needed. Too many Democrats have been footdraggers on climate change. And in practical terms, delay is denial. Will they finally realize that climate disaster isn’t going to wait until the 22nd century to arrive?The League of Conservation Voters scores members of Congress based on how they have voted on a selection of two or three dozen environmental bills and resolutions each year. All but one of the subcommittee’s 13 Democrats have lifetime LCV scores in the mid-to-high 90th percentile, with the only outlier rating a very respectable 89 percent. On the other side, the highest LCV score for subcommittee Republicans is a pitiful 6 percent, except for a non-voting ex officio member who rates 9 percent.

Heading up the subcommittee is ChairmanPaul Tonko, who serves New York’s 20th Congressional District (LCVlifetime score:97%; career fossil fuel campaign contributions:$44,625). Tonko is an aggressive environmental advocate who has introduced or co-sponsored numerous climate- and energy-related bills since he was first elected to Congress a decade ago. It’s true that some of the fiercest climate hawks don’t think he’s gone far enough. For example, many of them oppose the cap-and-trade system he and other environmental advocates favor as the wrong approach at this late date to control pollution emissions. There’s no question, however, that Tonko has been an avid proponentof actions that would ameliorate or eliminate at least some of the negative impacts of climate change.

I ran for Congress in 2008 because our nation did not have a clear energy policy. Our nation and our economy has everything to gain by embracing cleaner fuels and making energy efficiency our fuel of choice. In Congress, I fight against the notion that climate deniers support that we must choose between a green environment and a robust economy. It’s a false choice. I will continue to work to give American businesses the resources they need to tap into the ‘green collar’ job markets of the future and make our nation a global leader on protecting the environment and making it more sustainable for generations to come.

Together with Democrats Rep. Elizabeth Esty and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Tonko introduced the U.S. Green Bank Act of 2017 two years ago: “State Green Banks are becoming increasingly popular as state and local economies work to meet the growing demand for clean energy and energy efficiency financing,” said Tonko at the time. “Our New York Green Bank is a leader in this field and has already delivered more than $350 million to more than two dozen projects in our state. Those projects are expected to generate more than $1 billion combined, helping us advance a more globally competitive, clean energy economy.”

Six states have now established financing institutions of this kind.

The ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, previously its chairman, is John Shimkus (IL-15) (LCVlifetime score: 6%; career fossil fuel campaign donations: $858,561; ranked No. 18 in oil and gas contributions to House candidates in the 2018 campaign). DENIER: While he concedes that the climate is changing, he has adopted the latest iteration of science denial by saying that this is not happening because of humans: “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

Here’s a brief look at at the rest of the subcommittee members, starting with the Republicans.

Republicans:

Democrats

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

Republicans

Greg Walden: (OR-02) Ranking member of committee. (LCVlifetime score: 9%,career fossil fuel campaign contributions: $828,650.) Lousy climate-related voting record.“The emails raise a number of serious questions concerning the transparency and integrity of of U.S.-supported climate research going back more than 10 years.”

Walden was a co-sponsor of the 2011 Energy Tax Prevention Act to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Voted in support of S.J. Res. 24, a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act that would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan—the first nationwide limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and key climate change policy. He may be less direct in dismissing climate change, but his foot-dragging and obfuscation on the issue are no less threatening to the planet. He has voted against clean energy research funding and against acknowledging that climate change is largely human-caused.

Democrats

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Democrats

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources. The committee will begin its month of climate hearings Wednesday morning.

The following two members can introduce legislation and vote in committee but not in the full House. They thus have no LCV scores.

Republicans

The following  two members can introduce legislation and vote in committee but not in the full House. They thus have no LCV scores.

Political action[

Club for Growth Action states that it is “dedicated to a single mission: beating big government politicians” of both parties. The group targets mostly Republicans in primaries and Democrats in the general election.[2]

In February 2013, Club for Growth Action launched a website called “PrimaryMyCongressman.com." Club for Growth president Chris Chocola said the website would "serve as a tool to hold opponents of economic freedom and limited government accountable for their actions.” According to Club for Growth Action, the website will "rotate liberal Republicans through the website to highlight their failed records on limiting government." The first nine targets were Republicans Mike Simpson, Adam Kinzinger, Rick Crawford, Frank Lucas, Steven Palazzo, Martha Roby, Larry Bucshon, Renee Ellmers, and Aaron Schock.[4][5]

The Huffington Post / By Margo T. Oge [1]

Politicians Resort to Pseudoscience to Deny Climate Change

October 21, 2014  |

In 1993, my office at the Environmental Protection Agency released a landmark study [2] that created panic among tobacco industry executives. A result of years of scientific research, the report determined that secondhand smoke was a deadly threat to non-smokers, killing at least 3,000 Americans from lung cancer every year. Cigarette companies were terrified that major regulation would follow.

Today, the report's findings are hardly shocking. The vast majority of Americans understand the risks of second-hand smoke. Over half the states have bans on public smoking. It is, in fact, more incredible that prohibitions on smoking didn't exist earlier. The U.S. Surgeon General had declared a link between cancer and smoking way back in 1964. Countless studies over the proceeding decades verified this huge public health risk. The 1993 EPA report expanded upon this growing body of knowledge with overwhelming medical evidence about the risks of second hand smoke. Yet no state banned public smoking until California in 1998. And most states' anti-smoking laws didn't take effect until over a decade after the EPA report was issued. How did the tobacco industry stave off major public smoking regulation for so long?

Unfortunately, there is another prominent example of an industry successfully dodging the repercussions of overwhelming scientific evidence that its products create a deadly health risk. For decades, climate scientists have released report after report about the risks of man-made climate change, a phenomenon driven by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel. Over the past few decades, thousand of scientists, government agencies, health authorities and non-profits have compiled an enormously broad and comprehensive picture of the threat posed by climate change. And yet Congress has still not passed a single law to addresses it.

This is no coincidence. The success of the fossil fuel industry in stalling government action relies on techniques the climate change deniers learned at the feet of the cigarette companies. By the time the EPA report on secondhand smoke came out, the cigarette companies were already decades-long veterans of a war against facts.

Since at least the 1960s, the tobacco industry had refined an innovative technique to counter the overwhelming medical evidence linking their products with death and poor health. Faced with the threat of regulation, the conventional route for affected companies would be to argue that the proposed rules would cost jobs and make their companies uncompetitive. The tobacco industry knew they wouldn't win this battle. If they admitted that their products were killing thousands of people, they couldn't successfully argue against regulation. Instead, they declared war on the science itself.

By repeatedly questioning and obfuscating proven medical facts with pseudo-science, selective editing of medical reports and simply repeating what they knew were lies about their products' negative health impacts, the cigarette companies hoped to seed doubt in Americans' minds. In 1978, for example, Philip Morris claimed "scientists have not determined what causes cancer ...cigarettes have never been proven unsafe." Twelve years later -- in 1990! -- RJ Reynolds sent a letter to an elementary school principal claiming that "scientists do not know the cause" of any smoking-associated chronic diseases.

These techniques undergirded the deadliest public relations campaigns in American history. And, one that was a huge success. For 40 years, they managed to scuttle the medical science and stave off the most serious regulatory action -- while contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

If this sounds familiar, it's because the fossil fuels companies and industry-associated climate change deniers now occupy the same science-denying echo chamber. In 2010, for example, Indiana's Representative Larry Bucshonfollowed the lead of R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris when he asserted [3], "The data does not support the premise that carbon dioxide emissions are playing a significant role in the world temperature variations." That statement is false, flying in the face of a scientific consensus based on decades of data. But Bucshon is undaunted by such details. He is also far from alone in the House.

The claims coming from the mouths of our elected representatives showcase an incredibly wide array of pseudo-scientific criticism directed at the contemporary understanding of climate change. Some use science against scientific consensus: "we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing [theories of climate change] on real scientific facts." Others pick and choose which science they like: climate change exists, but "the jury is still out" on whether it is man-made. Some refuse to believe any of it: the modern theory of climate change "is a hoax." Still others refuse to even read any of it: "I could read [climate change science], but I don't believe it." The tobacco industry -- or at least its media-relations people -- must be proud.

Unfortunately, climate change deniers have also successfully seeded doubt about the overwhelming science supporting climate change in the minds of many Americans. Largely as a result, action on the global threat has been suspended for years. Concern over global warming was already a headline-grabbing issue in the '80s, but Congress has yet to pass any legislation targeting climate change. Meanwhile, climate change-related events like prolonged droughts or extreme flooding continue to increase, claiming or disrupting millions of lives while causing billions of dollars in damage every year.

In 1993, after the EPA report came out, Philip Morris' public relations company APCO further refined this long-running war on medical science by pioneering two new techniques. The first was "astroturfing." Using corporate resources, APCOcreated what appeared to be organic grassroots action by local citizens concerned about regulatory overreach. APCO knew that pushback on government-funded science by "ordinary citizens" would seem much more authentic than arguments associated with Philip Morris.

The second innovation was a next generation front group. Cigarette manufacturers had long funded front groups -- reputedly neutral think tanks and institutions -- to give third-party credibility in their propaganda war against the "anti-smoking forces." Years later, the fossil fuel industries gladly followed the lead, funding organizations with important-sounding names like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research to advance the industry's agenda.

Now APCO further obscured the link between a new group [4], the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and its cigarette company patrons. TASSC's communications would be radically expanded. They didn't just cast doubt on the links between smoking and fatal diseases, but attacked all sorts of science. APCO hoped that dealing with a greater range of topics would help throw off the public from the corporate money trail.

For example, TASSC claimed that secondhand smoke, cellphones and pesticides were all subject to unfounded health concerns. The group also questioned the studies regarding nuclear waste disposal, biotechnology and... climate change. In fact, the Philip Morris-launched group became so effective at labeling the evidence on global warming "junk science" that TASSC eventually received funding from Exxon. In 2002, the group's former president, Steven Milloy, became a science correspondent for FOX News, providing him with an enormous audience to debunk health and environmental concerns like global warming as "junk science."

But by the beginning of the century, the tobacco industry finally ran out of public relations tricks. In 2002, the EPA won a tobacco industry lawsuit that attempted to repress the 1993 findings on secondhand smoke. The following year, New York City joined California in a ban on smoking including bars and restaurants. Over the rest of the decade, over half of the states established public smoking bans. As those bans were implemented, cigarette companies saw their sales in the United States drop precipitously.

There are signs that climate change denial is also reaching the end of its rope. Last month, over 400,000 people from all walks of life took to New York's streets demanding action on the global threat. President Obama has promised the United States' leadership on the issue in a 2015 international climate conference in Paris. Perhaps even more importantly, a2014 Gallup Poll shows that young people between 18 and 29 are more than twice as likely to consider climate change a man-made phenomenon that will seriously impact their quality of life in coming years. The poll also showed that over half of those who don't consider climate change a real problem are over 50.Climate change denial has already lost the long-term generational war.

Despite holding sway in some parts of federal and state governments, as well as media outlets, the climate change deniers' success in staving off regulation has also been dealt a serious blow. In 2009 U.S. and foreign automakers agreed to the first-ever regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions on new cars and trucks. Another, tougher agreement followed in 2011. Over the life of this program, these regulations will reduce greenhouse gas [5]emissions by six billion metric tons, equivalent to the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in all of 2010. By 2025, the program will also be reducing oil consumption by more than two million barrels daily -- half as much as we import from OPEC nations. Next year the EPA will take final actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Once those regulations are in place, the two most climate damaging sectors of our economy will begin to be reeled in. Just like the tobacco industry, climate change deniers are finally being overwhelmed by facts.

lcv 4/7%

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/larry-bucshon

2013604Ban on Federal Fracking SafeguardsWater, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Drilling 

2013601Methane EmissionsClimate Change, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests 

2013600Big Oil GiveawayLands/Forests, Drilling 

2013557National Ocean PolicyOceans 

2013556Protecting Public Input & Environmental ReviewWater, Other 

2013483Decimating America's ForestsLands/Forests 

2013479Attack on Judicial ReviewOther 

2013471Hardrock MiningLands/Forests, Dirty Energy 

2013445Safeguards ShutdownOther 

2013440Nuclear SafetyOther 

2013432Blocking Public Health ProtectionsAir, Water 

2013430Social Cost of CarbonClimate Change 

2013418Toxic Coal AshWater, Dirty Energy 

2013394Restriction on Dirty FuelsDirty Energy, Climate Change, Other 

2013345Assault on Clean Energy and Clean WaterWater, Clean Energy 

2013329Clean Energy FundingClean Energy 

2013312Water Pollution from Mountaintop RemovalWater, Dirty Energy, Toxics/Public Right to Know 

2013311Clean Water ProtectionsWater 

2013304Offshore DrillingDrilling, Dirty Energy, Oceans 

2013299Drilling in Bristol BayDirty Energy, Oceans, Drilling, Wildlife 

2013286Anti-Environmental Farm BillLands/Forests, Water, Wildlife, Clean Energy, Other 

2013260Agricultural Conservation PracticesLands/Forests, Water 

2013203Flood Insurance ReformLands/Forests, Water, Other 

2013179Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline (KXL)Climate Change, Dirty Energy, Water 

201388Big Oil BudgetOther 

201322Resiliency in Disaster ReliefLands/Forests, Wildlife, Climate Change, Other 

201321Limiting Sandy Response EffortsLands/Forests 

201319McKinney National Wildlife RefugeWildlife 

2012603Broad Environmental AssaultAir, Climate Change, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Toxics/Public Right to Know, Water 

2012600Regional Haze Air PollutionAir, Dirty Energy, Lands/Forests 

==

nothing on srcwtch===http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/politicians-resort-pseudoscience-deny-climate-change

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00031227&newMem=N&cycle=2014

career

Health Professionals$497,707
Leadership PACs$236,060
Mining$169,100
Insurance$101,448
Retired$88,453
Building Materials & Equipment$81,250
Real Estate$79,509
General Contractors$78,074
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing$70,567
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products$64,422
Misc Finance$59,100
Oil & Gas$58,546
Lawyers/Law Firms$56,013
Construction Services$54,650
Railroads$52,525
Hospitals/Nursing Homes$52,514
Electric Utilities$50,650
Candidate Committees$47,126
Food Processing & Sales$46,425
Commercial Banks$44,519

Sector Totals

SectorTotalPACsIndivs
Agribusiness$109,225$50,750$58,475
Communications/Electronics$38,115$21,500$16,615
Construction$231,161$70,500$160,661
Defense$37,500$23,000$14,500
Energy & Natural Resources$296,471$141,800$154,671
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$365,976$157,350$208,626
Health$646,143$437,150$208,993
Lawyers & Lobbyists$84,763$13,826$70,937
Transportation$131,030$102,430$28,600
Misc Business$258,383$86,634$171,749
Labor$1,000$1,000$0
Ideological/Single-Issue$346,861$320,661$26,200
Other$102,013$0$102,013
Peabody Energy$35,750$28,750$7,000
Koch Enterprises$35,450$35,450$0
American International Group$30,172$30,172$0
Every Republican is Crucial PAC$30,000$0$30,000
American College of Radiology$29,000$0$29,000
Vectren Corp$26,650$11,900$14,750
American Academy of Ophthalmology$25,000$0$25,000
American College of Emergency Physicians$25,000$0$25,000
American Society of Anesthesiologists$25,000$0$25,000
Freedom Project$25,000$0$25,000
Society of Thoracic Surgeons$25,000$0$25,000
St Mary's Medical Center$23,133$23,133$0
Bernardin, Lochmueller & Assoc$22,800$22,800$0
Milestone Contractors$22,750$22,750$0
Weaver Popcorn$22,600$22,600$0
American College of Surgeons Prof Assn$22,500$0$22,500
Wellpoint Inc$22,000$500$21,500
Mulzer Crushed Stone$21,500$21,500$0
Old National Bank In Evansville$21,149$9,299$11,850
Associated Builders & Contractors$20,500$500$20,00
2009 - 2014 Total Receipts: $3,287,092
2009 - 2014 Total Spent: $2,802,539
Debts: $0
Last Report:Monday, June 30, 2014

Top 5 Contributors, 2009 - 2014

ContributorTotalIndivsPACs
Peabody Energy$35,750$28,750$7,000
Koch Enterprises$35,450$35,450$0
American International Group$30,172$30,172$0
Every Republican is Crucial PAC$30,000$0$30,000
American College of Radiology$29,000$0$29,000

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 2009 - 2014

IndustryTotalIndivsPACs
Health Professionals$497,707$141,707$356,000
Leadership PACs$236,060$0$236,060
Mining$169,100$105,850$63,250
Insurance$101,448$41,448$60,000
Retired$88,453$88,453$0

...view more data

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions$1,729,601(53%)
PAC Contributions$1,457,624(44%)
Candidate self-financing$10,100(0%)
Other$89,767(3%)

==

“Here’s why you need the march,” he says, answering his own question. “It’s accepted pretty much everywhere—but there’s one place called the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology.” He illustrates his point with jaw-dropping clips of House members on that committee interviewing John Paul Holden, President Obama’s senior advisor on space and technology issues.

In one clip, Texas Congressman Steve Stockman explains that he doesn’t believe in rising ocean levels, saying, “When your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow—it’s displacement!” “How far back to the elementary school core curriculum do we have to go to get someone on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology caught up?” exclaims Stewart, pounding on his desk in exasperation. “Do we have to bring out the papier-mâché and soda so you can make a %#$&$ volcano?”

In another clip, Indiana Congressman Larry Bucshon offers that climate change has been disproved because “there’s public comments out there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.”“You should look at the scientific literature rather than the public comments,” offers Holdren. “With all due respect, Rep. Bucshon,” says Stewart, “I suggest you get the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology as opposed to the YouTube comment feed of Obummerlies1776.”

It wouldn’t help. Bucshon goes on to say, “Of all the climatologists who depend on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, I could read that but I don’t believe it.” Stewart then reveals who Bucshon’s three biggest campaign contributors are. You won’t be surprised to learn their identities.

cf vid burned notice

wiki

Larry Dean Bucshon /:{b:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}::{uː:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}::{ˈ:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}::{ʃ:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}::{ɔː:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}::{n:(style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted"):}:/ (born May 31, 1962) is an American politician and heart surgeon who has been the U.S. Representative for Indiana's 8th congressional district since 2011. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Contents

  [hide] 

Early life, education, and early career:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Bucshon was born in Taylorville, Illinois on May 31, 1962[1] and raised in Kincaid, Illinois. His father, Ronald, was a coal miner, Navy serviceman, and lifelong Democrat while his mother, Barbara, was a nurse.[2]

Bucshon graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and got his medical degree from the University of Illinois Medical School at Chicago. Following medical school, Bucshon completed a residency at the Medical College of Wisconsin, where he served as chief resident in surgery and remained there to complete a fellowship in cardiothoracic surgery. He also received training at the Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Hospital.[2] During this time, he enlisted with theUnited States Navy Reserve, where he served for almost a decade.

Medical career:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Bucshon specialized in cardiothoracic surgery and has performed hundreds of heart surgeries. From 1995 to 1998, he was in private medical practice in Wichita, Kansas.[2] Bucshon joined Ohio Valley HeartCare in 1998, where he served as the group's president. He was named St. Mary’s Medical Staff Physician of the Year in 2007. He also served as Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Medical Director of the open heart recovery intensive care unit at St. Mary’s Hospital.[3]

U.S. House of Representatives:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Elections:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

2010

See also: United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2010 § District 8

Bucshon faced Democratic nominee State Representative Trent Van Haaften in the race to fill the seat vacated by Congressman Brad Ellsworth, who was running for Senate.[3]

Bucshon received support from the National Republican Congressional Committee and was named a GOP Young Gun.[4]During the campaign, Bucshon was endorsed by several conservative interest groups and elected officials, including the Indiana Chamber of Commerce Congressional Action Committee, United StatesChamber of Commerce, National Right to Life Committee, Indiana Right to Life, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Campaign for Working Families, House Minority Leader John Boehner, U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.[5] Bucshon received significant campaign contributions from medical groups.[6]

Bucshon defeated van Haaften by a margin of 21 points, winning all 18 counties in the district.[7]

2012

Bucshon again faced Kristi Risk in the 2012 Republican primary.[8] Buschon edged out Risk in the 2010 GOP primary, with 16,262 votes to Risk’s 14,273.[9]

In the general election, Bucshon defeated former state Rep. Dave Crooks.[10]

2014

The conservative Club for Growth has announced that it will target Bucshon for defeat in the 2014 Republican primary.[11]

Tenure:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Taxes and spending

Bucshon supports lower corporate and individual taxes. He has called for freezing spending at 2008 levels, extending the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets, and reviewing all government programs for places to reduce spending.[2] He has stated that Republicans need to "first admit we were partially to blame for the increased government spending over the past decade."[2][12] Bucshon supports simplifying the personal and corporate tax codes.[13]

Bucshon voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, which created a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Bucshon also supported a balanced budget amendment that would require the federal government to spend no more than it collects in revenue each year. During his 2010 campaign, Bucshon said one of his campaign goals was to lower taxes for all Americans.[13]

Health care

Bucshon supports the repeal of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.[2] Bucshon supports reforms that expand and reform high-risk pools and federal reinsurance programs and lower costs.[2] Bucshon wants to increase transparency in medical care costs.[12] Bucshon has called for cuts in health care programs.[14][15]

Gun laws

Bucshon, who describes himself as "an ardent supporter of protecting the Second Amendment", has supported several bills that loosen restrictions on gun ownership. Bucshon co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, which requires all states to honor concealed carry permits from other states within their borders, irrespective of their own gun laws. The National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America have both given Bucshon an “A” rating.[15]

Abortion

Bucshon is pro-life. During his time in Congress, he has supported bills that seek to establish a legal framework for challenging the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. He has said he believes that abortion should be legal in cases where the mother's life may be in danger. Bucshon co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act,which declares that life begins at the moment of conception and is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.[15]

Social Security

Bucshon supports a comprehensive strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of Social Security for current and future beneficiaries.[2]

Energy

Bucshon describes himself as a "long term friend of coal."[16] He supports the Keystone XL pipeline project.[17]

Transportation

On November 2, 2011 the Evansville Courier & Press reported that Bucshon planned to introduce an amendment to the transportation funding bill that would allow governors to re-allocate federal transportation funding from designated programs to projects they designate as emergencies.[18]

Federal grants

On July 10, 2014, Bucshon introduced the Research and Development Efficiency Act (H.R. 5056; 113th Congress), a bill that would instruct the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a working group under the authority of the National Science and Technology Council to review federal regulations affecting research and research universities and make recommendations on how to streamline them and reduce the regulatory burden on such researchers.[19][20] Bucshon said that his goal is "to alleviate some of the burden placed on our research universities so they can get back to their main goal of conducting basic science research."[21]

Climate change

During a September 17, 2014 hearing of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Buchson was questioning John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. When Holdren encouraged Buchson to read the scientific literature on Climate change, rather than simply citing public comments to the committee, Buchson replied "Of all the climatologists whose careers depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it."[22] http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed

Committee assignments:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Personal life:{:(style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:0px"):}:[edit:{]}:

Bucshon met his wife Kathryn, who is also a physician and a practicing anesthesiologist, during his medical residency. They now live in Newburgh,[23] Warrick County, Indiana with their four children. He is a member of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Evansville.[24]

==