I like Eric Massa. I really do. So I feel a sense of dread and sadness when I see how this story is slowing but surely spiraling out of control. Massa's story is becoming more and more ridiculous, layered, angry, and scorned. This is a classic slash-and-burn tactic and it's very sad to see.
In roughly 12 hours, Massa has changed his narrative from "congressman resigning in disgrace" to angry, Howard Beale-esque truth-teller who'd simply had enough and will take his party to the woodshed. Left unsettled: the incredibly important issue of whether he'll resign today, as he said he would, or he'll try to bring down the health care bill by staying in Congress.
source
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve - and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
In a heated, rambling monologue on his weekly show on Hornell radio station WKPQ-FM, Massa described the conversation that he said led to an investigation. The show is listed on Massa's official schedule, and a link to a recording -- http://drop.io/massa3710 -- was provided by WHAM-TV.
After dancing with a bridesmaid, Massa said, he returned to a table full of male staffers who he said had been drinking heavily.
"A staff member made an intonation that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid," Massa said. He responded by saying, "Well, what I really ought to be doing is frakking you." He said the complaint came not from that staffer, but from another at the table. source
There's really not a whole lot I can add here. I think there's probably a lot of valid things that Massa is saying but the fact that he's decided now to go on the attack and is sitting down for an hour long discussion with Glenn Beck doesn't pass the smell test with me. It smells like conspiracy-paranoia-last ditch attempt to save his skin. And for that, I find the whole situation utterly depressing. When someone who comes across as straight forward, active, and bold as Eric Massa can get caught up in this sort of insanity, it makes me wonder how we can trust those that represent us. If not Eric Massa, then who?
The historic vote on health care reform legislation in the House of Representatives was one I will never forget. As a young elementary school student, I remember the battles over the Clinton health care plan and its defeat in the mid-1990s. I did not want to see the first president-elect I voted for, President Barack Obama, to share in the same fate.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) is a good bill for a number of reasons AND a bad bill for just as many reasons. After taking a few days to look over the reasons why one might support the bill and why one might oppose it, I came to this conclusion:
Those (among progressives) who support the bill are right. Those (again, among progressives) who oppose it are right.
Congressman Eric Massa's vote has been scrutinized more than any. Even when he gives his reasons why, people aren't willing to forgive him. Such is life as a representative in D.C.
But here is the reality: Massa is right on a lot of points, at least as they pertain to the public option and expanding access to health care. We fought for months for what has been called a "strong robust public option." After Firedoglake and CREDO Mobile created their public option resolution, I joined them in passing that petition around to the Democratic committees and groups I was familiar with. To my knowledge, every committee and group I submitted the resolution to passed the resolution. And not only did they pass it, they did so unanimously.
The public option in the House bill is a weak public option. This is NOT what we fought for, worked overtime on and told our readers and fellow progressives we needed. Now, there are those among this same group of progressives saying that any public option at all is better than no public option at all. While there is truth in that statement, there is also a misguided definition of what "better" means and what "reform" means.
Let's make this about the Progressive Caucus versus the Blue Dogs for a paragraph. The Progressive Caucus was obviously for the public option. The Blue Dogs were in opposition (some of them were in favor of a watered down public option, but others share the opinion of Senator Joe Lieberman that ANY public option should not be permitted) to the public option. Then came the Stupak Amendment, which was allowed a vote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently as a way to gain supporters for the overall health care reform bill. The Stupak Amendment is worse than the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment applies only to federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services and prohibits these funds from being used on abortions. What the Stupak Amendment does is expand on those prohibitions and applies them to private health insurance. That is because part of the health care reform package are subsidies for those who can't afford to pay for their insurance. If you are a woman and you receive a subsidy to pay for your private health insurance, you cannot get an abortion because the Stupak Amendment says so and the 221 men (of the 240 votes cast in support of the amendment) said so. This amendment also applies to anyone covered by the public option inside the health insurance exchange.
The fact remains that the conservaDems got their vote on the Stupak Amendment and it passed. Progressives did not get their vote on single-payer - a bill that certainly didn't have enough votes to pass.
Blue Dogs 1 Progressive Caucus 0.
A weak public option (Massa's estimate was that the public option in this bill would only cover two percent of the uninsured) and an amendment that expands anti-choice provisions? That's not very progressive, nor can it be considered true reform.
Like any legislation we see, however, even though there are a tremendous amount of flaws there is a tremendous upside. You cannot build a house without a foundation and this foundation and that's what this bill can be considered. It is a stepping stone or starting point. It's not perfect, but it is something. I believe the individual mandates are a good thing. I do think a stronger public option would help these mandates be less punitive but the mandates will work. Allowing young people to stay on their parents insurance until they turn 27 years old is very important. Ending the exemption from anti-trust laws is no doubt huge. The Prevention and Wellness Trust Fund is important to address in a proactive manner childhood obesity and obesity as a whole in order to make us a healthier society.
The reforms included in the bill are important. And while there is a weak public option and an assault on women's rights we must address, there are many aspects of the bill that are strong and necessary.
I was disappointed by Massa's vote at the time, but his vote was acceptable. I can see how this decision was tough. There are good things about this bill (as Massa has said). But there are also flaws. My problem with the bill is that individual mandates alone aren't a solution to the problems faced by the uninsured. The uninsured need more. Mandates and a weak public option won't do it. The Stupak Amendment needs to go. The Hyde Amendment is bad enough. Having this on the books in a reform bill would be devastating.
In the end, however, we don't vote for perfection. The flaws in this bill are nothing that can't be improved upon in conference. So voting in favor of the bill would have been ideal for anyone, including Massa.
There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.
The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.
The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.
At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.
It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.
I will start with a personal story. After my father passed away last year, I was left as the only male remaining in my immediate family. My mother and six sisters keep me busy. Most of my sisters are Democrats but a few are Republicans. They might disagree on certain issues but if there is one thing they are united on, it is the belief that a woman has a choice and that all women should be entitled to that choice.
Remember that: A WOMAN's right to choose.
The Stupak amendment was all about a woman's right to choose or rather, taking away that right. It was a sorry amendment which, the more you read, appears to be a deal sweetener to get Blue Dogs on board with health care reform. We couldn't get a vote on single-payer but we can vote for the stripping of women's rights.
There is an interesting fact about the vote on the Stupak amendment that is worth noting. Of the 240 votes in support of the amendment put forth by Congressman Bart Stupak (a man), how many of those votes were women?
19. That's right, on a vote that will impact women AND only women, 19 women voted in the affirmative. And 17 of those women are from the Republican Party (all 176 Republicans supported the amendment).
Only two women from the Democratic side (of the women in Congress, there are 57 in the House Democratic conference) voted for this amendment: Kathleen Dahlkemper and Marcy Kaptur. Both Dahlkemper and Kaptur attached their names to the amendment and were paraded out to try and make this look legitimate, but with 62 male members of the Democratic Party voting against women, nothing about it is legitimate.
Stupak, in a statement about the passage of his amendment, said the following:
"Today all members of Congress were afforded the opportunity to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents on the issue of federal funding for abortion," Stupak said. "Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy."
"I have long been an advocate of health care reform. My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate. Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans. I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds."
NARAL Pro-Choice America had plenty to say about the amendment's passage, calling it a vote for "extreme anti-choice policies" and a "blow to women's freedom and privacy."
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."
NARAL also included a few facts that debunk attempts by supporters of the Stupak amendment to make the measure appear like an ordinary move that just reinforces current federal guidelines.
* The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
* Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
This is a damaging amendment. As stated earlier, it is hard to ignore the possibility that this was a deal sweetener for the Blue Dogs and other anti-choice Democrats to vote for health care reform. It is never good to sacrifice women's rights in the name of "reform." That's exactly what this amendment does.
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
Some of you of course know that a few days ago, when the Federal Election Commission reports came out, I was a bit gobsmacked by the amount of money that the congressional campaigns of our New York representatives went through, even in an off year. Most of their quarterly expense sheets would have paid for a house in my home town. And together, it's even more impressive. I did the math so you don't have to: the 26 Democratic members of the New York congressional delegation are burning through roughly a combined $910,000 a month.
Eleven million dollars spent on upkeep in an off year. And that's just for the campaign, not for their Congressional office, staffers, etcetera. That bill goes on the federal rolls.
Now from the perspective of these campaigns, that's not necessarily a ton of money. It's just what they have to spend to keep running. Maybe they'd like to spend less, maybe not. But I'd like to offer them a different perspective.
I am, obviously, a rural Democrat. What's more, I'm a rural Democratic activist. That means that like all my fellow party members out here, I have learned the fine arts of survival the hard way. Some people may scorn us, or disregard us, since the population centers are where you find Democratic votes. But rural Democrats are among the toughest and most persistant group of activists that you'll ever meet. We've learned how you remain effective with next to no money. We've learned what battles to fight, and what ones to walk away from. And we've continued chipping away at the Republican edge day by day, like a man digging his way out of prison with a belt buckle.
Most of all, not having money to waste has taught us the value of making every dollar stretch. President Obama proved that on the national stage last year, showing that small donations can have very big results. And I'm here to tell you there's a way that that upkeep money could stretch a whole lot farther.
If the Democratic members of the New York congressional delegation were to dedicate five percent of their off-year expenditures--not even their fundraising, just expenditures--to grassroots party building via organizations like the Democratic Rural Conference, I don't think I'm exaggerating in the least to say that it would revolutionize the political landscape in New York State, to the great benefit of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Five percent of those expenditures is $45,500 per month. To judge from the expense reports, many of those campaigns probably spend as much on sticky notes and ball point pens. The Democratic Rural Conference has 41 member counties: the 41 counties in which Democrats are most in trouble in this state. If they cut every member county a check for $1000, every month, and used the rest for their own discretion... Well, it's not going to give anything away about the financial status of the Wyoming County Democratic Committee to say that $12,000 a year would dwarf all previous funding that we've ever had.
It would be hard, if not impossible, to overstate the impact of that kind of money on rural Democratic committees. That $1000 a month may be a mote of dust as far as a congressional campaign goes, but used properly, it's a potent weapon to change the face of this state. It's weekly voter registration drives on the streets of Warsaw and Oriskany Falls. It's "meet the candidates" events in Machias and Westfield. It's mailing fliers about healthcare in Coventry and Prospect.
It would be, in short, a massive shot of adrenaline to party building in the rural areas of this state. With a large and growing area of upstate represented by Democratic congresscritters, it's in their best interest to make their seats as safe as possible. And "safe" downstate representatives reap the other benefits of party growth: such as a more stable and functional state legislature, safer statewide races, and upstate goodwill for any future campaigns they might want to run. A large and fractious state party is bonded more closely together, and all the citizens of New York are better served by being given a genuine two party system even in the most rural of regions.
For one small investment, those are some big rewards.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
We have seen bad journalism, which seems to be common from the Politico these days. But reporters like Bob Clark from the Hornell Evening Tribune give us hope that journalism isn't something that is, well, dead.
Clark authored an excellent piece on a day in the life of Congressman Eric Massa. It is a must-read and you get a real idea of what life as a congressman is like. It's not all about trips to the golf course, rubbing elbows with elitists and other common misconceptions of what members of Congress do.
In fact, members of Congress actually do work. And in Massa's case, there is a lot of work to be done.
It's usually around 5 a.m. when Eric Massa sits down at his desk.
Occasionally, that's after he rolls out of bed at a small, two-story rowhouse on Washington's E Street - a townhouse shared with five of his staff members.
"I won't pay anyone more than the median salary of a college graduate in the district," Massa said, which allows him to fund 22 staff members, compared with some congressional staffs of seven or eight at much higher pay rates.
The downside, Massa said, is that the deal forces concessions in living arrangements, namely sharing the rowhouse with five staffers.
From there it's a brisk walk a few blocks away to Longworth Office Building, the center of the three huge office buildings on the south side of Capitol Hill.
Some days, Massa said, he doesn't make it back to the apartment. After a late night of meetings or signing paperwork, Massa often just dozes on a well-appointed leather couch in his office until it's time to start the next day.
"'At 4:30 a.m., I'll head down to the gym, work out and shower, throw on a clean shirt and go again," Massa said as he walked at a brisk pace past security officers who obviously know him well.
That's right, folks. Your congressman in the 29th congressional district sleeps on a couch (sometimes). Talk about never leaving your job.
Here's more from the article:
Massa skips out of the hearing at around 11 a.m. to head back to the office, getting ready for a press conference call and to get some constituent services work done.
On his desk sit more than 300 letters to be signed by the end of the day, many involving the health care debate raging nationally.
"It was more at the height of the health care debate," Massa said, but added many letters to his office are on other topics. "It's predictable based on what's been talked about in the news cycle."
Staffers come and go constantly as Massa tries to sign papers and hold telephone conversations.
There are a lot of details in the article, which is a great account of what Massa's average day looks like. You will notice at the end of the piece that his particular day when this piece was written ended at 11 p.m. and that was early for him. I suspect that is early for most representatives.
Massa is a Navy man and I have a future brother-in-law in the Navy. They seem to be of the same make when you are in the Navy or used to be in the Navy. You work your tail off and not only do you work to get the job done, but you work to get a start on the next day's work.
Great profile of Massa. This is great work from what amounts to a smaller newspaper. If only some of these reporters could move up to, say, Politico.
The Senate passed the Agriculture Appropriations bill which includes $350 million for dairy farms, including $290 million in direct payments to farmers that need it most.
"Our dairy farmers are hurting like never before from forces beyond their control and this assistance will help them weather the storm," said Schumer. "A large step was taken when we convinced Secretary Vilsack to increase prices paid to farmers, but putting $290 million directly in the pockets of dairy farmers will be a tremendous shot in the arm. We have now cleared all the hurdles in getting this money to our dairy farmers."
According to the press release issued by Gillibrand and Schumer, the $290 million will be issued based on guidelines set forth by the Secretary of Agriculture. The remaining $60 million will be used to purchase cheese and dairy for food banks and other nutrition programs.
"During these tough economic times, this increase will bring some much needed relief for our farmers," said Senator Gillibrand, the first New York Senator in 40 years to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee. "While this is great for New York's dairy farmers, this is only a temporary solution to the fundamental problems with the dairy pricing system. I will continue to work for a long term fix for our farmers."
As Gillibrand acknowledges, this is a temporary solution. More needs to be done.
From the release:
Senators Schumer and Gillibrand have been leading the charge for dairy farmers. Senator Schumer has been aggressively lobbying the Secretary of Agriculture to provide emergency direct payments to dairy farmers in New York and has called on the Department of Justice to investigate the discrepancy between the fall in prices dairy farmers are seeing and the much smaller drop in the price of milk in the store.
Senator Gillibrand has introduced legislation that would double the amount of money farmers get from the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program retroactive to the low point of the crisis in March. She also introduced legislation that would index the MILC rate of $16.94 to inflation. The price floor of $16.94 per hundredweight has not changed since the 1990's, yet the cost of production has increased exponentially. The MILC program payments were originally designed to help dairy farmers in their time of need, but have remained stagnant. In August, Senator Gillibrand hosted a hearing in Batavia, New York, to discuss long term fixes for the dairy pricing system, and has pledged to hold a similar hearing in Washington, D.C.
New York farmers are facing a dairy pricing crisis. According to the USDA, it costs a New York dairy farmer $18.82 to produce a hundredweight of milk. Yet in July, the average New York farmer received only $11.60 per hundredweight, though a number of farmers reported receiving even less. The MILC program was designed to be a safety net when there is a large price discrepancy, but has not been able to adequately protect New York's dairy farmers. As a result, New York farmers have been forced to either take on massive debt to cover their costs or go out of business.
Dairy farmers are facing a tough problem and some have had to go out of business because of it. I know of a dairy farm nearby that went out of business a few years ago. The figures listed above had a lot to do with it.
Today was a good first step. That will provide short-term relief and allow time for more long-term reforms to be reviewed and implemented.
As John reported over the weekend, Assemblyman Greg Ball, the Republican candidate challenging Democratic incumbent John Hall in the 19th congressional district, is on the receiving end of an FEC complaint that was filed because of alleged violations of campaign finance law.
- On June 5, 2009, Ball's "Congressional Exploratory Committee" hosted a golf outing at Hudson Hills Golf Course and Murphy's Restaurant. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that. But according to the complaint, Ball's committee solicited and accepted corporate contributions for a fundraising auction, which is illegal.
From the complaint:
10. On or about May 1, 2009, Jacqueline Ambrosino, a Ball representative, sent an email to a distribution list soliciting donations for the silent auctions. See Exhibit A. "We are looking for tickets to sporting events, televisions, gift certificates to restaurants and services (such as legal and accounting services), foursomes for other golf courses, trips, plane tickets, spa gift certificates, televisions, just to name a few ..." Exhibit A.
11. The May 1, 2009, email expressly asked for corporate contributions: "You can reach out to your network and try to get donations from both businesses and people. Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).
"When working with a business, you can emphasize the foot traffic that will be generated by having their name featured at our event and in a brochure to be handed out to everyone that attends." Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).
- The complaint also alleges that Ball's committee accepted corporate sponsorships and sought "excessive contributions" for an event.
Again, from the complaint:
12. On or about July 25, 2009, Ball's campaign sponsored a "Rockin' Rib Fest & Battle of the Bands." Exhibit B.
13. The July 25, 2009, event was "sponsored" by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. Exhibit B. On information and belief, both entities are corporations.
14. The Ball campaign sought additional "sponsorships" in connection with the July 25, 2009, event, including a "VIP Congressional Tent Sponsorship" priced at $2,900 - $500 in excess of the federal contribution limit. Exhibit B. Other Ball event solicitations have shown similar indifference to the $2,400 limit. See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit C) (asking for $2,500 and $4,800 contributions, without regard to the per-election limit).
It should also be clear that the event in question on July 25 was not "sponsored" (that's why it is in quotes and not stated as fact) by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association or the NRA.
As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and a member both of the NYSRPA and the NRA, I want to point out that Greg Ball's campaign committee distributed fliers which CLAIMED sponsorship by these entities, but in fact, Tom King---President of NYSRPA--- had no idea that Ball's campaign was going to make this claim. The NRA and the NYSRPA are both 501 (c) 3 organizations, and as such are PROHIBITED from endorsing candidates for election. The NYSRPA has a subsidiary, the Political Victory Fund (PVF) which DOES endorse candidates, but it is not incorporated integrally with NYSRPA. Likewise, the NRA-PVF endorses, but these are NOT the organizations advertised as "sponsoring" the July 25th event. (He also claimed that Senator Vincent Leibell was a sponsor---uh, no he wasn't.) The NRA and NYSRPA will not like the specter of seeming to have expressly endorsed a political candidate...they do not break the law. Ball did.
- The complaint also alleges illegal robocalls that were paid for by the Ball committee but not attributed to his committee and did not include who authorized the call. Federal laws require calls of that magnitude to include who paid for the call and to say that it was authorized by the candidate.
19. Ball's July 15 Quarterly Report discloses an in-kind contribution made on June 29, 2009, by Brian Callaghan in the form of "Automated Calls." Exhibit E.
20. On or about June 29, 2009, an automated call featuring Ball was distributed to voters in the 19th Congressional District. The call contained no statement indicating who had paid for the call, or whether Ball had authorized it. See Exhibit F.
- The last allegation is that Ball transferred money from his Assembly campaign committee to his congressional committee, a big no-no since you can't use non-federal monies for a federal race. To date, there have been two filings for Ball4NY, Ball's committee. Nowhere does it show payment for these items for the use of resources from his nonfederal campaign and his official New York State Assembly office.
17. Ball's federal campaign has made and is making repeated use of photos, videos and other assets from his nonfederal campaign and/or his official New York Assembly office.
See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit D). Ball's filings to date with the Federal Election Commission show no payment to his Assembly campaign, nor to the State of New York, for the use of these photos
Gary Levine, the man who has brought the FEC complaint against Ball, had this to say to me when I inquired about the complaint:
The reason for the complaint was because Assemblyman Ball violated FEC laws. If he wants to play politics he should play by the established rules and he didn't. Whether it was flagrant or unintentional it does not matter. Either way it is a violation and it does not bode well for the Assemblyman, his campaign or his current constituents.
The charges here are pretty serious. Some of these charges revolve around things that are basic. His committee should know the FEC guidelines and that there are limits on contributions. Setting $2,900 contribution levels just comes off as lazy (or intentional) to me. It's clear that either they were ignorant in regard to the rules, or they intended on trying to get by without anyone noticing. That's tough in politics, since everyone is watching.
Congressman Tim Bishop will be a target for Republicans seeking to put a dent in the majority for Democrats in Congress and try to decrease the large number of Democrats in the New York congressional delegation.
The 1st congressional district does have a Republican enrollment advantage of about 27,000 voters. There are a large number of unregistered voters in the district, which balances things out.
Bishop won in 2008 with 58 percent of the vote. He won in 2006 with 62 percent of the vote. So Bishop isn't exactly vulnerable. Obama narrowly won the district with 51 percent of the vote in 2008, so perhaps that is why the Republicans are adding this seat to the list.
Obviously, defending Bishop will be a priority. We don't need any surprises. Yes, Bishop won his last race by 16 points. But we don't want to sit back and assume that will happen again. So defending NY-1 and keeping Bishop in office will be a priority.
The vote in June came and that left only two New York members of Congress (and 32 members overall) who pledged not to support a war supplemental bill. For New York, those two members of Congress are Congressman Eric Massa and Congressman Jose Serrano.
Massa and Serrano voting against the bill is obviously huge. For Serrano, it was a no brainer. He comes from a district that is the least Republican of any Democrat who voted no. But Massa's is the opposite. His district is the most Republican of any Democrat who voted no. Massa will have to fight in 2010 because the Republicans are gunning for him. They see him as vulnerable solely because of the district enrollment advantage they hold. So for Massa to vote no on this is very important to acknowledge and recognize with support.
To show support for those that kept their word, the No Means No! initiative was started. The goal of the initiative is to start having a serious and progressive conversation on the efforts in Afghanistan. With health care and other issues dominating the scene, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been on the back burner. Afghanistan at one point was referred to as "Forgotistan" because it was hardly, if ever, being talked about.
(For a good video on what has happened in Afghanistan, take a look at the video below.)
At this point, it is a very serious discussion we need to have.
Here is how you can help. Go to the No Means No! ActBlue page and give to Massa and Serrano or any other member of Congress (there are 32 of them) who supports the effort.
We also have a contest going today. IF YOU GIVE TODAY, YOU WILL BE ENTERED IN A DRAWING TO WIN AN AUTOGRAPHED COPY OF JONATHAN TASINI'S BOOK, AUDACITY OF GREED.
So make sure you contribute what you can today and make sure we can continue to fight for a progressive policy in Afghanistan.
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
Earlier this week, I asked you to get your respective Democratic city, county or town committees, as well as Democratic or progressive groups to support the public option resolution. By adopting the public option resolution, your committee or group will officially endorse the idea of health care reform with a strong public option.
Because without a strong public option, there is no reform.
Since Sunday, the resolution did change a little bit. Changes were made to make it a little easier to pass.
Here is the text of the resolution that your committee can adopt:
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest," while co-ops or so-called "triggers" are inadequate in and of themselves to address the health care crisis by creating significant competition for the medical insurance industry; and
WHEREAS, Republicans and their allies in the health insurance industry have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the Democratic majority and administration to reasonably discuss the issue with the American people, and have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] urges Democratic members of Congress to vote for only such healthcare reform proposals as contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourages Democratic legislators to use any available parliamentary means to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] shall send a copy of this resolution to all Democratic members of Congress who represent any of our members.
As of today, I have contacted six county committees in my area about putting the resolution on the agenda for their next meeting. It has been confirmed to me that four of these counties will be voting on the resolution. I have also have confirmation from at least one Democratic/progressive group that they will add the resolution to the agenda and put it up for a vote. I will be doing more targeting today to see if I can get more county committees to vote on this measure.
At Netroots Nation, Gov. Howard Dean hosted a town hall. He discussed the public option throughout the question-and-answer session. Here is a video of Dean discussing the public option:
We need real health care reform in this country. While I support a single-payer system, I also believe that the public option offers our greatest chance at reform. We need to get this done and we need to have the support of the Democratic Party - the same party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress.
The fight for a public option and true health care reform is still very much alive. We have seen the attempts by the Republican Party, conservatives and insurance industry to turn aside reform. They don't propose alternatives or their own version of reform. They just fearmonger and distort reality so they can stand in the way of change.
This is why we must set our own tone and encourage our leaders to support health care reform and most importantly, a public option.
WHEREAS our heath care system is in crisis with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance and hundreds of millions more lacking adequate coverage ; and
WHEREAS both the uninsured and insured alike regularly face the risk of financial ruin from health costs; and
WHEREAS millions of Americans live sicker and die younger due to inadequate access to health care; and
THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC OPTION
WHEREAS insurance companies are driven to maximize profits by reducing benefits while increasing premiums, often without regard for the health of consumers; and
WHEREAS an overwhelming majority of Americans want health reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest;" and
WHEREAS a public option must, by definition, be accountable to Congress and the voters to correctly be called "public" in any meaningful way; and
WHEREAS the establishment of non-profit cooperatives in lieu of a robust public option will not "keep insurance companies honest," and
WHEREAS the proposed co-ops would be accountable only to their membership and not accountable to Congress or the voters, and therefore not "public" in a meaningful sense; and
WHEREAS proposals to delay the implementation of a public option until some contingency is reached (known as a "trigger") are without merit given the need for immediate action to remedy our health care system; and
THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENT ACTION
WHEREAS the Republican members of Congress have demonstrated no desire to reform health care and their leaders will not negotiate in good faith toward the passage of meaningful reform; and
WHEREAS the Republican Party and insurance industry lobbyists have organized extremists to disrupt efforts by Democratic Representatives and Senators to honestly discuss the merits of health care reform, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators in Washington should accept no more delays in passing health reform and must use "any available legislative means," including the reconciliation process in the Senate, to pass by the end of the year health care reform legislation which includes a robust public option; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators should vote against health reform that does not include a robust public option; that seeks to substitute inadequate alternatives like the non-profit cooperative scheme in place of a public option; or makes the implementation of a public option contingent upon a trigger; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this expectation covers all votes on this issue, whether procedural or not and regardless of whether they occur before, during or after the reconciliation process.
This resolution allows more than just bloggers to get involved. If you are a member of a local Democratic committee or are a chair of such a committee, show this resolution to other members and make sure your group signs on. If you have your own chapter of DFA or have another progressive group you are a member of, get them to sign on to this resolution.
We have some great representatives in the health care fight on our side. We have plenty of activists who want to get involved. This resolution allows you a way to not only get involved, but to get a group of people involved.
The Republican Party, along with the conservative movement, is united in its opposition to health care reform. Their idea of reform is to keep things the way they are. That's not reform.
The Democratic Party and progressive movement should be united in its support of health care reform and a public option. Anything less than a public option is not reform. The leaders of the Democratic Party and progressive movement at all levels, whether it's in Washington D.C. or Washington County, New York should stand united for a public option.
This week is another crucial week for the public option and the road to reform. Rally your party leaders and progressive groups to get behind this resolution and to support a public option.
We've all been hearing the "Town Hall Meeting" stories the past few days, and the images presented have been of gatherings where you might see some current or former official "death panel" for the benefit of the crowd, where the few people who shout the loudest bully the rest into silence, and where threats of physical intimidation are part of the debate.
I attended one of these meetings, and based on what I saw I'm here to tell you that it is possible to hold an event that features none of the images previously described.
Instead, what I say was an event where people asked their questions, the Congressman answered-and from time to time the angry members of the audience got their shout on, too...but not in a way that was able to ever take control of the venue.
There were helpful lessons that can be applied by others who want to have these meetings, and today's conversation examines what can be done to make them work for you, too.
Assembly member Greg Ball (AD-99), who is running against Democrat John Hall for Congress, is trying to take down Democratic health care initiatives by staging his own sham town halls.
There will be plenty of astroturfing and choreographed outrage from Ball and his acolytes, and it's all designed to destroy President Obama's health-care plan, which will make health care affordable and accessible to millions of Americans.
On Thursday, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, becoming the first Hispanic justice to sit on the Supreme Court and the third women to do so. The historic vote has plenty of angles to cover, but those will be talked about a lot over the next several days and weeks.
The interesting part of the vote was how closely it resembled Sotomayor's 1998 confirmation vote to become a member of the U.S. 2nd District Circuit Court. That vote was 67 to 29, with all 29 nay votes being cast by Republicans.
In 1998, these Republicans supported Sotomayor's appointment to the Circuit Court.
Since 1998, some of these senators are no longer in office. But of the remaining senators from this list that voted for Sotomayor in 1998, these are the senators that supported Sotomayor:
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
- Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
(Note: Because of Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, I didn't count him as one of the Republican votes.)
In 2009, the 68 to 31 vote to confirm Sotomayor was not as bi-partisan. In 1998, Sotomayor was backed by 25 Republicans. On Thursday, Sotomayor was backed by nine Republicans.
We know that Supreme Court nominees tend to bring out the best in partisanship, depending on the party of the president at the time. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made it a point to say that he had not voted against any Supreme Court nominee. Yet, he did vote against Sotomayor before. He opposed her appointment in 1998 and was one of the 29 votes. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who supported Sotomayor in 1998, voted against her in 2009.
Aside from Senators Collins, Gregg, Lugar and Snowe, the other five Republicans to back Sotomayor were:
- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)
Of the four, only Bond was a senator in 1998. He actually didn't cast a vote for or against Sotomayor that time around. But with Bond on the verge of retirement, a yea vote wasn't surprising. The same can be said of Martinez, who announced his resignation today and had said previously that he was going to retire. Alexander, who is also on his way out, wasn't too surprising.
The polarizing of the process that is the selection of a Supreme Court justice is disappointing, but a reality we must face. Having senators who once supported Sotomayor at other levels of the judicial system only to vote against her because she was an appointment to the Supreme Court shows just how politicized the process is. The irony is, of course, that we expect these justices to be fair and unbiased and yet, the process to pick them is less than fair and has politics all over it.
- Nearly 60 percent of adults in New York are either obese or overweight. The report has the county-by-county breakdowns, but the region breakdown tells the story.
New York City: 55 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Long Island: 54 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Hudson Valley: 57 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Capital Region: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
North Country: 62 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Central New York: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Southern Tier: 61 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Rochester-Finger Lakes: 59 percent of adults either obese or overweight
Western New York: 60 percent of adults either obese or overweight
- Gillibrand will introduce legislation banning trans fats in public schools. Any school receiving federal funds would be required to eliminate foods from schools that have trans fats in them.
- Gillibrand is working with Sen. Tom Harkin, who heads the Senate Agriculture Committee, to give the USDA more authority in regulating junk food in schools.
- The reimbursement rate would increase under Gillibrand's plan for the National School Lunch Program. The goal is to provide schools with the necessary funds to make lunches healthier and more nutritional for students.
- The Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act is a piece of legislation that Gillibrand will introduce to promote exercise among young people and assist communities that have high rates of obesity get obese and overweight people working out and active.
From the press release:
With health care reform the top priority for Congress, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is focusing her efforts on reducing childhood obesity, announcing a new plan to ban trans fats in school and provide healthier school lunches. As the first New York Senator in 40 years to sit on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Gillibrand is providing New Yorkers with a seat at the table as congress debates how to improve the health of children and the food they eat each day. From her seat on the Committee, Senator Gillibrand is working to secure more federal funds for New York State to combat childhood obesity and lower health care costs..
"As Congress debates how to improve health care access and lower health care costs, we must also pursue a strategy to tackle childhood obesity and improve the health of our future generations," Senator Gillibrand said. "We can't afford to let our children grow up in a culture of obesity. If our children are going to have the opportunity to reach their potential, they need a healthy start. The most effective way to address obesity is to provide healthier food and exercise opportunities for our children. We need to be taking real steps to give parents, schools and communities the resources they need to give our children access to fresh fruits and vegetables."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over the last 30 years, obesity among American children ages six to 11 has more than doubled - from 6.5 percent to 17 percent. In the same timeframe, obesity among 12 to 19-year-olds has more than tripled - from five percent to nearly 18 percent.
Studies show that the most effective way to prevent obesity is to address it during childhood by instilling healthy habits. Obesity puts children at risk of developing serious diseases, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and other conditions like depression. Obesity keeps children from performing their best at school. Studies show that being overweight or obese can have a negative effect on math and reading scores - and keeps students out of school for more sick days. According to a recent study by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, performance on standardized tests is strongly correlated to physical fitness levels.
These initiatives are key to addressing the problem. On a personal level, I have lost 50 pounds since June 2008 just by riding my bike on a regular basis and by playing tennis and other outdoor sports. Staying active is important and eating right is just as important. Both play a big role in staying healthy and living a fruitful life.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has done outstanding work on behalf of our environment. They are no doubt a progressive group that deserves our support and has proved again and again their worth in our movement as advocates for the environment.
In criticizing Massa's vote, the NRDC said the following in their post:
Some members of Congress, however, decided to put political expediency the pocketbooks of polluters ahead of our environmental health, better jobs, and breaking our dangerous addiction to foreign oil with a NO vote. Unfortunately, Eric Massa belongs to this group, and it almost worked, too -- this historic legislation passed by a mere seven votes.
...
Both Congressmen are holding events this weekend. If you're in the area of either, please come and tell Rep. Massa he got it wrong, and commend Rep. Maffei for getting it right, and show your support for this historic legislation as it moves to the Senate, where it needs to be strengthened, so we can reach the full potential of our clean energy future and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
When Massa voted against the bill, he issued a statement explaining why he voted no.
"Today I voted against the Cap and Trade bill because of several concerns," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Let me begin by saying that I know global warming is real and we must take steps to address this situation, however I don't think this proposal takes us in the right direction. I was also deeply concerned by the fact that hydrogen fuel cell technology did not receive any attention in this legislation. Additionally, my constituents have told me in overwhelming levels that they wanted me to reject this plan, and as their Representative, I take their opinions very seriously. I was also upset by how rushed this process was. We have a district work week coming up and I would have liked the opportunity to hold more townhall meetings while this issue is on the front burner to hear what the families of Western New York thought about Cap and Trade."
"To all those who are disappointed by my vote, I want you to know that I had to vote against this bill because I know there is a better way to promote clean energy, create green jobs and protect our environment. The devil is in the details and the details of this bill worked against the goals and requirements of the 29th Congressional District. Sometimes in Congress, you have to vote no to get a better bill."
The NRDC, not Massa, got it wrong here. The NRDC's critique of Massa's vote makes it seem as if Massa is siding with polluters and the Republicans who would rather not address the critical problem of global warming and climate change. Republicans have also been hesitant in addressing the green economy, which could be key to several areas of the country, including Western New York.
But Massa is not opposed to those things, nor is he is taking sides with polluters. Even though the NRDC makes it seem that (on their Facebook page, they encourage people to go to Massa's town hall meetings this weekend and question his vote because he "said no to jobs") Massa was helping polluters and siding with Republicans.
What Massa really wants is a better bill. In his statement, he mentioned a few different things that are worth highlighting:
- The lack of attention paid to hydrogen fuel cell technology. Massa has a hydrogen fuel cell plant right in his district, so him being concerned about that is a reasonable issue to bring up.
- The impact on farmers. Massa represents a district that is loaded with farmland and farming communities. He was worried about how this would affect small farms and farmers and their limited budget during these difficult times. That is also a reasonable concern.
- Massa offers the hint that if a better bill came forth, he would vote for it. Instead of the NRDC (and others) having these protests against Massa, they should be working with him and other representatives who would support a better bill and see what things need to be added to the bill to make it a better one. Right now, the approach by the NRDC is not a smart one. They should be reaching out to Massa, working for a common goal.
- Massa, as he has said in the past, put his district first. He has made it known that he isn't going to vote against the best interests of his district. He is one of the few members of Congress who is willing to do that and he isn't afraid of the criticism that will come.
The NRDC is a great group and Congressman Massa is a great congressman. There shouldn't be these public feuds (fueled by the NRDC and their thought that Massa is siding with polluters) over whether a certain vote was good or not. If Massa is saying most of his constituents called and said they wanted him to vote against it, then the NRDC will meet a brick wall at these town hall meetings. Instead of having protests, sit down with Massa and see what he would like to see in the bill. Then work to see how those changes could be implemented to make the bill a better one.
