When the historic health care vote came and went in the House of Representatives, one of the no votes on the Democratic side that was criticized (or scrutinized) was Congressman Eric Massa's. At the time, I looked at both sides and gave Massa some rope. I thought his point of view, while somewhat flawed, had some merit.
But as I told a friend, I was worried that this was becoming a trend. Massa has voted against a number of key measures to date. Among them:
The latest key legislation Massa voted against is the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The roll call vote was close. No Republicans voted for the measure and 27 Democrats voted against it. Of all the New York Democrats, Massa was the sole dissenting vote.
Massa's reasoning for voting against the bill was detailed in a statement he issued shortly after voting no:
Today, Rep. Eric Massa voted against H.R. 4173 on the grounds that it takes a one-size-fits-all approach to reforming the American financial system. Over the last several weeks, Rep. Massa's office has received dozens of calls from our area's small businesses, community banks and local credit unions with concerns about how this bill, which is supposed to address corruption on Wall Street, will affect their business on Main Street. Many rural communities, like New York's 29th Congressional District, rely on small community banks and credit unions to keep their small businesses growing and their workforces employed. The bill passed by a vote of 223-202.
"Today I voted to help the people who sent me to Washington," stated Rep. Massa. "I will not vote for a bill which I believe hurts my district and that's why I opposed the financial services bill today. This legislation takes a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating the financial services sector which will hurt rural districts like mine by over-regulating community banks and credit unions who, by the way, were not the cause of the collapse on Wall Street. Small businesses and workers in rural communities rely on their local community banks and credit unions to grow. I think we should focus on fixing the problems with Wall Street instead of over regulating the things that work on Main Street."
Few congressmembers are as passionate about the job they do as Massa. He is invested in this position and he does not take it lightly. I admire and respect that. You don't get that out of Washington D.C. too often. Massa works very hard and that doesn't go unnoticed.
But here is the problem Massa faces. Not only will the Democratic caucus give up on counting on his vote but progressives will as well. There is no such thing in Congress as perfect legislation. There will be flaws in any bill and there are concessions usually made on virtually every bill to ensure its passage. The points Massa made on this bill are weak. If the impact on rural districts was so strong that it was negative enough for him to vote against the bill, then why did every other Democratic representative in New York from a rural district vote in favor? Seems like a poor argument to me and one he is alone on.
Massa seems to find something wrong with every bill. I understand that there are flaws in every piece of legislation (some more than others). But he tends to take a major issue and find minor flaws that are just enough (in his mind anyway) to vote against important legislation.
* Creates a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee financial products and services.
* Establishes a council of federal regulators to oversee firms gauged to be systemically important.
* Allows the government to wind down and dismantle large, failing financial firms.
* Gives shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation packages.
* Merges the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision into a single national bank regulator.
* Requires hedge funds and private equity firms to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
* Creates a Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department.
* Requires dealer banks and major swap traders to trade some of their routine products on transparent platforms and steer the swaps into clearinghouses, which guarantee trades.
* Exempts many commercial companies that use swaps to hedge risks from the clearing and trading provisions or having to post margin on uncleared, customized trades.
* Gives the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission new police powers for over-the-counter derivatives and lets the CFTC set trading limits on swaps that play a role in setting market prices.
* Imposes new capital, margin, reporting, record-keeping and business conduct standards on swap dealers and major swap traders.
* Prevents bank dealers and major traders from collectively owning more than a 20% controlling stake in swap clearinghouses or trading platforms
* Establishes a "dissolution fund" to pay the government's costs for winding down a large failing institution. Fund would be paid for by banks and financial firms
* Allows the government to require secured creditors to take a 10% loss if the government has to take over a failing financial firm.
* Uses $3 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help reduce the risk of foreclosures among the unemployed.
* Expands the 10% domestic deposit cap to include thrift deposits.
* Preserves the ability of the federal government to preempt state laws in certain circumstances.
Considering the economic recession and the main cause of that recession being the failures on Wall Street, more regulation is needed. That is clear. But Massa votes no because of what he considers "over-regulation" of community banks and credit unions - a minor part of this bill. And given what happened with the financial crisis, there is no such thing as over-regulation.
I respect Massa and believe he has served his district well. But whether he sees it or not, these votes aren't doing his district any favors either. If Randy Kuhl was still the representative in NY-29, he would have voted against these same bills. So how are the district's residents getting any sort of change from the Party of No and the likes of Kuhl and Tom Reed when their Democratic representative votes the same way they would on key issues?
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.
Since his vote against H.R. 3962 Saturday night, Congressman Eric Massa has faced mounting criticism from the netroots. There are a few different reasons why:
(1) There are those who believe that while single-payer is ideal, we aren't going to get it anytime soon and that we shouldn't hold out for it. Because of that, there is a belief that Massa held out on voting for this bill because of his desire for single-payer.
(2) Doing something is better than doing nothing. And while the House bill wasn't (and isn't) perfect, it is better than doing nothing. Massa should have voted for the bill, critics say, because at least the legislation would send us in the right direction.
(3) This has been a long fight and few representatives have been as open as Massa has been during the fight. To fight for so long only to have him vote against the bill was disappointing in the eyes of those who have been working long and hard on this.
Those are some of the reasons. Now, here is Massa's explanation as sent out by his press office today:
Today Congressman Eric Massa outlined his reasons for voting against H.R. 3962 on Saturday night. To summarize the specific votes: Rep. Massa voted for the rule of debate, against the Stupak Amendment and against final passage of the bill.
When H.R. 3962 was first introduced on Thursday, October 29th, Rep. Massa canceled his weekend schedule to read and review the legislation. Following seven days of studying the bill, consulting with experts and speaking with constituents, Rep. Massa announced his intention to vote against the bill.
Rep. Massa had several concerns because the legislation did not meet several of his key objectives, including guaranteed universal access for all Americans and an assurance of individual affordability. While this bill does contain a public option, it is far from a "robust" one and Rep. Massa pledged, in a letter months ago, to vote against anything less than that. The public option in this bill is available for only about 2% of the American population and its premium rates will match private health insurance, guaranteeing no effective competition in the marketplace.
Additionally, he thinks that this bill, if signed into law, will not do enough to regulate the private for-profit health insurance industry and will actually empower them further. This is a major problem with the legislation as far as he is concerned. During the months of public debate on this topic, Rep. Massa called for the health insurance industry to be able to write plans across state lines and, while this bill partially addresses this, it does not lift this exemption outright. As such, he views this as a half measure rather than true interstate competition and believes that the goals of interstate competition will not be realized.
Rep. Massa also expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. While the Constitution empowers the Congress to raise and levy taxes, there is no clear indication that it allows for Congress to require the public to purchase insurance plans if they can afford them.
Detailed careful reading and understanding of the bill shows that should this become law, property taxes in New York State must increase by a minimum of 3%. By increasing Medicaid availability to citizens with an income of 150% of the federal poverty level, the federal government passes to New York State and its counties a cost sharing increase of at least 3% at the county level. Rep. Massa views this as being exceptionally counterproductive to our economy at this time.
During the closing hours of the debate, Rep. Massa voted against the Stupak Amendment which he viewed as a significant universal increase of current federal law. For the first time, if passed, the federal government would have prohibited a private citizen from using private funding to buy an insurance policy that covered elements of reproductive rights. The bill as written is clear, no federal funding for abortion procedures is allowed. Rep. Massa agrees with that but does not support an increase in federal law on this matter. This amendment passed and became part of the final legislation.
While there are several provisions that he did like in the bill, such as the elimination of patient rejections on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and the closing of the Medicare Part D Donut hole, members of Congress cannot vote for one part of a bill and against another.
"There are several reasons why I voted 'no' on H.R. 3962," said Congressman Eric Massa. "I have always said that I will vote 'no' on a bad bill to try and get a better one and that's what I did. Reforming our health care system is critical to our economy and our nation, but I had some serious concerns regarding the bill that we voted on Saturday night. If the Senate is able to move forward, I hope we can get a better bill back for a conference version."
Let me make this clear: It is hard to disagree with Massa on the points he made.
I will have more on this in another post. I will let Massa's words fill the space for now.
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 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.
I am going to make something clear: I, along with many other Americans, are sick of these "concerned citizens" who stand up and ask questions that are meant to pose as legitimate questions but really are questions fed to them by Republicans, conservatives and the tea party organizers to shift the debate to their side instead of taking a serious look at health care reform.
So, here's the deal: You stand up and ask a question, I look into you. Period.
"On page 30 of that bill, you call it a committee, you call it a commission, you call it a death panel. Somebody is making a decision for my health, and I don't want that."
So who is Ms. Tillinghast?
She is a former Kodak executive who would not be impacted by the health care bill. After all, if she has private health insurance, she can keep that insurance. The goal isn't to target people like Ms. Tillinghast. The goal is to target people who don't have health insurance coverage.
Ms. Tillinghast also is a Republican donor, having given $1,450 to Republican candidates and committees in 2004 and 2006. She gave $200 to the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 2004, $250 to the RNC in 2006 and made two $500 contributions to the NRCC in 2006. Locally, she hasn't given much. She did make a $100 contribution to Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, a Republican.
It is one thing to be a real, concerned citizen who has serious questions about the bill. Those people do exist. It's another thing when your question is derived from a desire to derail reform for political gain.
There are a lot of myths about health care reform. Part of the problem is that Republicans have made it their goal to oppose President Barack Obama at all costs. They do not care about reform. And to be blunt, they do not care about bettering America.
Unless, of course, they are the ones in power to "better America."
Congressman Eric Massa was questioned for a few months about why he had not yet endorsed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. He was asked on weekly press calls and in interviews why he had not endorsed Gillibrand. Simply put, Massa believed that his energy was better spent focused on his district and his work in the House of Representatives.
As one of the last members of the New York House delegation to back Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's election next year, Rep. Eric Massa, D-Corning, announced today that he will back the junior senator.
A quick education for Mr. Spector. The New York House delegation has 29 members, 26 of which are Democrats. Of those 26 Democrats, 14 have endorsed Gillibrand. Massa isn't "one of the last" members of the New York congressional delegation. Is he one of the latest members to endorse? Yes. But there are 12 other members of the New York House delegation who have yet to endorse.
Here is the list of those who have endorsed:
* Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
* Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
* Congressman Eliot Engel (NY-17)
* Congressman John Hall (NY-19)
* Congressman Brian Higgins (NY-27)
* Congressman Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
* Congresswoman Nita Lowey (NY-18)
* Congressman Eric Massa (NY-29)
* Congressman Michael McMahon (NY-13)
* Congressman Gregory Meeks (NY-6)
* Congressman Scott Murphy (NY-20)
* Congressman Ed Towns (NY-10)
* Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
* Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY-9)
This is the list of New York Democratic House members who haven't endorsed Gillibrand:
- Congressman Gary Ackerman (NY-5)
- Congressman Timothy Bishop (NY-1)
- Congressman Joseph Crowley (NY-7)
- Congressman Steve Israel (NY-2)
- Congressman Dan Maffei (NY-25)
- Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
- Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
- Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
- Congressman Charles Rangel (NY-15)
- Congressman Jose Serrano (NY-16)
- Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
- Congressman Paul Tonko (NY-21)
I see bigger stories than Massa's endorsement here. None of the House members from Long Island have endorsed. Three upstate members - Maffei, Slaughter and Tonko - have not endorsed.
The biggest story? Some of the most prominent members of the delegation haven't touched the race. The aforementioned Slaughter, one of the most powerful members of the House, hasn't endorsed. Nadler hasn't endorsed. Rangel hasn't endorsed.
But what is the media focused on? Whether or not Massa, one of the few freshmen members of the delegation, has endorsed. Even with their focus on it, they managed to drop the ball and consider his endorsement "one of the last" when it was one of the first 14 of 26.
"I've seen first-hand Kirsten's tireless commitment to getting New York back on the right track," Congressman Massa said. "In just six months, she's brought an innovative approach to creating new jobs and rebuilding the economy so it works for everyday New York families. She knows what's at stake for families in my district during these tough economic times, and she's working every day to improve the lives of families in every corner of New York. That's why I'm proud to endorse her for the U.S. Senate."
"I am honored to have Congressman Massa's endorsement and I look forward to working with him and leaders across New York," said Senator Gillibrand. "I pledge to always be a voice for families in the Finger Lakes region and across the state."
Massa is the latest of a host of endorsements Gillibrand has received this week. Former New York State Democratic chairman and New York State Assemblyman Denny Farrell endorsed Gillibrand yesterday.
The endorsements Gillibrand has received include 14 members of New York's congressional Democratic caucus. She has been endorsed by several other local and state elected officials, as well as most of the state's Democratic Party county chairs.
Congressman Eric Massa has drawn a lot of attention lately for some remarks that were caught on camera and posted by a Washington Times reporter Sunday. The headline of the piece reads "Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district" and paints a picture that Massa will vote against the interests of district. Period.
But that is not what Massa was talking about. I would know. Some of the other bloggers here would know. We were there.
At Netroots Nation on Saturday, we had a New York caucus scheduled. The caucus, at least how I envisioned it, would focus on the dysfunctional state legislature and what we can do, as progressives, to address the problems.
Those plans changed when we were joined by Congressman Massa. I was surprised to see Massa join us. I knew he had a panel that day, but I didn't expect him to join us for the caucus. Even though we were surprised, we were eager to sit down with him.
The video captured by the Washington Times shows Massa in 96 seconds. Those of us who were in attendance knows that Massa was talking with us for approximately 45 minutes.
Here is what Massa said which is causing the uproar:
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
That was in response to a question about his support for single-payer health care and whether or not he support a bill for single-payer health care even if the opposition to the legislation in his district was 60-40 or 80-20.
While his statement alone might be confusing to some and might raise questions about the representation he is providing the 29th, there is more to this story.
At his panel, which took place following his meeting with the New York caucus at Netroots Nation, Massa had this to say (quote I cite below starts at about 44 seconds in):
MASSA: There is a great public cacophony that would lead people who watch Fox News to believe that there is a revolution underway against the public option. So many members, myself included - I've been doing nothing but town hall meetings - and every town hall meeting, show of hands it is 90 percent against and 10 percent for. Okay, got it, no problem.
There comes a time when members of Congress, sometimes, must vote against popular opinion because they know that was in the interest of their districts and their countries. I'm not going to vote for something that is both unpopular and suicidal to the people who sign up for it. Why would I vote to lead my district into even more dependence on private health insurance? I won't do that.
During his weekly press call today, Massa compared his hypothetical vote for single-payer health care to Republican Amo Houghton, who used to represent the 29th congressional district, and his vote against authorizing the Iraq War in 2002. Houghton was one of only six Republicans to vote against the war even though the war was tremendously popular in his district, among the Republican Party and throughout the country. It wasn't popular for Houghton to vote against the war, but he did so because he felt it was in the best interest of his district and country do so, even though both his district and country supported the war.
Congressman Massa is taking some heat for his words. I have heard his remarks over and over again and I saw him in person at Netroots Nation. I know what he meant, but when you take one clip and broadcast it to show that, somehow, he won't vote for the best interests of his district, that isn't honest journalism. Could Massa have chosen his words differently? Possibly. But after watching the video over and over again, it is clear what his intent was.
Organizing for America and the Democratic National Committee will be running radio spots providing support for certain members of Congress who are in districts that could be considered vulnerable and who also are playing a key role in the health care fight.
We have seen already the type of response Democrats are getting when returning home, whether they are a representative or a senator. Many members of Congress are holding health care town halls to help concerned citizens get answers to their important questions. But instead of those forums being used for good, astroturfing has been taking place with teabaggers hijacking these forums and shouting down the representative.
But OFA and the DNC believe that they have representatives advocating for health care reform and have individuals that are supporting an overall reform agenda.
This is going to be a real fight, especially during this August recess when many representatives and senators will be holding town hall meetings on this issue. Not only is health care reform a target, but clean energy reform is also a target, as is the stimulus package. Some of the key policies of the Barack Obama administration are up for grabs. This is make-or-break time for these policies and possibly, our future electoral success.
The DNC is also out with two new TV ads to take the GOP to task for their opposition to the health care reforms proposed, as well as their opposition to the stimulus package.
Here are the two TV ads:
It is time that America stops listening to the Republicans who for far too long have served as nothing but obstructionists to reform. Republicans are standing in the way of ridding corporate influence from key and necessary parts of our society. We must not let them win.
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.
As he promised to do a couple of months ago, Congressman Eric Massa has introduced legislation to protect consumers from price gouging at the hands of Internet service providers (ISPs).
The bill is known as the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (H.R. 2902) and was inspired by what happened in the Rochester area with Time Warner Cable in April. In April, Time Warner Cable was set to begin "consumption based billing" trials in the Rochester area, as well as a handful of other regions across the country. After hearing from constituents and their outrage with this proposal by Time Warner Cable, Massa took on Time Warner Cable and after a lot of pressure was applied, Time Warner Cable eventually halted the trials.
But that did not stop Massa. He promised at the time that he would introduce legislation to address this issue and that's exactly what he did on Wednesday.
This is a summary from Massa that details what the Broadband Internet Fairness Act would do:
The Broadband Internet Fairness Act will prevent the monopolistic rate increases of broadband companies by promoting the interests of broadband customers. Specifically the bill:
- Requires internet service providers (ISPs) to submit plans to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in consultation with the FCC if they plan to move to a usage-based plan;
- Prohibits volume usage plans if the FTC determines that these plans are imposing rates, terms, and conditions that are unreasonable or discriminatory;
- Sets up public hearings for plans submitted to the FTC for public review and input;
- Only affects internet providers with 2 million or more subscribers;
- Imposes penalties for broadband ISPs that ignore these rules.
Time Warner Cable's consumption based billing would have charges customers who use the Internet frequently up to $150 a month for Internet usage. In that $150 a month is $75 a month for the "turbo" package that Time Warner Cable would have set up, which would give 100 GB of usage per month. But if you go over that, the overage fees max out at $75. Meaning, if you use your 100 GB for that month and go over the max amount, your Internet will cost you $150 for that month.
That is where Massa came in and decided that legislation was necessary to address this important issue.
"Access to the internet has become a critical part of our economy and we can't let corporate giants limit the public's access to this important tool," said Congressman Eric Massa. "The Broadband Internet Fairness Act is all about protecting consumers from outrageous internet overcharges and giving the public a voice in this process. I have taken lots of time to work on this bill and have consulted with my constituents and industry experts. Now the hard work of passing this bill begins."
"Cable providers want to stifle the internet so they can rake in advertiser dollars by keeping consumers from watching video on the Internet. But so long as Americans can't choose which cable channels they want to pay for, I don't think cable operators should be able to determine consumers' monthly internet usage. Additionally, charging based on a bandwidth usage is a flawed model when the cost of usage is totally out of line with the price. Consumers are much better served by plans based on the speed of the connection rather than amount of bandwidth used. Competition is crucial to our economy and I refuse to let monopolistic corporations dominate the market and gouge my constituents."
This bill is important, considering Time Warner Cable apparently hasn't given up on consumption based billing and similar plans could be utilized by other ISPs in the future. Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable, said this at the time: "It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on Consumption Based Billing. As a result, we will not proceed with implementation of additional tests until further consultation with our customers and other interested parties, ensuring that community needs are being met. While we continue to believe that Consumption Based Billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers, we want to do everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process."
That was April 16. Nothing further can be found regarding consumption based billing on Time Warner Cable's website, which used to display information (at least in April) about consumption based billing prominently on its website.
I held George W. Bush accountable and I will not vote for any more Iraq war funding until we have a strategy in place and under way to bring our troops home. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about our troops and I will not bend in this position.
Massa stood by his promise and was one of 32 Democrats to vote against the war supplemental. The supplemental passed the House with a 226 to 202 vote.
There are many reasons why progressives should oppose the supplemental. The $108 billion for the International Monetary Fund, which essentially was a bailout of European banks, was one reason. That is why 170 Republicans (most of the GOP conference) voted against the bill and was arguably a reason why Massa voted against it as well. But Massa also has made it clear that he will not support such legislation unless it includes clear-cut plans for the future. Meaning, if you don't have a plan to get out, you shouldn't be investing money into a war effort with no clear endgame.
Massa was joined by only one other Democratic member of the House delegation - Rep. Jose Serrano - in opposing this supplemental. The other 24 Democrats voted for it, which only goes to show the importance of this vote for Massa.
Massa doesn't hail from a deep blue district like most members of the New York delegation. He doesn't hail from a very progressive district either. The 29th congressional district covers a good portion of the Southern Tier in Western New York and has mostly rural areas inside of it. Republicans held the seat when it was created after redistricting from 2003 to 2009, when (as a result of the 2008 elections) Massa defeated Republican incumbent Randy Kuhl.
The vote against the supplemental was especially courageous considering Massa had already voted against the supplemental last month. That time, he was one of only 60 House members who opposed it, including 51 Democrats. After that vote, Massa was targeted by the NRCC for, in their words, voting against the troops, veterans and their families. This second vote against supplemental, while the Republicans opposed it, won't necessarily mean such attacks will stop.
It wasn't long ago that Massa had drawn the ire of the netroots when he voted against the housing bill. His rationale for voting against the bill was simple: It didn't do enough for his district.
"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party," Massa said of his vote against the housing bill. "Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district."
But while progressives might have disagreed with Massa, progressives should acknowledge that Massa does not put himself first. For Massa, this isn't about him. This is about the citizens of his district who elected him to office. He is one of the few genuine leaders we have left. As we have seen with the recent coup in the New York State Senate, too many of our elected officials but power and the perks of such power above all else. That cannot be said of Massa. He doesn't care about the power, the perks and the "rewards" of the job. He cares about the people of the 29th district.
Massa also cares deeply about many progressive issues. He has been out in front on health care reform and has co-sponsored H.R. 676, which would provide the right solutions to American's health care problem and provide for a national (and public) health care system. While some leaders in Congress and at the federal don't have the fortitude to advocate for such a system, Massa is. And when the progressive movement needs a leader on such issues, Massa is there.
Yesterday's vote against the war supplemental was proof of that. Massa does have an independent streak and he will not vote the party line just because that will get him party support every two years. He votes for what is right. He is able to balance his progressive tendencies with that independent streak and it has helped to make him popular in a conservative district that no one thought a Democrat would ever represent.
Kudos to Massa for voting against the supplemental yesterday. Even though the supplemental passed, Massa voted the right way. Just as he promised.
I mentioned yesterday in my interview with Congressman Eric Massa that he was attacked by the Republicans for voting against our troops and veterans.
I was able to obtain a copy of the mailer that was sent to residents of the 29th congressional district by the NRCC. The mailer features Abraham Lincoln's likeness and a quote from Lincoln that reads, "To care for him who shall have born the battle and for his widow and for his orphan."
Here is the rest of the mailer:
The NRCC attacked Massa for voting against all of these items, yet they did not specify what bill. All they would refer to the legislation as is a "bi-partisan bill" and claiming that Massa sided with "special interest extremists" instead of our troops.
The bill that the Republicans are attacking Massa over is the Iraq War supplemental that was passed in mid-May. The bill passed with bi-partisan support - it was a 368 to 60 vote - and when he voted against the bill, Massa explained why.
"I will not have my vote held hostage by line items to fund military projects while at the same time funding the UN. These are two very different issues and I will not vote to combine them. While I did support several line items in the bill, there were a few specifics which deeply troubled me. For example, during the recession, I cannot support sending $836 million to fund the United Nations, $109 to train and equip Palestinian security forces and up the to $429.5 million in foreign aid to Pakistan.
"For over four years prior to being elected to Congress, I promised to vote against any additional funding for the Iraq war without a clear and immediate plan of withdrawal," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Regardless of which party is in power, I could not in good conscience vote for any additional Iraq war funding. The Iraqi people want us to leave and I think we should begin redeploying American troops out of Iraq immediately. I've always promised to stand up to my party when I disagree with them, but yesterday I had to stand up to both political parties."
It is shameful that the party who had Walter Reed happen under their watch and other failings now is trying to take the high ground when it comes to who is voting for or against our troops. The Republicans who came up with this mailer probably didn't serve their country. Eric Massa did for 24 years. There are plenty of veterans who are currently serving in Congress who deserve our respect. They don't deserve attacks and claims that they are against our troops and veterans.
The Republicans have tried over the last few years to label Democrats as the anti-troop party. Look at how that's worked out for them. Labeling other Americans as against our troops is despicable. No one is more patriotic than the other. So let's quit this game of trying to get a leg up on who loves their country more.
Massa had his reasoning (which I agree with) for voting against this legislation. This wasn't about our troops. This was about funding the war efforts abroad, which included funds that Massa did not agree with. In his statement, he made that clear.
Massa did say that there were plenty of good programs in the bill, but that he could not vote for a bill like this with so much spending in it without a full exit strategy. Essentially for Massa, if there is no exit strategy, he's voting against it.
After the health care forum hosted by the Progressive Democrats of Genesee Valley on Saturday, I had the opportunity to ask Congressman Eric Massa a few questions about the work he is doing on behalf of the 29th congressional district.
One question I felt was important to ask was what Massa thought about the criticism of his approach to representation. Reporters and activists alike have questioned why Massa is so set on putting his district above things like endorsing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand or discussing next year's elections. He was criticized by progressives for his vote against the housing bill, which he said was a strong bill, but did not do enough for his district. Therefore, he was opposing it.
When I asked the question of Massa, I did not deliver it the way I wanted to. Nevertheless, I think Massa made his point and answered the question clearly enough for everyone to understand.
I also asked Massa about his work on the House Agriculture Committee and the threat a nuclear North Korea poses and why we should be aware of that threat.
Massa is a great interview. He was great during the forum and he was great face-to-face.
I should also mention that Massa was the subject of a Republican attack last week that tried to paint Massa as anti-troop and anti-veteran. It is an interesting strategy, considering Massa's 24 years of service in the United States Navy. He hit back today and used the GOP attack as a fundraising tool.
This paragraph from the e-mail is worth mentioning:
For too long, Democrats have been called weak and anti-troop. Today is the day we stand up together and declare that I have fought for our country, and together with your help, I will continue to fight for our troops and veterans.
It is hard to imagine being attacked for being anti-veteran when you are a veteran yourself. But the Republicans will continue to use such tactics to divide us, not unite us.
Massa has served his district effectively in Washington D.C. and will continue to do. He is a fighter and that is exactly what we need on Capitol Hill. If we had 435 Eric Massas in the House, we would get a lot more done than we do now. He will be a force in D.C. for years to come and will prove to be just the leader New York's 29th congressional district needs to fight for them.
Massa believes that it's "not appropriate" for him to inject himself into a Senate race that has no impact on him as a member of the House. He said that Gillibrand's campaign "doesn't revolve around members of Congress" and that his attention is being paid to the people he represents.
"I have not looked at anything she has done," Massa said. "I have been so focused on what I have been trying to do for the people of this district that, frankly, I find it terribly unnecessary and, at this point, a waste of time to be speculating about someone else's Senate race."
Before that, Massa had told a reporter that "I am much more focused on my district. Period."
Two reporters asked for Massa's take on Gillibrand and he wouldn't budge. A notable piece missing from the conversation was any praise for the senator, which doesn't suggest much given the line of questioning being focused on why he has not yet endorsed her.
Massa was also asked about the announcement today that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would be nominated to replace the retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court. He said that his office would be putting out a statement, but that he was happy that President Barack Obama chose to nominate a political centrist.
"Right off the bat, that's a good thing," Massa said. He added: "I like the idea that he [President Obama] has picked a political centrist."
He also stressed the importance of North Korea's nuclear program, which became news over the weekend because of tests conducted by North Korea.
"A nuclear-armed North Korea is a game-changer," he said. "It is something that, I think, all Americans should become understanding of the implications of. It certainly should have us focused on incredible expenditures of money and personnel that we currently have in Iraq, where our entire military ground force which is now completely committed."
Massa also targeted the Bush administration due to its lack of building up the Navy, which Massa contends is now the smallest it has been since World War I.
Massa's reasoning for voting against the first measure was that it didn't do enough for his district and Western New York. That rationable wasn't well received, as many questioned why Massa would vote against a bill that would do so much for the mortgage crisis throughout the country.
This time, Massa was one of those who voted for the bill. He credited the Senate for coming up with a more bi-partisan and better bill.
"Because of pressure from moderates in the Senate, we were able to modify this legislation and pass a truly bipartisan bill to help regulate the mortgage industry and help families stay in their homes," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Because the Senate was able to remove all cram-down provisions from the bill to prevent judges from unilaterally altering contracts, I was able to support this bill. With the inclusion of key provisions, the benefits of this legislation will be equally available to the 29th Congressional District and areas throughout the country. I firmly believe in voting against a bad bill to get a good one, and that's exactly what happened today."
The bill that was passed today is still a very good bill. Massa acknowledged that and chose to vote for it, knowing that it would be very beneficial for his district and for his country. Voting against the first bill because of the minimal impact on his district was seen as a poor excuse the last time, but this time Massa recognized the strength of this bill and supported it.
Earlier this week, Congressman Eric Massa stood up for customers of Time Warner when he came out against broadband caps that Time Warner has considered to experiment with in the Rochester area. The proposal for broadband caps would mean that customers who currently pay $40 a month for unlimited Internet would end up paying $150 a month for the same service.
Congressman Massa has heard from his constituents who are outraged at this move by Time Warner. He has received letters and e-mails from people who are angry at this proposal. In response to the outpouring of correspondence he has received, Massa said today he will introduce legislation to address the broadband caps called the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.
(Note: The act isn't finished yet, but will be soon. As soon as the bill is finished, we will have access to it.)
Today Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) announced officially that he is drafting legislation designed to prevent job killing broadband internet downloading caps. The Massa Broadband Internet Fairness Act would prohibit unfair tiered price structures from internet providers. The bill will also address the importance of helping broadband providers create jobs and increase their bandwidth while increasing competition in areas currently served by only one provider.
"I am taking a leadership position on this issue because of all the phone calls, emails and faxes I've received from my district and all over the country," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Time Warner has announced an ill-conceived plan to charge residential and business broadband fees based on the amount of data they download. They have yet to explain how increased internet usage increases their costs."
Massa also added this in response to Time Warner, who issued a statement regarding this proposal yesterday. I have included Time Warner's full proposal below the fold.
"Time Warner's decision has the potential to more than triple customers' current rates and I think most families will find this to be too taxing to afford. Time Warner believes they can do this in Rochester NY, Greensboro NC, Austin TX and San Antonio TX, and it's almost certainly just a matter of time before they attempt to overcharge all of their customers. And while I favor a business's right to maximize their profit potential, I believe safeguards must be put in place when a business has a monopoly on a specific region."
"At a time when millions of Americans have lost their jobs and businesses are struggling, I am compelled to fight against additional, unnecessary burdens placed on my constituents."
In the past week, there has been a significant uproar in the Rochester, NY area regarding Time Warner's announcement that they will "test market" a plan to charge customers based on how much they download. The initial proposal was to introduce a 5, 10, 20, or 40 gb/month downloading cap. If customers went over the cap, they would start mounting additional fees.
Then today Time Warner announced a new tiered plan similar to the previous one. However, for a consumer to receive the same unlimited internet that they currently do for around $40 per month, they would be billed $150 per month under the new plan.
In addition to this excessive and disproportionate charge, as internet usage increases by an average of 50% per year, companies setting caps sets a horrible, long-term, precedent. At a time when Americans need to utilize all available assets to improve the economy, limiting internet usage, which this plan would do, handicaps our ability to compete on the global stage. Furthermore, it will have significant stifling effects on start ups and small businesses.
This would also have significant impacts on the agricultural, medical, and educational communities. Farmers are increasingly dependent upon constant exchanges of GPS information to control all aspects of their operations. Medical professionals are increasing their data transfer rates, and patients rely on their ability to continue doing so unimpeded. Finally, educational institutions use more bandwidth every year. In Western New York, students at RIT's School for the Deaf, who use video transfer software to communicate, would be greatly disadvantaged by Time Warner's proposal.
It is also worth mentioning that Time Warner had four executives attend Congressman Massa's town hall meeting last night and engaged Congressman Massa on this issue. This reportedly led to an angry crowd and a tense debate about broadband caps. This isn't a popular decision Time Warner is making. That is very clear.
If you live somewhere in the 29th congressional district, chances are you either live in a town or live close to a town where Congressman Eric Massa will be holding a town hall meeting at some point over the next week.
Starting tomorrow, Congressman Massa will have seven town hall meetings in six counties over the course of eight days. The town hall meetings are a way for Massa to hear from the residents of his district and to allow them time to ask him questions.
Massa emphasizes that these meetings are open AND public. He will not exclude anyone from these meetings regardless of political affiliation and invites all citizens to participate.
The first town hall meeting will take place from 6:30 to 8 p.m. tomorrow night at Pittsford Sutherland High School Auditorium, 55 Sutherland St. Pittsford.
The rest of the schedule is below:
Friday, April 10
7:30 to 9 p.m.
Henrietta Fire Dept Training Center
60 Erie Station Road Extension (corner of E. River Road)
Henrietta, NY 14586
Saturday, April 11
3:30 to 5 p.m.
VFW Rex Field Post Number 901
113 Keefe Street
Elmira, NY 14904
Monday, April 13
4:30 to 6 p.m.
The American Legion
6500 Maples Road (Behind the Fire Hall)
Ellicottville, NY 14731
Tuesday, April 14
3:30 to 5 p.m.
304 7th St
Watkins Glen, NY 14891
Thursday, April 16
4:30 to 6 p.m.
Seneca Townhall
3675 Flint Road
Stanley, NY 14561
Thursday, April 16
6:30 to 8 p.m.
Benton Townhall
1000 Rt 14 A
Penn Yan, NY 14527
Few members of Congress offer this kind of access. If you are a resident in the 29th district, take advantage of this whenever you can. If you live near one of the meeting places, do go. Congressman Massa is one of the most open and accessible members of Congress there are. And you know you will get a straight answer out of him whether you like it or not.
Can't make it out to New York's 20th congressional district this weekend? There is one important way for you to volunteer on behalf of Scott Murphy this weekend.
The DCCC set up a virtual phone bank that you can use right from your computer. All you have to do is go to the website, sign in (or register if you don't have a username and password) and then you will be able to get started.
I know that I have some friends that headed out to NY-20 today to help Scott Murphy. I plan on doing my part from home thanks to the DCCC. If you can't make it out, please make some phone calls. They will go a long way and will help in the GOTV efforts this weekend.
One question I felt was important to ask was what Massa thought about the criticism of his approach to representation. Reporters and activists alike have questioned why Massa is so set on putting his district above things like 
Congressman Massa has heard from his constituents who are outraged at this move by Time Warner. He has received letters and e-mails from people who are angry at this proposal. In response to the outpouring of correspondence he has received, Massa said today he will introduce legislation to address the broadband caps called the Broadband Internet Fairness Act.
Starting tomorrow, Congressman Massa will have seven town hall meetings in six counties over the course of eight days. The town hall meetings are a way for Massa to hear from the residents of his district and to allow them time to ask him questions.
