NY-29: Kuhl talks about gas prices at City Hall, Massa requests debates

by: Jerri S. Kaiser

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 16:54:49 PM EDT

Kuhl also mentioned repealing "Section 5, which prevents the government from purchasing alternative energy," to use his words.  Kuhl then called on Pelosi to bring Congress back to vote on this issue.  Said Kuhl "Now is the time for action."

After taking questions from the mainstream media, two others tried to ask Rep. Kuhl questions but he refused to answer them, saying that "We'll take your questions later."  When I tried to ask the question anyway ("Why this sudden urgency to act now when in 2005 you voted against HR 6 which would have increased fuel efficiency standards, and in February 2008 you voted against the Green Energy Bill?") his campaign manager, Justin Stokes, said "This is a non-political event."

Somehow I fail to see how this staged event (camera crews and newspapers were invited) is "non-political" when Kuhl himself calls on Speaker Pelosi to bring the Congress back, making it seem like this is what has been stalling real progress in energy alternatives all these years.

Nevermind that Kuhl voted against increasing taxes on energy companies in 2007 with HR 2776, and the fact that Kuhl voted against revoking oil and gas tax breaks for oil companies in 2006 and 2007 with HR 4297.

Kuhl then went onto say "I'm as disappointed as you are to find ourselves in this position (speaking to a fellow city councilman who questioned his practices in Congress).  The government should have done something thirty years ago."  Kuhl then referred to the solution as a 3-legged stool, indicating that the stool, like the 3-part plan, won't work unless all three parts are used.  Kuhl then reiterated that the press conference was not going to be a political issue.

Democratic challenger Eric Massa was in attendance and approached Kuhl afterwards in the lobby, cameras rolling on them both.  Massa challenged Kuhl to debate him and Kuhl ultimately said "We will debate...I expect an invitation."  Massa then said that he had given him an invitation and Kuhl left the area to go have a private meeting with Tom Reed, the Republican Mayor of Corning, who had also attended the meeting.

Massa said afterwards "I am looking for an agreement to hold public debates.  He doesn't want to do that.  He walks away, he gets angry and that's what is wrong with Washington."  Massa also said that "You don't need to call a political press conference to realize that people are hurting."

Massa's campaign released the following after the presser:

After the press conference dissipated, Massa hand delivered a letter to Rep. Kuhl, again requesting that he agree to debate at Corning Community College within the next 2 weeks:

Kuhl stated: "We will debate ... we have said publicly, we will continue to say publicly, when we can arrange our schedule we will meet for these."

Dan Kane, City Councilman for the 1st Ward stated: "I don't understand why Randy Kuhl refuses to answer the public. He said this wasn't a political event today, but his only staffer there was his campaign manager. Randy Kuhl has stopped his town hall meetings, won't take questions from the public, and refuses to respond to invitations to debate the issues of the day. He has stated that Congress is on vacation, but he still refuses to debate Eric Massa in public, even when the local media and prominent local educational institutions invite him. I'm also confused about why he was here. We all know we're hurting, but he's here campaigning in front of the cameras. How does that help families in Corning? It's a shame, but that's Washington as usual."

Video on WETMTV.com of the Massa invitation to Kuhl is here.

Here is Channel 18's take on the story.

UPDATE: Later Kuhl told the local media:

"That's not the way I was raised," said Kuhl of Massa's behavior.  "Unfortunately, there are people who didn't have the luxury of having wonderful parents like I did who taught about parental respect."

I'm confused by this statement.  How is challenging your opponent to a debate in public evidence of being raised incorrectly?  What does that have to do with parental respect?

NY-26: Powers On Bush: Calls For Drilling In ANWR "Convenient Distraction"

by: robert.harding

Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 15:01:35 PM EDT

"Over the course of his administration, President Bush has consistently chosen the interests of his friends in big oil over middle class families. His call to remove the ban on offshore drilling and begin drilling in Alaska's ANWR province is a convenient distraction from his administration's the lack of planning.

"The Bush Administration's national energy policy lacks any long-term solutions while Western New Yorkers are paying more than $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline with no clear plan to remedy this problem.  It will be the job of the next Congress and future Administration to bring a realistic approach to solving our energy crisis.

"Western New York has the opportunity to lead by example encouraging the growth of green collar jobs. We have a strong manufacturing base, a dynamic agribusiness community and a history in producing clean energy."

Powers wants to bring green energy jobs to Western New York and is strong on environmental issues. With gas prices as high as they are, we need individuals (Democrats) in Congress who are willing to step up and address these critical issues. Jon Powers has proven time and time again he is willing to address these issues and discuss their importance in our current political environment.  

POLL: New Yorkers Want Democratic Senate; Affected By High Gas Prices

by: robert.harding

Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EDT

But perhaps the most important question dealt with high gas prices in New York. According to the survey, 61 percent of New Yorkers surveyed support a "gas tax holiday" while 35 percent oppose it. When asked what impact gas prices had, 57 percent of New Yorkers said that high gas prices had a "very serious impact."

The poll also asked respondents if they would prefer a Republican Senate so that New York's government isn't dominated by Democrats of if they preferred Democrats to "make state government more effective."

The survey found that 48 percent believed that it was important to have a Democratic Senate compared to only 39 percent who believed that it was important to have a Republican Senate.

That is important, considering Democrats do have the Executive Branch and the Assembly. Some voters might be hesitant to have Democrats holding the majority in the New York State Senate, but it is clear they want change.

And for the record, more New Yorkers have a favorable view of Barack Obama than they do of Hillary Clinton.  

House Also Votes To Suspend Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve

by: robert.harding

Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EDT

Only 25 Republicans voted against the measure (all of New York's Republicans voted in favor of the bill) and it passed the House with a veto-proof majority.

H.R. 6022 is also known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008. The text of the legislation reads as follows:

      (a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2008--

           (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the royalty-in-kind program; and

           (2) the Secretary of Energy shall suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any acquisition method.

     (b) Resumption in Calendar Year 2008- During the period specified in subsection (a) but not earlier than 30 days after the date on which the President notifies Congress that the President has determined that the weighted average price of petroleum in the United States for the most recent 90-day period is $75 or less per barrel--

           (1) the Secretary of the Interior may resume acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the royalty-in-kind program; and

           (2) the Secretary of Energy may resume acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any acquisition method.

     (c) Existing Contracts-

           (1) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CONTRACTS- In the case of any royalty-in-kind oil scheduled to be delivered to the Department of Energy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of Interior prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall accept delivery of such oil.

           (2) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTS- In the case of any oil scheduled to be delivered to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of Energy prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, negotiate a deferral of the delivery of the oil in accordance with procedures of the Department of Energy in effect on the date of enactment of this Act for deferrals of oil.

The SPR is almost full to capacity, so we can afford to do this. The overwhelming support for it is what surprised me. In the Senate, only one senator voted against this and in the House, only 25 representatives voted against it. Of course, all were Republicans.  

Senate Votes To Stop Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve

by: robert.harding

Tue May 13, 2008 at 17:44:26 PM EDT

With an overwhelming 97 to 1 vote, the Senate voted to halt storing oil in the SPR in a way to increase supply and thus, lower the price.

What SA 4737 would do is as follows:

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2008--

   (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the royalty-in-kind program; and

   (2) the Secretary of Energy shall suspend acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any other acquisition method.

   (b) Resumption.--Not earlier than 30 days after the date on which the President notifies Congress that the President has determined that the weighted average price of petroleum in the United States for the most recent 90-day period is $75 or less per barrel--

   (1) the Secretary of the Interior may resume acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the royalty-in-kind program; and

   (2) the Secretary of Energy may resume acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through any other acquisition method.

   (c) Existing Contracts.--In the case of any oil scheduled to be delivered to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pursuant to a contract entered into by the Secretary of Energy prior to, and in effect on, the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, negotiate a deferral of the delivery of the oil for a period of not less than 1 year, in accordance with procedures of the Department of Energy in effect on the date of enactment of this Act for deferrals of oil.

We have nearly maxed out our capacity with the SPR. It is nearly full and with prices as they are, we just cannot continue to do this at our expense.

If you are scoring at home, gas prices in New York are $3.896 today, according to Gas Buddy.  

Another Proposal To Address Gas Prices: $100 Rebate Checks

by: robert.harding

Sun May 11, 2008 at 23:56:53 PM EDT

New York State Might Give You $100

As a result now Senate democrats are looking at other possible ways to provide relief to taxpayers. According to Senators Antoine Thompson and Bill Stachowski, they are considering a one-hundred dollar rebate check to all New York households. Senator Stachowski says while the estimated cost of the gas tax holiday is $600 million, the rebate cost is expected to be half that, or $300 million. The money would come out of the general fund. The measure is expected to be introduced later this week in Albany.

"I believe that it might have better bi-partisan support from the Senate and Assembly than the gas tax," said Senator Thompson, "because then you would know people would directly receive it. There is a concern that if you eliminate the gas tax just for the summer residents might never see it. But if you give them a rebate check you would see it. It would come directly in the mail."

With a growing state deficit, lawmakers were asked if New York could even afford to provide taxpayers this relief. Said one spokesman, "the state can't afford not to."

This would be another short-term solution (or band-aid) for a long-term and in-depth problem. We need to address the real issue: Big Oil. And Big Oil has been busy trying to repair their reputation due to all the complaints about high gas prices.

It is time we address the true culprit (oil companies) of this problem. And if our politicians won't do it, Democrat OR Republican, we should seriously consider why they won't address those problems and if we can find a replacement who will.