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.
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.
Could the same thing happen with health care? Definitely.
This was passed along to me as an explanation for Massa's vote coming from Massa himself.
"I believe this bill, for a laundry list of details that all stem from employer-based, unregulated, private, for-profit health insurance, will make our health care system worse. An impact on Medicare, objections to constitutionality, impacts on rural health care, a lack of true cost control, a tremendous expansion of federal overhead, a lack of a true public option, a lack of expansion of doctors, are all debatable points.
That said, my opposition does not come from Washington, D.C. political talking points, but rather from a decade of study and immersion in this subject. The constituents of this Congressional District did not hire me to pander to them or tell them what I think they want to hear. They hired me to fully understand - in detail - the legislation I am asked to consider and only support that which I think will help. That is what I have done. That is why I voted no on H.R. 3962."
No one's vote seems to be more scrutinized than Massa regarding this health care bill. His vote against this bill is disappointing. I respect his position and do understand his stance, but I would like to see him say that while it is not perfect, it is better than no reform at all. This bill is not a terrible bill. Could it be better? Yes. But considering all we had to go through to get to this point, it's a solid piece of legislation. It's a great starting point on an issue (health care reform) where we have had no starting point for a century.
That's the bad news for Massa. This was a historic vote and being on the wrong side of the vote isn't helping him, at least among the netroots and progressives. Only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted against the bill: Dennis Kucinich and Massa. Kucinich's vote, according to an e-mail he sent out today, was because of the bill's continued support of a private insurance industry and the lack of a single payer system. Massa gave other reasons, as listed in the statement above.
The good news for Massa is that this may not be the last vote on health care. If a conference bill comes to the House (getting a bill passed in the Senate will be a long-hard fight, but possible), Massa will have a second chance. And then that will be THE historic vote. If he votes for it, redemption is his and he will have voted for true reform. If he votes against it, the outrage many in the netroots have now won't go away.
The health care reform measure passed the House last night by a slim margin, with every representative casting a vote either in favor or in opposition of reform.
The final tally was 220 to 215, with 219 Democrats voting for reforming our broken health care system and 39 Democrats joining 176 Republicans in opposing the measure. There was one Republican vote, Anh "Joseph" Cao, a representative from Louisiana.
There has been plenty of praise for this bill and plenty of criticism. But what we need to remember is that there have been many attempts at reforming health care with zero success. I know that we want a single-payer system, but you don't get there without baby steps. We just didn't build a spaceship and launch ourselves to the moon. We had to plan it out, test things first and then reach the ultimate goal after years of trying. We will get to a single-payer system, but you don't get there by immediately switching from a for-profit health care system to a single-payer one.
Here is how the roll call played out among our representatives in New York (Republicans in italics):
AYE Ackerman
Arcuri
Bishop
Clarke
Crowley
Engel
Hall
Higgins
Hinchey
Israel
Lowey
Maffei
Maloney
McCarthy
Meeks
Nadler
Owens
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Weiner
NAY King Lee Massa
McMahon
Murphy
This is a great day for reform. "Yes we can" was the rallying cry for us last year. This proves we can do it. Now, we have a lot of work to do in the Senate.
The reform effort isn't over, but it's as close as it's ever been.
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.
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.
Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee, leads with 20 percent. Democratic candidate Bill Owens comes in at 17 percent and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman also has 17 percent.
In case you don't know who the Club For Growth is, they are a pretty conservative group that wants to see the Bush tax cuts made permanent and believes in expanding free trade. So having this group come up with a poll that has such a diverse opinion of all three candidates is worth noting.
But like any of these polls, take it for what it's worth. There were only 300 people polled and the margin of error was over five percent.
The poll summary also shows the problems that the Republicans and conservatives (and perhaps Conservatives) will have as this race progresses. Those who are conservative Republicans might abandon their party and put ideology first by supporting Hoffman, who has separated himself as the conservative in this race while labeling Owens and Scozzafava as "liberals."
It does open up a chance for Owens to take the moderate vote (and apparently just as much of the conservative vote as Hoffman has) and win this election. I know people have certain opinions of Owens, but after learning more about him, he's not a bad candidate. (More on Owens later.)
Also out today is a new ad from the DCCC targeting Dede Scozzafava. This is in response to the ads sent out yesterday by the NRCC tying Owens to Pelosi in an attempt to, like Hoffman, make Owens look liberal.
The ongoing attacks on ACORN have been blown out of proportion. We, as progressives know that (or should know that). The attacks have come from right-wingers who in their relentless ACORN attacks have taken a much needed group and make it seem like a huge fraudulent operation with zero credibility.
The right-wing, like they always are, would be wrong.
One of the problems, however, is that Democrats are willing to cave because of pressure from the right-wing and Republicans. Today was one example of that.
The House voted today to prohibit federal funds from being sent to ACORN. The final vote was 345 to 75, with 172 Democrats supporting the measure. Every single Republican - 173 of them - voted to support it as well.
Of the 27 New York representatives who voted (Yvette Clarke did not vote and John McHugh wasn't present with good reason), 17 members of the New York delegation voted for this measure.
Congressman Eric Massa issued the following statement, only it's hard to see the logic in his vote:
"With mounting allegations against ACORN, a public outraged by recent videos, and considering the Census Bureau's recent decision to sever their ties with ACORN, I voted to prohibit any future federal spending on this organization," said Rep. Eric Massa. "I too was deeply disturbed by the recent ACORN videos that have been played out over the news and am glad that I had the opportunity today to sever Congress' ties with this organization."
I am assuming that similar statements would be put on this subject from the rest who voted on it.
Let's make this clear: These same petty votes that are championed by Republicans to prohibit funds from going to ACORN are coming from the same party that just days ago said we were distracting from the "real issues" at hand when a resolution of disapproval was brought to the House floor. Same party said that it was more important to talk about the "real issues." I didn't know ACORN was a "real issue." (Until it ended up the official news station of the Republican Party.)
We need to go on the offensive. We also need to highlight the great things ACORN does which representatives like Massa and the other Democrats who voted today ignored.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has heard plenty about her vote against an amendment that was put forth in the U.S. Senate Monday to prohibit Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds being delivered to ACORN.
The reason? Gillibrand was one of only seven senators to oppose the amendment. The amendment passed 83 to 7 and Gillibrand was one of the seven (all Democrats) to oppose it.
Since that point, Gillibrand's vote has been looked at as a shift to the left while also being attacked by conservatives. Politico's Glenn Thrush said that the vote divided Gillibrand and Senator Chuck Schumer while also adding that Gillibrand's vote was possibly due to the fact that ACORN is very active in New York City and it also has connections to the Working Families Party, a line that Gillibrand will certainly want in next year's election. The New York Post has an editorial in today's paper called "Sen. Jello-Brand" which argues that Gillibrand has shifted from being a moderate voice in the House to a "radical leftist" in the Senate and argued that the vote in support of ACORN proves that.
However, Gillibrand's backing of ACORN is not a new thing, nor is it an attempt by the junior senator to shift to the left. Here's the proof:
- On February 6, the Senate voted on an amendment put forth by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that would prohibit funds from being sent to ACORN. Senator Gillibrand voted against the amendment along with Senator Schumer. The overall vote featured 45 "Yea" votes, meaning the amendment failed to pass.
- On March 26, the Senate took up another amendment this time to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. This amendment served a similar purpose to the others that have been proposed: Oppose any funds being sent to ACORN. Senator Gillibrand voted in favor of tabling the motion. The motion was tabled by a 53 to 43 vote.
- The came the vote Monday which received overwhelming support. Having 83 senators from both parties back an amendment is quite an accomplishment. But Gillibrand voted against the amendment, which is consistent with her previous positions.
In addition to her Senate votes, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which included $4 billion trust fund that was available to groups like ACORN.
After the criticism mounted against Gillibrand, her office issued this statement:
"While Senator Gillibrand finds the actions of certain ACORN employees to be reprehensible and will ask ACORN leaders for a full investigation and plan to prevent any further abuse, the truth remains that thousands of New York families who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations like ACORN for assistance. Senator Gillibrand believes that eliminating funding for the important programs that ACORN provides would be harmful to the thousands of hard working New Yorkers who need extra assistance in the middle of this economic crisis."
There are two opponents in this instance: The media and the right-wing. The media is an opponent here for lazy reporting and a willingness to latch onto the opposition's talking points. ACORN, like anything, has its flaws. ACORN has some issues and I, like many others, agree that they need to address those issues. But ACORN also serves a purpose and in these tough economic times, ACORN has a place.
For the media to jump on the anti-ACORN bandwagon is irresponsible. In this case, they also fail to discuss what I think is the bigger story: Why so many Democrats have abandoned ship and jumped on that same anti-ACORN bandwagon. If Gillibrand is one of only seven Democrats who still support ACORN, why are the other 53 Democrats in the U.S. Senate opposed? What made them change their minds? Did this one incident scare them? If so, I think that's more of a question to ask than the alleged political convenience and opportunism of Gillibrand.
The state that was well represented in the "nay" column? New York. Four New York congressmen voted against the resolution and a fifth, Congressman Eliot Engel, voted present.
Why did these four oppose it? Perhaps Congressman Maffei put it best in his statement:
It does not promote civility to have a party line vote and spend an afternoon debating whether Mr. Wilson's apology for what he said during the President's address last week is 'good enough.' Clearly, Mr. Wilson thoroughly embarrassed himself. And while I disagree with Mr. Wilson and I strongly support the President, I think we should be moving on and not piling on. As Voltaire wrote, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' We all agree Mr. Wilson's behavior was inappropriate, now it is time to get back to work.
Speaking as a blogger, I think we did pile on in this situation. It was nice that we were able to raise money for Wilson's opponent, Democratic candidate Rob Miller. But Wilson raised money too. While we did mobilize for Miller, the right followed and did the same thing for Wilson. That was to be expected. They weren't going to hang him out to dry in a district that he came close to losing last time to Miller.
It is time to get back to work.
Congressman Massa also issued a statement on this vote:
"My vote against formally reprimanding Rep. Wilson is based on my belief that we should be doing more important things now that Congress is back in session," said Congressman Eric Massa. "I strongly disapproved of Joe Wilson's outburst last week, but I think it's more important for us to be working on solutions rather than voicing more objections to something that happened almost a full week ago. The issues facing the American people are more important than myself, Rep. Wilson, or President Obama and I think we owe it to the public to continue working for them right now."
Out of the four who voted, I will say this about Massa. Massa has shown during his time in office that he has no time for partisan politics. Some of the bigger media outlets always try to get his thoughts on various issues, whether it's why he hadn't endorsed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand or his thoughts on the gubernatorial race next year in New York. So it didn't surprise me when he voted against this resolution.
Now that it's out of the way and some members of the Democratic leadership got what they wanted, we can get back to the people's business.
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.
"Just putting it in self-interest terms, how would I have had the enthusiasm and the fight if I had actually cast a vote I didn't believe in?" he asked. "I couldn't do that." - Paul Wellstone explaining why he was one of 23 members of the U.S. Senate to vote against the Iraq War in 2002.
Five of those votes are relatively safe votes considering those representatives come from downstate districts that are fairly Democratic. But Massa's vote is worth acknowledging. Massa has been targeted by the NRCC for his vote as was given anti-troop and anti-veteran labels for that vote. It's not something that is a safe political move for Massa, but it is something he has done based on principle.
That cannot be said for the other representatives in New York. While three of the remaining 23 representatives who voted for the supplemental are Republicans, 20 of those are Democrats. A few are in similar positions as Massa, but most are in districts where they don't have anything to lose.
Tomorrow is another key vote on the war supplemental. The progressive movement is going all out, as FireDogLake and Brave New Films are advocating for "no" votes on the supplemental.
Here is a video from Robert Greenwald asking you to contact your representative and call on your member of Congress to vote against the supplemental.
It should be noted that the New York representatives who signed the 2007 pledge are the following: Rep. Clarke, Rep. John Hall, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Rep. Gregory Meeks, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Charles Rangel, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. Towns, Rep. Velazquez and Rep. Weiner. Hall, Hinchey, Maloney, Meeks, Nadler, Rangel and Slaughter all voted in favor of the war supplemental in May and should all be targeted this time around and reminded that they pledged to not vote for a war supplemental which does not include a timeline for withdrawal.
FireDogLake has a tool to use to record what happens when you call your respective representative. You can use this tool to post the response you get from your representative's office when you ask them where your congressman or congresswoman stands on the supplemental.
Jane Hamsher from FDL believes we are close to having the votes we need. There are plenty of New York representatives on the list of undecideds who should be firmly opposed to this.
If Congressman Massa can stand up on his two feet as a 24 year veteran of the Navy and a member of the House Armed Services Committee and say that he is strongly opposed to this war supplemental, then there should be other representatives willing to do the same. As a reminder, here is what Massa said on May 15 when he explained his vote against the supplemental:
"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."
This supplemental needs to be defeated. Let's make sure that those representatives who say they are progressive stay true to their word and vote against this supplemental. Call your representative and get them on the record about this. This will be voted on tomorrow and we need quick action. So when tomorrow morning comes, start making some phone calls.
There were few Republicans who were successful winning their congressional seats back time after time like John McHugh. McHugh, who some have considered a fairly moderate Republican, ran unopposed in 2002, won with 71 percent of the vote in 2004 against Bob Johnson, beat Johnson again in 2006 with 63 percent of the vote and won re-election last November with 65 percent of the vote over Democrat Mike Oot.
Now with McHugh out of the picture, Oot is very interested in getting the Democratic nomination for the seat.
In a letter to supporters, Oot said he is "going to try to secure the nomination" and is confident that if he can get the nomination from party leaders, he can win the race.
The full letter is below the fold, but here is an excerpt from the letter:
Dear Family and Friends,
Well, it's been a busy week, so I thought I should write you and bring you up to date.
I am going to try to secure the nomination as the Democratic candidate for Congress in the 23rd District.
We are moving a step at a time and I will consult with my family and advisors to evaluate our position at every step.
As you know, 21 months ago, my family and I set out on a journey motivated entirely by two things, our frustration with the Bush Administration and their collaborators in Congress and a strong desire to improve the quality of life, economic and otherwise, of the citizens of this District.
Soon, we were joined by you, and all of us continued that journey and tried to make history by working to bring change to the the 23rd District.
Despite the outcome of the election, it's hard to say we lost. The fact is that with very little money and the strong support of volunteers like you, almost 70,000 voters joined with us in that effort. In Madison County we received 45% of the vote, in Clinton County 44% and in Franklin County 43%.
Now McHugh is leaving; it's an entirely different situation. The seat will soon be vacant and as I said, I want the nomination as the candidate for the open seat.
Oot wasn't a very good fundraiser the last time around. His campaign finance filings show that he raised over $100,000 for a congressional race. That isn't a lot of money, especially for a district that spans 11 counties. He attributes this to the other races happening around him, including the congressional races in NY-24 and NY-25, but I don't think it's the races as much as it was an inability to raise money or being inexperienced in the area of fundraising.
In addition to that, running against McHugh is tough. He received bi-partisan support over the years and that made it difficult for any Democrat to run against him. So Oot had that going against him too. It wasn't a race that Oot was going to win on his first try.
It is going to take a lot of money to win this race. We saw in NY-20 that a lot of money was spent by both sides. The race in NY-23 won't be any different. We still have time before the race is even announced (McHugh is going to have to wait a few weeks before being confirmed, maybe even a month) but it's going to take a lot of effort to win this. Is Mike Oot the guy? On paper, probably not.
But who knows what would happen with the state party paying attention and helping Oot. That could be a difference-maker. Enter the DCCC and things get more interesting.
I wouldn't rule Oot out completely. But based on past history, he's going to have to show why he would be a great candidate for a special election and show that he can improve in his weak areas.
It will be awhile - possibly over a month - before John McHugh is confirmed as the new Secretary of the Army, a post that many contend he is qualified for and is deserving of.
But with an open seat and a special election coming up, speculation is growing about who are possible candidates for the race and there have been a number of reports telling us who is out.
One person who can't avoid the speculation is Sen. Darrel Aubertine. Aubertine has been mentioned from the very beginning as a possible Democratic candidate for this seat. He hasn't ruled out a run, but such a run (if he were to win) would put the New York State Senate majority in jeopardy.
But if the Democrats want to win this seat, Aubertine wouldn't be a bad pick. He has proven that he can win in the North Country and a portion of the district (about one-third of the registered voters, give or take) overlaps with his state senate district. So it would be tough for him not to run, but as we learned with Scott Murphy, if the candidate is smart and willing to work hard, we have a chance either way.
On the Republican side, their pool is growing. The National Journal lists 12 Republicans who are still in the running. That list includes Assemblywoman DeDe Scozzafava, who has drawn the ire of conservatives due to her support of marriage equality. They are already saying that if she is the nominee, she will have a tough time getting the Conservative Party line, which a Republican candidate rarely goes without in New York State.
Other candidates include a businessman (Ex-Deutsche Bank Managing Director Matt Doheny) who could self-finance a race, something that might interest the Republicans. Sen. Joe Griffo is still considering a run. His senate district overlaps with the congressional district and considering his age, would not be a bad choice to replace McHugh. McHugh's chief of staff Robert Taub has also been mentioned since the very beginning as a possible heir to the seat.
There are no Democrats out of the race, although I have heard rumblings that state Chairwoman June O'Neill would not run. There are a few Republicans out, according to the National Journal. Former Sen. Jim Wright is out. We already knew Sen. Betty Little was out. And the 2006 nominee from NY-24, Ray Meier, reconsidered and said he was not interested in running.
At this point, it is clear who the favorite on the Democrats' side is. On the Republican side, it's not too clear. It seems like Scozzafava's name has been mentioned a lot and that could mean something, but I have heard Griffo's name mentioned just as much, along with Taub.
I could see both sides going for members of the business community, which would make this race wide open. If this race is between elected officials, I think we would have a better idea of where the race stands. But with businesspeople involved, we will have no idea how well (or how poorly) they will perform. It would be an interesting race from that aspect.
MSNBC reports that President Obama is set to name Rep. John McHugh (NY-23) as his Secretary of the Army. This would create another special election in the northernmost part of the state.
Let the speculation begin -- who would run, and who is likely to win? I refuse to speculate, because I have no knowledge of that district, but someone on this website must know something.
The vote was 328 to 93, with 85 Republicans joining 243 Democrats in supporting the tax.
Among New York representatives, most New York House members voted for the bill. The only ones who didn't were Rep. Peter King, a Republican, and Rep. Mike McMahon, a newly elected Democrat in NY-13.
Here is a summary of the bill, which really gives you a great idea of what this tax exactly is:
Imposes an additional income tax on bonuses paid to employees or former employees of covered Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recipients. Defines "covered TARP recipient" to include: (1) entities and their affiliates that received capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 exceeding $5 billion; and (2) the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Exempts entities that repay TARP amounts exceeding a $5 billion threshold.
Sets the rate of such tax at 90% of the lesser of: (1) the bonus amounts paid; or (2) the amount of such taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeding $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return). Exempts any employee who irrevocably waives or returns a bonus payment before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due.
While I am glad that the House has taken action on this, I wonder why they waited so long to address this. This should have been clear from the start and it should have been one of the conditions of the TARP money. Of course, there was a different president then (when the TARP money was passed). But they should have changed the rules as soon as President Barack Obama took office.
This reminds me of Delphi announcing that they might close factories and cut jobs, but quietly attempting to hand out $100 million in so-called "performance bonuses."
And if anyone wants to complain that these are "private entities," as long as they are getting taxpayer funds, they aren't technically private. If we are paying for their firm to stay afloat, we own it. Therefore, we get a say in what goes on with OUR money.
But there was one notable vote among New York's representatives. That vote came from Congressman Eric Massa, who was one of 24 Democrats to oppose the legislation.
Massa didn't oppose it because, like most of the other Democrats who opposed it, he was a Blue Dog. Massa opposed it because of the minimal impact it would have on 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. 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," said Congressman Massa moments after the vote. "With this in mind, I could not rationalize further deficit spending in the face of minimal assistance to the working families in our district. While there are a number of things that I did like in this bill, the projections in it demonstrated that it was largely targeted to States like California, Nevada and Florida where the housing crisis has hit the hardest, not Western New York. I support helping families refinance their adjustable rate mortgages to stay in their homes, but compared to many other states, Western New Yorkers would not benefit enough to warrant my vote."
The Olean Times-Herald also discussed Massa's independence on this issue in a piece this morning. As they reported, Massa discussed the housing bill during his weekly press call. During that call, he made it clear that he would oppose the legislation because it did not benefit Western New York and did not go far enough and helping homeowners in his district.
Massa has argued that this vote shows his independence and that, as he said in the Olean Times-Herald piece, he isn't "married to the Democratic leadership." But his vote is much more than that.
I know that many constituents in every congressional district in the country feel that their opinions don't matter. They feel that their representative votes the party line or votes in their own best interest. In this case, Massa showed that his district is in his mind every time he votes. That means something.
Prior to being elected to Congress, we knew Massa was special. We knew that he was outspoken and that he wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in. That is what made him an appealing and excellent candidate. And that is what makes him an excellent congressman.
While there are things to like about the housing bill, if it's not going to do anything for your district, why vote for it? That question is one that every representative should ask themselves when they vote on important bills. Congressman Massa asked himself that question when the housing bill came across his desk and he didn't see the bill helping his district. So he voted against it.
This won't be the last time Massa does this. I have a feeling you will see plenty of this over the next 21 months and beyond.
The final version of the package comes in at $789 billion, which is less than the bills that passed both houses of Congress over the past week.
According to Sen. Schumer, New York will get a healthy cut of the package. The state will receive $12.6 billion in Medicaid funding spread out over the next nine quarters. Of those monies, $8.6 billion will go to the state, $2.8 billion will go to New York City, $929 million will go to the upstate counties and $292 million will go to Long Island. The Medicaid relief will go directly to the localities so they will see immediate benefits.
Usually, the federal government pays a percentage of the state's Medicaid costs. In New York's case, that percentage is 50 percent. But under the stimulus package, that percentage is closer to 60 percent. That means the state will have to put less money into Medicaid.
New York will also receive $2.7 billion in education funding, although this money is considered a "stabilization fund" and will be used to make up for cuts already made to education programs. There is no money for school construction in the bill, which was something included in the House package but taken out in the Senate deal. But there is $800 million for special education funding.
Schumer said that the Senate will start debating this package tonight and could vote on it as early as midnight. He did warn, however, that if a senator chooses to place a hold on the package, they won't be able to act on the bill for 36 hours. So at the latest, it won't be voted on until the weekend. Schumer added though that he didn't see anyone placing a hold on the bill.
So how good is this package? It's not perfect, Schumer argued. But it's good enough.
"We couldn't let the perfect get in the way of the very good," Schumer said.
Schumer complimented and thanked Governor Paterson for his role in lobbying senators and being a proponent of the package. Paterson reminded the media during the call that the state faces tough fiscal times ahead and that this bill doesn't mean we can sit back and relax.
"We have not found the bottom of the floor of the deficit," Paterson said, warning that there will still be cuts and there still will be action taken to address the state's growing deficit.
New York got a bigger piece of the pie than expected. There are a lot of benefits here. I'm awaiting the final summary of New York's part of the package. I should have that later.
But the Senate's version of the economic stimulus package is very different. Initially, the Senate Democrats increased the size of the package before realizing that they didn't have the votes to pass that package. In order to pass it, they needed a few Republicans to help them out. After negotiating with these Republicans, the Senate came up with a deal that fully or partially cut funding for several elements of the package.
The Senate's version also cut back on President Barack Obama's proposed middle class tax cut even though tax cuts are a main part of the Senate's package.
By comparison, one-third of the House package was made up of tax cuts (approximately $275 billion). The Senate version is said to include $350 billion in tax cuts, which means that in a package that costs approximately $780 billion, tax cuts are nearly half of the whole package.
So what does this all mean? It means that we are in for quite a week. The Senate has yet to vote on their package, but that vote should happen some time this week. It will be interesting to see how the states react, considering that $40 billion in funding set aside for states was slashed from the Senate's version of the stimulus package. Many states, including New York, would have benefited from that money. But now, much of it has been cut away.
The best plan is the House plan, but it was easier for the House to pass this bill. With such a solid majority, the House did not need (and did not receive) a single Republican vote. In all, 244 Democrats supported the bill. But the Senate does not have that luxury.
The Senate needs 60 votes. There are 56 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with the Democratic Party. That means they needed two votes. So instead of talking tough, they folded. They cut a stimulus package down to $780 billion and loaded it up with tax cuts for two votes. There might have been some deal-making that needed to be done, but the Senate Democrats went too far.
Economists say that we do need a stimulus package. And they also say the sooner, the better. We need a stimulus package. But we also need leaders who realize that we are in an economic crisis. This isn't time to take a hard-line stand solely based on politics. If a majority of economists say that we need a stimulus package, we should listen to those calls and implement a package that will be in the best interests of the American people.
But there was one notable vote among New York's representatives. That vote came from 
