LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
One of the common critiques of the Republican Party is that they have gotten away from Republicans like Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan. Instead of being for the Republican Party, they are instead a front for the conservative movement. It has worked in the past, but it only works so long and so often. With such a focus on conservatism (especially neo-conservatism), you are going to alienate certain moderates that consider themselves Republicans but aren't welcomed into a party whose leaders only want conservatives.
The NRCC has posted a story from Human Events on its website that reads, "Scozzafava Too Liberal for New York Conservatives." The piece highlights conservative outrage over Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava running on the Working Families Party line in the past, or as the piece called the WFP, "a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN."
Now, with the special election for McHugh's seat likely to be held November 3, will Scozzafava become the first Republican U.S. House hopeful to run with the ballot line of the Working Families Party -- whose co-founders include veteran leftist organizers Dan Cantor and Bob Master, the United Auto Workers and ACORN?
When I mentioned the endorsement of the WFP in the House race, Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns told me "there has been no discussion of this." Asked about the party's ties to ACORN, Burns said that had Scozzafava been in Congress during the vote last week, "she would have voted to defund ACORN." He added that she has "straight As" from the National Rifle Association and voted against Democratic Gov. David Paterson's "bloated" budget this year (Burns conceded there were other issues on which the Republican has problems with conservatives in her party: she is pro-abortion, voted for gay marriage and, while not endorsing the controversial "card check" provision in the Employee Free Choice Act, she does support "reform in workers' ability to organize" -- a stand not too different from that of AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka when he said he could support EFCA without card check).
Regarding Scozzafava's ties to the WFP and the recent attacks from Hoffman and the Conservative Party, Burns and other Republicans in upstate New York reminded me that this is a "first," that since 1998, more than eighty Republican candidates have sought office running with both the Conservative and WFP ballot lines.
"Yes, and when I have learned about candidates who have the Conservative Party endorsement and then allow themselves to be corrupted by accepting the Working Families endorsement, I try to strip them of our ballot line," New York Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told me, "Running with the WFP and our line is totally unacceptable."
...
Given the Working Families Party's ties to ACORN and the furor over tax dollars to the community action colossus, it will be interesting to watch whether Dede Scozzafava pursues their endorsement once again.
While I would love to see the Working Families Party endorse someone else, I don't really see why the NRCC would endorse this piece by posting it on their website nor do I see the logic of Republicans jumping on board with this. The Working Families Party is a ballot line. If Scozzafava has it, that means no one else has it. She gets the votes on that line. Who wouldn't want that?
But this willingness to essentially throw their candidate under the bus could come back to bite the Republicans. They are already facing heat from conservatives for backing Scozzafava and the Conservative Party in New York has gone with their own candidate, Doug Hoffman. There are duels going on between conservatives and conservative Republicans. Some Republicans support Scozzafava, but others are siding with Hoffman based on ideology. If that holds up heading into this election, it could be trouble for both.
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.
After President Barack Obama's speech to Congress, Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, gave the Republican rebuttal.
You can read the whole speech here. Let's take a look at it one segment at a time.
"Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready - and we've been ready - to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.
"Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We're piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.
"It's clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it's time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That's what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.
We all can agree that health care costs are high. It is a fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world. Yet, our quality of care does not correspond with the money we are paying for that care and that is without millions of those who are uninsured who do not have access to such care.
Health care reform is about costs. But it is also about improving access to health care and insurance. Not mentioning that shows where the Republican mindset is on this issue. For them, it's all about selective fiscal conservatism. It was okay to spend billions (perhaps into the trillions now) on the war effort in Iraq. But it is not okay to spend that money on your own citizens to make sure they have the best access to health care.
"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it'll make health care much more expensive. That's not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
Obviously, the Republicans haven't been listening. A single-payer system - which is where we should have started with in this discussion - would create that government-run system they talk about. The public option? Not so much.
The Republicans are trying to scare families into opposing reform. They are trying to say that the government is going to move in and replace your health care. That is not what the public option will do. The public option is there to provide an opportunity for those without insurance to get insurance. That is why the public option will exist and that is why a public option is necessary.
"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.
This was a concept pushed by 2008 Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. It was dismissed then and it will be dismissed now. The reasons are many. For one, allowing this would create a consumer protection mess. The Republicans wouldn't mind that (see financial crisis) but when you are talking health insurance, it's not a good thing.
Also, as the New America Foundation showed last year, premiums would go up, benefits would decrease and more people would become uninsured over time. So instead of serving as reform, this would create more of a problem.
Altogether, Boustany mentioned lowering the cost of health care five times in his speech. He talked about improving quality. But not once in his speech did he mention increasing access to health care or insuring more Americans. The cost of health care is a problem. The quality is also a problem. But providing more and better access to health care is also a problem and Boustany and the Republicans failed to address that, which was a glaring omission in their poorly constructed rebuttal.
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) crossed a line tonight. While President Barack Obama was debunking some myths about health care, including the claim by some Republicans that health care reform will apply to illegal immigrants.
When President Obama was setting the record straight, Congressman Wilson decided he couldn't contain himself.
Apparently, Wilson's actions weren't tolerated by many, if anyone.
He has issued an apology and has called the White House to offer an apology.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
When I heard it, I was shocked. I couldn't believe that someone would yell out during a presidential address in Congress like that. It's one thing to do it in these town halls. It's another to do it, as a member of the House of Representatives, to the President of the United States.
The President deserves better than that. The House of Representatives deserves better too.
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has made it clear why she won't host health care town hall meetings. She believes that the town halls have been nothing but forums for protesters and those who only want to disrupt and misinform the public.
The powerful Democrat said she held meetings during the health care debate of 1993 but is concerned about public safety this time. During a meeting of the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board, she referred to a town hall meeting with President Barack Obama in New Hampshire in which a man brought a gun.
"I think it's a way to disseminate misinformation," Slaughter said. "They're not debating things that are in the bill."
...
Reform of the system has attracted great public interest and caused rumors about the bill, many of which are not true.
"The idea that any American citizen would believe that their country would line up old people and do away with them is so, it's embarrassing that Americans would believe that," Slaughter said.
Slaughter remembers the debate over health care during the Clinton administration and said that Democrats are no more prepared for the opposition now than they were 14 years ago.
"We simply can't control any message anywhere," she said. "We are so big on transparency, let's write it all down, let's make sure it's all up on the Internet, knowing full well ... that people are going to pick out something that isn't there."
The right-wing is trying to take advantage of everything Democrats say, even safe ones like Slaughter. In a recent radio interview, Slaughter said the following:
The video was posted on Breitbart, a conservative website. Now, Politico has picked up on the misinformation by pushing the claim that Slaughter saying "won't give these people a forum" was a message intended for her constituents, which is far from the truth and distorts reality. The intent was clear: Slaughter will not give a forum to the conservative lunatics whose only goal is to disrupt, not debate.
Yet, this is an outright distortion that is exactly the type of misinformation Slaughter is talking about. The same people that are responsible for this distortion are also the ones distorting the facts on the health care reform bill and on health care reform in general. Coincidence? Definitely not.
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."
With Joe Mondello stepping down from his post as chairman of the New York State Republican Committee, Ed Cox has been considered the front-runner for the post. Cox is a lawyer from Suffolk County who is also best known for being Richard Nixon's son-in-law.
But there is another man seeking the seat. Henry Wojtaszek, the current chair of the Niagara County Republican Committee, has started to campaign and has already netted five endorsements from Western New York counties. He also sent a letter to all 62 county Republican committees outlining his plan that he would use as chair.
There are a few ways to look at the Republicans' tug-of-war for the chair. There is an obvious old guard versus new guard feel. Wojtaszek is more of the new guard, although he still has plenty of connections to the old guard. One of Wojtaszek's commitments is to develop a new media plan for the state GOP, which has lagged behind the efforts of the Democrats (and progressives) in New York. We have the blogs. We know how to use Twitter, Facebook and other social networking mediums. The Republicans? They might have some people that know, but the party as a whole? It's hit-and-miss at best.
There is also a clear upstate-downstate divide here. For a party that has pushed such a divide, they sure haven't tried to dodge the bullet themselves. The Republicans have strong forces upstate and are particularly weak downstate. For those reasons, Wojtaszek would look like the obvious choice. But since Cox might have the bigger name and comes from a larger county (Suffolk and Niagara counties don't compare), the Republicans will probably go with Cox.
Why talk about the Republicans? Because they recycle the same talking points here in New York to try and run against us. The Republicans are always upset about the high taxation in this state, yet from 1995 to 2007 when they held the Governor's mansion and the New York State Senate, they did nothing to remedy the problem. Wojtaszek wrote in his letter that the citizens of New York are "crying out" for conservatism. Nothing could be further from reality, which is why no matter who becomes chair, the Republicans will lose.
A friend pointed out to me last night that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who had a smooth power shift. That is surprising considering all of the usual battles we have with primaries or issue-based debates. The Republicans are now in a bit of a power grab. Cox is grabbing up as many endorsements as he can while Wojtaszek tries to persuade some of those endorsers to change their minds.
If Cox becomes chair, it won't be any different than what we saw under Mondello. If Wojtaszek becomes chair, the same will be true. If the best the Republicans have is Rudy Giuliani, they are in trouble.
Say it ain't so, Joe. Our pal Joe Mondello is calling it quits as state GOP Chair.
After a meeting on Long Island on Friday with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the state Republican Party chairman, Joseph N. Mondello, has decided to call it quits, but he will remain chairman of the Nassau County Republican Party, a party official said Monday.
Mondello was pretty fantastic for Dems statewide. He became chair just in time to lose a special election in his own back yard, lost another special in a district that the GOP had held since the 1890's in the North Country, tried to avenge his loss in that first special by running a mayor of a village of 800 at the new incumbent (and got crushed), oversaw the loss of the last GOP power base in the state and then lost a special election NY-20 to a newcomer with zero name recognition. That was one hell of a streak, no?
If there is s silver lining in Joe's departure, it's that he will retain the Chair of the Nassau County GOP. Given the Dems newfound registration edge in Nassau and plenty of hot races from top to bottom there, this is quite a gift.
Oh, and this also probably means that Giuliani is definitely running for Gov next year as it appears that Rudy was the one pushing him hardest out the door.
This first shot features Congressman Murphy on the far left, with a good chunk of the crowd in the foreground. According to my source, he got a good number of people in the shot, but there were many others who weren't in the picture. That's how well attended this event was.
Health care wasn't just being opposed at this meeting. Supporters from Planned Parenthood and other groups were on hand to show their support for health care reform.
But like the health care meetings we have been hearing about, the opponents of change were in attendance. One photo calls for "NOBama Care" while another makes a reference to Soylent Green, a 1973 science fiction movie "depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers."
But this picture is really the highlight from the anti-change movement.
If you aren't interested in reading for yourself, here are the sayings on this guy's poster:
- So... Hows That Whole "Hopey-Changey" ThinkG (spelling his, not mine) Working Out For Ya?
- On a bumper sticker with the Obama for America logo crossed out, it reads: No Thanks. I already have a Messiah.
- Somewhere In Kenya A Village Has Lost Its Idiot.
- You Think Health Care is expensive now? Just Wait Til Its Free!
- Socialists: Spreading the Wealth Since 1917
- My AARP Card Stands For: Armed And Really Pissed.
- Fly Navy
- Don't Tread On Me
- There is one more saying on the upper right hand corner that I can't make out, plus another small sticker in the middle that says "Silent No More."
That sign alone sums up this anti-change movement pretty well. The AARP sayings and the anti-Obama sentiment make good talking points, but lack substance. Most of Americans agree that health care reform is needed, but the teabaggers don't want that to happen. Why? Because they are being funded by the same groups who don't want change to come to America. They try to tout themselves as believers in the Constitution, but really have no solutions to present. All they want is attention to promote a hateful and anti-everything agenda. They have no solutions. Just problems.
But in their attempt at an attack on Gillibrand, they showed just how inept the Republicans are (and have been) at utilizing the Internet as a political tool.
Not only is that bad, but because of their apparent coding failure, the title is mashed together. You can still make it out, but it overlaps and looks rather beginner-like.
I should also note that this was brought to my attention earlier today. As of 4:00 p.m., it still wasn't fixed. So apparently the NRSC is going for substance over style, even though there isn't much substance and not a whole lot of style either.
UPDATE: As Dan indicates in the comments, if you go to the press release that I mentioned in this story, it no longer exists. How embarrassing it must be for the individual (or individuals) who left that up all day. Do they not read the material once it is posted? It was just a foolish mistake and yet, it was there for the whole day.
While Democrats outside of the leadership have acknowledged flaws in how things were run and promised greater change, I've not found much chatter like that from Republicans. (I'd really like to be wrong - if anyone's seen such talk, let me know!)
For now, Republican Senators seem to have hunkered down with the leadership, staying in a parallel universe where somehow President Pro Tempore Pedro Espada and Majority Leader Dean Skelos can munificently preside over a 31-31 split Senate, just because they say they can. Apparently no one is worried about the implications of this for 2010, or for getting much done in the short term either. (All I can find from my own Republican Senator are these comments from back on the 11th.)
I've suggested that the answer to this breakdown may come from the backbenchers rather than the leadership, but the backbenchers taking the initiative - and then falling back - all seem to be Democrats. Not counting the original switch of Monserrate and Espada, Duane and
Aubertine seem to have come closest.
So what's sustaining Republican unity? Is it sheer party loyalty? Is it the togetherness of the last stand, knowing that even their gerrymandered districts can protect them for so long? Is it patronage, the hope of reversing the Democrats' hires and replacing them with their own people? The sense that sticking together worked in the past, so why change now? Pride? Contempt for the Democrats? Tom Golisano? The threat of their local party machinery turning against them? I don't get the sense that they're actually all that fond of Pedro Espada.
But much more important, what might entice them out of the suicidal position their leadership is claiming? I don't think Paterson can appoint State Senators to the many open posts, even some of the vital ones, and expect them to accept.
What might bring them out of their bunker, into a functioning State Senate with room for two genuinely participating parties?
I suggested earlier that decentralizing Senate power might ease things, for members of both parties, but given the silence I'm hearing from Republicans, I don't think they're going to move forward soon on that basis.
Lately the Republican Party in New York has taken to the hills of representing the "unrepresented". In New York politics, that means upstate New York and the suburbs. They've taken advantage of a classic city vs. rural attitude and the specific fault-lines of upstate vs. downstate and city vs. suburbs. It's been a fairly effective strategy in keeping the Long Island contingency mainly in tact (though we're slowly chipping away). That same dynamic also hurt a lot of our candidates in upstate New York. So with all that in mind, it's interesting to take a step back and think about how this coup is hampering the interests of the Republicans final constituency.
What interests? Well what do you think happens to all of the bills our Senate majority was about to pass? If you guessed purgatory, you're right on the money.
After first reporting that Sen. Hiram Monserrate was sticking with the Republicans, it looks like he's going to take another day and then decide where he stands.
There have been negotiations with both sides trying to win over Monserrate. After a long wait today, the session has been postponed until tomorrow.
If Monserrate decides to come back to the Democrats, it will create a 31 to 31 split - a nightmare scenario that would probably mean nothing will get accomplished with such a split. (This is why there should be an odd number of senators.)
A lot has been made of the chaos that took place in the Senate chamber yesterday. But before the Senate got locked down, the Senate Republicans passed rules reform legislation that has been touted by Tom Golisano and by Republicans in a show that they actually passed reforms when the Democrats did not. (This is true, although the Democrats had a much more open process that involved a committee being formed and a report being issued with suggestions for legislation.)
I turned to Larry Norden for his view on the rules reforms that the Republicans passed yesterday. Norden writes the Reform NY blog that is used to promote the Brennan Center's New York reform efforts and he also co-authored the most recent Brennan Center report on the New York State Legislature, as well as the second Brennan Center report that was published in 2006.
When I asked him what he thinks of the rules reform legislation passed by the Senate Republicans, Norden had this to say:
There are some good things in here and there are some not-so good things. I wouldn't say that they are bad things but I think they didn't tackle some of the key issues that I would have liked them to tackle. Then there are some interesting things that I wouldn't say are bad or good, but are certainly curious.
Norden pointed to three things that are good things: The equalization of resources for staff, eliminating messages of necessity (unless it's an emergency) and providing for members a way to have a petition or motion to get a bill to the floor for a vote even if leadership does not want the bill to get to the floor. Norden cited the marriage equality bill as an example of legislation that would benefit from that.
While Norden did praise the Senate GOP for those three areas (and he did say that they went further than the Democrats did), he did point out that these reforms will not go into effect until July 15. Obviously, that date is significant because it is nearly a month after the session ends.
Norden also noted that, in the past, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has held legitimate powers, but over the years, those powers have been given to the majority leader. He pointed out that Sen. Pedro Espada, who sought this post, really doesn't have as much power as one would think. But he's got the post nonetheless.
The major area that wasn't reformed under the Senate GOP's reform legislation, according to Norden, was committees. If you know anything about the Brennan Center's reports, you know that committee reform is a major component of their recommendations for changing the way the state Legislature conducts business. Norden said that while they did eliminate proxy voting (you can see a summary of the rules reforms here), they still failed to complete major reforms.
Here is more from Norden:
Having functioning committees is where the New York State Legislature is perhaps at its worst in comparison to other states and they really didn't address that at all. There is nothing about requiring amendments, review or defeat of bills before their voted out of committee. They say they got rid of proxy voting (according to Irene Jay Liu's summary, they did) but I don't see it in these changes. There is nothing requiring reports for bills that are voted out of committee, which is a key function of committees everywhere else.
Did they really do this because they wanted reform or wanted power? I think most people can make a judgment on that without knowing too much about the details of this. Are there some good things in these rule changes? Yes. Does it go to the heart of changing how the Legislature operates? Probably not.
Norden argued that the Republicans went further than the Democrats did just by targeting the three areas.
"I have to give the Republicans credit," he said. "They went further in many areas than the Democrats. The Democrats didn't pass any rules changes. They had a committee that made recommendations, many of them didn't go as far as this, and they still hadn't passed anything. It maybe, in the end, if they held onto power they would have passed bigger changes. Certainly, that was something they kept telling us they might be doing. We did see members like Sen. Daniel Squadron really push the envelope and doing things in his committee that we wanted to see every committee do. So it's possible they would have gone further, but the fact of the matter is, in the end, the Republicans actually passed rules changes and the Democrats didn't pass anything."
The rules reform that the Republicans did is a great start. But more (as always) needs to be done. It seems that Albany is always willing to take baby steps even when it's time to be an adult and take responsibility for past indiscretions and change your ways completely. We don't need baby steps anymore. We need revolutionary changes that will change the three men in a room ways of Albany. While these reforms are a great starting point (although, I think we have had many starting points over the years), we still have a lot of work to do before we achieve full rules reform.
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.
The state Republican Party held a tech seminar today that was "dedicated to ensuring Republican elected officials and campaigns from around the state are educated and trained in the latest cutting-edge technologies available."
Some 100 Republican county chairs, operatives, and past and future candidates for elected office are gathered in Albany today to attend the state GOP's first-ever "Politics Online Seminar," an event designed to help train party members in "the latest cutting-edge" political technologies.
According to Niagara County GOP Chairman Henry Wojtaszek, who organized the seminar at state Party Chairman Joe Mondello's request, this includes tools that have come to be considered fairly standard in political circles - things like Twitter and Facebook, for example.
The fact that this is the first time the New York Republicans have ever held an event like this underscores just how far behind the eight ball they are in this realm, particularly when you consider how tech-savvy the Democrats have become.
I'm sorry, but if you consider Facebook the "latest cutting-edge political technologies" then you are definitely far behind. I have been a Facebook member since 2004. That is a full five years before the state Republican Party caught up with the rest of the world and decided that they wanted to talk about "the Google."
I can't say that the national Republicans are that far behind the Democrats, but Democrats all over the country have dominated the Internet this decade. In New York, the gap is wider. The Republicans lack a strong tech foundation. The number of pro-Republican blogs in New York is very low. That alone tells you the story of the state GOP's Internet operations.
In 2008, the blogosphere and Internet proved to be key at the state and national levels. In New York, the takeover of the New York State Senate by the Democrats was aided by a strong blogosphere and tech presence.
There is always room for improvement, however. I believe that the Democrats can widen the gap by including technology more and more. Whether that means Tweets from the Senate floor or Facebook groups for ALL Democratic senators and their respective campaigns (some of them already do this, but all of them should be), we can increase our lead on the Republicans by simply doing what we do best.
While the Republicans are still educating themselves on how to create an account on Facebook or learning what a blog is, we can better ourselves. Remember the saying "more and better Democrats?" Well, why not more and better tech savvy Democrats? It is possible and we can do it right here in New York.
The first 100 days has become a milestone for executives at all levels of government. But no executive is scrutinized more after the first 100 days than the President of the United States.
How did those four items impact New York? According to a state-by-state spreadsheet that breaks down how many people benefited from the SCHIP expansion, the ARRA and the tax credits, New Yorkers were assisted in a big way.
The spreadsheet shows that due to the expansion of SCHIP, 267,000 more children are covered that weren't covered before. The expansion of SCHIP was something that the 110th Congress did pass, but President George W. Bush stood in the way (along with fellow Republicans) and prevented the expansion from taking place. Thanks to a stronger majority in both houses of Congress and President Obama, SCHIP expansion is reality.
The Making Work Pay Tax Credit provides a refundable tax credit up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. The impact of this tax credit on New York was huge. Approximately 6,760,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.
The American Opportunity Tax Credit is a provision that President Obama proposed on the campaign trail that helped Americans pay for post-secondary education. The provision allows for a $4,000 partially refundable tax credit to help individuals pay for attendance at a public college or university. For those attending community colleges, it would make community college virtually free. In return, the student must complete 100 hours of community service with a government unit, hospital or non-profit organization. Nearly 295,000 New Yorkers will be recipients of the American Opportunity Tax Credit (formerly known as the Hope Credit). And while the provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was only temporary, President Obama's budget called for making the provision permanent.
And has been repeated over the last few months, 215,000 jobs would be created or saved in New York through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
There are plenty of others who will look at President Obama's first 100 days from a national perspective. I chose to look at it from a New York perspective. Are we better off now than we were under President Bush? There is no doubt about it. We have made great progress over the last three months and will continue to head in the right direction under Obama's leadership. While we have a long road head, Obama has proven over the last few months that he is willing to tackle the tough challenges, not run from them. That is an admirable trait and that is why he has been nothing but successful in his first 100 days as President of the United States.
