Throughout this campaign, many of Dan Debicella's proposals have gone unexamined. He proposes "capping" federal spending as a function of GDP. I've not seen a single journalist ask him if this, one of his core campaign proposals, is constitutional (hint: it isn't). Nor have I seen them ask him where he'd find the massive cuts necessary to implement it (hint: Medicare). Debicella also proposes a temporary cut in the payroll tax, costing at least $350 billion, by repealing the "unspent stimulus." But the unspent stimulus -- which has an actual, quantifiable value -- amounts to $48 billion (and will be very close to $0 by the time any new proposal would take effect). No journalist I've seen has asked Debicella to find the extra $300 - $400 billion in cuts to make his plan deficit-neutral (on top of the $700 billion or so he'd need for that first idea). Of course, with polls opening in 48 hours or so, they won't. Heck of a job, media.
Debicella seems to get a pass on pitching economic ideas that are both extremely costly and impossible to pass or implement. But then, in the foreign policy debate last week, Debicella tossed out a proposal so reckless, that it makes the econ stuff seem like child's play. He proposed acts of war -- attacking Iran.
"You slap strict economic sanctions on [Iran]," Debicella said. "Then we do a naval blockade like we did in Desert Shield. If that fails, you do air strikes to take out nuclear capability. It gives them every chance, with military force as a last resort."
What are the likely results of such a plan? George Friedman, political scientist and national security expert, writing for STRATFOR says...
... destroying Iran's nuclear capability does not involve a one-day raid, nor is Iran without the ability to retaliate. Its nuclear facilities are in a number of places and Iran has had years to harden those facilities. Destroying the facilities might take an extended air campaign and might even require the use of special operations units to verify battle damage and complete the mission. In addition, military action against Iran's naval forces would be needed to protect the oil routes through the Persian Gulf from small boat swarms and mines, anti-ship missile launchers would have to be attacked and Iranian air force and air defenses taken out.
This would not solve the problem of the rest of Iran's conventional forces, which would represent a threat to the region, so these forces would have to be attacked and reduced as well. An attack on Iran would not be an invasion, nor would it be a short war. Like Yugoslavia in 1999, it would be an extended air war lasting an unknown number of months.
There would be American POWs from aircraft that were shot down or suffered mechanical failure over Iranian territory.
There would be many civilian casualties, which the international media would focus on. It would not be an antiseptic campaign, but it would likely (though it is important to reiterate not certainly) destroy Iran's nuclear capability and profoundly weaken its conventional forces... It would strengthen the Iranian regime (as aerial bombing usually does) by rallying the Iranian public to its side against the aggression. If the campaign were successful, the Iranian regime would be stronger politically, at least for a while, but eviscerated militarily.
Debicella throws around acts of war as campaign rhetoric. But if that rhetoric were to become US policy, we can anticipate an Iranian regime strengthened domestically, and rallying support across the Islamic world. American POWs and dead civilians. War for "an unknown number of months," with no guarantee of destroying the capacity of the enemy to produce a nuclear weapon.
"Reckless" doesn't begin to describe what Debicella is proposing. "Radical" doesn't begin to describe this clearly-stated foreign policy objective. "Wrong" doesn't begin to describe Debicella's ideas. We must keep him out of the Congress. There's just too much at stake.
Today is Dan Debicella's 36th birthday. It is, therefore, really easy to calculate the year in which he was born.
Let's see... this is 2010... and he's turning 36... so subtract the 36 from 2010 and you get the obvious, factual, real number:
2003!
If you're confused, it's because I'm using DebicellaMath™, and you use regular arithmetic. Using DebicellaMath™, numbers are only worth 20% of their usual value. The great thing about DebicellaMath™ is that it lets you completely minimize the effect of all your radical, impossible-to-actually-implement ideas.
For example, let's say you want to take the love of your life on a glorious one-week vacation somewhere, and only stay in 4-star hotels. Normally, you'd be looking at a $3500 or $4000 trip at least. But with DebicellaMath™, you can fulfill your promise to that special someone and you'll hardly even notice the cost! Awesome, isn't it?
Or, let's say you want to promise cutting federal spending without mentioning any specific cuts. Normally, you'd need to come up with at least $368 billion by slashing Medicare by at least 22%, or privatizing Social Security (but, darn it, you promised not to do that, even though regular arithmetic demands that you must). Instead you can DebicellaMath™ your way to painless, magical cuts that make themselves once politicians are "forced to make trade-offs" (what's on the trading block, exactly? "I'll let you keep Child Nutrition if we cash out the EPA? Electric Boat's contracts can be canceled if we decide to go ahead and fund FEMA?").
And there's this gem — you'll find this one on the front cover of your DebicellaMath™ textbook:
That's why PolitiFact gave John Boehner a big, red, FAIL when he tried to pass off the $400 billion in unspent stimulus canard two and a half months ago.
Happy Birthday, Dan! I hope your 36th is as fun as your 26th, which happened just two years ago.
Among the major proposals Dan Debicella is tossing out there in this campaign is this: "Cap" federal spending at 20% of GDP to "force politicians to work together to eliminate the deficit by 2026 without raising taxes." He is proposing, in short, magic. A silver bullet. A single proposal that will have the effect of bending 434 other representatives to his will, for they will be powerless to spend money (a power granted to them by Article I of the Constitution) once subject to the Debicella "cap."
I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but arithmetic tells you why this proposal is impossible to implement. Well, maybe it's possible, but not without absolutely gutting Medicare, Social Security or defense.
I assume he is talking about annual spending and annual GDP. Quarterly seems like it would get too messy and require endless revisions. Setting aside the problem that spending is approved in advance of a fiscal year and GDP for that fiscal year could only be determined afterward (which is kind of a big problem), here are the most recent numbers I could find:
GDP for 2009: $14.12 trillion at the Commerce Department site, $14.24 in President's FY 2010 budget. I think the difference is Commerce reports on calendar year 2009, and budgeting is done for fiscal year 2009, so I'm using the FY number.
Federal Spending FY 2009 (including debt interest): $3.938 trillion
The magic of division: 27.7% of GDP was federal spending in FY 2009.
Projected GDP 2010: $14.729 trillion
Federal Spending FY 2010: $3.552 trillion
The magic of division: 24.1% of GDP is projected to federal spending in FY 2010.
Heck! We're nearly halfway there! Almost to 20% right?!? Well, not really. FY 2009 was a huge outlier. Remember how the country crumbled into economic dust and lost $12 trillion in private wealth in about a week? Yeah, that. The actions of FY 2009 stopped the crash, and that is a rather rare occurrence. For example, FY2008 spending was 21.1% of GDP. The White House is projecting it to be pretty stable at 22.2% from FY 2012 on (grain of salt needed). So, in a "normal" year what would it take to squeeze out that last 2.2% or so?
Let's try, shall we? Projected 2012 GDP is $16,470,000,000,000 (give or take a buck). Projected spending is $3,662,000,000,000.
The magic of multiplication: 22.2% of GDP = $3,662 billion, while 20% of GDP is $3,294 billion
Size of the cuts needed: $368 billion
(cut-a-palooza, and why it won't happen, after the jump)
Jim Himes seems to have taken up residency on FOX News lately. His pet project is extending the Bush Tax cuts for millionaires so naturally FOX loves him. Cavuto even calls him "sir". Since sucking up to any Democrat is almost unheard of on that network they must feel they have found a real prize. And since Himes isn't completely stupid either (despite this evidence to the contrary) he must feel he's getting a good return on his own investment with this recent pact with these devils. But you do have to wonder about the soundness of Himes' strategy of taking his base for granted so cavalierly.
HIMES: "This isn't about rich or poor, or in this moment in time about fairness. You know, we can talk about the fairness in the tax code at a moment when we're not at significant risk of a double dip recession."
I'm no Al or CTBob, so forgive the lousy camera work. There was a big turnout at the Greenwich DTC picnic yesterday, and most of the candidates were on hand to speechify and press the flesh.
Susan Bysiewicz was speaking pretty openly about a potential senate run in 2012. As she said to a guy sitting at my table, "It would be nice to have an actual Democrat representing us." Agreed.
But I wonder if we're going to have another bloody primary battle on our hands. Then again, if the Mayans were right, the world will come to an end and Chris Murphy will be the least of Susie B's worries.
But back to the current contests. I've got more footage coming, but in the meantime, here's Jim Himes talking about the message Dem's need to be getting out there:
With the primaries behind us and Labor Day upon us, it's time to move on to the Main Event: November 2nd. On that day, voters in the seventeen towns of Connecticut's Fourth District will decide whether Jim Himes or Dan Debicella have better ideas and better represent us. A lot will depend on exactly which voters show up to vote. But those that do need to understand two things about Dan Debicella: He is one of the most partisan members of the state's legislature where he has backed some very extreme measures, and in this campaign he has offered some bizarre proposals, which are impossible to implement.
In a previous post, I critiqued (debunked? exposed?) his proposal to repeal the unspent stimulus and replace it with a tax cut. Two problems:
And the tax cut proposal, while very expensive (and deficit financed, see 1. above) has little stimulative effect and is likely to produce significantly higher long-term deficits (according to the CBO).
Does anyone else remember that the Bush administration tried a tax rebate stimulus in 2008? Checks went out in March and April of 2008. Let's see the private-sector job growth we experienced since (note: this is private-sector jobs only, since Republicans never seem to think public employees have real jobs):
Oh boy. Let's do that Bush idea again. Even the highest-ranked Republican member of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) dismisses Debicella's idea. When asked "So do Republicans have any demand-side solutions, even if they're just tax cuts? Is there talk of a payroll tax holiday, or anything similar?" he said "Temporary stuff doesn't work. These short-term stimulative things like [tax] rebates don't work." If there's a Debicella vs. Ryan debate, I will get my popcorn ready.
Now I want to go on and on about Debicella's other big idea: capping federal spending at 20% of GDP. Debicella's proposal is to "take [spending decisions] out of the politicians' hands and create a federal spending cap that would allow the federal government to be no more than 20% of GDP." He then proposes to "let it grow at inflation plus population growth." Debicella suggests that this would be a magic budget bullet because "you are not allowed to spend more... it'll force politicians of both parties, all the incumbents, to make trade-offs so they can't just pass out pork spending."
This is ridiculous on its face. I can't believe he said it. Congress would "not be allowed" to authorize a spending bill? Allowed? The critical questions and some analysis are below the fold...
(Debicela is at it again... - promoted by ctblogger)
Congressman Jim Himes' most likely opponent, Dan Debicella, has starting spending some of the money he doesn't have on TV ads. There I was on the couch, minding my own business, when my head started to hurt. The ad came on.
I spend an inordinate amount of time reading about the economics of the stimulus, and I have been keeping an eye on Dan Debicella's tendency to play loose with the facts for some time now. So when the ad opened with a flat-out made-up number, I was stunned. I shouldn't have been, I know. If Dan Debicella met an honest statement at a cocktail party, they'd require an introduction. But still, to be so bold as to be so wrong right off the bat struck even me as absurd.
Dan opens his ad with a graphic superimposed over a shot of the Capitol, showing a headline "Stimulus Spending totals $877 billion" That is jaw-droppingly wrong. The total cost of the stimulus is $787 billion (note the transposed numbers). And, critically, that is the cost, which has two elements -- spending and tax cuts. To break it down, the stimulus provides for about $275 billion in tax cuts and about $512 billion in spending. To say that "Stimulus spending totals $877 billion" is wrong. It inflates the actual spending approved by Congress by 71%.
Not only is he starting his advertising with an obvious, quantifiable lie, but in his campaign, Debicella routinely proposes "that we repeal the 80% of stimulus money that has yet to be distributed" and grant a $1500 tax credit instead. He then goes on to say how that will reduce the deficit by doing arithmetic that would cause Shelton's CMT scores to drop if he tried to pass it off as legit on a fourth-grade test.
I had an old bookmark on my browser for this story in the Darien News from June 9th. Today, I re-read this:
Polling data on Herrmann's website indicates he has become the best known candidate and leads the other three in name recognition and likely voters' preference by double digits.
Then, one week later, Herrmann withdrew, citing "isolated problems with his campaign's signature collection process." He did do before the Secretary of the State's office announced a final tally for his petition signatures. I imagine there was some pressure on Herrmann. I obviously have no idea whether anyone gave Herrmann a call and convinced him to drop, but this episode just doesn't pass the smell test.
The "isolated problems" to which Herrmann was referring involved forged petition signatures. These came to light when Norwalk's Republican Town Committee Chairman filed a complaint with the Elections Enforcement Commission alleging that his wife's name was forged on a Herrmann petition. Subsequently, other forgeries were identified. These forgeries were discovered when the voters' addresses were slightly wrong, drawing the attention of registrars checking the petitions. In the case of the complaint from Norwalk's RTC chairman, his wife's date of birth was also wrong. OK, well if it was a forgery, it was a forgery, right? Herrmann hired (or at least used) a forger and now he's out of the race -- simple as that. Maybe, but maybe not.
Herrmann's campaign manager, Dan Huber, raised the red flag of suspicion on June 15th, the day before Tom Herrmann ended his campaign.
Huber also said "It hasn't gone unnoticed by our campaign that Ms. Lyons is a supporter of Dan Debicella. We think it would be appropriate for her to recuse herself and let the secretary of the state deal with these matters."
I keep finding myself asking questions, and I can't reach satisfactory answers.
Isn't it strange that a very strong advocate for Dan Debicella filed a complaint after Norwalk's registrar, herself a Debicella delegate, spotted the forgery and then called the RTC chairman?
Why would a forger fail to copy an address (or numerous addresses) and a DOB correctly? I mean, how hard is it to copy an address, and wouldn't you try to be sure you got that right?
Why would Herrmann's campaign call for the Norwalk registrar to recuse herself just one day before announcing he was dropping out of the race?
Why would a guy who believes he's in the lead for a race for Congress -- and who has already spent $500,000 or so of his own money -- withdraw before his petitions are either certified or rejected? Why not wait until the final numbers came in?
This seems like a set-up. And if so, it deserves to be a much bigger story than one of a single rogue petition gatherer braking the rules. I suspect it's truly dirty politics and it looks to me like THAT is how Dan Debicella has decided to run his campaign.
The slimy hit-job from WNPR on Jim Himes is beginning to go viral, being picked up by our local right-wing newspaper conglomerate Hearst on its CT Elections '10 blog.
Posted by Hearst reporter Tom Baden, it reads:
"WNPR piece on Rep. Jim Himes and his campaign support from Goldman Sachs, his employer for 12 years before he joined a nonprofit that helped build affordable housing."
Of course, no effort made to debunk that piece of garbage, or to point out that Himes has been leading the effort to implement tough financial sector reforms. Nope, all we get from Hearst is mention of "campaign support from Goldman Sachs".
You didn't want to know the truth anyway, did you?
The Washington Post has an article and interactive poll showing all members of congress, how they voted on the health care reform bill November 7, 2008, how much money they've accepted from the health care industry, the percentage of uninsured in their districts, and how they intend to vote on the final health care reform bill now coming before congress.
WAPO has Jim Himes as "undecided" on the final vote. Yet Jim has responded to me that WAPO has it completely wrong, that he'll be voting for the bill, and that he's
Forgive me for making a separate post, but I wanted to take issue at length with Congressman Himes' vote against the new jobs bill (HR 2847, December 16) that Congress barely passed. His office issued this explanation (as Jonathan Kantrowitz posted):
The Congressman voted against a $75 billion Democratic spending plan which largely expanded programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While the Congressman shares many of the priorities contained in the legislation, he was unwilling to authorize additional spending when over $545 billion, or more than two thirds, of Recovery Act funds are still being spent. This bill uses remaining funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for this expansion. The Congressman believes that TARP funding, which was regrettably requested by President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulsen, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke as critical to averting financial meltdown, should not be used for anything other than debt reduction unless the money is distributed through the full appropriations process.
"As many sectors of the economy begin to show clear signs of recovery, we need to get our fiscal house in order," said Congressman Himes. "The simple facts are that we have to pay our bills, and the only long-term path to continued improvement is to replace public spending with private-sector job growth."
I have to point out that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman takes the opposite point of view, and has for months. He has steadfastly pointed out, and I agree with him, that the initial stimulus bill was far too small. Though Congressman Himes suggests that the economy is "showing clear signs of recovery", I would suggest he focus on the nearly half a million new jobless claims that were made this week, and the double-digit unemployment rate. As Krugman has pointed out, we are in for years of subpar growth and unemployment and underemployment rates that are painfully high. Krugman put it starkly just a week ago:
I don't think many people grasp just how much job creation we need to climb out of the hole we're in. You can't just look at the eight million jobs that America has lost since the recession began, because the nation needs to keep adding jobs - more than 100,000 a month - to keep up with a growing population. And that means that we need really big job gains, month after month, if we want to see America return to anything that feels like full employment.
How big? My back of the envelope calculation says that we need to add around 18 million jobs over the next five years, or 300,000 jobs a month. This puts last week's employment report, which showed job losses of "only" 11,000 in November, in perspective. It was basically a terrible report, which was reported as good news only because we've been down so long that it looks like up to the financial press.
Unless, that is, our Democratic congress joins with Barack Obama and passes substantially greater job stimulus. Congressman Himes has taken the very disappointing position of the minority Republicans that the key economic problem is the deficit, while Krugman, whom I respect above all economists, has pointed out that the deficit is not the problem; the dismal job situation is.
Congressman Himes gave the following statement yesterday announcing his intention to vote in favor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act and urged his colleagues to support the legislation as well.
Full disclosure: I am Congressman Himes' Communications Director
Revised health care legislation was introduced in Congress Thursday. The legislation is still changing some, but we should have a good idea of what the final bill will look like soon.
Over the coming week, Congressman Himes will be sending out updates via email as more information about the improved legislation becomes available. Click here to sign up for the Congressman's email list. If you receive the Congressman's campaign email newsletters (The Himes Times), you need to register separately for this list that operates out of his official office. Sorry about the multiple lists; laws require we keep campaign and official communication separate.
Also, please let me apologize for not noting my affiliation with the Congressman's office in my last post--total oversight. FYI: I am Congressman Jim Himes' Communications Director.
Following is a comment I posted at Connecticut Local Politics, which, as usual, is being "held for moderation". Of course, the original posting that quoted a highly distorted and dishonest report by Teri Puhl was published right away. I think it's important to get the truth out, so here it is:
This report is a pack of lies. First, Teri Buhl did not attend Lawrenceville Prep with Jim Himes, because Jim Himes never went to Lawrenceville Prep. He attended and graduated from a public school, Hopewell Valley Central High School in New Jersey. Second, the strong majority of the audience was in favor of health reform and the public option. I was there, sitting half way up on the middle isle on the right side. No one who attended that meeting could suggest that the anti-reform people were in the majority. It was a clear lie. And the audience inside was closer to three hundred people counting all those standing in the back. It was also not true that anyone packed the venue. Lots of people showed up early enough to get in. The person at the front of the line to get in was against reform. That woman, who had a nametag with "Ann" on it, started out by defacing an entire sheet of stickers that said "I support the public option". Real class act! And according to Greenwich Post reporter Ken Borsuk whom I spoke with as we were leaving the meeting hall at the end, the crowd outside numbered about a hundred and were evenly split between supporters of reform and those against. So most of the people who wanted to get in did get in.
Furthermore, I went outside afterwards to the front of Town Hall where Congressman Jim Himes came out to address the crowd. There were not eight police officers out there. I could see the gathering clearly, as I stood to the left of the main entrance about ten feet away from the steps. There were about fifty people remaining, most of whom were against reform. There were three police officers: two who were stationed at the front door of Town Hall, and had been stationed there since before the meeting began, and one additional officer who stood at the back of the crowd. The suggestion that Jim Himes was somehow protected by a phalanx of cops is a lie, although that sort of dishonest reporting is the hallmark of Greenwich Time's Neil Vigdor, who reported that. There certainly was a need for police officers, however, because the people in the crowd were ugly and bent on trying to harass and intimidate anyone who disagreed with them. When Congressman Himes came out to talk with them, they yelled insults, shouted him down, and generally acted like the low-life thugs they were. They frequently refused to permit him to answer their questions, and shouted him down when he tried to. It was a thoroughly disgraceful display by people whose behavior treaded the line that could have had the cops putting them in handcuffs.
Norwalk townhall on the left, Greenwich from Monday night on the right.
Here's a couple of typical news reports on the level of debate seen thus far. Because these things are just a collection of soundbites you get these type of mixed messages:
Congressman Jim Himes hosted the second of three meetings this week to discuss his stance on the highly controversial "public option" issue and answer questions from his constituents.
"My vision of the public option is an additional competitor providing more choices in what is largely an uncompetitive market right now," he said.
A packed auditorium was split on this debate; many questioning if the government should tackle individual problems within the health care system rather than enact a sweeping change.
"To monkey around with such a portion of our economy, in such a wholesale fashion, just doesn't make economic sense," said Winthrop Baum of Fairfield.
"If we get this wrong, the damage is really catastrophic and irreversible," said Rep. Himes. "This economy, this country, this government, this private sector can not sustain another two or three years of 10-11 percent increases in health care costs."
I attended the just-completed health care town hall meeting at Greenwich Town Hall attended by roughly 300 people. To summarize Congressman Himes did a very admirable job of explaining the problems with our health care system, explaining what health care reform is necessary, what Congress is debating, and what he intends to vote for. I'd estimate that about 40% of the people in the meeting room tonight were anti-health care reform. They started out interrupting, throwing out catcalls, and being rather disruptive. But Congressman Himes answered questions thoroughly, he used data, he explained his positions clearly, and by eight o'clock at the end of the hour and a half session, all participants were much more subdued, and it appeared that many of the anti folks in the audience had their fears calmed. Of course, you never know with these tin hat types, but the mood in the room certainly became more calmed as the meeting went on and I will have to credit Jim Himes for soothing the fears of many in attendance.
Himes made the following points:
In his introduction he pointed out that the average American family now pays nearly $15,000 either directly or indirectly for health care coverage, and in ten years it is estimated to rise to #30,000.
He stated that we cannot reform Medicare or get our fiscal balance under control without reforming our nation's health care system.
He stated that reforming our health care system and giving every child the opportunity to see a doctor is a matter of morality.
Disturbingly, however, Congressman Himes repeatedly referred to Medicare having $30 tn in unfunded liabilities in terms of the present value of promised care over the next 75 years. He also stated repeatedly that reforming Medicare will be difficult, involve difficult choices, and demand that services to Medicare beneficiaries be reduced in the future.
(Op-ed edited to meet Fair Use requirements. Use link provided to read the entire piece. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
Jim Himes has gone on record with his views regarding health care reform. Here is his oped that was carried in Greenwich Time today:
Health plan good start but must control costs more
By Jim Himes
...Health care reform must have two primary goals: provide Americans with stable access to high-quality care, and substantially reduce the costs in the system. Fail in the first goal, and we will continue to live with the moral and economic costs of a broken system. Fail in the second, and we will simply accelerate the unsustainable trajectory of this system.
The reform proposal being discussed in the U.S. House of Representatives does well on the first goal. It would cover almost all Americans, and provide subsidies to those households unable to afford it...
The public option has been the subject of much debate. Properly structured to assure a level playing field, a public option will provide much needed competition for the insurance companies and help bring down costs nationally..
Unfortunately, the proposal before the House is weak on the second key goal: cost reduction...
We must revisit our current fee-for-service, volume-based model, in which every provider at every step has powerful incentives to order test after test, procedure after procedure, with little regard for what is actually effective.
Instead we should reward hospitals and doctors who deliver higher quality health care. Doctors and patients need access to the best information and evidence on effectiveness. True health care reform must encourage proven best practices...
Ending months of speculation over whether he'd seek the congressional seat once held by his father, state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney on Wednesday said he will not challenge U.S. Rep. Jim Himes next year....
But he wouldn't rule out a possible campaign for statewide office next year.
"I think our state is run incredibly well by Gov. [M. Jodi] Rell and I support her tremendously, but if I have an opportunity to stay at home, be the father I want to be with my kids and help people out in Connecticut in public office, that's something I'll look at," he said.
McKinney had been heavily courted by national Republicans, and his potential run was supported by Chris Shays. The bench for the GOP in CT-04 now looks like it includes names like New Canaan resident Will Gregory (who mentions his Eagle Scout award in his website bio), conservative State Sen. Dan Debicella from Shelton, and first-term Greenwich State Sen. and George W. Bush fundraiser L. Scott Frantz.
Any challenger will need to come out of the box strong, because they will face a huge fundraising challenge.
Update: Other potential Republican names include State Sen. Toni Boucher from Wilton and former Bridgeport State Sen. Rob Russo.
When Rep. Jim Himes (CT-04) posts his 2nd quarter numbers with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) next week, he'll reach a significant milestone nearly 16 months in advance of the 2010 election.
MLN is powered by