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.
"(Connecticut) has surpassed the $1 billion mark for funds now committed to a number of projects and initiatives," and that, "the federal stimulus act is providing the state of Connecticut and its cities and towns with much-needed resources to help us all weather this economic downturn and get Connecticut residents back to work."
Governor Rell continued,
"My administration has been committed and engaged from the start in pursuing every federal funding source available."
Governor Rell pointed out that by last August Connecticut had received $1.2 billion Medicaid assistance, $540 million in "educational stabilization", and more than $400 million for transportation initiatives.
If Debicella had bothered to check out Governor Rell's own official website recently for an update, he would have seen that by the governor's own count, Connecticut has now received more than $4 billion in assistance from the stimulus, which has directly created more than 6,600 jobs. Rell's website lists Connecticut as receiving $840 million for health and human services, half a billion for transportation initiatives, $180 million for unemployment and job services, and nearly three quarters of a billion dollars for educational assistance.
That's the truth Debicella refuses to tell. Or, perhaps, Debicella just doesn't care about the truth.
Dan Debicella sent out a mailer. Not surprising. Dan Debicella filled his mailer with the loosest possible interpretations of fact and at least two outright lies. If you've been following Debicella's campaign for Congress so far, this should not be surprising. But even I was surprised by the scope of the distortions, and how easy they are to fact-check.
Let's start with the front. It presents the theme of the mailer (about Himes failing) and a statistic. Saying Himes failed is fine, I guess; that's what Debicella and Himes will debate. But the statistic, which is one part I classify as the "outright lie," is so easy to check, I'm amazed he expects it slip by unnoticed: "Fairfield County Unemployment 10 percent"
It's just invented. If you're gonna just make stuff up, why not 11 percent? Heck, go for 13. Because Fairfield County's unemployment rate is not 10 percent. The preliminary number for July, 2010 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the most recent county-level stat I could find -- shows Fairfield County's unemployment rate at 8.5%. From June of 2009 to July of 2010, it varied from a low of 7.7 to a peak 9.0. How hard is it to look that up? Let me Google that for you, Dan. You'll find this handy map at a little publication called the Washington Post.
(you should really click the "Let me Google that" link in the preceding paragraph)
When I come across a bogus statistic like this, I try to find a possible source. Was some subset of Fairfield County at 10.0 percent? Was Fairfield County, South Carolina at 10 percent (they wish -- they're at 13.2)? In this case, I couldn't figure out where Debicella got this fake number. In this case, it appears to be made up. And set as the headline on his mailer. Which is an outright lie.
It doesn't get much better on the back.
Debicella trots out a variation on a favorite line of his. He enjoys going for superlative statements like: "Fairfield County got nothing," the stimulus "has done nothing to reduce unemployment," or today's gem -- Himes' economic positions have "Done Nothing More than Add Trillions to Our National Debt." All are obviously untrue. FactCheck.org featured a Debicella ad with that sort of claim and concluded "it's just false to say that the stimulus created 'no jobs' ... or 'has done nothing to reduce unemployment.'" (emphasis mine)
I'm not going to list the 274 stimulus awards completed or underway in Connecticut's 4th District. I'm tempted -- and I've commented on it before -- but I'll hold back. I think the extension of unemployment and the funding of teachers' jobs over the summer did something, no? I imagine the 25 tax cuts the Democrats in Congress enacted in 2009 alone had some effect, don't you think? Saying any policy did "nothing" is easy to disprove.
Debicella tries to back up his extreme claim that Himes has done "nothing" for the economy by listing the things he's allegedly done.
Debicella claims Himes:
Offered no help for small business
Voted for the "failed" stimulus plan (he's gonna make me bring out the 100+ Jodi Rell quotes about how great the stimulus was for CT or link to the article about the 56,00 people it kept out of poverty, isn't he?)
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 spotted this on Westport Now's website: Arts Reps to Candidates: Remember Us in Washington. Approximately 100 people representing various arts groups in the area asked both Jim Himes and Dan Debicella to talk to them about their intent to support the arts as the representative for Connecticut's Fourth District. It was nice of them to invite Debicella. It really was. Because Debicella hopes to join a Republican caucus in Washington that voted en masse against the stimulus and its $50 million in funding for the arts. When Wilton's Weir Farm received stimulus funding to convert space to a working artists' studio, Washington Republicans named the project one of the 100 most wasteful stimulus projects in the entire nation. Debicella himself calls all stimulus spending "pork," revealing not only hostility for the arts funding going to the district he hopes to represent, but a very peculiar understanding of what constitutes "pork." He wants to repeal it all, of course. Even though it's nearly all been spent already. And Debicella says that NEA funding is DOA with him.
"Increased public funding is not there," Debicella said. "NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) money is not there. Anybody who tells you that is not telling you the truth."
With its Democratic majority, Congress not only approved Obama's increase for the NEA in the 2010 federal budget but raised it to $167.5 million, more than an 8 percent jump from the previous year. The NEA, which distributes money to state and regional agencies, and to nonprofit organizations, also received $50 million for job creation under the stimulus program, and $38 million for education. In 2009, it received $155 million in appropriations, a 7 percent increase from 2008.
So this paragraph in the Westport Now story struck me as a perfect metaphor for the overall approach of Democrats and Republicans for government support for the arts.
While both candidates stressed their time-honored love and support for the arts (Himes' wife Mary sits on the Cultural Alliance's board, and Debicella spoke of his high school involvement with theater and music), their methods of support during a period of economic downturn were strikingly different.
Strikingly different? You can say that again. On the one hand, we have $50 million in stimulus funding (which not one Republican in congress supported), and two successive increases in funding for arts and arts education under Democrats. And what can the GOP nominee offer instead? His "high school involvement with theater and music." In other words:
No contest. (image from the Shelton High School yearbook)
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...
As we approach Memorial Day and honor those who have given their lives in devoted service to our country, I think it's worth thinking about what it means for someone to raise their hand and say, effectively, "I will die for you. I will die for the values and ideas that undergird this nation." Seems to me, there's no reply other than "Thank you". And even that feels inadequate.
Congress has been debating an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would initiate a clear process to repeal the unfair and outdated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bans gay men and women from serving in the military. The amendment in the House of Representatives is offered by my colleague Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, an Iraq War veteran.
I voted for and wholeheartedly support this amendment. It passed the House last night 234 to 194. It's time to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In the seventeen years since this discriminatory policy was enacted, more than 13,500 dedicated, well-trained patriotic soldiers have been kicked out of the military just because they were gay or lesbian. I would urge you to read some of their stories here.
Unfairly denying these men and women their rights in the military does a disservice to the nation's historic commitment to fundamental human rights. It also undermines our military readiness capabilities at a time when the military is stretched thin and fighting two wars. Many service members are on their third, fourth or fifth deployments. Yet, in the last five years, the military has discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Other countries that have fought with us, including Australia, Israel, Great Britain and Canada, have shown that their policies of non-discriminatory open service have had no adverse effect on enrollment or retention.
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?
(Updated) On WNPR news this morning, there was a story about Jim Himes and Goldman Sachs that was as sleazy as anything that has come out of Fox News ever.
The story began by stating that "watch dog groups" are concerned about congressmen who have taken tainted money from Goldman Sachs. Now first, nowhere in the story did WNPR identify those supposed watch dog groups. Nowhere.
The "news" story went on to say that Congressman Jim Himes has taken in a great deal of money from Goldman Sachs, and that "watch dog groups" are concerned that those campaign funds are influencing Himes' work on campaign finance reform.
But the truly outrageous part was when the announcer said that according to financial statements from Himes, he holds a quarter million shares of Goldman Sachs stock. Then, in truly sleazy Fox News style, it continued, "but Himes says that is outdated.." This is a perfect example of "balance as bias": WNPR says that Himes still holds stock in Goldman Sachs, a blatant conflict of interest, but then continues that Himes "says" that he doesn't hold the stock now. As if there is doubt about this, and it's just Congressman Himes' word that we have to rely upon. That is the outrageous part: telling a blatant lie- that Himes holds Goldman stock, and just including that Himes "says" it isn't true. In other words, WNPR has adopted the Fox News style of "we report, you decide." Or more accurately, we slime, you decide."
Really making the grade, Republican first selectman of Easton was named by the
NRCC as one of forty "third tier- on the radar" congressional candidates. Way to wow 'em, Tom!
"I will adamantly support state sovereignty...States need to nurture and assert home rule."
Funny that Hermann was touting states' rights just a few short blocks away from Greenwich's monument to its sons who fought and died to preserve the United States during the Civil War, which the Confederacy fought ostensibly in the name of states' rights.
In addition, he stated that he would not have voted to bail out the banks, though he didn't say what he thought would happen if the banking system were allowed to melt down a la 1929.
But the real fun part was his stance on health care reform. He stated that he would not have voted for the health care reform bill and that
"The health care bill is an entitlement...It does little or nothing to control costs....we need to focus on (controlling) costs first."
I suppose that the Congressional Budget Office's detailed studies that concluded that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by over a trillion dollars over twenty years, and most assuredly slow the rise in health insurance costs over the next several years escaped Mr. Hermann's notice.
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
"I will not be running for Governor," Shays told Capitol Report. " I would love to be part of the debate. I believe I would win. And I would dearly love to serve and help get our State out of the huge mess it is in. But Betsi and I simply can't make it work financial. After quitting my job to run for Governor and serving four years in office we would be nearly bankrupt, the very problem I would be helping to get the State out of."
Note that Shays didn't say anything about running for Congress in this interview. My hunch is that he's still contemplating jumping into the 4th CD race against Jim Himes, because funds raised for that race can be used to pay off that $243,000 campaign debt he was left with due to the alleged embezzlement by his former campaign manager, Michael Sohn.
"I gave serious thought to running again to pay this off," said Mr. Shays, who has kept his campaign running in order to raise money.
Money raised for a bid for Governor could not be used to pay off the Congressional campaign debt.But if he runs against Jim Himes for his former seat in the 4th CD, any funds raised for that bid could be used to pay off his outstanding debts. With Russo and Debicella running behind Himes in polls, Shays comes in with instant name recognition.
But on the other hand, in an environment where the voting public are worried about deficits and fiscal responsibility, I'm not sure how you play the "I'm The Guy To Remedy The Nation's Financial Woes" card against a guy who actually understands the way financial derivatives work and is helping to write the legislation to regulate them, when you're constantly talking about how broke you are and your former campaign manager ripped off your campaign to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars without you having a clue.
Chris Shays has taken over Dick Blumenthal's role of Hamlet in CT State politics as he's dithering between running for Governor or challenging Jim Himes for the seat he lost in the 4th CD back in 2008. Either way, he's taken the first step towards re-establishing Connecticut residency, by putting down a deposit on a condo in Bridgeport.
Neil Vigdor had a piece yesterday where Shays continues his waffling and throws in a dig at Congressman Jim Himes, the guy who beat him:
Declaring that his number one focus is on a prospective candidacy for governor, former Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., won't rule out running for his old congressional seat this year.
"I've left both options open, but what I'm looking to do is see if I can run for governor," Shays said...
The Capitol Hill veteran has generally avoided publicly commenting on the man who unseated him in the 15 months since -- until now.
"My view is given the job that Jim has done, that if I were to run against him, there would be a strong likelihood that I would be able to beat him," said Shays.
Maybe he's speaking based on results of the internal poll released by his former deputy Chief of Staff Rob Russo, one of several GOP candidates in the 4th CD, which included Shays "as a baseline". The poll, conducted by Western Wats, showed Shays beating Himes 52-33 in a theoretical matchup. Russo trailed Himes 43-30.
Shays, however, seems to be leaning more towards the Governor's race. He says he plans to make a decision soon:
"I would love to campaign for Congress," Shays said. "I would love it. But if it didn't make sense for me to run for governor, I'm not sure (it would for Congress)."
Shays said he plans to make up his mind on the governor's race by the end of the month, factoring in two major variables.
"Do I have a strong base in the district I used to represent for 21 years?" Shays said. "Given that my primary opponents are both millionaires, will I have a strong grassroots organization to counter $10 million?"
Now call me cynical, but I think there's probably third variable in play here, and that's the
$243,000 outstanding campaign debt from 2008 due to the alleged embezzlement by former campaign manager Michael Sohn.
Although Shays says:"Michael is responsible for restitution of the funds that he embezzled and for paying the legal costs resulting from what he embezzled," he's got to be facing the reality that there's no way a guy who lived the high life on the campaign might well spend time in the Big House for it is going to be able to do that. And there's that very telling quote Shays gave to the
New York Times back in May when the embezzlement story first broke:
Adding to Mr. Shays's problems...is that he cannot solicit money from any donor who gave him the maximum amount allowed during the previous campaign, $4,600 per individual donor.
"I gave serious thought to running again to pay this off," said Mr. Shays, who has kept his campaign running in order to raise money.
Given how late in the game he's coming to this, I seriously wonder how much of Shays' new found enthusiasm for running for office is due to the financial albatross hanging around his neck.
Apparently life at his Maryland Shore Dream Home isn't all it was cracked up to be, because Chris Shays seems to really want back into CT politics. So badly he can't decide what to run for. First it was governor. Now, according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, he's contemplating a rematch of his 2008 battle for his old 4th CD seat against Congressman Jim Himes.
Former Connecticut representative Chris Shays (R) is considering a comeback bid for the 4th district seat he lost to Rep. Jim Himes (D) in 2008, according to sources familiar with his thinking. Shays has spoken to several of his former colleagues about the possibility although it's not clear how close he is to making a go/no-go decision. ...In 2004 and 2006 beat back serious and well-financed challenges. But, with President Obama on the top of the ticket in 2008, black turnout in Bridgeport went through the roof and delivered Himes a 51 percent to 48 percent victory...It's not immediately clear whether Shays could clear what is a crowded field that includes a current and former state senator if he decided to run. Should he get into the race, Shays would be the ninth eighth former Republican member of Congress running in 2010 for his old seat.
Given Russo and Debicella's lackluster fundraising, Shays might rally the GOP base. On the other hand, it's going to be pretty hard for a guy who struggled to pay off his outstanding debt because his longtime campaign manager allegedly embezzled the money to run as Mr. Fiscal Responsibility.
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.
I met Frank Farricker at Democratic first selectman Lin Lavery's rally at Armstrong Court in Greenwich on Saturday and asked him more questions about Republican First Selectman Peter Tesei's handling of Greenwich's stimulus request. Frank shed more light on Tesei's abysmal handling of the request, which resulted in the town's being awarded just $4 million, a fraction of what other municipalities received.
I asked Frank Farricker why he was invited by Tesei to that last-minute Christmas Eve 2008 meeting on the stimulus, when Frank isn't a selectman or in line to participate. Farricker, a former candidate for first selectman in 2007, serves on the town's Planning & Zoning Committee. In fact, according to Farricker, it was he and not Tesei who called that meeting. Farricker had received data from a friend in state government about requests from other towns and Farricker was appalled that Greenwich was missing out on a lot of potential federal funds. He called Tesei and urged him to submit a bigger request. According to Farricker, Tesei had asked the head of the town's public works department to put in a request, and it came to less than $4 million. In contrast, Bridgeport's mayor Bill Finch requested over a billion dollars from the bill, and had already submitted his full detailed request.
Back in June, Sen. Dodd told the MLN community that he was going to fight for the public option throughout the entire legislative process:
As I said, it remains to be seen whether we can pull together the votes to make that happen. But I've learned in my time in Washington that compromise is important, but it's always worthwhile to stand your ground on the issues that matter most. That's how we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, credit card reform, FDA regulation of tobacco, and many other issues I've worked on over the years. We can't give up on a public option even if it is an uphill battle. And so I won't. And I know you won't, either.
But we have come too far, and worked too hard, to settle for "pretty good." And that's why I plan to take a stand.
First, and let me be very clear about this: I am going to fight for a strong public option. The simple, undeniable fact is that a public option will save money - and it will introduce more choice and competition into an industry that badly needs both. It is the single best way to keep costs low for middle class families - and keep the insurance companies honest. And I am by no means ready to back down on making that argument.
Whatever happens in the coming weeks -- and the fight is by no means close to being over -- this is a significant victory for Senator Dodd. All along, the conventional wisdom was that the Finance Committee's health care bill would have precedence over anything coming out of Sen. Dodd's HELP committee in the merging process. That conventional wisdom has been debunked, and President Snowe and Vice President Baucus are now less relevant to the process than ever -- and progressives in the House and Senate more relevant.
CCAG has a post up urging constituents to thank Sen. Dodd for his leadership on the public option fight.
In the House, the language of the merged bill that will come to the floor is still largely uncertain. Steny Hoyer says it could emerge by the end of this week, and hinted to reporters this morning that it may include a public option with negotiated rates, not Medicare +5 rates:
Though the robust public option has a great deal of support among Democrats, Hoyer asks rhetorically "What additional numbers can you add by going to negotiated rates?...[W]e don't have that exact number. But certainly there are people who want the negotiated rates who would add themselves to the number [that support a robust public option] that is anywhere between 200 and 218 at this point in time."
It seems clear that John Larson's declaration last week that Democrats "had the votes" for a "robust" public option was either premature or imprecise - since whether to include the Medicare +5% public option, largely considered the most "robust" plan under consideration, is still being debated.
One more update: while Jim Himes' office would not confirm his position on the Medicare +5% public option last week, his name has been absent in the most recent target lists, and his office has apparently privately indicated to others that he would support Medicare +5% if it came to the floor.
Friday Morning Update: Politico reports that Speaker Pelosi is conducting a "public" whip count of the entire Democratic caucus on the Medicare +5 bill this morning, "behind closed doors in the Capitol basement."
---
Roll Call reports that House Democrats have are confident they have the votes they need to pass a "robust" public option:
House Democratic leaders sounded bullish Wednesday after launching an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a "robust" public insurance option in their health care bill.
"We think we have the votes now," Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) told reporters. "We have the votes to pass a robust public option."
Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out, and Democratic aides said Members were still being whipped at press time and did not release a tally.
If true, this is encouraging news for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that progressives in the House led by Speaker Pelosi have stood their ground, helped by the fact that the "robust" public option reportedly came back scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit more than any other plan:
This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month....
Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.
The whip effort described by Larson is an internal one, making it difficult to discern who the holdouts in the Democratic caucus are. And as Larson points out, the count is still ongoing, making this one of the very last moments in the process in which pressure can be effectively applied before the House bill goes to the floor.
Open Left has attempted to compile a list of Democratic targets in the House on the "robust" public option -- Representatives who are deemed to be undecided or either "leaning" yes or no on the matter.
While the provenance of the Open Left target list is unclear, it's all activists have to go on at this point. The only "undecided or leaning" name from Connecticut on the list (pdf here) is Jim Himes. While this does not at all signify that Congressman Himes would vote against a "Medicare +5" plan, he did seem to indicate in his op-ed on health reform in August that his preferred approach was the "level playing field" public option.
Reached for comment today, Rep. Himes' Communications Director Liz Kerr confirmed that he is still undecided on the Medicare +5% public option:
"The Congressman, as he has stated before, supports the inclusion of a public health insurance option that operates on a level playing field with private insurance companies. He is still studying this specific proposal."
We are at the point in the process where every lawmaker's opinion and every moment counts in order to makes sure the House passes the strongest possible bill going into the inevitable conference committee compromise.
If you want to urge Rep. Himes to support a House health care reform bill with the robust Medicare +5% public option, you can call his DC office at (202) 225-5541.
The economy is suffering, budgets are under pressure, and Greenwich enjoys no immunity to the downturn. Hard times mean that Greenwich cannot afford to pass up any source of funds. Yet Greenwich first selectman Peter Tesei did just that, dropping the ball repeatedly on the town's requests for federal assistance, and ultimately costing Greenwich tens of millions of dollars in federal aid it should have received. Not only was Mr. Tesei the last first selectman and mayor in the fourth congressional district to apply for federal stimulus funds, he was also the last municipal executive in the entire state to submit a funding request. Hard against the deadline to apply for stimulus funding, Mr. Tesei's foot-dragging precipitated a last-minute meeting with congressman-elect Jim Himes on Christmas Eve to submit the town's request. Mr. Tesei interpreted the criteria for stimulus projects so narrowly that he brought to the meeting a proposal totaling only $17 million. In contrast, the city of Bridgeport, with twice the population of Greenwich, had already applied for $868 million in stimulus funding. Stamford, with close to double Greenwich's population, had formally requested $414 million. Westport, with half our town's population, asked for approximately $100 million.
As we approach Memorial Day and honor those who have given their lives in devoted service to our country, I think it's worth thinking about what it means for someone to raise their hand and say, effectively, "I will die for you. I will die for the values and ideas that undergird this nation." Seems to me, there's no reply other than "Thank you". And even that feels inadequate.
MLN is powered by