The debate surrounding the GIVE Act in Congress this afternoon is a microcosm of the current stalemate in Congress, according to Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut's Second District.
The GIVE Act, or HR 2857, which should've pass Congress this afternoon but was pulled from the floor because of partisan bickering,is a $981 million or so appropriation that provides money for community service activities in many forms, like expanding AmeriCorps by 100,000 people, increasing a foster Grandparents Program, and creating a $20 million Summer of Service program, which was Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of New Haven.
Yet at the same time, the almost $1 billion for volunteerism here is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the $2 trillion price tag on the war in Iraq, the latest figure on the cost, according to Bob Herbert in the New York Times this morning.
The contradiction isn't lost on Courtney.
"I think it is an outcome endemic of a divided government," Courtney said. "That is the problem. There is a complete stalemate about changing course in Iraq that prevents better efforts for this country. Every effort to change policy has run into the math of the present Congress and the White House. We don't have veto proof margins. We are really just able to redirect priorities in small increments."
The purpose of raising campaign money is to spend it
- in a timely,
targeted, and effective manner. Some candidates focus on the
first half of that guideline and neglect the latter
portion. If campaign donors critically examined the
spending habits of some Connecticut candidates, they might have second
thoughts about contributing again.
To get a sense of how much
and how well funds are being spent, take a look at Congressional
campaign "burn rates" - how much of their incoming funds federal
candidates are spending in these early days of their campaigns.
Dist.
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1, 2007
Raised
Jan-Sept 2007
Spent
Jan-Sept 2007
Cash on hand
Sept 30, 2007
Burn
rate
1
Larson
236,969
419,857
364,142
292,684
87%
2
Courtney
47,599
898,294
178,128
767,765
20%
2
Sullivan
-
132,384
30,686
101,698
23%
3
DeLauro
16,124
367,265
303,795
79,594
83%
4
Shays
61,544
838,489
306,242
593,791
37%
4
Himes
-
617,676
70,976
546,699
11%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,057,795
166,914
943,583
16%
5
Cappiello
-
268,802
64,434
204,368
24%
Burn rate = (Total spent during 2007 calendar year + debt as of Sept.
30)/ Total raised during 2007.
As
the biggest spender in a competitive district, Chris Shays is shedding
37% of his contributions as he goes. This is more than three
times the spending rate of Jim Himes, the most frugal and efficient
federal candidate in the state, who has departed with only a small
fraction (11%) of the funds he has raised. Despite Shays'
long
head
start, Himes has nearly as much cash on hand as his opponent.
If this pattern continues, Shays will soon fall behind his
challenger, in large part because of his wasteful spending.
Himes
Shays
Himes advantage
Average raised per quarter
308,838
279,496
Raised 29,341 more
Average spent per quarter
35,488
102,081
Spent 66,592 less
More on what they're
spending all that money on below.
Rosa DeLauro: The CT Post praises DeLauro for her smack-down of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's chairman Nancy Nord. Nord, like many agency chairs appointed by the Bush Administration, is dangerously inept and apparently corrupt.
From the CT Post:
DeLauro accuses chairwoman Nancy Nord of failing to do her job by actively opposing legislation that would allow the department access to more resources and authority to keep products safe. It was a stunning move, seeing a federal official argue against more money for her agency, and by itself ought to have disqualified Nord from her position.
Joe Lieberman: Lieberman whines to FOX Noise about Democrats' foreign policy positions. Joe says that seeking peace in Iraq and the Middle East is a "partisan" position, despite yet another poll showing overwhelming public support for an end to the Iraq War and opposition to attacks on Iran.
UPDATE: Thinkprogress.org shines the light of truth on Joe and his crazy talk.
Chris Shays: Does Chris Shays like animals more than he likes people?
"The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and priorities of its citizens," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who co-chairs the caucus with Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.
Seventeen additional Democrats have signed on to the letter to President Bush pledging to vote against any funding for the Iraq war that is not tied to a firm timeline for withdrawal. Unfortunately, none of them are from Connecticut. Here's the text, according to Greg Sargent:
Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
Chris Murphy is still the only representative from CT to sign this letter, which is still being circulated for signatures and will be sent to Bush next week.
(Video of Bill Clinton talking about MoveOn on CNN tonight via Oliver Willis.)
That's the amount of hard-earned money the members of MoveOn.org - many of them constituents, volunteers, and ardent supporters - contributed to efforts to elect these two freshman Democrats when they were candidates last year. (H/T Larkspur.)
(b) It is the Sense of the Congress that the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the service of General David H. Petraeus, as well as all other members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing, in the defense of the United States and the personal sacrifices made by General Petraeus and his family, and other members of the Armed Forces and their families, to serve with distinction and honor;
(2) commits to judge the merits of the sworn testimony of General David H. Petraeus without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;
(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;
(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well as their families; and
(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding request or any policy decisions regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to intellectual integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.
Chris Murphy was the #1 recipient of MoveOn support among freshman Dems. Joe Courtney was #13. They were joined in their vote by Rosa DeLauro and John Larson.
This is how Chris Dodd responded when a similar resolution was up in the senate - by voting no:
It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war.
Pretty simple.
Why Murphy and Courtney - to say nothing of Larson and DeLauro, who have their seats for life if they want them - couldn't have responded similarly is a question for them to answer. But it's pretty clear that for whatever reason, they have decided they neither need nor particularly want the support of committed progressive activists anymore.
1. Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy are leading a charge this week to repeal provisions of last fall's Military Commissions Act and restore Habeas Corpus rights for detainees in an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. This push started back in February, but it really all comes down to this week.
Update: Here's a really awesome "citizen whip count" tool the Dodd campaign is using to track the number of votes they have (as of Tuesday afternoon, Lieberman is still a "maybe" on whether he will vote to restore the Constitution this week.):
2. Howie Klein writes today about something I also brought up last Friday: Chris Murphy's leadership on refusing to support funding for the war not tied to timelines.
Murphy was one of nine freshman Democrats to sign a letter to Bush dated September 12th with the following statement on funding:
We are writing to inform you that we will not support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq unless a firm date is given to begin safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq.
Courtney did not sign the letter. And, somewhat amazingly, no other Connecticut representative has signed a similar eletter from Rep. Lee's office stating the Democratic case for change Bush's Iraq policy in even more direct terms:
We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Email them here and ask them to follow Chris Murphy's and Chris Dodd's lead and pledge to vote against any additional funding for the war that is not tied to firm timelines, or call their offices and ask them where they stand on this simple question:
Joe Courtney: (202) 225-2076, (860) 886-0139
Rosa DeLauro: (202) 225-3661, (203) 562-3718
John Larson: (202) 225-2265, (860) 278-8888
Chris Shays: (202) 225-5541, (203) 579-5870, (203) 357-8277
Members of the Connecticut Democratic Congressional Delegation, Reps. Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, released the following statement regarding their unified stance on today's vote on the Iraq Supplemental:
"Today, we will vote the will of our constituents in Connecticut and the American people - voting against a measure that does not hold this Administration accountable for its failed policy in Iraq or set a new direction. We cannot in good conscience support a bill that keeps our troops in the middle of a bloody and chaotic civil war with no exit strategy and no timeline for redeploying our troops."
Update 4: Murphy now definitely voting no, that is, if it is put up for a vote at all. (h/t Commonweal):
"People in Connecticut and across the country overwhelmingly support redeploying our troops out of Iraq, yet this message falls on deaf ears in the Bush Administration. This bill may pass today, and the President may sign it, but I cannot support it. I was sent here to bring this war to a close, and this bill doesn't do that."
Update 3: And this may not matter at all. As Sirota writes, the Democratic leadership is planning to use parliamentary procedure to avoid the appearance of a real vote on this. And apparently the entire leadership is planning on voting for this "rule" that would essentially allow the supplemental to sail through without having to vote for it. CQ has more. Ask the reps below to vote against the rule.
Update 2: The Courant has an article this morning stating that Larson ia a "no" vote, and that Murphy, Courtney, and DeLauro are still torn over which way to vote. (DeLauro still undecided as of this morning). Murphy apparently received 40 calls yesterday, all urging a "no" vote, and he's leaning against the measure. Keep up the pressure. (Shays is a "yes," BTW. Lieberman can't discuss because it's Shavuot).
Just called Murphy's office (0.00 / 0)
Chris Murphy is voting against the no-strings supplemental.
As Chris Bowers and others have noted today, this fight is important, if only for setting up the next one in September. This vote is crucial. No one gets a pass.
Where do the other members of CT's delegation stand on giving Bush a blank check for the war?
My Saturday began with a visit to Rosa DeLauro's dog and pony show in Branford. Sparsely attended, but Rosa did her usual masterful job of presenting her achievements. She also mentioned the damage that has been done to the Constitution by the bozos in the Bush administration.
Afterwards, I subtly (Hah!) raised the issue of impeachment with her. "I hear you," she said but otherwise dodged the issue, insisting instead that what "we" have to work on now is withdrawal from Iraq. I didn't press it, because a.) there was no real point and b.) I like Rosa and she doesn't need to get shoved into corners she doesn't care to be shoved into by the likes of me.
Still, the thought of what I fear is the irreparable damage Bush and Cheney have already done and the virtually total destruction they could bring about during the remainder of their tenure if they are not hounded out of office by the righteous anger of the Democratic majority in Congress stayed with me during the day and followed me into the august confines of Yale's Woolsey Hall where I heard a spectacular rendition of Benjamin Britten's masterpiece, 'War Requiem.'
It was quite a production. A huge orchestra (seven percussionists alone) and a massive choir of perhaps a hundred voices, men in the balcony to the right, women to the left, and a children's choir chiming in from the second balcony like cherubim from heaven.
I was unfamiliar with the piece. (Hell, I'd be unfamiliar with most of the classical canon were it not for my wife's ceaseless efforts to civilize me!) But it repaid the effort to attend closely.
Britten's conceit was to combine a more or less mainstream rendition of the traditional Latin requiem mass (filled with references to Verdi's earlier Requiem apparently, although you could have fooled me) and more modern settings of the astonishing war poetry of Wilfred Owen, who virtually guaranteed he'd be a major anti-war poet by getting killed at age 25 in WWI -- you know, the one that was fought so we wouldn't have to fight another one?
That's not to take anything away from his poetry which is searing. The effect of the juxtaposition (given the aforementioned close attention) is electrifying and profoundly sobering. Not to mention more than a little depressing. Apparently, the German baritone who sang at the world premier had, as a teenager, served in the German army in the last, desparate days of the Reich. He broke down and wept at the end of that first performance.
I couldn't help thinking that the honest burghers who commissioned the piece for the consecration of the new cathedral at Coventry, built to replace the one leveled during the war, must have turned to one another after it was over and said, "Well, that's the last time we ask a pacifist who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ to write a Requiem for us!"
(By the way, I know all this background stuff thanks to a pre-concert lecture given by Professor Mervyn Cooke of the University of Nottingham.)
At any rate, during the Offertorium, Britten uses an Owen poem that plays on the Biblical account of Abraham's almost-sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Except, in Owen's version, Abraham (clearly meant to represent the governments who prosecuted the war) doesn't heed the Almighty's cease and desist order.
Bush and Cheney were too much with me as I followed along:
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an Angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him, thy son.
Behold! Caught in a thicket by its horns,
A Ram. Offer the Ram of Pride instead.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.
And so our self-appointed patriarchs, who worship a God that is a twisted parody of the God of our fathers and make no bones about believeing we are in the end times, are sacrificing the seed of America.
(CTKeith is liveblogging from Branford - woo hoo! - promoted by Maura)
Rosa's tradition of holding office hours in every one of the towns in her distrits is Legendary.Noone is ever turned away from a face to face meeting with their congresswoman in this district nor have they ever been.
As you would expect the vast majority of people who are arriving here today are here to express there views personally to Rosa on the Iraq War with Healthcare being a close second on the issues front.
I'm lucky enough to have gotten a seat at the library where I can see Rosa's interacting with a couple of members of an anti-Imagration group.The conversation looks quite heated.
New Haven Register columnist Randall Beach has a good idea about how the will of the people regarding Bush's disastrous course of action in Iraq can be carried forward.
Since Lieberman is still smooching it up with Bush, I thought of another New Haven-based legislator who might fight for the wishes of New Haven area people on this issue.
I thought about her after reading New York Times columnist Bob Herbert declare: "There must be a leader somewhere who can shake the U.S. out of this tragic hypnotic state, who can see that it is beyond crazy to continue our involvement in this war indefinitely, to sacrifice another 1,000 young lives, and then another thousand after that."
And I thought of her again when I recently read that she entered this into the Congressional Record after the death last year of her predecessor in the 3rd District, U.S. Rep. Robert Giaimo: "Serving during a time of great upheaval in this country, it was Bob Giaimo who led the first successful effort to end funds for the fighting in Southeast Asia."
Yes, now it's time for U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, to step up. She should help lead the charge to cut off funds for continued fighting by U.S. troops in Iraq.
Hear! Hear! C'mon Rosa, you know you're everyone's favorite to become the next senator from Connecticut. ('Bout time we had an Italian in the upper house!) Here's your chance to show you've got the right stuff.
And while I'm at it, let me renew my request that you become the first Connecticut legislator to introduce legislation stripping FERC of its dictatorial powers thus returning to the people of Connecticut their inalienable right to make their own decisions about their environmental future.
The New York Times has an article on the relationship between Ned Lamont and various 2008 presidential hopefuls. (It's tentative, apparently.)
What piqued my interest was a suggestion in the final paragraphs that Rosa DeLauro, an ardent Lieberman backer who gave a rousing acceptance speech for Joe at the Dem Convention, might be coming into the Lamont fold. We shall see.
"Joe Lieberman is a very close friend of our family and we are sorry Connecticut Democrats did not support him. He is a person of integrity who has fought so many good fights for people. I am proud to have worked side-by-side with him in this primary.
"Connecticut Democrats have selected Ned Lamont. I will be supporting and working for his election in November."
Luke warm to the max, but perhaps the best we can expect. She's also behind DeStefano.
The debate surrounding the GIVE Act in Congress this afternoon is a microcosm of the current stalemate in Congress, according to Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut's Second District.
The purpose of raising campaign money is to spend it
- in a timely,
targeted, and effective manner. Some candidates focus on the
first half of that guideline and neglect the latter
portion. If campaign donors critically examined the
spending habits of some Connecticut candidates, they might have second
thoughts about contributing again.
MLN is powered by