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.
Rosa DeLauro isn't pulling any punches. She's quoted in Politico as stating that she believes that Joe Lieberman ought to be recalled:
"No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.
John Larson also indicated that he finally "gets it" regarding Lieberman..sort of:
"It goes beyond frustration in Connecticut in terms of the way people feel," Larson said. "I have a great deal of respect and I have long admired Joe Lieberman. This goes against the grain of most of what he's fought for and stood for all of his life. It's thoroughly frustrating and disappointing for so many of us."
Thankfully, Connecticut voters have another chance to do what they should have done three years ago: vote for Ned Lamont, albeit for governor instead of senator. Can you begin to imagine how much better off this country would be today if Ned Lamont were in the United States Senate instead of Joe Lieberman? I hope we don't have to ask ourselves that question about the state of Connecticut three years from now.
Nine health care reform activists were arrested this morning while staging a sit-in inside Senator Joseph Lieberman's congressional office in Washington, D.C.
The activists were there representing an organization called Mobilization for Health Care For All.
Explaining their reasons for their actions, student activist Jason Ortiz said, "we staged a sit-in at Senator Lieberman's office this morning in order to ask him to return the $65,000 campaign donation that he recently received from the Aetna health insurance corporation and to ask him to represent the people of Connecticut, not the insurance companies."
The group was also there to protest Senator Lieberman's announcement last week that he will filibuster any health reform bill in the Senate that contains a public option.
In total there were 9 arrests made at approximately 10:15 a.m. EST, Thursday, November 5.
At 9:15 this morning the group requested a meeting with the Senator and refused to leave until they were given a chance to meet with him. They were told by Senator Lieberman's staff that they would not be given a meeting with the Senator, and that if they did not leave they would be arrested. Senator Lieberman's staff subsequently contacted law enforcement, and 9 activists were physically removed from the building and arrested.
Some members of the group went to a meeting of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (which Senator Lieberman chairs) to stage a protest in the presence of Senator Lieberman. They were asked to leave and did so without incident.
Of those arrested, one, Brittney Florio, is currently a University of Connecticut student, and one, John Mohrbacher, is an alumnus.
For more information, please call Jason Ortiz at (860)639-8101
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.
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...
As you may have suspected, the Medicare-style public option that you thought you were fighting for isn't the same "public option" that's coming out of committees in the Senate and the House. Not even close.
In a must-read diary at the Physicians for a National Health Program blog, Kip Sullivan describes how Congressional Democrats, and even some progressive groups, are using a classic bait-and-switch to redefine the public option and sell us a useless watered-down version:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the "public option" proposed in the House "tri-committee" bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The "public option" proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the "public option." [...]
Obviously the "public option" in the Senate HELP committee bill (zero enrollees; 34 million people left uninsured) and the "public option" in the House bill (10 million enrollees (maybe!); 17 million people left uninsured) are a far cry from the "public option" originally proposed by Professor Hacker (129 million enrollees; 2 million people left uninsured).
Go read Sullivan's diary to understand how the original public option is nothing like what's coming out of Congress, including the one drafted by the Senate HELP Committee.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
Following is a draft of the Congressional Republicans' working plan for financial regulatory reform we've obtained. In particular, it aims to eliminate the Fed's ability to act independently in periods of financial crisis.
OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE
ON FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM
Overarching principles:
• The Republican plan will be designed to ensure that (1) the government stops rewarding failure and picking winners and losers; (2) taxpayers are never again asked to pick up the tab for bad bets on Wall Street while some creditors and counterparties of failed firms are made whole; and (3) market discipline is restored so that financial firms will no longer expect the government to rescue them from the consequences of imprudent business decisions. The Republican plan seeks to return our regulatory system to one in which government policies do not promote moral hazard, and insolvent financial firms are permitted to fail rather than become wards of the state.
I am reprinting below, in full, with the written permission of the publication, Fairfield County Weekly's recent editorial describing how Congressman Jim Himes was ambushed by right-wingers in Southport recently (isn't that John McKinney's hometown?), and takes them to task. Very refreshing to see that not all journalists in the Nutmeg State are mindless right-wing ideologues like Ken Dixon.
The New York Times just announced that America's GDP in the first quarter of the year fell at a rate of over 6%, marking the worst six month economic decline since the 1950's. It also marked the third straight quarter of economic decline going back to Q3 of 2008. So it seems altogether proper that we recall the words of that economic genius and former congressman from Southwestern Connecticut, Chris Shays in early September of last year uttered on NPR's Brian Lehrer Show:
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong. No one can disagree with that."
You nailed it, Bucko! How right you were! And let's recall the endorsement of Shays by Brooks Community Newspapers. They wrote that they wanted Chris Shays back in Washington "working on the economy." Yep, we need that economic genius working on the economy voting with every other Republican against the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. As Sarah Palin would say: "You betcha!"
While I typically focus on Senate races, the special election in New York's 20th Congressional district is an excellent opportunity to stick it to the Republican Party.
NY-20 is a Republican leaning district in voter registration, but has been recently represented by now-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and even narrowly supported now-President Barack Obama over John McCain.
The Democratic nominee, Scott Murphy, has turned a deficit in the polls into a narrow four-point lead over Republican Jim Tedisco. Momentum is on our side! A victory in this special election wouldn't just be a nice Democratic hold, but, since it is a Republican-leaning district, it would also be a major embarrassment for Republicans, particularly new RNC Chair Michael Steele.
How desperate are Republicans in this race? Well, they're very literally reduced to going with a noun, a verb, and 9-11 in flailingly attacking Murphy. And how loathsome is the Republican nominee? Even the Libertarian candidate, who was booted from the race after - it would appear - Republicans made a concerted effort to get enough Libertarian ballot signatures overturned, has endorsed Scott Murphy. (And it's one hell of an endorsement.)
The special election is this Tuesday! So what can you do to help?
This is a special election, so GOTV is everything. On Monday or Tuesday, if you can spend literally one single hour making calls, that could be the difference in a Republican pick-up versus a Republican embarrassment.
November 21, 2008
Dear Friend:
I am sending this last e-newsletter to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to serve you and other residents of the Fourth Congressional District for the past 21 years as your representative in Washington.
You and your neighbors have helped educate and guide me through letters, e-mails, calls, office hours, visits, individual conversations and community meetings.
Really? If we have guided Chris Shays, why did he persist for so long against the wishes of his constituents to push for America to invade Iraq? And why, when his constituents were pushing him through "letters, e-mails, calls, " etc. to stop supporting the war, did he continue to support Bush's disastrous war?
The incredible wealth of knowledge you have shared with me has enriched my life and helped make me a better member of Congress.
While this is the last e-newsletter we are sending you because we are required to move out of our Washington office by November 21, I look forward to our paths crossing again soon. All the best.
Christopher Shays
Member of Congress
Before you go, Mr. Shays, please tell us once and for all that you are sorry for helping to send so many young Americans to their deaths in the sands of Iraq. Please tell us that you're sorry for your hypocrisy in saving yourself as a conscientious objector, while sending others to fight. Please tell us now that you are sorry that you pushed for so many years to privatize Social Security when your constituents were telling you for so many years not to do it.
(More nonsense from Kenny... - promoted by ctblogger)
Proving once again what an out-of-touch right-wing rag Connecticut Post really is, its columnist Ken Dixon published this snarky cheap shot at congressman-elect Jim Himes in his Sunday column:
Himes is essentially a 42-year-old blank slate, a Greenwich millionaire who was in the right place at the right time.
Chris Cillizza has just written in "The Fix" in the Washington Post that Connecticut's 4th District could possibly shift from Republican to Democratic. He rates Jim Himes in the top fifty seats likely to change.
He writes:
What's immediately apparent when examining the "second 25" is just how much trouble Republicans are in and how broad Democrats' gains could be. Of the 25 seats on this Line, one (ONE!) is held by a Democratic member of Congress (Rep. Nancy Boyda in Kansas). All told, in the 50 seats that make our Line, 42 are held by Republicans and just eight are held by Democrats. And, rest assured, there were several other Republican seats -- California's 3rd, Florida's 21st -- that could well have cracked the top 50.
Shays denounced the claim that he supported $13 billion in cuts from the Student Loan Program. He pointed to his vote for the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005, which included student loan reforms that will save the government $14.3 billion over five years, and the program was not cut at all. "What happened was we said to the bank, if we are going to guarantee you that you don't lose money from student loans, then you don't get to make an excess profit," Shays said. "And anything above a certain amount goes back into the general fund Instead of it being 13 billion of federal dollars, it's $13 billion of the banks."
In fact, it was precisely because Shays and his Republican buddies actually did stick it to students and parents that incoming Congressional Democrats made cutting the interest rate on federal student loans in half over five years one of their "six for '06" priorities in the new congress. Here's an article I wrote in 2005 that tells the truth about Shays' deciding vote and how education advocates condemned what he did. Shays is always attempting to fool the voters about his real record. Let's make sure the public knows the truth:
There will be a rally for Jim Himes on Saturday, October 25, with special guest Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Jim Himes, State Representative Andres Ayala, State Senator Ed Gomes, and State Representative Don Clemons, from 11 am to noon. The rally will take place at East End Democratic Headquarters, 1113 Stratford Avenue, Bridgeport. More information is available at (203)332-6100.
As previously noted on MLN, Bridgeport is the key to this super-important Congressional race. Those who wish to volunteer for the Himes campaign either before the election or on Election Day can contact the phone number above or go to the headquarters in downtown Bridgeport at 1016 Broad St., 2nd floor. See you there on November 4.
Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy called Lee Whitnum "anti-Semitic" at a press conference yesterday afternoon in Stamford. Mayor Malloy was joined at the press conference by Rabbi Marc Disick of Temple Sinai in Stamford, Rabbi David Walk of Congregation Agudafdath Sholom in Stamford and Rabbi Eric Eisenkramer of Temple Shearith Israel in Ridgefield.
According to the Greenwich Post article written by Ken Borsuk, Mayor Malloy stated:
"I've observed this campaign and I've been bothered by this campaign and the things that have been said. I thought for a moment that ignoring this woman and some of the most outlandish thing she's said would be the best policy to not give it more credence but when I saw her statement in the Advocate I found it to be most offensive and taking a full swing at those of us in this country who support the state of Israel...To claim that Israel is somehow to blame for 9-11 is deeply disturbing and quite frankly belies a disturbed sense that Ms. Whitnum has. I also have come to the conclusion that her statements are unfortunately anti-Semitic in their nature...She has crossed the line and is clearly anti-Semitic."
Also disturbing is the silence from Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate, neither of which carried Mayor Malloy's remarks in their paper or electronic editions, nor even acknowledged that the press conference took place. Let's keep in mind that today's editions of both papers would have carried a column by progressive Democrat Sarah Littman, had she not been fired two weeks ago for calling out Lee Whitnum for her bizarre positions and her anti-Semitism in her column. As many know, GT/Advocate publisher John Dunster seized on a pretext to fire her right after that column appeared. Yet when Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy also forcefully denounces Whitnum for her anti-Semitism, Dunster's papers remain silent. Is there any doubt that GT/Advocate have been sanitizing their coverage of Whitnum, going as far as to pretend that a major statement by Stamford's mayor denouncing her never took place? Ignoring the presence of several prominent rabbis in this congressional district at that press conference?
To call GT/Advocate's sanitized coverage of Lee Whitnum disgusting and unethical somehow just doesn't come close to expressing the revulsion I feel for their commission of unethical journalism and convenient ommission of the facts from their reporting. Let's recall that GT/ADvocate had no problems insinuating that Ned Lamont was anti-Semitic, carrying a front-page article about anti-Semitic postings regarding Joe Lieberman on MoveOn.org's website in 2006, and suggesting that the Lamont camapign was somehow inmplicated. They even highlighted the article in dark gray.
With the acquisition of MediaNews Group's minority stake in a joint venture, George Irish, CEO of Hearst Newspapers, is now directly responsible for Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate. Let's hope that he is equally dismayed by the low state of journalism at those papers. He works in Manhattan, so let's hope that he takes a special interest in those two papers that are just a few minutes' drive from his office.
A couple of quick bits from Chris Shays' appearance on Where We Live with John Dankosky.
Talking about the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, Shays stated,
"We have to define what 'leave' means."
This from a guy who in August 2006 told voters that he was in favor of a timeline and was quoted by the Washington Post as saying that most of our troops could be withdrawn by the end of 2007. This from a guy who told voters that he was more anti-war than was Diane Farrell, because he favored a "timeline" for withdrawal.
Both Ways came out with this perfect nugget that really captured the essense of our two-decade congressman:
"Our economy is stronger than people realize. But in my opinion, we are in a recession."
Priceless!
And what about off-shore drilling from the guy who has touted his vote against drilling in ANWR?
"We have to have drilling in our coastal regions."
He was asked why we should trust him to defend Social Security when he had co-sponsored two bills in the 1990's to privatize Social Security, and was one of Bush's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of Bush's private accounts scheme to dismantle the system. Shays' response?
It's a distortion. He wants to divert one-third of all Social Security receipts to private accounts, but that doesn't mean he's in favor of dismantling the system. Does anyone think that the imminent retirement of the mass of Baby Boomers could be accomodated if we are taking away a third of all receipts from those paying in? Does Shays?
Faux moderate and Bush Neocon Chris Shays will appear on John Dankosky's "Where We Live" live call-in show tomorrow morning (Friday, July 11) on Connecticut public radio's WNPR. In Fairfield County, it is carried on 88.5 FM. Please call in or email your questions for Both Ways Shays.
Call during the Show:
(860) 275-7266
Or email questions and comments to:
wherewelive@wnpr.org
You have to get on the phone early, because Dankosky actually doesn't take many calls from listeners.
MLN is powered by