- Isn't it wonderful that during a week when an estimated 102,000 Americans lost their jobs our new Congressman, Chris Lee, decides to play politics. Lee was part of the 100% "No" vote cast by the Republicans in Congress on the Stimulus Package. Carrying on the disgraceful tradition of his predecessor, Tom Reynolds, Lee chose to side with the right-wing leaders of his party instead of his constituents.
- OK, credit where credit is due, Lee did get it right on SCHIP, the bill re-authorizing and expanding the Act that gives healthcare coverage to children in need. Lee was one of 40 Republicans joining Democrats to pass this bill. Reynolds almost certainly would have voted "No" as he had in the past.
- I like Tom Daschle, always have. But he needs to go away now. There is no excuse for making a "mistake", failing to pay $140,000 in taxes and then not revealing this "mistake" during his vetting for HHS Secretary. Time for Obama to turn the page and find a new nominee. Howard Dean anyone?
- In his Inaugural address, President Obama spoke of a "new era of responsibility", something which I heartily endorse. How about we start with the digital TV conversion? We've known for at least two years - maybe more - that the day of DTV conversion was coming. If someone wasn't responsible enough to find time during those two years to get themselves either a digital capable TV or a converter box, why should we worry about them? I firmly believe that we should do everything we can to help the oppressed, the downtrodden and the less fortunate. But I draw the line at the stupid and the lazy. And if you've ignored the repeated warnings that this day was coming and the instructions about what you needed to do - TOO BAD!
And by the way, why is there $650 million in the Stimulus Package for DTV conversion? The average cost of these converters is about $65. There can't possibly be 10 million households that still need converters. Putting stuff like this in the package just serves to give the GOP an easy talking point about why the package is flawed and an excuse for voting No.
- I hope that someone in the Obama administration will soon tell us what the end-game is in Afghanistan. What are we trying to accomplish? What are the realistic expectations? What is the exit strategy? We need a healthy debate about Afghanistan. While nearly everyone, including me, supported our actions there after 9/11, I think its open to debate that an extended military presence there will serve much purpose. We've been there over seven years now and the situation is not a lot better than when we first went in. Will another seven years make much of a difference? If so, how and when? I'm really not sure what the answer is but I am sure that we should be talking about it.
- There hasn't been a lot of talk about healthcare from the Obama administration yet, but one of the things Obama brings up constantly about the subject is the need to computerize medical records. I'm sure that this is a good and necessary idea but am I the only one that's amazed that in 2009 this is still something that needs to be done?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I'm Not Sayin', I'm Just Sayin'
From House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn:
"We had an election on November 4, and the American people voted overwhelmingly for the approach being offered by the Democrats," Clyburn said. "And I think my Republican friends ought to respect that." Asked if there was a goal number of GOP votes that would help make a vote on the stimulus look bipartisan, Clyburn offered a telling comparison. "I would love for it to be bipartisan, but I'll remind you that in 1993, President Clinton passed a package without a single Republican vote," Clyburn said, referring to Clinton's economic proposals. "It passed in the House by two votes, in the Senate by one vote, but a lot of people say it had the biggest and best growth in the economy that we have ever had and that was done without a single Republican vote.... Because it's bipartisan doesn't mean it will be successful. That's all I'm saying."
Exactly. The right policy and the most effective policy ain't necessarily the most bi-partisan policy. If the GOP wants to get on the Change and Progress train, fine. All are welcome. But that shouldn't mean that the train goes down the wrong track or takes a longer route for the sake of "bi-partisanship".
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Chris Lee - Picking Up Where Reynolds Left Off...
Well, it didn't take long for Chris Lee to show us he's following in Tom Reynolds footsteps. For years Reynolds marched to the beat of the right-wing Republican leadership, consistently voting against the interests of his constituents. In his first week on the job Lee has demonstrated that we're in for more of the same.
There were two bills passed by the House this week that took up the cause of working people, specifically working women. There were the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Both seek to protect working women from sexual discrimination as it pertains to "equal pay for equal work". It truly amazes me that in 2009 anyone would oppose the idea that men and women doing the same job should be paid the same and that employers who fail to do so should be held liable!
The Ledbetter Act gives employees 180 days from the date of their last paycheck to bring action against and employer. Due to a bizarre decision by the conservative Roberts Supreme Court, employees now have 180 days from the first discriminatory paycheck to bring action against their employer. So if an employer has been practicing discrimination for more than six months and employee doesn't discover this discrimination until after the first six months, they currently have no legal recourse. The Ledbetter Act fixes that. Seems pretty reasonable right? Not to Chris Lee and most of his Republican colleagues. Thankfully the bill passed easily, 247-171 and now goes to the Senate. Oh, and a whopping 3 Republicans voted on the side of working women.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would stiffen penalties for employers engaging in gender-based pay discrimination, and provide protection to employees who share salary information with colleagues. This bill also passed easily 256-163. Only 10 Republicans voted "yes".
So on it goes. A new Congressman for the 26th district who votes just like his predecessor: against the interests of working people.
There were two bills passed by the House this week that took up the cause of working people, specifically working women. There were the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Both seek to protect working women from sexual discrimination as it pertains to "equal pay for equal work". It truly amazes me that in 2009 anyone would oppose the idea that men and women doing the same job should be paid the same and that employers who fail to do so should be held liable!
The Ledbetter Act gives employees 180 days from the date of their last paycheck to bring action against and employer. Due to a bizarre decision by the conservative Roberts Supreme Court, employees now have 180 days from the first discriminatory paycheck to bring action against their employer. So if an employer has been practicing discrimination for more than six months and employee doesn't discover this discrimination until after the first six months, they currently have no legal recourse. The Ledbetter Act fixes that. Seems pretty reasonable right? Not to Chris Lee and most of his Republican colleagues. Thankfully the bill passed easily, 247-171 and now goes to the Senate. Oh, and a whopping 3 Republicans voted on the side of working women.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would stiffen penalties for employers engaging in gender-based pay discrimination, and provide protection to employees who share salary information with colleagues. This bill also passed easily 256-163. Only 10 Republicans voted "yes".
So on it goes. A new Congressman for the 26th district who votes just like his predecessor: against the interests of working people.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
RFK - The Last Campaign
The title of this blog, "Ripples and Currents", comes from the words of Robert F. Kennedy, specifically the quote that's immediately below the title bar. RFK is my greatest political hero and is one of those rare political leaders who remains relevant long after his death.
Over the past few days I've been reading a new book on RFK by Thurston Clarke entitled "The Last Campaign". The book chronicles Kennedy's campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968, a campaign that lasted only 82 days and ended with RFK's assassination the night of his victory in the California primary. Its a fascinating look at what was truly a unique campaign, one which ran counter to the prevailing conventional wisdom and which took unprecedented political risks. It was a campaign against the odds, against the Democratic establishment, against expectations and against the "tried-and true" methods in those days of securing a party's nomination. It was a campaign in which Robert Kennedy emerged from the shadow of his fallen brother to become an American icon and hero in his own right.
"The Last Campaign" is a book I would highly recommend to anyone having an interest in presidential politics. It is also a book that clearly reminded me of why I chose the "ripples and currents" quote and why RFK will for me always be the politician by which all others are measured. What Robert Kennedy has always meant to me and what he could have meant to America is summed up in the book's closing pages:
"Whether Robert Kennedy would have become a good president is unknowable. All that is certain is that during his campaign he convinced millions of Americans that he was a good man, perhaps a great man. The Wallace supporters, Delaware bridesmaids, Gary steelworkers, Nebraska farmers and Chicano farmworkers mourned him so fiercely because they sensed that he had tried to educate them rather than manipulate them, reconcile rather than divide them, engage them in dialogue rather than feed them the message of the day, appeal to their better angels instead of their wallets and demand sacrifice instead of promising comfort. They mourned him because the ached for a leader who could heal their wounded nation and restore its tarnished honor and because they ached to feel noble again."
Hopefully President Obama will prove to have some of these same qualities. They are needed every bit as much now as they were 40 years ago.
Over the past few days I've been reading a new book on RFK by Thurston Clarke entitled "The Last Campaign". The book chronicles Kennedy's campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968, a campaign that lasted only 82 days and ended with RFK's assassination the night of his victory in the California primary. Its a fascinating look at what was truly a unique campaign, one which ran counter to the prevailing conventional wisdom and which took unprecedented political risks. It was a campaign against the odds, against the Democratic establishment, against expectations and against the "tried-and true" methods in those days of securing a party's nomination. It was a campaign in which Robert Kennedy emerged from the shadow of his fallen brother to become an American icon and hero in his own right.
"The Last Campaign" is a book I would highly recommend to anyone having an interest in presidential politics. It is also a book that clearly reminded me of why I chose the "ripples and currents" quote and why RFK will for me always be the politician by which all others are measured. What Robert Kennedy has always meant to me and what he could have meant to America is summed up in the book's closing pages:
"Whether Robert Kennedy would have become a good president is unknowable. All that is certain is that during his campaign he convinced millions of Americans that he was a good man, perhaps a great man. The Wallace supporters, Delaware bridesmaids, Gary steelworkers, Nebraska farmers and Chicano farmworkers mourned him so fiercely because they sensed that he had tried to educate them rather than manipulate them, reconcile rather than divide them, engage them in dialogue rather than feed them the message of the day, appeal to their better angels instead of their wallets and demand sacrifice instead of promising comfort. They mourned him because the ached for a leader who could heal their wounded nation and restore its tarnished honor and because they ached to feel noble again."
Hopefully President Obama will prove to have some of these same qualities. They are needed every bit as much now as they were 40 years ago.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tom Reynolds - AMF!!!
In only a few more days one of the worst Congressmen in America, NY-26's Tom Reynolds will no longer he stinking up the halls of Congress and betraying his constituents by consistently voting against their interests. Not that I ever had any doubt, but Reynolds has finished off his last term by again being one of the most anti-middle class members of Congress and clearly the most anti-middle class member of the NY delegation.
An excellent website themiddleclass.org http://www.themiddleclass.org/ tracks the voting records of all Senators and Congressmen on bills that directly effect the well being of the middle class. Although the organization will not issue final grades for 2008 until March, its pretty clear that Reynolds is on his way to his fifth consecutive grade of "F". That's right, five consecutive years of a voting record that is so counter to the interests of his constituents that he grades out at "F". Reynolds has by far the worst rating in the NY delegation, whose overall record is pretty good. According to themiddleclass.org, Reynolds voted with the pro-middle class position only 46% of the time in 2008. The only NY representative that even came close to this sorry record was Randy Kuhl at 50% and the voters wisely retired Randy in November. That's right, not only was Reynolds the most anti-middle class NY congressman, he was FAR worse than his Republican colleagues from NY, who averaged a 65% pro-middle class record in 2008.
Thankfully we do have members from Western NY who stand up for the middle class. Brain Higgins had a grade of 95% in 2008 and Louise Slaughter had a grade of 96%.
Want are some examples of Reynolds scum-baggery? Well here are a few:
- Voted NO on the Auto Industry Refinancing and Restructuring Act.
Well hey, auto industry jobs aren't too important the WNY's economy right?
- Voted NO on the The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
This bill, which passed, uses incentives and initiatives to encourage energy efficiency and the development and use of renewable energy. It mandates that a minimum of 15% of electricity comes from renewable resources by 2020. An overly modest goal and a somewhat flawed bill but a least a step in the right direction to the majority in Congress, but not Reynolds.
- Voted NO on the The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
A bill which, while flawed, protects middle class wage earners from the unintended consequences of the AMT. Why was Reynolds opposed? Because the lost revenue from middle class relief was replaced by increased taxes on hedge fund and private equity managers (aka "The Rich").
- Voted NO on the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights.
Unbelievable. Maybe one of the best examples ever of Reynolds voting against the interests of his constituents. This bill passed the House by a 200 vote margin. Unbelievable.
- Voted NO on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
This bill, vetoed by GWB would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and reauthorized it for five years. Reynolds strongly supported spending $12 billion per month in Iraq but was opposed to $7-10 billion a year for Children's health care. One can only hope that there's a special room in hell reserved for those with such a twisted moral compass.
There are many more examples and I encourage you to visit http://www.themiddleclass.org/ for more information.
Thus concludes my last rant about Tom Reynolds, a disgrace and a scumbag. In a few days we'll have a new congressman, Chris Lee. I'll be watching Chris closely and frankly, I not holding out a lot of hope that he'll be much better than Reynolds. I do take some small comfort however in knowing that he can't possibly be worse.
An excellent website themiddleclass.org http://www.themiddleclass.org/ tracks the voting records of all Senators and Congressmen on bills that directly effect the well being of the middle class. Although the organization will not issue final grades for 2008 until March, its pretty clear that Reynolds is on his way to his fifth consecutive grade of "F". That's right, five consecutive years of a voting record that is so counter to the interests of his constituents that he grades out at "F". Reynolds has by far the worst rating in the NY delegation, whose overall record is pretty good. According to themiddleclass.org, Reynolds voted with the pro-middle class position only 46% of the time in 2008. The only NY representative that even came close to this sorry record was Randy Kuhl at 50% and the voters wisely retired Randy in November. That's right, not only was Reynolds the most anti-middle class NY congressman, he was FAR worse than his Republican colleagues from NY, who averaged a 65% pro-middle class record in 2008.
Thankfully we do have members from Western NY who stand up for the middle class. Brain Higgins had a grade of 95% in 2008 and Louise Slaughter had a grade of 96%.
Want are some examples of Reynolds scum-baggery? Well here are a few:
- Voted NO on the Auto Industry Refinancing and Restructuring Act.
Well hey, auto industry jobs aren't too important the WNY's economy right?
- Voted NO on the The Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
This bill, which passed, uses incentives and initiatives to encourage energy efficiency and the development and use of renewable energy. It mandates that a minimum of 15% of electricity comes from renewable resources by 2020. An overly modest goal and a somewhat flawed bill but a least a step in the right direction to the majority in Congress, but not Reynolds.
- Voted NO on the The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008
A bill which, while flawed, protects middle class wage earners from the unintended consequences of the AMT. Why was Reynolds opposed? Because the lost revenue from middle class relief was replaced by increased taxes on hedge fund and private equity managers (aka "The Rich").
- Voted NO on the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights.
Unbelievable. Maybe one of the best examples ever of Reynolds voting against the interests of his constituents. This bill passed the House by a 200 vote margin. Unbelievable.
- Voted NO on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
This bill, vetoed by GWB would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and reauthorized it for five years. Reynolds strongly supported spending $12 billion per month in Iraq but was opposed to $7-10 billion a year for Children's health care. One can only hope that there's a special room in hell reserved for those with such a twisted moral compass.
There are many more examples and I encourage you to visit http://www.themiddleclass.org/ for more information.
Thus concludes my last rant about Tom Reynolds, a disgrace and a scumbag. In a few days we'll have a new congressman, Chris Lee. I'll be watching Chris closely and frankly, I not holding out a lot of hope that he'll be much better than Reynolds. I do take some small comfort however in knowing that he can't possibly be worse.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Be Careful What You Wish For...
Although I eventually evolved into and remain a strong supporter of Barack Obama, I was admittedly a little late to the party. One of the things that bugged me about Obama from the beginning - and still does to a degree - is this idea the he is a "post-partisan" politician. Obama's campaign rhetoric often seemed imply that having strong beliefs that one is willing to fight for is a mindset that is no longer relevant. We don't need to "fight" for change this thinking goes, we simply need to unite as one and move forward together to change the world. As if that has EVER happened.
"Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can" are great campaign slogans, but have always been too generic and ambiguous for my tastes. To make change a reality we have to do more than believe in it, or to tell ourselves we can do it, we have to FIGHT for it. I strongly support most of the policy changes Obama seems likely to propose. They are critically important and long, long overdue. But change will not come easily. There are very powerful forces that we will find highly resistant to the implementation of strong, fundamental change in policy. These forces have a significant financial stake in the status quo. Anyone who thinks these forces will surrender without a fight for the betterment of America and the new "post-partisanism" are living in a fantasy world.
Most Americans, certainly myself included, are weary of the "permanent campaign" mentality that has taken root American politics and government over the past 16 years. Under this mentality everything in government is done with one eye (at least) on the next election rather than on the future of the country. This mentality has the effect of preserving the status quo and favors incrementalism vs fundamental change. So I get it. We're sick of politics as usual vs. progress and change. But progress and change do not happen by themselves nor are they possible without belief and commitment. A belief that there is a right way and a wrong way. If you have such belief and commitment that there are right policies and wrong policies and if you favor one over the other then you are by definition a partisan. And there is nothing wrong with that.
But still a large part of Obama-nation bought into the "post-partisan" rhetoric. Until now. While many of these people thought that "post-partisanism" sounded like a high minded ideal, they sure don't like how its playing out do they? Boo-hoo, there aren't enough liberals in the cabinet. Boo-hoo... how could Barack keep a Republican at Defense? Boo-hoo... Hillary???? How is this possible - she's a DLCer who criticized Barack! And the biggest boo-hoo of all: Rick Warren at the inaugural.
Look, some of this "outrage" may be justified, but people... this is what you signed up for!!!!! Give Obama credit, his reach across the aisle, team of rivals, listen to the other side, no red states or blue states stuff... well it looks like he was serious. So after you bought into it for 18 months why are so many of you so pissed that he's actually practicing what he preached?
The outrage over the Rick Warren thing seems to me to be particularly misplaced. I too think the guy is a self-important, self-righteous, egomaniacal a-hole but really - who gives a rats ass about this? Would anyone even remember six weeks from now who gave the invocation at the Inaugural if not for all of this misplaced outrage from Obama's base? It just doesn't matter at the end of the day. The cause of gay rights and gay marriage is on the right side of history and Rick Warren and his ilk are on the wrong side. Getting three minutes of fame at the Inaugural is not going to change that.
So stop sweating the small stuff and remember to be careful about what you ask for. When you worship at the altar of post-partisanship and believe that everyone should have a seat at the table, you need to recognize that there will be some people sitting down that you don't particularly like. Maybe being a partisan isn't so bad after all huh?
"Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can" are great campaign slogans, but have always been too generic and ambiguous for my tastes. To make change a reality we have to do more than believe in it, or to tell ourselves we can do it, we have to FIGHT for it. I strongly support most of the policy changes Obama seems likely to propose. They are critically important and long, long overdue. But change will not come easily. There are very powerful forces that we will find highly resistant to the implementation of strong, fundamental change in policy. These forces have a significant financial stake in the status quo. Anyone who thinks these forces will surrender without a fight for the betterment of America and the new "post-partisanism" are living in a fantasy world.
Most Americans, certainly myself included, are weary of the "permanent campaign" mentality that has taken root American politics and government over the past 16 years. Under this mentality everything in government is done with one eye (at least) on the next election rather than on the future of the country. This mentality has the effect of preserving the status quo and favors incrementalism vs fundamental change. So I get it. We're sick of politics as usual vs. progress and change. But progress and change do not happen by themselves nor are they possible without belief and commitment. A belief that there is a right way and a wrong way. If you have such belief and commitment that there are right policies and wrong policies and if you favor one over the other then you are by definition a partisan. And there is nothing wrong with that.
But still a large part of Obama-nation bought into the "post-partisan" rhetoric. Until now. While many of these people thought that "post-partisanism" sounded like a high minded ideal, they sure don't like how its playing out do they? Boo-hoo, there aren't enough liberals in the cabinet. Boo-hoo... how could Barack keep a Republican at Defense? Boo-hoo... Hillary???? How is this possible - she's a DLCer who criticized Barack! And the biggest boo-hoo of all: Rick Warren at the inaugural.
Look, some of this "outrage" may be justified, but people... this is what you signed up for!!!!! Give Obama credit, his reach across the aisle, team of rivals, listen to the other side, no red states or blue states stuff... well it looks like he was serious. So after you bought into it for 18 months why are so many of you so pissed that he's actually practicing what he preached?
The outrage over the Rick Warren thing seems to me to be particularly misplaced. I too think the guy is a self-important, self-righteous, egomaniacal a-hole but really - who gives a rats ass about this? Would anyone even remember six weeks from now who gave the invocation at the Inaugural if not for all of this misplaced outrage from Obama's base? It just doesn't matter at the end of the day. The cause of gay rights and gay marriage is on the right side of history and Rick Warren and his ilk are on the wrong side. Getting three minutes of fame at the Inaugural is not going to change that.
So stop sweating the small stuff and remember to be careful about what you ask for. When you worship at the altar of post-partisanship and believe that everyone should have a seat at the table, you need to recognize that there will be some people sitting down that you don't particularly like. Maybe being a partisan isn't so bad after all huh?
I'm Baaaaack
I originally started this blog in late November 2006. At the time its primary purpose was to track the anti-constituent voting record of Rep. Tom Reynolds and to serve as a voice advocating his defeat in the 2008 election. As it turned out Reynolds decided to leave on his own, declining to run for re-election. When Reynolds lost interest in maintaining his seat in Congress, I lost interest in maintaining my blog.
Well a lot has happened in the past year and a half and I think its time that I start writing again. This time around I will likely find myself commenting on a wider range of issues than was previously the case. I will continue to maintain a keen interest in the NY-26 Congressional district and on Reynold's successor Republican Chris Lee, but I will also be focusing my words, my concerns and my opinions on issues beyond just those effecting Western NY.
I have deleted all of my old posts. Most were dated and many now irrelevant. These is one exception though, one old post that I have decided to keep. It was my second post ever, one dealing with JFK's Rice University speech in 1962 (see below). I am inspired by these words every time I hear them or read them. The idea that we should CHOOSE to take positive action toward achieving our goals and solving our problems has never been more relevant.
Much has happened in this country over the past year an a half - some good, but mostly bad. We are faced with critical problems that demand strong, swift and effective action. But we must CHOOSE to act. We can't wait, we can't be distracted, we can't rely on someone else to fix things for us. We all have a role to play and we will all need to make some sort of sacrifice or take some sort of action. But we must CHOOSE to do so and we must choose to do so, as JFK said not because it will be easy but because it will be hard. The challenges await us.
More to come...
Well a lot has happened in the past year and a half and I think its time that I start writing again. This time around I will likely find myself commenting on a wider range of issues than was previously the case. I will continue to maintain a keen interest in the NY-26 Congressional district and on Reynold's successor Republican Chris Lee, but I will also be focusing my words, my concerns and my opinions on issues beyond just those effecting Western NY.
I have deleted all of my old posts. Most were dated and many now irrelevant. These is one exception though, one old post that I have decided to keep. It was my second post ever, one dealing with JFK's Rice University speech in 1962 (see below). I am inspired by these words every time I hear them or read them. The idea that we should CHOOSE to take positive action toward achieving our goals and solving our problems has never been more relevant.
Much has happened in this country over the past year an a half - some good, but mostly bad. We are faced with critical problems that demand strong, swift and effective action. But we must CHOOSE to act. We can't wait, we can't be distracted, we can't rely on someone else to fix things for us. We all have a role to play and we will all need to make some sort of sacrifice or take some sort of action. But we must CHOOSE to do so and we must choose to do so, as JFK said not because it will be easy but because it will be hard. The challenges await us.
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
