Tensions are high in Washington these days as campaigns gear up for the fall elections and many members face the challenge of a tough climate to run in. So you can imagine how happy members of the House were when Robert Gibbs said this on Meet the Press recently:
"there is no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control"
Of course many people have been talking behind closed doors about the possibility, but it didn't sit well with everyone that the spokesman for the White House was giving such a candid assessment of the road ahead. One member of the New Jersey delgeation was not pleased at all and his thoughts made it into Chris Cilizza's story in the Washington Post today:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) led a closed-door meeting of Democratic members that amounted to an extended Gibbs smackdown -- the proceedings of which inevitably were leaked to the media. In a subsequent interview, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (N.J.) nicely summed up the sentiment in the room. "What the hell do they think we've been doing the last 12 months?" he said of the White House. "We're the ones who have been taking the tough votes."
DCCC Chair Van Hollen tried to back things up and present a unified front, saying the Democratic Leadership had a positive meeting with the President. Van Hollen did acknowledge that there was some frustration, but it's clear that tensions are high as we head toward the general.
Rep. Bill Pascrell has called fellow Democrats "arrogant" and referred to a key party talking point as "BS." He slammed deals cut by leadership and special interests and said, "We're not going to accept that any longer."
Agitated and unfiltered, Pascrell has become the guy who's not afraid to go public with what many rank-and-file House Democrats have been saying behind closed doors.
Speaking directly to the White House, Pascrell had this to say about chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:
In a front-page POLITICO story Friday, he said he'd like to see White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel "come out from behind his desk" to talk to the common folk more.
He talked about the complexity of the bill and the difficulties getting people to understand what it really would do as a self inflicted wound:
"It's so complex; we made it complex," Pascrell said of the health care debate. "And we knew this from the very beginning."
So he's proposing to split the bill up an pass the more popular pieces, but those wouldn't be a public option or individual mandate.
"We are arrogant when we say, 'Well, as soon as the public understands what we're doing, they'll like it,'" he told a clutch of reporters. "That is not only arrogant, it's BS."
Rank-and-file Democrats are "tired of hearing about and not knowing about" the deals that leadership cut with industries for their support of this legislation, Pascrell said, and in expressing that, Pelosi became Pascrell's prime target.
"We're not going to accept that any longer," he said. "In fact, if you go back to those agreements, they should've been much more robust; talk about robust - those agreements should've been more robust.
The Democrats have been trying desperately to clean up the mess they've made of healthcare. A once popular concept has now become the boogeyman for many, including our elected officials. You've seen support splinter with everyone coming up with their own path forward, whether it be starting over, passing what's there or some path in between. And now the icing on the cake, Harry Reid said Democrats see "no rush" to keep moving forward at this time. I wonder how much more they would all rush if someone took away their health insurance while they waited?
The British commission originally ruled against the merger because it would prevent another company, CTS Eventim, from entering the British market. Since that October announcement, however, the commission said the partners provided evidence showing CTS Eventim would not be harmed.
Congressman Pascrell wasn't pleased with the ruling and questioned whether they really had the power:
"The commission clearly states that the deal it sanctioned today allows Ticketmaster to remove a major competitor in the ticket services market in the United States, but that finding is not within the scope of their authority," said Pascrell. "While in the United Kingdom they only control about 50 percent of the market, the two companies combined control between 70 to 80 percent of the market here."
The merger still needs the approval of the Justice Department and Canadian officials.
Let me preface this conversation by stating that I supported Senator Frank Lautenberg's re-election campaign during both the primary and general elections last year, but...
1) ...after seeing him speak in public numerous times at a dramatically reduced level of performance than in the past...
...and...
2) ...after last week's gubernatorial election results...
...and...
3) ...assuming that the aspiring Governors that are currently serving in the State Senate and State Assembly are not going to be willing to rescind the power that the Governor currently has to fill vacated U.S. Senate seats, I think that Democratic Party leaders, electeds, and rank-and-file members should reach out en masse to Senator Frank Lautenberg and ask him to resign his seat.
Amid fresh signs that the White House is preparing to back a scaled-down health care overhaul that would only include a public insurance option as a fallback plan, several House liberals told Roll Call that they could support such a bill depending on how it was structured.
The "trigger" approach has been considered a deal-killer by liberals on and off Capitol Hill, and the willingness of some Congressional Progressive Caucus members to entertain it reflects a recognition that a bruising August recess has imperiled prospects for reform and redrawn expectations for what is possible.
"This is a way to get a bill," Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. "I believe it's worth listening to because I want legislation that is going to, in some shape or form, expand coverage and bring down the cost of health care."
Let's put it bluntly - single payer was taken off the table before negotiations even started. And now, the public option, which is the damn compromise is now being compromised? Before reconciliation even occurs? A "trigger" will not work. There will either be too low of a bar in order to avoid the "trigger", too many millions will STILL be out of luck when it comes to coverage, and there is no reason to think that the "trigger" can't be compromised away for some other crap like a "co-op".
Please call Rep. Pascrell's office and ask for clarification as to why he was standing so strong for a REAL compromise bill a few short weeks ago but is now willing to back what will be a very costly failure in the name of "passing something":
Washington, DC (202) 225-5751
Paterson (Main District Office) (973) 523-5152
Bloomfield (973) 680-1361
Passaic (973) 472-4510
When we started the series on the Public Option Whip here at Blue Jersey, we stopped after Rep. Pallone since four out of the five Reps. that "took the pledge" represented districts that we didn't get to yet. But now, in looking back, maybe we should have - given that one of these four is already wavering.
Why would you keep taking things off the table before even getting to the table?
And we have gotten some good press and recognition around the intertubez for our efforts in this area. So, when I got an email from Jane Hamsher at FDL telling me that Mike Farrell had recorded a video thanking us for our efforts, I couldn't wait to see it and share it.
That being said, the fight is far from over, but at least we can enjoy some props:
Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Rush Holt, Donald Payne and Albio Sires deserve a standing ovation.
Before the Congressional recess, I started a series about calling our Representatives about the public option. And as fast as things were moving, our goal changed as quickly as we started - for a number of reasons. For starters, we wanted to have our Reps. commit to vote against any health care bill without a public option. And at the time, there were 2 (Holt and Payne) who committed to do so - Holt even did it on Blue Jersey Radio.
As bills passed the various House committees and the teabagging restarted, both Pascrell and Sires joined Holt and Payne in Taking the Pledge. So now, we are here, and we have a bit of a different take on things:
Instead of using a stick and "whipping the public option", a netroots-wide initiative is underway to use "carrots, not sticks", and thank those who have taken the "pledge" in the form of online donations to all members in the House who have taken the pledge.
For starters, here is the ActBlue page called They Took the Pledge that you can click on to show our 4 Reps. some love. I just donated $20 to each of them.
As my good friend, David Atkins (thereisnospoon) said the other day:
A new initiative organized by Howie Klein, Jane Hamsher, my brother Dante and myself to verbally and financially reward Congressmembers who pledge to vote down any healthcare bill that does not include the public option is catching fire. The objective is to use carrots as well as sticks to achieve progressive goals. As I said in the diary kicking off this intiative at DailyKos:
Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov's famous canine. We do respond well to punishment, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement. Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal. Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to her abusive parent. Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply. If all we can do is scream at people who don't do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.
From this initiative, one that started 3 days ago, there is already $250,000 raised from over 4,000 donors - all to show that we have the backs of those who have ours.
Joe Cryan wants an an immediate investigation by ELEC into Christie's failure to disclose a personal loan of $46,000 to Michele Brown, currently the first assistant to the United States Attorney, promoted since Christie's resignation.
"Christie continues to fail to live up to the ethical standards he sets for others," said Cryan. "He is running for Governor -- failing to report a personal loan to a close colleague is a serious transgression and breaks both federal and state ethics rules. Christie, of all people should know - he has prosecuted public officials for similar offenses, yet, he dismisses his own unscrupulous behavior as a simply an 'oversight.' This situation demands an immediate and thorough investigation."
[snip]
"Christie also must come clean about the questions this blatant conflict of interest raises - does he discuss his campaign with Brown?" said Cryan. "How have their financial ties affected his candidacy? It raises serious concerns about the stark contrast between what Christie says and what he actually does. Despite Christie's dismissal of this serious violation he is not above approach and just like any other New Jerseyan who violates the law Christie must be held accountable for his actions."
"Add this to the growing list of Christie's capers," said Pascrell. "Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Christie's personal life is again in conflict with his public obligations? A prosecutor at his level should know that once he gave that loan, no matter how well-intended it was, it changed the relationship between Mr. Christie and Ms. Brown. We have a right to know to what extent it changed. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest."
The Governor for his part has stayed focused on the Rove ties to Christie, stressing that he thinks the Hatch violations are the most serious. But his campaign did comment on the situation and tied it to their larger request for information that still hasn't been met:
"Serious questions remain about the loan Chris Christie gave to Michele Brown. Chris Christie had at least four opportunities to comply with the law and disclose this loan, yet he failed to do so each and every time. There seems to be no mystery that he was determined to keep it secret. The question is, why?"
"Christie and the U.S. Attorney's Office need to begin providing answers. They can start by immediately providing the specific dates of the promotions and salary increases Christie gave Michele Brown. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act request requesting this information, but our previous requests for such basic public information have been bottled up by Christie's friends for more than five months. The public shouldn't have to wait a day longer."
"Finally, as the number two in command in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Michele Brown must be objective about pursuing criminal cases in New Jersey in a non-partisan manner. But how can she possibly be objective when she remains indebted - literally - to the Republican candidate for governor? U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra is also reportedly facing questions about whether he inappropriately helped Christie's campaign. This whole episode raises grave questions about impartiality in our justice system, and the public deserves answers."
It's clear that the Democrats smell blood after the most recent weeks news and that's a question they will keep asking. The more they broaden the issue to show how connecting all of the dots continues to undermine who Christie wants people to believe he is, the more effective it will be I think.
As members of Congress headed home for break, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed out their version of the healthcare bill. They wanted to arm members of Congress with the facts, so they put out district by district breakdowns:
The Committee has prepared, for each member, a district-level analysis of the impact of the legislation. This analysis includes information on the impact of the legislation on small businesses, seniors in Medicare, health care providers, and the uninsured. It also includes an estimate of the impacts of the surtax that is used to pay for the legislation.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 7th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 18,200 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 8,100 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 800 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $30 million in uncompensated care each year; and 21,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance.
You can see the benefits by district for each member of Congress:
You can see the full bill text and a summary put out by the committee as well. If you support this bill, your member of Congress needs to know about it. If you call, get your member of Congress to take the pledge. Our representatives are being inundated with phone calls and emails opposing healthcare. We need people who support the healthcare overhaul to start putting some action behind the talk, otherwise we'll be counting the time until the next chance to do something about healthcare.
I went through the FEC filings to see how our House members are fairing with their fundraising efforts. First here are some observations
Congressman Adler raised the most money in the 2nd quarter with over $518K, followed by Congressman Pallone and then Garrett.
Congressman Pallone has the most Cash on Hand by far and away with over $3.7 million. He has twice as much as the next member, Congressman Rothman who is followed by Pascrell and then Lobiondo.
Congressman Adler raised the most form individuals at over $267K, followed by Pallone, Garrett and then Rothman.
Congressman Adler raised the most from PAC's at over 250K, followed by Pallone, Lance and Frelinghuysen.
The members of the NJ delegation that raised more from PAC's than individuals were Congressmen Andrews, Payne, LoBiondo, Frelinghuysen, Pallone and Lance.
Congressional Quarterly has analyzed the roll call voting patterns of members of Congress since 1953. The three principal studies involve:
The frequency with which lawmakers vote with the president when he clearly indicates his preferences (Presidential Support).
The frequency with which they vote with their party, on occasions when a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats (Party Unity).
And the frequency with which they show up and cast "yea" or "nay" votes (Voting Participation).
And here are the NJ members on the House side:
Pres Support
Party Unity
Participation
John Adler
88
86
97
Rob Andrews
96
99
99
Rodney Frelinghuysen
58
80
99
Scott Garrett
15
98
97
Rush Holt
96
99
98
Leonard Lance
69
74
100
Frank Lobiondo
77
65
100
Frank Pallone
96
99
96
Donald Payne
88
99
96
Bill Pascrell
96
95
89
Steve Rothman
96
99
98
Albio Sires
96
97
97
Chris Smith
77
64
97
And the numbers for our Senators:
Frank Lautenberg
97
100
99
Bob Menendez
97
100
99
Lance and LoBiondo are two of only sixteen members to participate in 100% of the votes. Only thirteen other Republicans gave less support to President Obama than our very own Scott Garrett. Smith and LoBiondo are sixth and seventh for the lowest party unity with Lance ranking 22nd. Menendez and Lautenberg are both tops in party unity with 100% support.
This week, congressmen Frank Pallone and Bill Pascrell testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee investigating Deferred Prosecution Agreements. They followed Chris Christie's prickly testimony.
Pallone, who called Christie the "poster child for abuse" on Blue Jersey Radio [listen here], and Pascrell, laid out the real costs to our economy of not reining in people like Chris Christie, and propose a legislative fix.
Pascrell first, Pallone after the jump. Sound quality is from the House Judiciary Committee website feed.
UPDATE #2: It's over, and it was nearly four hours of testimony, some of it deeply contentious. Christie was on the hot seat, and he clearly didn't like that much. He did not last the entire session. Congressmen Bill Pascrell and Frank Pallone were ... simply outstanding. Argued the need for their own legisation, which calls for much greater transparency, and rules in place to avoid many of the abuses that were discussed and detailed in today's testimony. We will have the full video of today's proceedings, barring any glitches, up as soon as we can.
UPDATE: To get LIVE streaming video, go to the House Judiciary Committee website, and click the Watch Video Webcast button. Note: This will NOT work with Quick Time. You'll need Real Player.
Chris Christie is finally going to have to answer some questions today about his abuse of the Deferred Prosecution Agreements he arranged while he was United States Attorney for New Jersey, a post he held for seven years, resigning just months ago to run for Governor.
Today he appears before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, an appearance delayed from its original date this spring, so that he could avoid having to do so during the Republican Primary.
The most egregious of Christie's abuses include forking over a $52 million contract to the firm of John Ashcroft, his former boss at the Justice Department, though Ashcroft had no experience with DPA's. Ashcroft testified last year, but Christie declined to do so, shielding himself from it by allowing the Justice Department to send someone else.
There is also a deal in which it appears he offered a lucrative contract to former US Attorney David Kelley, who let Christie's brother off the hook in a stock fraud case in which 15 others were indicted.
We have no doubt Christie abused the process - largely secret - of awarding DPA's for his own political gain. Remember, that Justice Department employees - particularly those serving as US Attorney for the state jurisdictions - are to conduct themselves completely without politcal priority. And Chritie gave out seven no-bid, multi-million dollar contracts to his political friends and allies, including Herb Stern, another of Christie's mentors, like Mark Sanford is. John Inglesino, long-time friend of Christie's is a partner at Stern's firm and both are top fundraisers of Christie's campaign. Inglesino is also accused of trying to bribe Rick Merkt to drop out of the Republican primary for Governor, just weeks ago.
Support is growing in Congress for more efforts to protect consumers from bad financial practices involving mortgages, predatory lending, credit cards, retirement accounts, payday loans and other financial instruments. In response, a bill is has been introduced to create a new agency that would oversee and regulate the process:
It's called the Financial Product Safety Commission and is modeled after the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The new agency, endorsed by a long list of consumer organizations, could become a part of a new regulatory scheme almost certain to emerge from the country's experience with what's been called the Great Recession.
A bill establishing the agency has been introduced in the House and the Senate. It would "prevent and eliminate practices that lead consumers to incur unreasonable, inappropriate, or excessive debt, or make it difficult for consumers to repay existing debt, including practices or product features that are abusive, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, predatory, anti-competitive, or otherwise inconsistent with consumer protection."
Not surprisingly, Scott Garrett opposes this effort saying the problem isn't deregulation, but actually too much regulation (no joke):
"Failed regulation, government policies and inappropriate intrusion by the federal government into the market were in large part what caused the financial crisis," he says.
Garrett says he is "skeptical" about the ability of any new regulator to "promote stability in the marketplace or truly provide a service to the consumer."
Leonard Lance thinks we can fix what we already have:
"I am not in favor of creating new agencies simply to have new agencies," says Lance, "but I would be willing to work with the new administration to create more effective consumer protection."
But Congressman Holt doesn't think that's possible and if you follow me below the fold, you can see the rest of the story.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. urged the Federal Trade Commission to review the controversy over sales to Monday night's Washington show made on TicketsNow, a Ticketmaster subsidiary, as part of the investigation he requested the FTC to launch in February.
For the Washington show, TicketsNow had to offer refunds and other benefits to fans when brokers sold tickets they did not have:
Ticketmaster subsidiary TicketsNow has contacted more than 300 customers who paid top dollar for premium seats at the Boss' May 18 show at Washington's Verizon Center, telling them their tickets were not, in fact, available.
In his latest letter to the FTC, Pascrell wants further investigation:
"To its credit, TicketsNow is offering refunds, gift certificates, different tickets and tickets to alternate concerts in order to make up for this mistake," Pascrell wrote in a letter to FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz. "However, the unfortunate result of this incident will ultimately be that many Bruce Springsteen fans acting in good faith will not be able to attend tonight's concert as they had planned."
Pascrell criticized TicketsNow for not requiring sellers to prove they own the tickets "through physical or photographic evidence." That, he said, "calls the company's business practices into question."
I don't know how even physical or photographic evidence would guarantee things because you can have a ticket look real and then realize its fake when they scan the bar code at the gate. That says nothing about whether the company has good business practices however.
Pascrell has promised to introduce new legislation to deal with the matter and is still opposing Ticketmaster's planned merger with Live Nation saying the merger will create a monopoly over the live music industry. The Justice Department is looking into the merger still.
Congressmen Pascrell Pallone are scheduled to participate Friday in a day-long legal forum analyzing the role of prosecutors in "regulating" the practices of businesses and public agencies charged with wrongdoing at NYU's School of Law.
Following the actions of our own U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, the Congressman sponsored legislation that would establish practices and procedures for the use of deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements as alternatives to criminal prosecutions. Here's more on their segment of the program:
Pascrell and Pallone will speak at the session on "Monitoring and Compliance Oversight," which will explore the use of "monitors," outside parties selected to oversee compliance of the DPA's and NPA's. The selection of politically-connected monitors for the lucrative contracts sparked controversy, as well as the interest of Congress and now the legal community.
And the subtitle for the session is interesting as well:
"When should monitors be used? How Should monitors be selected? Who monitors the monitors?"
Guess who stands alone once again. Yesterday, not even Police officers, law enforcement technology and prosecutors were worthy of support from Mr 12-1 Scott Garrett. Here's the roll call:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
Here's more about what Garrett opposed this time:
the House passed the COPS Improvements Act, H.R. 1139, which reinvigorates the highly successful COPS program. It calls for putting 50,000 additional police officers on the street over the next 5 years authorizing $1.25 billion a year for COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) hiring grants. It also authorizes $350 million a year for COPS technology grants, and $200 million a year for hiring community prosecutors. Created in 1994 under the Clinton Administration, the COPS hiring grants program was an enormously successful, popular program helping local law enforcement agencies to hire more than 117,000 additional police officers, in every state in the union, from 1995 to 2005. Under the COPS program, our nation experienced a significant drop in crime rates and independent studies confirm that COPS hiring grants helped contribute to this reduced crime.
The Congressman can't even bring himself to support anything like law enforcement. Of course he'll talk tough on terror, but then doesn't provide the resources to ensure we can be protected. Congressman Pascrell on the other hand spoke in favor of the legislation during the debate on the House floor:The legislation passed overwhelmingly 342-78. I hope everyone makes sure law enforcement knows just how Scott Garrett feels about what they're worth.
With the help of the New Jersey delegation, the party of no kept their streak in tact today opposing a bill that would help families stay in their homes by avoiding foreclosure:
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
The measure passed 234-191. There were seven Republicans in Congress who supported the bill, none from New Jersey. Here's a description of the intent of the bill they opposed today:
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability.
Three New Jersey districts are in the top 50 district nationally for 2009 foreclosures: NJ-03 has the 13th most, NJ-01 the 14th most, and NJ-02 the 44th most. What's more, the 2009-2012 numbers project an even bleaker future. This mortgage relief bill is badly needed.
So the question arises: Will NJ Republicans vote for a mortgage relief bill to help thousands of families struggling in their districts? Or will they continue to kowtow to Rush Limbaugh and sell out their voters? Time will tell, but don't count me among the optimists.
So with his district ranked 44th in 2009 foreclosures, Frank "the moderate" LoBiondo turned his back and walked the party line. He was joined by Leonard Lance, Chris Smith, Rodney Frelinghuysen and of course Scott Garrett. Keep making New Jersey proud guys.
In response to the recent Gaza War, a fundraising page was set up on ActBlue.com in order to contribute to elected officials who have been supportive of the peoples of Israel and Palestine. The page is called "A Dream of Peace: Justice and Equality for The People of Israel and Palestine", and can be found here.
The mission of the page states "All of the people of the Holy Land need to live in peace and security. We need to support and elect candidates that are willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens of Israel and Palestine. These candidates support measures to stop violence, increase economic and humanitarian aid, actively engage in negotiation, and promote co-existence among these two Peoples."
Democrats are in blue, and Republicans are in red.
Regarding the Economic recovery vote, it passed with absolutely no Republican support in this new era of bi-partisanship by a 244-188 margin. Americans United for change ripped the NJ GOP opposition to the plan, leaving out Scott Garrett who also voted no:
Thanks to the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, the U.S. House has acted quickly and decisively to move forward this major economic recovery plan that will put millions of middle-class Americans back to work and back spending money again. This was perhaps the most historic vote in Congress since the vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Yet, amid a crippling economic recession that has cost millions of Americans their jobs and threatens millions more if nothing is done, Representatives Frelinghuysen, Lance, LoBiondo and Smith all chose to put partisan politics and the failed policies of the past over the struggling families they represent. President Obama reached out to Democrats and Republicans alike and set aside partisanship and ideology to craft a bold measure to get America back to work. It's sad that these Representatives are still clinging to petty partisanship and the same failed, well-worn ideology of Bush 'trickle-down' economics that got us into this mess to begin with.
The delay of the digital transition vote failed by a vote of 258-168. It wasn't a party line vote and in NJ, Congressman Adler voted against, while Congressman Lobiondo voted for. Congressman Payne did not vote on the bill. I'm not sure what the delay would have done, it's not like there is going to be more money available in four months.
