February 29, 2008 - 4:18 PM | Comment
WASHINGTON - A bill to create an outside, six-member panel to review complaints about House members' ethics and honesty stalled Wednesday in the Rules Committee led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport.
Some blamed a late-blooming recommendation from minority Republican members for the delay, but quotes given the New York Times by Slaughter raised some questions about how much the Democratic House leadership really wants an outside panel investigating members.
"What makes people think that six people chosen at random would have more ethics, more intelligence, more judgment than we have?" asked Slaughter, referring to the proposed six-member committee to oversee the work of the existing House Ethics Committee.
The Times reported Slaughter noted that citizens unhappy with their lawmakers could deliver their ethics verdicts on Election Day."If you are that suspicious, if you don't like your member, we have only got a two-year term. Nobody has ever said to me in my district, 'Geez, I wish you guys would get some outside group.' "
When asked by The Buffalo News, Slaughter's office did not quarrel with the Times version, but then issued this statement:
"Only late today did Republicans come up with a substitute ethics proposal. We all want to do what is best for the institution and want to do it the right way. Therefore, it is only reasonable to give Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith the necessary time to review this substitute. Make no mistake, Democrats in the House are committed restoring honesty, integrity, and accountability in Congress, and this is the next step in that commitment."
She referred to Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who were named by House leaders a year ago to come up with a plan.
In the 2006 congressional campaign, which saw the return of Democrats to House control, Slaughter referred frequently to a "culture of corruption" that she said had developed during a decade of Republican control. After the Democrats won, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised Democrats would run "the most ethical Congress in history."
Under the plan proposed by Capuano in December, the six members would be picked by majority and minority leaders. None could be a lobbyist. Although reform groups wanted the special committee to have subpoena power, Capuano did not include it in the plan.
Republicans complained about a provision allowing investigations to be initiated by just two members of the new board. "I think Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have second thoughts about allowing two members of the Office of Congressional Ethics ... to trigger unlimited number of investigations. This is an open invitation to an ethics war," Smith said. Some Democrats voiced reservations. Some questioned the need for the outside board while others claimed that it would lack teeth because it would not have subpoena powers.
At her press conference Thursday, Pelosi said Democrats "want to take a look at" the Republican substitute, and then the House will vote "next week" on what the leadership comes up with. The GOP wants a 10-member outside panel, the majority of which would be sitting members. The chair of the committee would alternate every two years. In the last two years, two members of the House have been sentenced to prison on corruption charges, and at least two others are under investigation by the Justice Dept. In the last Congress, the Senate voted down an plan to create an outside enforcement agency for that house.
Pelosi said that between now and next week's vote, there might be "some tweaking" with Capuana's plan. Since 1997, there has been an agreement between the House Democrats and Republicans that no ethics complaint brought by an outsider would be considered by the existing Ethics Committee.
Will we ever see "the most ethical Congress in history?"
-- Douglas Turner
February 27, 2008 - 4:38 PM | Comment
The polling organization Zogby International used data showing a growing number of Americans are getting their news from the Internet to say that "traditional" journalists are "out of touch" with their communities.
"Two thirds of Americans, 67 percent," Zogby said, believe that traditional reporters, meaning those who work for radio and television stations, newspapers, and specialized Internet sites have sailed off on their own.
The primary evidence for this indictment of professional journalists cited by Zobgy is a poll showing that nearly half of the respondents, 48 percent, said the Internet was their primary source of information and news, up from 40 percent a year ago.
Fifty-five percent of respondents 18 to 29 years of age cited the Internet as their primary source.
Nowhere in the Zogby press release does it mention that almost all of the news content generated by search engines such as Yahoo and Google is from the work of "traditional" journalists working for the Associated Press, newspapers, radio and television outlets or a dot-com sponsored by such magazines as Newsweek, or cable networks -- where all the news is prepared by "traditional" reporters.
The survey also contained questions that looked like thinly veiled preachments about how "traditional" outlets need to professionalize and "get in touch" with their communities.
Zogby spokesman Fritz Wenzel forwarded the complete text of the questions asked by the company's polltakers. Nowhere in the survey offered to the poll's subjects does Zogby note that traditional journalists are providing almost all the news put out by Internet search engines.
The press release may be found at www.zogbynews.com.
Was this survey a bit tilted?
-- Douglas Turner
February 27, 2008 - 6:00 AM | Comment
CLEVELAND -- So maybe Hillary Clinton should hire a new punchline writer.
Last week at a debate in Austin, Texas, she upbraided Barack Obama for purloining passages of a supporter's speech, calling it "change you can Xerox."
The audience booed.
And last night here in Cleveland, she complained that she always gets the first question at debates.
"You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow," she said.
The audience groaned.
For his part, Obama tends to avoid these sort of zingers, and thus maybe doesn't get his debate clips picked up quite so often afterwards.
But the question is: Why does Clinton, a candidate with a notoriously high "negative" rating, persist in lobbing pointed bon mots at the man who' is beating her in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination?
Is it helping her in any way?
-- Jerry Zremski
February 25, 2008 - 11:42 AM | Comment
Buffalo Mayor Byron W. Brown is in Cleveland today, campaigning hard for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the heart of the city's African-American community.
Deputy Mayor Steven M. Casey said the mayor was asked by the Clinton presidential campaign to lend a hand in an area where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well. As a result, Brown was stumping for Clinton this morning at an East Side diner, visiting a senior center, and then representing her in two community debates.
"We're working the base," Casey said. "It's Obama country, but we're going in."
Brown has emerged as one of the senator's top black supporters in New York State, and his effort is seen as a sign that the Clinton campaign has not given up on securing the African-American vote in the crucial state of Ohio. With the primary looming on March 4, the New York senator is leading in most polls, but a convincing win is needed to give her campaign a much-needed boost.
The mayor is part of an effort to rally the Democrats' black voters, who have always been loyal to Clinton but are becoming a major part of Obama's base as he tries to become the nation's first African-American president.
Brown is expected to campaign all day in Cleveland and return to Buffalo late tonight.
-- Robert J. McCarthy
February 22, 2008 - 4:08 PM | Comment
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan meeting called today to resolve differences over renewal of the wiretap surveillance law ended in failure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., refused to allow the House to vote two weeks ago on legislation that would have renewed the authority of the administration to tap calls without court permission to detect terrorist activity. Many liberal Democrats, an important part of Pelosi's power grid, opposed the bill because it gave immunity to telecommunications companies that allowed warrantless wiretaps after 9/11.
Republicans are charging that some Democrats, particularly in the House leadership, are sensitive to the needs of trial attorneys who have filed suit against the telecommunications companies for unlawful invasion of privacy. The American Trial Lawyers Association has been generous to congressional Democratic campaigns over the years.
Democrats insist their opposition is based on civil rights. After Congress went home, security aides first told reporters that allowing the existing law to lapse for a time would pose no danger to national security, that our spies have other ways to check on the terrorists.
However, President Bush and national security officials soon afterwards said allowing the law to die would "degrade" our anti-terrorist efforts.
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said today's meeting was only held to give the Democrats political cover. He noted that that bill Pelosi blocked was drafted by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and was easily passed in the Senate with Democratic support.
The GOP is ratcheting up Pelosi's action as a congressional campaign issue. The National Republican Campaign Committee has challenged Eric Massa, a Corning Democrat, to say where he stands on voting for telecommunications immunity on warrantless wiretaps.
Massa is planning to again run against Rep. John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr., R-Hammondsport, this year, and the NRCC says Massa has accepted $5,000 in campaign cash from trial lawyers. Kuhl cosponsored the blocked wiretapping bill.
Pelosi accused Bush of "misrepresenting the facts on our nation's electronic surveillance capabilities. Last August, he insisted that Congress pass the Protect America Act; but (then) he refused to support an extension, which can only mean he knows our intelligence agencies will be able to do all the wiretapping they need to do to protect the nation."
Who is right?
--Douglas Turner
February 17, 2008 - 1:02 AM | Comment
WASHINGTON — So much for the Clinton machine.
It turns out that Barack Obama, the former community organizer from the city that gave political machines a bad name, is out-organizing Hillary Clinton in state after state.
Combine that with the fact that Obama's message is resonating better with voters, and the fact that he's out-raising Clinton on the Internet, and it's no wonder that the Illinois senator is the new Democratic front-runner.
Obama has a lead in delegates now, and given that the Democratic Party divides its delegates proportionally based on primary performance, the Obama campaign argues that it will be very difficult for Clinton to regain the lead.
But what of the Clinton machine? Wasn't she supposed to have the can't-miss connections that would fill her campaign coffers and guarantee that the voters would turn out for her?
Whatever happened?
— Jerry Zremski
February 14, 2008 - 2:16 PM | Comment
As President Bush signed the $168 billion (over two years) stimulus plan, a business leader said the government might have done more for the economy if it had just given money away.
“President Bush should have just dropped dollar bills from Air Force One,” Charles Holland, CEO and founder of Qualpro Inc, said. "This stimulus package is a sad testimony to the fiscal ignorance of our elected leaders on every side of the aisle, and that this is welfare that will never be seen back in the economy," he said.
Some Congressional leaders seemed confused about what was in it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the program would help families pay grocery bills.
The fact is that only families that can already meet their supermarket bills will benefit. Senate Republicans blocked efforts by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and others to increase food stamp benefits. That help for the poorest of the poor was scrubbed out at the behest of the Bush White House.
Also excluded from the package were untold tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, whose 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits expired long ago. Senate Republicans also blocked efforts of Schumer and others to extend those benefits for another 13 weeks--which was standard procedure two decades ago when downturns occurred.
Schumer, and Reps. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, and Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, hope a later package will include food stamp help and more unemployment insurance benefits.
Rep. John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr., R-Hammondsport, who supported the legislation, warned that those who might not otherwise file a tax return must file in order to receive a benefit. Kuhl said:
"Low-income workers who had at least $3,000 in earned income in 2007 but do not otherwise earn enough to be required to file a federal tax return need to file a return in order to get the stimulus payment. Likewise, Social Security recipients, veterans and retired railroad workers who might not otherwise need to file a tax return must do so to receive the economic stimulus payment."
Kuhl fowarded this information from the Internal Revenue Service:
"Individuals and families are eligible to receive up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples. A minimum of $300 per person and $600 per couple would be available to those with at least $3,000 of earned income. This relief would be available to everyone with adjusted gross income less than $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. It will be phased out for taxpayers above those income thresholds. Taxpayers may qualify by filing a tax return for 2007 and including a valid Social Security number on their tax return.
"Everyone eligible for this relief would also receive an additional $300 per child. For example, this would mean up to $1,800 of tax relief for an eligible couple with two children."
The government checks will be in the mail starting in May, the government says. About 8.3 million New Yorkers will get checks averaging $800, Rep. Slaughter said.
With new polls showing that the approval rating of Congress has slipped back to 22 percent, a record low, Speaker Pelosi and House Republican leaders emphasized the swiftness and the cooperative spirit in which the legislation was rushed through. It's a cool move in a federal election year.
However, the congressional Joint Economic Committee, of which Sen. Schumer is chairman, said a lot of Americans are feeling financial pain. Since President Bush took office, the JEC said, "the number of American citizens who experience long-term unemployment has risen from 1,372,000 in January 2001 to 2,503,000 in January 2008."
And family incomes have fallen, the JEC said. According to the latest Census data from 2006, median household income (in 2007 dollars) is $982 below where it had been in 2000 at the end of the last economic peak.
Job growth has now come to a halt and wage growth has stalled. The economy lost 17,000 jobs in January 2008 after adding only an average of 95,000 jobs each month in 2007 - far below the number needed just to keep up with population growth and inflation-adjusted wages are back to where they had been at the end of 2003.
So what are you planning to do with your election-year goodie?
--Douglas Turner
February 4, 2008 - 4:27 PM | Comment
With gasoline prices and the cost of home heating oil staying near record highs, Exxon Mobil reported earnings of $11 billion for the last three months of 2007. Chevron, which merged with Texaco eight years ago, reported profits of $4 billion for the same period. Both figures were records for the companies.
"Congratulations to Exxon Mobil and Chevron," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., "for reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to break our dependence on foreign oil and rollback unnecessary tax incentives for oil companies."
It turns out that both companies are among the top industry donors of campaign money for federal candidates over the last decade. The industry has given $157 million to candidates for president, the House and Senate in the last five two-year cycles. Three quarters of the money goes to Republicans.
Currently, Exxon Mobil ranks second among industry donors and Chevron is fourth.
They earned plenty of consideration from Congress and the Bush administration over the years. Under laws passed by Republican Congresses and signed by Bush, the oil, gas and energy industry currently enjoys tax breaks that will yield them more than $13 billion between the 2007 tax year and 2011. This set includes $3.5 billion for exploration allowances, and another $5.9 billion to the oil and gas companies for exploration.
Pending before the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means committees are 12 bills providing about $10 billion more tax benefits for the industry .
This presidential year, the industry is deeply involved financially in the campaigns as well. For the 2008 cycle, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R, ranks first, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, R, is second; Sen. Hillary Clinton, D, is fourth; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is fifth, and Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., ranks 10th so far.
Does this help explain who so little is being said by the presidential candidates about the relationship between companies and candidates? But why do so few debate moderators raise the issue?
If there is a connection between campaign gifts, record profits and record prices, can anything break the cycle?
---Douglas Turner
February 1, 2008 - 3:57 PM | Comment
As former a member of the Buffalo Common Council threatened to move an historic house to block the Peace Bridge expansion, Congressman Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, pleaded with opponents of the $55 million Outer Harbor Parkway project to let the job go through.
Some opponents to the harbor job have gone to court to stop it, to force the state to reconsider its plans to build the parkway at grade next to the existing Route 5. The state last fall let bids on the job, which had been studied for 15 years at a cost of $9 million.
The bridge and parkway projects involve millions in federal aid. But in an unrelated move, former Councilman Alfred T. Coppola said he plans to move a building that was a part of the Pan American Exposition from Delaware Avenue to the West Side to save a neighborhood threatened by the bridge expansion.
Higgins said he has no personal gripe with the parkway opponents, whom he called "good and honorable people."
"We simply disagree in this instance on what is best for the community," Higgins said. "People fear change. I understand that. There is always risk involved in change.
"But for Buffalo, there is far greater risk in doing nothing and allowing this best chance for waterfront development in a generation to perish."
If the courts side with the parkway opponents, restudy and environmental surveys could take years and the funds Higgins has obtained for the job could lapse by the time they are finished.
When completed, Higgins said, the reconstructed stretch of Fuhrmann, from the Union Ship Canal to the Coast Guard Station, will incorporate many urban and aesthetic design principles, including wide sidewalks, streetscape furniture, stamped concrete, roundabouts, generous landscaping, decorative Central Park-type lighting, a central median, signage and historical markers.
"I support shovels in the ground this spring, construction creating approximately 2,000 new jobs and unprecedented access to the water's edge," Higgins said. "This community has a clear choice between progress and delay. I support progress."
What do you think?
--Douglas Turner
