Rumblings In Western New York-- If The Wave Is Strong Enough...

Only Collins has been arrested so far but Reed sells his votes to fracking interests

The most conservative congressional district in New York (NY-27) isn't one the DCCC thought was winnable. So they ignored it, allowing a progressive who backs Medicare-for-All, Nate McMurray, to win the primary. The Trumpist maniac Chris Collins was arrested, arraigned and released on bail, first saying he had withdrawn from seeking reelection and then deciding the would have a better chance at a plea bargain if he was a sitting member of Congress. So... Collins is running again and suddenly McMurray-- even in an R+11 district that Trump won 60-35%-- is looking like a contender. Even the DCCC, albeit reluctantly-- wound up endorsing a staunch progressive. He's been outraging Collins, while Collins hides out and avoids the media-- and his constituents. Yesterday, the Buffalo News, which normally always endorses incumbents regardless of party, endorsed McMurray.

"McMurray," wrote the editors, "may be aiming high, but he is not without notable accomplishments. They include development of the West River Parkway Trail and the arrival of cashless tolls on Grand Island. And while it’s a big leap from town supervisor to Congress, McMurray, a Democrat running in the state’s most Republican district, has pledged to find “core common values” with other members and to reflect voters’ concerns. By itself, Collins’ indictment renders him unsuitable. But even before the indictment, his reckless mingling of his private business with his public duties was troubling. And his push to eliminate New Yorkers’ deduction for state and local taxes was baffling and outrageous. He was so wed to ideological mumbo jumbo that he chose to hurt his constituents and all of New York. This may be one of the hottest congressional races but the decision should be easy. McMurray is the better choice."

There's another western New York district the DCCC thought unwinnable, NY-23, the district that Trump won 54.5-39.7% and stretches across the Southern Tier from the exurbs west of Binghampton to Ithaca and the Finger Lakes region, through Emira, Corning, Hornell, Olean, and Jamestown all the way to Lake Erie. The PVI is R+6 and the incumbent is Republican Tom Reed, who tries to portray himself as a "moderate" though his voting record is that of a pure Trump rubber-stamp. In the 2016 primaries, Hillary lost every county; this was pure Bernie country, making it even more unpalatable to the DCCC.

Tracy Mitrano narrowly won her primary and didn't seem to be making any noise, at least not nationally, until the last couple of weeks when she started gaining on Reed. As of the September 30 FEC reporting deadline, Reed had raised $3,219,777 to Mitrano's $1,037,942, not too much of a disparity for a Democrat to win in an anti-red wave cycle. Although No Labels spent $144,162 bolstering Reed, there has been no other significant outside money spent in the race so far. If Mitrano wins, it will be one of those, "who could have guessed?" results.

The only public poll shows Reed beating Mitrano 49-47%, though FiveThirtyEight has decided she only has a 1 in 6 chance of winning (17.3%).

Closer to the ground, the Buffalo News is less certain. The paper endorsed Reed but reports that he's less of a sure thing than was once thought. "Recent signs," wrote News reporter Sandra Tan, "suggest the eight-year Republican incumbent has a more serious fight on his hands from Democratic challenger Tracy Mitrano, who counts on support from Democratic and unaffiliated voters to unseat him. The Cook Political Report has added the Reed-Mitrano race to its list of competitive races, changing its position from 'solid' Republican to 'likely' Republican. 'It can't be ignored that Democrat Tracy Mitrano, former Director of IT Policy at Cornell University, raised $855,000 in the third quarter and is on air attacking Reed for voting for a $1.9 trillion tax giveaway for the wealthy,' wrote David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report."

Reed has opted to spend heavily on TV advertising, including a wave of negative campaign ads against his opponent. And, Reed received another Twitter endorsement Monday from President Trump, who tweeted Reed "has done a great job."

Reed remains the favorite to win, though his campaign appears to be taking nothing for granted.

"At the end of the day, Reed can probably count on Trump's popularity and Gov. Andrew Cuomo's unpopularity to keep him secure," Wasserman wrote. "But it's worth watching."

Reed, a Trump supporter, has touted his co-chairmanship of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus to reform the House of Representatives. He has referred to his desire to address the national debt, immigration reform and improvements in district infrastructure, among other issues.

"The job is not done," Reed told the Buffalo News Editorial Board earlier this month. "There’s a lot more work to do."

Reed's TV commercials typically show the smiling congressman touting his family and down-home values, but he has opted to run negative campaign pieces calling Mitrano a "liberal Ithaca extremist" who supports government-controlled health care and "heroin injection sites."

Mitrano called the negative ads by Reed misleading. And the Cook Political Report understated her third quarter fundraising by roughly $100,000, she said.

Mitrano said three-fourths of her contributions come from within the district, which extends across the Southern Tier from Jamestown to Ithaca.

"I think the message is out that Tom Reed has turned his back on this district and neglected his duties," she said.

Aside from enthusiastic Democrats, Mitrano added, she's also gaining support from politically unaffiliated voters who like her focus on education, affordable health care and student debt.

"He’s grasping at straws," she said. "He tries to paint me as someone who’s an extremist, who’s out of touch, and a risky choice. If there’s any extremist in this race, it’s him. He's the one who's out of touch."

Republican Congressmembers Are Meeting Their Angry Constituents-- Or Hiding From Them

Friday, the editorial board of the NY Times asserted that "What America has seen so far is an inept White House led by a celebrity apprentice", pointing out that Señor Trumpanzee "did not inherit 'a mess' from Barack Obama, as he likes to say, but a nation recovered from recession and with strong alliances abroad. Mr. Trump is well on his way to creating a mess of his own, weakening national security and even risking the delivery of basic government services. Most of the top thousand jobs in the administration remain vacant. Career public servants are clashing with inexperienced 'beachhead' teams appointed by the White House to run federal agencies until permanent staff members arrive."

That same night, filmmaker Jon Favreau tweeted that he doesn't get angry at Trump when he sees these tweets; "I get angry at Republicans in Congress. Their cowardice is why we're dealing with this." I think there are a lot of people-- an increasing number of people-- feeling that way across the country. Trump isn't up for reelection until 2020-- if he makes it that long-- but Paul Ryan and every single member of the House will face the voters in 2018. Right now there are 5 special elections for open House seats coming up-- starting in about 2 months-- in Los Angeles, Montana, South Carolina, Kansas and the suburbs north of Atlanta. These will be opportunities for American voters to send a message. Trump did worse than Romney in 3 and slightly better than Romney in two.

• CA-34- Romney- 14.1%, Trump- 10.7%
• GA-06- Romney- 60.8%, Trump- 48.3%
• KS-04- Romney- 61.6%, Trump- 60.2%
• MT-AL- Romney- 55.4%, Trump- 56.5%
• SC-05- Romney- 55.1%, Trump- 57.3%

The potential for the biggest headlines would come from the race in GA-06-- to replace the new Medicare slashing Health Secretary, Tom Price-- a district which Trump barely managed to keep red and where Democrat Jon Ossoff could well displace whichever Republican manages to make it into the June 20th runoff after the April 18th jungle primary. The GOP establishment is praying for ex-state Sen Judson Hill but may get stuck with anti-Choice kook and controversial ex-Secretary of State Karen Handel or one of the two unhinged Trumpists, businessman Bruce LeVell or Johns Creek ex-Councilman Bob Gray. (Price's wife, state Rep. Betty Price, dropped out at the last minute.)

Or, perhaps, Trump and his cohorts in Congress haven't gone far enough yet, haven't convinced enough voters-- including Republican votes, who, after all, dominate 4 of the 5 districts-- that a loud, ringing message is necessary or even desirable. (Polls indicate most Americans are ready though, Trump's approval rating sinking by the day.

Yesterday Lisa Mascaro, in an article picked up by NationalMemo, noted that the relationship between Trump and GOP leaders in Congress started as a marriage of convenience, "thrown together by necessity and sustained on the promise of pushing a Republican agenda into law." Ryan and McConnell "tolerated Trump's turbulent debut because they agreed with the direction the White House was heading-- or were confident they could nudge it in the desired one... But the newfound partnership is showing signs of serious strain. Growing discomfort about the Trump team's ties to Russia, daily dramas at the White House and the increasing unrest at town hall meetings with constituents back home have prompted many in Congress to express second thoughts about the alliance." Mark Sanford (R-SC) went out of his way to savage Trump and separate himself from the White House sociopath the day before and the day after he visited Sanford's district in Charleston, a city (and county) Trump lost in both the primary and against Hillary.

As the first 100 days tick away, and rank-and-file Republicans head home for a weeklong recess, there is a growing worry that Congress will face a drip-drip-drip of new revelations about the Trump White House that will overshadow the rest of the Republican agenda, such as repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and cutting government spending.

"That's what the fear is," said one Republican senator, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the outlook. "It's not a good situation. You can't let this go and not look at it."

...One former GOP leadership aide said "there's not a single Republican anywhere" who's not stunned by some of Trump's comments. But they focus instead on the GOP priorities they see taking shape, he said.

"In the end, we're still talking about tax reform, Supreme Court-- all the stuff is getting done," the aide said. "Most of the stuff is sort of within the lines of what Republicans want anyway. People by and large think progress has been made."

Trump has already started signing into law bills sent by Congress to roll back President Barack Obama's regulatory clampdown on coal pollution and overseas corporate bribes. More are on the way to his desk.

Republicans have put their trust in Vice President Mike Pence, the Cabinet secretaries and a legislative team culled from the halls of Congress-- even though it is unclear how much sway those voices ultimately have with the occupant of the Oval Office.

And areas of significant disagreement with Trump lie ahead, such as his $1-trillion infrastructure plan, having Congress pony up funds for the border wall with Mexico, and a massive military buildup.

But the questions about Russia are threatening to overshadow Republican goals. Emboldened Democrats are calling for independent inquiries into alleged contacts between Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence officials, and demanding the release of a transcript of a wiretapped conversation between Flynn and a Russian diplomat.

The Republican leadership has tried to contain the congressional investigations to the House and Senate intelligence committees, where hearings are often conducted in secret because of the classified nature.

...But a growing number of top Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are calling for a deeper and more transparent dive into Russia's role in the November election. That could take weeks, or more likely months.

"What the hell went on? That's what's on my mind," McCain said. "We know they tried to affect the outcome of the election... Now we've got all these other issues."

And, with lack of cohesive-- let alone coherent-- leadership from the White House, naturally-fractious House Republicans from the party's various wings have been fighting each other. One top-ranking Republican staffer told me that "the only thing everyone agrees on is dismantling Dodd-Frank... The rest is completely up in the air and the parameters shift with every one of his early morning tweet storms." Sail Kapur, reporting this week for Bloomberg, pointed out that "some conservative House Republicans are objecting to a major part of the Obamacare replacement outline presented to them by party leaders, underscoring the party’s continuing inability to agree on an alternative health plan."

The proposal would allow Americans who lack insurance to buy coverage with refundable tax credits they can receive before the end of a tax year. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said he and other leaders presented the idea during Thursday’s private conference of the House GOP.

Some conservatives say they oppose the idea because it could amount to a new government subsidy by allowing people to receive a larger credit than they pay in taxes. They prefer a mechanism that would preclude people from getting any more money than they paid in taxes.

"I don’t like the refundable tax credit," says Representative Ted Yoho of Florida. "I don’t want people getting money back."

"This is Obamacare light," Yoho said, adding that he told Brady about his views.

Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said tax credits "should be predicated on those taxes paid in, not a refundable tax credit, because it can so easily become a major and unstoppable entitlement."

The dispute over tax credits is one of many issues facing Republican leaders as they seek agreement on how to fulfill their promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Also discussed Thursday were a proposal to cap the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, and efforts to restructure Medicaid. Republicans are set to face their constituents during a week-long congressional recess next week.

Saturday, Tom Reed's town halls in Ashville and Cherry Creek, New York-- he was way too scared to accept an invitation from Mayor Svante Myrick to hold one in Ithaca, the biggest city in NY-23-- drew large raucous crowds. When Reed tried selling the crowds on Ryan's health care replacement (bogus health savings accounts) people were furious and started yelling "We want your health care! We want your health care!" Reed was also peppered with uncomfortable questions about Trump's embrace of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and about Trump's failure to pay income taxes-- Reed was sounded boo-ed for voting in committee against a proposal that would have forced Trump to release his tax returns-- and the crowd wound up chanting "What are you covering up?"

When Reed tried to avoid fighting about Putin, he pivoted back to Medicare, that had his constituents yelling at him that they like it the way it is and weren't going to accept Ryan's tax credits and voucher bullshit instead of actual health care. People in Cherry Creek, where he held his second town hall of the day, were shouting that rather than repeal Obamacare, Congress should turn it into a single-payer system (as Bernie Sanders has been advocating).

In 2012, the DCCC viciously sabotaged progressive Democrat Nate Shinagawa when he ran against Reed. Because of DCCC hostility Reed managed to eke out a 52-48% win and never faced a serious competitor again. In the 2018 cycle it will be the responsibility of Joe Kennedy III, the new DCCC vice-chair for the region to make sure a progressive like Shinagawa is the recruit and that he gets support, not shade.

Next door in Syracuse-based NY-24, where, once again DCCC incompetence and a craving for an inoffensive, unelectable Republican-lite crap-candidate-- and fear and loathing for the Berniecrat-- resulted in the inevitable, reelection of John Katko in a solidly blue district Obama won with 57% and even Hillary managed to win against Trump 48.9% to 45.3%. Katko announced Friday that he won’t attend any town hall meetings with his constituents and won’t let outside groups "hijack service to my district or disrupt meaningful engagement with my constituents." If Joe Kennedy recruits a real Democrat and not another vapid New Dem or Blue Dog, Katko will be wiped off the face of the political map in 2018, along with Reed.

The NY Times also noted how angry grassroots constituents are at Republican members of Congress right now. Regardless of what fools like Katko try to say "national organizers concede they are playing catch-up to a 'dam-bursting level' of grass-roots activism that has bubbled up from street protests and the small groups that have swelled into crowds outside local congressional offices."

Several Republicans, including Mr. Trump, have dismissed the pro-health care act crowds as “paid protesters,” not constituents. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, without offering evidence, called the protests a “very paid, AstroTurf-type movement,” unlike the Tea Party demonstrations against the drafting of the health care law in 2009, which he characterized as “very organic.”

In fact, some of the most formidable and well-established organizing groups on the left have found themselves scrambling to track all of the local groups sprouting up through social media channels like Facebook and Slack, or in local “huddles” that grew out of the women’s marches across the country the day after the inauguration.

...The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is keeping track of Republican lawmakers who do not hold town-hall-style meetings. Some events have been canceled, and Representative Tom MacArthur of New Jersey said he had done so because the meetings have been “hijacked” by groups hostile to Mr. Trump. The committee plans to run internet ads trying to shame lawmakers for not facing their constituents in public since voting last month on a procedural motion aimed at repealing the health law.

Some of the most creative activity is coming from people who are new to political activism. In Plymouth, Minn., Kelly Guncheon, a financial planner who described himself as an independent, has organized a “With Him or Without Him” meeting for Representative Erik Paulsen, a Republican who has not scheduled any of his own. A volunteer offered to make 400 cupcakes decorated with a “Where’s Waldo?” picture of Mr. Paulsen’s face, and Mr. Guncheon said he planned to project onto screens legislation that Mr. Paulsen had supported. Participants will be asked to write down questions, which will be delivered, along with a recording of the event, to Mr. Paulsen’s congressional office after the recess.

Mr. Guncheon, like other new activists, said he was not looking to traditional political groups for guidance.

“In this new culture, this new era, we have to figure out new ways to do things,” he said. “There’s certainly no leadership at the head of the Democratic Party, or the state party. Not that I’m a Democrat anyway, but that seems to be the opposition party.”

Other new groups organizing on Facebook have arranged similar events, calling them “no-show” or “empty-chair” meetings, for Senators Cory Gardner of Colorado and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, as well as for Republican lawmakers from California, New Jersey and New York.

In response to Mr. Gardner’s complaints that the people showing up at his office to request town-hall-style meetings were paid protesters from other states, one group showed up at his office with a banner on which members had written their Colorado ZIP codes.

Crackpot wing nut Dana Rohrabacher-- whose Orange County district Trump lost to Hillary-- claimed that constituents asking for town hall meetings are "enemies" of democracy and political "thugs." He's literally talking about the voters in Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel and Aliso Viejo. He's one of scores of aloof, unaccountable Republican congressmembers hiding from their own voters (unlike less dishonest Members like Justin Amash and Jim Sensenbrenner who have scheduled and gone to numerous town halls). Among the shadiest and most dismissive congressmembers have been Peter Roskam (R-IL), Chris Collins (R-NY), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ed Royce (R-CA), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Roger Williams (R-TX), Paul Cook (R-CA), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Bill Flores (R-TX), Steve Knight (R-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA) and Rodney Davis (R-IL).

Nick Kristoff Times column this weekend dealt with how to get rid of Trump and his Nazi regime before they do some existential damage to America. "[F]or now," he wrote, "it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger... [I]t’ll be up to Republicans to decide whether to force Trump out. And that won’t happen unless they see him as ruining their party as well as the nation."

“The only incentive for Republicans to act-- with or without the cabinet-- is the same incentive Republicans had in 1974 to insist on Nixon’s resignation,” Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia told me. “The incentive is survival.”

Trump does have one weakness, and it’s parallel to Nixon’s. Republicans in Congress were willing to oust Nixon partly because they vastly preferred his vice president, Gerald Ford-- just as congressional Republicans prefer Mike Pence today.

If I were betting, I’d say we’re stuck with Trump for four years. But as Sabato says: “Lots of things about Donald Trump’s election and early presidency have been shocking. Why should it stop now?”

And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?

Wednesday there'll be a big rally in front of Paul Ryan's house in Janesville, Wisconsin, since he adamantly refuses to meet with his constituents. They'll meet at Parker Park at the corner of Harrison Street and East Court Street (53545) at 10:30 AM.

There Are A Few Times When Even Blue Dogs Have Some Slight Value-- The GOP Rules Changes That Could Hoist Them On Their Own Petard

The devolution of the Republican Party

I tend to think of the worst of the Blue Dog "Democrats"-- like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Colin Peterson (MN)-- along with shameless careerists like Gwen Graham (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Ann Kuster (NH)-- as less than worthless. They routinely sell out basic core Democratic values and the interests of working families for their own personal ambitions and calculations. In many ways they are worse than Republicans and teabaggers because they operate inside the Democratic conference and perpetually undercut progressive policy goals and pull the conference ever right-ward. But on the first day of Congress this year all 168 Democrats present stuck together, including Sinema, Lipinski, Peterson, Graham, Murphy and Kuster, to vote-- along with 4 Republicans-- against new rules to make it easier for Paul Ryan to lower taxes on the rich and cut Social Security. The rules passed 234-172.

How many voters who stayed home in November knew they were voting to hobble Social Security or give a tax cut to the Koch family? How many working class voters in Iowa who voted in Joni Ernst, Rod Blum and David Young knew what they were voting for. How many working class voters in Arkansas who voted for Tom Cotton, French Hill, Bruce Westerman knew they were voting for tax breaks for the Waltons? How many working class voters in Georgia understood that by voting for David Perdue, Richard Allen, Jody Hice and Barry Loudermilk they weren't just voting against "the blacks and Mexicans" but that they were voting to cut their own Social Security benefits? The Republicans certainly didn't talk about cutting Social Security in their campaigns. All the new House members mentioned above-- in fact all all the new members everywhere elected last month-- voted to do just that on day one of the new Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address.

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund-- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimated last year that the disability insurance program would run short of money to pay all benefits some time in late 2016. Without a new reallocation, disability insurance beneficiaries could face up to 20 percent cuts in their Social Security payments in late 2016-- a chit that would be of use to Republicans pushing for conservative entitlement reforms.

"The rule change would prohibit a simple reallocation! It will require more significant and complex changes to Social Security," Social Security Works, an advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday. "In other words, the Republican rule will allow Social Security to be held hostage."

..."By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

The ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen, spoke on the other aspect of the GOP rules change, Ryan's "dynamic scoring" scheme which forces the CBO to use voodoo economics to analyze budget proposals. "It’s absolutely astounding that within minutes-- minutes-- of us being sworn in, our Republican colleagues want to pass a rule that will stack the deck in favor of trying to give another big tax cut, not to the middle class, but to millionaires." Obama's Budget Director, Shaun Donovan, was just as pointed about what the GOP was up to:

While all budget estimates are uncertain, there is substantially more disagreement among economists and experts about how policy changes affect the macro economy than about most other scoring issues. Congress should not adopt changes in scoring legislation that upend the level playing field that has existed for decades, and could call into question the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation budget estimates.

AP's Stephen Olemacher focused on a trap the Republicans may have set for themselves over Social Security going into the 2016 elections. In fact, one of the sponsors of the rule change, Tom Reed (R-NY) is in a vulnerable swing district that Obama won by 1% in 2008, lost by 2% in 2012 and in which the DCCC screwed up in 2010, 2012 and again this year.

The 36-page set of rules passed by a vote of 234-172, with all Democrats opposed and almost every Republican in favor.

On page 32 [of the36-page set of rigged rules] is a provision that allows any representative to raise a point of order if the House tries to pass a bill redirecting tax revenue from Social Security's retirement fund to the disability fund. The House could vote to overcome the objection, but that could be difficult, with almost every Republican supporting the rule that passed Tuesday.

Social Security's long-term financial problems are well-documented, as millions of baby boomers approach retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers to pay the payroll taxes that support it.

Social Security has more than $2.7 trillion in reserves, but the retirement program has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes since 2010.

The disability program has been paying out more than it collects since 2005.

Social Security is supported by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $118,500. Half is paid by workers and half is paid by employers.

Most of the payroll tax-- 10.6 percent of wages-- goes to the retirement fund. The remaining 1.8 percent of wages goes to the disability fund.

Social Security's retirement trust fund is projected to run dry in 2034. At that point, it would only collect enough payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

If the retirement fund and the disability fund were combined, they would have enough money to pay full benefits until 2033, giving lawmakers more time to address their long-term finances.

Stay tuned; this comes up in 2016, just before the elections.

Tom Reed Takes Legalistic Bribes From Big Oil & Gas But Lies To His Constituents About It

Although Nate Shinagawa didn't get any help from Steve Israel's DCCC in his fight against corrupt Republican medical debt collector Tom Reed, Shinagawa came close enough to winning-- 126,519 (52%) to 117,055 (48%)-- to make it obvious that if Israel hadn't been wasting all his efforts and resources trying unsuccessfully to reinvigorate the reactionary Blue Dog wing of the Democratic Party (all but one Blue Dog endorsed non-incumbent was defeated), Shinagawa would be sitting in Congress today instead of Reed. Where Shinagawa had the resources he needed-- like in blue-leaning Tompkins County-- he thrashed Reed thoroughly, beating him 24,264 (70%) to 10,201 (30%).

Yesterday Zaid Jilani exposed Reed's corruption in a video (above) he posted at the PCCC blog. Zaid's been on Reed's trail for a long time and last August we looked at how Big Oil & Gas bribes Big Tom. He's one of the most avid proponents of fracking in New York State, despite the dangers to his own constituents. And he's paid well for that. This past weekend he was fending off concerned constituents again.

After defending the exemption of fracking from the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, one constituent asked him about the over $100,000 he’s gotten from the oil and gas industries. He responded that he has “no idea” where that money came from:

CONSTITUENT QUESTION: Do you think the fracking industry should remain exempt from the Clean Air and Drinking Water Acts? [...]

REED: [...] I am not a believer in expanding federal government, I believe we have to downsize federal government. What we’re on a path here by doing that I think is expanding government. [...] I would defer to the state and defer to the local bodies on that.

(Audience hissing)

CONSTITUENT 1: Water and air are across state borders!

CONSTITUENT 2: Where did your $126,000 from gas companies come from? Which lobbyists? Which companies besides Chesapeake and the other lobbyists?

REED: No idea. No idea. We don’t keep track of that. I don’t keep track of that.

Reed should know that he is actually legally required to “keep track of that”-- and that it’s actually public information. The oil and gas industry was his third-largest donor in 2012. Here’s some of the biggest backers:

• Chesapeake Energy: $10,000 to Reed. Chesapeake, one of America’s largest fracking companies, has angered homeowners nationwide with its excessive use of legal maneuvers to gain access to land to drill on.

• National Fuel Gas Corporation: $10,000 to Reed. This fracking company is based in Western Pennsylvania and New York.

• America’s Natural Gas Alliance: $4,400 to Reed. This is one of the main advocacy coalitions for natural gas drillers pushing for fracking.

Another Paid Off Fracking Proponent-- Tom Reed (R-NY)

When Eric Massa first took the economically depressed 29th CD in New York's Southern Tier, there was a longtime Republican incumbent and the district had a history of voting for Republicans. Bush won it with 53% in 2000 and 56% in 2004. But in 2006 Eric Massa came very close and in 2008, even with Obama losing to McCain 48-51, Massa took the district 51-49%, ousting the incumbent. The 29th has been redrawn and is now NY-23, a far bluer district. In fact, under the current boundaries, instead of that 48-51% loss Obama experienced, it would have been a 50-49% win for the president. It doesn't take much to figure out this might be a good target for the DCCC.

But there's a problem. The conservative corporate shill the DCCC favored lost the primary. Instead, a county legislator-- and one of New York's most dynamic and progressive young elected officials-- won, Nate Shinagawa. Suddenly Steve Israel lost all interest in the district and decided to abandon it to Tom Reed, the freshman teabagger. THIS Tom Reed? The one who investigative journalist Zaid Jilani found to be a corrupt pile of excrement who has been paid off to push a fracking agenda?

In August of 2011, Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) faced a town hall packed full of his constituents who opposed the controversial gas drilling process of fracking. Here’s an excerpt of a local news article at the time detailing how Reed defended the practice to his angry constituents:

Reed made no bones about his view on the subject-- he’s in favor of fracking the Marcellus Shale if it can be done cleanly and responsibly, which he believes it can. “I am a supporter of the industry, natural gas,” Reed said.

His view drew ire from those in attendance. “Our town in Troy, Pa., is ruined” because of gas drilling, one woman said. “I could tell you horror stories. The things we live every day … They call it Gastown now. It doesn’t even have its name anymore.”

Reed’s constituents were enraged at his defense of fracking in their backyards. But maybe it wasn’t his constituents he was trying to appeal to. In the weeks and months following that town hall, gas lobbyists showered Reed with sizable donations from their political action committees (PACs):

• The National Fuel Gas Political Action Committee: This group gave Reed $2,000 on September 8th, approximately a week and a half after the town hall. This is the PAC of the National Fuel company, which not surprisingly has been operating in the Marcellus Shale area that Reed wants to expand drilling in.

• The American Gas Association Political Action Committee: This power-house D.C.-based group for gas companies and their lobbyists wrote Reed a $1,000 check exactly two weeks after the Natural Fuel Gas PAC donated to him.

• America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) Political Action Committee: This PAC gave Reed a $2,400 check on October 1st, 2011. ANGA is financed by a variety of natural gas drillers.

• Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Political Action Committee: This natural gas group gave $1,000 to Reed on November 15th, 2011.

Reed was no doubt feeling the heat from his constituents last August on this issue. But was not reported until now is that he may have had a reason to take this unpopular stand in favor of fracking. The $6,400 he received in a matter of weeks from various natural gas interests gave him an incentive to rebuke his own constituents in favor of campaign contributions.

And then there's Nate Shinagawa, a fracking opponent who's been endorsed by environmental experts Sandra Steingraber and Bob Howarth.

“As a hospital administrator, Nate has seen how drilling and fracking undermine the health of communities,” said Steingraber. “Better than anyone, he knows you can’t have a good economy without a healthy population. Nate has been a long-time advocate for moratoria, bans, and home rule to protect our water, food, and air from ruinous fossil fuel extraction. His ideas for truly sustainable economic development are needed in Congress,” she added...

“Nate has a record informed opposition to practices such as fracking that harm our environment and agricultural industry,” said Howarth. “As an active member of his community, a county legislator, and future Congressman, he is committed to engaging all sides in respectful, solutions-oriented conversations about fracking and alternative paths to economic growth and job creation,” he said.

Nate's compelling personal story is quintessentially the All American story. Like every last one of us, his antecedents had come to America, struggled, persevered and come to love and become part of their new homeland. His Japanese ancestors were interned in concentration camps while his grandfather joined the U.S. Marine Corps to fight for the country they loved. That story helped to define how Nate saw himself as grew into the best America has to offer itself. And that story led him to explain his campaign to me as one "about being brave and fighting for a government that provides for its senior citizens, creates opportunities for its young people, and protects the pristine lands and waters of this great country."

Tom "I got mine" Reed is a self-entitled freshman who insists he's both a teabagger and a multimillionaire. Before running for office, he was a medical debt collector who profited off of the misfortune of sick people and once he did manage to get into office-- as a result of the Eric Massa scandal-- he, in quick succession hired a former health insurance company lobbyist as his legislative director and voted to repeal mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. Reed, a huge supporter of Paul Ryan's plans to radically redraw America in an Ayn Rand image, proudly supports raising the Medicare eligibility age (rather than bring down costs by expanding coverage the way Nate is suggesting) and has publicly said that Social Security had to be "on the table" for cuts.

Nate is enthusiastically campaigning on a Prosperity Economics agenda, while Reed pursues the failed Austerity precepts that have been so catastrophic for the European countries that have adopted them. "I support the Prosperity Economics plan," Nate told us, "because it lays out a clear set of bold and thoughtful policies that will keep the American Dream alive. The austerity measures championed by Republican Congressional leadership goes beyond cutting the fat out of the federal budget-- it cuts the muscle we need to rebuild the American middle class. We need to invest in our infrastructure, focus on renewable energy, make education affordable, and fight to save our economy from outsourcing and Democracy from corruption in the Citizens United era. Prosperity Economics should be the way forward for our next Congress, and I strongly urge others to support these ideas."

But even more than being reactionary and into voodoo economics, Reed is plain old corrupt. Despite the congressional earmark ban, he's introduced earmark tariff bills that would only benefit individual companies that contribute to his campaign, exactly what less hypocritical and idealistic Tea Partiers said the ban was meant to put a stop to. In other ways, though, Reed, is more in line with kneejerk GOP dogma. He insists that the Bush tax cuts did not need to be paid for or offset in order to be extended and he has opposed every attempt President Obama has made to make the tax system fairer and to bring jobs back to America. If Nate's story is quintessentially the All American story, Tom Reed's is quintessentially the All Greed story. Last fall when Tropical Storm Lee devastated much of his own district with floods and FEMA funding was running out, he stood with Boehner and Cantor and not with his own voters, a standoff that brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. While Reed was playing obstructionist games and posturing about his extremist ideology, people's lives and safety were in danger. Ironically, Nate was Incident Commander at his hospital, coordinating the emergency response in communities affected by the flooding from the same storm, even buying $3,000 worth of water with his own credit card when the hospital sewer system went down!

Nate couldn't be more different from Reed. "We need leadership committed to building up the middle class again," he told us, "and making government work again for all Americans. Voters have seen the Republican Congress give more advantages to the already advantaged at the expense of their own communities where working families continue to struggle as our economy slowly recovers from recession. It's time to prove once and for all that the American Dream is our future, not our past." It must make Reed's skin crawl to hear Nate drawing attention to the profound differences the two of them have:

"I believe that the job creators in this country are everyday Americans. They are our teachers, nurses, firefighters, construction workers who work hard every day. They are our small businesses and our entrepreneurs. They are our farmers, our students and our senior citizens."

If you'd like to help replace Tom Reed with Nate Shinagawa, you can do that right here on the Blue America page.

Blue America Welcomes Nate Shinagawa (D-NY)

Today Blue America is proud to endorse Nate Shinagawa for Congress in NY-23, the old Eric Massa district composed of the Southern Tier and the Finger Lakes area of upstate New York. It was a district Democrats lost after Eric Massa's breakdown and resignation. The GOP extremist who took over, Tom Reed, is a backbencher who has an unblemished record as a proponent of greed and selfishness. But it's not some deep red Confederate-leaning district. Mostly the old NY-29, NY-23 has been redrawn as a swing district. Under the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain 50-49%, instead of losing to him 48-51% as he did under the old lines. Reed has been so invisible that new polling shows only about a third of the district has even heard of him. And when voters are made aware of Nate's positions and Reed's votes, they prefer Nate. At 2pm (EST) Nate will be our guest for a free-ranging question and answer session at Crooks and Liars. Please try to stop by and meet him. And, if you can please consider contributing to his grassroots campaign here on the Blue America page.

As we mentioned yesterday, Nate's compelling personal story is quintessentially the All American story. Like every last one of us, his antecedents had come to America, struggled, persevered and come to love and become part of their new homeland. His Japanese ancestors were interned in concentration camps while his grandfather joined the U.S. Marine Corps to fight for the country they loved. That story helped to define how Nate saw himself as grew into the best America has to offer itself. And that story led him to explain his campaign to me as one "about being brave and fighting for a government that provides for its senior citizens, creates opportunities for its young people, and protects the pristine lands and waters of this great country."

As American as apple pie? Of course. But that's not the way the apostles of greed and selfishness who have taken over the Republican Party see it. And Nate happens to be running against one of the most radical and contrary Republicans of all, Tom "I got mine" Reed, a self-entitled freshman who insists he's both a teabagger and a multimillionaire. Before running for office, Reed was a medical debt collector who profited off of the misfortune of sick people and once he did manage to get into office-- as a result of the Eric Massa scandal-- he, in quick succession hired a former health insurance company lobbyist as his legislative director and voted to repeal mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. Reed, a huge supporter of Paul Ryan's plans to radically redrawn America in an Ayn Rand image, proudly supports raising the Medicare eligibility age (rather than bring down costs by expanding coverage the way Nate is suggesting) and has publicly said that Social Security had to be "on the table" for cuts.

Despite the congressional earmark ban, Reed has introduced earmark tariff bills that would only benefit individual companies that contribute to his campaign, exactly what less hypocritical and idealistic Tea Partiers said the ban was meant to put a stop to. In other ways, though, Reed, is more in line with kneejerk GOP dogma. He insists that the Bush tax cuts did not need to be paid for or offset in order to be extended and he has opposed every attempt President Obama has made to make the tax system fairer and to bring jobs back to America. If Nate's story is quintessentially the All American story, Tom Reed's is quintessentially the All Greed story. Last fall when Tropical Storm Lee devastated much of his own district with floods and FEMA funding was running out, he stood with Boehner and Cantor and not with his own voters, a standoff that brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. While Reed was playing obstructionist games and posturing about his extremist ideology, people's lives and safety were in danger. Ironically, Nate was Incident Commander at his hospital, coordinating the emergency response in communities affected by the flooding from the same storm, even buying $3,000 worth of water with his own credit card when the hospital sewer system went down!

Nate couldn't be more different from Reed. "We need leadership committed to building up the middle class again," he told us, "and making government work again for all Americans. Voters have seen the Republican Congress give more advantages to the already advantaged at the expense of their own communities where working families continue to struggle as our economy slowly recovers from recession. It's time to prove once and for all that the American Dream is our future, not our past." It must make Reed's skin crawl to hear Nate drawing attention to the profound differences the two of them have:

"I believe that the job creators in this country are everyday Americans. They are our teachers, nurses, firefighters, construction workers who work hard every day. They are our small businesses and our entrepreneurs. They are our farmers, our students and our senior citizens."

If you'd like to help a smart, effective young progressive replace Reed in Congress, please consider making a contribution at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Blue America's Newest Candidate-- Nate Shinagawa (D-NY)

In June, just before his strong primary victory over a conservative Democrat, Nate Shinagawa introduced himself to DWT readers with a guest post about the role of young leaders in our democracy. Tomorrow, he's being formally endorsed by Blue America and he'll be joining us for a live blogging session at Crooks and Liars (2pm, EST). To set the mood, I want to give everyone an opportunity to get to know Nate a little better by watching the video he recorded for us over the weekend (above).

His compelling personal story is quintessentially the All American story-- like every last one of us, his antecedents had come to America, struggled, persevered and quickly begun to love and cherish their new homeland and the opporunities it offered. His Japanese ancestors were interred in concentration camps while his grandfather joined the U.S. Marine Corps to fight for the country that was the only home they had ever known. That story helped to define how Nate saw himself as he grew into the best America has to offer itself. This week he is the latest candidate endorsed by Blue America, the third energetic progressive we have endorsed who has gone through the training of People For the American Way's Young Elected Officials network (YEOs). Nate's story led him to explain his campaign to me as one "about being brave and fighting for a government that provides for its senior citizens, creates opportunities for its young people, and protects the pristine lands and waters of this great country."

Please come by the live chat at Crooks and Liars tomorrow-- I'll remember you-- and please, if you can, consider making a contribution to Nate's grassroots campaign against a corporately funded teabagger, Tom Reed.

Tom Reed Has Refused To Disassociate Himself From The Vicious Racism Of His Top Supporters

Do you think racism is only something you find in rural parts of Georgia and Texas? Think again. WYSL (1040 AM) is in the Rochester, NY area and owned by Bob Savage and Judith Day. They run a Hate Talk format featuring reactionary GOP propagandists, sociopaths like Laura Ingraham, Rust Humphries, Dennis Miller, Jerry Doyle and Bill O'Reilly. Their local hate talk host is Bill Nojay, a Republican running for New York State Assembly. Radio sure has changed from the days when I got my broadcaster's license. Back then candidates had to resign when they declared for office-- and they were fired when they incited racial hatred the way Nojay does. Listen to his screed against progressive Democrat Nate Shinagawa, a third-generation Japanese American.

Nojay's vicious racism is usually reserved for his nasty comments about African-Americans and Latinos, but he's asserting that American-born Nate is "from the People's Republic." The People's Republic? You mean where so much of the money comes from to fund conservative corporate whores who vote for the "free trade" agenda that sends American jobs there? That People's Republic? And who knew that Japanese-Americans come from the People's Republic? Amazing what you learn on Hate Talk Radio!

Nojay's pal Tom Reed (on the right), who's running against Nate, consistently backs sending U.S. jobs to China and other low-wage hellholes. And Reed refuses to disavow Nojay and his blatant racism. Please listen to the Republican propaganda above and then think about what it means to have these people-- human garbage like Nojay, Savage and Reed-- controlling Congress. And even if it's just $3 or $5, consider helping Blue America's newest candidate, Nate Shinagawa. We covered his inspiring biographical story a week or two ago after his big primary victory and Thursday we compared his views on education to Nojay's pal Tom Reed's. There's a gap wide enough... well almost wide enough, for Reed to fit through.

How about that music too? These are really sick people. Too sick to own broadcast licenses, even one that's all about dog whistles for the GOP.


UPDATE: Asian American Justice Center Isn't Buying WYSL's Lame Excuses

Although in typical right-wing style, GOP racists Bill Nojay and Bob Savage (an owner of the station), have been whining that it's all a left-wing conspiracy against them, the Asian American Justice Center is asking for an apology. I don't go for fake apologies. Nojay should be thrown off the air immediately and WYSL's license renewal should be looked at more closely. Voters might want to ask themselves if that tub of lard, Tom Reed, who slipped into office in 2010 and is backing his pals at the station, is really fit to represent them in Washington. Here's the statement from the Asian American Justice Center:

Radio host Bill Nojay and station executive Bob Savage of WYSL 1040 AM in New York, made racist attacks toward Democratic Congressional candidate and third-generation Japanese American Nate Shinagawa on Friday’s The Bill Nojay Show. The pair made fun of Shinagawa's name, claiming he comes from the "People's Republic," and played more than 60 seconds of a popular Japanese song from the 1960's commonly known as "Sukiyaki." In response to the offensive segment, Mee Moua, president and executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, issued the following statement.

It is appalling that the WYSL radio hosts would make such racist and offensive remarks against a qualified candidate for U.S. Congress. When xenophobia and racism permeate the political sphere, there can be far-reaching consequences. This year, we have an unprecedented number of Asian American and Pacific Islander candidates running for federal office for both political parties. Xenophobic rhetoric made by public figures can foster and perpetuate negative stereotypes. It influences support for policies and practices that target people of color and immigrants and it creates an environment that tolerates violence and discrimination. This rhetoric is irresponsible, destructive and un-American.

Upstate NY Progressive Nate Shinagawa Remembers Special Days... And The Importance Of Education To America's Future

Rep. Tom Reed Has His... Don't Even Try To Touch It!

Last month, dedicated progressive county legislator Nate Shinagawa won a tough primary-- and won it very convincingly-- to take on portly freshman teabagger Tom Reed in New York's newly configured 23rd CD-- most of what was Eric Massa's old district-- except the new district is slightly less Republican and slightly more independent... perfect for Nate.

Like every politician I've ever exchanged an e-mail with, yesterday Nate sent me Independence Day greetings... and they're below but they're not the real point of this post:

Two hundred and thirty-six years ago today, our nation boldly proclaimed its independence. For the first time, our founding fathers pioneered the idea that government should be responsible to its people, that all people are endowed with the same rights, and that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should have an opportunity to succeed.
 
These are not partisan values-- they belong to no politician, no party, and no special interest. These are values we ALL cherish and defend. They are the ideals that forged the middle class and made the American Dream a reality for millions of working families across the country. And these are the principles I will campaign on throughout the Southern Tier. 

Especially on this Independence Day, with all the fighting and gridlock in Washington, let’s come together and remember what really matters: our friends and family, community, and our country.
 
And of course, let’s be thankful for all the brave men and women who have fought to defend and preserve this great nation. It is because of their dedication and sacrifice that we can enjoy this day.

Happy Independence Day, and I hope you are able to celebrate it with those who mean the most to you.

Just a couple days before Nate had sent a more unique e-mail making a less celebrated occasion, the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln signing the Morrill Act. This will tell you more about Nate and more about why Blue America has just endorsed him.

Today marks the 150th anniversary of a transformative moment in American education. President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act into law on July 2nd 1862, granting federally owned lands to the states to fund and develop universities like the world had never before seen. The Morrill Act showed that Congress had the foresight to move American universities firmly towards agricultural and engineering sciences. 

The land-grant colleges that followed blossomed into some our nation’s leading institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of California at Berkeley, and right here in our own district, Cornell University. Land-grant universities such as these have developed extensive outreach programs, emphasized regionally important research, and engaged agriculture and manufacturing industries. We owe so much of the technology that we take for granted-- from the computers we use to the cars we drive — to these incredible universities. 

The Morrill Act was a bold idea that transformed our higher education system. What bold ideas do you have to transform our country?

This ambitious legislation passed by a forward-looking Congress made advanced education accessible to more young Americans than ever before. By creating a vast network of universities focused on practical education as well as industry outreach, our nation’s leaders spurred the United States to become the world’s agricultural and manufacturing leader.

Congress needs to once again act boldly to jumpstart our economy and keep America's world class universities accessible to all Americans. By supporting our universities so they can be leading centers of research, development, and innovation, we will ensure that the next 150 years are even more productive than the last.

Instead, Congress has been captured by a destructive band of greed-obsessed reactionaries with zero interest in the future of this country-- parasites whose only motivation is holding onto their material wealth and their privileges and positions. They are hellbent on destroying public education. Tom Reed, the extremist Nate is contesting the 23rd with, has scored ZERO on every measurement of support for education since getting into Congress. Look at this insane record of anti-education votes. Reed's stance on education has been clear-- if you're rich enough for private schools, your child deserves an education. Otherwise-- too bad. He seems animated by a reactionary, dystopian point of view that rich people shouldn't be asked to pay for poor people's children to be educated. That leads one place-- direct to the Dark Ages... like almost every aspect of right-wing Republican dogma. What Republican today would have backed Abraham Lincoln's Morrill Act? Not Tom Reed... and not Mitt Romney.

Republicans Willing To Rip Apart America To Deny President Obama Legitimacy As the Nation's Leader-- Take High Speed Rail

GOP Rep. Tom Reed thinks you should cut back so he can eat more

Everyone in Congress loves a good transportation bill, regardless of political party. It has always allowed Members to go home to their districts and brag, "Look what I've done for you," pointing to new highways or even just exit ramps, train stations, runways... When George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment Act, the national consensus behind high speed rail had begun. Every Democrat and 158 Republicans voted for it. Only 38 die-hard reactionaries (all Republicans) voted no, the real bottom-feeders of right-wing psychosis like Virginia Foxx (NC), Paul Broun (GA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Scott Garrett (NJ), Mike Pence (IN), Doug Lamborn (CO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Joe Barton (TX), Steve King (IA), Wally Herger (CA) and Patrick McHenry (NC). Republican congressional leaders like Boehner, Cantor, Blunt, Ryan, McCarthy, Dreier were all aboard. Even far right kooks like Bachmann, Walberg, Gohmert, and Mean Jean Schmidt were socialists for a day on that one. Every single Republican from Florida-- salivating at the prospect of what high speed rail could do for their state's economy and economic future-- voted YES.

So what changed? The election of America's first African American president. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Suddenly all those Republicans-- or almost all-- who voted for high speed rail are hysterical in their opposition. Now it's not a bipartisan opportunity to move the country forward. Now it's a socialist conspiracy to make every Christian man in America marry a gay and turn over his gun to the UN. Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, is just the kind of lobbyist who revels in this kind of pork-laden legislation. Even as chairman of the American Conservative Union, he's still pushing for approval. But that's no longer a consensus position for a Republican-- or even an acceptable one. In Cardenas' case, his lobbying for high speed rail puts him at odds with Florida's ideologically over the cliff governor, Rick Scott who turned down $2.4 billion for a Tampa-Orlando high speed rail showcase both parties-- minus deranged teabaggers who have been brainwashed by Koch-funded propaganda on behalf of their oil and gas interests-- favored.

Partisan ideologues like the governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down the funds for high speed rail, sacrificing the economic futures of their state's in order to follow the lead of Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell who say the #1 priority of the GOP should be to defeat Obama in 2012. But what about high speed rail itself? Can it survive despite the partisan backlash and Republican Party nihilism? Yesterday the Duluth News Tribune looked at the same question. Serving a community desperate for the jobs high speed rail will help to create, the paper offered a non-teabagger mainstream consensus view.

For a variety of reasons, including the recent financial crisis, the U.S. economy remains in a serious slump. High-speed rail spending could stimulate job growth and help jump start the economy.

These projects would, of course, add to the deficit, and concerns about its long-term growth, particularly that attributable to health care, are merited.

Looking back over the last three decades, however, Republicans’ interests in deficit reduction seems to have waxed and waned depending upon who occupied the White House.

The run-up in the debt under Bush was regrettable, but the time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, not when it is weak.

If the country is going to incur new debt, it is better to do so to acquire well-chosen infrastructure and equipment than to fund consumption.

Would high-speed rail represent well-chosen infrastructure? In other words, would it help the U.S. “win the future”? This is a more complex question. It requires us to consider not simply whether such projects would help close the output gap, but whether and how effectively they would expand the potential output of the economy.

Here there are legitimate concerns about whether the U.S. has enough high density corridors-- such as that between Boston and Washington-- to yield large benefits.

...[S]tate and federal governments have a long and largely successful record of supporting infrastructure development, from the Erie Canal to regional and transcontinental railroads to the Interstate Highway System and, more recently, to the Internet.

The build-out of the surface road network during the Great Depression generated large private-sector benefits, contributing to very fast productivity growth in transportation.

High-speed rail projects could certainly create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short run. Whether they would generate benefits similar to those of other government funded infrastructure projects is uncertain. History suggests, however, that there’s a good chance they would.

But Republicans afraid of local teabaggers' deranged anti-Obama mania are determined to sacrifice high speed rail on the same pyre as healthcare. Upstate New York is another economically devastated area that could benefit greatly by high speed rail spending. But the two freshmen teabaggers, Tom Reed of Corning and Ann Marie Buerkle of Onondaga Hill, are adamantly opposed, no matter how much their opposition harms their own constituents. They sent a letter urging Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to abandon plans for a high speed rail line in upstate New York.

"Constructing a high speed rail line across western and upstate New York is not practical," said Reed. "A true high speed rail line across this region would require its own dedicated track. Fulfilling this requirement would cost tens of billions of dollars. At a time when our roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are deteriorating, our tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere. We simply must make the tough choices necessary to prioritize our limited resources on projects that are essential and have the potential for long-term self-sufficiency.”

Shawn Hogan, mayor of Hornell and the Steuben County Democratic chair, was critical of Reed’s stance.

“To just blindly say no to any high speed rail system in this country is ludicrous and hypocritical,” said Hogan. “He does not represent his constituents. He has not cast one vote in Washington since he has been there, in my mind, to create any jobs. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state in Steuben County.

“For him to write a letter expressing this opinion with Anne Marie Buerkle, who's another person not very popular in her own district, in central New York, is a slap in the face to every person in the district. I don’t care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, whoever you are, you can not stop investing in the future of this country. Period.”

Most of New York's congressional delegation agrees with Mayor Hogan, not the 2 teabagger congressmen. Louise Slaughter, who represents most of Rochester, has been asking Obama to dedicate federal money for upstate high speed rail. "High-speed rail in Upstate New York is a vital component for economic revitalization in our region," Slaughter said. "The United States Conference of Mayors estimates at least 21,000 new jobs and $1.1 billion in new wages in New York alone from the realization of a high-speed rail network. Those who want to abandon high-speed rail in New York are also abandoning thousands of new jobs and economic opportunities for Upstate New Yorkers."

It's an argument going on all over the country. Forward-looking states like Massachusetts, California and Vermont are vying for the $2.4 billion Florida turned down. Backward reactionary bastions like Alabama, want nothing to do with anything that will bring prosperity to ordinary working families, worried it will help lift minorities and worried it will make Obama look good. It's a destructive mindset. Americans for Public Transportation President William Millar points out that “It’s fashionable today to take every issue and rip it apart in a partisan way. It’s a very difficult time to be a leader trying to lay out a great future for the country. I’m not trying to sound like a defender of the president, but just as an observer of politics, opponents of the president are going to use whatever they can... The era we live in, nothing is off limits. Republicans have a long history of supporting infrastructure projects. I hope that doesn’t change.” It has. Voters will make the decision in 2012 if this is what they want from their elected officials and if this is the kind of behavior they accept from their government.