New Barletta Poll

Lou Barletta released another internal poll showing him ahead of Paul Kanjorski.

Oct. 2, 2008 (400 likely voters)
-Barletta -- 47%
-Kanjorski -- 39%
-Undecided -- 13%
*Margin of Error -- 4.9%

Ed Mitchell responded by saying, "While Lou Barletta viciously and personally attacks Paul Kanjorski, the congressman has been doing his job and trying to fix the economy – an economy that is the way it is because Barletta worked twice to elect George Bush and still supports his disastrous policies that have led to today’s economic meltdown. A vote for Barletta is a vote for continuing these bankrupt Bush policies: tax cuts for the wealthy, outsourcing our jobs overseas and no tax on the windfall profits of oil companies."

Questions For Carney

Gort will be sitting down for an interview with Chris Carney this Thursday, and since he asked for questions, I feel obligated to give him some.

In no particular order:

1) You have accused your opponent Chris Hackett of "scaring" seniors when he discussed reforming Social Security. However, according to the most recent Trustees report, Social Security will begin to run cash deficits within the next ten years. You have openly affirmed your commitment to continuing the promised level of benefits for Social Security; I have interpreted this to mean you refuse to look at recalculating benefits (i.e. price indexing as opposed to wage indexing). If you are opposed to adjusting Social Security benefits, then what do you propose on the tax side that would produce actuarial solvency over the next 75 years?

2) As a Blue Dog Democrat, you have stated your commitment to pay-as-you-go (paygo) budgeting rules and their importance in reaching a balanced budget. However, your votes have not always reflected this as a priority. For instance, last December you voted for an un-offset Alternative Minimum Tax (H.R. 3996). This decision was a violation of paygo rules and was estimated by the CBO to cost $50 billion in 2008. Others, like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of the Blue Dogs, refused to accept an unpaid for offset and voted against the bill. We all know that an AMT patch is an important priority for middle class taxpayers, but with deficits expected to reach record levels, what assurances can you make regarding your commitment to fiscal responsibility and the weight it will receive in your decision making?

3) In your 2006 debate, you criticized Don Sherwood on the issue of Iraq by arguing that Congress should not be the "legislative arm" of the executive and rubber stamp funding. Yet, once you got to Congress you have stated that you are proud to fund the war without preconditions. Is it possible to reconcile these two statements?

4) With 1 in 150 children developing autism in this county, you made it a priority in your freshman term to address this worthy initiative by joining the Coalition for Autism Research and Education and the Congressional Autism Caucus. While the CDC and others in the scientific community have established that there is no causation between vaccines and autism, you appear to remain open to a possible link. Can you clarify your position on the autism--specifically as it relates to vaccines?

5) When you voted for the farm bill this spring, you qualified your support by stating "family farming is not a partisan issue." Yet, 10% of the farms receiving agricultural support from the federal government account for 75% of the money. You have noted the importance of bringing federal money back to invest in the district, and with over 50,000 farms in the district, agriculture is an important issue. Do you support reforming agricultural subsidies, or at least readjusting them so that more "family farms" in the district get a better proportion?

Hackett Debates Carney Substitute

While Carney may be avoiding debate opportunities with Chris Hackett, Daniel Roberts is not.

On Sunday, Hackett was taking prepared questions from a moderator at the Temple Ohev Shalom in Williamsport. Carney could not make the event because he had a scheduling conflict. However, Democratic chairman Jessie Bloom noted that recent high-school graduate Daniel Roberts--a field coordinator in Lycoming and Union county--was in attendance and representing Carney. While Roberts did not technically "stand-in" for Carney, he attempted to clarify Hackett's claims as they pertain to Carney's record.

Threat

Chris Carney's new ad "Threat." After highlighting Chris Hackett's immigration problem in a recent ad, Carney's new ad aims to reinforce his credentials on the topic.

Carney's Poll

Another Momentum Analysis poll out of the Carney campaign shows the incumbent with a hefty lead.

The new poll, which sampled 400 likely voters, reflects a 14% advantage for Chris Carney.

Momentum Analysis (Sept 29-Oct 1)
Carney - 50% (Favorable 51% vs. Unfavorable 24%)
Hackett - 36% (Favorable 31% vs. Unfavorable 34%)
*Margin of Error -- 4.9%

Last month's Momentum Analysis poll showed Carney with a 27% advantage. However, much of this has dissapated and Hackett has essentially cut Carney's lead in half over the course of a month.

Bringing The Wood

New Chris Carney ad on Hackett's immigration problem.

Social Security Issue

It appears the issue of Social Security has reared its ugly head again in the 10th District race.

Chris Carney used the recent downturn in the stock market as a way to highlight the risk involved with Chris Hackett's private accounts:

"My opponent, for example, wanted to base Social Security in the stock market. What a disastrous plan that would be," Carney said. "To privatize Social Security on top of something like this would just be ruinous. I think plans of privatization, especially based on the stock market, have been disproven now."

Hackett was forced to clarify his position and noted that he would not change benefit calculations for those close to retirement. Instead, he would phase in a private account system for young workers. Hackett further distanced himself by stating, "I think it's pretty clear that he's trying to misrepresent my position. It's a scare tactic, which is pretty typical of a guy like Chris Carney."

Connecting Hackett to drastic Social Security reform is something Carney has been trying to do from the beginning. It was one of the first policy points Carney issued against Hackett and continues to do with the Club For Growth references.

One thing that I'm not clear on about Hackett's plan involves carve-out or add-on accounts. The carve-out account approach is more what the Club For Growth lobbyies for which would replace existing benefits. Whereas an optional add-on account would be used to supplement benefits. Of course, the add-on approach would function as an additional tax which I'm sure is not a big selling point to Hackett. Carney sounds more like an add-on guy by stating he would support an opportunity for investment but not a change in the benefit system.

Questions Anyone?

I have a great appreciation for the Wayne Independent. They probably realize there is not going to be another debate between Carney and Hackett, but they are going about business like the event is official.

For weeks, Steve Fountain been trying to get Chris Carney to agree to a second debate. Even though Carney has not officially responded to the invitation, the paper is now accepting questions to be asked at the debate:

Questions can be submitted to Wayne Independent Publisher Steve Fountain by fax at (570) 251-9910; by e-mail at sfountain@wayneindependent.com; or dropped off at the Wayne Independent office, 220 8th St., Honesdale. Questions may also be submitted at the event.

If Carney doesn't show, the event will simply be two 45-minute "Q&A" sessions with Chris Hackett who has agreed to attend. In the first 45-minute session, Hackett will take prepared questions from the moderator. Following a short break, Hackett will return for another session and take questions submitted from readers and audience members.

An hour and a half alone on stage might make for a long night.

Still Opposes

Chris Hackett said he still opposes the financial rescue measure which will likely come before the House tomorrow.

Even though new additions were put into the Senate bill--including another annual patch for the AMT, extension of popular tax deductions, and tax breaks for victims of natural disasters--Hackett stated he would still vote against the measure.

In a written statement, Hackett declared: "The new bailout bill is in some ways worse than the first one. They added a bunch of special interest spending to entice more politicians to support it. But the bottom line is this still puts taxpayers at massive risk and doesn't fix the underlying cause of the crisis."

The Bailout Effect

Politico has an article up today entitled "The Risks of Being A Yes Man," in reference to some members in competitive seats voting in the affirmative for the bailout.

One of the eight men on their list is Paul Kanjorski:

Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D-Pa.)

Kanjorski is in perhaps his toughest race since winning his seat in 1984, troubled by what Real Clear Politics called “ethics issues, questionable earmarks and an unremarkable record.”

And no matter what he did, he stood to lose, at least in political terms. As chairman of the House subcommittee on capital markets — and one who had taken a lead role in negotiating the proposed Wall Street bailout — Kanjor­ski couldn’t exactly vote no without risking widespread derision.

But by voting yes, he exposed himself to criticism from his Republican opponent, Hazleton, Pa., Mayor Lou Barletta, who indicated Monday that he would not have voted for the rescue bill.

The one saving grace for Kanjorski may be Barletta’s seemingly contradictory approach to the bailout issue. On Sept. 25, Barletta appeared to support a bailout in comments to a Scranton Times-Tribune reporter.

“At least we know where Congressman Kanjorski stands,” said Kanjorski campaign spokesman Ed Mitchell. “We never know where Mr. Barletta stands; he plays to the crowd.”