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.”

New Poll

The Lycoming College Polling Institute released its first poll for the 10th Congressional District.

The poll sampled 460 likely voters and found that Chris Carney (45.7%) holds a ten-point lead over Chris Hackett (36.1%). The margin of error for the poll being 4.6%. The Institute's Director Jonathan Williamson added that Carney's efforts to build support among Republicans and Independents appears to be paying dividends.

Just looking through some of the polls that Lycoming put out in the 2006 race:

September '06 (804 likely voters):
Carney -- 46.7%
Sherwood -- 38.2%
Undecided -- 14.7%
*Margin of Error -- 3.5%

October '06 (643 likely voters):
Carney -- 47%
Sherwood -- 38.4%
Undecided -- 14.6%
*Margin of Error -- 3.9%

Of course, the '06 race turned out to break 53% to 47% in Carney's direction. Therefore, the two polls that Lycoming put out before the race were statistically correct in their victory margin for Carney (assuming the margin of error).

It has to frustrating for the Hackett campaign to square this poll with the Survey USA poll which showed a statistical dead heat in the race. Essentially a month after that poll, with further expectiations building for a Republican upset, the new Lycoming poll shows Hackett to be in the same statistical position that Sherwood was in two-years ago.

However, two points to keep in mind. First, Don Sherwood was not able to make up any ground on Carney largely due to self-inflicted wounds (i.e. his affair and abuse allegations) whereas Hackett is relatively new to the political scene and has wild card ability to change the race dynamics in the next month.

Second point of consideration, the number of undecided voters is larger in this poll than it was in 2006. Mark Harris is correct in noting that Hackett still has five weeks until election day to get his message out, and it could be that those five weeks that make or break the Hackett campaign. Assuming the polling percentages are firm, Hackett would need to woo 8 out of every 10 undecided voters in the district. May seem like a tall order, but in a district that is relatively heavy in the Republican department, you have to appreciate--if not like--your campaign odds.

Vote Reaction

I'm sure you have heard enough, but some reaction to yesterday's bailout vote:

• Carney: "I could not vote for a measure that bails out years of unmitigated Wall Street failings at the expense of our hardworking taxpayers. This bailout bill does not provide any source of revenue to pay for its enormous costs, which is not fair to our middle class families that have played by the rules, but are struggling to keep up with the rising costs of their daily expenses. Where is their bailout? It allows the payment of regular inflated salaries to executives of bailed-out firms. Any executive that feels his bonus is too low can ask his firm for a multi-million dollar increase in base salary that is simply unacceptable to the taxpayers who are shouldering the burden of paying for Wall Street’s greed. This type of tough legislation requires genuine oversight in the process. As it stands now, the oversight board can make suggestions for improvements, but has no means to enforce them. We need tough regulations with real teeth. We need to assess the current situation and thoughtfully consider long-term solutions to stabilize our economy, not pass hurried legislation. It might calm the markets today, but the underlying problems remain. We cannot allow Wall Street to borrow its way out of the current fiscal mess. I could not support this legislation, nor could I support measures to allow Congress to adjourn when it is clear that more work needs to be done to ensure the stability of our nation’s economy."

• Peterson: "Having served in the United State Congress for six terms - 12 years - this was one of the toughest votes in my legislative career. My decision to cast a vote in favor of this economic rescue package was a decision that I wrestled with for days, and today reluctantly supported... The option to support or oppose this legislation in my eyes is the difference between possible success and driving further into a recession. While this legislation did not guarantee stabilization of the financial markets, it was the only solution on the table to address a looming crisis....Let me be clear, the legislation that was voted on today (Monday) was not the Bush Administration proposal, rather, it was a bipartisan compromise that protected the taxpayer by eliminating excessive executive pay and so called golden parachutes and was designed so that Wall Street, not Main Street, would be responsible for any potential losses."

• Kanjorski: "Today the House of Representatives voted down the economic recovery plan that the President, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and bipartisan leaders in both the House and Senate told us was necessary to avoid the collapse of the American economy. People must understand that we are not bailing out Wall Street; we are rescuing the middle class on Main Street. Congress must get this job done no matter how long it takes. It is my hope that over the next several days we can all work together to agree upon a plan which puts the interests of average Americans first, as their retirement savings, pensions, and investments continue to dwindle by the minute. Already I have spoken with local businesspeople who are having difficulty obtaining credit to cover their payrolls or borrow money to expand their operations. Unless we unfreeze our credit markets very quickly, these problems will only increase. I will work for as long as it takes until we are able to reach a majority to enact legislation which both protects American taxpayers and stabilizes the American economy."

The challengers:

• Barletta: "I like that the bailout bill included some punishment for failed CEOs. But the bailout bill doesn’t include a clear call for an independent investigation into why this happened, which is what I called for from the beginning."

• Hackett: "[While glad Carney voted against it] But let’s not be fooled; Chris Carney has voted for numerous corporate welfare handouts, including $25 billion for the auto industry just last week. I wish Carney would side with taxpayers when the public spotlight isn’t on him and an election is right around the corner."

[As a side note, The Hill had an interesting article yesterday--which specifically referred to the 10th District--on how challengers in competitive races (as well as open-seat candidates) were quick and early to offer up hard "no's" on the financial rescue measures while vulnerable incumbents were forced to ponder their vote, but eventually succumbed to the political pressure. ]

Bailout Vote

The financial rescue measure failed in the House this afternoon by a vote of 205-228.

Along the Pennsylvania delegation line, the vote was pretty split with the majority--ten members--voting against it. The only Republican who voted for it was John Peterson:

Brady (D-1st): Yes
Fattah (D-2nd): Yes
English (R-3rd): No
Altmire (D-4th): No
Peterson (R-5th): Yes
Gerlach (R-6th): No
Sestak (D-7th): Yes
Murphy (D-8th): Yes
Shuster (R-9th): No
Carney (D-10th): No
Kanjorski (D-11th): Yes
Murtha (D-12th): Yes
Schwartz (D-13th): Yes
Doyle (D-14th): Yes
Dent (R-15th): No
Pitts (R-16th): No
Holden (D-17th): No
Murphy (R-18th): No
Platts (R-19th): No

Club For Growth Ad

Today, The Club For Growth put out an ad attacking Chris Carney.



Of course, these are the attacks that Carney has fought to correct. Last week, the Daily Item had a story entitled "What is your opponent saying about you that is untrue?".

The Hackett campaign responded by hammering home the earmark issue:

“By stopping the corrupt earmark system, we will save the taxpayers of our district from having to pay for a Mule Museum in California, a Lobster Institute in Maine and thousands of other wasteful projects all across the country that Chris Carney has supported because of his allegiance to the pork spending system.”

However, Carney responded by trying to correct the tax issue:

“Taxes: The truth is, Carney has fought for middle-class tax cuts, and across-the-board tax cuts for small businesses and veterans. He introduced Made in America tax cuts for manufacturers and businesses aimed at keeping and creating jobs right here in America. Hackett called the bill a campaign gimmick instead of acknowledging the bill’s bipartisan support and the need for Congress to do everything in its power to stimulate and strengthen our economy. Carney also introduced the Caregiver Tax Credit — which allows families to better take care of aging relatives; tax cuts for veterans and military families, and has voted for tax cuts for small businesses and the middle class including a fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The only taxes Chris Hackett wants to cut are those for millionaires — like the ones he pays.”

Update On Carney Autism Briefing

It appears Chris Carney (or staffer) did not attend the Rep. Maloney's vaccine-autism briefing.

The sign-in sheet does show that staffers from other PA delegation offices were in attendance:

• Robert Brady (D-1st)
  
• Charlie Dent (R-15th)
  
• John Murtha (D-12th)
• Todd Russell Platts (R-19th)
• Bill Shuster (R-9th)

On The Bailout

Daily Item article regarding Carney and Hackett on the financial rescue.

Carney argues that the bailout must include more regulation, federal oversight, insurance against executive compensation, and protection for homeowners. Said Carney, “Most of us are not inclined to give a blank check to (Treasury Secretary Henry) Paulson on his word of ‘Trust me’.”

Hackett was also skeptical that the bailout could end the financial crisis on its own, but made reference to the budgetary implications by stating that “some types of actions would make our long-term economic outlook much worse, and should be rejected."

The 5 Hackett Principles for any bailout package

• Guarantees that if these bailouts are successful, any taxpayer cost would be offset by returns that return to taxpayers rather than company executives and shareholders;

• Reform of government policies that contributed to the financial meltdown, including terminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s status as Government Sponsored Enterprises, to prevent the kinds of high-risk mortgages that led to the current crisis.

• Structure multiple entities (a minimum of five) to compete for the purchase of troubled assets, limited to residential home mortgages. Rather than Treasury Department control, have an independent board of directors who report quarterly to Congress on progress and results.

• Do not allow the current crisis to be used as an excuse to push additional special-interest corporate bailouts that have no comparable systemic economic implications, such as the $25 billion being requested by the auto industry.

• Reduce tax burdens on investments and real estate to attract new private capital to U.S. markets, thereby relieving the pressure to call upon taxpayers to provide public capital.

Lot of Trust Involved

From Peter Orszag's--Congressional Budget Office Director--testimony today before the House Budget Committee regarding the budgetary implications of the proposed bailout:

"At this time, given the lack of specificity regarding how the program would be implemented and even what asset classes would be purchased, CBO cannot provide a meaningful estimate of the ultimate net cost of the Administration’s proposal. The Secretary would have the authority to purchase virtually any asset, at any price, and sell it at any future date; the lack of specificity regarding how that authority would be implemented makes it impossible at this point to provide a quantitative analysis of the net cost to the federal government."

Furthermore:

"CBO expects that the Treasury would probably fully use its $700 billion authority in fiscal year 2009 to purchase various troubled assets. To finance those purchases, the Treasury would have to sell debt to the public. Federal debt held by the public would therefore initially rise by about $700 billion. Nevertheless, CBO expects that, over time, the net cash disbursements under the program would be substantially less than $700 billion, because, ultimately, the government would sell the acquired assets and thus generate income that would offset at least much of the initial cost."

Added cost:

"In addition to any net gain or loss on the purchase of $700 billion or more in assets, the government would also incur significant administrative costs for the proposed program. Those costs would depend on what kinds of assets were purchased. On the basis of the costs incurred by private investment firms that acquire, manage, and sell similar assets, CBO expects that the administrative costs of operating the program could amount to a few billion dollars per year, as long as the government held all or most of the purchased assets."

Some food for thought...

Where Is Carney On Autism?

The Age of Autism is reporting that Chris Carney will be attending Rep. Carolyn Maloney's (D-NY) briefing on vaccines and autism this coming Wednesday.

Rep. Maloney has long been focused on autism, and her intention to address autism is certainly admirable--one that most members of Congress have not highlighted. Yet, Maloney has been fighting the wrong team on this issue by continuing to attack vaccines and encouraging parents to question their effects. Maloney has said, "I remain committed to passing vaccine safety legislation and to fighting to ensure that the voices of all the parents and children who participated in today’s rally [Green Our Vaccines Rally] are heard within the halls of Congress."

In the scientific community, study after study (also good information here) has demonstrated that there is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

From the CDC's own website:

"Many studies have looked at whether there is a relationship between vaccines and autism. The weight of the evidence indicates that vaccines are not associated with autism."

The questioning of vaccines by prominent leaders and groups in the autism circle appears to have already produced unintended, negative consequences. For instance, take the recent outbreak of measles across the country, infecting 131 children to date, over half of whom were not vaccinated by their parents. Even though the MMR vaccine is proven to have no connection to autism in children, resident experts largely cited parents concerns about autism with their failure to get children vaccinated.

This is not productive to the overall autism debate. While this debate has been settled in the scientific arena, it is still causing damage to our children's health.

I would be extremely interested in hearing more about Chris Carney's views on this issue because it is important and largely underdiscussed.

Carney's website makes note of the fact that he is committed "to increase research funding and raise awareness of autism." I would argue that if Carney is earnestly trying to help on this issue, he must break from the Maloney crowd and take this issue in a different direction rather than rehashing debates of the past.