Jonathan Melle on Politics

Should county government be abolished in New Hampshire?

2012-01-20T13:59:00.002-05:00

NEWS ARTICLE

"Chandler says county government should be abolished"
By Daymond Steer, The Conway Daily Sun, January 18, 2012

CONWAY — County government should be abolished, a state representative told about 20 attendees at the Mount Washington Valley Economic Council's Eggs and Issues breakfast forum last week.

The purpose of the forum was to educate the public about the role of county government in New Hampshire. The state has 10 counties and Conway is in Carroll County.

Carroll County government includes the sheriff's office, registry of deeds, the nursing home, jail, county attorney's office and a farm. A group of 14 state representatives, called the delegation, passes Carroll County's budget, which Carroll County commissioners manage with help from department heads.

Carroll County's budget is still in flux but as of now it stands at about $27 million. Budgets are passed in March.

"Today we're going to explore the mysteries of county government, probably our least understood area of government," said moderator George Epstein.

Clashes between officials became most apparent after Epstein asked why the state has a county government. Epstein suggested the nursing home could be privatized and corrections department's responsibilities could be given to the state of New Hampshire.

"Couldn't we just eliminate a layer of government?" asked Epstein.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) replied, "The simple answer to that is yes."

Chandler said the county government is expensive. In fact, Chandler said his county tax bill cost about the same as his tax bill from the town of Bartlett.

Chandler also questioned if every New Hampshire county really needs its own jail. He also said it's unnecessary for the county to have a nursing home when private companies can do the same work. The sheriff's office should stick serving writs and providing court security.

"You cannot find anywhere that they are charged with going out on the highway and running radar and running investigations," said Chandler of the sheriff's office "It's something that's taken on a life of its own. That should be done by the state police."

Further, Chandler said a few years ago lawmakers were misled when they were asked to build a new jail. Lawmakers were told the then new jail facility wouldn't need any additional personnel. Within a year, the county needed to add three new jail employees. This year, the commission is proposing to raise taxes by 17 percent.

"Let's get in the real world, folks," said Chandler. "County government slides under the radar screen and I think it needs to be brought to the forefront because it's having a real big impact on your taxes."

Rep. Frank McCarthy (R-Conway) wouldn't entirely eliminate county government but says he opposes "empire building." He said that included the commission's plan to move Carroll County's University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension service from Conway to Ossipee. The commission would put extension service into the old nursing home building. In September the county just completed construction of the new nursing home and the old one is now vacant.

"Two years ago it was said that building (the old nursing home) had leaky roofs, it was full of black mold, it was uninhabitable, it had to be torn down," said McCarthy. "Now, once they got the new nursing home, all of a sudden that building is pretty good."

Then, McCarthy said the commission suggested renting the old building out to people who wished to visit their "friends in jail." The delegation told the commission it could look at renovating the old nursing home if the project cost less than $1 million. The commission, however, came back with a plan that cost about $1.5 million.

"Why would anybody in their right mind spend even a couple hundred thousand dollars to move UNH Cooperative to Ossipee?" asks McCarthy. "There's no good reason except you will be a little closer to the farm and the pigsty. To me that's empire building."

McCarthy went on to criticise the Blue Loon transit service. The Blue Loon is run by a non-profit organization that is asking the county for $20,000. Recently, McCarthy learned one of the Blue Loon's transit services has a budget of $210,000 but is only projected to deliver 1,400 rides.

"They are going to need 90,000 riders, paying $2.25 each, just to break even," said McCarthy.

Commissioner Dorothy Solomon defended county government by saying local control is important to New England residents. She said that's why New Hampshire has towns and county governments. As for the county nursing home, it accepts people who need the care regardless if they can pay for it, she said.

Solomon answered McCarthy's concern about the extension service by saying Ossipee is more central than Conway. Further, tax dollars won't have to be used to pay rent to the private landlord in Conway if the extension service moves to Ossipee.

In response, McCarthy agreed with Solomon that government should be close to the people but he questioned if Carroll County even had anything that counts as a government.

"When you look at the county, that's not a government," said McCarthy. "They can't enact laws. They don't govern. They are overseers of county property and county employees. They are not a government per se."

Audience member Ray Shakir asked how county government could be abolished.

"I really didn't hear one good reason why this thing should prolong itself," said Shakir.

Abolishing county government would have to be done legislatively, said Chandler. It's been tried in the past without success. However there's a growing dissatisfaction with county government.

"By golly we're gaining steam," said Chandler who later added the county attorney's office could be abolished and its responsibilities given to the New Hampshire Attorney General's office.

County commission chair David Sorensen said a problem at the Carroll County Attorney's office is the assistant county attorneys are paid much less than their peers in the other New Hampshire counties. This forces Carroll County to hire attorneys with little experience. They stay for a short time and then leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere.

The commission is responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the county. Sometimes it has tough issues to handle. For example, a jail inmate is suing the county and the commission expects a U.S. Marshal serve them shortly, said Sorensen.

Carroll County has three commissioners. Commissioner Asha Kenney wasn't at Eggs and Issues. Each commissioner must come from one of three districts in the county. However, all the commissioners are elected in countywide elections in November. Commissioners are paid $10,500 per year. In contrast, state representatives are paid $100 per year.

The county officials also aired their grievances about sheriff Christopher Conley, who wasn't at the event.

Clashes between Conley and the county commission have made headlines for years. County sheriffs in New Hampshire are also elected officials. However, the county commission still drafts the sheriff budgets.

"When there's a personality conflict with an elected official there's no procedure as to how to handle that," said Sorensen. "There's no process of reprimand for elected officials."

McCarthy replied conflicts between commissioners and sheriffs have come up in other New Hampshire counties. The New Hampshire Supreme Court says a sheriff "must" cooperate with the commission unless the commission is interfering with his or her law enforcement responsibilities, according to McCarthy.

One recent conflict between the commission and the sheriff involves Conley's decision to hire a prosecutor when there's no money for that position in the budget. Sorensen said when department heads anticipate going over their budgets (line items) by over $1,000, then they need to get approval from the county commission to move money around.

"He can't do that," said Sorensen of Conley's decision to hire a prosecutor. "We told Lt. (Mike) Santuccio that they have to terminate that position."

McCarthy agreed that department heads can't spend money on items that haven't been approved by the delegation and the commission. McCarthy said Conley defied that rule last year when he spent a few thousand dollars on exercise clothes for deputies without having such a line in the budget. McCarthy said Sorensen has tried to put a stop to undisciplined spending.

The tone of the forum started off nicely. Rep. Karen Umberger (R-Conway) diplomatically explained there's a "natural tension" between the commission, which drafts the budget, and the delegation, which approves the money. There's also tension between delegation subcommittees and the full delegation.

"We tend to appear as though we're having these horrible arguments back and forth, said Umberger. "On the other hand, that's a healthy exchange because what we end up doing is providing a better budget than we would have otherwise."

McCarthy, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the delegation, said the cost of county is reasonable. His last county tax bill was $1.05 per $1,000 of property value. McCarthy said his tax bill from North Conway Water Precinct cost about the same amount.

"I think the county gets a pretty good bang for the buck," said McCarthy.

Finally, Epstein asked Sorensen how a jail inmate David Hobson, 34, of York County Maine, was able to escape from the jail last month.

Sorensen said the county is in the process of hiring a former county jail superintendent from another New Hampshire county to do an "external investigation." Sorensen said in his opinion it was a failing of management not to have enough corrections officers at the facility. Other inmates may have helped push Hobson over the fencing. Also the county is looking at changing the "fencing arrangements."

----------

Richard Neal versus Andrea Nuciforo for U.S. Congress in 2012

2011-11-08T13:31:00.029-05:00

November 8, 2011

I support Richard Neal against "Luciforo".

- Jonathan Melle

www.topix.com/forum/city/pittsfield-ma/TNMJAVKFIFD412VGP

----------

U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, left, could face a challenge from former Pittsfield state senator Andrea F. Nuciforo if a draft congressional redistricting map is ultimately approved.

----------

"Nuciforo still plans to run for Congress"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, November 8, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr. confirmed Monday that he still intends to run for Congress, but observers say his chances of winning are slim given the proposed reconfiguration of the state’s congressional districts.

The redistricting proposal released by the state on Monday would pit any Democratic Berkshire County congressional hopeful in a primary fight against incumbent U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, of voter-heavy Springfield.

Still, Nuciforo said he won’t back down.

"There are some things I can control. Redistricting is not one of them. So this appears to be the district that the Legislature has created, and the race begins now," said the former state senator and the current Register of Deeds in the Berkshire Middle District.

Area politicians say joining the Berkshires and Springfield in the same congressional district makes it seem unlikely that any Berkshire County politician could now win in a run for Congress.

"I think this is the worst scenario [Nuciforo] could have come up against," said state Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox. "He’s running against a long-time and very popular incumbent from a major population base."

Current 1st Massachusetts District Rep. John Olver said he respected Nuciforo’s resolve to run, but said he "wouldn’t bet on him" given the new dynamic.

The re-drawn maps may have also dashed congressional aspirations of current state Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield.

Downing hasn’t publicly announced any plans to run in the 1st Berkshire District, but campaign expenditure reports show he’s spent almost $16,000 this year in consulting fees to a firm that specializes in launching congressional campaigns.

Asked about the expense, Downing wouldn’t confirm or deny any plans.

"I’ve been considering a lot of options and I haven’t closed any of them yet," he said.

Like most current lawmakers in the Berkshires, both Downing and Nuciforo decried the loss of the 1st Berkshire District as a haven for small cities and towns.

"Many Western Massachusetts residents, including me, have feared that we would lose the small town and small city character of the 1st District," said Nuciforo. "That is clearly a risk given this new map, but small town and small city values are worth fighting for."

----------

"Congressman Richard Neal could face challenge from former Pittsfield state senator Andrea Nuciforo under proposed redistricting map released by legislators"
By Dan Ring, The Republican, November 07, 2011

BOSTON - Top state lawmakers Monday released a new congressional district map that dramatically overhauls the district of U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal of Springfield and positions him to face a former state senator from Pittsfield in next year's primary.

Under the proposed map, Western Massachusetts would lose one of the two congressional districts currently based in the region. If approved, the new districts would go into effect for next year's election.

Neal's new 1st congressional district would pick up all of Berkshire County and would expand from 41 communities to 82. The new 1st district would include all of Hampden County and would run from the New York border east to Bernardston along the Vermont border and southeast to include Easthampton and South Hadley and farther south to take in parts of southern Worcester County such as Charlton and Dudley.

Parts of Hampshire and Franklin counties, including Amherst, Belchertown, Deerfield, Northampton, Ware and Greenfield, would go into the new 2nd congressional district of U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat.

State legislators split up the current 107-community district of U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, an Amherst Democrat who announced 10 days ago that he would not run for re-election next year after 20 years in Congress.

In a phone interview from his Amherst home last night, Olver said legislators did "a very good job" at apportioning most of his district among Neal and McGovern. Olver described Neal and McGovern as two of the most powerful members of the state's U.S. House delegation. Olver said he had no regrets about his plans to step down after his term concludes next year. "It was the right decision for me," Olver said.

Olver said that if he had decided to seek another term, his district would have been moved farther into Middlesex and Worcester counties to account for population growth in the east, meaning he would have had to spend half his time in those two counties. Olver said it probably would not have mattered for Western Massachusetts to be the base of two members of Congress if one of those members had to spend half his time outside of the region.

Neal said he was pleased with the new map, which includes about 320,000 people now in the district of Olver including Holyoke, West Springfield and Westfield. Neal said people in Berkshire and Franklin counties are familiar with his record in Congress and he looks forward to getting to know them better.

"The Berkshires and parts of Franklin County will be very good for me," Neal said. "I intend to vigorously represent them."

Neal said he is definitely running for re-election, saying he has a good record of success on the international, national and regional levels. Neal pointed out that he voted against authorizing the War in Iraq and also voted against tax cuts approved under former President George W. Bush.

Neal said he was looking forward to a primary contest if it happens, saying it would be a good exercise.

"I'm going to run as Rich Neal," said Neal, elected in 1988 and currently the sixth-ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee and the No. 3 most senior member of the state's U.S. House delegation. "I'm not going to reinvent myself."

The new map sets up a primary contest for Neal next year with Andrea F. Nuciforo, a Pittsfield Democrat, former state senator from 1997 to 2007 and current register of deeds in Pittsfield.

Nuciforo Monday said he planned to run next year against Neal in the Democratic primary for the newly-designed 1st congressional district.

"Let's face it," Nuciforo said. "My progressive credentials are well-established. We can't change the game in Washington unless you change the players."

Gardner and Fitchburg, currently in Olver's district, would go into the new district of U.S. Rep. Nicola S. Tsongas, D-Lowell.

Sen. Michael R. Knapik, a Westfield Republican, said McGovern's base is solidified by gaining the liberal communities of Amherst and Northampton and other parts of Hampshire and Franklin counties, making it difficult for a Worcester-based Republican to win the seat.

Knapik said the new congressional map seems to have some logic behind it, but it could have been written to include more of Western Massachusetts in Neal's new district. "The identity of the Pioneer Valley will be broken up," Knapik said.

Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg of Amherst and Rep. Michael J. Moran of Boston, the co-chairmen of the Joint Committee on Redistricting, said Amherst is a good fit for Worcester because Worcester is home to the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Northampton also meshes well with Worcester because of a high number of colleges in each community, he said.

Rosenberg said a main goal was to keep all of Berkshire County in one congressional district. Rosenberg and Moran said Nuciforo's planned candidacy, or anyone else's election plans, was not a factor in the map.

Rosenberg said the hill towns of Franklin and Hampshire were kept in Neal's new district because they are similar to the small towns in Berkshire County.

Rosenberg said he preferred that Western and Central Massachusetts keep three congressional seats but population trends meant it was not possible.

Massachusetts lost one of its 10 congressional seats because it did not grow as much as other regions of the nation during the past decade. Berkshire County lost population, making Olver's current district the slowest growing in the state since 2000. State legislators needed to design a new nine-seat map and enlarge the population of districts.

Moran said the committee plans to vote on the new map on Thursday. The state House of Representatives would vote on Tuesday, he said. The state Senate and Gov. Deval L. patrick would also need to approve the new congressional map.

Moran and Rosenberg said the public has three days to comment on the new districts map for the U.S. House of Representatives. The two legislators said it is the first time the state has established a period of public comment for a draft congressional map.

Outside of Western Massachusetts, the map would force two members of the state's all-Democratic delegation into a single district. It would also create one incumbent-free district in the southeast including Cape Cod, parts of the South Shore and New Bedford.

The map also configures the state's first congressional district where minority voters are in the majority by extending the Boston-area district currently represented by Rep. Michael E. Capuano of Somerville.
The proposed map would place U.S. Reps. Stephen F. Lynch of South Boston and William R. Keating of Quincy in the same district by moving Quincy into Lynch's current district.

Keating, a former district attorney whose family owns a home on Cape Cod, could avoid a showdown with Lynch by running in the newly-formed southeast district, some of which he already represents.

MaLegislature.com - The proposed 2012 Massachusetts congressional districts.

----------

Rep. Richard Neal has had a seat in Congress since the late 1980s. | AP Photo

"Massachusetts Democrats map reelection routes"
By ALEX ISENSTADT | POLITICO - 11/8/11

Richard Neal has led a charmed political life. The longtime House Democrat from Massachusetts hasn’t had a competitive primary in two decades and has had few serious GOP opponents.

Those days might be over.

Andrea Nuciforo, a former state senator who has been raising money for several years in anticipation of a congressional bid, told POLITICO on Tuesday that he would challenge Neal in 2012.

“You can’t change the game unless you change the players,” Nuciforo said. “Voters in Massachusetts and across the country want to see something very different.”

On Monday, Massachusetts state lawmakers unveiled a draft congressional map that erased the western Massachusetts seat of retiring Democratic Rep. John Olver, establishing one expansive district in the region for Neal and Nuciforo to compete for. Massachusetts is losing one House seat in the current round of reapportionment, shrinking its delegation to nine seats.

Nuciforo faces a heavy lift. In taking on Neal, the 47-year-old Nuciforo would be trying to unseat a senior member on the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee who has had a seat in Congress since the late 1980s. Through the end of September, Neal had nearly $2 million more in the bank than Nuciforo.

Mary Anne Marsh, a longtime Massachusetts-based Democratic strategist, said Neal would need to vigorously campaign in his new district — nearly two-thirds of which comprises areas he has never represented before — but predicted that Nuciforo would nonetheless find it difficult to run against Neal, who is a well-known figure in many parts of the state.

“If the only thing standing between Richie Neal and reelection is Andrea Nuciforo, Richie Neal will win,” she said.

A Neal spokesman declined to respond to Nuciforo’s announcement. But in a statement released after the map was unveiled, Neal pledged to launch an aggressive campaign in the new district.

“The people of Berkshire and Franklin counties are already very familiar with my record in Congress, from bringing high-speed Internet access to the region to investing millions in our local transportation infrastructure, and I look forward to getting to know them better,” he said. “I am not a stranger to the historic and scenic communities in that part of the state, and I know jobs and economic development are top priorities. I expect to be a frequent visitor to their classrooms, small businesses and coffee shops very soon.”

The map, which was released by a joint legislative redistricting committee, is not final, but it is already having ripple effects across the state, complicating the political fortunes of several other members.

Democratic Rep. William Keating announced that he would run for a newly crafted, Cape Cod-area seat, bypassing a 2012 race against Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch, with whom he was drawn into the same South Boston-based district.

The decision offers Keating his clearest path to reelection. Running against Lynch would have been a tall order for Keating, forcing the freshman to compete against his more senior colleague in a heavily blue-collar area that is well oriented to Lynch’s socially conservative record. Keating owns a summer home in the Cape Cod area.

“I hope that the residents of my current district — from Quincy to Provincetown and the islands — know that their well-being is my primary concern and nothing changes that,” Keating said in a statement announcing his decision, which he said he reached after a discussion with his family. “I look forward to continuing to represent the people I’m currently serving as well as the new communities that will be a part of this district in the future.”

Democratic Rep. John Tierney, a veteran member who currently occupies a solidly Democratic, North Shore-area seat, would run for reelection in a new district that encompasses several new areas, including Wilmington and Bedford, home to a swath of independent voters. Tierney survived an unexpectedly competitive race in 2010 against Republican Bill Hudak, who highlighted a scandal involving Tierney’s wife, Patrice, who in October 2010, pleaded guilty to charges that she helped her brother, a federal fugitive, file false tax returns.

For much of the delegation, however, the draft plan is incumbent-friendly. It would create safe districts for several members of the delegation, including Reps. Niki Tsongas, Michael Capuano and Jim McGovern, all of whom would run for reelection in heavily Democratic areas. Two senior Democrats, Reps. Barney Frank and Ed Markey, are also drawn into safe Democratic areas.

“It’s going to be a good incumbent-protection map,” said Scott Ferson, a Democratic consultant who works for Lynch.

The map is expected to be completed as soon as next week. Democrats control all levers of redistricting in the state, and party insiders say it is unlikely there will be dramatic changes when the final map is drawn.

*****

----------

"Pittsfield native Andrea Nuciforo Jr. hopeful about primary run against Congressman Richard Neal"
By Robert Rizzuto, The Republican, December 10, 2011

This photo shows Andrea Nuciforo Jr., a Pittsfield Democrat, standing outside the statehouse in Boston. Nuciforo served in the State Senate for ten years and now plans to take on Congressman Richard Neal. (Photo courtesy of Nuciforo's Flickr account)

SPRINGFIELD - Beating a longtime U.S. Congressman who maintains a presence and popularity in his district is not an easy feat.

Andrea Nuciforo Jr. said he knows that better than most, and that is why he plans on working extra hard in his primary run to unseat Richard Neal and eventually replace him as the Democratic Congressman from Western Massachusetts.

Nuciforo, a Pittsfield native and resident, graduated from UMass-Amherst in 1986 and later graduated from law school at Boston University. When he finished law school, he was hired as a law clerk in Springfield.

Since his stint in Springfield, Nuciforo has worked as a litigator in Boston and he served as a state senator from 1997 to 2007. Since then, he has served as the registrar of Deeds in Pittsfield.

When asked why he decided not to run again, he said he had accomplished his local goals of the time. Since then, however, he said he has found more reasons to run as he reflected on the state of the world today.

"You have unemployment holding around nine percent over the past few years and economic growth has been around zero. And wages are down while the cost of everything has went up," Nuciforo said. "In this economic circumstance, I think voters, particularly Democratic voters, I think that people are looking for alternatives to what is happening in Washington."

When asked how he plans to deliver his message to the voters since Neal's war chest tallies in the millions with his in the thousands, Nuciforo said he will use all of the tools of the modern world to make a difference.

"We are never going to have more money than a 20-plus year member of Congress, but we will have enough," he said. "I guarantee you won't see me wasting time between now and September. You will see us work. This is going to be simply the best online and social media campaign that anybody has seen in Western Massachusetts."

Neal said previously that he is looking forward to a primary contest.

"I'm going to run as Rich Neal," said Neal, elected in 1988 and currently the sixth-ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee and the No. 3 most senior member of the state's U.S. House delegation in a previous interview. "I'm not going to reinvent myself."

As Nuciforo focuses his campaign over the next few weeks, he will travel throughout the district to meet the voters who will directly decide his political future.

To see a list of Nuciforo's scheduled appearances in Holyoke, Easthampton and Pittsfield, visit his campaign website.

----------

"Congressman Neal supports Pittsfield in speech"
By Trevor Jones, Berkshire Eagle Staff, December 16, 2011

U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal took to the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday to make his first public foray into Berkshire County politics -- less than a year before he'll be leaning on a new crop of voters to send him back to Congress.

The Springfield Democrat gave a speech focusing on Pittsfield, and in particular The Colonial Theatre.

Advocating for the extension of a tax credit program utilized by The Colonial, Neal said the theater's renovation wouldn't have happened without the program.

Springfield will be absorbed into the state's 1st Congressional District, which includes Berkshire County, in the 2012 election. The redistricting is the result of shifting national population figures that led to Massachusetts losing one of its seats in the House of Representatives.

In a telephone interview from Washington, Neal said his rationale for discussing The Colonial was not so much political, but a means to highlight his "legislative skills."

"The Colonial Theatre represents the perfect example of using private investment for a public/private purpose," said Neal.

Neal was discussing the New Markets Tax Credit, which he described as one of his pet projects. The program was established by Congress in 2000 with the intention of attracting capital investment into operating business or real estate projects in low-income communities.

Neal, who toured the theater last month, discussed in his speech how Pittsfield has struggled with poverty, unemployment and urban blight, and how periodic attempts to revitalize the theater fell through due to lack of money and sustained public support. The tax credit covered $16.7 million of the $21 million cost of renovating the theater, and Neal said it could be argued that The Colonial never would have re-opened without the tax credit.

Kate Maguire, artistic director and CEO of the Berkshire Theatre Group, said she's pleased to hear Neal talked about The Colonial. She said 10,000 people will go through the theater's doors this month, which shows the "impact we have not only to the audience that arrives in the theater but as they walk out and visit our area."

Neal told The Eagle how the tax credit aided in the redevelopment of the Beacon Cinema as well. He also noted how other programs he has championed have had benefits that "go beyond congressional district lines," including his ardent supporter of Medicare -- a key component in the finances of Berkshire Medical Center.

"There are a lot of things that I've participated with in the Congress that have had enormous benefit to communities across the commonwealth," said Neal.

Neal, who has announced his intentions to run for Congress, believes he has high name recognition locally because of the Springfield media market. But he does face the challenge of introducing himself to voters in an area that has been represented by outgoing U.S. Rep. John W. Olver for two decades. He could also face a primary fight against Pittsfield Democrat Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who has announced his intention to run for the seat.

Neal said it's "too early for politics," but noted he will be spending a week in the Berkshires in January to further familiarize himself with the area.

----------

"Neal defends senior services in city tour"
By Trevor Jones, Berkshire Eagle Staff, December 29, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal touted the need to defend social safety-net programs for seniors on Wednesday as he began his introduction to a city that will be crucial to his re-election.

Neal, a Springfield Democrat, started his Pittsfield visit at Berkshire Elder Services on Wendell Avenue, speaking with local medical professionals and advocates for Social Security and Medicare.

"[These advocates] want to make sure that people continue to receive the services that they vitally need," Neal said. "Making sure that they receive those services should be a full-frontal effort on the part of all of us to continue their integrity."

Neal said changes can be made to Medicare to bring down costs, however, including asking wealthy seniors to pay higher co-pays or increasing efforts to root out the more than $50 billion each year that is siphoned off from the program through fraud.

He also called the argument that Social Security is going broke "specious," and said Medicare and Medicaid would be in much better shape if unemployment was below 5 percent (the national rate is 8.6 percent).

Next fall, Springfield will be absorbed into Massachusetts' 1st Congressional District because of national population shifts accounted for in the 2010 U.S. census. John Olver, the current representative for the district, has announced he will retire when his term expires in January 2013.

Berkshire County belongs to the 1st District.

Neal, who currently represents the 2nd District, already has announced his intention to seek another term, but he will face a primary fight with Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr. -- Register of Deeds in the Berkshire Middle District -- before the November 2012 general election.

Neal said many issues facing Berkshire County are similar to those being faced nationally. He also noted the common interests between the county and areas he represents in the Pioneer Valley.

"We have a very similar outlook," Neal said. "We have all felt a degree of alienation from the state capital."

Neal also visited Berkshire Medical Center, General Dynamics and the Berkshire County Jail & House of Correction during his time in Pittsfield on Wednesday. He said there were "feel-good" stories at each stop, as he praised the efforts of each organization. He also noted the challenges facing officials at the jail and at BMC, from drug- and alcohol-related crime issues to health-care costs for Medicare-dependent institutions.

Members of the Berkshire delegation in attendance at the Elder Services discussion said it's too soon to endorse Neal for 2012, but they applauded his willingness to reach out to the county.

"It's very important to get to know your district, and Congressman Neal has done a great job of getting out here to Berkshire County," said state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield.

Others said there will be challenges before the election, but voters likely will be pleased with what they see.

"What he'll find and what many people here in the Berkshires will find is that a lot of what Richie Neal has been fighting for in the last 20 years is what matters to this region," said state Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield. "He's been on the right side of a lot of issues."

Neal is expected to return to the county next week for another tour of the area.

----------

"GE a big donor to Rep. Neal's campaign"
By Trevor Jones, Berkshire Eagle Staff, December 29, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- General Electric Co. has been one of the largest contributors to U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal’s political career, but the Springfield Democrat says those funds won’t sway his view on the pending PCB cleanup of the Housatonic River.

Neal’s campaign has received $67,500 from GE since the Springfield Democrat was first elected to Congress in 1988, with more than half of those funds coming between 2009 and 2010, according to Federal Election Commission data collected by OpenSecrets.org.

Neal said he hasn’t formed an opinion on what level of cleanup should be conducted, but he stood by his record of support for environmental protection.

He pointed to his voter rating with the League of Conservation Voters, which has been above 90 percent for all but one of his seven terms. The environmental advocacy group gave him a rating of 96 percent for the 2009-2010 legislative session.

"I’d let that stand anywhere," Neal said Wednesday during a tour of Pittsfield, which will be a key to his re-election bid next fall.

Neal currently represents Massachusetts’ 2nd Congressional District, but his home base of Springfield will be absorbed into the 1st District for the November 2012 election because of national populations shifts accounted for in the 2010 U.S. Census.

John Olver, the current 1st District representative, has said he will retire at the end of his term in January 2013.

Neal received $34,500 in individual and political action committee contributions from GE in the 2010 election cycle alone -- his third-largest donor that year. Only four other national campaign committees received more funds from GE during that time.

GE also has been one of Neal’s largest early contributors in the 2012 election cycle, having given $5,000 to his campaign.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, have been transported south in the Housatonic from GE’s former Pittsfield plant. The probable cancer-causing chemical was used by GE in the production of transformers before most uses were banned by the federal government in 1977.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release its proposal for remediation south of Fred Garner Park in early 2012.

Neal said he will have to look further into the Housatonic contamination, but he also said he supports the company that became an anathema to many locals after its employment declined here, eventually hitting bottom in 2007, when GE Plastics was sold to Sabic Innovative Plastics.

"I certainly think getting an update from EPA is very important," Neal said. "We’re going to try to secure as much information [as possible] and become educated on the topic as quickly as we can, while at the same time realizing GE is a pretty big employer nationwide and we can’t dismiss the role that they play."

A representative for Neal later said the congressman will encourage the EPA to work with Massachusetts and Connecticut to develop a "comprehensive plan" for the cleanup.

-----

December 29, 2011

Re: Berkshire Eagle's double standard

Andrea Nuciforo has political connections to Boston area big banks and insurance companies. Richard Neal has political connections to GE. The Berkshire Eagle only reported on Congressman Neal's campaign account donations from GE, while omiting news coverage of all of the money Nuciforo raised from Boston area financial corporations he also served as a private corporate Attorney for nearly 8 years. Please visit my Blog page to review Nuciforo's political corruption with the Boston area insurance lobby.

http://jonathanmelleonpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuciforos-corruption.html

I hope The Berkshire Eagle will publish a news article explaining the real reason why Andrea Nuciforo is running for U.S. Congress, which is to do the bidding of Boston's financial lobbyists, big banks, and insurance companies. Nuciforo will raise special interest money from Boston area financial corporate lobbyists as a Congressman from the other end of the state. This public record is all fact. I documented it for many years now. I believe Nuciforo is corrupt!

- Jonathan A. Melle

Nuciforo's (Luciforo's) top five donors

These are the top five companies that had employees contributing to state Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr.'s campaign in 2005:
1. Commerce Insurance Co. — $9,000
2. Liberty Mutual — $6,800
3. Nation One Mortgage — $5,350
4. Arbella Insurance Group — $2,400
5. Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas LLP — $1,775

Nuciforo has focused his private law practice on insurance issues during the time he chaired the committee. He is listed as "of counsel" to Berman & Dowell, a Boston law firm that cites insurance defense as one of its three practice groups. He joined the firm the year he became committee chairman. Nuciforo's practice area is listed "insurance coverage" and "insurance defense , " according to the firm's website. That legal work entails defense work for insurance companies against claimants.

Berman & Dowell
210 Commercial Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02109-1305
Telephone: 617-723-9911
Facsimile: 617-723-6688

Joseph S. Berman
Elizabeth S. Bostwick
John S. Day
Rodney S. Dowell
-AND-
ANDREA F. NUCIFORO, JR.
Of Counsel, Email: anuciforo@bermandowell.com

Practice Areas: Professional Liability Defense; Commercial Litigation; Banking Law; Insurance Coverage; Insurance Defense.

Lawyer for Berman & Dowell (a Law Practice industry) from January 1999 — September 2006 (7 years 9 months).

http://luciforo.blogspot.com/2009/07/luciforos-double-dipping-illegal.html

----------

"Neal on the scene"
The Berkshire Eagle, Editorial, December 29, 2011

Pittsfield and Berkshire voters concerned about the redistricting that will move Springfield into the 1st Congressional District in 2013 can be encouraged by the interest 2nd Congressional District congressman Richard Neal of Springfield has shown in the region. If this activity is motivated at all by anticipation of a Democratic primary fight next fall with Pittsfield’s Andrea Nuciforo Jr. the value of competition is being demonstrated.

Representative Neal put in a plug for the Colonial Theatre on the floor of Congress recently, citing it as an example of the value of the new markets tax credit that was instrumental in funding the renovation of the historic Pittsfield building. The congressman also spoke of the importance of public/private partnerships, which have been at the heart of Pittsfield’s downtown revival. Mr. Neal visited Pittsfield Wednesday, and in a meeting with seniors, defended Social Security against overwrought campaign season attacks, asserting reasonably that the program is financially sound and requires only adjustments to assure it stays sound in the decades ahead.

Mr. Neal’s popularity with General Electric is intriguing, as the corporation has been a donor to his campaign since 1998 and in 2010 only four other campaign committees nationwide received more funds from GE than did Mr. Neal’s, according to data collected by Open Secrets.org. Mr. Neal is correct that GE played a major role in the Berkshire economy but the main issue involving GE today, one the congressman acknowledged he is in the process of educating himself on, is the cleanup of pollution left by GE in the Housatonic River as it winds south from Pittsfield to Connecticut.

Mr. Nuciforo, who announced his bid for election well before the census cost Massachusetts a House seat, is well known in the county and will have to establish name recognition in the year ahead on Mr. Neal’s turf, just as the congressman will have to do in the Berkshires. The redistricting may also bring forth more viable Republican candidates than have been seen in recent years. Neither the 1st nor 2nd districts have been known for competitive races, which may change to the betterment of voters in the year ahead.

----------

Former state senator Andrea Nuciforo Jr., who is running for the First Congressional District, talks to Gail and Phil Sellers during a meet and greet at Desperado’s Tuesday night (January 3, 2012). (Jennifer Huberdeau/North Adams Transcript)

"Nuciforo holds campaign event"
By Jennifer Huberdeau, North Adams Transcript, January 4, 2012

NORTH ADAMS -- Although former state Senator Andrea Nuciforo Jr. won’t officially announce his campaign for Massachusetts’ new 1st Congressional District for several weeks, he was in the city Tuesday night to drum up support for his campaign.

"We’re living in a time when Washington is more and more detached from the average American -- I intend to go to Washington and reverse that trend," he said Tuesday to a group of about 25 supporters. "Take a look at how the ordinary family is faring in this economy. The unemployment rate has held steady, between 8 percent to 9 percent, for the last three years. Wages are down and families are working harder than ever, but they’re still struggling to pay the mortgage or the rent, put food on the table and save for retirement."

Nuciforo, who spent 10 years in the state Legislature and currently serves as Middle Berkshire Register of Deeds, would have to unseat U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, in September’s primary election to make it onto November’s ballot.

Neal, who has served the state’s 2nd Congressional District since first being elected in 1988, will represent the 1st Congressional District when new Congressional districting maps go into effect. The district will combine portions of Neal’s current district with a majority of those now represented by U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, D-Amherst. Olver announced at the end of October that he would not seek re-election.

"We have the bones of a campaign," Nuciforo said, asking the small crowd to join his campaign and help him gain momentum in the months leading up to the primary.

He said his campaign has already raised $250,000 since being launched in late 2009.

"We filed early, but this is a huge undertaking that take preparation and time," he said. "The district has been redrawn to include 86 cities and towns. It’s big and complex with 727,000 residents in western and central Massachusetts."

Nuciforo was first elected to the state Senate in 1996, beating Republican challenger Paul Babeu, now sheriff of Pinal County in Arizona. Babeu, who is an elected official, has formed his own exploratory Congressional committee.

"I left in 2007 because, after 10 years, I felt I had accomplished what I had set out to do in the Senate," Nuciforo said. "I’ve also never believed that people should serve indefinitely in public office. Change is good -- it’s good for the political institution and it’s good for the voters."

Over the next few weeks, he’ll be visiting the 86 cities and towns in the redesigned district -- 48 of which fell within his state senate district -- and plans to launch an aggressive online and social media campaign to reach voters.

Nuciforo resides in Pittsfield with his wife, Elena, who is earning her doctorate in cultural communications at UMass-Amherst, and their 11-month-old son, Eric. For more information on his campaign, visit www.nuciforo.com.

related: www.topix.com/us-house/john-olver/2012/01/nuciforo-holds-campaign-event

----------

Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr. is running against Richard Neal for the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Nuciforo Preps For Congressional Race"
By Joe Durwin, Special to iBerkshires, January 05, 2012

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — This is the year that Western Massachusetts turns the status quo on its head, U.S. House hopeful Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr. told a captivated audience at Zucchinis restaurant Wednesday night during one of his early campaign fundraisers.

"This is the going to be the year that voters in Western Massachusetts, and voters across the country, take typical Washington status quo and turn it on its head. It's going to be an upside down year," Nuciforo said.

Nuciforo has been visiting and engaging with the some 86 cities and towns that will make up the newly redrawn 1st Massachusetts Congressional District.

"This is a great opportunity for us," said the Democratic candidate, who declared his intention to run back in 2009, long before the redrawing of the districts was passed by the state Legislature. "This district is brand new. It includes all of Berkshire County and it takes us all the way through Westfield, Holyoke, Easthampton, Springfield, all the way to that southern tip of Worcester County. So we've got a lot of work ahead of us."

Nuciforo emphasized economic distress and a change in Washington politics as themes in the 2012 election.

"This is going to be a watershed moment in American politics because people in this country have felt more and more detached from the people who are supposed to be representing them. That's what this election's going to be all about," he said.

Nuciforo told his supporters that the campaign is already going well, described fundraising efforts as "quite successful," and referred to "sleeper cells" of volunteers located throughout the district.

As to how he looked at the challenges of running against current U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, whose native Springfield constituency will join the 1st Massachusetts District, the former state senator told iBerkshires he has reason to be optimistic.

"The district is new. It's 86 cities and towns in Western Massachusetts and it is new to all the candidates. We're taking the time to meet with the people who will decide the election. These, of course, are the voters," said Nuciforo, who will face off against Neal in the Democratic primary on Sept. 6. No Republican candidate has yet announced.

When asked if he thought his message might resonate with those sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has seen offshoots throughout the county, Nuciforo said, "American politics has been overrun by corporate money and special interests. Many of our elected officials, even here in Western Massachusetts, are getting the lion's share of their financial support from Wall Street banks, corporations, and affiliated PACs. The Occupy movement reflects the American people's disappointment with that system."

He added, "my views are very compatible with those that are unhappy with that corporate domination."

Meanwhile, Neal was making the local headlines with his two-day visit to the Berkshires that included meeting with local politicians, educational leaders and news editors. When he visited with representatives from Berkshire Community College on Wednesday morning, the 12-term congressman said he was unaware that Nuciforo was holding an event the same day.

"I'm not really thinking about politics right now," Neal told iBerkshires.

Nuciforo is expected to formally enter the race in February, according to campaign political director Joe Engwer.
-
Link: www.iberkshires.com/story/40175/Nuciforo-Preps-For-Congressional-Race.html
-
----------

"Deep roots in Social Security"
The Berkshire Eagle, Editorial, January 6, 2012

For U.S. Representative Richard Neal, the debate about the viability of Social Security is personal. The Springfield Democrat, who if re-elected this November will represent Berkshire County in Congress, "grew up on Social Security" and as a congressman has been one of the most aggressive advocates of a program that has taken an ideological pounding for decades but keeps paying off to retirees.

Mr. Neal spent Wednesday and Thursday touring the Berkshires, which will become part of a roughly combined 1st and 2nd Congressional District in 2013 because of a redistricting that cost Massachusetts a congressional seat. Current 1st District Congressman John Olver is retiring and Mr. Neal, who currently represents the 2nd District, will at least have one challenger in Pittsfield Democrat Andrea Nuciforo, a former state senator.

The Worcester native’s parents died young, and he grew up with a grandmother and an aunt who depended upon Social Security checks. A member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which includes Social Security in its purview, Mr. Neal was the House’s point man in opposition to President George W. Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security after he was re-elected to a second term in 2004.

"If Bush had privatized Social Security it would have been another Enron," said Mr. Neal at an Eagle editorial board meeting in which he discussed the federal government’s role in Pittsfield’s downtown revival and the importance of Berkshire Community College to attracting business, among other issues. "Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in the history of the world."

The congressman bristles at claims that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, pointing out the program has paid off for decades and is fully funded through 2035. After that, it is projected to pay 70 cents on the dollar for 20 years, which is why reform measures are needed so it will pay fully as it has and will for another 24 years. There is no crisis, however, and no rip-off.

There are many reasons why Rick Perry is struggling as a Republican presidential candidate but his attack on Social Security as a Ponzi scheme is prominent among them. Opposition to the program is ideological. In the real world, Americans value a program, that while requiring adjustments, keeps working, to the dismay of its critics. "In our youth we all pulled the wagon so in our old age we can all sit in the wagon," is the analogy Mr. Neal drew, and it is one that should long apply.

----------

U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, speaks with John Krol on Thursday during a Good Morning Pittsfield segment on WTAR. (Ben Garver / Berkshire Eagle Staff)

"Neal at home in the city"
By Tony Dobrowolski, Berkshire Eagle Staff, January 6, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal wrapped up a two-day tour of the Berkshires on Thursday by saying he's familiar with the issues that county residents are facing and will establish an office in Pittsfield if he is elected this fall.

"It's new geography," the veteran Springfield Democrat said during a meeting with The Eagle's editorial board. "But it's not new issues."

Berkshire County is being redistricted into Neal's legislative area, the state's 2nd Congressional District, because of shifts in population. Elections based on the boundaries of the new districts will take place for the first time this fall and representation will begin anew in 2013.

Neal visited Pittsfield and Great Barrington on Thursday after touring North County on Wednesday.

Neal, who has represented the 2nd Congressional District since 1988, will likely be challenged in the state Democratic primary by former Pittsfield state senator Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who is currently the register of the Middle Berkshire Registry of Deeds.

If he is re-elected in the fall, Neal said he will maintain a visible presence in the Berkshires.

"I will be here all the time to represent you vigorously," said Neal, who turns 63 on Feb. 14. "I've represented Milford and Bellingham, and they're a lot farther away [from Springfield] than Berkshire County. Pittsfield and the Southern Berkshires are an easy jaunt for me."

A former mayor of Springfield, Neal is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for taxes, trade, tariffs, Social Security, Medicare and part of Medicaid. He is also the ranking member of the subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures.

During his tenure in the house, Neal said he has worked on urban issues with U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, the retiring Amherst Democrat who has represented the Berkshires since June 1991, and on education matters with Olver's predecessor, the late Pittsfield Republican Silvio O. Conte, whom he referred to as a "legislative titan."

"We served together for three years," Neal said of Conte, who died in February 1991. "I know that's still a household name here across the Berkshires."

Neal has been a lead sponsor of legislation to prevent American companies from moving offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes, fought with President George W. Bush over Social Security reform, and voted against the Bush tax cuts.

Despite the national profile, Neal said his "DNA remains in local government" and that he has tried very hard to "master arcane details."

Economically, Neal said he is familiar with the role Guardian Berkshire Life plays in the Berkshires and the role Medicare plays at Berkshire Medical Center, for examples.

"You're not going to have to teach me anything about these issues," Neal said. "I sit on a prominent committee that oversees them."

Referring to the new federal combat ship contract that has led to job growth at General Dynamics Pittsfield plant since the end of 2010, Neal believes the local economy has "enormous potential."

"I think nurturing that opportunity is very important," Neal said.

He said Berkshire Community College and the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, in conjunction with local public school systems, should be utilized to provide job skills for the local work force.

Acknowledging that the Berkshires are seen by many as a place to visit, Neal said he is interested in the "economy of the arts" and what it means. But he said it would be a "mistake" for the Berkshires to be seen as just a "tourist destination."

"You want it to be included and integrated," he said, referring to a thriving local economy.

"You've got some strengths here," he said. "Some real strengths."

Neal said he is "very impressed" with the revitalization of downtown North Street in Pittsfield, noting that the funding for some of those improvements came from a "federal earmark." He said he is not opposed to using federal funding to revitalize cities and towns, and he is proponent of New Market Tax Credits, which were used in the renovation of the Colonial Theatre.

"I have not been apologetic about using the federal government to retool parts of Springfield and Southbridge," he said.

----------

"Nuciforo not running scared in House race"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, January 16, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr. has been campaigning to represent the Berkshires in Congress for two years now, but until December, he had no idea who he was running against.

The passage of the state's redistricting plan changed that, pitting him against an incumbent based in population-dense Springfield and sending his campaign into overdrive.

Now, just as his opponent, Richard Neal, D-Springfield, has been making forays into the Berkshires as of late, Nuciforo is in the midst of a grueling campaign to introduce himself to voters in the Springfield-Holyoke area and overcome the odds political observers say are stacked against him.

On a recent day, Nuciforo spent the morning in Holyoke, then

returned to Pittsfield for a meeting before hopping back on the MassPike for Easthampton, where he met with members of the local Democratic party.
"We have a very rigorous schedule that takes me into cities and towns throughout the district, and that includes, of course, those parts of the district [where people are less familiar with me]," said the former state senator and current Register of Deeds in the Berkshire Middle District.

Redrawn to reflect the loss of one of the state's 10 congressional seats in the House due to population shifts measured by the 2010 census, the 1st Massachusetts District encompasses Berkshire County and now heads East, stretching into Worcester County along the state's southern border.

The marriage of the district -- formerly devoted to the small cities and towns in the western half of the state -- with the Springfield area was bemoaned by local politicians worried about the Berkshires losing clout in Washington. The plan was called a "worst-case scenario" for Nuciforo and was discouraging enough that state Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, abandoned preliminary plans to launch his own bid for the seat.

But Nuciforo says that based on his campaign's research, a primary win against Neal isn't out of reach.

The massive population advantage Neal would seem to have in Springfield aside, Nuciforo says last year's primary turnout in Pittsfield, 7,639, compares favorably to the 8,820 cast in the Springfield primary.

Nuciforo says his overtures into Neal's current territory have been received well by voters there. He says he appeals to voters who are ready for change, and hopefully a little progress, in Congress.

"People are frustrated with what's happening in Washington these days," said Nuciforo. "People are, I think for good reason, demanding more of their elected officials. It's not enough to show up at the ribbon cutting. People want to hear specific policy solutions to the fundamental challenges facing this country. [And] we've got real solutions."

To reach Ned Oliver: noliver@berkshireeagle.com, or (413) 496-6240. On Twitter: @BE_NedOliver

By the numbers...

Campaign finance records show Neal has almost $2.3 million on hand in his campaign coffers, a full 2 million more than Nuciforo:

Neal:

Raised for 2012: $404,699

Spent for 2012: $294,543

Cash on hand: $2,285,998

Nuciforo:

Raised for 2012: $101,076

Spent for 2012: $46,691

Cash on hand: $155,256

Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.org

----------

Bill Shein, a writer and activist in Berkshire County, is running against Democratic Rep. Richard Neal and Congressional hopeful Andrea Nuciforo Jr. to represent the newly-drawn First District in Massachusetts. (Photo courtesy of BillShein.com)

"Writer joins U.S. House race"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, January 17, 2012

GREAT BARRINGTON -- Local humorist Bill Shein says there's nothing funny about his plans to run for Congress.

"This is pretty serious stuff," said the 44-year-old Alford resident. "I obviously believe humor has a place in talking about these issues, but we've got a lot of big problems with how our politics work, and unless we fix them, we're going to continue to see a whole lot of struggles and fights."

Shein, an occasional columnist for The Eagle and a local organizer of the Occupy movement, announced his run Monday. The Democrat said he'll champion "political reform and policies for the 99 percent."

Shein will face two political veterans in the upcoming primary fight: Incumbent Richard Neal, D-Springfield, and former state Senator from the Berkshires Andrea Nuciforo.

He acknowledges he isn't as well-known in the 1st Massachusetts District as his two opponents. But Shein, deeply dissatisfied with the role of corporate money in American politics, says it will be easy for him to distinguish himself from Neal and Nuciforo.

Shein says his campaign will be defined, at least in part, by the way he finances it. Shein said he's only accepting donations from small, independent contributors -- not corporations or political action committees. And he won't accept amounts larger than $99.

"I think we need transformative political change, and that includes how we fund our elections," said Shein. "When you fund politics with status-quo money, you get status-quo results."

Shein said he's just begun soliciting donations, but imagines his campaign will be a fairly low-budget effort. By contrast, as of the last reporting period, Neal had $2.2 million in campaign cash, while Nuciforo had $155,000.

Shein says he doesn't expect the lack of money to keep him from sharing his platform with voters. Instead, he said he'll focus on social media and other electronic avenues.

"No doubt it's a difficult task to do what I'm doing, but we now have ways to reach voters that we didn't have just a few years ago -- social media, online video -- there are ways to get a message out to a lot of folks without having to buy TV ads," said Shein.

In a nod to the kind of direct communication he said will be key to his campaign, Shein announced his planned run on Facebook.

Shein said he'll also engage in more traditional campaign tactics, such as recruiting volunteers to make phone calls and door-to-door canvassing.

The candidate says his campaign rhetoric will be focused on serious issues, like addressing climate change and the economy. And Shein pledged never to fall back on the platitudes and empty promises he says have become the hallmark of the modern campaign.

"You'll never hear me say things like, ‘Let's get America moving again,' " he said.

To reach Ned Oliver: noliver@berkshireeagle.com, or (413) 496-6240. On Twitter: @BE_NedOliver

At a glance ...

Name: Bill Shein

Age: 44

Party affiliation: Democrat

Residence: Alford

Employment: Writer and freelance information technology and Internet consultant

-----

"Berkshire County writer Bill Shein announces bid for Rep. Richard Neal's seat in Congress"
By Robert Rizzuto, The Republican, January 18, 2012

GREAT BARRINGTON – Highlighting his lack of experience as a politician, Bill Shein, a Berkshire County writer and activist, has jumped in the race to become the representative of the newly drawn 1st Congressional District in Massachusetts.

Taking on former State Sen. Andrea Nuciforo Jr. and incumbent Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, Shein, also running as a Democrat, hopes that his "outsider status" will make the difference in an era where public satisfaction with elected officials is at an all-time low.

"For decades, American democracy has been undermined by money from political action committees, corporate insiders, Washington lobbyists, and super-rich donors that fuels the campaign of virtually every member of Congress," Shein said in a statement. "Big money has led to bad public policy. It's the reason for income and wealth inequality not seen since the Gilded Age of robber barons and oil tycoons, with a narrow elite amassing huge fortunes while millions of American families lose jobs, homes, retirement savings, and the ability to afford college."

Shein, a humorist who has been writing political satire since 2004, said he will only accept financial donations of $99 or less from individuals, a strategy which he says sets him apart from his rivals.

"It’s why I’ll be an outspoken leader in the fight for a constitutional amendment that makes clear that corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech," Shein said. "And it’s why I promise to never cash in on my public service by becoming a paid lobbyist or 'strategic advisor' for corporate interests – or any interests. Until all lobbying by former members of Congress is banned, we must demand that every candidate make the same vow. The gold-plated revolving door must be stopped."

Shein, taking a swipe at Nuciforo's recent call to ban political action committees, said he was surprised and pleased with the announcement by the Register of Deeds in Pittsfield.

"He’s come a long way. In 2003, as a state senator, Andy helped to repeal one of the few public financing laws in the country, the voter-approved Clean Elections law in Massachusetts. During his time in the state senate, he also raised quite a lot of money from PACs, corporate insiders and especially lobbyists. And he's had very little to say on these issues of big money since announcing his 2012 campaign for Congress two-and-a-half-years ago, in July, 2009. So I'm thrilled that he’s finally on board with those of us who have long advocated getting this money and influence out of our democracy. The more voices advocating for these necessary changes, the better."

Shein, who participated in the Occupy the Berkshires protest, said he would be a champion for the "99 percent" if elected.

Shein said he will be in Springfield on Friday as protesters descend on the U.S. District Courthouse as part of the "Occupy the Courts" movement.

The Congressional hopeful said that he will support economic policies that promote local economies while taking the healthcare burden off of families.

"We need to keep our people, talent and resources right here in our neighborhoods, and not allow global corporations to drain wealth away from our communities," Shein said. "The old model has pushed American workers to the breaking point."

On health care, Shein said he wants to see "Enhanced Medicare for All," a proposed national program he said would "give entrepreneurs, workers, and young people the freedom to pursue their ideas and dreams without fear that illness will threaten their family’s economic security."

Shein, 44, is a 1990 graduate of Tufts University, where he majored in American history. His column in the Berkshire Eagle newspaper called "Reason Gone Mad," was awarded the National Press Club Award for Humor in 2005, 2008 and 2009.

He is currently working on a book, “Democracil: The Prescription for America,” which will be available to download for free this spring.

Shein has pledged to travel to every city and town in the newly crafted district during the campaign to explain his positions and to meet the voters. He said that a formal campaign kick-off party will soon be announced and followed by house parties across the district.

For more information on Shein's campaign, visit his website (www.billshein.com), his Facebook page (www.facebook.com/BillShein), or his Twitter profile (twitter.com/#!/BillShein).

----------

"Rep. rivals spar over election cash"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, January 19, 2012

PITTSFIELD -- A call for federal campaign finance reform by congressional hopeful Andrea Nuciforo has sparked criticism from his two Democratic opponents who say the move rings hollow given Nuciforo's own record of accepting money from corporations and lobbyists.

The exchange of blows marks the first volley in the race to fill the newly reconfigured 1st Massachusetts District seat.

Nuciforo, who served as a state senator between 1997 and 2007, said Tuesday that if he's elected, he'd immediately file a bill that would limit the role of Super PACs and corporate money in elections.

He blasted incumbent Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, for "failing to lead on the issue."

"Congressman Neal has been raising money from corporations and special interests in Washington for so long that he can't possibly provide solutions to our nation's campaign finance problems," Nuciforo said in a statement.

Nuciforo's campaign finance promise came the day after Alford-based writer Bill Shein announced his candidacy, which he said would be financed only through small donations from independent contributors -- not corporations.

Nuciforo insisted that his announcement had nothing to do with Shein, but the timing was too much for the newcomer, who sent out his own statement chiding Nuciforo for belatedly adopting the position after Shein brought it to the forefront.

"He's come a long way," wrote Shein, who for years has been writing about the need for campaign finance reform. "During his time in the state senate, he also raised quite a lot of money from [political action committees], corporate insiders and especially lobbyists."

Indeed, Eagle archives show that in 2006, the last full year Nuciforo served as a state senator, his top donors were executives from the Webster-based Commerce Insurance Co. Nuciforo also raised significant funds that year from employees of Liberty Mutual, Nation One Mortgage and Arbella Insurance Group.

Neal, defending his record on campaign finance issues, brushed off Nuciforo's criticism.

"There will be an opportunity to examine the contributions that he accepted as a member of the state Senate -- then he can argue that he was only a little bit pregnant," Neal said.

Neal said he agrees with his two opponents that campaign finance laws need to be changed. He said he's voted in favor of changes in the past, but says there's no way any meaningful reform is going to get through the Republican-controlled House.

Neal said that until real change comes, serious candidates have to raise money from donors, including corporations: "I don't think you can -- given what Karl Rove is doing across the country -- unilaterally disarm."

Neal challenged accusations made by Nuciforo and Shein that his acceptance of money from the likes of General Electric Co., which has donated $67,500 to the candidate since he was first elected, made him beholden to corporate interests. He pointed to his ranking of 95 percent by the League of Conservation Voters and the AFL-CIO.

----------

Andrea Nuciforo Jr., Register of Deeds in Pittsfield, is challenging U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, for the Democratic nomination in Massachusetts 1st Congressional district. (File photo)

"House candidate Andrea Nuciforo calls for prohibition of Super PACs"
By The Republican Newsroom, January 17, 2012

PITTSFIELD – Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., who is challenging U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, for the Democratic nomination in Massachusetts’ 1st Congressional district, on Tuesday urged passage of legislation that would prohibit so-called Super PACs from influencing federal elections.

“Congress and politics is awash in corporate and special interest money. That money is drowning out the voices of everyday citizens,” Nuciforo said in a statement released by his campaign. “In my first 90 days in Washington, I will file a bill proposing a series of progressive reforms, thereby limiting the influence of special interests and corporate money.”

In the statement, Nuciforo, the Register of Deeds in Pittsfield, said he wants to repeal, via an amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC and prohibit corporations from spending unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for federal office.

Nuciforo also proposes, according to his statement:

• Adopting the provisions of the Fair Elections Now Act, currently pending in Congress, which would call for a system of public financing for candidates for the Congress.

• Adopting the provisions of the DISCLOSE Act, currently pending before Congress, that would require outside groups such as Citizens United, as well as other 527s and independent expenditure groups, to reveal their donors.

----------

January 22, 2012

Andrea Nuciforo wants to be elected to U.S. Congress in 2012. He says he will be a fighter for the middle class like Elizabeth Warren's campaign for U.S. Senate. He recently came out for proposed reforms to the federal campaign finance system. He criticized Richard Neal for not fixing how special interest money effects the political process. Nuciforo sounds too good to be true. He will be an idealist against power. The real Nuciforo is none of these "wonderful" things. As a state Senator for one decade, Nuciforo was a top-down, power and money, corrupt politician. Nuciforo is part of the Good Old Boy network and is strongly allied with the alleged sexual deviant against young males named Carmen Massimiano. Nuciforo says he is a "Democrat", but he would be a "Republican" if that is where the power-base is in Massachusetts. Nuciforo served as a corporate Attorney for a Boston Law firm for nearly 8 years, mostly while he was a state Senator. As a corporate Attorney for "Berman & Dowell", Nuciforo represented wealthy insurance companies against poor claimants. Nuciforo chaired state Senate financial committees while he was representing them as a corporate Attorney. That is a conflict of interest. I apprised the Massachusetts "Ethics" Commission and the news media about Nuciforo's double-dipping, but I was mostly ignored, except when The Boston Globe ran a story about Nuciforo trying to have Governor Deval Patrick nominate him to be the state's Insurace Commissioner. The Globe's news article was published in early-2007 (5 years ago this January of 2012). Nuciforo raised over 6 figures in campaign cash from Boston area big banks and insurance companies, which means that a majority of his fundraising came from outside of his Berkshire County area legislative district. Nuciforo was not representing the middle class. He wasn't even representing the citizens in his legislative district. In fact, Nuciforo was representing wealthy financial institutions in politics and his corporate law practice. As for campaign finance reform, Nuciforo led the effort to kill "Clean Elections" in 2002 through mid-2003. Nuciforo was raking in the money hand-over-fist, double-dipping, committing conflict of interest violations, and being corrupt. He had no interest in clean elections in Massachusetts. Nuciforo wanted to have a political plum sinecure while he plotted his run for U.S. Congress. To do so, Nuciforo abused his power and strong-armed 2 women candidates named Sara Hathaway and Sharon Henault out of the 2006 state government election for Pittsfield Registry of Deeds to anoint himself as the sole heir to this position. Nuciforo is aligning himself with Elizabeth Warren's campaign, but he chose to strong-arm 2 other women out of an election for his own benefit. Nuciforo's real public record shows that he is not a grassroots candidate who wants to fight for the middle class. Nuciforo is a corporate Attorney and corrupt politician who represents wealthy financial institutions, especially Boston area insurance companies. If Nuciforo is elected to U.S. Congress someday, he will do what he did as a state Senator and network with big banks and insurance companies to do their bidding on Capitol Hill in return for many thousand of dollars in special interest money and PAC lobbyist dollars. Nuciforo would do what he did to the 2 women candidates he strong-armed out of the 2006 election when it came time for him to face re-election for U.S. Congress, which is to use his money and power to have non-competitive campaigns. That is what Nuciforo did, and that is what Nuciforo will do if he is given the chance. That is why We the People must speak out and organize against politicians like Nuciforo. I hope that Congressman Richard Neal reads my essays and blogs against Andrea Francesco Nuciforo Junior. I hope that Bill Shein and Richard Neal will continue to stand up to Luciforo when Nuciforo he hypocritically speaks out on issues.

- Jonathan Melle

----------

Smitty PIGnatelli's undemocratic proposal

2011-10-22T16:59:00.004-04:00

-----

Smitty PIGnatelli is undermining the will of the people by sponsoring legislation that would gut 2008's Question 2 that removed criminal penalties for possessing an ounce of marijuana. H. 477 filed by Representative Smitty PIGnatelli seeks to re-criminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana if captured on school, youth center, or community center grounds. Does "Smitty" PIGnatelli really want teenagers to once again receive a criminal history and possibly go to jail?

I found the news story at the following web link:
www.tauntongazette.com/newsnow/x1872804044/Guest-Opinion-A-regulated-marijuana-market-is-better-than-a-black-market

The author of the news story concludes: "What I know for sure is that when making such proposals they are not adhering to the fundamental principles of our government founded upon the consent of the governed and those of justice, moderation and frugality, absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government.”

Smitty PIGnatelli is an undemocratic politician. PIGnatelli voted for top-down Speakers (now convicted felons) Tom Finneran & Sal DiMasi. PIGnatelli has come out in opposition of sunshine laws that would subject the state Legislature to open meeting laws and accountable governance. Now, PIGnatelli is undermining the will of the people who voted to decriminalize possession of an ounce of marijuana. PIGnatelli wants teenagers to have a criminal history and possibly go to jail for possessing an ounce of marijuana.

www.topix.com/forum/city/pittsfield-ma/TLUVTF654JODJACUO/p14

-----

Guest Opinion: "A regulated marijuana market is better than a black market."
By Steve Epstein - Op-Ed - The Taunton Gazette - October 21, 2011

Two members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and four members of the Massachusetts legislature endorse ending marijuana prohibition. The rest of our congressional delegation has yet to catch up with Barney Frank and Michael Capuano, and 196 members of the state legislature have yet to catch up with Ellen Story of Amherst, Ruth Balser of Newton, Lori Ehrlich of Marblehead and Anne Gobi of Spencer.

These representatives understand, as did a majority in a recent Gallup Poll, that a regulated market is better than a black market.

There are nine representatives on Beacon Hill who continue to suffer from reefer madness. Although it is difficult to assess who suffers the worst case, here are nine nominees. Is it Democrat James M. Murphy of Weymouth, Republican Todd Smola of Palmer, William “Smitty” Pignatelli of Lenox, George Ross of Attleboro, Gailanne Cariddi of North Adams? They are all sponsoring legislation that would gut 2008’s Question 2 that removed criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana.

A proposition supported statewide by more than 64 percent of the voters.

Alternatively, is it John Binienda and John Fresolo both representing Worcester who suffer more? They are the only sponsors of H. 3138, proposing a doubling and in some cases, quintupling of the penalties on those caught engaging in growing or commerce in marijuana.

Representative Murphy’s H 1836 repeals Question 2, while giving municipalities the option of accepting it. His H 1837 restores the criminal law to offenders encountered just about everywhere police are likely to encounter it. In 2009 and again this session this former Assistant District Attorney has filed these bills without co-sponsors.

Representative Smola’s H 507 seeks to make marijuana possession of any amount the only “possession only” controlled substance offense subject to a mandatory minimum 2-year sentence if possessed within 1000 feet of a school or 100 feet of a park. He files this, while legislation seeking to reduce expense to the taxpayers by reducing the number of non-violent offenders serving mandatory minimum sentences is making headway in the legislature. His H 508 seeks to reinstate criminal penalties for possession upon the operator of a motor vehicle in which police find marijuana in the passenger compartment, even if in a passenger’s pocket.

Alone this year, in 2009 Jeffrey Perry, Elizabeth Poirier and Richard Ross joined him. Jeff Perry has left the state legislature. Richard Ross won the Special Election to fill Scott Brown’s seat and may have recovered. Elizabeth Poirier also may have recovered from her reefer madness.

Perhaps the realization that more than 62 percent of their constituents voted for Question 2 cured them with a booster shot in November 2010 when a similar percentage told Ms. Poirier and other representatives in the area to “vote in favor of legislation that would allow patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess, grow, and purchase marijuana for medical use.”

Finally, there is H. 477 filed by representatives Pignatelli, Ross and Cariddi. It seeks to re-criminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana if captured on school, youth center, or community center grounds. Do they really want teenagers to once again receive a criminal history and possibly go to jail?

I leave it to you to decide which of these nine legislators suffers the worst case of reefer madness. What I know for sure is that when making such proposals they are not adhering to the fundamental principles of our government founded upon the consent of the governed and those of justice, moderation and frugality, “absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government.”

Steven S. Epstein, Esq. practices law in Georgetown, and is a founder and officer of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

-----

Tricia Farley-Bouvier

2011-10-10T12:18:00.016-04:00

www.triciafarleybouvier.com

Tricia Farley-Bouvier (Ben Garver)

"Democrat Farley-Bouvier has eye on school building upgrades"
By Dick Lindsay, Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 10, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- Tricia Farley-Bouvier realized the need to upgrade the city's high schools when she was first elected to the City Council nearly eight years ago.

As a member of the Pittsfield School Building Needs Commission since 2005, Farley-Bouvier, a city councilor from 2004 to 2008, has advocated for some type of school building project on the Taconic High School campus. The commission is currently collaborating with the Massachusetts School Building Authority to determine if a proposed project will involve erecting a new Taconic, renovating the existing building, or a combination of renovation and additions. The city and state also want to see Pittsfield High School renovated as well, which would be a separate project.

If elected to the state Legislature next week, the Democratic nominee in the upcoming 3rd Berkshire District special election vows to keep the high school planning process moving forward as Pittsfield's state representative.

"The SBA is driving this, so we need a voice in Boston to keep the project on track and reduce the number of delays that occur in a bureaucracy," she said. "If we get bogged down with the state, they will take the money and build somewhere else."

Improving the Pittsfield public school system was one of several issues Farley-Bouvier addressed in a recent meeting with Eagle editors prior to the 3rd Berkshire election on Oct. 18. The Pittsfield native and former educator is campaigning in a four-way race to succeed Christopher Speranzo, who resigned in July to become clerk magistrate in the Central Berkshire District Court. She will square off against Republican Mark Jester, Green-Rainbow Party nominee Mark C. Miller and independent candidate Pam Malumphy. The 3rd Berkshire District encompasses all but two of Pittsfield's 14 precincts: Ward 1B and Ward 5B.

Farley-Bouvier, 47, is a Pittsfield native who spent 20 years in education as a teacher locally, elsewhere in New England and in Central America. She worked six years for the Literacy Network of South Berkshire before becoming an aide to Mayor James M. Ruberto in March 2010. The Democrat resigned from her City Hall job when she announced her candidacy on Aug. 9.

Farley-Bouvier's political party affiliation has come under fire recently by Malumphy, who claimed her opponent isn't a true Democrat and is hiding her stance on abortion. Personally, Farley-Bouvier said she is against abortion, but accepts current federal law of a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

"The Democratic Party has a big tent and doesn't keep out differing viewpoints," she said.

Farley-Bouvier noted she does support gay marriage, but casts a wary eye on the casino gambling bill pending on Beacon Hill.

"I will do everything I can to protect Pittsfield from the financial impact of casinos, especially when it comes to our cultural venues," she said.

The other two candidates for 3rd Berkshire District state representative -- Pam Malumphy and Mark Miller -- will be profiled in Tuesday's Eagle.

-----
-

-

"Tricia Farley-Bouvier hosts governor"
By Jonathan Levine, The Pittsfield Gazette, October 10, 2011

Governor Deval Patrick will be "guest of honor" at a Friday, October 14 fundraiser for Tricia Farley-Bouvier.

The pasta dinner for the state representative candidate will take place from 4:30 to 7 p.m. at the Itam Lodge.

Tickets at the door are $25, $50 and $100 with kids free.

Farley-Bouvier is one of four candidates on the Third Berkshire District ballot.

-----

Tricia Farley-Bouvier - state rep
By Tricia Farley-Bouvier, The Pittsfield Gazette, September 1, 2011

The people of Pittsfield share the common value of caring for our families. As a child growing up in Pittsfield, I appreciated coming from a large family. As an adult, I appreciate even more how my family shaped how I now raise my own three children and how I will approach the job as your state representative.

Education: My father, Dr. George T. Farley, taught me the value of education. He learned that a solid educational background was the foundation upon which a person could build a successful future. He had been raised by a single mom who, among other things, cleaned houses to raise her son. With the help of the GI bill, he became the first in his family to go to college. He went on to get both a MA and Doctorate in Education and was a beloved principal in the Pittsfield Schools for nearly 30 years. Education makes stronger individuals, stronger families and stronger communities. As your state representative, I will support funding for public education, from pre-Kindergarten through college.

Small Business: My grandfather taught me the importance of small businesses in a community. George Nesbit ran Nesbit’s Market on Tyler Street for years. He was responsible for running an enterprise while providing for his family in difficult economic times. Several of his grandchildren, who now run small businesses of their own, emulate his example of treating customers and employees both fairly and honestly. As your state representative, I recognize that small businesses are the cornerstone of economic prosperity. I will support businesses that create local jobs through aid for workforce development, targeted tax incentives, and upgrading technology infrastructure.

Responsible Budgeting: The most important lesson of family is that we take care of one another, especially our seniors. We need to protect pensions, curb our over-reliance on property taxes, and give seniors a meaningful seat at the table when negotiating health insurance. As is the case in most families, ours is stronger because of our support for one another in times of great joy and tragedy. The same can be said for communities; a society is stronger when the members of that society invest in the well being of all. As your state representative, I will support seniors and the safety net programs that are designed to support families.

What sets me apart from my opponents? Experience. With 20+ years of experience being a teacher, parent, and teacher-trainer, I have the understanding to know how to advocate for improved education. As a two-term city councilor, I have a record of legislative accomplishments, including initiating the Board of Health, spearheading a strong ordinance to keep Adult Entertainment out of Pittsfield, and bringing sensible management to the Sonsini Animal Shelter. Most importantly, I have the experience of being part of a team that brought civility and collaboration back to Pittsfield government. Through our hard work, Pittsfield has now become a destination for tourists, businesses, and families.

I respectfully ask for your vote so I can be a strong Voice for Pittsfield Families.

-----

"Farley-Bouvier focused on issues"
The Berkshire Eagle, Letter to the Editor, October 13, 2011

Tricia Farley-Bouvier is my choice in the upcoming 3rd Berkshire state representative election.

Tricia is focused on the important issues of our district -- jobs, education and the need for honest, transparent government.

Tricia works collaboratively; she takes the time to hear from all sides on the issue at hand, then makes a decision based on what she believes is in the best interest of the community.

As a city councilor, Tricia was a leader in writing the legislation that prevented strip clubs from opening in Pittsfield, and led the way to creating the city's Board of Health.

She fought to get our school nurses status in the teachers union and has worked (and was the chairperson) for the past several years on the School Building Needs Commission.

Tricia brings her love of Pittsfield and her passion for the community to her work. Please join me in voting for Tricia Farley-Bouvier on Oct. 18.

CAROLYN SIBNER
Pittsfield, Massachusetts

-----

Tricia Farley-Bouvier, front, answers a question during Thursday’s debate on WBEC-AM radio as her foes in the 3rd Berkshire District race, left to right, Pam Malumphy, Mark Miller and Mark Jester listen. (Ben Garver / Berkshire Eagle Staff)

"Farley-Bouvier, Malumphy exchange verbal jabs in final debate"
By Clarence Fanto, Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 14, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- In their final public debate before Tuesday's 3rd Berkshire District special election, two of the four candidates to fill former state Rep. Christopher Speranzo's seat in Boston traded sharply worded personal attacks on truthfulness in campaigning.

In her opening statement during a live, one-hour radio appearance on WBEC-AM Thursday morning, Democrat Tricia Farley-Bouvier asserted that she has "run a positive campaign and knocked on thousands of doors throughout the community."

She cited Pittsfield voters' worries over jobs and schools, arguing that, based on "hundreds of one-on-one conversations," they want "an end to negative campaigning that they see around them every day."

Independent candidate Pam Malumphy responded by declaring that "claiming to run a positive campaign does not mean it was a truthful one."

Referring to Malumphy's recent criticism over her decision to send two of her three children to Lenox public schools, Farley-Bouvier asserted that "I have not let the negative campaigning get to me. I've kept on my message and I'll continue to keep my campaign a positive one."

Later in the hour, Farley-Bouvier decried "an awful lot of negative attacks based on a family decision we made about our children based on their educational needs and nothing else. We feel that we have the right to do that, and that does not take away one bit from all the time I've spent working for education in this city."

Malumphy acknowledged that "Tricia is obviously talking about me as the candidate who is attacking her."

"Running a positive campaign doesn't mean you're running a truthful campaign," Malumphy went on. "Telling the truth shouldn't be seen as an attack or being negative." She described school-choice, resulting in an outflow of hundreds of students from Pittsfield, as a key issue.

Addressing Farley-Bouvier directly, Malumphy asserted that "no one is attacking your choice to have your children go to another district. I would defend you to the death to do what's best for your children. But you can't, at the same time, be running for public office as someone who is speaking as an advocate for Pittsfield's public schools and sending your kids to another district."

Malumphy also criticized Farley-Bouvier for "lack of communication" to the public during her five years as chair of the School Building Needs Commission, which was weighing the best solution for renovating or replacing the city's high schools.

"It's why I was removed by you and the mayor from that commission last year because I kept repeatedly saying the same thing -- why are we not involving the community in this conversation...it is the single biggest complaint from the voters I'm talking to," Malumphy said.

Ratcheting up the rhetoric, Malumphy argued: "If you can't make that connection, Tricia, between being this vocal advocate who is shoving a philosophy of education down our throats while sending your kids to another district, I can't understand why you can't get that disconnect because every voter in the city of Pittsfield does."

In her final statement, Malumphy returned to the theme, declaring that "convoluting and contorting is what's turning people off about elected officials."

Summing up her campaign, Farley-Bouvier depicted herself as "the best candidate with the leadership style that will do what Pittsfield needs. ... We have to leave the politics of ‘no' behind us and pull this community together by working as a team to solve the problems of Pittsfield."

She also described herself as a "proud Democrat because we share core values, better jobs for working families, the key to our future is education. Democrats believe we take care of each other."

Republican Mark Jester acknowledged that he's "not a professional politician" but felt "this is a great opportunity to get somebody down there who's not your usual politician, to get some refreshing ideas coming out of Pittsfield instead of the same-old, same-old."

Mark Miller, the Green-Rainbow candidate, called it "the party of the future rather than the party of the status quo and the past" and said his platform is based on "new jobs in a new economy, because the old economy is going away." He advocated "clean government including fair taxes, single-payer health insurance and a commitment to public education at all levels."

Voters in most of Pittsfield, except Wards 1-B and 5-B, will go to the polls next Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. to choose among the four candidates.

-----

"Final push in 3rd Berkshire rep. race"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 15, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- With the 3rd Berkshire District special election just days away, Democratic Party operatives from across the state are descending on the Berkshires to help make a final push for their candidate, Tricia Farley-Bouvier.

In addition to the influx of manpower, Farley-Bouvier said she plans to spend $20,000 on her campaign to become the city’s next representative in the Statehouse -- twice as much as her nearest competitors.

The state Democratic Party is also pouring money into the district, running radio advertisements featuring Gov. Deval Patrick and providing boots-on-the-ground support to launch an intense door-to-door, get-out-the-vote effort.

Opponents say they’re undaunted by Farley-Bouvier’s big budget and high-profile endorsements.

"Does it concern me that she’s spent twice as much money? No. If it takes that much money to beat me, that’s fine. It tells you something," said Republican candidate Mark Jester, who said he expects by the special election on Tuesday he’ll have spent a little more than $10,000 on advertisements, signs and other campaign materials.

Green-Rainbow candidate Mark Miller, on the other hand, blasted Democrats for relying on corporate dollars to run their campaigns.

"It skews taxing and spending, and it effects what businesses get tax breaks; these corporations are buying our public policy," said Miller. "If [Tricia] thinks it’s necessary to take this money and support, fine, but it will make her beholden to [Democratic leadership] and corporate interests."

Miller said the Green-Rainbow Party refuses to accept donations from corporations. Miller is self-funding his campaign with a $10,000 loan, according to the latest report from the state campaign finance office. By the end of the race, however, he said he expects to have recouped at least half that amount through donations from supporters.

Farley-Bouvier said her donations don’t come because they influence decisions, they come because supporters "believe a candidate shares a vision."

She said it’s disingenuous for Miller to disparage her fundraising efforts when he’s wealthy enough to finance his own campaign.

"I’m a middle-class person who needed support from people in the community to launch and run a good campaign," said Farley-Bouvier.

Miller was unapologetic about his decision to invest his own money in his campaign.

"We’re out to win, not just to get a few good ideas across. We’re up against big money; rather than just rolling over, we’re trying to do something about it," he said.

Independent candidate Pam Malumphy is trailing her three opponents in fundraising. As of Sept. 30, her campaign had raised $4,683. But she says more donations have rolled in since then, and she was able to save a large amount of money by recycling campaign signs used in her last run for public office.

Malumphy said she’s not worried about finances. She said that, in the end, the election will be about who was able to connect, face-to-face, with the most voters.

Malumphy’s three opponents seem to agree. All said their biggest plan for this weekend is to knock on as many doors as possible.

But some of the candidates will have outside help. Miller said Green-Rainbow supporters from across Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut were planning to come up to help with the final campaign effort.

Likewise, Farley-Bouvier is benefiting from teams of canvassers provided by the state Democratic Party.

Since it’s a special election, Tuesday’s contest to fill the 3rd Berkshire seat is not competing with other local or statewide elections. And Democrats statewide are giving it their attention. Last month, the party lost a seat in the House in a special election for state representative from Bristol’s 12th District, traditionally a Democratic stronghold.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo has also offered free transportation for House members who wish to travel from Boston to campaign in the city for Farley-Bouvier.

And on Friday, Gov. Deval Patrick appeared at a fundraiser for Farley-Bouvier in Pittsfield.

Farley-Bouvier said she’s received support from a broad range of people. She said there’s nothing insidious about all the out-of-town support she’s receiving. In fact, she said she was floored by the governor’s decision to come down and campaign on her behalf.

"It’s pretty cool to have someone of his caliber believing in me," she said. "It means a lot to me."

Candidates on the issues

Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Democrat

Jobs: In addition to the important work of reducing energy and health care costs and continuing to invest in work force development, I plan to continue work on the plan to bring fiber-optic Internet connections to every business and resident in Pittsfield. It will benefit every business in Pittsfield and will be a key recruiting tool in bringing new businesses to the city.

Housatonic River cleanup: I believe a thoughtful, targeted approach is the best course of action. In the rest of the river, we should be identifying hotspots of PCBs and removing them using the best technology available at that time.

Open government: I believe that transparency in government is essential so I am in favor of expanding the open meeting law.

Mark Jester, Republican

Jobs: I want to ensure that regulations and fees on small businesses, which seem like a good idea in Boston and for Boston, stop inhibiting job growth in Pittsfield. Additionally, I want to see more construction jobs in Pittsfield. We have a need for more infrastructure repair. Many of our roads and bridges are in disrepair. There’s state money that needs to be here. I’m not asking for a handout, I’m demanding our fair share.

Housatonic River cleanup: As the president of the Berkshire County League of Sportsmen, I have been involved with the clean-up process from the beginning. We quickly realized that the proposed cleanups would in fact destroy the critical habitat further down the river. I support the Environmentally Sensitive Approach to the cleanup.

Open Government: I think open government/records laws should be expanded. There is a culture in Boston that is not good for us here in Pittsfield.

Pam Malumphy, independent

Jobs: I’ve learned that there’s nothing more important than supporting the creation and nourishment of small business. I’d like to create a matching grant program that would partner the state with the GE Economic Development Fund so we can provide either low-interest loans or grants to local businesses that need an extra push.

Housatonic River cleanup: Although I appreciate the low-impact approach, it doesn’t go as far as it need to. And I’m concerned that the high-impact cleanup is not seeking alternatives to dredging. I would very much advocate for a less-invasive alternative to dredging and I would very much advocate for those alternative to be veted going forward.

Open government: I absolutely think the open meeting and records laws should be extended to cover the state Legislature. What does open government mean if it’s not subject to the open meeting law?

Mark Miller, Green-Rainbow Party

Jobs: I would seek a collaborative effort including local businesses, municipal leaders and state officials to draft and implement a jobs plan for Pittsfield. It might include a citywide contest similar to the countywide Operation Jump Start contest I led in the early 1990s as editor of The Eagle.

Housatonic River cleanup: I await the release of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan this fall and anticipate favoring it over the minimalist plan backed by GE and 1Berkshire. I see the EPA’s mission as geared toward real river and floodplain cleanup for posterity. I see the GE/1Berkshire plan as primarily aimed at keeping GE’s costs at a minimum.

Open government: Extending the scope of the open-meeting and public-records laws would be a good start toward informing the public about what goes on in state government. Transparency cannot make all office-holders honest or competent, but can lead to greater public participation and better government.

-- Compiled by Ned Oliver

-----

"Farley-Bouvier in 3rd Berkshire"
Berkshire Eagle, Berkshire Eagle, October 16, 2011

Residents of the 3rd Berkshire District need a state representative who is open and accessible, aware of the particular needs of Pittsfield, knowledgeable about government and willing to fight for the interests of the city and Berkshires as a whole in the Statehouse. All four candidates in Tuesday's special elections have their strengths, but on balance, Democratic candidate Tricia Farley-Bouvier is the best choice for this important position.

For the past nine years, since she got involved in city politics with the Save Our Schools program, Ms. Farley-Bouvier has not only worked hard for Pittsfield she has worked hard with others, and the latter quality will benefit her as a state legislator from a western district. As a city councilor, she was a stalwart proponent of the downtown projects whose success is a key to Pittsfield's resurgence, and she continued those efforts as public affairs coordinator for Mayor James Ruberto. Her six years with the School Building Needs Commission have given her insight that will be valuable for her as a state representative as Pittsfield works with the state to determine the future of its high schools.

Independent candidate Pam Malumphy has criticized Ms. Farley-Bouvier because she and her husband send two of their three children to public schools in Lenox, but we see this as a personal issue and one that does not reflect poorly on Ms. Farley-Bouvier's opinion of and dedication to the Pittsfield public school system. Ms. Malumphy has also drawn attention to her opponent's social conservatism, and indeed, Ms. Farley-Bouvier's opposition to the right to abortion is not a mainstream Democratic view. The Eagle editorial page is pro-choice, but we take Ms. Farley-Bouvier's word that she will not go to Boston as an anti-abortion crusader and that she will support funding for relevant social programs like those dedicated to reducing teen pregnancy. This election is essentially about the economy and education, and we regard Ms. Farley-Bouvier as the strongest candidate overall on these issues.

Ms. Malumphy, who was regional director for the Mass. Office of Business and Development for Western Massachusetts, brings strong economic credentials to the table. She has worked with area businesses and would serve as an effective spokesperson for them in Boston. As a city councilor and a member of the School Building Needs Commission, she gained insight into the issues specific to Pittsfield, including those involving education.

We believe, however, that Ms. Farley-Bouvier has been more effective at working with other officials in bringing goals to fruition. Ms. Malumphy was a Democrat before taking unenrolled status 21 2 years ago and has expressed a desire to caucus with majority Democrats in the House. There is no guarantee, however, that this will happen. What has been going on in Boston regarding casino legislation is a textbook example of the perils of one-party rule, and all of the candidates have justly criticized Democrats for operating behind closed doors. Pragmatically, however, Pittsfield must have a presence behind those closed doors and Ms. Farley-Bouvier is the only candidate of the four who can guarantee it.

Republican candidate Mark Jester says he will be a mediator and conciliator in Boston, and with 15 years under his belt as president of the Berkshire County League of Sportsmen, a group that includes a wide variety of interests, we believe him. He promises to go beyond party labels to pursue what is best for the district.

Mr. Jester, however, is not nearly as knowledgeable on specific issues as are Ms. Farley-Bouvier and Ms. Malumphy. In a meeting with Eagle editors, he proposed lowering the sales tax to 5 percent but could not say how that lost revenue would be made up, or what programs would be cut because of that lost revenue. Everyone wants their taxes cut, but that is the easy part. Mr. Jester needed to better flesh out his stances during the campaign.

Mark Miller, who ran for this seat a year ago, was again an enthusiastic advocate for the positions of the Green-Rainbow Party. He was less effective at explaining how he would be a better representative for Pittsfield than his opponents. His victory would indeed be a landmark for his party, but that is of no interest to Pittsfield, and most or many of the positions advocated by the Green-Rainbow Party are supported by the Democratic Party. Mr. Miller said he would be an independent figure in the Statehouse, but that independence could also lead to isolation, which Pittsfield and Berkshire County, with its four House seats, cannot afford.

We thank all four candidates for giving the district the campaign it didn't get last fall when incumbent and now departed state representative Christopher Speranzo spent his time ducking Mr. Miller. We believe Ms. Farley-Bouvier will be the open and accessible representative her predecessor was not, and will be a wise and effective advocate for the city and region. The Eagle endorses Tricia Farley-Bouvier for election as state representative from the 3rd Berkshire District.

-----

"Farley-Bouvier wins 3rd Berkshire District race"
Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 18, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- Tricia Farley-Bouvier is headed to the Statehouse.

City voters have elected the Democratic nominee as the new state representative from the 3rd Berkshire District during Tuesday's special election to fill the vacant seat.

Farley-Bouvier, who garnered 1,940 votes, edged out Green-Rainbow Party candidate Mark C. Miller, who notched 1,748 votes in the four-way race. Independent candidate Pam Malumphy was third with 1,325 votes, and Republican Mark Jester came in last with 899 votes.

A total of 5,922 ballots were cast out of 24,791 registered voters -- a 24 percent voter turnout, according to City Clerk Linda M. Tyer.

All but two of Pittsfield's 14 precincts -- Ward 1B and Ward 5 B -- make up the state legislative district. Christopher Speranzo left the position in July to become the clerk magistrate in the Central Berkshire District Court.

-----

Tricia Farley-Bouvier celebrates her victory Tuesday in the the 3rd Berkshire District race for state representative with her family at the Crowne Plaza hotel. Farley-Bouvier narrowly edged out Green-Rainbow Party candidate Mark C. Miller for the seat, winning by 192 votes. (Ben Garver / Berkshire Eagle Staff)

"Farley-Bouvier edges out Miller for 3rd Berkshire seat"
By Dick Lindsay, Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 19, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- Tricia Farley-Bouvier is headed to the Statehouse.

City voters chose the Democratic nominee as the new state representative from the 3rd Berkshire District during Tuesday's special election to fill the vacant seat.

Farley-Bouvier, who garnered 1,940 votes, edged out Green-Rainbow Party candidate Mark C. Miller, who notched 1,748 votes in the four-way race. Independent candidate Pam Malumphy was third with 1,325 votes, and Republican Mark Jester came in last with 899 votes.

A total of 5,922 ballots were cast out of 24,791 registered voters -- a 24 percent voter turnout, according to City Clerk Linda M. Tyer.

All but two of Pittsfield's 14 precincts -- Ward 1B and Ward 5B -- make up the state legislative district. Christopher Speranzo left the position in July to become the clerk magistrate in the Central Berkshire District Court.

Farley-Bouvier's 192-vote victory was her second consecutive close finish in a month, winning the Democratic primary on Sept. 20 by 196 votes. Did she expect another tight race?

"I didn't have a sense of what the final figures would be," she said. "I'm happy I came out on top."

The former Pittsfield city councilor and aide to Mayor James M. Ruberto has to wait until state election officials certify Tuesday's results before she is sworn into office. She expects that could take up to two weeks.

Nevertheless, Farley-Bouvier will begin preparing for her new political career on Beacon Hill.

"I have a lot to learn," she said. "I said I would hit the ground running and I wasn't kidding."

Meanwhile, Miller said he wasn't surprised at his second-place showing, given his impressive showing last year. The first-time political candidate lost to Speranzo by 981 votes in the regularly scheduled 3rd Berkshire election.

He felt a four-way race hurt his second attempt to capture the seat.

"I got a lot of Republican votes last time, because they didn't want to see a Democrat return to Boston," Miller said.

The former executive editor of The Eagle isn't sure if he'll make a third run at the 3rd Berkshire seat in 2012 when the entire state Legislature is up for election.

"I can't really say as I have to think of my family, which has been through a lot since last year.

However, Jester said another 3rd Berkshire campaign next year is possible. He said he was encouraged by the support he received in both the primary and Tuesday's run-off. The real estate agent had to mount a write-in campaign last month in order to win the GOP nomination.

"I went from 200 votes to 900 votes in very little time," he said. "My supporters are encouraging me to run and it's something I will seriously consider."

As for Malumphy, she wouldn't comment on whether another 3rd Berkshire race is in her political future. The former Pittsfield city councilor and mayoral candidate did say she was pleased with her latest campaign.

"We ran a good race, a great race," she said. "I'm appreciative of my supporters and proud of what we did."

When asked by an Eagle reporter if a lack of party backing hurt the independent candidate she said, "The money and resources going to the Democratic nominee proved successful."

To reach Dick Lindsay: rlindsay@berkshireeagle.com, or (413) 496-6233.

-----

State Rep.-elect Tricia Farley-Bouvier listens intently during the celebration of the opening of the center. She spoke at the gathering in her first official act as a state representative-elect. (Ben Garver / Berkshire Eagle Staff)

"Rep.-elect Farley-Bouvier faces divided constituency"
Berkshire Eagle, October 20, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- In her first official act as Pittsfield’s state-representative-elect, a beaming Tricia Farley-Bouvier spoke at the opening of the Education Center at Conte on Wednesday.

But as much as Farley-Bouvier was thrilled to win the seat during the 3rd Berkshire District special election on Tuesday, she acknowledged it will be a challenge to bring together the needs and desires of a divided constituency that elected her by only 192 votes.

All told, Farley-Bouvier was elected with 33 percent of the vote. A voter turnout of 24 percent means just 8 percent of registered voters in Pittsfield elected to send her to Beacon Hill.

Farley-Bouvier pledged to work with her former opponents, and to draw on their knowledge of the various issues they championed.

"It’s my job to be there representative for the whole district; the people who voted for me, the people who didn’t vote for me and even the people who didn’t vote," Farley-Bouvier told an Eagle reporter after the opening of the educational collaborative at the Conte Federal Building in Pittsfield. "That’s my job and I certainly intend to do it."

Farley-Bouvier edged out Green-Rainbow candidate Mark Miller with 1,940 votes to Miller’s 1,748. Meanwhile, independent candidate Pam Malumphy received 1,325 votes. Republican Mark Jester won 899 votes.

Farley-Bouvier stopped short of saying she’d adopt some of her former opponents’ positions, but she said that, for example, she plans to work with Miller on environmental issues and health care.

"It’s about learning from them the things that they’ve become particularly immersed in, and working with them to help communicate with people and represent different ideas," said Farley-Bouvier.

Miller said he’s still considering a run during the next regularly scheduled election in November 2012. But he said he was open to working with his former -- and possibly future -- opponent.

"I think it makes a lot of sense to do that, to reach out," he said. "I think it’s fairly standard and don’t think it’s just rhetoric, either."

Members of the all-Democrat Berkshire delegation welcomed Farley-Bouvier’s election.

Her victory means the Berkshire delegation is back to full strength, which will be crucial come the first of the year, according to state Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli.

Pignatelli, the dean of the delegation, which also includes state representatives Gailanne M. Cariddi and Paul W. Mark and Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, cites two crucial issues lawmakers will deal with when the new legislative session begins in January.

"Pension reform and health care cost reform are two matters the Berkshires needs a full voting membership," Pignatelli said. "Our voices must be heard on these two important issues."

In order for Farley-Bouvier to have an immediate impact on Beacon Hill, Pignatelli urged her to find a mentor and pace herself.

"I leaned on [former state representatives] Dan Bosley and Peter Larkin when I first got in nine years ago," he said. "And remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint."

Nevertheless, Cariddi has found having a constant presence in the Statehouse has been key to her first year in office. Last fall, Cariddi, along with Mark, were elected to their initial two-year term.

"Attend as many [legislative] hearings as you can, especially on items important to your constituents," she said. "I’ve already done that dozens of times."

Cariddi believes Farley-Bouvier will have one advantage she didn’t in order to get acclimated to being a state lawmaker: The newest state lawmakers represents one community compared to the 11 in Cariddi’s 1st Berkshire District.

"That will allow Tricia to delve into constituent issues more deeply," Cariddi said.

Farley-Bouvier said that in coming weeks she’ll be officially sworn in to her new role, but didn’t have an exact date.

-----

"Farley-Bouvier eyes key votes"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, November 15, 2011

PITTSFIELD -- Going into her first full week as Pittsfield’s representative in the Statehouse, Tricia Farley-Bouvier said she’s focused on getting up to speed on major upcoming votes.

Elected during a special election in October, Farley-Bouvier will be weighing in this week on a number of hot button issues, from casino gambling to congressional redistricting.

Like her fellow Berkshire County legislators, she said she plans to vote for the redistricting plan released last week, which combines the Berkshires with a Springfield-based district currently represented by Rep. Richard Neal.

On casino gambling, Farley-Bouvier said she won’t be sure which way to vote until she sees what kind of protections for cultural nonprofits are included in the final text of the legislation, which is currently being debated behind closed doors by a House and Senate conference committee.

Sworn in Wednesday, Farley-Bouvier made her first vote Friday, voting in favor of approving rules of order for debating the redistricting process.

She has yet to be assigned to any legislative committees, but said she expects appointments to come soon.

She said she’s been overwhelmed by the warm welcome she’s received at the Statehouse.

"I was struck with the camaraderie and the friendliness of everyone," said Farley-Bouvier. "How much they welcomed me, and particularly my family, was very gratifying."

Farley-Bouvier brought 15 members of the Pittsfield step group Youth Alive, who performed in the House’s member lounge before the new representative was sworn in by Gov. Deval Patrick.

The ceremony was also attended by House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

DeLeo commended Farley-Bouvier.

"Representative Farley-Bouvier’s enthusiasm is tangible," he said in a statement. "Her strong leadership skills and knowledge of her district will make her an outstanding advocate for the people of the 3rd Berkshire District."

Making contact

To contact Tricia Farley-Bouvier with legislative issues:

Boston office:
Statehouse, Room 156
Boston, MA 02133
(617) 722-2240

District office (temporary):
113 Oliver Ave.
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 281-7415

-----

"Mass. House, Senate roll call vote on casino bill"
Boston.com - November 15, 2011

BOSTON — Here's how members of the Massachusetts House and Senate voted Tuesday on a final compromise bill to license the construction of three resort casinos and a slots parlor.

The House voted 118-33 to approve the bill. The Senate passed the bill on a 23-14 vote.

A "yes" vote was in favor of the bill; a "no" vote was in opposition to the bill.

HOUSE:

Gailanne M. Cariddi, D-North Adams - Y

Trisha Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield - Y

Paul W. Mark, D-Hancock - Y

William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - N

SENATE:

Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfied - N

-----

"Farley-Bouvier Appointed to Legislative Committees"
Pittsfield.com - December 08, 2011

BOSTON — State Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield, has been named to the Joint Committees on Elder Services and on Children and Families, and the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change by the House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

The Committee on Elder Affairs is tasked with considering all matters concerning the elderly, handicapped elders, nursing facilities, prescription drugs, reverse mortgages, senior pharmacy and such other matters as may be referred.

"This assignment gives me a great opportunity to work with elders throughout my district," said Farley-Bouvier. "I look forward to tackling issues to help protect and assist seniors here and across the commonwealth."

It shall be the duty of the committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities to consider all matters concerning mental health and public health issues involving children, child nutrition, homelessness and homeless shelters, public welfare, children, handicapped children and adults, mental retardation, and such other matters as may be referred.

"I am particularly excited to put my professional background and skill set to work on this committee," said Farley-Bouvier. "Ensuring the well-being of children and those with disabilities is a primary responsibility of government."

The House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change has the duty of considering all matters related to the commonwealth's climate policy, including but not limited to greenhouse gas emissions, the climate impacts of renewable energy development and climate change adaptation and mitigation. The committee shall also serve in an advisory capacity to other joint committees that consider legislation with significant climate impacts.

"The commonwealth's climate policy is an incredibly important emerging issue and I am honored to be asked to work on it," she said. "The commonwealth's climate policy will have a great effect on many different aspects of our government and lives."

Farley-Bouvier was elected as representative of the 3rd Berkshire District, which encompasses Pittsfield, in a special election in October.

-----

"Seniors get advocate in Farley-Bouvier"
By Ned Oliver, Berkshire Eagle Staff, December 18, 2011

With her appointment to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Elder Services, state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier says she’ll be pushing her peers in the Statehouse to restore funding to local senior centers.

"It’s the first thing I’ll be going after when it comes to budgeting," said the recently elected 3rd Berkshire District representative. She said the centers, which are largely funded through state grants, have taken a hit during recent budget cycles.

Farley-Bouvier officially took office on Nov. 9, but only recently recieved her committee appointments from House leadership.

In addition to her position on the Joint Committee on Elder Services, Farley-Bouvier was appointed to the Joint Committee on Children and Families, as well as the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.

While Farley-Bouvier said she appreciates the range of topics offered by her various appointments, she said she’s most excited about her opportunity to advocate on behalf of local seniors.

"I’ve worked so closely with seniors in the city for the last 10 years," she said. In addition to spending three years working on the board of the Berkshire’s Retired Seniors Volunteer Program, Farley-Bouvier said she regularly spends time visiting the Pittsfield Senior Center.

Farley-Bouvier said she’s been focusing on making contact with her constituents in recent weeks.

She said she’s been able to wind down some since her first two whirlwind weeks in office, which coincided with the end of the Legislature’s formal session for the year and included numerous high-profile votes, ranging from the approval of casino gambling to the passage of redrawn congressional maps.

"The votes came fast and furious," she said. "But now I’m really concentrating on meeting with people in the district to better understand the needs here and how I can partner with them to make Pittsfield a stronger place."

Aside from state Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli’s appointment to the influental House Ways and Means committee, there were no other major changes in the Berkshire delegations various appointments.

-----

U.S. President Barack Obama

2011-08-14T23:13:00.031-04:00

"Cuts to winter heating aid concern New Englanders"
By Glenn Adams, Associated Press, August 14, 2011

AUGUSTA, Maine—It's been so hot this summer that heat records in some parts of New England melted away with temperatures in the 100-degree range. At the same time, the frigid days of the winter ahead are on the minds of officials in the region's statehouses.

As July went on record the warmest month on record in Portland, Maine, Barack Obama's proposal to chop the budget of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program nearly in half hung eerily in the background. Amid the simmering heat, Gov. Paul LePage had some chilling news for people attending a Capitol for a Day meeting in Dover-Foxcroft.

LePage warned that Maine's LIHEAP funding from the federal government could be cut in half, from $54 million for this year to about $26 million. He noted that the reduction could come as the cost of heating fuel rises above last year's level.

An organization that follows those trends agrees. The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association says the average cost of heating a home in New England with oil will be about $2,983 this winter, nearly $650 more than last year. High unemployment and colder-than-average winter temperatures exacerbate the problem for poor families, it notes.

While the president presented his budget in February, congressional review of the allocations is not expected before September. Given past experience, the cuts may not be as severe as states now fear, and the administration has said it's willing to revisit the figures.

In Maine, LePage has pledged to do all he can, despite the state's tight fiscal environment, to prevent people from freezing this winter if the worst comes true.

While it's never too early to think about funding for a program that's critically important in chilly New England, preseason jitters over the program are an annual occurrence. And the usual pattern is for funding to come through -- after pressure is applied from lawmakers from cold states.

"Every president in the last 15 years has proposed cuts in LIHEAP. It's not unusual to see a president knock LIHEAP around," said Richard Moffi, fuel assistance program chief for Vermont, which is looking at a cut in heating assistance from $25.6 million to $11.6 million. "Congress usually comes along and they hold the line."

And as of now, Obama's proposal to cut LIHEAP in half from about $5 billion is just a proposal, says Kirston Figueroa, director of energy and heating services for Maine State Housing, which administers heating assistance.

"It's such a moving target because we never really know until we know," Figueroa said.

Celeste Lovett, New Hampshire's fuel assistance program manager, agreed. Federal figures show New Hampshire's LIHEAP funding could be cut from $36 million to $15 million.

"It's really too soon to tell," Lovett said. "What we've done in New Hampshire is go forward with taking applications."

In Connecticut, the allocation would drop from $98 million to $41 million, Massachusetts from $175 million to $81 million, and Rhode Island from $34 million to $15.4 million.

New Hampshire started accepting applications in mid-July from vulnerable households -- those with residents over age 60, under age 6 or people with disabilities. The application process starts for the general public on Sept. 1.

The Obama administration, questioned about the proposed funding cut, acknowledged that the new LIHEAP figure was based on the expectation that fuel prices would be lower this winter. But in northern New England, they're expected to be in the $4-per-gallon range.

That affects a lot of families. About seven in 10 New England homes use heating oil, the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute says. Federal figures from 2007, the latest available, show that just over 355,000 households in the six New England states received LIHEAP assistance.

Federal officials say that the LIHEAP budget proposal for fiscal 2012, which starts Oct. 1, is $2.6 billion. That compares to $4.7 billion for the current fiscal year, said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the federal Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.

-----

"Kerry asks gov't for heating funds"
By Scott Stafford, Berkshire Eagle Staff, October 15, 2011

While in the midst of budget negotiations for fiscal 2012 in the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly known as the supercommittee, Sen. John Kerry has asked President Barack Obama to set aside $5.1 billion for heating aid in 2013.

That is the level at which LIHEAP was funded in fiscal 2010.

"In light of new and alarming projections about the cost of home heating oil in New England this coming winter, I am writing to appeal early in the budgeting process for special attention to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) which, as you know, has sustained severe and damaging cuts over the last several years despite a growing need," Kerry wrote in a letter to the president.

Meanwhile, local families and aid agencies are closely watching the price of energy and the thermometer as winter starts closing in. And unless someone acts soon, many local families could find themselves living in the cold.

According to Don Atwater, executive director of the Berkshire Community Action Council, the status of LIHEAP funding for this coming winter is daunting.

"With the federal deficit and the supercommittee, we have no idea what is going to happen this year," he said.

Since the fiscal 2012 budget has not been set, federal programs are funded at 2011 levels through a temporary budget continuance resolution passed by Congress until Nov. 16, Atwater noted. After that, Congress will have to pass another continuation or allow federal programs to end.

The supercommittee was formed to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit as a condition of a compromise budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president in August. The six Democrats and six Republicans have until Nov. 23 to come up with a plan.

Until then, the fate of the LIHEAP program and its funding will be unknown.

At current funding levels. Atwater noted, the roughly 11,000 Berkshire County applicants for heating aid will receive about $400 in heating aid, Atwater said. Last year it was $1,100 per household.

At that rate, he added, this year’s funding will be exhausted by November, but he is hoping Congress will infuse the program with more cash before that happens.

"Serving on the Joint Select Committee for Deficit reduction, I am particularly aware of our difficult budget situation and the need to make difficult choices now and in the future," Kerry wrote in his letter to the president. "However, I want to stress, as you have, that it is wrong to disproportionately squeeze programs that are a lifeline, literally, for seniors and the working poor who have already been disproportionately hurt by the economic conditions of the last years."

Kerry noted that there are more than 880,000 households in Massachusetts that use home heating oil "to survive our harsh winters -- and with the increase in prices we are already seeing many of them apply for assistance."

Estimates show "the average household will have to spend $2,493 this heating season compared to $2,300 last year," Kerry wrote. "Given these limited family budgets, cuts would mean many may have to choose between heating their homes, cutting back on medications or feeding their families. These are choices American families should never have to make, even in a time of fiscal restraint. Home heating oil is too critical an issue of economic survival for many in New England to have it fall in the order of federal priorities."

According to Chris Farrell, spokesman for Berkshire Gas, the price for natural gas in Berkshire County this winter is expected to remain the same as last winter at $1.39 per therm.

"We will be very close to the current price, barring extremely cold weather," Farrell said. "But we are confident that price will remain stable."

According to a report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Wednesday, "The average price paid by households in the Northeast this winter for heating oil may be the highest ever, almost $3.71 per gallon, more than double the average cost of natural gas."

That is an increase of more than 10 percent.

The report notes that in seven years, the cost of heating oil has more than doubled.

And given the current federal budget situation, Atwater noted, nobody knows from one month to the next what will happen with LIHEAP, which could force many Berkshire County families into a precarious set of choices -- whether to buy heat, food or health care.

"The deficit is an important issue we need to deal with," Atwater said, "but we’ve got to be careful that it is not done on the backs of the poor."

To reach Scott Stafford: sstafford@berkshireeagle.com or (413) 496-6241.

------------

"Obama begins political counteroffensive this week"
By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press, August 14, 2011

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama launches a political counteroffensive this week, weighed down by a stunted economy, wilting support among some of his most ardent backers, and a daily bashing from the slew of Republicans campaigning for his job.

"We've still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. We didn't get into this mess overnight, and it's going to take time to get out of it," the president told the country over the weekend, all but pleading for people to stick with him.

A deeply unsettled political landscape, with voters in a fiercely anti-incumbent mood, is framing the 2012 presidential race 15 months before Americans decide whether to give Obama a second term or hand power to the Republicans. Trying to ride out what seems to be an unrelenting storm of economic anxiety, people in the United States increasingly are voicing disgust with most all of the men and women, Obama included, they sent to Washington to govern them.

With his approval numbers sliding, the Democratic president will try to ease their worries and sustain his resurrected fighting spirit when he sets off Monday on a bus tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. The trip is timed to dilute the GOP buzz emanating from the Midwest after Republicans gathered in Iowa over the weekend for a first test of the party's White House candidates. The state holds the nation's first nominating test in the long road toward choosing Obama's opponent.

"You have just sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president," Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told elated supporters minutes after winning Saturday's Iowa straw poll, essentially a fundraising event that also tests a candidate's organizational and financial strength. She spent heavily and traveled throughout the state where she was born, casting herself as the evangelical Christian voice of the deeply conservative small-government, low-tax tea party wing of the GOP.

Bachmann pulled in 4,823 votes, or 29 percent of those cast, edging out Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who drew 4,671 votes, or 28 percent. But while Democrats probably rejoiced that Bachmann's ultraconservative voice gained strength among Republican contenders, the contest to challenge Obama in November 2012 grew even more jumbled. While the voting was under way in Ames, Iowa, Republicans also had to keep an eye on South Carolina, where Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a cleverly timed entrance into the race.

Like Bachmann and all the other candidates, Perry ravaged Obama. He said the president was presiding over an "economic disaster," in a declaration that stole some of Bachmann's political thunder and undercut the front-runner status of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who didn't compete in the Iowa test vote. Perry clearly cast a broad shadow across the Republican contest.

Obama, expecting the political shelling he would take, fired pre-emptively in his weekly radio and Internet address to the nation on Saturday. He told listeners that it was the Republicans running for president and serving in Congress who were at work crushing voters' hopes and dreams.

The question for Obama and his backers remains: Will he sustain the counterattack? Of late, he's been seen by even his most staunch supporters as too ready to retreat from critical ground when confronted by intransigent Republicans.

Polls show voters hold both parties to blame for the stunted economic recovery, an unseemly political fight over raising the limit on U.S. borrowing, an anemic deal to cut the government deficit, the subsequent and unprecedented downgrade of the country's credit rating, wild stock market gyrations and an unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent.

In the face of that reality, Obama is tacking to put some wind in his re-election sails, apparently convinced that he can gather speed by turning up the attack on Congress.

"You've got a right to be frustrated," the president said in his weekly address. "I am. Because you deserve better. I don't think it's too much for you to expect that the people you send to this town start delivering."

He chastised Republicans for brinksmanship, saying "some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win."

That's an assessment that has some validity, particularly among the new class of House Republicans who have used their outsized legislative power to stymie Obama at every turn since their election last November.

Working in Obama's favor is a Republican Party still struggling to find a presidential candidate who lights a fire with voters. Questions remain about the appeal of Bachmann and Paul beyond, respectively, the more conservative and libertarian wings of the party.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, looking for a strong showing in Iowa to boost his struggling candidacy, ended a distant third with 2,293 votes, or 14 percent. On Sunday, he quit the race.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, wasn't on the ballot and isn't a candidate yet. But she showed up at the Iowa State Fair a day before the vote, drawing huge crowds and saying she hadn't ruled out running.

Like Bachmann and Perry, Palin is a tea party favorite, but her coyness about joining the race could hurt her chances should she finally declare.

While Obama's bus tour is meant, in part, to blunt the Iowa Republican festivities, it will have to compete for attention as the country digests Perry's rhetorical assault on Obama's presidency.

Perry, a former Democrat and the nation's longest-serving governor, told his appreciative audience that Obama's government had "an insatiable desire to spend our children's inheritance." He accused Obama of presiding over an "economic disaster" that has been "downgrading our hope for a better future."

"I'll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your lives as I can," Perry said, clearly bowing to his tea party backing. Specifics for turning his promises into realities were absent.

By entering the race on the same day as the Iowa voting, Perry angered some Republicans but saved some campaign cash and energy.

If nothing else, voters won't be able to ignore the fact that Perry's speaking style and swagger are eerily reminiscent of another Texas governor who made the transition to the national stage: President George W. Bush.

With his solid credentials on social as well as economic issues, Perry is an immediate threat to Bachmann, Romney and every other GOP candidate.

Romney did not participate in the Iowa poll, which he won four years ago before dropping out of the race when he failed to catch fire against eventual nominee John McCain. Romney did join all the announced candidates Thursday at an Iowa debate.

But it was his pre-debate visit to the Iowa State Fair that produced a political gift to the Democrats.

Responding to a heckler who challenged him on tax policies that benefit big business, he blurted out that "corporations are people, my friend." The Democratic National Committee quickly used video of that remark in pre-straw poll television ads in Des Moines, the state capital. It was the kind of business-friendly Republican applause line that could haunt him with undecided voters and disaffected Democrats.

Obama and the other GOP hopefuls now face daily scrutiny as well as they try to avoid for the same kind of misstep. That's a nearly impossible task in the long, arduous and expensive path toward the White House.

------------

"Obama departs Washington, heads to Martha’s Vineyard for family vacation"
By Associated Press, August 18, 2011

WEST TISBURY, Massachusetts — President Barack Obama ditched the Beltway grind Thursday to seek the pleasures of summer on the beaches of Martha’s Vineyard, his leisure time competing with a stock market plunge, fears of global recession and restless voters demanding jobs.

The president arrived on this wealthy Massachusetts island retreat Thursday afternoon, where he was joining first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Sasha and Malia. They are to spend 10 days in a rented compound.

The departure came after a busy morning in which the president called for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and imposed sanctions on the beleaguered Mideast regime. He then met with members of his economic team, which is preparing a jobs package that the president intends to announce shortly after Labor Day.

Obama departed Thursday afternoon wearing business attire — gray suit and tie — that belied his resort destination. Obama was traveling with a handful of aides, including his counterterrorism chief, John Brennan. Though his family was awaiting him on Martha’s Vineyard, the family dog, Bo, traveled with the president on Air Force One.

Republicans complained that the president should stay in Washington to work on the faltering economy.

Criticism of presidential vacations seems unavoidable, but this time Obama leaves with the economy in a particularly precarious state. Morgan Stanley economists warned Thursday that the U.S. and European economies are “dangerously close” to a recession, and Gallup this week put Obama at the lowest approval rating of his presidency in terms of handling the economy — a measly 26 percent.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president would continue meeting with economic advisers throughout his vacation as he prepares for his September jobs speech.

“The president of the United States is the president of the United States wherever he goes,” Earnest said. “I don’t think the American people begrudge the president spending a little time with his wife and daughters at the end of the summer before his daughters head back to school.”

Obama’s vacation will also keep him absent just as the GOP presidential field, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, mounts an ever louder attack on his policies. Romney is among those who’ve called on Obama to cancel his vacation and stay in Washington.

The foundering economy and 2012 presidential politics will await Obama when he returns to Washington at the end of next week prepared to give a major economic speech after Labor Day to lay out new jobs initiatives and call for action from Congress, which is also on its annual summer recess.

Until then, Obama, who just returned from a three-day Midwest bus trip focused on the economy, may be hoping for a relatively uneventful break.

As they did last year, the Obamas will stay at the Blue Heron Farm, a multimillion-dollar hideaway with its own gym, basketball court, guesthouse and stretch of beach. Obama last year spent his days on the golf course with a few buddies, venturing out on occasion for a beach picnic with the family, to local restaurants with Michelle and to take Sasha and Malia to a bookstore to pick up some summer reading.

Accustomed to vacationing presidents — it will be Obama’s third straight year on the island and Bill Clinton spent time there, too — the locals were welcoming and unobtrusive — no doubt a welcome change from Obama’s foes on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail.

------------

"Another year of economic shortfalls predicted"
The Congressional Budget Office says the federal deficit is projected to hit $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011, the third year of shortfalls at levels not seen since World War II.
By Lisa Mascaro (lisa.mascaro@latimes.com), Los Angeles Times - Washington Bureau (Reporting from Washington), August 25, 2011

A third consecutive year of massive federal deficits and a slumping economy with high unemployment portrays a bleak fiscal outlook for the U.S., promising a divisive political debate this fall over how to get the country back on track.

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday (8/24/2011) the federal deficit was projected to hit $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011, the third year of shortfalls at levels not seen since World War II.

As the economy continues to struggle, unemployment is expected to remain stubbornly high through the end of the year, but dip to 8.5% as the 2012 election approaches, a slight improvement but still high and on par with previous projections by the congressional agency. Polls show jobs remain a top priority for Americans.

Both Democrats and Republicans seized on the report as Congress and President Obama prepare to battle anew over the best approach to improve the economic outlook while reducing the nation's debt.

GOP leaders said the report offered more evidence that the Obama administration's fiscal policies had been a failure. "Where are the jobs?" asked House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats said it showed the troubled economy could no longer afford tax breaks for the wealthy that expire next year. "The most effective way to reduce our deficit is to put Americans back to work and grow our economy," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the House minority leader.

Obama is expected to ask Congress for new measures to create jobs — possibly by extending payroll tax breaks, offering companies tax credits for adding employees, and by investing in roads, bridges and school construction projects.

Those options will cost money, and Obama has called for an approach that simultaneously tackles deficits by cutting federal spending elsewhere and increasing tax revenue.

Economists generally support that two-step remedy as appropriate for the times: fiscal stimulus in the short term to keep the economy from slipping further, alongside a long-term plan to reform tax and spending policies to reduce the debt load.

Republicans, though, are in no mood for compromise. Fresh from holding the line on new taxes during the debt ceiling debate, the GOP is pursuing a vision of government that relies on larger tax breaks, spending cuts and regulatory relief to fuel economic growth.

One point is clear: To continue business as usual in Washington would lead to a "bleak" economic outcome, said Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office.

The dour outlook gives more urgency to the congressional "super committee" on deficit reduction — the new panel that skeptics say will be unlikely to reach a bipartisan agreement in its remaining 10 weeks of work. It has not yet held its first meeting, but on Wednesday its co-chairs, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), said they were working to ensure the committee "is given every opportunity to succeed."

The committee is tasked with cutting $1.5 trillion from deficits over the next decade through spending cuts, new taxes or a combination of both. If it cannot agree on a proposal for Congress to consider, as many think is likely, automatic spending cuts of a similar size would be triggered, though they would not take effect until 2013. A committee website to take public input could be launched in days.

But the debate over whether to increase taxes has vexed Washington. The tax breaks enacted under the George W. Bush administration expire at the end of 2012, and keeping all of them in place would add about $4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Deficits would plummet in 2013 if all of the Bush-era tax cuts expired, but that is unlikely, as most of the tax breaks go to middle-class families and have bipartisan support. The upper-income tax cuts, though, remain a political dispute.

"There's absolutely no doubt there are profound budget challenges and profound economic challenges," Elmendorf said Wednesday.

The budget office said the record deficits over the last three years stemmed from the "long shadow" cast on the economy from the financial crisis and recession.

Deficits ballooned as the federal government spent money to shore up the economy with the stimulus program, industry bailouts and aid for unemployed Americans. Deficits also rose as tax revenue dropped substantially. The Congressional Budget Office's estimated deficit for 2011 is actually a slight dip from earlier projections.

Part of the problem that lawmakers face in tackling budgetary issues is that their options become increasingly limited as the economy struggles and the fiscal problems deepen, experts say.

For example, the budget accord reached this summer to raise the debt ceiling will help to substantially reduce the nation's future debt load by reducing spending, the report said.

But slashing federal outlays also causes short-term pain as the economy struggles to grow. Federal budget cuts are "weighing on output and employment," Elmendorf said.

------------

Labor economist Alan Krueger was nominated by President Obama to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers. (Larry Downing/Reuters)

"Labor specialist picked to head economic panel"
By Jackie Calmes, New York Times, August 30, 2011

WASHINGTON - In tapping Alan B. Krueger yesterday to chair the Council of Economic Advisers, President Obama picked an economist well known for his studies of labor markets, just as the president is about to announce a renewed push for job-creation policies.

Among the stimulus policies Obama is considering is a temporary tax credit for employers adding to their workforce, an idea Krueger championed in his earlier stint in the administration. Krueger was an assistant secretary and chief economist at the Treasury Department for 17 months, before he returned to his teaching post at Princeton University in 2010. A more modest version of the hiring credit became law, but congressional Republicans blocked its extension last year.

Krueger, if confirmed by the Senate, will find Republicans a force to be reckoned with against the sorts of ideas he is associated with, including a higher minimum wage. Republicans have taken control of the House since he left Washington, and party leaders say they will oppose further stimulus measures.

Their focus is spending cuts, despite widespread calls from economists, including the chairman of Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, for a more expansive fiscal policy in a period of weak economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment.

Obama, in a speech next week, is expected to call for both temporary tax cuts and spending measures to spur hiring in the short term, and long-term steps to reduce spending and raise revenues once the economy fully recovers. But in nominating Krueger, with his expertise in policies that affect job creation, Obama passed over economists better known for deficit-reduction policies, including Alan J. Auerbach of the University of California Berkeley.

The choice of Krueger more broadly reflects Obama’s desire to strike a balance between job creation and deficit reduction after months in which congressional Republicans successfully forced action only on spending cuts. Krueger, who first joined the administration during the recession, helped design other early stimulus proposals, including the cash for clunkers rebates for new car purchasers, the Build America Bonds program to finance infrastructure projects, and a credit fund for small businesses.

“As one of this country’s leading economists, Alan has been a key voice on a vast array of economic issues for more than two decades,’’ Obama said. “Alan understands the difficult challenges our country faces.’’

The ability to win confirmation was a certain consideration; Krueger was successfully confirmed for his prior post with the Treasury. But the chairmanship of the Council of Economic Advisers is a higher position, and Republicans have become more aggressive about blocking nominees to demonstrate opposition to White House policies. Obama’s pick for Commerce secretary, John E. Bryson, remains in limbo three months after his nomination.

Krueger, 50, would replace longtime Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, who returned to the University of Chicago. Krueger “is going to be able to hit the ground running immediately,’’ Goolsbee said. “And B, he’s a world-class, respected researcher on job-market policies, job creation, and things of that nature.’’

Krueger would be the second former adviser to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to take one of the four positions at the core of Obama’s economic circle; the other is Gene B. Sperling, a former Treasury counselor who replaced Lawrence H. Summers as director of the National Economic Council at the White House. That Geithner has two former underlings on Obama’s economic team is further evidence of his influence.

It also reflects Obama’s wish for a collegial economic team after the fractiousness in his first two years, which were marked by tension especially between Summers and the former White House budget director, Peter R. Orszag. Back then, Summers questioned the likely effectiveness and cost of the job credit proposal associated with Krueger, officials say.

Orszag was a student of Krueger’s at Princeton, where Krueger began teaching in 1987. “He was one of my best professors,’’ Orszag wrote in an e-mail.

Conservative economists also applauded the choice, including the top economic advisers under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush - Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw, respectively.

The cooler reception came from some on the left, who said the moment called for a big-picture macroeconomist who would push for more ambitious initiatives to reduce unemployment.

“The kind of action he’s an aggressive and creative thinker about is relatively small-bore, supply-side changes rather than big-picture efforts to fill the gap,’’ Matthew Yglesias, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote in a blog.

------------

"White House creates website for online petitions"
By Darlene Superville, Associated Press, September 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House is making it easier for people to press the federal government to act.

It is bringing that constitutional right to petition one's government into the digital age with a webpage, "We the People," where people can create and sign petitions seeking the government's action on a range of issues.

An official response is guaranteed for any petition that draws enough signatures -- 5,000 names within 30 days -- after it is reviewed by staff and the appropriate policy experts within the Obama administration.

The White House announced the new page, www.whitehouse.gov/wethepeople, on Thursday.

"When I ran for this office, I pledged to make government more open and accountable to its citizens," President Barack Obama said in the announcement. He said the new feature will give Americans "a direct line" to the White House on issues that most concern them.

The online petition program comes as Obama has been urging the public to press their representatives in Congress to act on his ideas for creating jobs and balancing the federal budget.

To emphasize word-of-mouth organizing, a petition's Web address initially will only be known by the person who created it. The address is not supposed to show up anywhere else on the White House website until 150 signatures have been collected.

The first online petitions can be created later this month.

The White House already accepts petitions through its correspondence office and that is not expected to change, officials said.

------------

September 2, 2011

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

Employers Added No New Jobs in August, Unemployment Rate Unchanged at 9.1 Percent, Labor Dept. Reports.

------------

"Obama yields on smog rule in face of GOP demands"
Obama scraps stricter smog regulation, bowing to business, GOP but angering liberal backers
Julie Pace and Dina Cappiello, Associated Press, September 2, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a dramatic reversal, President Barack Obama on Friday scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy.

Withdrawal of the proposed regulation marked the latest in a string of retreats by the president in the face of GOP opposition, and it drew quick criticism from liberals. Environmentalists, a key Obama constituency, accused him of caving to corporate polluters, and the American Lung Association threatened to restart the legal action it had begun against rules proposed by President George W. Bush.

The White House has been under heavy pressure from GOP lawmakers and major industries, which have slammed the stricter standard as an unnecessary jobs killer. The Environmental Protection Agency, whose scientific advisers favored the tighter limits, had predicted the proposed change would cost up to $90 billion a year, making it one of the most expensive environmental regulations ever imposed in the U.S.

However, the Clean Air Act bars the EPA from considering the costs of complying when setting public health standards.

Obama said his decision was made in part to reduce regulatory burdens and uncertainty at a time of rampant questions about the strength of the U.S. economy.

Underscoring the economic concerns: a new report Friday that showed the economy essentially adding no jobs in August and the unemployment rate stubbornly stuck at 9.1 percent.

The regulation would have reduced concentrations of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, a powerful lung irritant that can cause asthma and other lung ailments. Smog is created when emissions from cars, power and chemical plants, refineries and other factories mix in sunlight and heat.

Republican lawmakers, already emboldened by Obama's concessions on extending Bush-era tax cuts and his agreement to more than $1 trillion in spending reductions as the price for raising the nation's debt ceiling, had pledged to try to block the stricter smog standards as well as other EPA regulations when they returned to Washington after Labor Day.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House Friday, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.

"But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government `stimulus' spending and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the move was "an enormous victory for America's job creators, the right decision by the president and one that will help reduce the uncertainty facing businesses."

White House officials said the president's decision was not the product of industry pressure, and they said the administration would continue to fight other efforts by Republicans to dismantle the EPA's authority.

But that was little consolation for many of the president's supporters. The group MoveOn.org issued a scathing statement, saying Obama's decision was one it would have expected from his Republican predecessor.

"Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama's re-election, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal," said Justin Ruben, the group's executive director.

The American Lung Association, which had sued the EPA over Bush's smog standards, said it would resume its legal fight now that Obama was essentially endorsing the weaker limit. The group had suspended its lawsuit after the Obama administration pledged to change it.

Obama's decision, in fact, mirrors one made by Bush in 2008. After EPA scientists recommended a stricter standard to better protect public health, Bush personally intervened after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997, but not as strong as federal scientists said was needed to protect public health.

In March, the EPA's independent panel of scientific advisers sent a letter to the agency's administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying it was its unanimous recommendation to make the smog standards stronger and that the evidence was "sufficiently certain" that the range proposed in January 2010 under Obama would benefit public health.

But the White House, which has pledged to base decisions on science, said Friday the science behind its initial decision needed to be updated, a process already under way at EPA. The smog standard now is to be revised until 2013.

Whether Obama still occupies the White House at that point depends on the outcome of next year's presidential election.

Cass Sunstein, the head of the White House regulatory office, said changing the smog regulation now, only to have it be reconsidered again in two years, would create unnecessary uncertainty for the private sector and local governments.

The stricter limits initially proposed by Obama would have doubled the number of counties in violation. Smoggy cities such as Los Angeles and Houston would have been joined by counties in California's Napa Valley and one in Kansas with a population of 3,000. They would have had up to 20 years to meet the new limits, once EPA settled on a final number, or would have faced federal penalties.

In his statement, the president said scrapping the stronger smog standards did not reflect a weakening of his commitment to protecting public health and the environment.

"I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution," Obama said.

Even before Friday's decision -- announced as many Americans were paying more attention to their Labor Day weekend plans than the news -- the White House has faced some criticism for its record on the environment. Obama abandoned a campaign pledge to set the first-ever limits on the pollution blamed for global warming, and he announced an expansion of offshore drilling before the Gulf oil spill sidelined those plans.

However, he has successfully taken other steps to reduce air pollution, such as doubling fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, clamping down on pollution from power plants that blows downwind and setting the first national standard for mercury, a toxic metal, from power plants, all in the face of Republican and industry opposition.

The ground-level ozone standard is closely associated with public health -- something the president said he wouldn't compromise in his regulatory review.

------------

"Congress returns, unpopular as well as divided"
By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent | AP – September 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress returns to work this coming week, divided over measures to create jobs and scorned by the nation it was elected to help lead.

After a five-week break, Republican and Democratic leaders alike promise action to try and ease the country's 9.1 percent unemployment rate and boost an economy that is barely growing. President Barack Obama goes first on Thursday night with a speech to lawmakers and a prime-time national television audience.

But there is little overlap so far in the measures that Republicans and Democrats are recommending, and the rest of the year-end congressional agenda is top-heavy with items that relate to government spending and less directly to job creation.

A new committee, comprised of lawmakers in both parties from both houses and armed with extraordinary powers, is expected to hold its first meeting this week as it begins work on a plan to make long-term deficit cuts. The panel was created as part of last month's agreement to reduce red ink and avert a government default. It faces a Nov. 23 deadline for action.

More immediately, parts of the Federal Aviation Administration will shut down on Sept. 16 unless Congress approves a measure to keep operations running. Federal money for highway construction jobs runs out two weeks later without separate legislation.

The Obama administration is seeking more money for disaster relief in the wake of Hurricane Irene, and a partial government shutdown would occur on Oct. 1 unless lawmakers enact an interim spending bill to cover most federal agencies.

With any or all of these measures, there is an opportunity for partisan gridlock or compromise, and it isn't entirely clear which an unhappy public might prefer.

In a late-August Associated Press-GfK poll, only 12 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the job Congress is doing, and 87 percent disapproved. A separate Gallup survey, taken in midmonth, found 13 percent approved and 84 percent disapproved.

"Everybody is kind of in trouble with the electorate," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. He recently distributed an analysis that concluded the negotiating surrounding last month's agreement to avoid a default is an extremely significant event that is profoundly and sharply reshaping views of the economy and the federal government.

"It has led to a scary erosion in confidence in both, at a time when this steep drop in confidence can be least afforded."

But if the public was offended by the bickering before the deal, there isn't there much evidence that the compromise on the nation's borrowing limit did much, if anything, to restore confidence in Congress' ability to address economic problems.

A Fox News poll last month showed opinion was split on the compromise, with Republicans overwhelmingly opposed, independents solidly so and Democrats narrowly in favor. But even those statistics masked a deeper divide.

Based on other surveys, McInturff said, "Republicans disapprove because some didn't think we should have raised the debt ceiling at all ... and others because they believe there should have been substantially more spending cuts than what was in the debt-ceiling vote."

Independents who disliked the compromise tended to say they wanted deeper deficit reductions. Democrats who disapprove did so because "they can't believe the president is negotiating doing this much with the Republicans," he said, which is a far different reason from the one GOP voters cite.

The Fox News survey showed a similar breakdown.

Republicans and Democrats offer different assessments of the state of congressional approval.

"I'm not the least bit surprised that the rating of Congress is abysmal. If we could do the work that we are supposed to be doing in a reasonable and timely way," it would improve, said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a first-termer who is a member of the committee charged with finding $1.2 billion or more in deficit reductions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had a somewhat different view, telling an audience in his home state: "Everyone complain all you want about Congress. You should complain plenty. But don't think the country is about to fall apart because of what's going on in Washington."

Already, the differences are evident as Obama and congressional leaders ready job creation plans.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., recently distributed a list of "Top 10 Job-Destroying Regulations" and said the Republican majority would begin voting this month to block them one by one.

Most, including one that Obama ordered scrapped Friday, deal with pollution limits for a variety of industries; two would curtail National Labor Relations Board actions opposed by business.

Separately, Cantor wrote, the House will "pursue tax relief designed to help American employers create middle-class jobs."

Obama, too, is considering tax breaks to provide businesses to hire new employees. He also is expected to call for new spending on construction projects, and to seek an extension of jobless benefits and a temporary payroll tax cut that is due to expire Dec. 31.

To offset those costs, the president is expected to challenge lawmakers on the debt-reduction committee to go beyond its minimum goal of $1.2 trillion in long-term savings.

The panel marks the latest and possibly the last attempt of the year to forge a sweeping agreement that can cut trillions from future deficits. Congress must approve $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts to block across-the-board spending cuts that both sides say they would like to avoid.

There are expressions of optimism, but so far, none of outright success.

Reid put the prospects of a compromise at 50-50.

Toomey said he was "cautiously optimistic."

"We know how difficult this task is going to be, and I am heartened by the strong encouragement I have gotten from my constituents and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Friday in a written statement. "We'll begin by identifying those areas where we have common ground, and we are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work."

------------

"Labor unions adjust to new reality under Obama"
By SAM HANANEL - Associated Press | AP – September 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the early days of the Obama administration, organized labor had grand visions of pushing through a sweeping agenda that would help boost sagging membership and help revive union strength.

Now labor faces this reality: Public employee unions are in a drawn-out fight for their very survival in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states where GOP lawmakers have curbed collective bargaining rights.

Also, many union leaders are grousing that the president they worked so hard to elect has not focused enough on job creation and other bold plans to get their members back to work.

"Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small," said Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

Labor remains a core Democratic constituency and union leaders will stand with Obama in Detroit this Labor Day, where he will address thousands of rank-and-file members during the city's annual parade Monday.

But at the same time, unions have begun shifting money and resources out of Democratic congressional campaigns and back to the states in a furious effort to reverse or limit GOP measures that could wipe out union rolls.

The AFL-CIO's president, Richard Trumka, says it's part of a new strategy for labor to build an independent voice separate from the Democratic Party.

Union donations to federal candidates at the beginning of this year were down about 40 percent compared with the same period in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Last month, a dozen trade unions said they would boycott next year's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., over frustration on the economy and to protest the event's location in a right-to-work state.

"The pendulum has swung a long way," said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. "In the next year, I think all unions can really hope for is to keep more bad things from happening and to get as much of a jobs program enacted as possible."

Unions fell short last month in their recall campaign to wrest control of the Wisconsin Senate from Republicans. That fight was a consequence of Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public-employee unions as a part of a cost-cutting effort. Now they are spending millions more in Ohio, where they hope to pass a statewide referendum in November that would repeal a similar measure limiting union rights.

It's a far cry from the early optimism unions had after Obama came into office. Back then, unions hoped a Democratic-controlled Congress would pass legislation to make it easier for unions to organize workers. But business groups fought that proposal hard, and it never came to a vote.

Union leaders grew more disappointed when the president's health care overhaul didn't include a government-run insurance option. Then Obama agreed to extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama came out in favor of trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that most unions say will cost American jobs. Despite campaigning in favor of raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.50 an hour, Obama hasn't touched the issue since taking office.

It didn't help that Obama declined union invitations to go to Wisconsin, where thousands of protesters mobilized against the anti-union measure. Candidate Obama had promised to "put on sneakers" and walk a picket line himself when union rights were threatened.

Obama has handed labor smaller victories that didn't have to go through Congress, like granting the nation's 44,000 airport screeners limited collective bargaining rights for the first time. The National Labor Relations Board and other agencies filled with Obama's appointees have made it easier for unions to organize workers in the airline, railroad and health care industries.

The NLRB has taken a beating from Republicans after filing a lawsuit that accuses Boeing of opening a new plant in South Carolina in retaliation against union workers in Washington state.

"The field has tilted against labor so that whatever small victories they get are just tinkering around the edges and get tremendous pushback by conservatives," said Nelson Lichtenstein, director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

But labor's frustration with Obama reached new heights this summer as Trumka accused him of working with tea party Republicans on deficit reduction instead of "stepping up to the plate" on jobs.

Labor unions and other liberal groups want Obama to push a major stimulus bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on infrastructure projects like roads, bridges and transit systems. Even if it's rejected in the GOP-controlled House, unions want to see Obama show more leadership and take a bold stand in favor of stimulus spending.

That's not likely to happen. Constrained by budget cuts and a tight debt ceiling, Obama is expected to propose a limited package worth far less than the $787 billion stimulus passed in 2009.

The plan will call on Congress to extend current payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits, spend money for new construction projects and offer incentives to businesses to hire more workers.

James Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said Obama should challenge businesses with healthy bottom lines to spend more in the U.S. by hiring new workers, building plants and expanding operations. If they don't, Hoffa said, Obama should call them out as disloyal.

"I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines," Hoffa said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

He added, "We've got to turn this around and say, 'Hey, we are an American company. We owe an obligation to America. Let's put America back to work.'"

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis defended Obama from liberal critics, saying the administration has established many programs to create jobs, worked to extend unemployment insurance benefits and helped save the auto industry.

"The president is very concerned about job creation," Solis told reporters at the National Press Club. "That been our priority from day one."

Union face a tougher challenge in the states.

Walker wanted to patch the state's budget shortfall by requiring state workers to pay more for their health care and pension benefits. He said curbing bargaining rights was important in the long term to prevent unions from reversing the move in future negotiations.

Republican Wisconsin state Rep. Robin Vos said the big money spent by pro-labor forces in the recall elections shows "that they're not about protecting workers rights, they're about protecting political power."

"This is the last grasp of those political bosses to be able to showcase why they need to have the political power, and they lost," he said.

Conservatives say Walker's measure has done just what it promised, closing budget shortfalls without laying off teachers and other workers.

"As the changes have had time to sink in, people appear to be accepting it, and it appears to be part of the new status quo," said James Sherk, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A measure passed in Tennessee this year ended collective bargaining for teachers unions in the state. In Oklahoma, lawmakers repealed a law that had required large municipalities to collectively bargain with municipal employees.

"The fact that you didn't see much pushback in those states, I think, is significant," Sherk said.

Union leaders see a more sinister plan not only to cut union benefits, but to crush unions altogether, along with their political largesse to Democrats. The Wisconsin law, for example, bans automatic withdrawal of union dues and requires public unions to hold annual votes to avoid decertification.

In Ohio, unions are more hopeful that they can win a November referendum to undo the state's collective bargaining law that passed this spring. A Quinnipiac University poll in July found that 56 percent of Ohio voters say the new collective bargaining law should be repealed, compared with 32 percent who favor keeping it in place.

"A victory in Ohio would be a tremendous shot against the bow of Republicans to not mess with the unions," Lichtenstein said.

It could also help unions show they are still a political force to be reckoned with at both the state and national level.

Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., and Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

------------

"Tough economic climate as Obama seeks 2nd term"
By CHARLES BABINGTON - Associated Press | AP – September 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama faces a long re-election campaign having all but given up on the economy rebounding in any meaningful way before November 2012. His own budget office predicts unemployment will stay at about 9 percent, a frightening number for any president seeking a second term.

Obama's prospects aren't entirely grim, however. The GOP, heavily influenced by the tea party, may nominate someone so deeply flawed or right-leaning that, Democrats hope, Obama can persuade Americans to give him a second chance rather than risk the alternative.

Democrats say the man who ran on hope and change in 2008 will have to claw his way toward a second term with a sharply negative campaign.

The strengths and weaknesses of his prospects seem clear.

Next year's unemployment rate is likely to be the highest in a presidential election since 1940. But the leading Republican contenders have denigrated Social Security, switched positions on critical issues and done other things that might make them ripe targets for Obama's well-funded campaign.

Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway says GOP candidates, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, may turn off independent voters with their embrace of tea party stands on taxes, spending and program cuts.

Obama "should lump them all together and make them answer for their slash-and-burn politics," said Hattaway, a former top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

To do so, Hattaway said, Obama must link the candidates to congressional Republicans, blamed by Democrats for the nation's stalled job growth and recent downgrade of U.S. creditworthiness.

Making the connection might not prove easy.

Obama's potential challengers have avoided getting dragged into details of the bitter Capitol Hill fights over deficit spending. At least for now, they can lob criticisms at the president while offering few specific, measurable alternatives.

"President Obama oversaw an economy that created zero jobs last month, and that is unacceptable," Romney said Friday.

But the influence of the tea party and other conservative groups may give Obama some openings, by pushing the GOP field so far to the right that the candidates risk alienating vital independent voters.

In a debate last month, the top contenders pledged to oppose a deficit-reduction plan even if it cut $10 in spending for every $1 raised by new taxes. Perry, who entered the race after that debate, also has taken a tough stand against higher taxes.

Obama's team says independents, who might pay scant attention to ideologically driven primaries, will find such positions extreme when they compare the eventual GOP nominee and the president.

Political aide David Axelrod hinted that Obama will try to sharpen his differences with Republicans who insist on spending cuts in virtually every area and who refuse to let tax cuts expire, as scheduled, for the wealthiest.

It's hard "to create an economy in which people can get decent jobs and raise a family at the same time we're cutting back on our commitment to spending on education and research and development that will create innovation and jobs," Axelrod said in an interview.

The Republicans' "essential message is, let's go back to the policies that helped get us in this mess," he said, citing Wall Street deregulation and corporate tax breaks.

If GOP lawmakers, backed by the presidential hopefuls, continue to thwart Obama's bid to mix targeted spending cuts with tax increases, Axelrod said, "we're going to take our case to the American people."

Recent polls underscore Obama's challenge. A Pew Research poll found that 39 percent of independents approve of his job performance, while 52 percent disapprove.

An AP-GfK poll showed a sharp erosion of support for Obama among white voters and women. Less than half of all women and less than half of all men approve of the job he's doing, and only 50 percent of women say he deserves re-election.

But the same polls show that far more voters blame former President George W. Bush more than Obama for the nation's economic woes. Whether that sentiment lingers for 16 more months could prove crucial.

Hattaway said Obama must start by winning back moderates and motivating "millennials," voters in their 20s and early 30s.

"The economy is not going to come roaring back before the election, so he has to give them a vision" for a future with jobs and with social justice for groups, including gays, Hattaway said.

Obama also must try to minimize the frustration among his liberal base supporters, many of whom feel he is too quick to compromise. Some complained loudly Friday when Obama yanked a proposal to tighten federal smog standards.

Questions about the environment, war and foreign affairs will figure into the 2012 race. But all parties agree jobs are the overriding issue.

Analysts differ on what level of unemployment is politically fatal.

President Ronald Reagan handily won re-election in 1984 with unemployment at 7.2 percent, which was down slightly from the rate at the start of his term. President Jimmy Carter lost when unemployment was at 7.5 percent and President George H.W. Bush lost with a similar level, but both faced other problems as well.

Hopeful Democrats say Obama can survive next year if people feel growth is coming soon. Another way to survive is uglier: admitting the economy is a mess, but pressing the case that the GOP alternative is so unacceptable that the incumbent should stay in office, even with no recovery in sight.

Obama's aides say the election will be "a choice, not a referendum." That hints at a bruising effort to divert attention from the president's record and focus on what the Obama campaign believes are the GOP nominee's chief shortcomings.

Democratic optimists feel the GOP nominating process will play into that strategy. The Democratic National Committee issues a steady stream of statements and videos with headlines such as "Romney makes move to embrace Tea Party."

Several Republican candidates, including Romney, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Perry, are proven vote-getters at the state level. Soon they will show whether they can handle the scrutiny and grind of a presidential campaign.

Democrats say their records provide much to use against them.

Perry, for instance, has called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme," and said climate change is a "contrived phony mess."

Romney switched his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control after leaving the Massachusetts governor's office and seeking the Republican presidential nod. He also is criticized for his role in Bain Capital, a corporate takeover firm that eliminated jobs in some cases but expanded them in others.

Bachmann has spent only three terms in the House; the last member to go directly to the White House was James Garfield, elected in 1880. If Sarah Palin decides to run, she will be asked why she quit her job as Alaska's governor with more than a year left in her term.

------------

"Obama to exclude Social Security from deficits plan"
By Laura MacInnis | Reuters – September 15, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will not include reforms to the Social Security retirement program in his deficits proposals to Congress next week, the White House said Thursday.

Obama upset many fellow Democrats during this summer's bitter negotiations with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling when he expressed a willingness to change the way government benefits are linked to inflation.

He saw the move as a way to ensure the federal pension program remains viable in the long-term, but liberal supporters who champion entitlement programs for the elderly felt he was giving up too much ground to Republicans.

White House spokesman Amy Brundage said Obama's long-awaited deficit reduction plan, to be unveiled Monday, "will not include any changes to Social Security."

"As the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits," she said.

With Obama's shift in stance, the six Democratic members of a congressional "super committee" charged with tackling the federal deficit would not have to make immediate concessions, giving them more negotiating room with their Republican counterparts. The super committee is trying to find more than $1.2 trillion in budget savings over 10 years by November 23.

Obama's change of heart on the inflation formula could help lower the heat from his liberal base, and could also help Democratic members of Congress who are up for re-election.

Obama also expressed a willingness in the summer debt talks with House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, to raise the eligibility age for Medicare health benefits to 67 from 65.

But The Wall Street Journal said Thursday the White House was now looking at cuts to providers and increased premiums for wealthier recipients of Medicare, the healthcare program for the elderly.

A senior administration official said final decisions have not been made about Obama's recommendations to the super committee.

While Obama's proposals will not be binding on the committee, they will likely feed into 2012 campaign rhetoric and give the president an opportunity to counter the Republican image of him as a tax-and-spend liberal.

Obama is expected to recommend more than $3 trillion in budget savings next week, although Republican members of the super committee have already questioned whether that is achievable.

Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, will call Thursday for the super committee to consider tax reform that would close loopholes but not raise rates, as well as changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

He will also argue in a speech that Republicans and Democrats should work together to reduce business regulations and lower taxes and spending to boost job creation and economic growth, according to a summary provided by his office.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan and Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Ross Colvin and Vicki Allen)

------------

"Obama seeks new minimum tax rate for millionaires: GOP is expected to oppose plan named for Buffett"
By Jackie Calmes, New York Times, September 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama tomorrow will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.

With a special joint congressional committee just starting work to reach a bipartisan budget deal by late November, the proposal adds a new and populist feature to Obama’s effort to raise the political pressure on Republicans to agree to higher revenues from the wealthy in return for Democrats’ support of future savings from Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the Buffett Rule, in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

Obama will not specify a rate or other details, and it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise. But his idea of a millionaires’ minimum tax will be prominent in the broad plan for long-term deficit reduction that he will outline at the White House tomorrow.

Obama’s proposal is certain to draw opposition from Republicans, who have staunchly opposed raising taxes on the affluent because, they say, it would discourage investment. It could also invite scrutiny from some economists who have disputed Buffett’s assertion that the megarich pay a lower tax rate overall, because many in that group actually make more from wages than from investments.

In a speech Thursday, John A. Boehner, the House speaker and an Ohio Republican, agreed with Obama that the deficit-reduction committee “can tackle tax reform, and it should,’’ to get rid of many tax breaks and allow for lower marginal rates.

“Tax increases, however, are not a viable option for the joint committee,’’ Boehner said. Instead, he emphasized that meeting the deficit-reduction target should come largely from overhauling benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for reelection in 2012.

It could also reassure Democrats who have feared that Obama would agree to changes in programs like Medicare without forcing Republicans to compromise on taxes.

The administration wants such a tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now hits millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class. Obama has said that many average Americans could see a tax cut if the system is overhauled, since ending many tax breaks would allow for lower rates while raising more revenues from the wealthiest.

The millionaires’ tax is among several changes Obama will propose in urging Congress to overhaul the federal income tax code next year, both to raise revenues for reducing deficits and to make the tax system simpler and fairer, said the administration officials, who agreed to speak in advance of the president’s announcement on condition of anonymity.

The millionaires’ rate would affect only 0.3 percent of taxpayers, they said. That would be fewer than 450,000; 144 million returns were filed for 2010.

Obama’s proposal comes a month after Buffett began reviving his longstanding objection that he and “my megarich friends’’ pay a significantly lower percentage of their income in federal taxes - income and payroll taxes - than everyone else, thanks to the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich, and especially toward investors like him.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice,’’ he wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times, a complaint he has repeated in talks and interviews since.

Obama has been citing Buffett as he promotes his $447 billion jobs plan. He proposes to offset the cost of that plan and reduce future budget deficits through higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations after 2013, when the economy will presumably be healthier.

His proposed Buffett Rule puts a new spin on that pitch, as Obama tries to put Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race on the defensive for their rigid stand against higher taxes.

------------

"Obama allows states to opt out of some ‘No Child’ rules"
By Kimberly Hefling, AP Education Writer, September 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly everyone agrees the fix needs fixing. The No Child Left Behind law that was supposed to improve American education has left schools grumbling at being labeled ‘‘failures’’ state officials fuming and complaints everywhere about required testing.

But President Barack Obama’s response today— he’s allowing states to opt out — is starting a new round of heated arguments.

There are questions about whether letting states bypass unpopular proficiency standards will help the nation’s schoolchildren. And, even as states clamor to use the new waiver option, some lawmakers say Obama is inserting politics in what had been a bipartisan approach to education.

At the White House, the president said he was acting only because Congress wouldn't. He decried the state of US education and called the ‘‘No Child’’ law — a signature legacy of President George W. Bush’s presidency — an admirable but flawed effort that ended up hurting students instead of helping them.

Obama’s announcement could fundamentally affect the education of tens of millions of children. It will allow states to scrap a key requirement that all children show they are proficient in reading and math by 2014 — if those states meet conditions such as imposing their own standards to prepare students for college and careers and setting evaluation standards for teachers and principals.

Kids will still have to take yearly tests in math and reading, although the administration says the emphasis will be more on measuring growth over time.

The impact on school kids could vary greatly depending on how states choose to reward or punish individual schools. Under No Child Left Behind, children who attend schools deemed failures after a set period of time are eligible for extra tutoring and school choice. Under the president’s plan, it’s up to states granted waivers to decide if they will use those same remedies.

A majority of states are expected to apply for waivers, which would be given to those that qualify early next year.

State officials have long complained that if they had more flexibility, they could implement positive changes. Now, they will have to step up and prove it.

‘‘This is really going to change things because it really does put responsibility squarely on the states,’’ said Amy Wilkins, a vice president at Education Trust, a nonprofit that seeks to raise achievement standards in schools.

Officials from Kentucky, Idaho, Wisconsin and Colorado were among those expressing support for the president’s plan on Friday.

‘‘I look forward to the federal government narrowing its role in education and allowing Tennessee the flexibility to abide by its own rigorous standards,’’ Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, said at the White House event.

But Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who chairs the House Education Committee, wrote in an editorial Friday published in The Washington Examiner that the plan ‘‘could mean less transparency, new federal regulations and greater uncertainty for students, teachers, and state and local officials.’’

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the ranking member on the Senate committee that oversees education, said the president’s action ‘‘clearly politicizes education policy, which traditionally has been a bipartisan issue that attracts support from both parties.’’

The president’s plan is likely to feed the story line by Republicans that Obama is aggressively expanding the presidential footprint, particularly since some people might view it as unconstitutional to go around Congress to get around the law, said Frederick Hess director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute

‘‘In pushing this way, the administration makes it likely that education is going to be much more of a partisan divide leading up to the 2012 election,’’ Hess said.

During Thursday night’s campaign debate in Orlando, Fla., the Republican presidential candidates echoed a common refrain about the federal government’s role in education. Mitt Romney said, ‘‘One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level.’’ Said Rick Perry, ‘‘The federal government has no business telling the states how to educate our children.’’

Despite allowing states to do away with the approaching 2014 deadline, Obama insisted he was not weakening the law but rather helping states set higher standards. He said that the current law was forcing educators to teach to the test, give short shrift to subjects such as history and science and lower standards as a way of avoiding penalties and stigmas.

In delivering his remarks, the president took a shot at Congress, saying his executive action was needed only because lawmakers have not stepped in to improve the law.

‘‘Congress hasn’t been able to do it. So I will,’’ Obama said. ‘‘Our kids only get one shot at a decent education.’’

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said the plan would not undermine efforts in Congress because the waivers could serve as a bridge until Congress acts.

The law was approved with strong bipartisan support nearly a decade ago. But its popularity sank as disputes over money divided Congress, schools complained they were being labeled ‘‘failures’’ and questions arose over the testing and teacher-quality provisions.

‘‘Higher standards are the right goal. Accountability is the right goal. Closing the achievement gap is the right goal. And we've got to stay focused on those goals,’’ Obama said. ‘‘But experience has taught us that in its implementation, No Child Left Behind had some serious flaws that are hurting our children instead of helping them.’’

Critics say the law placed too much emphasis on standardized tests, raising the stakes so high for school districts that it may have driven some school officials to cheat.

Duncan has warned that 82 percent of schools next year could fail to reach proficiency requirements and thus be labeled failures, although some experts questioned the figure.

The law has been due for a rewrite since 2007. Obama and Duncan had asked Congress to overhaul it by the start of this school year but a growing ideological divide in Congress has complicated efforts to do so.

The GOP-led House Education Committee has forwarded three bills that would revamp aspects of the law but has yet to fully tackle some of the more contentious issues such as teacher effectiveness and accountability.

Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Julie Pace contributed to this story.

------------

"Congress dodges one crisis, now on to the next"
By DONNA CASSATA - Associated Press | AP – September 27, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — One crisis averted, on to the next. The day after Congress managed to avoid a government shutdown — again — Republicans and Democrats stared ahead Tuesday at major fights over spending that underscore a deep divide that's sure to define the fast-approaching national elections.

Monday night, lawmakers had postponed their dispute over whether billions for disaster aid must be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the budget, finessing a pact to keep the government operating.

But tea party-driven Republicans are still insisting on significant spending cuts this fall, with some arguing that a hard-fought congressional agreement this summer to fund the government at $1.043 trillion in 2012 was too generous. Democrats, many of whom complained of too many concessions and reductions in this year's showdowns, are furiously trying to protect government programs.

The next skirmish will be over how and where to spend the new year's budget, with a Nov. 18 deadline for that legislation. President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs proposal that would cut payroll taxes and increase spending on school construction and other infrastructure has already divided the parties. But the next really big deal is the special 12-member bipartisan supercommittee and whether it can come up with a plan to slash $1.5 trillion over 10 years by Nov. 23 — the day before Thanksgiving.

These fights will unfold against the backdrop of a feeble economy that Obama is desperate to jump-start as he pushes for a second term, and an exasperated electorate that looks at Washington and dislikes what it sees.

"The heat will be on, the heat from the American people," said former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, who believes Americans struggling economically will be asking, "Why stretch us out like this?"

Lawmakers also will be under pressure from political factions demanding that they stand firm for party beliefs.

"You have to support getting control of excessive spending and debt," said Sal Russo, a longtime Republican operative and founder of the Tea Party Express, a well-funded wing of the populist movement. "Are you helping to solve the problem or making it worse?"

Shortly after Senate votes on Monday, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., thanked party leaders "for helping the Democratic Party find the backbone it needed to fight and win this debate."

The disaster aid dispute that threatened to partially shut down the government this weekend was resolved relatively quickly after a standoff between Democrats and Republicans. The fight, however, was an unpleasant reminder to most Americans of the last-minute maneuvering in April to avert a shutdown and the August showdown over raising the nation's borrowing authority that left financial markets unnerved.

This time, Democrats had spent weeks demanding additional disaster aid in response to hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters that had battered Americans from Vermont to Missouri. Republicans had said the additional aid had to be offset by cuts in energy-related programs that Democrats favored. The Federal Emergency Management Agency had warned that its accounts would be out of money early this week.

A solution to keep the government operating seemed uncertain last week. Then word from the Obama administration that FEMA wasn't in as dire financial straits as many feared proved to be the answer.

On Saturday, the administration told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that FEMA could last until Thursday with the money it had. Specifically, an unknown contractor had come in under budget, freeing some $40 million, said Democratic and Republican congressional aides.

On Sunday morning, Reid reached out to House Speaker John Boehner's staff, informed them of the more promising financial outlook for FEMA and proposed two bare-bones emergency spending bills, one to keep the government operating for a week and another until Nov. 18. Boehner's office contacted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the latest developments and proposal.

McConnell's office made a quick check with the Senate Republican vote counter, Jon Kyl of Arizona, on whether such a plan would fly with the GOP.

FEMA was still saying Thursday, possibly Friday, before the money ran out, but a way out had emerged. Within hours on Monday, Democrats and Republicans had agreed on an emergency spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. FEMA would get $2.65 billion in disaster relief assistance in a one-week bill, $1 billion less than approved by tea party Republicans.

Chris Krueger, a political analyst for the brokerage firm MF Global, said, "Both sides are convinced this continued threat of government shutdown benefits no incumbents."

The House, on recess this week, probably will back the one-week measure by voice vote Thursday and vote separately next week to keep the government running through Nov. 18.

"The perils of Pauline," said John Feehery, a Republican political consultant and former congressional aide. "Every new episode has a new cliffhanger."

In a letter dated Sept. 26, Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote congressional leaders that as FEMA approached the last five days of the fiscal year this week, "it appears that weather systems forming off our shores will not significantly affect the United States. That, in combination with FEMA's rigorous cash management mechanism, means" the agency could operate for much of the week.

Congress may have a harder time weathering the storms of budget showdowns, a reality that lawmakers acknowledged.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said he traveled through his home state of Illinois this past weekend and when Americans "see us break down into another cussing match over shutting down the government, they say 'for goodness sake, grow up, group up and accept your responsibility."

McConnell, R-Ky., said the "entire fire-drill was completely unnecessary."

With some 80 percent of Americans disapproving of Congress, a remarkable number for a major government institution, outsiders see few winners.

"They don't really realize they are playing Russian roulette," said Robert E. Denton Jr., head of the communications department at Virginia Tech.

------------

"Obama, Congress divided over terror suspects"
By Donna Cassata, Associated Press, October 5, 2011

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and other al-Qaida leaders. Yet, in spite of those successes, Republicans and some Democrats in Congress remain intent on challenging the administration's policies for handling captured terror suspects.

Those lawmakers insist that as a post-Sept. 11 nation wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan, captured terror suspects should be held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and prosecuted by military tribunal. They have repeatedly rejected President Barack Obama's push to shutter Guantanamo as well as the administration's effort to detain suspects at facilities in the United States and try them in federal courts.

"It's the ultimate NIMBY situation," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., referring to the not-in-my-backyard argument. Guantanamo is "not going to close. ... I favor closing, but I also favor before announcing its closure finding a place where they could be kept."

Facing fierce congressional resistance, the administration has accepted restrictions on detention of terror suspects. Last year's defense bill and the omnibus spending bill that Obama and Congress agreed to in April barred the transfer of terror suspects from Guantanamo to the United States, prevented construction or modification of U.S. facilities to house suspects, and required the defense secretary to notify Congress before moving a terror suspect to a foreign country.

Now, however, the administration is pushing back by opposing detainee provisions in the latest defense bill. The fight could jeopardize the sweeping $683 billion legislation that would authorize spending on military personnel, weapons systems and the two wars in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Citing administration opposition as well as his own reservations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday he would hold up the bill until concerns over the detainee provisions are settled.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Wednesday called on Reid to let the Senate debate the bill. McConnell said that if Democrats support the White House in bringing "unlawful enemy combatants to the United States for the purpose of detention and civilian trial," they should consider the provision as part of the bill.

The administration insists that lawmakers are trying to tie the hands of the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents after they've succeeded in killing bin Laden in May and al-Awlaki in Yemen last week, delivering two body blows to al-Qaida. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat and that the administration is being too rigid in ignoring viable options like military commissions.

The dispute comes as a Guantanamo Bay prisoner accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole prepares to be arraigned later this month before a military judge at the U.S. Navy base. Abd al-Nashiri, who is charged with murder in violation of the law of war for allegedly planning the attack that killed 17 sailors, would face the first death-penalty war crimes trial for a prisoner at Guantanamo under Obama.

The administration also is considering a military trial in the United States for a Hezbollah commander now detained in Iraq.

The administration's opposition to congressional efforts was clearly spelled out by White House counterterror chief John Brennan, who in a Sept. 16 speech at Harvard University argued for a case-by-case approach in prosecuting terrorist suspects.

"We have established a practical, flexible, results-driven approach that maximizes our intelligence collection and preserves our ability to prosecute dangerous individuals," Brennan said. "Anything less -- particularly a rigid, inflexible approach -- would be disastrous."

The disagreement centers on two competing defense bills, one passed by the Republican-controlled House in May, the other produced by the Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee in June.

Specifically, the administration finds three provisions -- two in the House bill and one in the Senate -- to be the most problematic.

The House bill would prohibit the transfer or release of terror suspects from Guantanamo to the United States and would prohibit the transfer of terror suspects to foreign countries unless the defense secretary makes several certifications to Congress, including the country's record on terrorism and its detention facility. The Senate bill's provision would require military custody for a terror suspect identified as a member of al-Qaida or an affiliate, or an individual who planned or carried out an attack on the United States.

The Obama administration is trying to sway the opposition by arguing that the House provisions would potentially make it impossible to try terror suspects in federal courts, which in some cases could be the better venue for prosecution, an administration official said. The administration, according to the official, also is sketching a scenario that it argues could take place under the Senate provision: The FBI arrests an individual on a terrorism charge and is eliciting critical information on al-Qaida when, suddenly, the interrogation stops and the FBI has to locate someone in the military to take custody of the suspect.

Various departments and agencies have been in touch with congressional committees, spelling out their concerns with the provisions, the official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe strategy and discuss private conversations.

Civil liberties groups and other organizations also have weighed in on the provisions. Eleven retired generals, admirals and former judge advocate generals have expressed their opposition to the legislation, saying it "would transform our armed forces into judge, jury and jailor for foreign terrorist suspects. The military's mission is to prosecute wars, not terrorists."

The group argued that suspects could be tried in federal courts on such charges as money laundering and trafficking.

"If Al Capone has been a member of al-Qaida, military commissions would not have been able to convict him of tax evasion," they wrote.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, repeatedly points out that the United States has succeeded in more than 400 cases in federal courts, compared with a handful through military commissions -- which largely haven't been operating for about two years during the Obama administration.

"Why take proven tools out of the toolbox?" Smith said. "The FBI has done an amazing job ... the courts have done an amazing job locking them up."

Republicans argue that Americans overwhelmingly back keeping terror suspects at Guantanamo and out of the United States, and the policy should remain no matter what success Obama has had in killing terrorists. There are 171 prisoners at Guantanamo, and the government has said about 35 could eventually face war crimes charges.

"I applaud everybody involved in killing these terrorists of late. We've been seeking them out and killing them for over a decade and we need to continue," said Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "I don't see how that relates to (federal) courts. The way it's currently constituted is working just fine."

Said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: "We have to have a detention system that allows the warfighter an option other than killing a terrorist. If you captured someone tomorrow, where would you put him? The only available jail is Guantanamo Bay."

With some 12 weeks left in the congressional session, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and McCain, the panel's top Republican, are trying to come up with a compromise to deal with the detainee provision problems.

------------

"Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen"
The New York Times - October 8, 2011

The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The memo provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine.

------------

"Obama says to keep standing up to Congress on taxes"
By Laura MacInnis | Reuters – December 11, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama defended his leadership style on Sunday and said he would keep standing up to Congress as another stand-off over taxes and deficits brewed on Capitol Hill.

In an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes," Obama suggested his wife, Michelle, had mixed feelings about their time in the White House but said he had no hesitation about seeking re-election next year, saying he wanted to finish the job of putting the U.S. economy on stronger, and fairer, footing.

Asked if he'd had any doubts about pursuing a second term, given so many of his supporters have been disappointed by his struggles to get things done in a divided Washington, Obama said: "No."

"Not because our quality of life might not be better if I were not president. Not because Michelle is so enamored with me being president. But because we both think that what we're doing is really important for a lot of people out there," he said, saying it was inevitable his approval ratings would slip once he took office.

"If my goal was to maintain the extraordinary popularity that I had right after I made my convention speech in 2004, then I would have never left the Senate," he said. "I wouldn't have been leading this country, but people would be really attracted, because I wouldn't have had to make any choices and make any decisions and exercise any responsibility. I took a different path. And as Michelle reminds me, 'You volunteered for this thing.'"

A majority of Americans believe Obama does not deserve a second four-year term, according to recent polls, which show only about a third of the country gives the Democrat good marks for his handling of the economy.

The White House has sought to stress that Obama inherited a fragile economy from his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, who also added to the U.S. debtload with aggressive spending on the wars he waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But many voters fault Obama for failing to kickstart growth and slash the jobless rate, which at 8.6 percent remains about double the level considered normal for the United States.

Republican contenders for the White House, including Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, have said the president was not up to the task of steering the country out of economic crisis.

UNSATISFIED

Obama has also drawn criticism for failing to overcome an impasse with Republicans in Congress, who brought the United States to the verge of sovereign default in August in a fight about U.S. debt levels and then blocked his $447 billion jobs bill to resist tax increases on the wealthy.

With another battle heating up, this time over payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits that Obama wants extended before the end of the year, the president said he would keep pushing for a deal that requires rich Americans to "pay a little more."

Republicans have said that raising taxes on the rich would punish entrepreneurs and dent hiring, and they want to see spending cuts to ensure the payroll and unemployment moves do not add to already-large U.S. deficits.

They have accused Obama of turning his back to Congress and making a series of campaign-style economic speeches on the road instead of sitting down to negotiate workable remedies.

In the CBS interview, the president said that while he wanted to work with Congress on "common sense" solutions, Republicans intent on ousting him had "made a different calculation, which was, 'You know what? We really screwed up the economy. Obama seems popular. Our best bet is to stand on the sidelines, because we think the economy's going to get worse, and at some point, just blame him.'"

He said the American people "shouldn't feel satisfied" at present and he said he would keep pushing Republicans to "get off the dime" about taxes and ask his fellow Democrats in Congress to accept reforms to benefit programs so long as the cuts don't take effect while growth remains weak.

"We've got a lot more work to do in order to get this country and the economy moving in a way that benefits everybody, as opposed to just a few," he said, later adding it would take "more than one term" to fulfill his 2008 campaign pledge to change Washington's culture and put partisanship aside to tackle big problems.

"The one thing I've prided myself on before I was president, and it turns out that continues to be true as president: I'm a persistent son of a gun. I just stay at it. And I'm just going to keep on staying at it as long as I'm in this office," he said.

On Sunday morning, Obama and his family attended a church service near the White House where Reverand Luis Leon referenced the president in a sermon about "disillusionment," saying many people had unfairly expected Obama could cure the United States of all its problems when he took office.

"This is not a political diatribe by the way. It's simply stating the obvious," he said to laughter in the congregation.

(Additional reporting by Anna Yukhananov)

------------

"Reader: New legislation is a cause for action"
The North Adams Transcript, Letter to the Editor, December 27, 2011

To the Editor:

I am feeling a bit like Alice these days, tumbling down the rabbit hole and wondering how deep the rabbit hole goes.

There’s nothing subtle about what’s gone wrong with our country, politics, democracy and economy, and nothing inconspicuous about how we got here. Yet huge numbers of people can’t see it. And perhaps more disconcertingly, larger numbers are just sitting by watching it, "finding it easier to live in the world they’ve been given, than to explore the power they have to change it," to quote Muhammad Ali.

I understand the Machiavellian lust for power and profligate greed. Sadly, they define human history. But, these are "my" times. What I don’t understand is our complacency, lack of outrage and passive acceptance of the severe consequences that befall us due to the egregious misdeeds of the powerful and rich, and our impotence to hold them accountable.

How is it that Bush and Cheney, who admit to ordering crimes against humanity, go unpunished while a private who exposes them faces life in military prison? How is it that those who crashed our economy and stole our money are rewarded and not held accountable while the victims, protesting against their crimes, are subject to paramilitary responses, pepper sprayed and jailed? How is it that our Supreme Court, Congress and two presidents can blatantly violate our Constitution without massive public backlash?

Recently, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. According to this bill, "the U.S. military can now bust down your door at any time (given the proper go ahead by the executive branch), take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you," according to a story on dailykos.com. This bill was passed, according to our Congress and president, to "protect" America.

They voted, in violation of the Constitution, to overturn the Bill of Rights and fundamentally change our democracy. In short, the terrorists have won.

"There’s a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people," to quote BattleStar Galactica’s Commander Adama.

If shredding the Constitution doesn’t rile the masses to action, I cannot fathom what will. As I see it, our "only" hope is massive civil disobedience, aka the Occupy Movement. Don’t sit and watch it -- join it and stand-out in protest!

Peter D. May
North Adams, Massachusetts
Dec. 24, 2011

------------

"Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'"
By Julie Pace, Associated Press, December 31, 2011

HONOLULU—President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

"Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded," Obama said in the signing statement.

Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.

Obama's signature caps months of wrangling over how to handle captured terrorist suspects without violating Americans' constitutional rights. The White House initially threatened to veto the legislation but dropped the warning after Congress made last-minute changes.

Among the changes the administration secured was striking a provision that would have eliminated executive branch authority to use civilian courts for trying terrorism cases against foreign nationals.

The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or "associated forces" and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Despite the changes, officials cited serious concerns that the law will complicate and could harm the investigation of terrorism cases.

For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.

Other officials have said agents and prosecutors should not have to spend their time worrying about citizenship status and whether get a waiver while trying to thwart a terror attack.

The administration also raised concerns about an amendment in the bill that goes after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Officials worry that the penalties could lead to higher oil prices, damaging the U.S. economic recovery and hurting allies in Europe and Asia that purchase petroleum from Iran.

The penalties do not go into effect for six months. The president can waive them for national security reasons or if the country with jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its purchases of Iran oil.

The State Department has said the U.S. was looking at how to put them in place in a way that maximized the pressure on Iran, but meant minimal disruption to the U.S. and its allies.

This week, Iran warned that it may disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz -- a vital Persian Gulf waterway. But on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off that threat when a commander of its Revolutionary Guard said such discussion is a thing of the past and "belongs to five years ago."

Iran also said Saturday that it had proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with the U.S. and other world powers. The invitation would come after the U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions. Separately, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

The $662 billion bill authorizes money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The measure also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

Obama signed the bill in Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family.

------------

"Defense Act threatens our freedoms"
The Berkshire Eagle, Letter to the Editor, January 5, 2012

This is in reference to Don Allen's Dec. 25 letter "Sixth Amendment isn't applicable." Mr. Allen takes issue with a previous letter by Jose Lu who argued that portions of the new defense act violate the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, citing specifically "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." Mr. Allen rebuts by writing "It seems clear that the Sixth Amendment applies to common criminals, and not to enemies of the U.S."

Actually, Mr. Allen, the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to criminals either, common or uncommon. It applies to citizens who have only been "accused" of violating United States law. They are not presumed to be criminals; to the contrary, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that can best be determined through "the right to a speedy and public trial."

Taking this further, Mr. Allen believes the Sixth Amendment does not apply to "enemies of the U. S." But it does apply to citizens who have been "accused" of being enemies of the U.S., and these are the very people Mr. Allan wants swept up and held indefinitely without trial.

Mr. Allen seems to assume that innocent people are never arrested or incarcerated, and no one has ever been falsely accused. It's a wonder we have a need for a judicial system at all, so perfect is Mr. Allen's faith in the intentions and judgment of our elected representatives.

And what happens when I demonstrate against going to war with, say, Iran, which might or might not pose a threat to neighboring countries and allies? Will I be considered an enemy of the state because a small cadre of people in power interpret my actions as a threat to national security? And I won't have my day court will I Mr. Allen?

Mr. Allen also supports that part of the defense act that states that citizens may be held in "detention under the laws of war without trial until the end of the hostilities." Perhaps he will define -- in legal terms -- the exact meaning of "hostilities," because, from my point of view, hostilities will not end for generations, if ever. The "war" in Iraq has officially come to an end. The "war" in Afghanistan is winding down. But the "hostilities" with terrorist groups will not. We wear hostilities like a glove.

The level of judgment expressed by Mr. Allan is, unfortunately, not unusual, and those who legislate such dangerous threats to individual freedom count on that. There are those in office today who would love to suppress free speech and this is the document that brings us one step closer to that reality. The enemies of the state, in my mind, are those who conceived, legislated, passed, and support the above-mentioned portions of the new defense act.

JEFFREY REEL
Becket, Massachusetts

------------

"Elizabeth Warren lauds naming of consumer chief"
By Associated Press, Local Politics, bostonherald.com - January 4, 2012

BOSTON — Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren is praising President Barack Obama’s decision to name Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog over the objections of Senate Republicans.

Warren called Cordray an "exceptional choice" to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Warren, a Harvard professor and consumer advocate, led the push for the new agency and was briefly considered as a candidate to head it.

Warren criticized Republicans for trying to block Cordray’s appointment, saying they were frustrating efforts to hold large banks accountable for bringing the nation’s economy to its knees.

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican incumbent Warren is hoping to oust, had already broken with fellow GOP senators and called for an up or down vote on Cordray.

Brown also said he supports Cordray’s nomination.

------------

President Obama makes remarks about government reform in the East Room of the White House on Friday (January 13, 2012). (Doug Mills/The New York Times)

"Obama to Ask Congress for Power to Merge Agencies"
By MARK LANDLER, N.Y. Times, January 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced a new campaign on Friday to shrink the federal government, a proposal notable less for its goal — the fight against bloat has been championed by every modern-day president — than for its challenge to a hostile Congress.

Mr. Obama called on lawmakers to grant him broad new authority to propose mergers of government agencies, which the Congress would have to approve or reject in an up-or-down vote.

The president, announcing the plan at the White House, said he would begin his pruning exercise by folding the Small Business Administration and five other agencies involved in trade and business, into a single agency that would replace the Commerce Department.

The White House said the consolidation would save $3 billion over 10 years and result in the elimination of 1,000 to 2,000 jobs, though he said those reductions would occur through attrition rather than layoffs.

“From the moment I got here, I saw up close what many of you know to be true: the government we have is not the government we need,” Mr. Obama told an audience of small business owners.

It is not clear whether Congress, which has blocked the bulk of Mr. Obama’s legislative agenda, will go along with the initiative. White House officials said that no president since Ronald Reagan has had the so-called “consolidation authority” Mr. Obama is seeking.

Republicans were immediately skeptical. They suggested that the White House was more interested in honing its re-election message than in reducing the size of government.

“Yesterday, President Obama asked for a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit, today he is proposing to shrink the federal government,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “Unfortunately, President Obama does not have much of a record to back up his newfound, election-year enthusiasm for limited government.”

A spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner said that Republicans would take a look at the plan.

“We hope the president isn’t simply proposing new packaging for the same burdensome approach,” said the spokesman, Brendan Buck. “However, eliminating duplicative programs and making the federal government more simple, streamlined, and business-friendly is always an idea worth exploring. We look forward to hearing more about his proposal.”

By putting the onus for streamlining government on Congress, however, Mr. Obama was seizing a core issue of Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney — the inexorable growth of the federal government — and trying to turn it to his own political advantage.

It was the latest sally by the president, who has gone on the offensive against Congress as he embarks on his re-election bid. He appointed a new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, as well as other appointees to regulatory agencies, during a Congressional recess, to get around the opposition of lawmakers.

Under the terms of the reorganization proposed Friday, six relatively small agencies — the Small Business Administration, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency — would be consolidated into a single agency focused on opportunities for the private sector.

The administrator of the Small Business Administration, currently Karen G. Mills, would be elevated to the cabinet.

To illustrate the tangled maze of government services for businesses, the president gestured toward a screen behind him that showed the dozens of Web sites, offices, and customer service centers that a company must contend with, many with overlapping functions.

Mr. Obama championed the goal of streamlining government during his State of the Union address last year. On Friday, he cited an example of duplication from that speech: the Interior Department oversees salmon in fresh water, while the Commerce Department has jurisdiction over them in salt water.

The president said he would use the “consolidating authority” only for bureaucratic reorganizations that cut costs and made the government more efficient. And he challenged Republican lawmakers to support an idea that they themselves have embraced.

“With or without Congress, I’m going to keep at it, but it would be easier if Congress helped,” Mr. Obama said. “This is an area where we should receive bipartisan support because making our government more responsive and strategic and leaner should not be a partisan issue.”

One government efficiency expert, Jitinder Kohli, applauded the move.

“These efforts to rationalize government are long overdue, frankly,” said Mr. Kohli, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “In fiscally tight times, it’s even more important to think carefully about how to deliver savings — and that includes making Web sites easier to use, providing single points of entry and streamlining.”

“In the world of business, reorganization happens all the time, for good reason,” Mr. Kohli added. “The world changes around businesses, and businesses change to better serve the world. But the government is far, far less nimble.”

Still, a body of research throws cold water on the notion that such reorganization leads to lower head counts, more effective departments or cost savings.

“The most important considerations are the costs in wasted time while they do the reorganization, how this changes the politics of the affected agencies in relation to Congress and other executive branch agencies, and how specific the purported benefits of consolidation are,” said Steven M. Teles, an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. “My gut tells me those benefits will end up being much smaller than advertised, and the costs much larger.”

Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts, said” “This is one of those ideas that looks great in abstract. But you’re talking about merging the organizational cultures of five or six agencies. It takes a long time for efficiencies and synergies to work out. They’re not going to play well for a while.”

Nonetheless, Professor Drezner said that having a single body devoted to export promotion made sense.

“If you look at American exports, it’s dominated by big business,” he said. “If you want small and medium enterprises to get more involved in exporting” — a goal of the Obama administration — “having small business and the trade office in the same agency makes sense. So this could be a boon for that.”

Susan C. Schwab, who served as a United States trade representative during the Bush administration, agreed that the move might improve export promotion. But she said that it might do so at the expense of broader trade policy.

“You’d take a small, very efficient agency and have it totally swallowed up by this behemoth,” said Ms. Schwab, who is now a professor of public policy the University of Maryland. “From a trade policy perspective, it makes no sense at all.”

Ms. Schwab added: “Trade policy involves so many different sectors of the economy, and U.S. interests It’s foreign policy. It’s manufacturing. It is services, agriculture, consumers, labor, the environment, intellectual property.”

An agency without a strong trade representative, she said, could end up giving “short shrift” to some concerns.

Annie Lowrey contributed reporting.

------------

------------

"Fed to Maintain Rates Near Zero Through Late 2014"
The New York Times, January 25, 2012

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that it intends to hold short-term interest rates near zero “at least through late 2014.”

------------

In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama presented a list of economic proposals, including tax code changes.

"In Address, Obama Makes Pitch for Economic Fairness"
By HELENE COOPER, N.Y. Times, January 24, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Obama pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America’s rich and the rest of the public, trying to present an election-year choice between continued leadership toward an economy “built to last” and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused an economic collapse.

Declaring that “we’ve come too far to turn back now,” the president used his final State of the Union address before he faces the voters to showcase the extent to which he will try to contrast his core economic principles with those of his Republican rivals in a time of deep economic uncertainty. While many Americans remain disappointed with the state of the economy and the president’s handling of it, Mr. Obama nonetheless tried to bring into relief the difference between where the country was when he took over and where it is now.

“The state of our union is getting stronger,” he declared in time-honored tradition. “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” He pointed to renewed hiring by American manufacturers and — borrowing the “built to last” phrase from the auto industry he helped save — he sketched out, albeit vaguely, what he called a blueprint for economic growth in which the wealthy play by the same rules as ordinary Americans.

Republicans challenged Mr. Obama’s assessment of the economy, and asserted that his policies had made the situation worse. But with their own poll numbers diving, Congressional Republicans were subdued in their response to the speech, careful not to boo or seem disrespectful. And the president disputed their claim that he was practicing the politics of division.

“You can call this class warfare all you want,” Mr. Obama said of his call to create a more even economic playing field. “Most Americans would call that common sense.” He characterized the choice as one between whether “a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by” or his own vision — “where everyone gets a fair shot.”

In returning to his 2008 campaign motif of these being “not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values,” Mr. Obama presented a somewhat modest list of initiatives he could enact through executive authority coupled with more ambitious proposals unlikely to advance in Congress. It was an address meant to show a president still interested in governing and a leader putting the interests of the American middle class at the top of his agenda.

Many of his proposals centered on changes to the tax code, including limiting deductions for companies that move jobs overseas, rewarding companies that return jobs to the United States and increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.

Taking aim at financial institutions that engaged in risky lending practices that many believe tipped the country into financial crisis, Mr. Obama said he was asking Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and state attorneys general to expand investigations into abusive lending. The new unit, he said, “will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”

Mr. Obama also proposed a new trade enforcement unit that would add to the number of government investigators pursuing unfair trade practices and that would be responsible for filing lawsuits against foreign countries, namely China. He called for new legislation to make it easier for Americans to refinance their homes if their interest rates are above market rates. And he proposed a bound-to-be-contentious way to allocate any savings from ending the war in Iraq and winding down the war in Afghanistan: by using half of the war savings on infrastructure projects and the other half to reduce the deficit.

“We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits,” Mr. Obama said. Though his advisers have vowed a campaign against Congress, he expressed a willingness to “work with anyone in this chamber” and said he would “oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”

In an emotional moment, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was wounded in the Tucson shooting last year, returned for the speech before her imminent resignation from the House to concentrate on her recovery. Although the president is often criticized for his aloofness, he embraced Ms. Giffords for a long 10 seconds, rocking and almost seeming to be dancing with her.

Mr. Obama again proposed changes to the tax code so the wealthy pay more, a position he has indicated he will continue to press in this election year against Republican opposition. He called for Congress to put into place his “Buffett Rule” — named after the Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren E. Buffett — whereby people making more than $1 million a year would pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent in income taxes.

To illustrate his point, he provocatively used Mr. Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, as one of his props, seating Ms. Bosanek — whose effective tax rate is higher than Mr. Buffett’s, he has said — in the chamber with the first lady, Michelle Obama.

Mr. Obama’s income tax proposal on Tuesday night was particularly charged, coming as it did less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, released tax returns showing that he and his wife, Ann, had an effective federal income tax rate in 2010 of 13.9 percent and an income ranking among the top one-10th of 1 percent of all taxpayers in 2010.

Mr. Obama would like the new tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure that the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now affects millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.

An upbeat Mr. Obama delivered his remarks standing in the chamber of the House of Representatives, an arena ruled by his political adversaries, given the Republican majority that the president and fellow Democrats have criticized as blocking much of the White House agenda.

But in the official Republican response to the address, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana said it had been Congressional Republicans who had acted to improve the economy, only to be thwarted by the president.

“The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crisis that continue in America tonight,” Mr. Daniels said. “But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”

While he was addressing Congress and assembled dignitaries, Mr. Obama was trying to reach the far greater national television audience of American voters, and his speech, while deep in policy initiatives, served in many ways as a prime-time kickoff of his re-election campaign.

In fact, most of the first lady’s guests on Tuesday night came from states that figure heavily in Mr. Obama’s re-election plans. Included were North Carolina, from where Mr. Obama selected both a worker and an employer, to demonstrate the benefits of public-private partnerships, and Florida, from where he chose a homeowner who was able to keep her house thanks to Mr. Obama’s housing refinance program.

Mr. Obama said a major part of his agenda would be the expansion of domestic energy supplies, both from traditional fuels like oil and natural gas and from cleaner sources like wind and the sun. He singled out the rapid growth of domestic natural gas production through the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which the government says has unlocked a 100-year supply that now makes the United States the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

Reflecting the heavy emphasis on the economy in an election year, the president’s speech was relatively short on national security, where most political observers and indeed his own aides believe his performance has been much stronger than on the economy. In fact, Mr. Obama ended his speech with the American assault last year that finally, after 10 years, killed Osama bin Laden, and talked of that fateful day last May when he monitored the attack from the White House.

He called on the country to emulate the unity of the Navy Seal team that conducted the raid. “When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you,” the president said, “or the mission fails.”

John M. Broder contributed reporting.

------------

U.S. Congress "Super Committee" 2011

2011-08-09T22:05:00.020-04:00

"Reid names Kerry to debt panel ‘super committee’"
By Associated Press - BostonHerald.com - August 9, 2011

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday he’s naming ...

Senator Patty Murray to co-chair a powerful "super committee" charged with finding more than $1 trillion in deficit cuts this fall.

Murray will be joined by Sens. ...

John Kerry, D-Mass., and ...

Max Baucus, D-Mont., on the panel, which was established last week by hard-fought legislation to increase the national debt.

Murray, who is chairwoman of the committee to elect Democratic senators, is a longtime protector of Democratic priorities such as Medicare, Social Security and veterans’ benefits, as are Kerry and Baucus.

Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement that Murray has "a depth of knowledge on budget issues and demonstrated her ability to work across party lines."

In naming the trio, Reid opted against picking Democrats like Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota or Dick Durbin of Illinois, who backed curbs on Medicare spending and Social Security benefits as members of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission. Baucus also served on the commission but voted against the controversial recommendations put forward by its co-chairs, citing cuts to farm subsidies and a proposed increase in the gasoline tax.

"More significant to me is who (Reid) didn’t pick," said Keith Hennessey, a longtime former Senate GOP aide, citing Reid’s snub of Conrad, who’s also part of a bipartisan Senate "Gang of Six" on the budget. "He didn’t pick someone who might have been bipartisan." Hennessey is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Baucus is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, Social Security and Medicare. Kerry was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004.

Reid is the first of four congressional leaders to make his picks to the panel. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will also name three members of the 12-member panel, which will be evenly divided between the two parties. They face an Aug. 16 deadline to name committee members.

The committee is charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion or more in budget savings over the coming decade, enough to match increases in the government’s ability to borrow enough money to pay its bills through the beginning of 2013.

It would take a bipartisan majority of at least seven of the committee’s 12 members to recommend legislation for guaranteed yes or no votes before Christmas. The panel has until the day before Thanksgiving to complete its deliberations.

The committee is sure to have a good element of partisanship, but there are powerful incentives for its members to reach agreement. Perhaps most important, if it fails to produce deficit savings of at least $1.2 trillion, or if the House or Senate votes down its recommendations, severe across-the-board spending cuts would be initiated automatically, hitting large swaths of the federal budget starting in 2013, including priorities dear to both parties. They include Medicaid, farm subsidies and the defense budget.

In addition, the recent downgrade on U.S. debt by the Standard & Poor’s rating agency adds additional pressure. Stalemate within the committee could risk additional downgrades or roil financial markets.

Public opinion polls showed that voters were disgusted with Washington’s wrangling over the debt limit.

"As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee," Reid said.

Boehner will name the other co-chair. Just as Reid chose a party loyalist, Boehner is likely to choose a stout conservative.

In a conference call Tuesday with rank and file House Republicans, Boehner said his three selections to the joint committee will be "people of courage who understand the gravity of this situation and are committed to doing what needs to be done," according an account provided by a House GOP aide. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., are among the names most frequently mentioned by congressional aides and lobbyists as Boehner’s likely picks. Ryan and Camp were also deficit commission members but voted against the co-chairmen’s recommendations, citing tax increases and inadequate cost curbs of federal health care programs.

Boehner also said he and other House and Senate leaders of both parties want the newly created panel to conduct "open hearings and a public process."

Political activists and lobbyists said other likely picks include Reps. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., a member of the House Democratic leadership, and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican; Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a Bush administration budget director; and Mike Johanns, R-Neb., his state’s former governor, also are possibilities.

----------

"Kerry picked for debt committee"
By Donovan Slack, Boston Globe Staff, August 9, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Senator John Kerry will be one of six senators on the debt-reduction committee responsible for recommending cuts or new revenue by Thanksgiving that would help balance the nation’s budget.

Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will serve with fellow Democratic senators Patty Murray of Washington state and Max Baucus of Montana, said Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee. I am confident that Senators Murray, Baucus and Kerry will bring the thoughtfulness, bipartisanship, and commitment to a balanced approach that will produce the best outcome for the American people,” Reid said in a statement.

They will be joined on the committee by three Democratic House members and six Republican lawmakers. The committee, under the debt-ceiling deal reached last week, must agree on recommendations for reducing the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion.

Congress then must vote on those recommendations by the end of December. If they are not passed in an up-or-down vote, a set of deep cuts will automatically take effect, including to defense spending and entitlement programs such as Medicare. The Medicare cuts would affect providers and not beneficiaries directly.

Kerry’s office could not immediately respond to news of the appointment.

Reid said he selected Kerry, Bauchus and Murray because they “each posses an expertise in budget matters, a commitment to a balanced approach and a track record of forging bipartisan consensus.

“...Senators Baucus and Kerry are two of the Senate’s most respected and experienced legislators. Their legislative accomplishments are matched only by their records of forging strong bonds with their Republican colleagues,” Reid said in the statement.

Murray will be co-chair of the committee. The other members will be selected by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @DonovanSlack.

----------

"Six Republicans named to deficit super panel"
By Kevin Drawbaugh, Donna Smith and Richard Cowan - Reuters - August 10, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans named their six members to a congressional deficit-reduction super committee on Wednesday, setting the stage for an attempt to create bipartisan agreement on taxes and government spending.

Senators ...

Jon Kyl, ...

Rob Portman ...

and Patrick Toomey were selected by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, named Representatives ...

Dave Camp, ...

Jeb Hensarling ...

and Fred Upton to the committee.

The panel is known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction and was established to find $1.5 trillion in additional budget saving over 10 years.

Expectations for a fiscal policy breakthrough by the panel were on the rise as markets whipsawed through the week following a historic downgrade of U.S. debt and a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling that postponed tough decisions.

Senate Democrats were first out of the gate on Tuesday with their appointments to the 12-member panel. They were Senators Max Baucus, John Kerry and Patty Murray, a trio that analysts said sent a mixed message about the panel's potential.

Only three more slots on the panel remained to be filled by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh, Donna Smith and Richard Cowan; Editing by Howard Goller and Will Dunham)

----------

"Pelosi Picks Loyalists for Debt 'Super Committee'"
By Alex M. Parker - usnews.com - August 11, 2011

Now, all of the picks for the "super committee" are in. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced today that representing the House Democrats on the debt reduction committee will be ...

Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, ...

James Clyburn of South Carolina, and ...

Xavier Becerra of California. Other leaders announced their picks earlier this week. The committee's 12 members are tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts to the national debt by Nov. 23.

All of Pelosi's appointees are closely tied to her and her leadership team. Van Hollen was previously the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Larson and Becerra are the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the House Democratic Caucus. They'll be expected to hold the Democratic line that whatever recommendations the committee makes, it should include some new government revenues and should avoid cuts to Medicare benefits. Which isn't to say the picks don't also have expertise on the issues the committee will be scrutinizing. Van Hollen, for instance, is the ranking member of the House Budget committee, and was a Democratic negotiator during the debt ceiling talks over the summer.

Pelosi's picks underscore the D.C. conventional wisdom that if a deal is made, it will likely be senators, such as Montana Democrat Max Baucus or Ohio Republican Rob Portman, who will act as brokers.

----------
-

-

"Nancy Pelosi Names Final Members To Debt 'Super Committee'"
By Michael McAuliff - HuffingtonPost.com - August 11, 2011

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made the final picks for the new deficit-slashing "super Congress" Thursday, naming three lawmakers she believed would back her position that revenue-raising measures must be included in any deal reached by the committee.

The super Congress, officially titled "The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction," consists of 12 lawmakers -- six from each party and each chamber -- who have been given nearly unprecedented power to cut projected deficits by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The committee will need only seven votes to pass its proposal. The rest of Congress will not have the power to amend their plan, obstruct it from coming to a vote, or even filibuster it in the Senate -- they will only be able to vote it up or down.

Saying that the committee "must put American prosperity first," Pelosi named members whom she thought would do just that: Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who is the assistant party leader; Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) vice chair of the Democratic Caucus; and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

“The Joint Select Committee has a golden opportunity to take its discussions to the higher ground of America's greatness and its values," Pelosi said in a statement announcing her picks. "It must meet the aspirations of the American people for success and keep America number one."

She also laid out her standards for the committee, saying:

It must:

•Focus on economic growth and job creation that reduces the deficit;

•Make decisions regarding investments, cuts and revenues and their timing to stimulate growth while reducing the deficit; and

•Increase demand by offering recommendations that ensure that wages grow with productivity and reduce America’s families’ dependence on credit.

Pelosi has been adamant that the revenue-raising elements of a deal that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nearly backed with President Obama must be included in the final deal reached by the committee.

“We must achieve a ‘grand bargain’ that reduces the deficit by addressing our entire budget, while strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security," Pelosi said. "Our entire caucus will work closely with these three appointees toward this goal, which is the goal of the American people."

So far, Pelosi, more than any other congressional leader, has emphasized the position that debt-reduction must be done in a way that does not hamstring a struggling economy. JPMorgan Chase has already estimated the initial deal to raise the debt limit will shave a point and a half off the GDP.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid named Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to the committee earlier this week. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tapped Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), while Boehner chose Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.). Murray and Hensarling will serve as co-chairs of the committee.

Pelosi also repeated her call Thursday that the committee be open to public scrutiny.

"Because the work of this committee will affect all Americans, I called last week for its deliberations to be transparent. The committee should conduct its proceedings in the open,” she said.

Some outsiders have called for all campaign donations to members to be disclosed immediately to in order to help prevent special interests from having undue influence on the committee's work.

Some interested observers thought the composition of the committee suggested there was at least a small chance it would be able to strike a deal that passes Congress. "These are all adults," said one Medicare lobbyist, who noted that Boehner's picks are not backed by the Tea Party. "They are all Boehner people -- [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor got no one."

Toomey is probably the most right wing of the Republican committee members, having once led the vehemently anti-tax Club for Growth. Hensarling, meanwhile, has often advocated privatizing Social Security. But in Camp, Upton, Kyl and Portman, the lobbyist saw chances for compromise.

On the Democratic side, many liberals see Baucus as most likely to side with Republicans, but one Senate leadership aide suggested instead that Baucus would be a tough advocate for the Democratic position. The Medicare lobbyist noted that Baucus is likely to be protective of both Social Security and the health insurance reform law that he was instrumental in writing.

The committee is supposed to finish its debt-reduction plan by Nov. 23. Congress must vote on the whole package by Dec. 23.

----------

"Deficit committee could cut mortgage tax deductions"
By Kenneth R. Harney, The Nation’s Housing, bostonherald.com - Real Estate, August 14, 2011

If you take mortgage interest tax deductions, the next 100 days could have significant financial implications for you, thanks to Congress’ new federal debt ceiling plan.

The compromise legislation created an evenly split, 12-member bipartisan supercommittee — that could call for major cutbacks on real estate write-offs by Thanksgiving.

All it will take is a single vote by a lone senator or House member who breaks with his or her party to put the mortgage interest deduction into serious play.

Here is what’s about to unfold and how it could affect you: The legislation signed by the president Aug. 2 calls for a two-step increase in the federal debt ceiling plus spending cuts of about $917 billion. It also created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to slash an additional $1.5 trillion from the deficit over the coming decade.

The committee is required to vote on a plan to achieve these objectives by Nov. 23, using revenue increases, spending cuts or a combination. If the committee members cannot agree on a plan, or if either chamber of Congress votes it down, automatic and severe spending cuts of $1.5 trillion will be imposed equally on the Department of Defense and domestic programs including Medicare provider payments.

The structure of the committee is akin to a jury room rigged with high-power explosives that will detonate if the jurors fail to reach a verdict. Membership consists of six Republicans and six Democrats — three each from the Senate and House — chosen by party leaders. To approve a final package of deficit cuts and extend the debt ceiling, all that will be needed is a simple majority of seven votes.

House and Senate leaders selected their six members this week: Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Max Baucus (Mont.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.); Democratic Reps. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), Xavier Becerra (Calif.) and Chris Van Hollen (Md.); Republican Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) and Rob Portman (Ohio); and Republican Reps. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Dave Camp (Mich.) and Fred Upton (Mich.).

The selections appear to include members who have taken stances in the past that are consistent with party positions. Democrats typically favor revenue increases to help close the deficit, whereas Republicans generally want to slash spending without raising taxes. But there is a real possibility that one or more members on either side could be so concerned about the prospect of painful automatic defense or social-program spending cuts that they would break party ranks.

That compromise might well involve new revenue, and the mortgage interest deduction is one of the lowest-hanging fruits. Lobbying groups who seek to preserve housing write-offs already are gearing up for battle on Capitol Hill. The National Association of Realtors sent an urgent alert to its 1.1 million members asking them to directly “engage their members of Congress on the importance of preserving real estate tax provisions.”

After decades of being considered politically sacrosanct, why are homeowner mortgage write-offs suddenly on the chopping block? Sheer size is the No. 1 reason. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the home mortgage interest deduction will cost the federal government $100 billion during fiscal 2011 and $107.3 billion in 2012.

Among the options open to the supercommittee: lower the maximum mortgage amount eligible for interest deductions to $500,000 from the current $1.1 million; replace the deduction with a tax credit that would be usable by lower- and moderate-income owners as well as those with higher incomes; eliminate interest deductions on second homes; and phase out the deductibility of homeowner property tax payments.

Defenders of the write-offs argue that high levels of homeownership are essential to economic growth and social stability and fully justify the tax system preferences they receive. National opinion polls regularly find widespread support for the write-offs, even among renters. Also, academic and trade group studies project that any abrupt, across-the-board reduction would have a severe impact on home values, possibly sending them plummeting by as much as 15 percent.

Critics, on the other hand, consider the write-offs inherently unfair: They’re skewed to benefit upper-income owners disproportionately and are highly concentrated geographically along the West Coast, the Northeastern states and Mid-Atlantic.

Where’s this debate headed? It’s much too early to predict. But any way you look at it, real estate write-offs could be in greater political jeopardy in the next three months than they have been at any time in the past 25 years.

----------

'Super committee' will launch website for public input
By Lisa Mascaro (lmascaro@tribune.com), Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2011

The super-committee on deficit reduction has yet to hold its first meeting, but its co-chairs said Wednesday they are hard at work constructing the new panel that has less than three months to recommend sweeping budget reductions – a task that skeptics give little chance at success.

In their first joint statement since the panel was formed earlier this month, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said they have been engaged in “serious discussions” over the logistics of creating the panel that has far-reaching authority to set federal budgets for the next decade.

It is also building a website that could be launched in coming days to solicit public input.

“We have been working together to ensure that the committee we help build is given every opportunity to succeed,” Murray and Hensarling said in a joint statement. “We are confident that most Americans will agree that when building an organization from the ground-up with a short time-table for success, it’s important to get it right the first time.”

The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade through taxes, spending cuts or some combination. If a majority of the bipartisan 12-member panel agrees with the proposal, it would be presented to Congress for an up-or-down vote by Dec. 23.

Such tax and spending decisions have dogged Congress for years, but the committee faces increased pressure to shelve partisanship amid record deficits, jittery financial markets and a struggling economy.

But before the committee can tackle the tough issues, it needs to resolve the more mundane ones – assembling staff, setting meeting times and so on. In this era of partisan Washington, every decision is fraught with political traps.

“We encourage our colleagues to participate in active and useful dialogue across the aisle,” the co-chairs said.

By law, the committee must meet by September 16, 2011.

----------

"New U.S. Congress deficit panel sets first meeting"

* Panel meeting in public, unlike past budget talks

* First public hearing also scheduled, for mid-September (New throughout)

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2011 (Reuters) - A newly-formed congressional panel on deficit reduction next week will kick off months of arduous negotiations that will be closely watched by financial markets hoping for a deal that puts the United States on an improved fiscal path.

The opening meeting of the bipartisan "super committee" will be held on Sept. 8, the co-chairs announced on Friday. It will convene just hours before President Barack Obama unveils his latest jobs-creation initiative to a joint session of Congress.

That initiative and the super committee's work are both aimed at healing a U.S. economy that has been struggling to grow after a deep recession which began at the end of 2007.

The United States is still suffering the after-effects of that recession with high unemployment -- 9.1 percent in the latest government estimate.

Washington's ability to deal with joblessness and slow economic growth will have an impact on the outcome of the November 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

The deficit-reduction panel will also hold its initial public hearing on Sept. 13, when it will review the history and causes of the growing U.S. debt, said co-chairs Democratic Senator Patty Murray and Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf is scheduled to testify.

The committee is tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in new government savings over the next decade and has a Nov. 23 deadline for doing so.

At its meeting, which will be open to the public, the committee will consider rules under which it will operate, according to a press release.

But with Democrats and Republicans jockeying for best position in the run-up to the 2012 elections and with the two political parties holding vastly different views on how to fix the economy, the panel's work will not be easy.

The special committee -- with six Republicans and six Democrats from both houses of Congress -- was created by legislation enacted in early August that cleared the way for raising the U.S. debt limit and avoiding a likely default on government loans. The debate on that legislation was bitter.

The measure included $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years to help tame budget deficits that have been hovering well above $1 trillion annually.

The super committee is expected to consider a mix of spending cuts and possibly tax increases to reach additional government savings of at least $1.2 trillion. U.S. credit rating agencies are hoping for savings well beyond that figure.

It is unclear whether cuts in benefits to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security recipients would be proposed.

If a majority of the new committee cannot agree on a deficit-reduction package, automatic spending cuts of at least $1.2 trillion would be triggered in 2013. They would be divided equally between defense and domestic programs.

In announcing that its first two gatherings would be open to the public, the special committee is responding to criticisms that deficit-reduction negotiations earlier this year were always behind closed doors. (Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

----------

"Same goal, opposing plans for debt 'super' panel"
By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent | AP – September 13, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Digging in for a bruising struggle, Republicans on Congress' powerful deficit-fighting "supercommittee" targeted Social Security and government health care spending Tuesday while Democrats pressed for higher tax revenue as part of any deal to reduce red ink by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

There were no ultimatums from either side, and there was even a fleeting suggestion that tax reform might eventually clear the way for the bipartisan agreement that both sides say they want.

Yet with the Census Bureau reporting national poverty at a 28-year high and partisan struggles flaring elsewhere in Congress, the events underscored the challenge the 12-member panel faces as it gropes for a deal that can clear Congress and win President Barack Obama's signature by year's end.

With the nation's debt high and surging and the population aging, "Citizens will either have to pay more for their government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both," Doug Elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told supercommittee.

Though the choices are difficult, he said, the problem "need not be viewed as unsolvable."

Yet the challenge is complicated, he said, if the lawmakers' are hoping to revive the economy in the short term and to cut federal deficits in later years. In that case, "a combination of policies would be required: changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit now but reduce it later in the decade."

The committee has until Nov. 23 to recommend legislation, but Elmendorf said the essential decisions must be made as much as three weeks earlier than that to make sure they are drafted into a bill and their impact on the federal budget calculated carefully.

The panel was created last month as part of a compromise that avoided a threatened government default and cut nearly $1 trillion from some federal programs.

In addition to the original goal of cutting long-term deficits, Democrats want much or all of Obama's week-old $447 billion jobs proposal put on the agenda, significantly increasing the amount of savings that must be found.

"My question to Congress is: What on earth are we waiting for?" the president asked rhetorically as he visited Columbus, Ohio, to campaign for the enactment of his program of Social Security payroll tax cuts and spending increases for highway projects and other domestic programs.

Speaking in the home state of Republican House Speaker John Boehner, the Democratic president said his call for $25 million for school construction would put thousands of construction workers in Ohio back to work.

Boehner responded from the Capitol, where he said the president was seeking "permanent tax increases put into effect in order to pay for temporary spending. I just don't think that's going to help our economy the way it could."

Republicans are likely to accept some or all of the tax cuts Obama wants, but the spending increases shape up as a tougher sell. GOP leaders point out that the administration's call for higher taxes on the wealthy has faced opposition from some Democrats as well as Republicans in the past.

There were other skirmishes in Congress as the two parties sought to protect their own priorities in an era of soaring budget deficits.

Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee launched defense spending legislation for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 that is $17 billion smaller than the amount approved by the House, a difference that must be reconciled by the end of the month to keep the money flowing.

Also in the Senate, Democrats maneuvered to put Republicans on the spot on disaster aid by seeking legislation that would add $6.9 billion to FEMA's accounts without offsetting cuts elsewhere. The effect would be to let deficits rise.

Past efforts to reach compromise on major debt-reducing proposals have run aground over mutually exclusive demands — Republicans opposed to raising taxes and Democrats against cutting benefit programs.

But Obama has made clear he is willing to consider spending cuts this time around, and Boehner has said he put additional revenues on the table in negotiations with the president last summer that ultimately collapsed.

At the time the two men were considering tax reform that would generate growth — and about $800 billion in additional tax revenue over a decade — while lowering rates and closing loopholes.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., briefly raised the issue of tax reform at Tuesday's supercommittee hearing, asking Elmendorf if "revenue equal" overhaul of the existing code would help the economy grow.

The CBO director said it was possible, adding he couldn't say how big the impact might be.

Also inside the debt-reduction hearing, Rep. Jim Clyburn informed other lawmakers of a new Census Bureau report that showed 46 million Americans living in poverty. Referring to health care and other domestic programs, he cautioned Republicans, "'We really ought to look into all of these programs to see where cuts are to be made rather than talk about the number."

Much of the morning-long hearing consisted of committee members posing questions to Elmendorf designed to elicit answers that might enhance their own bargaining positions for negotiations with lawmakers of the other party.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a co-chairman of the panel, pointed to statistics showing that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are growing faster in relation to the overall economy than they have in the past. "Not quite double, but certainly that can be described as explosive growth, could it not?" he asked.

"Very rapid, Congressman, yes," Elmendorf replied.

Hensarling also quoted Obama as saying, "The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close."

Asked if he agreed, Elmendorf said he did.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, asked Elmendorf if he agreed that inappropriate payments in federal programs account for a significant amount of spending.

"I do agree," the CBO director said, although he quickly added that there was a difference between fraud and improper payments, some of which might be the result of individuals who were mistaken in how they filled out forms.

Among Democrats, Sen. John Kerry got Elmendorf's agreement when he said federal revenues have been relatively high as a proportion of the overall economy in years since World War II in which the budget was balanced — an attempt to counter Republican arguments that taxes are already too high.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., asked Elmendorf if it were true that Congress could adjourn for the next 10 years and the deficit savings would be greater than recommended by other groups that have tried to produce sweeping reduction packages. Elmendorf said that was correct — the income tax cuts enacted while George W. Bush was president would expire — and Van Hollen said quickly he wasn't advocating that.

But, he said, "It's time for this committee to get real and recognize that, yes, there are spending issues, but there's also a revenue issue. ... We've got to have a balanced approach."

Online: www.deficitreduction.gov

----------

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction members House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn of S.C., left, and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., talk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2011, prior to the start of the committee's hearing on the national debt. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction Co-Chairs Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, left, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., center, listen as Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testifies before the committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2011. At right is committee member, Senate Minorty Whip Jon Kyl of Ariz., (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
----------

"House Democrats warn supercommittee against cuts"
By ALAN FRAM - Associated Press | AP – October 13, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are advising Congress' supercommittee to create jobs, raise revenues and avoid damaging cuts to crucial public works, education and health programs as the panel searches for ways to curb the government's growing debt.

A day ahead of a deadline for submitting advice to the supercommittee, minority Democrats from 16 House committees released letters they are sending the panel with their recommendations. Some propose specific savings such as boosting government fees on financial firms and defunding old water projects. All emphasize the need to protect programs that keep the economy strong, especially at a time of high unemployment and a faltering economy.

"Democrats strongly believe that economic growth is an integral component of such a proposal, because creating jobs is the most effective way to reduce the deficit," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in her own letter to the supercommittee.

The fact that House Democrats wrote their own letters — as opposed to joint letters co-signed by committee Republicans — underscores the wide partisan divide over how the $14 trillion federal debt should be tamed. Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama want some tax increases included in any debt-reduction package, an idea that the GOP rejects.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, which controls over $1 trillion in annual agency spending, proposed no specific cuts but emphasized the damage that would be done by across-the-board cuts that would be automatically triggered if the supercommittee doesn't produce a package of savings that Congress approves.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes and large health care programs, wrote that the supercommittee must "spur job creation and economic health today." They urged higher taxes on the wealthy while providing tax incentives for companies that create jobs, and protection for Social Security, unemployment benefits and health care coverage.

Republicans and Senate committees will be sending additional letters to the supercommittee over the next two days. The panel is charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings over the coming decade.

Among letters already sent to the supercommittee, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who heads the Senate Health and Education Committee, asked the panel to take "bold and immediate action to create jobs" while embracing deficit reduction that would take effect after the unemployment rate drops.

Harkin suggests raising taxes and saving money by giving brand-name drugmakers fewer years of patent protection against generic competitors and encouraging students to take education loans directly from their colleges — both policies that have been favored by the Obama administration. Harkin wrote that the supercommittee should avoid cuts to programs including job training, Obama's health care overhaul and aid to the disabled.

The leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., combined on a letter asking the supercommittee to "not neglect America's transportation needs."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, encouraged the committee to pare savings from Social Security by gradually raising the future retirement age from 67 to 69 and, in some years, trimming annual inflation adjustments in benefits by 1 percentage point. Hutchison has been offering that proposal for weeks; it's opposed by the seniors group AARP.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he and the panel's top Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, hope to write a bipartisan letter that other Armed Services members could support.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he is trying to unite minority Republicans on that panel behind their own letter.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who is also on the supercommittee, is considered unlikely to send a recommendation letter, as is another supercommittee member, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich.

The supercommittee has until Nov. 23 to send a package of savings to Congress. Lawmakers will have until Dec. 23 to vote on the measure, with failure meaning $1.2 trillion in cuts in defense and many domestic programs will begin taking effect in 2013.

Warren Buffett has also brought his fight to raise taxes on the super-wealthy to the deficit-reduction panel.

In an exchange of letters between the billionaire investor and a Republican congressman that Buffett sent the committee this week, Buffett is offering to release his federal tax returns — with a condition.

"If you could get other ultra rich Americans to publish their returns along with mine, that would be very useful to the tax dialogue and intelligent reform," Buffett wrote.

Buffett's views have become central to the struggle between Obama and Congress over how to control the federal debt. Obama has used the "Buffett Rule" to describe his fight to clamp taxes on the wealthy that are at least as high as those paid by lower earners, a drive that Republicans oppose.

AP writer Donna Cassata contributed to this story.

----------

"Supercommittee GOP, Democrats swap offers"
By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent | AP – October 26, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Congress' deficit-reduction supercommittee outlined a plan Wednesday that includes spending cuts but none of the increases in tax revenue sought by Democrats, completing an initial exchange of offers that left the two sides far apart despite weeks of secret talks.

Officials also said a Democratic proposal on Tuesday and the GOP counter-proposal 24 hours later both included a provision to slow the annual cost-of-living increases in future Social Security benefits, suggesting it could become part of any compromise that might emerge.

The Republican offer calls for somewhat more than $2 trillion in deficit savings over a decade, according to officials in both parties. Less than half of that amount would come from increases in items such as Medicare premiums, the sale of public lands and airport fees — measures that increase government revenue without changing personal or corporate taxes.

Spending cuts include about $500 billion from Medicare over a decade and another $185 billion from Medicaid, these officials said.

By contrast, Democrats want $1.3 trillion in higher tax revenue, a similar amount in spending cuts and enough other savings elsewhere in the budget to reduce deficits by more than $3 trillion over the coming decade while financing a $450 billion jobs bill along the lines that President Barack Obama is recommending.

The officials who described the rival approaches did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to provide details of the committee's confidential discussions. In private, each side also disparaged the other, providing yet another indication that the panel's deliberations have not shown significant progress.

Still, the exchange marked a quickening in the pace of activity by the committee after dozens of hours of closed-door meetings, and with time running out, senior leaders in both parties are becoming more involved. Another committee meeting was set for Thursday.

The panel of six Republicans and six Democrats has until Nov. 23 to recommend deficit savings of $1.2 trillion. But in fact, most if not all of the decisions must be made by early next month to give the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office time to render precise estimates on their costs on future deficits.

Whatever the committee recommends must be approved by both houses of Congress in December if lawmakers want to avoid automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion across a range of federal programs.

There were signs of Democratic dissension one day after Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., outlined a proposal on behalf of his party's negotiators that included changes in large government benefit programs.

According to several officials, he called for $1.3 trillion in increased tax revenue over a decade, and $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. Another $1 trillion in savings would come from the presumed reduction of Pentagon costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and $500 billion more from a reduction in interest costs resulting from declining deficits.

Those savings would be on top of cuts that Congress approved earlier in the year of nearly $1 trillion.

For Democrats on the committee, it appeared that the most contentious of the items would slow the growth of monthly checks to recipients of Social Security and other benefit programs, curtail Medicare spending by $400 billion over a decade and Medicaid by another $75 billion.

Several Democrats said during the day that the presentation had the support of a majority of the six Democrats on the panel, leaving the impression that at least one, and possibly two, of the party's lawmakers had not signed on. They also stressed that Obama has previously endorsed each of the proposals they made, including the one to adjust the government's calculation for inflation in a way that curtails the growth of benefit programs.

Others suggested that Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a member of the party's leadership, and Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., had not agreed to support the recommendations.

Aides to the two men would not confirm the accounts.

By contrast, Republicans appeared to avoid any ideological pitfalls in their counter-offer, pulling well back from a position that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took earlier in the year in private talks with Obama.

In those discussions, Boehner and the president discussed legislation to enact tax reform that was assumed to result in economic expansion and increases in tax revenue of $800 billion over a decade.

After the collapse of those talks, Republicans have struggled in the ensuing months to avoid any conflict with Grover Norquist, a prominent conservative activist and author of a pledge not to raise taxes that many GOP lawmakers have signed.

In fact, tax reform has figured prominently in the deficit committee's private discussions, according to officials in both parties, and is viewed as a possible key to an agreement.

Under this theory, if Republicans are willing to agree that additional revenue that results from reform does not constitute a tax increase, it might entice Democrats to agree to savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs that account for much of the growth in federal spending in recent years.

Apart from the deficit committee's work, the official web site of the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee sketches a plan to reduce the corporate tax from a current 35 percent to 25 percent, with unspecified provisions to broaden the tax base.

It also makes a favorable reference to a reform of the individual income tax system, without specifics.

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.

----------

"Super committee" still hoping for debt deal
By Tabassum Zakaria | Reuters – November 13, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The congressional "super committee" is at a difficult point in negotiations on deficit-reduction, but lawmakers said on Sunday they had not given up on reaching an agreement by this month's deadline.

The special congressional committee is tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in budget savings over 10 years, but with a November 23 deadline looming, Republicans and Democrats have not yet sealed a deal.

Republicans have been reluctant to allow tax increases, and Democrats do not want to agree to cuts in healthcare and retirement programs until tax increases are on the table.

House of Representatives Republican Jeb Hensarling, committee co-chair, acknowledged on CNN's "State of the Union" program that tax increases would likely have to be part of any bipartisan deal.

"We believe that, frankly, increasing tax revenues could hurt the economy, but within the context of a bipartisan negotiation with Democrats, clearly they are a reality," Hensarling said.

House of Representatives Democrat James Clyburn, a member of the super committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that while he was "very hopeful" that a compromise could be reached by the deadline, "I am not as certain as I was 10 days ago."

'BUILD THE WILL'

Clyburn added: "I really believe that all of the ingredients for a good resolution are there. We just need to build the will."

Lawmakers said they had not given up on the prospect of reaching an agreement by the deadline.

"It's been a roller-coaster ride," Hensarling said. "We haven't given up hope, but if this was easy the president of the United States and the Speaker of the House would have gotten it done themselves."

A dispute over taxes had scuttled negotiations this summer between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner on a broad deficit-reduction package.

The committee of six Democrats and six Republicans is struggling to meet the deadline that is less than two weeks away. Congress will then have until December 23 to vote on the committee's recommendations.

If either deadline goes unmet, automatic spending cuts would be triggered on domestic and military programs, beginning in 2013, as part of a law enacted in August.

Obama spoke on Friday by telephone with the super committee co-chairs -- Democrat Senator Patty Murray and Hensarling -- to urge that the panel meet the deadline.

The White House has said that Obama would block any measures to water down the enforcement mechanism that would require $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts in 2013 if the committee fails to reach a deal.

"The clock is running out, but it hasn't run out yet. We still have time, but we have no time to waste," Republican Senator Patrick Toomey, a member of the committee, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"It's at a difficult point. I think we've got a ways to go, but I hope we can close that gap very quickly," he said.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

----------

"Deficit Panel Seeks to Defer Details on Raising Taxes"
By ROBERT PEAR, New York Times, November 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — With a little over a week left to reach a deal, members of the Congressional deficit reduction panel are looking for an escape hatch that would let them strike an accord on revenue levels but delay until next year tough decisions about exactly how to raise taxes.

Under this approach, the panel would decide on the amount of new revenue to be raised but would leave it to the tax-writing committees of Congress to fill in details next year, well beyond the Nov. 23 deadline for the panel itself to reach an agreement. That would put off painful political decisions but ensure that the debate over deficit reduction stretched into the election year.

“There could be a two-step process that would hopefully give us pro-growth tax reform,” Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the top Republican on the panel, said Sunday on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

Members of Congress and their aides said they were still skeptical that the panel could agree on a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to reduce budget deficits by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, the minimum set by law.

If the panel falls short, a series of automatic cuts, split evenly between military and civilian programs, would take effect, starting in 2013. Some fear that such a failure could lead to the kind of stock market slide and loss of investor confidence that accompanied stalled efforts to raise the federal debt limit earlier this year.

A recent proposal by Republicans on the panel, to raise $300 billion in tax revenue over 10 years, led to some optimism that the committee might at least come up with a partial deal that could reduce the amount of automatic cuts.

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said the Republicans’ willingness to discuss higher tax revenue was “a breakthrough.” But as Democrats studied the offer, they found much to criticize.

Until now, the main obstacle to a deal was Republicans’ unwillingness to raise taxes and Democrats’ unwillingness to make significant cuts in the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without tax increases. To shave deficits by $1.2 trillion without raising revenue or touching entitlement programs could require deep cuts in domestic spending, the military or both.

As the deficit panel enters a final frenetic week of negotiations, Republicans and Democrats said they hoped to give broadly worded instructions to the regular tax-writing committees of Congress — the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee — to come up with a certain amount of revenue after the panel completes its work this month.

The chairmen of the tax-writing committees, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan, have said they would welcome such instructions.

Some lawmakers have become so worried that the committee may deadlock that they have been talking about legislation that would stop the automatic cuts to the military.

President Obama, who has kept his distance from the deficit reduction panel, called the co-chairmen on Friday and urged them to reach a deal. He said he would not accept legislation overriding the cuts that would occur automatically if the panel fails.

If the deficit panel can reach an agreement, lawmakers said, it may raise some revenue — a down payment — and create expedited procedures for Congress to vote next year on tax legislation raising more. If the panel cannot reach agreement, it could still provide directions to the regular standing committees about how to raise revenue while overhauling the tax code for individuals and corporations.

The panel was supposed to bring some finality to a yearlong debate over spending. The debate, driven by conservative freshman Republicans in the House, included the threat of a government shutdown and the collapse of negotiations between Mr. Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner.

Republicans said their latest proposal would raise $300 billion by limiting deductions and other tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income households.

“We would structure it so the top two brackets pay $250 billion more than they’re paying today,” a Republican Congressional aide said.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican and a member of the deficit reduction panel, said this proposal was “a big step, a really big step,” for Republicans who had adamantly opposed tax increases.

Democrats want much more revenue — at least $1 trillion over 10 years. Moreover, they said the Republican plan would provide a windfall to the most affluent households, by permanently reducing the top tax rate to 28 percent. The top rate, now 35 percent, is scheduled to revert to 39.6 percent in 2013, with expiration of the so-called Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, said on “Fox News Sunday” that Republicans had put new revenue on the table as part of a plan to “avoid this huge tax increase that’s otherwise coming” in 2013. The prospect of that increase has given Democrats leverage in negotiations.

In their latest written proposal, Democrats on the panel said they would raise $350 billion through “miscellaneous revenue provisions” and establish procedures to speed action on “tax reform generating $650 billion” more. The procedures could clear a path in the Senate by limiting senators’ ability to amend or filibuster the legislation.

In their recipe for follow-up legislation, Democrats stipulate that the individual tax rate should be no higher than 35 percent, and that the new tax code should be “as progressive as current law.”

By contrast, Republicans would direct the tax-writing committees to set lower rates, and they say the amount of new revenue should not exceed $500 billion.

In the last week, discussions in the deficit reduction panel have focused almost exclusively on taxes. It is not clear whether the panel will ask standing committees to work out any details of spending cuts.

The 12-member panel, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is evenly divided between the parties. Democrats in Congress are keeping a close eye on Mr. Baucus, who in the past has sometimes cut deals with Republicans that angered his Democratic colleagues.

At a public hearing on Nov. 1, Erskine B. Bowles, a co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission, told the panel, “I don’t think you can possibly rewrite the tax law between now and Nov. 23.” But Mr. Bowles said, “We do recommend that you delegate it to the tax-writing committees and set up a framework” for them.

Grover G. Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, whose antitax pledge has been signed by most Republicans in Congress, said in an interview, “I am not losing any sleep” over the Republicans’ latest proposal. Mr. Norquist said he was confident that, “at the end of the day, the Republican House will not pass a tax increase.”

“As a face-saving measure,” Mr. Norquist said, the deficit reduction panel “could give lots of instructions to the tax-writing committees.” In complying with those instructions, he said, the House and the Senate could pass very different bills.

However, leaders of the tax-writing committees are looking for ways to minimize those differences by requiring some type of prior consultation between the two houses.

Although the deficit reduction panel is supposed to vote on its final report by Nov. 23, it faces a more urgent deadline. The Congressional Budget Office will estimate the impact of its proposals on the federal deficit and debt, and those estimates must be available to panel members at least 48 hours before they vote. The panel would therefore need to settle on its proposals by Nov. 21.

Any recommendations from the deficit reduction panel, including suggested instructions to the tax committees, will be put into a bill. The full House and Senate are supposed to vote on the package, without amendments, by Dec. 23.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, summed up the current situation:

“In the last week, each side has busted through a wall. Democrats are talking about entitlement reform, curbing the increase in spending on mandatory programs like Medicare. Republicans have broken through the wall on tax revenue increases. Now they have to figure out if they can meet each other somewhere in the middle.”

----------

"Lawmakers Concede Budget Talks Are Close to Failure"
The New York Times, November 20, 2011

Conceding that talks on a grand budget deal are near failure, Congressional leaders on Sunday pointed fingers at each other as they tried to deflect blame for their inability to figure out a way to lower the federal deficit without having to rely on automated cuts.

The testy exchanges — which dominated the Sunday talk shows — made clear that leaders in both parties now see the so-called “sequester,” a term meaning an automatic spending cut, as the most likely solution to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, instead of the negotiated package of spending reductions and tax increases they have been unable to achieve over the last 10 weeks.

Democrats blamed the Republicans for their unwillingness to walk away from a no-new-taxes pact they signed at the request of a conservative, anti-tax group, arguing that the American public realizes that no grand deal could be reached without a combination of spending cuts and new tax revenues.

----------

"Deficit Panel Leaders Fail to Reach Deal"
The New York Times, November 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — After one last bout of fitful but futile talks, Congressional negotiators conceded the obvious: that the joint Congressional committee charged with drafting a deficit reduction package would miss its deadline this week. But they did not quite give up the ghost of a chance that a solution might be found later.

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline,” said a statement issued late in the afternoon by Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the panel’s Republican and Democratic co-chairs.

“Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve,” they said. “We remain hopeful that Congress can build on this committee’s work and can find a way to tackle this issue in a way that works for the American people and our economy.”

----------

NH House Speaker Bill O'Brien's statement against poor women & children

2011-07-17T23:18:00.009-04:00

NH House Speaker William O'Brien. (Will Roseliep, NHPR)

"O'Brien talks tough"

House Speaker William O'Brien riled up New Hampshire Democrats with comments about welfare spending at a Republican event last weekend.

O'Brien, speaking to the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers annual picnic at the Hillsboro American Legion, criticized those he called "the spenders" who seek to take over government.

"They pay mothers to have children out of wedlock and then wonder why family is breaking down, welfare programs are constantly growing and children come to school with problems so severe they can't be educated," O'Brien said.

Harrell Kirstein, spokesman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, called O'Brien's comments "shameful."

"The idea that single mothers are a danger to American families or that they're a cause of children with severe problems is absolutely offensive," he said.

O'Brien could not be reached for comment Friday, but House Policy Director Greg Moore said the speaker's comments refer to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program that also requires an allocation of state money. For up to 60 months, the program provides cash assistance to low-income, single-parent households that increases based on family size.

"That is absolutely factually true - if your family size increases, your grant size would increase," Moore said.

Moore said preventing mothers from getting more money for having a child on welfare has been discussed by the Legislature's Republican leadership.

"I firmly expect it may come up" during next year's session, Moore said.

Source: "What a big difference eight months can make: Fickle voters sour on Bass, Guinta" By Karen Langley and Matthew Spolar, Concord Monitor staff, July 17, 2011.

-----

July 17, 2011

Speaker Bill O'Brien was recently quoted: "They pay mothers to have children out of wedlock and then wonder why family is breaking down, welfare programs are constantly growing and children come to school with problems so severe they can't be educated." (Source: "What a big difference eight months can make: Fickle voters sour on Bass, Guinta" By Karen Langley and Matthew Spolar, Concord Monitor staff, July 17, 2011.)

He does not represent all of the citizens of New Hampshire. Single mothers and poor children are supposed to be equal instead of prejudiced as second-class citizens by politicians like Speaker O'Brien. So who does Speaker O'Brien represent? How many classes of citizens does he govern? As a Disabled Veteran, I wonder if I am a first-class citizen or a second-class citizen under this Speaker's rule? Should I pack my bags along with the single mothers and poor children and move to another state so I won't be discriminated against by Speaker O'Brien?

Another point I would like to make as an adult man is that it takes both a man and a woman to have a child. Speaker O'Brien's statement unfairly blames single mothers for receiving welfare assistance programs, not living in a traditional family with two parents, and having children with behavioral problems. What about the fathers, Speaker O'Brien?

I hope Speaker O'Brien either apologizes or resigns his legislative seat for his unfair remarks against single mothers and poor children. He should understand that all citizens should be represented equally instead of some being viewed as second-class citizens. Lastly, it is not just the fault of the single mother and poor child. Men are also responsible for the state of families.

- Jonathan A. Melle

-----

"O’Brien under fire for welfare comment"
The Nashua Telegraph, Letters, August 8, 2011

In a recent article in The Telegraph (Aug. 4: “Special session eyed on expected loss of $35m, redrawing wards”), it was stated that House Speaker O’Brien wants “lawmakers to prevent someone on welfare from getting additional benefits for having another child.”

O’Brien was quoted as saying: “We are going to now require people to make responsible decisions; if you don’t have enough money to take care of the family you have, you have no more children.”

Yet, it was O’Brien and the House Republicans who pushed a bill to prevent the state from entering into a contract with Planned Parenthood, and it was the all-Republican Executive Council that voted two months ago to discontinue the state’s contract with the organization, which is particularly important for low-income women.

It’s incomprehensible and irresponsible.

What is he thinking?

Tricia Saenger
Temple, NH

-----

O'BRIEN

"Democrats dismiss House Speaker William O'Brien's lawsuit as publicity stunt"
By TOM FAHEY, NH State House Bureau Chief, September 13, 2011

CONCORD — A spokesman for the Democratic Party on Monday criticized as a frivolous publicity stunt the lawsuit that Speaker of the House William O'Brien has brought against the party and its chairman.

O'Brien's court action seeks $1.2 million for alleged violations of state laws on a political campaign call in 2010. He claims he is entitled to damages for each of 394 robo-calls that the State Democratic Party placed in his House district.

Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley was featured on the calls that targeted O'Brien. Although he clearly identified himself in the call, the script did not identify the party that paid for it or the fiscal agent.

The party paid a $5,000 fine to settle the dispute with the state attorney general, but did not admit any wrongdoing.

Party spokesman Harrell Kirstein said O'Brien's attorney, Chuck Douglas, has sued the party twice before and gotten nowhere.

Calling this lawsuit “frivolous,” Kirstein said, “That attorney Douglas saw fit to release it to the press 24 hours before he delivered it to the courts or us shows this is a publicity stunt more than anything else.”

He noted a recent New Hampshire Union Leader editorial said the incident was “minor and almost certainly an oversight.”

The editorial stated, “This little scandal doesn't even come close to matching the state GOP's illegal phone-jamming operation in 2004.”

O'Brien argues that the automated call cost him votes and violated clean election laws that Buckley had a hand in passing.

Kirstein responded, “Unfortunately, Speaker O'Brien wants to waste court resources on something that the Attorney General's Office already settled.”

-----

"O’Brien deflects accusations of bullying other state reps"
By KEVIN LANDRIGAN Staff Writer, The Nashua Telegraph, January 20, 2012

CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vernon, deflected accusations Thursday that he bullied, yelled, swore or in any way tried to intimidate a Republican state representative last March over her proposed amendments to the state budget.

During his first interview on the controversy, O’Brien charged that Democratic Party operatives and union member Republicans have twisted the March 31 incident in an effort to discredit the record of accomplishment for the GOP-dominated House.

“Obviously, the Democratic Party has taken delight in this false story to spread this incorrect narrative,” O’Brien said. “We were winning votes and achieving our agenda, not because we were abusing the process, but because the Republicans who got elected did what their constituents wanted them to do.”

State Rep. Susan Emerson, R-Rindge, O’Brien’s accuser, filed a bill to outlaw bullying of lawmakers in the Statehouse and the adjacent Legislative Office Building. O’Brien’s comments came soon after a hearing on the bill Thursday.

A bipartisan group of legislators supported the bill in the absence of Emerson, who was in a Maryland hospital.

O’Brien said he instigated the meeting with Emerson and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, R-Salem, inside the Senate chamber just before the state budget debate in the House.

O’Brien said he was trying to talk Emerson into dropping nearly all her 27 amendments to restore money to the House GOP budget and relying on one or two to convince her that they were a hopeless cause.

“There were no loud voices, no abuse, no bullying. We were having a conversation, and I made clear to her the House was not going to adopt any of her amendments,” O’Brien said.

“She was emotional about it, but not because of anything I said. It pains me to this day to say Rep. Emerson has fabricated all of this,” O’Brien added.

Ultimately, Emerson offered one budget amendment on the House floor but withdrew it without a final vote.

During the hearing, Rep. Timothy Copeland, R-Stratham, claimed he heard loud voices of O’Brien and Bettencourt chastising Emerson as he waited for his own meeting with House leadership.

“In sum and substance, I heard basically a yelling match that went on that was one-sided between the speaker and Rep. Emerson that she would remove the amendment or repercussions would occur,” Copeland said.

“It was despicable in nature that a representative of more than 10 years in the House was being talked to that way by a speaker of the House. She came out of this visibly shaking and crying,” Copeland said.

Copeland claimed to have gotten the same treatment from O’Brien moments later.

“I was up next, and the speaker got very close to me and said that I would also remove my amendment and I will not get on the floor and speak for that amendment,’’ Copeland claimed. “I said, ‘I don’t work for you. I work for the people of my district, and I will move this forward regardless of how you feel about it.’”

According to Copeland, O’Brien threatened to prevent his return to the House in this fall’s elections.

“He made clear his office would not stand behind me and that he will make sure in the 2012 election that, should I want to get re-elected, he will do everything in his power to hamper my re-election,” Copeland said.

O’Brien said the entire story was fabricated and that he never spoke with Copeland after meeting with Emerson.

“I had one conversation with this representative, and it was, ‘Welcome to the House, Rep. Copeland,’” O’Brien said. “I later learned that his liberal agenda was not one in concert with the Republican caucus. Other than that, I’ve never spoken with him.”

Emerson has offered several versions of the incident, most of which maintain that O’Brien yelled and swore at her and implicated other House GOP leaders.

She gave a written statement to the House Constitutional and Statutory Revision Committee, which heard her bill Thursday. The panel will take it up again when she recovers and can return to Concord in person.

“The formation and presentation of this bill is an attempt to ensure that no other state legislator should have to endure what I have experienced, nor should any member of the New Hampshire House ever feel threatened or intimidated by the Speaker of the House,” Emerson wrote.

The bill, HB 1533, would broadly define bullying against legislators to include interfering with a lawmaker’s “legislative opportunities” and empower the attorney general to seek civil fines of up to $2,500 per person.

Several House committee members, including Rep. Gary Richardson, D-Hopkinton, maintained that having the attorney general involved would violate the constitutional separation of powers with an executive branch official getting in the middle of legislative affairs.

“I do think there is a separation of powers problem,” said Richardson, a lawyer.

Rep. Seth Cohn, R-Canterbury, said the state Constitution already allows imprisonment of anyone guilty of disorderly behavior against the House that would include “threatening or ill treating any of its members.”

Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, the longest-serving member in her 17th term, claimed that O’Brien’s leadership has been more abusive than any other.

“I feel sad this bill has come to the House, but I believe it’s overdue,” Pantelakos said. “When you put some people in power, it goes straight to their head and they become dangerous.”

Kevin Landrigan can reached at 321-7040 or klandrigan@nashuatelegraph.com; also check out Kevin Landrigan (@KLandrigan) on Twitter and don’t forget The Telegraph’s new, interactive live feed at www.nashuatelegraph.com/topics/livefeed.

-----

NH's mental health system violates the Americans with Disabilities Act & NH's Medicaid Raid

2011-04-12T16:33:00.007-04:00

"Federal Report Blasts NH's Mental Health System"
WMUR.com - April 12, 2011

CONCORD, N.H -- A new report from the federal government confirms what New Hampshire officials have acknowledged for years: The state's mental health system is broken, failing and in crisis.

The U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division recently investigated the state for possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It concluded that the state is violating the federal law by failing to provide adequate community-based services to people with mental illness, leading to needless and prolonged stays at New Hampshire Hospital, the state mental hospital, and Glencliff Home, its nursing home for those with serious mental illness or developmental disabilities.

"Reliance on unnecessary and expensive institutional care both violates the civil rights of people with disabilities and incurs unnecessary expense," Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote in a report sent to the state last week. "Community integration with appropriate services and supports will permit the state to support people with disabilities, including mental illness, in settings appropriate to their needs in a more cost effective manner."

As the report noted, the state has long acknowledged most of the failings and offered detailed plans to fix them in a 10-year plan it developed in 2008. But progress has been slow, and lawmakers also are considering cuts to the community mental health system that could make enacting the plan more difficult.

Under the budget recently passed by the House, the state would save $6.7 million a year by reducing the number of adults eligible for mental health services and $5.8 million a year by changing eligibility rules for children. The state's 10 community mental health centers say that will eliminate treatment for 3,500 children and more than 4,000 adults.

The federal report concluded that the community mental health centers should be seeing more patients, not fewer. It said the average cost of institutionalizing someone at the state mental hospital is $287,000 per year, while serving someone in the community costs $44,000. Too many people end up at the hospital because community resources are lacking, the report said, and they stay longer than necessary because there aren't appropriate settings in which to continue their care after they leave.

The report was particularly critical of the Glencliff Home, which it said puts virtually no focus on discharge planning. In recent years, far more residents of Glencliff have died each year than have been returned to their communities.

"Other than age in some cases, it does not appear that the individuals at Glencliff present any novel or different set of disabilities than their peers at (New Hampshire Hospital) - all of whom are at least nominally in the active, state-endorsed pipeline toward placement in a more integrated community setting," the report said. "Given this, it is unclear then why similar placement efforts are not, and have not been, underway for the individuals at Glencliff."

Perez also wrote that he is concerned that the state relies too much on group housing once people leave the hospital. About 10 percent of those discharged last year were sent to homeless shelters, jail or other institutional settings, he said.

----------

"Mental health system is failing"
The Nashua Telegraph, Editorial, April 17, 2011

The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t mince words in its recent report on the state of mental health care in New Hampshire. “The state acknowledges, and we agree, that its mental health system is broken, failing, and that it is in crisis,” wrote U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

A yearlong investigation by the federal government confirmed what mental health advocates in the state have long maintained: New Hampshire does not have adequate community support systems for people with mental illness.

As a result, individuals are institutionalized in more expensive and more restrictive settings, primarily the New Hampshire Hospital in Concord and Glencliff Home, a nursing home for people with mental illness in Benton.

“In spite of a challenging fiscal environment, the state has continued to fund costly institutional care, even though less expensive and more therapeutic alternatives could be developed in community settings,” the study found.

The situation is particularly frustrating because the state could actually be spending less money to get better results for people struggling with mental illness. As the report points out, reliance on institutional care is not only less effective and more expensive, it violates the civil rights of people with disabilities.

While some may see this as another example of federal overreach, the fact is that Congress did pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Department of Justice has to enforce it. If New Hampshire does not take appropriate action, it could face a costly federal lawsuit.

None of this comes as a surprise to lawmakers and state officials. New Hampshire already has a blueprint for improving mental health services – a 10-year plan released in 2008.

The plan called for creating “supporting housing,” where individuals get housing subsidies and community treatment, expanding residential treatment programs, providing additional mental health beds in community hospitals, and developing “Assertive Community Treatment teams,” which provide services like nursing and case management in the community.

But as is often the case, the plan has never been funded. There has been no money for adding community mental health beds; additional treatment teams were never created; no additional community hospital beds have been provided.

The roadmap is there, and it must be implemented.

“Many of the things the Department of Justice cites as ways that the state is falling short of its obligations would be remedied by simple adherence to the 10-year plan as it was outlined,” Jeff Fetter, president-elect of the New Hampshire Psychiatric Society, told the Concord Monitor.

Instead, the state is moving in the opposite direction. The recently passed House budget recommended major cuts to community mental health centers, removing eligibility for about 7,000 community mental health patients. Many of them would end up in institutions, costing the state more money and impeding their chances for recovery.

The budget is now pending in the state Senate, which must restore the mental health center funding, especially in light of the federal report.

Gov. John Lynch has proposed closing a New Hampshire Hospital unit and using the money to create two community treatment teams. This is exactly the approach the state needs to take on this critical issue, not just to avoid costly federal sanctions, but because it’s the right thing to do.

----------

"Elliot Hospital’s parent lays off 182, in Medicaid fight"
By JOSEPH G. COTE, Staff Writer, The Nashua Telegraph, July 27, 2011

MANCHESTER – It what is likely to be the first of several announcements of health care layoffs, one of the hospitals suing the state over Medicaid funding announced today that it has laid off almost 200 employees.

Elliot Health Systems, which includes Elliot Hospital in Manchester, released a statement Tuesday that it has cut a program, cut expenses and benefits, and laid off 182 employees.

The cuts, it said, were due to the $17 million deficit the hospital is facing as the result of a Legislative plan to cut Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals by $250 million over the next two years.

“The action we have been forced to take today is as a direct result of the state’s cuts and we are outraged and sad. We hold the state and every legislator accountable for what is taking place today. Good people are forever harmed,” Doug Dean, the hospital’s president and CEO, said in a statement.

Dean said the cuts came in nearly every department of the company and at all levels of seniority. The only groups not cut were doctors and nurses, he said.

The 182 employees represents about 4 percent of Elliot’s workforce.

The hospital’s Elliot On-Call, a 24-hour scheduling and advice hotline, was cancelled, the hospital’s contributions to employee retirement saving accounts have been frozen and its policies regarding vacation time have been altered, Dean said.

All of the employees received out-placement counseling and will continue to receive pay and benefits for periods determined by the length of their employment, Dean said.

On Monday, Elliot Health System, Southern New Hampshire Medical Center and St. Joseph Hospital and seven other hospitals filed suit against Nicholas Toumpas, commissioner of the state Department of Health and Human Services, over a plan that uses more than $200 million in Medicaid funds to balance the two-year state budget.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Concord, alleges that the plan violates federal law and threatens “immediate and irreparable injury to the public.” It asks that the plan be immediately halted.

The suit is over whether lawmakers can keep the $115 million annually in so-called bed tax payments that hospitals make so the federal government will make a matching payment.

Since 1991, hospitals have been reimbursed once the state got the federal payment. This year, the Legislature decided to not only keep the federal money, and also the initial $115 million it collected from hospitals.

“The consequences of the state’s failure to pay us for taking care of the poor are truly devastating, particularly as the state changes its course from the past twenty years and walks away from needed matching federal dollars,” Dean said in the statement.

----------

"Hospitals sue NH on Medicaid"
By JOSEPH G. COTE, Staff Writer, The Nashua Telegraph, July 26, 2011

CONCORD – Nashua’s two hospitals joined eight others in New Hampshire on Monday to sue the state over a plan that uses more than $100 million in Medicaid money to balance the budget.

Lawmakers’ decisions to raid Medicaid coffers to balance the budget amounts to a violation of federal law and endangers equal access to health care for low-income patients, according to the lawsuit.

Southern New Hampshire Medical Center and St. Joseph Hospital, two of the city’s largest employers, and the eight other hospitals are suing Nicholas Toumpas, commissioner of the state Department of Health and Human Services, over a plan that uses more than $200 million in Medicaid funds to balance the two-year state budget.

“This action by the governor and the Legislature is the most significant threat to our community’s health that I have seen in my 23 years at SNHHS,” Tom Wilhelmsen, president and CEO of Southern New Hampshire Health Services, said.

SNHMC stands to lose about $10 million annually, Wilhelmsen said, which will force the hospital to lay off employees.

The suit alleges that the plan violates federal law and threatens “immediate and irreparable injury to the public.” It asks that the plan be immediately halted.

Senate President Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, and House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vermon, declined to comment on the lawsuit before their lawyers could review it.

“Neither the House nor Senate have received a copy of what the hospitals filed today. We will have to hold off on commenting until the speaker/senate president have been briefed,’’ said Carole Alfano, Senate communications director.

The suit is over whether lawmakers can keep the $115 million annually in so-called bed tax payments that hospitals make so the federal government will make a matching payment. Since 1991, hospitals have been reimbursed once the state got the federal payment.

This year, the Legislature decided to not only keep the federal money, but also the initial $115 million it collected from hospitals.

“The state has broken a long-held promise to New Hampshire hospitals by this action,” Wilhelmsen said.

That makes payments a new tax, according to health care leaders, and combined with what were already some of the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rates in the country, it means hospitals will pay the state more than they get from the state for treating Medicaid patients, Wilhelmsen said.

“Therefore the state is no longer funding hospitals as they are obligated to under federal regulations. That’s the essence of the suit,” he said. “I think the point is that all of a sudden, the state has turned this into a tax.”

SNHMC and its network of primary care physicians, Foundation Medical Partners, treated more than 12,000 Medicaid patients in 2010, spending $21.8 million and was reimbursed $9.3 million by the state. If those numbers hold steady and the hospital’s $10.4 million bed-tax payment isn’t reimbursed, the hospital would lose more than $22 million, according a supplemental court filing written by Michael Rose, SNHMC’s chief financial officer. Other state Medicaid reductions since 2008 have cost the hospital more than $7.7 million already, according to Rose.

Because of the cuts, the hospital is exploring cutting its pediatric beds in half, from eight to four, and eliminating its 30-bed behavioral health unit, as well as rationing its treatment of Medicaid patients, according to the Rose.

St. Joseph Hospital spent $8.3 million on Medicaid patients last year and was reimbursed $2.9 million. That loss, plus its $3.1 million bed-tax payment, would cost the hospital about $8.5 million, according to chief financial officer Richard Plamondon.

Dr. William Stephan, St. Joseph’s vice president of medical affairs, said without changes, the hospital will have to lay off a “significant piece” of its support staff and shutter a number of optional programs, such as daycare, home care programs and ambulance service, that lose money but are valuable to patients.

The longer term effect will be that hospitals will have to arrest any development, ending investment in new programs and technologies, Stephan said.

“It’s going to freeze our growth, and we’ll lose those services that don’t make money but are valuable,” he said.

The suit asks the court to bar Toumpas from implementing the reimbursement reductions and to set new rates that recognize the “efficiency, economy, and quality of care, and equal access” to health care. If the suit fails, hospitals will be forced to cut services and limit access to programs and facilities for Medicaid patients, according to the suit. SNHMC is examining changes to its behavioral health and pediatrics units, according to spokesperson Judith Bennett. It may also have to delay access to non-emergency services, she said.

“This is not a single moment in time that we have to weather; this will require a permanent change in the way that we do business,” Wilhelmsen said.

Wilhelmsen said no patients needing urgent care would ever be turned away, but elective procedures and waits to get appointments with primary care physicians could get longer and longer.

Other hospitals are considering closing their associated doctors offices to new Medicaid patients or terminating those Medicaid contracts with the state altogether, according to the suit.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Children’s Hospital is considering closing or suspending its neonatal intensive care unit. DHMC might need to ground the DHART rescue helicopter, according to the suit.

Since the budget plan was proposed, health care leaders have said it would eviscerate hospitals’ services, forcing them to cut services, employees and programs, as well as increasing patient costs.

A spokesperson for Gov. John Lynch stressed that the four-term Democratic chief executive did not favor such a deep cut to the hospitals.

“This doesn’t come as a surprise. The budget proposed by the governor was very different from the one passed by the legislature. The governor took a more balanced approach and did not propose such a drastic cut to hospitals,’’ Lynch press secretary Colin Manning said.

The proposed budget Lynch offered in February would have cut $20 million in payments to the hospitals and used the savings to support health care spending elsewhere in the Department of Health and Human Services’ budget.

----------

"Hospital op-ed didn’t get facts straight"
The Nashua Telegraph, Letters, August 22, 2011

Sens. Gary Lambert, R-Nashua, and Jim Luther, R-Hollis, argue New Hampshire’s hospitals can afford a new $115 million tax because they have profits of $200 million (Aug. 7: “Hospitals shouldn’t be immune to state budget cuts”).

Those numbers don’t tell the whole story, however, because health care has developed beyond the old inpatient model. Hospitals have become part of integrated health systems, and our health systems are not anywhere near as profitable as the senators claim.

New Hampshire’s health system profit margins for 2010 slid from 2.9 percent to 1.8 percent. For 2010, the statewide profit margin projection was approximately $88 million – way below the $115 million tax increase hospitals will have to pay under the Republicans’ budget. It is clear they will lose money this year and must reduce expenses significantly.

The senators criticize the hospitals for turning first to layoffs and service cuts to reduce expenses. However, they fail to mention our hospitals have actually been making administrative cuts for the past three years in response to the recession.

Both Lambert and Luther campaigned on their experience as business owners. They must know that when they ask Nashua’s two hospitals to pay $36 million more in taxes, narrow profit margins mean layoffs and service cuts must be part of the solution. If they believe businesses should be market-driven and free from state overregulation, they shouldn’t criticize how these private businesses are run.

The Republicans pledged to boost the economy and create jobs. But so far, their budget has cost more than 1,100 health system employees their jobs.

Rep. Cindy Rosenwald
D-Nashua

----------

"NH Responds To Report That Blasted Mental Health System"
WMUR.com - December 6, 2011

CONCORD, N.H. -- The attorney general and Department of Health and Human Services commissioner are disputing the United States Department of Justice’s claim that the state’s mental health system is failing and violates federal law.

In April, the Department of Justice concluded that the state was failing to provide adequate community-based services to those with mental illness, leading to prolonged stays at New Hampshire Hospital, the state mental hospital and Glencliff Home.

The report said Glencliff Home, the state’s home for those with serious mental illness or developmental disabilities, put little focus on discharge planning.

The report acknowledged the state’s 10-year plan to fix the system which was developed in 2008 but said progress had been slow.

Attorney General Michael Delaney and health commissioner Nicholas Toumpas released a response Tuesday after six months of discussions with the Department of Justice.

The response claims the Department of Justice only spent two days in New Hampshire assessing the state’s mental health system, including a one-day visit to the Glencliff Home and a partial day visit to New Hampshire Hospital.

Delaney and Toumpas said Tuesday that significant progress had been made in the 10-year plan.

Toumpas also argued that New Hampshire Hospital has a significantly lower-than-average stay compared to the rest of the nation. They are asking the department of justice withdraw its findings.

“The threatened litigation by the federal government and federally funded advocates will waste precious state and federal taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on providing services,” the letter says.

----------

Rep. Charlie Bass votes the corporate line of special interests

2011-03-14T14:59:00.010-04:00

-

-

"Bass EPA vote comes under fire"
The Nashua Telegraph, Letters, March 14, 2011

Granite Staters voted for many things in November, but they certainly did not vote for more asthma attacks and more contaminated drinking water.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Rep. Charlie Bass helped bring upon New Hampshire by voting for the outrageously anti-environmental House funding bill (HR 1).

Passed under cover of night on a Saturday, this bill endangers the health of New Hampshire’s children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations by blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and cleaning up coal-fired power plants and other large sources of dangerous carbon dioxide pollution.

It also cuts EPA’s overall budget by the largest percentage in 30 years, severely threatening the agency’s ability to ensure that all New Hampshire residents have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

To his credit, Rep. Bass did vote against amendments that made this atrocious legislation even worse. He opposed efforts to block clean-up of mercury pollution in our air and water, as well as cuts to funds that protect wild places.

Nevertheless, New Hampshire is the tail pipe of the nation. I am dismayed that Rep. Bass voted in support of a final bill that eviscerates our core environmental and public health programs that protect us from Midwestern emissions.

Jessica O’Hare
Program Associate
Environment New Hampshire
Concord

----------

"Bass and Guinta vote to Overhaul Medicare and Medicaid"
By Matt Laslo, NHPR.org - April 15, 2011

New Hampshire’s two Republican House members have voted to overhaul Medicare and Medicaid. NHPR Correspondent Matt Laslo has the story from Washington.

The vote on the Republican budget resolution for next year includes big changes to the nation’s historical social safety nets. The legislation would provide seniors with a check that would go to an insurance company instead of a doctor. President Obama and Democrats claim the change would burden seniors with thousands of dollars in extra health care costs.

First District Congressman Frank Guinta calls that claim the Democrats' “talking point.” And he said the legislation would decrease the nation’s health care costs.

“A more free market choice approach where the individual has greater power in the decision making process. And when that happens you typically see people more aware of what they are purchasing.”

The proposal also turns Medicaid into a block grant program that unwinds federal standards for how it’s administered.

The Second District’s Charlie Bass also supported the sweeping changes.

----------

"Medicare should not be taken down"
By Ann McLane Kuster, May 15, 2011

When I read about Congressman Charles Bass voting to abolish Medicare as we know it, I thought about the impact on the lives of seniors all across New Hampshire and I thought about my own family.

My 87-year-old mother-in-law lives on her own in a small apartment on a widow’s pension and her Social Security. A few weeks ago, she was hospitalized for a few days with pneumonia, and her hospital stay was covered by Medicare.

In 2008, over 200,000 people in our state received benefits from Medicare, which is why I am so disturbed that Bass and his colleagues voted to jeopardize the health and well being of future retirees. In order to pay for a large tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, the Republican budget would replace the successful Medicare program with a system of private insurance vouchers, leaving tomorrow’s seniors without adequate coverage when healthcare costs inevitably continue to rise.

This private mandate and voucher system sets up an unstable, hurtful, and discriminatory system for seniors. In essence, the only element it keeps from our current, successful program is the name “Medicare”.

At town hall meetings across New Hampshire in the days after the vote, Bass defended his vote by attempting to argue that his plan relied on “premium support systems,” not “vouchers”. It was Washington-speak from his partisan leadership’s talking points — and we flinty constituents in New Hampshire are not buying it.

Even FOX’s Chris Wallace, no Democrat by any stretch, called the bill Bass voted for “a major overhaul of Medicare and turning it into a voucher system.”

And according to Kathleen Hennessey of the L.A. Times, who covered a town hall discussion at the American Legion Post 59 in Hillsborough, Bass “struggled with the tax part of the plan, flatly denying that the proposal would cut taxes on wealthy individuals and saying incorrectly that the reduction applied only to corporations.”

Hennessey concluded, “Now, it’s hard to separate how much of the muddying is Bass honestly not understanding the budget he voted for, and how much is him deliberately obfuscating. But when you’re trying to convert abstract beliefs into support for wildly unpopular particulars, obfuscation is pretty much the only play.”

Even in this day of cynicism, that’s a sorry commentary on the motives of our elected officials.

I am a frugal Yankee, and I do believe we need to cut spending when it is truly wasteful. We can find prime candidates for those cuts in the billions of subsidies for oil companies, the corporate tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, and the billions more spent on redundant weapons systems that our military leaders have identified as wasteful and not needed. These are all expenditures that Bass has voted to support in his seven terms in Congress — including his votes as recently as this winter.

But ending Medicare as we know it in order to make room for corporate tax breaks? No way. That’s not the America I want to pass on to my sons. It’s not the country that Nanny worked hard for her whole life, nor the country that is looking out for her now. We can do better.

Democrat Ann McLane Kuster of Concord was a candidate for New Hampshire’s 2nd District House Congressional seat in 2010.

Source: www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/columnists/guest/medicare-should-not-be-taken-down-by-ann-mclane-kuster

----------

"From Bass, an appalling vote"
The Concord Monitor, Letters, May 9, 2011

Rep. Charlie Bass blames "outside special interest groups" for scaring seniors about his vote to cut Medicare. Well, I'm not a special interest group. I'm a 29-year New Hampshire resident who recently enrolled in Medicare, and I'm appalled by Bass's vote.

He claims that he did not support a "voucher" system for seniors to buy medical insurance. Whatever you call it, giving a fixed amount to an insurance company in my name, a "premium support," might as well be called a voucher. If it's too paltry to buy the insurance I will need (it will be), the balance will be out of my pocket. And if a pre-existing condition makes the insurers refuse me, I will be out of luck.

We all know we have a budget problem. The House Republican budget proposes to cut $30 billion from Medicare over 10 years but it would also repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would cut the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years. And repealing the new health law brings back the prescription drug coverage gap known as the "donut hole," passing on $6,000 in additional out-of-pocket prescription drug costs to me by 2020.

This $6,000 per year passed on to us seniors and a "voucher" system that won't even keep up with health care costs is a bad deal for seniors and for working Americans paying into Medicare now.

If Bass and House Republicans get their way, they will increase the deficit and break the promise of guaranteed health care benefits to seniors and people with disabilities. That's not only scary, it's shameful.

M. CHRIS HANSEN
Alstead, NH

----------

"House rejects debt limit increase without cuts"
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent, May 31, 2011

WASHINGTON – House Republicans dealt defeat to their own proposal for a $2.4 trillion increase in the nation's debt limit Tuesday, a political gambit designed to reinforce a demand for spending cuts to accompany any increase in government borrowing.

The vote was lopsided, with just 97 in favor of the measure and 318 against.

House Democrats accused the GOP of political demagoguery, while the Obama administration maneuvered to avoid taking sides — or giving offense to majority Republicans.

The debate was brief, occasionally impassioned and set a standard of sorts for public theater, particularly at a time when private negotiations continue among the administration and key lawmakers on the deficit cuts Republicans have demanded.

The bill "will and must fail," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who noted he had helped write the very measure he was criticizing.

"I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success, because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America's affection for deficit spending," he said.

But Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., accused Republicans of a "ploy so egregious that (they) have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery."

He and other Democrats added that Republicans were attempting to draw attention away from their controversial plan to turn Medicare into a program in which seniors purchase private insurance coverage.

The proceedings occurred roughly two months before the date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the debt limit must be raised. If no action is taken by Aug. 2, he has warned, the government could default on its obligations and risk turmoil that might plunge the nation into another recession or even an economic depression.

Republicans, who are scheduled to meet with Obama at the White House on Wednesday, signaled in advance that the debt limit vote did not portend a final refusal to grant an increase.

The roll call vote was held late in the day, and there was little, if any discernible impact on Wall Street, where major exchanges showed gains for the day. At the same time, it satisfied what GOP officials said was a desire among the rank and file to vote against unpopular legislation the leadership has said eventually must pass in some form.

Republicans said they were offering legislation Obama and more than 100 Democratic lawmakers had sought.

But Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat, accused the GOP of staging a "demagogic vote" at a time lawmakers should work together to avoid a financial default.

All 97 votes in favor of the measure were cast by Democrats, totaling less than a majority and far under the two-thirds support needed for passage.

For its part, the administration appeared eager to avoid criticizing Republicans.

"It's fine, it's fine," presidential press secretary Jay Carney said when asked about the Republican decision to tie spending cuts with more borrowing.

"We believe they should not be linked because there is no alternative that's acceptable to raising the debt ceiling. But we're committed to reducing the deficit," Carney said.

The government has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, $14.3 trillion, and the Treasury is using a series of extraordinary maneuvers to meet financial obligations.

By no longer would making investments in two big pension funds for federal workers and beginning to withdraw current investments, for example, the Treasury created $214 billion in additional borrowing headroom.

At the same time, the Obama administration and congressional leaders are at work trying to produce a deficit-reduction agreement in excess of $1 trillion to meet Republican demands for spending cuts.

Political maneuvering on legislation to raise the debt limit has become common in recent years, as federal deficits have soared and presidents of both political parties have been forced to seek authority to borrow additional trillions of dollars.

Because such legislation is unpopular with voters, presidents generally look to lawmakers from their own political party to provide the votes needed for passage. In the current case, though, Republicans control the House, and without at least some support from them, Obama's request for a debt-limit increase would fail.

However, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced months ago that he would demand spending cuts as a condition for passage.

"It's true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible," he said on May 9 in a speech to the Economic Club of New York. "But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt limit without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and to reform the budget process."

He added that any spending cuts should be larger than the increase in borrowing authority, a statement meant to lay down a marker for the deficit-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden.

Few details have emerged from those negotiations, although Biden said recently the negotiators had made progress. He expressed confidence they would be able to agree on specific cuts in excess of $1 trillion over the next decade, and then look to procedural mechanisms known as "triggers" to force further automatic deficit cuts adding up to another $3 trillion or so.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a participant in the talks, said afterward, "I am confident that we can achieve over a trillion dollars in savings at this point, and hopefully more."

Earlier, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., had said the discussions centered on deficit cuts totaling in the range of $150 billion to $200 billion over a decade, but that was from a relatively small category of programs.

Among the areas eyed for spending cuts is the federal pension program, where the White House has signaled it is receptive to a Republican proposal for employees to make greater contributions.

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.

----------

Obesity rates rising & leading in U.S.

2010-09-23T13:16:00.003-04:00

-

-

"Number of fat people in US to grow, report says"
By Greg Keller, Associated Press Writer, September 23, 2010

PARIS – Citizens of the world's richest countries are getting fatter and fatter and the United States is leading the charge, an organization of leading economies said Thursday in its first ever obesity forecast.

Three out of four Americans will be overweight or obese by 2020, and disease rates and health care spending will balloon, unless governments, individuals and industry cooperate on a comprehensive strategy to combat the epidemic, the study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

The Paris-based organization, which brings together 33 of the world's leading economies, is better known for forecasting deficit and employment levels than for measuring waistlines. But the economic cost of excess weight — in health care, and in lives cut short and resources wasted — is a growing concern for many governments.

Franco Sassi, the OECD senior health economist who authored the report, blamed the usual suspects for the increase.

"Food is much cheaper than in the past, in particular food that is not particularly healthy, and people are changing their lifestyles, they have less time to prepare meals and are eating out more in restaurants," said Sassi, a former London School of Economics lecturer who worked on the report for three years.

That plus the fact that people are much less physically active than in the past means that the ranks of the overweight have swelled to nearly 70 percent in the U.S. this year from well under 50 percent in 1980, according to the OECD.

In 10 years, a full 75 percent of Americans will be overweight, making it "the fattest country in the OECD," the report said.

The same factors driving the epidemic in the U.S. are also at work in other wealthy and developing countries, Sassi said. "There is a frightening increase in the epidemic," Sassi said, "We've not reached the plateau yet."

The lifespan of an obese person is up to 8-10 years shorter than that of a normal-weight person, the OECD said, the same loss of lifespan incurred by smoking.

In the U.S. the cost in dollars of obesity, including higher health care spending and lost production, is already equivalent to 1 percent of the country's total gross domestic product, the report said. That compares to half a percent in other OECD countries, Sassi said.

These costs could rise two- or threefold over the coming years, the OECD said, citing another study that forecast obesity and overweight-related health care costs would rise 70 percent by 2015 and could be 2.4 times higher than the current level in 2025.

The OECD found that rates of obesity, defined as a body mass index above 30, show a wide variation across its member countries, ranging from as little as 3-4 percent of the population in Japan and Korea to around one-third in the U.S. and Mexico.

"However, rates are also increasing in these countries," the OECD said. Outside the OECD, obesity rates are rising at similarly fast rates in countries such as Brazil, China, India and Russia.

The OECD advises governments on economic growth, social development and financial stability.

Newt Gingrich represents moral hypocrisy

2010-05-19T19:13:00.010-04:00

May 19, 2010

Yesterday (Tuesday) morning, I watch an interview of Newt Gingrich by Meredith Vieira on NBC News. In Gingrich's new book "To Save America", he compares the leadership of President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. During the interview, Gingrich said that Obama's socialist and secular agenda is like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's agenda in their finality. Vieira asked Gingrich, "Can you honestly compare what's going on with the Democrats to Nazi Germany?" Gingrich replied, "I do believe that Obama's secular socialist machine threatens to impose in this country a series of bureaucratic decisions that are very dangerous."

Newt Gingrich obviously hates Barack Obama to compare him to the worst dictators of the 20th Century. With Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party is using terms like "Save America", "Socialist" - "Secular" - "Machine", "Nazi Germany", "Hitler" - "Stalin" - "Mao", "threatens", "bureaucratic decisions", and "very dangerous", to describe our current U.S. President and the Democratic Party.

I find Newt Gingrich to be a true representation of moral hypocrisy in American politics. Over one decade ago, then Speaker Gingrich lead the impeachment of then President Bill Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lying about it under oath during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. During the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Speaker Gingrich was having an affair of his own. Moreover, a rather large number of Republican Congressmen had affairs of their own during their lives. Gingrich attacked Clinton for doing what Gingrich himself was doing along with his Republican colleagues.

Now, Newt Gingrich is attacking President Barack Obama with extremist language and outrageous comparisons in order to boost his Republican Party and his own profile for the 2012 presidential election. Newt Gingrich is nothing more than a moral hypocrite who uses the worst kind of politics to discredit his opposition. My projection of a potential President Newt Gingrich is an extremist moral hypocrite who will attack his opposition by criminalizing dissenting points of view. Newt Gingrich represents politics of the worst kind, not seen since the days of McCarthyism.

- Jonathan Melle

----------
-

Newt Gingrich discusses a new film, ‘Nine Days that Changed the World’ which he co-produced on Pope John Paul II’s historic role in defeating communism in eastern Europe, on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, in Warsaw, Poland. (Photo by AP)
-

"Newt Gingrich promotes film on Pope John Paul II"
By Associated Press - www.bostonherald.com - Europe - June 9, 2010

WARSAW, Poland — Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich — a recent convert to Catholicism — is in Poland promoting a documentary he co-produced on Pope John Paul II’s role in defeating communism.

In Poland, Gingrich, a Republican, is preaching to the converted: the Polish-born pope is revered, and Poles credit him with inspiring the struggle that eventually helped defeat Soviet-backed communist in eastern Europe.

Gingrich, a former Georgia congressman, said Wednesday that his film, "Nine Days that Changed the World," is needed nonetheless to remind young Poles, secular historians and people worldwide of John Paul’s anti-totalitarian convictions. The film, which will be screened at American universities this fall, is also being translated into Chinese and Spanish in hopes it might inspire people in Cuba and elsewhere, Gingrich said.

"We believe the pope’s message of freedom through faith and his principle that no government can get between you and God is a principle that is relevant in every country, for every person around the world," Gingrich said at a news conference in Warsaw attended by the film’s director and the other producers, among them wife Callista Gingrich.

The film tracks a visit John Paul made to Poland in 1979 and the electrifying effect it had on Poland’s anti-communist opposition.

Within just over a year, Lech Walesa’s Solidarity freedom movement was born, and Walesa and other activists have said the massive crowds that came out during the nine-day visit to see the pope encouraged opposition activists by giving them a sense of large-scale opposition to the communist regime. John Paul’s sermons, though subtle, also challenged the communists’ authority and called for freedom.

Gingrich, a Georgia congressman, said he converted to Catholcism last year. Previously he was a Baptist, but started growing closer to Catholicism after marrying Callista— a lifelong Roman Catholic — 10 years ago. He was also inspired by seeing Pope Benedict XVI during his 2008 visit to the United States.

"It was a process which had occurred over about a nine year period. I was catching up with what had happened to me, I wasn’t making a decision. The decision was sort of unveiling itself."

----------
-

Photo by Jerry Holbert
-

"Medicare myths, facts"
By Newt Gingrich and Nancy Desmond, Op-Ed - www.bostonherald.com - June 9, 2010

As weeks turned to months during the Great Debate over what to do about health care this past year, President Barack Obama made one solemn pledge to the nation and its seniors.

He said health care would not add one dime to the deficit. And if all of us liked our doctor, we would get to keep our doctor.

Fast forward almost 90 days after the passage of Obamacare and the attitude of most Americans to that pledge is: Prove it.

In the past two weeks, the Obama administration has been trying to stem the tide of skepticism toward its health care law with a new mailer sent directly to the nation’s seniors entitled: “Medicare and the New Health Care Law - What it Means for You.”

The problem is, for anyone who has paid attention during the past 12 months, the message about the biggest government expansion into health care in our lifetime just doesn’t add up.

Let’s contrast fact from fiction and the language used in the new flier:

“Your guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t change - whether you get them through Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan.” Fact: Medicare Advantage, a private option in Medicare, will be cut by $136 billion. On April 22, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that half of all seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage would lose their coverage under the new health care bill by 2017. The guarantee that benefits won’t change isn’t a guarantee at all for millions of seniors who prefer using private insurance companies that provide their Medicare coverage.

“Your choice of doctors will be preserved.” Fact: Cuts to Medicare will total nearly $500 billion, hitting hospitals, home health providers, physicians and more. Doctors throughout the country have seen their Medicare payments reduced in recent years and expect more cuts in the future because of Obamacare. A February survey by three national neurosurgeons groups, for example, showed that 50 percent of neurosurgeons were reducing the number of Medicare patients they were accepting into their practice. The Mayo Clinic in Arizona also has started turning away Medicare patients. Other physicians are also following suit. How is this preserving a senior’s choice of doctors?

“If you’re hospitalized, the new law also helps you return home successfully and avoid going back - by helping to coordinate your care and connecting you to services and supports in your community.” Fact: This is traditionally known as “home health care” - a program that helps treat patients at home for a short period. But in the Obamacare plan, home health care will also be cut by $40 billion. Another contradiction in terms.

Precious tax dollars are being spent on a public relations campaign to try to convince seniors that Obamacare will keep “Medicare strong and solvent.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Record numbers of baby boomers will start retiring this year and draw Social Security benefits and sign up for Medicare. They are smart enough to understand that Obamacare is not a good deal for their golden years. A four-page brochure will not change their minds either. It will take more for this administration to “prove it” than a glossy, four-page pamphlet.

----------
Newt Gingrich
-

Gerald Herbert/ AP Photo
-

The former House speaker is among the best-known Republicans in the country. He has a dedicated following, and the former academic is known as a policy wonk. Gingrich, though, has never won a campaign in anything more than a congressional district. And his three marriages – including an affair amid President Clinton’s sex scandal – are surefire political liabilities. He has already suffered a wholesale staff defection this campaign and failed to catch on in public opinion surveys.

(August 13, 2011)

----------

"Gingrich wanted ‘open marriage,’ ex-wife says"
By Joe Dwinell - www.bostonherald.com - January 19, 2012 - Election 2012

Newt Gingrich wanted an “open marriage” so he could have both a mistress and a wife, his ex-wife says in an explosive interview set to air tonight on ABC’s “Nightline.”

Marianne Gingrich, the second ex-wife of the former House speaker, said her former husband is not fit to wave the conservative flag and preach family values, according to advance transcripts released today by ABC.

Marianne Gingrich, the transcripts state, said she was married to him for 18 years and was disgusted by his admission of a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, Callista now married to Gingrich, and if she would share him with her.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’ ” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

“He always called me at night,” she added, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”

She added all this occurred while Gingrich was ripping into President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair. And, in another moral punch to the gut, he asked for a divorce after she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Newt Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer.

ABC adds the former speaker’s daughters from his first marriage said their dad “regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.”

----------

Graphics show average number of food stamp recipients last 10 years and recipients broken down by race.

"Food stamp families to critics: Walk in our shoes"
By JESSE WASHINGTON, AP National Writer – January 20, 2012

Some have advanced degrees and remember middle-class lives. Some work selling lingerie or building websites. They are white, black and Hispanic, young and old, homeowners and homeless. What they have in common: They're all on food stamps.

As the food stamp program has become an issue in the Republican presidential primary, with candidates seeking to tie President Barack Obama to the program's record numbers, The Associated Press interviewed recipients across the country and found many who wished that critics would spend some time in their shoes.

Most said they never expected to need food stamps, but the Great Recession, which wiped out millions of jobs, left them no choice. Some struggled with the idea of taking a handout; others saw it as their due, earned through years of working steady jobs. They yearn to get back to receiving a paycheck that will make food stamps unnecessary.

"I could never have comprehended being on food stamps," said Christopher Jenks, who became homeless in his hometown of Minneapolis-St. Paul after a successful career in sales and marketing.

He refused to apply for several years, even panhandling on a freeway exit ramp before finally giving in. A few months ago, while living in his car, he began receiving $200 per month.

"It's either that or I die," said Jenks, who grew up in a white, middle-class family and lost his job in the recession. "I want a job. So do a lot of other Americans that have been caught up in this tragedy."

In 2011, more than 45 million people — about one in seven Americans — received benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most ever. Fewer than 31 million people collected the benefits about three years earlier.

Forty-nine percent of recipients are white, 26 percent are black and 20 percent are Hispanic, according to Census data.

Food assistance emerged as a campaign issue after statements by GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum about African-Americans, the poor and Obama, whom Gingrich labeled the "best food stamp president in American history."

Critics accused Gingrich of seeking votes by invoking racial stereotypes about black welfare recipients with comments like "the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Challenged at a GOP debate this week on whether the rhetoric was insulting, Gingrich insisted it was not and received a standing ovation from the South Carolina audience.

Linda Miles is grateful to have food stamps, although she's not happy about why she needs them. An Army veteran with a master's degree, Miles, who is black, was laid off as a substitute teacher in Philadelphia amid deep budget cuts. After facing an empty refrigerator for too long, she recently started receiving $200 per month in food aid.

"Food stamps are essential, especially with the economy in the shape it's in," she said. "I pay taxes. I don't steal anything from the government. I paid my dues to society; I'm a veteran. You took something from me by taking away my job. I wouldn't need food stamps if you hadn't taken my job."

Miles started an unpaid internship this week, and also was certified to work in early childhood care while she looks for a permanent job.

"I'm not one of these people who sit on their butt and just collect a check," Miles said. "I've got a resume three pages long."

Ronnie McHugh was watching the GOP debate from home in Spring City, Pa. When Gingrich received the standing ovation, McHugh got so angry that she turned off the TV.

"I'd give a million dollars if I could find a job. I'm 64 years old, and no one wants to hire me," said McHugh, who is white, divorced, has no savings and lives off $810 per month in Social Security.

"I would like them to sit in my shoes," she said of the debate audience. "I would tell them I had a husband who made $150,000 a year, I had a good salary. We were both laid off at the same time by the same company, and I've never been able to rally from that."

"If they had a chance to sit in my shoes, they would be happy to have a program to help people who did work all their life."

Some critics say the Obama administration's policies have pushed people into dependency on food stamps. Eligibility rules were broadened in 2002 and 2008 before Obama took office; his 2009 stimulus package relaxed some work requirements and temporarily increased payouts.

For others, the recession, which pushed the unemployment rate as high as 10 percent and increased poverty, is the primary culprit.

The Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger has seen a doubling of enrollments in suburban counties, with a smaller increase in the city itself. "These are much higher-income areas," said Julie Zaebst, the coalition's policy center manager. "This is part of the evidence showing that the most important reason for the growth in the program was the recession."

It was an injury that pushed Russell Johnson of Morgantown, W.Va., over the edge. He held down a steady refrigeration job until he fell off a roof six years ago. On Wednesday, he and his wife, Carolyn, used their food stamp card to buy $64.71 worth of groceries. That was more than half of their $102 monthly benefit.

"It's not enough, but it helps," Carolyn said. "I think it's a great program for the people who need it."

The Johnsons, who are white, maintain a big garden, hunt, fish and buy in bulk, like the 50-pound sack of potatoes in their cart. Carolyn also is disabled; they receive $763 per month in total disability payments.

They are furious with Gingrich. "I'd rather work than be on food stamps, but, I mean, my body says no. So what am I gonna do?" Russell said. "If I sit for too long, my back starts hurting and my leg goes numb. If I stand too long, the same old thing. And if I walk too much, my legs give out like they ain't even there."

He said the people criticizing food assistance eat at fancy restaurants and pay $25 for a sack of potatoes.

"Me, I'm dang lucky to get to go to McDonald's," Russell said.

About half of those receiving food aid are children. In Fresno, Calif., Josephine Gonzales has received assistance since becoming pregnant with her first child last fall. She is trained as a medical assistant and previously worked at an elementary school, but hasn't found a new job since giving birth.

"I use food stamps because I'm a single mom and I don't work, so I need a way to survive," said Gonzales, who is Hispanic. "Instead of spending the little cash I have on food, I can spend it on diapers and other things for my baby. It's just a small help. It's not making our lives luxurious."

Twanda Graham of Montgomery, Ala., started receiving food stamps when she graduated from high school 22 years ago. She has worked all that time, currently in a clothing store. She is unmarried with four children, and said she does not earn enough to feed her family.

Graham, who is black, believes she is paying for her assistance with taxes withheld from her paycheck: "They are not giving me anything for free."

Victoria Busby of Oklahoma City is a white single mom with two children. She has received food assistance intermittently since her first child was born two years ago. A high school graduate, she works part-time building websites for a manufacturing company, and aspires to become a nurse.

She is not ashamed about receiving aid. "I don't feel bad about it because my children need to eat. It's helped quite a bit."

Sophia Clark is a film school graduate in New York City who works part time at Victoria's Secret while she freelances on movie productions. In December she began receiving $130 per month because she couldn't afford to buy food after paying for rent, college loans and her cell phone.

"It was never, ever my intention to rely on public assistance in any way," said Clark, who is black and unmarried with no children.

Clark was recently entertaining a guest in the Bronx apartment she shares with her uncle when the dinner conversation turned to food stamps. The guest emphatically stated that his tax dollars should not feed people who prefer welfare over work.

She asked the guest if he had enjoyed the pasta with homemade pesto sauce. He had. "Do you find me a lazy person?" Clark asked. Not at all, the guest replied.

"Well," Clark said, "you just ate a dinner that was purchased with food stamps."

-----

"Fact Check: Gingrich’s Obama Food Stamp Claim Was False"
Written by Casey Gane-McCalla, Lead Blogger on January 20, 2012
Source: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/fact-check-shows-gingrichs-obama-food-stamp-claim-was-false/

FactCheck.org has looked into Newt Gingrich’s claim that Barack Obama had put more people on Food Stamps than any President in American history and has found that it was false. More people we put on the EBT debit card program that replaced Food Stamps under George W. Bush than Obama.

Gingrich also failed to take into account that during Bush’s last year the amount of people receiving EBT tripled and the fact that while Bush inherited a $236 billion surplus from Bill Clinton, Obama inherited a $5 trillion deficit and a recession from Bush.

Fact Check.Org reports:

"Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures."

*

"But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

"And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

"The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007."

----------

"Commandment for GOP: Do unto others as you do to Newt"
By Margery Eagan, Columnist - www.bostonherald.com - January 22, 2012

Fourteen years after Republicans nearly impeached Democrat Bill Clinton for lying about adultery, Republicans have apparently decided that the multiple adulteries of fellow Republican Newt Gingrich are no big deal.

Four years after Republicans bashed their favorite target — liberal media elites — for failing to chase down Democrat John Edwards’ baby mama, the GOP is now bashing liberal media elites — in the person of CNN’s John King — for chasing down fellow Republican Newt and his second ex-wife, the one he ditched right after her multiple sclerosis diagnosis.

I guess Naughty Newtie has changed all the rules. Suddenly nobody’s supposed to care about personal morality anymore.

All of which is fine with me.

I’ve long observed that cheating presidents (FDR, JFK, Bubba, etc.) generally do better than faithful ones. Plus, to me, issues of personal morality are better left to one’s conscience or one’s church. How did we ever arrive at the insanity of allowing a Congress full of insider traders and tax cheats to make personal moral judgments about the rest of us?

Public morality? That’s something else, as in: Please do not do to America, Newt, what you did to Mrs. Gingrich No. 1, No. 2, and perhaps inevitably to Mrs. No. 3 as well.

But I guess we can thank Naughty Newtie for our new, nearly Parisian perspective: Private sins are none of our business.

I’d just add one caveat: What’s good for the goose (Newt) must also be good for the gander (the rest of us). If Republicans now say Newt’s marital morass is not our concern, then our private lives should be no concern of theirs, either.

For example, Rick Santorum and his wife told CNN on Friday that no one should judge Newt. That’s swell. But you can’t suspend your judgment of Newt while simultaneously judging anyone who uses birth control as a wrongdoer, as Rick does. That’s ridiculous.

Likewise, you can no longer deem anyone who has an abortion a reprobate and a criminal. Every single one of the Republicans now running for president would outlaw abortion and criminalize women who have them. Mitt and Rick have even gone after family-planning programs.

Let’s hope Naughty Newtie at least now has the decency to stop running around hailing the “sanctity of marriage” and the nuclear family as the historic building blocks of America — and slamming gays who want the same things: marriage, spouses, families.

Then again, Newt and his party might just change their slogans. Marriage no longer is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, but an on-again, off-again shack-up between a man and a woman, then another woman, then another ... and maybe, what the hell, two or three more!

----------