The Agonist - USA: Congress: House

Catholic Bishops' leader defends role in health debate, (& swipes at New York Times)

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:35:03 -0800

Julia Duin | Baltimore | Nov 16

Washington Times - Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, defended the bishops' involvement in national health care legislation Monday, saying the church must be "leaven" in the debate.

Speaking at the opening of the bishops' annual business meeting, "to limit our teaching or governing to what the state is not interested in would be to betray both the constitution of our country and, much more importantly, the Lord himself," he said.

Not only did USCCB staff and individual bishops play a vital role in getting abortion restrictions into the recently passed House version of the health care overhaul bill, they served notice Monday they will influence the bill's future.

"We will work to persuade the Senate to follow the example of the House and include these critical safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation," Cardinal George said.

Other prelates expressed jubilation at how the USCCB's lobbying proved crucial to the House bill's passage earlier this month as well as anger at some of their critics.

"This is a principled position, not a political position," Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre said.

In a reference to the New York Times, "The grey lady of New York has continued to misrepresent this as a fundamental change to the availability of abortion in this country being curtailed because of the nefarious bishops," he added. "That is not the case."

Politicians Have Filled the Pipeline with Pain for Middle America

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:59:44 -0800

The announcement of financial overhaul legislation in the U.S. Senate this week smacked of irony as its author, Senator Chris Dodd—the recipient of a sweetheart rate on his own home mortgage—announced a sweeping 1,136 page piece of legislation to “protect consumers.” It appears at this point that the protection consumers and Middle America really need is from this nation’s politicians, who have too long lined their pockets with campaign contributions from big business and who have allowed financial institutions to fleece Middle America.

It wasn’t but a couple of years ago that big business and congress all but eliminated the ability of consumers to effectively discharge their debts in bankruptcy proceedings. At the same time, banks and financial institutions were making loans to borrowers who clearly could not qualify. Banks, financial institutions and credit card companies continued extending generous limits on credit cards and lines of credit to consumers. Now be fair, much of the mortgage activity came from Democrats in congress who believed that everyone had an inalienable right to own a home, evidently whether they could afford it or not. And naturally, Republicans, who long ago sold their soul to big business, positioned their bank and financial institution contributors for all of the mortgage business.

Middle America knew and assumed the risk that what goes up would someday come down, perhaps crashing down, which it did. But when it did and as many Americans lost and continue today to lose their jobs, bankruptcy was and is simply not an available option. Our politicians and big business have virtually eliminated it as an effective option for many consumers.

Now, consumers that are interested in honestly reworking their mortgages cannot even get a return phone call from their lender, and if they do they are told they do not qualify for any sort of loan modification.

So here we are—after encumbering themselves with mortgages they cannot afford, credit cards and credit lines they cannot pay down, financial institutions have the shameless and arrogant audacity to raise consumers’ credit card interest rates to 30%. Clearly, consumers have to take a certain degree of responsibility for their own condition, but how did our elected members of congress and the senate allow big business to systematically repeal consumer protections at virtually every turn?

Middle America really needs to understand how and why our politicians have allowed financial institutions to raise credit card interest rates to a level that is clearly usury. No consumer knowingly consents to a 30% interest rate, regardless of whether there’s a meaningless disclosure on the back of his or her monthly credit card statement on page 3 in tiny type font. Nor do consumers knowingly consent to what has become an ordinary practice by banks and financial institutions of charging consumers $35 for overdraft protection or checks returned due to insufficient funds. Sure, consumers can choose to bank elsewhere, but the practice of fleecing consumers with fees has become so universal by financial institutions that consumers really have no choice.

Without bankruptcy as a viable option for many in Middle America, there is plenty of pain left in the pipeline for years to come as consumers will remain enslaved with unmanageable consumer debt. With no end in sight, consumers will continue to labor under the heavy load of mortgages on devalued homes they cannot afford, credit card bills they cannot pay, and no available remedy in a bankruptcy court that can set them free to start over. It appears that consumer protection is dead and caveat emptor is alive and well.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

Middle America is Disillusioned with the Left and Right

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:54:28 -0800

“Disillusioned” is the word that best describes how many Americans feel after eight years of George Bush and the election of Barack Obama a year ago. Republicans had a majority in congress and the presidency, yet achieved little for Middle America. They betrayed voters by inflating the deficit and growing government, sending men and women into nation-building wars whose purposes are still unknown, and created a culture of moral and ethical corruption in Washington D.C. It was under lax and pathetic regulatory oversight that a Republican president and Republican congress allowed corporations to betray shareholders with questionable and highly leveraged credit default swaps, only to be followed by a $700 billion taxpayer bailout created by the Bush administration—so much for limited government. Republicans are a party without a message and without a messenger.

Last week’s election results in Virginia and New Jersey, where Republican candidates for governor triumphed over their Democrat opponents, say more about the public’s rejection of Obama’s big government solutions and less about Republicans articulating a message to help Middle America. If Republicans think the public is embracing the party again, they are simply whistling past the graveyard, drunk on their own greed, and completely out of touch with the needs of Middle America.

Not that Democrats are offering any worthwhile solutions to address the most pressing needs of Middle America—job creation—but at least Democrats are intellectually honest about their desire for big government, universal healthcare, taxpayer-funded abortions, labor union power, and a litigious society for plaintiff lawyers to fleece the public. There is something, dare I say “refreshing and frank” about knowing where Democrats are on issues that impact Middle America, whereas Republicans pretend to be something they are not.

It is time for the Republican party to stop blindly whoring for the business community and begin addressing the issues that impact Middle America—job creation, affordable healthcare for all, and quality public education for our children. Republicans are a one-trick-pony, where “tax cuts” are their solution for all of Middle America’s problems. It’s because the party cannot articulate rational policy solutions to the real problems we face.

Take healthcare for instance; the Republican solution has been health savings accounts (HSAs). Are you kidding me? We can’t get people to save money in IRAs, never mind HSAs. That’s the best Republicans have got? Why don’t Republicans push to allow consumers to shop for healthcare across state lines, require everyone to have healthcare, and deny insurers from rejecting consumers with pre-existing conditions?

If Democrats have any hope of maintaining power, they too need to put viable solutions on the table for Middle America, where people care a hell of a lot more about jobs and the economy than government-run healthcare, union card check, the protection of gays from hate crimes, and cap and trade. Both parties have failed miserably to address the needs of Middle America, which I suppose is why I feel so disillusioned with both parties.

A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/

More detail on the HR3962

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:30 -0800

I've written this in reference to Michael Collins's diary post One More Reason to Kill this Bill and some of the confusion over sections and what is in the bill as far as coverage requirements and penalties.

I'm looking here (.pdf file) for the new Health bill and somewhere around here for the IRS Tax Code. Will post more precise links (possibly to other sources) as needed.

1) HR3962 Sec. 501 (p. 297) If you fail to purchase insurance you will pay 2.5% of (modified adjusted gross income - gross income) but, if that value is higher than the “average premium for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange…” you will pay that average premium instead. So, there is a cap on the 2.5%, set at the average premium of a plan on the exchange. Not sure how high that average will be. HR3962 Sec. 501 (p.298) This amount is pro-rated based upon the fraction of the year that you go without coverage.

Note that a “basic plan” is outlined in HR3962 Section 303(c) on page 168.

Modified Adjusted Gross Income is defined as adjusted gross income increased by (A) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911 of IRS Code (see the link below) and (B) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax.

2) HR3962 Sec 501 (p.299). For Americans living overseas, you are exempt from paying this tax if you have been living abroad and are a resident of a foreign country for at least one taxable year. Relevant IRS code is here (scroll down a bit to sec. 911(d)(1)). I assume the prorating would apply if you’ve only been living overseas for less than a year.

3) You can apparently file an exemption from the requirement to purchase insurance based upon religious beliefs, though you must document your adherence to a faith that would want this. There’s a bit more in there, starting on HR3962 Sec. 501, pages 299-300.

4) HR3962 Sec 501, p. 304. Seems to state that small lapses in coverage are not going to result in taxes. I would assume this means a few days, but I don’t see any specific numbers. The bill just calls them “de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage.”

Now, if you don’t pay the tax in point (1) above then you will be subject to normal IRS rules and regulations. I would assume this is where IRS Code sections 7201 and 7203(see links below) come in. They feature up to $25,000 in fines and no more than 1 or 5 years in jail (depending on which is applicable). I’m not sure how these are applied in practice.

So, it looks like no specific penalties are outlined in the bill, but the 2.5% is designed as a tax and so would fall under IRS rules for non-compliance.

IRS Code Section 7201
IRS Code Section 7203

One More Reason to Kill this Bill - 40 Million "Health" Criminals

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:44:43 -0800

At least two provisions in the House health reform bill are very troubling, the de facto repeal of Roe v. Wade and this. In a powerful post on the Welcome Back to Pottersville, poster Jurassicpork laid it out. This is as clear and logical a statement as I've seen on the utter contempt that Congress has for the people. We're creating a new criminal class, people who can't afford health insurance. The solution - fines and prison. All thanks to the Money Party which has reached depths previously unimaginable. Well worth a read. Michael Collins

Congress Pulls the Trigger

From: Welcome Back to Pottersville blog. Posted by jurassicpork

In the dead of Saturday night, the House passed their version of a health reform bill that, frankly, makes Max Baucus’ first health care proposal look like a bleeding heart liberal/socialist piece of legislation by conspicuous relief. One of the most alarming aspects of HR 3962, that passed 220-215 (219 Democrats and one Republican voted for it) are the purely evil sections 7203 and 7201. The less evil of these sections, 7203, calls for $25,000 in fines and up to a year imprisonment for “defying” the federal mandate for getting insurance. That's the misdemeanor. The felony? A quarter of a million dollars in fines and up to five years in prison.

And those of you who are actually found guilty of the crime of not buying over $100 of health insurance every week will lose their jobs and earning potential. For up to five years, we will not be contributing to anything other than a prison economy. We will not be paying taxes. We will not be paying child support if we already are. And when we get thrown into the prison system, who gets to foot the bill for the health care that we'd defiantly refused to get?
Entire post

The Soul of the Party?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:46 -0800

Many people have described what took place in the 23rd district of New York congressional race as an internal struggle within the Republican Party, an internal struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. I find this analogy difficult to accept and understand because how can you fight for something that doesn’t exist? To say the Republicans are fighting over their soul is akin to saying the Civil War was a fight for the soul of America, while poetically it sounds good the truth is somewhat less pleasant. The Civil War was not about the soul of America, it was about the viability of a nation and its dependence on a corrupt regional power structure. What happened in New York was not about the soul of the Republican Party, it was about the viability of a national party and its reliance on a corrupt regional power base.

What we saw happen in New York and what I predict we will see more of in the coming months is the beginning of a third party. If you notice who the main players were in this debacle it is not hard to understand why they would want to see a third party launched. These are the unrepentant right wing neo-cons who believe that the lesson from the last two elections was that the Republicans were not far enough to the right. They continue to cling to the false mantra of Karl Rove that America is a right of center nation. These are the unapologetic neo-con architects of some of the worst policies in American history and believe that it wasn’t their policies that Americans soundly rejected, but the packaging. They are tin-eared musicians who cannot understand the tune that the American public is playing and so they have crafted a strategy that while it may be personally gratifying and enriching to some of their wallets will not translate into any electoral majority.

If these clowns were not so out of touch they would recognize that the voices they are hearing are not pushing to the right or to the left, those are just the loudest voices. The real voice of change that many in Washington, in Alaska, and in other parts of the establishment circles are failing to interpret is not about party affiliation or cultural warfare. The voice of change taking place in local communities is about watching this nation become a second rate empire and there is a feeling of helplessness on the part of many people. They are watching the wealthy plunder this country without any regard for those in the middle who have been the creators of wealth in this nation. They are watching the vice slowly squeeze them from both ends with mounting debt created by a capital system that socializes risk but privatizes profits and an ever increasing social burden for those who are becoming obsolete in this society. They look into the eyes of their kids and for once they cannot say with any conviction, “That your life will be better than mine.”

The problem with trying to harness the voice of change of this magnitude is that it is easy to misread it. The reason that it is so easy to misread it is because it has not crystallized into a single rational voice. Currently there is just this dissonant cry of anguish that is being misdirected down many incongruent and disconnected paths. What we are witnessing is in the face of unknown fear many people are finding comfort in the ghosts and bogeymen of the past, but these are not the majority of voices again they are just the loudest. The majority are sitting quietly in front of their televisions hoping, praying, and waiting for someone, anyone to hear their silent screams and rescue them and their children from the coming apocalypse. What happened in New York was a group of out of touch and disconnected frauds who tried to stage a coup and at the same time launch their third party strategy. But of course because they were not close enough to the action they completely misread the situation and went down in defeat. You can’t be grassroots and not mow some yards. This thing is not about ideology and moral victories on either side, it is about can we prevent the Armageddon that so many are so hell-bent on bringing about?

Let us be clear; there is no soul-searching taking place in the Republican Party. What we have is a group of political hacks who are trying to exploit the fear and uncertainty of some people for their short-term political and economic gain. As this process moves forward it is important not to discount what lies beneath the upheaval which is genuine fear and concern on the part of many well meaning folks and anyone who dismisses this will do so at their own peril. It is important that progressives also realize that many of these voices for change don’t even know what they are looking for so to assume that it is the progressive agenda will be as harmful as the wing-nuts assuming it is in support of their agendas. Right now what we have is this giant blob that is searching for a shape or a form to take and whoever can articulate its goals and direct it will be successful while others will fail. The key in uncertain times like these is to do the right thing for the country regardless of how popular or politically correct it is because in the end that will be the final judge-did it work?

Oh by the way if the Republicans are looking for a soul I understand they can be had pretty cheaply these days on Wall Street and with some insurance carriers it is not considered a pre-existing condition to be without one.

I know well what I am fleeing from but not what I am in search of. - Michel de Montaigne
The Disputed Truth

Public Option To Have Opt-Out?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:23:55 -0700

Harry Reid is expected to announce that the "public option" in current healthcare reform legislation will have a state by state opt out clause. From the Times:

The Senate health care legislation will include a government-run insurance plan, but states would be allowed to “opt out” of it, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, will announce officially on Monday afternoon, Senate Democratic aides said.

How would states do this?

Mr. Reid’s office has not released any details. In theory, states that wish to opt out of the public plan would have to adopt a law to do so, which would require agreement between the state legislature and the governor.

I think that is a reasonable hurdle, or to put it another way, an acceptable compromise, because it is a hurdle. It puts the burden on state legislators to justify why they think their state shouldn't be a part of the plan.

That being said, I don't like The National Journal's take on it:

Reid's apparent intent to move ahead with a public option, including an opt-out, has led some Senate aides to suggest Reid is readying a strategy in which he might lose the cloture vote but then quickly bring to the floor a bill with a compromise public option designed to attract more centrists.
That approach would reduce the chance of attacks from liberals by proving that the votes are not there for a more robust public option, an aide to a centrist senator said.

That, on the other hand, doesn't surprise me and would be very typically of the Senator from Nevada. Is it an attempt to water the bill down and sell out progressives? Might very well be.

House Votes to Rebuke Wilson for Shouting at Obama

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:14:03 -0700

Dems connect 4 vertebrae, 20 more to go...

Rep. Joe Wilson: Low-Level Hit Man

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:49:57 -0700

All Spin Zone writes:

Joe Wilson (R-SC) played the role of GOP street thug last night. Submitted for your consideration: low level hit men don’t go out and take a whack at the opposition’s “Don” unless the family Capo approves in advance.

Sounds about right to me.

The Office Of The President

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:38:49 -0700

Disgraceful. It's never happened. Until now. Republican vitriol has gone too far. Rep. Wilson should resign. Or Congress should censure him. Period. End. Of. Story.

Obama, the Dems, and Discipline

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:48:38 -0700

In response to the question of whether support for any non-laughable health reform bill from "moderate" Republicans like Chuck Grassley was ever a possibility, Lindsay Beyerstein nails it:

"Simple answers to simple questions: No, there was never any realistic prospect of getting Chuck Grassley to support healthcare reform. Grassley is a Republican and, unlike Democrats, Republicans have party discipline. Scuttling health reform is the GOP's number one priority. It should have been clear from the outset that any plan that depended on the cooperation of Republicans was doomed."

When you get beyond the by-now reflexive timidity of most Democrats on hot issues, the Dems' second-biggest mistake is their having confused party discipline with goose-stepping anti-democracy. The two are not the same, and although they sometimes go together, they don't have to.

For instance: ironclad party discipline in the service of a dishonest war or the smearing of a popular idea such as a public health care option is indeed anti-democratic discipline. It is the closing of ranks to sabotage the public will or the public interest. But ironclad party discipline to hold together the votes needed for a bill that will give a majority of Americans the choice they want in health care is pro-democratic discipline. It is the force required to fend off reactionary opposition to giving non-wealthy Americans a slightly fairer shake. Stern party unity for the sake of greater social or economic equality is not a vice. It is a virtue.

Ask anyone who has led an egalitarian social revolution – say, Nelson Mandela – if "bipartisanship" mattered at the height of the conflict between an entrenched controlling minority and the rest of the society.

The Dems don't get this. Softened by lack of true pressure from the left in a corporate-controlled campaign system, Democrats have forgotten how to fight, how to risk personal harm for the sake of the public good. True, somewhere deep in the Dems' lizard brains, the labor and civil rights legacies of their party still nudge them subliminally toward a "high road" sensibility that the GOP lacks. But the Dems have forgotten that the high road – the road of King and Mandela – has also been a bloody one, and that surviving and prevailing on that road has demanded, above all else, a soldierly unity unbroken by shattered bones on the back roads of the South or shattered political decorum in the Capitol dome. Today, all that remains of the high road for today's Democratic Party is its sense of style and etiquette: its aversion to combat, its refusal to meet the amorality of the GOP with righteous Democratic ruthlessness, its naive insistence on the freedom of Democratic politicians to follow their own personal muses through the grassy fields while a united Republican Party erects iron walls hemming in the political landscape.

And so we now have Democratic President Barack Obama. He is eminently civilized. He is almost saintly in comparison with the opponents whose daggers hack away at his bowels. He gives a great speech. His aides tell us he'll wow us on Wednesday night.

But in the darkness away from the cameras, will he fight?

Amendment to Grant States Right to Implement Single Payer Passes Committee Today

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:50:15 -0700

Rep. John Conyers | Washington | July 17

Huffington Post - Today witnessed the landmark passage of the States Single Payer Amendment which would remove federal barriers to implementation of a single payer health care system at the state level. This bipartisan vote signifies the prominence of the single payer solution as the plan favored by a majority of Americans.

The amendment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the Education and Labor Committee's consideration the health reform bill -- H.R. 3200 -- passed by a bipartisan margin of 25-19. The amendment would free states from Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations that have been used by insurance companies to tie down states with litigation, preventing them from implementing progressive health care solutions.

I have introduced single payer legislation for many years now because it is the only system that can fully solve our health care crisis. Frankly, it is the only way to take health care decisions out of the hands of for-profit insurance companies, and give them back to doctors and patients.

Democratic Underground, By davidswanson, July 17

On Friday morning at 9:45 a.m. ET in the House Committee on Education and Labor, the committee members voted 25 to 19 to pass Congressman Dennis Kucinich's amendment to the healthcare reform bill. This amendment, if it survives the full House, the Senate, the conference, and the President, will not alter the federal legislation except to allow states to create single-payer healthcare systems if they choose to. If this change to the bill makes news, it will pass the Senate, because there is no legitimate argument against it, and the support for it is bipartisan.

The committee members voted in order of seniority through all the Democrats and then the Republicans, returning to allow those who passed or were not present on the first round or the second round to cast their vote. No members switched their votes from yes to no or vice versa, during the voting, but several passed and then voted after hearing their colleagues vote. In the final count, 25 voted Yes, 19 No, 2 left their vote as "Pass," and 3 were not there or did not respond at all.

On the first go round, these Democrats voted Yes: Woolsey, Kucinich, Holt, Grijalva, Loebsack, and Fudge. Not nearly enough, but then came the Republicans, not a single one of whom has supported single-payer healthcare, but many of whom apparently respect states' rights: Kline, Petri, McKeon, Souder, Ehlers, Biggert, Platts, Wilson, McMorris Rogers, Price, and Guthrie. That gave us 17 votes going into round two. Among Democrats, we then picked up Payne, Scott, Shea Porter, and Polis. Among Republicans, Hoekstra and Castle joined in. We had 23 votes moving into round three. Two more Democrats, Tierney and Tonko, brought the total to 25.

Then you have the list of members who voted for the arguably unconstitutional step of banning states from providing their citizens with healthcare, a step for which no legitimate case has been made, but which the health insurance companies strongly favor. First and foremost was Committee Chairman George Miller who led the voting with a resounding "No." He was joined on the first round by Democrats Kildee, Andrews, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Bishop, Sestak, Altmire, Hare, Courtney, Sablan, and Titus, and Republicans McClintock, Hunter, Roe, and Thompson. On the second round Democrats Davis and Hirono voted No, along with Republican Cassidy. On the third round, no more Nos were added. Not voting yes or no were: Wu, Clarke, Pierluisi, Chu, and Bishop of Utah.

There are major campaigns with a good chance of passing single-payer healthcare if Congress permits it in the following states: Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

CIA 'often lied to congressmen'

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:59:33 -0700

Washington, DC | July 9

BBC - CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted that his agency regularly misled Congress, six members of the House Intelligence Committee have alleged.

The claims are echoed in a letter from the committee's Democratic chairman, Sylvestre Reyes.

The allegations follow a claim by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the CIA misled her about interrogation methods.

A CIA spokesman has insisted that "it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress".

[...]

In a separate letter, Mr Reyes alleged that a "notification the Committee received [from Mr Panetta] on 24 June 2009... [has] led me to conclude that this Committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications and (in at least one case) was significantly lied to".

Lobbyists unlimited in honoring lawmakers

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:39:17 -0700

Fredreka Schouten & Paul Overberg | Washington | June 8

USA TODAY - On a mild evening last September, Citigroup lobbyists mingled with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn at a rooftop reception — complete with miniature putting greens — as the company hosted a party to honor the third most powerful Democrat in the House and raise money for one of his favorite golf charities.

Health insurers and hospitals, meanwhile, are donating millions to help build an institute in Boston to celebrate the career of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is attempting to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Despite a ban on gifts to lawmakers and limits on campaign contributions, lobbyists and groups that employ them can spend unlimited money to honor members of Congress or donate to non-profits connected to them or their relatives. The public — until now — had little insight into the scope of this largely hidden world of special-interest influence.

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members. h/t Susie at Crooks & Liars

Murphy headed to Congress after Tedisco concedes

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:15:10 -0700

Staff Reports | Albany, NY | April 24, 2009

Albany Times Union - The race in the 20th Congressional District has ended: Republican Jim Tedisco has conceded the contest more than three weeks after election day.

Just before 4 p.m., Tedisco called Democrat Scott Murphy to concede, and Murphy has declared victory.

"This was a closely contested election that perhaps lasted a little longer than anyone may have expected or wanted," Tedisco said in a just-released press statement. "But it was important for our electoral process and for the hard-working people of upstate New York that it be resolved fairly and decisively."

This is the race to replace Rep.Kirstin Gillibrand after she was named to replace Hillary Clinton as New York's junior senator. The winner, Murphy, was 30 points down in the polls when he first announced his candidacy against Tedisco, a veteran Republican politician, in a district where registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by about 70,000. Although I don't live in this state or district, I found Murphy a compelling candidate after traveling there to hear him speak. I supported him financially as well as giving up a weekend to go up there and canvass before the election. Needless to say, I am a happy boy this evening.