The news comes from Sam Stein that the Obama Administration, through its political arms, Organizing For America and the DNC, is now applying pressure on 15 members of Congress who are presenting a roadblock to its healthcare reforms. Courtesy of the DNC, this commercial will be airing in the districts of the 11 conservative Democrats and four moderate Republicans who are on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sadly for many of us, Jerry McNerney (CA-11) is one of those recalcitrant Democrats. So for those of you who live in the Sacramento TV market, when you see this ad playing -- even though it doesn't specifically name him, the representative you should call is Jerry McNerney. (202) 225-1947.
For reform advocates, the Energy and Commerce Committee remains the toughest venue of the three committees handling health care in the House of Representatives, in large part because of the Blue Dog and moderate Democrats that make up its ranks. In making this purchase, Organizing for America either is worried about the committee's progress or -- much more likely -- sending a message that it has no problem applying pressure on fellow party members.
No representative is named in the ad. But every one of the aforementioned members will know that the spots are airing in their districts.
You can read the entire series here about the amazing campaign effort that elected Jerry McNerney in 2006. As told by his campaign manager, AJ Carrillo, the series will bring readers up to date with overviews of the 2004 campaign and the early days of the 2006 campaign.
Then, starting at the beginning of June, AJ will move into a real-time chronology, and he'll be posting weekly about the events that transpired in the corresponding week in 2006.
The series will end in November (spoiler alert!) with McNerney's smashing victory over Richard Pombo.
Early last month, I wrote a post about Rep. Jerry McNerney's most recent bill, H.R. 4042, which he announced as a first step to permanent repeal of the estate tax. Introducing his legislation to the local media, McNerney used a SF Public Utilities Commission employee and part-time rancher, Tim Koopman, as his front-man. Telling the tragic tale of how his family was forced to pay estate taxes on his inherited 850-acre ranch in Sunol, Koopman seemed the perfect pitchman.
The post I wrote, "850 Acres Are A Girl's Best Friend," explored the effect of McNerney's proposal to raise the estate tax exemption for farms and small businesses to $8 million ($16 million per couple) and $2 million ($4 million per couple) for family homes.
Well, I just received an email response to that post from none other than Mr. Tim Koopman:
The opinions and views expressed by a variety of writers participating in the discussion about Congressman McNerneys proposed Federal Estate Tax bill appear to be based upon a load of misinformation and distorted facts. It does not appear that anyone responsible for the content of the initial rant bothered to confirm anything.
If you have any interest in getting some background - please give me a call (925) xxx-xxxx.
I am in fact registered to vote in Alameda County
The final "death tax" total for the Koopmann family, including state in lieu taxes, Federal Estate Tax and capital gain taxes was $747,000 +.
I live in a 1983 model mobile home - not a "median priced house/condo valued at $978,000"
I don't play, and have never played golf
We don't have show horses (little girl's show ponies) for recreational purposes
My question to Alameda County about subdivision/re-zoning for the possible sale of a portion of the ranch was only an attempt to pay off the debt
Your comments were mean spirited and ill advised -
We do have 850 acres of well managed rangeland, that is utilized to graze livestock and provides valuable wildlife habitat and viewshed/open space.
Call me - I welcome a visit so that you at least have some understanding of the issues from my side, or maybe you are not interested in facts
Well, NPR did a piece yesterday about how Iraq is fading as an issue in 2008.
The reported decrease in violence in Baghdad may be having an effect on politics at home. Some reports have shown that Iraq has become less of an issue in the presidential campaign.
Congressional representatives say concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration.
The NPR story then went on to cite an interview with the Congressman from Stockton to support that thesis.
You can read a transcript of the interview on the flip...
I've noticed that things that I've written on FireDogLake have a tendency to get spread far and wide on the internets, and sometimes they come back apparently having been translated out of English and then back again. At any rate, I thought you might find these amusing…
Congressman Jerry McNerney has recently decided to lead an attack on the estate tax from the Democratic side of the aisle. Yesterday, he announced that he is sponsoring H.R. 4042, the Family Farm, Small Business and Home Tax Relief Act. Here's how a local newspaper reported on McNerney's … (read more)
And here are some of the ways it showed up online...
Congressman Jerry McNerney has lately decided to model an attack on the country stand tax from the Democratic side of the aisle. Yesterday, he announced that he is sponsoring H.R. 4042, the dynasty Farm, inadequate work and domicile Tax Relief Act. Here's how a district newspaper reported on McNerney's ...
Congressman Jerry McNerney has lately decided to protagonist an attack on the country peg tax from the Democratic side of the aisle. Yesterday, he announced that he is sponsoring H.R. 4042, the parentage Farm, narrow industry and joint Tax Relief Act. Here's how a sectional newspaper reported on McNerney's ...
Congressman Jerry McNerney has latterly decided to leadership an attack on the territory tax from the Democratic side of the aisle. Yesterday, he announced that he is sponsoring H.R. 4042, the descendants Farm, miniature line and homestead Tax Relief Act. Here's how a insular newspaper reported on McNerney's ...
Congressman Jerry McNerney has lately decided to edge an attack on the lands tax from the Democratic side of the aisle. Yesterday, he announced that he is sponsoring H.R. 4042, the in-laws Farm, poor sales and villa Tax Relief Act. Here's how a town newspaper reported on McNerney's ...
I dunno. I'm kind of leaning towards an amalgam of those. How about we refer to it from now on as "The Dynasty Farm, Narrow Industry and Villa Tax Relief Act"?
Jerry McNerney is at it again. Following the marching orders issued by his newfound mentor, Steny Hoyer, McNerney has embarked on a rampage of hate directed against many of the members of the district he is supposed to be representing. At the same time he is introducing legislation to protect wealthy landowners from contributing their fair share via the estate tax, he has been consistently striking out against the Latina/o community in CA-11.
Last night was just another example. McNerney was one of 36 Democrats whose votes helped to pass a Republican motion that would prevent the EEOC from cracking down on businesses which mandate that their employees must speak English at work. McNerney's vote was part of an orchestrated effort by Steny Hoyer, who believes that freshman Dems from "vulnerable districts" must vote like Republicans in order to get reelected.
The Hispanic Caucus, however, is going nuts (as well they should) over these racist votes being cast by Democrats at the behest of House leadership. Joe Baca (CA-43), head of the CHC, went toe-to-toe with Hoyer and Pelosi over last night's vote, threatening to shut down debate on the tax bill:
The rebellion was a response to votes by 36 Democrats Thursday night in favor of a non-binding Republican motion Hispanic members called offensive. It instructed House conferees on an appropriations bill to accept a Senate-passed provision prohibiting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from suing employers over certain English-speaking requirements.
That motion was the latest in a series of immigration- and language-related votes that Republicans have used to splinter Democrats, some of whom are nervous about GOP attack ads that could portray them as "soft" on illegal immigration.
Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said Thursday night's vote was their breaking point. They retaliated by initially voting against the rule allowing debate of the tax bill, very nearly sinking the measure and prompting a fiery exchange on the floor.
The Institute for the Preservation of Dynastic Wealth announced a contest today to find an actual farmer who can serve as their spokesman in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on the estate tax repeal bill scheduled for Nov. 14.
You see, that talking point about family farmers forced to sell the farm to pay for estate taxes is such a popular urban legend that first, last week, Jerry McNerney used it in introducing legislation to give huge tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy; then, today, the Contra Costa Times editorialized about it, saying McNerney's bill didn't go far enough: (emphasis added)
ONE OF THE MOST insidious taxes levied by the federal government is the one on estates of deceased owners. Its unfair burden on farmers, small businesses and individuals has grabbed the attention of Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton.
Facing a tough re-election challenge in a Republican-leaning district, McNerney has introduced a bill to reduce the estate tax. His measure would raise the exemption from $2 million to $8 million on farms and small businesses and as much as $2 million on the family home.
That is a small step in the right direction but does not deal with the fundamental drawbacks of the estate tax. Besides, McNerney's bill is more of a political ploy than a credible tax reform. […]
Estate taxes place an additional levy on assets that already have been taxed. Individuals and families that have worked hard, accumulated wealth and have paid considerable taxes along the way cannot pass their successes on to their heirs, who must forfeit up to half of their inheritance to the federal government.
The result is that many family-owned businesses that do not generate enough income to pay the estate taxes must be sold. Farms and other land holdings are often sold to developers to raise money to pay the estate taxes.
Only problem? Um, as the IPDW has found, it's not so true.
I'm going to assume that most readers here have a passing knowledge of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, a think tank founded in the '70s and funded by Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife. George W. Bush gave an address there earlier this morning. The Heritage Foundation's goals are simple:
[T]o formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
Not surprisingly, a neo-con think tank funded by heirs to the Coors beer fortune and the Mellon industrial and banking fortune stands in square opposition to the estate tax (or as framed by Frank Luntz, the "death tax"). Back in the '90s, in an essay entitled "DEATH TAX DEVASTATION: 12 HORROR STORIES FROM MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICA," the Heritage Foundation unleashed an attack on the estate tax using the heartbreaking story of rancher Tim Koopman, of Sunol, California:
Family Farm Horror Story #1
Tim Koopman's family has owned ranch property in California for most of this century. His children would like to continue to run the ranch, but the death tax may prevent this.
Since Tim's mother died four years ago, the Koopman's have paid about $400,000 in death taxes. For three of those years, however, Tim has been able only to pay the interest on the death tax bill, and soon he will not be able to pay that without selling some or all of his land. This is a decision that he does not want to face. This land is an important part of his life.
The Koopman's faced the death tax once before. In 1973, Tim was forced to sell one of the family's ranches to pay the $125,000 death tax bill that he owed when his father died. Now the family faces the death tax again. Tim wants to pass the ranch on to his children, but the hefty death tax may leave little ranch for him to do so.
So today, Rep. Jerry McNerney teamed up with the very same Tim Koopman to announce new legislation he is sponsoring, H.R. 4042, The Family Farm, Small Business, and Home Tax Relief Act , that will create an $8 million estate tax exemption for family farms and small businesses.
Stand beside Tim Koopman on a tawny slope of slippery late summer grasses and watch his daughter, two more rolling hills in the distance, as she runs to the head-tossing roan that taunts her like a friend.
Below that view, deep in the valley, a busy ribbon of U.S. 680 hums with traffic between San Jose and Pleasanton . In their cars they watch forward, oblivious to the charming little drama of the teenager and her horse on the hills above them, and unaware that they are being seen without being noticed. Stand there and glance at the soft glow from a tough man's face as he watches his daughter with pride. There's something fragile there that knows about forever. LINK
Now don't get me wrong. Like Congressman McNerney, I think that every girl should have 850 acres and a pony as her birthright. Oh, wait. No, I don't.
It's sometimes hard to realize just how much the people and events around us can change over a relatively short period of time. It's been just a little over six months since the Tracy Press ran this April 1 article analyzing Rep. Jerry McNerney's chances in the 2008 election.
Robert Benedetti, a University of the Pacific political science professor, said McNerney in 2008 would need to again rely on the influence of national interest groups that helped him defeat Pombo in 2006. Pombo blamed environmental groups for his loss at a press conference shortly after the election.
"(McNerney's) got to keep his national credentials, because I don't think the two years in Congress will be enough time for him to develop a really solid local network," Benedetti said Friday.
Benedetti also said McNerney's 2008 election results will rely heavily on the Democratic Party's success.
"As goes the Democratic Congress, so goes Jerry McNerney," Benedetti said. "He's tied himself very closely to the current Congress. Should (Congress) be successful and appreciated by the public at large, and in this district specifically, I think McNerney's campaign will go well."
The political novice now has the advantage of being the incumbent, and he has so far retained the support of the national movement of online activists that in 2006 helped fell Pombo.
The "netroots" movement in 2006 helped organize an army of McNerney volunteers from inside and outside the district through such blogs as Say No To Pombo, which during the campaign received far more Internet traffic than Pombo's own campaign Web site.
ActBlue, a clearinghouse for online political donations, last year collected in small denominations from visitors to a variety of blogs about 8 percent of the roughly $2.5 million raised by the McNerney campaign.
I've written before about Jerry McNerney's vote on the Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 3161) early last August -- the one where he switched his anti-immigrant vote from a "yes" to a "no" after the vote had been declared final. Last month, the Stockton Record's Hank Shaw reported on McNerney's version of the night's events:
According to McNerney and several other lawmakers who were on the floor the night of Aug. 3, here is what happened:
As the day's session stretched into the night, Republicans employed a parliamentary move to get lawmakers to vote on whether the federal government should enforce existing laws that bar illegal immigrants from receiving services such as food stamps.
Democrats say the Bush administration already is enforcing the laws, so the motion was moot; the GOP move also would have sent the legislation it was attached to -- an agriculture spending bill -- back to committee, complicating its passage. Republicans say the motion was needed to send a message to a bureaucracy that is not really enforcing the law.
Traditionally, this sort of motion is used by the minority party to force its opponents to cast votes that can be used against them come campaign time; they are typically struck down along party lines.
But not this time. McNerney and several other Democrats representing districts that are either Republican-leaning -- similar to McNerney himself -- or those that are only marginally Democrat voted with the GOP so that they could not later be attacked as being "soft" on illegal immigrants.
McNerney said he voted with the Republicans because he was initially unaware that existing law made the GOP motion redundant.
"Of course, I didn't want federal money to go to undocumented workers," he said.
I'm feeling a little melancholy today. Thinking back to this time last year, when most local activists were hard at work in the McNerney/Pombo race, it seemed like there was so much promise in the air. Shortly after the June primary, McNerney had won an online contest run by Sen. Russ Feingold and been named as one of Feingold's Progressive Patriots. Here's the entry from McNerney's blog:
Wonderful news from Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund:
The Progressive Patriots Fund announced Jerry McNerney as the winner of "Pick a Progressive Patriot: YearlyKos," a special round of its popular online voting event. McNerney is challenging Rep. Richard Pombo in California's 11 District.
"This round of the 'Pick a Progressive Patriot' was a huge success," Feingold said. "Over 50 candidates were nominated from 24 states, but in the end McNerney received the most support from a very enthusiastic group of bloggers and online activists. We are happy to send $5000 to the McNerney campaign and we thank everyone who participated in this round of 'Pick a Progressive Patriot.'"
"If we are going to change this country and return honesty, integrity and accountability to Congress, it will be from the bottom-up," said McNerney. "That's why I'm thrilled to receive the support of the grassroots and the netroots and I'm honored to be picked as a Progressive Patriot by Russ Feingold."
But there was an even more important prize than the $5,000 campaign donation from Feingold's PAC. The Progressive Patriot Fund also provided a trained volunteer to work on the campaign for its duration. That volunteer's name was John Gunn. If you ever went to McNerney campaign headquarters during the 2006 general campaign, odds are extremely high that you were greeted by the smiling face and the soft Alabama drawl of John Gunn, whether it was day or night, weekday or weekend -- John virtually lived there and he seemed never to sleep.
A while back I got an email on one of the many listservs to which I belong, passing on a request from Josh Grossman of Progressive Punch; he was looking for input on designing a new Progressive Punch widget. Well, since I had an opening, I was happy to change the subject and promote my own interests:
Off topic, but there is a way the PP data could be organized to be more useful from my perspective. What I'd really like to see is an overall database such as there is now and then have it further broken down by Congressional session.
As an example, when I'm looking at a Progressive Punch rating for a freshman (oh, let's say McNerney) and comparing his rating to that of some other incumbent (like, I don't know, Tauscher) I get a rating for her that encompasses eleven years of votes. Now, I get the idea that Tauscher has been voting in a more progressive manner lately, but the PP ratings don't necessarily reflect that. So I'm left feeling a lot of the time like using PP ratings leaves me comparing apples to oranges.
Overall scores are certainly important, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. But it would be really great if there ware also, say, 108th, 109th, 110th Congress PP ratings so that head-to-head comparisons were rendered more meaningful.
Well, all I can say is kudos to Josh! Today he unveiled a great new upgrade for Progressive Punch. Not only has he instituted a new "'07-08 Progressive Score" but also a nifty scoring system inspired by Open Left which he calls "Chips are Down" so that PP can "now display how members of Congress voted on particularly tight votes where the progressive side either lost or won very narrowly."
Over the weekend, Rep. John Hall (NY-19) posted a diary on DailyKos announcing his intention to introduce a House resolution censuring Rush Limbaugh today:
I know that there is a back and forth about whether another condemnation is worth the time. I happen to believe it is in this case. Therefore, I'm introducing a resolution that shows emphatically that Congress will not condone ad hominem political attacks on U.S. troops. On Monday, I'm introducing legislation to express the Sense of Congress that this body rejects and condemns Limbaugh's heinous remarks, and will continue to engage in a debate on ending our involvement in Iraq that eschews character-based attacks on our Armed Forces.
Hall's action followed on the heels of an email blast sent out by Jerry McNerney under the heading Chickenhawk Limbaugh Goes Too Far:
Yesterday, right-wing icon Rush Limbaugh insulted everyone who has served our nation in uniform.
In an exchange with a caller, he actually called troops who return from Iraq and voice their opposition to the war "phony soldiers."
Where does Rush Limbaugh get the moral standing to pass judgment on our heroes who wore this nation's uniform and returned to exercise their First Amendment rights? Even for Rush, that's too far!
Will you join me in calling the following radio stations to demand they take Rush's show off the air?
Meanwhile, Mark Udall (CO-02), the Colorado Congressman who is running for Senate in 2008, is seeking support for his own resolution to censure Limbaugh.
So why is it that after nearly 20 years of listening to Limbaugh's blather, these Congressmen are suddenly SO offended by this particular comment? Gee, you don't think it could be anything so politically craven and cowardly as a CYA for their votes in favor of censuring MoveOn, do you?
Meanwhile, all of the members of Congress who voted to censure MoveOn and who are now contemplating censuring Limbaugh, have violated their oath of office: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Well, you know it's getting close to the end of the quarter when the fundraising letters start coming in fast and furious. But most of the Democrats I know are feeling pretty unhappy with the quality of representation we've been getting in DC lately. That's why it was refreshing to get this fundraising email that eschewed feel-good campaign rhetoric and took the straight-shooting approach.
Hello babaloo,
One person really can make a difference.
In just my first nine months in Congress, I've already set in place an agenda that's preserving the status quo.
Since I am passionate about new energy technology, I was particularly proud of the legislation I wrote and introduced to increase research and development funding for cutting edge, 21st century geothermal technology. That legislation was put on a calendar to be considered for a House vote back on June 21, and no further action has been taken on it since that time. Currently, my bill is on hold while I'm trying to round up a veto-proof majority so I can bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
Two months ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq. I returned impressed with the signs of progress there and am now more likely to listen to those who want more time in Iraq. While I still favor a timeline, I'm now open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals' wishes.
I feel privileged to be able to sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war, and present it to the president. None of that would have been possible without your support in my campaign for Congress. Now I'm asking for your support again.
After you donate, there's a box where you can share your thoughts and ideas. I probably won't read them, but you don't have too many other choices, do you? What are you going to do, help a Republican get elected?
Thank you for everything you do.
Jerry
P.S. I value your support and commitment, at least when its expressed monetarily. So keep your dollars coming and your opinions to yourself.
I had a very edifying email response to the post I wrote the other day about San Ramon's Republican Mayor Abram Wilson and his appointment to a new term last month. In that piece, I complained that Democrats had failed to recruit a single candidate to run in 2007 against either Wilson or the two Republican members of the City Council, and I laid that failure pretty squarely on the doorstep of the local and State Democratic Party.
Not so fast, said my correspondent.
In the opinion of this person, who is an experienced campaign professional, a big chunk of the blame should be placed with none other than Rep. Jerry McNerney -- or at least with his campaign staff. It turns out that this kind of stuff is pretty basic to running a high level campaign.
Why should building a farm team should be the responsibility of McNerney's team?
He is the sole beneficiary. The farm team helps by eliminating officeholders down ballot that could be hostile and sling arrows at every opportunity they get.
Then my correspondent went on to describe a Congressional campaign elsewhere in the country where a Republican was elected by a narrow margin in 2000 to a district where local non-partisan seats were held on about a 50-50 basis. This Congress member's campaign manager had the foresight to "lead a purge of down ballot office holders" that resulted in almost 80% of all current local electeds being Republican. Now, facing a tough race in 2008, this Congress member's support from local officials could make the difference in whether the seat is won or lost.
Tracy neocon Steve Wampler had an op-ed published in the Tracy Press the other day which was dramatically entitled "Where Does McNerney's Loyalty Lie?" Wampler tried to tie McNerney to last week's MoveOn.org ad which referred to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
Rep. Jerry McNerney isn't shy about telling people in the 11th Congressional District that he is a big supporter of America's soldiers and military personnel.
The Pleasanton Democrat makes that point even though he opposed the surge, which has provided reinforcements and cut violence in Iraq, called for withdrawals with little regard for the consequences and has opposed the military's mission in Iraq.
Now the first-term congressman faces a stark test: Does his loyalty lie with the left-wing, anti-war group, MoveOn.org, that has given him campaign funds, or will he condemn the organization's vile smear against Gen. David Petraeus, America's top general in Iraq? […]
For the record, The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "betray" as "to commit treason against or be a traitor to."
In effect, MoveOn.org, which provided more than $53,000 to McNerney's political campaign in the 2006 election, has compared one of America's most brilliant generals to traitors like Aldrich Ames, John Walker or Benedict Arnold.
Thus the question emerges: Does San Joaquin County's congressman stand with and support our military, or does he support his campaign backers and the attackers of Petraeus at MoveOn.org?
Just to clarify Wampler's assertion, it's probably useful to note that in a visit to dictionary.com, American Heritage is the only source that links the loaded term of "treason" to the word "betray." All of the other dictionaries cited follow more along the lines of this alternate definition from American Heritage: "To lead astray; deceive." But that doesn't stop Wampler from continuing on and demanding action from McNerney to establish his loyalty and patriotism:
Now the ball lies in McNerney's court. Does he agree with MoveOn.org's vicious attack on Petraeus? Will he condemn calling America's top general a traitor? And, most importantly, will he return the money from this reprehensible organization? McNerney's silence on this issue will tell residents all we need to know about his support for the military.
That was the term apparently coined by Cenk at The Young Turks to sum up the problem we're facing these days in our attempts to hold our Democratic representatives to Democratic ideals. And it seems like an apt description.
The American public thought, when it elected Democrats in the wave election of 2006, that we had sent a message to Washington, DC. That message? Bring our troops home from Iraq. Back in 2006, when our candidates were busy painting themselves as Fighting Dems, who could have guessed that the first time George W. Bush pulled out his veto pen, they would get the vapors.
More on the flip... if you can stay on your feet, that is.
This ad attacking Jerry McNerney for his "Yes" vote on the CHAMP Act appeared in yesterday's Tracy Press and in the TriValley Herald.
Wonder what it's all about? Well, back on August 1, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, otherwise known as the CHAMP Act.
The CHAMP Act helps ensure Medicare members can continue to see their physicians, and it helps to protect beneficiaries from significant premium increases. The bill also assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries, helping them pay for their prescription drugs and out of pocket costs. It also expands access to preventive and mental health benefits for all Medicare beneficiaries. Further, the CHAMP Act reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) -and provides health insurance coverage to five million more uninsured children.
Lawmakers found two effective and responsible ways to offset the cost of the CHAMP Act. Increased tobacco taxes not only help pay for health care improvements, but also lower health care costs in the future by decreasing smoking. Reducing excess payments to private Medicare Advantage plans restores the balance between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, resulting in billions of dollars more for programs that help everyone.
Okay. So that's the ultra-basic explanation. The CHAMP Act reduces excess payments to Medicare Advantage to help finance health care coverage for five million more uninsured children. But exactly how does Medicare Advantage relate to traditional Medicare and why is a balance between the two desirable? And is Congress somehow shortchanging our senior citizens who need nursing home care?
I'm doing something a little unusual here, and I'm responding to a comment on the front page. First, I think the discussion is a worthwhile one. And second (and perhaps more critically), the HTML for creating a table simply will not work in Ajax comments. So here goes…
A few days ago, I wrote a post about the tug-of-war going on between McNerney's DC staff and his progressive supporters over the issue of how McNerney is going to conduct himself during his tenure in Congress. In it, I mentioned the four different areas where many progressives have been critical of McNerney's actions: his votes on the McGovern Bill, the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, and the anti-immigrant motion to the farm spending bill, along with his recitation of Republican talking points after returning from Iraq a few weeks ago.
Reader larry@lhs left the following comment on that post with regard to McNerney's Hinchey Amendment vote:
2. Specifically on the issue of the Rx pot--I support the idea of people getting medicine they need, but anyone who thinks that our current system is the best one is probably someone who doesn't need the pot and is one of thousands who ILLEGALLY acquires some through their friends who are "patients". The whole system has been so abused it's ridiculous. The Hinchey amendement--should you take the time to read it--would prevent the DEA/DOJ from prosecuting high-profile criminals who are making literally millions of dollars and who are associated with not only weed, but cocaine and guns as well. As a practical matter, it's absurd to say that McNerney wants Mr. Cosgrove to go to jail.
As a separate matter, Prop 215 was rejected by voters in both the old 11th CD as well as by SJC voters overall. Finally, did Jerry ever promise to support Rx weed? I really don't know, and I'm asking...
Okay. So here's my response. First, Larry made the following blanket assertion:
The Hinchey amendement--should you take the time to read it--would prevent the DEA/DOJ from prosecuting high-profile criminals who are making literally millions of dollars and who are associated with not only weed, but cocaine and guns as well.
As a matter of fact, Rep. Hinchey has offered this amendment for each of the last five years. The text has remained unchanged over that period of time (except for the addition of new states as they've legalized medical marijuana):
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States.
That's it. That's all there is to it. It says nothing about "preventing the DEA/DOJ from prosecuting high-profile criminals who are making literally millions of dollars and who are associated with not only weed, but cocaine and guns as well." It says that the DoJ may not spend federal money to prevent those twelve states from implementing their existing laws. Period. Back in the day, conservatives staunchly supported that kind of notion. They called it "states' rights."
Over the last few weeks, there's been some controversy about comments made by Rep. Jerry McNerney. According to an AP story entitled "Democrats Praise Military Progress," McNerney was impressed with what he saw on his trip to Iraq: (emphasis added)
California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.
"I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying," McNerney said.
Just last Tuesday, McNerney sent an email to his supporters (which he also posted on his campaign blog and at DailyKos) setting the record straight and outlining his strong commitment to bringing our troops home from Iraq on a closed-end timetable:
I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date ("date certain") and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an "open-ended" timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.
As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That's why -- even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence -- I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).
The very next day, on Wednesday, Jerry McNerney was quoted opining about Iraq in the Washington Post. Here is what he said:
[I]n an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
So what's wrong with that? Find out on the flip...
ONE OF THE MOST insidious taxes levied by the federal government is the one on estates of deceased owners. Its unfair burden on farmers, small businesses and individuals has grabbed the attention of Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton. 
