The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

When we last checked in with our intrepid debaters, they had just finished answering a question on detainees.  Let's see if Lassie will come to the rescue, or if that careless little bastard Timmy is finally going to drown in the well.

The next question dealt with the bill that coupled a minimum wage hike with a repeal of the estate tax - would the candidates support a minimum wage hike on its own?

Kuhl's answer:  "Yes".  He explained that he voted against raising the state minimum wage as a New York legislator because that would create a competitive disadvantage with neighboring states like Pennsylvania.  Now that he's in Congress, he co-sponsored a minimum wage hike.  The minimum wage/estate tax bill failed in the Senate because there weren't enough Democratic votes to ensure cloture (60 votes are required, only 5 Dems went along, so only 55 votes were for cloture).

Massa took exception to both of these points.  He said that Kuhl's position is inconsistent with his earlier statement that he wants to put the interests of the local area over those of the rest of the US.  Moreover, he argued that only in DC could the majority blame the minority for the non-passage of a bill.  He then listed off the failings of the 109th Congress, including the Delay legacy of corruption, the bankruptcy bill and "Every Child Left Unfunded".  He also pointed out that Congress had raised its pay by $30K in the years since the last minimum wage hike, and $30K is the average salary in the 29th.

A number of audience members wore "I'm a Health Care Voter" stickers, though perhaps "I Keep My Teeth in a Glass by the Bed" would have been more apropos.  The next question was for them: "Do you support universal, single-payer health insurance?"

Massa led off with an emphatic "Yes".  He pointed out that those who threaten you with fear, such as those who run ads saying he'll raise taxes by $2K, the same people who tend toward country-clubber attire and happen to be standing two feet to my left (just kidding, that last part is mine), ignore the hidden tax of health care embedded in every financial transaction.  Massa's point here is that we all pay for health care as part of the price of goods sold by companies that must insure their employees.

Kuhl's "No" on this one was just as emphatic.  He repeated the same "look on the bright side" argument as in the first debate, noting that 250 million people have health care.  He put some numbers on universal health care:  a mere $1.83 trillion annually.  That's $6,000 each, for the non-arithmeticians in the audience.  That's 60% of the annual budget for non-politicians in the audience.  His alternative:  better access, HR 676, HSA plans, associated health care plans, etc.

Now we come to the point in our program where the blue-haired ladies of the LWV fucked up, though I'm sure they wouldn't use quite the same term.  On the face of it, the question was long-winded and innocuous.  My notes render it as follows:  "October is domestic violence month, blah blah, what would the candidates do to bring this to the forefront blah blah".  Kuhl was up, and gave an earnest answer, mentioning the Sheriff of Steuben County who was in the audience and had been to DC recently to visit and discuss issues like this.  Massa, who's a little brighter than the Steuben County LWV, said that he wanted to apologize to Mr Kuhl. He said that "we all know what that question's about", and said he wanted to hold a higher standard of campaigning.  Then, uncharacteristically, he shut up.  Read Kuhl's Wikipedia entry if you want more info on this question, which I agree that has no legitimate place in the campaign.

Bathos means "anticlimax", and, in that spirit, let's move on to Social Security, the subject of the least informative and most craven debates in American politics.

Massa actually showed some spine on this one, for which I'm sure he'll be rewarded with a negative ad.  In addition to pointing out that Bush's push to privatize social security wasn't shooting the alligator closest to the boat (i.e., it wasn't the most important problem at the time), he pointed out that 401Ks are a poor analogy to use for a social program that provides guaranteed retirement earnings, using MCI and Enron as examples of poor 401K investments.  Finally, he claimed that removing the cap on contributions and re-indexing contributions back to 1983 dollars would fix the problem.  (I don't know if I transcribed what he said with 100% accuracy, but I think that's close to the mark.)

Listening to Kuhl, I wondered if perhaps Al Gore had emerged from retirement and written his answer for him.  First, he said that Massa's plan (which he characterized as "eliminating the cap", which is different from Massa's actual plan to eliminate the cap and re-index) would only move the problem out 7 years.  Kuhl pledged that he wouldn't change benefits, raise the retirement age, and he wouldn't privatize.  He characterized Massa's position as wanting to raise taxes and cut benefits.  In the 240 town meetings, he heard his constituents say "stop taking the money" - leave it in the Social Security trust fund.  Kuhl has submitted a bill that would do exactly that.  Gore and the Democrats called it a "lock box" back in 2000.  Kuhl didn't use their spiffy name, but he has all of their talking points.

I have a million-word rant stored up on the politics of Social Security, but I'll take my medication and move on to the next question:  economic development - how do we get some of that in the Southern Tier?

Kuhl took this opportunity to recite his committee appointments and relate them to bucks that came to the district.  He's the only guy from the northeast on the Ag committee.  He's on the transportation committee, and look at shiny new I-86 and soon-to-be I-99.  He's on the education committee, and he wants to fully fund mainstreaming of kids.  In other words, more government funding (and lower taxes) will lead to economic development.

Massa took the opportunity to blast CAFTA and other free trade agreements, note that the labor unions (including AFL-CIO) endorsed him, and point out that Kuhl was part of the New York legislature that voted in the taxes in the 29th.

Those last two questions were a bit of a snooze, but naptime is over, because here comes Iraq and a couple of personal cracks:  The last question of the debate asked how we could reduce our military expenditures.

Massa went first, and started with his usual talk on the war:  It isn't making us safer, Afghanistan wasn't finished, and the Iraq invasion was purely political.  He detailed his partition plan.  What was new was a pre-emptive defense of the plan.  He said that those who say it will be a human rights catastrophe are ones who made the mistake in Iraq, and we can't trust their judgment in this matter.  He pointed to a lot of retired generals who say we must leave Iraq.  Finally, he said that Kuhl has made this election a referendum on Iraq because of his trip there.  He cracked that Kuhl's "boots on the ground in Iraq were Sperry Top Siders."

Kuhl shot back that he doesn't wear Sperry Top Siders.  (My guess is that Randy prefers Bass Weejuns.)  Then he accused Massa of never having been to Iraq, and not knowing how hot it is there.  After that informative exchange, he pointed out that we've spent about $1/2 trillion on the war so far, and the current budget's appropriation is $70 billion.  The rest of the $400+ billion is to maintain the military.  When the war is over, the extra expense will stop.  He doesn't like the war, and wishes it could be over today.  But (voice rising) he also didn't like losing friends in 9/11.  This country is at war - "People are out there trying to kill us.  I don't want them to kill you."  His rejoinder to Massa's partition plan was that the majority of Iraqis (78%) want a unity government, and that walking away will create a humanitarian tragedy.  He also noted that leaving Iraq would lower our standing in the world community.

With that, and not a moment too soon for an audience squirming on church pews, it was time for closing statements.  Kuhl went first, explaining that he sometimes gets emotionally involved.  He's been "servicing you people" for 26 years.  (He used the same expression in the first debate).  His goal is to be a "district Congressman", emphasizing constituent service.  A lot of earnest discussion of how proud he is to serve, to walk the steps of the Capital, etc.

Massa started with a letter from a Marine colonel in Iraq, reading a couple of quotes, including the one comparing VIP visits to rocket attacks.  He pointed out that he does know how hot it is in Iraq, since he served in the Middle East, and he took exception to comments made in the Olean paper that he has no experience.  Then he went through a list of problems with Congress, including the Foley matter, the deficit, debating procedure instead of solving problems, campaign finance and lobbyists. Democracy has been taken away, and only you can take it back.

He closed on this note:  Regardless of who you think can represent us best, everyone has an obligation to vote.

As the kids say, "True that."