The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

The FEC has just posted the pre-general election filing summaries for both campaigns. Kuhl's shows that he raised an anemic $65K in the 18 days since the last filing.  Massa raised $171K in the same period, maintaining his $60K per week clip.  Massa's fundraising total is within $145K of Kuhl's.

More importantly, for the first time Massa has more cash on hand than Kuhl:  $341K vs $232K.  Kuhl made a couple of huge media buys in this period, which might reflect some pre-paid ads that are still running, but the fact remains that the Massa campaign had more cash on hand last week and continues to significantly out-raise Kuhl.

Massa has raised $800K of his total from individuals.  $813K of Kuhl's total is from PACs. 

Though the Massa campaign has been issuing press releases left and right on Kuhl's Social Security ad, the only media coverage I've seen so far is an article in the Corning Leader.  According to the Leader's headline writer, the barb market in the 29th has been active of late. 

Local bloggers have posted about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's addition of Eric Massa to the "Red to Blue List", a fundraising program for races that have turnover potential.  Whether that vote of support will have any meaning is up in the air, as Roll Call reports: 

At this late stage, however, Democratic sources acknowledged that inclusion on the list is not a guarantee the campaign committee will make independent expenditures, though it does mean these candidates will have access to the DCCC’s list of deep-pocketed donors.

I agree with the guys at rochesterturning that the Laura Bush visit is all about shoring up base women voters.  I don't agree with Robert Novak's reason why:

Rep. Randy Kuhl (R) in District 29 has seen his support among women evaporate. Kuhl's dirty laundry -- including the old alleged threat against his wife with a shotgun -- had been aired before, but now perhaps it is finding a more receptive audience in this tough Republican election year.

Perhaps the personal issues of the last campaign might have left some residual damage, but there are two issues that have affected every woman I know.  The most recent is the Foley scandal.  Moms are mad at the Republican leadership, who appear to have tolerated a child predator to ensure a safe seat.  More importantly, in the last couple of weeks, death and injury of soldiers in Iraq have been front page news across the district.  The other day, I saw one normally stoic mother shed a tear while reading the story of the latest death.  Even among those who think the war was justified, there's a lot of anger at the perceived incompetence and carelessness of the Republican leadership.  That carelessness has cost a lot of mothers their son or daughter.  Fairly or not, the R after Kuhl's name will cost him votes of women -- especially mothers -- in the district.

Novak's ideological blinders won't allow him to see those factors, so he hones in on what he understands:  personal attacks.

In Randy Kuhl's new ad, we see the staple of Social Security propaganda:  the confused and outraged old person.  After the obligatory grainy black-and-white montage,  Granny appears and delivers the line: "Raise taxes?  Cut benefits?  Sounds to me like this fella Massa has his priorities a little messed up."

Well, Granny, someone whose priority list includes "remember stool softener" and "put teeth in glass next to bed" probably shouldn't be throwing stones.  Nevertheless, I'm going to try to reason with you.  Turn up your hearing aid for a moment, and I'll tell you how Randy Kuhl tried to pull a fast one on people like me by using you to change the subject.

Let's start with the one citation in Kuhl's ad:  a 15-month-old story in the Elmira Star-Gazette (which is still in Google's cache).  In that story, Massa talked about a four-point plan:

1. Raise the income ceiling for the Social Security deduction exemption above $90K.
2. Delay benefits for people just entering the workforce (and the SS system).
3. Exempt the first $10,000 of income from Social Security taxes.
4. Stop raiding the SS trust fund for general revenue.

This plan is a bit different from the one Massa mentioned in the debate, and I'll get to that in a moment.  But first, does this mean he'll raise taxes?  The median family income in the 29th was about $50K last census.  Almost 5% of families had an income less than $10K.  This means that the vast majority of the 29th won't pay more tax, and the poorest would actually pay less.

Will he cut benefits?  Not for Granny, or anyone else retiring in the next 40 years.  This plan raises the retirement age , which hasn't happened since the beginning of the Social Security program.  A modest increase in the retirement age for those who will be healthier longer is not "cutting benefits" for people like Granny.

Even so, over the last year, Massa has changed his position.  In the debates, and in a recent interview, he mentioned only reindexing the income cap from $90,000 to $140,000.  His argument is that the cap was based on the 90th percentile income in the early 80's and hasn't changed.  His plan just keeps up with inflation and wage growth, and he thinks this will take care of the system for many years. So, as with the old plan, taxes will be raised on the small percentage of the residents in the 29th who make more that $90K.

The positive content of Kuhl's ad is a distortion but not an outright lie. The real issue with Kuhl's ad is what's missing:  a plan to fix the system.  Unlike Granny, I don't know anyone of my generation or younger who plans to receive a single cent from Social Security.  While everyone pays attention to seniors' incessant whining about their supposedly scant benefits, the post-baby-boomer generation is quietly planning for a future without any benefits whatsoever, since their financial planners won't even include Social Security in retirement income projections.   Our frustration and cynicism grows as plans like Massa's, which are modest and practical, get shot down over and over by scare ads, like Kuhl's, that are aimed at the elderly.  The only programs that end up being discussed are ones, like privatization, that promise fairy-tale endings without sacrifice.

Kuhl has no plan, only a sentiment:  "I regard Social Security as sacred trust".  He was on-board with the soundly rejected Bush plan to privatize Social Security, and he now makes the inane distinction between "privatizing" and "private accounts", saying he's for the latter and not the former.  Well, I'm for eating all the ice cream I want, but not getting fat.  Randy's Social Security "policy" is the financial equivalent of that impossible dream. 

The Kuhl fast one is criticizing someone who makes hard choices without making any of his own, and advancing the fiction that Social Security can be fixed without hard choices.  But that doesn't matter, because Granny is pissed, and a 30-second ad will probably get her to the polls to vote against that bad, bad man, Eric Massa, who's trying to raise her taxes and take away her benefits.

When Randy Kuhl announced the formation of a "Veterans for Kuhl" group, I ignored it, just as I ignore most press releases from both candidates.  However, when Roll Call ("The Newspaper of Capitol Hill") picks it up and treats it like news, I guess I need to point out the obvious. 

The press release begins with the claim that the group is a "non-partisan committee".  It ends with the contact phone number for the group, which happens to be Kuhl's campaign headquarters.  Res Ipsa Loquitur.

There's nothing wrong with the Kuhl campaign creating "Group X for Kuhl".  Campaigns do it all the time.  But there's no evidence that "Veterans for Kuhl" represents an independent groundswell of Vets for Kuhl, which would, indeed, be news.