The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

For the reader who asked how Massa would have voted on Monday, here's your answer:

Let me be very clear, I did not support the bill the Bush Administration brought to Congress, I did not support the bill the House voted on Monday afternoon, and I could not support the bill the Senate is working on today as it is currently written. I will only support a bill which creates an independent, non-partisan oversight committee like the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Update: Here's the whole release.

Almost every newspaper in the district, and many outside the district, quote or mention Kuhl or Massa in coverage of the bailout:

• The Elmira Star-Gazette has Massa's take on Kuhl's bailout proposal.
• 13-WHAM mentions Kuhl's vote against the bailout along with Louise Slaughter's angry response to the bill's failure.
• The Democrat and Chronicle covers Massa's response to the bailout bill, editorializes that a bailout is necessary, and quotes the head of Wegmans saying that bailout is necessary.
• The Syracuse Post-Standard editorializes for the bailout, calling the bill's defeat "shameful"
• Buffalo's News 4 has a story on the plan, with a couple of Kuhl quotes.
• Both Massa and Kuhl are quoted in today's USA Today about the bill, with Massa saying that the inability of "a very few partisan ideologues" to compromise was the reason the bill didn't pass.
• And the Edmonton, Alberta Sun quotes Kuhl saying that 97% of the calls to his office were anti-bailout.

Eric Massa unveiled his tax plan [pdf] at his press conference today. That, and bailout reaction, after the break.

The Hornell Evening Tribune and the Messenger-Post both have bailout stories.

The Messenger-Post also has a story on Kuhl's ad on the Canandaigua VA hospital. It looks into the bi-partisan history of saving the hospital, much of which occurred before Kuhl took office.

In today's Corning Leader, Randy Kuhl explains his "no" vote.

Kuhl also gets coverage in todays' Democrat & Chronicle and Star-Gazette.

In all the stories, Kuhl signals that he still might vote for a compromise.

WENY has a story about the bailout vote that quotes Randy Kuhl. WHAM-1180 also has some coverage.

The Democrat and Chronicle has an editorial calling for another vote, and soon, saying that Kuhl's call for private-sector participation must be acknowledged.

And Exile at The Albany Project interviews a hedge fund manager, who gives his perspective on what the meaning of a "credit freeze".

Thanks to readers Tom and Elmer for sending links to yesterday's Star-Gazette stories on the race.

The S-G ran biographies of Randy Kuhl and Eric Massa. And it also carried two op-ed pieces by Massa and Kuhl.

Reader Elmer sends today's Corning Leader opinion page [pdf] (and jump [pdf]), where Joe Dunning analyzes Kuhl's reluctance to debate in a public forum. He concludes that Kuhl's "accessibility has diminished" over the past two years. The whole column is worth a read.

The Messenger-Post has a long piece on the bailout. It sees local concern about Wall Street, especially among those with 401(k)s, but sees no concern in the real-estate market. It quotes Kuhl's opposition to the Paulson plan.

The Democrat and Chronicle's editorial on the bailout castigates the local Republican delegation as follows:

Moreover, most of the House Republican minority, which includes area Reps. Randy Kuhl, Tom Reynolds and Jim Walsh, say they are being led by a desire to stop a $700 billion bailout. But what they are really doing is representing the views of the same Wall Street fast-money types who created this crisis. They want government support without any strings — no restrictions on CEO pay, no taxpayer stake, no congressional oversight.

In Kuhl's case, that's just factually wrong. Kuhl has said the opposite, " I will OPPOSE the Bush Administration’s proposal if it does not include provisions to protect the taxpayer." A simple fact-check on Kuhl's latest press release takes a couple of seconds. There's no excuse for that kind of sloppiness.

Since the details of the bailout bill are not yet finalized, we don't know Randy Kuhl's position on the bailout plan. After reading his statement yesterday, which emphasized taxpayer protection and no golden parachutes, I concluded that Kuhl might well support the final bailout bill.

Today's Buffalo News story on the bailout reaches this conclusion:

In saying private companies will have to carry the financial burden of any bailout, Kuhl sided with the renegade Republicans who refused to agree with the tentative compromise leaders of both parties agreed to Thursday.

I don't think that's true. From what I've read, there are three groups of thought on this.

First, Paulson, whose plan didn't include taxpayer equity or pay caps. His plan is DOA.

The second group is a small number of Democrats and a large number of Republicans who just think the whole thing stinks. The Republicans have put out some talking points, which, as this article explains really don't make a lot of sense.

The third, and largest, group is the compromisers in both parties, who see the importance of the bailout but want to couple it with taxpayer equity in return, some form of pay caps, and tight oversight. These people are laboring to get something that's strict enough to include the nay-sayers, while still giving Paulson what he says he needs.

My guess is that Kuhl will end up in this group. I don't think he's a dead-ender. He's not a member of the Republican Study Committee, which is the 100 or so most conservative House members who have been most steadfast in their opposition to the bailout.

Randy Kuhl has posted his position on the bailout. He opposes a bailout proposal "if it does not include provisions to protect the taxpayer", and if it contains golden parachutes for Wall Street executives.

Every discussion about the consensus bailout plan has included some form of taxpayer protection (such as an equity in exchange for a bailout) and has limits on executive compensation. Kuhl says he's confident that there will be a "bipartisan, bicameral" solution, so I think the signal he's sending is that he's not a GOP minority dead-ender.