Take a good look at that PAYGO vote. Not a single member of the "party of fiscal responsibility" voted for PAYGO.

Republicans are running the House like the House of Commons. They vote as a block, and they vote against the majority party, no matter if that vote is consistent with their principles. Along will all the other problems Tom Reed has, this is a big one. Republican enforcement of party line voting means that he has to give us a really good explanation of when and how he'll choose principle over party.

(I do understand that the debt ceiling vote was split to allow members to vote for PAYGO and for raising the debt ceiling. If anyone thinks that little footnote will keep Democrats from making this a campaign issue, you must be smoking something stronger than John Boehner's Barclay's.)

In the comments and via email, some readers are wondering if this was an "insurance" vote which would help Massa's re-election among conservatives. I doubt it, for a couple of reasons.

First, Massa spent much of the last few months stating his opposition to the first House version of healthcare reform. The bill that passed last night is not fundamentally different from that first version. A last-minute reversal on Massa's part would have been surprising and difficult to defend, regardless of the politics of the final vote.

Second, the conservatives who don't agree with Massa on healthcare also don't agree with him on other issues, such as abortion. They'll have no problem finding a reason to vote against Massa, even if they appreciate his vote last night.

Finally, the election is a year away. By then, all the fussing and fighting over this bill will be over. As this McClatchy summary points out, there's nothing hugely radical in the bill. And even if the same measure passes in the Senate (a big "if"), it still won't go into effect until 2013. It's hard to see how last night's vote will be the pressing issue of the 2010 campaign.

Since the Senate bill is different from the House version, there will be another vote on the bill after it goes through conference. Swing-district Republicans who voted against this bill will probably vote for the "compromise" bill, and they'll highlight some change or other that supposedly tipped their hand.

John Boehner has apparently convinced endangered Republicans that this is a clever strategy. Randy Kuhl, a Boehner protegee, used it a few times on tough votes in the previous session. I've always felt that it was too clever by half.

Voters aren't moved by technicalities on tough legislation, and this bill is one of the biggest gut-checks to come around in recent memory. Our country is in big trouble, and we're facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Either you're for stimulating the economy with massive spending, or you're not. The bullshit expenditures that Republicans are bloviating about on talk radio (e.g., money for STD's !!) are nothing in comparison to the totality of this $800+ billion package. A few little additions or deletions are simply window dressing.

I think voters will see this for what it is: Republicans betting against the economic well-being of their country in hopes of a political advantage. I'm sad to see it, and I'm sad to say it, but I can come to no other conclusion.

If this stands, the "Nays" on this list who are in any kind of a competitive district are in serious trouble.

Yesterday, Massa voted for a HR 384, which is a TARP reform package.

Also, I took down the vote stream on the left. It had a few problems. Once it's fixed, Massa's latest actions will be displayed automatically.

The motion to recommit requires that an amendment be added to a bill and the bill be reported back to the House. The sticking point is how quickly the bill will come back. In House jargon, "promptly" means that the bill will go back to committee and perhaps never be seen again. The alternative, "forthwith", means that the bill must come back to the floor in a few minutes for a vote on the amendment.

In the 110th Congress, Republicans would offer desirable amendments in their motions to recommit, but they would require that the motion contain the language "promptly", which killed a number of bills. The new rule, which Massa supported, requires that motions to recommit use the "forthwith" language.

• Allegany County
• Cattaraugus County
• Chemung County
• Monroe County (not clear if they're posting results)
• Ontario County
• Schuyler County (not clear if they're posting results)
• Steuben County (not clear if they're posting results)
• Yates County

Here's CNN's 29th results page.

Update: Here are the details. All the Western New York delegation voted for the bill. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY-20] remained opposed.

Randy Kuhl joined 132 133 of his Republican colleagues and voted against the bailout. He's issued this statement explaining his vote.

Update: Here's the roll. It's an interesting mix. Other area representatives (Reynolds, Walsh, and Slaughter) all voted for the bill.

Massa also explains, in detail, why he'd have voted against the FISA bill that recently passed the House, with Randy Kuhl's vote. Massa's reasoning has to do with the Fourth Amendment, which is only taken seriously by 128 Democrats and one Republican in the House. Randy Kuhl's excuse for his vote is posted here.

Massa also explains, in detail, why he'd have voted against the FISA bill that recently passed the House, with Randy Kuhl's vote. Massa's reasoning has to do with the Fourth Amendment, which is only taken seriously by 128 Democrats and one Republican in the House. Randy Kuhl's excuse for his vote is posted here.

Representatives in Congress are paid $169,300 annually. Their retirement and pension benefits are substantial. They receive a Member’s Representational Allowance for office expenses that reached between $1.2 and $1.4 million in 2005. They may buy or lease virtually any vehicle (and the gasoline’s included) at taxpayer expense. They receive significant health benefits. They get to be addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman” for the rest of their lives.

And people give them money. In his federal fundraising career, Rep. Kuhl has pocketed $3,082,985 (nearly 60 percent from PACs). If he leaves office with money in the fundraising bank, so to speak, he retains control over the balance, as did retiring Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds.

Despite all these privileges — and responsibilities — as a congressman, Rep. Kuhl has reduced the American system of government to a reality game show. And surely it’s possible that he has plenty of inept company among his remaining 434 peers.

Speaking of Randy Kuhl and blog posts, his new blog post tries to blame the lack of progress on the Iraq supplemental on "Democratic Infighting". Those of us with memories longer than a goldfish, or perhaps a Congressman, might remember that Kuhl voted present on that bill as part of a Republican protest last month.

First, Kuhl voted present on the main funding amendment as part of a Republican protest against the way Iraq funding was brought to the floor. The Republicans were trying to show that a majority of Democrats opposed war funding. That amendment failed, which means that the whole bill must go back to the Senate for a re-tool.

Second, Kuhl voted against an amendment that would ensure, among other things, that all units were mission capable, that the US would not fund permanent bases in Iraq, and that all interrogations follow the Army Field Manual (i.e., no torture). This amendment passed.

Finally, Kuhl voted against a third amendment, which contained a hodge-podge of appropriations, including a provision that would fund the GI Bill via a 1/2% tax increase on those making over $1 million in income. This amendment garnered 32 Republican votes.

More information on all these votes is available from the House Rules Committee site.

Randy Kuhl expressed his support of the bill in a floor speech lauding a bill that "aptly includes the interests of all agricultural regions in the country." Here's an example:

Traditional commodity subsidies for crops like cotton, rice, wheat and corn remain largely untouched in the new bill. The bill includes a new $3.8 billion permanent disaster payment program, deemed particularly generous for weather-stricken growers in states like Montana and the Dakotas.

Rice, Wheat and Corn prices are at all-time highs. The subsidy income limit remains at $1.5 million for married couples. The subsidy component of this bill is nothing more than a handout to a group that is currently prospering.

Though farm bill subsidies get most of the attention, two-thirds of the cost of the bill is for Food Stamps, or as they will now be called, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

In other words, in return for taking a loss, the bank gets the mortgage off their books. Since the homeowner must re-qualify for the loan, this program also weeds out borrowers who can't pay the new mortgage.

The reason this bill won't be an issue in the 29th is that we don't have many underwater borrowers. Take a look at this graph:

As you can see, the 29th had a small increase in house pricing. The sunbelt states and urban growth areas, where speculation was widespread, are where the prices are falling. The 29th is also doing fairly well in mortgage delinquency:

We seem to be able to pay our mortgages in the 29th, at least when compared to boom areas.

Whether Kuhl's vote was the right thing to do is worth debating, but, politically, I don't see a downside in his decision to stick with the rest of his party and vote against the bill.

(Graphs from the Federal Reserve via the excellent Calculated Risk blog.)

That latter bill's author, Barney Frank, believes that he'll get significant Republican support. My guess is that support won't include Rep. Kuhl, because co-sponsoring an alternative bill that has no chance of passage is usually an attempt at inoculation. Kuhl can say that he supported a better alternative, even if that alternative was introduced a short time ago and has no chance of passage.

Update: Kuhl voted against the bill in three key votes today (here, here and here).