New NY 23rd

The Senate bill jettisons standards for care so thoroughly that, under its terms, it isn’t clear what it would even mean to be covered. — Amy Davidson in The New Yorker

First, remember that when a senator says he or she is opposed to the bill “in its current form,” that is code for, “change the current form, and I may no longer be opposed.”–Norm Ornstein in The Atlantic

“There has never been a rollback of basic services to Americans like this ever in U.S. history,” said Bruce Siegel, president of America’s Essential Hospitals, a coalition of about 300 hospitals that treat a large share of low-income patients. “Let’s not mince words. This bill will close hospitals. It will hammer rural hospitals, it will close nursing homes. It will lead to disabled children not getting services. . . . People will die.”

AHCA will pass. Having crippled Obamacare, the GOP has no alternative–it is no longer possible to do nothing. They have no way out–no exit strategy, no retreat path, no alternative but to forge ahead. Consequently, AHCA will pass. The GOP leadership, McConnell and Ryan, will do what it takes. They will wheedle and cajole as necessary, promising to reward some and threatening others, to get just enough votes. Republicans may worry that President Trump may badmouth their work later, but they can be sure he will sign their bill no matter how mean it is.

So what next? It is impossible to predict when either major party might attempt comprehensive health care reform again. We may see bandaids on the worst consequences of AHCA–tax credits to ease the pain is one possibility.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/03/the-senates-disastrous-health-care-bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/senate-health-care-bill-faces-serious-resistance-from-gop-moderates/2017/06/24/d6d8cf2e-584d-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.6717eed9efc3

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-kabuki-theater-of-the-ahca/531537/

This entry was posted in Health Care and tagged AHCA. Bookmark the permalink.

The New York State Primary will be held on Tuesday, April 19, from Noon to 9 PM. This is the time for both parties to get out as many voters as they can. It has been my experience that people like to see, and even study the ballots before they vote. Below are the Republican and Democratic Ballots. This Republican Primary Sample Ballot shown is similar to the ones that will be used all over New York State. The Democratic Ballot ballot shown will be used across the NY23rd.

The New NY 23rd has published an article about how the Republican Primary, explaining how the delegates are earned. You can find it here. We also published an article about how the Democratic Primary, explaining how their delegates are earned. You can find it here.

Republican Sample Ballot

Click on the ballot to enlarged it.

To see the New NY23 article–NYS Republican Primary–Process and Politics follow this link.

Democratic Sample Ballot

Follow this link to see who the Super-Delegates are, and who they are currently supporting. (Scroll down a little to see the list).

The delegates who support Bernie are on the Line A, . The delegates who support Hillary are on line B.

You may want to check out the following link from the Schuyler County Board of Elections. Also, this link shows the Democratic delegates for every Congressional District in NYS.

Click on the ballot to enlarged it.

Please note: There is no place for a write-in candidate on either ballot. Write-In are not allowed in Presidential Primary Elections.

In the General Election in November, only candidates who are “Certified” by the NYS Board of Election can run a write-in campaign. For more information go to the Board of Election website, and scroll down a bit,/’; or See Election Law §6-153.

There’ll be differences of opinion in just about every intelligence analysis that you make.–Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Trump’s remarks are more grist for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s mill. Is the sudden decision regarding Syria another sign of conspiracy involving Trump and Russia?

1. ISIS and al Qaeda must “suffer an enduring defeat.”
2. “…a stable, unified, independent Syria, under post-Assad leadership, is functioning as a state.”
3. Iranian influence in Syria must be “diminished”.
4. “refugees and IDPs (internally displaced people) can begin to safely and voluntarily return to Syria.”
5. Syria must be “free of weapons of mass destruction.”

Winners:

1. ISIS
2. Russia
3. Iran
4. Turkey
5. Assad government

These would help fill the vacuum left by US military withdrawal.

Losers:

1. Kurds
2. Israel
3. Saudi Arabia

Israel and Saudi Arabia would not appreciate increased Iranian influence. Kurds would be abandoned yet again.

It is hard to say if the United States would benefit or suffer if we ended military involvement in Syria. On the one hand, wars are cruel and expensive. On the other, we would abandon our goals and perhaps set the stage for renewed conflict on a larger scale in the future.

Trump criticized the Obama Administration for leaving Iraq prematurely. If leaving too soon was a mistake then, would he repeat it now? Do his remarks reflect only recklessness in speaking to supporters, or might they reflect a desire to please Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin? Will they stand, or will they be quickly brushed aside?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/31/politics/us-withdraw-syria-trump/index.html

This entry was posted in Defense, Trump, War and tagged Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

Thomas Carle

Thomas Carle is an independent candidate for Congress. About himself he says:

If you are reading this, you have to know that my children and grandchildren, my wife and my family, my friends and my colleagues, are my motivation to seek public office at this time.  The competence of the members in the House of Representatives to accomplish the proper work of legislators is at an all-time low.  The worst of the worst are doing most of the GOP’s talking and its an embarrassment! The reality show is over and those that supported that ill-advised movement or continue to perpetuate it (like my opponent), have to be stopped for the sake of our kids–yours and mine!  We need to return to honest, respectful leadership.

Which opponent Thomas has in mind isn’t clear: there are several including Hugh Bahar, George Burns, Max Della Pia, Rich Moon, possibly Joe Sempolinski, and Claudia Tenney.

Here is a sample of Thomas’ views on the issues:

I will be a candidate that will listen to further understand the divides between us.  I will support all initiatives that promote unity and equality.  I will fight discrimination in all forms.  We can no longer tolerate, intolerance.

Similar to what I have done in my career, I will collaborate with the economic development teams of each county and municipality, and with the industrial leaders in the district to determine their needs and do my best to help them achieve their goals. 

I will support initiatives aimed at addressing our healthcare system to ensure affordable coverage for all.  No one should have to worry about coverage and care.  Those with employer-sponsored healthcare, no change is necessary, other than making plans portable and affordable.

The Social Security Administration has been in place for 80 years and is the sole source of income for many Americans.  We must protect it. 

Thomas Carle’s views seem responsible to me; I wish him well.

https://www.facebook.com/Carle.for.Congress

This entry was posted in Congress, Political and tagged 2022, Independent, NY-23, Thomas Carle. Bookmark the permalink.

Today’s (Sunday, April 17) Finger Lakes Times “Insight” section’s top of the page headline announces, “Group to Reed…your endorsement of Donald Trump raises many significant questions”. The article is an Open Letter to Rep. Tom Reed.

The group, Tools for Social Change, is:

• grassroots and nonpartisan
• is made up of about 500 diverse Genevans: Republicans, Democrats, independents, faith traditions, sexual orientations, racial and gender identities, classes and abilities
• their mission: utilize collaboration, dialogue, and love to build community and grow as people

The letter includes: “As our representative in Congress, your voice sets the tone for our district. What we say, who we endorse, and how we act can and does have a direct impact on our neighbors. Your endorsement of the candidacy of Donald J Triumphs raised significant questions.”

It points to Trumps’ candidacy, rhetoric and actions for heightened a hostile and dangerous climate in Geneva.  The letter includes recent local racist, homophobic, and anti-immigrant activities which are connected to Trump’s public rhetoric. They also list examples of their aspirations for Geneva (America), and states, “We endeavor to create safe places for all people to come together for healing, shared decision-making, and community-building.”

The letter ends with a request to Rep. Reed to “stand with us” against the “violence, xenophobia, misogyny, and racist statements and actions.”

Rep. Reed, in his endorsement of Trump, noted “We must move beyond the bombastic rhetoric”. Since then Reed has been placed as a C0-Chair of Trump’s Leadership Team. It is unclear what power our congressman has over Trump’s campaign style. Reed will probably not ignore the issues brought up by the Tools for Social Change, but we need to evaluate him by his actions, not what he says.

People are judged by the company they keep.

This entry was posted in 2016, Ethics, gay rights, Immigration, pro-life/pro-choice, Racism, Reed’s Views, Rights, Seniors, Veterans and tagged anti-immigrant, homophobic, Racism, Reed’s Values, Social Change, Trump’s Leadership Team. Bookmark the permalink.

We put tariffs on the table as part of the president’s initiative of putting an American first and American interest on equal footing when it comes to American trade policy going forward with our trading partners.  And as those tariffs have gone out, they’ve obviously caused great concern to many folks who are used to well-established status quo type of trade policies. I am glad to be able to highlight today that this new tool in our tool box is leading to some positive results.–Rep. Tom Reed reported in The Post-Journal by Katrina Fuller

You have tariffs potentially being deployed on products that are going to be imported to America. Those tariffs translate to potentially pressures on consumers, on people, when they purchase those items at the marketplace. The bottom line is, long-term, this is going to make us stronger as a country in regards to having the ability to make it here and sell it around the world. The more we can get our trade balance closer to even and not run these trade deficits long-term, I think that bodes well for the American worker longer-term.–Rep. Tom Reed reported in The Post-Journal by Katrina Fuller

Will tariffs or the threat of tariffs on imported goods be beneficial in the long-term as Tom Reed believes? Probably not.

The first quote suggests that the threat of tariffs on imported goods is causing trading partners to bend to America’s benefit in some cases. Perhaps this is true, but what about less favorable reaction? Tom neglects to mention that. Are “some favorable results” enough to confirm that an “America First” policy is a good idea?

The second quote asserts that tariffs may benefit American producers and workers. Again, this might be true, but any benefits would come at the expense of the American consumer. Tom brushes deceptively over that.

In his 1901 novel, The Octopus, Frank Norris tells the story of an enterprising wheat farmer. Growing wheat has become unprofitable due to excessive railroad tariffs–charges for transporting goods to market. The farmer sees that the railroad tariff for another crop, maybe it was soy, is much lower. Seeing an opportunity he plants soy.

At harvest time, the farmer checks the railroad’s tariffs again to confirm his expected profit. To his dismay, he sees that the tariff for soy has been radically increased turning his profit for that season into a loss.  The railroad’s motto is “All the traffic will bear.”

Today’s farmers face a similar dilemma. It isn’t only that foreign tariffs on their produce may cause markets to collapse and prices to fall, but also that they can’t know when they plan for the year what business conditions might be in the fall.

When we think about Tom Reed’s rosy prediction that in the long term tariffs on imported good or the threat of that will benefit all, we might ask these questions:

1. How will growers and manufacturers make accurate business plans when markets are disrupted by governmental meddling?
2. How is it possible for restrictive trade policy to benefit all? Where will the promised profits for agriculture and manufacturing, higher wages for workers, and benefits for consumers come from?
3. Economists teach that free markets make the economy efficient. Republicans have long advocated free trade. Why should we believe differently now.

I was in Japan briefly in the 1970s on business. At that time American car companies complained that they couldn’t sell cars in Japan because of Japan’s tariffs. That wasn’t a vital problem though–American cars were not well suited to Japan’s roads, and they were of relatively low quality. Shortly afterwards, Japanese cars became very popular in America.

To make Tom Reed’s “make it here, sell it there” policy effective, we don’t need tariffs or threats, we need to make things here that people there want to buy.

http://www.post-journal.com/news/page-one/2018/04/reed-says-tariffs-will-pay-off-in-the-long-run/

Although this article focuses on the possibility of NY-23rd having a Democratic Primary in 2018, the same concerns and laws would pertain to a  Republican Primary.

With at least four NY-23rd democrats announcing they are a candidate to run for Congress in 2018 there is a very good chance that NY-23rd will have a Democratic Primary election in June, 2018. There has been some confusion about who can and can not vote in a New York State Primary election.

The biggest take-away from the 2016 NYS Presidential Primary should be that you need to be a registered Democrat to vote in a Democratic Primary. Many wanted to express their Bernie/Hillary opinion and were not permitted to vote because they were not a registered Democrat; they may have heard that in other States’ primaries people can change their registration on the day of the primary. That is not true in New York State.

In New York you can fill out a Voter Registration form to change your party any time up to 25 days before the General Election. You can pick a form up at your County’s Board or elections, or down load a form  or request one be mailed to you, You can  mailed it or take it to your Board of Elections.  When they receive the form, they place it into a locked box that will be opened on the Tuesday after the General Election. The Board of Election staff will then process the form and change your party.

This means that a non-democrat who wants to vote in the 2018 Democratic Primary must change their party by October 13, 2017! Election Law Title III, §5-304

Most people will not be thinking about a Democratic Primary in October. We will not even know who will be running in the Primary until Spring, 2018, when the candidates pass their nominating petitions.

That is why it is important to get anybody who wants to have a voice in deciding who will be the Democratic Party’s nominee to make sure they are a registered Democrat.

Follow this link to check your information your county’s  Board of Elections has on file. (You will need to enter your birth-date.)

Let people know that the deadline to register as a democrat to vote in the June 2018 Primary is Friday, October 13.

Please note: For our Republican friends, you can substitute “Republican” every time you see  “Democrat” or “Democratic“.

This is what democracy looks like.

Mary A. Bennett became the first female mayor of Jackson in 1966. (File photo | Mlive.com)

I studied city government in the third grade thanks to the League of Women Voters. Actually, it may have been a fourth grade lesson; my classroom was a third/fourth split. Why bother with third grade work when the fourth is learning something more interesting.

Jackson, MI had a council-manager city government–a form of city government favored by 20th Century good government reformers. The League of Women Voters had written a pamphlet on Jackson city government which is what we studied. I remember the pamphlet so it must have been handed out to both third and fourth graders.

Mrs. Bennett’s son was in my HS class; his brother and my brother were friends. She went to our church, but I scarcely knew that. I had little interest in church ladies; I was appalled when I learned that my attractive seventh grade Latin teacher was a church member, and my mother knew her.

Here is Mrs. Bennett’s bio from the work cited below:

Bennett had served as YMCA board president; chairwoman of the mayor’s subcommittee for housing for minorities, the elderly and low-income families; vice chairwoman of the citizens committee for several Union School District (now Jackson Public Schools) bond and millage issues; president of Jackson’s League of Women Voters; Girl Scout troop leader and Boy Scout den mother; First Congregational Church Sunday school teacher; and secretary of the mayor’s committee on city finances.

Her activities evidently were quite progressive for twentieth century Midwestern America.

I don’t know if Mrs. Bennett favored a political party; city officials may have been elected on a non-partisan ballot. I don’t know if she contributed to the LWV pamphlet; certainly it was written by women like her. I like to imagine that she did.

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2013/12/peek_through_time_jackson_resi.html

But let’s be clear about what the speech really was: A sop, soaked in platitudes, to the Saudi agenda in the Middle East.–Ishaan Tharoor

Trump’s performance in Saudi Arabia reflects a U-turn in U.S. Foreign policy. Does this reflect State Department views or Trump’s naivety and ignorance?

Saudi Arabia is governed by an oligarchy, a small group of people, the Saud family. It is a repressive government, conservative even for a Middle Eastern State. Yet Trump:

• Focused on the rulers rather than the people of Saudi Arabia.
• Chose to ignore Saudi domestic repression.
• Chose to ignore Saudi military intervention in Yemen.
• Chose to ignore widely reported Saudi financial support for ISIS and other Sunni extremists.
• Embraced the idea that a country that buys our arms is our friend.
• Agreed to add even more munitions to a region already devastated by war.

Where did these policy ideas originate? I wonder if Trump’s meeting with Henry Kissinger might explain them.

Did the Saud family take advantage of Trump’s naivety? Is there a conflict of interest in the offer to invest in U.S. infrastructure?  Will the Israeli’s insist on an equivalent arms deal or other concessions? How will the Russians and the Iranians react? What mischief will Trump’s words and actions cause?

Suppose North Korea offered to buy a large order American weapons. Would they become good guys then? If American foreign policy is now up for sale, many shady governments may be eager to buy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/22/trump-embraces-the-saudi-vision-for-the-middle-east/?utm_term=.93118cea2fc4

This entry was posted in Trump and tagged Iran, Israel, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Bookmark the permalink.

LWVNYS Early Voting Survey Report

During New York State’s first ever early voting election period, the League of Women Voters of New York State conducted a survey to study voters’ experiences. Over a two-week period, the League collected 1,791 survey responses from voters residing in 54 counties throughout New York State. Survey responses were overwhelmingly positive.

• More than 93% of voters who responded stated that they would vote early again, 3% responded that they would

 consider voting early again, and only 1% stated that they would not vote early again. • 96% of respondents said they found information about early voting easily with most (26%) stating that they found information about early voting from print media or by word of mouth (20%). • 89% of respondents waited only 0 to 5 minutes to vote early, 10% waited between 5 and 15 minutes, and only 1% waited 15 minutes or more. • Most counties utilized new voting equipment (electronic poll books and/or ballot on demand printers). Four counties did not use this new technology. Voters appreciated the modernized equipment and found that problems with the electronic poll books and ballot on demand printers were resolved relatively quickly.

• 60% of respondents voted early because they wanted to try early voting, 28% said early voting worked better for their schedule, and 13% of respondents said they would have been unable to vote on Election Day.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Early voting, LWV. Bookmark the permalink.