New NY 23rd

I think some of the people against him (McCarthy) are really looking for perfection when right now we need to really come together to solve the problems that our country faces.–Rep. Claudia Tenney

Now we move on to legislation: things that almost every voice in our conference will agree on.–Rep. Nick Langworthy

On Jan. 8th, in The Buffalo News, Jerry Zremski reports on newly elected Representatives Higgins, Langworth, and Tenney.

I ran for Congress to be a serious legislator and to fight back against this culture of doing things for the TV soundbite, Langworthy said.

He (Langworthy) said Republican lawmakers uniformly support an agenda that calls for repealing the funding for 70,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents, working toward energy independence, getting tough on China and bringing accountability to the Biden administration.

Here is Nick’s agenda:

• repealing the funding for 70,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents
• working toward energy independence
• getting tough on China
• bringing accountability to the Biden administration

These platitudes reflect partisan politics at its worst. The first item would hinder the IRS and delay processing of tax returns. The second is naive: with or without fracking, the vast majority of the worlds petroleum reserves aren’t in North America. The last two are too vague for consideration as stated. The Republican Conference may agree on these things as Nick maintains, but that doesn’t make them good ideas, important, or popular with the public.

You know, the next three months are going to be like the last three days, and that’s not good for the country,” Higgins said on Friday. “And when you compare that with what the last Congress was able to accomplish, it’s a stark difference. We had very, very significant legislative victories … But it doesn’t appear as though the Republican caucus is set up to be in any way effective, it’s going to be obstruction, obstruction, obstruction

The Elmira Star-Gazette published an article on March 7 on the Dresden Greenidge power plant by Julie Sherwood of the Rochester Democrat and Chronical. The article explains that the Dresden Plant has been repurposed to generate electricity for a Bitcoin mining activity. Bitcoin mining uses a large amount of electricity. Sherwood writes that the Greenidge plant is licensed to produce 106 megawatts and that the company claims less than half of that is used for Bitcoin mining (however the Bitcoin mining is expanding).

In one way, this seems like a good idea. Electric demand isn’t constant. To meet peak demand, utilities need to run large generating plants at less than capacity or maintain other less-efficient generators, gas turbine powered generators for example, for occasional use. Greenidge can suspend Bitcoin mining and provide all 106 megawatts to the electric grid when needed.

Continued licensing of the Greenidge plant is supported by some local interests:

• Yates County Legislature
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
• Yates County Farm Bureau

Environmentalists are opposed. The Greenidge plant produces greenhouse gasses and discharges warm water into Seneca Lake. The Finger Lakes Wine Business Coalition opposes relicensing.

Philosopher Jason Stanley of Yale University, best known for his 2018 book How Fascism Works, tweeted today: “Once you have the courts you can pretty much do whatever you want.” — Heather Cox Richardson

An article in The New York Times by Charlie Savage discusses the move to appoint a special master in the Trump documents case. Savage writes:

A federal judge’s extraordinary decision on Monday to interject in the criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of sensitive government documents at his Florida residence showed unusual solicitude to him, legal specialists said.

Here are some excerpts:

• This was “an unprecedented intervention by a federal district judge into the middle of an ongoing federal criminal and national security investigation,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
• Paul Rosenzweig, a former homeland security official in the George W. Bush administration and prosecutor in the independent counsel investigation of Bill Clinton, said it was egregious to block the Justice Department from steps like asking witnesses about government files, many marked as classified, that agents had already reviewed.
• “Judge Cannon had a reasonable path she could have taken — to appoint a special master to review documents for attorney-client privilege and allow the criminal investigation to continue otherwise,” said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor. “Instead, she chose a radical path.”
• A specialist in separation of powers, Peter M. Shane, who is a legal scholar in residence at N.Y.U., said there was no basis for Judge Cannon to expand a special master’s authority to screen materials that were also potentially subject to executive privilege. That tool is normally thought of as protecting internal executive branch deliberations from disclosure to outsiders like Congress.
• David Alan Sklansky, a Stanford University law professor, said he was glad that work had been allowed to continue given its importance. But he said there was an inherent contradiction in allowing the executive branch to use the files for that purpose while blocking it from using them for an active criminal investigation.
• Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor, said anyone targeted by a search warrant fears reputational harm, but that does not mean they can get special masters appointed. He called Judge Cannon’s reasoning “thin at best” and giving “undue weight” to the fact that Mr. Trump is a former president.

Charlie Savage notes:

In reasoning that she had a basis to install a special master, Judge Cannon relied heavily on a 1975 appeals court ruling. It held that courts had jurisdiction to decide whether to order the I.R.S. to return a businessman’s records that he claimed had been taken unlawfully, and laid out a multipronged test for such situations.

One part of the test is whether the government had displayed a “callous disregard” for the constitutional rights of the person subjected to the search. On that issue, she sided with the Justice Department, which had obtained a warrant from a magistrate judge.

But she said the other parts of the test favored Mr. Trump. They included whether he had an individual interest in and need for the seized property, would be “irreparably harmed” by a denial of that request and lacked any other remedy.

On Executive Privilege, for Just Security, Andy Wright wrote:

Executive privilege is a contested doctrine in our separation-of-powers scheme, with Congress and the Department of Justice traditionally at loggerheads over its scope and application. In practice, executive privilege is an assertion of presidential authority to preserve executive branch confidentiality interests by withholding information from a judicial or congressional proceeding. The doctrine encompasses a bundle of components that cover a range of executive branch confidentiality interests, including presidential communications, deliberative processes, investigative integrity, state secrets, and individuals’ civil liberties that the administration may seek to shield from disclosure. Such claims can arise in legislative inquiries, criminal investigations, and civil litigation involving private parties, especially litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

Andy Wright’s article goes on with a more detailed discussion of executive privilege.

Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent.

Andy Wright is a Partner in the Washington office of K&L Gates and was previously Associate Professor at Savannah Law School, where he taught constitutional law.

This column was originally published in the Dunkirk Observer Today. It was written, and submitted  by Cath Kestler, LGBT advocate and resident of Silver Creek.

“When all Americans are treated as equals, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.”—President Barack Obama

Something you might not know is that LGBT rights are human rights and are more than just marriage.  LGBT justice should be about empowering all gay people everywhere, which probably won’t happen just because people can legally marry people of the same gender.

There are some gay activists who envision a movement for justice that goes beyond marriage.  There are other mainstream LGBT organizations that should and are shifting their focus to other issues.  Some of those that the mainstream LGBT rights movements should prioritize issues include:

Most of the homeless youth identify as LGBT—over 40 percent, when these youth ‘come out of the closet’ they are kicked out of their families and homes.  Some are reportedly abused by their families, leaving them especially vulnerable to mental and physical health issues

Violence against LGBT people is one of the most heinous of hate crimes and one of the most often leads to them being victims of the most.  Case-in-point, the tragedy at Orlando, Florida’s Pulse nightclub, which occurred last Sunday in the wee hours of the morning; the worst case scenario of a hate crime on US soil to date.  This has left many families fractured, friends still looking for answers and finally a demand for gun reform from the US Senate; which at this time has yet to happen following a fifteen hour filibuster initiated by the Democrats.

Many issues facing the general LGBT population are even worse for people of color.  LGBT people of color or minorities are almost twice as likely to experience physical violence.  Violence is just one issue that is compounded by racial injustice.  Racial injustice, or “the systemic fair treatment of people of all races, resulting in equal opportunities and outcomes for all,” is not specific to LGBT people, but true justice for LGBT people can’t be achieved if not all of us are liberated.

An estimated 3.8 percent of our nation’s undocumented immigrants identify as LGBT.  In fact, undocumented gay youth have been integral to building the immigration movement.  LGBT folks who are immigrants have multiple layers of experience living between literal and figurative borders, and can help us all dream beyond the current limitations of our immigration system.  Additionally, the deportation and detention process for migrants is particularly pernicious for LGBT people, who are often the subjects of harassment and abuse.

There are existing significant disparities in health care between heterosexual and LGBT people.  The Center for American Progress identified fourteen health disparities between straight and LGBT adults. The expansion of access to health care in the US should be a priority of the LGBT movement, beyond accessing a spouse’s medical plan through legalized marriage.

Despite the popular images of wealthy LGBT celebrities, many actual gay people are of low-income status.  Employment discrimination, lack of health insurance, homelessness, and other factors make LGBT people particularly vulnerable to the impact of economic inequality.  Gay and lesbian families (especially the latter) are significantly more likely to be living below the poverty line than heterosexual married families, and children in gay and lesbian households are twice as likely to live in poverty as compared to children in homes with heterosexual parents.  And given the legacy of racism in the US, the statistics are even worse for LGBT people of color.

Empowerment of transsexual people must be central to the movement for LGBT justice.  Many transsexual people live in extreme poverty, and we are four times more likely than heterosexual and LGBT people to have a household income of less than $10,000 per year.  More than 45 percent of transsexual people have attempted suicide.  Transsexual people are consistently abused, discriminated against, harassed and assaulted.

These are a few issues that deserve some attention.  It’s important to note that these are already incredible organizations focusing on these issues already. But most of the organizations are small and under-sourced.  The most funding goes to big groups like the Human Rights Campaign which does a phenomenal job of promoting the issues that beleaguer the LGBT community.  There are many organizations which are volunteer-based on Facebook that utilize professionals on a “pro-bono” basis that are gaining notoriety.

One, in particular that I volunteer for on a full time is available to the LGBT community along with LGBT allies on a 24 hour, 7 days per week basis.  It is called LGBT-Support at the Vault: http://www.lgbtsupportatthevault.com

We are committed to advocating, protecting, informing and entertaining LGBT people.  We offer resources and services located in your specific area when contacted.  We have medical professionals, legal services, social workers and volunteers staffed any time you are in need of someone to talk to or are in crisis.  We respond very quickly to all in need and it is confidential.  We can provide counseling regarding bullying, suicide prevention, narcotic/alcohol anonymous and point you in the direction of immediate help or the next meeting in your area.  We can also provide you with phone numbers and contacts for public assistance, help with food pantries, securing shelter in emergencies, as well as emergency triage for those who need mental or physical help on an outpatient basis or if you need inpatient services, we can provide you with information regarding that as well.  Anyone who would like to join you can message me through the editor at the Observer or friend me on Facebook.  We care about you and are here to help.

Tom Reed recently posed as a facebook expert. In truth, he makes poor use of facebook. He has 700,000 constituents but only 4,400 likes on his official page. Here is information about some other Representatives:

Tom Reed’s campaign page claims 43,000 likes. It seems unlikely that Tom’s campaign page would have ten times more likes than his official page. It is possible to inflate the number of facebook likes; one wonders if Tom’s campaign staff did that.

Congress considered two bills; both passed on essentially party line votes.

Lawsuits

The House considered H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015. Under current law, there are some claims that can be heard in either state or federal court. In many of these cases, plaintiffs choose state courts because the process often takes less time and costs less money. Defendants, in many cases large corporations, often choose federal courts where the process can take much longer. H.R. 3624 amends a long-standing legal practice called the “fraudulent joinder doctrine”. This doctrine allows a federal court to turn a case over to a state court under certain circumstances. H.R. 3624 weakens this authority by allowing defendants to challenge the court’s jurisdiction decisions, which will draw cases out even longer. A corporate plaintiff would have more resources than, for example, a worker injured on the job. Under this legislation, the corporate plaintiff could initiate a separate legal action challenging the venue before the merits of the specific case are even considered. The Administration has stated that this legislation would be vetoed.

 Natural Resources and Recreational Use

The House considered H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. This is yet another attempt to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  This legislation requires the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service to accommodate hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal lands that are under their jurisdiction. It prevents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating the lead found in bullets, fishing tools or hunting equipment and prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from monitoring firearm use on properties they manage. H.R. 2406 protects and expands the interests of hunters and other recreational sports participants at the expense of the environment.

Rep. Capuano (D-MA) provided this information. Rep. Reed voted in favor of both bills.

The Problem Solvers Caucus claims:

(First) Our plan would stabilize markets by making the cost-sharing payments mandatory and thereby prevent rates from rising sharply.

Second, we provide a relief valve to help states deal with the high cost of pre-existing and chronic conditions. The costliest 5 percent of patients account for nearly half of all health care spending in the country. We propose a dedicated stability fund — essentially a form of reinsurance — that states could use to reduce premiums and limit losses for providing coverage for these high-cost patients.

Third, our proposal provides relief to certain businesses from the mandate that they provide insurance to full-time employees. It also defines “full time” as a 40-hour workweek to discourage businesses from manipulating employees’ weekly hours to skirt the mandate. More than 90 percent of large businesses offered health care before the Affordable Care Act, and studies show that they would continue to do so under this change; others would move to find employee coverage in the individual marketplace.

Fourth, our plan eliminates the Medical Device Tax, an excise charge of 2.3 percent that is often passed onto consumers and reduces funds for research and development.

And finally, we provide states with additional flexibility to enter into agreements — such as enabling the sale of insurance across state lines — that would provide more choice and lower costs.

This isn’t an attractive compromise–it proposes relief from President Trump’s threat to withhold payments at the expense of business tax cuts, and reduction in employer responsibility for employee insurance. Two proposals, points 2 and 5, are difficult to evaluate–point 2 assumes that pre-existing conditions would no longer be covered unless the States assume responsibility, point 5, representing Republican dogma, is of uncertain value.

Additionally, the Problem Solvers caucus claims:

This proposal would not increase the federal deficit, offering several options to offset the new spending.

How can this be true? The proposed dedicated stability fund represents new spending, the medical device tax repeal reduces revenue. What options might offset loss of revenue and new spending is unclear–this article doesn’t say.

We can take this proposal seriously if and when it is assigned a bill number and scheduled for debate and a vote in the House. Till then, it is just talk.

Tom Reed claims that those who are all talk and no action have been excluded from the Problem Solvers Caucus. He should have excluded himself.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/opinion/bipartisan-health-care-reform.html

                I thought to check if NY-23 election results corresponded to voter registration. Considering only Republicans and Democrats, I made this table.

As expected, party registration corresponded to vote totals: Tom Reed got about 30% more votes than John Plumb; there are about 18% more registered Republicans than Democrats. A chi squared test showed only a 20% chance that the vote didn’t reflect registration.

Then I thought to include minor parties; was I surprised!

Votes for minor parties failed to reflect voter registration. Far more voters voted for John Plumb on the Working Families line than expected; far more voters preferred to vote for Tom Reed on the Conservative or Reform party lines than expected. Many Independence Party voters seem not to have agreed with the party’s decision to back Tom Reed.

One possible explanation is that Republicans and Democrats alike are unhappy with their party. Even though they haven’t registered with a minor party, they prefer to vote for their preferred candidate on a minor party line.

Click to access congress_nov16.pdf

Click to access 2016Congress.pdf

This entry was posted in 2017, Congress, Political and tagged election, NY-23. Bookmark the permalink.

This is the most recent article in the May I Call You Tom? blog.

May I call you Tom?

Dear Tom,

It’s finally quiet on my street as the vendors for our town’s annual “Fun Fest” pack up their lemonade stands and taffy booths. I live just a block off Main Street and Memorial Day weekend is one of the key times of the year for community celebration. I walked down the block this morning with my kids and stood, chatting with a neighbor, as we watched veterans ride and march past, the school band play, and a local church hand out advertisements for Vacation Bible School.

As a Mennonite, I have ambivalent feelings about events that seem to celebrate warfare, so this is a national holiday that leaves me more reflective than festive. I strongly believe in the importance of cultural memory, however, so think about this as a time to remember the dead, grieve for their loss, and honor the memory of the good they did for…

View original post 1,130 more words

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Peter was most dreadfully frightened; he rushed all over the garden, for he had forgotten the way back to the gate.

He lost one of his shoes among the cabbages, and the other shoe amongst the potatoes.

I have long been puzzled by Beatrice Potters use of among and amongst in the same sentence in near identical prepositional phrases. The two words mean the same thing. Was it a stylistic flourish, or did the author have some obscure rule of grammar in mind?

I learned that the two words are different grammatically–among is a preposition used in a prepositional phrase; cabbages is the object of the preposition.

Amongst is an adverbial genitive identified by the ending “s.”  The additional ending “t” has no grammatical meaning–it is described as parasitic, unhistoric, or accidental. Perhaps it makes the word more natural to pronounce. (Some say amongst is used before a vowel, but that wasn’t the case here. Amongst is more common in British English, but if that were her motivation, why didn’t she use it in both places?)

An adverbial genitive is a noun in the genitive case that functions as an adverb. The noun here is akin to “mingled.”  Parts of speech in English are flexible; an adverb used with an object is a preposition.

I have followed this subject as far as I can. I still don’t know why Beatrice Potter used two different words with the same meaning. Perhaps it sounded better to her ear.

David Foster Wallace, who was not a mathematician, wrote a book on mathematics. It is a literary work, not a mathematical reference. The math might well be wrong. I am not a linguist; the above might well be wrong.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14838/14838-h/14838-h.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_genitive