Quick Takes (v61): When Soundbites and Facts Collide

On Wednesday, Andrew Cuomo, my Sonofa Gov, exerted his princely powers and declared a 'state emergency' and released a new seven-point-plan to address gun violence. He said that "we went from COVID to the epidemic of gun violence and the fear and death that goes along with it."  And, he said,

This is a national problem, I get it. But somebody has to step up and somebody has to address it.

Somebody does need to address it, there's no doubt about that. We can argue about whether Cuomo's the guy, or whether it's Congress, or whether it's local law enforcement... truth be told, it's all of them, I'd suggest, but it's not my place to try and steal Cuomo's thunder. After all, there are plenty of people around to do that. 

Like my Congressman, Rep. John Katko (R-Trump Wants Me to be Primaried). Katko's a former federal prosecutor; he helped take down some violent gangs back in the day here in Syracuse, so he has some experience in this area. He's also a Republican in a purple district, NY-24. He voted for the second impeachment, and led the charge to get a bill passed that would have established an independent, 9/11-style investigation into the insurrection. Neither of those have endeared him to his hard-core constituents. 

So, attacking Cuomo seems safe, and that's what Katko did, when he blamed state policies for the increase in violent crime.

Right now, in New York State the laws are terrible. Bail reform is a good example of that, and defunding the police. The fact that the governor is admitting that his policies have failed, the policies of the Democrats have failed, is a good step in the right direction.

Katko thinks we need a stronger stand against gang violence, and says that, while Cuomo's plan includes millions for jobs for at-risk youth, targeting high-crime areas and illegal gun sales, it might not be enough.

It’s better than nothing, but New York city defunded their police by one billion dollars with a 'b' and look what happened there, so he’s starting to understand that he’s got a mess on his hands that he helped make.

OK - those are the soundbites, here are the facts. 

According to Fox News, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo slammed the New York City Council’s move strip the New York Police Department of $1 billion in funding, questioning “what it means” and calling for concrete action.

"I don’t know what it means," Cuomo said during a press briefing Wednesday. “What does that mean? Does this mean I am less safe? Where did you take the billion dollars from? Does it mean I am more safe? Does it have any effect on police abuse? I don’t know what it means...”

The truth is, like many people, Cuomo thought calls to defund the police hurt Democrats in last year's elections.

I think 'defund the police' went too far. I think law and order makes a difference in people's lives... I think 'defund the police' was a really unfortunate expression. I don't think anyone meant it literally.

Yes, he wants police departments to reform. Yes, he doesn't think much of Bill de Blasio, and taking a swipe at him is good fun, but in the end, he's not a big gun behind the 'defund' movement - he favors rethinking policing, and required all departments in the state to submit community-supported plans to do just that, or lose state funding. Did Katko not know that?

And, let's look at bail reform, another Katko complaint, and some crime statistics. The truth is, bail reform - and COVID-related prisoner releases - are not significant contributors to the increase in gun violence. And that's coming from the NY Post, hardly a Cuomo-supporting media outlet.

While the surge in gunplay is undeniable, a Post analysis of department data found that most people released under the criminal justice reforms or amid the pandemic had no known ties to the bloodshed — with criminal justice experts saying the cops should focus on the flow of illegal guns into the city instead of playing the “blame game.”

Here are the details, from the NYPD's own data (emphasis added):

• There's been a 46% increase in shootings (528 this year through June 30th, compared to 362 in the same time period last year), but the NYPD has closed only 28% of them, about half the normal close rate.
• Of the roughly 11,000 released under the new bail laws, only 91 have any connection to a shooting, and only one person has been charged. Over half of them were either victims (25) or witnesses (24); the remaining 41 are documented as either suspects (31) or "perps" (10) in the NYPD data.

And for good measure, here are the numbers on COVID releases.

• 2500 or so inmates were released from Rikers to reduce overcrowding during the pandemic; some 275 have been rearrested (through mid-June), but only nine are linked to shootings. One was arrested, two are "persons of interest," and three are witnesses. The other three? They were victims of shootings.

If these are the facts, why do politicians (and law enforcement officials) insist on saying something else? Richard Aborn, who's president of the Citizens Crime Commission, thinks this is why.

There's a blame game going on, and I don't think it's helpful. I think it would be helpful if the NYPD [issued] a clear report explaining why they think the uptick in shootings is linked to bail reform.

Maybe Rep. Katko would consider doing the same?

Wondering on Wednesday (v214)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Ah, Wednesday...  Let the wondering begin...

Will we ever meet the 'adults in the room', do you think? I mean, other than at a book signing? These mysterious people who share secrets, treasonous secrets unless they're a hoax, in which case, l guess, they're sharing lies. Except that we (ususususus, as they say on social media) shared this information with our allies, so why would we do what if it were just a hoax? Are we in some kind of celebrity game show or something? (Don't answer that.)

Is there actually someone working in the Intelligence Community named Unnamed Source, Official Briefed on the Matter, Intelligent Official, I Speak on Condition of Anonymity, Official Familiar with Intelligence, or I Am Not Authorized to Speak on Behalf of the Government? (That's got to be quite the thing on an ID badge, don't you think? Would they just use an acronym, I wonder? IANASBG, which I think would be pronounced Ian Asbag?)

And is the Intelligence Community one of those fancy gated places, like the one where lawyers brandish guns at protesters, I wonder? Or is it more like those giant retirement communities like The Villages? It sort of seems more like the latter, but I'm not really sure.

Speaking about The Villages, I learned today that if you tweet a video filled with f-bombs and senior citizens behaving badly, including repeatedly yelling "white power" and then delete it after causing a 'five-alarm fire" at the White House, you have "condemned" white power ideology, without even saying a word? It's true --Kellyanne Conway said so.

I'm at the point where I really want all of these people to arrive at the NY Times and do an Ellsberg and get all of this out in the open, before the election, so that the president will not be allowed to suck all of the air out of the room with his lies and spin and claims of hoaxing and of being the LONE WARRIOR.

I wonder, does he have a cape or something? Maybe one of those green coats like Melania wore, with writing on the back?  Would his say, "I really don't have a clue, do u?"

This latest Russia thing, another in a line of Russia things, is deeply upsetting, on a number of levels; first, let's assume it's a hoax, as the president says, (even though I'm surprised there would have been briefings for our allies on a hoax - is that just me, I wonder?)

If it's a hoax, that means there are people in the Intelligence Community actively trying to take down the Administration, and/or to interfere in the upcoming election, and/or trying to inflame our relationship with Russia and/or our allies,  or they're just a bunch of lying liars who have no ulterior motives, which might be more frightening, I'm not sure.

And of course the media has to be complicit, as are some Republicans (including my Congressman) and most Democrats, who want answers, very quickly on what's going on here. And how hard would it be for the president to convince people this is the case, I wonder?

But let's assume it's real, even if not fully fleshed out over the past many months, and think about why the president wouldn't take this seriously? Or think about why, if he knew this intelligence was out there, why would he be talking about inviting Putin to attend the G7 summit, being held on American soil, against the wishes of our allies? And why the intelligence folks wouldn't have briefed the gang of eight on this months ago, know as we all do, how Trump plays loosey-goosey with all things Russia?

Any does anyone else know why this administration insists on briefing Republicans and Democrats separately? What's up with that? Why aren't they getting the same information at the same time? Is that really necessary on a hoax or an actual threat to our servicemen and women?

Does any of this make you wonder as much as it makes me wonder, I wonder?

In Case You Missed It (v16)

Given the holiday, family time, and of course the sitting around basking in the nothing-doing, this was a light week for posts. Let me bring you up to date.

I got to a few of the Sunday School classrooms, chasing Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar as they made the rounds. The post  started with Booker's visit to Meet the Press.

They talked about Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding the articles, not sending them to the Senate. Booker said he feels she's really trying to do what she can to ensure there is a fair trial in the Senate. And, in response to Todd's question about whether calling the Bidens to appear was just a plan to "sort of make the witness requests a mutual assured political destruction?"

Booker's answer was perfect:  I'm exhausted, frankly, of the Biden aspect of this.

I agree with him on that.

Because, he noted, the Bidens don't speak "in any way that's germane to the president's behavior," and he's 1000% right. This should be about the president, not about the Bidens.  

Klobuchar appeared in two classrooms; here's an excerpt from her conversation on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, 

who opened with a clip from SNL's cold open featuring, among others, Rachel Dratch as Klobuchar. The Senator thought Dratch did a good job. And, when Brennan asked about her "aggressive" performance, Klobuchar denied that she's changed her tactics since her middle-of-a-blizzard candidacy announcement. She also noted

I have passed over a hundred bills in the United States Senate during a really difficult time. And I have won in the reddest of red districts and won with suburban and rural voters and Republicans and independents and a fired up Democratic base. I think that's a good case to be made.  

I also had thoughts on how Congressman John Katko, who represents my NY district, communicates with constituents like me, which I shared in Asked, But Not Answered. That'll give you an idea of my frustration with Katko.

In a nutshell, I wanted him to respond to my specific questions about the statement his office released on why he was going to vote against impeachment. I knew he was a no vote, and indicated that in my comments to him - so I was quite surprised when he explained to me in detail how impeachment works, including the responsibilities of the House and Senate. Geez, Louise: first, I already know that, and second, that's not what I asked!

It didn't get any better after that, I can assure you. Which left me thinking.

This response could have written to you, the person sitting next to you, or the person sitting on the other side of them. It's remarkably similar to the response a friend of mine received, after she reached out with very different questions touching on the impeachment inquiry.

It's funny - she's now a former registered Republican, and I'm a former registered Democrat. We've both voted for Katko in the past.

We won't be doing that again.

No, we won't. 

And finally, I tackled the heavy lifting that is determining the Democratic presidential candidate Email of the Week.  And I wimped out - sorry!

Because we're in the midst of holiday season - Hanukkah, Festivus, Christmas, Kwanzaa and the upcoming New Year, etc. - I decided to see how the candidates referenced the holidays. Instead of singling any one of them out for the coveted honor, I'll share all of their emails in full.

That's right - I decided to be kinder for the holidays, and share the whole shebang.

I received messages from all of the candidates I'm still following - well, all of them except Bernie Sanders. He was also the only one from whom I didn't receive Thanksgiving greetings, so at least he's consistent. 

Two candidates sent Christmas Cards; two sent Christmas messages, and one was sort of a combo. Here are excerpts from the 'message' emails. Can you figure out who's who? Here's a hint for you: two are senators, one is not. Two are men, one is not.

It’s a time of joy and a time you get to spend with loved ones. This year, I’ll be with my wonderful family, my friends, and girlfriend. We’ll enjoy a few nice meals, relaxed days, and best of all, vegan eggnog (for anyone who’s not down with dairy, it’s a game-changer, check it out). 

Happy Holidays! The holiday season is upon us, and whether you celebrate these holidays or something else, or nothing at all, I hope you take these next few days as an opportunity to rest and reflect, to spend time with loved ones, to practice kindness, and, most importantly, to make room for joy.

The holidays are a wonderful opportunity to spend time with those we love. And for me, this season feels even brighter than usual: I’m so uplifted and encouraged by people all over America who share my optimism for the future of this country. 

That's it for the week, but have no fear - we'll be back to full form next week, and I'll have a recap of the 2019 posts.  I'm looking forward to that stroll down memory lane; I hope you are too.

Asked, but Not Answered

Earlier this month, I sent an email to Congressman John Katko, who represents my district.

Katko, a Republican, is well known as one of the most bipartisan House members, as I've noted in the past. When I have corresponded with him, I tend to get only generic answers, no matter how specific my questions. It's frustrating, and I sometimes wonder (even on a Tuesday!) if he and his staff think that being bipartisan means being non-controversial or something. Let me give you an example.

I emailed the Congressman with some questions that were tied directly to his statement on his plan to vote 'no' on impeachment. His statement said, in part, (emphasis added)

After thoroughly studying the arguments for and against impeachment, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that, while I believe some of the President’s actions were wrong and inappropriate, they do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

There’s no question that this process has sharply divided our country.  Now, more than ever, Congress must put down the swords and work across party lines to find common ground on the issues that matter to our nation: growing our economy, keeping our country safe, and addressing the heroin and synthetic drug epidemic, to start.

While I forgot to keep a copy of what I sent him (through his website, not my person email), here's the gist of it. I asked him to tell me specifically which of the president's actions were wrong and inappropriate; I even gave some examples, specific to Ukraine:

• Withholding the military aid while waiting for an investigation announcement?
• Using his personal attorney as an emissary of the US government? 
• The larger issue of asking a foreign country to investigate his political rival?

I recall asking something along the lines of should a president involve his administration in investigating United States citizens, absent any indication of a crime, whether they're a political rival or not?

I also wanted to know how he's worked with Republicans in the Senate about the hundreds of bills that have been passed in the House, many in a bipartisan manner, that are gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk. There might have been something else, can't remember for sure. I was polite, respectful, and thanked him in advance for his detailed response. I even sincerely wished him and his family a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy New Year. 

Below is the Congressman's response, minus my full name and address.

December 20, 2019

Thank you for contacting me regarding (p)resident Trump. It is good to hear from you.

I believe it is imperative that government officials are held to the highest ethical and professional standards and that they are held accountable for their actions and for fulfilling the duties and obeying the regulations associated with their jobs. 

That was a good start, since the bulk of my letter related to the president's "wrong and inappropriate" actions. But then, it continued

The House of Representatives holds the authority to impeach and the Senate holds the authority to try impeachments. The House must first pass, by a simple majority, the articles of impeachment, which would specify the impeachable offenses committed. The Constitution states treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors as impeachable offenses. If passed, the official would then be impeached. However, to be removed from office, the official must be tried by the Senate and convicted by a two-thirds majority. 

I know how impeachment works, including that it does not require a legally-defined crime to have been committed. And, I didn't ask a single question about that.

For the past several months, impeachment has divided our nation and sidetracked this Congress from accomplishing meaningful work. With this process behind us, we must address the issues that have been neglected: growing our economy, bolstering cybersecurity giving attention to the opioid and mental health crises in our community, and addressing high water levels. It is far past time to get to work. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the important issues facing Central New York.

I get that there are important issues to address here in Central New York - I just reached out to him a few days earlier on a specific piece of legislation - but how does any of that answer my question about what he's done or is doing to get his Senate colleagues to pressure Mitch McConnell to even read the stuff that's been sent over?

And not only that, but how can he complain that "meaningful work" has been sidetracked? What have the rest of the 435 House members been doing while the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees were focusing on impeachment?

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you and your family, as your input helps me to better serve you as your Representative in Congress. If you would like to stay informed of the latest issues coming out of Washington, you can visit www.katko.house.gov to sign up for my e-newsletter. 

Sincerely, 

John Katko

Yes - I'll continue keeping you informed, and you'll continue ignoring my specific questions and you'll continue telling me the kind of stuff you hope will make me go away.

And, I'd suggest that, for people who do subscribe to his newsletter, a simple "Thank you for subscribing to my e-newsletter. I trust you find the information helpful." would be a nice way to close the conversation. 

And not even so much as a hint of holiday good will? Sheesh!

This response could have written to you, the person sitting next to you, or the person sitting on the other side of them. It's remarkably similar to the response a friend of mine received, after she reached out with very different questions touching on the impeachment inquiry.

It's funny - she's now a former registered Republican, and I'm a former registered Democrat. We've both voted for Katko in the past.

We won't be doing that again.

Quick Takes (v34): Kudos for Katko

Quick Takes

A couple of weeks ago John Katko, my congressman, received one of six 2019 Legislative Action Awards from the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC.

Katko was honored with five others -  Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), and fellow representatives Doug Collins (R-GA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) - for "breathing new life into the legislative process" and for their leadership on efforts such as criminal justice reform and the opioid crisis.

All six of the recipients have been in their current positions for six years or less and have

demonstrated skill and courage in the face of political challenges to confront a political problem, provide a positive tenor to the legislative process, and improving the functioning of Congress through their example. 

According to a statement by Jason Grumet, the BPC president,

The Legislative Action Awards recognize members with the unique capacity to identify common interests and get things done. It takes real skill and commitment to govern a divided country. Thankfully, there are still true legislators in the Congress who understand how to build coalitions that deliver sound policy for the American people. It is an honor to recognize six of these leaders today and remind the public that principled collaboration is the essence of effective democracy. 

So. what is the Bipartisan Policy Center?

Quick Takes (v33): Carson and Katko

Quick Takes

There was an article in my local paper today, about the possibility that Ben Carson, president Trump's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, might pay a visit to Syracuse to see what's going on here.

According to Mark Weiner's article, Carson met with Congressman John Katko recently and talked about the Syracuse Surge and, according to Katko, he

expressed interest in visiting Syracuse to see how the city plans to transform its economy with public and private investment centered on a series of projects on the south end of downtown. 

The plan includes a new STEAM  high school that will be open not just to city students but to kids from all of the school districts in Onondaga County. The school would be dedicated to the more common STEM curriculum - science, technology, engineering and math - and also add focus on the arts, too.

Katko suggested that HUD could play a "leading role" in the Syracuse Surge, which ties in to rebuilding the Pioneer Homes project and redeveloping the whole southeast end of downtown, including whatever happens with the I-81 viaduct project, and said that HUD money could "help jump-start" development efforts.

And, Katko said they also talked about the ongoing issue with lead poisoning here; new funding was approved in December to get our lead paint abatement program back up and running, after funding was cut off due to disagreements between the City and HUD back in 2012.

Whether or not you're a Carson or Katko fan, we'd be nuts to not want a Cabinet member with good intentions coming here; after all, NY historically gets a lot less from the federal government than we pay in. And if there's a chance that HUD will come through with some money and other assistance to help us rebuild the south east side of downtown, and continue their commitment to helping us get rid of the lead that's still causing issues for kids in Syracuse,  I'm all for it.

TGIF 2/1/19

The first TGIF of February, and it's all good news - how does that sound?

First up,  a shout-out to new Congressman Anthony Brindisi, who represents the district next to mine here in Central New York. Brindisi was named one of the co-chairs of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 27  moderate-to-conservative Dems. In his role, he'll be the whip, the one responsible for helping ensure members stick together - and vote together - in support of the caucus's ideals:

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to pursuing fiscally-responsible policies, ensuring a strong national defense for our country, and transcending party lines to get things done for the American people.

Brindisi's already made a dent in his first few weeks in Congress - first, he kept his commitment and did not vote for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker; and he and John Katko, my Congressman, managed to spend bipartisan time recently calling for an end to the #trumpshutdown.  Good on both of them for that.

Quick Takes (v31): Where are the Problem Solvers?

Quick Takes

My local paper had a short piece on the three minority House Republicans who voted for changes to the House rules today.

And it seems this is a very unusual circumstance; according to the article it's been 18 years since anyone crossed party lines to support rules changes at the start of a new Congress.

One of them was John Katko, who represents me in Congress. The other two were Tom Reed, who represents Corning NY, and Brian Fitzpatrick who represents Pennsylvania's district 1, near Philadelphia.

The three are members - actually, Reed is the Republican chair - of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of Dems and Reps who are committed to working together in a bipartisan fashion. They went along with the new Dem majority on the rules change because the changes, according to new House Speaking Nancy Pelosi,

will make it easier for bills to reach to the House floor, and allow for more votes on bipartisan bills. 

The Election Eve Post - 2018 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my darnedest to encourage you to vote.

This year has been the longest mid-term campaign season I can remember. The political ads started in August for my Congressional district, as well as the surrounding ones, which means during a half-hour of local news, we've been getting probably six minutes of lies and misstatements and misdirection from both sides of the political spectrum. And that doesn't count the Terrorism Update Desk and other right-leaning content from our Sinclair stations. I've let John Katko, my Congressman, know my thoughts on this; he won't listen, I'm sure, bit I feel better.

In my opinion, ads for the Republican incumbents have been much worse than for their Democratic challengers, which is a sad statement on their records, if you ask me. The president, vice president, White House press secretary, first daughter, first son and girlfriend, second son, and even NRA president Ollie North have been in our parts since the summer campaigning for the Congresswoman in the neighboring district. And she's a peach, Claudia Tenney is,having suggested more than once that her opponent would bring the Mafia around if he lost. 

The president, for his part, has dragged out every conceivable fear-inducing trope he can think of. Brown-skinned gangs? Check. Job-stealing brown people? Check. Drug-dealing brown people? Check. Free-loading brown people? Check. He did manage to talk about the economy and jobs, but mostly in relation to mobs - that is, #JobsnotMobs - and violence, because if the Dems get elected, mind you, there will be violence. A vote for a Republican - any Republican - is a vote for him he tells us. Good to know. 

Here in New York, we're facing a potentially horrible year for a once-popular governor; robocalls for people who lost major party primaries but still have lesser ballot lines, and one of our local districts may mean we end up with a unified government - Dems controlling the Assembly, Governor's Office and the State Senate - assuming the stars align and all. There's some scary stuff in there. 

What's it all mean? I'm voting, as I always do. And as I say every year, this is the most important thing any of us can do as citizens -- to have our say in choosing the people who are supposed to represent us. 

All elections are important; this one feels more so. Please, do your part. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it, with one addition, which you see in the picture of President Obama.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”(1) Actually “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of American will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? 6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” 7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”(8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” 9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.”(10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” 11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” 12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll  probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.”(13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.”(14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.”(18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles DeGaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch)

Ranting and Raving (v2): The 2018 Midterm Election

I've pretty much had it with the 2018 elections, on every imaginable front. I'm sick and tired of mud-slinging politicians who say nothing about their own positions but instead spend their entire time lying or purposefully obfuscating the record, story, purpose and positions of their opponent or, as happens here almost daily, asking bizarre questions on social media calling out their opponent for something about which the questioner reveals nothing about his own position. "Look at her! Look at her! Don't look at me!" I'm sick and tired of out-of-district money interfering in what happens in my district and directing who gets elected to represent me. Washington insiders are not NY-24 constituents, and they don't have a clue what's important to me. Neither does my current congressman, because he won't have a town hall meeting if his life depended on it - and it doesn't (see above reference to outside money screwing up my representation). Yeah, this guy? He's brave, oh boy is he brave. We find out about his 'biker town hall' when he posts the pictures. We find out about his 'diner town hall' when he posts the pictures. His breakfast-eating far-western-part of the district constituents found out about it when they saw the handwritten notes taped on their diner door: "Joe Blow here Sat. 8AM." We find out about his visits to carefully chosen companies when he posts the pictures. We see he's in town when he posts the pictures of endorsements he receives. Other than that? Yeah, no. He's not interested in hearing from us unless we're on record as being interested in him. He's from the other party, and I've voted for him twice - but never again. I'm sick and tired of the face, name and policies of Donald Trump being the most important thing in every race in the country. For example, in the race for Attorney General... You want to be NY AG? Tell me what you're going to do for me not what you're going to do to him. You want to take on Trump? Fine - run for Senate or Congress. Maybe I'll vote for you then. (Likely not, but whatever). I'm sick and tired and tired and sick of the ads, which around here have been running since August, I kid you not. Since August. And I'm in a media overlap are, so we have NY-24, and we have NY-23 and we have NY-22 And you know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who refuse to identify themselves, their district, their party in their advertising. What are they afraid of?  "I'm Jane Doe and I'm running as the Democrat in the NY-22 - vote for me!"  Remember when that used to be par for the course?  Not any more. They're too afraid to even say what party they're in. SAD! SICK!! to quote a certain someone. And the lies. Outright, blatant, ridiculously unbelievable lies - I mean, there is no way anyone can believe three quarters of the stuff that appears in the ads, and yet... And yet -- there's no lack of interviews with people here, there and everywhere who completely and totally parrot the lies they see and hear, and you can tell they believe with all their heart what they're saying, a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT of the lies in the ads, the lies that come from the candidates directly, the lies that come from incumbents and challengers of both parties - on both sides - and of course from the current resident of the Oval Office, because he lies like the proverbial rug, in spades. I'm tired. I'm low energy. And we still have two weeks to go.

Wondering on Wednesday (v147)

Random noodling around tonight; we'll see where it takes us. There's certainly a lot going on out there to wonder about.

Do you wonder, listening to president Trump talk about Hurricane Florence, whether he's actually taking credit for her being the biggest one ever to hit the east coast? You hear him talk about his thinking, and that of other really smart people, and I honestly sense a little bit of pride there.

HAHAHA, Obama - take that!  My storm's way bigger than any of yours. Sad! Haahaha. And my hands too....hahahaha! It's going to be a fantastic disaster!! 

Sticking with the president, raise your hand if you have any idea what the president must have been thinking about when he gave a double fist pump and an angry sneer upon arriving at the 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania.  Personally I think he's terribly unphotogenic, and I think there have to have been more than a few purposefully bad pics of him published since he started his campaign, but here's the thing: you can't be photographed doing a double fist pump as you arrive at a memorial service if you don't do a double fist pump as you arrive at a memorial service. 

I'm wondering, for all you party-registered NY voters, if your phones are ringing off the hook with recommendations for tomorrow's primary, or if it's just me? For example, I had three phone calls from the Communications Workers of America -- my retired husband's union - in 12 minutes. Seriously. And they're calling me, not him, because he's an Independent and can't even vote in the primary for governor. I've had law firms calling to tell me to vote for a specific judicial candidate, and former judges calling for the same race, but a different person.

I've had calls on the Attorney General's race, the governor's race, my state senator - it's a battle royale I tell you.  Anyone willing to hazard a guess on the gubernatorial primary? Will it be the Sonofa Gov, incumbent Andrew Cuomo, or maybe the angry activist, former Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon? Or maybe Syracuse's former mayor Stephanie Miner, who's running as the representative of a new party?

Speaking of Nixon and Miner, should one of them overcome massive odds to win the primary, she would become the 16th woman with the chance to become their state's governor. I wonder who would have thunk that? Even more remarkable, according to the Barbara Lee Family Foundation,

There are currently six women governors, and the most we've ever had serving at one time was nine. Over the course of US history, only 39 women have eve served as their state's governor. Compare that to over 2,300 men.

I wonder if this will be the time the tide turns?

And finally, sticking with politics for the close, NY's 24th congressional district is a mess again, with boatloads of out-of-district money flooding in, like always. The incumbent John Katko is running snotty TV and radio ads during the lunch hour and the dinner hour, daily -- and we've got almost two months until the general election? I don't know about you, but I'm wondering of what he's afraid?

Thank You, NY Politicians (Not)

This could have been one of those posts highlighting the excellent cooperation between state and federal elected officials, except that this is an election year, the interested parties are in opposite parties, and they're more interested in making political hay than they are in solving problems.

A few years ago, New York's Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo (D - looking at DC) and some of his minions involved in tourism here came up with the idea of adding signage on the NYS Thruway, which happens to be part of the federal interstate highway system. Before the signs were ever installed, the Gov and his team were advised by the feds that the signs were not compliant and would cause a distraction to drivers. Not one on par with, say, cell phones, 6- or 8-inch touch screen control pods, 214 cup holders, GPS systems, screaming children, or even men who refuse to ask for directions and the people who love them - but a distraction nonetheless.

And speaking of nonetheless, the NYS team decided to go ahead and ignore the feds, and put up some 500 signs, usually in sets of three or four, across the state. The NY folks say the signs have been effective in increasing tourism spending, and of course we all know that arguing with the government about the benefits of a pet project is really an exercise in futility, so I won't bother with that.

I will say that I think the signs are kind of dumb. They mean to advertise different things (history, parks, food, and so on), but they all point to the main tourism website; they don't do a whole lot to get people to exit specifically to see something that's nearby; and they're small, so you've got to really be paying attention to figure them out (hence the distraction part.) I mean, a billboard could have accomplished the same thing, with less fuss from the feds, but what do I know?

After the signs were installed, at a cost of $5M or so, and after some warnings, the feds said they had to come down. And if they didn't come down, the state would lose $14M in federal highway funds this year. If they stayed up past the September 30, 2018 deadline, future funds would also be at risk. And, reluctantly, NY agreed to take them down. But wait -- this is NY, after all, and we have the Sonofa Gov--we're not taking them down because we were told to, we're taking them down because this particular tourism campaign is over. So there!

But wait again! We agree to take them down, said NY, but we want to  put up new ones, and we want the feds to tell us what's compliant, and that's gonna take a while, and so we'll miss the deadline but we don't want the fine because we want to play nice in the sandbox and stuff.  And that's exactly the segue we need to the final part of this sad tale of our tax dollars at work.

Several folks in the NY Congressional delegation are Republicans, including John Katko (who was sent to represent me), Claudia Tenney, Elise Stefanik, Tom Reed, John Faso and Chris Collins. And, remember, this is an election year and they're all up for re-election, as is Cuomo. So, with around $14M in highway funds at risk, what's a gaggle of representatives to do? Fire off a nastygram to the governor, the titular head of the other party for their state, of course.

Here's the gist of their message:

• You're facing a $14M penalty; 
• a bunch of acronyms are in the mix, at both the state and federal level;
• you've known for two years that your cutesy little signs are dangerous and illegal;
• you were warned back in February; and
• you could be hurting the state if you don't stop messing around.

And then, a question:

As we are nearing the end of the federal fiscal year and the September 30 deadline, what steps have been undertaken by your Administration to prevent the permanent loss of these critical funds? Are both NYSDOT and NYSTA working with FHWA towards a resolution?

And then - without even giving the Gov a chance to answer - this:

We urge you to direct NYSDOT and NYSTA to follow the law and not jeopardize the loss of badly needed federal funds for our highway and bridge repair programs. 

Oh, for Pete's sake.

Of course Cuomo was wrong to order the signs put up; of course he was wrong not to listen to the repeated warnings that they were out of compliance, and of course he shouldn't have promised to take them down if he wasn't actually going to do just that.

But these six goofballs, chests all puffed out and ready for thumping, over a pile of money that'll barely pave 15 miles of road? No offer of helping with the negotiations, which they must know about; no offer of trying to get the feds to back off on the distracted driving issue (I'd maintain listening to the president on the radio would be significantly more dangerous, but maybe that's just me); and no mention of leveraging this state/federal cooperation to try and get us more desperately needed infrastructure funding?

Gee, thanks.

Quick Takes(v27): When Ivanka Came to Town

Quick Takes

The president's daughter made a stop in Syracuse yesterday, participating in a closed roundtable discussion with our congressman John Katko (NY-24), school district officials, educators and students who participated in the Syracuse City School District's P-Tech program at the Institute of Technology.

For those who are not familiar with P-Tech, students who complete the five-to-six year program end up with a high school diploma, a college degree and job training. Here's some info from the SCSD's website.

Students engage in a wide variety of real-world work experience including visits from industry experts, internships, shadow days, coaching and mentoring, part-time employment...

Students complete a rigorous curriculum in science, technology and math that enables them to meet all the requirements of a high school Regent's diploma... beyond this, accredited college instructions deliver... a course of study that empower students to earn an AAS degree in mechanical engineering...

Ivanka had a chance to credit her father's administration for driving a need for a well-trained workforce.

Now that tax reform has passed and we have deregulated so many industries, the biggest concern is the lack of a skilled workforce.

She also noted her passion for workforce development, and that

There are so many job opportunities, and many of those job opportunities don't require a four year degree. 

In addition to the tax cuts and deregulation, she pointed out her father's efforts in calling for increased spending for and access to STEM, including a presidential memorandum he issued.

...Trump recognizes the importance of expanding high-quality STEM and computer science education, especially for those in historically underserved groups, to better prepare the American workforce for jobs of the future. This Presidential Memorandum directs Secretary of Education DeVos to place high quality STEM education, particularly computer science, at the forefront of the Department of Education's priorities, and in doing so, establish a goal of devoting at least $200 million per year in grant funds towards this priority and explore administrative actions that will add or increase focus on computer science in existing K-12 schools as well as post-secondary education.

The head of the Manufacturers Association of Central New York (MACNY), Randy Wolken, noted that local businesses are struggling finding people to fill available positions.

We have a crisis right now. We don't have enough workers. 

He referenced a five to ten percent vacancy rate at MACNY member companies, on average, and points to that as why employers need to invest in programs like P-Tech. (MACNY is one of the partners in the SCSD program, along with OCC.)

Funding is a key issue for these programs; at ITC, for example, tuition totals $102,000, with additional costs for books ($28K) and transportation ($18K), much of it coming from competitive grants. And that's to cover one year of the program.

Pushing a $200M in grant funding at the federal level falls way short of what's needed to truly build the 'workforce of the future' - which is why Wolken's statement about employers investing in these programs is critical. It's also worth noting that MACNY has lobbied in the past for state government support to create an apprenticeship program, which I talked about in this post from back in 2016.

With the $500,000, if it's added to the state budget, MACNY could run a central apprenticeship program that would reduce costs and administrative red tape for all local manufacturers. Much of the state money would pay for administrative costs involved in running the program.

At that time, I suggested that MACNY member companies, and of course the local labor unions, need to cough up their own money to fund these programs, as they would be the direct beneficiaries of developing the specifically skilled workforce they lament we're missing.

MACNY got the money for the program, and the group is actively encouraging their members to get moving on apprenticeships, which is a very good thing (even though I still think they should have funded it on their own).

But back to today.

We can surely disagree about Ivanka and what value she might bring to the Administration or the country, and we can surely argue about how we should define  "the biggest concern" resulting from the very generous corporate tax code changes and the massive deregulation we've seen during the Trump administration.

But I don't think there's a ton of disagreement that companies have benefited significantly, as was intended, as was promised. And as so many business owners have been so eager to tell us.

So, now more than ever, the same companies that have benefited so greatly from the permanent changes to the corporate tax code should be heavily investing not just in equipment and such, but in ensuring the viability and availability of our workforce.

Competitive grants are fine -- but $200M is not going to go very far given what employers across the country, their lobbyists, and folks like Ivanka Trump are telling us we're up against. And even if there is other federal and/or state money available for these types of programs, we can't afford to ignore a key source of funds.  Now is the time for the folks who got those great (and can I say again, permanent) tax cuts to step up.

Ivanka thanked everyone who attended the discussion, noting

I've learned a lot. I'll take your suggestions back to Washington with me.

I hope she takes away Randy Wolken's message - that employers need to be on the forefront of these efforts, and that she hears my message - that they need to be there with wide open wallets.

Grains of Salt (v36): JPW for... Whom?

Grains of Salt

Juanita Perez Williams, who lost to Independent Ben Walsh to be mayor of Syracuse, was a late entry into the NY-24 Congressional race to replace Republican John Katko.

Perez Williams (JPW) initially supported SU professor Dana Balter to represent the party, but then entered the race herself, with considerable outside support (and what she just described in a televised debate as something of a groundswell of support from local friends and strangers encouraging her run).

She and Balter have the same positions on just about every issue, so what distinguishes them for voters? Where Balter is building her campaign on her grassroot support as well as the support of all of the party folks in the district, and she's been working on this since last September, meeting voters and listening to them, and she had a ton of signatures,  JPW says she's the one who's most able to beat Katko in November, and our district has national attention and that can only help us. Plus, she's battle-tested.

I've been getting at least a couple mailings a week from her or from her supporting organizations for a while now. They all have the same tone - beating Trump, fighting Trump, supporting a woman's right to choose and Medicare for all - but I don't recall a single one really talking about our district. You know, us?  The people she's fighting to represent in Washington? I mean, shouldn't we be front and center, or at least in the lower left-hand corner? And are abortion and universal health care really the most important issues for us?

The latest campaign piece I received was actually paid for by her committee - Juanita for Congress - which lists a Syracuse street address and a local PO box for donations. Per her website, her priorities are:

• Health care: quality, affordable care; guaranteed access to coverage for all; lower drug prices; protecting the ACA, no 'age tax' in premiums, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, as well as full funding for Planned Parenthood and defending a woman's right to choose.
• Education: full resources for public schools; technical apprenticeships as an alternative to college prep; no funneling tax dollars to private schools; advocating for teachers.
• Jobs and wages: smart infrastructure investments; skills training to help diversify the economy and keep young people close to home; sensible tax policies; wage protections; innovation.
• Environment: passing policies to ensure a vibrant planet for future generations; clean energy initiatives here in CNY to provide meaningful jobs.

However, per the fancy mailing (which speaks in the third person except for the one statement show in the picture below), here's what's important:

And here are the priorities for that mission, as described in the piece:

• Taking Back Congress: Trump distracts/divides; Republicans in DC tried to take our healthcare, gave tax breaks to Wall Street, ended environmental protections. 
• Protecting the Right to Choose: Trump & Washington Rs are waging a war on women;  protect the right to choose; full funding for PP; ending gender discrimination; harsh penalties for sexual harassment.
• Fighting for Medicare for All: affordable healthcare is a right; universal health care is Medicare for All; stopping measures to repeal the ACA.
• Keeping our Families Safe: gun violence must end; common sense gun reform including universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole; keeping assault weapons off the streets and out of schools. 

If you flip the campaign piece over, you'll find a list of her endorsements, none of which are local.  Here's a little about the organizations listed, which are shown at right:

• VoteVets.org, a group with the mission of using public issue campaigns to give a voice to veterans on national security, veterans' care, and other issues affecting those who served and their families. Neither JPW mentions vets.
• Latino Victory: this progressive group seeks to empower Latino voters, develop a pipeline of Latino donors, and develop Latino candidates. JPW does not appear in the list of candidates or any press releases from this organization.
• Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBCPAC): you can find her here, including reference to what she's fighting for. In addition to what's on her own website, we find equal pay for women and citizenship for Dreamers, plus overturning the Trump tax plan.
• Red to Blue, an arm of the DCCC, which aims to turn Republican districts to Democratic districts by arming diverse 'top-tier' candidates with organizational and fundraising support. Here, JPW's bio includes her children, grandchildren, career, and charitable work.
• RWDSU, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store union, part of the UFCW.  The website for this organization is months out of date, listing candidates they had endorsed for 2017, nothing more current, and I don't find a local of this union anywhere near the 24th district.
• Bold Action (BoldPAC), which says is the fastest growing Democratic PAC and is dedicated to increasing diversity in Congressional leadership. It champions progressive candidates. Here, her bio emphasizes her immigrant grandparents and her activist parents who worked with the farm workers movement.

My concern is this: which JPW would I be voting for on Tuesday?  

Wondering on Wednesday (v137)

Well, here we are, a Wednesday again, and we're talking and wondering about immigration, and separation of parents and children, and lots of other things, too.

As you likely have heard, the president used that horrible power, the Executive Order, to attempt to end family separation, the ugly outcome of his administration's ill-thought-out zero tolerance policy of arresting and detaining everyone who tries to cross our southern border illegally, instead of giving them an appearance ticket and letting them go, with their children, to either appear as requested or to run and hide.

Why did the president blink, you wonder?  I'm pretty sure he was looking at the revolt within his own party and his base - heck, even his fixer, Michael Cohen, let him have it on this.

As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart-wrenching. While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips. 

The handwriting was on the wall, and the hand-wringing was going on behind closed doors, and on the Sunday shows, and there was that horrendous press conference in which the DHS secretary seemed blissfully unaware (or else she was 'Hucakbeed') of the position of the DOJ, the Chief of Staff and everyone else in the administration -- so I really think he had no choice except to blink, and use the Executive Order -- something he promised not to do - to do something he said was impossible, not up to him, and not his fault.  And now, everyone has to figure out how to get out the mess into which they got themselves. And that's a whole nother post entirely.

There was a bit of good news for the president, though -- he'll get to meet the Queen in July when he goes to London for a working visit (not a state visit) in July. In case you're wondering how that's going to be received, here's a sample from lawyer/commentator Peter Stefanovic:

In the last 3 days president Trump has backed the caging of children, talked of migrants 'infesting' the country, withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, made repeated lies about crime in Germany and we are honoring him with a visit to Windsor Castle to meet the Queen.

Not so warm and fuzzy, right?  Well, maybe he'll get the adoration he seeks at a rally in Minnesota, who knows.

What else am I wondering about tonight?

Well, on the local front, the battle to see who will go up against Congressman John Katko is coming to a close, with our primary just around the corner. The candidate of the organized Dems is Dana Balter; the candidate of the national Dems is Juanita Perez Williams, notable around here primarily for her loss to Independent Ben Walsh in the race for mayor of Syracuse.

About this race, I wonder how on earth much money the national Dems and their supporting funders are going to invest in this race? I honestly think I get at least two mailings for JPW every 7-10 days.  And they're not convincing me of anything, to be honest - because I don't want Washington anyones picking my candidate, and I want my candidate to represent me, not the people who are pulling the strings.

And, Walsh's predecessor Stephanie Miner has declared her candidacy as an independent, to face either her one-time ally, NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo or Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon on the Democratic ticket, and Dutchess County exec Marc Molinaro on the Republican line, in the race for governor of NY.

What is she thinking? That's something we're all wondering, to be honest. It's late in the game, Cuomo has tens of millions in his account and is moving further to the left with each passing day to counter Nixon, and Miner's tenure as mayor did not really work out as well as anyone had hoped. Her motivation, like Trump's with his about face on the family separation issue, may remain a mystery.

And finally, tonight, something that I've been wondering about for a couple of days now - has ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee ever reported from the Bridge formerly known as the Tappan Zee?

The Update Desk: Talking Racism with my Congressman

Remember the hideous comments the president made about immigrants from certain countries?  You know the ones I'm talking about, so I won't repeat them again.

When that happened, I sent a note to my Congressman asking him to condemn the president's comments, and a few days later he answered me. I shared my comments and his response in this post, which I closed by saying

I'll be responding to his message, clarifying my initial request and suggesting that perhaps a resolution of disgust would be a nice way for him to add another bipartisan accomplishment to his resume, and an excellent way to keep my thoughts in mind. 

That was a couple of weeks ago, and I confess to you that I hadn't responded to him - until today. I struggled with whether it would really be worth it, whether it would make any difference at all, given that his initial response was pretty much a brush off, that the president's words were not what was important, that working to solve our problems is what's important.

I agreed with the latter, certainly, but I couldn't get over the fact that my Congressman thought these words, and the many others that both candidate and president Trump has made, are unimportant. And so, today, I answered him.

While I appreciate your widely-acknowledge bipartisan approach to representing our district - that's the specific reason why I voted for you the second time - your email did not address my request, which was that you forcefully condemn the president's most recent comments. Your response that we "depart from partisan political rhetoric" does not equate to a condemnation...

 ...I'd like to appeal to you as a parent, and ask how you'd address these repeated comments with your children? Would you sit around the dinner table and chalk this up as 'partisan rhetoric' if it came up in conversation?

And how would you address the follow up question, that these comments are coming from the head of YOUR party, making this YOUR partisan rhetoric by association - would you accept it as your own? Or, if you heard members of your own family talking like this, using this type of language, would it be acceptable, or would you address it? 

I strongly believe that as a Republican, you can continue working across the aisle to solve problems AND speak out firmly and very personally about your distaste for his remarks. Failing to do so diminishes your office, and your efforts...

Am I expecting an answer? Not really.  But I can't just sit idly by without trying one more time.

Talking Racism with my Congressman

A while ago, when our eloquent president decided to enhance the immigration discussion by referring to various countries with people-of-color-majorities as shitholes and wondered why we wouldn't want to bring more white immigrants to America, I reached out to John Katko, who represents my NY-24th district in the House.

Katko has made a name for himself as a willing, if not eager proponent of bipartisanship, and he's actually had a number of legislative successes, something that the more recent past representatives of the district were unable to do. He's been successful enough that we actually sent him back for a second term - something, again, that his recent predecessors also were unable to do.

He's also managed to keep himself out of the fray, generally, when it comes to Trump's behavior, his rhetoric, his racist attacks, and his generally rude and insulting demeanor.  Knowing that, I still sent him this message back on January 11th:

Congressman Katko, I'm looking forward to your forceful condemnation of the comments made today by the leader of the Republican party, president Donald Trump. 

I'm sure  you are aware of his comments regarding African nations and Haiti - and the defense issued by the White House that he will "always fight for America."

I'm asking YOU to fight for decent people in New York, and across the country, and issue the strongest possible statement calling the president out as a racist and unfit to serve.

If you're not able to do that, I'm equally interested in hearing why. My vote in the upcoming election hangs in the balance.

Thanks in advance for your personal and detailed response.

I actually received a response; it was what I expected him to say, but not what I wanted him to say. Take a look.

Thank you for contacting me regarding (p)resident Trump's recent comments about immigration. It is good to hear from you.

Our nation was founded by immigrants and continues to thrive culturally and economically due to our acceptance of all nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures. However, our immigration system has been broken for many years. Having served a a federal prosecutor for over 20 years, I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of the rule of law. I believe that we must properly enforce our immigration laws, while working towards common sense immigration reform. I am eager to work with my colleagues to establish effective immigration reform.

You may be aware of recent media reports surrounding president Trump's comments regarding the immigration policies of the United States. While I was not present for the meeting in which the comment was said to have been made, I believe it is imperative that we depart from partisan political rhetoric and I will continue to reach across the aisle to start productive conversations and collaborations. I am committed to working with the president and my colleagues in Congress to pass bipartisan, effective legislation to improve the economy and quality of life of individuals and families in the 24th district.

His letter went on to talk about bills he has cosponsored regarding a pathway to legalized status for those in the DACA program (five year 'conditional status' as long as they're vetted by Homeland Security and either pursuing higher education, serving in the military or authorized to work, after which they can apply for five-year permanent status), and another bill would provide a pathway to legalized status and also deal with border security "using technology, levees and physical barriers", and also add immigration judges and appeals attorneys to reduce the backlog in immigration cases.

I take no issue with Rep. Katko's willingness to participate, to work towards immigration reforms, and to reach across the aisle to do so. Heck, I even agree with him on some of the specifics,  particularly focusing on reducing the backlog in immigration courts - but that was not the question I asked. I also didn't ask him to keep my thoughts in mind if "legislation related to this issue comes before the House for a vote."

Why? Because there is no way that legislation on this issue will come to the floor for a vote unless a member of the House actually puts forth for consideration a statement condemning the president for his vulgar and unnecessary comments.

I also found interesting Katko's reference to "partisan political rhetoric" -- implying that Trump's racist comments are representative of the Republican party's stance on Africa, Haiti and bringing in white people.  That, I have to admit, was an accusation I was not going to make. But, when in Rome...

I'll be responding to his message, clarifying my initial request and suggesting that perhaps a resolution of disgust would be a nice way for him to add another another bipartisan accomplishment to his resume, and an excellent way to keep my thoughts in mind.

Hopefully I'll have more to come on this in the next couple of weeks.