Sunday, February 05, 2006
A Matter of Trust
Note of warning. Opinion ahead.
People ask me why I don't support Sue Kelly as our congressperson. My response is always quite simple.
I don't trust her.
When asked to elaborate, I then go on to explain that I can't trust her to represent the PEOPLE of our district. She has time after time come home to our back yards and meeting halls and said pretty words about accountability, education and equal opportunity, and then she returns to Washington where she gets her marching orders from GOP leadership and quietly votes for her party, not her people.
I was reminded of this cute tarantella this morning when I read this article about the real life ramifications of the ironically named "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act," which Ms. Kelly wholeheartedly embraced...while accepting lots of campaign cash from financial services companies.
It seems the reality of this mess of a piece of legislation is coming home to roost.
And the article goes on to describe how judges and lawyers across the country are appalled at the lack of humanity that is woven into the indecipherable threads of this law.
But this isn't new. The Medicare D legislation is a complete mess of confusion; confusion that can only be seen as a purposeful attempt to frustrate medicare recipients and ultimately enrich the corporate sponsors of the bill; in this case the drug and medical insurance companies. Sue gave this bill a thumbs up as well.
Her recent vote (which was the deciding vote, by the way) to gut programs that benefit students, the elderly and the poor in the name of deficit reduction while she maintains her support for making perminent Bush's tax cuts for corporations and multi-millionaires is, in a word, shameful.
I have recently learned that Rep. Kelly is the only regional congressperson who refuses to go on Alan Chartock's radio program to discuss her votes and positions. This leads me to ask, "What is she afraid of? The truth?"
All this comes together in one word, TRUST. No, I do not TRUST Sue Kelly.
People ask me why I don't support Sue Kelly as our congressperson. My response is always quite simple.
I don't trust her.
When asked to elaborate, I then go on to explain that I can't trust her to represent the PEOPLE of our district. She has time after time come home to our back yards and meeting halls and said pretty words about accountability, education and equal opportunity, and then she returns to Washington where she gets her marching orders from GOP leadership and quietly votes for her party, not her people.
I was reminded of this cute tarantella this morning when I read this article about the real life ramifications of the ironically named "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act," which Ms. Kelly wholeheartedly embraced...while accepting lots of campaign cash from financial services companies.
It seems the reality of this mess of a piece of legislation is coming home to roost.
Alfonso Sosa, a house painter here who made about $20,000 last year, filed for bankruptcy the morning of Dec. 6, hoping to avoid the foreclosure on his family's mobile home scheduled for later that day. Judge Frank Monroe of Austin rejected the case 16 days later — with a bang.
In his ruling, Monroe said the new federal bankruptcy law is full of traps for consumers, calling some of its provisions "inane," "absurd" and incomprehensible to "any rational human being."
He stopped just short of accusing Congress of being bought and paid for, dryly noting, "Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected."
In his ruling, Monroe said the new federal bankruptcy law is full of traps for consumers, calling some of its provisions "inane," "absurd" and incomprehensible to "any rational human being."
He stopped just short of accusing Congress of being bought and paid for, dryly noting, "Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected."
And the article goes on to describe how judges and lawyers across the country are appalled at the lack of humanity that is woven into the indecipherable threads of this law.
But this isn't new. The Medicare D legislation is a complete mess of confusion; confusion that can only be seen as a purposeful attempt to frustrate medicare recipients and ultimately enrich the corporate sponsors of the bill; in this case the drug and medical insurance companies. Sue gave this bill a thumbs up as well.
Her recent vote (which was the deciding vote, by the way) to gut programs that benefit students, the elderly and the poor in the name of deficit reduction while she maintains her support for making perminent Bush's tax cuts for corporations and multi-millionaires is, in a word, shameful.
I have recently learned that Rep. Kelly is the only regional congressperson who refuses to go on Alan Chartock's radio program to discuss her votes and positions. This leads me to ask, "What is she afraid of? The truth?"
All this comes together in one word, TRUST. No, I do not TRUST Sue Kelly.
Comments:
<< Home
I agree - Sue Kelly doesn't support the values of the 19th CD - we need a representative with character.
NYBri,
I hear ya. But I have commented quite often and they do seem to get posted.
I think it time to take off the moderation of comments. You can always delete the trolls, but folks often like to see their comment.
Just sayin...
And OT: Glen Greenwald is going to be on C-Span in the am and will also be live blogging the AG hearing.
I hear ya. But I have commented quite often and they do seem to get posted.
I think it time to take off the moderation of comments. You can always delete the trolls, but folks often like to see their comment.
Just sayin...
And OT: Glen Greenwald is going to be on C-Span in the am and will also be live blogging the AG hearing.
I disagree. That opinion was presented by a partisan judge who gets to publish these pr pieces with no chance for every day folks to rebut. It is then selectively picked up and used in places like this. You speak of the "far right". But why is your "far left" approach better? You complain about partisanship, but you are the ultimate partisan. I am a Republican, but have voted in the past for both Clintons based on ideas. I guarantee the folks on this site consider it mutany to cross party lines. Which I consider as regretful as the Tom Delays in my own party (who by the way got what he deserved).
# posted by 
: 9:26 AM
: 9:26 AM
Sue Kelly is a joke. She's accomplished almost nothing since getting to Congress (aside from a few, low dollar earmarks). BTW, it wasn't just poor people that will pay the price for Sue's vote last week on the DRA. Any middle class parents who had hoped that they could pass something on to their kids pretty much went up in smoke with the DRA. Shielding virtually any assets from being sucked down the toilet of nursing home costs was made just about impossible as a result of changes included in the DRA.
Sadly, Sue doesn't have a problem with doing away with estate taxes that only truly wealthy people pay, but can't bring herself to do anything to protect the assets of middle class folks. So, if your estate is worth tens or hundreds of millions Sue believes you should be able to leave all of it to your kids. But, if your assets are only a few hundred thousand $$ and you end up needing nursing home care you're out of luck...at least as long as people like Sue are in Congress.
Sue loves to have her picture taken with seniors at various events in the Hudson Valley. I wonder how welcome she would be if those seniors really knew what she just did to them???
The Dems need some candidates that are willing to tackle both spending and taxes, willing to defend the country without creating more enemies and willing to address the catastrophic environmental policies of "Dubbya" which our children and grandchildren will have to live with.
Goodby Sue, will hate to see you go...well, not really.
Sadly, Sue doesn't have a problem with doing away with estate taxes that only truly wealthy people pay, but can't bring herself to do anything to protect the assets of middle class folks. So, if your estate is worth tens or hundreds of millions Sue believes you should be able to leave all of it to your kids. But, if your assets are only a few hundred thousand $$ and you end up needing nursing home care you're out of luck...at least as long as people like Sue are in Congress.
Sue loves to have her picture taken with seniors at various events in the Hudson Valley. I wonder how welcome she would be if those seniors really knew what she just did to them???
The Dems need some candidates that are willing to tackle both spending and taxes, willing to defend the country without creating more enemies and willing to address the catastrophic environmental policies of "Dubbya" which our children and grandchildren will have to live with.
Goodby Sue, will hate to see you go...well, not really.
# posted by : 11:15 AM
: 11:15 AM
If Sue had a spine it would be another issue, but the bottom line is, she does what she is told to. She has been a non-player in the Congress and she is there solely for the blind vote she gives to her party's leadership. Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson to her east have no problem acting in the interests of their constituents, part labels be damned. Even Sweeney has acted in a more responsible manner. She's the worst kind of legislator. One without independence and one willing to sell out her constituents in order to please her party bosses.
I would never vote for someone like that.
I would never vote for someone like that.
# posted by : 12:02 PM
: 12:02 PM
And Maurice Hinchey's ranting and ravings have made him a player?
a. he's a nobody in congress,
b. he's as sincere as a snake oil salesman,
c. he's traveled on the dime of more lobbyists than the majority of congress combined (which wasn't mentioned in your earlier post about kelly), and
d. you embrace him. Why?
I'm really in the middle and am begging for some semblance of sober political conversation here. Are you going to knee jerk defend this guy? I will meet you half-way and say "yes" Sue Kelly is more of a photo shot than a congressperson, but why not demand more from all?
a. he's a nobody in congress,
b. he's as sincere as a snake oil salesman,
c. he's traveled on the dime of more lobbyists than the majority of congress combined (which wasn't mentioned in your earlier post about kelly), and
d. you embrace him. Why?
I'm really in the middle and am begging for some semblance of sober political conversation here. Are you going to knee jerk defend this guy? I will meet you half-way and say "yes" Sue Kelly is more of a photo shot than a congressperson, but why not demand more from all?
# posted by : 1:18 PM
: 1:18 PM
Um...how are we embracing Hinchey? Though he has been mentioned in passing on this blog, it would be hard to call it an embrace.
We are focused on Sue Kelly. Not Sweeney. Not Hinchey. If you want to talk about his failings, go start your own blog. It's free.
We are focused on Sue Kelly. Not Sweeney. Not Hinchey. If you want to talk about his failings, go start your own blog. It's free.
We should demand more from all, but here on this space we are demanding more from Sue. Check that- we're demanding more than Sue.
# posted by : 1:35 PM
: 1:35 PM
I think that Take19 has it just about right. The sad fact is that Sue is not someone who can be trusted to do right by her District, or by the people who voted her into office. She is not someone we can be proud of.
Other districts can (some of them at least) really take pride in the quality of their representation in Washington. I'm not a leftie, and I think there are some Republican stars out there. And I don't need to agree all the time with my rep. But it's especially important, if I'm going to disagree, that my rep be someone whose judgment and integrity I respect, so I can live with my disagreement, or reconsider it.
I've been looking, and I can't find any evidence that Sue has either judgment or integrity. I don't think she stands for anything except being a party hack, and there's just too much important stuff to be done for us to afford filling our government with hacks.
In the past I've voted both ways, but for Congress, at least, I want someone who'll stand up for us, exercise some independent judgment, and stay grounded in reality instead of ideology.
This year Sue won't get my vote.
Other districts can (some of them at least) really take pride in the quality of their representation in Washington. I'm not a leftie, and I think there are some Republican stars out there. And I don't need to agree all the time with my rep. But it's especially important, if I'm going to disagree, that my rep be someone whose judgment and integrity I respect, so I can live with my disagreement, or reconsider it.
I've been looking, and I can't find any evidence that Sue has either judgment or integrity. I don't think she stands for anything except being a party hack, and there's just too much important stuff to be done for us to afford filling our government with hacks.
In the past I've voted both ways, but for Congress, at least, I want someone who'll stand up for us, exercise some independent judgment, and stay grounded in reality instead of ideology.
This year Sue won't get my vote.
# posted by : 5:00 PM
: 5:00 PM
Anon:
re: the partisan judge.
The article quoted other judges and laywers who affirmed the inhumanity of the bill. I don't think anyone is arguing who the bill benefits...even the Republicans who shoved it through...with the help of some Dems, I might add, acknowledge it's there to help out the banking industry...but the fact that it's a bill supported by a few Dems and almost all the Reps, doesn't mean it's not an awful bill.
And the judge talked about some of the provisions that made absolutely no sense...not liberal or conservative sense...just no sense...like the medicare bill, which I've been forced to try to understand becasue my Rep. parents can't understand it and have asked for my help. I"ve read it and it makes the tax code look like the ABCs.
re: the partisan judge.
The article quoted other judges and laywers who affirmed the inhumanity of the bill. I don't think anyone is arguing who the bill benefits...even the Republicans who shoved it through...with the help of some Dems, I might add, acknowledge it's there to help out the banking industry...but the fact that it's a bill supported by a few Dems and almost all the Reps, doesn't mean it's not an awful bill.
And the judge talked about some of the provisions that made absolutely no sense...not liberal or conservative sense...just no sense...like the medicare bill, which I've been forced to try to understand becasue my Rep. parents can't understand it and have asked for my help. I"ve read it and it makes the tax code look like the ABCs.
Posters,
Please sign in with blogger and post under a name and not anon...it shows just a bit of accountability and consideration.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
Please sign in with blogger and post under a name and not anon...it shows just a bit of accountability and consideration.
Thanks.
<< Home
