[update-- this just in from Town of Clinton Democratic Committee Chair Alyssa Kogon-- they've also endorsed my campaign for Congress here in NY's 20th c.d.!]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Recall this recently from former Co. Leg. Bill McCabe (wmc1226@optonline.net)...
[looking for endorsements from Dem committees across 20th c.d.-- let us know if we can come visit y'all!]
"At its regular monthly meeting in February the Union Vale Democratic Committee officially endorsed Joel Tyner in his campaign to become our next representative in the US Congress for the 20th Congressional District. Committee member Bill McCabe describes Joel Tyner as tireless in his advocacy of Democratic principles. Joel's positions on the environment (against hydrofracking), the economy (a just tax policy that requires a fairer contribution from the top 2%), and government reform (independent re-districting panels) make him an ideal candidate to give voice to the issues of greatest concern to citizens of all parties in the Hudson Valley. Joel has been courageous as a Dutchess County Legislator, and he would do the same as our Representative in Washington, DC."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[this below posted online last Fri. to Post Star (daily paper for Saratoga, Warren, Washington counties); thx again tons to Vane Lashua of Mid-Hudson Progressive Alliance for helping to make this happen!]
Folk singer endorses Democratic challenger to Rep. Gibson
MAURY THOMPSON -- thompson@poststar.com
The Post-Star | Posted: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:54 pm
http://poststar.com/news/local/folk-singer-endorses-democratic-challenger-to-rep-gibson/article_c72d5418-59cb-11e1-9c46-001871e3ce6c.html
He may not have much money in his campaign fund, but Democratic congressional candidate Joel Tyner has an asset equally important to getting elected, said legendary folk singer Pete Seeger.
"He's got persistence, and as Calvin Coolidge said, 'Persistence is the one thing you need in this world because genius won't do it,' " Seeger said in a telephone interview on Friday, confirming his endorsement of Tyner's candidacy.
Seeger said he has known Tyner, a political activist, for about 10 or 20 years.
[JT note-- I've known Pete since '81(!)...(stayed at his house then, took care of boat-- "Woody Guthrie"]
Tyner, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge U.S. Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, in November, announced Seeger's endorsement in a press release earlier on Friday..
"The world is full of geniuses who have failed, but if you have persistence, sooner or later you're going to make it. And Joel does have that, and he also is a very sensible guy and will do a lot of good things," Seeger said.
"On the other hand, you know what (Democratic presidential candidate) Adlai Stevenson said when somebody in 1952 said, 'Mr. Stevenson, all the intelligent people in the country are on your side,' " Seeger asked, going on to answer his own question. "And Stevenson said, 'I don't need all the intelligent people. I need a majority.' "
Tyner, a political activist and substitute school teacher, is serving his fifth term on the Dutchess County Legislature, a government board equivalent to boards of supervisors in other counties.
Prior to getting elected, he ran five unsuccessful political campaigns - two for the county legislature and three for the state Legislature.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See http://www.JoelforCongress.org -- besides Pete Seeger, others endorsing my campaign for Congress are Fran Knapp, Cornel West, Josh Fox, Troy Area Labor Council President Mike Keenan, PEF/DEC anti-fracking engineer Wayne Bayer, 220 others: join us: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Joel !
Momentum building; send $ you can: Joel for Congress, 324 Browns Pond Rd., Staatsburg, NY 12580;
note, too-- need house parties all over the 20th c.d.-- let us know asap if you might be able to host one...
[I'm a proven winner folks-- just got elected to a fifth straight term in our County Legislature here in Dutchess to represent Rhinebeck & Clinton-- two towns that have long had GOP town supervisors.]
So-- who out there's ready to hit ground running starting Mar. 20th-- to help me get 2500 signatures?...
[recall this from front page of last Wednesday's Poughkeepsie Journal]
"U.S. District Court Judge Dora Irizarry late Monday noted that the period for congressional candidates to collect petitions begins March 20, but the legislative redistricting task force has yet to release any draft federal maps."
["Federal court intervenes in redistricting: Judge calls upon panel to find 'special master' to redraw lines"
by Jon Campbell
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20120215/NEWS/302150032/Federal-court-intervenes-state-s-redistricting ]
Again-- 1250 petition signatures is bare minimum; need to get at least 2500 to be safe-- need your help!
[ http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/ELN/6/6-136 ]
Seniors vote; Kathy Hochul wasn't supposed to win last May in 26th c.d.; she won harping on Medicare; that's a big point I've been making over last eight months I've been campaigning; how we can win back the 20th cd (see http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/truth-re-gibson-anti-senior-anti.html ).
So again-- if you're just as upset as I am that it's not just Republicans in Washington-- but also too many Democrats-- that don't seem to be really speaking up against the rush to war with Iran...aren't speaking up against fracking...aren't speaking up against Wall Street (to break up big banks, tax Wall Street speculation, and truly investigate those behind destruction of our economy), aren't speaking up against indefinite detention...aren't speaking up against bipartisan attack on Medicare/Medicaid, aren't speaking up for a truly sizable public works/infrastructure jobs program, aren't speaking up for Medicare for all, aren't speaking up to amend our Constitution to make it clear corporations aren't people, aren't speaking up Fair Elections Now legislation (federal version of Clean Money Clean Elections campaign finance reform), aren't speaking up for fair trade (to get us out of job-killing NAFTA/GATT/WTO), aren't speaking up for our troops to come home NOW from Afghanistan, aren't speaking out against tar sands pipeline, aren't speaking up for our Constitutional freedoms-- and aren't speaking up for Bradley Manning-- and aren't speaking up for voting integrity (
[...and let's not forget about the crucial issue of voting integrity-- no to computerized voting machines!...]
[$4 trillion in proposed cuts too; see: http://www.jackrasmus.com/2011/09/18/the-4-trillion-income-shift/ ]
Well-- if you're as upset as I am about far too much of a bipartisan sell-out on all of the issues above...
[except for folks like Maurice Hinchey-- my hero for decades-- help send another progressive to D.C.]
And wondering what you can do about it-- make a commitment to gather signatures starting Mar. 20th!
Pass it on-- LET'S DO THIS!...
Joel
845-444-0599/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
http://www.JoelforCongress.org
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Joel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[again-- letters to editor needed NOW on these facts below-- to be put into newspapers across 20th c.d.]
Fact: I refuse to accept any campaign donations whatsoever from Wall Street or the insurance industry-- and will fight in Congress to stop any cuts to Medicare or Social Security.
Fact: Chris Gibson has raked in over $122,000 over just the last two years alone from securities and investment firms on Wall Street and over $46,000 from the insurance industry as well over same time.
[ http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/1461-chris-gibson ]
Fact: The Wall Street Journal reported April 4th last year that the Gibson/Cantor/Boehner "Cut, Cap, and Kill" legislation would "essentially end Medicare", eliminating 700,000 jobs; Gibson staff lie re: this.
[ http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/08/truth-re-gibson-anti-senior-anti.html ]
Fact: Gibson voted Nov.: so-called "Balanced Budget Amendment": Social Security/Medicare cuts.
[ http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/11/hinchey-tonko-owens-right-gibson-wrong.html ]
Fact: "In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington."
[from "Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable" by Sarah van Gelder (Jan. 20th):
http://www.YesMagazine.org/blogs/sarah-van-gelder/corporate-rule-is-not-inevitable ]
Fact: 81% of Americans support taxing millionaires/billionaires more: solve federal budget woes.
[ http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7333/what_americans_want_the_peoples_budget ]
Fact: 78% of Americans support protecting Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from any cuts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-americans-oppose-entitlement-cuts-to-deal-with-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html
Fact: 59% of Americans support expanding Medicare to cover us all-- to save $400 billion a year.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/ ; PNHP.org
Fact: 80% of Americans support amending Constitution to make it clear-- corporations aren't people.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html ; http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/node/75
Fact: 67% of Americans support $10/hour minimum wage to put money in pockets of working class.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/americans-minimum-wage-poll_n_752921.html
Fact: 53% of Americans support full federal funding for Planned Parenthood & reproductive justice.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/15708
Fact: More New Yorkers support protecting drinking water with statewide ban on fracking than not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/new-york-gas-drilling-rul_n_900011.html
Fact: 54% of Americans support full funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-- not cuts.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/harris-poll-epa-budget/ ]
Fact: 79% of New Yorkers support Clean Money Clean Elections-- real campaign finance reform.
http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/28/poll-says-3-of-4-new-yorkers-support-publicly-financed-elections/
Fact: 59% of Americans support our troops coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq now without delay.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/11/afghanistan-get-out-59-percent/
Fact: Gibson voted with House majority in Sept. to allocate only half the FEMA funding Senate did.
[ http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/hincheytonko-right-re-fema-shame-on.html ]
Fact: Gibson voted for Ryan budget Apr. 15th against the disAbled-- by cutting Medicaid by 35%.
[ http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/gibson-forcing-people-with-disabilities.html ]
Fact: Gibson voted this winter for REINS-- jeopardizing food safety and Dodd-Frank provisions.
[ http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/another-bad-gibson-vote-this-week-for.html ]
Fact: Gibson's signing on to Grover Norquist's "no new tax" pledge means Congressman 1% will continue ignoring an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in March finding that 81% of Americans support taxing millionaires to solve federal budget problems-- not putting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on chopping block (send me to Washington-- I'll be an even louder voice telling both GOP and Dems to save all 3 of these from cuts; see just below-- new United for a Fair Economy update on this.
[recall-- infamous Town Hall forum Gibson hosted in August in Millerton-- folks are upset(!)...I was there]
[ http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7333/what_americans_want_the_peoples_budget ;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/invoke-the-14th--and-end-the-debt-standoff/2011/07/01/gHQAUif8yH_story.html ; http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ILikeIke ;
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/26/305451/citizen-slams-gop-rep-over-anti-tax-pledge-we-are-your-consituents-not-grover-norquist/ ]
Fact: Gibson refuses to support Obama's American Jobs Act-- and he also refuses to support Rep. Jan Schakowsky's even better "Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act", which would create 2.2 million jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and hiring in our schools, hospitals, child care centers, parks, police officers, firefighters, weatherization, and recycling-- by raising taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion, by eliminating subsidies for big oil companies, and by closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.
[see: http://www.AmericanJobsAct.com ; recall my http://www.PetitionOnline.com/JobsNow effort]
Fact: Gibson voted last fall to kill more American jobs by extending so-called "free-trade" agreements to Korea, Panama, and Colombia-- though we've already lost 5 million jobs from NAFTA.
[ http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/83832/tonko-gibson-at-odds-on-trade-agreements/ ;
http://www.americanjobsalliance.com/content/new-free-trade-pacts-will-hurt-middle-class ]
Fact: Gibson voted last February to eliminate $300 million in Title X Planned Parenthood funding-- even though "Title X funding can only be used for family planning services including birth control, life saving cervical and breast cancer screenings, HIV counseling and testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and education. The funding cannot and is not used to provide abortion services. Under the proposal, 48 percent of Planned Parenthood patients nationwide would be cut off from their source of health care for these essential services. Ninety-seven percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are preventive, most of which are women's gynecology services."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/representatives-gibson-hayworth-vote-block-funds-planned-parenthood-would-cut-health-care-milli-36335.htm
Fact: Gibson voted last fall for HR 358-- legislation that "would allow a hospital to deny a woman lifesaving emergency abortion care-even if a doctor deems it necessary. It would also take comprehensive health care coverage away from women and create loopholes that states and insurance companies could exploit to undermine the new requirement that insurance companies provide birth control with no co-pays or deductibles."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/rep-gibson-votes-deny-lifesaving-emergency-health-care-women-38215.htm
Fact: Gibson's allegiance to Grover Norquist jeopardizes national support for farmland protection.
As Rhinebeck resident and Scenic Hudson Senior Vice President Steve Rosenberg noted recently on WAMC, it's crucial that even the small amount of federal funding for farmland protection ($100 million) now in the the farm bill about to be re-authorized be maintained-- the fact is this becomes more and more impossible with Norquist acolytes like Gibson in office who reject progressive taxation.
[ http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/stop-polluters/pollution-enforcement/outlining-vision/ ]
Fact: Gibson refuses to push for a wide variety of common-sense progressive initiatives that have broad populist support, as evidenced repeatedly by many polls-- a statewide ban on fracking (and immediate national moratorium), a liveable minimum wage, Medicare for all, Clean Money Clean Elections campaign finance reform, amending the Constitution to make it clear corporations aren't people, taxing Wall Street, breaking up the big banks, bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act, ending the speculation driving gas/oil prices up through the roof, bringing our troops now from Afghanistan, Iraq, and all over the globe to save $125 billion a year for taxpayers (and redirect $ home to our needs)-- and he refuses to lift a finger to join Sen. Bernie Sanders in seriously challenging the $16 TRILLION the Federal Reserve recently lent out to practically every major financial institution and corporation around.
[ http://www.AMillionFrackingLetters.com ; http://www.FrackAction.com ; http://www.ToxicsTargeting.com
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/node/75 ; http://www.PetitionOnline.com/FDRagain ;
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/11/afghanistan-get-out-59-percent ]
Fact: Rep. Chris Gibson voted Dec. 14th for the atrocious indefinite detention NDAA bill ("The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012-- (House Vote 932 - H.R.1540: On Agreeing to the Conference Report").
[see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/12/fact-gibson-voted-for-indefinite.html ;
http://www.politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/932 ]
Fact: Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Paul Tonko, and 91 other Democratic (and principled) members of the House of Representatives voted Dec. 14th against the indefinite detention NDAA legislation.
[see: http://www.votesmart.org/bill/14203/37472/ ]
Fact: It wasn't just 93 Democrats in the House who voted against the indefinite detention NDAA bill; the truth is also that literally 43 GOP members of the House of Representatives (but not Chris Gibson) voted Dec. 14th against indefinite detention NDAA legislation-- all the following GOP (not Chris Gibson tho):
Republicans Justin Amah (MI-3), Larry Buchshon (IN-8), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Dan Burton (IN-5), John Campbell (CA-48), Jason Chaffetz (VT-3), Mike Coffman (CO-6), Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Jeffrey Duncan (SC-3), John Duncan, Jr. (TN-2), Jeff Flake (AZ-6), J. Randy Forbes (VA-4), Scott Garrett (NJ-5), Robert Goodlatte (VA-6), Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Trey Gowdy (SC-4), Tom Graves (GA-9), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Andy Harris (MD-1), Robert Hurt (VA-5), Tim Johnson (IL-15), Walter Jones (NC-3), Paul Labrador (ID-1), Cynthia Lumnis (WY-1), Connie Mack (FL-14), Tom McClintock (CA-4), Mick Mulvaney (SC-5), Mike Pence (IN-6), Bill Posey (FL-15), Reid Ribble (WI-8), Phil Roe (TN-1), Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46), Todd Rokita (IN-4), Ed Royce (CA-40), David Schweikert (AZ-5), Mike Simpson (ID-2), Marlin Stutzman (IN-3), Scott Tipton (CO-3), Tim Walberg (MI-7), Joe Walsh (IL-8), and Rob Woodall (GA-7)!
[see: http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/9593 ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
This-- from http://www.DCCC.org/races/district/new_yorks_20th ...
[more info here from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]
House Republicans voted for a radical budget that ends Medicare rather than ending taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil or tax breaks for the ultra rich. Republicans' [Chris Gibson's] plan would be devastating to seniors in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare:
* Increase prescription drug costs for 11,200 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who would be caught in the "donut hole."
* Eliminate new preventative care benefits for 117,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.
Republicans' [Chris Gibson's] radical plan to end Medicare would also affect those 54 or younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare:
* Deny 480,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare's guaranteed benefits.
* Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 125,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/the-damage-from-republicans-of-2011.html ...
This NYTimes editorial from Dec. 31st:
The Damage of 2011
Published: December 30, 2011
After they took power in January, the hard-line Republicans who dominate the House reached for a radical overhaul of American government, hoping to unravel the social safety net, cut taxes further for the wealthy and strip away regulation of business. Fortunately, thanks to defensive tactics by Democrats, they failed to achieve most of their agenda.
But they still did significant damage in 2011 to many of the most important functions of government, and particularly to investments in education, training and transportation that the country will need for a sound economic recovery.
With a threatened government shutdown in April, the Republicans pushed through spending cuts of about $25 billion over a decade. Then, in August, the agreement to raise the debt ceiling - an unnecessary crisis created by the Republicans - cut nearly $2 trillion through 2021 with strict spending caps, a move that will hurt hundreds of programs serving millions of Americans for a full decade and longer.
Given the level of extortion they faced, the White House budget office and Congressional Democrats negotiated relatively well. They prevented Republicans from touching Medicare recipients, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs. (President Obama did offer to cut entitlement spending in exchange for higher tax revenues, but Republicans refused that deal.) They arranged for more than $500 billion in cuts to come from defense spending. And they did not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts, now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.
But that still leaves major reductions in the vital category known as nondefense discretionary spending, which faces cuts of around $800 billion over a decade. That category includes education, housing assistance, transportation, public health, veterans benefits, law enforcement and courts, environmental protection and many other crucial programs.
This spending category has been the main focus of Republican pressure for decades. In the 1970s, nondefense discretionary spending represented about 5 percent of the gross domestic product; that is now down to about 2.5 percent. Over the next decade, once the new cuts go into effect, it will decline to less than 2 percent. This year's spending bill, signed into law a few days ago, is roughly 10 percent lower than last year's, cutting Pell grants, environmental programs and aid to desperate states. Low-income heating assistance was cut by 25 percent.
As the economist Jared Bernstein has noted, this is the category of spending that helps people move up the income ladder, providing nutritious food, improving early education and job training and putting people to work.
The precise cuts on individual programs will be determined each year by appropriators acting under the new caps. Each year's cuts will be more painful than the last because the spending limits fail to keep pace with population growth, inflation and the needs of the economy.
This situation is the result of the Republicans' success at shifting Washington's focus from job creation and revenue increases to deficit reduction, at exactly the wrong time, when the economy was too weak to handle it.
The long-term deficit needs to be reduced once economic growth has returned, but only in the context of higher taxes for the rich...Even if the Bush tax cuts expire on time, much of the $3.8 trillion that that would bring in over a decade would have to be used for deficit reduction if the caps stay in place.
All of this leaves President Obama and the Democrats with much work to do in 2012. When the 2013 budget process begins in a few weeks, they will need to protect vital investments from further cuts and start building the case for raising the spending caps.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As Sen. Bernie Sanders noted last June 28th in a 90-minute speech on the Senate floor...
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=aa0f5904-c400-415e-aaff-86ca62fa2b3b
"The Republican budget passed by the House this year would end Medicare as we know it within 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the Ryan proposal, in 2022, a private health care plan for a 65-year-old equivalent to Medicare coverage would cost about $20,500. Yet the Republican budget would provide a voucher for only $8,000 of those premiums. Seniors would be on their own to pay the remaining $12,500, a full 61 percent of the total. Now, how many of the 20 million near elderly Americans who are now ages 50 to 54 will be able to afford that?
So let's review what we have. Let's say when a person becomes 65 in 10 years and they are earning or living on $15,000 in Social Security, they are going to be asked to pay $12,500 more for health care than is currently the case. How do they do that? What kind of health care plan are they going to buy when they are old and sick and are given an $8,000 voucher? How many days in the hospital will they be able to have? You can run up an $8,000 bill in 1 day, in 2 days. So this ending of Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to somehow come up with all kinds of money that in many cases they don't have, will be a disaster for tens of millions of people.
The Republican budget would also force 4 million seniors in this country to pay $3,500 more on average for their prescription drugs by reopening the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. That goes into effect as soon as that bill would be passed, if it were to be passed.
Under the Republican budget, nearly 2 million children would lose their health insurance over the next 5 years by cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program according, again, to the Congressional Budget Office. At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, the Republican budget would cut Medicaid by over $770 billion, causing millions and millions of Americans to lose their health insurance, and it would cut nursing home assistance in half.
Right now, Medicaid pays the lion's share of nursing home care. If we make savage cuts in Medicaid, what happens to the elderly who are in nursing homes and what happens to their children in terms of trying to provide the help their parents desperately need?
Republicans in Washington have never believed in Medicaid or in Medicare or in Federal assistance in education or providing any direct government assistance to those in need. They have always believed tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful would somehow miraculously trickle down to every American despite all history and all evidence to the contrary. So in that sense it is not strange at all that they would use the deficit crisis we are now in as an opportunity for an ideological attack against some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
That is exactly what the Ryan Republican budget, passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year and supported by the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate just last month, is all about."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As a good friend of mine who's been a noted statewide/national heathcare activist/expert/advocate here in NYS for decades recently shared this with us on this-- "Unfortunately the big New York City hospitals who spent big bucks to send out a mailing glossing over Gibson's effort to kill Medicare are playing politics with our health care and have made it clear they care only about their own narrow special interests. Sadly, they have cozied up to a Congressman who voted to destroy Medicare and Medicaid in order to protect their little piece of the pie..."
Here below-- seven must-read's Gibson's wealthy buddies are spending beaucoup bucks to gloss over:
[yes, folks-- Gibson voted for Ryan budget-- http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/277
http://www.dccc.org/races/district/new_yorks_20th ; also see: http://www.NCPSSM.org/ !]
1. Gibson Votes for 'Cut, Cap and Balance' [Kill]; Dems Don't" by Jimmy Vielkind (AT-Union 7/20/11)
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/75496/gibson-votes-for-cut-cap-and-balance-dems-dont/
2. "Gibson Votes To Kill Medicare-- Again" (6/2/11)
http://rensscopolitico.blogspot.com/2011/06/gibson-votes-to-kill-medicare-again.html
3. "NY-20: Gibson Lies About Medicare Vouchers" by Devtob (4/15/11)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/15/967406/-NY-20:-Gibson-lies-about-Medicare-vouchers
4. July 16th CBPP/Greenstein Statement re: GOP/Gibson "Cut, Cap, Kill Medicare" Legislation
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3537
5. "AARP Launches Second Ad To Fight GOP [Gibson] Medicare Plan" by Michael McAuliff (6/16/11)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/aarp-second-ad-republican-medicare_n_877944.html
6. NCPSSM: Leading Seniors' Organization Reacts to Senate Defeat Of GOP/Ryan Budget Plan (5/25/11)
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/senate_defeat_ryan/
7. NCPSSM: "Debt "Super Committee" Not Looking So Super for America's Seniors and the Middle-Class"
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/supercommittee_selection_release/ (8/11/11)
Also-- as Paul Krugman reminded us in his column last August 24th:
"Raising the Medicare age would make America as a whole poorer...treatment of some conditions would be delayed and impose higher costs when people finally do get on Medicare), it would push people into higher-cost private coverage. Austin Frakt estimates $2 of private costs for every dollar of budget savings."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/the-strange-power-of-really-bad-ideas-medicare-edition/
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/07/paul-krugman-messing-with-medicare.html ;
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/06/paul-krugman-medicare-saves-money.html ;
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/05/paul-krugman-medicare-and-mediscares.html
And-- don't forget-- it's not just the folks in Kathy Hochul's 26th c.d.-- Americans SUPPORT senior care!...
[yes, you better believe the seniors here in the 20th are just like the seniors in the 26th c.d.-- ticked off]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/75496/gibson-votes-for-cut-cap-and-balance-dems-dont/
Gibson votes for 'cut, cap and balance'; Dems don't
Posted on July 20, 2011 at 8:32 am by Jimmy Vielkind, Capitol bureau in Bill Owens, Chris Gibson, NY-20, NY-21, NY-23
Rep. Chris Gibson, a Kinderhook Republican, voted for a House GOP "cap, cut and balance" plan intended to signal the chamber's focus on spending cuts. Leaders are negotiating a plan that will raise the federal debt ceiling as it reduces the project deficit - House Republicans say they want to do that with pure cuts, while Democrats are pushing for taxes and other revenue items as part of a package.
This plan would impose spending caps as a percentage of GDP and would require a balanced budget amendment. Gibson signaled this vote two weeks ago. Yhe House bill passed 234-190. It's not expected to pass the Senate.
Two local Democrats, Reps. Paul Tonko and Bill Owens, voted against the plan. Here's a statement from Tonko, D-Amsterdam:
"The Republican Majority in the House continues to work against the will of the American people. While my constituents ask for us to create jobs, the Republicans today voted for their 'Cut, Cap, and End Medicare Plan" that will instead destroy 700,000 jobs, slash education, and bring an end to Medicare. Creating new jobs is the best way we can drive down the deficit. Instead of looking out for the middle class and our seniors, Republicans are telling Americans that Big Oil and millionaires and billionaires do not have to sacrifice and pay their fair share. Republicans are essentially saying they'd rather ask for sacrifices from the middle class than eliminate tax breaks for their friends with deep pockets."
And Owens, D-Plattsburgh:
"I voted against this legislation because, not only does it include the Ryan budget proposal which would cripple Medicare and Social Security, but it caps spending at a specific percentage that does not take into account the cost of war or the management of the current economic crisis. This plan is dangerous for Fort Drum, the nation's security, and local job creators. It is does not reflect Upstate New York values.
"Most leading economists - as well as the general public - believe Congress must craft a plan that includes spending cuts and revenue increases in the ongoing debt limit debate. For months, I have called for this type of compromise that will protect programs important to Upstate New York, and I will continue to do so until it is done."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://rensscopolitico.blogspot.com/2011/06/gibson-votes-to-kill-medicare-again.html ...
RenssCoPolitico
Your blogsource for all things political in Rensselaer County.
THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011
Gibson votes to kill Medicare - AGAIN
Isn't it just like a Republican to double down on failure? Faced with the loss of NY 26 and overwhelming poll numbers showing how much the American people hate the Ryan Budget and its Medicare-killing provisions, Chris Gibson cast a second vote to kill Medicare and raise health care costs for New York seniors.
But while Gibson is doubling down on the House Republican plan to end Medicare, he is still refusing to end taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil or tax breaks for millionaires. In a procedural move, Gibson voted to accept the House Republicans' controversial budget which includes the Republican plan to end Medicare. Gibson's plan is for millionaires to get a $100,000 tax break and seniors to get a $6,400 medical bill.
The move Gibson used to signal his unwavering support for big oil and millionaires and "let them eat cake" attitude toward the rest of us, was his support of a "deeming resolution" in H. Res. 287 which states "the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 34 [Š] shall have force and effect [Š] in the House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution". [H. Res. 287, Vote #382, 6/1/11]
The result: millionaires get more than a $100,000 tax cut in GOP Budget, while seniors get a $6,400 medical bill. [Tax Policy Center via Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/20/11, 4/07/11]
Gibson voted to end Medicare by supporting the Republican budget. [H Con. Res. 34, Vote #277, 4/15/11]; opposed a measure that could have cut taxpayer subsidies to big oil when he voted to bypass consideration of the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2011 (H.R. 1689) which would repeal key taxpayer funded subsidies for oil and gas companies. As reported by The Hill newspaper, "House Democrats intend to force a vote on a measure that would eliminate a key oil industry tax break when Republicans bring a bill to expand domestic oil and-gas drilling to the floor Thursday." [H Res 245, Vote #293, 5/05/11; The Hill, 5/04/11; CBS News, 5/04/11]
But it is not just us saying Gibson wants to kill Medicare. Read what others are saying:
* Wall Street Journal: The House Republican Budget for 2012 Would "Essentially End Medicare." "The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills." [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11
* Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: Individuals Would Not Be Able to Enroll in Current Medicare Program. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the Republican budget ends Medicare: "Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare in 2022 and later years would not be able to enroll in the current Medicare program. Instead, they would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan through a newly established Medicare exchange." [CRS Report, 4/13/11]
* NCPSSM: GOP Budget Plan Destroys Medicare and Cuts Social Security Benefits. Max Richtman, executive vice-president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the Republican budget would destroy Medicare: "Over time, this will destroy the only health insurance program available to 47 million Americans." [NCPSSM press release, 4/5/11]
Sadly, his supporters in NY 20 just don't get the implication, preferring to keep their heads buried in the sand, thinking Gibson is doing the right thing for his constituents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3537 ...
CBPP Statement: Updated July 16, 2011
For Immediate Release
Greenstein Statement on the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" That the House Will Consider on July 19
Robert Greenstein
The "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" that the House of Representatives will vote on next week stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist's version of America into law.
* The plan would lock in cuts over the next ten years at least as severe as those in the Ryan budget plan that the House passed in April, by writing spending caps into law at the year-by-year levels of spending (as a share of GDP) the Ryan budget contains.
* It also would hold the increase in the debt limit needed by August 2 hostage to approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget every year while effectively barring any increases in revenues. The constitutional amendment would make all revenue-raising measures unconstitutional unless they secured a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate.
* The "Cut, Cap & Balance" measure cites three constitutional balanced-budget amendments (H.J. Res 1, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res 56) and states that Congress must approve one of them or a similar measure before the debt limit can be raised. All three of the cited proposals would require cuts deeper than those in the Ryan budget. All three measures would establish a constitutional requirement that total federal expenditures may not exceed 18 percent of GDP, and all three would essentially require that the budget be balanced within the coming decade.
The Ryan plan, by contrast, does not reach balance until the 2030s, and its federal spending level is just below or modestly above 20 percent of GDP for most of the next two decades, equaling 20? percent of GDP in 2030 for example, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The only budget that comes close to meeting the requirements of these constitutional amendments is the Republican Study Committee budget, which eliminates 70 percent of non-defense discretionary funding by 2021, contains deeper Medicare cuts than the Ryan budget, cuts Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and disabled poor in half by the end of the decade, and raises the Social Security retirement age to 70.
Talking points that the legislation's proponents circulated on July 15 seek to foster an impression that the measure would protect Social Security and Medicare. Such an impression would not be accurate. The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions.
The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill's severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled.
Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.
Moreover, because taxes - including payroll taxes - would be virtually impossible to raise as a result of the new constitutional barrier, Social Security solvency would have to be restored entirely through benefit cuts. Balanced Social Security packages that include measures to raise Social Security's $106,000 payroll tax cap, so that higher-income Americans do not escape the tax on much of their earnings, would effectively be ruled out.
* The "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" would require cuts totaling $111 billion immediately, in the fiscal year that starts 75 days from now, despite a 9.2 percent unemployment rate. These cuts would equal 0.7 percent of the projected Gross Domestic Product in fiscal year 2012 and would thus cause the loss of roughly 700,000 jobs in the current weak economy, relative to what the number of jobs otherwise would be.
* The bill overturns a feature of various bipartisan budget laws over the past quarter century, by subjecting programs for the poorest Americans to the specter of meat-axe across-the-board cuts. It does so even as it protects tax breaks and tax subsidies for the wealthy and powerful by erecting a constitutional barrier to any measure that would raise any revenue.
The "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" that House Republican leaders are circulating achieves these results through a multi-faceted attack on the federal government. It would require that total federal spending shrink to about 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) starting in 2015 (by writing the Ryan budget's year-by-year expenditure levels as a share of GDP into law, as caps to be enforced through automatic across-the-board budget cuts if the caps otherwise wouldn't be met). The Ryan budget would slash non-security discretionary programs by 33 percent by 2021 (relative to CBO's January baseline), cut Medicaid by $1.4 trillion over the decade, and cut an array of other programs from Medicare to Pell Grants, while shielding the defense budget and further cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
In addition, as noted, the measure seeks to render it virtually impossible to raise new revenue by barring the necessary increase in the debt limit until both houses of Congress have approved a constitutional amendment which requires that the budget be balanced every year, that no measure raising any taxes may pass Congress unless two-thirds of the House and Senate approve it, and that budget cuts deeper than Ryan's be instituted.
Adding to the extreme nature of the measure, the legislation also reverses a feature of every law of the past quarter-century that has contained a fiscal target or standard enforced by across-the-board cuts. Since the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law of 1985, all such laws have exempted the core basic assistance programs for the poorest Americans from such across-the-board cuts. "Cut, Cap, and Balance," by contrast, specifically subjects all such programs to across-the-board cuts if its spending caps would be exceeded.
It does so even as it seeks to erect a constitutional firewall to safeguard tax cuts and tax breaks for the most well-off Americans. Thus, an impoverished elderly widow living on Supplemental Security Income - which provides benefits that lift people to just 75 percent of the poverty line - could have her assistance cut back under the measure's across-the-board budget cuts even as millionaire hedge-fund managers retained their lucrative carried-interest tax breaks.
# # # #
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/15/967406/-NY-20:-Gibson-lies-about-Medicare-vouchers
devtob
A Daily Kos Community Site
FRI APR 15, 2011 AT 06:00 PM PDT
NY-20: Gibson lies about Medicare vouchers
by
devtob
Tea Party Rep. Chris Gibson voted for the Ryan budget today, like almost every other Republican Member of Congress.
So he voted to end Medicare as we know it, and turn it into a voucher program that will impoverish senior citizens of modest means.
Like most Republican candidates last fall, Gibson ran ads decrying the fictional $500 billion cuts to Medicare in the health care reform law.
Gibson lied in scaring seniors during the campaign, and he also lied in telling them that he opposed Medicare vouchers.
For an allegedly squeaky-clean veteran, Gibson is quite the accomplished liar.
Details of his serial lies, on just this one issue, below.
During the campaign, Gibson benefitted from some six-figures worth of Medicare scare ads paid for by the 60 Plus Association, a Republican astroturf outfit that supports privatizing Social Security and Medicare.
Back in September, Maury Thompson of the Glens Falls Post-Star asked Gibson a question about 60 Plus that resonates today:
Thompson: What about Medicare vouchers?
Gibson: No - not at all. I don't support that.
Pants on fire.
Gibson strongly supported the Ryan budget, with its Medicare voucher plan, as soon as it was announced, appearing several times on local conservative talk radio to sing Ryan's praises.
And, when called out on that, Gibson lied about it some more on his Facebook page last week:
The plan proposed by House Republicans is based on a proposal developed by the Obama Deficit Commission. It is NOT a voucher program.
Two lies in two sentences, par for the course with Gibson -- of course, it is a voucher program, and it's based on a proposal developed NOT by the Obama Deficit Commission, but by one of its wingnut members, Paul Ryan.
Later in that comment thread, Gibson says that the Ryan Medicare proposal is "premium support," not vouchers.
Yet another lie, according to Henry Aaron, a think tanker who developed a premium support model for Medicare.
Ezra Klein got Aaron on the record, under the headline "Creator of premium support says Ryan has 'vouchers, not premium support'".
Aaron's take on the Ryan plan that Gibson mendaciously supports and voted for:
Ryan is associated with at least three different plans. There was Rivlin-Ryan, plain old Ryan, and now there's the Path to Prosperity. They're all different. In some ways, the Path to Prosperity plan improves on previous version, because the role of exchanges and risk adjustment is nearer to what we had in mind. But it is hands down the worst because it links premiums to consumer prices, which is the slowest growing index.
We're looking at linking to an index that grows less rapidly than health-care costs by three to four percentage points a year. Piled up over 10 years, and that's a huge erosion of coverage. It's vouchers, not premium support.
There's one provision of the Ryan bill that stands out as being hands-down the worst, and that is giving the seniors who are poor enough to also be on Medicaid a medical savings account. Does he know who these people are? They're very sick, they're very poor and many of them have cognitive as well as physical problems. They would be asked to cope with the inevitable headaches of dealing with private insurance and managing a personal checking account to pay periodic bills. This is not a sensible proposal.
The other five NY Republican freshmen -- Michael Grimm, NY-13; Nan Hayworth, NY-19; Richard Hanna, NY-24; Ann Marie Buerkle, NY-25; and Tom Reed, NY-29 -- also voted to end Medicare as we know it and substitute an impoverishing voucher program.
They presumably have lied about it too, but it would be hard for any of them to match Gibson's record of mendacity on this issue.
AFAIK, Gibson is in a class of his own, at least among that motley crew, as a shameless serial liar about Medicare.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/aarp-second-ad-republican-medicare_n_877944.html :
Michael McAuliff
mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com
AARP Launches Second Ad To Fight GOP Medicare Plan
First Posted: 06/16/11 08:06 AM ET Updated: 06/16/11 08:19 AM ET
WASHINGTON -- Maybe the government should cut funding for treadmills for shrimp and poetry in zoos before hacking away at Medicare or Social Security, the influential lobby for older Americans, AARP, is arguing in a new national TV ad released Thursday.
With Congress and the White House locked in intense negotiations over spending cuts and the nation's looming debt limit, the multimillion-dollar ad buy marks AARP's second major campaign aimed at derailing proposals to cut and privatize Medicare and Social Security.
AARP had been relatively quiet when House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) first released his proposal in the spring that included a spending plan that replaces Medicare with a private system the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found would nearly double costs for seniors over 10 years.
Democrats had worried that AARP was standing on the sidelines, but sources familiar with the influential lobby say it didn't think the Ryan plan could pass.
The fact that it has made its second expensive ad buy suggests it is much more worried now that some of the Ryan ideas could be adopted in the high-pressure budget negotiations being conducted on Capitol Hill. That pressure will only rise as negotiations near Aug. 2, the date by which Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has warned the country must hike its $14.3 trillion borrowing cap or face default.
"While some members of Congress are considering making changes to Medicare's structure, what few people realize is that some proposals being discussed behind closed doors include harmful cuts to the critical Medicare and Social Security benefits that are lifelines for millions of today's seniors," said AARP's Nancy LeaMond.
The new ad takes a more mocking tone thanAARP's first spot, pointing to several questionable programs funded by Congress over the last few years, including a cotton institute in Brazil, treadmills for shrimp and poetry in zoos.
Those efforts likely don't amount to much in the greater federal budget, but the point is clear.
"Instead of cutting waste, or closing tax loopholes, next month Congress could make a deal that cuts Medicare, even Social Security," says the ad script. "I guess it's easier to cut the benefits we earned -- than to cut pickle technology."
AARP has also mounted a broader lobbying effort that includes a petition that it says has been signed by nearly 1.5 million people, and a campaign that has generated almost 260,000 phones calls and emails to members of Congress.
LeaMond says the new ad "will put Congress on notice that AARP will fight with the strength of our millions of members to prevent harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security from being included in any deal to pay the nation's bills."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/supercommittee_selection_release/ ...
THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
~ Trusted ~ Independent ~ Effective ~
August 11, 2011
NEWS RELEASE
Debt "Super Committee" Not Looking So Super for America's Seniors and the Middle-Class
"You don't have to be a Washington insider to see that, with the selection of appointees to Congress' new 'Super Committee', our nation's vital safety net programs still remain the primary targets in this debt debate. Half of these Committee members have pledged to keep revenues out of the solution, and even more than half are on the record with statements about the need to consider cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We can only hope the political deck is not stacked in this process in which decisions impacting virtually every American family will be debated by just 12 people, could be passed by just 7 and then fast-tracked through Congress without amendment.
Even though Social Security has not contributed to our current deficit crisis, too many on this 'Super Committee' are willing to trade away its benefits while vigorously protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate loopholes which contribute so much to our deficit. Let's be very clear - the American people want fiscal sanity returned to Washington . But they also know cutting more than $1 trillion from programs serving millions of average Americans while protecting Bush era tax cuts that added $1.7 trillion in added deficits is not fiscal responsibility. Even though the majority of Americans understands this - I'm not convinced a majority of this committee does." Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
###
The National Committee, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization acts in the interests of its membership through advocacy, education, services, grassroots efforts and the leadership of the Board of Directors and professional staff. The work of the National Committee is directed toward developing better-informed citizens and voters.
Media Inquiries to:
Pamela Causey 202-216-8378/202-236-2123
Kim Wright 202-216-8414
http://www.ncpssm.org/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/senate_defeat_ryan/ ...
THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE
~ Trusted ~ Independent ~ Effective ~
May 25, 2011
NEWS RELEASE
Leading Seniors' Organization Reacts to Senate Defeat Of GOP/Ryan Budget Plan
"We applaud the Senate for turning back efforts to pass a budget which is more about ideological politics than sound fiscal policy. Americans of all ages understand we don't have to destroy vital programs like Medicare and Social Security to be fiscally responsible. That message has been delivered loud and clear in town halls nationwide, in poll after poll, and again last night in New York's Congressional race, where Medicare played a key role in that outcome.
The GOP/Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a privatized voucher system meaning future beneficiaries would lose Medicare's guaranteed benefit. This budget would have also shifted the rising costs of healthcare directly to seniors, doubling their healthcare costs without adequately addressing ways to contain those costs. The trigger mechanism included in this GOP budget would force the creation of legislated benefit cuts in Social Security, while also fast-tracking those provisions through Congress.
The GOP/Ryan budget would have had devastating effects on millions of Americans still struggling in our weakened economy. Thankfully, the Senate understands this and has rejected this fiscal approach."...Max Richtman, Executive Vice President/ Acting CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
###
The National Committee, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization acts in the interests of its membership through advocacy, education, services, grassroots efforts and the leadership of the Board of Directors and professional staff. The work of the National Committee is directed toward developing better-informed citizens and voters.
Media Inquiries to:
Pamela Causey 202-216-8378/202-236-2123
Kim Wright 202-216-8414
http://www.ncpssm.org/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment