McHugh Watch

On July 12th, after receiving the first report mandated of the President regarding the Iraqi government’s attainment of benchmarks, the house passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. It was in response to the dismal report that the Iraq government has failed to make any progress, much less satisfactory progress, on over half of the 18 benchmarks that congress mandated for continued funding.

It outlines a comprehensive policy strategy for force reduction in Iraq. The bill is policy statement not a tactical direction. Rightfully, tactics should be left to the military commanders to carry out policy. McHugh and the Bush enablers continue to spew the message that congress has no right to make policy and should be left to the military.

Nothing can be further from the truth, and obviously, Mr. McHugh did not learn the lessons that he should have when he had got out of serving in Vietnam by getting a Masters of Public Administration from Syracuse. He did not learn that it was the intent of the founding fathers when they created the Constitution that the elected representatives of the people make policy and the military carries it out. Why else would they have make is so that only Congress can declare war and not some general.

The Bush enablers never cease to re-codify the language. They no longer refer to it as a “surge”, but have again invented a new moniker: a counteroffensive. A counteroffensive that will last for years without any stabilization of Iraq or the Iraqi government stepping up to the plate towards any of the benchmarks.

It is becoming fashionable on Capital Hill for the Bush enablers to become critics of the President. Most notably those that are up for re-election in competitive races in 2008. Republican Senators are dropping like flies and there are now significant Road to Damascus experiences being felt by Republican representatives.

John McHugh continues to be an Bush enabler voting against the Redeployment Act. He can afford to be “principled” because his base in Jefferson County associates him with Fort Drum; Fort Drum with economic infusions of government money; and the Iraq War with Fort Drum. The unspoken, but often whispered, connection is that the Iraq War is good for Fort Drum and Fort Drum is good for Jefferson County. So, we are willing to sacrifice blood for economic prosperity. Since John McHugh has so successfully created the perception that he is responsible for Fort Drum, and that the vast majority of the voting public in Jefferson County has bought that hook line and sinker, he will continue to support the war. Madison, Clinton and Franklin, Essex, and Oneida Counties are not enough to out weigh the effect of Jefferson County on the vote tally.

No matter what he says about his “concerns” regarding the Iraq war, he continues to vote in support of George Bush. We need to remember his actions. No death bed conversions for him. It’s too late. Anything he does to distance himself from Bush will be in words only and not in actions. He has done enough damage with George Bush. The only reason for him to “convert” is because he’s scared. That’s not good enough. He sees no foreseeable challenge, so there is no impetus to change. He is a consummate politician who is laying the ground work for a conversion should he need it. By expressing concern over and over again, and yet doing nothing to support that concern, he prepares a pathway to jump ship by creating a paper trail of words that he can take out of context in campaign commercials and debate – Having it both ways. Any change of heart will be based on a political calculus and brazen insincerity.

He’s counting on us being as gullible as ever. No, there will be no death bed conversions for John McHugh. Let’s be plain, he’s willing to trade blood for money. We should be as indignant at accepting any change in his war support as we are with Robert McNamara’s apology to the nation about Vietnam in his memoir In Retrospect. McNamara knew at the time he was wrong and Vietnam was not winnable. McHugh does too.

During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, the house passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 that finally allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo.

There are safeguards written into the bill to ensure that (1) the cells had been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics and (2) were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and (3) were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment); and (4) were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements. Note that all the conditions (“and”) have to be met before the cell can be used. The bill is purposely directed at surplus cells that were created for infertility treatments and were destined for disposal.

To be opposed to stem cell research is to purposefully deny the gift of life and hope to those with diseases that have that have either no or inadequate treatments. By logical extension, to be opposed to stem cell research is to also be opposed to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and yet another gift of life and joy to infertile couples. Continue Reading »

On this Memorial day, it is only fitting to remind ourselves of what our representatives are doing with regard to the Iraq war. May is headed to be the bloodiest month for American soldiers to date. Today on NPR, Naval Academy Chaplain Lt. Commander John Owen told us of his ”profound duty to inform the family of a fallen sailor that their loved one is dead and that any day can become Memorial Day when you bear news that will change people’s lives forever.”

For us, the Iraq war is almost an abstraction. Our lives go on with hardly a ripple caused by this war. We continue our conspicuous consumption and take pleasure in the everyday joys of life. Yet for these families – these Moms and Dads – their lives have changed irrevocably: forever.

We need to start making this war personal. We need to start demanding of those that continue this war to step up to the plate and enlist – along with their children – to fight this war. If this war is so important to our national security, they need to fight – because most of us don’t think it is. Most of us think that this is another Vietnam – unwinnable with nothing to win. I know that’s highly improbable for our chickenhawks to fight. After all, they all have their excuses. They are so important. Mr. McHugh’s was a “heart murmur”. Mr. Cheney’s was five deferments. Mr. Bush’s was a year off to campaign. How about their children? Why isn’t Barbara Bush using her Yale education to lead soldiers in the “surge”? We all know Mr. Kuhl is brave with a gun, particularly when he’s drinking and threatening his wife. No, it’s time to stop the abstraction. This is real personal. They have very little credibility when they order other parent’s sons and daughters to the killing fields and have not or will not serve themselves or have their children serve. It’s that simple. Put up or shut up. Continue Reading »

Predictably, Mr. McHugh voted against the supplemental appropriations bill to fund our troops, Veterans’ care, including VA and military hospitals, farmers’ milk support, the minimum wage, the Center for Disease Control, the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) just to name a few. Here’s a complete listing of programs that he voted against. He’s for the minimum wage, but votes against the minimum wage. He votes for it one time and then against it the next time. He’s for the troops but then won’t fund them. He decries the treatment of our wounded soldiers in our nation’s military hospitals and yet refuses to financially support those hospitals. He’s for the milk income loss program but then votes against it.

There must be a good reason. Here it is verbatim from the final version of HR 1591:

SEC. 1315. REVISION OF UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.
(2) The circumstances referred to in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially.
(3) United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution.
(4) United States policy on Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders in order to maximize the chances of success and to more effectively fight the war on terror.

(b) Prompt Commencement of Phased Redeployment of United States Forces From Iraq-

(1) TRANSITION OF MISSION- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ- The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(3) COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY- Paragraph (2) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(4) REPORTS REQUIRED- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required under this subsection, as well as a classified campaign plan for Iraq, including strategic and operational benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of United States forces from Iraq.

Yes, his unflagging support of George Bush and support of a failed foreign policy has let all us down back here in the North Country. He continues to follow, support and parrot a false message that we are fighting al Qaeda. The problem is no matter how often he repeats it, the mantra does not even approach the truth.

It has weakened both his and his party’s position. During the last two campaigns he claimed that his seniority status in the majority party could only benefit us back here. Needless to say, that has all changed. The more he and his party dig in and follow GWB off the cliff, the less likely will his party come back to power. Is there any question as to why the majority of news coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign is directed towards the Democratic candidates. It’s clear that the American people have grown weary of being ignored by his party and that the next President is going to be a Democrat.

Prior to election he was a willing functionary, now he is forced into that position. He has no power and certainly no influence to bring back the significant pork that he continually claims to do by associating himself with every federal grant that comes back here whether he was responsible for it or not. The only thing standing between him and the electoral pink slip is the lack of insight by the voters. Many in Jefferson and Lewis and St. Lawrence counties still credit him with the Fort Drum expansion and that is where his base lies. The further one gets from Jefferson County, the less impressed the electorate is by him.

So even if he is continually re-elected, he won’t be able to help us. He certainly isn’t helping the American people. So long as he and his party maintain its unpopular support for George Bush and his war, the American people are going to reject them. He may be re-elected again and again by his base in the Western part of the district, but he’ll accomplish very little.

Let’s get it very straight: regardless of what he says, his action of voting against the supplemental appropriations bill does one thing – it lets our troops hang out to dry. He and George Bush will try very hard to obfuscate it and turn it around on the Democrats, but the truth is – the bill fully funds the troops. No if, ands, or buts. He is hanging both the troops and us in the North Country out to dry.

Frankly, I have a hard time waking up in the morning, looking myself in the mirror and saying, “I got nothing accomplished yesterday.” For my money, I want a doer representing me, not a functionary.

This afternoon, I went to a Good Friday service. To Christians, Good Friday commemorates our Lord’s death on the cross. Near to his death he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” mirroring David’s lament in Psalm 22 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?” So Good Friday is a very somber day in the Christian calendar and not a place for humor. Therefore today, the pastor asked the congregation for concerns to lift them to God and the response was to be: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken us.” There were numerous concerns, both personal and global, and of course you could guess that the crisis in the Mideast was among them. As I was listening to the requests, knowing full well what the congregational response would be, I nearly uttered “the President of the United States,” with the inevitable response: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken us.” Certainly the humor did not escape me, but neither did the somber commemoration. I mutely chuckled, my wife nudged me in the ribs, and I did refrain.

But we are facing a very serious crisis in the next few months. The American people want our combat troops out of Iraq. The Congress, representing the vast majority of Americans are now on their way to using their unarguable power of the purse to achieve those ends. The American people have spoken through our electoral process. The President doesn’t get it. England’s Charles I didn’t get it either. He lived - and died - in a transition of change from the divine right of kings to accountability to the people. Continue Reading »

Today our congressman voted against taking care of our wounded soldiers, against providing healthcare for children, against funding education, and against deficit reduction and tax relief for the middle class – clean sweep.

Also today, DangerDemocrat found a story from UPI quoting our congressman’s concern about the military healthcare system for our soldiers:

“There is no doubt that these are most difficult times for the military health system. One of the most severe challenges rests in the fact that, for the second year in a row, the budget for the Defense Health Program has been significantly reduced with the hope of congressional support for changes to the benefit in the form of increased fees for TRICARE,” Rep John M. McHugh,R-N.Y., the ranking Republican on the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives said in a statement at the subcommittee’s hearing on the state of the U.S. military health care system.

“The budget assumes reductions to funding for military treatment facilities for the third year in a row with the expectation that these facilities must become more efficient. The fiscal year 2008 budget reduction is $2.1 billion,” McHugh said..

“It is undeniable that the care provided to our troops, their families and to our retired beneficiaries is vital to the success of our military now and in the future,” he said.

He was commenting upon the President’s budget sent to Capital Hill a few weeks ago. His words sound pretty good. He’s sounds somewhat “concerned” – a favorite word of his.

What happened today? The House passed the 2008 Budget Resolution.

After receiving the President’s budget, both the Senate and the House (usually by early April) draw up a spending plan for the year: the Congressional Budget Resolution. It provides a fiscal roadmap for the various congressional committees for later appropriations – in a future post I’ll explain the appropriations process. The Resolution balances the budget by 2012 with a surplus projected for that year.

Here are the major highlights:

• Most importantly it increases and assures funding for wounded veterans. The resolution provides $43.1 billion for veterans in 2008, representing a 98% of the level requested in The Independent Budget, a plan developed by four leading veterans groups. It is $3.5 Billion more than Bush requested. It also rejects Bush’s proposal to raise TRICARE co-payments and removing more than 100,000 veterans form the VA healthcare system. From the Resolution itself:

  SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SERVICEMEMBERS’ AND VETERANS’ HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PRIORITIES.It is the sense of the House that–
  (1) the House supports excellent health care for current and former members of the United States Armed Services, who have served well and honorably and have made significant sacrifices for this Nation;
  (2) this resolution provides $43,055,000,000 in discretionary budget authority for 2008 for Function 700 (Veterans Benefits and Services), including veterans’ health care, which is $6,598,000,000 more than the 2007 level, $5,404,000,000 more than the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline level for 2008, and $3,506,000,000 more than the President’s budget for 2008;
  (3) this resolution provides funding to implement, in part, recommendations of the bi-partisan `Walter Reed Commission’ (the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors) and other United States Government investigations into military and veterans health care facilities and services;
  (4) this resolution assumes the rejection of the enrollment fees and co-payment increases in the President’s budget;
  (5) this resolution provides additional funding above the President’s inadequate budget levels for the Department of Veterans Affairs to research and treat veterans’ mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries; and
  (6) this resolution provides additional funding above the President’s inadequate budget levels for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the speed and accuracy of its processing of disability compensation claims, including funding to hire additional personnel above the President’s requested level.

• Increases children’s access to health care by increased funding of the State Children’s Health Insurance project (SCHIP program).
• Invests in Education by restoring Pell grants, increased funding of the No Child Left Behind Act along with increased funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• Protects middle-class taxpayers by providing Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief for 2007 and 2008 – one year more than the President – preventing millions of middle-class taxpayers from being subjected to the AMT. It includes no tax increase. Under PAYGO (pay as you go) it allows for new tax relief and the extension of expiring tax provisions, IF the cost of these measures is offset. By requiring offsets, the resolution protects the American taxpayer from having to pay the higher interest costs on the debt that would accumulate when tax cuts are not paid for. The resolution also calls for strong new measures to close the tax gap, shut down tax scams, and address offshore tax havens. And it sets the stage for tax simplification and reform.

Guess who voted against it. You’re right, our very “concerned” congressman. Later today, NCPR is going to showcase his concern. Any bets on them asking him about his vote today. Highly doubtful. He mouths concern and then turns his back on our soldiers.

Says all the right things: does nothing. When are we going to wake up?

In his own words:

And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop the talking, and to begin to act.
– John McHugh, February 13, 2007 before the House during H. Con. Res 63 debate.

Today’s vote on the supplemental appropriations bill was one of the most disturbing votes that our congressman has cast in his tenure as our representative. It is not a surprise that he once again voted to continue this war and support the President – he’s consistent – but rather he voted against what he publicly told us he stood for on the floor of the house. What is most disturbing is that he voted against the tenets of the very bill, HR 775, that he introduced on January 31, 2007 and called the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq.

The very actions that he called for in his bill were each addressed in today’s supplemental appropriation. See here for a line by line comparison of his bill HR 775 and today’s bill. You will find that every single item of concern to Mr. McHugh was addressed in today’s bill – and still he votes against it. Continue Reading »

Yesterday, Mr. McHugh attended the Northeast Labor Council Legislative Breakfast to bask in their adoration of his vote on HR 800 the Employee Free Choice Act. As noted previously, this affirmative vote came only after trying to frustrate its passage by voting against Ordering the Previous Question.

It is also instructive to note the same duplicitous strategy in 1993 when he voted during his first term in the 103rd congress for HR 5 the CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT which banned the retention of replacement workers hired during a strike. He was one of 195 cosponsors to a bill written by William Clay of Missouri. It would have amended the National Labor Relations Act 29 USC 158(a). Continue Reading »

It is a contention of this author that in order to plumb the actual proclivities of our congressman, it is necessary to look beyond the main votes and look at what happens in the arcane parliamentary procedure that precedes the main vote. Consistency of thought and action is a very powerful measure of the true intents of an individual.

Mr. McHugh has strong union backing even though in the past he as only voted 40% of the time with the interests of organized labor. This past Friday he voted for HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 that will authorize the creation of a union by merely gaining a majority of employees to sign “cards” – essentially a petition – to form a union. This will all be done out in the open without the mandate for a secret ballot.

It is therefore notable that before Mr. McHugh voted for the bill, he voted against it and by doing so tried to hand control of the debate over to those that vehemently oppose the bill. As noted before in these essays, voting against Ordering the Previous Question when voting on a Rule does just that. Mr. McHugh, as he so often does – being true to form – voted against Ordering the Previous Question (the vote to vote) and thus, buried in the arcane parliamentary procedure of the House, did all he could to obstruct the bill. Continue Reading »

In a letter to the Editor of the Watertown Times, Mr. John Barthelme of Canton succinctly takes issue with McHugh’s vote against the Iraq Resolution. The link to the WDT is here.

McHugh Disregards Popular Opinion

Friday, February 23, 2007
Rep. John McHugh has once again chosen party loyalty over legislative independence.

McHugh voted to support President Bush’s escalation of 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. This is the same man who supported giving the FBI access to public library records, who supported (without a court order) tapping international and domestic phone calls of American citizens, who supported kidnapping by CIA agents of foreign citizens (including Canadians) and later torture in another country, and who has repeatedly announced his full support of Bush’s disastrous war policies in Iraq.

Congressman McHugh, take the cotton out of your ears. Why can’t you understand that it takes more than partisan loyalty to make a people’s representative? When close to 70 percent of the American public agree that the war in Iraq has been terribly mishandled and want it to end, you vote to send even more combat troops.

I think the picture is clear. Whenever Bush barks, John McHugh wags his tail. Residents of the north country can do much better than this. Let’s remember McHugh’s voting record in 2008.

John Barthelme
Canton