McHugh Watch

When the Republican party came to power in 1995, John McHugh had been in congress only two years as a minority member. During that time in the 103rd congress, the Democratic majority brought to the floor a bill to ban permanent hiring of replacement workers (pejoratively known to organized labor as “scabs”) who are hired during a strike. Also at that time the Senate was composed of 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans, Kay Hutchison having just won special election in Texas. The political reality was that any worker replacement ban was going nowhere in the Senate because of Republican opposition and threat of filibuster. Along with Republicans Rick Lazio and Rick Santorum who were positioning themselves for future Senate runs, Mr. McHugh voted along with the Democrats for passage. While these three split ideologically from their party, the Republican legislative goals were never in danger. Predictably, the bill never saw the light of day in the Senate.

The next twelve years, with his party in power, both in Congress and in the Presidency, he had an extraordinary opportunity to show his friendship to organized labor. After all, organized labor is one of his chief constituencies, giving him $583,950 in campaign contributions.

So how much did he believe in banning replacement workers. Certainly not enough to have sponsored the bill himself in each of the six congresses where his party was in the majority. Certainly not enough to even co-sponsor bills submitted by Democrats. He didn’t cosponsor the bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor disputes which also banned replacement workers introduced by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts in 2001 which, summarized by the congressional research service (an official agency of congress to assist representative): Continue Reading »

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 »

As noted in prior posts, next week the House will vote on a Resolution stating opposition to Bush’s escalation of the war. Reports also have it that the Republican alternative will also be debated and come to a vote.

Mr. McHugh has submitted a bill, HR 775 that he calls the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq, 2007. Like the vast majority of his bills, it has no cosponsors.

It does not oppose the escalation and, in fact, funds it to the tune of $50 Billion, albeit for only 4 months. After that, he proposes that the remaining funding be appropriated upon the President certifying that progress on certain performance measures is being made. The performance standards are:

a. A commander and 2 deputy commanders are to be appointed for the Iraqi forces in Baghdad and “provision” for three more Iraqi Army brigades and “additional” Iraqi police forces. (In the US Army a Brigade is 1500-3000 soldiers, the definition is unknown for the Iraqi forces).

b. Passage of a oil revenue sharing law that will allow for oil revenue to be shared by all citizens.

Unclear what exactly this is. Does he mean each Iraqi gets a dividend check from the oil revenue, much like Alaskans do now?

c. Reformed de-baathification: allowing former Baathists, i.e. those of Saddam Hussein’s party to enter the “critical” sectors of political and economic life.

I suppose that’s not so bad. We did it with rocketeer Wernher von Braun, an SS-Sturmbannführer (Major) and his engineers who rained down V2 rockets on London and oversaw V2 production at Peenemünde and the concentration camp at Mittelbau-Dora (Mittelwerk) where 20,000+ died in slave labor producing the V2.

d. Disarming Militias

e. Economic development with the Iraqi Government providing 10 billion for reconstruction and an “effective jobs creation program”

f. Constitutional reform: a committee composed of members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives are to put forward amendments to their constitution.

The vast majority of Article 137 that he cites in the bill was never seen by the Iraqi people prior to voting on it.

Bottom line:  His President gets a free pass disguised as accountability. All the President has to do is certify that “progress” is being made, and more funds are appropriated. After all the deception, 65% of Americans don’t trust the President, why does he?

In the end, this bill does nothing. The silence of co-sponsors is deafening. Not even his colleagues want anything to do with it.

This bill is not a solution, this is an immunization. Dollars to donuts he’ll vote against the Resolution opposing the escalation and use this bill as cover.

This past December, Mr. McHugh proudly announced that he was elected by his Republican colleagues to serve on the House Republican Steering Committee. By his own description the Steering committee “is responsible for making assignments to standing committees for the 110th Congress, … [and] naming Republicans to Committee Ranking Member positions.”

The Republican Steering Committee has now found it appropriate (no pun in intended) to appoint Jerry Lewis(R-Calif) as ranking member of the powerful Appropriations Committee even though he is under investigation by the FBI for steering millions in appropriation contracts to staffers, friends, and family in return for campaign contributions. Reportedly there were a number of Republican members who were quite worried if the leadership had learned the lessons of the November elections. Continue Reading »

McHugh not sounding like much of an expert

© Press-Republican (Plattsburgh)

January 25, 2007

Rep. John M. McHugh (R-Pierrepont Manor) is in a tough spot. He is a rock-solid Republican at a time when rock-solid Republicanism is under more fire than at any time, probably, since the Nixon administration. What’s a Republican to do at a time when his president’s performance is scorned by two-thirds of the population? Continue Reading »