Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Vote For Jim Himes?

Are you one of the many disappointed by Jim Himes' performance? I am.

I'm disappointed by not only his support of tax breaks for the rich, but his particularly insensitive way of defending his position. ("In my district $250,000 a year isn't a lot of money.")

I'm disappointed by his failure to support Speaker Nancy Pelosi and his determination to "go rogue" in opposition to deficit spending despite high unemployment ( and with the exception, remember of tax breaks for the rich.)

I'm disappointed by his vote against the Democratic Jobs Bill,

This legislation brings jobs to Main Street by increasing credit for small businesses, rebuilding the infrastructure of America, and keeping police and fireman and teachers on the job.
As we create jobs for Americans, we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way. These investments are fully paid for by redirecting TARP funds from Wall Street to Main Street.
And for those hit hardest by the deep recession, this bill provides emergency relief: extending unemployment benefits, help with health benefits for those out of work, and protecting health coverage for millions through Medicaid.
In short, this legislation creates jobs, helps meet the needs of those who are unemployed, and puts us America back on a path to prosperity.
CT Votes:
Courtney, DeLauro, Larson, Murphy: Yes
Himes: NO

his efforts to help his Wall Street friends by limiting the effects of the Consumer Protection Act, his vote against the Tax Extenders Act of 2009,

Jim Himes was one of only 10 Democrats, and the only Democrat from Connecticut, to vote against the Tax Extenders Act of 2009 which 239 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported.
The Tax Extenders Act of 2009 would provide individuals and businesses with approximately $30 billion in tax relief in 2009 by extending for one year (through 2010) more than forty provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2009. This $30 billion in tax relief includes more than $5 billion in individual tax relief and more than $17 billion in business tax relief. The Tax Extenders Act of 2009 also extends more than $7 billion of tax provisions that encourage charitable contributions, provide community development incentives, provide tax relief in the event of a Presidentially-declared disaster, and support the deployment of alternative vehicles and alternative fuels.


his vote against the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,


Jim Himes was the only representative from Connecticut, and only one of 26 Democrats nationally to vote with the Republicans, against the Democratic sponsored Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009 which retained a $3,500,000 estate tax exemption per person and $7,000,000 for married couples. 225 Democrats voted for it. Apparently $3,500,000 was not enough for Jim's rich Greenwich friends to pass to their kids, or $7,000,000 to their wives?


and his support of "pay-as-you-go-legislation."

I'm disappointed by his failure to renounce pharmacy industry ads praising his non-existent efforts to support reform, his op-ed in the Greenwich Time, which called for a public option only if it were available on a level playing field, and reform in general only if it involved massive changes in how health care decisions are made and compensated, a totally unrealistic goal, and most recently, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Stamford Advocate, where he praised delaying the vote on health care reform.

In the light of the above how can progressives vote for Jim Himes? (Independents, conservative Democrats, and mainstream Connecticut Republicans are free to view all of the above as reasons to vote FOR Jim Himes.)

Here's how: Any failure to vote for Jim Himes is tantamount to a vote for anti-women's rights, extreme right winger, Dan Debicella. So go into the voting booth, hold your nose with your left hand, and vote for Jim Himes on the Working Families line with your right hand.

Voting on the Working Families line will let Jim know that he can't continue to rely on our support with this kind of voting record.

2 comments:

  1. More Jobs or More Government?

    Incumbent Congressman Jim Himes is for the same type of command-and-control policies that have consistently led to low growth and high structural unemployment in Eastern Europe in the twentieth century and in Western Europe today: his only problem with pork-barrel stimulus is that there has not been enough of it. His only concern with the healthcare bill is that it did not go far enough. He voted to adjourn congress without addressing January’s massive tax hikes.

    The incumbent is for unlimited government. On his watch, he voted for a government that increased borrowing by a trillion dollars a year. His answer is always the same: more government. More taxes, more spending, more job-killing regulation.

    Challenger Dan Debicella believes that there is a better way: he is for policies conducive to economic growth such as replacing the pork-barrel stimulus with a payroll tax cut. He opposes all tax increases and intrusive regulation that stifles job creation.

    Dan is for a constitutional, limited government. He would cap the size of the federal government at 20% of our gross domestic product. He would force politicians to make trade-offs between competing priorities instead of always growing the size government. He would reduce the number of government employees.

    If Dan Debicella shares your beliefs and you want to help him advance those beliefs in congress, then you can do so here: http://www.40seats.com/ct4 . Both sides should be able to agree that your choice is clear and it is important. What kind of country do we want to live in? Do we want to continue down the current direction or do we think that there is a better way?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The incumbent is for unlimited government. On his watch, he voted for a government that increased borrowing by a trillion dollars a year. His answer is always the same: more government. More taxes, more spending, more job-killing regulation.

    ReplyDelete