Welcome to   Yes I know "into" is spelled with an "o."  

You can read more about me and why I'm doing this blog here.   On this page I'm going to outline the topics on which I plan to post.   I'll make the posts themselves over the coming weeks.   As I get to them, I'll add the link after the title.   P
lease feel free to add your own ideas for topics in the comments.

Alleged illegal campaign contribution.  (Post)  Frank Guinta was elected in 2010 using $355,000 he claims is a loan from his personal assets to his campaign.   In all prior disclosures, both as house candidate and as mayor, he failed to mention anything close to this amount of cash, which would have been by far his largest asset.   Many believe this money was an illegal campaign contribution, probably from his parents.   Rep. Guinta could put the controversy to rest effortlessly by producing a bank statement that proves he had the account all along, but so far he has failed to do so.

Did Frank Guinta claim similar questionable loans to himself as mayor of Manchester?   Investigate.

Lying Robocalls.  (Post)  Representative Frank Guinta is running for re-election in 2012.  This summer he made robocalls that implied he was the challenger and Shea-Porter the incumbent.   The exact quote from the calls is,  “Hi. This is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I’m running to end the broken culture of Washington.”

Job Fair Pagentry. (Post)  Frank Guinta's idea of reducing unemployment is not enacting legislation likely to create jobs.   Instead, Frank holds job fairs, as if we've elected him to run a statewide employment agency.   He then uses the franking privilege, which is taxpayer-funded mass mailings to constituents, to send us all pictures of the fairs.

Extending Guinta's job fairs to all the country's problems (Post).

He Voted For the Sequester Deal Before He Voted Against It.  Rep. Guinta is trying to weasel out of the vote for the sequester deal that resolved the debt ceiling crisis of summer 2011.   It looks bad for him now as the defense cuts in the deal loom, with some forecasting a loss of 6,000 local jobs.  So he voted to stop the defense cuts he voted to enact in the first place.

Frank's Memory.   Rep. Guinta claims it was an "inadvertent oversight" that prevented him from declaring his largest liquid asset as mayor and congressional candidate.    In this post I facetiously ascribe many of Frank's lapses to his forgetfulness.

Frank Guinta votes like a Tea Party Republican

Frank votes against Veterans.  HR 1 (passed by house 2/19/2011) in which Rep. Guinta voted to zero out the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program. VASH is the part of the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness that aims to end homelessness among veterans by 2015. So Mr. Guinta is on record voting for more homelessness for veterans. It must be that it costs money. How can we afford VASH when there are so many rich folks who need larger tax breaks and so many oil companies that need larger subsidies? Priorities, people.

Carol Shea-Porter absurdly accused of censorship.   Carol Shea-Porter tried to correct Kathy Benick's outrageous misrepresentation that Obamacare imposes a sales tax of 3.8% on real estate transactions. In fact, only if you're a couple making more than $250K annually will you pay 3.8% on any PROFIT OVER $500K. (Single: $200K / $250K) This tax will hit almost no one in New Hampshire.

To be clear: If you're single, make $200K a year, and just sold for $400K your primary residence (for which you originally paid ONE DOLLAR) you pay 3.8%*150K = $5,700 of Obamacare tax. That's less than 1.5% of the profit you made on the deal. If you paid at least $150K for your house, you don't owe anything for this tax.
Given the relatively lousy real estate market, not even very many high income people are sitting on large real-estate gains that if realized would be subject to the tax.

Frank Guinta and the War on Women.  

There was an illustrative example in Virginia today of what the war on women as waged by Republican leaders looks like. You may recall that last Christmas Gov. Bob "Transvag" McDonnell signed a law to overregulate abortion clinics out of existence. In June the VA Board of Health voted to grandfather existing clinics, exempting them from the law. Transvag's henchman, Attorney General Ken "Breastplate" Cuccinelli, this week sent a memo to board members warning the board could be denied state legal counsel and potentially be forced to pay for their own legal defense if they didn't change this. The Board of Health capitulated so now the new puritans can try to close every abortion clinic in the state. These clinics also provide other healthcare for women, and will be some women's only source of healthcare. Women literally will be sicker as a result of this action. This is what a war on women looks like. This is what we'd get nationally from Romney/Ryan with votes from members like Guinta.
It's worth pointing out that these supposed small government conservatives are quite willing to wantonly wield the regulatory apparatus of the state to reduce women's access to healthcare, and to force vaginal probes up those women who manage to get access. I could never give them my vote.

FG repeats the lie about the president promising to keep unemployment under 8%

The "keep unemployment under 8%" was never a promise, but a forecast by Christina Romer and Jarod Bernstein that was hedged as "based on current information." The current information in Feb 2009, if I remember correctly, was that GDP had fallen a couple of percent in 4Q08 due to the Lehman collapse and the aftermath. The GDP turned out to fall around 6% that quarter. Anybody who made forecasts based on the old number was bound to be wrong But the truth made the stimulus even more necessary, and there's general agreement that the stimulus did keep the unemployment rate lower than it would have otherwise been. Furthermore, more stimulus, such as grants to the states to keeps teachers, cops and firefighters on the payroll, would have continued to help unemployment, but were blocked by the GOP, not to help the country, but, in Mitch McConnell's words, "to make Obama a one-term president."
It's hard for the deficit crazies to believe, but this was a time to borrow money and use it to stimulate. These guys allegedly believe what the free market is telling us. Well, here the market says there's high unemployment and long term interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation - the world wants to PAY to lend US money. The market couldn't more clearly be screaming "stimulate" yet still the GOP still blocks it.

FG claims the stimulus didn't work.  Everybody's seen the bikini chart by now. It shows a failing economy, with the Bush years leading into five consecutive months of losing more than 600,000 jobs per month. The stimulus passed in the middle of February, 2012. It took one month to get going, and by April job losses are once again less than 600,000 per month, and pretty much get better linearly until they're consistently positive by Feb 2010. That sure looks like stimulus working to me.
Some debate questions for Frank Guinta 
  • Congressman Guinta, why don't you simply produce an old bank statement to refute the allegation that your undeclared $355,000 account was in fact an illegal campaign contribution?
  • Congressman, your recent robocalls say, “Hi, this is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I’m running to end the broken culture of Washington.” Have you forgotten that you are currently the member of congress who represents the First District of New Hampshire?
  • Congressman, do you find it hypocritical that you are now protesting the very sequestration cuts you voted into law last summer?
  • Congressman, do you think eliminating protections for abused mail-order brides is a good way to save money? If not, why did you vote for that as part of VAWA?
  • Congressman, do you believe impregnated rape victims should be forced to have the baby? If no, does that mean you do not believe a fertilized egg has the same right to life an as an adult, and thus you would not support "personhood" laws and amendments?

Frank Guinta Thinks His Constituents Are Stupid
If you just want someone who votes like a Republican, and you're willing to ignore the illegal and dishonest ways he's run for office, Frank Guinta is your man.
In 2010 Frank magically remembered a bank account he had he used to loan himself $355,000. Well, who among us hasn't misplaced $350K? Frank had somehow "inadvertently" overlooked the account when filing disclosure forms as a congressional candidate and as mayor. He could prove it with a single old bank statement, but so far none has appeared. Rep. Guinta must think that many of his constituents are so stupid they're going to believe this pathetic story and vote for him.
This past summer Rep. Guinta put out this robocall: “Hi, this is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I’m running to end the broken culture of Washington.” This is from 2012, not 2010. Yes, it's pretty clear Rep. Guinta thinks his constituents are idiots.
So go ahead and vote for the guy who thinks you're clueless. He'll help Mitt transfer your money and your country into the pockets of a few of Mitt's very rich donor friends. You just wait by the phone -- that job's gonna trickle down real soon.
On Going "Off the Cliff."  I don't fault Rep. Guinta for voting for the sequester cuts -- it was an attempt to get a grand bargain which probably would be good for everyone. The deal fell apart because the Republicans had all signed the Norquist pledge never to raise taxes or close loopholes. Once all the tax cuts expire (Jan 1, 2013) the Republicans can vote to restore some without violating the pledge, so the grand bargain (which raises taxes on the wealthy compared to today's rates) becomes possible.
What I don't like is that Rep. Guinta's trying to take back just the defense half of the cuts. That's what we used to call "welching" on the deal. The bargain is there to be had, and if we have to go off the cliff to get it, I say "off the cliff." Then the bargain can be done quickly in January before the cuts do any harm. The same deal could be struck before we go off the cliff, but that would require sanity from the Republicans, so therefore seems unlikely.
On the Cause of the Deficit.   Everyone knows that the debt and deficit come largely from tax cuts for the rich, two wars, a Medicare prescription drug benefit and the financial collapse. It was George W. Bush who charged these on the credit card and/or left it to President Obama to clean up. I look forward to Carol Shea-Porter assisting the president as he continues to fix this mess.

On Bipartisanship.  I got some of this in here.
I don't need PolitiFact to tell me what bipartisan means. If the jobs bills Rep Guinta is talking about were actually bipartisan they would now be what we call LAWS. We would now be discussing how well the bipartisan policy enacted is working. I must have missed that news.
It's as if by saying the word "bipartisan" the congressman has excused himself from the difficulties of actually working with the other party to pass laws.
What could bipartisan mean to a party whose strategy was to totally obstruct the president from implementing his own policies? In 2009-2010 the filibuster rule allowed 41 Republicans senators to block legislation. In Mr. Guinta's term, he and the rest of the GOP house took over most of the obstructing. The plan was to block all congressional action and assume that people don't understand the difference between the president and a dictator. It might work.
The House of Representatives is already acting to secure Medicare. Earlier this year, it passed a bipartisan plan ...
I'm not sure Mr. Guinta quite understands our system of government. In particular, passing legislation in the house that has no chance of passing the senate or getting signed by the president is not actually doing anything.
The house can pass all the bills it wants. But if it wants to make laws, it needs to work with the senate and president, even when they're run by the other party. That's our system. But this house thinks compromise is a dirty word. It thinks bipartisanship is one or two Democratic votes on an otherwise partisan split. Instead of working with the other side, the house passes laws the only effect of which is to kill trees to print them.
Here's the thinking in the Republican house: "There's no time to work with the other side. We have our hands full coming up with ways to torture women seeking abortions. Here's a new one: let's force some rape victims to give birth and share custody with the rapist. If they got pregnant, it wasn't really rape, was it? But first, let's vote to repeal Obamacare again. See, we're acting!"
On Medicare and the Ryan Budget.   Carol, thanks for the reality check. I fear the GOP is aiming at the sliver of remaining undecideds, who given their lack of interest in the election are probably unlikely to be seeking out The GOP thinks a billion dollars worth of ads saying Obama raided Medicare will be enough to obscure the basic truth that Democrats care about protecting Medicare and the Republicans are eager to privatize it into Groupon deals for insurance companies. When it takes five detailed paragraphs to refute "Democrats raided Medicare" the Democrats will lose the debate despite being right on the facts.
So let me try some pithier replies:
The so-called Medicare cuts are really cost savings that slow the growth in payments to hospitals and insurance companies. The savings go toward things like closing the donut hole and extending the Medicare trust fund 8 years. Paul Ryan's budget uses these same savings for tax cuts for the rich.
Obamacare saves money by cutting costs and uses the savings to improve benefits and extend the life of the Medicare Trust fund. The Ryan budget saves money by decreeing that Medicare outlays by the government will only increase by the inflation rate, and as medical costs outpace inflation, which they always have, the difference is paid by seniors.
The Republicans' goal is to make you feel so fed up about paying for social programs which you may actually benefit from that you'll vote to pay even more to give tax cuts to rich guys.
I don't really see why people have a problem when Democrats say "Paul Ryan will end Medicare as we know it." Medicare is currently a program where the government mostly pays providers, like an insurance company. In the 2011 Ryan budget, for which virtually every Republican congressman voted, it says "for future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan which best suits their needs." There's a silly fight about whether a "premium support payment" is a voucher. But nobody is denying that this says Medicare becomes a program where the federal government pays part of your premium for private insurance. To sum up:
Medicare, as we know it, pays health-care providers directly.
In Ryan's plan, instead of paying providers, Medicare pays part of your insurance premium.
Therefore, Ryan's plan ends Medicare as we know it. Long live new "Medicare."
If the new plan is so great, why not change it for seniors as soon as possible rather than wait 10 years? Answer: because older people would be less inclined to vote for Ryan/Romney as they like their Medicare the way it is.
Now the right is going to say I'm talking about the OLD Ryan budget --now you get a choice. The budget passed 4/15/11 comes closest to what's in the GOP's true heart of hearts. As November 2012 loomed they watered it down.

FDR's words about the Republicans in 1936 are still apt today:
Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says, "Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."
But, my friends, these evaders are banking too heavily on the shortness of our memories. No one will forget that they had their golden opportunity—twelve long years of it.
Remember, too, that the first essential of doing a job well is to want to see the job done. Make no mistake about this: the Republican leadership today is not against the way we have done the job. The Republican leadership is against the job's being done.
Why Frank Guinta lost my vote:
- He funded his 2010 campaign with an allegedly illegal contribution of $355,000 that he said was his own account but so far has failed to produce bank statements verifying his claim.
- In his current campaign's robocalls he implies he's not in congress -- he claims to be the challenger running to clean up Washington
- He's out protesting the very spending cuts he voted for last summer.
- He sponsored H.R. 2206, which prevents new employees from being automatically enrolled in their employer's health benefits plan. Apparently repealing Obamacare is not enough -- he wants to take away your employer sponsored healthcare as well.
- Work with the other party to pass a jobs bill? No time for that. Frank's too busy voting for abortion restrictions and to gut the Violence Against Women Act. Thanks for trying to give me the freedom to beat my mail order bride without consequence, Frank.

Foster's overlooks Rep. Guinta's shortcomings
Foster’s editorial board is so focused on keeping the first district a GOP seat that they are willing to overlook Rep. Guinta’s numerous ethical lapses. Mr. Guinta got elected in 2010 with $355,000 of what he claims was his own money despite never having disclosed what would have been by far his largest asset in any previous filings as mayor and US House candidate. In 2012 he’s made robocalls claiming he’s the challenger and Shea-Porter is the incumbent! “Hi, this is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I’m running to end the broken culture of Washington.”

Once in office, did Rep. Guinta work across the aisle to do the difficult work of enacting policies that produce jobs? No, his Republican overlords wouldn’t approve. Instead Frank held a few job fairs, filled maybe a dozen jobs, and mailed the pictures to us at taxpayer expense. Now he claims the bills he voted for are “bipartisan” even though they have no chance of becoming law.

Let’s give Frank Guinta a stethoscope. He can make some house calls and claim he’s providing healthcare for veterans.

To the editor: I write in regards to your editorial on the Shea-Porter / Guinta debate negotiations.

Representative Guinta does not want an open Seacoast debate. What Foster's calls "a forum hosted by Riverwoods Retirement Community in Exeter" WMUR describes as "a nonpublic forum at an Exeter retirement home". Foster's, did you think "nonpublic" was news your readers did not want to know? Or did you simply omit the obvious reason why Carol Shea-Porter might not consider the Riverwoods debate ideal?

Never mind, Shea-Porter is no match for your rhetorical prowess: "The Shea-Porter campaign email went on to accuse Guinta of being 'afraid to debate Carol Shea-Porter in some of the District's largest communities.' ... Please note the [debate] in Manchester, New Hampshire's largest community." Anyone not being deliberately obtuse figures Shea-Porter meant places like Dover, Rochester and Portsmouth, which is why she said "some."

Foster's, there's plenty of reporting you might do instead of peddling this junk about the debates. Here's a partial list:

Find out why Rep. Guinta has not produced a bank statement corroborating his story about the alleged illegal campaign donation of $355,000.

Find out if Rep. Guinta actually knew he was a member of Congress when he recorded robocalls this summer that said, "Hi, this is Frank Guinta, candidate for Congress, running against Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. I'm running to end the broken culture of Washington."

Find out why one of the debates you listed is in Henniker, which is not even in the first district.

Find out where the hyphen goes in your former and future congresswoman's name.

No comments:

Post a Comment