PDA

View Full Version : Census changes mean Kucinich may be muscled out of House




AGRP
12-22-2010, 08:35 PM
One of Congress' highest-profile progressive voices is at risk of losing his House seat following the Census Bureau's announcement of changes to House seat apportionment.

The Census Bureau announced this week that Ohio will lose two of its 18 House seats. Local news sources say that puts Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) at risk of losing the seat he has held for 14 years.

That's because the Ohio General Assembly is now dominated by Republicans, meaning the legislature will likely target Democrat-held districts when the time comes to eliminate two House seats.

Kucinich's 10th congressional district is a prime candidate for elimination because it's located in the Cleveland area, which has lost population, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports.

WKYC suggests that Kucinich's district could be unified with the neighboring district held by Rep. Betty Sutton, a Democrat, setting up a showdown between two Democrats in 2012.

"I don't have any control over this process, so I'm not going to worry about it," Kucinich, a leading voice against the Iraq war in the House, told the Plain Dealer Monday.

The Plain Dealer reports:

Republicans, who took over five Ohio congressional seats in November's election, want to maximize the number of seats they retain by making the newly won districts more Republican. They must be careful how they divide Democratic districts, because putting Democratic voters into a Republican-held district makes it less Republican. When their new members are sworn in this January, Republicans will control 13 of Ohio's 18 current seats.

"There is only so much territory to divide up, and it has to be done rather precisely," says Steve Fought, a longtime aide to Toledo Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur. "If they get greedy and try to eliminate more than one Democratic member, they run the risk of failing to bolster the new members who are most vulnerable...."

Ohio's population grew 1.6 percent -- to around 11.5 million -- since the previous census, but that was not enough to keep pace with faster-growing states in the south and west. On top of losing two House seats, the state will also lose two of its 20 electoral college votes.

The Canton Repository notes this is the least House representation that Ohio has had since 1832.

The Census Bureau's reapportionment is bad news for Democrats as a whole. With Democratic-leaning states like New York and Pennsylvania losing seats and electoral votes to Republican-leaning states like Texas and Georgia, the political math for controlling Congress and the White House becomes more difficult for Democrats.




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/census-kucinich-muscled-house/

Monarchist
12-22-2010, 08:39 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

james1906
12-22-2010, 08:50 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

Yeah, I could care less now if he goes away.

Vessol
12-22-2010, 08:52 PM
Yeah, I could care less now if he goes away.

This.

cindy25
12-22-2010, 08:56 PM
Kucinich is far from perfect but the next congress will need as many anti-war congressmen as possible

tangent4ronpaul
12-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Hi isn't perfect, but he is largely on our side. He votes with Paul OFTEN! - We want to keep him.

-t

oyarde
12-22-2010, 09:11 PM
Lets see .... Dennis likes taxes , social spending programs , but not guns .... OK , I am done with my summary .

AGRP
12-22-2010, 09:14 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

Yes. Just recently, I believe theres been a story floating around how he wants to "delete the fed."

Slimy little man.

BamaAla
12-22-2010, 09:15 PM
Good; I hope he goes.

Monarchist
12-22-2010, 09:36 PM
Yeah, I could care less now if he goes away.


Yes. Just recently, I believe theres been a story floating around how he wants to "delete the fed."

Slimy little man.

I see. Good news, then. I understand he's pretty good in regards to foreign entanglements; however, that would only be relevant if there were a sizable anti-war/non-interventionist bloc in congress, which there isn't. So, basically, he's useless to us.

specsaregood
12-22-2010, 09:48 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

Yeah, I could care less now if he goes away.

This.
Yup, That.^ He threw out his own principles for Obamacare. Even if I disagreed with his principles, I at least liked him thinking that he had them. But since he doesn't....enjoy retirement you little elf.

emazur
12-22-2010, 09:50 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

I used to have some respect for him until those 2 votes. Now the only reliably good thing about him is the anti-war stance

Agorism
12-22-2010, 09:58 PM
Whoops- See you later Kucinich!

emazur
12-22-2010, 09:58 PM
I see. Good news, then. I understand he's pretty good in regards to foreign entanglements; however, that would only be relevant if there were a sizable anti-war/non-interventionist bloc in congress, which there isn't. So, basically, he's useless to us.

I posted something last year about the Dems (57% anyway) being MUCH better than the GOP on a vote to draw up an exit strategy for Afghanistan
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?213272-Are-we-being-too-hard-on-the-Democrats-for-not-ending-the-Afghan-war
So there is something of a voting bloc where he counts

wormyguy
12-22-2010, 10:04 PM
I see. Good news, then. I understand he's pretty good in regards to foreign entanglements; however, that would only be relevant if there were a sizable anti-war/non-interventionist bloc in congress, which there isn't. So, basically, he's useless to us.

By that standard, Ron and Rand are also useless to us.

(And they are, without backup from a supermajority of fellow congresscritters).

QueenB4Liberty
12-22-2010, 10:07 PM
I would be sad to see him go, there are worse Dems, after all.

Monarchist
12-22-2010, 10:09 PM
By that standard, Ron and Rand are also useless to us.

(And they are, without backup from a supermajority of fellow congresscritters).

That's only if non-interventionism is the only issue; the Pauls could work with a number of others in regards to things like taxes, regulations, etc.

Agorism
12-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Tribute to Obama and Kucinich


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

wormyguy
12-22-2010, 10:23 PM
That's only if non-interventionism is the only issue; the Pauls could work with a number of others in regards to things like taxes, regulations, etc.

By that standard, the Pauls are no more useful than generic Republicans (which was my point).

HOLLYWOOD
12-22-2010, 10:26 PM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?
It's amazing what an E-Ticket ride on Air Force One and a couple of "Injections" can do to one who seeks 'MORE' in the future.

Either Kucinich is pulling off the grandest of schemes or he's become a full blown Marxist.

Aratus
12-23-2010, 08:34 AM
texas gains four representatives by the new data.
N.E is loosing representatives. the bay state House
delegation now shall go from ten to nine, it is indeed
ironical that the census now does what the GOP couldn't.
come 2013 there shall be one less Democrat house member.

dean.engelhardt
12-23-2010, 08:40 AM
Kucinich is far from perfect but the next congress will need as many anti-war congressmen as possible

He was the only anti-war candidate in the Democrat primaries for president in 2008.

Romantarchist
12-23-2010, 09:09 AM
Kucinich voted Yes on the Food Safety And Modernization Act. I thought that as a self-described vegan he'd have more compassion for health-conscious eaters who want organic, locally grown food protected. But I guess I was wrong. That vote was what made me decide I don't want him in Congress anymore. He cast some incredible votes when Bush was in office but the threat is now coming from Obama. Him switching his vote on Obamacare, his Yes on the American Recovery And Re-Investment Act, Yes on the Dream Act and his Yes on this issue indicate he's no longer useful to us.

amy31416
12-23-2010, 09:35 AM
He was the only anti-war candidate in the Democrat primaries for president in 2008.

Gravel was anti-war as well, he just seems to be off his rocker most of the time.

charrob
12-23-2010, 10:21 AM
Yes, it's irritating that he weakened and voted for Obamacare; yes his amnesty-type immigration stance annoys me...

Nevertheless he's the only democrat worth his salt and it saddens me greatly that the only true progressive voice in the house may be outed. The rest of the dems are corporate tools just like most of the repubs.

Just like the media ignored RP during the 2008 repub. primary, the dems did not let Kucinich into the New Hampshire debates or the democratic convention when he campaigned for Pres. Both parties have been bought out by corporations and powerful lobbies, and only a few on the fringe (e.g. RP, DK, etc.) are truly attempting to work for the little guy.

Athena
12-23-2010, 10:35 AM
Yes, it's irritating that he weakened and voted for Obamacare; yes his amnesty-type immigration stance annoys me...

Nevertheless he's the only democrat worth his salt and it saddens me greatly that the only true progressive voice in the house may be outed. The rest of the dems are corporate tools just like most of the repubs.

Just like the media ignored RP during the 2008 repub. primary, the dems did not let Kucinich into the New Hampshire debates or the democratic convention when he campaigned for Pres. Both parties have been bought out by corporations and powerful lobbies, and only a few on the fringe (e.g. RP, DK, etc.) are truly attempting to work for the little guy.

That's where I'm at, too.

economics102
12-23-2010, 11:00 AM
Isn't this the guy who buckled under the weight of Obamacare and stabbed Ron Paul in the back on auditing the Fed?

Kucinich did not betray Paul on Audit the Fed. That was Bernie Sanders.

Athena
12-23-2010, 11:03 AM
Kucinich did not betray Paul on Audit the Fed. That was Bernie Sanders.

How did Sanders betray Paul? I thought the Sanders/Paul audit is how we know about the trillions of dollars from the secret bailout era?

HOLLYWOOD
12-23-2010, 11:18 AM
How did Sanders betray Paul? I thought the Sanders/Paul audit is how we know about the trillions of dollars from the secret bailout era?
S.604 / H.R. 1207 were to Audit the Fed regularly. In the 11th hour, especially after the suspecting 'NYSE Flash Crash', Bernie Sanders changed S.604 that was coming up to vote, to a one time audit of the FEDERAL RESERVE, which is now complete. So from now, everything that is covered on section 13.3... the FED has the will to keep secret in the future. No one has ever confronted Bernie Sanders to why he changed his own legislative amendment in the Financial Reform Bill. I'd like to see what his rebuttal would be to the ultra socialist that wants everthing exposed by Wall Street, the Banks, etc... He's quite the hypocrite or was explained the repercussions of exposing the truth.

This link is before the bill was Watered-Down in the Senate by the Banking/Wall Street Tools
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1923-Financial-Reform-and-the-Fed-s-Bailout-Capability


Financial Reform and the Fed's Bailout Capability

June 17, 2010 - by Hilary Worden
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00KZ6koe1Ye6o/x610.jpg
Included among the financial reforms that may soon become law is an attempt to restrict the Fed’s ability to bail out failing companies by changing a small but important paragraph in the Federal Reserve Act: section 13.3. 13.3 gives the Federal Reserve significant latitude in making emergency loans and is, for instance, what made possible the $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase in 2008 (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3485). The financial reform bills passed by the House (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh) and Senate (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas) both include a number of additions and modifications to the paragraph, and whatever bill is eventually signed would likely significantly reduce the freedom of the Board to make such loans.
Currently, the Federal Reserve Act (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section13.htm) allows these emergency loans provided three conditions are met:


There are “unusual and exigent circumstances”
The borrower is not able to secure enough credit from other sources
There has been an affirmative vote of at least five members of the Board of Governors

The financial reform bills would add many new conditions and restrictions. Significantly, both bills prohibit assistance for a single, specific entity. The Senate bill states that loans must be made “for the purpose of providing liquidity to the financial system, and not to aid a failing financial company,” (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9758) and changes the language of the section so that assistance must come through a “program or facility with broad-based eligibility” (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9753) (rather than going directly to a specific company). Similarly, the House bill states that the Federal Reserve can authorize loans “only as part of a broadly available credit or other facility and may not authorize [loans] for only a single and specific individual, partnership, or corporation.” (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:3294) Apart from this commonality, however, the House and Senate bills are quite different in their handling of 13.3.
The House bill goes a long way in distributing power away from the Board of Governors. Instead of allowing unilateral action by the Board, the House bill requires that (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:3285):


At least six of the nine members of the new Financial Stability Oversight Council agree that “a liquidity event exists that could destabilize the financial system;”
The Secretary of the Treasury has consented;
The President has certified that an emergency exists; and
Congress has not adopted a joint resolution of disapproval.

The Senate bill lacks such an extensive set of new restrictions, but does require the Secretary of the Treasury’s approval for the creation of any new program or facility for emergency lending (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9761).
Additionally, though both bills have a couple provisions to protect taxpayers from losses, they have none in common. The House bill limits the funds available to $4 trillion (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:3285), requires there to be at least a 99% chance that a loan will be repaid (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:3286), and prohibits low quality assets from being used as security (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:3289). The Senate bill, on the other hand, requires sufficient collateral for emergency loans to protect taxpayers (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9758), and prohibits insolvent borrowers (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9759).
On the crucial issue of keeping the public informed, the bills again vary. Under the Senate bill, within a week of a loan being made, the Board would have to make a report including (among other things): a justification for the loan; the identity of the recipient; how much the loan was; requirements imposed (such as rules for employee compensation); and the expected cost to taxpayers. An update would have to be made every 30 days. However, at the request of the Chairman of the Board, the information could be kept confidential. The Senate bill also allows the Comptroller General to review any lending programs (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9793), but requires that identifying details be kept confidential (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9801) until the Board of Governors releases the information or until a year after the program ends.
The House version requires that the Financial Stability Oversight Council notify the House and Senate if it determines that there are liquidity events that threaten the stability of the financial system. It also requires that, within two years, the Comptroller General conduct an audit (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:611) of the Board’s use of the power granted under 13.3 in dealing with the current financial situation. A report would be submitted to Congress and made available to the public within 90 days of the audit’s completion. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eh&nid=t0:eh:613) The Senate bill also requires the retroactive audit of loans made under 13.3 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:9918) from December 1, 2007 to the date of the passage of the final bill.
The Congressional negotiators clearly have their work cut out for them on the matter of 13.3, but any product of the current House and Senate bills will almost surely radically reduce the Fed’s ability to make emergency loans at will.

jmdrake
12-23-2010, 11:26 AM
Yes. Just recently, I believe theres been a story floating around how he wants to "delete the fed."

Slimy little man.

What's slimy about wanting to "delete the fed" and how is that stabbing Paul in the back? Reference please.

jmdrake
12-23-2010, 11:29 AM
Yes, it's irritating that he weakened and voted for Obamacare; yes his amnesty-type immigration stance annoys me...

Nevertheless he's the only democrat worth his salt and it saddens me greatly that the only true progressive voice in the house may be outed. The rest of the dems are corporate tools just like most of the repubs.

Just like the media ignored RP during the 2008 repub. primary, the dems did not let Kucinich into the New Hampshire debates or the democratic convention when he campaigned for Pres. Both parties have been bought out by corporations and powerful lobbies, and only a few on the fringe (e.g. RP, DK, etc.) are truly attempting to work for the little guy.

This. Kucinich has been on our side from day one on auditing the fed, being truly against these wars, and being against violations of civil liberties. Yes caving on Obamacare was a disappointment, but this raw hatred of Kucinich is bewildering to say the least. The congress will definitely be worse off without him.