Vito Fossella on sky rocketing oil prices

via VetoFossella.com;

Pointing to the ongoing oil price crisis, Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY13) today sounded an alarm that the ... Administration's lack of an energy policy could produce similar problems this summer with increased electricity rates and power outages.

"Unless production increases significantly, there could be a problem this summer," Fossella said. "If you thought we had difficulties with home heating oil and gas prices this winter, just wait. A surge in electricity rates and power outages may be just around the corner because the Administration lacks a clear and comprehensive energy policy. Today we are sending a wake-up call to the Energy Department and others that Americans could be hit with escalating electricity rates this summer. Its failure to act following OPEC's production cutbacks last year and its subsequent decision to ignore our warnings of price surges for home heating oil and gas have mired us in this current predicament." [Rep. Vito Fossella]

These words from Rep. Vito Fossella were issued in a press release, March 23, 2000 criticizing President Clinton for his "lack of an energy policy" as oil was approaching $30 a barrel. Today oil flirts with $100 a barrel and Rep. Vito Fossella has not one negative comment to say about this administration or their energy policy or lack thereof. Certainly Vito Fossella is no hypocrite and he would not play partisan games, right? Maybe you should revisit Fossella's thoughts on the war;

"The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way. He has asked the Congress and the American people to follow his lead, but he has shrouded in darkness where that road will take us. Leading military and foreign policy experts have questioned why the Administration won't define the mission and what plans are in place for us to withdraw."

"The President must have a frank discussion with the American people as to what our military's mission is, when victory will be achieved and how it will be achieved."

Rep. Vito Fossella, April 30, 1999. His criticisms today of this war and this President's strategy can not be found as he refuses to address the topic to the point that the Iraq War is not even mentioned on his campaign website.

Vito Fossella votes for middle class families to pay more taxes

First Fossella cries and bemoans Democrats for not passing a patch to the AMT only to vote against it two days later. It passed by the way, thanks to the Democrats he claimed were "dragging their feet."

Monday, December 10, via the Advance;

Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) issued a release today blasting House Democrats who are "dragging their feet" when it comes to passing the patch to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Fossella cites that as a result of their not passing the patch, 23 million middle-class families will have to pay as much as $2,000 more in taxes next year and the 50 million Americans that are owed about $75 billion will have to wait an extra 10 weeks for their returns due to the delay.

Wednesday, December 12;
Rep. Vito Fossella voted AGAINST passing the AMT patch. This must mean that Vito Fossella wanted 23 million middle-class families to pay $2,000 more in taxes and wanted to delay tax returns for another ten weeks for 500 million Americans.

update
November 9;
Rep. Vito Fossella voted AGAINST HR 3996 the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007.

Fossella opposes flood insurance program

So Vito Fossella voted against another bill, what else is new. It is as if the guy is annoyed with having to be in DC and do work so he just votes against anything and everything he can. This week's cause he is opposing, the flood victims of his own district.

On September 27, Vito voted NO on HR 3121: Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. Despite his attempts the bill passed 263-146, with a healthy number of Republicans supporting this legislation. Aside from the slate of bills he outright opposes (here, here, here, here, here, here, here) his arrogance shows absolutely no limits considering just this spring a major Nor'easter wreaked havoc on the city and caused tremendous amount of flood damage to his own district. Via the Advance and Fossella's own words;

"Many Staten Islanders suffered damage from the storm and are in need of federal assistance," Fossella said. "I've heard many stories of flooded homes and small businesses as well as other damage to properties from the 8 inches of rain and 40 mph winds during the Nor'easter.

Vito is a hypocrite in many senses (on the war, more on the war, on lobbying gifts, gas prices, and minimum wage). But the worst of it all is when he puts out minimal efforts on constituent services, giving families help after disasters in front of a tv camera or reporter only to then a few months later completely turn his back on their situation. His voting NO will not stop floods from happening and it will not stop future floods from causing damage to his district. Yet as long as no one speaks up he can look at the bottom line, money, vote NO and never have any recourse.

Fossella praises SCHIP after voting against it

on August 1, 2007, Rep. Vito Fossella voted against SCHIP, a series of state programs that provide insurance to children of low and moderate income families. The bill was HR 3162 Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007. This is Vito Fossella's vote against SCHIP. Remember that beacause Vito Fossella wants you to think otherwise;

via the SI Advance;

In a letter to federal officials, Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) warned that rules issued this month [from the President's administration] would be a blow to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides states with federal matching funds to offer health coverage to children for families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. [bold text my own edit]

What is more of a blow to State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is the fac that Rep. Vito Fossella voted against the program on August 1, 2007.

"Unfortunately, new requirements would hurt states like New York from providing coverage to additional uninsured children," Fossella said in a statement. "A policy of denying access to health care to additional low-income children is misguided."

What hurts states from providing coverage is congressional representatives who vote against the program and try to cut its funding or end it altogether. Rep. Fossella has it right though that denying access to health care to low-income children is misguided, almost as misguided as his own vote against it and now his attempts to put blame elsewhere for hurdles to implement the program.

On August 1, 2007 Vito Fossella voted against SCHIP.
On August 29, 2007 he tells us the actions of the President's administration are harming the program, not his own vote against the program.


for more information on SCHIP and Fossella's vote against it see:
Bush and Fossella Oppose Insuring our Children

Fossella on America rebuilding, post disasters

As many of us are aware a tornado touched down in the district almost two weeks ago and caused tremendous damage. It is scary and devastating when something like this hits so close to home, yet unfortunate that rebuilding is a game of politics, one that Vito Fossella is all too well versed in.

Rights, along with representatives from Congressman Vito Fossella's office, the city Department of Emergency Management, the state Emergency Management Office and the state Small Business Administration toured about 35 homes and businesses that suffered damage. Fossella's office had compiled a list of many of the homeowners who were affected.

"This was a critical step as we work to help residents recover from the storm," Fossella said. "I will be working closely with the federal, city and state officials in the coming days to ensure that resources are available for residents and businesses impacted by the storm and that every action is taken to provide comprehensive assistance for those in need." [via SI Advance]

When I talk about why I care about politics and the function of government I tell people it is all about community. If my neighbor is not doing well, then I am not doing well. If my neighborhood is afflicted we all suffer. It seems that there is a portion of Americans who reach out to those in need, and a portion who do what is good for themselves so they are never in need, neglectful of their community. It is commendable that Vito Fossella is making sure those in need after this disaster are getting the government funding and support available to rebuild, however it rings all too hollow when you consider that Vito Fossella voted against recovery bills relating to the absolute destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast. Notably, in just March of this year, he voted against H.R. 1227, a bill that provided Congressional assistance in low income families displaced or who lost much if not all in the wake of the Hurricane.

To me government is about all of us, and helping any in need, not just those whom you represent. Fossella turned his back on our neighbors in Louisiana and Mississippi for the sake of fiscal conservatism because the cost associated with helping rebuild these areas really cut into tax breaks. Now, suddenly we are afflicted with disaster, fortunately on a much smaller scale and Vito Fossella has found the ability to support recovery and rebuilding.

The hypocrisy for one person to be so arrogant in thinking that Americans, not in his district have been given too much, when they have lost everything and then to turn and demand funding when a tornado hits our home is absolutely bewildering. My government does not do this. My government is not compassionate when it allows for press opportunities, it is compassionate when ever someone is in need, whether locally or elsewhere in this country. My government should not be giving out tax breaks to the wealthiest when across this country there is poverty and need, not to mention Americans serving in our armed forces in desperate need of supplies. Vito Fossella has failed all of us, and one day, should we be met with a fraction of the destruction caused by Katrina and should our government turn its back on us, after learning this from watching Fossella, then what?

My thoughts and prayers to all Americans who have faced devastation both near and afar. May we together reach out and help all in need and become a better country for it.

update
See Also:
Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007

Fossella opposed and now favors Gas price gouging

Last year Rep. Vito Fossella voted in favor of the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006 [HR 5253] a bill nearly identical to HR 1252 which he voted AGAINST this year. We covered yesterday the games he played by introducing an alternative bill with extremely limited or no penalties the same day Congress passed HR 1252. Today's question, why did he support the bill one year and then caved to Exxon and flipped on it the following year?

Additionally if Rep. Fossella feels so strongly about this issue that he actually took some time to try to draft legitimate legislation, the question arises why has he never bothered to work on helping to pass similar legislation in the past?

REFUSED TO CO-SPONSOR H.R.3681 in 2005, To amend the Clayton Act to make unlawful price gouging for necessary goods and services during Presidentially declared times of national disaster.

REFUSED TO CO-SPONSOR H.RES.238, Condemning any price gouging with respect to motor fuels during the hours and days after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. [no xml link]

REFUSED TO CO-SPONSOR H.R.3782, To prohibit price gouging of gasoline and diesel fuel in areas declared major disasters.

REFUSED TO SIGN discharge petition to allow the consideration of the resolution H. Res. 568 entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3936) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels during energy emergencies, and for other purposes; Dec 2005

This shouldn't come as a surprise. VetoFossella.com shows us he votes against or refused to support Minimum Wage bills year after year only to then vote for it this year. In fact he voted against an identical bill just last year in the Republican controlled Congress. Does Fossella actually have a stance on anything?

More on why Fossella needs us in Iraq

In the first edition of this thought, we explained that Rep. Vito Fossella needs the US to stay in Iraq for as long as possible because his mantra of support the troops would be exposed should they return home and focus shift to his numerous votes against troops and veterans; against healthcare for reservists and national guard, against pay increases for our troops, against requiring they are trained before sent into war, and against veteran access to educational benefits.

Today, let's revisit his speech on the floor of the House before voting against the Supplemental bill Bush is now threatening to veto;

I ask if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will our enemy choose next?

New York…Los Angeles…Washington?

I mention this because on Friday, April 6, there is a McClatchy article that starts;

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

It is amazing how similar both Rep. Vito Fossella and President Bush think on the issue of Iraq, despite Vito's repeated claims that he is an independent thinker for the island, unless that means independent of what his constituents think. The article goes on to address Bush's comment that the war will come here if we don't fight them over there, so by default they also address Fossella's claims of the same thing. Here is what think tanks from his own party and what our own military are saying;

“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

So support the military, just don't listen to them is what Rep. Vito Fossella must be telling us.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

“There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States,” said Benjamin, who served as the National Security Council’s director for transnational threats from 1998 to 1999. “I’m not saying events in Iraq aren’t going to embolden jihadists. But I think the president’s formulations call for a leap of faith.”

"The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

So should Congress revoke the war powers granted to the President, and should Congress bring our troops safely home, once again Fossella is left with his own words haunting him. As long as our troops are stranded in Iraq, Fossella can run around crying wolf and telling us the terrorists will follow us here if we leave, despite what military and policy strategists who address these issues are saying to the contrary. And thus ends another installment of the 'Hypocrisy of Fossella.'

Accountability in Contracting Act

Yesterday the House voted on the 'Accountability in Contracting Act' (HR 1362), which is somewhat lengthy but can be summed up as;

The legislation, reported by the Oversight and Armed Services Committees, changes federal acquisition law to require agencies to limit the use of abuse-prone contracts, to increase transparency and accountability in federal contracting, and to protect the integrity of the acquisition workforce.

* Section 101 limits the duration of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to one year to prevent abuse beyond the extent of the emergency
* Section 102 curbs this practice by requiring large federal agencies to develop and implement a plan to promote competition and minimize the use of noncompetitive contracts.
* Section 103 requires large federal agencies to develop and implement a plan to maximize the use of the efficient fixed-price contracts.
* requires public disclosure on why a no-bid contract was awarded within 14 or 30 days
*Section 202 promotes transparency in federal contracting by requiring that contract overcharges in excess of $10 million be disclosed to Congress by the Administration


And guess what, the bill passed 347-73, with Rep. Vito Fossella opposing this. Apparently his recent applause by the American Taxpayer's Union for his fiscal sensibility is really just a partisan joke. Otherwise how to do you explain voting against transparency, against closing loopholes for abuse, against public reports of how much we are being billed (taxes!). Of course Vito also served in a Republican majority that oversaw the largest deficit and debt accumulation. But don't just take my for it, here is Fossella contradicting himself;

“The key to sustaining long-term economic growth is to keep taxes low and to control spending. Too many families are struggling to make ends meet because high federal, state and city taxes are consuming as much as 50% of their paychecks. The American people work hard to earn their money and they shouldn’t be forced to hand over so much of it for the government to spend. I believe Staten Island and Brooklyn residents are smarter at spending their money than the government and deserve to keep more of it to invest, save or buy a new computer, fix up their homes or go on a vacation.” [March 7, 2007]

It is quite telling that over 100 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for this, and to vote for controlled government spending, while Rep. Vito Fossella voted to support the President, once again. Once again Fossella is all talk and no action for this district.

Fossella and his hypocrisy towards our troops and administration

For the past several days the floor in the House of Representatives has been open to every member to debate for five minutes the resolution on the floor opposing President Bush's troop escalation. For the past three days members of both parties took to the floor to present their opinions and stances on the matter, all the while Rep. Fossella remained unseen and unheard from because he had yet to make up his mind. In that time at least 11 Republicans have spoken out vociferously against the President's plan. While the country is at war Rep. Fossella has no problems addressing other pressing issues such as honoring Alexander Hamilton on his 250th anniversary of his birth. However ask him to present a strategy for improving the safety of our troops in the Middle East or ask him a possible more black and white issue such as, should we send more troops or should we start bringing our troops home and this politician's thought process draws to a halt. While the citizens of this country made a clear case opposing Bush's handling of the war when they went to the polls in November, Fossella seems unmoved about what they think. While military generals such as General Colin Powell, General Abizaid, and members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group have come forward to oppose this troop escalation, Fossella again remains unmoved. In fact all week news sites have been reporting that Fossella remains undecided on his stance towards the President's policy of sending even more troops into Iraq, when he disregarded similar suggestions from military leaders in the past.
In 2003 General Shinseki and General Zinni called for several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq, yet that request fell on deaf ears.

However Fossella is not undecided on this issue as it would appear. As with foreign policy and the war in Iraq during his re-election campaign, he is just avoiding it and pretending it is a non issue. He knows his stance full well, and that is as an 'independent' as he characterizes himself, his job is to wait for marching orders from the decider-in-chief President Bush and to abide by them irregardless of what his constituents or what our military leaders may say. Clearly the military strategy of this President out shines those of our own military generals.

This is so clearly a situation where Rep. Fossella espouses empty rhetoric of 'supporting our troops' in order to push a very partisan issue. While I could easily debate Rep. Fossella's logic and his allegiance to this President over the security of our troops and our country, I think his own words devistatingly show his true nature.

In 1999 President Clinton presided over the US military involvement in Serbia, while participating in a NATO authorized mission. Seeing the chance to attack, in nothing short of thinly veiled partisan jabs, the President, the Commander in Chief, Rep. Fossella laid out his attack as follows; [via Rep. Fossella's April 30th 1999 press release]

Congressman Vito Fossella (R-NY) today reiterated his continued support of air strikes against Serbia but challenged President Clinton to provide a clear vision of the military campaign.

Fossella said his vote earlier this week against a resolution on air operations was an attempt to focus attention on Clinton's failure to provide leadership as Commander-in-Chief and to clearly articulate a strategy for victory.

So Rep. Fossella has indicated his ability to on one hand support the ongoing military opperation while simultaneously challenging the President's strategy. He used his office and his vote on the House floor to stand up to what he perceived was a potentially flawed strategy, yet never let down his stance that the opperation was necessary. The parallel is that today, when there is little doubt that President Bush's strategy is not just flawed but an absolute danger, Rep. Fossella has the track record to again support the war should he choose but challenge the President's strategy by voting for the resolution on the floor. However he has not done so.

"While their concerns [those of his constituents] are uppermost in my mind, I have a responsibility to all Americans as we make these difficult decisions. But President Clinton has failed the test of leadership since this military action began. In the past, I have supported the President as Commander in Chief in military actions against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. But in this matter, he has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security to Kosovars. The President has a responsibility to articulate America's long-term strategy before placing even one soldier in harm's way. He has asked the Congress and the American people to follow his lead, but he has shrouded in darkness where that road will take us. Leading military and foreign policy experts have questioned why the Administration won't define the mission and what plans are in place for us to withdraw." [edited text my own]

Again Rep. Fossella sets the stage for opposition to President Bush's failed leadership, as he so accused President Clinton. He can stand by Bush's decisions on the war in Afghanistan while criticizing and asking for a revised strategy for the war in Iraq. He has done it before and will not be seen as partisan cheer leading by attacking Clinton and then congratulating Bush on both of their leadership opportunities. Yet there is no press release, there are no speeches on the floor of the House that Bush, as he accused Clinton, "has avoided articulating a strategy that will ensure victory, prevent a nightmarish quagmire or provide permanent security" in Iraq. The glaring statement that closes that thought is his audacity to invoke foreign policy experts and he even dares to request plans for withdraw. Just this past fall when similar critiques were lobbed at Rep. Fossella and President Bush by Democratic challenger Stephen Harrison, Fossella chastised him for his failure to support the troops and his desire to 'cut and run.' The egg appears to be on Fossella's face, which may be what is blinding his foresight today.

Fossella said that after only six weeks of military action, the American people are already seeing the fallout of the Administration's ambiguous strategy and failure to plan for victory.

So what do the American people see now after nearly four years in Iraq? Rep. Fossella, did you hear the question because we have not heard your reply...

"It was shocking that the White House and NATO failed to realize that the bombings would lead to a mass exodus of Kosovars from their homeland,"

via MSNBC;
Redmond said his staff were seeing 2,000 people a day enter Syria from Iraq. More are believed to be entering other countries but UNHCR has not recorded those movements.

Up to 1.6 million Iraqis now live outside their country — mostly in Jordan and Syria, and in increasing numbers in Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf states and Europe, Redmond said.

snip

“This displacement amid the ongoing violence in Iraq is presenting an enormous humanitarian challenge and extreme hardship for both the displaced and the Iraqi families trying to help them in host communities,” Redmond said.

“The enormous scale of the needs, the ongoing violence and the difficulties in reaching the displaced make it a problem that is practically beyond the capacity of humanitarian agencies, including UNHCR.”

Is this still shocking? Is this what the President meant by 'shock and awe'?

Fossella also voted for a bill this week that would require President Clinton to seek Congress' approval before committing ground troops to combat.

Rep. Fossella the opportunity again is before you. Tell this President, just as you told the last one that you will not support committing more troops to such a failed policy. Demand the President present his case before Congress clearly stating the benchmarks of his strategy to justify his escalation request, otherwise stand up and vote to oppose committing more troops as you did before.

"It would be unwise for Congress to issue the President a blank check to wage war," Fossella said. "We learned only to well the dangers of gradual escalation. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution started a bombing campaign against North Vietnam that resulted in an 11 year quagmire, over 57,000 Americans killed in combat and some 600,000 American ground troops. That resolution became President Johnson's blank check to troop waves of new soldiers into combat. To many Americans, the war in the Balkans bears striking similarities to Vietnam. The President must have a frank discussion with the American people as to what our military's mission is, when victory will be achieved and how it will be achieved."

Rep. Fossella, you authorized a new blank check for a new President which has created a new quagmire. You saw the dangers of escaltion in Serbia, yet you are deaf to your own words of advice. Rep. Fossella you issued this entire press release on April 30th, 1999, only 38 days in the military opperation in Serbia. You clearly laid out your case for why the President at the time failed to adequately provide a strategy to win and a plan for withdraw in your opinion. You made the case for why you can support the war if you wanted, however you could vote down troop escalation and you could vote in favor of resolutions condemning the President's strategy or lack thereof. You asked the hard question of "whether the Administration was caught off guard or of it lacks a clear vision of how we will wage and win this war" yet you seemingly have no reservations of such today. Rep. Fossella you stood up as a member of Congress to a 38 day old war that you saw as so grievously ill-prepared for, yet now four years into this war in Iraq you barely appear to have an opinion one way or another. Rep. Fossella you stood up for our troops in a war in Serbia where the US military had no casualties, yet today we have buried 3,125 3,128 Americans because of this disastrous policy the President has provided for us in Iraq. Rep. Fossella I can understand the pain you feel when a role model of yours lets you down so terribly hard as President Bush must have done to you, however as you questioned President Clinton, I must wonder are you asleep at the wheel with your leadership? Is your failure to create or support any sound strategy for our troops an indication of your leadership abilities? Or in the end is this just a partisan issue where there is no opportunity for you to grand stand and in reality you could care less about our troops, because that Rep. Fossella is what you are telling us.

UPDATE
Rep. Fossella votes NO to the resolution and stands firmly behind President Bush and his strategy for Iraq. Vito Fossella continues to show us his 'independent' mindset. Read his speech here.