Tuesday, January 31, 2006

More Letters to Newsday About King

Watching King's Medicaid vote - Newsday Jan. 24th
Some politicians, like my congressman, Peter King, think they can say one thing and do another. King repeatedly claims concern for senior citizens in letters he sends us. But when the House of Representatives considered the budget bill that would cut Medicaid that thousands of elderly depend on, he voted for it.

Fortunately, the Senate version of this legislation is much kinder to senior citizens, so King may get a second chance. When the final version of this bill is announced, many older Long Islanders will be interested in how it treats seniors and in how King and his colleagues vote.
James E. Stubenrauch

Punishment fordonating money - Newsday Jan 26th
I found your Jan. 17 article ["Unions launch ad campaign aimed at budget-cutting bill," Newsday.com] of great interest and it made me think of an adage: No good deed goes unpunished. It seems to me that this is what the Congress was thinking of when it came up with a budget bill. As it stands, if you gave money to your church, contributed to hurricane relief or helped your grandchildren with their college tuition, you could be penalized should you need Medicaid to cover expensive long-term care. The government will go back through your records and deny you care based on the amount you gave to these causes. This sure sounds wrongheaded to me.
The good news is that in February Congress can still reject this budget bill. I hope my fellow constituents will join me in urging Rep. Peter King to vote against this budget bill.
Paula Orlando

King Defends His Immigration Bill and Gets Called Out

Rep. King defends his immigration bill - Newsday Jan. 24th
The terrorist attacks of Sept.11 made it clearer than ever that border security is homeland security. Yet, millions of illegal aliens enter our country every year.Adding to the terror threat, the number of non-Mexican illegals has more than quadrupled in the past three years. The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act, which I co-authored with Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is a reasoned, rational attempt to regain and maintain operational control of our borders.The legislation would seek maximum border protection by the use of physical barriers, state-of-the-art technology, increased border patrol agents and expanded detention facilities. It would require joint border efforts by the departments of Homeland Security and Defense and provide diplomatic levers to use against countries that deny or delay repatriation of their citizens. This bill passed after extensive hearings and two full days of debate on the House floor.My legislation consists of 128 sections, 257 pages and 43,148 words. Newsday's editorial criticizing that legislation ["Make it a felony to aid a migrant?" Opinion, Jan. 3] is an embarrassingly vapid non sequitur reeking with self-righteousness and willful misinformation. For instance, Newsday opposes the creation of a wall, although it may be "ultimately desirable." What are we waiting for?
Most ridiculously, Newsday - out of malice or ignorance - claims the legislation would make it a felony to "give a ride, food . . . or a bed to anyone who may be undocumented." The provisions to which Newsday is apparently alluding have been federal law for almost half a century and target alien smuggling gangs. They have never been used against church groups or immigrant advocates.The debate over illegal immigration - including border control and legal guest workers - warrants a serious and thoughtful debate. Thus far, Newsday has shown itself intellectually incapable of joining in that debate.
Rep. Peter King(R-Seaford)

Today, Ken Feifer from the Long Island Progressive Coalition calls King out on his position and the way King goes on the attack.

Rep. Peter King thinks he is King - Newsday Jan 31
I read Rep. Peter King's (R-Seaford) letter, and it is clear that he is unfit for duty ["Rep. King defends his immigration bill," Opinion, Jan. 24]. King again avoids substantive discussion of the issues and resorts to name-calling and artfully written insults: "an embarrassingly vapid non sequitur reeking with self-righteousness and willful misinformation. . . . Newsday has shown itself intellectually incapable of joining the debate."
One of the central tenets of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act is the creation of an unprecedented burden on all American workers and American businesses through the creation of a federally mandated requirement for citizens as well as immigrants to get permission from the federal government before they can take a job. Does King educate the public on this point and seek to inform the people who vote for him as to how this provision would be enacted? No, he chooses to sling insults and tell us that if we cannot see his point we must be stupid.
King continues to act as if his incumbency were embodied in his last name. For those of us paying attention it becomes more and more obvious with each passing insult - it's time for King to go.
Ken Feifer
Editor's note: The writer is co-chairman of the Long Island Progressive Coalition.Massapequa

Monday, January 09, 2006

More Love Between King and Constituents

From the Bellmore (Long Island) Faculty Organization Retiree page.

PETER KING: Congressman Peter King from Seaford has been incurring the wrath of many of his constituents. King's responses to voters who challenge his support of administrative policies have been questionable. Harry Halikias, a graduate of the Bellmore schools and a current resident of Bellmore, contacted King's office requesting that President Bush be censured. King's reply included the statement "You are morally, intellectually, and politically wrong." Halikias was shocked by King's tone, responding, "I think he took it personally when he didn't have to. I didn't question his morality or intellect." A Newsday article on June 30, 2005, quoted King as saying, "I think they [his constituents] should be honored they have a congressman who actually listens to them---even if they are not making sense. I respond to them and they run crying to the newspapers. It's just like the kid who's a wise punk, and then when someone takes a shot at them, they go running to the teacher." Is this how a congressman talks? During the ARA Convention in Washington, D.C. on September 8, a group of our RC 17 (Retiree Council 17) members (who had a confirmed appointment to meet with the congressman) was told to leave King's office because staff members had already spoken to other Long Island individuals (who were not part of RC 17 and did not have an appointment). King's staff literally slammed the door shut on these people. What's going on here?

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

King and Tom Delay's House of Scandal

From the fine folks over at The Stakeholder:

Just how tangled up in Tom DeLay's House of Scandal is Peter King?

Peter King voted with Tom DeLay 91% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.

Is this the kind of lockstep government that working families deserve?

Peter King voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.

Does the integrity of the House mean so little that Peter King would sacrifice it to defend Tom DeLay?

When Republicans realized it was "impossible to win the communications battle" over the gutted ethics rules, King flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place.

So Peter King cares about the integrity of the House after all -- when cable news is covering it.

When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Peter King voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.

So instead of a bipartisan effort to get government working for Americans, Peter King stood for cronyism and partisan politics.

Peter King voted to allow DeLay to continue serving as Leader even if he is indicted.

Is Tom DeLay's behavior the kind of leadership that should be REWARDED, not punished?

Voting percentage with DeLay:
calculated through: www.cq.com - 91%

Vote to weaken ethics rules:
H Res. 5, Roll Call #6, 1/4/05 YES

Vote to repeal weakened ethics rules:
H Res. 241, Roll Call #145, 4/27/05 YES

Votes to table Democratic solution:
H. Res. 153, Roll Call #70, 3/15/05 YES
H. Res. 213, Roll Call #106, 4/14/05 YES

Closed door indictment rule vote:
http://www.pcactionfund.org/votecount/dr.htm YES