Updated 10:50 p.m.
Speaking to a crowd of Democrats, Jim Himes pledged that he will stand by his principles, but that he will compromise and do what is needed to move the country forward.
With his family at his side—minutes after his opponent, Steve Obsitnik, conceded, Himes delivered an impassioned acceptance speech.
"In the greatest nation on the planet where we all stand for individual liberty and freedom, but we all recognize that we are at our best, we are at our blessed, when we recognize that we have a duty towards each other.”
He went on to thank Obsitnik, calling him a "good man," who "ran a good campaign."
“In a nation of very ugly campaigns this one was an exception,” Himes said. "We value civility."
Looking toward the future, Himes reflected on the recurring message he heard as he traveled the 4th District this election season—one that mirrored President Barack Obama's platform: make sure the country recovers fully economically and that it provides opportunities for all.
"The greatest nation in the world can afford to education each child in this country superbly,” he said. "The greatest nation can make sure that not a single American dies or gets ill without access to healthcare."
“We celebrate indivduals, we really do," he said. "We say God bless you, go out there and succeed. Start a business. Get rich. Do well. Be a leader in your community, but also never forget, that you got there because like my oppposent Steve Obsitnik and I, we got to go to good public schools.”
In closing, Himes noted what he said most in the district and country feel, that the House of Representatives has been "pretty dysfunctional" the last couple of years. And that people just want things to get done.
His pledge: "I will continue to do what I have tried to do in these last four years, which is to be an independent and thoughtful leader of this district. That I will stand for my principles."
"At the end of the day, I recognize that governing involves standing for your principles, but getting together and making a compromise and doing what you need to do to move the country forward.”
Updated 10:22 p.m.
Obsitnik quoted Winston Churchill at the end of his concession speech in front of family, friends and supporters at Norwalk Inn. "In closing, there is no such thing as losing, just giving up too soon," he said. "...Tomorrow will be a bright day in America regardless."
Obsitnik thanked his parents and told his daugthers that he would take them on a "long weekend" vacation now that the election is over.
After congratulating Himes on succeeding in the election, Obsitnik said that he hoped Himes would focus on "an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses can recreate jobs and take Connecticut back to where we have been as a state."
Updated 10:11 p.m.
According to a Tweet from Himes, Obsitnik called to concede the race. "Gracious concession call from Steve Obsitnik. Good man. Worthy service. Did the GOP proud."
Updated 10 p.m.
With 8 percent of precincts reporting, Himes is out in front of Obsitnik 14,286 to 7,131 votes, according to the Hartford Courant.
A large crowd has gathered in Bridgeport, at the Holiday Inn, at Himes' Election night headquarters, waiting for the Congressman to come in. A crowd is gathered at the Obsitnik headquarters, too.
Updated 9:05 p.m.
Obsitnik arrived at the GOP gathering in Norwalk at just around 9 p.m. and was greeted by guests with a round of applause.
Updated 8:21 p.m.
The ballroom at Norwalk Inn, where Steve Obsitnik is expected to spend the evening, is slowly filling up with guests. Norwalk Mayor Richard Moccia has already arrived and is actively mingling with guests.
Updated 7:45 p.m.
The stage is set at Bridgeport's Holiday Inn for Himes. Red, white and blue balloons and campaign signs give the scene a patriotic feel. Aside from a few members of the media, no one has arrived yet. The Congressman just stopped off at the Fairfield DTC headquarters, according to his Twitter account.
Obsitnik is expected to be in Norwalk as results come in.
Updated, 5:00 p.m.
With strong voter turnout and a healthy lead in the polls, Congressman Jim Himes (D-4th) said he was "feeling really good" about his chances for defeating Republican challenger Steve Obsitnik when he stopped by Democratic Town Headquarters in Greenwich Tuesday afternoon.
"The reason I'm feeling good is because of the polls I've been following — I tend to watch the Presidential [race] in the swing states — and of course I've been following the Murphy campaign closely — but all those numbers are in 'win' territory — some of them narrowly — but nevertheless in 'win' territory," Himes said during a brief interview, as campaign workers relentlessly called voters and shuffled about the tiny storefront. "When you have low turnout... the poll results can be less reliable. But when you have strong turnout… the results are more like the polls suggest," Himes added.
Himes said he was very pleased with the strong turnout — particularly considering this year's election came in the wake of all the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. "I mean, a week ago I wondered whether we would pull off the election," he said.
Himes said although the polls are trending in the Dems' favor for the Presidential, Congressional and Senate races, there's "still plenty of room for surprise," in the election.
"I mean, no pollster really knows what this electorate is going to look like," he said. "You've got the Tea-party enthusiasm on one side, which is only about two years old, and you've got a lot of enthusiasm for the President from young people and African Americans, but not as much as in '08, so those are unpredictable variables. And no pollster knows what effect that will have on the chemistry ..."
When asked how he is doing personally, beyond the numbers, Himes said, "I feel good... I mean, the polls all along have shown that I'm quite popular in the district. I really do like my opponent, I think he's a nice guy, but I don't think he's run a terribly pointed campaign…"
Himes said he was feeling much more confident this time around, compared to his previous two bids for Congress.
"It's very different," he said of the 2012 campaign. "I'm not taking anything for granted today — I've worked really hard and I've raised the money — but in my last two elections I felt like I was hanging on by my fingernails, for weeks, but this time I don't. This time it feels like the basic blocking and tackling will get me across the line. I've never had an election where I wasn't in serious jeopardy, so this is a new feeling for me..."
When asked if he felt he got his message out to voters — and if it resonated with them — Himes said, "I'm very lucky in that I have a very educated constituency. So, the traditional bullet points of both parties don't work very well. Most Republicans in Fairfield County don't really believe that the economic mess of today was caused by the Obama administration's spending — just the same way the Democrats don't really believe that the Republicans will do away with medicare. In that regard I feel like I can have a more real political conversation here in Fairfield County than happens elsewhere..."
When asked is he expects to pickup any new towns this time around, Himes said, "In my first race I won the three cities — and in my second race I won the the three cities, plus two towns. This time I'd like to win a few more towns… "
Updated, 3:24 p.m.
Obsitnik told Patch Tuesday afternoon about his busy schedule leading up to Election Night. "We've been up since 4:30 a.m. going around to train stations and polling places and just talking to people," he said via phone. The energy is very positive and strong. I'm looking forward to a very fun victory night."
Original Story
While the third scheduled debate of the 4th Congressional race between Democratic candidate Rep. Jim Himes and Republican candidate Steve Obsitnik was canceled due to the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, voters were given three chances to hear each candidate's position on both foreign and domestic issues and what they planned to change if elected.
The first debate in Norwalk, which focused on foreign policy, found Himes and Obsitnik agreeing on a few topics, including the United States' relationship with China.
"China provides us with a spectacular opportunity to trade with them, to get rich, as they buy our products," Himes said. "Unfortunately, we will never agree with the way Chinese leadership feels about how to run a political system."
Obsitnik agreed on the idea behind Himes' statement, but not his choice of words. Obsitnik felt as the U.S. continued to evolve and innovate as a nation, it would need to keep an eye on China. "China is our greatest national threat and our greatest opportunity," he said.
The two disagreed, however, on Afghanistan with Obsitnik and Himes each firing at statements from the other on what should be the appropriate approach to drawing down troops in the region.
"Jim Himes said he disagreed with the president here and I just haven't seen the fortitude behind it," Obsitnik said.
Himes fired back by saying that he at least 30 votes on the floor of the House of Representatives based on one principal. "I disagree with this President's nation-building strategy, and I've been very clear about that from the start," he said.
According to the Connecticut Mirror, the last two debates, which focused on domestic issues and took place in Norwalk and Bridgeport, didn't seem to show a clear difference between each candidate's position.
Himes accused Obsitnik of not "showing clarity" in his answers and instead offering partisanship, while Obsitnik accused Himes of being a "career politician," but they both agreed on issues, including preserving Medicare and repairng Social Security.
Most recently, Himes argued that a company owned by Obsitnik benefited from millions in taxpayer money, according to the Connecticut Post, while Obsitnik accused Himes of helping a now-defunct Bridgeport-based ship builder receive stimulus funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA).
Quick Facts
- Himes received a Bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1988 and a Master's degree in Philosopy from the University of Oxford in 1990, while Obsitnik received a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1989 and an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business in 1996.
- Himes held positions at Enterprise Community Partners and Goldman Sachs & Co., while Obsitnik was the CEO of Quintel and an adjunct professor at Sacred Heart University.
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?code=Ne4&nseq=137964 EXCERPT: According to a report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee the U.S.' trade deficit with Korea has grown by even a larger margin since the implementation of the FTA from just 600-million dollars in March to a staggering 2-billion dollars in May. END EXCERPT
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510?page=4 EXCERPT: H.R. 3283... Sponsored by CT Democrat and hedge-fund industry BFF Jim Himes, exempts foreign affiliates of U.S. swaps dealers from all Dodd-Frank oversight. The rule, if implemented, would make the next AIG possible, given that AIG was undone by half a trillion dollars in derivative bets produced by such a foreign affiliate – its London-based financial products outfit, AIGFP. If passed, says Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina, H.R. 3283 would leave a "massive, gaping hole" in Dodd-Frank. "It would be very easy to move those trades to whatever the most indulgent country would be," Miller explains. The bill also exempts from oversight any swaps deals between company affiliates – meaning that Goldman Hong Kong can sell swaps to Goldman New York without having to deal with Dodd-Frank. That sounds harmless, but when you combine it with the AIG-style exemption, a bank would basically be able to get around Dodd-Frank entirely by creating its swaps products at an overseas branch, or moving them back and forth between affiliates. END EXCERPT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/04/washington-post-fiscal-times-peterson EXCERPT: Peter Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon administration cabinet member who has been trying to gut social security payments and Medicare for at least the last quarter of a century. He has written several books that warn of a demographic disaster when the baby boomers retire. These books often include nonsense arguments to make his case. For example.... [snip] ...Of course, what Peterson says matters because he uses his billions to make sure that his voice gets heard. In the case of his books, he would take out full-page ads in major newspapers to ensure that these otherwise very forgettable tracts got taken seriously. And he started organizations. First, he had the Concord Coalition.... END EXCERPT
http://www.concordcoalition.org/articles/2012/1023/impressed-himes-bipartisan-approach It is vital the American people come to understand how misleading the critics of Social Security have been, and soon, because Congressmen Jim Himes and his peers are not wasting any time exploiting crisis and confusion to serve their real constituency, the super-wealthy. Himes is really a rising star in Congress for the 1%, not surprising since he already made his private sector career serving them.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2010-11-1.pdf EXCERPT: Polls consistently show that a large majority of working age people does not expect to be able to collect Social Security benefits. They have been led to believe that the program is hugely out of balance and will soon run out of money. Of course this is clearly not the case. The projections that are derived from the Social Security Trustees’ intermediate assumptions show that the program could pay all scheduled benefits for the next 27 years even if nothing is done. After 2037, the projections show that Social Security would still be able pay a benefit that is larger in real terms than what current retirees receive, even though it would be just 75 percent of the scheduled benefit. The payable benefit would continue to rise through time, so that even if nothing is ever done to change the program, a retiree in 2100 could anticipate a benefit that is more than twice as high as what current retirees receive today.... [to be continued]
...Presumably Congress will not allow the payable benefit to fall below the scheduled benefit. If a shortfall really was imminent, it is likely that Congress would make the necessary adjustments to keep the program paying full benefits. This is exactly what happened in 1982-83, when the program literally did run out of money. Congress took steps to ensure that benefits were paid each month. It then established the Greenspan Commission whose reforms laid the basis for another 54 years of solvency. Adjustments of the size put in place in 1983 could keep Social Security fully solvent into the 22nd century even if we waited until 2030 to act. These are the basic facts about the state of the program, yet only a small share of the public knows them. This matters hugely in terms of the willingness to accept cuts in the Social Security. People are far more likely to accept cuts in the program if they never expected to see their benefits anyhow. On the other hand, if there were widespread awareness of the fact that the program was fully funded for the near-term future and largely funded for the indefinite future then there would likely be more objections to proposals that substantially reduce benefits. END EXCERPT finis.
I dont know the answers. I do know all of the states (and foreign countries) are offering incentives for companies to relocate. Some are subtle while others are overwhelming. Here: http://www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/incentives-financing/index.php There is no getting around it. I am not outraged because the alternative to losing a company is to lose jobs and the tax revenue they generate. CT and Mass were the innovator and leaders in the textile industry for a couple of generations. Companies relocated to lower cost states in the south and left many an empty mill town here. CT had nicknames for its towns: Brass City, Hatter Town, Ivorytown, Umbrella capital of the world, etc. Those jobs are gone...how many fewer people walking the street or on welfare would we have if those jobs remained? There are no easy answers but I have to oppose any plan that strips incentives to work and encourages sloth.
It is all terribly corrupt on both sides of the aisle. Both parties are at fault. I think we pay far too much in taxes that feed into this corruption. We need to starve the beast of the $ it lives on.
Mitchell So, go off the cliff and let obama own the ensuing recession but make it clear any vote to reinstate only part of the Bush tax giveaway will be blocked...all or nothing.
The second part about allocating the blame is very risky because the current administration is positioning circumstances to permit blame to be assigned to the Republican House if the economy goes over the cliff. It looks like a deal will be made but many of the tea party Reps will vote against it and those Repubs who vote for it may face primary challenges. The challenge will be to get the PR correct. I don’t think the Repubs have laid out a clear case to the public about why the rates matter. If the tax increases suck the profit out of businesses, and growth stagnates, does it matter whether it is due to rate changes or loophole elimination? Isn’t the bottom line subtraction of profit dollars? Anybody out there want to give this one a shot? If it’s not real, why defend it? The average citizen needs education on this one or they will reject protecting the affluent otherwise.
But there is a profound lack of curiosity when it comes to the other half of this supposed bargain. Remember that hypothetical deal of $1 in tax increases to $10 in spending cuts? Republicans are still being asked about it and criticized for rejecting it. But balancing the budget under that formula would require $9 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. When was the last time the president or a Democratic congressman was asked whether or not they would agree to such a deal? For that matter, it’s worth noting that more than half of Democratic congressmen and eleven senators have signed a pledge to oppose any changes to Social Security or Medicare. If pledges are the root of all evil, couldn’t we pause for just a moment in our attempts to run Grover Norquist out of town to work up the tiniest bit of outrage about this one? In fact, many Democrats actually want to spend more, at least in the short term. The president’s most recent budget calls for $2.6 in increased spending between now and 2022. That’s $1 trillion more than the $1.6 trillion that the president has called for in new taxes. That’s not a “balanced approach.” That’s simply old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics." Tanner
There are no traps here, just an inquiry into the logic. Bring on the econometrics if you want. If there is research, please point me to it.
You mean 8 years of bush and 4 of obami.
Lets take this example. An Oil company makes 31 billion dollars in profit. They pay taxes at a Federal rate of 35% and 7.5% Ct State income tax. Their employees pay most likely in the 20% range. THerefore they have paid roughly 10 billion in Federal taxes and 2Billion in State taxes. Their employees may have paid another 1 billion in personal income tax. And having people employed and earning money, drives the economy of that locality, by supporting restaurants, hardware stores etc. IN exchange they receive 'corporate welfare of 40 million dollars. Now, if those same numbers existed by giving high school dropouts welfare, then no one would complain. Ok, Tucker. Make sense? They have a choice of locating a new building in Connecticut or
Now the democrats want to highlight that era, as representative of when you can raise taxes. Huh? They want to argue dishonestly. Yes. You can raise taxes in a strong economy, and hopefully have revenue increases, that do not flatten the economy. But, one thing has been clear throughout history, including Kennedy Johnson etc, lowering taxes has been the way to get the economy going. This President is simply about class warfare, and punishing success. Watch the economy in the next 4 months. The Dems and the Media will try to attack blame to republicans, but the cold reality is, we have obamacare coming that will kill small businesses, and the resultant unemployment will be as a result of a slowing economy burdened with increased bullshit regulation, and new entitlements that cost money, and force people to fire people. And the Dems know it-but they think they can outwit everyone, because they have the media in their back pocket. Disaster is coming, and the blame Bush crap will no longer be ok.
In the private caucuses, re-election vote-getting and donation sources can be protected. The Repubs want to minimize damage to their own re-election prospects, naturally, but given their role and that of the Dems in creating this mess in the first place, it is understandable why they don’t feel the citizens will support them. If we believe in a free market economy, then I guess we must accept a free market for politics and accept the fact that our elected officials will act in their own selfish interests to the detriment of the citizens in some situations and in ways which benefit both themselves and the citizens in other situations. OK, I think the Repubs and Dems are tied on revenue generation but Repubs want to cut more expenses than the Dems, so even though the BS is thick here, I favor expense cutting because it is right. Let the games begin.
Specifically, they announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%—an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge.More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so. WSJ So who said Dem and Rep businesses and wealthy individuals won't escape the new taxes! Trouble is, the middle class won't be able to avoid the coming onslaught of new taxes, but, what the hay, you voted for it.
The same rules apply today. The powers that be would like to raise the taxes more on the poor and middle class, and this is their only play in the play book. They continue to use it and it continues to fail. The debt increases, the purchasing power of the dollar decreases. The poor get poorer, and the mega banks get richer. Anyone who is not on the government payroll through welfare or their job simply gets squashed. Sometimes I think how much easier it would be to just not work and collect benefits. Well that tends not to work out too easily when you are a young white male in a committed relationship, with no irresponsibly fathered children, no irresponsibly created debt, no irresponsibly created student loans, and working self employed. This being the most oppressed, discriminated sector of society when it comes to getting any handouts or welfare. GOOD, because I am better than that.
Congratulations! You figured it out an early age..earlier than I did --- don't give up the fight. Government thinks its all about them not the citizens.
The Bill of rights is specifically, and unusual, in its determination to not allow Government to usurp individual liberties. It does not grant the Government powers-it makes sure the people have powers. What has happened since , is a continual power grab by the Federal government--creating wars at various times, to increase 'temporary' spending, and then refusing to end the spending---effectively creating bigger and bigger government. It's been said over and over--the problem we have, is not a revenue problem. Its a spending problem. Check out your property tax bill, compared to your Federal income tax bill. Then see where 98% of your needs are met--such as schools, road plowing, police and town maintenance. That's where nearly all of my government needs are met. Yet the Federal government charges me XXX times my local tax bill. Why? Because they are out of control on spending. It's great rhetoric to spew the nonsense, that the 'rich dont pay their fair share'. Enough of giant military spending, social spending. Put in place pragmatic rules with respect to Medicare reimbursement and terms of qualifications. Anyone with kids, liberal or conservative--consider the fact, that there are just not enough young people to take care of all the old people. Occasionally those 200k surgeries are just going to have to be foregone. Our kids cant afford giving away free stuff.
A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before. That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010. The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%
Its meant to attract crazy stalkers, such as yourself. So mission accomplished, and good to see that losers from Newtown cannot seem to ever add anything to conversation.. What a great life--waiting around just for me to say something. hahahah wow.
Nevertheless, it is likely that some people will renounce their citizenship. Just not sure over 3-5%. What they will do, is find loopholes. Which is exactly what the Republican's are trying to shut down. But of course, ideologues,and egomaniacs such as Obama, will have a tough time not getting his way. The Republican way, most likely will be more effective in adding revenue. However, politicians do not appear to be interested in getting it correct. They are interested in finding a way to blame the other side. We go over the cliff. And we do so, because the Democrats want to tax everyone, and then spend it. They could care less about the middle class. If they did, Obamacare would not be pushed forward. Watch the carnage that 2013 will bring. Watch how all the regulations kill wall street. And watch as home prices in the area plunge --this is not fear mongering. This is definitely going to happen. And the New York metropolitan area will get hurt by far the hardest. And then Obama will solve that inequality problem They dont have inequality issues, for the most part, in Sudan and Haiti etc.