Arcuri Won't Oppose Offshore Drilling

In 2006, Democratic voters here in the 24th congressional district of New York nominated Mike Arcuri to be their party's candidate to the House of Representatives. Of course, they didn't have a choice - national party leaders had interfered in the primary election process, pushing other candidates out of the way for the sake of Arcuri, who was supposed to be "electable".

Now, four years later, we have a long record that shows what "electable" really meant. It meant that Congressman Michael Arcuri isn't really much of a Democrat. Over and over again, when the chips were down on really important issues, such as climate change, constitutional rights, and health care reform, Representative Arcuri has voted with the Republican Party, against the wishes of Democratic voters in our district.

Now, as we watch the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico get worse and worse and worse, Congressman Arcuri is springing into inaction again. There's a great bill that's been introduced by real Democrats in the House of Representatives - Democrats who aren't afraid to protect America's coasts from environmental disaster. It's H.R. 5248, the No New Drilling Act. The authors of this legislation rationally look at the huge economic and environmental disaster caused by offshore drilling, and say, "Hey, let's not do that again. Let's put a moratorium on offshore drilling."

Mike Arcuri? He won't sign on to the bill. Once again, Arcuri won't support a good Democratic solution to a national crisis. Why should Democratic voters support Arcuri in another election?

Mike Arcuri Orwellian About Big Oil

Representative Michael Arcuri has become a master of doublespeak, and on no issue is Arcuri's Orwellian approach more evident than with the environment. Arcuri calls himself a friend of the environment, but he just voted against taking action to deal with the costly consequences of climate change. He helped Big Oil, promoting the same old dirty energy track that America took during the disastrous years of Bush and Cheney.

Arcuri's services to Big Oil are nothing new. During the previous session in Congress, Arcuri voted to help out Big Oil too, but when campaign season came along, he described himself as a brave crusader standing up against the fossil fuel giants. One of his campaign advertisements last year announced,

"For too long, big oil special interests have blocked any efforts to reduce our dependence on oil. I'm Michael Arcuri. My priority's helping middle class families, not big oil companies.... I fought to expand domestic drilling, so we can bring down these gas prices. I'm Mike Arcuri and I approve this message because you sent me to Washington to get something done for a change."

Helping middle class families? By expanding offshore oil drilling? That's not fighting Big Oil - it's exactly what Big Oil wanted.

What's Congressman Arcuri going to tell us next - that he's fighting against corrupt pharmaceutical corporations by working to keep generic drugs off the market? Michael Arcuri seems to think that his constituents can't tell when he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. For our sake, I hope he's wrong.

Mike Arcuri Has A Short Term Mind

On yet another issue, U.S. Representative Michael Arcuri has demonstrated an antiprogressive agenda this week. This time, the issue is climate change.

In 2008, people elected Democrats to Congress and the White House in large part because the Democrat promised a green energy revolution. They seemed so earnest, so honest. Yet, in 2009, we've learned that if you really want green energy, you're going to have to vote Green Party - at least in New York State's 24th district.

Yesterday Michael Arcuri voted to kill legislation promoting a green energy in order to fight global climate change, including global warming. Once again, Arcuri joined with the Republicans to support the kind of politics of pollution we saw under George W. Bush.

Why did Arcuri do it? Why did he vote with Big Oil, against the environment? Here's his excuse for opposing the legislation:

"In the short term it will have a negative effect on my district because of the high power costs."

This comment reveals why Mike Arcuri has come to be regarded as among the mental lightweights of the House of Representatives. In the short term, the bill will create higher power costs, but in the long term, it will actually lower costs. Trust Arcuri to ignore long term benefits in favor of short term thinking.

Besides that, what's the cost that this bill will actually create? According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost for the average American will be 48 cents per day. Low income Americans will actually gain economically from the legislation. These calculations don't even take into account the economic benefit from avoiding damage related to climate change, which is estimated in the billions per year already.

It seems that Arcuri is willing to let Planet Earth go to pot for the sake of 48 cents in short term savings. In 2010, let's make Michael Arcuri a short term member of Congress.