Yesterday, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 passed the House of Representatives by a party line vote of 234 to 191. Of those 234 votes for the bill, 227 were Democrats.
There were, however, 24 Democrats who didn't vote for the bill. One of those Democrats was Congressman Eric Massa.
I authored a post on The Albany Project explaining Massa's vote, but thought I would come to Daily Kos and explain it for those that have a problem with it.
One diary here at Daily Kos caught my attention. The diarist specifically mentions Massa in the title before saying that he and the other Democrats that voted against the bill "just voted with the banks and Wall Street against American homeowners who need relief in the foreclosure crisis."
I can't speak for the other Democrats, although the list does include plenty of Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats who opposed this legislation. One of them was Rep. Mike Arcuri, a Democrat from New York. But Massa is certainly not a Blue Dog and he certainly isn't conservative.
Earlier this week, Massa held a weekly press call (as he does every week) and spoke specifically on this issue: The housing bill. He made it clear then and made it clear yesterday that he was opposing the legislation, not because of what it did for states like California, Florida and Nevada, but because of what it didn't do for his district and Western New York.
In fact, in a statement yesterday, Massa echoed those same sentiments:
"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party. Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district," said Congressman Massa moments after the vote. "With this in mind, I could not rationalize further deficit spending in the face of minimal assistance to the working families in our district. While there are a number of things that I did like in this bill, the projections in it demonstrated that it was largely targeted to States like California, Nevada and Florida where the housing crisis has hit the hardest, not Western New York. I support helping families refinance their adjustable rate mortgages to stay in their homes, but compared to many other states, Western New Yorkers would not benefit enough to warrant my vote."
The Olean Times-Herald, one of the many newspapers in Massa's district, also covered Massa's independent vote that has since been criticized.
By declaring he intended to vote against the Housing Bill, the Democrat said, "I am not married to the Democratic leadership. I do not vote in lockstep with my party."
The $700 billion bank bailout "seems to have landed in the bonus checks of (bank) executives," Rep. Massa said, unsure if the remaining funds "will get to the consumers and the people who need help."
Rep. Massa said without the economic stimulus and other financial assistance like the bank bailout, the economy would find itself digging out of a much deeper hole with unemployment percentages in the low to mid-teens. He thinks the federal help may keep the rate from climbing far above 10 percent.
The congressman said he is looking for a more stable economy within 18 to 24 months.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, the number of foreclosures in the 29th congressional district this year is 2,117. That is a low number compared to other states and even compared to other districts in New York.
But the issue here for Massa is the housing bill. Massa made it clear that his vote against this bill was because it would have a minimal impact on his district and Western New York. That is true, since the bill targeted states like Florida where foreclosures are rampant. While we do have a problem here in New York, the problem isn't nearly as bad as it is in the key states targeted by this legislation.
People will surely chastise Massa for this vote, but it is undeserved. Massa's number one reason for voting against this bill? It would do little, if anything, for his district. At the end of the day, Massa is there to represent his district. In fact, all the representatives in the House and members of the U.S. Senate are there to represent their respective districts and states. Massa made it clear that he was voting against this bill because of its minimal impact on his district, not because he has a conservative agenda like the Blue Dogs do, which is why they opposed the measure.
So before you attack Massa, consider the fact that he was thinking of his district and decided to oppose the legislation. That is, after all, his job. Massa was just doing his job. He opposed an important bill that he even admitted had great things in it for other states and areas of the country, but nothing for his home region. Therefore, he chose to vote against it.
You might not like it, but that's a very good rationale to me. It certainly beats having a Blue Dog give you conservative talking points and a Blue Dog voting against the party every single time when it comes to a key vote. Massa isn't going to be that kind of representative, but he is going to vote with his district in mind and what is best for the residents of New York's 29th.