Big Progressive Victory In New Hampshire Tuesday-- Guest Post By Rep. Carol Shea Porter

Bob Perry is a well informed activist who always attends political events, respectfully asks politicians tough and honest questions, and volunteers on campaigns. In 2006, he decided to run for New Hampshire state Rep because he was so concerned about what was happening to the middle class. He served for four years, and was absolutely devoted to campaign finance reform, clean elections, and to supporting legislation that held corporations accountable and helped the middle class.



Bob lost in the 2010 anti-Democrats wave. He knew though that the right wing Republicans would try to push legislation that hurt regular citizens, so he did something extraordinary. He kept going to hearings at the State House, so he could be a witness and then educate others about the plans. Bob never faltered or gave up. When one of the new state reps resigned, Bob answered the call to public service again. He first had to win a primary, and then he took on a free stater who had support from many right wing groups. He just did his job, going door to door in the hot summer sun, talking to people about his plans to help the middle class "rise again," as he puts it. He's a true public servant who never gave up on politics. He often uses this quote at the end of his email: "People often say with pride 'I'm not interested in politics.' They might as well say 'I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedoms, my future or any future ...'

If we mean to keep control over our world and lives, we must be interested in politics." Sometimes the good guys do win!

(Martha Gellhorn (1909-1998), American travel writer, novelist, and journalist.)





----------

----------



Bob Perry won the Republican seat Tuesday with 58% of the votes. He won 5 of the 6 towns in the district and only lost the 6th one, the smallest, by 9 votes. Carol attended the victory party and heard him say that "I will advocate on behalf of working men and women. I look forward to sustaining the governor's veto on the Photo I.D. bill, which is contrary to New Hampshire's tradition of trusting voters." New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley:

"In a historically Republican district, New Hampshire voters turned out in the middle of summer to send a loud and clear message to the out of control Republican majority. Its relentless attempts to make cigarettes cheaper but college more expensive, slash women's health care, and kill jobs by taxing hospitals must stop immediately. Tonight's special election is a clear rejection of the out of touch GOP agenda that puts corporations first and Granite Staters last."

Americans Need Jobs, Not A Right-Wing Austerity Agenda To Make The Rich Even Richer

Trustfund jerk Harold McGraw III uses the company his grandpa built to crash the stock market to bolster his pal Mitt Romney

Worldwide stock markets crashed Monday as determined and uncompromising right-wing nihilism was being factored into everyone's economic calculations. Oddly enough, U.S. treasuries, the target in the S&P downgrade, actually improved. But no one seems to care about that odd detail. Yesterday Paul Krugman asked his readers to behold the power of a stupid narrative, which seems impervious to evidence.

1. US debt is downgraded, sparking demands for more ill-advised fiscal austerity



2. Fears that this austerity will depress the economy send stocks down



3. Politicians and pundits declare that worries about US solvency are the culprit, even though interest rates have actually plunged



4. This leads to calls for even more ill-advised austerity, which sends us back to #2

Meanwhile, the Mitt Romney supporter who controls the S&P, Harold W. McGraw III, hereditary grandson of the McGraw-Hill founder, and like most hereditary grandchildren, a rapid right-wing moron with a tiny little dysfunctional brain, has now started downgrading municipal and state bonds as well.

While not unexpected, the move has far-reaching implications for thousands of local governments already burdened by steep deficits.



Among those affected so far:



• Tacoma, WA.



• Atlanta Downtown Development Authority, GA.



• The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina



• Miami, FL.



Additional federal debt was also downgraded, including some issued by The Architect of the Capitol and the Department of Transportation.

A report from Reuters was more optimistic on muni bonds:

Two positive factors give the market a shot at hanging onto last week's sparkling gains, when yields on some top quality bonds tumbled as much as 40 basis points: the lack of supply and the safe-haven bid for Treasuries.



"It's so hard to predict, but I don't foresee this announcement by S&P as being a catalyst for selling," said Robert Nelson, managing analyst for Municipal Market Data, which is part of Thomson Reuters.



"The possibility of this downgrade was already known to this marketplace as it traded up so aggressively last week," he said.



Though the municipal market only partly shared the Treasury market's extraordinary rally, analysts say the tax-free market is getting some safe-haven buying from investors unnerved by the stock market's plunge last week.



On Monday, Standard & Poor's is expected to downgrade the ratings of pre-refunded municipal bonds, U.S. mortgage agencies and other credits tied tightly to the federal government. Late Friday, S&P cut the country's credit rating to "AA-plus" from "AAA" and gave a negative outlook to the long-term rating.



Perhaps the downgrading of the U.S. rating might have had more impact on municipals in previous years, when there was a bit of an expectation that the U.S. federal government might ride to the rescue of beleaguered states or cities.



..."I think we've heard from a number of officials in the federal government, and I think that at the same time the federal government is not in any position to bail out states, so in the muni market I think most recognize that the notion of the federal government as a backstop has been pretty largely discounted," Nelson said.



The immediate market impact of the U.S. credit downgrade might be somewhat muted by the tax-free market's traditional strengths.



Many of the tens of thousands of tax-free issuers, from states to counties and schools, raise revenue from their own taxes and fees, independently of the federal government. The default rate historically has been under 1 percent.



"I don't see a tremendous flight out of municipals; you might see credit spreads widening for lower-rated issues, but we also think a lot will hold their ratings," said Evan Rourke, a portfolio manager with Eaton Vance in New York.



"Our feeling is that you can still have an AAA-rated credit ... you could have AAA-rated credits in an AA-plus-rated country," he said.

Wall Street's "solution" is to sell off Social Security and Medicare and leave the elderly to their tender mercies. That isn't likely to happen if the voters elect progressives next year instead of conservative Democrats or reactionary Republicans, the double-headed enemy of America's working families. Carol Shea Porter is running for her old seat in New Hampshire, now that voters there have had a shocking taste of what happens when you trust Republicans with the keys to the car. She has a very different view of the debut "crisis" and what to do about the economy that the conventional anti-family "wisdom" on Wall Street.

Washington is awash in congratulations and claims of noble compromise. House Republicans are bragging about becoming fiscally responsible while maintaining a morally responsible budget. There’s just one problem. It's not true. The only thing they should feel good about now is their vote to keep the United States from a catastrophic default.

 

The national debt is a staggering 14.3 trillion dollars. The debt ceiling deal they struck with Republican Tea Partiers (who the very conservative Wall Street Journal called "tea-party Hobbits") will only reduce the yearly deficits. It will not vigorously take on the debt. That's like paying the new monthly bills on your credit card each month without significantly reducing the overall balance. And most importantly, it will hurt the already struggling middle class and the poor, and drastically reduce the city and state government services our citizens need and rely on. It also will not create jobs; rather, it will eliminate jobs.

 

In order to properly function, this country must raise revenue. And Republicans in Congress have made it perfectly clear that they would have let this great nation crash into default and ruin our credit rather than raise revenue. They would not ask their campaign benefactors to do what the overburdened middle class has been doing for years-- pay up. Republicans refused to close tax loopholes for oil companies and other corporations. They refused to take subsidies away. They refused to give up the Bush-era tax cuts. Just last year, they convinced the president and Congress to extend them as part of a deal to continue long-term unemployment benefits, even though, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities demonstrated, the rise in debt would stop if they simply let the Bush tax cuts expire. They know that the top 1% doesn't need those tax cuts since they already receive almost 25% of all income and control more than 40% of the nation's wealth, but Republicans refuse to reclaim that much-needed revenue that could help the debt problem. Republicans also refused to change the tax code, which, as the General Accountability Office warned us back in February of 2009, allowed 67% of US corporations and 68% of foreign corporations to pay zero income taxes. That's right. Zero. Republicans simply would not raise any revenue. This is equivalent to the head of a family simply refusing to earn income, telling the family to instead just stop spending on essentials.



The Republicans refused to raise a single dime to pay down the debt, and President Obama could not get them to compromise at all. They refused to listen to Ronald Reagan's former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who warned them last summer, "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing." They refused to listen to any plea for more revenue, but this country needs everyone, not just small businesses and the middle class, to pay their fair share if we are to reduce our debt.

 

Both New Hampshire members of Congress played follow the leader and took that tea-party/partisan stance, refusing to raise any revenue anywhere on anyone or anything, even if we cut Social Security and Medicare, even if we cut health care, even if we did not repair bridges, even if we cut jobs. These two members have the Republican problem-- they have all signed a pledge, not to their constituents, but to Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, and they would be severely punished if they violated "the pledge." They would be targeted and attacked on TV, radio, and by mail if they dared to even consider raising revenue from the dodgers.



So here we are, saddled with a Republican majority so beholden to a pledge to protect corporations and the top 1% that they cannot and will not defend the middle class or work to protect essential programs. We have a President who is surrounded by these partisans who threaten to bring down the economy if their demands are not met. And we have an exhausted and all too frequently unemployed middle class that is left wondering why corporations don't have to pay taxes, why the top 1% aren't included in the "shared sacrifice" formula, and why this nation can't pay its debts. But they don’t have to look far for an answer. With this debt-ceiling fight, their Republican leaders just showed the people who they actually work for.

There Is A Solution-- And Austerity Isn't It

Frank Guinta is a dangerous kook; the other guy is dressed up as a Revolutionary War general

If you've been following Bernie Sanders' heroic efforts to refocus Congress on what the American people are actually interested in their representatives in Washington getting accomplished-- as opposed to the Austerity Torture that has taken over both parties-- it will have come as no surprise to you that the Alliance for American Manufacturing released a non-partisan poll this week that shows, conclusively (and once again), that by an overwhelming 67% to 29% margin voters prefer that Washington focus on job creation rather than deficit reduction. Confirming what Sanders has been telling everyone who will listen,

• Voters want Washington to act on jobs, especially in manufacturing.

• At the same time, voters give the President and Congress even worse marks than last year for taking any action at all on jobs and manufacturing.

• Voters across the spectrum see manufacturing as central to the nation’s economic success.

• Less than a third of Americans see the U.S. as the strongest economy in the world, but overwhelming majorities feel it is possible and important for the nation to regain that position.

• Though it may surprise pundits and media talking heads, Republican voters favor pro-manufacturing job solutions just as much as Democratic voters.

• When given an “either/or” choice, just 29% want Washington to focus on deficit reduction while 67% favor job creation.

I like the way independent-minded Democrat Nick Ruiz looked at the problem yesterday. (There's a reason he was the first candidate for Congress Blue America endorsed this cycle)

The mediastream is awash in debt talk. Such is the pop currency in circulation. It's not a train that is bound for glory, saddled as it is with the misinformation of the corporate coup d’état. The conductor in chief could easily change tracks, but he has not.

The trick of the ideological center people are talking about today, the "centrist cop-out" as it is being called -- is that there is no center. That is the trick of the tale. People once believed the Earth was at the center of the universe. I'm sure some of the radicalized Right still do. But as for the political axis, we should recognize that there are only interests, factions, alliances, allegiances and competition -- but no center. The center is what they call it when someone has won. New centers are created every political cycle.

That is why there is always talk of the pendulum swinging this way and that, each election cycle, with winners and losers. And we all know who has been winning lately. The center is the myth that the media sphere sells on CCTV, where everything is solicitation. But you don’t have to buy it.

Debt is in circulation, tradable, like any other instrument of financial imagination.

Will someone throw the people a line? Save them from being cut adrift, as Wall Street pouts and sulks; about as convincing to us as a teen-aged tantrum? Not this time.

Merck will cut 13,000 more jobs, hording cash. BHO says again today, he is willing to sever the New Deal legacy. McDonald’s continues to open a restaurant every other day, soon to be every day -- in China. All while the U.S. economy grinds essentially to a halt.

I'm sure Republican Sandy Adams (FL-24) would love to take your call, fax or email on all of this, and seriously consider your concerns about the Wall Street debt crisis, the destruction of the New Deal, the corporate miseducation of our children and the wholesale destruction of our natural environment; and candidly admit how wrong she is to follow the fake Republican simulation of prosperity. Perhaps you'd rather not waste your time.

But there is something you can do about all of this for the next phase of austerity that is sure to come -- help me to replace these kinds of Republicans with progressive Democrats, and give yourself the voice you deserve on Capitol Hill.

Carol Shea-Porter was one of the few progressives who got caught up in the big Tea Party mess last year. By a 121,655- 95,503 vote she lost her New Hampshire congressional seat to hackish on-again, off-again teabagger Frank Guinta. He got to Congress and promptly started voting to end Medicare and attacking Social Security. Carol has decided to seek a rematch now that New Hampshire voters are having a serious case of buyers' remorse all across the board. This week she approached this whole Beltway mess from another perspective in a guest column she did for New Hampshire media.

Social Security had its 75th Birthday last year. While Americans celebrated this vital program that has provided economic support and dignity to seniors, disabled people, and children of deceased workers, there were members of Congress and a political party who were laying plans to change and jeopardize the program. The Republican Party leaders, who previously tried to privatize Social Security in 2005, decided to "save" Social Security from the very people who have spent a lifetime paying into the program. Their Chairman of the Budget Committee introduced "The Path to Prosperity," which included raising the qualifying age and, yes, privatizing it. It is particularly grating to read the language from Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan-- "Further, even if the current system could be sustained, it is no longer a good deal for American workers"-- because he, more than most, knows better. His father died young, and Paul Ryan rightfully became eligible for help from the federal government. He collected Social Security benefits as a minor. He saved those federal government checks to pay for college. This shows why we need to protect Social Security from the now educated and financially secure Paul Ryan and his party-- because Social Security provides economic support and, for the young, economic and educational opportunity.

Here are some facts about Social Security. First, more than 90% of Americans 65 and over receive Social Security. More than 6 million children receive benefits due to a parent's death or disability, and a deceased worker's spouse collects if there are children under the age of 18. Millions rely on it to survive. While almost half of all seniors would be poor without it, women would be hurt even more than men, because women earn lower wages and generally live longer than men. More than half of all elderly women would live in poverty.

This would have an enormous economic impact on middle class families with aging parents. Already struggling adult children would have to care for themselves, their kids, and their parents. Without Social Security, families would have to make devastating decisions about living arrangements, health care, education, transportation, etc, as they tried to divide resources between the young and the old. Also, reducing future benefits or privatizing Social Security would not be a "shared sacrifice.” As former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers recently wrote in Vanity Fair, "The top 1% of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40% of the country's wealth-- roughly the same as the bottom 90%." Not exactly shared sacrifice. Therefore, we must stop Paul Ryan and New Hampshire's Republican Representatives from dismantling this program.

Both of our Republican Representatives have attacked Social Security. One supported the Bush plan. The other said, at a May 2009 rally with Glen Beck's 9/12 group, "…future generations should seek different private sector solutions and have personal responsibility start to lead the way."

Why are Republicans doing this? Is there really a problem with Social Security? Right now, there is actually a surplus. As Jacob Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in USA Today on 22/21/11, "...the problem is not with Social Security, but with the rest of the budget. In 2001 and 2003, Washington cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and later expanded Medicare without paying for it. Blaming Social Security for our fiscal woes is like blaming you for not saving enough in your checking account because the bank lost all depositors' money."

Social Security will have problems paying at today's rate in 26 years, but it can be fixed if the Congress would do what Reagan did in 1983-- fix it. First, raise the cap. Right now, people who earn under $106,800 pay tax on every single dollar they earn. People who earn over that do not pay on every dollar, just the first $106,800. This amounts to a hidden tax cut as their income rises. This is not fair. We also need to stop the Social Security tax “holiday” that was enacted last year, which reduced workers' payments 2%. This denies the fund essential resources.

As President Roosevelt said about Social Security in 1941, “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” We need to tell our leaders again-- don't scrap our social security program!

Stimulating the economy to put American victims of the Bush/Wall Street/GOP Recession back to work, while protecting the lives and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens, is clearly what Americans expect from our government. Someday we may figure out what President Obama is thinking. It's not difficult to know just how progressives like Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Raúl Grijalva and Carol Shea-Porter feel about it-- and how strongly they'll stand up against the right-wing onslaught. In the end, of course, it's up to the voters to chose. And in New Hampshire, voters are more than a little shocked to see how the Republicans they have empowered have chosen to proceed, after being-- excuse the phrase-- given the keys to the car.


Yesterday Robert Reich warned his readers to not fall for the Republican lies that have totally infused the corporate media. His point: there's a job crisis and a growth crisis, not a budget crisis.

[T]he best way to get jobs and growth back is for the federal government to spend more right now, not less-- for example, by exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes this year and next, recreating a WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, creating an infrastructure bank, providing tax incentives for small businesses to hire, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.

...Repeat after me: The federal deficit is not the nation’s biggest problem. The anemic recovery, huge unemployment, falling wages, and declining home prices are bigger problems. We don’t have a budget crisis. We have a jobs and growth crisis.

The GOP has manufactured a budget crisis out of the Republicans’ extortionate demands over raising the debt limit. They have succeeded in hoodwinking the public...

I like the ad below that's running in Iowa this weekend. It could have just as easily run in either of New Hampshire's congressional districts-- or against Sandy Adams in central Florida.