The Wall Street/Beltway Conservative Consensus Is So Transpartisan

I missed the raucous 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami. I was living up in Afghanistan's remote Hindu Kush and no one in the village that had taken me in had ever heard of electricity. But I remember reading about it afterwards, particularly about how effectively and with such ruthless determination conservative Democrats set out to sabotage George McGovern's nomination. They really did Nixon's job for him and most of them, without Nixon even asking them to. One though who was asked by Nixon to lend a hand was the head of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, a reactionary and viciously bigoted throwback. Let me quote Rick Pearlstein from Nixonland on how that pillar of Democratic Party politics handled a progressive winning the nomination:

[O]ne week later, George Meany officially announced the AFL-CIO wouldn't be endorsing a presidential candidate that year. At a Steelworkers convention in September, he explained why: the "Democratic Party has been taken over by people named Jack, who look like Jills and smell like johns."

And here, McGovern had just betrayed the gay delegates to please Meany, making sure their equality plank was defeated at the convention! There's just no pleasing some people! Especially not conservatives.



Yesterday I tried to explain why I think the congressional SuperCommittee-- which is meant to determine the future of our lives behind the cover of something no one quite understands-- is a load of bollocks that is utterly stacked against us. There are 12 members, 6 from each of the Beltway groupings. Needless to say, Boehner and Miss McConnell selected 6 Austerity devotees whose fondest shared dreams are the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and, whether they're bold enough to admit it to themselves or not, the reinstitution of slavery. Of course, the same way Paul Ryan claims he isn't trying to get rid of Medicare because his plan will still have an entity called "Medicare," they probably won't call it "slavery" because of the unpleasant connotations. So what about the 6 stalwart Democrats we have to count on to protect us from these heartless predators?



One, Xavier Becerra (D-CA)-- just down the road from me; Go East Side!-- voted against the Satan Sandwich. And though Becerra comes from solid working class roots, I fear that's trumped by political ambition and a blind devotion to his party-- not the values or principles of his party or the people his party represents... just to the party itself, the organization. And he's the only member of the Committee I have any respect for or hope in!



Baucus might as well be a Republican; he certainly votes like one. His voting record shows him the second worst Democrat in the Senate (after Ben Nelson) and his career-long Progressive Punch score on crucial votes is a dismal 62.33%, slightly worse than Joe Manchin's. (But give Manchin time; he's catching up quick.) Murray is more liberal but she'll do exactly what Obama wants her to do-- as will Chris Van Hollen and Jim Clyburn. Reid could have put a fighter on the committee-- or, to be effective-- three fighters, the way Miss McConnell did. He could have sent a very different message-- that Democrats were ready, finally, to stand up for working families, by picking Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin. He didn't. And Pelosi could easily have picked three who live and breath the cause of ordinary Americans-- Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Judy Chu, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, John Conyers... But, silly me, no one wants an independent mind on a Committee this important, whose work of putting the country onto an Austerity Death March is predetermined. So what about John Kerry, you ask? Glad you asked. Nor are you the only one who has.

Kerry’s opportunity, however, is troubling to some liberal leaders and labor union officials who worry that the senior Democrat from Massachusetts might be too eager to strike a grand bargain.



...Kerry inflamed those anxieties over the weekend during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. He spoke favorably of a grand bargain that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had tried to reach, noting it would have included “a mix of reductions and, and reforms in Social Security.”



Kerry alarmed liberals by repeating the standard argument of Washington’s deficit hawks.



“The real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It's the long-term debt. It's the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation,” Kerry said.



Some liberals were not pleased with Kerry’s selection.



“Like President Obama, Kerry is fatally attracted to the notion of a grand bargain, sacrificing cuts in Medicare and Social Security in exchange for increased revenues to reduce long-term deficits. And he is simply wrong-headed about what the nation must do in order to get the economy on track,” said Robert Borosage, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive advocacy group.



Alan Charney, policy and strategy director of USAction, said Kerry’s selection raised eyebrows among liberal groups.



“Kerry is a little bit of a surprise to many of us. He hasn’t really been a central player in taxes and revenues,” he said.



Charney said Democratic lawmakers representing the liberal position on the supercommittee cannot agree to cut entitlement programs.



“My bottom line, if Sen. Kerry’s position on this new committee is such that he is for entitlement cuts, then he can’t be someone who represents the progressive liberal viewpoint on this committee,” he said. “It seems he’s open to cuts in entitlements. If that’s the case he’s going against the cardinal liberal principle in this debate of no cuts to entitlements.

Ari Berman seems more optimistic than I do about how this is going to play out:

Super Congress To The Rescue (But Not Ours)

I never liked the idea of this SuperCongress or congressional SuperCommittee to sit down and decide our fate as a nation from the first time it was proposed as part of a "compromise," a compromise that could only lead us to another advance for the Conservative Consensus imposition of an Austerity Regime on the United States. It certainly was never meant to lead to what Americans would like to see happen. Corrupt wingnut Jeb Hensarling's kind of serious bipartisan work (above) shows what the GOP has in mind. Boehner picked him and two other right-wing Austerity fanatics-- and Miss McConnell picked 3 as well.



It was obvious from the beginning that all we needed was for Reid or Pelosi to give us just one so-called "serious compromiser"-- along the lines of Democrats playing softball and Republicans playing hardball-- and the game would be over before it started. Reid gave us three-- Kerry, Murray and Baucus, all seriously conflicted Establishment types. I heard EJ Dionne on MSNBC this week advocating that Pelosi pick "a real liberal" (he mentioned Schakowsky who abandoned the public option at the drop of a hankie and said she would have voted FOR the Satan Sandwich if her vote had been needed) and a serious moderate (Hoyer). I wonder why no one Inside-the-Beltway can figure out that if there are 12 members of the SuperCongress, and the 6 Republicans are all hard-line, anti-compromise fanatics, even one Democratic schnook is too many.





Admittedly Reid didn't have much to choose from, given the kind of human waste that populates the U.S. Senate, but he would have sent a very different message if he had chosen a trio with records of standing up for the legitimate aspirations of working families, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin and Jeff Merkley, for example. I guess we can be happy he didn't give us McCaskill, a Nelson or Manchin but, in effect, he certainly could have because, other than the theatrics, it's the EXACT same thing-- the transpartisan Conservative Consensus again.



At this point it really makes no difference who Pelosi puts on the SuperCongress. The die is cast with intransigent anti-family sociopaths like Kyl, Toomey, and Portman, who oversaw a doubling of deficits while at Bush's OMB, from the Senate Republicans and, Hensarling, Camp, and Upton courtesy of Boehner. All six, of course, swore their ultimate fidelity to Grover Norquist and his anti-tax/drown the government in a bathtub pledge.



So just at a time when the rest of the world is starting to realize that Austerity is the WRONG answer-- while Wall Street and the international "let them eat cake" plutocracy doubles down on it-- the U.S. is rushing headlong into an agenda that will destroy what's ever left of our country's social cohesion. You can only push people so far-- and only steal so many elections-- before they react... in a way that gets out of hand and uncontrollable.

In the eyes of the financial markets, Britain was supposed to be a model of successful, sustainable austerity and a safe haven in which the world's rich could buy houses and stash their savings.



The riots that turned London and some other English cities upside down this week have undermined that model, raising questions about the sustainability of spending cuts and a widening gap between rich and poor.



From many of the dealing rooms and offices in the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf, traders, wealth managers and analysts could see billowing smoke in several directions this week as rioters torched buildings and looted shops.



Order was restored in the capital at least on Tuesday night with a massive show of force by police, but they too face the drastic spending cuts that will affect everything from the military to social benefits and inner-city services.



Britain's coalition government says it remains committed both to cutting a record budget deficit and staying in power until elections due by 2015.



Investors have always had mixed feelings about austerity. They want the British government to tackle the huge deficit to slow its accumulation of debt. But they also fear that cuts will push the economy back into recession, hitting corporate earnings and tax income while raising social spending costs and actually pushing the country deeper into debt.



Nevertheless, they had generally compared British determination to cut the deficit favorably with the indecision or infighting paralyzing much policy-making in the euro zone and United States. Now, they are not so sure.



"If you'd asked me at the weekend, I would have said that with the problems of the euro zone and U.S., (Britain's) sterling (currency) might be poised to become an appealing safe haven," said Simon Derrick, head of foreign exchange at the London branch of Bank of New York Mellon.



As he spoke, from his dealing room Derrick could still see smoke on the horizon from a distant burning warehouse. "This has certainly shaken that... it's probably still too soon to say what it means for policy, but it certainly makes austerity look more difficult."



The short-term market impact looks to have been limited. Derrick said U.S. media coverage of the London riots prompted a modest sell-off in the pound late on Tuesday, but markets have largely shrugged off the violence.



...Some countries such as Latvia and Ireland have pushed through massive cuts with relatively little unrest but not everyone can pull off the same trick. The British riots could point to similar risks in other European and U.S. cities as cuts start to bite.



...Speaking to Reuters late on Tuesday, looters and other local people in east London pointed to the wealth gap as the underlying cause, also blaming what they saw as police prejudice and a host of recent scandals.



Spending cuts were now hitting the poorest hardest, they said, and after tales of politicians claiming excessive expenses, alleged police corruption and bankers getting rich it was their turn to take what they wanted.



..."Across Europe, we've already seen some incidence of civil unrest," she said, saying it would almost inevitably impact policy. "There's definitely a likelihood that similar scenes might erupt when austerity cuts really start to be felt."

UPDATE: PELOSI ADDS... NOTHING MUCH



She named 3 loyal leadership lieutenants. Xavier Becerra is the best of the three. Clyburn's OK for a garden variety Democrat and Van Hollen isn't completely horrible. Becerra even voted against the Satan Sandwich.

Who Lied About How They Would Vote On The Satan Sandwich?

Congratulations to Gabby Giffords for making it back to Congress to vote and being the surprise-- except for Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi-- 95th Democratic Party vote for the Republican agenda, tying the 95 actual Democrats who opposed it. As my old pal Susan Klein remarked on Twitter, it was the most dramatic comeback performance since Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall in 1961. Gabby's appearance meant much more to the assembled politicians-- actually, of both parties-- than Judy's did to anyone but the gays. It was a good moment for the nation-- and a great smokescreen for the supposed defenders of working people, like Wasserman Schultz-- who could use it to change the subject when anyone wondered why she had just given John Boehner 98% of what he wanted.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's vote was never in doubt of course. She's the ultimate political hack and always has been. Rahm didn't pick her for a leadership role at the DCCC and Obama didn't pick her to head the DNC because she's got an independent spirit or a conscience. She's very nice on women's issues, though... more than one can say about many of the Blue Dogs she relentlessly promotes. But at least Debbie never held out hope that she might take the side of working families and reject the Satan Sandwich. How about the duplicitous Democrats who signed the Grijalva-Ellison letter to Pelosi pledging to never vote for any bill that jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, despite indignant protestations to the contrary by the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, this bill certainly does? The Caucus itself only lost 15 members in the vote yesterday but some of the non-Caucus signers found Wasserman Schultz's and Obama's arguments to back everything Boehner wanted suddenly very persuasive.

The vast majority of the 87 Democrats who signed the letter were true to their word and voted NO-- against the Satan Sandwich. Who broke their word and betrayed their constituents?

Karen Bass (CA)
David Cicciline (RI)
William Lacy Clay (MO)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Danny Davis (IL)
Ted Deutch (FL)
Lloyd Doggett (TX)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
John Garamendi (CA)
Luis Gutierrez (IL)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)
Hank Johnson (GA)
Dale Kildee (MI)
Jim Langevin (RI)
Stephen Lynch (MA)
Cedric Richmond (LA)
Steve Rothman (NJ)
Frederica Wilson (FL)
David Wu (OR)

A bigger shock came when three Blue Dogs who rarely take the side of working families over Big Business came over to the progressive side in Monday's night's vote-- Leonard Boswell (IA), Dennis Cardoza (CA) and, most shocking of all, Mike McIntyre (NC).


Even before Kissinger's infamous tweet, Matt Taibbi made the same point in Rolling Stone.

The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists. Observers like pollster Sydney Greenberg portray Obama and the Democrats as a group of politically tone-deaf bureaucrats who fail because the public associates them with a corrupt government that benefits the rich and connected.

The Democrats, Greenberg argues, could change their situation by showing the public that they genuinely represent the interests of ordinary working people... But to a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state, what good does such advice do? Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?

The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time-- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did-- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.

And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?

It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

So let me go back to the Blue America statement penned for us by Alan Grayson:

We who sign this make the following pledge, to the voters of our districts and to all the American People:

We Are Against Any and Every Cut to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Not today, not tomorrow, and not ever. No way, no how. Not on your life, and not on mine, because both your life and my life may depend on it.

N-E-V-E-R.

Every Blue America candidate has either signed this letter or issued their own statement in their own words equally powerful. Blue America won't be endorsing any incumbents who voted for the Satan Sandwich and won't be endorsing any challengers who don't embrace this pledge to the American people. It's the bottom line. I still hope Mazie Hirono beats Ed Case in Hawaii, of course, but as of yesterday, Blue America ceased raising funds for her. Give your donations to Bernie Sanders instead. One of our Blue America-endorsed candidates, Nick Ruiz (D-FL), the first to sign the pledge, went on to explain what's gone wrong the day after the vote:

All of the American people can’t be wrong.

All of their needs can’t be wrong.

What is wrong is the turn down the Republican rabbit hole. Lost, we are. BHO abdicates executive responsibility by refusing to act to the point of inertia. Republican John Boehner (OH-8) and Company acted extremely. All Cuts are therefore “IN.” In accompaniment, HSBC announces they will shed 30,000 jobs in 2011-2012. This is the coming Age of Austerity. What a howler- cut New Deal programs at the very same time that practically every large corporation in America is cutting jobs and hording cash. ‘Satan sandwich’ anyone?

The American people could be celebrating a democratic victory, if there was one to recognize. Instead, we are faced with the nuts and bolts of the reality of being sold-out under the auspices of a short term ceiling hike and a long term hatchet committee with an appetite for New Deal destruction.

How to put it back together again, as they tear it apart? 2012.

The 2012 playbook is very simple: reject any and every candidate that stands in the way of progressive democracy. Reserve your support; however you give it, for those progressive Democratic candidates that would act in your interest.

You’ll have to be savvy-– because the all too corporate party machinery will be out to trick you with the ruse of mechanical candidates and party-line robots. But the power to represent us is yours to take or give. The power is in your vote. It’s in your contributions. It’s in the time you volunteer. It’s in your letters to the editors of newspapers and blogs.

Hope? Change? No, we haven’t. But I promise you-- we will.

Raúl Grijalva Disputes Washington's Anti-Family Conservative Consensus

I knew Raúl would come out fast against the Conservative Consensus meme that was all over Talking Heads TV yesterday and has been all over the Twitter Machine since rumors started breaking last night. He came out fast and unambiguous:

“This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations. The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it.

Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people. Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more.

The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment. For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government-- a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

A clean debt ceiling vote was the obvious way out of this, and many House Democrats have been saying so. Had that vote failed, the president should have exercised his Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities and ended this manufactured crisis.

This deal is a cure as bad as the disease. I reject it, and the American people reject it. The only thing left to do now is repair the damage as soon as possible.”

Is it any wonder working families in southern Arizona cherish this guy? It's also no wonder that the far right has targeted him for defeat next year-- the same way the targeted Grayson last year. Let's help him make sure he can defend himself from the attacks that are coming. He has his own Blue America Act Blue page.

While he was in Congress, Alan Grayson worked closely with Raúl on the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A few minutes after Raúl's statement yesterday, Alan told me he agrees with most of it. "He’s right, except when he says that the deal is “a cure as bad as the disease.” This “deal” cures no disease. In fact, it exacerbates and accelerates the disease. That disease is the collapse of opportunity and job security for the middle class in America. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the Square Deal. FDR gave us the New Deal. Truman gave us the Fair Deal. This is the Raw Deal."

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus had as strong an aversion to the "compromise" as did Grijalva and Grayson. He recognized it immediately as a shady bill and appropriately enough termed it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” By the end of the day Bernie Sanders explained why he would be voting NO:

"The Republicans have been absolutely determined to make certain that the rich and large corporations not contribute one penny for deficit reduction, and that all of the sacrifice comes from the middle class and working families in terms of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, LIHEAP, community health centers, education, Head Start, nutrition, MILC, affordable housing and many other vitally important programs.

"I cannot support legislation like the Reid proposal which balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country. That is not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy."

All the Democratic candidates I've spoken to are against the deal, even after Obama's pathetic TV speech last night. Alan Grayson's neighbor in central Florida, Nick Ruiz, came right to the point: "I couldn't agree with Rep. Grijalva more-- the contrast between what BHO and the party brass are pitching in this debt fiasco-- and that which people like myself, or Raul Grijalva would do is epic. We need to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress; it is the only way to undo their destructive policy. The American people must understand that nothing is more important for 2012."

New Mexico state Senator Eric Griego said pretty much what everyone else is telling me: "I stand with Democrats and ordinary Americans nationwide in expressing disappointment with the emerging deal to raise the national debt ceiling, which could allow Republicans to weaken Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to continue to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, Big Oil and other corporate special interests. That is why on Friday I called on the President to invoke the 14th Amendment to use executive order in raising the national debt ceiling immediately. Our priority should be to create jobs and reduce unemployment because people are hurting and they want to work."

Boehner, on the other hand, was celebrating the right-wing victory with his caucus. "Nothing in this framework violates our principles. We got 98 percent of what we aked for... Listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world. But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town... It’s all spending cuts." And from New York Times economics writer Catherine Rampell, an epitaph for Barack Obama's political career:




UPDATE: RUSS FEINGOLD WEIGHS IN... ON THE SIDE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Feingold, an intrepid defender of the Constitution when he was in the Senate, was always a bit of a "moderate" on economic issues, sort of like Obama. But they sure have parted ways on the Satan Sandwich. Feingold's statement is just devastating to Obama's pathetic defense of his connivance with the far right against the American people:

"The debt ceiling deal should remove any doubt of the power corporate interests have over our government. That deal, hammered out by the president and Republican Congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass. Americans are willing to bear their share of the burden of addressing our nation’s long-term budget problems, but those sacrifices should be
shared by all."

UPDATE: WHO VOTED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TONIGHT?

The sugar-coated Satan Sandwich passed 269-161, the Democrats split 95-95. 174 Republicans voted for it and 66 voted against it. These are the 95 Democrats who voted against it:

Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Xaviera Becerra (D-CA)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Mike Capuano (D-MA)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Andre Carson (D-IN)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Hansen Clarke (D-MI)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX)
Al Green (D-TX)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jesse Jackson (D-IL)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Larry Kissell (D-NC)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
John Larson (D-CT)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
Brad Miller (D-NC)
George Miller (D-CA)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Don Payne (D-NJ)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
David Price (D-NC)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Linda Sánchez (D-CA)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Adam Smith (D-WA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Betty Sutton (D-OH)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Mel Watt (D-NC)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)

Jerry Nadler expressed what most of them alos believed:

“Defaulting on our debts is not an option.  hat’s why I voted for a clean debt ceiling increase, free from the unnecessary clutter of budgetary or other non-related matters. And that’s why I voted for Senator Reid’s plan this past Saturday, though parts of that plan were excessive and imbalanced. I am also the lead sponsor of a resolution to support the president’s use of Article 2, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling-- solely as a last resort. But this so-called compromise-- “the Budget Control Act”-- is just the latest blackmail request from extortionist Republicans. 
 
“This legislation lays out an unbalanced, callous plan that will strangle the middle class and working poor, to say nothing of the elderly and kids. These blackmailers are telling the American people, ‘either you will accept deep cuts to vital programs that support seniors, students, children, women, and the poor, or we will force this nation to default on its debts’-- an unprecedented and reckless move that would lead to skyrocketing interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and the like. So, either we stifle our economy and stymie job growth, or we kill the middle class and stymie job growth. 
 
“Shockingly, while Republicans are holding us all hostage, telling us our country is broke and we have to cut programs that are lifelines to millions of Americans, they are letting the wealthiest among us-- the corporations, millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies-- off scot-free, without doing their fair share.   
 
“This proposal is exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. With our economy still struggling and gasping for air, with more and more Americans looking for jobs, we should be promoting job growth and those federal and state programs that put people to work. But, instead of doing the things Americans do best - that is, building things and creating opportunity-- Tea Partiers want to send this country over the cliff. We must say NO.”

Of Course The Conservative Consensus Is Completely Wrong

I often go to sleep watching MSNBC. The other night I turned off the TV right after Ed Schultz's show, where he had Bernie Sanders on as a guest. Bernie's the greatest, a national treasure. We need more like him... desperately. The problem with going to sleep right after the Ed Show is that when I wake up, before I can catch myself, I've tuned into MSNBC's insidious Republican propaganda program, Morning Joe.

Yesterday before I had even fully opened my eyes and gotten out of bed, I was being bombarded by deranged Inside the Beltway consensus. Everyone agreed that America went wrong by passing Social Security and that that has led us down the road to ruin, culminating in Medicare, which must be ended or America is doomed. Thanks, MSNBC! And thanks, Democrats, for not even standing up against this well-planned attack on our country by the Austerity Monster.

Jared Bernstein is one of the few economists the Obama Administration hired for a top-level position who isn't a dedicated Wall Street shill and a class enemy of 95% of America. He didn't last long. His blog, On The Economy is worth following. Thursday he found the Beltway debate unbelievable.

–How could it be that we’re a less than a week out from a totally self-inflicted wound to our already frail economy?

–Why are policy makers spending every waking minute on deficit reduction when jobs are the most immediate problem facing the economy?

–How did a relatively small group of far right activists totally highjack the national debate?

According to Greg Sargent (citing E. J. Dionne), more people are beginning to buy the most insidious arguments about immediate fiscal austerity-- large spending cuts that kick in right away-- leading to growth, even in the light of the current slowdown, which is itself driven in part by the fading of fiscal support.

As I noted last night, the UK is a living example of the damage done by premature contraculation, but you don’t have to look abroad to see the problem. The figure shows how much diminished gov’t spending has shaved off of GDP growth in the past six months. No wonder employment is in a stall, driven by job losses in the public sector.


But those are facts. And facts are not winning. Facts, in fact, are getting crushed. One almost feels embarrassed to raise them in this climate, as if you’re impolitely butting your pointy head into the dream world of the Washington policy debate.

A highly subsidized Big Oil industry's second quarter haul is a staggering $35.4 billion profit, but the Conservative Consensus doesn't factor getting them to share the sacrifice as part of a problem worth addressing-- not like abolishing Medicare.

Yesterday I was talking with Ed Potosnak about the Blue America candidates' commitment-- absolute commitment-- to not just preserving but strengthening Medicare, for a healthier and more equitable society. Monday we're planning to release a statement from all the Blue America candidates. Ed mentioned that his mom was "near tears telling me about how important Medicare is to her, and she's not alone. I have heard a similar impassioned pleas to preserve Medicare from seniors and their families across the district." His opponent, wealthy Republican career politician Leonard Lance, has voted several times to gut Medicare. In fact... every Republican has.

We don't need more politicians like Leonard Lance. We need more political leaders like Bernie Sanders. I know I started this post with him on the Ed Show. At the bottom is a speech he gave on the floor of the Senate this week. It's worth-- really worth-- listening to the whole thing. Here's a painful synopsis for video-haters:

The rich are getting richer, and their effective tax rate is the lowest in modern history. Many corporations are enjoying huge profits and, because of outrageous loopholes, pay nothing in taxes. Among many other absurdities, we lose about $100 billion every year from companies and individuals who stash their wealth in tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other locations.

And yet, the Republicans have been fanatically determined to protect the interests of billionaires and large multi-national corporations so that they do not contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. The Republicans want the entire burden of deficit reduction sacrifice to be placed on the elderly, the sick, children, and working families. That is morally wrong and, in terms of getting us out of this recession, bad economic policy.

Sadly, the Democrats have yielded far, far too much. In December, with the Democrats controlling the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate they extended Bush's tax breaks for the rich and lowered the tax rates on estates for the very rich. In April, they allowed tens of billions of dollars in cuts to vitally important programs for low- and moderate-income Americans.

And now, we find ourselves debating two plans. The Reid plan, which calls for $2.2 trillion in cuts over a 10-year period, includes $900 billion in cuts (which will be determined later by committees) in education, health care, nutrition, affordable housing, child care and many other programs desperately needed by working families. Appropriately, it calls for meaningful cuts in military spending and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Reid plan does not require the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations to pay one nickel in deficit reduction.

The Reid plan is bad. The Boehner plan is much worse. It calls for large cuts in discretionary spending now and demands that this debt-ceiling discussion be revisited next year-- which is totally absurd and which will likely keep the Congress paralyzed.

Lastly, both plans call for a congressional committee to determine future efforts toward deficit reduction. Based on recent committees-- Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six, etc.-- I have little doubt that that new committee will call for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and will ask very little of the wealthy and multi-national corporations.

Meanwhile, while all of this is occurring in Washington the American people have consistently stated, in poll after poll, that they want the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and they want to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For example, a recent Washington Post poll found that 72 percent of the American people believe that Americans earning over $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes.

Given that reality, is there any reason to wonder why the American people are so angry and frustrated with what's going on in Washington?

If the GOP is determined to wage a fanatic class war against the American people, we need stalwart fighters who won't back down on our side to fight back. You will always find them here.