Another Look At What Happened In Boehner's Dysfunctional House Yesterday

By now you already know the whole sorry Boehner bill story, which was like a Frankenstein monster that finally passed late Friday, without a single Democratic vote (not even a stray Blue Dog-- not even Dan Boren or Jason Altmire, who, respectively, have voted 83% and 79% with the GOP on crucial issues this year!) and still managing to lose 22 deranged Republican teabaggers. The 22 deranged Republican teabaggers who absolutely insist on a default and financial armageddon, for those keeping track, were:

Justin Amash (Grand Rapids)
Paul Broun (John Birch Society)
Jason Chaffetz (Provo, UT)
Chip Cravaack (Duluth, MN)
Scott DesJarlais (central Tennessee)
Jeff Duncan (Anderson, SC)
Trey Gowdy (Greenville, SC)
Tom Graves (rural north Georgia next to SC)
Tim Huelskamp (rural Kansas)
Jim Jordan (a rapidly changing OH-4, just east of Boehnerville)
Steve King (Council Bluffs, IA)
Tom Latham (Ames, IA)
Connie Mack (Ft. Myers, FL)
Mick Mulvaney (Sumter, SC)
Ron Paul (his own world)
Tim Scott (Charleston, SC)
Steve Southerland (Tallahassee, FL)
Joe Walsh (Deadbeat Dads)
Joe Wilson (Columbia, SC)

How ironic that these madmen passed a bill to, in effect, prevent the federal government from paying bills run up mostly by Republican presidents and with overwhelming support from Republican congressmembers going back to the early 1950s! Obama's press secretary sent out an official statement from the White House:

The bill passed today in the House with exclusively Republican votes would have us face another debt ceiling crisis in just a few months by demanding the Constitution be amended or America defaults. This bill has been declared dead on arrival in the Senate. Now that yet another political exercise is behind us, with time dwindling, leaders need to start working together immediately to reach a compromise that avoids default and lays the basis for balanced deficit reduction.

Senator Reid’s proposal is a basis for that compromise. It not only achieves more deficit reduction than the bill passed in the House today and puts a process in place to achieve even more savings, it also removes the uncertainty surrounding the risk of default. The President urges Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to find common ground on a plan that can get support from both parties in the House-- a plan the President can sign by Tuesday.

I enjoyed what Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had to say after the bill limped to passage:

At a time when our country is on the brink of a catastrophic default, it is reckless and irresponsible to bring a bill to the floor that not only has no chance of becoming law, but would also devastate the working and middle class. This bill would cost an untold number of Americans their jobs, stunt our already fragile recovery, and destroy vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is why I did not hesitate to vote against this legislation.

The stakes are too high now for us to continue this way. If there were ever a time for Republicans to put aside ideological attacks for the good of the country, now is that time. Never in the history of the United States of America has our nation’s credit been held hostage. If Republicans fail to join us in avoiding default, they will distinguish themselves as a party that has deliberately harmed the American economy because of obstinacy, stubbornness and recklessness.

But for me the highlight of the day came a few minutes before the vote on Boehner's bill, when Kathy Hochul (D-NY) offered a Motion to Recommit for the Democrats which would have directed the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction in the Boehner bill to eliminate subsidies for the five largest oil and gas companies, and corporate jet owners, before gutting education initiatives that create jobs, spur growth and invest in the country's future. Only one Republican, the intrepid and independent Walter Jones (R-NC), had the decency and the nerve to vote for it. It failed in this demented House 183-244. And half a dozen Democrats voted against it, a Texas oil industry water-carrier (Gene Green) and 5 of the most disreputable and reactionary Blue Dogs:

John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)

If you want to help Blue America eradicate the scourge of Blue Dogs... we have a page for that. As for the scourge of Republicans... we're working on that too. Although with leaders like Boehner, they may take care of themselves, the way Mike Pence seems to have this week, utterly destroying the teabag-cred he worked so hard to build up for so long.

Looks Like Obama's Moment Of Truth Has Arrived... And It Isn't About Evolution

I have no idea if wine drinkers or beer drinkers-- or non-drinkers-- are more or less likely to favor marriage equality. But the new issue of Out has a cute survey by the World Wine Guys Mike DeSimone and Jeff Jenssen, "The Ethical Wine List," about which wine-producing countries' products should be served at same-sex weddings. They base their findings on which wine-producing countries legalized same-sex unions. Alas, Napa wine is still out-- although, gloriously, the fantastic wines from NY's Finger Lakes area and Suffolk County are now fine. Turns out France legalized the pacte civil de solidarité in 1999. Other wine-producing countries which legalized same-sex unions while President Obama was evolving include Canada, New Zealand and Spain, all in 2005, South Africa in 2006, and Argentina last year. (I might add that non-wine-producing countries that have recognized marriage equality include Belgium, Holland, Iceland, Sweden, Portugal, Norway, Mexico, Israel, Brazil, Ecuador, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Uruguay, England, Germany, Finland and... Nepal.)

I'm sad to say that my mistrust for our president has grown so rapidly that Tuesday, when he announced he would be supporting Dianne Feinstein's and Jerry Nadler's legislation to repeal DOMA, my first reaction was to look for shady motives. I mean, did he suddenly evolve in one leap and bound? The White House blog:

President Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, which has been introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nadler. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

The President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people-- our families, friends and neighbors.

Why the caution? Well, it just happened to be the day that the media reported that Obama was supporting the efforts of the Gang of Six's conservative consensus plan to redefine "shared sacrifice" as meaning more sacrifice from working families and more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

With the deadline for raising the nation’s debt ceiling just 14 days away, Mr. Warner and the other five senators-- three Republicans and three Democrats in all-- appear to have given new life to a grand bargain with President Obama that could reduce the nation’s deficit by about $4 trillion over the next decade.

In an early afternoon news briefing, Mr. Obama called the proposals unveiled by the senators on Tuesday morning “good news” and a “very significant step.”

Senators from both parties appeared optimistic as well. Forty-nine of them, from both parties, attended a briefing by Mr. Warner and his group’s members on Tuesday morning. Mr. Warner said the reaction had been positive.

“You could almost feel a sigh of relief as people said, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s something that we could be for,’” Mr. Warner said.

...Republicans in the House, who have stated their opposition to any tax increases, could continue to balk at the proposals, which raise nearly $1 trillion in new revenue by lowering rates while closing tax loopholes.

Republican members of the “gang” are trying to persuade House members to support the plan, he said. “There are a number of our Republican colleagues who are working hard on this,” Mr. Warner said.

Democrats, too, will need to be brought along to support the idea that entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security can be modified without sacrificing their basic nature. A deal could be scuttled if Democratic opposition to some of those proposals develops.

My worry was that Obama would toss the idiotic same-sex marriage bone to hysterical and obsessed gays clamoring for the right to imitate unhappy heterosexuals while slipping in the long-cherished conservative dream to open the doors to the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare. Opposing marriage equality is horrifyingly reactionary and unreasonable. No one opposing marriage equality is fit for public office. But using it as a trade-off to wreck Social Security and Medicare is far worse... far, far, far worse.

Bernie Sanders, addressing Vermont wine growers (and others in the nation's most forward-thinking state) on Ed Schultz's show Tuesday night:



Can we trust Obama on the cuts? I'm not sure. Everyone I know says "no." A usually reliable source of mine in the administration asked me to hold my fire and swore that the president will never do anything to harm Social Security. We should know soon enough. Meanwhile, DeSimone and Jenssen have recommended Ruca Malen Kinien cabernet sauvignon 2007 (an Argentine red) that they describe as "Raspberry and dried-fig flavors with just a hint of spice." For a white, he suggests a South Africa Raats Family Wines Cabernet Franc, 2008, which they describe as "black cherry, plum, and earth tones... super with red meat or game." And for bubbly they're in France: Taittinger Brut La Française champagne-- "granny smith apple and brioche flavors," which they say is "ideal on its own or with caviar." If My White House source is correct and Bernie Sanders and Donna Edwards (and Ed Schultz) are wrong, we're all going to need something a lot stronger than the wines. Bernie-- if you need to read it and not just hear it:

In my view, this Gang of Six proposal is a disaster. iI lowers the tax rate very substantially for the wealthy, and it will make devastating-- this is not modification-- devastating cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition... you name the program that are struggling, working class in this country desperately needs, it is going to be cut. I would estimate if the Gang of Six proposal were ever to pass-- I will do my best to see that doesn't happen-- it would be absolutely devastating to working families. We have to do everything we can to rally the American people to prevent it. You're giving the Republicans about 90% of what they ever dreamed of.

90%. Is that hyperbole? Exaggeration? Bernie doesn't think so. Speaking about reactionary gang members Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), he maintained that “while I am sure that they did not get everything that they wanted, I think it’s fair to say they won about 80 percent to 90 percent of what they fought for. Despite President Obama’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security benefits, the Gang of Six plan, which he apparently embraced, calls for massive cuts in that vitally important program... Under the Social Security proposal, a new formula for calculating cost-of-living adjustments would cut a typical 75-year-old’s yearly benefits in 10 years by $560. The average 85-year-old would see a $1,000 a year cut in 20 years. Furthermore, the proposal demands that Social Security be solvent for a 75-year period, which could include additional cuts. The proposal also cuts Medicare by $298 billion over 10 years and makes massive cuts to Medicaid."

Sanders said that the president "apparently embraced" this. My source denies it-- 38-dimensional chess, I'm guessing-- and we'll be finding out pretty soon. I'm guessing Obama's reelection bid depends on it. If he doesn't stand up for working families this time, and takes the part of Wall Street and Big Business again, he's toast... one-termer, no matter what kind of walking freak show the GOP puts up against him.

Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't agree. It looks like my friend in the White House has been talking to him too. And he seems pretty sure it's for real. Listen carefully:

White Racist Millionaire Rand Paul Claims Healthcare Policy Makes Him A Slave

Lawrence O'Donnell did such a spectacular job on this Friday evening that there's not even anything to add. Last year-- and more than once-- we warned Kentucky voters that in electing a deranged misfit like Rand Paul they were not sending a mainstream conservative to the Senate on behalf of their state, but an unhinged and irresponsible nihilist and racist throwback. Please take the journey with O'Donnell above, especially if you happen to live in Kentucky.

A real chip off the crazy old block, too. Papa Ron Paul announced his third vanity run for the presidency and immediately embarked on a jihad against FEMA-- what timing! Viewing the agency as unconstitutional, Paul questioned why federal funds should pay to protect citizens from natural disasters and concluded, "It's a moral hazard to say that government is always going to take care of us when we do dumb things":

BLITZER: On the whole issue of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, do you want to see that agency ended?

PAUL: Well, if you want to live in a free society, if you want to pay attention to the constitution, why not? I think it's bad economics. I think it's bad morality. And it's bad constitutional law. Why should people like myself, who had, not too long ago, a house on the Gulf Coast and it's – it's expensive there and it's risky and it's dangerous. Why should somebody from the central part of the United States rebuild my house? Why shouldn't I have to buy my own insurance and protect about the potential dangers? I mean it's-- it's a moral hazard to say that government is always going to take care of us when we do dumb things. I'm trying to get people to not to dumb things. Besides, it's not authorized in the constitution.

BLITZER: And if there's a disaster, like flooding or-- or an earthquake or Hurricane Katrina, what's wrong with asking fellow Americans to help their-- their-- their fellow citizens?

PAUL: Nothing. And I think Americans are very, very generous and they have traditionally. The big problem is Americans are getting poor and they're not able to voluntarily come to the rescue. But to coerce people, to ask them to help, that is fine and dandy. But when you bankrupt our country and nobody has a job and then they say, well, FEMA needs to bail out everybody, then all we're doing is compounding our problems.