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.

Senate Millionaires Find A Nice Satan Sandwich With A Side Of Satan Fries More Than Palatable

Tuesday the Senate took a big giant bite of the Satan Sandwich. Once the phony-baloney teabaggers agreed to the unanimous consent to bring it up, here was never any doubt they would. Only 26 Senators voted against it-- 18 who either are or want to be Teabagger-friendly... maybe 19 if Ben Nelson (D-NE) belongs in that category. He was one of half a dozen Democrats voting against it (+ Independent Bernie Sanders). Blue America won't be endorsing any incumbents who voted for the Satan Sandwich-- and that includes the almost-always-disappointing-when-he's-most-needed Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), two we were actually considering.

On the other hand, a progressive we have been enthusiastic about since first meeting him four years ago is Oregon's Jeff Merkley, one of the 6 + Bernie who refused to give in to right-wing terrorism and instead voted NO. He explained why in a note to his constituents:

“I have spent the last several days immersed in the details of this budget deal, trying to understand its real-world impact on Oregon’s middle class and small businesses. I have a single, simple measure to evaluate this proposal: is it going to create greater opportunities for prosperity and success for working Americans? Unfortunately, I have concluded that it will not, and so I cannot support it.
 
“First, this deal will contribute to the gathering storm threatening to make our current unemployment crisis even worse. Our unsustainable deficits are absolutely a long-term challenge that we must address. But millions of Oregonians and Americans are out of work right now. And with at least 5 million foreclosures looming, with the expiration of extended unemployment benefits forecast to cost half a million jobs next year, with the payroll tax holiday ending and costing another estimated 900,000 jobs in 2012, we should be relentlessly preoccupied with how to create more jobs. Instead, this package will add to the job losses, repeating the mistakes that have caused prolonged economic slumps in this country and elsewhere. 
 
“Second, this deal will do serious damage to the programs that middle class Americans depend on.  The bulk of the deficit reduction is piled onto that small part of the budget that funds things like Head Start, college financial aid, research into clean energy and medical cures, and safeguards against contaminated food and polluted air and water. These sorts of programs combined are less than one-fifth of the budget. And we are spending the same amount on them today in a real dollars, per person basis, as we did in 2001. Yet these programs-- critical to helping families in tough times, to giving kids the tools they need to succeed, and to keeping our economy competitive so there are good jobs in the future-- would endure as much as 15% in cuts. Mortgaging the middle class’s future and increasing their burdens now do not make America stronger.
 
“Moreover, while all reasonable people can understand the need for belt-tightening to bring down our unsustainable deficits, this plan exempts the wealthy and well-connected. The many subsidies and entitlements that they enjoy are tucked away in the tax code, which has been put off limits. So despite the dramatic increases in income of the best off in our nation since 2000, the sweetheart deals that litter the tax code are protected. 
 
“Finally, this flawed product is the result of irresponsible threats to torpedo the economy by refusing to pay America’s bills. The editorials are full of phrases like ‘extortion,’ ‘hostage-taking,’ and ‘lunacy.’ President Reagan himself said, ‘This brinkmanship threatens the holders of bonds and those who rely on veterans benefits. Markets would skyrocket, instability would occur and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations.’ A default would be enormously damaging to every American, and I respect and value the hard work of the President and Leader Reid to avoid that calamity despite the unreasonable ransom demands they were facing. But at some point we must finally stand up for the middle class and insist that their jobs and their futures be our priority, or this ugly drama will repeat itself again and again.
 
“I am fully committed to work towards real compromise, one that asks for sacrifice from everyone who can afford it to tackle our long-term debt challenges. I’m prepared to make hard choices when those choices are necessary to solve our nation’s challenges and make it stronger. However, I cannot endorse a process that will worsen our economy, burden middle class families, and reduce our children’s opportunities in the future, and doesn’t ask those who have so much already to contribute one thin dime. 
 
“Somewhere in the frenzy of economic anxiety, ideology, and electoral politics, Washington has lost its way. The greatness of America and the strength of our economy cannot be separated from the well-being of the American middle class. If we continue to sacrifice their prosperity to subsidize the well-off and well-connected, we sacrifice America’s future.”

Jeff isn't up for reelection until 2014. So far this year the only candidate Blue America is supporting for the Senate is Bernie Sanders. And I doubt that will change.

Can Eric Holder Stop The GOP From Disenfranchising Millions Of American Citizens? Will He Even Try?

In state after state, ALEC has plans for those with Republican-controlled legislatures and ruthless, fascist-minded GOP governors (obviously Scott Walker stands out, but Wisconsin is far from alone). 117 Members of Congress signed a letter asking AG Holder to report back to them about what actions his department is taking to prevent Republicans from disenfranchising millions of citizens, as many as 11% of the entire voting public:


Tuesday Katrina vanden Heuvel did an op-ed for the Washington Post outlining a staggering state-by-state crusade by outright fascists to undermine American democracy. Ever notice that when democratic parties win elections they never try to disenfranchise the political right but that's always the first thing fascists do?

In states across the country, Republican legislatures are pushing through laws that make it more difficult for Americans to vote. The most popular include new laws requiring voters to bring official identification to the polls. Estimates suggest that more than 1 in 10 Americans lack an eligible form of ID, and thus would be turned away at their polling location. Most are minorities and young people, the most loyal constituencies of the Democratic Party.

There are only two explanations for such action: Either Republican governors and state legislators are genuinely trying to protect the public from rampant voter fraud, or they are trying to disenfranchise the Americans most likely to vote against them. The latter would run so egregiously counter to democratic values-- to American values-- that one hopes the former was the motivation.

And yet, a close examination finds that voter fraud, in truth, is essentially nonexistent. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice found the incidence of voter fraud at rates such as 0.0003 percent in Missouri and 0.000009 percent in New York. “Voter impersonation is an illusion,” said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center. “It almost never happens, and when it does, it is in numbers far too small to effect the outcome of even a close election.”

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) disagrees. He argues that voter fraud is a serious problem that requires serious action. But as proof, Kobach cites just “221 incidents of voter fraud” in Kansas since 1997, for an average of just 17 a year. As a Bloomberg editorial points out, “During that same period, Kansans cast more than 10 million votes in 16 statewide elections. Even if the fraud allegation were legitimate... the rate of fraud would be miniscule.”

The facts, however clear, did not deter the Kansas legislature from passing one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country. Neither have they deterred other states that have passed such laws this year, or dozens of others considering similar action.

That’s because the facts of voter fraud are, in reality, wholly irrelevant to the Republican push for stricter laws. Republicans aren’t concerned with preventing a problem that isn’t occurring. They are concerned with preserving their party’s position in power, and they are willing to disenfranchise millions of people to do so. No other explanation could possibly pass the smell test.

This is seen, as well, in the fact that a number of new restrictive voting policies wouldn’t prevent voter fraud, even if it were occurring. In Ohio, for example, a recently signed law to curb early voting won’t prevent voter impersonation; it will only make it more difficult for citizens to cast their ballot. Or take Florida’s new voter registration law, which is so burdensome that the non-partisan League of Women Voters is pulling out of Florida entirely, convinced that it cannot possibly register voters without facing legal liability. Volunteers would need to have “a secretary on one hand and a lawyer on the other hand as they registered voters,” said Deirdre MacNabb, president of the Florida League of Women Voters.

What’s worse is that these aren’t a series of independent actions being coincidentally taken throughout the country. This is very much a coordinated effort. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate-funded organization that works with state legislators to draft model legislation. According to The Nation’s John Nichols, “Enacting burdensome photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements has long been an ALEC priority.” It’s not surprise then, that the Wisconsin state legislator who pushed for one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation is also ALEC’s Wisconsin chair.

I asked Alexander Keyssar, one of the country’s premier voting rights scholars, for some historical context. When was the last time an effort of this nature was so central to the agenda of an American political party? “What is so striking about the wave of legislation for ID laws is that we are witnessing for the first time in more than a century, a concerted, multi-state effort to make it more difficult for people to exercise their democratic rights,” he said. Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote, noted that “it is very reminiscent of what occurred in the North between 1875 and 1910-- the era of Jim Crow in the South-- when a host of procedural obstacles were put in the way of immigrants trying to vote.”

...That there is still a party in American politics willing to use disenfranchisement as a political tactic is gut-wrenching. Today, 46 years after President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, it must be the job of the American people to fight back against the forces that are disfiguring their nation on behalf of their party. Our dignity and the destiny of our democracy depends on it.

A week from Tuesday voters in 6 senatorial districts in Wisconsin will make a decision that will have heavy national reverberations. They will chose democracy or fascism by recalling and replacing 6 Scott Walker zombies or not. The Koch Brothers and other dangerous native fascists are pouring millions of dollars into the state to advance the cause that was stopped with World War II.

Michigan As Micocosm For Democratic Party Doom... Or Renaissance?

Yesterday we looked at Ken Quinnell's crowd sourced study of which state legislatures were the worst in the country. The big 3 were, Wisconsin, Florida and, at #1 worst, Arizona. I was surprised Michigan only came in at the 10th worst. After all, Rick Snyder and his zombie legislators are attacking the foundations of democracy itself and seem to be on the path to full on fascism. Of course, Michigan has a long and sordid history of flirting with fascism. So Snyder's actions this year aren't considered beyond the pale in many Michigan circles.

Michigan became the first state to pass a Financial Martial Law bill, giving unelected emergency managers extensive powers to run local governments without oversight from local officials, effectively eliminating democracy in areas of the state that hit hard financial times.

The law granted sweeping new authority to appointed managers, including powers to cancel or renegotiate union contracts, sell off assets and privatize public services. In Detroit, the school district’s emergency manager, Robert Bobb, announced shortly after the passage of the bill that 8 schools would be closing and 45 others bid out to private charter operators; in April, he issued layoff notices to every teacher and staff member in the district. In Benton Harbor, manager Joseph Harris issued an executive order effectively stripping all city boards and commissions from taking any action whatsoever.

Word is if you are an orphan, Michigan isn't the place to be, since the state is cutting money to help orphaned children get clothes. The Michigan legislature also doesn't seem to like LGBT people much, as it tried to punish universities that give benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Non-Michiganders were exposed to what the GOP was up to in that state for the first time this spring with this report from Rachel Maddow:





So perfect for a Democratic takeover, right? Um... maybe... if enough voters decide they can get excited about choosing between the lesser of two evils. Last week Eric Baerren did a study of Michigander's attitudes towards the state's Democratic Party. Pretty bad! His conclusion: "Michigan Democrats hate the Michigan Democratic Party" and that "50 percent of Democratic voters in Detroit think that the Michigan Democratic Party is out of date and too focused on the past."

When asked who is the best Democratic leader in Michigan, most Democratic voters in the latest Denno Research poll, conducted on behalf of Michigan Liberal and First Shift with Tony Trupiano, said U.S. Sen. Carl Levin. Levin got 34.5 percent of votes. Coming in second? "I have no idea," or "None of the above," with 31 percent, edging out Debbie Stabenow 26.3 percent. Mark Brewer, the state party chairman, came in second to last with barely above percent.

Know who does well with Michigan Democrats, probably better than anyone else? Barack Obama. We've heard a lot about the possibility that Obama could lose his base support next year. They like his economic policies (well, except in the U.P.), they like his war policy, they think he's struck the right tone, they think they're better off since he was inaugurated. Right now, according to this poll, Obama will have his base support, especially since it's pretty clear that Democratic voters really, really don't like what Republicans are doing right now.

The people that need to worry about losing their base support is, in fact, the Michigan Democratic Party (my guess is that they've already done it). In every relevant question, the MDP polled poorly. Michigan Democrats and independent voters who vote for Democrats blame poor messaging and leadership for much of last year's wipeout, and in a poll of the best Democratic leader, Mark Brewer beat out only Gretchen Whitmer (which was itself surprising).

Taken as a whole, I think what this poll is, is a giant no-confidence vote in the Michigan Democratic Party among Democrats and progressives. To that bloc of voters, the MDP is wallowing in the past, rudderless, out of date, and too reliant on organized labor.

As angry as Michigan voters are at Snyder and his right-wing legislators, "they place a surprising level of blame for their party's failures last year on lackluster candidates and message... Nearly 50 percent [of respondents] said it was a combination of lousy candidates, bad messaging and a lack of leadership at the top."

How indicative is the Democratic Party mess in Michigan of a national malaise across the country? My gut tells me, very. It's why so many millions of Democrats and left-leaning independents stayed away from the polls entirely in 2010 and let the teabaggers take over the House. No one was enthusiastic about seeing malevolent slimebags like Boehner and Cantor take over but voters were repulsed by the empty promises from Obama and the reactionary politics of the Blue Dogs and other corrupt ConservaDems. So they let them go down to a well-earned defeat. More than half the Blue Dogs were driven from Congress. But did the DCCC learn a thing? Absolutely not. They immediately named an "ex" Blue Dog, conservative hack Steve Israel, to head the committee and started recruiting the exact kind of candidates the voters had just defeated-- in many cases, the very same people, like conservative shills Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona and, reportedly, Chris Carney in Pennsylvania. And some of the DCCC's "new" faces dredged up by Israel are even more disgusting.

Republican mobster David Rivera (FL-25) is probably the most vulnerable Republican incumbent anywhere. Florida Republicans are so embarrassed by his behavior and his blatant corruption that they're considering adding Democratic-leaning Key West to his district to help get rid of him (and make Ileana Ros Lehtinen safer). So what does the DCCC come up with to fight Rivera? It's as though Israel said, find me the worst garbage in the state and bring him to me. Voila-- Luis Garcia, a former member of the Democrats For Jeb Bush steering committee, who recently threatened to switch parties and join the Republicans.

Similarly, in Albuquerque, the DCCC recruited an anti-union, anti-environment corporate shill, Marty Chavez, to run for the open congressional seat, despite the fact that the state's leading progressive legislator, Eric Griego, was already a declared candidate.

And the DSCC is busy trying to get reactionary Blue Dogs Joe Donnelly (IN) and Jim Matheson (UT), who consistently vote with Boehner and Cantor on key issues, to run for Senate seats. Is there any wonder that ordinary working voters are disgusted with the Democratic Establishment in DC? And that's not even to mention Obama offering to make the Republicans' dreams come true with more devastating tax breaks for the rich coupled with catastrophic cutbacks to Social Security and Medicare. Yes, a "D" is better than an "F"... but how much better? Enough to get you to bother to go vote?

America Wants Financial Protection From Predators-- Even Republicans Want Financial Protection

There hasn't been a poll, at least as far as I know, that asks Americans if they think life imprisonment for banksters who, carried away with greed and avarice, tanked the economy, is too lenient. Nor has their been a poll that asks if politicians who have been paid off by these banksters to enable this kind of behavior deserve even greater punishment than the banksters themselves. And why should there be such polls, when we all know perfectly well that the system is so gamed that there will never even be serious investigations of the offending banksters or politicians?

On the other hand, AARP did commission a poll to find out how strongly Americans feel about the institutional financial reforms required to make the investment and banking markets safe for consumers, safe from predators and their political whores. Not surprisingly, most Americans feel strongly that safeguards are needed. Perhaps surprisingly, that even includes Republican Party supporters!

In fact, by a 3 to 1 margin Americans want financial firms held accountable and financial reforms to take effect as soon as possible. And they want the Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- so feared and loathed by Wall Street and their political puppets-- to be up and running as planned, not diluted by industry’s current attempts to weaken its funding and structure. This is what the poll found:

• Likely voters, including majorities of Independents, Democrats, and Republicans, favor the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law by a 5 to 1 margin (71% vs. 14%).

• Presented with information about challenges in Congress to the law, almost two-thirds (63%) believe that policymakers should allow the law to be fully implemented.

• Three-quarters (74%) of voters support the existence of a single entity with the mission of protecting consumers from deceptive practices.

• Voters also voice overwhelming support for the following consumer protection functions of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau: Requiring clearer explanations of rates and fees, restricting lenders from offering loans with risky or confusing features, and banning incentives to mortgage brokers to put homeowners into higher rate mortgages than they qualify for.

• Three-quarters (73%) of voters want to see federal oversight of financial companies that previously lacked national oversight, including mortgage brokers, payday lenders, and companies offering pre-paid debit cards.

Nancy LeaMond, Executive Vice President of AARP: “During the financial crisis, too many older Americans lost their savings due to the failure of an outdated and compromised financial regulatory system. That's why most Americans say they want clear, accurate information so they can make the best financial decisions for their families, and a watchdog that will protect them from financial abuse.”

Republicans in Congress will try to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from ever functioning. Right now, it's scheduled to start tomorrow. In the clip above, Elizabeth Warren explains to Rachel Maddow why she feels that it will work despite Wall Street and right-wing Members of Congress who are dead set against fairness in the system.

I thought it might be worth mentioning that this year the financial industry is once again pouring millions of dollars into the political system in the hopes of keeping Republicans in power. Of the 6 Members of Congress who have taken the biggest legalistic bribes from the finance sector, 5 of them are dead set against any reform that would protect consumers. Mostly very familiar names, as well; in order of the amount of bribes they've accepted (just this year):

Eric Cantor (R-VA) $378,700
John Bohner (R-OH) $355,325
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) $235,800
Spencer Bachus (R-AL) $186,515
Ed Royce (R-CA) $185,879

Update: Dr. Evil And Mini-Me Go To Parliament

-by Noah

“These actions do not live up to the standards that we aspire to.”
                                               - James Murdoch, son of Rupert, Parliament July 19th.

Kinda brings new meaning to the phrase “If I knew you were coming, I’d have baked a pie!” Of course, the media are giving way too much coverage to the pie incident when there are deeper, more important issues at play in the Murdoch scandal. The Murdochs are damn lucky the guy didn’t have a machete or a black belt in some sort of deadly up close and personal martial art.

“I do not accept ultimate responsibility.”
                                             -Rupert Murdoch, Fascist Crank, Parliament July 19th.

Rupert Murdoch actually used the words “shocked and appalled” in yesterday’s testimony before Parliament in London! You can’t make this stuff up! There was also plenty of use of the usual dodges: “on-going investigation,” “I have no knowledge of that.” “I didn’t know.” Here they say “I don’t recall.” It was a whole day of weaseling. It was like Rupert Murdoch was auditioning for the part of Sgt. Schultz (“I know nothing. I see nothing.”) in a 2011 remake of Hogan’s Heroes. Here you had a man who is literally a kingmaker, a man who runs a multi-billion dollar empire that not only promotes certain candidates into office around the world for paybacks in the form of waivers to communications laws that allow him to expand his business and build his ever-expanding power, it strives and conspires to control those candidates once they are in office, even going so far as to place Murdoch people in important positions around them, whether it’s press flaks like David Cameron’s Andy Coulson, or, here, Bush’s Tony Snow. Police? Hell, you can just buy them.
 
Such a person would, by necessity, have to have his wits about him, wouldn’t he? Rupert says he runs the place but he doesn’t know what’s going on. Yet, his former editors, such as CNN’s Piers Morgan say they were in touch with Rupert on a weekly basis. That’s hardly being distant or being buffered by layers of management. Murdoch’s appearance yesterday was a textbook illustration of a conniver wanting it both ways. Out of one side of his jowly old mouth he says he doesn’t know what’s going on and puts on the doddering old geezer routine, while out of the other side he says he shouldn’t resign because he’s the best guy to fix what’s wrong.
 
I have to go back to the mobster comparison again. It was a classic example of the old mobster feigning illness in court in order to engender sympathy and get a better deal. In New York, we had a local godfather named Vinny “the chin” Gigante. He ran an empire, too. At one time, he was the most powerful crime boss in America. Yet, he went around his neighborhood in his pajamas and bathrobe, muttering to himself, in order to pretend he was just some crazy old coot. When he got before the judges as an old man, he really poured it on. He knew nothing. He played it to the hilt. Before he died, he admitted it was all an act, but, for 10 years, he was declared mentally unfit to stand trial. All the while, he ran his empire. Same deal with what we saw yesterday.
 
What a farce. First of all, the Murdochs were not even under oath. They could say anything or nothing, with impunity. James Murdoch talked about standards yet paid off someone with a million pounds. Standards? No wonder FOX “News” is the way it is.
 
Here’s some typical dialogue from yesterday’s dog and pony show, English-style, with Labor MP Watson questioning Rupert Murdoch-

Watson: “You’ve repeatedly stated that news Corp. has a zero tolerancetowards wrong doing by employees. Is that right?”
  
Rupert Murdoch: “Yes.”
 
Watson: "In October 2010, did you still believe it to be true when you said 'Let me be clear: We will vigorously pursue the truth and we will not tolerate wrongdoing'?"   
 
Rupert Murdoch: “Yes.”
 
Watson: “So, if you were not lying then, somebody lied to you. Who was it?”
 
Rupert Murdoch: “I don’t know. That’s what the police are investigating, and we are helping them with.”

 
Yeah right. He doesn’t remember. He was lied to but he doesn’t really pay all that much attention to the day to day. He doesn’t know. If someone lied to me, I’d know who it was. This same approach probably kept Rupert from getting expelled from school back around 70 years ago. Someone else is responsible! Not me! Round up the usual suspects! Put my most expensive cops on the case! Here’s more-

Watson: “Can I take you back to 2003? Are you aware that in March of that year, Rebekah Brooks gave evidence to this Committee admitting paying police?”
        
Rupert Murdoch: “I am now aware of that. I was not aware at the time. I am also aware that she amended that considerably, very quickly afterwards.”
 
Watson: "I think that she amended it seven or eight years afterwards.”
 
Rupert Murdoch: “Oh, I’m sorry.”
 
Watson: "Did you or anyone else at your organization investigate this at the time?”
 
Rupert Murdoch: “No.”

 
No one at News Corp. saw any need to investigate bribing police for information. Must be those standards that James Murdoch mentioned. There’s plenty more in the Parliament’s own transcript of the hearings.

Watson goes on to question Murdoch about a very high profile 2006 case involving the hacked voicemails and blackmail that we have been hearing about. The case resulted in admonishments from the judge, and received widespread media attention, yet Murdoch would have Watson and the rest of us believe that he, the great media baron knew nothing. More importantly, his company, which espoused a policy of “zero tolerance” for such wrongdoing didn’t draw his attention to it. Zero tolerance apparently has a whole different meaning in the land of News Corp.
 
I’ll give the British Parliament credit for a couple of things, although neither of them makes up for not putting such creeps as the Murdochs and their minions such as former News Of The Word editor Rebekah Brooks, who was questioned after the Murdochs, under oath. One was the intelligence of the questioning. The other is that, unlike hearings in our House or Senate, there was no grandstanding or self-aggrandizement on the part of the politicians.
 
It’s clear from yesterday’s testimony, that the Murdochs are buffering themselves from the wrongdoing that obviously never bothered them. The presented a picture of being detached or removed from things that were obviously company policy. Someone will be taking the fall, but they don’t intend for it to be them. Which employee or ex-employee will they sell down the river? Right now, you can put your money on Rebekah Brooks but, stay tuned
 
Sean Hoare, aka, the dead journalist, may have been the best or even only guy who could connect Murdoch and the Cameron government together in great detail. In my previous post, I raised the supposition of how would it look if Haldeman or Hunt had turned up dead at the beginning of the Watergate Scandal. While that would have set off quite a conflagration, perhaps I should have asked what would have happened if Woodward and Bernstein had been found face down in the Potomac.
 
The Murdochs and, no doubt, their man at No. 10 Downing Street once thought that just shutting down the News Of The World would make this whole thing go away, but it didn’t. Then a body turned up, the top two cops in Scotland Yard suddenly resigned over the police for sale issue, and Rebekah Brooks got arrested while police were retrieving her personal computer, phone and files from the garbage. The whole scandal leads to the question of how does a citizen deal with a legal system that is so corrupted by the money of the uber-powerful that it is in itself lawless; a legal system where more and more police and judges can be bought, given offers and orders that they can’t refuse. This is what will continue to happen as governments give waivers and tax breaks to the few uber-wealthy, the lords. Money equals power. That we are entering a state of complete lawlessness may very well be what the Repugs here, and their corporate overlords like Murdoch have been aiming for all along. It’s obvious. It’s certainly the logical end result of their policies. We are going medieval; merry olde England. Lords and serfs. Laws only written for the lords. If that’s the case and the law both there and here becomes even more of a farcical joke than it already is, then here’s my fantasy on how to deal with people like Murdoch, if only in my dark dreams.

The Republican Attack On Clean Air And Water Continues

One day you could wake up & find John Mica's wig in your drinking water

Wednesday the House voted 239-184 to roll back the Clean Water Act, by amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in a way that cedes enforcement to state governments which are under equipped and prone to be easily manipulated by corporate polluters. 13 Republicans (in Democratic-leaning districts) voted against John Mica's outrageous legislation and 16 right-wing Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Cantor and the anti-environment caucus. (The bill was co-sponsored by 35 Republican pro-pollution fanatics and 4 conservative Allegheny area Democrats, Jason Altmire, Tim Holden, Nick Rahall and Mark Critz, who are owned by Big Coal). The Democrats-- no surprises on this list-- voting in favor of poisoned water were:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)

This was a vote for dozens of Love Canals and for dangerous levels of arsenic and perchlorate in our drinking water-- unless you can afford Fiji Water. Jerry McNerney offered a Motion to Recommit on behalf of the Democrats-- with moderate Republican Walter Jones plus all Democrats but one voting in favor-- that sought to retain the "EPA's authority to set water pollution standards and review permits when pollutants are being discharged into waters that are a source of public drinking water." Cantor insisted the GOP kill it. Nancy Pelosi voiced a concern shared by most Americans aware of what the GOP is up to:

“Americans have been clear that their top priority is creating jobs; this week in Congress, Republicans are ignoring job creation and instead rolling back clean water protections that ensure the safety of the water Americans drink and in which they swim and fish. 
 
“Nearly 40 years ago, the bipartisan Clean Water Act revolutionized the safety of American water; it gave a measure a confidence to families that they can protect their children from toxins and pollutants. Now Republicans want to take our nation backwards. 
 
“This week, Republicans are turning back the clock on progress for the environment and our clean energy future: in addition to today’s misnamed ‘Clean Water’ legislation, they attempted to make light bulbs less energy efficient, at a cost to American consumers of nearly $12.5 billion per year, and voted repeatedly to slash investments in clean energy jobs.   
 
“Republicans should abandon their ideological assault on the environment and get to work creating jobs and strengthening our economy.”

Rachel Maddow was incredible on this last night:

Yeah, Romney's Worse Than Obama, But America's Real Enemy Is Our Political Elite

I'm envisioning next year's presidential race being about how Romney really and truly is worse-- even much worse-- than an admittedly truly horrible Barack Obama. Romney may have been correct when he told the Wall Street Journal that Obama is worse than Carter but Obama is certainly not as bad-- at least he hasn't been so far-- as George W. Bush, who Romney has backed to the hilt. And, more to the point, Romney's record indicates he would be an even worse president than Obama-- on every level. I'm not going to talk about Lily Ledbetter; it's almost embarrassing. And I'm not going to talk about the basically conservative approach to healthcare reform that both Romney and Obama enacted. Instead... start by taking a look at the Rachel Maddow segment above that airs a series of ads that focus on Mitt Romney's record as a destroyer of American jobs.

There's nothing I would say to defend Obama's approach to the presidency. He just plain sucks. But Romney just makes him look... merely mediocre.

Republican Mitt Romney often says, as he did at three campaign stops here Thursday, that he wants to create jobs by lowering taxes. He says he wants to loosen federal regulations on businesses. And he says he has a unique skill set from 25 years in the private sector to develop innovative solutions that can revive the sputtering U.S. economy.

What Romney doesn’t say is which taxes he would lower and by how much. He doesn’t say which regulations he would loosen. And he doesn’t say what his solutions are other than general principles that for years have been Republican Party orthodoxy.

It’s not that the former Massachusetts governor doesn’t have ideas. It’s just that he hasn’t shared them yet.

At a lively town hall meeting here Thursday night, Romney methodically plowed through about 15 questions over the course of an hour, including one from a woman wondering whether he would continue to subsidize big oil companies if elected president.

“What I would like to see us do philosophically is to bring our [corporate] tax rates down to be competitive with the world but get rid of a lot of these special breaks that exist,” Romney answered. “We ought to look industry by industry and say, ‘Where are the lobbyists striking special deals for companies?’ Let’s get rid of that stuff and bring our rate down.”

The audience of about 300 gave him a friendly applause and Romney moved on to the next question, leaving behind a slew of unanswered questions. What would the corporate tax rate be? How does he define a “special break”? Which industry loopholes would he eliminate? And, of course, the original query: Would he continue oil subsidies?

By making the economy an almost exclusive focus of his campaign, Romney has raised the expectations for what he eventually will propose and has some policy gurus in his own party openly wondering whether the presidential front-runner has sound proposals to deal with the big problems he says he is uniquely positioned to solve.

And where will Romney be getting his macroeconomic guidance from? Well, the Team that tanked the economy under Bush, of course. Theirs is exactly the kind of voodoo economics, trickle down nonsense that Romney is comfortable with. He's already started recruiting an economic team-- the worst of the worst: N. Gregory Mankiw, who was chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers; Glenn Hubbard, who preceded Mankiw on the council and currently is dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business; and former Missouri senator Jim Talent.

So... right back into the toilet. And there is just no subtly or shades of grey in Teabagworld:

Still Not Too Late For Obama To Get On The Right Path

Early this year a Democratic consultant sent me a memo on Democratic Party positioning based on polling and economic data. I ran across it by chance while I was trying to make sense out of the reports that President Obama's Grand Bargain that he had offered the GOP included something most rational people would interpret as "cuts" to popular core middle class programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (not to even mention public education, also under increasing threat).

The memo made clear that the upcoming elections-- for the presidency, for Congress and for state governments-- may well be determined on whether hard-pressed Americans in the middle class feel like Democrats are on their side. Voters who abandoned the Democrats in the 2010 midterms were from the working and middle classes most pressed by the economic trauma of the last few years. In 2008, voters who said they were worse off economically in the previous couple of years voted for Obama by 42 points, but in 2010, they voted Republican by 29 points. That 71 percent swing is gargantuan-- and it's why Boehner is Speaker and why the GOP is in a position to block everything progressives would like to accomplish in the House. According to recent polls, Obama's approval rating with these economically downscale, working-class independents’-- swing voters-- has remained flat. Yet, when you look at the key issues in the same polling that shows the Democratic Party in danger of being swamped by Obama's poor job approval numbers, you can't help but notice these voters back a progressive agenda-- far more so than an Obama agenda in fact. Findings from the Stan Greenberg poll done for the Campaign for America's Future found:

* Swing voters supported a message about challenging China on trade, ending subsidies to corporations that send jobs overseas, and stopping NAFTA-like trade deals over a message about increasing exports, passing more trade agreements, and getting government out of the way by 59-28

* Swing voters supported a message about ending tax cuts for those making over $250,0000 a year, adding a bank tax to curb speculative trading, cutting wasteful military spending and ending subsidies to oil companies over a message about cutting 100 billion dollars from domestic programs, raising the Social Security retirement age, and turning Medicare into a voucher program by 51-37

* Swing voters supported a statement about politicians keeping their hands off Social Security and Medicare over a statement about raising the retirement age by 62-36

* 89% of swing voters supported a statement about full disclosure of campaign donations and limiting the power of lobbyists

* 90% of swing voters supported a statement about cracking down on outsourcing and creating jobs by fixing schools, sewers, and roads in disrepair

* Even when framed in direct opposition to a statement about stopping increasing government spending and tax increases, swing voters said they were more worried that we will fail to make the investments we need to create jobs and strengthen the economy by 54-44

The Republicans are on the wrong side of every one of these issues. But where is President Obama? At best, unclear. When he addressed the nation about the dismal jobs numbers last week, he couldn't resist putting a plug in for immensely unpopular NAFTA-like trade agreements that he's promised to deliver for Big Business, the types of trade agreements he and other corporate politicians try selling as job creators when American voters see them as job destroyers. So whose side is he on? To voters focussing on that issue, he's just another Establishment political selling out to the big corporate donors who are so loathed by so many.

Obama didn't fight to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy-- at least not hard enough to make it happen. Obama didn't fight for any of these populist measures to curb Big Banks and Big Oil-- or if he did, he fought and failed (or didn't fight well or strongly). His positioning on keeping hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is muddled and confusing. Who's side is he on? It's impossible for an average voter to tell. It's impossible to miss where Bernie Sanders stands on the issue. Is he just a more effective communicator?

The swing voters who moved toward the Republicans in 2010 were mostly white, independent, working- and middle-class, older (seniors went from voting 8 percent for McCain to voting by 22 percent for Republicans in 2010), economically hard-pressed, and economically populist. They hate the biggest banks and tended to blame Wall Street for the economic crisis but still voted Republican-- 35 percent said Wall Street was mostly to blame for the economy, more than any other person or institution (and many of that 35 percent were white, working-class independents, because base Democrats blamed Bush and base Republicans blamed Obama), but those voters went Republican 56-42. They are wary of trade deals, hate outsourcing, and don’t like Big Business. They also hate deficit spending, big government, and government waste (they are swing voters, after all), but they sure don’t have any interest in cutting Social Security, Medicare, education, or infrastructure spending. Perhaps what they hate most of all is business as usual in Washington: lobbyists, special interests, corporate tax loopholes, sweetheart deals for government contractors. The reason they think government doesn’t work for them anymore is that the special interests have taken it over.

Obama seems to have made himself into a posterboy for everything these people hate. What's he's got going for him is how extreme the GOP is trending and how he looks reasonable and sensible compared to a party that has been captured by teabagging radicals. Obama and the Democrats running for other offices need to show both Democratic base voters-- many of whom sat out the 2010 midterms-- and the hard-pressed middle class that Democrats are on their side. Here’s how the memo suggested they should be talking about an agenda leading up to November, 2012:

1. Entrepreneurial populism. Both Democratic base voters and working- middle-class swing voters are angry at the powers that be: a government that never seems to get things done on their behalf; Wall Street mega-bankers who crashed the economy, demanded a bailout, and never showed a moment of remorse; a media establishment more concerned with trivia and sensationalism than with anything really important; and big businesses that ship jobs overseas and have their lobbyists cut sweetheart deals with the government. But a purely angry message going after bankers and tax breaks for the wealthy only brings Democrats into a 45-45 tie with an angry anti-government message from the Republicans. Americans right now are first and foremost very pragmatic, very focused on jobs and the things that will help them make it in tough times. However angry they are at the establishment, they want to be sure that politicians are focused on pragmatic policies that create more jobs and economic growth. Voters are looking for policies that help small-business entrepreneurs get investment capital and create more jobs; policies that help manufacturing companies, big or small, create jobs here in America; and policies that invest in the jobs of the future: infrastructure, R&D, green energy, technology. The winning political formula is what I call entrepreneurial populism: taking on the big Wall Street banks, the jobs outsourcers, and other powerful special interests on behalf of both the middle-class workers and the business innovators who want to create American jobs here and now. President Obama’s investment agenda is a good start, but it needs to be bigger and bolder in terms of job creation, and it would be far more powerful if Obama were taking on wealthy special interests who are keeping things from moving forward.

2. Emphasize job creation at every turn. President Obama and Senate Democrats should be pushing forward a new jobs bill practically every week: more infrastructure spending, more loans and grants to small businesses, more help for solar and wind companies, universal broadband. Whatever the policy is, the connection with jobs should be obvious and repeated over and over again. If the Republicans want to stand in the way on all these jobs bills, let them. If the fight in front of the public is about jobs, even if we lose on the Hill, we still win.

3. Stand up for homeowners in fights with bankers. The combination of the housing bubble and the worst recession since the Great Depression has resulted in a devastating foreclosure crisis. Millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure, and banks have been cooking their books, and presenting made-up paperwork and falsified affidavits in order to avoid helping homeowners keep their homes. Our economy has no chance of significantly improving if the housing crisis is allowed to continue. The government should implement a foreclosure freeze until they are able to sort through the mess that is the current mortgage title system. Additionally, it makes sense to push the banks, along with Freddie and Fannie, very hard to institute widespread mortgage write-downs that reflect current housing prices to underwater homeowners. This can be done without going to Congress, because the Obama administration has plenty of tools to pressure the banks to write down mortgages, and they actually control Freddie and Fannie right now. These policies would dramatically reduce the need for foreclosures and cut the stresses on our economy. Democrats need to counteract the daunting political power held by the big banks and side with the middle class.

4. Fight for the government programs that benefit the middle class. There are certain government programs that are overwhelmingly popular with the public, including with swing voters, because they benefit the broad middle class so much. Among them are Social Security, Medicare, student loan programs, and public education and infrastructure funding. For example, according to a variety of polls done over the last couple of months: 67 percent oppose spending cuts on health care or education; 56 percent oppose reducing the money spent on student loans; 64 percent oppose raising the retirement age for Social Security; 66 percent oppose any benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare; 71 percent oppose cuts in federal aid to states for education or road building. And as people understand the health care law more and more, and start to take advantage of the benefits being phased in, they will be much more likely to support its funding as well. Obama and the Democrats should fight like tigers for all these programs, resisting Republican attempts to slash and radically restructure them.

5. Change Washington by taking on the special interests. One of the things that was clear from Democracy Corps and other pollsters in the last cycle was that in order for Democratic arguments on the economy to be taken more seriously, Democrats need to make clear that they have the courage to take on wealthy special interests and change the way government does business. For example, in a Sept. 20, 2010 memo, Stan Greenberg and James Carville laid out a series of Democratic frameworks for moving the election in the right way. They found in their testing that a message that leads with reforming D.C. and taking on the big money lobbyists, and then goes straight to a strong pro-middle class and pro-small business economic message was by far the most powerful frame for Democrats, moving voters a remarkable +9 points. As Stan and James put it:

"The respondents are a little skeptical of candidates who describe themselves as 'champions of the middle class,' but fighting for change in Washington, bucking privileges, being for small business and American jobs and against breaks for Goldman Sachs makes this an authentic claim.

6. Reform government contracting. The Center for American Progress, US PIRG, and other reform groups have estimated that the federal government could save enormous amounts of money ($100 billion annually or even more) simply by reforming the way they do government contracting. With more and more government services privatized, the amount of government contracting has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades, and these contracts have been noted for the waste and corruption entailed in them. No-bid contracts, sweetheart deals, cost overruns, a lack of accountability for getting them done on time, easy to achieve bonus clauses written into most contracts, and special-interest language in appropriations bills favoring one firm over all others have generated enormous amounts of waste. By demanding reform of this process, Democrats could burnish our credentials in terms of cutting waste in government as well as opening up contracting to more innovative and efficient firms.

This kind of agenda-- populist in taking on the D.C. and Wall Street establishment and other corporate special interests, but clearly pro-jobs, small business and the middle class-- has appeal to both swing and working class voters and Democratic-base voters. Even if the economy remains flat for average Americans, which unfortunately is a distinct possibility, it creates a narrative in which the President and Democrats in Congress are clearly fighting for the middle class against powerful special interests.

That was sent to the White House and to Democratic Party leaders almost half a year ago. You tell me... have they taken these finding and suggestions seriously? One week ago former Labor Secretary Robert Reich described President Obama's forays into job creation as fluff and indicated that the White House still doesn't get it.

The President has to have a bold jobs plan, with specifics. Why not exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for the next year? Why not a new WPA for the long-term unemployed, and a Civilian Conservation Corps for the legions of young jobless Americans? Why not allow people to declare bankruptcy on their primary residences, and thereby reorganize their mortgage debt?

Or a hundred other ways to boost demand.

Fluff won’t get us anywhere. In fact, it creates a policy vacuum that will be filled by Republicans intent on convincing Americans that cutting federal spending and reducing taxes on the rich will create jobs.

Most Americans are smart enough to see through this. But if the Republican snake oil is the only remedy being offered, some people will buy it. And if the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill continue to obsess about reaching an agreement to raise the debt limit, they risk making the snake oil seem like a legitimate cure.

Update On The GOP Nuisance Suit Against Blue America-- And More GOP Hypocrisy

Short version: the FEC dismissed the suit this week. Here's the letter they sent us:


And here's the story of the nuisance suit from deranged right wing hack Cleta Mitchell of Republican Party front group Let Freedom Ring, a fascist-oriented "think tank." Their spurious suit claimed we "engaged in the deliberate, willful and intentional violation of the [Federal Election Campaign] Act by specifically requesting that outside organizations make public communications in support of Democratic candidates for Congress." As best as I can tell, the only basis for their claim was that a couple of Inside the Beltway newspapers published a story that Pelosi was concerned that the Democrats were concerned that they were being crushed by outside spending and that they needed liberal groups "to do more-- and quickly." The suit claims Blue America Independent Expenditure Committee made its first buy on October 18, right around the time of the newspaper stories. Our Independent Expenditure Committee spent exactly $83,776.85 this year, on three races, one of which was in the Arizona Democratic primary in support of Randy Parraz ($20,315.00), a race Pelosi couldn't have been remotely interested in. Another was in the race in Alabama's Second Congressional District between Blue Dog Bobby Bright and Republican Martha Roby. We spent $48,364.15 opposing Bobby Bright, the candidate Pelosi was backing. And the third race was in support of Justin Coussoule, the progressive Democrat opposing John Boehner, to the tune of $15,097.70. The DCCC and the DNC made it clear that they had no interest in this race whatsoever. If Pelosi did, it would have taken a mind-reader to have known.

You might ask, "how can the Republicans be so hypocritical?" After all, they are the masters of mudslinging and dirty campaign tactics. And these types of suits against grassroots progressives groups is something they do on purpose, not because they think they can win, but just to help drain away resources that could be used opposing anti-democratic, fascist-oriented politicians. But if you wonder about GOP hypocrisy, I hope you watched Rachel Maddow Tuesday night-- IOKIYAR-- when she looked at the Republican response to the great Weiner weiner outrage. I hope you'll click on IOKIYAR and watch the clip. And watch this one as well:



Cowardly Democrats have demanded Weiner resign. He shouldn't-- and most people in his congressional district, where I was raised-- agree. But what does it prove to Virginia voters who heard conservative Democrat Tim Kaine demanding Weiner resign? That Kaine will be almost as bad as your garden variety Republican? The GOP is all over this today-- and adamantly refusing to talk about David Vitter's criminal case, since the still-serving right-wing senator paid prostitutes to spank him and change his diapers... for decades.

In any case, if you can help Blue America cover the legal costs for the suit just dismissed... we'd really appreciate it. Put the contribution in the PAC slot. Thanks.

Wisconsin's Neo-Fascist Governor, Scott Walker, Warns GOP Faithful That The Recall Elections Will Be A Referendum On His Agenda

This past weekend's Wisconsin Republican Party convention in the Dells was a real mess-- especially for Tommy Thompson's apparently stillborn Senate campaign-- but the state's extremely controversial governor used the occasion to warn his followers that recall elections are a threat to all he's attempting to achieve in the state. Having disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters with a draconian voter suppression bill (see video above), Walker feels he can stop Democratic momentum-- and democracy itself-- through the recalls this summer, after failing to derail them. (Anti-working family Senators Dan Kapanke, Randy Hopper, and Luther Olsen will have to face the voters July 12, two days before Bastille Day. Next up: Robert Cowles, Sheila Harsdorf and Alberta Darling.)

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and other Republican leaders urged party members at their annual convention Saturday to take seriously the threat of losing control of the state Senate through recall elections.

Six Republicans and three Democrats are targeted for recalls starting as early as July 12. Democrats need to pick up three seats to take control of the Senate from Republicans. If that happened, the Republican agenda would come to a grinding halt in the Statehouse, where Democrats currently are unable to stop Walker's proposals from passing.

Walker, speaking to about 1,000 Republicans at a Wisconsin Dells resort, said the only thing that could stop the GOP's momentum in the state are the recall elections.

"For the next two months, you shouldn't think about any United States Senate seat, you should think about protecting six brave senators and picking up three others," Walker said.

All nine of the senators were targeted for recalls because of positions they took earlier this year on Walker's proposal taking away most collective bargaining rights from public workers. The Republicans voted for it, while the Democrats fled to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately vain attempt to stop it from passing.

The law is tied up in the courts and has not taken effect yet.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he thinks Republicans will actually pick up a seat through the recalls, but he also extolled the party faithful to not take them lightly. He said the recalls have made the state Senate the bulls-eye of a national political battle.

And that voter suppression bill... Scott Walker boasts that he was the author of it-- 10 years ago. Earlier in the month, the conservative Economist reported on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's roadmap to recession. It's the twin faces of Ryan and Walker that will be on the minds of the state's voters when they cast their ballots in the recall elections. The Economist look at Ryan's budget plan-- what he's called his "cause"-- starts by them derisively pointing out that it's backed up by nothing but "a short, lazy piece of analysis by a Fed chairman who's most famous previous involvement in the regulatory system was his failure to rein in a dangerous explosion in irresponsible mortgage lending." That would be fellow Ayn Rand devotee Alan Greenspan.

Ryan then proceeded to lay out his four pillars for a strong recovery. First up were spending cuts. Government spending is generating uncertainty among investors, as are increases in the debt, he argued, and this problem must be tackled immediately. And indeed, Republicans have pushed for cuts to discretionary spending in the current fiscal year, and larger ones still in 2012. Pillar number two is regulatory reform. Big companies and banks are being choked by new regulations, many of which were put in places by new pieces of legislation some of which contained an alarming number of pages. The EPA wants to regulate carbon emissions. This all must be stopped. Regulations must be rolled back.

A third pillar is tax reform. Not a bad idea, that, but Mr Ryan added that any tax reform must include a reduction in rates. Tax increases are entirely off the table; Mr Ryan was clear about that. Not because tax increases don't pay for themselves—he acknowledged that eliminating the Bush tax cuts would raise revenue levels. But Mr Ryan seemed to suggest that current tax rates make American businesses uncompetitive, and that because not all of the fiscal gap could be closed with tax hikes, none of it should be. A sweeping tax reform is therefore the order of the day.

And then finally, Mr Ryan said, America needs sound money. He told stories of traveling around Wisconsin and being handed pieces of currency from Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, he remarked on how nothing was more insidious than inflation, and he declared that the Fed was making a critical mistake by keeping monetary policy loose.

I was struck hearing all this, explained in this way. Adopting these policies would be nothing short of disastrous.

The spending cuts Republicans seek for this year and next would not doom the American economy to disaster, but they would place a meaningful drag on a recovery that continues to chug along at or just under trend growth, and that's risky. The literature suggesting that austerity can be expansionary has faced a great deal of criticism, and that literature itself suggests that expansionary austerity is most likely when interest rates are high-- which they aren't-- and when the currency is allowed to depreciate considerably-- which Mr Ryan opposes. Short-term spending cuts are unambiguously contractionary, and Mr Ryan wants them in spades.

I could get behind a sweeping regulatory and tax reform, provided it was done well, with an eye toward improving efficiency rather than simply trimming things back for trimming's sake. It seems clear that that's not what Mr Ryan is after. All the same, sweeping reforms seem like an odd short-term prescription from a guy who says that uncertainty is constraining recovery. Another attendee asked Mr Ryan about this seeming tension, and his response was essentially that a sweeping reform won't happen because Democrats still hold the Senate and the presidency. In other words, if Republicans had their druthers, they'd be free to enact a potentially destabilising-- according to Mr Ryan's view of the economic situation-- set of reforms. Only Democratic reluctance is sparing the economy this horror.

...Ryan's views are at odds with economic history and at odds with prevailing views of economic policy. They're untethered from economic reality. And no matter how charmingly he delivers them-- and he is an engaging, funny speaker-- they're a path to disaster. Ryanomics is a recipe for the return of recession.

This morning Paul Krugman brought back his classic description of Ryan from August, 2010: The Flimflam Man. Back then he was mortified that Beltway pundits had bought the Wall Street spin that Ryan was "intellectually audacious" and pointed out that it's just "the audacity of dopes" and that he wasn't offering food for thought but "serving up the leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce." Today it's Flimflam Part II. Ryan's plan, he asserts, is "a self-serving piece of junk. It doesn’t add up-- in fact, it would probably make the deficit bigger not smaller. And far from representing some kind of sacrifice of political interests in the service of the greater good, it’s a right-wing wish-list on steroids: sharp tax cuts for corporations and the rich, savage cuts in aid to the poor, and a gratuitous privatization of Medicare. And again, it’s technically incompetent along the way. ... Ryan and his colleagues expected to float through on a cloud of pundit love, which would allow them to bypass the public’s fundamental dislike of everything they were proposing."

Exactly what Ryan's Democratic challenger, Kenosha County Supervisor Rob Zerban, was saying after Ryan's serial lies on Meet the Press Sunday. "Paul Ryan tried to promote his radical budget plan on Meet the Press yesterday by falsely claiming that the alternative would lead to rationed care when the truth is the exact opposite. By forcing seniors into private healthcare with a voucher of diminishing value as their only assistance, many would forgo treatments and new technologies because the costs would be out of their reach. Paul Ryan knows that by gutting our current Medicare plan, seniors will face drastically higher out-of-pocket costs. This helps big insurance companies, not Wisconsin's seniors. What the taxpayers of southeastern Wisconsin need is a plan that would shore up our existing Medicare system without gutting it and forcing our seniors to figure it out on their own." Maybe Zerban was being too polite to mention that Big Insurance has showered far more cash on Ryan ($713,003) than on any other Wisconsin politician in history.

Please consider helping Rob Stop Paul Ryan with even a $5 or $10 contribution to his campaign.

Rachel Maddow-- Essential Television

Hopefully you've been watching Rachel Maddow's dramatic and exhaustive reports on the John Ensign-Tom Coburn sex-and-ethics scandal. Her reports on Thursday and Friday were absolutely riveting and far better journalism than what Americans normally expect from television... or most other media for that matter. Andrea Mitchell recognized the awesomeness of what Maddow has been doing and invited her onto her show to explain it to her own daytime viewers. If John Ensign winds up in prison, where he clearly belongs, it will be because the ruling elite wasn't allowed to cover up another scandal within its own ranks. This is what journalists should be doing. And this is why-- other than Cupcake Wars, Maddow's MSNBC program is the only thing I regularly tune in to.

It's hard to imagine G.E., one of those evil mega-corporations that pays no taxes and seeks cartel-like dominance in its fields, would give her a platform. It's another example of Lenin's apocryphal quote, "the Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Of course, Lenin was wrong-- correct about the blind greed, incorrect about the degree of blindness and the ability, in the end, to pull it together and fight tenaciously for their own selfish, existential interests. The capitalists won and Lenin was tossed onto the trash heap of history. Let's enjoy Rachel before G.E. stops playing the game.

Reason #54 not to vote for Sarah Paln for anything

She was disloyal and went rogue on John McCain

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Crv8Y6lhizc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reason #5 not to vote for Sarah Palin for President

TROOPERGATE!

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow sums it all up quite nicely

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6