Will The Teabaggers Work With Progressives To
Derail A Toxic Obama-Boehner Free Trade Push

Yesterday Frank Rich had everybody asking Who Will Stand Up To The Superrich? Looking at who financed Obama's electoral campaign, who runs his treasury department and economic team and who he appointed to be his first chief of staff, we can be sure who won't stand up to the superrich. And now that the superrich just bought the House of Representatives, anyone who thinks the Senate is about to make an historic u-turn and start standing up for regular working families has got to be delusional. The Supreme Court has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the superrich for decades. And that leaves...

America?s ever-widening income inequality was not an inevitable by-product of the modern megacorporation, or of globalization, or of the advent of the new tech-driven economy, or of a growing education gap. (Yes, the very rich often have fancy degrees, but so do those in many income levels below them.) Inequality is instead the result of specific policies, including tax policies, championed by Washington Democrats and Republicans alike as they conducted a bidding war for high-rolling donors in election after election.

...The G.O.P.?s arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts to this crowd, usually wrapped in laughably hypocritical whining about ?class warfare,? are easily batted down. The most constant refrain is that small-business owners who file in this bracket would be hit so hard they could no longer hire new employees. But the Tax Policy Center found in 2008, when checking out similar campaign claims by ?Joe the Plumber,? that only 2 percent of all Americans reporting small-business income, regardless of tax bracket, would see tax increases if Obama fulfilled his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the top earners. The economist Dean Baker calculated that the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, would amount to $700-- which ?isn?t enough to hire anyone.?

Those in the higher reaches aren?t investing in creating new jobs even now, when the full Bush tax cuts remain in effect, so why would extending them change that equation? American companies seem intent on sitting on trillions in cash until the economy reboots. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ranks the extension of any Bush tax cuts, let alone those to the wealthiest Americans, as the least effective of 11 possible policy options for increasing employment.

Nor are the superrich helping to further the traditional American business culture that inspires and encourages those with big ideas and drive to believe they can climb to the top. Robert Frank, the writer who chronicled the superrich in the book ?Richistan,? recently analyzed the new Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans for The Wall Street Journal and found a ?hardening of the plutocracy? and scant mobility. Only 16 of the 400 were newcomers-- as opposed to an average of 40 to 50 in recent years-- and they tended to be in industries like coal, natural gas, chemicals and casinos rather than forward-looking businesses involving the Green Economy, tech or biotechnology. This is ?not exactly the formula for America?s vaunted entrepreneurial wealth machine,? Frank wrote.

As ?Winner-Take-All Politics? documents, America has been busy ?building a bridge to the 19th century?-- that is, to a new Gilded Age. To dislodge the country from this stagnant rut will require all kinds of effort from Americans in and out of politics. That includes some patriotic selflessness from those at the very top who still might emulate Warren Buffett and the few others in the Forbes 400 who dare say publicly that it?s not in America?s best interests to stack the tax and regulatory decks in their favor.

Many of the countless tasks that need to be addressed to start rebuilding an equitable America are formidable, but surely few, if any, are easier than eliminating a tax break that was destined to expire anyway and that most Americans want to see expire. Two years ago, Obama campaigned on this issue far more strenuously than he did on, say, reforming health care. Now he and what remains of his Congressional caucus are poised to retreat from even this clear-cut battle. You know things are grim when you start wishing that the president might summon his inner Linda McMahon.

Late last summer when polling showed Boehner that there's was virtually nothing that the Democrats could do that would keep him out of the Speaker's chair, he introduced himself to the American public with a speech at the City Club of Cleveland in which he said, basically, that it'd time to get back to the policies promulgated under the Bush White House/Republican Congress. Most of it was all the right-wing claptrap about lowering taxes on the rich but this is what Boehner had to say about what the right calls "free" trade:

We?ve also recently heard a lot of talk in Washington about the manufacturing sector, but no action. Congress has yet to act on pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. 

These agreements would level the playing field for American workers, farmers, and businesses and pave the way for creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs here at home. 

Passing these free-trade agreements was a critical plank of the jobs plan that House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and I presented to President Obama last December.

Congress should approve these free trade agreements immediately.

It's the place where the conservative majority in the House and the conservative Democrat in the White House-- all of whom have had the political careers financed by the same sources-- find common ground. Remember, when Democrats prevented George H.W. Bush from ramming through the disastrous and hated NAFTA, it was Clinton-- and a particularly brutal, driven and very corporatist White House henchman, Rahm Emanuel-- who managed to get it passed, working with Tom DeLay and the corporately-owned Republican leadership.

Emanuel and DeLay had their hands full to pass the hated NAFTA legislation and there are plenty of legendary stories about nuts being cracked and congressmen being forced to sell out their own constituents. One, Robin Hayes (R-NC), actually broke down and wept like a little girl when DeLay told him he had to vote to destroy what was left of the Piedmont's once-booming textile industry. In the end, on that fateful day in November, 1993, 234 voted aye and only 200, overwhelmingly Democrats, of course, voted nay. Many of the corporate shills who cast their votes against American workers are still in public office-- or otherwise engaged in politics, like Tea Party organizer Dick Armey, and perpetual presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Let me do a quick, where are they now on some of the folks who refused to stick up for American workers when push (from DeLay) came to shove (from Emanuel)-- people who are now in the process of reorganizing the House, who back these deadly, job-destroying "free" trade policies and who cynically pay lip service to the deluded teabaggers who helped them into power. Along with Emanuel, Clinton, DeLay, Armey and Gingrich, these were the people who forced through NAFTA and a trade policy based on de-industrialization and outsourcing:

-Spencer Bachus (R-AL), who has taken more Wall Street bribes, $4,450,324, than any other currently serving Members of the House other than career criminals Charlie Rangel ($4,826,590) and Eric Cantor ($4,458,585), slated to be chairman of the Financial Services Committee
-Joe Barton (R-Big Oil)
-John Boehner (R-OH), whose life story is all about how he went from a sweeper of bar floors (his parents') to a multimillionaire, simply by learning how to fellate the rich and powerful
-Ken Calvert (R-CA)
-Dave Camp (R-MI)
-Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), one that got away... for now
-David Dreier (R-CA)
-Wally Herger (R-CA)
-Peter King (R-NY)
-Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
-Buck McKeon (R-CA)
-Dan Rohrabacher (R-CA)
-John Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
-Fred Upton (R-MI)
-Bill Young (R-FL)

132 Republicans voted for NAFTA and only 43 opposed it. 156 Democrats (+ independent Bernie Sanders) voted against NAFTA but 102 crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans... and Clinton. A few days ago a NY Times OpEd by Robert E. Lighthizer, a former deputy trade representative in the Reagan administration, explores the question of whether we will have to look to the teabaggers to save us from an Obama-Boehner "Free" Trade Axis.

Despite his failure to conclude a trade deal with South Korea this week, President Obama has put free trade at the top of his agenda. That?s in part because the White House and the newly empowered Republican leadership see it as one of the few places where they can work together.

But those expectations could be upset by an unexpected force: the Tea Party. Strangely, for a movement named after an 18th-century protest against import levies, Tea Partyers are largely skeptical about free trade?s benefits-- according to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers believe it has hurt the United States.

The movement has already forced the Republicans to alter their agenda in several policy areas. Should the same thing happen with free trade, America?s stance toward open markets and globalization could shift drastically.

At first glance, the Tea Party?s position may seem contradictory: its small-government, pro-business views usually go hand in hand with free trade. But if you consider the dominant themes underlying its agenda, it makes sense that the movement would be wary about free-trade policies. For starters, Tea Partyers are frustrated with Washington, and that includes its failure to make free trade work for America. Our trade deficit in manufactured goods was about $4.3 trillion during the last decade, and the country lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs.

And while the Tea Party supports market outcomes, its members appear to believe that the rest of the world is stacking the free-trade deck against us. They have a point: most policymakers agree that the Chinese currency is grossly and deliberately undervalued, that China fails to respect intellectual property rights and that it uses government subsidies to protect its own manufacturing base. Meanwhile, the movement says, the United States does virtually nothing in response.

The Republican establishment will argue that its trade agenda is consistent with Tea Party ideals, that its goal is to get government out of the way and allow American companies to thrive in competitive markets.

But Tea Partyers will ask, what good does it do to reduce the role of our government if foreign governments are free to rig the rules, attack American industries and take American jobs? As a result, the otherwise pro-market Tea Party may find its economic program far more at home with a nationalist trade policy that confronts foreign abuses and fights for American companies.

...Trade is an issue where Tea Party concerns about ?elites? thwarting the will of the voters will resonate.

In this case, the elites include both Democrats and Republicans. You would need a high-powered microscope to tell the difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush on the subject of trade. Even during this slow economic recovery, Mr. Obama is pushing for a new market-opening round of talks at the World Trade Organization.

Among Republicans, not one major elected figure expresses the skepticism toward free trade held by over three-fifths of Tea Partyers. In the face of soaring trade deficits and talk of American decline, the Tea Party may ask whether this is yet another area where the establishment has simply gotten it wrong.

In short, the apparent contradiction between the Tea Party?s fiscal conservatism and its skepticism about free trade may not be a contradiction at all. If the Tea Party continues to influence the Republican agenda, it may not only spell bad news for the South Korea free trade agreement-- it could also mean a fundamental reorientation of our country?s attitude toward trade and globalization.

Nancy Pelosi supported Clinton and crossed the aisle to vote with Gingrich, DeLay, Armey, Boehner and the rest of the "free" trade crowd on NAFTA. That vote was the subject of the ad Blue America ran in OH-8 against Boehner:


video details and more



Unlike Boehner and virtually all of his Republican colleagues, Pelosi didn't make that mistake again. In fact when the House passed CAFTA on July 28, 2005 by a 217-215 vote, Pelosi led the opposition to it. 187 Democrats voted against it (along with 27 Republicans), while 202 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted in favor. Who forced CAFTA through? The same crew of Wall Street/Big Business shills who enshrined outsourcing and de-industrialization: Tom DeLay (R-TX), John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Paul Ryan (R-WI), David Dreier (R-CA), Buck McKeon (R-CA), Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Steve & Peter King (R-IA &NY), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Charlie Bass (R-NH), Mike Pence (R-IN), John Boozman (R-AR)... along with sold-out conservative Democrats like Melissa Bean, Jim Cooper, Jim Matheson, Ike Skelton and William Jefferson.

And which Republicans joined Pelosi and the Democratic caucus in opposing this outrageous, job-destroying legislation? Some are among Congress' most conservative members: Virginia Foxx and Patrick McHenry, both of North Carolina, Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Connie Mack (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-TX).

I suspect that the Tea Party movement will dry up and wither away now, especially if it takes any serious stands against the behind-the-curtain financiers who made it viable and put it into the national consciousness. The GOP is, after all, a very top-down party and the teabaggers, whether they knew it or not, had a role to play. Boehner may have to do a little juggling but when the Tea Party Patriots published the personal phone numbers of the new Republican freshmen last week, urging supporters to call and urge them to not buy into GOP Establishment nostrums (like "free" trade), they almost immediately had to follow up with a post calling off the dogs and asking teabaggers to not call the freshmen. I hope you won't either... unless you think it's really, really important:

AL-02 Martha Roby - (334) 315-1925 - martharoby@gmail.com
AL-05 Mo Brooks - (256) 652-3833 - mbrooks@leo-law.com
AR-01 Rick Crawford - (870) 919-0305 - erc@meetrickcrawford.com
AR-02 Tim Griffin - (501) 837-5190 - griffinjag@comcast.net
AR-03 Steve Womack - (479) 936-0234 - womackforcongress@gmail.com
AZ-01 Paul Gosar - (928) 853-6225 - paul@drgosar.com
AZ-03 Benjamin Quayle - (602) 616-6837 - bquayle@tynwaldcapital.com
AZ-05 Dave Schweikert - (602) 619-3330 - dave@david10.com
AZ-08 Jesse Kelly - (520) 907-5388 - kellyforcongress@live.com
CA-11 David Harmer - (925) 998-3458 - harmerdavidj@gmail.com
CA-19 Jeff Denham - (831) 595-6785 - jeff_denham@yahoo.com
CA-20 Andy Vidak - andy@vidakforcongress.com
CO-03 Scott Tipton - (970) 560-2631 - scottrtipton@yahoo.com
CO-04 Cory Gardner - (970) 597-0123 - cory@corygardner.net
FL-02 Steve Southerland - (850) 258-9082 - steve@southerlandforcongress.com
FL-05 Richard Nugent - (352) 428-0924 - Richard_Nugent1@msn.com
FL-08 Daniel Webster - (407) 947-5376 - senator_webster@yahoo.com
FL-12 Dennis Ross - (863) 255-1048 - Dross71803@aol.com
FL-22 Allen West - (954) 288-6934 - gowest@allenwestforcongress.com
FL-24 Sandy Adams - (321) 303-9214 - sadams4flhr33@aol.com
FL-25 David Rivera - (786) 258-2222 - Rivera2004@comcast.net
GA-07 Rob Woodall - (770) 366-4245 - rob@robwoodall.com
GA-08 Austin Scott - (229) 392-6992 - austin@scottforga.com
GA-09 Tom Graves - (770) 548-2288 - sovision@aol.com
ID-01 Raul Labrador - (208) 965-1622 - labrador4idaho@gmail.com
IL-08 Joe Walsh (847) 849-9508 - info@walshforcongress.com
IL-10 Bob Dold (847) 251-3653 - bob@bobdold.com
IL-11 Adam Kinzinger - (309) 287-6938 - aknznger@AOL.com
IL-14 Randy Hultgren - (630) 347-1136 - randy@hultgrenforcongress.com
IL-17 Bobby Schilling - (309) 428-9046 - bobbyschilling@gmail.com
IN-03 Marlin Stutzman - (260) 336-0809 - marlin@marlinstutzman.com
IN-04 Todd Rokita - (317) 414-5071 - trokita@hotmail.com
IN-08 Larry Bucshon - (812) 604-5812 - larrybucshon@gmail.com
IN-09 Todd Young - (812) 320-3736 - toddyoung@toddyoungforcongress.com
KS-01 Tim Huelskamp (620) 646-5413 - huelskampforcongress@rurallink.net
KS-03 Kevin Yoder - (913) 526-1990 - kyoder@kc.rr.com
KS-04 Michael Pompeo - (316) 393-6830 - mpompeo@sentryinternational.net
KY-06 Andy Barr - (859) 619-7381 - andy@andybarr.org
LA-03 Jeff Landry - (337) 380-1382 - jlandry@gjtbs.com
MD-01 Andy Harris - (443) 791-0691 - dr.andy.harris@gmail.com
MI-01 Dan Benishek - (906) 396-5839 - benishekforcongress@gmail.com
MI-02 Bill Huizenga - (616) 405-9216 - huizengaforhouse@charter.net
MI-03 Justin Amash - (616) 881-3390 - justin@justinamash.com
MI-07 Tim Walberg - (517) 673-0507 - congressmanwalberg@gmail.com
MN-08 Chip Cravaack - (651) 395-0785 - chip@votechip.org
MO-04 Vicky Hartzler - (816) 392-1582 - vicky79@me.com
MO-07 Billy Long - (417) 839-0061 - auctnr1@aol.com
MS-01 Alan Nunnelee - (662) 213-3571 - alan@senatornunnelee.com
MS-04 Steven Palazzo - (228) 596-8297 - spalazzo@palazzocpa.com
NC-02 Renee Ellmers - renee@reneeforcongress.com
ND-AL Rick Berg - (701) 866-9077 - Berg@bergforcongress.com
NH-01 Frank Guinta - (603) 860-0474 - frankguinta@yahoo.com
NH-02 Charlie Bass - (603) 547-0570 - cfbass@comcast.net
NJ-03 Jon Runyan - (856) 466-3009 - runyanjon69@comcast.net
NM-02 Steve Pearce - (575) 202-9251 - stevehr3746@verizon.net
NV-03 Joe Heck - (702) 885-2626 - joe@heck4nevada.com
NY-13 Michael Grimm - (917) 885-6022 - mggbusiness@aol.com
NY-19 Nan Hayworth - (914) 584-5324 - nan@nanhayworth.com
NY-20 Chris Gibson - (518) 821-7807 - cpandmjgibson@aol.com
NY-24 Richard Hanna - (315) 794-9602 - rlhanna@roadrunner.com
NY-25 Ann Marie Buerkle - (315) 415-4233 - AnnMBuerkle@gmail.com
NY-29 Tom Reed - (607) 765-0487 - tjwreed@yahoo.com
OH-01 Steve Chabot - (513) 235-0150 - Stevechabot11@gmail.com
OH-06 Bill Johnson - (330) 261-2059 - bill.johnson@zoominternet.net
OH-15 Steve Stivers - (614) 581-5559 - stivers.steve@gmail.com
OH-16 Jim Renacci - (330) 336-7956 - jrenacci@sprynet.com
OH-18 Bob Gibbs - (330) 763-1224 - bob@bobgibbs.org
OK-05 James Lankford - (405) 990-9042 - James@jameslankford.com
PA-03 Mike Kelly - (724) 712-6312 - Mikekelly@zoominternet.net
PA-07 Pat Meehan - (215) 850-6352 - pmeehan@conradobrien.com
PA-08 Mike Fitzpatrick - (215) 514-0470 - mfitzpatrick@begleycarlin.com
PA-10 Tom Marino - (570) 772-3192 - realamon@aol.com
PA-11 Lou Barletta - (570) 578-0026 - loubarletta@gmail.com
SC-01 Tim Scott - (843) 343-4990 - tim@votetimscott.com
SC-03 Jeff Duncan - (864) 923-3188 - jeffduncan22@gmail.com
SC-04 Trey Gowdy - (864) 809-0917 - treygowdy@charter.net
SC-05 Mick Mulvaney - (803) 246-1001 - mickmulvaney@mac.com
SD-AL Kristi Noem - (605) 881-2526 - racota@dailypost.com
TN-03 Chuck Fleischmann - (423) 413-3767 - chuck@chuckforcongress.com
TN-04 Scott Desjarlais - (423) 280-1122 - tndesjarlais@charter.net
TN-06 Diane Black - (615) 397-9033 - diane.davidblack@comcast.net
TN-08 Steve Fincher - (731) 676-3555 - Fieldsofgrace5@yahoo.com
TX-17 Bill Flores - (281) 352-2476 - bflores@floresforcongress.org
TX-23 Quico Canseco - (210) 216-8169 - fquico@yahoo.com
TX-27 R. Blake Farenthold - (361) 533-3393
VA-02 Scott Rigell - (757) 619-8276 - esrigell@scottrigell.com
VA-05 Robert Hurt - (434) 489-7995 - robert@roberthurt.org
VA-09 Morgan Griffith - (540) 353-8287 - hmg1993@aol.com
VA-11 Keith Fimian - (703) 989-3782 - keith@fimian2010.com
WA-02 John Koster - (425) 308-9609 - repkoster@hotmail.com
WA-03 Jaime Herrera - (360) 609-0435 - jaimelherrera@hotmail.com
WA-09 Dick Muri - (253) 439-9797 - dick@dickmuri.com
WI-07 Sean Duffy - (715) 491-2345 - sean@seanpduffy.com
WI-08 Reid Ribble - (920) 378-7343 - RRibble@ribblegroup.com
WV-01 David McKinley - (304) 639-1188 - dmckinley@mckinleyassoc.com

And, no, Ben Qualye's number is not good for ordering online porno.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/11/will-teabaggers-work-with-progressive
s.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Ginni Thomas Steps Down From Liberty Central

Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, has stepped down from Liberty Central, the group dedicated to training Tea Party activists. Too little, too late.

This doesn't surprise me, nor do I think it has much to do with her inappropriate telephone call to Anita Hill. I think you will see many of these groups merge with the more mainstream groups now that the midterms are over.

Washington Post reports:

"She'll take a back seat so that Liberty Central can continue with its mission without any of the distractions," Carroll said. "After discussing it with the board, Mrs. Thomas determined that it was best for the organization."

Carroll declined to elaborate, but a source not authorized to speak publicly about the details said Liberty Central would be merging with the Patrick Henry Center, a Manassas-based conservative organization founded by Gary Aldrich, the former FBI agent who wrote a tell-all book about life inside the Clinton White House.

It served its purpose, and now will be folded back to the larger group. By merging with the Patrick Henry Center, it will also avoid any ongoing conflicts with regard to funding and disclosure. Big surprise there. Mrs. Thomas, I'm sure, will continue her crusade for Tea Party principles and subversion of the independence of the US judiciary.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/ginni-thomas-steps-down-liberty-central

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Amidst National Islamophobic Upheaval, Arizonans
Protest Mosque That’s Actually A Church

In an era saturated with absurd moments of anti-Muslim fear-mongering, mosques have become a touchstone for Islamophobia. Even unbuilt mosques have set off a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment in Tennessee, Texas, California, and most notably, New York. Not to be outdone, the people of Pheonix, AZ were quick to call foul over the appearance of a dome-like structure along an interstate. But in the clamor over the impending Muslim takeover, these Arizonans missed one small detail — the building is not a Mosque, it’s a church:

A new dome-like structure near 19th Avenue along Interstate 10 in Phoenix is the Light of the World church, a nondenominational Christian church hoping to modernize traditional worship services, a church spokesman said

Since the distinctive dome shape went up, church leaders said they have received phone calls from concerned neighbors who’ve mistaken the building for an Islamic mosque.

On Wednesday, church officials hung a sign reminding people they’re Christian congregation. “We’re trying to let people know that we’re Christian and our churches are modern,” said Uzieo Martinez.

Watch a report from KPNX-TV:

“It is unfortunate that people are so intolerant to differences that they aren’t willing to see that the place of worship is not a mosque,” said Tayyibah Amatullah of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Arizona chapter. But with so many high-profile figures selling unfounded, anti-Muslim fear to the public, is it any wonder that all many Americans can see in Islam is a phantom menace?

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/mosque-church-whoopsidoodles/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

CNN poll: Many who disapprove wish Obama were
more liberal

Check these numbers out from CNN's latest national survey (1,014 adults, Nov. 11-14, MoE +/- 3%):

(1) Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
(2) (IF DISAPPROVE) Do you disapprove because you think his policies and actions since he became  president have been too liberal, or because you think his policies and actions have not been liberal enough?

Approve: 48%
Disapprove, too liberal: 38%
Disapprove, not liberal enough: 9%
Disapprove, unsure: 3%

The top-line numbers show that Obama's approval rating is at 48% approve, 50% disapprove. But beyond the top-lines lurks an important part of the story.

Yes, most people who disapprove of President Obama's performance think he's too liberal. But a substantial share of his criticism is coming from the left: one-fifth of those who disapprove of President Obama don't think he's liberal enough.

For the most part, mainstream political discourse treats those who disapprove of President Obama as being monolithic in their attitudes, but these numbers put the lie to that conventional analysis. In fact, there's a much more complex story going on here and suggesting that there is a 48/50 split in public attitudes is simply incorrect.

Instead, what you have is a situation where 9% disapprove of Obama because he isn't liberal enough, 48% approve, and 38% disapprove because he's too liberal. That means less than four in ten adults think President Obama is too liberal. And purely on a political level, unless there's some magical way to win over some of those in the "too liberal" camp without pushing others into the "not liberal enough" camp, it's far from obvious that President Obama's re-election strategy should involve moving to the right.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/mwggf9i-q0I/-CNN-poll:-Many-who-di
sapprove-wish-Obama-were-more-liberal

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

It's Time

To head back to the Mountaintop.Sad to say, but by no means unexpectedly, lol, The Forces Of Ignorance have prevailed yet again.Weenie Liberals and unevolved Republicans have thwarted the last real chance to save the Planet.....politically.All that is[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/YUwu6f_ALAc/its-time-by-buhdydharma

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Foreclosure King David Stern Faces Foreclosure
Himself

I guess some deadbeats are more equal than other deadbeats.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/z4k_IVjY0RE/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

ACTION: Send a letter to the editor to help stop
cuts to Social Security

Today brings a new well-crafted action alert from Social Security Works.  Two things in[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/JVRrpJh5B30/action-send-a-le
tter-to-the-editor-to-help-stop-cuts-to-social-security

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

McConnell blinks on earmarks

After a protracted public fight over an across-the-board ban on earmarks proposed by Jim DeMint (R-SC), and scheduled for a secret vote when the Republican Conference meets tomorrow, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has flip-flopped:

The top Republican in the Senate has reversed course and endorsed a moratorium on pork-barrel projects known as "earmarks."  [...]

Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell says he's heeding the message voters sent in elections that swept Democrats from power in the House.

Comedy. A week ago McConnell said of the proposed, non-binding resolution;


The problem is it doesn’t save any money ... This debate doesn’t save any money, which is why it’s kind of exasperating to some of us who really want to cut spending and get the federal government’s discretionary accounts under control.

... and today he's heeding the message of the voters. Assuming the voters are named DeMint and have been waging jihad over less than 1% of the federal budget in what many see as a power move against the current Senate Minority Leader. And look who blinked.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/50RWha1bVMg/-McConnell-blinks-on-e
armarks

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Ethics Committee On Rangel: 'No Material Fact Is
In Dispute'

The House ethics committee has found that "no material fact is in dispute" in Rep. Charlie Rangel's ethics case, and the committee has gone back into executive session to decide whether Rangel did indeed break ethics law.

The finding means that the committee accepts the facts of the case -- that Rangel (D-NY) raised money for an educational center using Congressional letterhead, that he filed inaccurate tax returns and financial disclosures, that he used a rent-controlled apartment as a campaign office -- as true. Chairman Zoe Lofgren announced the decision in a brief statement before the committee returned to executive session.

Now that the committee members have agreed that there are no questions of fact in the case, the committee must now decide on the questions of law. In other words, they must decide if Rangel is guilty of any of the 13 ethics violations he is accused of. They are deliberating that in a private session now.

An angry Rangel declared this morning that the committee had violated his due process rights and prevented him from getting a lawyer. After the committee denied his request to delay the hearing so he can hire counsel, Rangel left, leaving himself defenseless.

He then released a statement further excoriating the committee.

"The process that the Committee has decided to take against me violates the most basic rights of due process that is guaranteed to every person under the Constitution," he said. "The Committee has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights."

[TPM SLIDESHOW: Not A Care In The World? Charlie Rangel's Birthday Celebration]

If the committee finds Rangel guilty on any of the charges, it will recommend a punishment that can range from admonishment to expulsion. That recommendation will then be voted on by the full House.

In his statement, Rangel implored his colleagues to be on his side.

"I hope that my colleagues in Congress, friends, constituents and anyone paying attention will consider my statement and how the Committee has been unfair to me. They can do what they will with me because they have the power and I have no real chance of fighting back," he said.

Rangel was re-elected two weeks ago with 80 percent of the vote.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TPMmuckraker/~3/sXcjqvgQe9E/ethics_committee_on_ra
ngel_no_material_fact_is_in.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

State Medicaid In Jeopardy, But Don't Act
Surprised

Hello. Me again. Remember what I said about Republicans not caring about poor people and all that truth stuff I like to write about, in hopes of it waking you all up out of the slumber? Yeah, well it didn't work. So, we all suffer now - except the rich.

Still don't believe me? Well, I will let someone else do the explaining, specifically with our state's Medicaid.

The state's Medicaid program is projected to cost $228 million more than lawmakers budgeted to spend on it this fiscal year. And the shortfall at the state Department of Health and Human Services is just a preview of the budget crisis awaiting the state in July. That is when the $1 billion in federal stimulus cash that's propping up this year's $5 billion spending plan runs out.

So what happens next? Lawmakers said they will have to find some way to balance the books after they return to session in January, cutting unnamed programs and services to keep the Department of Health and Human Services afloat. 

Oh, there's that "unnamed" programs that have to be cut again. Remember? Republicans were asked what they would cut on a federal level and could not answer. Don't be surprised. This is what the majority of this state wanted. Medicaid is just the first the be suggested.

Huge tax cuts have put us in this situation. Not the federal government. Not the new health care law. Our problem began years ago. If you love being brainwashed, forget I even said that. However, state Republicans would rather you believe it has something to do with somebody else.

"The reality check of this whole thing is, what can the taxpayers afford?" McConnell, R-Charleston, said. "We've got demands in education, law enforcement and other core areas of government. This program is growing faster than the ability of the people of South Carolina to pay for it."

No. The program is growing faster than you want it because of the economic situation this state faces. Your demands for "education, law enforcement and other core areas" began many years ago when you - as the Republican Party in power - began to cut the revenue to fund such areas. TAXES.

Here's the thing. I know now why these Republicans love "faith-based" nonprofit organizations. It's not the government. Plus, the Republican people have a CHOICE of who to help, unlike paying tax dollars where the choice is gone. Face it, people. You have all been conned. And... It was done for the benefit of the few.

The only way the state can control costs at this point is with provider rates, and he said health care professionals already have been squeezed by the economy. The state can only lower their rates so much before doctors would stop accepting Medicaid patients because it would no longer be cost effective for them to treat them, he said.

Gee, what do you think that will do. The people will ultimately blame the doctors for not taking them, not the people in government power who caused the problem to begin with. Just remember, the Republicans do not have to hear from you on this. They got what they wanted - power.

Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, says, "It's ridiculous the straitjacket the federal law places on the state."

What, the rule that we include more of the average poor? Oh, so sorry you Republicans can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I suppose when the GOP get what they want and the people of South Carolina receive less help is when those same people will stop voting against themselves. 

Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2010/11/state-medicaid-in-jeopard
y-but-dont-act.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!