DOWNLOADS: (4236)

PLAYS: (6509)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

This clip of Anthony Weiner going ballistic on the House floor is one for the ages -- it should be watched again and again and again, and not only because he was angry and frustrated, but because he spoke a truth that all of us expect from our representatives. It's really quite simple: "If you believe that it's right, you vote yes. You don't hide behind procedure and give cover to your pals."

It's really that simple, but here's the backstory. The House has been trying to re-open the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund through 2031 for 9/11 responders whose health has been affected.

When it became apparent that the Republicans were going to attach "poison pill" amendments to the bill that had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with their political agenda, Democrats shut down the possibility of amending the bill by moving it to the suspension calendar, where a minimum 2/3rds vote is needed for it to pass.

Republicans applied the same old talking points, calling it a "massive new entitlement program". Actually, that's not quite right. They called it a "massive job-killing new entitlement program", because that's the Frank Luntz mantra of the week. (I was monitoring the Senate at the same time, and somehow the Small Business Jobs bill also became another "massive job-killing new entitlement program.") Of course, that's nonsense too, given that it had been structured to be paid for by closing a tax loophole for foreign corporations.

If you believe it's right, you vote yes.

Continue reading »

How refreshing to see an effort to actually hold Republicans accountable for their nasty, selfish attitudes toward fellow citizens. The Democrats have an answer to the Republicans' effort to craft a new "Contract With America".

Behold, the Republican Tea Party Contract ON America, where Democrats are prepared to remind the country of what Republicans have been up to this year.

Contract high points include:

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)

   Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
   
   Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America's seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.
3. End Medicare as it presently exists

   Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors -- ending Medicare's guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors -- and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.

4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil

   At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform

   Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
   
   Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
7. Abolish the Department of Education

   Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.

8. Abolish the Department of Energy

   End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

   Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act -- which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe -- and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

    Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator

That's what they've promised. Not just a walk back to the Bush years, a walk back to another century. Perhaps they could repeal the Emancipation Proclamation, too.

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Seriously?:

The Washington Times reports today, however, on a new matter that has nothing to do with Steele's notorious gaffes, and more to do with his notorious mismanagement.

The Republican National Committee failed to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission in recent months -- a move that made its bottom line appear healthier than it is heading into the midterm elections and that also raises the prospect of a hefty fine.

In a memo to RNC budget committee members, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen on Tuesday accused Chairman Michael S. Steele and his chief of staff, Michael Leavitt, of trying to conceal the information from him by ordering staff not to communicate with the treasurer -- a charge RNC officials deny.

Mr. Pullen told the members that he had discovered $3.3 million in debt from April and $3.8 million from May, which he said had led him to file erroneous reports with the FEC. He amended the FEC filings Tuesday.

When it comes to consequences, the financial problem could cause all kinds of trouble for Republicans. Deliberately filing deceptive FEC reports is criminal, and could lead to stiff penalties -- if not formal charges -- before the elections.

And while the Republican National Committee is already downplaying the significance of this, there's reason to believe the party is aware of the seriousness of the situation.

Actually, despite the fact that this is not strictly Michael Steele's fault, unnamed members of the RNC are quick to start pointing fingers his way:

Mr. Pullen said that Mr. Leavitt, acting on orders from Mr. Steele, tried to limit his access to the unreported past-due bills that the RNC owes for goods and services by barring staff members from providing him any information unless approved by the chairman. According to Mr. Pullen, he complained and Mr. Steele then allowed the information to flow.[..]

A faction of committee members has been critical of Mr. Steele's fundraising operation.

Before Mr. Steele took over as chairman in January 2009, RNC fundraising typically far exceeded donations to the Democratic National Committee.

Back on May 31, 2006, for example, the RNC had $43.1 million in cash on hand compared with the DNC's $10.3 million. Part of the RNC's edge over the DNC stemmed from Republicans holding the presidency, though they were about to lose control of Congress that year.

Wow. That's a whole lotta money they've lost. And they think we should trust them with the deficit?

In addition to being the Party of No, the Florida GOP seems to be the Party of Cutting Off the Nose To Spite the Face. Florida Governor Charlie Crist proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution banning near offshore drilling off the Florida Coast for all time.

In Florida, the will of the people seems to matter less than party pique at Charlie Crists' choice to run for Senator as an Independent after they endorsed teabagger Marco Rubio as their golden boy.

As the legislature prepares for a special session with the aim of debating a constitutional ban on offshore oil drilling, a new poll shows that Floridians oppose drilling within 10 miles of Florida’s coast, and that 71 percent want a chance to vote on a ban (though the wording of that question does not mention a constitutional referendum).

But the Florida GOP saw it as an opportunity to play political potsie and slap Crist instead, closing the special session called by Crist to address the question after 49 minutes without a vote.

In dramatic political theater, the Republican-led Florida House rejected Gov. Charlie Crist’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban oil drilling near Florida’s shores, calling it a “simple solution designed to produce sound bites, photo-ops and political attacks.”

A special session called by Crist lasted just 49 minutes in the House – from 12:02 p.m. to 12:51 p.m. – before legislators beat a path out of Tallahassee without any hearings or votes, despite objections from Democrats. It likely cost taxpayers around $40,000 to $50,000 for lawmakers to travel to the Capitol for the short-lived special session.

The vote to adjourn the session, without a vote on the drilling ban, broke down along party lines, 67-44.

Republicans' arguments seem to center around the fact that state law already prohibits offshore drilling. This is true. But as Californians discovered last year, state law can be changed when budgets are at risk of being blown out by a bad economy. Amazingly, approvals were considered for offshore exploration off the coast of Santa Barbara, the site of one of the worst oil spills in American history 40 years ago.

Was Crist's call political theater? Sure it was, but it also played for the majority of Floridians who rely on their beaches and tourist industries and who fear the possibility that thirst for oil and money will overwhelm their desire to preserve Florida's beauty and their livelihoods.

At least there's a clear record now for Floridians to consider.

(h/t Beach Peanuts)

On Meet the Press Sunday, born-again deficit virgins John Cornyn and Pete Sessions could not explain any steps they would take to stem the flow of red ink they helped produce. But this weekend, both Republican leaders were crystal clear about their nostalgia for the economic policies of George W. Bush. While Senator Cornyn gushed "President Bush’s stock is going up a lot" as people are looking back "with more fondness" on his administration, Rep. Sessions insisted "we need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminish it."

That refrain is music to Democratic ears. After all, a recent Time poll showed Americans not only prefer President Obama over Bush by a twenty-point margin, but blame Dubya for the economic disaster 61% to 27%. Last week's Washington Post-ABC survey revealed a staggering 73% have some or no confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for the country's future. And by a 42% to 34% margin, the public still trusts Democrats to do a better job handling the economy. But the larger truth about the free enterprise system trumpeted by Pete Sessions is this:

When it comes to GDP, employment, the stock market or just about any other measure of the health of American capitalism, the historical record is clear: the economy almost always does better under Democrats.

The verdict on President Bush's reign of ruin was pronounced even before Barack Obama took the oath of office. January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times on January 24 featured an analysis ("Economic Setbacks That Define the Bush Years") comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth.

But it was the release of a Census Bureau report in September ("Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008") which in 67 pages laid bare the economic devastation and human toll during the Bush presidency. As The Atlantic ("Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy") rightly noted, "It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride":

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The table above (via The Reaction) provides a horrifying snapshot of the scope of the national calamity under George W. Bush. The extent of the failure by Jeb's brother was particularly glaring when it came to employment and job creation.

Continue reading »

So it comes down to this. Republicans believe they can turn bullshit into gold. Despite the inescapable conclusion of history, theory and empirical evidence to the contrary, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Boehner, Tom Coburn, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison and other Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit. Of course, even though the tax cut claim is laughably false, conservative ideology requires that it must true. Otherwise, the Republicans have just been giving money to rich people.

To be sure, the high priests of the Republican Party have been singing from same hymnal. House Minority Leader John Boehner reintroduced this immaculate deception last month, wrongly protesting that the Bush tax cuts did not contribute to the torrent of red ink swamping the Treasury:

"It's not the marginal tax rates ... that's not what led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago."

"We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes."

On Sunday, Jon Kyl (R-AZ) the second ranking Senate Republican made the same point another way, telling Chris Wallace of Fox News, "You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." Aborted Obama Commerce nominee Judd Gregg (R-NH) soon chimed in, declaring "I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset." For his part, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn argued his math will work in the future if you ignore the past, "Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn't a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that's a cost." And on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained how tax cuts magically turn red ink black:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

Which is sadly right. Arthur Laffer's supply-side snake oil has been Republican orthodoxy ever since Jude Wanniski sketched Laffer's curve on a cocktail napkin.

Continue reading »

In New Hampshire, voters have an interesting choice. Ryan J. Murdough is campaigning not on change so much as similarity. His message: Keep New Hampshire white.

"I would like to preserve what we have before it gets totally out of control," Murdough, a 30-year-old father of two young boys, said last week. "The more it becomes non-white, the more it's going to become a much different place to live, for white people especially."

Well, yes. It will be far more interesting, peppered with culture and stories and music and people who come from a different place but are still people. Only, Ryan just doesn't see it that way.

Whatever you do, don't call Ryan a racist. He's not a racist, he claims, because racists have to hate others. He doesn't hate them; he just doesn't want them in his town.

So please, don't call him a racist. He says that's not true.

"I would ask you about your version of racist," Murdough said. "The word does not have a specific definition. If someone says, 'You seem to hate people who aren't white,'

I say no, so I can't really be a racist, because I don't hate them. I just don't want to live around areas that are heavily, predominantly non-white."

Ahem. He's dead wrong on this one. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of racism:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So he's not a white supremacist (though that is certainly questionable). He's clearly a racist, simply by arguing for discrimination against people who are 'non-white'.

Ryan Murdough, in his own written words:

For far too long white Americans have been told that diversity is something beneficial to their existence. Statistics prove that the opposite is true. New Hampshire residents must seek to preserve their racial identity if we want future generations to have to possibility to live in such a great state. Affirmative action, illegal and legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems, and an anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire. It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand. We are only 8 percent of the world's population and we need our own homeland, just like any other non-white group of people deserve their own homeland.

What will happen to New Hampshire once it is only 60, 50 or 40 percent white? Statistics show that areas with high non-white populations have higher rates of violent crime. New Hampshire has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the country, but that will change as the white population percentage declines and the non-white population percentage increases.

There are no words, no arguments, no gushing-forth of facts and statistics that I could possibly bring forth to change his mind. But as a white person living in a diverse area with all of the richness different backgrounds, colors and nationalities bring, I could not disagree with his premise more.

At least New Hampshire Republicans aren't afraid to embrace what Tea Partiers deny, but clearly represent: A small contingent of scared white folks.

By the way, is the name Murdough a colloquial form of Murdoch? It would explain a lot.

The first Republican Abraham Lincoln famously proclaimed, "My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side." Now, in the latest sign of the transformation of the Party of Lincoln into the Party of God, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle declared the Almighty is on her side. And to be sure, Angle, who just two weeks ago proclaimed "God has a plan" for pregnant victims of rape and incest, is far from alone in believing in the Divine Right. As it turns out, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Jan Brewer and Michael Steele are just some of the Republicans who believe they have been touched by the hand of God.

Angle's revelation came in an interview with Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition hatchet man turned Jack Abramoff crony. As Huffington Post recounted the exchange:

"How do you explain all this? You're now a national story, are you kind of overwhelmed by it all?" asked Reed.

"I believe that God has been in this from the beginning and because of that when he has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what he calls you to he always equipped you for," Angle replied.

As Americans learned last month, if nothing else Sharron Angle is equipped with a heart of stone. Given the 2008 Republican platform and John McCain's prime-time mockery of the "health of the mother," Sharron Angle's extreme position on abortion sadly is not unusual among hard-line conservatives. But what is unique is her frankness in claiming the suffering of rape and incest victims is divinely mandated:

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

For Sarah Palin, one of those things can be found in her mirror.

Continue reading »

During the comparatively mild 1991 recession, President George H.W. Bush twice vetoed the extension of unemployment insurance because the $5.3 billion price tag would add to the deficit. After taking a pounding in the polls, he eventually made a deal with Democrats, who funded the program in part through higher taxes on the wealthy. But for Bush's reelection prospects in 1992, the damage was done, perhaps best captured by his pathetic plea to voters, "Message: I care."

Now with the Congressional GOP again following Bush the Elder's formula on the $34 billion extension of jobless benefits, Democrats should make them an offer they can't refuse. Democrats will pay for the 3 million desperate Americans whose unemployment checks will end this month by reinstating the expired estate tax on the rich. If Republicans still say no, they will be sending an unmistakable message about whose side they are really on.

In calling the Republicans' bluff on unemployment benefits and the estate tax, the math is straight-forward. As Dean Baker noted:

"[The] argument the Republicans give is that these bills would add to the national debt. For example, the latest extension of unemployment benefits would have added $22 billion to the debt by the end of 2011."

Conveniently, that's about how much the estate tax would bring in to the U.S. Treasury. But thanks to the same GOP obstructionism, Republicans so far have chosen a one-year windfall for a handful of billionaires over millions of Americans in the throes of financial crisis.

In 2009, only 1 in 500 American estates paid taxes. In 2008, the tax produced $25 billion for the U.S. Treasury even in a year when the stock market was battered. But barring new legislation in Congress, in 2011 the estate tax rate will jump back up to its pre-2001 level of 55%, starting at $2 million per couple. In December, the House voted 225-200 to maintain 2009's rate of 45% beginning at $3.5 million per person or $7 million per couple. But as 2009 ended, Jon Kyl led the successful GOP effort to block the bill, ensuring the temporary one-year expiration of the estate tax on January 1st, 2010:

"It's a problem that doesn't have to exist if they'll just leave the existing law alone and let the rate go to zero, which is where everyone wants it to be."

Well, not everyone. Just, as the numbers show, the very, very rich.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (897)

PLAYS: (921)

Embed

Ron Paul went on CNN with Don Lemon on Sunday and actually defended Michael Steele for his bizarre comments attacking Obama for the war in Afghanistan:

LEMON: And before we misconstrue everything, you are coming out in support of the comment, right?

REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Not in the entirety. I come out in support of Chairman Steele because I think it was overkill. He made a casual comment. He wasn't setting policy and all of a sudden people jump on him like we're not allowed to have a discussion?

As a matter of fact I did like what he said so I enjoyed the fact that we're willing to have a discussion about the popularity of this war. And truly it is Obama's war, even though it was started during the last administration. Obama said this is the good war. He's expanding the war. The American people aren't with him.

The majority of the American people are tired of the ward and they'd like to see it ended; they'd like to see our troops come home.

I mean this idea that as soon as somebody has a discussion, even if it's not in the discussion, people are clamoring for him to resign? I don't think that's quite fair.

LEMON: Congressman, you have to let me get in on this because it seems like, you know -- I understand what you're saying -- you want people to talk about the war. But it seems like he wasn't factually correct. Very little of what he said, if anything, was correct factually in those comment. And he came back himself --

PAUL: What I'm saying --

LEMON: Hang on one second. He came back himself and clarified them. Why are you supporting him for a comment that he had to clarify?

(CROSS TALKING)

PAUL: Well, he -- I didn't hear his clarification. But if he clarified his statement because -- he wasn't making a policy statement. If he came back and said, I'm not stating policy, that is not exactly my position --

STEELE: But he wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Pardon me?

STEELE: He wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Well, I think you're not telling the truth right now yourself.

LEMON: He said that this war -- he said that this war was started by -- or basically saying the war was started by the Obama administration. No one even wanted --

PAUL: No, he did not say that.

LEMON: That no one wanted to go -- let me finish -- no one wanted to go into this war. In fact, when we went into the war, most of the country supported it and it was started, again, under President Bush. So most of what he said if not all of it was not factually correct.

PAUL: That's right. But he's saying politically this is Obama's war. Even in the last campaign -- as a matter of fact, I thought Obama was more hawkish on this war than McCain was because he was calling for increasing troops in Afghanistan before the Republicans were.

So I think in many ways, at least politically, this is Obama's war. And it is a political issue. The Republicans really suffered from the fact that the Iraq war continued for so long and hurt us at the polls.

So, I think that Republicans ought to have a right to at least say that maybe this war isn't going well and not blindly support every single thing that is being done. And then all of a sudden, if an individual does -- you know, people accuse you, oh, you're un- American, you're unpatriotic. You know, they pile on and then they pressure somebody like Steele -- like Chairman Steele that he has to back off.

He didn't have a policy statement. He was merely making a casual statement. And when he said, for over 1,000 years and even longer, nobody's been successful in invading Afghanistan, he is telling the truth.

Paul wants to have his cake and eat it too: He admits that Steele was just flat wrong when he claimed that Obama got us into this war. But he then wants to claim that Steele is right that it's "Obama war".

Republicans are such lovely creatures. If Obama were to play the consummate pacifist and immediately withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the attacks would be even more savage. They're going to attack him no matter what he does.