Overturning Democracy... With Lots Of Cash

Yes, Mitt Romney is clueless

Below is an essay about Norman Solomon I found on the Campaign Watch Facebook page. Virtually every problem facing America today can be traced back to the sell-out of our democracy to plutocratic, corporate and fascist interests-- virtually identical-- since the forces of democracy ostensibly won, at least on the battlefield, World War II. I want to emphasize that when Blue America "vets" our candidates we want to make sure they stand for the same values and principles behind this statement. You can be sure that when you donate to Norman Solomon's campaign-- or to the campaigns of any of the Blue America-backed candidates-- you are voting for real campaign finance reform, the kind that will wrest our government out of the hands of, as George Bush put it, the evil doers... except, the real evil doers.

Big Corporate Campaign Contributions



A major problem that has crippled democracy in the U.S. is the unfair advantage that big-money corporations and individuals have in influencing political campaigns through large contributions to elected officials and candidates, as well as through their spending billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. These special interests use their considerable wealth to influence the direction and scope of legislation and government regulations, at the expense of the rights and welfare of the rest of us.



Norman Solomon supports legislative efforts, such as government matching funds and public financing, to correct the problem of disproportionate funding of campaigns, reduce special interest influence on elections, and level the playing field in electoral politics. Norman Solomon supports legislative efforts to reduce the reliance of candidates for office on campaign cash and free them to spend time with constituents to learn about issues that matter to them. When the selected candidates enter office, they can consider legislation on the merits, without worrying about whether they are pleasing large campaign contributors and lobbyists. Norman Solomon wants a government that is of, by, and for the people-- not bought and paid for by big corporate campaign contributions.



Corporate Personhood



A central problem in campaign financing is that corporations are considered persons, and political spending is considered speech under the First Amendment. In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which asserted that the Constitution bars Congress from limiting corporations to spend money, viewed as free speech, in independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. In the year after the ruling, corporations increased their role in our elections, and corporations and their CEOs have used non-profit groups to run multi-million dollar ad campaigns to influence elections and public policy without full disclosure of their financial interests. Norman Solomon stands with roughly 80% of Americans, including Democrats, Republicans and independents, who oppose to the Citizens United ruling.



Norman Solomon endorses the movement to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. We need to have a national conversation about what to do about the problem of corporations having too much influence in our politics and policies.



The doctrine of corporate personhood has allowed corporations to enjoy other constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. This allows corporations to evade democratic control of their actions. Based on the doctrine of corporate personhood, the Supreme Court has:



• prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even to ensure public health and safety;



• struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins, thus preventing us from knowing what’s in our food;



• prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from encroachment by corporate chain stores from enacting progressive taxes on chains;



• struck down state laws restricting corporate spending on ballot initiatives and referenda, enabling corporations to block citizen action.



Norman Solomon believes this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution.



Norman Solomon agrees with the dissent of Justice Stevens in the Citizen United case that:



…The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.



In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.



Norman Solomon is committed to take those measures “designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”



Election Integrity



Free elections are a cornerstone of the American compact. Norman Solomon supports a national, uniform set of voting rules to make it easier to vote and easier to access ballots. Norman Solomon supports voter registration procedures which will create greater voter turnout, particularly among young people, such as registration on election day and convenient voter registration places like the local mall or supermarket. Norman Solomon supports alternative voting methods such as early voting and absentee voting.



Norman Solomon supports voting systems based on paper ballots that allow the voters to mark their own ballots and provide a permanent, visible record of every vote cast. Vote counting must be transparent and accountable to ensure every citizen’s right to vote. Norman Solomon supports ending the practice of contracting private corporations to carry out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists. In addition, Norman Solomon supports exit polling, complete sharing of data, statistical analysis and auditing to verify election results. Norman Solomon would support an initiative to make election day a national holiday, thereby increasing voter participation.



In addition, Norman Solomon supports organizations that track the influence of money on elections and public policy and make this information accessible to the public. As the influence of money becomes more transparent, Americans can become more informed about what their elected officials are doing and more involved in the process. As a consequence, government can become more accountable and responsive to the non-wealthy citizens of this country.



Judicial Accountability



Norman Solomon supports complete financial disclosure, disclosure of gifts, and recusal in the instances of actual and apparent conflict of interest for all federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices. There needs to be more transparency from all federal judges when their actions come under responsible criticism. Norman Solomon supports proposals to require justices to explain their decisions not to recuse themselves when parties file disqualification motions.

Agree? Please consider making a contribution to Norman's campaign-- or to the campaign of any of the Blue America candidates-- here on the 2012 congressional page. They've all enthusiastically agreed to co-sponsor John Larson's bill to take corrupt cash out of the driver's seat of politics.

Tiny Tim Geithner Isn't Obama's Only Cabinet Member Who Should Go-- Meet Leon Panetta

Does it sound horrible and indefensible that Obama is about to make David Petraeus head of the CIA? It should-- but it shouldn't sound surprising that Petraeus will be heading the world's most hated governmental agency, nor should it really sound any worse that Petraeus is replacing ex-Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, the new Secretary of Defense. The Military Industrial Complex is a world unto itself-- a consumer of more of the nation's wealth than any other sector and the source of more corruption than even Wall Street. So it certainly shouldn't have shocked anyone that the former Democratic congressman from California turned Military Industrial Complex honcho would call for cut backs in Social Security and Medicare to keep the machine rolling along-- the machine Eisenhower once warned the country about in no uncertain terms (see video above).



Panetta started his career as a Republican working for Senator Tom Kuchel (R-CA) and then for the Nixon Administration. He jumped the fence in 1971 because his centrist vision was no longer at home in a Republican Party moving sharply right. That centrist vision helped hold back a progressive agenda for nearly two decades while he served in Congress, particularly when he was a powerful member (and then chairman) of the House Budget Committee, the Paul Ryan of his time.

"We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense."



He said savings need to come from entitlement programs and from higher taxes-- not further defense cuts. In effect, that puts the six Democrats who will soon be appointed to the committee on notice: don't screw around with this.



Democrats are now demanding clarity from the White House: does President Obama think Medicare and Social Security can be cut by $500 billion over 10 years, but the bloated defense budget can not?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) put the question to Obama in a Friday letter.



"I urge you to make clear that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta did not speak for the Administration when he stated yesterday that additional spending cuts, beyond those in the recent debt-ceiling agreement, should come from non-discretionary spending such as Social Security and Medicare while the military budget is spared," Frank wrote.



The key to all of this, of course, remains the GOP's steadfast commitment to never raising a single new dime of revenue. While Panetta made clear that the consequence of GOP intransigence on this score will have a deleterious effect on U.S. security, he also made it harder for Dems to stand firm and let penalties kick in if Republicans don't bend.

Cecil Bothwell is the progressive Asheville City Councilman running for the Democratic nomination against reactionary Blue Dog Heath Shuler. Yesterday he shared his ideas with us in regard to the horrible Boehner-Obama deficit deal that led to the S&P downgrade. This morning you can see how consistent those ideas are with his vision for a more realistic Pentagon. "There is no excuse for our so-called 'defense' spending," he told me. "The fact that our military budget exceeds those of the rest of the world's countries combined reeks of empire. Yes, we need to defend our borders. No, we do not need to be the world's policeman. Panetta has drunk the Pentagon Kool-Aid, and ought to be replaced."



Generally-speaking this is where most progressives stand in terms of Panetta's reactionary position. Two of the Blue America-backed candidates are campaigning on a very different vision. Nick Ruiz (D-FL): "When half of U.S. tax revenue is consumed by the military industrial complex, we need only look at defense budget order takers like Leon Panetta to understand why it is so. And he wants zero realistic cuts to defense!? The real question Americans should ask themselves is why did the 'Democratic' President of 'hope and 'change' nominate Panetta for the directorship of the CIA-- and then nominate him for Secretary of Defense? Doesn't sound progressive or Democratic to me-- sounds downright hawkish and imperialistic."



Across the country, Norman Solomon (D-CA) was making a similar point:

This goes to the truism that you choose your advisers and you choose your advice. Populating the cabinet with Tim Geithner or Leon Panetta makes it very likely that the advice will skew toward the interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex, especially given that those secretaries of Treasury and Defense are functioning in tandem with current administration priorities that skew toward the historic rightward edge of the Democratic Party. On its merits, Panetta's statement is a collapse of core moral values under the pressure of an insatiable drive for military prowess and corporate profits, very much in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism." If we must have a warfare state while the young and the old, the poor and the nearly poor, suffer needlessly and endlessly, then Panetta is ably fulfilling his duty. But, in the name of basic human decency, we must not have such a state.

Watch Barney Frank with Rachel last night talking about how excesses in the military budget hurt America:

Obama Stumbles Badly... But If He Starts Paying Attention To Democrats Like Bernie Sanders, He Might Recover

Really pathetic to read this on the White House Blog yesterday: Myth: President Obama caved. Even sadder that they're still defending the Satan Sandwich that has caused the stock market to crash. Sadder still is that they took 95 Democrats over the cliff with them. They all based their support for the bill Boehner brags got 98% of what the GOP wanted on the assumption that the mean old Republicans had a gun to their heads and that they would crash the economy. If Obama was a leader or the Democrats had any guts they would have called their bluff or used the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without giving in the right-wing hostage-taking and terrorism. Instead we get a mealy-mouthed defense of an untenable stand that solves nothing at all and that the markets saw right through, as it fell off a cliff.

Here's Independent Senator Bernie Sanders explaining to CNN airhead Wolf Bintzer why he voted against it and what's really wrong with the deal:



Bernie:

The first round of $917 billion in discretionary cuts over the next 10 years will begin in the 2012 budget. Although nobody can predict exactly what programs will be cut and by how much because those decisions will be made over the coming months and years by the appropriation committees, here’s what working families can look forward to:

  · At a time when there are long waiting lists for affordable childcare and Head Start, it is likely that these programs will be significantly cut.

  · At a time when the United States is falling further and further behind other countries in the terms of the quality of our education, it is likely that tens of thousands of teachers and school personnel will be laid off.

  · At a time when working class families are finding it harder and harder to send their kids to college, it is likely that there will be cutbacks in federal student aid programs.

  · At a time when hunger among seniors and children is rising, it is likely that there will be cutbacks in various nutrition programs.

  · At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance and many of them are utilizing community health centers as their medical homes, it is likely that there will be cuts in primary healthcare.

  · At a time when states, cities and towns have already laid off over 500,000 public service employees, it is likely that there will be even more lay-offs in police and fire protection, and large reductions in federal support for roads, bridges, water quality, sewage and public transportation.

Further, there will likely be cuts in home heating assistance, affordable housing, support for family based agriculture, and research in finding cures for cancer and other diseases.   

In addition, there will likely be major staffing reductions in agencies which are trying to protect the physical health and economic well-being of our people. It is quite likely that the EPA, which enforces the rules regarding clean water and clean air, will be cut. The SEC, which regulates against the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, will be undermined. It is also very possible that the Social Security Administration, which assures that seniors and the disabled receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a timely manner, will also be cut.  

That is just some of what will likely happen as a result of the first $900 billion in cuts in this $2.5 trillion deficit reduction package.  
 
The second phase of this legislation calls for the establishment of a Super Committee composed of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans from the House and 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans from the Senate.  Let's be clear. The mandate for this 12 member Super Committee is to look at EVERY program of the federal government and come up with $1.5 trillion more in savings. This means that, at a time when the Republicans and an increased number of Democrats are calling for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of these programs will be on the chopping block.  

If the committee is unable to reach an agreement with a majority vote, there will then be a "sequestration" process which would require $500 billion in cuts to defense spending and $500 billion more in across-the-board cuts to domestic discretionary spending. In that scenario, Social Security, Medicare benefits and Medicaid would be spared, but even more draconian cuts would occur in programs that sustain working families.  

Here is the great irony with regard to the deficit reduction process that we have just gone through:
 
In poll after poll, the American people have made it clear that they believe in shared sacrifice. Instead of putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental protection on the chopping block, the American people have said that they believe the best way to reduce the deficit is to end tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil, and Wall Street and take a hard look at military spending. Yet, the budget deal just approved does the exact opposite of what the American people want. The wealthy and large corporations contribute nothing while there will be a major reduction in services for working families and the most vulnerable people in our country.  

Enough is enough! The American people must fight back. We need a government which represents all the people, not just the wealthy, campaign contributors and lobbyists. In these tough and discouraging times, despair is not an option. This fight is not just for us, it is for our children and grandchildren and for the environmental survival of the planet.

Every single Blue America-endorsed candidate for Congress has said they would have voted against the Satan Sandwich. Alan Grayson wrote a pledge that was signed by Ed Potosnak (NJ), Nick Ruiz (FL), Ilya Sheyman (IL) and Norman Solomon (CA). Eric Griego (NM) and Chris Donovan put out their own statements with the same points-- these points (Grayson):

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

N-E-V-E-R.

Norman Solomon, one of the signers sent this message out to voters in northern California yesterday, further reinforcing and explaining his position:

This is a very bad deal and a huge mistake. Instead of capitulating to Republican ideologues in Congress, we should stand our ground on behalf of seniors, children and other vulnerable Americans. All the rhetoric about “shared sacrifice” rings hollow when the vast majority of us are being sacrificed to the benefit of big banks and Wall Street.

There are plenty of sensible and effective ways to reduce the deficit-- including a transaction tax on Wall Street, an end to the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy and a major reduction in military spending. But the bipartisan dealmakers in Washington are ripping up the social compact and slashing the safety net that’s essential for vast numbers of Americans.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this deal is that it explicitly sets the stage for future actions to undermine Medicare. This scenario is a betrayal that strikes at the heart of precious values, and it’s among many of the current threats to vital social programs. I am committed to defending Social Security and Medicare on the campaign trail and as a member of Congress.

As a progressive Democrat, I will support the president’s policies when he’s right-- and I will oppose his policies when he’s wrong. With this budget deal, he is profoundly wrong.

The people of this congressional district have a right to know how each candidate for Congress would have voted on this budget deal. I would have joined with other progressive House members in voting no.

Shared Sacrifice

The middle class and the working class have sacrificed and sacrificed and sacrificed... up the wazoo. We paid when the greed-driven banksters drove the economy off the cliff and demanded mammoth bailouts-- or else. So shared sacrifice means, or should mean, it's time for the rich and privileged to pay their fair share. But their politicians protect them. Our politicians don't protect us. The GOP would rather let the good faith and credit of the United States government disintegrate than rescind the unsustainable Bush tax cuts-- or should we now face reality and call them the Bush/Obama tax cuts?

There were two important developments Tuesday, both bad. Washington's always problematic Gang problem reared its head as the Conservative Consensus rushed in to take control of the situation. And tthis transpartisan conservative stunt almost looked reasonable-- I suppose that was the idea-- as the House Republicans passed their ridiculous latest gimmick to pass Ryan's kill-Medicare budget, this time on steroids and this time called Cut, Cap & Balance.

Let's start with the Gang problem. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research got right to the heart of the matter:

The budget plan produced by the Senate’s “Gang of Six” offers the promise of huge tax breaks for some of the wealthiest people in the country, while lowering Social Security benefits for retirees and the disabled. Despite claiming that they will "reform" Social Security on a "separate track, isolated from deficit reduction," the plan includes cuts to Social Security that would be felt in less than six months, as the plan calls for a new inflation formula that will reduce benefits by 0.3 percentage points a year compared with currently scheduled benefits. The plan also calls for a process that is likely to reduce benefits further for future retirees.

The proposed cuts to Social Security are cumulative. This means that after ten years, a beneficiary in her 70s will see a cut of close to 3 percent. After 20 years, the cuts for beneficiaries in their 80s will be close to 6 percent, while the reduction in annual benefits will be close to 9 percent by the time beneficiaries are in their 90s. For a beneficiary in her 90s living on a Social Security income of $15,000, this means a loss of more $1,200 a year in benefits.

The plan also calls for large cuts in tax rates including a targeted top rate of between 23-29 percent, which will be at least partially offset by elimination of tax deductions. For the highest-income people, this is likely to mean a very large reduction in taxes. For example, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, the CEOs of J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, respectively, are both paid close to $20 million a year at present. If this pay is taxed as ordinary income, then they would be paying close to $7.5 million a year in taxes on it after 2012. However, if the top rate is set at 29 percent, they may save as much as $1.9 million a year on their tax bill. If the top tax rate is set at 23 percent then the Gang of Six plan may increase their after-tax income by more than $3 million a year.

It is striking that the Gang of Six chose to respond to the crisis created by the collapse of the housing bubble by developing a plan that will give even more money to top Wall Street executives andtraders. By contrast, the European Union is considering imposing financial speculation taxes to reduce the power of the financial industry and raise more than $40 billion a year in revenue.

"The plan calls for substantial cuts elsewhere in the budget which are likely to cut into the incomes of large segments of the population, especially the sick and the elderly. The cuts it proposes to the
military are just over 1.0 percent of projected spending over the next decade.

In short, this is a plan that should be expected to please the wealthy since it will mean large reductions in their tax liability in the decades ahead. On the other hand, most of the rest of the country is likely to feel the effects of lower Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, in addition to other cuts that are not yet fully specified.

Baker's an economist-- a real one, not like the corporate shills Wall Street provides all our presidents for their economic teams. And Bernie Sanders (I-VT) isn't the kind of politician Wall Street gets behind either. Funny, his perspective Tuesday was very similar to Baker's.

While all of the details from the so-called Gang of Six proposals are not yet clear, what is apparent is that the plan would result in devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other programs that are of vital importance to working families in this country. Meanwhile, tax rates would be lowered for the wealthiest people and the largest, most profitable corporations.

This is an approach that should be rejected by the American people.  At a time when the rich are becoming richer and corporate profits are soaring, at least half of any deficit-reduction package must come from upper income people and profitable corporations.  We must also take a hard look at military spending, which has tripled since 1997.

So while Obama seems to be begging CEOs to donate-- in lieu of their refusal to pay their fair share of taxes-- to the public schools that their greed is destroying, the Party of Greed and Selfishness was passing their Cut, Cap & Balance stunt 234-190, almost every single Republican and five disgusting Blue Dogs-- Boren (OK), McIntyre (NC), Matheson (UT), Cooper (TN) and Shuler (NC)-- voting to screw ordinary working families on behalf of their rich campaign donors once again. Real Democrats voted against it... even the just sworn in conservative Janice Hahn. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) stripped GOP intentions bare:

“This terrible plan could cut Medicare and Medicaid to unsustainably low levels and put seniors’ well-being at risk. Anyone who wants to pass it through Congress should remember that more than 70 House Democrats have already pledged their opposition, and more are signing on every day. The letter we sent to Leader Pelosi July 8 vowing to oppose any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid as part of these budget negotiations has become a growing wave of House resolve to protect these programs. We’re keeping it open for more signatures, and our Gang of 70-plus has the ‘Gang of Six’ completely outnumbered. Newly minted Rep. Janice Hahn signed on as one of her first official acts as a Congresswoman-- that’s how quickly it’s picking up momentum.
 
"Republicans have already said they won’t vote for any package, period, because of their opposition to a functional economy. House Democrats hold the key to whatever plan can pass Congress. That’s why the Senate ‘Gang of Six’ proposal is dead on arrival. Instead of toying with ways to slash vital programs in just such a way as to make different budget numbers align on paper, Congress and the White House should follow the path of our People’s Budget: creating jobs, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, ending corporate subsidies and millionaire tax giveaways, and ensuring our economy works for everyone rather than a greedy few.”

What can we do? Elect political leaders like Norman Solomon. Why? Watch the video:

Will Norman Solomon Be facing Off Against A Blue Dog Next Year?

Blue Dog Mike Thompson vs progressive Norman Solomon?

Not every Blue Dog is as bad as Dan Boren, Mike Ross, John Barrow, Jim Costa, Jason Altmire, Collin Peterson and Jim Matheson, the 7 bums who have voted with the GOP more than 65% of the time on crucial roll calls this year. Boren, whose district gave McCain a 66% landslide, has only voted with the Democrats 17% on these crucial roll calls. Normally he just sticks with Boehner and Cantor. California Blue Dog Mike Thompson isn't nearly as bad as Boren or the other 6. He's with the Democrats around 80% of the time. Interestingly, his northern California district was the mirror image of Boren's. Voters there have Obama a 66% landslide against McCain. And under the new redistricting, it looks like Thompson will be running in a district that is made up of the most Democratic parts of his old district plus most of Lynn Woolsey's even more Democratic district in Marin and Sonoma counties. (Woolsey's district gave Obama 76%, one of his best performances anywhere.)

This isn't a district that should be represented by a Blue Dog, even if he's a relatively house-broken one. Mike Thompson's agenda is not even nearly in sync with the progressive voters of the district. He's a middle-of-the-road, corporate-oriented Democrat who has chosen to join and participate in the decidedly anti-working family Blue Dog caucus. And one of the country's most promising progressive leaders, Norman Solomon, is running on a platform to continue and expand the work of retiring Representative Lynn Woolsey, who was often at odds with Thompson on important issues.

Last week, for example, Woolsey co-wrote a letter to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi bolstering her stand against trading away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to prevent the GOP from driving the U.S. Treasury into default. Norman Solomon told me he would have signed that letter. Mike Thompson, of course, didn't. Nor would he ever be involved in any progressive initiatives. He's a party hack who, at best, goes along to get along. His career is that of a backbencher serving his time before transitioning to K Street. This is as good a time as any for that transition. Here's the letter:

Leader Pelosi,
 
We write in strong agreement with your unwavering defense of the Democratic programs that form the bedrock of America’s middle and working classes, and which are overwhelmingly popular.
 
On July 7, you made very clear that “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and that “we do not support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. We agree completely.
 
Especially in these tough economic times, we should not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of our constituents paid into and depend on. Such benefit cuts should be off the table in current debt discussions.
 
Our Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by their insistence that unless Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are cut, the nation will default on its debts. Middle-class families have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.
 
We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a “final agreement” that we do not agree to -- and that the American people do not agree to.
 
We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side.

I think most Democrats and independents in Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties would agree with that-- and they deserve a congressman who will stand up and fight for those ideas. Clearly, that is not Mike Thompson. It is, however, Norman Solomon. Norman is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus once he's in Congress, a caucus Lynn Woolsey chaired for many years. He'll be working on legislation there with people like Raul Grijalva, Jerry Nadler, Donna Edwards, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison and Barney Frank. Thompson has chosen to spend his legislative career with Boren and Matheson and Barrow and working with them on the toxic Blue Dog legislative agenda. The work of progressive fighters like Bernie Sanders is anathema to that crowd. Norman applauded Sander's approach to keeping Social Security safe-- a far different perspective from how the Blue Dog Caucus views it. Bernie:

Social Security cuts under consideration by the White House in deficit-reduction talks would drive 245,000 people into poverty and lower widows’ benefits $1,200 a year by 2050, according to Social Security Administration calculations provided to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Changing the way inflation is measured to determine Social Security benefits is one option on the table in high-stakes budget negotiations that resume Sunday at the White House. The so-called Chained Consumer Price Index on average results in a lower inflation levels than the more common formula used to adjust benefits.

“The result would be devastating cuts for millions of American seniors and people with disabilities,” said Sanders. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders asked the Social Security Administration’s Office of Retirement Policy to calculate the impact on poverty rates and benefits if the revised inflation gauge were to be adopted.

In 2030, according to the report prepared for Sanders, there would be 173,400 more people living in poverty in the United States. The revised formula also would dramatically lower benefits for retirees. Widows would receive almost $70 a month less in benefits, a reduction of $840 a year. People who are 70-79 would receive $49 a month less, a drop of $588 a year. Benefits for those who are 80-89 would drop by $80/month or $960 a year. Benefits for women would fall by 3.5 percent overall while men’s benefits would drop by 2.9 percent.

By 2050, the impact would be much worse. There would be 245,000 more people living in poverty at mid-century. Widows’ benefits would be $1,200 a year less. Those 70-79 would lose $720 a year, and seniors in the 80-89 age bracket would see benefits fall by $1,200 a year. Overall, women would see a 4 percent reduction in benefits while benefits for men would drop 3.4 percent.

As the deficit negotiations were set to resume on Sunday, Sanders emphasized that Social Security has not contributed a dime to the deficit or the national debt. Funded by the payroll tax on workers and employers, Socials Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus and will be able to provide full benefits for every eligible American for the next 25 years.

Sanders called on President Barack Obama to publicly renounce the idea of cutting Social Security as part of any deal to lower deficits. "I am especially disturbed that the president is considering cuts in Social Security after he campaigned against cuts in 2008," Sanders said. "The American people expect the president to keep his word."

And if Norman has to face Thompson, it means he's going to be up against an extremely well-financed Blue Dog, with lots of support from all the worst places. Norman is going to need our help. There is a difference between Democrats who join the Progressive Caucus and Democrats who join the Blue Dog Caucus. It's life and death... for the most vulnerable segments of the population, quite literally. Today Norman put out a press release calling for an all out defense of Social Security:

A day after President Obama urged fellow Democrats to go along with “trimming benefits” for Social Security and other safety-net programs, North Bay congressional candidate Norman Solomon called for “an all-out defense of Social Security.”

Solomon, a progressive Democrat who was elected as an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, said Tuesday [July 12] that Social Security cuts would be “a tragic mistake, undermining our nation’s best values as well as its future.”

“Our leaders should be fighting to protect seniors, children, the jobless, the disabled and other vulnerable Americans, not throwing Social Security on the table and pulling out knives,” he said.

“I support the efforts by many Democrats in Congress to resist this looming assault on seniors and others who depend on Social Security and Medicare,” Solomon added.

“The idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare is not only a moral outrage-- it is a disastrous approach that would end up costing us dearly in the long run, severely damaging people’s quality of life and escalating healthcare costs,” Solomon said. “This is not how a civilized society solves its budgetary problems.”

Responding to the president’s statement Monday that “I’m prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done,” Solomon said: “We need to turn up the heat to protect Social Security.”

“Social Security does not add a penny to the deficit,” he said. “As it is now, the program will be solvent for more than two decades-- and adjustments such as raising the cap on Social Security taxes for well-to-do recipients can easily render it solvent through mid-century and beyond.”

Does Raising Taxes On The Rich And On Corporations Hurt the Economy?

Always a big mistake to let fascists set the rules of the field. When will President Obama ever learn that? As Chris Cillizza pointed out in the Washington Post earlier, Obama's "grand bargain" with GOP fascists means defeat for the American people and defeat for his own political party.

The news that President Obama is privately urging congressional Democrats to consider major changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a so-called "grand bargain" on the federal debt has considerable political implications.

For months Democratic strategists have pointed to the House vote in favor of a budget proposal put forward by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that would transform Medicare into a voucher program as their silver bullet heading into the 2012 congressional election.

"Our three most important issues: Medicare, Medicare and Medicare," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said recently when asked how her party could reclaim the majority in 2012.

So, might Obama's decision to put Medicare on the table rob his party of a prized political issue heading into the next election? There's an active debate within the party on that very question.

Democratic strategists are cautiously optimistic that such a scenario won't come to pass, insisting that making changes to strengthen Medicare-- if that comes to pass-- is a very different thing from what they describe as a drastic overhaul of the program being proposed by Ryan.

...The thinking among [progressives-- as opposed to Democratic Party careerists and hacks] is that voters won’t delve deeply enough into the specifics of the Medicare proposals to differentiate between what the Obama White House wants and what Ryan pushed.

"A grand bargain on Medicare will let Republicans who support the deal off the hook on their Ryan budget vote," said one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy. "If attacked on the Ryan budget they can easily counter they voted for the same thing Obama supported. Poof."

No matter where you come down on this particular debate, it does highlight an important political reality: what's good for the president is not always what's good for his party in the House and Senate.

That's why Obama is thick as thieves with the likes of Wall Street slime like Tiny Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel-- and why he doesn't give a hoot what people like Paul Krugman or Van Jones (see the video above) have to say. Today we've heard some of the initial reactions to Obama's "grand bargain" strategy. Corporate whores like Third Way, of course, are tickled pink. Bernie Sanders, Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, AARP and the members of MoveOn are fuming. Even Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will not support Obama on this crazy jag right. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse adds, "It's time for a shared sacrifice. We need to unequivocally declare that benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare are off the table. We cannot solve the deficit crisis on the back of our seniors. We need all Americans to pay their fair share."

And two dozen House progressives-- Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Mike Capuano, Judy Chu, Hansen Clarke, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Marcia Fudge, Luis Gutierrez, Mike Honda, Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, John Lewis, Jim McGovern, Jerry Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Chellie Pingree, Ed Pastor, Pete Stark, Bennie Thompson, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey-- sent Obama a letter laying out their demands that any final budget deal generate significant revenue and avoid cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

First, any cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be taken off the table. The individuals depending on these three programs deserve well-conceived improvements, not deep, ideologically driven cuts with harmful consequences... Second, revenue increases must be a meaningful part of any agreement. Tax breaks benefiting the very richest Americans should be eliminated as part of this deal... These points are essential for any deal on the debt ceiling, but more work to rebuild the economy will remain after these negotiations have concluded... We stand ready to work with the Administration responsibly to increase the debt ceiling. The middle class has experienced enough pain during the last three years. Republicans are willing to inflict even more. We will not join them.

Needless to say, California Blue Dog Mike Thompson would never sign on to a letter like this. And it now looks like redistricting will put him down into Lynn Woolsey's old district (Marin and Sonoma), where he'll be facing progressive champion Norman Solomon. We asked Norman, who has been endorsed by Blue America, where he stands on this debate between progressives and conservatives. Like all the Blue America candidates, he would certainly have signed on to the letter to Obama, plans to join the Progressive Caucus and told us:

Contrary to myth, Social Security is solvent-- and many of the proposals to fix what isn't broken would actually 'save' Social Security by doing irreversible damage. For instance, the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security is already too low, yet now we're seeing a big push to cut COLA-- which would have devastating effects, especially harming women and low-income families. Let's keep in mind that about one-third of Social Security recipients depend on it for more than 90 percent of their income. The Obama administration should be protecting seniors and the most vulnerable among us, not using them as pawns in budget negotiations. The Republicans in Congress are out to destroy Social Security and Medicare-- while many Democrats in Washington, including the president, are putting those essential programs on the chopping block. This is outrageous. I will fight to protect Social Security and Medicare to my last breath.

Nick Ruiz, the Blue America-backed candidate in central Florida sees this much the way Norman does and thinks Democratic candidates need to speak out and speak out loudly.

"America's liberalism should never be one of fear and denial. Ours should be a liberalism of lions. There is an old wisdom that to lead one must often follow. But Barack Obama is following the wrong people. The citizen-voters that put him in office, did so because they believed he symbolized a change in the status quo, an opportunity to expand upon the great American event that is the New Deal.

It cannot be the case that the progressive citizens of America must be made to pass through the filter of the President. It must be the other way around. We embody what the majority of Americans desire for their country - and literally every survey confirms it.

Democracy requires not the mechanical reproduction of the status quo. It requires that truth challenges falsity. It requires that we challenge any leader that betrays our principles. Obama has not yet earned the Democratic nomination for 2012. Until he does he should be challenged. Who will rise to the occasion on behalf of the majority of Americans?"

I also heard from another Blue America-backed House candidate, Ed Potosnak (D-NJ), a very loyal Democrat who was astounded by Obama's connivance with the Republicans on the entirely manufactured debt ceiling "crisis." He told me this morning, sadly I think, that "our duly elected officials are turning their backs on one of our most vulnerable groups, our seniors, when what seniors really need is someone to fight for them. I am extremely disappointed the President has chosen to target struggling seniors in an attempt to reduce the deficit. Trillions of dollars and countless lives have been lost in recent unfunded wars. When I am in Congress I will fight against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and will work to significantly reduce military spending (currently 63% of our nation's discretionary spending)."

You can support Norman's, Ed's and Nick's campaigns here, on a page dedicated to candidates who put American families first, not narrow partisan interests, let alone the demands from Wall Street and Big Business which drive most national politics. John Laesch, a union carpenter who hastened the political demise of then-Speaker Denny Hastert, hasn't declared his candidacy yet-- but he's likely to. When he does, Blue America will endorse him... the same day. I always turn to him for advise on matters of importance to working families. This morning he voiced profound disappointment in President Obama:

It is reprehensible that Republicans and President Obama want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits on those who have played by the rules and paid into the system their whole lives. “Cutting” or even “saving” Social Security does nothing for senior citizens who are facing escalating costs for food, prescriptions and rent. If we want to get serious about protecting the most successful safety net program in American history, one thing we absolutely need to do is lift the cap on high income earners who make more than $106,800 per year.

The decision by Republicans and President Obama to shrink benefits from senior citizens who are already struggling on fixed incomes signals that a page has been turned in the painful saga known as the war on the middle class. During this recession-turning-depression, working people are taking it on the chin again, and again, and again while those who created the economic crisis are making out like bandits. It is wrong. It is un-American. It needs to be stopped.

That brings us to two final items: Bernie Sander's inspiring speech yesterday on the Senate floor (below) and Paul Krugman's late-in-the-day column for the Times. He thinks Democrats need to be very worried about Obama's sell-out to the Republicans and their-- and, let's be honest, his-- Big Business financiers.

On Thursday, President Obama met with Republicans to discuss a debt deal. We don’t know exactly what was proposed, but news reports before the meeting suggested that Mr. Obama is offering huge spending cuts, possibly including cuts to Social Security and an end to Medicare’s status as a program available in full to all Americans, regardless of income.

...It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers-- a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

In his brief remarks after Thursday’s meeting, by the way, Mr. Obama seemed to reiterate the Herbert Hooveresque view that deficit reduction is what we need to “grow the economy.”

People have asked me why the president’s economic advisers aren’t telling him not to believe in the confidence fairy-- that is, not to believe the assertion, popular on the right but overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence, that slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy will magically create jobs. My answer is, what economic advisers? Almost all the high-profile economists who joined the Obama administration early on have either left or are leaving.

Nor have they been replaced. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, there are a “stunning” number of vacancies in important economic posts. So who’s defining the administration’s economic views?

Some of what we’re hearing is presumably coming from the political team, whose members seem to believe that a move toward Republican positions, reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” in the 1990s, is the key to Mr. Obama’s re-election. And Mr. Clinton did, indeed, rebound from a big defeat in the 1994 midterms to win big two years later. But some of us think that the rebound had less to do with his rhetorical move to the center than with the five million jobs the economy added over those two years-- an achievement not likely to be repeated this time, especially not in the face of harsh spending cuts.

Anyway, I don’t believe that it’s all political calculation. Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.

Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

Some claim that this whole dust-up is just more Obaman 18 dimensional chess and that he knows the Republicans will never sign off on their end of the "grand design" (tax increases on millionaires)... but, on a brighter note, let's take our fate into our own hands, leave Obama to his own, and help elect actual progressives who will fight for us not for Wall Street. More like this guy:

Let's Worry About BETTER Democrats And Let The Democratic Party Worry About More Of 'Em-- Time For Norman Solomon

This morning at 11am PT John and Digby are going to be hosting a live chat with Norman Solomon, a movement progressive running for the North San Francisco Bay area House seat being vacated by another progressive, Lynn Woolsey. The live chat will be at Crooks and Liars in the comments section. I hope you can join them... I'm in Asia and it'll be 1am on Wednesday and I'll be fast asleep.

If, like me, you can't make it to the chat, please consider contributing to Norman's campaign based on our last live chat with him, and on this letter we sent out to all Blue America members yesterday.

It was with gladness in our hearts that all of us at Blue America celebrated the state of New York legalizing gay marriage this past week-end. It was a welcome reminder that even in this era of Tea Parties and economic malaise, human progress cannot be stopped. Imagine if we had a national government with enough fighters for working families to make progress on all fronts from civil rights to economic justice to ending our useless expensive wars.  Imagine if we had more leaders like Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Donna Edwards to press for that agenda.



Today, longtime progressive congresswoman Lynn Woolsey just announced her retirement from the Congress after a long and illustrious career. And Blue America endorsee and longtime political activist and author Normon Solomon stands ready and able to carry on the progressive tradition of that district.



We're asking you to help us help him run an effective campaign and win this seat. Will you give what you can today?



“We’re gaining the kind of traction that a grassroots campaign needs in order to win,” Solomon said. “The groundswell of support is very encouraging.”



Indeed it is. We need congressional representatives who understand that we are no longer able to afford open ended military adventures and corrupt political boondoggles and Norman has been fighting to end them his entire life.These issues are no longer matters of abstract ideology-- they are necessary and pragmatic approaches to the problems of our time. We need people like Norman Solomon in congress to lead the way.



Blue America will be hosting Norman in a live chat at Crooks and Liars on Tuesday at 2pm EDT/11 am PDT. Please join us.



And please help Norman with a donation if you can.



The good news is that it looks as though we aren't the only progressives who are enthusiastic about him-- the campaign has managed to collect $100,000 already from small donors. But he is not a corporate funded Democrat and will need our help to compete. 



Thanks again for your support. We hope you'll join us on Tuesday for a lively discussion. 



We are all in this together.

Yesterday Norman penned a guest Op-Ed for the Marin Independent Journal that presents a lot of insight into what kind of congressman he'd be-- and into why Blue America is so committed to his candidacy. I bet this is what you wish YOUR congressmember and senator-- not to mention our president-- was saying about the dangers of nuclear energy... and what to do about it. But they're not. It's why it's so crucial that we need real leaders like Norman Solomon, not just someone who will probably vote well in the House.

Several decades ago, three expert nuclear engineers told a congressional panel why they decided to quit: "We could no longer justify devoting our life energies to the continued development and expansion of nuclear fission power-- a system we believe to be so dangerous that it now threatens the very existence of life on this planet."

The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy heard that testimony in 1977, when the conventional wisdom was still hailing "the peaceful atom" as a flawless marvel. During the same year, solid information convinced me to move from concern to action against nuclear power.

By the time the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant came close to rendering much of central Pennsylvania uninhabitable, I was nearly two years into full-time anti-nuclear work that included public education, civic activism and nonviolent direct action. Given what was at stake, I didn't mind spending a month in jail for civil disobedience.

More than 30 years later, the ongoing disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant underscores the grim realities of nuclear power, ranging from catastrophic reactor accidents to highly radioactive waste that will remain deadly for many thousands of years.

Such inherent dangers are all too close to home here in California, where the state's two nuclear power plants-- Diablo Canyon at San Luis Obispo and San Onofre farther south-- are both located on major earthquake faults along the coast.

The overall record of Diablo Canyon's owner and operator-- PG&E-- hardly inspires confidence. And recent events in Japan showed that official assurances can become worthless after a big quake and tsunami.

Continuing radioactive leaks from Fukushima are extensive and multifaceted. The authoritative journal Nature reported in late May that "some scientists are simply floating the idea of turning Fukushima into a nuclear graveyard"-- but "given the plant's location on the coast, storing the waste there for millennia may be unrealistic."

Here at home, I fundamentally disagree with the official mantra that California's two nuclear power plants should keep operating while federal agencies conduct "studies" to determine whether those nukes are risky enough to warrant closure.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department have been avidly promoting nuclear power for decades. Periodic calls for more "studies" have kicked the radioactive can down the road.

I reject the notion that we should wait for such nuclear-enthralled agencies to tell us whether nuclear power is an acceptable risk for Californians.

As the director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims in 1980, I learned a lot about patterns of official enabling of the nuclear industry-- with awful results for human health and the environment.

Similar patterns persist in this country.

In contrast, the government of Germany has seen the light. At the end of last month, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a reversal of policy-- moving to shut down nuclear power instead of trying to expand it.

The decision to immediately close eight German nuclear power plants and shut the rest by 2022 came in a country that had been getting 23 percent of its electricity from nukes.

Here in California, we're less reliant on this Faustian technology, getting just 15 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. The state has a lot of excess generating capacity from other sources, but far better choices for the environment are within our grasp.

Effective conservation options are readily available, and widespread use of renewables like solar is in reach. What we need is the political will to fight for serious public investment in sustainable energy and a non-nuclear future.

Please consider helping Norman bring this kind of thinking to Washington by contribution to his campaign through ActBlue. Norman summed his platform up in one powerful sentence today saying is he's elected to Congress, he "will insist that we need to bring our troops and tax dollars home-- that we need healthcare not warfare-- that we must resist corporate power-- that caving in to Wall Street and polluters and enemies of civil liberties is unacceptable." Your kind of guy?