Stranger's Day (August 24) -- an idea whose time has come, courtesy of the great Roz Chast

As if one genius idea wasn't enough, this week's New Yorker features Roz on the Satan Sandwich (see below)



"Stranger’s Day has the potential to be the greatest holiday of all, not least for the greeting-card industry. On all other holidays, you send cards only to those people you know, but the number of people you don’t know is in the billions."

-- New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff,

in his weekly newsletter/blog

by Ken



I was happy to see Bob Mankoff getting behind Stranger's Day in a big way, because this Roz Chast cartoon had really grabbed me in this week's New Yorker. Of course I could just have been carried away by the power of the poetry. What would Henry W. Longfellow have given to write:

I don't know you,

You don't know me.

Guess that's how

It's meant to be.

HAPPY STRANGER'S DAY!

Or:

We're both alive at the same time,

So here's a card, is that such a crime?

SORRY TO BOTHER YOU.

There's already a website (strangersday.com), though the content so far is kind of, er, limited. And by "limited" I mean limited to:

[You can click to enlarge this, if you really think that'll help.]

It appears that built into Roz's idea of Stranger's Day is a way of getting rid of stuff she doesn't want. Or, as she puts it:

Hello, stranger. We haven’t been properly introduced, and hopefully we never will be. I’ve got lots of friends—actual ones, and also all these other people that Facebook says are my friends. But even though we may never befriend each other, or even “friend” each other, that doesn’t mean we can’t exchange presents. Here are some items I wouldn’t mind giving to you, stranger, on this very special day:

and on the blog version there's a slide show with no fewer than ten such items.



Here's one that particularly caught my attention:

Sometimes I fantasize that I’m going to have people over for what will be the best dinner party since the dawn of time. My guests will all be the smartest, funniest people in the world, and we will all be laughing and talking and basking in the delight of one another’s company. And when dinner is over, I’ll serve dessert on these lovely sunflower plates. I can’t figure out why I’ve never used them.

And here's another:

Have you ever been mad at someone about something that you know is ridiculous, but you’re mad anyway? What do you do? Do you pick a big dumb fight, knowing that it’s not going to solve anything? Or do you take something that belongs to the person, like an ugly tie he never wears or an old CD he’ll never miss, and stuff it in the bottom of a garbage bag? Or you can give it away to a total stranger.

There are also Flickr, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram links that you can get from Bob's post (I don't get mixed up with that stuff), via which he invites you to post pictures of stuff that you’d like to give away. Use the tag #strangersday. He says, "We’ll look through the options and post pictures of the ones that we’d most like to receive from a stranger."





NOW FOR ROZ CHAST'S TAKE ON THE SATAN SANDWCH

#

Americans Need Jobs, Not A Right-Wing Austerity Agenda To Make The Rich Even Richer

Trustfund jerk Harold McGraw III uses the company his grandpa built to crash the stock market to bolster his pal Mitt Romney

Worldwide stock markets crashed Monday as determined and uncompromising right-wing nihilism was being factored into everyone's economic calculations. Oddly enough, U.S. treasuries, the target in the S&P downgrade, actually improved. But no one seems to care about that odd detail. Yesterday Paul Krugman asked his readers to behold the power of a stupid narrative, which seems impervious to evidence.

1. US debt is downgraded, sparking demands for more ill-advised fiscal austerity



2. Fears that this austerity will depress the economy send stocks down



3. Politicians and pundits declare that worries about US solvency are the culprit, even though interest rates have actually plunged



4. This leads to calls for even more ill-advised austerity, which sends us back to #2

Meanwhile, the Mitt Romney supporter who controls the S&P, Harold W. McGraw III, hereditary grandson of the McGraw-Hill founder, and like most hereditary grandchildren, a rapid right-wing moron with a tiny little dysfunctional brain, has now started downgrading municipal and state bonds as well.

While not unexpected, the move has far-reaching implications for thousands of local governments already burdened by steep deficits.



Among those affected so far:



• Tacoma, WA.



• Atlanta Downtown Development Authority, GA.



• The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina



• Miami, FL.



Additional federal debt was also downgraded, including some issued by The Architect of the Capitol and the Department of Transportation.

A report from Reuters was more optimistic on muni bonds:

Two positive factors give the market a shot at hanging onto last week's sparkling gains, when yields on some top quality bonds tumbled as much as 40 basis points: the lack of supply and the safe-haven bid for Treasuries.



"It's so hard to predict, but I don't foresee this announcement by S&P as being a catalyst for selling," said Robert Nelson, managing analyst for Municipal Market Data, which is part of Thomson Reuters.



"The possibility of this downgrade was already known to this marketplace as it traded up so aggressively last week," he said.



Though the municipal market only partly shared the Treasury market's extraordinary rally, analysts say the tax-free market is getting some safe-haven buying from investors unnerved by the stock market's plunge last week.



On Monday, Standard & Poor's is expected to downgrade the ratings of pre-refunded municipal bonds, U.S. mortgage agencies and other credits tied tightly to the federal government. Late Friday, S&P cut the country's credit rating to "AA-plus" from "AAA" and gave a negative outlook to the long-term rating.



Perhaps the downgrading of the U.S. rating might have had more impact on municipals in previous years, when there was a bit of an expectation that the U.S. federal government might ride to the rescue of beleaguered states or cities.



..."I think we've heard from a number of officials in the federal government, and I think that at the same time the federal government is not in any position to bail out states, so in the muni market I think most recognize that the notion of the federal government as a backstop has been pretty largely discounted," Nelson said.



The immediate market impact of the U.S. credit downgrade might be somewhat muted by the tax-free market's traditional strengths.



Many of the tens of thousands of tax-free issuers, from states to counties and schools, raise revenue from their own taxes and fees, independently of the federal government. The default rate historically has been under 1 percent.



"I don't see a tremendous flight out of municipals; you might see credit spreads widening for lower-rated issues, but we also think a lot will hold their ratings," said Evan Rourke, a portfolio manager with Eaton Vance in New York.



"Our feeling is that you can still have an AAA-rated credit ... you could have AAA-rated credits in an AA-plus-rated country," he said.

Wall Street's "solution" is to sell off Social Security and Medicare and leave the elderly to their tender mercies. That isn't likely to happen if the voters elect progressives next year instead of conservative Democrats or reactionary Republicans, the double-headed enemy of America's working families. Carol Shea Porter is running for her old seat in New Hampshire, now that voters there have had a shocking taste of what happens when you trust Republicans with the keys to the car. She has a very different view of the debut "crisis" and what to do about the economy that the conventional anti-family "wisdom" on Wall Street.

Washington is awash in congratulations and claims of noble compromise. House Republicans are bragging about becoming fiscally responsible while maintaining a morally responsible budget. There’s just one problem. It's not true. The only thing they should feel good about now is their vote to keep the United States from a catastrophic default.

 

The national debt is a staggering 14.3 trillion dollars. The debt ceiling deal they struck with Republican Tea Partiers (who the very conservative Wall Street Journal called "tea-party Hobbits") will only reduce the yearly deficits. It will not vigorously take on the debt. That's like paying the new monthly bills on your credit card each month without significantly reducing the overall balance. And most importantly, it will hurt the already struggling middle class and the poor, and drastically reduce the city and state government services our citizens need and rely on. It also will not create jobs; rather, it will eliminate jobs.

 

In order to properly function, this country must raise revenue. And Republicans in Congress have made it perfectly clear that they would have let this great nation crash into default and ruin our credit rather than raise revenue. They would not ask their campaign benefactors to do what the overburdened middle class has been doing for years-- pay up. Republicans refused to close tax loopholes for oil companies and other corporations. They refused to take subsidies away. They refused to give up the Bush-era tax cuts. Just last year, they convinced the president and Congress to extend them as part of a deal to continue long-term unemployment benefits, even though, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities demonstrated, the rise in debt would stop if they simply let the Bush tax cuts expire. They know that the top 1% doesn't need those tax cuts since they already receive almost 25% of all income and control more than 40% of the nation's wealth, but Republicans refuse to reclaim that much-needed revenue that could help the debt problem. Republicans also refused to change the tax code, which, as the General Accountability Office warned us back in February of 2009, allowed 67% of US corporations and 68% of foreign corporations to pay zero income taxes. That's right. Zero. Republicans simply would not raise any revenue. This is equivalent to the head of a family simply refusing to earn income, telling the family to instead just stop spending on essentials.



The Republicans refused to raise a single dime to pay down the debt, and President Obama could not get them to compromise at all. They refused to listen to Ronald Reagan's former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who warned them last summer, "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing." They refused to listen to any plea for more revenue, but this country needs everyone, not just small businesses and the middle class, to pay their fair share if we are to reduce our debt.

 

Both New Hampshire members of Congress played follow the leader and took that tea-party/partisan stance, refusing to raise any revenue anywhere on anyone or anything, even if we cut Social Security and Medicare, even if we cut health care, even if we did not repair bridges, even if we cut jobs. These two members have the Republican problem-- they have all signed a pledge, not to their constituents, but to Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, and they would be severely punished if they violated "the pledge." They would be targeted and attacked on TV, radio, and by mail if they dared to even consider raising revenue from the dodgers.



So here we are, saddled with a Republican majority so beholden to a pledge to protect corporations and the top 1% that they cannot and will not defend the middle class or work to protect essential programs. We have a President who is surrounded by these partisans who threaten to bring down the economy if their demands are not met. And we have an exhausted and all too frequently unemployed middle class that is left wondering why corporations don't have to pay taxes, why the top 1% aren't included in the "shared sacrifice" formula, and why this nation can't pay its debts. But they don’t have to look far for an answer. With this debt-ceiling fight, their Republican leaders just showed the people who they actually work for.

Time To Say Buh-Bye To Reactionary Blue Dog Heath Shuler?

In terms of crucial votes taken in their entire congressional careers, only three Democrats-- Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA) and Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)-- have voted more consistently with the Republicans than North Carolina Blue Dog Heath Shuler. And Boren and Donnelly have both announced they're leaving the House. Shuler's Progressive Punch score on crucial votes is 40.73, which means he's followed the lead of Boehner and Cantor on 59.67% of the crucial votes since first being elected to Congress. This year fellow North Carolina congressman, Walter Jones (R) votes more frequently with the Democrats than Shuler does! And no one in western North Carolina was surprised this week when Shuler took a big happy bite of the Satan Sandwich. He almost never votes in the interests of his constituents, so why should anyone have expected him to do so on a bill John Boehner has been bragging achieved 98% of the Republican goals.



The Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature has gerrymandered the 11th congressional district to make it much harder for Shuler to win again in 2012. It's no secret that Shuler has been feeling out his alma mater, the University of Tennessee, for the open Athletic Director job. His time as the school's Heisman-winning quarterback were his glory days... and he's angling for the million dollars a year, seven year contract. He keeps denying that he's also negotiating with the GOP to switch parties and run for the seat as a Republican. That worked out badly for fellow reactionary Blue Dog Parker Griffith, who switched parties and then was defeated by an even more extreme right-wing Republican in the next primary.



Shuler knows he may not have to worry about how he'd fare in the general election in the newly gerrymandered 11th. After his record of supporting the GOP and after his vote last week for Boehner's unpopular deficit plan, many Democrats just want him out. Last spring we talked about Asheville's very popular and very progressive City Councilman, Cecil Bothwell, challenging Shuler either as an independent or as a Democrat. Bothwell is running as a Democrat and he's the first candidate to be added to this year's Blue America anti-Blue Dog page. I spoke to him this weekend about Shuler's vote for the Satan Sandwich and asked him how he would have voted. "With the 95 Democrats who opposed it," he answered firmly, a man who's sense of self-assurance comes from a coherent purpose of serving the interests of his friends and neighbors in western North Carolina.

The debt ceiling deal approved this week is a disaster. I would have joined the other 95 Democrats who voted against the plan, and I believe the new 12-member special commission it has created will prove to be every bit as problematic as the fracas we've witnessed in recent weeks.



President Obama shouldn't have taken the 14th Amendment solution off the table. He should have told the Republicans that if they didn't go along with a straight up or down vote on the debt ceiling he would be forced to intervene for the good of the nation. He permitted his opponents to drag the argument far to the right and agreed to a solution that is far to the right of popular opinion. A significant majority wants to see tax increases on those making more than $250,000 per year. Handing the keys to any tax increase to the GOP majority in the House is a mistake we will all come to regret.



I note that the agreement has had no good effect on the markets, with the Dow collapsing immediately following the agreement, and now Standard & Poors downgrading our national credit rating.

Bothwell feels he can put together a populist coalition that rejects the transpartisan right-wing agenda that has devastated the America economy and ruined job prospects in North Carolina. He sees the new district being entirely up for grabs and not something that should be looked at in terms of how many votes Obama got and how many votes McCain got-- which is the standard the legislature used in their gerrymander. "I believe," he told me, "there's a new paradigm emerging in American politics and it's very apparent here. Both Progressive Democrats and tea party Republicans exhibit a strong populist streak. Surprisingly, tea partiers support Medicare almost as strongly as do Democrats in national polls. Both are discontent with the corporatist policies of the major parties at the national level. I believe our campaign is getting through to people on both sides of the old political divide and I expect we will win."



If you'd like to help Cecil Bothwell do that, please consider donating what you can to his campaign. I expect we'll be hearing a lot more from him as he keeps North Carolina's worst Blue Dog on the run.

Will Satan Sandwich Eaters Face The Consequences Of Their Betrayal At The Polls?

Before the vote on the Boehner/Obama SatanSandwich last week, Blue America announced that no incumbent who voted for it would be eligible for an endorsement this cycle under any circumstances. We also asked the challengers we endorsed to make a public statement explaining why they opposed the deal. Every single one of our challengers made that statement. One House incumbent running for a Senate seat voted for it and although she is still the runaway best candidate in the race in Hawai'i, we took her off our contribution list. Blue America didn't raise money for Obama in 2008 and, after seeing him in action, there was no chance we would ask our donors to contribute to his campaign next year, not that he needed us then or that he will now... not with the gigantic contributions he gets from Wall Street and other financial predators. Yesterday, Nate Silver did a column in the NY Times that seems to indicate Blue America isn't the only one outraged by the congressional betrayal inherent in a vote for the SatanSandwich.

Initial public reaction to the deficit-reducing deal reached by President Obama and Congress is fairly poor. Although there is some variance from survey to survey, on average approval of the deal registers at 38 percent against 49 percent disapproval across four national polls conducted on it so far.

...Of the 63 Republicans running for re-election to the House in districts that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report deems competitive, 56 of them, or 89 percent, voted for the deal.

Democrats have fewer members running in swing districts in the House, simply because they lost so many of them in 2010. Still, among Democrats who are running in competitive races, the tally was 23-to-14 in favor of the bill, whereas the majority of Democrats in safe districts voted against it. ...In the House, members of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus overwhelmingly voted against the bill, with 56 of the 70 members voted opposing it, while other Democrats voted for the bill by roughly a 2-1 margin. A 32-to-28 majority of Republicans in the Tea Party Caucus, meanwhile, voted for the bill-- but they were less likely to do so than other Republicans in the House, who approved the bill by a 72-to-19 margin. ... Among Republicans not affiliated with Tea Party, 91 percent of those in competitive districts voted for the bill, while 62 percent of those not running in competitive races did.

...Anti-incumbent sentiment is probably stronger now than at any point since polling began. We don’t know exactly how that is going to play out, and to some extent we are in uncharted territory.

But the polling so far suggests that the risks are particularly acute for Congress-- and even more acute for the Republicans in Congress, who were more likely to vote for the bill and are being assigned more responsibility for it by the public.

Bernie Sanders had a much better idea about how to reduce the federal deficit than the ineffectual gimmicks that make up the SatanSandwich. Take a look:



UPDATE

A little frank Twitter chit chat with the Chairman. Because there are times when nothing will do but tough love-- and this is one of those times:

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Who Lied About How They Would Vote On The Satan Sandwich?

Congratulations to Gabby Giffords for making it back to Congress to vote and being the surprise-- except for Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi-- 95th Democratic Party vote for the Republican agenda, tying the 95 actual Democrats who opposed it. As my old pal Susan Klein remarked on Twitter, it was the most dramatic comeback performance since Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall in 1961. Gabby's appearance meant much more to the assembled politicians-- actually, of both parties-- than Judy's did to anyone but the gays. It was a good moment for the nation-- and a great smokescreen for the supposed defenders of working people, like Wasserman Schultz-- who could use it to change the subject when anyone wondered why she had just given John Boehner 98% of what he wanted.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's vote was never in doubt of course. She's the ultimate political hack and always has been. Rahm didn't pick her for a leadership role at the DCCC and Obama didn't pick her to head the DNC because she's got an independent spirit or a conscience. She's very nice on women's issues, though... more than one can say about many of the Blue Dogs she relentlessly promotes. But at least Debbie never held out hope that she might take the side of working families and reject the Satan Sandwich. How about the duplicitous Democrats who signed the Grijalva-Ellison letter to Pelosi pledging to never vote for any bill that jeopardizes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, despite indignant protestations to the contrary by the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, this bill certainly does? The Caucus itself only lost 15 members in the vote yesterday but some of the non-Caucus signers found Wasserman Schultz's and Obama's arguments to back everything Boehner wanted suddenly very persuasive.

The vast majority of the 87 Democrats who signed the letter were true to their word and voted NO-- against the Satan Sandwich. Who broke their word and betrayed their constituents?

Karen Bass (CA)
David Cicciline (RI)
William Lacy Clay (MO)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Danny Davis (IL)
Ted Deutch (FL)
Lloyd Doggett (TX)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
John Garamendi (CA)
Luis Gutierrez (IL)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)
Hank Johnson (GA)
Dale Kildee (MI)
Jim Langevin (RI)
Stephen Lynch (MA)
Cedric Richmond (LA)
Steve Rothman (NJ)
Frederica Wilson (FL)
David Wu (OR)

A bigger shock came when three Blue Dogs who rarely take the side of working families over Big Business came over to the progressive side in Monday's night's vote-- Leonard Boswell (IA), Dennis Cardoza (CA) and, most shocking of all, Mike McIntyre (NC).


Even before Kissinger's infamous tweet, Matt Taibbi made the same point in Rolling Stone.

The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists. Observers like pollster Sydney Greenberg portray Obama and the Democrats as a group of politically tone-deaf bureaucrats who fail because the public associates them with a corrupt government that benefits the rich and connected.

The Democrats, Greenberg argues, could change their situation by showing the public that they genuinely represent the interests of ordinary working people... But to a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state, what good does such advice do? Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?

The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time-- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did-- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.

And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?

It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?

So let me go back to the Blue America statement penned for us by Alan Grayson:

We who sign this make the following pledge, to the voters of our districts and to all the American People:

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.

Every Blue America candidate has either signed this letter or issued their own statement in their own words equally powerful. Blue America won't be endorsing any incumbents who voted for the Satan Sandwich and won't be endorsing any challengers who don't embrace this pledge to the American people. It's the bottom line. I still hope Mazie Hirono beats Ed Case in Hawaii, of course, but as of yesterday, Blue America ceased raising funds for her. Give your donations to Bernie Sanders instead. One of our Blue America-endorsed candidates, Nick Ruiz (D-FL), the first to sign the pledge, went on to explain what's gone wrong the day after the vote:

All of the American people can’t be wrong.

All of their needs can’t be wrong.

What is wrong is the turn down the Republican rabbit hole. Lost, we are. BHO abdicates executive responsibility by refusing to act to the point of inertia. Republican John Boehner (OH-8) and Company acted extremely. All Cuts are therefore “IN.” In accompaniment, HSBC announces they will shed 30,000 jobs in 2011-2012. This is the coming Age of Austerity. What a howler- cut New Deal programs at the very same time that practically every large corporation in America is cutting jobs and hording cash. ‘Satan sandwich’ anyone?

The American people could be celebrating a democratic victory, if there was one to recognize. Instead, we are faced with the nuts and bolts of the reality of being sold-out under the auspices of a short term ceiling hike and a long term hatchet committee with an appetite for New Deal destruction.

How to put it back together again, as they tear it apart? 2012.

The 2012 playbook is very simple: reject any and every candidate that stands in the way of progressive democracy. Reserve your support; however you give it, for those progressive Democratic candidates that would act in your interest.

You’ll have to be savvy-– because the all too corporate party machinery will be out to trick you with the ruse of mechanical candidates and party-line robots. But the power to represent us is yours to take or give. The power is in your vote. It’s in your contributions. It’s in the time you volunteer. It’s in your letters to the editors of newspapers and blogs.

Hope? Change? No, we haven’t. But I promise you-- we will.

Not Even Many Bright Shiny Objects For The Base

The ruling elite didn't even have the decency to throw in an extension of unemployment benefits as a sweetener to cowed Democrats in Congress. I guess they figured they could use that as a backup if too many House Democrats decided to follow their consciences... instead of their Conservative Consensus president who already lost them their majority last year and is guaranteeing they won't win it back in 2012. That won't be necessary though, will it?

Yesterday MoveOn asked its members if the organization should support the sugarcoated Satan Sandwich or not.

As you've probably read, Republicans are holding our country's credit hostage and demanding major spending cuts to critical programs without ending tax breaks for the wealthy. If a deal isn't reached by tomorrow night-- or a short-term extension isn't passed by then-- the nation will default on its debts.

President Obama just announced an agreement with congressional leaders. We want to see what MoveOn members think of the deal. (For more information on the details of the deal, see below.) 

Supporting the deal means we would encourage Congress to vote for it and avert default. Opposing the deal means we would encourage members of Congress to vote no and demand that the deal be improved before it's passed.

Can you let us know what you think? Should MoveOn support the deal to raise the debt ceiling?

Progressive Members of Congress, led by Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Raul Grijalva in the House, have been adamantly opposed, although the Democratic Party's ultimate corporate shill and suckup, Steny Hoyer, immediately promised to provide however many Democrats Boehner needs to make up for GOP defections. As Steve Benen, normally a dependable voice for the White House point of view, raged in his column yesterday, the deal can't even be called a "compromise."

The debt-reduction framework isn’t a compromise; it’s a ransom. If one were to draw up two lists-- one with all the concessions Democrats made, the other with the concessions the GOP made-- the one-sided image would be striking. Of course, that’s what happens when one party has a gun to the head of its hostage-- in this case, the nation and its economy-- and the other party wants to prevent their rivals from pulling the trigger.

...[T]here’s nothing in this deal to promote economic growth and nothing to create jobs. We’re still stuck in the wrong conversation, focusing on a crisis that doesn’t exist, and ignoring the immediate crisis that confronts the nation. Indeed, all available evidence suggests the agreement will make the economy and job losses worse, not better. That Republicans wanted to take a huge step backwards, and Democrats negotiated to make it a more modest step backwards is cold comfort.

Two and a half hours later Benen was paraphrasing Neil Young: The ceiling and the damage done, and seemingly absolving Obama from all blame for this hideous deal he could have prevented.

The United States, thanks entirely to the right’s breathtaking stunt, is now seen as a less-safe bet and a less-attractive place for investment. The nation is now seen as more dysfunctional and less responsible. We’ve been made to look like fools on the global stage, and China has sought to exploit the Republican crisis, to the GOP’s indifference.

I’m reminded of something Felix Salmon wrote a few weeks ago: “The base-case scenario is, still, that the debt ceiling will be raised, somehow. But already an enormous amount of damage has been done: the US Congress has demonstrated clearly that it can’t be trusted to govern the country in a responsible manner. And the tail-risk implications for markets are huge.”

I don’t know if Republican lawmakers are aware of any of this. Worse, I also don’t know if they care. But American leadership on the global stage rests on certain pillars that took generations to build and strengthen-- credibility, reliability, stability, the integrity of our institutions, sound judgment. The Republican Party severely undermined these pillars in the Bush era, most notably in areas of foreign policy and the use of military force. The Republican Party is now severely undermining them again.

The world has been watching and thanks to GOP madness, the sanity of the world’s greatest superpower is very much in doubt.

The White House has been pushing back with a pathetic effort to make Democrats think the deal Boehner, Grover Norquist and Eric Erickson are pimping is great for ordinary working families. It's really sad. Time gave them a platform for their fumbling excuses:

Here’s why some liberals are actually happy with this deal:

The 2012 budget: At one point in the negotiations, the 2012 budget was to be slashed by $36 billion. The final number of cuts: just $7 billion. And just to ensure we don’t have another bruising government shutdown fight over cuts in September, the deal deems and passes the 2012 budget. Yes, that’s right, the old Gephardt Rule or Slaughter Solution, is back. What’s deem and pass? It’s a legislative trick that essentially means that Congress will consider the budget passed without ever actually having to vote on it.

The trigger: This is counterintuitive, but the trigger is actually pretty good for Democrats. For all that MoveOn thinks that it would force benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, it actually wouldn’t trigger benefit cuts to any entitlements. The only cuts it would force would be a 2% or more haircut for Medicare providers. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, along with most Democrats, has never opposed provider cuts. Not only that, most progressives actually want the Pentagon cuts. So if the committee deadlocks and the trigger is pulled, Democrats won’t be miserable.

The commission: Again, for all the liberal carping about a “Super Congress,” the commission of 12 members-- three from each party in each chamber-- set up to find the second phase of $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving is actually rigged to force some revenue increases. Yes, the Bush tax cuts are off the table. But there are plenty of loopholes, subsidies and other corporate welfare programs that are on the table. And with such a strong trigger, it’s hard to imagine at least one Republican not voting to kill corporate jet subsidies over slashing $500 billion from the defense budget-- even if the revenues aren’t offset. The question is: who are Republicans more afraid of, Grover Norquist or the joint chiefs? Democrats’ money is on the joint chiefs.

The immediate cuts: It may seem like a lot, but the $917 billion in the first phase of cuts were carefully negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and his group. They include $350 billion in Pentagon cuts-- a win for liberals. They don’t touch entitlement benefits, another win. And they set top line numbers for the next decade of budgets that aren’t draconian. It still cuts where liberals might prefer to spend, but most of the savings are backloaded to avoid extreme austerity in next few years of fragile economic recovery. Just $7 billion would be cut in 2012, and only $3 billion in 2013. And of that combined $10 billion, half would come from the Pentagon. On top of that, the discretionary spending caps on budgets in future Congresses are subject to revision by those bodies.

The debt ceiling: Raising the debt ceiling through 2013 will not be contingent on the second round of cuts. There will merely be a vote of disapproval. This avoids another messy fight in January and another round of painful forced cuts.

Happy yet? No? Well, the White House is also promising to back same sex marriage to shut some people up and insisting that insurers must cover birth control with no copays. Nice... but nothing will ever change the fact that Barack Obama, whose most salient personality defect is his fear of losing a fight, which prevents him from ever getting into one-- has been an absolute catastrophe for ordinary working families in this country. Here are two typical statements from progressive activist organizations. First from the Center for Community Change:

This deal worsens the serious imbalance in this country between wealthy Americans who get to retain their huge tax breaks while lawmakers slash spending on the backs of working Americans.

“There is no attempt at shared sacrifice in the debt plan, nothing that addresses how to create more jobs in this country, and this plan offers only more insecurity to families already on the brink of financial catastrophe, rather than offering any type of assistance to them,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change.

In thousands of house meetings held last month across the country, Americans fed up with waiting for elected lawmakers to help turn the economy around came together to talk about ways to create jobs to help rebuild the country.

“Washington is clearly broken and our elected officials are playing only petty political games,” Bhargava said. “Together we can succeed but it would be a lot easier if Congress would just listen to their constituents who want the rich to pay their fair share, pass serious legislation to create jobs and protect those most vulnerable from cuts to critical programs.”

And then, from Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn: “This is a bad deal for our fragile economic recovery, a bad deal for the middle class and a bad deal for tackling our real long-term budget problems. It forces deep cuts to important programs that protect the middle class, but asks nothing of big corporations and millionaires. And though it does not require cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid benefits, it opens the door for these down the road via an unaccountable Congressional committee. We surveyed our 5 million members and the vast majority oppose the deal because it unfairly asks seniors and the middle class to bear the burden of the debt deal. Congress should do what it should have done long ago and what it has done dozens of times before-- pass a clean debt ceiling bill.” And, in case you haven't heard, Blue America won't be endorsing or raising money for any incumbents who vote for the SatanSandwich. We haven't had an Olbermann Special Comment for quite a while; it's time:

Raúl Grijalva Disputes Washington's Anti-Family Conservative Consensus

I knew Raúl would come out fast against the Conservative Consensus meme that was all over Talking Heads TV yesterday and has been all over the Twitter Machine since rumors started breaking last night. He came out fast and unambiguous:

“This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations. The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it.

Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people. Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more.

The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment. For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government-- a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

A clean debt ceiling vote was the obvious way out of this, and many House Democrats have been saying so. Had that vote failed, the president should have exercised his Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities and ended this manufactured crisis.

This deal is a cure as bad as the disease. I reject it, and the American people reject it. The only thing left to do now is repair the damage as soon as possible.”

Is it any wonder working families in southern Arizona cherish this guy? It's also no wonder that the far right has targeted him for defeat next year-- the same way the targeted Grayson last year. Let's help him make sure he can defend himself from the attacks that are coming. He has his own Blue America Act Blue page.

While he was in Congress, Alan Grayson worked closely with Raúl on the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A few minutes after Raúl's statement yesterday, Alan told me he agrees with most of it. "He’s right, except when he says that the deal is “a cure as bad as the disease.” This “deal” cures no disease. In fact, it exacerbates and accelerates the disease. That disease is the collapse of opportunity and job security for the middle class in America. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the Square Deal. FDR gave us the New Deal. Truman gave us the Fair Deal. This is the Raw Deal."

Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus had as strong an aversion to the "compromise" as did Grijalva and Grayson. He recognized it immediately as a shady bill and appropriately enough termed it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” By the end of the day Bernie Sanders explained why he would be voting NO:

"The Republicans have been absolutely determined to make certain that the rich and large corporations not contribute one penny for deficit reduction, and that all of the sacrifice comes from the middle class and working families in terms of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, LIHEAP, community health centers, education, Head Start, nutrition, MILC, affordable housing and many other vitally important programs.

"I cannot support legislation like the Reid proposal which balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country. That is not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy."

All the Democratic candidates I've spoken to are against the deal, even after Obama's pathetic TV speech last night. Alan Grayson's neighbor in central Florida, Nick Ruiz, came right to the point: "I couldn't agree with Rep. Grijalva more-- the contrast between what BHO and the party brass are pitching in this debt fiasco-- and that which people like myself, or Raul Grijalva would do is epic. We need to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress; it is the only way to undo their destructive policy. The American people must understand that nothing is more important for 2012."

New Mexico state Senator Eric Griego said pretty much what everyone else is telling me: "I stand with Democrats and ordinary Americans nationwide in expressing disappointment with the emerging deal to raise the national debt ceiling, which could allow Republicans to weaken Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to continue to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, Big Oil and other corporate special interests. That is why on Friday I called on the President to invoke the 14th Amendment to use executive order in raising the national debt ceiling immediately. Our priority should be to create jobs and reduce unemployment because people are hurting and they want to work."

Boehner, on the other hand, was celebrating the right-wing victory with his caucus. "Nothing in this framework violates our principles. We got 98 percent of what we aked for... Listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world. But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town... It’s all spending cuts." And from New York Times economics writer Catherine Rampell, an epitaph for Barack Obama's political career:




UPDATE: RUSS FEINGOLD WEIGHS IN... ON THE SIDE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Feingold, an intrepid defender of the Constitution when he was in the Senate, was always a bit of a "moderate" on economic issues, sort of like Obama. But they sure have parted ways on the Satan Sandwich. Feingold's statement is just devastating to Obama's pathetic defense of his connivance with the far right against the American people:

"The debt ceiling deal should remove any doubt of the power corporate interests have over our government. That deal, hammered out by the president and Republican Congressional leaders, places the burden of reducing our long-term budget problems on average Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are given a free pass. Americans are willing to bear their share of the burden of addressing our nation’s long-term budget problems, but those sacrifices should be
shared by all."

UPDATE: WHO VOTED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TONIGHT?

The sugar-coated Satan Sandwich passed 269-161, the Democrats split 95-95. 174 Republicans voted for it and 66 voted against it. These are the 95 Democrats who voted against it:

Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Xaviera Becerra (D-CA)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Mike Capuano (D-MA)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Andre Carson (D-IN)
Judy Chu (D-CA)
Hansen Clarke (D-MI)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX)
Al Green (D-TX)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jesse Jackson (D-IL)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Larry Kissell (D-NC)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
John Larson (D-CT)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Ben Ray Luján (D-NM)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
Brad Miller (D-NC)
George Miller (D-CA)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Don Payne (D-NJ)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
David Price (D-NC)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Linda Sánchez (D-CA)
John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Bobby Scott (D-VA)
José Serrano (D-NY)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Adam Smith (D-WA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Betty Sutton (D-OH)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Mel Watt (D-NC)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
John Yarmuth (D-KY)

Jerry Nadler expressed what most of them alos believed:

“Defaulting on our debts is not an option.  hat’s why I voted for a clean debt ceiling increase, free from the unnecessary clutter of budgetary or other non-related matters. And that’s why I voted for Senator Reid’s plan this past Saturday, though parts of that plan were excessive and imbalanced. I am also the lead sponsor of a resolution to support the president’s use of Article 2, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling-- solely as a last resort. But this so-called compromise-- “the Budget Control Act”-- is just the latest blackmail request from extortionist Republicans. 
 
“This legislation lays out an unbalanced, callous plan that will strangle the middle class and working poor, to say nothing of the elderly and kids. These blackmailers are telling the American people, ‘either you will accept deep cuts to vital programs that support seniors, students, children, women, and the poor, or we will force this nation to default on its debts’-- an unprecedented and reckless move that would lead to skyrocketing interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and the like. So, either we stifle our economy and stymie job growth, or we kill the middle class and stymie job growth. 
 
“Shockingly, while Republicans are holding us all hostage, telling us our country is broke and we have to cut programs that are lifelines to millions of Americans, they are letting the wealthiest among us-- the corporations, millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies-- off scot-free, without doing their fair share.   
 
“This proposal is exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. With our economy still struggling and gasping for air, with more and more Americans looking for jobs, we should be promoting job growth and those federal and state programs that put people to work. But, instead of doing the things Americans do best - that is, building things and creating opportunity-- Tea Partiers want to send this country over the cliff. We must say NO.”

A Right Wing Plot To Delegitimize Democracy?

Many progressives, though certainly not all, are disappointed with President Obama for acquiescing to right-wing talking points about deficits and Austerity. It got worse yesterday. But it's still a touchy-- and some even say still nuanced-- topic in Democratic circles. But I think what all Democrats-- and hopefully most Americans-- can agree on is that the extremist obsession with delegitimizing Barack Obama, no matter how you feel about what a weak and ineffective president he is and how angry you may be that he caves to the corporate right, and his presidency is destructive to the country. The GOP version of a "debate" over how to handle the debt ceiling is an attempt at a modern day coup d'etat by the far right. Making the country ungovernable, wrecking the economy and threating the well-being of millions of families is standard operating procedure for fascistic movements. And it's a procedure that has been more and more put into action by the Republicans since Obama was elected.

This weekend they have pulled every parliamentary trick out of their black hat to force the country into default-- or force President Obama out of his comfort zone and into acting on his own to protect the country from their nilhilism in a way that will trigger immediate impeachment hearings. It has long been clear that the ONLY solution to this manufactured debt ceiling "crisis" is to pass a clean bill and then go back to fighting over competing agendas without jeopardizing the fiscal life of American families, businesses, the country itself-- and the world economy.

And as for the competing agendas, we've seen what the conservative agenda is: more grossly unfair tax cuts for the rich and lots of "shared" sacrifice of the rest of us. THEY ARE GUNNING FOR MEDICARE IN A BIG WAY. And after that they want to abolish Social Security by privatizing it. If we don't have a president willing to stand up and protect the values and principles behind Medicare and Social Security, it makes all the more crucial that we have Members of Congress who will.

We've been talking to Blue America's endorsed candidates about a statement that sums up where they stand on the competing agendas. In the end, former and future Congressman Alan Grayson wrote it and Ed Potosnak, Nick Ruiz, Ilya Sheyman and Norman Solomon signed onto it. Please read it carefully. Blue America won't be endorsing any candidates this cycle who can't embrace these ideas with heartfelt enthusiasm:

Every one of us either collects Social Security benefits, or hopes one day to do so.  Virtually every one of us who works for a living contributes to Social Security, and earns the right to Social Security. For many of us, without Social Security benefits, we would have work until the day we die.
 
Every one of us either enjoys Medicare coverage, or hopes one day to do so. Virtually every one of us who works for a living contributes to Medicare, and earns the right to Medicare coverage. For many of us, when we are old and sick, Medicare coverage will be the difference between our own life and death.
 
Any one of us can fall prey to poverty. For some, poverty might come through sickness, injury, disability or medical bills. For others, it might come from a lack of education, or from discrimination and bigotry. Or it may come with unemployment or divorce. Regardless of how it happens, any one of us who is poor and sick, or becomes poor and sick, may need Medicaid coverage to alleviate terrible pain and suffering, and even to stay alive.

A just society is one that shelters the homeless, feeds the hungry, and heals the sick. It is one that honors our fathers and mothers. Our first responsibility as Americans is to meet our own needs, and to take care of ourselves. We are judged by how we treat the least among us, the most vulnerable among us.
 
Therefore, all we who sign this make the following pledge, to the voters of our districts and to all the American People:
 
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.

Do you approve? Please show your encouragement to Alan Grayson, Ed Potosnak, Nick Ruiz, Ilya Sheyman and Norman Solomon at our Blue America Act Blue page. Actually, showing encouragement is only part of what we're asking. We need to help these guys get elected to Congress so they can put these ideas into practice.


UPDATE: KRUGMAN SAYS IT'S A CATASTROPHE

So while John Conyers is calling for demonstrations at the White House against Obama's deal, Paul Krugman is brutally honest in the Times: "Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels... [M]any commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong."

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction-- and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

...It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

And Krugman's editors agreed with him. They were brutally honest too, calling the SatanSandwich deal "a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery."

The 14th Amendment Blues

The Congressional Progressive Caucus and lots of Democratic candidates and activists have called on President Obama to invoke section 4 of the 14th Amendment to prevent the United States from going into default. New Mexico state Senator Eric Griego summed it up well earlier today when he wrote to constituents that the GOP refusal to negotiate in good faith has left us "teetering dangerously close to losing the full faith and credit of the United States," an unacceptable outcome.

We must put the country’s interests ahead of House Republicans’ insistence on an ideological crusade that takes our country’s future hostage in order to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, Big Oil and other corporate special interests.

We expect Republicans in Congress to own up to their responsibility for fostering the conditions that have led our country to this point. But after spending trillions of dollars in Bush tax cuts for millionaires, paying trillions more on the nation’s credit card for two mismanaged wars under President Bush’s watch and having nearly caused another Great Depression by falling asleep at the wheel while big banks sank our economy, their intransigence is callous at best and morally bankrupt at worst.

That is why on Friday I called on the President to invoke the 14th Amendment to use executive order in raising the national debt ceiling immediately. Then let’s get to work cutting subsidies for big oil and tax breaks for the rich so we can create jobs and reduce unemployment because people are hurting and they want to work.

Not so fast, says my old friend "bmaz," an attorney in Phoenix who blogs at Emptywheel. He made a persuasive argument today on Twitter about why this is the wrong tack to take and, while I'm not entirely convinced, the argument was sound enough for me to ask him to summarize it for us at DWT:

THE CASE AGAINST TURNING TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SO FAST

-by bmaz

As about everyone knows by now, the great debate is still ongoing on the issue of the debt ceiling. The frustration of those on the left with the intransigence of the Republican Tea Party, coupled with the neutered Democratic Congress, has led many to call for President Obama to immediately "invoke the 14th." The common rallying cry is that legal scholars (usually Jack Balkin is cited), Paul Krugman and various members of Congress have said it is the way to go. But neither Krugman nor the criers in Congress are lawyers, or to the extent they are have no Constitutional background. And Balkin's discussion is relentlessly misrepresented as to what he really has said. "Using the 14th" is a bad meme and here is why.

The Founders, in creating and nurturing our system of governance by and through the Constitution provided separate and distinct branches of government, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial and, further, provided for intentional, established and delineated checks and balances so that power was balanced and not able to be usurped by any one branch tyrannically against the interest of the citizenry. It is summarized by James Madison in Federalist 51 thusly:

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments.
....
We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other-- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

Which must be read in conjunction with Madison in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

This is the essence of the separation of powers and checks and balances thereon that is the very-- root foundation of our American governance. It may be an abstract thing, but it is very real and critical significance. And it is exactly what is at stake when people blithely clamor to "Use the 14th!"

Specifically, one of the most fundamental powers given by the Founders to the Article I branch, Congress, was the "power of the purse." That was accomplished via Article I, Section 8, which provides:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

and

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

The call to "Use the 14th" is a demand that the President, the embodiment of the Article II Executive Branch, usurp the assigned power of the Article I Congress in relation to "borrow money on the credit of the United States." This power is what lays behind the debt ceiling law to begin with, and why it is presumptively Constitutional. It is Congress' power, not the President's, and "invoking the 14th" means usurping that power. Due to "case and controversy" and "standing" limitations, which would require another treatise to discuss fully, there is literally likely no party that could effectively challenge such a usurpation of power by the Executive Branch and an irretrievable standard set for the future. The fundamental separation and balance of powers between the branches will be altered with a significant shift of power to the Executive Branch.

This is not something to be done lightly or if there is any possible alternative available. Indeed, the only instance in which it could be rationally considered would be if all alternatives were exhausted. That does NOT mean because the GOPTeaers are being mean and selfish. It does NOT mean because you are worried about some ethereal interest rate or stock market fluctuation that may, or may not, substantially occur. It does NOT mean because your party's President and Congressional leadership are terminally lame. That, folks, is just not good enough to carve into the heart of Constitutional Separation of Powers. Sorry.

And for those that are thinking about throwing "experts" such as Jack Balkin in the face of what I have argued, go read them, notably Jack himself, who said before invoking the 14th, first the President would have to prioritize what was paid by existent resources, those that could be liberated and revenues that did still come in:

...certainly payments for future services -- would not count and would have to be sacrificed. This might include, for example, Social Security payments.
....
Assume, however, that even a prolonged government shutdown does not move Congress to act. Eventually paying only interest and vested obligations will prove unsustainable-- first because tax revenues will decrease as the economy sours, and second, because holders of government debt will conclude that a government that cannot act in a crisis is not trustworthy.

If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances.

So, contrary to those shouting and clamoring for Obama to "Use the 14th," it is fraught with peril for long term government stability and function, and is not appropriate to consider until much further down the rabbit hole. It is NOT a quick fix panacea to the fact we, as citizens, have negligently, recklessly and wantonly elected blithering corrupt idiots to represent us. There is no such thing as a free lunch; and the "14th option" is not what you think it is.

As a parting thought for consideration, remember when invasion of privacy and civil liberties by the Executive Branch was just a "necessary and temporary response to emergency" to 9/11? Have you gotten any of your privacies and civil liberties back? Well have ya?