Is Grover Norquist What's Wrong With America?

Few people outside of central Florida's 24nd congressional district have ever heard of Congresswoman Sandy Adams, a doctrinaire right-wing fanatic and member of the House Tea Party caucus. She's in Washington to vote against everything... except for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No list of the worst Members of Congress would be complete without her-- and last week, her constituents let her know they've been watching her dismal performance. Blue America's first endorsement for the 2012 cycle went to Nick Ruiz, a former Green Party candidate who joined the Democratic Party and is now mounting a serious progressive campaign against Adams. He wasn't at Adams' acrimonious town hall meeting in Port Orange Thursday night but he told us that her ideological extremism has been bad for the district.

"Our congressional district, like most of America, is made of hard-working people that need government to work for them. Most citizens are not responding favorably to ideologues like Sandy Adams because the Republican plans Sandy presents don't help most people. However, her plans fit real well for the upper 1% of Americans she seems to know so well. Our district rejects such a narrow prescription for America-- and I am glad to bring that voice to Capitol Hill in 2012."

Adams is like a zombie who endlessly repeats right-wing talking points. Rather than participating in discussions of problem solving with her constituents, she parrots mindless focus-group tested Boehnerisms like "I don't believe we have a tax problem. We have a spending problem" and peppers her pronouncements with charged anti-government, class warfare phrases straight from Fox and Limbaugh like "failed stimulus," "job-killing taxes," and "government takeover of health care." And she's far from alone. Her town hall meeting in Port Orange could have been basically anywhere in the country where a teabagger was elected last year. This week, the Washington Post took a look at how Democrats are striking back against the zombie-ism that has infected the Republicans in Washington. The Post story featured another mindless teabagger, this one from Illinois, Randy Hultgren. He tried vomiting out the same catch phrases Adams had. His constituents weren't amused.

“We have clear information that... tax cuts, especially to the super rich, has not increased any more jobs,” one man told him. “I want to know under what conditions you would be willing to consider increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford it?"



“I just have one question for you tonight,” said another. “Did you sign Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes?”-- referring to the promise that has been signed by most congressional Republicans, including Hultgren.



“Don’t you have the confidence in your own ability in Congress to make up your own mind? You need Grover Norquist to tell you?” the man continued.



It is a scene that has been repeated at town hall meetings across the country this August as Democrats make a concerted effort to use this month’s congressional recess to change a national narrative on taxes.



For years, it has been Republicans who have wanted to talk about the issue, winning elections promising not to let government take more from voters.



But since the showdown over raising the debt ceiling, Democrats have been unusually eager to embrace tax increases, gambling that voters will see the Republican refusal to consider higher taxes for the wealthy as recalcitrant and out-of-touch.

Voters are starting to wake up to this everywhere in the country. A random letter to the editor yesterday in Spokane's Spokesman-Review:

Cathy McMorris Rodgers has proved that she is nothing more than a puppet dancing on strings. Those strings are being pulled by the leadership of the tea party. They include people like David and Charles Koch, oil billionaires who fund many of the radical right wing’s unscrupulous activities that allow them to accumulate more wealth.



They also include Grover Norquist, who through his signed pledges forces politicians into a corner and makes it impossible for them to vote in the best interest of the country as a whole or think on their own. (Norquist was also tied to the Jack Abramoff money laundering  scandal.)



Tim Phillips is also a tea party leader who years ago was paid $380,000 to “mobilize religious leaders and pro-family groups” to push energy deregulation in Congress that soon led to an energy crisis and economic meltdown. Sound familiar? Are these wealthy individuals the people you want your representative answering to? Do they identify with the majority of people in our district?



Cathy McMorris Rodgers, start doing the job you were elected to do. Represent the people of your district and not the wealthy elite.



John C. Eagle

Last week Warren Buffett's NY Times Op-Ed, Stop Coddling The Super-Rich served as a wake-up call to many who accepted the right-wing ideology being spouted by tools like Adams in Florida, Hultgren in Illinois and McMorris Rodgers in Washington. It sets up a debate between those who embrace Grover Norquist's goal of shrinking the government (and drowning it in a bathtub) and those who feel there is a robust and crucial role for government to play in balancing the immense power of wealth against the greater good of society.



Less than half a dozen Republicans in Congress have refused to sign Norquist's anti-government pledge. Norquist is basically a sleazy lobbyist, a crony of Jack Abramoff's who managed to get away without a prison sentence. He takes around a quarter million dollars a year from the Republican Party front group, Americans for Tax Reform, and also works as a free-lance lobbyist, pushing every sort of crooked operation near and dear to right-wing extremists' hearts, from stealing from American Indians to overthrowing foreign governments that put their people's interests before corporate interests. A notorious closet case-- and member of the board of the self-loathing anti-gay gay group, GOProud-- Norquist is one of the primary behind the scene's string pullers who has turned the Republican Party into a dysfunctional, treasonous mess that is threatening the social cohesion of the United States while worthless predators, like Norquist and his followers, enrich themselves.

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.

Some Hope-y Change-y Stuff Amid the Debt Ceiling Ripoff

Looking for the silver lining in the passage of the Boehner debt ceiling bill?

There is none.

Okay, okay. There are some bright spots we can look to amid the current Tea Party madness. That's what Blue America is all about. And one of our brightest glimmers of hope comes from the campaign of Ilya Sheyman, who is running for Congress up in Illinois’ 10th District (Chicago’s northern suburbs)-- the most Democratic district in the country currently held by a Republican.

We’ve written about Ilya before, because he’s a serious progressive with a real chance to kick out Rep. Robert Dold, a Republican freshman who has shown he’s more than willing to put anything, including Grandma’s Medicare, on the chopping block, if his Tea Party so dictates.

In the midst of the House debate around this fabricated debt ceiling "crisis," Ilya was one of only a few Democratic candidates around the country willing to take the potentially risky position against the debt deal, saying, very clearly, he would have voted “no” if he was able.

In the 10th, Ilya was the only candidate with the chutzpah to take the right position. The only other Democratic candidate, a business consultant named Brad Schneider, sided with incumbent Dold and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk in supporting the bill. I should mention that Schneider has also donated big bucks to Kirk over the years. Oh, and, he says he’ll not only be more “bipartispan” but also “pro-business” if elected. Not the kind of Democrat we need in Congress, especially if we hope to win back the Democratic Party for the Big Business special interests.

Ilya, on the other hand, stood with neighboring Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in opposing the bill, which he called “a bad deal for the American people.”

“It would be irresponsible to support legislation that reduces the deficit on the backs of struggling working families and the most vulnerable” Sheyman said in an article published by the local Patch site yesterday. "By putting at risk Medicare and other core services, this plan will make conditions worse at a time of tremendous economic strain."

So here’s our point of optimism. We can seize this moment and reject the Tea Party politicians who hijacked this process (and the Blue Dogs who proved their willingness to sell out working families once again). Let’s support Ilya and other candidates who actually took the right position, even when it meant standing up to powerful forces within their own party.

Here’s the Act Blue page we set up for him and the other progressives who are standing up for working families against the corporatocracy. Now’s our chance.

Off the topic, we'd like to raise $2,000 for Ilya's campaign in the next 24 hours. I don't expect any one person to contribute that much, of course, but if enough people give $10 and $20 contributions, it's going to mount up fast-- and that will set off the trigger. Trigger? A different kind of trigger from the one in the SatanSandwich bill. You see, I used to run Reprise Records, Green Day's record company, and Ilya mentioned to me that he's a huge Green Day fan. So, when we hit the trigger, someone will be eligible to win an autographed-- like in signed by Billie Joe Armstrong, Trey Cool and Mike Dirnt-- Fender strat that the band gave me around the time they were recording Warning. So who gets the guitar? If we were Republicans, we'd give it to whoever gave the most money. But we're not. So everyone has an equal chance. As soon as we reach $2,000 we start a random drawing. We'll pick one name out of a bowl on Thursday at 6pm (PT). and I'll send you the guitar. Enter here.

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."

If You Ever Fall Into Thinking Democrats Are "Just As Bad" As The GOP, Think About The Environment And The Future Of Mankind

The first time I went to Nepal, in 1970, they had just built their first paved road into the country-- in honor of the marriage of the crown prince-- and Kathmandu, the capital, was a fairly pristine city. Now the UN rates its air the world's most polluted. The traffic and the noise pollution are also off the map, and everything is filthy beyond belief. I just got back-- my third trip there-- two weeks ago and I'm still "recovering." Today my doctor sent me to a specialist to figure out what kind of exotic creatures are sharing my body. But you know what's scariest about Kathmandu, other than the grinding poverty and gigantic financial disparity between the poor masses and the rich elite? It's exactly where the GOP is dragging our own country.

You're not going to find many worse corporate shills than Alabama Republican Mike Rogers. This week he bragged how the Republican Party will not just gut Social Security and Medicare if they win the White House and Senate in 2012 but will also shut down the EPA. Republican presidential semi-contenders Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich are both campaigning on shutting down the agency, and House Republicans have already voted to defund its operations.

Monday the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition did their best to thwart the House Republicans' determination to further destroy efforts to protect the environment. Idaho wingnut Mike Simpson introduced a bill, H.R. 2584, that will guarantee more polluted drinking water and more polluted air and overturn 40 years of bipartisan progress protecting the environment.

With eight days until the country officially defaults on its debts, likely sparking a worldwide credit crisis, the House of Representatives is busy with legislation aimed at repealing environmental regulations and stymieing conservation efforts.

The Interior and Environmental Protection Agency spending bill for fiscal year 2012 contains policy riders added by panel Republicans to thwart White House-backed initiatives on everything from the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to conservation efforts in the Grand Canyon. It would halt new regulations on mountaintop removal mining and prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing new species under the Endangered Species Act.

When the vote was called on the rule that would determine the debate, every single Republican voted to gut the EPA and they were joined by just one corrupt Blue Dog, Sanford Bishop of Georgia. Many Blue Dogs just didn't bother to vote, including Ben Chandler (KY), Mike Ross (AR) (who was busy announcing his retirement), Dan Boren (OK), David Scott (GA), Heath Shuler (NC) and Joe Baca (CA).)

Jim McGovern (D-MA) summed the problem up on the floor early in the debate: "This Interior Appropriations bill represents an unprecedented departure from our nation's decades-long bipartisan commitment to protecting our shared environment, magnificent natural resources, and our cherished cultural treasures." Jim Moran (D-VA), pointed out that all the bill really is at its heart is "a wish list for special interests."

Some of my favorite quotes from the debate Monday came from the most intrepid fighters in the House.

Here's Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ):

Why do Republicans think wiping out environmental protections would help the country more than making sure big corporations stop taking advantage of tax loopholes? Our priorities are very different and very clear. Instead of opening up the Grand Canyon to mining and our nation’s open spaces to logging and drilling, why don’t we create jobs and work on laws to benefit everyone rather than just a wealthy few? We’re going to keep asking these questions until we hear some answers.

And Keith Ellison (D-MN) came right to the point:

This bill is the biggest assault on clean air, clean water, and basic environmental protections that this country has ever seen. Minnesota has a history of commitment to our environment. My constituents did not send me to Washington to advance the interests of Big Oil at the expense of the air we breathe.

Fortunately the reactionary House bill has no chance of passing the Senate, which will rewrite it once Boehner sends it over.


UPDATE: I Bet The GOP Doesn't Like This Infographic Released By The White House Today!

It demonstrates the phenomenal impact of new 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standards, $8200 in savings over new car lifetime in 2025-- exactly what they oppose, tribally!

Today House Republicans Try To Sneak Through Ryan's Kill Medicare Plan Again

This time they've got some new wrapping paper for the thoroughly discredited Ryan budget: Cut, Cap & Balance in the House and a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate. And both are actually even worse than Ryan's budget! So while Republican Party hostage takers and terrorists continue to threaten to crash the economy again if they don't get their way on whatever they want this week-- and with a new poll showing that 71% of Americans have no confidence in how Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and their House cronies are handling the debt crisis-- the latest right-wing gimmick will be voted on later today... before disappearing just as Ryan's ridiculous budget did. One measure would seek to limit federal spending at 18% of gross domestic product and the other at 22%. As the Center for American Progress points out, "the last time federal spending dipped under 18% of GDP was 1966, nearly half a century ago. Things have changed quote a but since then." Please click on their infographic to enlarge it:


Like Ryan's rejected and disdained budget, this "plan," would basically gut Medicare, Medicaid and threaten the existence of Social Security and public education. Of course those are all long-cherished goals of the far right. It would virtually guarantee the country's rapid and probably irreversible decent into the ranks of the Third World. Remember Grover Norquist's raging nonsense about drowning the federal government in a bathtub? They're trying it again.

The White House pointed out that the House plan “would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future,” while imposing “unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future.” It would “lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security” and said the Balanced Budget Amendment “will likely leave the nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.”

The front-runner in the GOP presidential freak show, Michele Bachmann, of course, loves it. I wonder how many of her supporters have the capacity to figure out how badly this would devastate their standard of living. The Democrats on the House Budget Committee put it like this:

The Republicans’ newly introduced “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011” (H.R. 2560) is yet another attempt to enact the policies they approved with their budget resolution this spring-- to end the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression. It caps total spending-- including mandatory spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to grow when the economy is bad-- for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). More immediately, it requires passage of a specific type of a so-called “balanced budget” constitutional amendment by both the House and the Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for consumers and the government alike.

Listening in on a White House press briefing yesterday by Jason Furman from the National Economic Council and Obama's Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer it was clear the White House sees right through the GOP silliness with this new tact to get Ryan's kill-Medicare proposals passed. Pfeiffer:

[I]t’s important also to understand that what this Cut, Cap and Balance plan does is it essentially enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids. Unless House Republicans are willing to raise revenues, significant revenues, something they have refused to do, it would require much deeper spending cuts than in the Ryan plan. This would result in even more devastating cuts to clean energy, education and health care for children and people with disabilities.

The Ryan plan would force a senior to pay more than $6,000 for health care. The plan being considered by the House would require even further Medicare cuts, making health care for seniors much more expensive and less accessible.

And it goes after Social Security. And the whole basis of an American middle class and a progressive middle class society... forever. Furman:

The legislation being considered today, though, goes well beyond the Ryan budget, because it also includes a requirement that both houses of Congress pass a balanced budget amendment before the debt limit can be raised. Now, first of all, this is basically holding the debt-- the equivalent of holding the debt limit hostage to an extreme agenda that’s well outside the bounds of anything that could pass the Senate and likely even anything that could pass the House with the magnitude needed for an amendment of this type.

And the reason for that is clear, is that this balanced budget amendment is essentially historically unparalleled. In the past, balanced budget amendments required you to balance the budget, period; left it to Congress to figure out how to do it. What this balanced budget amendment does-- these balanced budget amendments would do is, number one, add in spending caps. And the spending caps in the balanced budget amendment that are referenced in the legislation and would be consistent with what the legislation requires would require cutting spending by $400 billion per year relative to the Ryan budget.

So the spending caps in these balanced budget amendments that are referenced in the legislation have literally, over the next decade, trillions of dollars of spending cuts above and beyond what would be required in the Ryan budget. It’s almost inconceivable that you would be able to do spending cuts of this magnitude absent dramatic reductions in Social Security and Medicare.

For example, if you exempted defense spending, you would need a 12 percent cut in all spending, including Social Security-- that would be a $2,000-per-year reduction in average benefits-- and a 12 percent reduction in Medicare.

The other reason that those cuts would be virtually guaranteed by the balanced budget amendment is because, unlike previous balanced budget amendments, it has a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes. That would make it virtually impossible that you would get any additional revenue, which would guarantee that you would need to balance the budget at the expense of spending.

It’s important to understand that you don’t need a balanced budget amendment to cut spending, you don’t need a balanced budget amendment to get the deficit under control. And, in fact, the Ryan budget itself has deficits of over 1 percent of GDP and nearly 2 percent of GDP in most years. So even the Ryan plan would fail the test being put forward in the extreme, radical, unprecedented balanced budget amendments that are contemplated in this legislation.

For all those reasons, the President has said he would veto legislations of this nature, and at the same time, wants to pursue a responsible course that’s both balanced, that’s consistent with economic recovery, and that doesn’t shortchange critical priorities like infrastructure, education, clean energy and Medicare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or a hundred other ways to boost demand.

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

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

Some Sunday Morning Inspiration: A Great Democratic President Tells Wall Street To Go Fuck Itself

The video above is an excerpt from a speech Franklin Roosevelt gave at Madison Square garden in 1936, just up the road from Wall Street. And it was to Wall Street-- and their Republican handmaidens-- he addressed these remarks:

Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace‹business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Progressives who depend on the Democratic Party had a very rough week-- a very rough year, truth be told. Obama's response to Wall Street is nothing like FDR's. It's more like Herbert Hoover's. Yesterday we looked at how American fascism-- led by the DuPont family-- attempted to destroy democracy in our country and use Big Business as an engine of fascism, the way they did in Germany. FDR defeated Germany and it's allies abroad but died before he could defeat fascism at home. Obama, on the other hand, wants to be liked by everyone-- especially his campaign donors. He isn't secure enough to welcome anyone's hatred, even though that's exactly what his timidity inspires... and without the fear or respect.

Obama's approach to Wall Street-- while admittedly not as toxic as the GOP's-- is not the medicine the economy or the country needs. I write this with great sadness... and look forward to a day when Democratic Party voters and supporters will break free from the chains of banksters, lobbyists and Inside-the-Beltway careerists.

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:

Why I'm Thinking About Nick Ruiz In Thailand... On July 4th

I woke up in Bangkok this morning trying to make heads or tails out of the fact that millions and millions of impoverished Thai farmers had voted for a corrupt billionaire's fascist-oriented fake-populist party. Ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra wasn't on the ballot; he was fined 46 billion baht ($1.1 billion) and is living abroad to avoid a jail sentence. His pre-packaged, well-scripted sister was elected prime minister on a long list of fantasy populist promises that include:

* Guarantee a uniform daily minimum wage of 300 baht ($10) throughout the country; this would rise to 1,000 baht by 2020.

* Raise salaries of civil servants and state workers

* Universal medical care; patients pay 30 baht ($0.97) per visit

* Credit cards for farmers to buy fertilizer and other things needed for production; rice intervention scheme with a guaranteed 15,000-20,000 baht per tonne for unmilled rice

* Three-year household debt moratorium for those with up to 500,000 baht in debt, focusing on teachers, farmers and civil servants; debt restructuring for those with more than 500,000 baht.

* Starting monthly salary of 15,000 baht ($500) for new university graduates, up from the current 10,640 baht

* Free tablet computers for about 800,000 new school children each year. Puea Thai says these would cost 5,000 baht ($160) each and operate with open-source software.

* Corporate tax cut from 30 percent to 23 percent in first year, 20 percent in second year

* Tax cuts for buyers of first homes and first cars

* A flat 20 baht fare for all 10 mass-transit rail lines in Bangkok

* High-speed rail lines linking key cities in the north, northeast, east and upper south regions; trains to link with outskirts of Bangkok and eastern tourism, industrial hubs

* Annual rural village development funds of between 300,000 and two million baht for each of Thailand's 73,000 villages

* Monthly welfare allowance of 600 baht for elderly citizens over 60, rising to 700 baht at 70, 800 baht at 80, and 1,000 baht at 90

* Free Wi-Fi and Internet connections in public places.

Their conservative opposition, the Democratic Party, offered many of the same kinds of promises, which the country can't even come close to being able to afford. Thais were being asked to pick between two packs of irresponsible liars. There were no good alternatives in the election.

Sound familiar? American politics is also shaping up as a contest between a fascist-oriented party, the GOP, and a conservative party, establishment Democrats. Obama's policies have always been predicated on the reelection strategy that progressives will vote for him because the alternative is so much worse. He may be right, but I know my efforts will go entirely towards electing non-establishment progressive Democrats, not conservative hacks like Obama, Tim Kaine, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson and dozens of other corporate shills whose anti-family policies are basically as bad as the Republicans'.

This morning I got an e-mail from one of the most thoughtful and perceptive candidates being backed by Blue America this cycle, Nick Ruiz, who's running against right-wing fanatic Sandy Adams in central Florida. Nick needs help (and you can help him here). The conservative Democratic establishment will certainly try to insert one of its own in the race, and even if Nick manages to prevail, the teabagger mentality is still strong enough in Florida to give even absurd extremists like Adams a leg up.

Nick thoroughly understands the essence of the class warfare at the base of U.S. politics, and unlike most politicians he's on the side of working families-- in the truest sense. This is what Nick had to say in his e-mail, entitied "A Little Lie," and illustrated with a song by Depeche Mode frontman Dave Gahan:

It is with relief and even glee that the currently debased political establishment buried Ted Kennedy on August 25, 2009. The last long-standing icon of liberal politics was the nail in the coffin of an era.

Many thought that "Era Ends"-- like the painting by Ed Ruscha. In some sense, this is true.

I know-- Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a liberal juggernaut-- and yet he alone cannot be expected to carry the weight of progressive Democratic politics as far as America needs it to go. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), another progressive icon, also cannot be expected to shepherd the entire progressive agenda by himself, despite his unwavering resilience and liberal efforts. Alan Grayson, former congressperson from FL-8-- God love him-- lost in 2010, in the epic sweep of the radical right. And BHO, the liberal world knows, is in need of some serious help reorienting his legislative priorities.

I was born in 1970 in New York City, the epicenter of American liberalism if there ever was one. In the very same year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was born, as was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was also created that year. The onset of progressive politics and commentary wrought by FDR reaches its terminal apex in the '70s. What would stall FDR’s inspired progressive legacy, of course, symbolically and otherwise, is the election to the U.S. presidency of the salesman and actor Ronald Reagan. The irony of Reagan (and the current crop of Reagan wannabes on the right, and even some on the left) is, of course, that Reagan, the false god of punch-drunk conservatism, voted for FDR not once but four times.

We should recognize that this first stage of FDR-inspired American liberalism, the kind of liberalism that holds ideas like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, financial and credit market regulation, human rights and collective bargaining, equal opportunity and non-discrimination, unemployment insurance, federal guarantee for bank deposits, universal healthcare and so on, as first principles of a democratic commonwealth and legal fairness-- is now giving birth to a second stage. Let it not be stillborn. Our second stage of American liberalism must offer new protectors and philosophers of democratic liberty who are committed to the expansion of American progress and opportunity for new generations of Americans to come. The status quo is not enough.

If the status quo fails, like they currently are failing, they will go down in history as the last guard who stood against the second stage of another rising current: the global fascism of corporate wealth and privilege.

American democracy needs the support and confidence of the American citizen-voter if it is to succeed as our model of government. And America needs to realize that despite the self-styled antics of media celebrity crusaders and self-absorbed group opportunism that often passes for democratic progressivism and liberal politics, there is only one way to enact a progressive agenda: by the election of not one or two but a multitude of congresspersons to achieve any meaningful difference at the federal level. Of course, a few strong personalities go a long way, as with some of the people we mentioned earlier, but obviously it takes more than that to legislate New Deal politics. And a brave person can do great things-- as FDR has already proven.

But in the end we must understand that our political lives cannot be left to the discretion of party careerist tropes and wealth-seeking troubadours, "rising stars" and a coterie of yes-people and such. Theirs is an agenda of self-- such is the reality of the little lie of 21st-century corporate American politics.

What we truly need is an agenda of the many. And that is what I aim to enact.

The aristocratic and commercial interests that speak so loudly through the conduit of their enormous wealth, who have the ears and hands of the parties, and their fingers on the purse strings of each party and most affiliates, are not those that would best represent the democratic majority of people of the United States. There are obsessive interests plotting and encircling which would have all the world’s resources for themselves while the people have little and next to nothing.

The truth is, much of the political establishment has sold itself to the highest bidder, and that is not you. The highest bidder is corporate America and the wealthiest global interests they serve. But you already know that. No need to take my word for it. If you doubt what I say, I ask you to look at the last thirty years or so of our so-called "progress." What do you see? Is it widespread prosperity and generational success? Chances are you have seen your working conditions deteriorate, as well as your benefits, retirement and other things.

And yet, the political careerists would have more from you, in a dazzling variety of shrewd and self-serving ways. They would raise your retirement age, raise school tuition and let inflation erode your income and your way of life. They do not care about you, despite what they say to your face. They care only about themselves-- and their political, ideological and legislative actions are all the proof you may need.

The indulgent parade of Republicans and Republicrats in this 113th Congress want to sell you Grecian austerity with an American veneer and fascist potential. But 13 is unlucky for a reason. The dogs of debt scream “Deficits!” and “Patriotism!” But all they have to offer is fear. This current pile of politicians is truly a rancid crop of craven individuals descending upon the American psyche like a pack of hyenas.

I do not envy your position as citizen-voter, any more than I sustain my own as citizen-candidate, but I know in my soul that you and I must make the difference here and into the future, or they will have won. There is much work to do, and few who are truly willing to do it, because it’s easier to go along with bad business and just get paid. You know what I mean-- and you see it all around you. You see the results of decades of such behavior corrupting your neighborhoods and institutions. You see America becoming something else.

I ask you, wherever you are to demand a democratic American difference rather than a meaningless "change." It is the only way forward from here.

Put a progressive Democrat in Congress.

Nick's campaign, like I said, needs some help. Please think about what he's all about, and give generously. The alternative is-- Thailand.