Our Transactional Congress

Yesterday, there was a lot of buzz about Louisiana Republican Vance McAllister letting it slip that he and other corrupt conservatives routinely take bribes for their votes. His short experience as a Republican congressman has taught McAllister, he says, that his caucus is a “steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right.”

McAllister said he voted "no" on legislation related to the Bureau of Land Management though he did not identify the bill. McAllister said a colleague on the House floor told him that he would receive a $1,200 contribution from Heritage Foundation if he voted against the bill. He would not name his colleague since he “did not want to put their business out on the street.”

“I played dumb and asked him, ‘How would you vote?’” McAllister said. “He told me, ‘Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.’”

Yesterday the House unanimously passed an amendment by Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act to disqualify federal contracts to any corporation that committed wage theft or other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Two weeks ago 211 Republicans voted against the exact same amendment, only 10 Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with the Democrats. After yesterday's vote, Grijalva and his Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Keith Ellison (D-MN) released a celebratory statement:

"The House of Representatives stood up for federal contract workers today, protecting them from wage theft and ensuring the federal government will lead the way to fairer labor standards for all Americans. No working American should ever worry that her employer might steal a part of her paycheck, especially if she works for a contractor paid by the federal government.

"Sometimes employers ask workers to show up 30 minutes before their shift starts, while others pay workers with debit cards that charge fees for every use. It doesn’t matter which form it takes-- wage theft is wrong and it needs to stop.

"We’re glad our Republican colleagues joined the Progressive Caucus in this step to protect Americans working for federal contractors."

McAllister was one of the Republicans who voted no on May 30 and yes yesterday. Did someone pay him off? No, that isn't what happened. Instead, Boehner and Cantor just let their caucus members know that the vote wouldn't cost them anything and that a no vote could. It's a different kind of far less venal transactional politics, one with no bribes changing hands.

Over in the Senate, progressives are preparing to do something big for working families-- ignoring the conservative austerity frame and expanding Social Security. Greg Sargent explained the parameters of the push by Patty Murray and Mark Begich in his Washington Post column yesterday:

The new proposal is called the Retirement and Income Security Enhancements Act, or RAISE Act, and it would increase benefits specifically for groups who have seen their retirement security eroded by recent economic trends such as the transition to two-earner families, stagnating wages, declining savings, and the erosion of pensions. It would increase benefits for many divorced spouses, and widows and widowers, and would extend benefit eligibility for some children of retired, disabled or deceased workers--  to be paid for by a two-percent payroll tax on earnings over $400,000, which is also designed to help shore up the program’s long-term finances.

…It’s true that many Democrats remain reluctant to embrace the proposal. But an increasing number of Dems-- including Elizabeth Warren, Tom Harkin, Jeff Merkley and 70 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- believe it’s good politics to push for an expansion of a hugely popular program that has been central to the Democratic Party’s identity for many decades. Indeed, whether or not the proposal goes anywhere, the push to expand Social Security is emerging as another key issue in the broader debate among Dems and liberals over whether the Democratic Party needs to get serious about moving in a genuinely populist direction, which could resonate into 2016 and beyond.

The greed and selfishness wing of the Republican Party pays GOP legislators very handsomely to oppose this kind of legislation, year after year. It's why it's so important to make sure McConnell doesn't replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. The race that will either make or break Democratic control of the Senate-- the open seat in South Dakota that pits prairie populist Rick Weiland against 3 Republicans, Mike Rounds, Larry Pressler and Gordon Howie-- only includes one who wants to expand Social Security. We reached Rick today while he was driving to a small town I had never heard of. He's always driving to small towns I never heard of. Blue America has endorsed him-- and we're asking our supporters to contribute to his grassroots campaign-- because of answers like this to questions about bread and butter issues for working families:

“Big money’s war on the middle and lower income Americans has eroded the standard of living on the vast majority of Americans-- including our seniors. I’m strongly in favor of finding ways to expand Social Security. I came out in favor of doing so last summer. We can do it in a responsible manner if we elect a Congress that will stand up to the Big Money lobbyists and funders who have waged war on everyday citizens for the past three decades by handing out subsidies, loopholes and other tax favorites to our nation’s biggest corporations.”