A Letter From Andrew Hounshell

Yesterday Andy made it official... he isn't running for the western Ohio seat now hold by John Boehner. Below is the letter he sent DWT making his announcement. It appears, at least at this point, that Boehner will once again have no opponent for 2014. Unless Steve Israel wakes up and realizes the value of running someone against the unpopular leader of the obstructionist Republicans in the House.

It’s with great sadness and regret that I announce that I am withdrawing from the Ohio 8th District Congressional race for 2014. After much soul searching and discussion with my family, I have concluded that at this point in time, I am not able to fulfill the role of father, husband, and congressional candidate at a level that would be needed to be successful at all three.

Performing either one of these duties at a level less than 100% would be doing a disservice to my family and the people of Ohio's 8th District. My three children were the main reason why I entered the race, and they are the very same reason I have reconsidered. I have been blessed with the opportunity of having and raising triplets, I owe it to them to make sure that I get it right.

I would like to take this time to thank everyone for their support. I especially would like to thank Howie Klein for all his support and wonderful publicity he brought my way through his wonderful blogging at Down with Tyranny. I want to thank him for all his support for me, but also for the work he does for the progressive movement in this country. I am a huge fan and I am inspired by his work. Thank you to all the Down with Tyranny readers who have shown me support. I would also like to take this time to thank Blue America for all their support and their work to get progressive candidates known and elected across the country. This country is a better place because of the work of everyone there. I was truly honored to have been on their list of candidates they support. The support and confidence that I have been shown has been nothing short of amazing. I will continue to support Blue America and push for fellow progressives to get elected to office.

I deeply regret any disappointment this decision may bring to those that supported this campaign along the way. I truly hoped to bring the representation to the 8th District that the citizens deserve. I will continue to work hard to see this happen, unfortunately at this time I am unable to commit to the time that is required to do this from the seat of a candidate. I would like to thank everyone for their support and I vow to continue to work hard to bring the people a choice at the ballot box.

Thanks again!

Andrew Hounshell

The New Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act-- Robin Hood To The Rescue?

Andy Hounshell, John Conyers-- fighting for jobs

Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act into law on October 27, 1978. It had passed the House on March 16... 257-152. 81% of the House Democrats (233 Members) were joined by 16% of the House Republicans (24)-- there were still that many mainstream Republicans back then-- to pass one of the era's most significant pieces of legislation. It's worth noting that the Democratic Party was so infested with racists and corporate whores even that recently that 41 Republicans joined with 111 Republicans to oppose it. The Keynesian bill, which was proposed to tackle rampant unemployment, created the largest public service jobs program and the largest training program since the Great Depression and it helped create 6.5 million new jobs and cut unemployment by 25%. During the debate, During the debate, Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) said, "What this bill says is not that America owes everybody a living. No, But America owes every American an opportunity to earn a living. This bill is an embodiment of what American stands for."

H.R. 1000, the new Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act, was introduced by John Conyers on March 6 of this year, and shut up by Boehner and Cantor in John Kline's Education and Workforce Committee, where they knew it would never see the light of day. Conyers is one of the few Members of Congress who voted for the original Humphrey-Hawkins bill. This one, has many similarities-- it is primarily a jobs bill-- but, of course includes provisions to cover things that weren't concerns in the 1970s. Here's how Conyers describes it on his website:

The Act aims to provide a job to any American that seeks work and to, ultimately, create a full employment society.

• The Act establishes a “Full Employment and Training Trust Fund” with two separate accounts. These two accounts will direct funding to job creation and training programs.

Dual Job Creation Focus: Direct Jobs Grants and WIA Training Programs

• The first trust fund account will direct funds to a new innovative direct jobs program. Funds will be distributed by formula through the Department of Labor to larger cities and states, and then be passed to localities and rural areas.

* The program will allocate funds based on the Community Development Block Grant formula modified to consider unemployment data. Local elected officials, who are closest to our communities and needs on the ground, would work with community groups and labor leaders to identify critical projects and connect workers to projects right away.

* Jobs could be in the public sector, community-based not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses that provide community benefits.

* The Program will adopt a two stage approach to ensure immediate job creation, and allow for a longer term planning process that involves community input and a focus on education and career development.

* Positions will be for up to 45 hours per week, for at least 12 months. They will pay comparable or prevailing wages, as well as benefits. Appropriate safeguards and strong anti-displacement protections will help to prevent substitution and ensure that workers are placed in new positions.

• The second trust fund will distribute funds to job training programs covered under the Workforce Investment Act.

* These funds will fund innovative job training initiatives including One Stop Job Training Programs and the Job Corps.

Revenue: Taxing Wall Street Transactions to Pay for Main Street Jobs

• Revenue for the trust fund will come from a small levy on covered trading transactions

* 0.25% on stocks = 25¢ on every $100 traded in stocks

* 0.02% on futures, swaps, and credit default swaps = 2¢ on every $100 traded on these types of transactions

* The rate for options contracts would be imposed on the underlying transaction multiplied by the premium paid for the option (still very small)

Boehner has vowed there will never be a vote on this bill on the House floor. There is a way to get a vote on it though-- defeating a couple dozen Republicans in 2014, particularly John Boehner. Andrew Hounshell, an Ohio steelworker and vice-president of the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) Local Lodge 1943 is running for the seat in western Ohio that Boehner currently holds. Bread and butter issues-- like jobs-- is exactly why he's running.

"A bill like the H.R. 1000 is exactly what the citizens of this great country expect from their elected Representatives," he told us this morning. "Instead they get the 37th vote to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act from our Speaker. His excuse was that it is all about jobs. How will a vote that everyone knows will never pass the Senate be about jobs? Who's job is he referring to? His own? This bill would create real jobs, and put tax paying Americans back to work. The goal of a bill like this is to provide full employment. The problem is, the Speaker isn't interested in full employment because the corporations that support him aren't interested in it. Full employment raises the cost of labor which cuts into corporate profits. It is much more profitable for them to have the labor force in this country unemployed and underemployed. It's time our elected Congress represents the people and not the corporations."

Andy is on the Blue America ActBlue page... in case you'd like to help out.

Boehnercare Passes The House

Thursday there were 3 votes leading up to Boehner's 37th attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and allow the big insurance companies to pick the pockets of every American who needs a doctor once again. This time Boehner gave the dubious honor of introducing the waste-of-time bill to Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann, who also has the dubious honor of being the first Republican incumbent so certain she's going to lose her reelection that she's already started running TV ads in her district. Pelosi was still disparagingly calling the bill Boehnercare.

There were 3 votes leading up to Bachmann's repeal rollcall. First was for ordering the question to agree to bring it up for consideration. It passed 228-193 every Republican + reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting YES and every Democrats except reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting NO. I should mention at this point that when you see a million e-mails from the DCCC castigating the Republicans for this repeal circus, Matheson is not just on their Frontline list of priority incumbents to be protected, he's been promised between two and three million dollars for his campaign. Matheson has the worst voting record of any Democrat in Congress. His crucial vote score as tracked by ProgressivePunch is 21.74 for the 113th Congress, identical with Georgia sociopath Phil Gingrey. There are a dozen Republicans that vote more frequently for progressive positions this year than Matheon (but Steve Israel isn't spending $2 million to help any of them win reelection).

The second vote, 10 minutes later, was another procedural one to basically just agree to the first one. This one passed 226-192, the change being another DCCC top priority Frontline reactionary Democrat, this time Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, voting with the GOP and Matheson. McIntyre has amassed as nearly a far-right voting record as Matheson. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score this session is a putrid 40.91, right between Republican Mafioso figure Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY) of Staten Island (42.11) and craven and cowardly Arizona New Dem Ron Barber (39.13). Last November enough discouraged Democrats stayed away from the polls in Matheson's and McIntyre's districts so that they both these mangy Blue Dogs came closer to losing than any other Members of Congress. McIntyre's margin was 654 votes and Mathson's was 768.

Next up was a Motion to Recommit by Lois Capps (D-CA), which would have at least preserved benefits of the Affordable Care Act for women and children by excluding from repeal: (1) elimination of cost sharing for preventive health services, including breast cancer screening, screening for gestational diabetes, and screening for domestic abuse; (2) access to health care coverage for those with preexisting conditions (children and adults); (3) medical loss ratio requirements that ensure consumers receive good value for their premiums; (4) elimination of lifetime and annual limits on benefits; and (5) dependent coverage of adult children until age 26. It failed 190-230. McIntyre hid in the toilet while the vote was taking place, but Matheson was joined by right-wing Democrats Collin Peterson (MN), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Nick Rahall (WV) on the Republican side of the aisle. McIntyre flushed-- though unfortunately not himself-- and came back in time for the final vote on the bill, which passed with all 229 Republicans (+ Matheson and McIntyre) voting YES and 195 Democrats voting NO.

A few minutes after the vote, I spoke with three Democratic challengers running against high-profile Republican backers of the bill. Ohio steel worker Andy Hounshell is taking on Boehner himself-- with no help from the DCCC, of course, who needs all that money to prop up Matheson and McIntyre-- and like many of us, he would like to see the Affordable Care Act improved, not destroyed. "At a time when our country needs good leadership," he told me, "we are stuck with a Speaker of the House who's idea of moving our country forward is having the House vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act for the 37th time. While I don't agree with the entire Act, it provides health care coverage for millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it. Instead of trying 37 times to repeal or defund it, imagine if the House would have tried 37 times to improve it. This blatant disregard for the millions of uninsured Americans who have picked up coverage under the act highlights the differences between our beliefs. This is not the leadership we need in Congress. We need job creation in this country and that is what our Representatives should be doing, not voting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

John Mica, the Orlando-area Boehner puppet is being taken on by progressive Democrat Nick Ruiz, who agrees with Hounshell that Obamacare has a lot of room for improvement. He's a Medicare for all, single-payer advocate. And he's eager to take the battle to the voters. "It's time to replace John Mica. He voted to kill overtime. He voted against minimum wage. He voted to cut Social Security. Mica just introduced a measure Tuesday to stymie the federal Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to the Clean Water Act permitting process; what is he thinking-- that coal pollution helps American families? The measure, called the 'Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2013,' would place limits on the EPA’s ability to reject bad mining practices. And his position on universal healthcare is that America should not have it. We'll all be better off without John Mica in Congress-- and that's why I'm running against him in 2014." The DCCC isn't helping him either.

Although they undercut his race in 2012, the DCCC has come around on one candidate we spoke with, Jim Graves, the Minnesota Democrat taking on Bachmann again. And, of course, he sees right through her tired circus act. "Once again, Bachmann is using tax payers' money to put on a show. Her actions exemplify the wasteful government spending which she claims to decry. It is worse than Einstein’s definition of "insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"-- it is dereliction of duty and an insult to the public."

Remember How Much We Hated Bush's Job-Destroying "Free" Trade Agenda? Now It's Obama's Agenda

A couple days ago, progressive champion Alan Grayson (D-FL) brought up one of Obama's weakest points: his administration's determination to continue the corporatist trade policies of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the two Bushes. The agenda has been devastating for the American manufacturing sector and for the economy in general. Obama ran for office loudly opposing NAFTA and CAFTA as harmful to U.S. (and foreign) workers and to the U.S. (and foreign) environment. As a Senator he voted against CAFTA in 2005. Since becoming President he twisted arms to pass equally awful free trade agreements with South Korea-- which has been a gigantic loser for American workers-- Panama and Colombia. Lori Wallach:

The first year of results are in for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and it's grim. U.S. exports to Korea plunged 10 percent under the FTA and the trade deficit jumped 37 percent. That equates to the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.

Yikes, what does President Obama do, given this unfortunate revelation occurred the day before the high-profile Washington visit of Korea's president, when Congress and the press would be focused on all things Korea?

He announces: "On our side, we're selling more exports to Korea." Holy Pinocchio!

Not exactly trust-inspiring, as the administration now tries to sell the massive 11-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) FTA with the same tired promises used to persuade Congress to support the Korea FTA. That would be the promise that the Korea FTA would mean "more exports, more jobs." Right...

Sadly, the Korea FTA is not a fluke. Like the TPP, it is based on the NAFTA model. And U.S. export growth to countries with NAFTA-style pacts has been particularly lackluster; growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not FTA partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 38 percent over the past decade. Yup, totally counterintuitive, to say nothing of counterproductive to the administration's manufacturing revitalization goals, but that's what the data shows.

As the Korea FTA provides fresh evidence of the job-killing nature of these deals, U.S. voters want and deserve to know why any member of Congress would buy another round of empty promises for these pacts.

And that brings us right back around to how I started... Alan Grayson. People are aware that Grayson got his law degree at Harvard. People are not as aware that he also got an Economics Degree there. And he's been an opponent of these misnamed "free" trade deals. This week he warned that the U.S. Trade Representative invited public comments on the "Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership." He asked if you agree that "even the title makes you ill."

The "Partnership" actually is a partnership between multinational corporations and their sellout tools in government. It features "investor-state" dispute resolution, which permits huge corporations to file lawsuits to prevent government actions that they just don't like, such as health and safety regulations.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. "These provisions elevate corporations to the level of nation states and allow them to sue governments over nearly any law or policy which reduces their future profits," the Sierra Club warns. The government of Canada has been sued under a similar clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for refusing to export Canada's water. Canada also has been sued for keeping a pollutant out of its gasoline supply, and for taxing windfall profits by oil companies.

Who needs these "free trade" sell-outs, anyway? Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the United States has lost almost four million manufacturing jobs. Moreover, huge U.S. subsidies for corn have made it impossible for millions of Mexican families to survive on the farm. NAFTA accomplished something that hardly seems possible-- impoverishing both American workers and Mexican ones. Can't we learn from our mistakes? And why are our leaders treating us like sheep being led to the slaughter?

The First Amendment gives us the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Anyone who has been paying attention to these Judas-kiss trade "deals" is feeling mighty, mighty "aggrieved."

The point of Grayson's letter was to urge people to give public comments but the deadline for that was yesterday. Now we need to do something even more effective: defeat corporate whores-- from both parties-- who support these trade agreements and elect replacements who want to replace them with FAIR trade agreements. A good place to start would be with Speak John Boehner, a lifelong "free" trade proponent-- who never met a jobs-killing agreement he didn't get behind. Because the DCCC is determined to give Boehner a free pass to reelection every cycle, they viciously attack and humiliate any Democrat with the temerity to dare run against him. That's why last year he had no opponent. This year Andy Hounshell, an Ohio steel worker and a vice president of his local union, the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), is going ahead and challenging Boehner anyway, regardless of what the DCCC says or does. He's a big supporter of Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown's approach to trade.

"John Boehner," he told me a few months ago, "is still using the same model for the Trans-Pacific deal but it's been working out very badly in the Korean deal. Obama should abandon the approach. U.S. exports to Korea are down by 9 percent since the deal was implemented and imports from Korea are way up. And, just like many of us who opposed the deal predicted, the U.S. trade deficit when Korea is up by 30 percent. That means we're losing good manufacturing jobs. That nine percent decrease in exports to Korea since the trade deal began amounts to over $3 billion. Speaker Boehner never talks about losses like that when he pushes these policies. Our exports to Korea are up by around $800 million; there's no balance there." It's gotten even worse since Andy said that. Alan Grayson and Andy Hounshell are both endorsed for Congress by the Blue America PAC. If you agree with their ideas on trade policies and can afford to help out, both can use the help. Needless to say, neither is getting any money from the big corporate interests that finance over 60% of the candidates who run for Congress. You can find them both on this page

John Boehner-- Bad For America, Bad For Ohio

Republicans find it easy and natural to demonize Nancy Pelosi. After all, conservatives have cast assertive and visionary women as "witches" and "bitches" since time immemorial. It's part of their whole self-inflicted patriarchal disease. And it's another manifestation of the pathetic Republican Party War Against Women. But this week, Billy House at the National Journal asked why isn't Boehner a target in congressional elections?

Excellent question and before we get into it, please let me remind you that although Steve Israel and the DCCC work frantically to protect Boehner and his chief henchmen, there is a progressive champion who's taken on the thankless task of running against Boehner in his western Ohio district, Andy Hounshell. Andy will get exactly nothing from the DCCC as long as Steve Israel is in charge but if you'd like to help him make Boehner's reelection bid something he has to take seriously, you can do that here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Now, back to House's question. What he's asking isn't why the DCCC refuses to go after Boehner (or any senior Republican leaders or committee chairs, a failed strategy of Steve Israel that means absolutely never taking back the House as long as he's in charge). What he's asking is why don't the Democrats demonize the drunken, lazy, corrupt, dull-witted Boehner the way Republicans have always demonized Pelosi, wrapping her like a stone around their Democratic opponent’s neck. House asked around and hasn't found a clear answer.

One answer is that Democrats simply see more gain in attacking the tea party-- and like-minded congressional Republicans-- as a group with frightening ideas. Boehner is not typically viewed as a tea-party leader, and is often at odds with that faction himself. And while he could conceivably be attacked as an ineffective leader, many experts say he is simply not seen as a scary figure.

“Fear is a bigger driver,” one Democratic strategist said.

Indeed, during the 2012 elections, Democratic ads focused on Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate who was himself the architect of GOP proposals to overhaul Medicare and other social programs.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and others in the House Republican Conference also provide a broader “collective” cast of well-known foils for Democrats than is available in the Democratic caucus for Republicans, said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Still, a Gallup poll released last week showed both Pelosi and Boehner are well-known. Only 11 percent of those surveyed said they had never heard of Pelosi (the most well-known of all four of the House and Senate majority and minority leaders), and only 14 percent said they had not heard of Boehner.

Pelosi led the list of the four leaders in unpopularity, with 48 percent of those surveying saying they had an unfavorable opinion of her, while 31 percent had a favorable opinion.  Forty-one percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Boehner, while 31 percent had a favorable view.

Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief, said he believes-- though he has not seen data to back this up-- that Pelosi has fallen prey over the years to a polarized and intense right-wing media barrage, while more-liberal media voices are less prone to outright personal attacks.

Some of this too may be based on Pelosi’s success in driving the Democratic agenda, such as her role in helping to pass President Obama’s Affordable Care Act while speaker.

“You attack power, not weakness,” said a senior House Democratic aide, “which is why Boehner is less frequently used.”

“I like him, actually. He’s a nice guy,” added Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., of Boehner, who said the speaker has traditionally had a “reasonable and moderate” record.

“If he had it his way, the House Republican Conference wouldn’t be as dysfunctional as it has been,” McGovern said.

Everybody "likes" a lush but McGovern is wrong about Boehner having a “reasonable and moderate” record. His ProgressivePunch voting score on crucial roll calls for the current session is zero, far to the right of most Republicans. Even extremist icons like Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Matt Salmon (R-AZ), Paul Broun (R-Pit of Hell), Justin Amash (R-MI), and domestic terrorist Steve Stockman (R-TX) have managed to make common ground with progressives of a few issues critical to the well-being of the country. But not Boehner. In fact, Boehner's career-long score-- and he's had an overly long career-- is a frightening 1.22, one of the most extreme right voting scores in the history of voting scores. I think McGovern is mixing up a tipsy smile from the Speaker with an actual "reasonable and moderate record." Besides which, even people who don't agree with her politically, admit that Nancy Pelosi is warm, supportive and very likable. Not that that would ever stop a Republican witch-hunt.

This morning we asked Hounshell more about Boehner's actual record and what it's meant to ordinary working families in western Ohio. "As Speaker, John Boehner doesn't have to actually cast a vote and he rarely does. But when it came to voting on the devastating sequester bill," Andy told us, "he came down off his perch and voted-- for it. He alternates between taking credit for it and blaming it on President Obama. But the sequester is a disaster and it's an example of the failure of political elites and insiders in Washington looking out for everything but the interests of their own constituents. The sequester is causing real harm to real people.  It's time for them to sit down and work out a budget that will pass. I understand that it is difficult, but it is what they have been elected to do, and what they get paid for. This game of program cutting chicken hurts the people in this country that need their representatives the most. They fixed the flight delays with lightening speed, lets see what they can do with the cuts that are affecting those who need it most, like Head Start and Meals on Wheels."

Two weeks ago the Dayton Daily News reported how colleges and universities across Ohio were having to pull back on crucial, and in some cases life-saving, research programs.

Sequestration, the across-the-board cuts that automatically went into effect March 1 when Congress did not reach a deal to avoid them, is set to drain more than a billion from the federal organizations that fund research. The impact for public universities in Ohio is estimated at $95 million, according to ScienceWorksforU.S., a new campaign launched by the Association of American Universities.

“People like to think that the things that may be impacted are things that may not make a difference, but that’s not the truth,” said Dr. William Ball, vice president for research at the University of Cincinnati. “Promising research is potentially going to be affected.”

The Ohio State University has already seen cuts to grants for cancer and infection disease research, said Carol Whitacre, vice president of OSU’s Office of Research. OSU estimates it will see a cut of $13 million in fiscal year 2013 and $14 million for 2014. UC is also bracing for reductions. The university is at the forefront in research on strokes, a leading cause of death in the US. UC estimates its impact at $17 million, some of which could be years away.

“What people need to understand is that research is their future,” Ball said. The cuts, he said, are”personal” and “not just something that could happen to that institution across town.”

Thanks John Boehner! Yesterday Senator Elizabeth Warren, who's working to repeal Boehner's sequestration bill, told her constituents in Massachusetts almost the same thing Andy Hounshell is telling voters in Ohio's 8th congressional district:

We can't solve our country's budget problems with a meat-ax.

Sequestration isn't just dumb, it's dangerous and irresponsible. Blunt, across the board cuts are hurting our children, our seniors, our veterans-- the people who need our help the most.

Last week, Congress stepped in to restore full funding for air traffic controllers to keep out country moving. But our children, seniors, and veterans shouldn't have to get stuck on a tarmac before Congress pays any attention.

People with cancer or families dealing with autism or Alzheimer's shouldn't be ignored. Flight delays are bad for all of us, but it's also bad for all of us when we cut funding for Meals on Wheels and Head Start. And it's bad for all of us when medical research gets sidelined and when young scientists' work can't get funded.

The truth is that we could end those cuts and put a stop to sequestration right now if we just made big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires pay their fair share.

That's why I'm joining Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to sponsor legislation that repeals sequestration by ending the tax giveaways and special breaks for our most profitable companies and millionaires.

Washington is rigged for the big guys-- the ones who can afford to hire an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to create and find the loopholes and special breaks that let big corporations off the hook for paying taxes.

• It's rigged for the five biggest oil companies, which made $118 billion in profits last year-- and yet still collected billions of dollars worth of government subsidies.

• It's rigged for multinational corporations, which get tax breaks to ship U.S. jobs overseas and stash their investments abroad.

• And it's rigged for hedge fund managers and billionaires, who pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.

The Job Preservation and Sequester Replacement Act closes corporate tax loopholes so everyone pays a fair share. And it implements the Buffett Rule so that people who make more than $1 million a year pay it forward so the next kid has a chance to make it big.

Ted Cruz vs Chris Van Hollen-- How To Win Friends And Influence People

Ted Cruz wants to make a name for himself as the Senate's biggest douche bag. Fellow Texans Louie Gohmert and Steve Stockman could give him a run for his money in the House, but in the Senate... Cruz is as bad as it gets. I suspect other Republican congressmen don't like being publicly referred to as squishes by this loudmouthed Texas pissant. And outside of Texas, it's not a good idea calling the grieving and sincere parents of the murdered Newtown victims political props.

In his short time at the Capitol, Senator Ted Cruz, a freshman Republican from Texas, has shown little regard for long-standing rules of decorum. But on Friday, he publicly discussed the closed-door dealings of the Senate Republican Conference-- and trashed his colleagues in the process.

Stopping by a Texas meeting of the Tea Party-aligned group FreedomWorks, Mr. Cruz called many of his colleagues “squishes,” forced to stand on conservative principles by the uncompromising stands of a triumphant trio of Republican “constitutionalists”: himself and Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

...“We’ve had probably five or six lunches with a bunch of Republican senators standing up and looking at Rand and Mike and me and yelling at the top of their lungs-- I mean really upset. And they said: ‘Why did you do this? As a result of what you did, when I go home, my constituents are yelling at me that I’ve got to stand on principle.’ I’m not making that up. I don’t even bother to argue with them. I just sort of let them yell.”

Yesterday Maryland Congressman, a member of the Democratic House leadership, also publicly disagreed with his colleagues... although he didn't call anyone names or try to pump up his own stature at their expense the way Cruz did. Van Hollen was one of just a handful of Democrats who voted NO on the FAA sequester fix. Unfairly, I assumed he voted against it-- along with 3 other Marylanders-- because he can commute to work by car and doesn't have to worry about flight delays. But that wasn't the impression he gave the Washington Post's Greg Sargent during an interview yesterday. His thinking was a lot more strategic than selfish.

By agreeing to give the FAA flexibility in implementing the sequester, in response to the outcry over flight delays, Democrats effectively squandered their leverage in the sequester battle, by signaling that they will selectively undo its effects when the political going gets tough. Does that mean they’ve lost the sequester fight completely?

In an interview this morning, Dem Rep. Chris Van Hollen-- a top party strategist-- was surprisingly frank in conceding that Dems had given away crucial leverage by agreeing to the FAA fix. But he said Dems could still make up some of that lost ground-- and called on them not to agree to any more targeted sequester fixes.

“We have certainly made it more difficult to stand firm going forward,” Van Hollen told me. “But we’re going to have to reclaim some lost ground here. We cannot have a situation where people just cherry-pick the sequester.”

Van Hollen bluntly suggested that Dems-- in agreeing to just a targeted FAA fix-- had sent a message about Congress that it’s only responsive to powerful interests.

“If you do that, you’re attacking the symptoms rather than the underlying cause,” Van Hollen said. “When you do that, what happens is the most politically strong groups with the most lobbyists get relief, at the expense of everybody else. Meals on Wheels, or kids on Head Start, or grants on biomedical research-- all of those get left behind.”

...Van Hollen called on Dems to have a united front in this battle going forward, and said they should not agree to any more targeted fixes. “I don’t think we should be voting for exceptions to this,” he said. “We’re going to have to draw a line and say we’ve got to deal with this in a comprehensive way, rather than play Whack-a-Mole.”

“It’s going to be tough,” Van Hollen acknowledged, speaking of the pressure that will be brought to bear on Dems to agree to more targeted fixes. “That’s why it’s going to require a united position and leadership.”

Andy Hounshell is the progressive Democrat in Ohio running against John Boehner-- and he knows how these conservative tricks work. He has a similar view on this that Van Hollen holds. This morning he told us:

"It is nice to see that Congress can agree on something, unfortunately it is something that affects a small percentage of Americans. While I am sure that the inconvenience of flight delays can be troubling to some, it pails in comparison to the cuts to programs that many Americans depend on such as Meals on Wheels. It would be great to see our Representatives sit down and actually deal with the entire budget and sequester rather than hen pick where the pinch of the sequester is going to be felt. It looks like that pinch is going to be felt by the people in this country who can't afford lobbyists. Kids in Head Start and seniors relying on the Meals on Wheels program are the ones who need their Congress right now. It would be nice if their Congress was as worried about them as they are about travel delays for those who are fortunate enough to travel by plane. By plucking out the problems that only affect the affluent, it leaves only the poor and middle class to deal with the pinch of the sequester, and we know how that works out."

If you'd like to help us elect the kinds of progressive strategic thinkers that Van Hollen clearly needs in Congress, well, you can find Andy Hounshell and others with similar views here on the Blue America ActBlue page.

How Badly Does The GOP Want To Obliterate Unions? Only 10 Of Them Voted Against The Latest Republican Scheme To Slam Labor

It's not that the 10 House Republicans are especially pro-working family... it's just that all are in districts where the union vote is important. These 10 stood up to Boehner and Cantor Friday and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats against a vicious anti-union bill by David Roe (R-TN):

• Rodney Davis (R-IL)
• Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Chris Gibson (R-NY)
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY)
• David Joyce (R-OH)
• Peter King (R-NY)
• David McKinley (R-WV)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Tom Reed (R-NY)
• Don Young (R-AK)

A gaggle of New York and Pennsylvania Republicans... no Southerners, obviously. The neo-Confederates all voted in a bloc against working families, their right to collective bargaining, paralyzing the NLRB, blocking the only path that workers have to workplace justice.

The House voted Friday to freeze the work of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a reaction to a federal court's finding that two of the NLRB's current three board members were unconstitutionally appointed by President Obama in 2012.

...[T]he GOP-favored legislation would freeze the work of the NLRB board as it is currently constituted and block the enforcement of the decisions the board has made since Obama's appointments have been in place. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) said the court ruling calls into question all of the board's decisions, and that its work should therefore be frozen.

"The work of the board is tainted," Kline said. "Every decision it issues is ripe for appeal on the basis that the board itself is not legitimate.

"In fact, employers and unions are now citing the recent court ruling as a reason why board decisions should be overturned," he added. "As it currently exists, no one-- employer, worker or union-- can rely upon a board decision today."

Democrats have said the bill is just part of a GOP attack against the NLRB, and said Republicans have no interest in a functioning board.

"This is really part two of a strategy by the Republican majority in the House, and the Republican minority in the other body, to paralyze the rights of Americans to organize and bargain collectively," Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) said.

Democrats also said Congress should wait for the Supreme Court to make a final decision on whether Obama's appointments were unconstitutional.

"When have we ever enshrined an intermediate court decision into statute? It makes absolutely no sense," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said during Thursday debate.

Under the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, the work of the NLRB board would be shut down, although other NLRB functions and regional offices would continue to work. In addition, all of the board's rulings since early 2012 could not be enforced, until at least one of two conditions is met. One is a Supreme Court ruling that says Sharon Block and Richard Griffin were constitutionally appointed, and the other is the Senate appointment of enough new board members to give the NLRB a valid quorum.

The sine die adjournment of Congress at the end of this year would also lift the freeze.

Today, the NLRB has only three board members, which means there is no quorum available unless both Block and Griffin are available. The third member is NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce.

Obviously obstructionist Republicans in the Senate are filibustering Obama's NLRB nominees from being voted on so they can keep the agency from functioning. Andy Hounshell is a steel worker in Middletown, Ohio, the heart of OH-08, the congressional district that has been sending John Boehner to Congress since 1991. Hounshell is also vice president of his union local and right after the vote we called and asked him if this vote-- which has been largely ignored by the media-- is worth writing about. He sure thought so. "If there was ever any doubt to anyone that the GOP doesn't care about workers in this country, it was made clear today. This attack on the NLRB today is an attempt at taking away the one agency of the government that hears disputes between workers and employers. If they aren't cutting funding for the NLRB, they are passing partisan legislation like this. What Congress needs to be doing is working on legislation that will create jobs, not handcuffing an agency that was created to protect workers. When Americans are looking help in our economy, the corporations are getting a free pass from the GOP. This is just another example of why I am a Democrat, and why I am running for the Ohio 8th District." It's also an example of why Blue America has endosed Andy's congressional campaign. Please consider contributing if you can-- here on our 2014 House page.

Boehner Comes Through For China Again-- Defeats Made In America Proposal

China made a really good investment by donating to the Chamber of Commerce when they ran a big international effort to illegally scoop up vast sums of foreign cash to help replace Nancy Pelosi with John Boehner as Speaker. Boehner is the worst patsy for China's economic agenda in Congress (not counting Miss McConnell). And Boehner came through for his Beijing financiers again yesterday.

During a little remarked on debate over a bipartisan bill, H.R. 678, to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to contract for the development of small conduit hydropower at Bureau facilities, John Garamendi (D-CA) tried to get the Republicans to include language that would require, when practicable, all materials used for conduit hydropower generation be manufactured in the United States. Sounds simple, right? Not when John Boehner is in charge.

All Republicans were instructed to vote NO and Garamendi's commonsense proposal lost 194-226. Only two Republicans cared enough about American manufacturing jobs to stand up to Boehner and vote with the Democrats-- Walter Jones (R-NC) and Jimmy Duncan (R-TN). The Democrat running for the seat Boehner is occupying, Andy Hounshell, is an Ohio steel worker at a plant in Middletown, in the heart of Boehner's district. "I admire Congressman Garamendi for always putting working people first," Hounshell told us this afternoon. "If he proposal passed there probably would have been good-paying jobs created for American workers right here in western Ohio. I would have voted for the proposal and one of the reasons I'm running is because John Boehner never does. Whose side is he on? There's one way to turn this economy around and spread around the benefits across all levels of society-- creating good-paying jobs. Boehner should have done what those two other Republicans, Jones and Duncan did-- pushed to pass Garamendi's proposal and pushed for more jobs right here in the U.S.A."



“Our first priority as Representatives of the American people must be creating more American jobs,” said Congressman Garamendi. “Over the past two decades, the manufacturing sector has lost nine million jobs-- in large part due to unwise public policy. However, manufacturing is roaring back with approximately half a million new jobs created in the last three years.”

Garamendi added, “We can do so much more by improving education, research, infrastructure, and adapting to changing conditions. The very first step though is simple: when the government invests in public works projects, including hydropower, that money should go toward employing American workers. The businesses are ready, the workers are ready, it’s time for Congress to step up to the plate, so we can Make It In America once again.”

Any Congressional Democrat Who Backs Cutting Social Security Might As Well Look For Another Job

If Obama was just trying to demonstrate that the Republicans will never compromise no matter what-- even if he gives them exactly what they want-- fine. It worked. Otherwise, his call for cutting Social Security and further shredding the social safety net to "placate" the austerity hawks he surrounds himself with, is catastrophic. It's obviously catastrophic for the elderly and for handicapped vets first and foremost. But it's also catastrophic for the Democratic brand to whatever extent Obama is allowed to represent that brand after this Grand Betrayal. And it's catastrophic to any congressional Democrats who go along with him. Look at how the White House tried to cover up the brutal cuts:

In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, beginning in 2015 the Budget would change the measure of inflation used by the Federal Government for most programs and for the Internal Revenue Code from the standard Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the alternative, more accurate chained CPI, which grows slightly more slowly... The switch to chained CPI will reduce deficits by at least $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Elizabeth Warren phrased it a little differently: "I was shocked to hear that the President's newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch. The President's policy proposal, known as 'chained CPI,' would re-calculate the cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries. That new number won't keep up with inflation on things like food and health care -- the basics that we need to live. In short, 'chained CPI' is just a fancy way to say 'cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled, and orphans.'"

Republicans are drooling to have Obama dangling from a string like an idiot. Yesterday Greg Walden (R-OR), head of the RNCC-- charged with electing more Republicans to Congress-- attacked Obama for throwing seniors under the bus. He told Wolf Blitzer in CNN that "the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well... you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go."

Take a look at how Chris Collins, a Republican incumbent from western New York-- a DCCC top target-- is using Obama's foolhardy proposal. Expect a lot more of this, especially if Democrats start backing Obama.

On the eve of President Obama’s budget presentation, a Western New York Republican joined the AARP in criticizing an expected decrease in the amount paid out in Social Security benefits by restructuring cost of living adjustments. Chris Collins says the move would hurt seniors and veterans.

“If you change the calculation of the consumer price index and how you calculate inflation, that’s going to continue to pinch our seniors who, come the end of the month, the stories I hear, are having trouble putting food on the table,” Collins said.

According to the AARP, changing the way the consumer price index is calculated would cost seniors and veteran pension recipients in Erie County $476 Million in future benefits. An AARP representative told YNN’s Ryan Whalen Tuesday, the “Chained CPI” expected in the President’s budget would hit Erie County harder than originally expected.

“It does not take into account the fixed costs that the seniors or all of us have, such as utilities, your healthcare costs, prescription drugs, gasoline. You can’t make a substitution for those. So that will make it even more difficult, particularly for those who are struggling to begin with,” AARP advocate Dave Hollen said.

Collins says this proposal impacts Western New York more than other parts of the country because there are more seniors.

“We’re not a wealthy community. So many of our seniors, I think the number is 75 percent of the average senior’s lifestyle, is supported by Social Security. They don’t have pensions and other savings,” Collins said... I’m frankly very disappointed that he (Obama) is focusing on seniors."

Obviously, no Democrat worth his salt would ever go along with this. Alan Grayson (D-FL) was very succinct and to the point: “I take no pleasure in saying this, but, in this case, the President is wrong. The chained CPI will substantially undermine the protection against inflation that Social Security recipients enjoy right now... They can change the programs, and not break the promises to Americans. They can eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the programs. They can change the way we fund the programs. They can change the payments to doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. But we absolutely cannot break our promise to people by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age."




Adam Schiff is from the other end of the spectrum inside of the Democratic caucus. He is a conservative New Dem, who was a member of the Blue Dog Caucus until a few weeks ago. He may be conservative, but he's not stupid. Right after Obama's budget was released I asked him if she's supporting Chained CPI, expecting either evasion or a straight "yes." I got neither. Adam Schiff: “I oppose moving to a chained CPI. I believe that there are better ways to ensure the longevity of Social Security, and urge the President to consider raising the threshold of contributions into Social Security, rather than adopting a chained CPI-- a measurement that could hurt our most vulnerable seniors.” If he keeps on like this, maybe he'll dump the New Dems too and even join the Progressive Caucus.

Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) had the kind of response to the Chained CPI proposal I would like to see echoed by every Democrat.

“We object to the President’s proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare. Social Security has never been contributing factor to the deficit and we cannot leave seniors out in the cold. Our nation must honor our elders with retirement and health security that they have earned through a lifetime of hard work. The President and Congress need to work toward a commonsense solution that addresses the aging of our nation and strengthens and expands Social Security to all working Americans.

“On Medicare, healthcare workers and healthcare employers want to partner to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the system and expand on the healthcare redesigns that have improved quality and reduced cost. Medicare costs have not risen in two years because of reforms and restructuring at the federal, state and local levels. Healthcare providers can continue to build on these reforms and efficiencies, but not under the weight of massive cuts.

“To truly address the deficit and continue our economic recovery, we must focus on creating more good jobs. That should be priority number one.”

Although the DCCC has refused to recognize his race, steel worker and Army vet Andy Hounshell is running for the western Ohio congressional seat currently held by John Boehner. Andy has been active in supporting the No Cuts campaign and is a die-hard Democrat for economic growth-- a jobs-not-Austerity kind of guy. He's on the Blue America Saving Social Security page. Andy is no fan of Boehner's and no fan of the Boehner-Ryan Austerity Agenda. "We need a dedicated and concerted effort to put people to work," he told me this morning, "not cuts to seniors and veterans who can least afford them. To me a bad idea is a bad idea, whether it's coming from Speaker Boehner, Congressman Ryan or any Democrats in office. Chained CPI isn't something that serves the interests of people in Ohio. And I'm running for Congress to represent them, not a political party or any other politicians. People where I live don't want to take away from seniors and vets; I'm standing with them."

There isn't any doubt who Bernie Sanders is standing with either:

Would You Like To See John Boehner Lose His Seat In 2014? Let's Get Started

When EMILY's List started they were the bee's knees-- an inspired organization meant to help put progressive women into political office in numbers more commensurate with their share of the population. In recent years, I've come to distrust EMILY's List as I see them backing horribly conservative and unqualified women against sterling progressive men who are better on women's issues-- and everything else-- than their miserable sadsack candidates. The worst example, though by no means the only, was in 2008 when they ran right-wing anti-Semite Nikki Tinker against Steve Cohen in Memphis. It was the beginning of the new untrustworthy EMILY's List model and it's something that has been repeated again and again. They frequently back very conservative and very corrupt women against progressive men. Last cycle, for example, they knocked out phenomenal progressive champions Eric Griego (NM) and Chris Donovan (CT) for two pathetic corporate shills, Michelle Lujan Grisham and Elizabeth Esty. Still, there's no denying one major contribution EMILY's List made in their glory days when they were part of the emerging progressive coalition they have since abandoned. The women who started it didn't name it for Emily Dickinson or Emily Browning. It's an acronym for "Early Money Is Like Yeast" (it raises dough). When the organization got going in 1985, they already knew that early money was one of the key ingredients to a successful campaign, but that it was missing for most grassroots campaigns. It's how campaigns get off the ground, hire staff and get a strategic plan into operation, very different from late money used to run TV and radio ads.

The DCCC tells Democratic congressional candidates that if they want to run, they have to bring in over $250,000 per quarter for the election cycle. That's why we're stuck with so many millionaires and multimillionaires in Congress-- even on the Democratic side of the aisle, many of whom don't see issues from the same perspective normal people do. It's why, even as Congress prepares to liberalize laws regarding marriage equality, marijuana and perhaps even gun safety, economic justice is still way at the back of the line.

Last year John Boehner (R-OH) raised $22,024,288 for the election cycle. His Leadership PAC raised another $3,715,270. And he didn't have an opponent! Between the PAC and his own campaign coffers he already has over a million dollars for next year. The DCCC has shown no interest whatsoever in challenging him or in giving a hand to anyone who does. In 2010 an Army vet and young father, West Point graduate Justin Coussoule ran against him. The DCCC didn't ignore the race; instead they went out of their way to humiliate and demoralize Coussoule and his supporters. That's a big part of why no one bothered to run against Boehner in 2012.

But one of those Coussoule supporters decided to run this cycle, Andrew Hounshell, a steel worker from Middletown who is also vice president of his union local. Another army vet and young father, Andrew was chosen by President Obama to introduce him at his campaign's big closing rally in Cincinnati last year. Andrew grew up in a Republican home but as he matured he saw through all the lies and hypocrisy, especially on issues like a living wage and fair trade. This is what he told me when I asked him about his, pardon the expression, evolution:

"There wasn’t one particular event that turned on a light bulb, but rather a combination of many: college, union work, community work, my father relying on the VA for health care, my mother relying on her Social Security to survive, in-laws going without health insurance because they can’t afford it after my father in-law was laid-off from Delphi, having 3 children at one time (the list goes on and on). I realized that through policy, our elected officials do have a huge impact on our livelihood. Through cuts in Social Security, appointments to the NLRB, cuts to the VA, immigration reform (or lack thereof), tax loopholes for corporations, subsidies to oil companies, etc., our middle class has been eroded and we are not taking care of those who can no longer take care of themselves. The Republicans I loved as a child, and I thought loved me back, were the very ones who were supporting this erosion."

Blue America didn't try to barge in while every candidate and every committee was frantic over the phony-baloney end of the quarter "deadline" last week. It's quieted down now and we're trying to help Andy raise that yeast-like money to get his campaign going. Can you kick in, even if it's just a small amount? The DCCC isn't going to lift a finger to defeat John Boehner or Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor; they never have. The NRCC always targets senior Democratic policy makers. Steve Israel has decreed that the DCCC will not do likewise. He makes sure GOP leaders have a safe and easy path to reelection. It's really going to be up to grassroots Democrats to help local candidates in Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia get rid of these three malefactors. Andrew is in early; let's help him build a strong campaign against Boehner. Here the Blue America contribution page for 2014 House candidates. There aren't many so far.

Boehner Protecting Chinese Currency Manipulation Again?

When China can undervalue its currency, they can flood the U.S. market with "cheap" goods and destroy industries and, obviously, capture good-paying American manufacturing jobs. Also, that undervalued currency rate means U.S. goods become artificially and prohibitively expensive when entering the Chinese market. U.S. manufacturers-- and workers-- get killed both ways. Wall Street has no preference for profits that come from American manufacturing or Chinese manufacturing-- it's all the same for them-- and their bought-and-paid-for agents in Congress have been perfectly happy with this arrangement. Wall Street shills in both parties have consistently prevented effective action against Chinese currency manipulation and this effort has been led by Members who have personally enriched themselves with shady dealings with China, particularly McConnell and Boehner.

Four Members of Congress, willing to stand up to China and Wall Street, have proposed legislation to deal with the problem-- again. Sander Levin (D-MI), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), and Mo Brooks (R-AL) have reintroduced the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. Levin introduced the bill in February, 2011-- basically to "amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that countervailing duties may be imposed to address subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of any foreign country." Boehner immediately sent it to an unheralded death by bottling it up in the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by his crony, sleazy Michigan closet case Dave Camp. This morning, Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing told us that he finds it "hard to imagine why John Boehner stands with Beijing dictators and multinational outsourcers when a strong majority of Republican voters, and his own caucus, support the China currency bill. Here’s a bill that creates jobs, doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime, and strengthens our economy. Whose side is Boehner on: the Beijing dictators or ours?"

If you were unaware how much money China has funneled into the Republican Party via the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Sheldon Adelson it might seem odd that Boehner and the GOP Establishment has been blocking this legislation. It could be a very useful and, for a change, legitimate cudgel for them to use against Obama, who has made it clear he's not going to pressure China on currency manipulation issues. And it's a concept heavily supported by voters (62%)... and even more heavily supported by Republican voters (68%)!

Andy Hounshell is an Ohio steel worker from Middletown who is also the vice president of his union local. A desire to join fellow Ohio Democrats Rep. Tim Ryan and Senator Sherrod Brown in fighting back against unfair trade policies helped push him to run against John Boehner. "American workers can compete with anyone as long as they are playing by the same rules," he told us earlier today. "This sounds like a bill that would force foreign currency manipulators to do just that. Hopefully this is something that will finally drive some members of our Congress from their partisanship, and actually help the working people of this country. Treating undervalued currency as an actionable subsidy would be a good start to filling in the gap in the trade deficit. I know Tim Ryan has been working on this with Sander Levin and a number of Republicans, and it is, in effect, a job-creation bill that most Members of Congress-- across the aisle-- backed last year. John Boehner shouldn't be using his prerogatives as Speaker to prevent a simple up or down vote in the House on something this crucial to so many working families. He's not only out of step with American voters, he's out of step with his own Republican congressional caucus. In 2012, the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a new record-- $315 billion and this trade deficit has cost 2.7 million U.S. jobs between 2001 and 2011. If I'm elected, this is literally something I can put a stop to just because of who I'll be replacing."

The folks who don't want to see fair trade bills get a straight up vote in Congress have helped raise millions of dollars for Boehner's disgraceful political career. Last year-- without having to face an opponent-- he spent $21,197,801. And right now he has $952,828 in his campaign chest already. If you'd like to help Hounshell even out the playing field a little, you can do that here and you can read a guest post he did for us Monday here.

So far, here's a list of early supporters of the bill. Each is a first-day co-sponsor; this is the kind of bipartisanship that works-- even if Boehner and his team are opposing it:

• Mo Brooks (R-AL)
• Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
• Howard Coble (R-NC)
• Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
• Gregg Harper (R-MS)
• Bill Johnson (R-OH)
• Walter Jones (R-NC)
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
• David McKinley (R-WV)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Tim Murphy (R-PA)
• Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
• Michael Turner (R-OH)
• Don Young (R-AK)
• John Conyers Jr. (D-MI)
• Jim Cooper (D-TN)
• Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
• Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
• John Dingell (D-MI)
• William Enyart (D-IL)
• Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
• Brian Higgins (D-NY)
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)
• Bill Foster (D-IL)
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
• Sander Levin (D-MI)
• Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
• Michael Michaud (D-ME)
• George Miller (D-CA)
• Bill Owens (D-NY)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
• Tim Ryan (D-OH)
• Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
• Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
• Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
• Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
• Peter Welch (D-VT)