Sarkozy Fleeing To Britain To Avoid Paying Taxes

It certainly shouldn't have surprised anyone that former insurance industry executive, Nebraska reactionary senator and all-around corporate whore Ben Nelson immediately upon leaving Congress took a job as a lobbyist on K Street. That's what sleazy senators always do. But what about sleazy presidents of France?

I had dinner with my financial advisor Monday and she mentioned she was surprised when she found out recently that Luxembourg-- which has the second highest per capita income (over $82,000) in the world (after Dubai)-- is economically dependent on a shady banking sector. 998 square miles (the smallest state in the U.S., Rhode Island, is 1,545 square miles) and with a population of 524,853, smaller than Wyoming's 576,412, Luxembourg is one of the world's offshore banking capitals. There are 152 banks in the tiny country-- and over 9,000 holding companies. It's the perfect place for sleazy financial predators to do business. But former French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, under investigation on numerous corruption charges, decided to start his private capital firm in London instead. He's moving there, though, primarily to avoid paying the higher taxes on millionaires imposed by the man who beat him 51.62- 48.38% last May, François Hollande.

Nicolas Sarkozy is preparing to move to London to set up a billion pounds plus investment fund, it was claimed today.

If the move goes ahead, the controversial Frenchman will become the latest to escape a potential top tax rate of 75 per cent in his home country.

He and his former supermodel third wife Carla Bruni-Sarkozy would be likely to settle in an affluent district like South Kensington-- so becoming the most high profile Gallic celebrity couple in the city.

But the former president is under investigation for corruption in France, and if he does cross the Channel there will be outrage.

Details of the planned move were uncovered during a raid by fraud police on Sarkozy’s Paris mansion last June.

It came within weeks of Mr Sarkozy losing his immunity against prosecution after being defeated by Socialist rival Francois Hollande in the May presidential election.

Now the hugely respected investigative news site Mediapart reports that the ‘first draft’ of Mr Sarkozy’s London project was found by detectives examining his computer files.

A judge has since made Sarkozy an assisted witness in the so-called Bettencourt Affair, in which he is accused of using illegal cash from France’s richest woman to fund his 2007 election campaign.

Mr Sarkozy is said to have taken the money from Liliane Bettencourt, the I’ Oreal heiress-- a claim the politician denies, but for which he could still receive a prison sentence.

He is also being investigated over numerous other funding scandals, including one linked to arms sales to Pakistan, and another in which he is said to have used millions in taxpayers’ money to pay friends to produce opinion polls while he was in office.

Mediapart suggests that the planned London move would create a ‘conflict of interest’-- not only because Sarkozy is being investigated, but because a former French president should not choose the UK as a base to make his fortune.

Bernard Arnault, the luxury goods magnate and France’s richest man who owns property in London, and Hollywood star Gerard Depardieu are among Frenchmen who have come under intense criticism for trying to escape Mr Hollande’s new tax regime.

The socialist is introducing a top tax rate of 75 per cent on anyone earning more than 1 million euros a year because he disapproves of the kind of vast profits made by speculators in places like the City of London.

Mr Sarkozy, however, is a committed capitalist, whose close friends include former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has himself earned millions since leaving office.

The French former president’s new private equity fund would aim to raise 1 billion euros-- something he hopes to achieve with the help of French entrepreneur and political advisor Alain Minc.

Mr Sarkozy has recently had meetings with numerous movers and shakers in the world of high finance during high-profile trips to places like Qatar and London. But today Mr Sarkozy played down the Mediapart reports through his aides, with one saying that they were the result of ‘intellectual constructs.'

Like Mr Blair, the former head of state has always been extremely secretive about his financial dealings, and would be unlikely to discuss a wealth fund in public.

Can Nebraska Elect A Real Populist Democrat? Meet Chuck Hassebrook

A former-- and no, doubt future, insurance industry lobbyist-- multimillionaire and reactionary Ben Nelson was easily the worst Democrat in the U.S. Senate. According to ProgressivePunch, the Republicans were able to count on him over 50% of the time when it came to crucial rollcalls. His lifetime progressive score is a dismal 44.26, worst of any Democrat by far. The next worst are corporate shills Max Baucus (62.62), Joe Manchin (63.89) and Mary Landrieu (64.59). Even Lieberman is a far more progressive voter than Nelson-- with a lifetime score of 70.20. So, it's not surprising that progressives, nationally, were delighted when he looked at the political landscape, realized he had no chance whatsoever to win reelection (despite have scooped up $3,107,675-- that's current cash on hand-- from his sleazy corporate supporters), and announced his long overdue retirement. The DSCC immediately started pushing Nelson doppelganger, Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska governor and senator, who long ago moved to NYC but who is as outrageous a corporate whore as Nelson. He basically said he would accept a coronation but didn't have the stomach for an uphill battle against a right-wing extremist stealing his thunder. Enter... Chuck Hassebrook.

He has quite the task ahead of him. In the guise of a senatorial campaign, he's going to have to start to rebuild the Democratic Party of Nebraska. (It could be worse... he could be in Alabama or Mississippi.) The Nebraska Democratic Party Establishment is going to have to re-embrace the populist principles and values that once made it the champion of working families across the state. With political leaders like Kerrey and Nelson, it's been impossible to tell that the Democrats are on the side of workers and consumers and ordinary Americans. Hassebrook is a different kind of Democrat-- a real one. Unlike Nelson, he's for Choice, equal rights, and economic justice.

This week, the Omaha World Herald began their coverage of his candidacy by saying he had "fired off a populist blast Tuesday, saying he would stand up against 'rich and powerful interests' if elected to the U.S. Senate. A good start that certainly differentiates him from any of his likely opponents in the general election.

Hassebrook argued that middle-class Americans were being ignored by politicians who he said appear more interested in protecting tax cuts for the rich, subsidizing large farmers and bailing out big banks.

He also argued in support of Democratic President Barack Obama's controversial health care law, saying that while it could be improved, it was a needed “first step” in ensuring all Americans have access to affordable health care.

“I am running so I can fight, not for government that protects the tax cuts of the rich, but for government that protects the retirement security of hard-working families,” said Hassebrook, 56.

...This is Hassebrook's first bid for statewide office. However, he has served for 17 years on the University of Nebraska's Board of Regents. He also is the longtime head of the Center for Rural Affairs, an advocacy group that supports small farmers and rural economic development.

Hassebrook made clear Tuesday that he expects his rural roots to be an asset in the campaign. He made his announcement on Main Street in Lyons-- a small community of about 1,800 people in northeast Nebraska and Hassebrook's home of 13 years.

He was introduced to a crowd of about 100 supporters by Lyons Mayor Andy Fuston, a Republican who said he planned to support Hassebrook in November.

“I believe in Chuck and I believe in what he stands for, and that's more important to me than party affiliation,” said Fuston.

New Year's Eve And The Class War The Rich Are Waging Against America Is Going Very Well For Them

It's always been odd to me to see working class people vote for Republicans, a political party that would like to see their children enslaved. OK, maybe that's a little extreme... but GOP policies point, at the minimum, toward indentured servitude or serfdom for the vast majority of Americans.

Of course, it isn't only Republicans. Ben Nelson's political career has always been based on class war in favor of the 1%. He's not only one of the richest members of Congress (2008 net worth was over $12 million), he remains an unswerving warrior for the corporations that have handed him a life of Riley, despite the consequences for the useful idiots in his home state who vote for him. Nelson has a "D" next to his name, but his patterns-- and, to a large extent, his voting record-- are pure GOP. Many Nebraskans don't know how lucky they are that he's finally leaving, even if the net result is to just encourage Democrats in the state to build up a pathetically weak bench and force them to reach out to their neighbors and explain that the Fox explanation for the difference between progressives and reactionaries is, at the very least, inadequate.

And we don't even get into discussions of Tiffany's revolving credit, Jon Huntsman's billionaire dad or Mitt Romney's ass-backwards remarks about Marie Antoinette yesterday to show how joined at the hip the party is to the plutocracy. This week at AlterNet Sarah Jaffe singled out 10 ultra-rich congresspeople who 'represent' some of the most financially screwed districts. "The hard times that most Americans continue to experience," she writes, "don't seem to be making an impact on their representatives in Washington."

Now a new report might shed some light on why. According to a Washington Post story this week, “Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity.”

Members of Congress have only been getting richer over the last 25 years.

“Over the same period,” the Post continued, “the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500."

Unfortunately, though understandably, Jaffe concentrates almost exclusively on Republicans, including just one Democrat, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), in her gaggle of perps.

1. Rep. Mike Kelly, Republican, Pennsylvania District 3

The Post quoted Kelly, who represents a working-class Western Pennsylvania district, as saying, “Let’s stop railing against the really wealthy because I got to tell you something, as a guy who has had to pay his own way his whole life, I am greatly offended by the idea that somehow someone in Washington knows how to spend my money better than I do.”

But Kelly's idea of paying his own way includes inheriting a car dealership, marrying a wealthy oil heiress, and making some money from the government bailout of the auto industry. As a car dealer, he also profited from the government's “Cash for Clunkers” program. In 2010, he was the 22nd richest member of Congress, with an average net worth of $34,612,518.

Meanwhile, 16 percent of the people in his district-- and a whopping 46 percent of its African-American population-- live in poverty. 33,403 children, or 24 percent, are poor, and 9.2 percent of the adults are unemployed. The household median wage is a mere $42,639-- almost $8,000 less than the national average-- and 9 percent make less than $10,000 a year. Only 1.5 percent make over $200,000 a year, and nearly 14 percent used Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (commonly known as SNAP or food stamps) in the past year.

2. Rep. Diane Lynn Black, Republican, Tennessee District 6

Black was elected to Congress as part of the Tea Party class in 2010, from a mostly suburban and rural area east of Nashville, and is the 25th richest member of Congress, with an average net worth, according to the Post, of $31,272,522. Her husband is CEO of a company called Aegis Sciences Corp., which according to its Web site “was founded as a sports anti-doping laboratory at Vanderbilt University” and “has evolved into a full service forensic sciences company providing toxicology and consulting services.”

Despite the fact that 16 percent of her constituents live in poverty, including 23 percent of the children and a full 39 percent of Latino residents, Black voted against the payroll tax cut and unemployment extension. (Her district also has 11.1 percent unemployment.) The median income for a household is $43,712 a year, and 8.1 percent make under $10,000 a year, with 15.2 percent needing food stamps to help feed their families.

3. Rep. Jim Renacci, Republican, Ohio District 16

Jim Renacci was also elected to Congress in 2010, and with his average net worth of $42,060,709, became the 20th richest lawmaker. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, his fortune comes from nursing homes, real estate investments, car and motorcycle dealerships, a bar and grill, an arena football team and a minor-league baseball team. The Plain Dealer also reported that he sold 40 cars worth $754,167 under the Cash for Clunkers program, and that he had to pay $1.3 million in back taxes in 2006 to make up for misreporting on his 2000 form.

Meanwhile, in Renacci's district, unemployment is 11 percent, 83,518 people (or 13 percent) live in poverty, which includes 22 percent of the children and 39 percent of African Americans. Only 2.2 percent make over $200,000 a year, while 6.5 percent make less than $10,000 a year and the median household income is around $46,000.

4. Rep. Kenny Marchant, Republican, Texas District 24

Marchant was a close ally of then-Texas governor George W. Bush, and according to the Sunlight Foundation has the fifth-largest holdings in oil companies among members of Congress. The 17th richest Congressperson in 2010 is a member of the Tea Party Caucus and has an average net worth of $49,340,275. Marchant is a real estate developer who owns a home construction company.

Marchant's district is fairly well-off, with a median income of $57,031 a year, but 20 percent of its children still live in poverty as does 23 percent of its Latino population.

5. Sen. James E. Risch, Republican, Idaho

Risch was elected to replace the disgraced Senator Larry Craig (who was arrested for soliciting in an airport bathroom). He's the 16th richest member of Congress, with an average net worth of $54,088,026. A longtime politician and former Idaho governor, Risch apparently came to his wealth through his time as a lawyer. According to the Spokesman-Review, “Risch is well-known in Idaho as a self-made millionaire who built a fortune as one of the state’s most successful trial lawyers while also building a political career as a longtime state senator from Boise.”

Meanwhile, back in Idaho, 15.7 percent of the population are living in poverty, including 80,316 children. Thirty-two percent of the state's Native American population also fall beneath the poverty line. The median household income is only $43,490, and only 1.8 percent make more than $200,000. Ten percent of Idaho's civilian labor force is unemployed, and 12.5 percent were on food stamps at some point in the last year.

6. Sen. Bob Corker, Republican, Tennessee

Corker is the largest landowner in Hamilton County, Tennessee. He was accused, when mayor of Chattanooga, of illegally using his position to push through a land deal between one of his companies and Wal-Mart. The 15th richest congressman, Corker's average net worth in 2010 was $59,550,022, according to the Post. And he's a fan of the Bush tax cuts, which unsurprisingly keep his own taxes low.

Corker's constituents in Tennessee have a median wage just over $40,000 a year, and 17.7 percent of them are below the federal poverty line. Twenty-six percent of Tennessee's children, 29 percent of its African-American population, 34 percent of its Latinos and 36 percent of its Native American residents live in poverty, while 11.3 percent are unemployed and a full 17 percent used SNAP benefits to get through the last year.

7. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, West Virginia

Yes, he's one of those Rockefellers. He's a great-grandson of the famed John D. Rockefeller, the first Democrat in a Republican family, and often a fairly progressive voice on economic issues. He offered a public health insurance option amendment to the Senate's version of the healthcare reform bill (it failed) and co-authored the CHIP program, which gives low-income children health insurance.

Still, the fact remains that Rockefeller is incredibly wealthy. The 10th richest member of Congress in 2010, his average net worth was $99,057,011 according to the Post. Meanwhile, his constituents are the poorest on this list-- 18.1 percent of West Virginians live in poverty, and the median household income in his state is $38,218. Just 1.4 percent make over $200,000, and 15.4 percent have used food stamps to get by this year. 8.9 percent of West Virginians are unemployed.

8. Rep. Vernon Buchanan, Republican, Florida, District 13

Buchanan, the eighth richest member of Congress in 2010 with a net worth somewhere around $136,152,641, was the founder of American Speedy Printing Centers and also got rich selling cars. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported in 2006 that Buchanan “uses offshore reinsurance companies in Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands to reduce taxes on extended warranties sold by his auto dealerships,” which, it pointed out, is neither illegal nor uncommon, but is controversial and provoked a defensive statement from the then-candidate that he had always paid his taxes, “But I don't think anyone should pay more taxes than they owe."

Buchanan's district has seen poverty rates increase since 2007, with 15 percent now under the poverty line and 13.7 percent unemployed. Nine percent have used food stamp benefits in the past year, and 6.1 percent are making less than $10,000 a year.

9. Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican, Texas District 10

McCaul is married to the daughter of Clear Channel Communications' chairman and was the second richest member of Congress in 2010, clocking in with an average net worth of $380,411,527. In addition to voting against the payroll tax cut, McCaul voted to cut off mortgage modification aid for underwater borrowers under the Home Affordable Modification Program and echoed the same old claim that the wealthy are “job creators.”

But back at home in Texas, plenty of McCaul's constituents are still having a rough time: 7.3 percent of them are unemployed, and the poverty rate has increased since 2007, with 13 percent of the population and 18 percent of children living below the poverty line. Nearly half his district's poor (65,142 out of 128,357) are Latino.

10. Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican, California District 49

“In Mr. Issa’s case, it is sometimes difficult to separate the business of Congress from the business of Darrell Issa.”

Those were the words of Eric Lichtblau, writing in the New York Times this August about the activities of the man the Washington Post calls the richest in Congress. According to the Post, he has an average net worth of $448,125,017, and Lichtblau noted that unlike many other wealthy members of Congress (including Rockefeller and Sen. John Kerry), Issa takes a direct hand in running his outside business.

In Issa's Southern California district, 14 percent of the people and 21 percent of the children are living below the poverty line. 13.8 percent are unemployed, and 5.1 percent used food stamps in the past year. Median household income is relatively high-- $57,399-- but 5 percent still make less than 10K. While Issa has been good at bringing home projects that enhance his private wealth, it seems that many of his constituents are not feeling the benefits.

Lichtblau wrote, “As his private wealth and public power have grown, so too has the overlap between his private and business lives, with at least some of the congressman’s government actions helping to make a rich man even richer and raising the potential for conflicts.”

Is anyone shedding tears over the retirement* of Ben Nelson?

*Plus a qualifying note about Senator Ben's "retirement"
(see Ken's update below)



by Ken

To the end, the son of a bitch manages to pass himself off as a "moderate" Democrat. If he were any more "moderate," he would be totally indistinguishable from whichever Republican slug will likely replace him. At least an officially Republican senator won't have any influence on whatever remains of the Senate Democratic caucus in the 113th Congress.

From Aaron Blake's post today on washingtonpost.com:

The national Democratic Party had spent more than $1 million in advertising this year driving up Nelson’s personal approval rating, perhaps in hopes of convincing him that he could win in a dark red state. But Republican-aligned groups also spent heavily trying to define the moderate Democrat [um, "moderate" Democrat??? -- Ed.] as an enabler of President Obama, particularly because Nelson voted for Obama’s health care bill.

His reelection race was expected to be an uphill battle either way, but there also remain questions about the strength of the GOP field that is vying to run against him. . . .

Over the last decade, Nelson has carved out one of the most conservative records of any Democrat, often irritating the party’s liberal base by voting with Republicans.

But when it came to the health care bill, Nelson delivered what many saw as the deciding vote. In return, he also got some concessions, derogatorily referred to as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” Early GOP advertising efforts have focused heavily on this arrangement, which included exempting his home state from paying billions in Medicaid expansion costs.

Assuming the worst for the creature that next occupies this seat, and even assuming that it will be one more Republican seat toward seizing control of the Senate, can it really be much worse than having the truly unspeakable Ben Nelson befouling the legislative agenda?


UPDATE FROM HOWIE

I just got back to Mérida, bonedead, from an exhausting day of climbing pyramids in the steamy, humid Yucatán jungle. But did my spirits ever soar when I saw this shithead was retiring-- even though Inside the Beltway Democrats have already wasted $1.5 million on his worthless hide this year. Even worse than his putrid voting record-- he votes with Miss McConnell more than any other Democrat in the Senate and more than Lieberman-- is his hard work watering down progressive legislation and making it as useless as he is. Answers to Ken's psot headline about if anyone is shedding any tears for dickbreath-- Shoq and several others suggested Lloyd Blankfein. Phil says Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw. Randall from Tempe also points out the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma. But the first response came from rkef (roadkill refugee): "Capitol Hill Toupee & Haberdashery" If you'd like to help us make the Senate a more friendly place for normal American families, you can do it here. Meanwhile, I just happen to have this nice photo with me here in Mexico:


AND AN UPDATE (OR TWO) FROM KEN

(1) I love the responses to my question about anyone shedding tears over our Ben's sad announcement. I'm not entirely sure I agree, though. I can't imagine any of his D.C. pals will miss him personally (and in any event, wouldn't you assume he'll be back as a lobbyist?), and from the standpoint of the lobbyists who've pumped all that cash into him, they're likely to find his replacement satisfyingly less high-maintenance. And considering the likely configuration of the Democratic caucus in the 113th, it doesn't look as if even Ben would have had much ability to (as I put it originally) befoul the legislative agenda.

(2) I'm afraid I may have been premature in talking about "retirement." He didn't really say he's retiring, just that he's not running for reelection and plans to spend more time with his family, where is where I kind of zoned out. (If he's serious about spending more time with his family, there might be some tears shed there, wouldn't you think?). So I didn't pay much attention to Ben rambling about finding new ways to serve. He's only 70, after all, and he could have years ahead of him to besmirch the republic. Maybe Willard Inc.'s HHS sec'y?

#

Right-Wing Hack Lawrence Kudlow Reveals That The OccupyWallStreet Movement Plans To Murder Us All

Wow! What a zoo! I never watch that freak or any of the paid right-wing shills that dominate the corporate media. But my friend John called up fuming about the above CNBC segment, just at exactly the same time I was meditating on something David Korten wrote in his introduction to Agenda For a New Economy, one of the intellectual pillars of the OccupyWallStreet movement. I don't think Kudlow or his paymasters or his cronies would get it... be they're not Korten's target audience.

The justified public outrage against the breathtaking excesses of Wall Street creates an opportunity to mobilize political support for a New Economy that shifts our economic priorities from making money for rich people to creating better lives for all and that reallocates our economic resources from destructive, or merely wasteful, uses to beneficial ones.

...We face an urgent need for a national and international discourse on economic policy choices that support a bottom-to-top structural transformation of the economy to strengthen community and reallocate resources to where they best serve.

Now, if you've been following along with our daily discussions of The Reactionary Mind, you can well imagine that this kind of talk would send Kudlow right back to the hospital. This kind of talk-- these words just drives these reactionaries bonkers. But they're what the OccupyWallStreet movement is all about... rather than rounding up wingnuts and executing them as Kudlow and his pals-- projecting, no doubt-- fear.

And, remember, it isn't only reactionaries who are afflicted with reactionary minds-- as Rachel Maddow reminded us a few days ago. If you missed it, this is a wonderful little segment about ConservaDems and the damage they do:



Everyone knows what Ben Nelson is-- a very wealthy corporate shill who is always extremely careful to vote with the Republican Party just over 50% of the time (on key issues)-- but who ever would have imagined that Jon Tester would have gone in just five years from being a proud Montana populist to actually advocating positions significantly to the right of corporate whore Max Baucus, Montana's other senator. In fact, I'm sorry to report that he's morphed into Rep. Denny Rehberg, the Tea Party Caucus knucklehead the GOP is running against him next year. So sad... so heartbreaking... so demoralizing. I actually donated to his primary against a DLC hack and then to his general election campaign.

Ousted Conservative Democrat From Staten Island Michael McMahon Appeals To Liberals To Help Him Win Back His Seat

Michael McMahon-- neither fish nor foul... nor good red herring

Michael McMahon didn't officially ever join the Blue Dog caucus, but he tended to vote with it an awful lot. He was more likely to vote along the same conservative line as reactionary Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Travis Childers (MS), Jim Marshall (GA), Allen Boyd (FL) and Lincoln Davis (TN), all of whom were also defeated in November-- than he was with fellow New York City Democrats like Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Jose Serano or Yvette Clarke, all of whom won reelection with between 75% and 95% of the vote. 

McMahon, after winning the open Republican seat in 2008 in a landslide (114,219 (61%) to 62,441 (33%), even with McCain narrowly beating Obama), saw a real reversal of fortune three months ago, when his conservative voting record kept Democrats away from the polls just when a Fox-fueled teabagger wave swept over angry white neighborhoods of Staten Island. (The 13th CD covers all of Staten Island and selected neighborhoods in Brooklyn.) This time Michael Grimm took 59,346 (51%) and McMahon only squeezed out 55,056 (48%). As you can see, almost all of the Republicans from 2008 were out to vote, while of Democrats and left-leaning independents, almost half stayed home. 

McMahon gave them little reason to do otherwise. He was one of only 39 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP against healthcare reform, for example. That high-profile vote probably sealed his fate. He managed to narrowly win in the Brooklyn part of the district, but not by enough to make up for a 6,000-vote deficit in Staten Island, where he won in 2008 by a 40,000-vote margin.

In 2008 McMahon took 26,411 votes in Brooklyn (against 13,549 for the GOP) and 87,808 in Staten Island (against 48,892 for the Republican). This time Brooklyn gave him 14,389 while Grimm took 12,806, and Staten Island gave Grimm 46,540 and McMahon just 40,676-- less than half what he won in 2008.

The DCCC, which learned absolutely nothing from their gargantuan losses in 2010, has been eager to get him-- and other defeated conservatives like him-- to run again. Former Blue Dog Steve Israel, who brags he's "Rahm Emanuel without the curse words" wants to rerecruit all the Blue Dogs and other reactionaries who so turned off Democrats in 2010 to run in 2012. What an idiot! The GOP couldn't have asked for a better DCCC chairman.

Meanwhile McMahon is trying to shore up the Democratic base in NY-13.

In a spirited defense of his tenure in Congress -- including his controversial vote against health care reform -- former Rep. Michael McMahon appeared to be laying the groundwork for a comeback last night with an appeal to a liberal political club to help return the coveted House seat to the Democratic column, "whoever" the candidate may be.

He also told some 100 members of the Staten Island Democratic Association, meeting in St. George, that Democrats need to have a "unified message" going forward, rather than "writing letters complaining" about isolated votes a Democratic elected official might take.

"Some people told me, 'I didn't vote for you because you voted against health care,'" said McMahon. "OK, but look what you got."

...While McMahon said he wanted an honest assessment of his performance, he seemed to bristle initially at criticism, talking over one person's remarks, but later dialing back his response when another person said, to applause, that he had abandoned his political base by opposing the health care bill and failing to be a "leader" on the issue.

"I saw it a little differently at the time," said McMahon, "but I take what you say very seriously. I hear you loud and clear. ... Maybe I made some mistakes along the way."

Although old-line Republicans are already plotting a primary challenge against Grimm-- they hope to get crooked and perverted Vito Fossella, the former five-term congressman who resigned in disgrace, to run again, for some reason no one can explain-- Steve Israel and Michael McMahon may be thwarted by actual Democratic voters who don't want the conservative McMahon representing them again. Earlier this week, the Staten Island Advance wondered aloud if McMahon would win the nomination again.

Could the Democratic Party actually deny him another run at the job he so clearly relished and labored at 24/7? Already, it would seem, he is seeking to recapture his momentum, including hosting his annual St. Patrick's Parade party, this year at his old law firm in West Brighton.

While Fossella likely would have to publicly answer for his personal transgressions, something he has never done, McMahon still seems to have a lot of explaining to do for his health care vote. Party progressives maintain he abandoned his base to seek favor among conservatives, whose votes he was never going to get anyway.

One such Democrat is Teresa Caliari Olya, who hosted a State of the Union "watch party" in her home last week.

"Mike McMahon wanted nothing to do with us," recalled Ms. Olya. "He wanted nothing to do with Barack Obama. We offered to help him in his campaign, but he turned us down. He said, 'I don't want to be involved with liberal progressives.' He was very much, 'Keep your distance.' Some of us didn't vote for him or against him. He lost because of his hubris."

And so will Steve Israel. He hates progressives and refuses to understand that without them the Democratic Party is nothing but some insider careerists with no appeal to anyone. Monday we looked at another clueless conservative, Stephen Lynch, coming right out and telling progressives to keep out of Democratic politics. Like I said, these people have learned nothing from their shellacking. Polling is consistently showing the most right-wing, anti-Democratic Democrat in the Senate, the detested Ben Nelson, losing next year as Republicans flock to the red team and Democrats wonder why they should bother voting for someone who votes with the GOP on key issues more frequently than with the Democrats.

McMahon seems to be getting the message far more than either Israel or Nelson, both driven by ideological hatred towards progressives and fear of and disdain for ordinary working families, cut off from the realities on the ground and surrounded by sycophants and K Street-lobbyist yes men. Things could easily get even worse for Democrats in 2012. Steve Israel, already busy recruiting conservative candidates like himself, was probably the worst choice the Democratic Party could have made to head the DCCC. Indeed... Rahm without the curse words. FDR must be rolling in his grave.

Will Wall Street Get Their Money's Worth From McConnell And Their GOP Puppets?

This evening the Republicans are going to have to man-up and take a deep breath and level with the American people. Today the vote none of them want the country to see-- the one that says, basically, "I am with Wall Street" or "I stand with my constituents"-- will come before the Senate for a vote. I can't wait to see how Richard Burr, one of the slimiest cowards in Congress-- and one of the most vulnerable-- handles it. So far McConnell and Shelby have been unable to make the kind of deal that will let their members off easy without making them vote for Wall Street.

Even if all 59 Democrats vote "yes"-- and, yes, even Blanche Lincoln is on board for a change-- and all 41 Republicans-- including Snowe, Collins and Scott "teabagger" Brown-- manage to filibuster financial reform to death, the long term death prospects are for the GOP.

Shelby, the top ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, told George Stephanopoulos that his staff would be meeting with staff from Chairman Chris Dodd's office at 2:00 p.m., leaving little time to cement a bargain. Without an agreement, all 59 members of the Democratic caucus are committed to moving ahead and hoping to peel off at least one Republican.

GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that he has 41 votes to block debate. Shelby insisted Monday that was still the case. "I believe we will have the votes this afternoon," said Shelby.

Several Republicans have wavered in recent days, giving Democrats a sense of momentum heading into the vote. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa.) voted last week in the Agriculture Committee to back strong derivatives reform, legislation that Shelby said he could "absolutely" get behind.

"To trade with the idea of highly leveraged positions hoping that the taxpayer will bail them out... that's wrong, it's a mistake, and we're going to end that," said Shelby, arguing that the casino culture must be ended. "If they want to gamble, go to Las Vegas or somewhere."

...Jim Manley, senior communications adviser for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that Republicans must choose between siding with reform or backing Wall Street. "Today, Republicans face a major choice: Will they stand up for the American people, and join us to hold Wall Street accountable for the reckless gambling that cost 8 million Americans their jobs and millions more their economic livelihood? Or will they follow the marching orders they've been getting at their secret, closed-door meetings with Wall Street executives, and continue to protect Wall Street? We remain eager to work with Republicans who are sincere about reforming Wall Street, and we are hopeful for bipartisan agreement on this important effort," he said. "But there are no two ways about it: a vote against even opening debate on holding Wall Street accountable is a vote to protect Wall Street."

If Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway-- currently running on a very strong reform Wall Street platform-- is elected in November, he will be at loggerheads with Kentucky's other senator, one of teh most disgraceful Wall Street shills in the history of the U.S. Senate. "I think that Kentucky's senior Senator Mitch McConnell should stop defending big banks like Goldman Sachs and join his fellow Republicans in a bipartisan effort to reform Wall Street, because that's what will help Kentucky working families. We need to protect consumers and taxpayers and prevent any institution from ever again becoming 'too big to fail'." That statement from Conway this morning pretty much sums up why he is different not just from McConnell but from the 3 conservatives he's running against for Senate, Daniel Mongiardo, Rand Paul and McConnell's boy Trey Grayson.

This morning I got an e-mail from Lawrence Lessig at Change Congress that explains Senator Brown's "stand" on financial reform. It's even scarier than what you might suppose. Watch the video at the link above.

Scott Brown, Massachusetts' new senator, opposes legislation in Congress that would strengthen regulations for Wall Street.

But when a reporter recently asked him why he's against this bill, Brown couldn't give an answer. He's against financial reform, but he has no idea why.

Let me help Senator Brown: During his campaign last year, Brown received half of his campaign contributions from Wall Street and business executives. He benefited from another million dollars in issue ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They oppose the bill, so Senator Brown opposes the bill. It's no wonder Pew recently found that trust in Congress is at its lowest point ever.

Russ Feingold, one of only 8 senators who refused to vote for 1999's catastrophic Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which tore down the firewall between Main Street banks and Wall Street securities firms and insurance companies, says he'll vote to get the debate going-- which is more than the lockstep Republican obstructionists-- but he isn't committing to voting for anything he doesn't feel is in teh best interests of America.

“I will vote to take up the financial regulatory reform bill. Preventing even a debate on this critically important issue is a fantasy for the Wall Street banks that seek to undermine the first serious effort to reform financial regulations since their reckless and irresponsible actions triggered the worst recession our nation has experienced since the Great Depression.
 
“But while I support opening debate on that measure, I will not support any predetermined amending process, or as one senator described it, a ‘template’ for floor consideration that effectively puts the fix in for some negotiated final product.  Congress’ recent history on regulating the financial sector is not a proud one.  For the last 30 years, Congress has consistently given in to the wishes of Wall Street banks and voted to weaken essential safeguards.  And as has been the case in so many areas, members of both political parties in Washington are to blame.  Legislation that paved the way for the creation of massive Wall Street entities and removed essential protections for our economy-- including the Riegle-Neal Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act-- passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Congress needs to get it right this time, and finally enact tough reforms to prevent Wall Street from driving our economy into the ditch again.  I will not vote to end debate on this bill unless and until it meets that goal.”

The fight over Wall Street reform is spilling over into the congressional campaigns too. Charlie Bass is the probable GOP nominee for the New Hampshire House seat Paul Hodes is giving up to run for Senate. He thinks he owns the seat because his daddy was a congressman too. When Bass held the seat, between 1994 and 2006, he was widely known as a classic Wall Street shill (well over half a million dollars in "contributions from the financial sector) and someone very sketchy in the ethics area. (He had taken $14,233 in payoffs from DeLay and even after DeLay was indicted Bass refused to divest himself of the bribes.) Over the weekend Bass called the attempt to reform Wall Street "extremist." His main Democratic opponent, Ann McLane Kuster, came back this morning with an answer: “Congressman Bass might think that it is ‘extremist’ to reform Wall Street, but I think it is common sense,” said Kuster. “The only extremism here is defending a broken system that has allowed the biggest banks to profit while everyone else is left worrying about their job, their retirement, their college savings, and more. We won’t see stable economic growth again until we fix the broken system that got us here, and I am disappointed that Congressman Bass is dragging his heels and trying to preserve the status quo.”

One of the most serious voices inside the Senate for strong and effective reform, Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent this quote to DWT:

Just prior to the vote today to continue debate on Wall Street reform, Republican leadership wants to continue backroom deals rather than have an open floor debate in front of the American people. With today’s vote, members of Congress will either choose to stand with Main Street or Wall Street. We can stand with Main Street and put some common sense rules of the road in place; or we can stand with Wall Street and continue the bank casinos that took the homes, jobs and savings of the American people. We can stand for bringing accountability to Wall Street and reining in the abuses by the payday lenders, mortgage brokers and credit card companies or we can stand alongside the millions in bonuses and billions in profits for Wall Street. To me, it’s an easy choice. Wall Street reform is needed. Every family and business owner on Main Street knows this. It’s up to us to fight for the American middle class and do what’s right.

UPDATE: Your Intuition Was Right

The Washington Post/ABC News poll just out this morning is clear that the vast majority of Americans agree with Obama and the Democrats that Wall Street must be re-regulated.

About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk... [C]ompared with congressional Republicans, Obama has a clear advantage. A slim majority-- 52 percent-- of all Americans says they trust Obama over the GOP on the issue, while 35 percent favor the Republicans in Congress. Independents prefer Obama 47 to 35 percent, with 16 percent trusting neither side on the issue.

In the poll, most Democrats back each of the three major elements of the reform legislation and most Republicans oppose them, echoing the congressional showdown expected this week.

Roxanne Conlin is running against one of the most insidious obstacles to effective Wall Street reform, Iowa barnacle Chuck Grassley, who has managed to gobble up $2,590,499 in thinly veiled bribes from the Financial Sector since entering Congress in 1891. This morning Roxanne told us that she feels "the Financial Stability Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction, as reforms  are desperately needed.  However, the current bill simply does not go far enough. In America, we have safety systems for many activities like speed limits, no passing zones, and air traffic control. This bill only seems to paint new lines on the road without imposing the type of overall re-regulation that would prevent another financial meltdown.  

"We must reinstitute a modernized version of  the Glass-Steagall Act that will prevent these large institutions from merging traditional banks with investment banks and with insurance companies. We must take steps to prevent institutions from becoming  "too big to fail" and create a fair system for winding down the ones that fail without ever again relying on the taxpayers. We must institute personal responsibility and stop rewarding risk without accountability for the risk takers when they lose. The whole system of compensation needs to be revamped and incorporate ordinary notions of fairness.  In addition, we must encourage prosecution of those deceitful individuals who perpetrated fraud and celebrated as our economy collapsed, killing jobs and robbing citizens of trillions of dollars of assets and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in bailouts." 


UPDATE: The GOP Just Voted In Lockstep Against Even Beginning The Debate On Reform

In the most blatant combination of obstructionism, toadyism towards Wall Street and disdain for the American public, every single Republican in the Senate just voted against allowing a debate to proceed to even discuss the kind of financial reform needed to prevent another economic collapse that the GOP seems to specialize in. Ben Nelson, a Republican disguised as a Democrat, voted with his GOP buddies today. The final vote to cut off the Republican filibuster failed 57-41. Sixty votes were needed (Nelson plus one Republican plus Harry Reid who had to switch "no" so he can bring it up again). There's some speculation that Nelson was drunk again when he voted, having told CNN that he's worried "this legislation will adversely impact Main Street when the focus needs to be on Wall Street. ... I don't think everyone is aware of the unintended consequences."

President Obama just weighed in:

“I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can’t afford that. A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party.”

I liked what North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall said even more. “Richard Burr could have taken these people on. Instead, he took their money. We used to call that ‘on the take.’ You would think he would at least be ashamed.”

Elaine is running against Burr for the Senate seat he's occupying. Last week, he attended a GOP fundraiser thrown by the lobbyists for many of the sleaziest and most contemptible Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs. This weekend, emails disclosed that Goldman Sachs, which is facing charges of fraud, made huge profits betting against the housing market. Burr has taken $10,000 from the firm's political action committee and immense sums from Goldman Sachs executives who have counted on him to protect their interests even when it conflicts with his own constituents' interests-- as they often do.

The president shows those bullies! If they won't confirm his nominees, why, he'll just have to throw his people under the bus!

Dawn Johnsen is probably relieved to have the gutless

wimps of the Obama administration out of her life.

""After years of politicization of the Office during the previous administration, the President believes it is time for the Senate to move beyond politics and allow the Office of Legal Counsel to serve the role it was intended to - to provide impartial legal advice and constitutional analysis to the executive branch. He will work now to identify a replacement and call on the Senate to move swiftly to confirm that nominee in order to achieve those goals."

-- White House spokesman Ben LaBolt,

on the withdrawal of Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC

by Ken

Just to be clear, President Obama believes that the way to "move beyond politics" is to succumb to the blackmail, not just of Republicans, but of a slime-besodden member of his own party? (His initials are Ben Nelson.) Um, okay, gotcha.

The obvious objection is the terrible precedent it sets with regard to all the president's future nominations. Except that the precedent is already in place regarding all of the president's past and present nominations. The message is: "If you refuse to allow me to have the people I want in my administration, I'll . . . well, I won't do much of anything, never mind thank you for your time."

And so the withdrawal of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- even as spokesman LaBolt allows that her credentials are "exemplary" and "her commitment to the rule of law has been proven time and again" -- is totally understandable, even inevitable, given the dynamics in place, and at least allows her to get on with her life, knowing that she couldn't be confirmed because she had "only" 57 or 58 or maybe 59 votes.

Nonel of which makes it any less shocking. In case you're just coming in at this point, Sam Stein reported last night on HuffPost:

Dawn Johnsen, Key Obama Justice Nominee, Withdraws Her Nomination

Dawn Johnsen, the president's appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel whose nomination has lingered in Congressional limbo for more than a year, has officially withdrawn her candidacy for the post, according to a statement sent over from the White House.

"I am deeply honored that President Obama, the Attorney General and a strong majority of the U.S. Senate have demonstrated faith and confidence in my ability to lead the Office of Legal Counsel," Johnsen said in a statement asking for the withdrawal. "OLC plays a critical role in upholding the rule of law and must provide advice unvarnished by politics or partisan ambition. That was my guiding principle when I had the privilege to lead OLC in a past administration. Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration. Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly."

The withdrawal represents a major blow to progressive groups and civil liberties advocates who had pushed for Johnsen to end up in the office that previously housed, among others, John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos under George W. Bush.

But the votes, apparently, weren't there. Johnsen had the support of Sen Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) but was regarded skeptically by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- primarily for her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions. A filibuster, in the end, was likely sustainable. Faced with this calculus, the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess, which would have circumvented a likely filibuster but would have kept her in the position for less than two years.

In a statement accompanying Johnsen's letter, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said her credentials were "exemplary and her commitment to the rule of law has been proven time and again."

"After years of politicization of the Office during the previous administration, the President believes it is time for the Senate to move beyond politics and allow the Office of Legal Counsel to serve the role it was intended to - to provide impartial legal advice and constitutional analysis to the executive branch," LaBolt added. "He will work now to identify a replacement and call on the Senate to move swiftly to confirm that nominee in order to achieve those goals."

Well, this administration has more or less built an automatic ejection dock from which it can throw its nominees under the bus whenever the occasion arises, meaning anytime conservatives complain that one of his nominees is "too liberal."

Does the administration really believe that it has accomplished anything by captulating to the obstructionists? As often as the president has done so since taking office, can anyone think of a single instance in which he has reaped any reward? Certainly not from the opponents, who smack their lips in triumph at each additional indication that they can get this fellow to roll over just by looking at him crossly. You can see them mouthing gleefully, "We own him!"

The shame might have been lessened if this announcement had been accompanied by another: that Ben Nelson has been ejected from the Senate Democratic caucus, stripped of all seniority (including in his committee assignments), and had his men's room key confiscated. I understand that that would require a vote to that effect by the Senate Democratic caucus, but isn't this exactly what Mr. Political Hardball, Master Rahm, is supposed to be good for?

Wouldn't this have been a jolly time to make any recalcitrant senators understand that this is the way things are going to work now, and they had better all understand that or they can be next? But of course Master Rahm only plays hardball with people to his left, which means most everyone with a working brain who hasn't been bought by the megacorporate thugs who own him.

And of course this president doesn't work that way. He's "postpartisan." Meaning he'll concede just about anything to Republicans and ConservaDems.

#

The Republicans Didn't Need Scott Brown For Their Obstructionism After All-- They Already Had Blanche Lincoln And Ben Nelson

Last week, I mentioned that the 60-vote cloture vote to override the Republican filibuster of President Obama's nomination of Patricia Smith would probably be the last time that would ever happen, at least in the current conservative-dominated Senate. I warned, at the time, that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other far right special interest groups were gunning for another Obama nominee, Craig Becker, slated to become a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which is charged (since it was created by FDR in 1934) with overseeing elections for labor unions and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. Conservatives-- basically all Republicans plus a handful of reactionary Democrats-- are hostile to working people organizing to protect their interests and object when any advocates for working people are appointed to the board that was set up to protect them! Beck, a distinguished Yale graduate and an educator, has been practicing labor law and advocating for low wage workers for almost three decades. He is an associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union.

Obama nominated him on July 9 (along with two others, one of whom is a Senate Republican staffer, Brian Hayes) and all three were given the thumbs up by the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 3 months later. Although the 3 nominees were part of a bipartisan package, McCain, who is bending over backwards to placate fringe extremists in Arizona who are determined to deny him re-election, put a hold on Becker. The GOP decided to give their newest member, Scott Brown (R-MA) and opportunity to show his disdain for working families by joining his first ritual filibuster yesterday. Late in the afternoon, Reid called for a cloture vote to shut down the filibuster. Brown joined the rest of the obstructions in his party-- all of them-- to vote no. And every Democrat present voted yes-- except two anti-union, anti-working family shills of Big Business, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The Senate failed to break the filibuster 52-33, 15 members away because of the inclement weather. It was very odd today that Harold Meyerson blames the loss of the imaginary 60 vote filibuster-proof majority for the death of EFCA and the defeat of Craig Becker and doesn't even mention Blanche or Ben's perfidy!

I wonder what unions think, especially the ones that have contributed $800,000 to Nelson's senator career and the ones who have given Blanche Lincoln $580,000 since she was first elected to Congress. I wonder what it will take for unions to start learning their lesson about donating their members' dues to anti-worker Blue Dogs and ConservaDems like Lincoln and Nelson. Lincoln had already rewarded Labor for their support over the years by effectively killing Employee Free Choice when she publicly declared last year-- at a Chamber of Commerce meeting-- that she would join the Republican Party filibuster of EFCA. That's part of the reason Lincoln's approval ratings have dipped to the lowest of any member of the Senate and why it is considered virtually impossible for her to be re-elected to any statewide office in Arkansas, where she is absolutely reviled by all sides. This most recent vote is viewed as a naked play for her post-Senate career as a lobbyist for Big Business. Nelson isn't up for re-election in 2010 and he feels safe to anger Democrats whenever he likes-- which is almost always. He votes with the GOP on close substantive issues more frequently than he votes with Democrats and he's universally considered the worst Democrat in the Senate. This is how the AFL-CIO characterized Nelson's decision Monday night when he had announced that he would join the Republicans in not allowing Becker to have a straight up-or-down vote:

Senator Ben Nelson’s decision to join a Republican filibuster against President Obama’s nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB is a shame and disappointment. Should he follow through with this decision, Senator Nelson will be leaving working families at a major disadvantage for fair justice in the workplace without a fully staffed NLRB. Furthermore, he will be defying the same principles he adhered to while facing President Bush appointees.
 
Senator Nelson’s decision to put politics over the needs of working families is exactly the Washington politics as usual the American public is tired of. Our country needs leaders who are willing to put the interests of working families over politics and corporate influence.
 
The Republicans accusing Democrats of trying to rush Becker’s nomination through are the same Republicans who have stalled his nomination for over five months. It’s time to give working families the support they need and deserve.

Facing President Bush’s nominations to the Supreme Court in 2005, Nelson authored an OpEd in the Omaha World-Herald where he stated, “The president's nominees…deserve an up-or-down vote, even if the nominee isn't popular with the special-interest groups in Washington.” Nelson also stated that “[Nebraskans] want the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm a ‘good judge’ and, in the process, to avoid labels and resist litmus tests.”

Next week the Senate will be in recess and President Obama will have an opportunity to make recess appointments to the positions clowns like McCain and Shelby (not to mention Nelson and Lincoln) have been blocking. I can't image he'll follow through on his recent threats to do it though. I doubt it because he's still looking for a kind of "bipartisanship" that clueless independent voters say they want, bipartisanship that, as Rachel Maddow put it last night, would be harder to attain with the Republican obstructionists than teaching a dog to drive a car. I hope someone gives Obama this tape of Rachel from last night's show so he can watch what Republicans are worth in terms of his increasingly absurd efforts to bring them into governance. If you missed it, it's worth sticking with it to the very end:

Guess Which Democrats Are Helping Big Oil And Their Lisa Murkowski Block Clean Air Provisions

When we talk about the senatorial corruption that is probably the strongest single pillar of the kind of systemic inertia propping up the status quo, we're not necessarily talking about corporations and their lobbyists putting money directly into the pockets of senators. (There are exceptions of course, like defense contractors paying off out-and-out crooks like Duke Cunningham, Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis, although that was in the House, or slightly less overt examples like corporations hiring spouses of congressmembers-- sleazy characters like Doolittle and Lieberman being among the worst offenders-- and then paying them outrageous amounts of money which amount to nothing more than bribes.) No, most of the corruption is in the form of the financing of political careers.

Last night I was at a public lecture Jerrold Nadler gave at Brave New Studios in Culver City and with shocking candor he explained how it works-- in terms of the outrageous 5-4 Supreme Court coup (Citizens United v FEC)-- and its colossal danger to democracy. He talked about how some of his colleagues-- I suspect all of them-- will be looking over their shoulders, afraid to vote in the public interest when it conflicts with wealthy special interests that could finance them... or finance their political demises. But, of course, that is exactly what lifelong corporate shills like Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy had in mind when they overturned a century of jurisprudence to give self-serving corporations-- including corporations owned by America's foreign competitors and even enemies-- free rein to buy U.S. elections.

A report today from Greenwire demonstrates the insidious nature of big corporate money dictating policy that may be good for bonus-hungry corporate managers but is disastrous for the public.

Oil and gas companies spent at least $154 million on lobbying last year, potentially besting a field of rivals battling to shape climate and energy policies and setting a new record for the industry.

Influence efforts by the oil and gas sector grew at least 16 percent in 2009 from the $132 million spent in 2008, according to an early analysis of new lobbying disclosures by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The total reflects spending for the first nine months of 2009 plus 80 percent of reports filed for the past three months.

The electric utility industry, meanwhile, spent at least $134.7 million on lobbying last year. Combined, the two traditional energy sectors paid out nearly 10 times the $29 million that alternative energy companies allocated for lobbying efforts. Environmental organizations spent at least $21.3 million last year on lobbying.

"When a business's livelihood is at stake, they'll put a lot of money down on the table to influence the policies that will affect it," said Sam Thernstrom, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at President George W. Bush's White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Although President Obama in his State of the Union address criticized what he called "the outsized influence of lobbyists," Thernstrom said, "the policy proposals he puts forward are the kind of policy proposals that attract lobbyists."

The oil and gas industry lobbied on a number of issues other than climate legislation including taxes, health care and spending bills. It is not possible to know how much of the $154 million total went toward climate policy efforts. The total also includes some of money paid for political advertising. Oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., report those costs in lobbying totals, but other large petroleum companies like Chevron do not include advertising costs in lobbying reports.

The spending came during a year that saw climate legislation stall in the Senate after passage in the House. The oil and gas industry condemned the House bill as one that would drive up energy costs and kill jobs. Portions of the electric utility industry supported climate legislation but had concerns with the House bill. The two sectors worked for changes in the Senate. Alternative energy companies and environmental groups largely wanted passage in the Senate, while also lobbying for new policies like a national mandate that utilities generate a portion of their power from renewable sources.

As 2010 starts, oil and gas companies are pushing for new access to offshore drilling, welcoming Obama's State of the Union comment. Utility companies are debating whether to back an energy bill that would cap carbon emissions just for the power sector, instead of an economywide mandate. And all sectors want help in any jobs bill Congress puts forward.

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is the daughter of one of the most corrupt men to have ever served in the U.S. Senate. When people wonder how a trashy moron like Sarah Palin could have possibly been elected governor of anything, the answer had to do with a degree of corruption unheard of even by Alaska's rather loose public morals. Senator Frank Murkowski, on the brink of being forced out of the Senate, got himself elected governor, immediately appointed his worthless daughter to fill his seat and keep the goodies flowing, and went so deep into an orgy of unparalleled and barely disguised corruption that even a nitwit like Palin, campaigning as a reformer, looked like a step up. Palin may have taken over the corruption business in state, but Murkowski's slimy daughter kept the family business going Inside-the-Beltway. Her bid to gut the Clean Air Act on behalf of the corporations that have financed her and her father's political careers is one of the most egregious examples in recent history.

The top three industries financing Murkowski's Senate career are Electric utilities ($391,313), Oil and Gas ($370,213) and Lobbyists ($301,268). That's over a million reasons to take the leading role in killing the kind of environmental legislation most Americans want. [Her career-long #1 single donor is an Alaska criminal organization that rivals the Mafia in terms of corruption-- Veco, all of whose senior management is under indictment or being investigated by the FBI and state authorities for bribing federal and state office holders.]

But, don't get me wrong. Murkowski doesn't have the strength to gut the Clean Air Act on her own-- not even with lockstep obstructionism from the entire Republic caucus. But the Senate is ruled not by a progressive Democratic majority-- super or otherwise-- but by a bipartisan conservative consensus that includes the whole GOP and as many as a dozen conservative Democrats, almost every one of whom is extremely corrupt and more motivated by the "contributions" from Big Business than by any kind of ideology. In the case of Murkowski's latest foray into poisoning America's people, she had plenty of solidarity from the worst of the conservative Democrats. One, who is trying to burnish her corporate credentials for her post-Senate career (which even she knows will begin next year) is Arkansas corporate hack Blanche Lincoln, one of the most for-sale senators in history. She feeds at the same trough as most Republicans, scooping up immense amounts of corporate and lobbyist cash for her failing career in politics.

With the help of our readers and donors Blue America has been helping-- very successfully-- Arkansas voters focus their minds of Blanche's astounding lack of public morality and her shocking-- even for the Senate-- corruption. If you'd like to help with the ongoing effort (or just see the ads), please take a look here. Lincoln has teamed up with two of the most corrupt and most reactionary Democrats-- funny how those traits always go together-- to make sure Frank Murkowski's legacy is upheld by his daughter. Corporate shills Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE), along with Blanche, are co-sponsors of Murkowski's deadly proposal. MoveOn is running some powerful ads to let voters-- and air breathers-- in Louisiana, Nebraska and Arkansas know what "their" senators are up to. MoveOn is asking people to sign a petition-- almost 200,000 already have, they will present to the Senate next week when Murkowski's anti global warming legislation gets voted on.

Cowardly Blue Dog Types Tripping Over Themselves To Cross The Aisle On Key Issues

Yesterday we looked at some responses from Democratic incumbents and challengers to the upset in Massachusetts Tuesday. I was especially bolstered to see how progressives like Marcy Winograd (CA) and Doug Tudor (FL) realized that tapping into the anger and frustration many voters feel about the status quo is an opportunity to stand up for powerful values that resonate with voters rather than something to cower from in fear. Needless to say, the cowering in fear crowd was out in force as well, even beyond the TV camera whores like Bayh and Lieberman.

Two serial aisle crossers, Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)-- the Democrat who voted most with the GOP since Obama was elected who doesn't come from a former slave-holding state-- tripped over their own feet in an attempt to run to the media and demand more tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush's tax cuts for the rich are supposed to expire at the end of the year and somehow Emanuel and Summers haven't persuaded Obama to extend them yet. So Connolly, Mitchell and other cowardly, craven kiss-ass Blue Dogs (and fellow travelers) are giving it a shot.

Obama during the campaign and in last year's budget plan proposed extending Bush tax cuts affecting the poor and middle class. He proposed letting the top two tax rates, now 33% and 35%, return to 36% and 39.6% respectively, in 2011.

This year, the top rate will apply to income above $373,650 for individuals and married couples. Under Obama's plan, the 36%, second-highest rate would kick in at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples.

Obama also proposed bumping the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends up to 20% for those with income in excess of $200,000, or $250,000 for married couples.

"The president's always said that tax cuts just for those people making more than a quarter million dollars a year-- something like 2% of people-- that those ought to expire when they were scheduled to expire, but... he has called for extending all the rest of the tax cuts," Austan Goolsbee, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said Monday on PBS.

However, some Democratic strategists looking toward midterm elections see peril in heading into November with looming tax increases on the horizon. Tax increases may be a potent issue for Republican opponents as Democrats defend majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D., Ariz.), a second-term congressman who held on to his seat in 2008 with 53% of the vote, wrote Obama last week asking him to extend the lower capital gains and dividend rate, and estate tax rates.

"Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation," Mitchell wrote.

Connolly said the decision on whether or not to extend the tax cuts should be weighed against the impact of doing so on the deficit. But "re-instilling confidence in the economy" should be paramount, he said.

Their view, while gaining clout, remains in the minority among congressional Democrats. Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.), a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, dismissed the argument that allowing taxes on investment to rise now would slow the recovery.

"There's no proof that the Bush tax cuts had anything but a negative effect," said McDermott.

Meanwhile, the most right-wing Democrat in the Senate, Nebraska reactionary Ben Nelson-- the only Democrat to have voted with the GOP this year on substantive matters more than with his own party (about twice as bad as Lieberman)-- practically declared himself a teabagger.

"Clearly, the vote showed that people are frustrated with Washington...and I am too," Nelson said in a statement. "That frustration will likely register across the board for all incumbents. The overriding message from yesterday is that people are upset because Washington is dysfunctional and not working together for them." ... Nelson did not say where he stood on the healthcare reform bill, only that bipartisanship is needed to "fix a national health care system that 70 percent of Nebraskans want fixed."

And Reid and Obama say to forget changing the filibuster rules; n-o-t i-n t-h-e c-a-r-d-s. And, if you don't approve of this approach, there is a way of sending the Democrats a nice, strong message.


A Sensible Suggestion From Eric Massa

Eric Massa (D-NY), a more progressive Democrat-- and a devoted partisan of single-payer universal health care reform who voted against the bill in the House-- released a sensible statement today calling for a restart of the process in an attempt to get it right this time.

"I have asked that the thousands of pages of legislation so far developed be scrapped because it is my belief that we should focus primarily on reforming the largely unregulated health insurance sector. I believe that the virtual monopoly that private for-profit health insurance corporations have across our nation is the biggest reason why we are facing out of control healthcare costs.

"I look to the results of the Senate race in Massachusetts as an opportunity to refocus our efforts to get it right. I will continue to work aggressively to create healthcare reform which reflects the concerns that I have heard at the 74 townhall meetings we've held in the 29th Congressional District. Specifically I want to see legislation that lowers costs, creates interstate portability, protects small businesses, increases access to Medicare, establishes true medical malpractice insurance reform based on access to care, closes the Medicare Part D donuthole, eliminates rejections based on pre-existing conditions, and delivers badly needed regulations to the monopolistic health insurance industry. Quite, frankly it might be a lot more feasible if we do this one piece at a time rather than with broad sweeping legislation."

Breaking News: "The Votes Are There!" Historic Healthcare Bill Now Certain To Pass

Key Concessions at Last Minute Get Senate Dems Over the 60-Vote Hump; Victory Assured

-by Gene Sculatti

After four decades, it now looks as if a sweeping healthcare reform bill will be upon the President’s desk before Christmas. Word came late Thursday that Senate Democrats have what an inside source called “an un-pickable lock” on passing the bill. Well more than the needed 60 votes have been secured for legislation that will include a vibrant public-option plan, severe cost rollbacks for insurers and pharmaceutical companies, and the elimination of exclusionary coverage policies-- the principal friction points that have hampered the bill’s progress since the House and Senate began fashioning their respective proposals months ago.

Sources close to the White House say President Obama has already approved an informal draft of what’s being called the “victory speech” he’ll deliver to the nation in mid-January. In it he’s expected to hail the bill, which he’s vowed to sign “immediately,” as a historic event-- and, not coincidentally, proof that he’s honored his promise to “achieve significant legislation that improves the lives of all Americans” by the end of his first term.

Senate approval of the bill did not come without concessions, most made throughout Wednesday and Thursday. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer noted in announcing the Democrats’ vote-gathering success, party leaders “reached out pretty far” to collect votes from centrist Democrats as well as a surprising number of Republican lawmakers. Obama seconded their remarks, describing the concessions as “verifiable and conclusive evidence that we can work together with those we may not agree with in the interest of true collaborative achievement.”

Among the key concessions that enabled the Democrats to collect some 74 “guaranteed” votes for Senate passage of the bill:

* Provisions sought by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson that remove any abortion funding from the bill. As now amended, the bill would provide up to $300 million over the next three years to close most of the nation’s 7,800 family-planning clinics and to severely restrict the sale in drug-- or discount chains of any contraceptive products.

* At the insistence of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a former staunch opponent of the public-option provision, the bill now earmarks $750 million in funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to help Israel construct a three-mile-deep wall fencing in the remaining ‘open’ portions of the Gaza Strip.

* In what Reid and Hoyer called “a sincere olive branch offered to our Republican brothers,” the healthcare bill now includes blanket legislation rescinding all firearms regulations in the continental U.S., as well as the suspension of habeas corpus rights and stipulation of the death penalty for anyone suspected of flag-burning on U.S. soil. In addition, the bill strips from any 2010 budget all funding for the EPA, NPR, Head Start and any government program advocated by Bono in his many opinion-page pieces in the New York Times.

* Finally, the White House indicated that, in order to enlist full bipartisan support, the bill now provides for unlimited offshore oil drilling, random and warrantless drug tests in schools and workplaces, and a prohibition against importing medical prescriptions from Canada; $3 billion in Homeland Security funds have been specified for the stationing of 30,000 Army and Marine troops along the Canadian border to enforce the provision.

Referring to the oil-drilling, EPA-dissolution and flag-burning concessions of the 2009 Healthcare Reform bill, Obama pointed out that, “This is what cooperation in politics is all about. Just because Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney may be in favor of some of these things doesn’t mean they’re things we can’t talk about. We’ve all been able to move from our original positions, to bend in the spirit of good faith, and that’s how we were able to get this historic legislation passed in time for my next State of the Union address. It’s something we can all be proud of.”