Will The Anti-Red Wave Continue To Grow?

Longtime Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel (retired) was on the air with John Catsimatidis yesterday and he explained what Trump, a former campaign contributor of his, has done to the political system. "It is a terrible thing because it doesn’t give Americans an opportunity to vote on the issues. It’s either you’re for Trump or against Trump... The worst that we have in America has joined up with Trump and good Republicans have nowhere to go."

That's been manifesting itself in special elections all year and now, very strongly, in the polls. Take Iowa, for example. Up for re-election are the state's 4 members of Congress (3 Republicans and one Democrat) and the state's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds. A poll for the Des Moines Register released Sunday shows that Democrat Fred Hubbell is beating incumbent Kim Reynolds 43-41% in a state Trump won by ten points in 2016. The worst news for Republicans is that "Among independent voters, who represent the largest share of registered voters in the state, Hubbell leads Reynolds 40 percent to 34 percent. Twelve percent say they support Porter, and 14 percent are unsure... Hubbell also leads among Iowans who say they did not vote in the 2014 midterm election, by 41 percent to Reynolds’ 31 percent. Selzer said that could be an indication he’s drawing support beyond the traditional Democratic base, from people who are not regular midterm voters." As for the makeup of the state's congressional delegation, it may well go from 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat to 3 Democrats and 1 Republican or if everything keeps going they way they have... 4 Democrats and no Republicans! (Contribute to J.D. Scholten's campaign for the Steve King seat here.)

We find a similar story just north of Iowa in Minnesota, where early voting has already begun and where Republicans had been making gains in recent years. Trump seems to have brought that trend to a screeching halt. As J. Patrick Coolican wrote ominously for the StarTribune over the weekend, "because politics has become so nationalized, an unpopular president portends bad things for his party."

Trump’s approval rating has dropped from 45 percent to 39 percent, while 56 percent disapprove of his handling of the job, according to our recent Minnesota Poll, which was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy in partnership with MPR News. The pollster conducted 800 interviews, with a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points.

The question is whether Minnesota voters who disapprove of Trump will take out their frustrations on Republican candidates-- yes, it may seem strange, but voters often choose legislative candidates based on how they feel about the president.

Perhaps most surprising and most troubling for the GOP: Trump’s approval rating in southern Minnesota is just 40 percent, which belies the conventional wisdom that Trump is popular in greater Minnesota.

In other results, Democrats are safely ahead of Republicans in nearly every major statewide race. U.S. Rep. Tim Walz leads Jeff Johnson by 9 points in the governor’s race, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar is up big over Jim Newberger, and U.S. Sen. Tina Smith leads state Sen. Karin Housley by 7 points.

How will this play out in House races? Let's look at the 8 seats. The Republicans thought they had a slam-dunk to take Democrat Tim Walz's open seat in a district Trump won 53.3% to 38.4%. Their candidate, Jim Hagedorn, hasn't been able to make the sale and it's now a dead-heat in an R+5 district. If the wave is strong enough, Dan Feehan will be sworn in as MN-01 congressman in January, not Hagedorn. In MN-02 Angie Craig (D) is clobbering Republican incumbent Jason Lewis.

Same in the 3rd district, where Dean Phillips is beating Republican incumbent Erik Paulsen by an even greater margin! These two Twin Cities suburban seats are becoming an elephant's graveyard this cycle, entirely because of voter antipathy towards Trump. Phillips and Craig are both weak candidates who will be swept into Congress because of a Trump-inspired anti-red wave.

Democrats have no viable opponents in MN-04 (Betty McCollum), MN-05 (Ilhan Omar) and MN-07 (Collin Peterson-- a district Trump won by THIRTY points!) and the Republicans have no viable opponents in MN-06 (Tom Emmer). So that leaves MN-08, another one the NRCC thought was an easy pick-up. Rick Nolan is retiring. The PVI is R+4 and Trump beat Hillary 54.2% to 38.6%. But despite Republican Pete Stauber spending 3 times more money that Democrat Joe Radinovich, this is another dead heat race that will depend on the size and strength of the wave on election day.

Before we get down into the nitty gritty of how this is playing out on the national stage, one more bit of background, this from Jonathan Martin at the NY Times over the weekend: Kavanaugh Was Supposed To Be A Midterm Boon For the GOP. Not Anymore. Martin reported that "With Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, tentatively scheduled to testify this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and many women furious over President Trump’s attacks on Dr. Blasey, a Supreme Court nomination that was once seen as a political winner in many conservative-leaning states could, instead, rouse female voters and independents who otherwise may have cared little about the confirmation fight... Suburban women are pivotal in this year’s campaign and many of them were already tilting toward Democrats because of their contempt for President Trump. If Republicans are too harsh in their questioning of Dr. Blasey, they risk inviting an even greater backlash at the ballot box in an election where their House majority is in peril and their one-vote Senate majority is teetering."

OK, and that takes us right to the new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. To begin with, 52% of registered voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing (45% strongly). 44% approve (29% strongly). The Republican Party is viewed negatively by 44% of likely voters and 32% positively, as opposed to the Democratic Party, which is viewed negatively and positively by 38% of registered voters.

Kavanaugh is viewed positively by 27% and negatively by 30%.

And when asked which party they would prefer in control of Congress, 52% say the Democrats and 40% say the Republicans.

Most voters-- and most independent voters-- want their vote to send a signal that they want to see a Democratic Congress as a check on and balance for Trump.

Sixty-five percent of registered Democrats say they’re very interested in the midterms-- registering either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale-- compared with 61 percent of Republicans who say the same thing.

That narrow 4-point advantage for Democrats is down from their leads of 11 points in August (63 percent to 52 percent) and 16 points in July (65 percent to 49 percent).

The groups with the highest level of interest in the election: Seniors (73 percent register either a “9” or “10), Democrats (65 percent), whites (61 percent), Republicans (61 percent) and African Americans (53 percent).

The groups with the lowest level of interest: Independents (37 percent) and those ages 18-34 (35 percent).

Worrying: younger voters are not enthusiastic about voting, nor are independents, two groups many Democratic candidates have been counting on to get them over the finish line, especially in red districts. Democratic candidates have to ask themselves what will help more in the final weeks of campaigning-- appealing to seniors or trying to enthuse younger voters. Where they allocate scarce resources could determine the results in November.

Who will take Charlie Rangel's place representing NY's 13th CD?

Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and the Rev. Martin
Luther King Jr. back in -- well, a very long time ago

"All politics is local."

-- former House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-MA)

by Ken

It was, I think, a couple of weeks into the new year when the calendar arrived in my mailbox -- a really nice 2016 wall calendar produced by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, "Commemorating the Year of 'The Endless Winter.' " So nice that it made me wish I actually use a wall calendar. It was from my congressman, and I didn't remember ever receiving such a thing from him before, in all the years he's been my congressman. And my immediate thought was, the son-of-a-gun is actually going to run again.

I was told that no, he's not running again. It turned out that he'd said when he ran the last time that that would be the last, but how sure can we ever be about such things? I think a lot of people, possibly including the congressman himself, realized that he's already run for a couple of terms too many. But that hadn't stopped him before, and he survived primary challenges those last two times, in 2012 and 2014.

Oh, the margin was surprisingly close in 2012 -- less than a thousand votes over State Sen. Adriano Espaillat (occupying the seat vacated by Eric Schneiderman in 2010 to make his successful run for NYS attorney general) -- but I really don't think that after those two brushes with political death he was going to be ousted by ballot. People talk about all the demographic changes and the changes in the makeup of the district, now with that chunk of the Bronx, and no longer a majority-black district. But Charlie Rangel has been a congressman from hereabouts since 1971. When you consider the modest turnout to be expected in a primary contest, and the sheer longevity and presence of the name of "Congressman Charlie Rangel," I just don't see that he was going to go out that way. I voted against him in both the 2012 and 2014 primarires, and came away persuaded that whatever he wants to do, it would remain his choice when to stay and when to go.

Now, finally, Charlie R has decided it's time to go. Leaving the obvious question: Who comes next?

I don't know who coined the phrase "is tantamount to election," referring to primary races that are, well, tantamount to election, but the phrase certainly covers the the primary we'll be having in my congressional district, New York's 13th, which includes much of Uppermost Manhattan plus a chunk of the Bronx, this coming Tuesday. Oh, I suppose it's possible that somebody could be elected to something up here in the far northern reaches of Manhattan from some party other than the Democratic one, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Howie has kept asking me to "explain" the primary race to succeed Charlie Rangel. I don't know that I can explain much, but I can venture that it's certainly a historic moment. Allowing for periodic changes in the shape and numbering of the CD, come January, when our new congressman takes his seat, the district will have been represented over the previous 72 years by just two individuals: since 1971, by Charlie Rangel; and before that, from January 1945, by the Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., whom we're about to see describedt as " the most powerful black politician in the country during the 1950s."

Adam Clayton Powell Jr., was the first person of African-American descent elected to Congress from New York. He was both a pastor and a politician and represented Harlem in Congress. In 1961, after sixteen years in the House, he became chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. As Chairman, he supported the passage of important social legislation but was removed from his seat by Democratic Representatives-elect of the 90th Congress following allegations of corruption.

Few people under 40 may know his name now, but Adam Clayton Powell was the most powerful black politician in the country during the 1950s, helping create landmark programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start, and even contributing to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Harlem's Congressman from 1945 until 1971, his legislative and personal efforts drove the desegregation of public schools, of the military, even of the U.S. Capitol itself. . . .

In 1941, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., became New York City's first African-American councilman. By 1944, he had won a seat in Congress. It was heady, but lonely as one of the only two African Americans in the U.S. House; particularly since the other, William Dawson of Chicago, was more seen than heard, careful to not upset the status quo. He went on to be a trailblazer in Congress, paving the way for the next generation of African-American politicians. After holding office for 25 years, he was ousted in the Democratic primary in 1970 by Charles Rangel.

Adam Powell didn't behave like most African-American politicians. "I'm the first bad Negro they've had in Congress," he bragged. He made more enemies on Capitol Hill than perhaps any legislator before or since.

Voters from Harlem elected Powell as their representative nearly two dozen times. With long service in Congress comes seniority and ultimately the chance to head one of the powerful committees that draft bills that the full House and Senate eventually vote on. After the election of 1960, Powell took over as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

Adam Powell was instrumental in passing legislation that made lynching a federal crime, as well as bills that desegregated public schools. He challenged the Southern practice of charging Blacks a poll tax to vote and stopped racist Congressmen from saying the word "nigger" in sessions of Congress.

However, by the mid-1960s, Powell was increasingly being criticized for mismanaging his committee's budget, taking trips abroad at public expense, and missing sittings of his committee. He was also under attack in his District, where his refusal to pay a slander judgment made him subject to arrest. He spent increasing amounts of time in Florida.

In January 1967, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his committee chairmanship. The full House refused to seat him until completion of the Judiciary Committee's investigation. Powell urged his supporters to "keep the faith, baby" while the investigation was under way. On March 1, the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell said, "On this day, the day of March in my opinion, the end of the United States of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Powell won the Special Election to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion but did not take his seat. He sued in Powell v. McCormack to retain his seat. In November 1968, Powell was again elected. On January 3, 1969, he was seated as a member of the 91st Congress; but he was fined $25,000 and denied seniority. In June 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, a duly elected member.

In June 1970, Adam Powell Jr. was defeated in the Democratic primary by Charles B. Rangel. That fall, he failed to get on the November ballot as an Independent; and he resigned as minister at the Abyssinian Baptist Church.

-- from the website Black History in America
(basically excerpted from Wikipedia)

I apologize for the length of the above quote, as noted apparently compressed from the Wikipedia entry, but as I read it I found myself fascinated, even though I have what I thought of as abundant and vivid memories of ACP Jr. Perhaps it's because those memories are overly weighted toward the later years, which on the congressman's part became so much about self-aggrandizement and then self-preservation; that makes it easier to forget the shape of the whole career, and just how important it was. This seems to me a useful time to remember that ACP Jr. knew a thing or two about the uses of power and getting things done.

Now you look at that 72-year run, January 1945 to January 2017, and you think maybe "dynasty." You may note in particular the resemblance in the shapes of the careers, from the rise to prominence and power to the engulfment in scandal, including the critical loss of the House committee chairmanship that carried with it so much influence. Of course you also note that in 1970 it was the crusading young Charlie Rangel who shoved his enfeebled predecessor out of the seat.



I believe that the young Charlie was motivated, in 1970, not just by opportunity but by genuine outrage over the disgraced Adam Powell's abuses of power. Which would make the shape of his own, much longer House career at the very least ironic. One hopes against hope that the lesson isn't the obvious one -- you know, about all power corrupting. But it's hard not to think that in the end it comes down to the money, all that money floating freely around the tables in the various houses of government. It would be easy to understand if even a relatively innocent young pol, once he becomes aware of all that moving money, takes to thinking, "Now just a dag-blamed minute here, didn't my people elect me to keep an eye on all that? Making sure it goes to, you know, the right kind of people?"

So in a lot of ways the race to succeed Charlie is like a lot of local contests around the country, having to do with who's going to take "a seat at the table." One wrinkle is that the tables at which Adam Powell and Charlie Rangel took their places, both the "little" local ones and the more magnificent ones where they set up shop in D.C., are table that aren't places where people like them are generally welcome to sit. (I might add that I don't expect whoever wins Tuesday to be a major player at the D.C. tables -- no Adam P or Charlie R on the national scene, in other words.)


SO WHO'S GOING TO SUCCEED CHARLIE?

That what every wants to know, right? Who's on deck? And the answer is: a whole bunch of people. Hey, it's an open congressional seat, here in NYC, which contains the highest concentration of political wannabes on the planet, right?

I suppose you could argue the demographics of the district, or minutely scrutinize the positions-on-the-issues staked out by each of the contenders, the way we usually do here at DWT. But it seems to me to come down to who comes to feel like the most comfortable fit for the distract, or at any rate can persuade enough constituents to think so.

For those who place great store by names, there's even an Adam Clayton Powell in the field: Adam Clayton Powell IV, or at any rate one of the Adam Clayton Powell IVs. (The other ACP IV is, as you would expect, the grandson of ACP Jr., being the son of ACP III. The candidate ACP IV, however, is a son of ACP Jr., being the 16-years-younger half-brother of ACP III.)

Charlie has endorsed Assemblyman Keith Wright to replace him.

But the candidates who seem best positioned to emerge from the field are Assemblyman Keith Wright, who on April 30 received the endorsement of Congressman Rangel himself, to go with an assorment of other local-pol endorsements, and State Sen. Adriano Espaillat, who mounted primary challenges against the congressman in 2012 and 2014 -- and, as noted, came pretty darned close the first time.

Now Espaillat isn't a firebrand or crusader, and when he ran to hold on to his State Senate seat after losing in the 2014 congressional primary, former City Councilmember Robert Jackson scored some hitts on his Senate work record. But I kind of like that Adriano isn't a natural at being a glad-handing pol. I remember walking past him one morning trying rather forlornly to campaign outside one of the less-used local subway entrances, at the base of a cliff, looking like he'd rather be almost anywhere else. I also kind of like that he doesn't attract much enthusiasm from the people looking to attach themselves to a potential new political table-sitter.

I've never regretted voting for Adriano Espaillat for the NYS Assembly and Senate, or for Congress in his 2012 and 2014 races against Charlie R. So why wouldn't I vote for him now?

Mostly I think of Espaillat fighting good local-issue fights, usually on the side of the people who don't otherwise have much access to power. You may have noticed, for example, that the pols attached to the recent successful campaign to "save the supermarket" up on Hudson Heights were Senator Espaillat and the two local city councilmembers, Ydanis Rodriguez and Mark Levine.

I felt bad the other night when I cut off an Espaillat campaign phone caller, saying, "I wish him well. I'm voting for him." Well, I do and I am, and I didn't want to waste any more time listening to the phone spiel.

Now, does that explain everything? (Does it explain anything?)

#

The G.E. Loophole-- Bankrupting America To Make G.E. Executives Richer, Part I

On April 2, the Senate Finance Committee is planning to renew 55 major tax breaks worth $700 billion over 10 years, which is mostly to the benefit of the corporations like General Electic, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, which underwrite the political careers of our political elite in general and the members of the Senate Finance Committee in particular. They will move the tax extender package, which guarantees that some of these mega-corporations and crooked Wall Street banks will continue to rake in billions of dollars in profits every year while paying a far lower tax rate than families and small businesses. $80 billion of the $700 comes from 2 major loopholes-- pardon the jargon: the Active Financing Exception and the CFC look-through rule, both of which were designed and maintained to assist corporations shift U.S. profits offshore to tax havens.

But, but, but… this isn't the House, controlled by corrupt corporate whores like Boehner, Ryan and Cantor. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. This could never happen without the Democrats being on board. Precisely. Let's begin with the members of the Committee. The new chairman, replacing Big Buisness-owned Max Baucus, is Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking member is Orrin Hatch (R-UT). There are 22 other members:

• Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)- $2,000
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $2,000
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)- $27,750
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)- $4,000
• Bob Menendez (D-NJ)- $5,750
• Tom Carper (D-DE)- $17,800
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)- $14,000
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)- $32,600
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)- $8,000
• Bob Casey (D-PA)- $9,000
• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $10,500
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)- $4,000
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)- $7,500
• Mike Enzi (R-WY)- $7,000
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $15,000
• John Thune (R-SD)
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $2,000
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)- $3,000
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $14,800
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)- $4,000

Partisanship and ideology aside, a bigger bunch of bribe-taking crooks won't be found anywhere in American government. The only member who could be counted to to consistently put the well-being of his consistence first is Sherrod Brown. General Electric has countless ways to funnel legalistic, thinly veiled bribes to senators. The numbers next to each member's name indicates direct payments by just one of the many General Electric PACs made during the 2012 cycle and so far this cycle. Why G.E.? These men and women are about to decide whether or "not" to extend the G.E. loophole that allows one of the most profitable corporations in history to pay no taxes. Time to go back to David Kocieniewski's classic NY Times investigative piece about GE's tax chicanery from March 24, 2010, G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether. Profits that year were $14.2 billion and their U.S. tax bill was zero; in fact, G.E. claimed a $3.2 billion tax benefit!

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

…A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

Company officials say that these measures are necessary for G.E. to compete against global rivals and that they are acting as responsible citizens. “G.E. is committed to acting with integrity in relation to our tax obligations,” said Anne Eisele, a spokeswoman. “We are committed to complying with tax rules and paying all legally obliged taxes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our shareholders to legally minimize our costs.”

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company’s executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

But critics say the use of so many shelters amounts to corporate welfare, allowing G.E. not just to avoid taxes on profitable overseas lending but also to amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to reduce taxes on billions of dollars of profit from domestic manufacturing. They say that the assertive tax avoidance of multinationals like G.E. not only shortchanges the Treasury, but also harms the economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the United States.

“In a rational system, a corporation’s tax department would be there to make sure a company complied with the law,” said Len Burman, a former Treasury official who now is a scholar at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “But in our system, there are corporations that view their tax departments as a profit center, and the effects on public policy can be negative.”

The shelters are so crucial to G.E.’s bottom line that when Congress threatened to let the most lucrative one expire in 2008, the company came out in full force. G.E. officials worked with dozens of financial companies to send letters to Congress and hired a bevy of outside lobbyists.

The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended-- a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.

…As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E.-- a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman-- was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

That pendulum began to swing back in the late 1990s. G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes on some kinds of banking and insurance income. The change meant that if G.E. financed the sale of a jet engine or generator in Ireland, for example, the company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore.

Known as active financing, the tax break proved to be beneficial for investment banks, brokerage firms, auto and farm equipment companies, and lenders like GE Capital. This tax break allowed G.E. to avoid taxes on lending income from abroad, and permitted the company to amass tax credits, write-offs and depreciation. Those benefits are then used to offset taxes on its American manufacturing profits.

G.E. subsequently ramped up its lending business.

As the company expanded abroad, the portion of its profits booked in low-tax countries such as Ireland and Singapore grew far faster. From 1996 through 1998, its profits and revenue in the United States were in sync-- 73 percent of the company’s total. Over the last three years, though, 46 percent of the company’s revenue was in the United States, but just 18 percent of its profits.

Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, said that booking such a large percentage of its profits in low-tax countries has “allowed G.E. to bring its U.S. effective tax rate to rock-bottom levels.”

…Minimizing taxes is so important at G.E. that Mr. Samuels has placed tax strategists in decision-making positions in many major manufacturing facilities and businesses around the globe. Mr. Samuels, a graduate of Vanderbilt University and the University of Chicago Law School, declined to be interviewed for this article. Company officials acknowledged that the tax department had expanded since he joined the company in 1988, and said it now had 975 employees.

At a tax symposium in 2007, a G.E. tax official said the department’s “mission statement” consisted of 19 rules and urged employees to divide their time evenly between ensuring compliance with the law and “looking to exploit opportunities to reduce tax.”

Transforming the most creative strategies of the tax team into law is another extensive operation. G.E. spends heavily on lobbying: more than $200 million over the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Records filed with election officials show a significant portion of that money was devoted to tax legislation. G.E. has even turned setbacks into successes with Congressional help. After the World Trade Organization forced the United States to halt $5 billion a year in export subsidies to G.E. and other manufacturers, the company’s lawyers and lobbyists became deeply involved in rewriting a portion of the corporate tax code, according to news reports after the 2002 decision and a Congressional staff member.

By the time the measure-- the American Jobs Creation Act-- was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004, it contained more than $13 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, many very beneficial to G.E. One provision allowed companies to defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines. It was so generous — and so tailored to G.E. and a handful of other companies-- that staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee publicly complained that G.E. would reap “an overwhelming percentage” of the estimated $100 million in annual tax savings.

According to its 2007 regulatory filing, the company saved more than $1 billion in American taxes because of that law in the three years after it was enacted.

By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue-- an estimated $4 billion a year-- to other priorities.

G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.

Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York [one of the most blatantly corrupt Members of Congress in history], said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.

…While G.E.’s declining tax rates have bolstered profits and helped the company continue paying dividends to shareholders during the economic downturn, some tax experts question what taxpayers are getting in return. Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment. In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion.

“That G.E. can almost set its own tax rate shows how very much we need reform,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, who has proposed closing many corporate tax shelters. “Our tax system should encourage job creation and investment in America and end these tax incentives for exporting jobs and dodging responsibility for the cost of securing our country.”

As the Obama administration and leaders in Congress consider proposals to revamp the corporate tax code, G.E. is well prepared to defend its interests. The company spent $4.1 million on outside lobbyists last year, including four boutique firms that specialize in tax policy.

We'll dig a littler deeper in Part II, which will be the next post up.

Would I vote for an 80-year-old U.S. Senate candidate? I don't think so. (Not without grave reservations, anyway)

We know that Senator Dick isn't going to get his six more years. My question is, should he even have asked for them?

by Ken

I understand the conventional wisdom about Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar's Republican primary defeat Tuesday by Teabagging thug Richard Mourdock, until recently a classically unelectable "joke" candidate in his home state. Even though I find it hard not to still think of Dick Lugar as Richard Nixon's favorite mayor, when he was mayor of Indianapolis, I understand that he is what passes today for a Republican "moderate." Heck, even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says so.

As CNN expresses that conventional wisdom, "Lugar's loss further polarizes U.S. Senate." And I'm not here to challenge this wisdom. I even have enough curiosity about the Indiana situation to have read Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake's Tuesday-morning washingtonpost.com "Fix" blogpost, "Dick Lugar is going to lose. Did he have to?" (If I may encapsule the verdict: If he had recognized the Teabag peril and acted early on to crush it, and if he had been willing to do absolutely whatever it took to hold onto his seat, he might have been able to -- leaving open the question of whether either of these conditions applied in the real world.)

Of course we'll never know whether Senator Dick (a) could have obliterated the Teabag challenge with prompt action, or (b) whether he could have turned himself into a sufficiently Teabag-preempting candidate to withstand the challenge -- the indications from his own statements are that that he wasn't prepared to present himself as a frothing extremist lunatic. My own hunch is that he wasn't as clueless about the political shape the race would take as is generally being assumed, that he wanted a seventh Senate term provided he could secure it on the same terms he had the previous six.

But on the whole, no, for once I'm not here to quarrel with the conventional wisdom. I just want to throw something out.

On April 4, Lugar turned 80. In Tuesday's primary, he was presenting himself for reelection to another six-year term in the Senate. Is it possible that this was a factor? I can't imagine that this hasn't been discussed. I just don't happen to have encountered any serious discussion of it. Of course, I wasn't really paying that close attention. Still, I confess that I'm surprised.

I realize I will be thought of as "ageist" for daring to suggest that the senator's age should perhaps have disqualified him from that elusive seventh term. So let me take this into the realm of the hypothetical. Is it ageist to ask: Would you vote to give a hypothetical 80-year-old candidate a six-year Senate term? Even this is arguably too presumptuous, so let me ask instead: Would I vote to give a hypothetical 80-year-old candidate a six-year Senate term? And the answer, I think, is I don't think so -- quite possibly not even if he or she was my all-time favorite pol.

Now I'm assuming that our hypothetical 80-year-old candidate is in manageable physical condition and still-alert mental condition. (At least for now.) Otherwise what is there to talk about? And I certainly don't assume that he won't be able to serve out a six-year term, still in manageable physical and alert mental condition. There are certainly many such 86-year-olds dwelling among us.

Not that many, though. And I would like to think that even our hypothetical candidate would be realistic and honest enough to recognize that in making ongoing commitments, it's prudent to be realistic and honest in how far ahead he or she projects. I am certainly not proposing that we automatically declare anyone unfit for further service to the public weal based on reaching a particular age. We already have too many mandatory retirement ages in place in our society which don't take into account the actual condition of the mandated retiree.

The stark reality is that we all age differently. Goodness knows, I cheered Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on for as long as he felt competent to serve, trusting that he would know when his time came. And I'm delighted to see that he still seems to have a fair amount of juice left in him now that he's retired. That's a lot of responsibility to put on an individual, to know when it's time to hang 'em up, and I suppose we have all those mandatory retirement ages because by and large we don't trust workers to know when it's time.

I don't think there's any question that there are all sorts of commissions, boards, and what-all on which Senator Dick would have been welcomed and where he could have made a real contribution, for as long as he cared to and was able to. But again, an 80-year-old Senate candidate? I would have to know way more about the voters of Indiana to know whether this played any significant part in their thinking. But I think it probably would in mine.

As it happens, my own congressman, Charlie Rangel, is in sort of this situation. Not identical, mind you, but similar. Congressman Charlie is almost two years older than Senator Dick, and as I was writing last month, something in him seems just unwilling to let go. But in his case, at least he's only presenting himself to the voters in his congressional district for a two-year term.

I don't know. I'm just asking.


A REAL-WORLD HYPOTHETICAL POSTSCRIPT:
MIGHT I HAVE VOTED FOR SENATOR DICK?

Yes, of course, I myself might have voted for 80-year-old Senator Dick on Tuesday if I was an Indiana Rerpublican and if I was faced with the choice between him and the Teabagger assclown. But that's a couple of more hypotheticals than I'm comfortable hypothesizing.

#

Don't play "Taps" just yet for "Say Good Night, Charlie" Rangel

Rep. Charlie Rangel with then-NYS Assemblyman (now NYS
Sen.) Adriano Espaillat, who wants to run for the 13th CD seat

"Charlie's an incumbent and as a district leader I will not support somebody turning against an incumbent. I think Charlie has done a good job for us."

-- Washington Heights Democratic district leader Maria Luna,
who was presumed to be supporting challenger Adriano Espaillat

by Ken

When I wrote day before yesterday about the challenge my state senator, Adriano Espaillat, is preparing to mount for the Democratic nomination in my congressional district, New York's redrawn 13th, I wondered if it was time to "say good night, Charlie" to disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel. I speculated that what could save him in his bid for yet another term (he's been in Congress since 1971) is the likely multitude of primary contenders whenever NYC Dems smell a congressional opening -- quite possibly enough to fragment the vote enought to enable him to slide through, in a district that by the way is now majority Hispanic.

What didn't occur to me was that Senator Espaillat might be so quickly left dangling by presumed supporters. From DNAinfo.com's Jill Colvin (links onsite):

Espaillat Losing Allies to Rangel in Tough Uptown Congressional Race

April 5, 2012 7:47am | By Jill Colvin, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer

UPPER MANHATTAN -- It had threatened to spark a race war -- a bitter showdown between black and Latino voters in Upper Manhattan that would set the stage for "20 years of nuclear political war."

But the racially driven showdown predicted before State Sen. Adriano Espaillat announced he would challenge Rep. Charles Rangel for his Congressional seat appears to be failing to materialize.

Instead, some prominent Latino leaders, including key early Espaillat backers, are throwing their support behind the longtime Harlem politician instead of the up-and-coming star who would become the country’s first Dominican-American congressman.

Most visible is Dominican-born Maria Luna, a Democratic district leader and longtime fixture in Washington Heights, who is backing Rangel despite having appeared by Espaillat's side at rallies ahead of his announcement and having served as one of seven members of Espaillat’s Congressional exploratory committee.

"Charlie's an incumbent and as a district leader I will not support somebody turning against an incumbent," she explained. "I think Charlie has done a good job for us."

Luna said that, while she would have endorsed Espaillat in a run for a new, majority Latino district, the effort was never intended to take the seat from Rangel, who has represented Harlem, the Upper West Side, Washington Heights and Inwood for more than 40 years. . . .

[A]s uptown leaders are forced to take sides, allegiances are proving more complicated than a simple break along ethnic lines, demonstrating the enduring power of Rangel's legacy despite his 2010 censure for a series of ethics violations and a severe back injury that has put him out of commission for nearly two months.

At least one other member of Espaillat’s exploratory committee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, will also not support Espaillat in the primary against Rangel, DNAinfo has learned.

Political experts agreed that it is "highly unusual" for members of a candidate’s exploratory committee to endorse rival candidates.

"It's very unusual and it's not helpful," said veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. "It shows disunity within a campaign." . . .

I hadn't expected to be writing again so soon about the struggle for the Democratic nomination in my congressional district, the new 13th, which was finally established as part of the redistricting plan finally ordered, more or less at the last possible legal moment for doing so, by the courts after our esteemed state legislature, with its Republican-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly, proved unequal to the job of drawing new district lines. (Assembly Democrats might have been able to do some kind of deal, but those Senate Republicans truly are the lowest of low-lifes.)

It's a very different CD, this new 13th, in which "Say Good Night, Charlie" finds that he's thrown his hat. For a while there it looked like he might not have anywhere to throw that hat, when some of the great minds in the legislature had the idea of making his one of the two NYS CDs to be axed in the wake of the 2010 census. That scheme was linked -- and probably unlinked as well -- to an idea to string together heavily Hispanic chunks of Manhattan, the Bronx, and Queens to create a district for a Hispanic congressman. (It would take pretty strong string to accomplish that stringing together, but state legislatures have become pretty adept at this kind of electoral arts-and-crafts project.)

The "Hispanic district" didn't happen either, and what we wound up with was this new 13th CD. Oh, I've heard and read a bunch of times which areas got taken away and which grafted onto Charlie's old 15th CD, but I have a hard enough time keeping track of who my various legislative representatives are. If you really want to know, you can Google it easily enough. I do know that the new 13th actually has a Hispanic majority, if only barely, and even if it's not thr dreamt-of designated Hispanic CD, it's not hard to understand why Senator Espaillat has been feeling a powerful itch to contest that seat. As I noted Tuesday, he announced on Sunday that he's formed the exploratory committee mentioned by Jill Colvin.

Espaillat is a good guy. I've had no difficulty voting for him, first as my state assemblyman, more recently as my state senator, when he ran for the seat my former senator, now-NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, gave up to run for his present job. (By the way, I've mentioned that I periodically walk past Schneiderman's Senate district office whenever I take the A train, and if you're looking for ground-floor office space on Bennett Avenue in Washington Heights just a couple of blocks from the subway, it's still available.)

I wrote about "Say Good Night" Charlie on Tuesday in something like elegiac mode, or at any rate as close to elegiac mode as the congressman will allow, considering that at 81 he won't go quietly, but instead insists on scratching and clawing for an 11th term. In his 40-plus years (my apologies for wildly understating the actual number of terms he's served on Tuesday; I must have been thinking just of the currently configured district), but he's also earned a good deal of shame, including being stripped of his poweful Ways and Means Committee chairmanship and being formally censured for ethics violations.

I wondered Tuesday whether Charlie hadn't, over the years, been transformed into a political encrustation very different from what he set out to be all those decades ago. What we're seeing now, though, with area Dems starting to close ranks around him rather than doing everything they can to persuade him to retire (relatively) gracefully, is one of the horrible old ways that political machinery continues to work. Whether it's loyalty or fear that motivates the pols rallying to Charlie's behalf, it's bad government and bad politics -- and, most discouragingly, bad for the constitutents of the new 13th CD.

#

Re. the GSA scandal: What are these people in Washington THINKING of? And speaking of power corrupting, time to say good night, Charlie?

When now ex-GSA Administrator Martha Johnson (seen here in 2010 with Homeland Security Sec'y Janet Napolitano at left) was finally confirmed for her job, after one of those endless Senate confirmation struggles, she said famously that ethics was "a big issue for me." Now wags want to know what exactly the issue was.


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

-- Lord Acton (1834-1902)

by Ken

From Ed O'Keefe's washingtonpost.com "Federal Eye" blog this afternoon:

Congress will investigate GSA scandal

By Timothy R. Smith

Congress will investigate the misuse of federal money by the General Services Administration that brought down the agency's administrator and two of her senior deputies on Monday.

When Congress returns from recess April 16, the public buildings subpanel of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will conduct "a full hearing on this and other matters, trying to hold GSA accountable for taxpayer waste and inefficiency," said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the full committee.

GSA's inspector general issued a scathing report Monday that detailed misuse of funds and federal contracting violations over an $823,000 employee training conference GSA held in Las Vegas in October 2010.

"The Las Vegas fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg," Mica said. He cited billions of dollars of misused funds and 14,000 vacant or underused buildings the government owns.

The public buildings subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Jeffrey Denham (R-Calif.).

Mica offered tepid praise of the Obama administration for not obstructing the agency's investigation and taking swift action when the revelations were made public.

A spokesperson for Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said, "The current Administration took immediate action against those accused and asked for Johnson's resignation although she was not directly involved in the scandal."

I'm thinking it was during the 2010 electoral cycle that a progressive colleague with firsthand working knowledge of the machinery of the federal government tried to rouse interest among fellow progressives in championing a concerted attack on wasteful government spending, only to be generally attacked himself on the ground that government waste is "their" issue and raising it only plays into their hands.

The colleague counterargued, still almost entirely in vain, that:

(1) There is, in fact, a good deal of wastful spending in government.

(2) Especially at a time when it's increasingly difficult to fund the legitimate functions of government properly, it's good policy as well as common sense to find needed find mind that can be redirected from wasted currently being misdirected.

(3) And it's kind of crazy, isn't it?, to unilaterally cede to the other side a talking point that tends to resonate strongly with ordinary Americans.

I thought he was 100 percent right, but then, what do I know? Smarter people with their presumed inside knowledge harrumphed that doing what this madman was suggesting would just be doing the Republicans' job for them.

Now it's in part because our side has ceded the issue of wasted spending that we're now faced with inquisitions from criminal sacks of doody like Darrell Issa, in his capacity as the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversignt and Government Reform, or to the impending spectacle of a hoped-headline-making, thieving-scumback-led investigation of the appalling GSA scandal.

Note that I said "the appalling GSA scandal." Is there anyone who isn't appalled. I'd like to see the response to the GSA IG's report go beyond firings to prosecutions and, ideally, executions. Now that might teach a lesson or two. At least we could expect that the person(s) executed wouldn't do it again.

What the hell goes through these people's minds? Except, of course, the universal 21st-century refrain: Me-me-me-me-me-me -- and, oh yes, ME. The guiding, er, "ethical" principle would appear to be, "Since everybody does it, I'd have to be nuts not to grab everything within reach which isn't nailed down." That is, assuming these people even feel the need for a guiding ethical principle.

And on this count, lame as Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings's response is, it does indeed count for something that in the Obama administration an ugly report like that of the GSA IG led to immediate action. This is even grudgingl acknowledged by that scourge of corruption, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, who you'll recall "offered tepid praise of the Obama administration for not obstructing the agency's investigation and taking swift action when the revelations were made public."

Maybe Chairman Mica thought it too well-known to required pointint out that this is the exact opposite of the policy -- and it's policy that was rigidly enforced -- under the Bush regime, where the invariable practice in the executive brance was, first, to have inspectors general who either (a) were buffoons to begin with or (b) understood that any embarrassing revelations they might at any point consider revealing would be met with the most ruthless campaign of suppression mountable by people of surpassing excellence at ruthless suppression. And of course while the executive branch was being transformed into a crime ring, the Republican-controlled Congress was in 24/7's rape, pillage, and extort mode.

I suppose I could be doing an injustice to corruption- and waste-fighters like Chairman Mica and public buildings subcommittee Chairman Jeffrey Denham. In fairness, then, I will offer them a Hypocrisy Waiver good for all the headlines they can garner for corruption and waste dollars uncovered up to the total dollar amount each went after in the Bush regime. I don't have the exact figures handy, but I'm guess that should bank them an Earned Investigative Credit balance of roughly zero.


SPEAKING OF ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTING ABSOLUTELY,
CHARLIE RANGEL DOESN'T INTEND TO GO OUT QUIETLY

NYS Sen. Adriano Espaillat announced Sunday that he's forming an exploratory committee to consider a run for the Democratic nomination for the redrawn 13th CD, now represented by Charlie Rangel.

I was already thinking about this business of institutionalized government corruption with the announcement on Sunday that my state senator, Adriano Espaillat (who ran for the uptown Manhattan seat vacated by Eric Schneiderman in anticipation of his ultimately sucessful run for state attorney general), a good guy, is going to challenge 10-term Representative Charlie Rangel in his bid for the Democratic nomination to an 11th term. Charlie has been sweating bullets for months now to see what if anything would be left of his 13th CD under whatever redistricting plan is finally adopted, eliminating two CDs from the state's delegation. (The slugs in the state legislature couldn't get it done, so finally the courts took over.)

From DNAinfo.com yesterday:

Espaillat Announces Run for Uptown Congressional Seat

April 1, 2012 8:48pm | By Carla Zanoni, DNAinfo Social Media Editor

spaillat announced that he is planning to run for 13th Congressional District in Upper Manhattan, setting up a showdown with the longtime symbol of Harlem politics Rep. Charles Rangel, DNAinfo has learned.
The announcement was made Sunday at the annual fundraiser for the Barack Obama Democratic Club of Upper Manhattan, which Assemblyman Keith Wright, City Councilmen Robert Jackson and Ydanis Rodriguez, and several other political figures attended, sources said.
After Espaillat told the crowd about his intentions during a speech kicking off the event, several people in a packed apartment at 565 W. 169th St. began clapping enthusiastically.
Espaillat, who made history as the first Dominican-American to be elected to a state legislature in 1996, will battle Rangel because a panel of judges decided not to create a separate majority Latino district in the neighborhood, as some advocates had called for. . . .

Rangel, 81, has served Upper Manhattan since 1971 and is the dean of New York's congressional delegation.

Although he recently announced he would run for a 22nd term, people in political circles have been murmuring that he might to try to hand his seat over to someone such as Wright, if elected, rather than serve the full two-year term.

Bob Liff, Rangel's campaign spokesman, declined to comment, but reiterated that the Congressman is running to serve a full term.

Democrats Joyce Johnson, Vince Morgan, Craig Schley and Clyde Williams, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, have also declared themselves candaites for the Congressional seat.

In recent years, Rangel's image has been marred by scandal, including the use of rent-regulated apartments for office space and failure to pay taxes.

In 2010, after a two-year ethics investigation, he was censured by the House.

And in late March, Rangel reportedly agreed to pay a $23,000 fine to settle campaign finance violations related to a rent-subsidized apartment in Harlem.

Rangel's future with Congress was further thrown in turmoil this year as a result of New York's redistricting process. . . .

There's time yet for the intricate politics of it all. In the end it may be that the free-for-all developing to shove our Charlie out of Congress winds up enabling him to keep his butt parked there. For now, though, don't you have to wonder, why can't he just call it a day?

A lot of what I think when I think of Charlie Rangel is gosh, that's sad. I like to think, at least, that he wasn't always as we see him now, that he once placed the people's business ahead of his own. But here he is now, at 81, clawing and scratching, even without his lost House chairmanship holding onto his seat for dear life. Is it just habit? Fear of sinking into invisibility if he were to just retire, unloved -- and bereft of influence? Or fear of being unable to afford the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed?

Hey, Charlie, is this really what you got into public life for in the first place, back in the day?

#

Streams Of Consciousness, Dec. 2

Wonderers are wondering how the incredibly popular and respected Donna Edwards missed out on being elected chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus last night. More than a few sources have told me that even after Donna's idea for swapping out the co-chair structure for a single chairmanwoman was voted down, Donna was still in the running-- along with the two eventual winners, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). What did her candidacy in, oddly enough, was the aggressive advocacy by the very much disliked and ineffective outgoing co-chair, Lynn Woolsey. "Her leadership style," she told caucus members all week, "will be just like mine." That was enough to bring in a couple dozen CPC members who normally don't vote in these kinds of caucus meetings and who aren't aware that Donna is nothing like the demented and confused Woolsey (who was originally pushed into Congress by the Petaluma City Council so they could get rid of her).

Her whispering about how the extremely well-liked and admired Grijalva was "impossible to work with," wound up hurting Donna by being associated, albeit unfairly, with Woolsey. The Caucus then went on to elect Hank Johnson (D-GA) whip and 5 vice-Chair/liasons-- Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus), William Lacey Clay (Hispanic & Native American Caucuses), Chellie Pingree (Women's Caucus), Judy Chu (Asian and Pacific American Caucus), and Tammy Baldwin (LGBT Caucus). Grijalva and Ellison issued the following joint statement after their election:

“We are honored to have the opportunity to serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) for the 112th Congress.  We will work tirelessly to project a progressive vision for America, and to advocate that vision to the American public.  Working families deserve a commitment from Congress to look out for their interests every day, and the Progressive Caucus will be on the front lines to honor that commitment.
 
The 112th Congress will present many challenges and opportunities for this country. As co-chairs, we will advocate for America’s working families and strive to ensure middle class prosperity for generations to come. We will work with President Obama to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and to make peace the guiding principle of our foreign policy. We will be the first to reject and defeat Republican attempts to eliminate benefits for unemployed Americans even as they call for another billionaire bailout. We will continue to work with the broader progressive community to ensure that every American who wants to work can find a good-paying job to support their family. These and other fights will take time and dedication, and we welcome the opportunity to lead the way.
 
With Republicans promising to scrooge the country out of a secure retirement, our commitment to protect the American middle class will be more important than ever. The American people need effective advocates-- in and outside of Washington-- to restore their faith in their government’s ability and willingness to do the right thing. Over the next two years, Republicans are going to push as hard as they can to cut programs that the American people depend on, like Social Security, and the Progressive Caucus will be out in front reminding them that Congress works for all of the American people, not just the top tax bracket. We stand ready to take on these important fights, and intend to win them decisively. America deserves no less.”

I saw some interesting responses from Democratic insiders over the 234-188 passage of the middle class tax cuts extension today. (We'll have an analysis of this vote up at 6AM.) One congressional buddy of mine told me he thinks if the vote had been taken before the midterms many Democrats who were defeated could have run on it and kept their seats. The Blue Dogs who told Hoyer they would lose if it was voted on before the midterms lost anyway, over two dozen of the most worthless and scummiest of them-- many of whom voted against the middle class tax cuts anyway today.

Obama, who Matt Bai reported today in the NY Times privately considers himself a Blue Dog, had an absolutely dreadful reaction to the passage of the bill. My friend Brad Reed from Crooks and Liars, in a fit of rage, e-mailed me a simple statement Obama should have made after the vote: "The House has already passed an extension of tax cuts for 98% of Americans. This is an urgent matter for many families and deserves an up-or-down vote. If the Republicans want to filibuster this bill and raise taxes on the entire country just so Paris Hilton can afford a new pool, that's their business. But I'm not working for Paris Hilton. I'm working for 98% of the country." It could have been tweaked a bit, but you get the idea. Instead this is the statement Obama issued, completely stabbing Pelosi and the House Democrats in the back:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension. But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward. Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon. The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Another in a long series of botched "negotiations" from an inept political department in the White House.

Roll Call ran this today: "While the White House and Republicans have all but agreed to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts for several years, House and Senate Democrats are still resisting that arrangement. Additionally, while those broad parameters may be settled, what other pieces of the puzzle will be included-- such as unemployment insurance or a set of tax cuts included in last year’s stimulus bill-- have yet to be determined." Like I said this morning, this wimp we put in the White House is the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.

Meanwhile the DCCC was somewhat more proactive than the White House. When Obama ran in 2008, he beat McCain in Dave Reichert's suburban Seattle district 57-42%, one of his top performances in a Republican-held congressional district anywhere. Reichert scraped by with 53%. This year, even with the GOP tidal wave, he only scored the same shaky 53% against a political novice Suzan DelBene. Today he voted against extending middle class tax cuts. This is, in part, what the DCCC sent out to media in his district:

Even as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to afford gas, groceries, and housing, today Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans voted to give 98 percent of middle class families the one thing they need the least right now-- a hike in their taxes.
 
Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans’ vote against middle class tax relief comes weeks after Republican Leader John Boehner said he would support extending tax relief only to the middle class. Yet, rather than provide tax relief that will help struggling families make ends meet and small businesses to hire more workers, Representative Dave Reichert is holding these tax cuts hostage to provide tax breaks to millionaires.
 
“Instead of giving immediate tax relief to 98 percent of middle class families and small businesses who need it the most, Representative Dave Reichert and fellow House Republicans are fighting to give tax breaks to those who need them the least,” said Ryan Rudominer of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It’s outrageous that Representative Dave Reichert would vote to raise taxes on 98 percent of Americans during these tough times instead of doing everything possible to help families make ends meet and businesses to create more jobs.”

The measure includes:

o   A permanent extension of the 10%, 25% and 28% rate brackets. It also permanently extends the 33% rate bracket to the extent that this bracket applies to income of $200,000 or less for single filers ($250,000 or less for joint filers). 

o   A two-year extension of alternative minimum tax relief to protect more than 25 million families from the AMT. 

 o   A permanent reduction in capital gains and dividend tax relief for middle-class taxpayers.

 o   A permanent marriage penalty relief for middle-class taxpayers.
 
 o   A permanent extension of small business expensing amounts, to ensure that small business taxpayers be allowed to quickly recover the cost of certain capital expenses.

The DCCC sent similar press releases out to the media in districts that include Republican leaders like Boehner, Pence, Sessions and Cantor, as well as to districts where Obama did well in 2008, like those represented by Judy Biggert (IL-13), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Paul Ryan (WI-01), Aaron Schock (IL-18), Charlie Dent (PA-15), Leonard Lance (NJ-07) and several others.

Of course they didn't send similar press releases to media in eastern Oklahoma, where Dan Boren crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans against these tax cuts, nor in western Minnesota, where another Blue Dog, Collin Peterson, did exactly the same thing. And California conservatives who voted against middle class tax cuts, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson were spared as well. There's never any price to pay for these kinds of outrageous votes within the caucus. Ironic how the DCCC just spent $1,031,192.02 in Independent Expenditures saving McNerney, in a district where Democrats and left-leaning independents stayed away from the polls in droves because of his conservative voting record-- a conservative voting record that attracted no conservatives whatsoever, of course. They all voted for the Republican. McNerney barely won, and only after a tense recanvas and even then only with a margin of just over around 600 votes, one of the closest calls for any victorious incumbent in the country.

Rangel Gets Censured

Charlie's such a likable guy. I was cheering to see so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus voting against censure today. And then to see one of Congress' most corrupt Republicans, Alaska career criminal Don Young, vote NO gave me a warm feeling for that old reprobate as well. But then I caught myself and reminded myself that even though the deck was stacked in Rangel's favor in terms of a real investigation and the charges he was found guilty of were technical and almost silly, he is the worst of what our political system vomits up. He's as crooked as Jerry Lewis. He's as crooked as Ken Calvert. How do I know? I know-- I know first hand. Let's leave it at that so I don't wind up as a witness at a real trial one day. The censure vote went against him 333-79, although a chastened (chastened for getting caught and disgraced, not chastened for being a crook) Rangel got a standing ovation after he was censured.

Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clarke voted against censure. This was her statement:

“Today, the House of Representatives took a vote on a resolution to censure Rep. Charles B. Rangel after the House Ethics Committee found him in violation of 11 counts of violating the House Rules of Conduct. After a thorough consideration of all the charges and the recommendation from the Committee, I have decided not to vote in support of censuring Congressman Rangel.

“Congressman Rangel has publicly taken full responsibility for his conduct over the years that violated House Rules. However, as it stands with Rep. Rangel, the Committee did not find any proof of corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or acting for personal gain. His violations were primarily a result of improper, bad and inaccurate recordkeeping in regards to his financial affairs. While these are serious offenses to House Rules, Rep. Rangel’s actions are not consistent with the precedents in which Members of Congress have been censured.

“The precedent of censure used by the House Ethics Committee has been raised to the level of such offenses as improper sexual misconduct, were convicted in a court of law, or presented false statements to the Standard of Official Conduct Committee. Censure has been used exactly four times in the last 100 years because it is a severe penalty. It is not an appropriate penalty in the case of Rep. Rangel. I believe that Rep. Rangel should have been considered for a less charge that would be appropriate to his violations. This is precisely why I voted yes for a resolution offered by Rep. Bobby Scott, which substituted a penalty of reprimand for that of censure. I strongly believe that his punishment over exceeded his offense.

“Congressman Rangel has been vocal in taking responsibility of his actions and has taken steps to rectify the faulty financial disclosure paper work or any other the violations.  I strongly believe that Congressman Rangel’s service to our nation and his district will remain in history for years to come.  I am confident that despite the circumstances, he will continue to be an effective legislator.”

Issa

I can't wait for Darrell Issa, who Boehner is appointing to head the House Oversight Committee in January, to start issuing subpoenas. He plans to spend the next two years bothering Democrats with typically Republican frivolous investigations... he says he has 500 planned. That's almost one a day! The reason I'm so excited about Issa's subpoenas is because he's another GOP career criminal-- started as a common car thief-- albeit a serial car thief-- and never stopped. He's now the richest man in Congress and when he was subpoenaed for his role in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, he refused to submit to the subpoena. We'll be reminding Democrats of this regularly. And so will Issa Exposed, the new Everything Issa website, that launched this afternoon.

Bachmann Overdrive

Driving home last night I was listening to Mike Malloy. The guys so awesome but he really got carried away with his fantasy of angry Everymen running into Congress and dragging Republicans out of their offices and bearing them (to death, but he never said that; he's no dummy). Now Minnesota religious fanatic/teabag queen (self proclaimed) Michele Bachmann... she's a dummy. Today she was yowling about an insurrection again. She told some religious-right website that there will be a need for an insurrection-- but she wasn't just talking about Obama. She now has a grudge against Boehner and his cronies.

[T]here will need to be an “insurrection” against the House Republican leadership if it does not hold an independent, straight up-or-down vote on repealing the entire Obamacare law that does not tie this repeal to other policy initiatives including any effort to “replace” elements of Obamacare with new federal health-care reforms.

A spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), who will be the House majority leader in the next Congress, told CNSNews.com in response to Bachmann’s statement that Cantor agrees with Bachmann and is committed to the vote she wants.

Did You Kick In For Bernie Sanders Yet?

Obama's got to be primaried. He froze out Hope. Krugman wrote today Democrats have no choice but to look elsewhere for leadership:

After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?

On Monday, we got the answer: he announced a pay freeze for federal workers. This was an announcement that had it all. It was transparently cynical; it was trivial in scale, but misguided in direction; and by making the announcement, Mr. Obama effectively conceded the policy argument to the very people who are seeking-- successfully, it seems-- to destroy him.

So I guess we are, in fact, seeing what Mr. Obama is made of.

...there’s a real deficit issue on the table: whether tax cuts for the wealthy will, as Republicans demand, be extended. Just as a reminder, over the next 75 years the cost of making those tax cuts permanent would be roughly equal to the entire expected financial shortfall of Social Security. Mr. Obama’s pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands-- to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.

There were no comparable gestures from the other side. Instead, Senate Republicans declared that none of the rest of the legislation on the table-- legislation that includes such things as a strategic arms treaty that’s vital to national security-- would be acted on until the tax-cut issue was resolved, presumably on their terms.

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure-- that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?

What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.

Does Nigeria Have An Extradition Treaty With America?

Who wants to see Dick Cheney spend the rest of his life in prison? In Nigeria?