GOP Votes To Dismantle The Affordable Care Act For The 38th And 39th Times-- This Time With Help From The New Dems

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) knows he's safe from a serious challenge in the 2014 midterms, though he doesn't represent some blood-red Mississippi or Utah congressional district. MI-04, in fact, went for then-Senator Obama in 2008, 50-49%. But instead of targeting Camp, his old pal Steve Israel, head of the DCCC, gave him a free reelection pass. The grassroots Democrat who ran against him last year, Debra Freidell Wirth, couldn't get the time of day from the DCCC, let alone any kind of financial support. Camp beat her 196,835 to 104,601 and won every one of the district's 15 counties, including the 2 big ones, Saginaw and Shiawassee, counties Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Obama beat Romney in Saginaw 56-44% and bested McCain 58-41%. Israel won't be giving Camp any trouble next year either, despite Camp's role as one of Boehner's chief henchmen. On Wednesday, as the Republicans were voting to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act again, Fox News' Chad Pergram reported that Camp said "the only thing we can do is delay Obamacare until we can repeal it."

Steve Israel's tenure at the DCCC absolutely guarantees, as everyone in Washington, except perhaps Nancy Pelosi, knows, that the Republicans will be in charge of the House again after 2014. There is at least a 50-50 chance they will also win back the Senate. You think they'll stop trying to repeal Obamacare then?

Wednesday Steve Israel and Steny Hoyer both voted with the Democrats against Tim Griffith's H.R. 2667 (to delay the mandate for Big Business for another year) and Todd Young's H.R. 2668 to delay until 2015 the requirement that individuals maintain minimal essential health care coverage. But they-- not to mention the predators at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- actively encouraged vulnerable Democrats, particularly vulnerable freshmen, to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans. 35 Democrats voted for H.R. 2667 and 22 Democrats voted for H.R. 2668. These were the culprits-- all conservatives-- who voted for both:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Bill Enyart (IL)
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)
• Pete Gallego (New Dem/Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike McIntyre (New Dem/Blue Dog-NC)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Nick Rahall (WV)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)

White House spokesman Jay Carney, who said the president would veto both bills should either ever make it to his desk, claimed Wednesday's initiative was just more of the Republicans' effort to undermine the healthcare law before patients can receive its help. “There are few things more cynical than the House Republicans, who have made it their mission in life to repeal the Affordable Care Act and deny the American people the benefits that they would receive... “[Republicans] will be voting, through their measure to delay implementation of the individual mandate, to keep those rates at $1,000 for the individual in New York rather than $308."

Back to Dave Camp for a moment. His wealthy donors would love to kill Obamacare-- not to mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Camp himself doesn't know people who are kept out of the virtual poorhouse because of these critical parts of the safety net. But those people are in his district. And already, in Camp's Michigan district-- in the suburbs west of Saginaw and in smaller towns like Mt. Pleasant, Frankenmuth, Cadillac, Dewitt, Durand, Midland and Reed City-- his constituents are feeling the positive impact of the ACA. Because of it:

• 7,500 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents’ plan.

• More than 8,000 seniors in the district received prescription drug discounts worth $10 million, an average discount of $550 per person in 2011, $780 in 2012, and $740 thus far in 2013.

• 143,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible.

• 196,000 individuals in the district-- including 38,000 children and 81,000 women-- now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible.

• 154,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. Because of these protections, over 15,900 consumers in the district received approximately $2.3 million in insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011-- an average rebate of $138 per family in 2012 and $214 per family in 2011.

• Up to 37,000 children in the district with preexisting health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health insurers.

• 216,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 81,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition. In addition, the 27,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for financial assistance.

Will they remember who wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act in November, 2014? It won't matter then because Steve Israel is aggressively preventing serious candidate recruitment now. The DCCC immediately sent out a letter begging for money: "Yesterday, under the watchful eyes of the Koch brothers and their fortune, Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare for the 38th and 39th time... All eyes will be on our numbers in these 48 hours following Obama's speech. If we hit 10,000 donations by the weekend, Boehner, Cantor and the Kochs will know their attempt to play games with health care reform has backfired-- big time." What they neglected to mention, of course, is that the bulk of the money contributed will go to reelect conservative and cowardly Democrats who voted with the Republicans the DCCC is warning about. Is that hypercritical? Of the Democrats who voted for one or both of these bills, 21 Members were on Steve Israel's immediate Front Line List of 26 endangered incumbents when he announced the program in May.

• Rep. Ron Barber, Arizona’s 2nd District
• Rep. John Barrow, Georgia’s 12th District
• Rep. Ami Bera, California’s 7th District
• Rep. Julia Brownley, California’s 26th District
• Rep. Cheri Bustos, Illinois’ 17th District
• Rep. Suzan DelBene, Washington’s 1st District
• Rep. Bill Enyart, Illinois’ 12th District
• Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Connecticut’s 5th District
• Rep. Pete Gallego, Texas’ 23rd District
• Rep. Joe Garcia, Florida’s 26th District
• Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona’s 1st District
• Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, New York’s 18th District
• Rep. Dan Maffei, New York’s 24th District
• Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah’s 4th District
• Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina’s 7th District
• Rep. Patrick Murphy, Florida’s 18th District
• Rep. Bill Owens, New York’s 21st District
• Rep. Scott Peters, California’s 52nd District
• Rep. Raul Ruiz, California’s 36th District
• Rep. Brad Schneider, Illinois’ 10th District
• Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona’s 9th District

The only Frontliners with the inclination and/or the guts to stick with the Affordable Care Act were Tim Bishop (NY), Lois Capps (CA), Ann Kuster (NH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) and John Tierney (MA). No progressives are on that list above, of course. And Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released a joint statement that reflects mainstream Democratic thought on the conservatives'-- on both sides of the aisle-- attempts to make it harder for Americans to get health care.

“The Affordable Care Act is a huge step forward for millions of Americans who need to see a doctor without breaking the bank. Today, after three years of not offering alternatives, Republicans are still committed to making it harder for working families to get health care at a reasonable price.

“The Affordable Care Act means a mother in Tucson can keep her son on her insurance policy until he turns 26. It means a family in Minneapolis can help a sick child without worrying that insurance costs will put them behind on their mortgage. It means seniors around the country can afford the medication they need and a trip to see their grandkids. Republicans owe it to the country to explain why these advances should be repealed.

“It wasn’t so long ago that pre-existing conditions were used to cost you your health coverage. The Affordable Care Act changed that. The American people need the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

“Voting to repeal the law for the thirty-eighth time is an outrageous assault on the well-being of America’s families. President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law more than three years ago. It’s time to work together to move forward and make sure every American can get the care he or she needs at a fair price.”

UPDATE

The DCCC is running this Facebook ad, asking people who the worst Republican is, John Boehner or Paul Ryan? The DCCC has worked diligently to protect both men and have consistently undermined grassroots Democrats who have opposed them. These people have no shame-- none whatsoever... but they do want your e-mail address so they can spam you with deceitful requests for money.

Which GOP Blockhead Responded To The Immigration Question By Reading "America The Beautiful" To The Republican Conference?

Michigan closet case Dave Camp has a new angle on thwarting immigration reform

Wednesday, at the House Republicans' closed door strategy session about immigration reform, Boehner and Ryan begged their GOP colleagues to not doom the party to national electoral oblivion by sabotaging the bipartisan efforts in the Senate at a time when record majorities of Americans support comprehensive reform. But bigoted Members in nicely gerrymandered districts in primitive parts of the country where people get all their information from Hate Talk Radio and Fox, are not thinking about national trends or about the fate of their marginalized party outside their own little safe House districts. The quote that came through the closed door was Boehner's whiny warning-- unheeded-- that Republicans would be "in a much weaker position" if they are seen to be killing the immigration bill. Alabama KKK-sympathizer Mo Brooks responded by reading America the Beautiful aloud.

But Boehner is so weak as a Speaker that the two hour meeting resulted in nothing but negativity and a decision to do exactly what he and Ryan begged them to not do. The decision was made to kill widely popular bipartisan immigration reform. One of those hardline backward bigots, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, seemed satisfied why he talked to reporters when he emerged for a pee break: “There is little consensus in there for doing anything other than border security." Huelskamp later told reporters he would trust Obama as much with border security as he would trust his own daughter with Bill Clinton. The man is obviously demented... but Kansans seem to like 'em like that in the last couple of decades. He and the other hatemongers kept harping on the theme that Obama can't be trusted to enforce the strict border stipulations-- even though Obama's policy is far, far stricter and more effective than anything ever seen at the southern border before.

Arkansas neanderthal Tom Cotton, a right-wing freshman extremist who would like to run for Marc Pryor's Senate seat next year, rushed a demented OpEd to the Wall Street Journal, basically, "it's my way or the highway... and forget citizenship for these lawless colored people."

[T]he Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country's illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill's irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe.

Boehner tried put on a happy face after he lost. "The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don’t trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they’re alarmed by the president’s ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem. The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate."

Writing for New York, Jonathan Chait, a conservative-consensus pundit, took note of the GOP's shocking decent into nihilism:

One of the novel developments in conservative thought during the Obama years is a burgeoning hatred not merely for government but for lawmaking. Before the Obama era, the ends of crafting laws divided the parties, but the means did not. The process of corralling votes, placating hold-outs, and hammering out compromises was not something either side especially loved-- you’ve heard the classic line about watching the sausage get made-- but also not something that one side disliked more than the other. But a hatred for lawmaking has emerged in the Obama years, first as a Republican tactic, and then as an apparently genuine belief system.

The distrust for lawmaking is the main argument — wait, “argument” is too strong; maybe premise?-- of a rare joint op-ed by Rich Lowry and William Kristol, editors of the National Review and the Weekly Standard. Lowry and Kristol urge House Republicans to kill immigration reform, because passing it would involve legislating, and legislating is bad.

So the strategies they decided on are to stall, delay, obfuscate and threaten to make the government default if they can't get their way. And House Ways and Means Committee Chairman-- and closet case-- Dave Camp (R-MI) declared that the Senate immigration bill is unconstitutional anyway because it's a revenue bill and revenue bills have to start in the House. So there!

This is as good a time as any to mention that despite Obama beating McCain in Camp's Michigan district, Steve Israel took him off the table and refused to recruit or back a candidate against him-- or any of Boehner's vulnerable committee chairmen. That leads to this kind of irresponsible rhetoric... and to this:

Europeans Move Forward On A Robin Hood Tax On Financial Transactions-- U.K. And U.S... Dragging Their Feet

In December the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the kind of financial transaction tax Wall Street has bribed conservatives in America to reject. And on Tuesday E.U. Finance Ministers OK-ed the new tax which will cover inter-bank trading in stocks, bonds and derivatives, something that's expected to bring in over $50 billion dollars in revenues in 2014 when it's up and rolling. There's a 0.1 per cent tax on stock and bond transactions and a 0.01 per cent tax on derivatives trades. David Cameron, who shares the distinction with Paul Ryan of being a deranged advocate of bone-crunching Austerity, has kept Britain from participating.

Just as David Cameron appeared to be grabbing his coat for an EU exit, other European countries took a step towards greater unity with agreement for eleven countries to implement a multi-billion pound tax on the banks.

Not tax rises on low income families, or cuts to public services to balance the books, but a tax on banks. It's not every day you get to write that. The eleven hope that the Financial Transaction Tax of between 0.1-0.01 per cent on stocks, bonds and derivatives could be implemented as early as next year and will raise around £30bn.

The FTT has for years stirred controversy. Banks, following the Mayan's lead, warned that the end of the world was nigh. As campaigners for a Robin Hood Tax we have often been told "you may have a nice video with Bill Nighy in it [see video above], but your idea won't wash in the complex world of finance, nor will it cut it at the coalface of Government."

Yet it has-- Europe's biggest economies including France, Germany, Italy and Spain are signed up. The group of eleven makes up an impressive 90 percent of Eurozone GDP. Other European nations agreed to let them press ahead. Yet there was one notable abstention, from the UK Government.

Why? It could be argued that a right of centre Government, a powerful financial sector and an economy struggling to return to growth would never add up to much of an appetite to take a chunk out of the banks. Yet all of this applies to Germany, one of the FTT's biggest champions.

The difference is that Germany sees the FTT as a necessary part of the economic equation. It too is implementing tough austerity measures. Germany understands the need to balance and indeed improve the economy by ensuring the financial sector pays its fair share. The richest sector in the world, paying a modest additional tax for causing the largest financial crisis of a generation: quid pro quo.

As Wolfgang Schauble, German finance minister said:

It’s in the interest of the financial sector itself that it should concentrate more on its proper role of financing the real economy and ensuring that capital is allocated in the most intelligent way, instead of banks conducting the bulk of their trading on their own account. That’s in the long-term interest of the financial sector.

Cameron, conversely, opted to call the Financial Transaction Tax "madness," fighting hammer and tong to protect the hallowed elite in the City, whilst cutting benefits and services for the poorest. The Government's much touted bank levy, will raise a just £2.5bn a year and be offset by a lowering of Corporation Tax that Osborne has boasted will be the lowest of any major western economy.

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England pointed out the irony that "the price of the financial crisis is being borne by people who did absolutely nothing to cause it," adding that he was "surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has."

But if the moral argument doesn't sway you, then the fiscal case should. Leading City figure Avinash Persaud has calculated that if the UK were to join in with the European Financial Transaction Tax it would raise the Exchequer at least £8bn a year. This could lift over three million people struggling on minimum pay above the living wage threshold.

Ten thousand teachers lost their jobs in 2010/2011 and there are 5,780 fewer nurses than at the time of the last general election-- in eleven days an FTT could raise enough revenue to re-employ every one. In just a single day the tax could raise enough money to reinstate Sure Start centres for 25,000 children.

American efforts to do the same thing were defeated by Wall Street and their allies in 2011. But Pete DeFazio (D-OR) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are going to try again, hoping to institute a minuscule o.o3% tax on some financial transactions that will yield something like $35 billion dollars a year.

A financial transactions tax would slow down high-frequency trading, which has exploded in the last five years. Such trading “has absolutely no social value,” according to one of its pioneers, and only increases volatility in the market. The tax would have little effect on normal traders.

And in response to Wall Street traders claiming "businesses" would move elsewhere-- Dubai? Beijing? Somalia?-- DeFazio has pointed out that 52 financial executives have endorsed the tax and rejected the scare tactics. “For 50 years we had a tax that was about seven times larger than this when the country was seeing the greatest growth in its history, post-World War II,” he said. “So we’ve proven this will not have a detrimental impact on growth. In fact, it perhaps is beneficial to growth. It’s not necessarily beneficial to salaries of hedge fund managers on Wall Street.”

And, it turns out, DeFazio and Harkin aren't the only Members of Congress talking about a financial transaction tax. Boehner pawn Dave Camp (R-MI), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly about to introduce some kind of twisted, partisan version of the tax, that smacks of Republican revenge against businessmen asking them to cooperate with Democrats for the sake of the country.

The draft legislation, which may get significant revision before it's presented to a congressional committee, would be vehemently opposed by Wall Street and other major corporations that trade heavily in derivative securities.

Sleazy Boehner ally Dave Camp (R-MI)

They may have only themselves to blame. Congressional Republicans have been furious at top corporate executives lobbying heavily for a "grand bargain" that would include tax hikes and cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, according to congressional GOP insiders. Republican leaders were further piqued when business executives began lobbying for certain corporate tax reforms, leading to a sharply worded letter from Camp to the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group of corporate CEOs.

One Republican operative told HuffPost that Camp's bill is political payback for the CEOs collaborating with the Fix the Debt coalition, which worked with corporate chiefs who had pressured Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at the close of 2012.

"This transaction tax was only a matter of time after Camp's letter to the Business Roundtable," the GOP operative said. "In just a few months, their lobbying campaign has resulted in Republicans initiating new revenues on their backs. Maybe the CEOs can kill it by Democrats insisting the taxes aren't high enough."

...Camp's new bill would harvest government revenues from complex financial transactions involving derivatives, some of which figured prominently in the 2008 banking collapse. Although the 2010 financial reform legislation would curb some excesses in the derivatives market, the legislation isn't yet fully implemented, and leaves much of the market unregulated. Financial reform advocates have urged new taxes on derivatives to deter excessive risk-taking by big banks.

...Camp's bill would establish a new tax regime for derivatives, requiring banks to declare the fair market value of the products at the end of each year. Any increase in value would be considered corporate income, subject to taxation. It's a more aggressive tax treatment than Wall Street enjoys for either derivatives or for trading in more traditional securities.

...The bill would significantly strengthen the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from speculating in securities markets with taxpayer money. The Volcker Rule's implementation has been delayed as bank lobbyists have flooded regulatory agencies in Washington, pillorying the ban with loopholes. Hefty tax burdens for proprietary trading would reduce bank incentives to engage in the risky activity.

Camp's legislation also would permanently establish a homeowner aid plan advocated by former Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who retired this month. When banks grant homeowners mortgage relief, the IRS considers the debt-reduction taxable income. As a result, struggling homeowners can face an unmanageable tax burden. A $50,000 debt reduction can spark an $18,000 tax bill-- money that borrowers struggling to avoid foreclosure simply do not have. Miller successfully lobbied to include a one-year fix on the tax policy in the fiscal cliff deal. Camp's legislation would permanently end the tax policy.

Obama's Payroll Tax Break-- Right In The Crappy Middle

Wall Street, cognizant of the damage George W. Bush and the Republicans had done to the economy, gave obscene amounts to help elect Barack Obama in 2008. Despite giving Wall Street pretty much everything they could have wanted-- starting with one of their own, Timothy Geithner, as Secretary of the Treasury-- Wall Street has abandoned Obama for the even more compliant Willard "Mitt" Romney. "It's not healthy for rich people to feel maligned," said one ex-Obama supporter who is now donating to Romney. They may not have anything to cry about in regard to Obama's policies, which certainly favor the rich, but they don't like how he "maligns" them rhetorically.

That's the thanks Obama gets for extending the Bush taxcuts for the rich cocksuckers! But now Obama wants to extend a payroll tax cut for wage-earners, a tax break for the middle class. Republicans only favor tax cuts from their rich supporters, not for ordinary Americans. They want to raise taxes on working people.

“We should extend the payroll tax cut as soon as possible, so that workers have more money in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers next year,” Obama said at the White House on Monday.

The president wants the tax cut extended along with unemployment insurance benefits, and has warned that if Congress fails to do so, “it could mean 1 million fewer jobs and half a percent less growth.”

The administration says the two-percentage-point reduction in the payroll tax put in place for 2011 has cut tax bills by about $1,000.

Right-wing corporate shills Dave Camp (R-MI) and Paul Ryan (R-WI), respectively chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Budget Committee have come out against it. "I'm not in favor of that. I don't think that's a good idea,” said Camp. "We need a more overarching approach to our tax policy. Ryan was even more of a hypocrite, dismissing the proposed payroll tax cut as “sugar-high economics.” And Jeb Hensarling, a senior far right shill on the House Financial Services Committee (and on the new SuperCommittee) also came out against it: "It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." Hensarling, like Ryan and Camp, only agrees to tax relief for the wealthiest Americans, not for working stiffs.

Obsessed with preventing Obama from putting through any of his even mild remedies to fight unemployment, the Republican Party is apparently in full bore class warfare against American workers. What I don't ever "get" about Obama-- although it was well explained last week by Michael Tomasky in The Untransformational President-- is how his brand of civic republicanism always means giving away the store and avoiding a fight with his sworn enemies and, much worse, the sworn enemies of the American people, the domestic fascists and terrorists who run the Republican Party.

Everything always starts with a compromise with Obama. By scuttling single-payer or even a public option, he didn't win over any Republicans-- he just made the bill so bad that it will probably be overturned by the fascist-dominated Supreme Court. And this is the hallmark of everything he does! Now he hopes to rally progressives to help him fight for a flawed payroll tax cut. Andrew Fieldhouse explains what progressives should be fighting for instead:

A targeted, partially refundable tax rebate would be more effective than the current payroll tax cut that President Obama endorsed extending in his speech Monday night, a new Economic Policy Institute/The Century Foundation Issue Brief finds. In A bigger and better economic boost, Federal Budget Policy Analyst Andrew Fieldhouse explains that a modified version of the lump-sum tax rebates that were part of the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act (ESA) would cost the government roughly the same amount as the payroll tax cut but would generate more economic activity while doing more to alleviate poverty and help working families.

Enacted in December, the payroll tax cut reduced employees’ share of Social Security payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2%. The payroll tax cut replaced the Making Work Pay tax credit that had been implemented as part of the 2009 Recovery Act.

Because the payroll tax cut was not targeted to low- and middle-income workers-- the workers most likely to spend it-- it was not as effective in generating economic activity as a lump-sum tax rebate would have been. Multipliers developed by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi suggest a refundable lump-sum tax rebate would result in roughly 12% more jobs created per dollar than the payroll tax cut.

Furthermore, the payroll tax cut actually increased taxes for all individuals making less than $20,000 annually. Tens of millions of the lowest-income workers had more disposable income under Making Work Pay than they did under the payroll tax cut.

Finally, the payroll tax cut exposed Social Security to greater political risk by reducing payroll tax receipts and making the program partially dependent on general revenue. Social Security is designed to have a dedicated funding source; a lump-sum tax rebate would leave this funding source intact.

Dave Camp And Steve Israel Sitting In A Tree... F-U-C-K-I-N-G... But Not Each Other, The American People

Dave Camp has nothing to fear but progressive Democrats better watch out

When David Broder first wrote about the determinedly centrist Congressional Center Aisle Caucus in 2005, he almost ejaculated for joy on the editorial page of the Washington Post over the sheer civility of the project. I wonder why they didn't make him an honorary member. Broder claimed there were 47 invited members (since grown to 60), roughly equally split between the two parties, although that membership roll isn't readily available anywhere, almost like it's being hidden. They meet, secretly, in a Chinese restaurant two blocks from Capitol Hill; no joke. The caucus was founded by Republican Tim Johnson (IL) and Blue Dog Democrat Steve Israel (NY) with the stated purpose of bypassing Congress' partisan ways.

Applicants for membership aren't admitted unless they recruit companion members from the opposite party. Caucus members avoid lightning-rod issues and focus only on areas that most likely would produce agreement. Under one unwritten bylaw, members never engage in political campaigns against other members.

Read that last sentence again. Does it remind you of when Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then head of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, decided her dear, dear Florida Republican friends, Ileana Ros Lehtinen and the notorious Diaz-Balart Brothers, just simply could not be Democratic electoral targets? Israel, of course, is now the brand spanking new chairman of the DCCC, much of whose professional staff has worked for him in the past.

So what's he doing in a tree with Dave Camp (R-MI)? Camp isn't nearly as moderate as his Michigan colleagues, Vern Ehlers or Fred Upton but, like fellow Michiganders Thaddeus McCotter and Candice Miller, he isn't the kind of whacked out teabagging kooks that his state just elected: extremist fringe characters Bill Huizenga, Justin Amash and Tim Walberg. And he's not one of the congressional crackpots along the lines of Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Mean Jean Schmidt, Mike Pence or Marsha Blackburn. Or is he?

Camp is one of the 6 conservatives on the bipartisan ad hoc group set to negotiate the issues surrounding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the other 5 being Tiny Tim Geithner, OMB Director Jacob Lew, Max Baucus. Jon Kyl, Chris Van Hollen (who will be the ranking member of the House Budget Committee). Camp's on it because he's the incoming Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

He hasn't been shy about explaining his attitude towards the tax policy. In short, he is one of the Republicans behind the de facto coup which explicitly insists it will shut down the functions of Congress until the richest Americans get tax breaks.

The Republicans' top tax guy in the House threatened in the clearest possible terms today that he and the rest of the GOP would vote to block any tax cut for the middle class during the lame duck session unless tax cuts for the wealthy are extended for the same period of time.

In a policy speech at the business-friendly Tax Council today, incoming Ways and Means Committee chairman David Camp called the Democratic plan for tax cuts-- a permanent tax cut extension for all income up to $200,000, and a temporary extension for income above that level-- "a terrible idea and a total nonstarter."

"We would be foolish to fall for it," Camp said.

Now, everybody knows what's going on here. Republicans have been clear for months that their long term goal is to make sure all of these rates are extended permanently. But that means they don't want to have a fight in two or three years in which they side with the wealthiest two percent of the country against the Democrats. That's a losing fight, and terrible politics.

But they can't really come out and say that. If you ask a Republican member about this "decoupling" idea, the most common response you'll get is that it's a recipe for future tax increases. The implication is clear-- but good luck getting a more candid explanation.

One wonders if Rep. Israel is putting together a team of strategists to defeat Camp in 2012... or is he preparing to let him off the hook again. Remember, President Obama won Camp's district in 2008 50-48%. (That year Camp didn't have a serious challenge and won with 62%, about the same as what happened in 2006, when he won with 60%, sans serious challenge against the same guy who he defeated 64-35% in 2004.) And this year the DCCC didn't bother with the district again-- and Camp won 66-30%, against Richfield Township Supervisor Jerry Campbell. Camp, who already had $1.6 million in his campaign coffers, raised another $2,766,154. Campbell raised $12,059. Andrew Concannon, Camp's 2008 opponent, had raised $122,041-- and was drowned out by Camp's $2,568,143 in expenditures. In 2006 it was the same story: Michael Ray Huckleberry spent $62,030 and Camp spent $1,111,769. In none of these races did the DCCC spend one thin dime. And yet... and yet... Obama won the biggest county in the district, Saginaw, 60,276 to 42,225 and Carl Levin was not just reelected senator with the help of Saginaw (67,025- 31,099) but he won 13 of the 14 counties in MI-4. The only exception was a neck and neck battle in tiny, rural, deeply red Missaukee County where Levin only got 3,286 against his opponent's 3,786. So we're not talking about some kind of neo-Confederate hellhole here. We're talking about a district that went for Obama over McCain and that gave a landslide win to Levin.

Defeating Dave Camp isn't going to be an easy job but we'll never know how hard it will be if no one gives it a serious, well-financed try. Is Steve Israel the man to recruit a solid Democratic opponent? Or is he someone to take a stroll down the Center Aisle with Camp and talk about civility and common ground while the GOP runs rings around the Democrats? Let's watch and see.