Good News: California Gets A New Senator

Yeah, Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. It was probably the smart political move-- certainly better than Susan Rice, who he really wanted. Everyone seems to like the idea. Obama, who probably had a lot of influence on this choice, said "Joe Biden nailed this decision." David Axelrod coined a new word: "Kamalat." I can't imagine there is one Democratic Party careerist who isn't saying something positive, effusive, supportive. I'm not a Democratic Party careerist so let me just say I never voted for her when she ran for anything here in California and I'll be happy to keep that record going in November. Oh, yeah, she's absolutely better than Biden. I wonder if she'll try to talk him into keeping her pal Mnuchin in place after they win. In any case... I'm way more interested in who Gavin Newsom picks to replace her in the Senate, where she actually does have a stellar voting record, significantly to the left of where Newsom stands on most things.

The most reasonable-- relatively speaking-- right out of the box public comment I saw from any official group came from PDA executive director Alan Minsky:

As we saw during her own presidential campaign, Kamala Harris is a political weather vane. First she was for Medicare for All, then she wasn't. She failed for years to hold police accountable for gross misconduct in California, then touted her commitment to police accountability in the wake of George Floyd's murder. While her penchant for taking positions broadly palatable to the corporate donor class raises concerns about her dedication to progressive principles, her habit of aligning her stance with the prevailing political winds gives us some hope. We will fight every day to hold Vice President Harris to the higher ideals she often espouses, and make sure those winds blow decisively in the direction of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a level playing field for working families everywhere.  

Someone knocked on my door the other day. I wasn't expecting anyone. A door knock is strange these days. It was a young lady, appropriately masked, holding a clip board. She asked me to sign a petition for a recall of our bungling corporate Democratic governor. I was happy to. A friend of mine, from the upper echelon of the Democratic Party, called me 2 minutes after Biden announced that he had chosen Kamala as his running mate. My friend told me she hopes Newsom appoints himself to the Senate seat-- "At least we'd get him out of the state."

I don't think this Senate seat is going to a white male, not even one named Newsom. Cross front-runner Adam Schiff off the list, as well as desperate hopefuls Eric Swalwell and John Garamendi. I doubt Newsom will sell it to Tom Steyer. And, I know the whole genealogy thing, but-- like it or not-- Eric Garcetti is viewed as a white man.

My guess is that Newsom's going to pick a proven, well-qualified person with a minority background. There was an on-line rumble for Katie Porter but a freshman congresswoman (also white) is probably not what Newsom has in mind. I also think he's looking for someone from Southern California, which leaves out two other social media heroes-- Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna.

That leaves six people I think he's going to look at-- well, five, because he's not really going to look at Kevin De Leon because he hates him and, Kevin is probably going to run for mayor of L.A. anyway. My list is of all southern Californians, all accomplished members of minority communities and all probably popular choices. Congressmembers Karen Bass and Ted Lieu have a ton of relevant experience-- she was Speaker of the Assembly and he wrote and passed the best legislation out of Sacramento in decades. She's an African-American and he's an Asian-American. He's also a veteran, not a bad thing in the state with the most vets; and he's wildly popular for his outspoken criticism of Trump. If I was making the choice, I can't see how I would pick anyone but Ted. But I'm not; Newsom is and I imagine he's most likely going to chose a Latino.

So... Hilda Solis is very progressive, a former congresswoman who Obama picked to be his Secretary of Labor. She's currently an L.A. County Supervisor. I'd love to see her get the job and I think she'd be a great senator Californians would love.

Xavier Becerra is also a former member of Congress, currently serving as Attorney General, having taken that position when Harris left it to become a senator. He was once thought of as potentially "the next Speaker of the House" and he's been good at the jobs he's had and would also be a relatively popular choice.

I hear, though, that Newsom likes Alex Padilla, the Secretary of State, more. Presumably, a lot will be riding on how smooth the November elections in California go since that's Padilla's biggest job. (The new voting machines in L.A. sure suck bad and thanks to Brad Friedman I now don't know for certain if that's Padilla's fault or not.)

L.A. County Board Of Supervisors Decides To Go Down With The Leaky S.S. DiFi

Kuehl, Solis, Hahn, Barger, Ridley-Thomas

Thursday the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously dissed progressive Angeleno Kevin de León by endorsing conservative Democrat Dianne Feinstein for another 6 year Senate term. You would have thought at least former congresswoman, ex-Labor Secretary Hilda Solis would have had more sense. Kathryn Barger is an actual Republican, plain and simple. Feinstein is as good a pick for senator for someone like her as she's going to find. Sheila Kuehl would endorse any woman-- even a woman's corpse-- over a man, so no surprise there either. Janice Hahn has always been the epitome of the ambitious establishment politician; she is the closest thing to DiFi in Los Angeles politics. Mark Ridley-Thomas is in no position to cross a powerful incumbent-- and neither is his dad. You can check their contributors. And that leaves our old friend Hilda, whose personal trajectory is similar to de León's. Like him she came from an immigrant household and struggled against the odds to achieve incredible success. In 1992 she was elected to the California Assembly and 2 years later to the state Senate, representing an East L.A. district not unlike the state Senate district de León represents today. In the legislature, Hilda, like Kevin, stood out as one of that body's most progressive members and-- like him-- a champion for working families and of environmental justice.

In 2000 Hilda ran against a corrupt and conservative 18-year congressional incumbent Matthew Martínez. The party establishment had a collective freakout and slammed her mercilessly for barging in against an incumbent, no matter that Martinez was the same kind of Republican-lite dirt-bag Feinstein has always been. In fact, Feinstein refused to back Hilda in her race against him, even when Barbara Boxer did. Hilda kicked his ass anyway, winning the seat 69-31%, an incredible achievement against an incumbent with all the establishment support. (He switched parties and re-registered as a Republican.)

When Hilda got to Congress she was hailed as the harbinger of a generational changing of the guard in the Hispanic Caucus. She joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus and continued the work she had been doing in Sacramento as a champion of working families and of the environment. She took on conservative Democrat Joe Baca for acting like a congressional version of Harvey Weinstein and she rose fast in the Democratic ranks. Soon after he was elected, Obama asked her to leave Congress and join his cabinet as Secretary of Labor. The AFL-CIO rejoiced while anti-union groups were furious and Senate Republicans tried to derail her nomination-- and failed. She served for all of Obama's first term and retired in January, 2013 to run for the L.A. Board of Supervisors, which many saw as a stepping stone to higher office, something she just botched by joining with the more conservative Board members in backing Feinstein.

Sarah Wire's report for the L.A. Times emphasized that the unanimous endorsement by the Board members came "as factions of California Democrats begin weighing in on the Senate race... It's a snub for De León, a native Angeleno who has represented part of the city for more than a decade in the Assembly and state Senate... [T]he lone Republican on the board, 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger, said in a statement that California needs Feinstein in the Senate.

“I’ve worked with Sen. Feinstein for many years. She’s extremely knowledgeable and always prepared on the tough issues we confront. She’s a problem solver we can count on now and in the future,” Barger said.

Feinstein already has the backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which traditionally backs incumbents. Soon after he announced a challenge, De León was endorsed by Democracy for America, the progressive political action committee formed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in 2004.

This is a battle between a decrepit and corrupt past and a bright reformed future. I'd expect Barger, Ridley-Thomas, Hahn and what Kuehl has turned into in recent years to stick with the former. But Hilda Solis' backing of Feinstein over de León feels like a real betrayal of her progressive base. Big mistake!

left to right: past, future

Want To See The Democratic Party Get Back To It's Populist/Progressive Roots? Join Blue America In Endorsing Jimmy Gomez For Congress

Jimmy Gomez is a young guy from my neighborhood. When Xavier Becerra was appointed by Jerry Brown to become California Attorney General-- filling the vacancy created by Kamala Harris' election to the Senate last month-- my first thought was to wonder if Jimmy could be persuaded to run for the congressional seat. It's a deep blue seat and there's no Republican who could ever compete there. Obama got 83% of the vote in 2012. So it is going to be a campaign about who who would be the best Democratic candidate, the one with the best proven vision for the job. Before Jimmy decided to run, I started tweeting about his accomplishments and suggesting that Congress needed his unique combination of heartfelt progressivism and hard-headed ability to work with political adversaries to accomplish his goals. The first "push back" I got came, not unexpectedly, from Sacramento. It was from a top staffer of Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. "Please," the staffer wrote to me, "don't do this. We desperately need Jimmy here in Sacramento."

Eventually Jimmy decided he would run-- and Speaker Rendon endorsed him, as did the President Pro Tem of the state Senate, Kevin de León and dozens and dozens of Jimmy's colleagues in the legislature. Monday morning, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti weighed in on behalf of Jimmy-- and in the district that is the center of Garcetti's political power.

But when I looked through Jimmy's twitter account, what I found was endorsement after endorsement from grassroots activists who no one knows outside of their own communities-- like Cynthia Ruiz, a civic leader in El Sereno, Joselyn Geaga-Rosenthal, a board member in the Rampart Village and Echo Park Neighborhood Council, Luanna Allard, an officer in the Hillside Village Property Owners Association, Yolanda Nogueira, a board member of Highland Park's Chamber of Commerce, Tammy Membreno, Executive Director, Barrio Action in El Sereno, Lani Stapp, the impressive former president of Eagle Rock's Women’s Twentieth Century Club and Carol Jacques, the former president of the Mount Washington Association. These people are part of the backbone of the 34th district and they know exactly what Jimmy has accomplished as a grassroots organizer and later as a member of the state Assembly. This morning our old friend, former congresswoman, former Secretary of Labor and current County Supervisor Hilda Solis added her name to the growing list of public servants backing Jimmy. She wrote that "Jimmy Gomez has proven to be the State Assembly's most effective and dedicated champion for working families. He wrote the nation's strongest family leave laws, and stands up for equality in the workplace, in our schools and colleges, and for women's health care. In fact, I've been proud of him from the days he worked for me in Congress, from his years fighting for better health care for all at the United Nurses Association of California and throughout his career in the Assembly. We need him in Congress, protecting the people of Los Angeles, and I'm proud to support him." Moments ago-- just as we were about to press "publish"-- a very reliably sourced rumor started circulating in Sacramento that Kamala Harris had also endorsed Jimmy.

Saturday I had dinner with Jimmy and his wife Mary in a neighborhood diner. He talked to me about his vision for the people in his district and how he's gone about implementing it in the state legislature. Halfway through I cursed myself for not having a tape recorder. Knowing how busy he is organizing his campaign in a field that grows more and more crowded every day, I asked him if he would write down everything he had just said so I could run it as a guest post. I think he stayed up later than he wanted to to do it.

Making The Progressive Reform Agenda Work For Everyone, Including Those Who Need It Most
-by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez

I’m proud of California because we are a state of firsts . . . we are the first to pass paid family leave, the 15 dollar minimum wage, paid sick days, and groundbreaking climate change legislation to reduce green house gas emissions and preserve our environment for future generations.

Yet, California isn’t perfect. Although our state continues to improve, we still rank last or near last when it comes to a number of social indicators: education, health, economic and environmental.

Why?

Why are the laws that we pass not working the way we intend and why are we not seeing the improvements we would expect to see?

Why are certain parts of the state getting left behind, while others are thriving?

I believe it's because a lot of our laws, policies, and programs are built on a misguided concept that anything that divides the pie equally must be fair and it must be effective in dealing with the problems we are trying to solve.

As we know, that is definitely not always the case.

There is a big difference between what is equal and what is equitable. And policy makers and politicians confuse the two. And just because it is equal doesn’t make it fair. And it definitely doesn’t make it effective.

A good example of this is California’s first-in-the-nation Paid Family Leave program that provides workers with a 55% wage replacement for up to 6 weeks to bond with a new child or care for an ill family member. Although the program has benefited millions of Californians, a Senate Labor committee report found that the people using the program the most were those making $82,000 a year or more, and those who were using it the least were workers making minimum wage or barely above minimum wage. Why is that?

Because it is unrealistic to expect a worker who is already living paycheck to paycheck on 100 percent of their salary to use a program for 6 weeks at only 55 percent of their wages. For many workers, California’s current Paid Family Leave program was simply an illusion. That’s why I authored AB 908, to fix this inequity and ensure all who pay into this vital program can afford to use it, regardless of their income.

Simply, my bill AB908 restructured the Paid Family Leave program and State Disability to increase the wage replacement for workers earning minimum wage to 70 percent, and 60 percent wage replacement for all other workers. This bill ensures that every worker gets the necessary funds to actually use the program and spend time with their newborn child or sick family member. When Governor Brown signed AB908, California was not only the first state to have paid family leave, it also became the first state to have a paid family leave program built on the concept of equity. A program that ensures that every family on the economic ladder gets what they need. And I’m proud of that.

Jimmy worked across the aisle to pass that bill with support from rural Republicans who genuinely wanted to embrace a way to help their own largely forgotten constituents. And he did the same thing with AB1550, the revolutionary climate change bill that wasn't just about wealthy homeowners who could get subsidies to buy solar panels and $80,000 Teslas. The bill requires that at least 25% of cap-and-trade funds go to projects directly in disadvantaged communities and another 10% to benefit low-income residents or communities anywhere in the state. Jimmy: "No matter where you live, no matter what you make, you deserve to breath clean air and drink clean water. With the signing of AB1550, we begin to bridge the green divide." Watch:



So Blue America is endorsing Jimmy's congressional campaign and we added him to our new ActBlue 2017-18 House page. Jimmy doesn't accept contributions from Big Oil nor from the shady tobacco lobbyists, the legalistic bribes that have stained so many in the California legislature, and his district is one of the least wealthy in the whole country-- although rapidly coming up-- so... please consider helping with whatever you can afford to contribute. There are other decent candidates running-- plus one that the charter school billionaires are financing-- but there is no one with Jimmy's vision and record of accomplishment who will be a natural to eventually take a leadership position among Democrats who desperately need new leaders in Congress.

CA-31-- Will Eloise Reyes Be Congress' First Ever Onion Topper? That's Way Better Than Another Crooked Bank Lobbyist

Speaking about her inspiring life story in her first TV ad, Eloise Reyes talks about the hard work and perseverance it took to go from topping onions as a small child and working her way through school and law school to the middle class and now running for Congress. "I made the journey," she says, "but for people these days, that journey has become so much harder." Eloise isn't a Republican or a corporate tool like her opponent, Pete Aguilar. Republicans and corporate tools want to pull the ladder up behind them and kick the people in the face who are trying to climb out over distressed economic situations. Instead, she says, she will "fight for families working hard to join the middle class and those struggling to stay there."

That's what her hard-pressed Inland Empire district (CA-31) needs. A majority minority district-- stretching from Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, along the 210 Freeway to San Bernardino and along the 10 Freeway through Colton, Loma Linda and Redlands. The median household income is $50,882 (compared to the state median of $57,287. Statewide about 19% of the residents have no high school diploma. In CA-31 that figure is 21%. Statewide, 45.8% of the voting age population turns out, on average, to vote. In the 31st, that drops down to 39.7%. Eloise wants to work on bringing all these figures up. Politically, her entire raison d'être is about helping to lift up her neighbors.

“I’m running for Congress to do a job-– not to get a job or keep a job," she told us today. "Congress is broken because career politicians who have their own self interest at heart have advocated for the wealthy and big corporations and left the middle class behind. It’s time to invest in bringing jobs back to our district, keeping the promise of Social Security and Medicare and passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a true path to citizenship. Washington is not going to change me. I was born here in the Inland Empire. As a twelve year old I picked onions in the fields to pay for school clothes and after college and law school I returned home to raise my family and open a small business. My roots are in the Inland Empire and I will bring your voices-– and values-– with me to Congress.”

Her main opponent, the DCCC's failed corporate shill, Pete Aguilar, is a former lobbyist for Arrowhead Savings and Loan, which his shady behavior helped drive into bankruptcy. Aguilar is desperate for a job in Congress but he's barely related to the community and has always been a pawn and a front-man for the Republican-dominated Chamber of Commerce. They appointed him to the Redlands City Council and they appointed him mayor. And, of course, Steve Israel bought right into this empty suit. Hilda Solis, who was the congresswoman from CA-31 before President Obama appointed her to his Cabinet as Secretary of Labor, endorsed Eloise last February, even though Israel was beating the bushes for support for the empty suit. At the time, this is what Solis said: "In this day and age when the powerful special interests are gaining even more power, the working families that make our country strong need a strong voice and their own tenacious fighter in Congress. Eloise Gomez Reyes is the person for the job. She has spent her entire career fighting for working families and people who can’t fight for themselves. She will bring that same tenacity to the fight to bring jobs to the Inland Empire. Eloise is one tough lady and she will not be intimidated by the extremist leaders of the GOP or their big bank accounts."

Xavier Becerra, the senior House Republican in Southern California and a close Pelosi ally was even more forceful about Eloise's outstanding credentials to be the next Member of Congress from San Berdoo:

Eloise is a proven leader who will get the job done in Washington for the working families of the Inland Empire. Quite frankly, I know she’ll work tirelessly on behalf of those who work hard, play by the rules and deserve a fair shot at the American Dream. That’s why today I’m endorsing Eloise Reyes for Congress.

I work with our leadership day in and day out, pushing on the obstructionist House Republicans to strengthen the ladders of opportunity and build an economy that works for all Americans. Having someone like Eloise among our ranks, I know, she will be not only an ally to myself and Leader Nancy Pelosi, but a strong voice for the Inland Empire, for California, and for working families all across the country.

Eloise is the American Dream fulfilled. Her story is mine and yours. My father was a construction worker and when my mother, a newlywed, came to this country she spoke no English. They sent their four children to college in America. Eloise started work at the age of 12 in the onion fields. Imagine the children of immigrants like Eloise and myself standing up, side by side. Imagine passing paycheck fairness, or comprehensive immigration reform, or raising the minimum wage.

This Californian is endorsing Eloise Gomez Reyes for CA-31 because she will be an effective leader and legislator for you.

...As Tip O’Neil once said, "all politics is local." I have been watching this race very closely for some time and I know that Eloise can win this race, but not without your support. Together, we can protect and renew el sueño Americano-- the American Dream for the next generation.

The photo below is Pete Aguilar, on any random evening. Look at that mess. He wants to go to Congress to be the Democratic version of Trey Radel (and Vance McAllister). There is just no comparison between him and someone of Eloise Reyes' character, intellect and honor. If you'd like to make sure she's the next Member and not Aguilar, please consider contributing to her grassroots campaign here.

Steve Israel's handpicked candidate, Pete Aguilar

Real Momentum Is Building For Eloise Reyes In The Inland Empire

The Inland Empire's crooked political elite

Friday we mentioned that the endorsement-- and a real endorsement, not a perfunctory one-- of progressive Eloise Reyes by Rep. Xavier Becerra could signal the end of the road for Steve Israel's lame, empty suit, handpicked candidate, Pete Aguilar.

We also mentioned that no one in the Inland Empire knows who Steve Israel is. And Israel recruiting some schlemiel freshman, like Eric Swalwell from Dublin (due east of the Oakland Airport on the 580 on the way out to Livermore) isn't going to mean anything to anyone anywhere. Voters-- and donors-- in CA-31 were more interested in why Israel couldn't deliver local Hispanic Members of Congress, and particularly not progressives like highly respected Lucille Roybal-Allard and Linda-- not Loretta-- Sánchez. The very characteristics that have made Joe Baca anathema to so many progressives in the L.A. Basin-- from his innate conservatism and his willingness to ally himself with Big Business interests against the interests of ordinary working families to his crude disrespect for women-- have made sensible political leaders hesitate and block out Israel's siren song of Pete. What do you see when you look at the picture above? That's Pete Aguilar surrounded by every slimy, crooked Republican power broker in the Inland Empire, from Jerry Lewis (to the right of Pete in the photo) and Gary Miller, right down the food chain to the bagmen and thugs. And what about this photo. Is that drunken, coked up mess what anyone wants for a congressman?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that Lucille Roybal-Allard and Linda Sánchez sign up for the Eloise Reyes team sometime this week. And one of the most respected and revered political leaders in the region, Hilda Solis-- a progressive, beloved environmental champion and ex-congresswoman who beat a crooked Steve Israel-type incumbent, anti-Choice/pro-NRA/Big Business-oriented Marty Martínez in CA-31 in 2000-- has been talking up Eloise and will probably take time out from her own supervisorial campaign to campaign for Eloise… perhaps as soon as... this afternoon? Until recently, Obama's Secretary of Labor, Hilda knows a Democrat from the Republican wing of the party when she smells one. Her own congressional opponent from 2000, Marty Martínez, frequently betrayed his constituents by voting with the GOP and, when they ended his career by backing Hilda (62-29%), he switched parties, officially became a Republican and never returned to live in southern Califiornia, staying inside the greasy, sleazy Beltway instead.

I might add that, like Becerra, Hilda Solis has been a close ally of Nancy Pelosi's and it would be hard to imagine her going up against Steve Israel's strategy-- no matter how lame and how likely to lose-- if Pelosi said not to. This should be an interesting week. If Hilda Solis, Linda Sánchez and Lucille Roybal-Allard all come out for Eloise… well, maybe Boris can try putting on a rally for Pete Aguilar with Herman (his not dead father), Orange County Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez and… Eric Swalwell? Or perhaps the rumors are true about Pete and Boris decamping for CA-35. It's less of a schlepp than Kharkov was for Viktor Yanukovych-- and I'm sure Gloria McLeod would introduce Pete to all the Chamber of Commerce types in the area he doesn't already know from his days as a crooked Savings and Loan lobbyist.

Maybe Israel should try beating Republicans and stop wasting DCCC resources trying to help sleazy conservatives beat progressives in Democratic primaries in districts he knows nothing about. Just a thought.

Eloise and Xavier-- fighting for working families

UPDATE: That Was Fast-- Hilda Solis Endorsed Eloise

“In this day and age when the powerful special interests are gaining even more power, the working families that make our country strong need a strong voice and their own tenacious fighter in Congress. Eloise Gomez Reyes is the person for the job. She has spent her entire career fighting for working families and people who can’t fight for themselves. She will bring that same tenacity to the fight to bring jobs to the Inland Empire. Eloise is one tough lady and she will not be intimidated by the extremist leaders of the GOP or their big bank accounts,” said Solis.

Gomez Reyes said, “Hilda Solis and I have both worked hard and took on the status quo to push open closed doors and shatter glass ceilings. And then once we achieved success we both took up the fight to help those less fortunate. From one tough lady to another: Thank you Hilda! Thank you for your endorsement and thank you for your friendship and for your inspiration. I won’t let you or the working families of the Inland Empire down!”

A Matter Of Fairness-- Taxation

With Obama finally getting rid of deadweight like Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, he'll have an opportunity to move his Administration in a less corporate, Big Business-friendly direction and more towards... well towards what he campaigned on in 2008. The best-- like in "no bullshit/let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done"-- cabinet pick he made so far was his Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. Labor Secretary was also one of President Clinton's best cabinet picks and although Wall Street banksters would probably be unappreciative, it would be an amazing move for the American people in President Obama was to take Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, and give him the job Summers performed so poorly at, director of the National Economic Council.

Unlike Summers (and Geithner) Reich's concerns are with ordinary working people, the backbone of what has made America a great country. Making life ab-fab for the financial predators has never been one of his motivations in life. On Friday he posted an insightful article on his blog I've been meaning to work into something. Having failed to do so, let me just parts of it with you while it's still fresh in my mind.

The super-rich got even wealthier this year, and yet most of them are paying even fewer taxes to support the eduction, job training, and job creation of the rest of us... For example, Charles and David Koch, the energy magnates who are pouring vast sums of money into Republican coffers and sponsoring tea partiers all over America, each gained $5.5 billion of wealth over the past year. Each is now worth $21.5 billion.

...From another survey we learn that the 25 top hedge-fund managers got an average of $1 billion each, but paid an average of 17 percent in taxes (because so much of their income is considered capital gains, taxed at 15 percent thanks to the Bush tax cuts).

The rest of America got poorer, of course. The number in poverty rose to a post-war high. The median wage continues to deteriorate. And some 20 million Americans don’t have work. 

Only twice before in American history has so much been held by so few, and the gap between them and the great majority been a chasm-- the late 1920s, and the era of the robber barons in the 1880s. 
And yet the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which conferred almost all their benefits on the rich, continue.

Democrats have decided to delay voting on whether to extend them for the top 2 percent of Americans or for the bottom 98 percent until after the mid-term elections. 

Democrats have thereby given up a defining issue that could have enabled them to show the big story of the last three decades-- the accumulation of almost all the gain from economic growth at the top-- and to make a start at reversing it. 

When will they ever learn?

When indeed? Even Boehner-- albeit for all the wrong reasons-- called the punt the "most irresponsible thing that I have seen since I have been in Washington, D.C." (And he's been hanging around in DC, building Boehnerland, for two decades.) I doubt Boehner reads Tax.com-- or much of anything that doesn't amount to ideological rightist talking points-- but David Cay Johnson asked, and answers, a question all legislators should be looking at now: How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.

Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

...Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

Richard Thaler, a distinguished theorist in behavioral finance is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. In his column yesterday in the NY Times Business Section is makes it crystal clear that the one thing the very richest Americans don't need is another $700 billion in tax cuts, a cut that is the basis of the GOP/Blue Dog push to prevent a vote on middle class tax cuts.

President Obama has proposed retaining the current rates on incomes up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Under this plan, everyone would receive a tax “cut” relative to the rates in effect in the Clinton era. For a family with a $250,000 income or more, the cut would be about $6,000, because its first $250,000 of income would be subject to the current, lower rate. But such families would have a higher bill than they do now.

With the exception of the House minority leader, John Boehner, the Republican leadership has drawn a line in the sand, saying it will oppose Mr. Obama’s bill unless all taxpayers remain at current rates. Although it wouldn’t put it this way, the Republican position is, in effect, that if the rich can’t share in the bounty, rates should rise for everyone.

They offer three arguments to support their view.

The first is that it is folly to raise taxes in a weak economy. There is some merit to this argument, of course, but economic policy is always about trade-offs.

Tax cuts are one of many ways to stimulate the economy. Building infrastructure, for example, is another. We have to choose. And if the primary goal is stimulating the economy, tax breaks to the rich are simply not cost-effective. Numerous studies have shown that the poor spend nearly all of their income, while the rich save a significant amount of theirs.

The second argument is that not extending the tax cuts to high-income earners would impose an excessive burden on small businesses. Here, however, we fall into a statistical morass. The administration points out that only 3 percent of all businesses earn enough to have to pay any additional tax. But Republicans reply that those 3 percent of businesses earn 47 percent of the income from this entire sector, meaning that the higher taxes would apply to the bulk of small-business income.

Which is the most relevant number?

To understand these statistics, we need to know how small business is defined. The data come from tax returns, and the definition of a “small” business is one that is organized so that all the profits pass through to the owners, who then report these profits as income on their personal tax returns.

Partnerships and firms structured as S corporations are examples. This category can include businesses as diverse as barbershops, car washes, hedge funds and law firms. Goldman Sachs was in this category before it became a public company. And the fact that 3 percent of the businesses earn nearly half of the money is precisely what many people are concerned about: growing income inequality.

Which brings us to the third argument. Conservatives say that to do anything other than extending tax cuts to everyone would amount to “class warfare.”

The best response to that notion comes from Warren E. Buffett: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two academic economists, provide data to back up Mr. Buffett’s view. They show that the proportion of income earned by the top 1 percent of American families was about 10 percent of the national total from 1945 to 1979. Since 1980, that share has doubled, reaching about 20 percent in 2008-- or more, if capital gains are included.

The growth rate has been even faster for the ultrarich-- those in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent in income.

Other segments of society, meanwhile, are losing out, with their share of the total declining, and their real incomes remaining stagnant.

And what about incentives? Will the owners of the profitable small businesses work less hard, or hire fewer people, if their own after-tax income falls? This is a much-researched question, and the weight of current evidence suggests that we shouldn’t expect significant real reductions in economic activity if rates change in the range under discussion.

...The question comes down to whether we want a society in which the rich take an ever-increasing share of the pie, or prefer to return to conditions that allow all classes to anticipate an increasing standard of living. Demanding that the rich get a tax cut as a condition for tax relief for others is simply elitist. Tea Partiers, take note.

When will, indeed, will we ever learn? Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin certainly have (watch):

Something Happened Yesterday... Will It Last?

Yesterday President Obama was in Milwaukee for Labor Day, and as we mentioned in our Bill Hedrick post, he announced, at long last, the kind of massive infrastructure enterprise that Americans are calling out for-- Americans, but not John Boehner and his obstructionist partisan cronies. Just minutes before I read about the President's intention to go for the infrastructure projects, Paul Krugman's column appeared in the NYTimes warning that Obama would be making a big mistake if he didn't. His thesis all year has been that "the president’s policies have limited the damage, but they were too cautious, and unemployment remains disastrously high. More action is clearly needed."

President Obama’s economists promised not to repeat the mistakes of 1937, when F.D.R. pulled back fiscal stimulus too soon. But by making his program too small and too short-lived, Mr. Obama did just that: the stimulus raised growth while it lasted, but it made only a small dent in unemployment-- and now it’s fading out.

And just as some of us feared, the inadequacy of the administration’s initial economic plan has landed it-- and the nation-- in a political trap. More stimulus is desperately needed, but in the public’s eyes the failure of the initial program to deliver a convincing recovery has discredited government action to create jobs.

Obama's most effective and most progressive cabinet member traveled with him to Milwaukee's Labor Day celebration, Secretay of Labor Hilda Solis. Before they got there she had written an OpEd for the Houston Chronicle in which she discussed what her department is attempting to accomplish:

I know that as we mark Labor Day this year, many workers in Houston, the state of Texas and the nation as a whole are feeling more anxious than festive. Like other places in America, Houston has felt the harshness of the recession. But this administration is committed to the city's workers and to ensuring they all have the skills and opportunities they need to work again.

From the day I walked into the Department of Labor more than a year and a half ago, my vision has been to achieve "good jobs for everyone." My goal is for all people, regardless of ethnicity, gender or age, to have access to a good job. And I know I have much work ahead of me.

But it's really up to the President. And, like I said, he's coming through. Since Boehner was on TV right away whining about how Obama was being mean to Republicans-- who, after all, tanked the economy with their class warfare politics of greed and selfishness-- I have a suspicion he's on the right path.

[T]he problems facing working families are nothing new. But they are more serious than ever. And that makes our cause more urgent than ever. For generations, it was the great American middle class that made our economy the envy of the world. It’s got to be that way again.
 
It was folks like you, after all, who forged that middle class. It was working men and women who made the twentieth century the American century. It was the labor movement that helped secure so much of what we take for granted today-- the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, family leave, health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, retirement plans, those cornerstones of middle class security that all bear the union label. 
 
And it was that greatest of generations that built America into the greatest force for prosperity, opportunity and freedom the world has ever known. Americans like my grandfather, who went off to war just boys, returned home men, and traded one uniform and set of responsibilities for another.  Americans like my grandmother, who rolled up their sleeves and worked in factories on the home front. When the war was over, they studied under the GI Bill; bought homes under the FHA; raised families buttressed by good jobs that paid good wages with good benefits.
 
It was through my grandparents’ experience that I was brought up to believe that anything is possible in America. But they also knew the feeling when that opportunity is pulled out from under you. They would tell me about seeing their fathers or uncles losing jobs during the depression; how it wasn’t just the loss of a paycheck that stung. It was the blow to their dignity; their sense of self-worth. I’ll bet a lot of us have seen people changed after a long bout of unemployment; how it can wear down even the strongest spirits.
 
So my grandparents taught me early on that a job is about more than a paycheck, as important as that is. A job is about waking up every day with a sense of purpose, and going to bed each night fulfilled. A job is about meeting your responsibilities to yourself, to your family, to your community. I carried that lesson with me all those years ago when I got my start fighting for men and women on the South Side of Chicago after their local steel plant shut down. I carried that lesson with me through my time as a state senator and a U.S. Senator. I carry that lesson with me today.
 
And I know that there are folks right here in Milwaukee and all across America who are going through these kinds of struggles.  Eight million Americans lost their jobs in this recession. And while we’ve had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven’t been coming fast enough. Now, the plain truth is, there’s no silver bullet or quick fix to the problem. Even when I was running for this office, we knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade’s worth of policies that saw a few folks prosper while the middle class kept falling behind-- and it will take more time than any of us wants to dig out of the hole created by this economic crisis.
 
But on this Labor Day, there are two things I want you to know, Milwaukee. Number one: I’m going to keep fighting, every single day, to turn this economy around; to put our people back to work; to renew the American Dream for your families and for future generations.
 
Number two-- and this I believe with every fiber of my being: America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class. A middle class built on the idea that if you work hard and live up to your responsibilities, you can get ahead – and enjoy some basic guarantees in life. A good job that pays a good wage.  Health care that’ll be there when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. An education that’ll give our kids a better life than we had.  These are simple ideas. American ideas.

I was thinking about this last week. On the day I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq, I spent some time, as I often do, with our soldiers and veterans. This new generation of troops coming home from Iraq has earned its place alongside that greatest generation. Like them, they have the skills and training and drive to move America’s economy forward once more. And from the time I took office, we’ve been investing in new care, new opportunity, and a new commitment to their service that’s worthy of their sacrifice. But they’re coming home to an economy hit by recession deeper than any we’ve seen. And the question is, how do we create the same kind of middle class opportunity my grandparents’ generation came home to? How do we build our economy on the same kind of strong, stable foundation for growth?
 
Well, anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up-- they just haven’t studied our history. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness. We didn’t come this far by letting special interests run wild. We didn’t do it by just gambling and chasing paper profits on Wall Street. We did it by producing goods we could sell; we did it with sweat and effort and innovation. We did it by investing in the people who built this country from the ground up-- workers, and middle-class families, and small business owners. We did it by out-working, out-educating, and out-competing everyone else.
 
Milwaukee, that’s what we’re going to do again. That’s what’s been at the heart of all our efforts: building our economy on a new foundation so that our middle class doesn’t just survive this crisis-- but thrives once we emerge. And over the last two years, that’s meant taking on some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for too long.
 
That’s why we passed financial reform that provides new accountability and tough oversight of Wall Street; reform that will stop credit card companies from gouging you with hidden fees and unfair rate hikes; reform that ends the era of taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street once and for all.
 
That’s why we eliminated tens of billions of dollars in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to big banks that provide student loans. We’re using those savings to put a college education within reach for working families.
 
That’s why we passed health insurance reform that will make coverage affordable; reform that ends the indignity of insurance companies jacking up your premiums at will or denying you coverage just because you get sick; reform that shifts control from them to you.
 
That’s why we’re making it easier for workers to save for retirement, with new ways of saving your tax refunds, a simpler system for enrolling in plans like 401(k)s, and fighting to strengthen Social Security for the future. And to those who may still run for office planning to privatize Social Security, let me be clear: as long as I’m President, I’ll fight every effort to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street. Not on my watch.
 
That’s why we’ve given tax cuts to small business owners. Tax cuts to clean energy companies. A tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, just like I promised you on the campaign. And instead of giving tax breaks to corporations to create jobs overseas, we’re cutting taxes for companies that put our people to work here at home. 
 
That’s why we’re investing in growth industries like clean energy and manufacturing. And you’ve got leaders here like Tom Barrett and Jim Doyle who have been fighting to bring those jobs to Milwaukee and to Wisconsin. Because we want to see the solar panels and wind turbines and electric cars of tomorrow manufactured here. We don’t just want to buy stuff made elsewhere; we want to grow our exports so the world buys products that say “Made in America.”
 
Because there are no better workers than American workers, and I’ll place my bet on you any day of the week. When the naysayers said we should just let the American auto industry vanish and take hundreds of thousands of jobs down with it, we said we’d stand by them if they made the tough choices necessary to compete once again-- and today, that industry is on the way back.
 
Now, another thing we’ve done is make sound and long-overdue investments in upgrading our outdated and inefficient national infrastructure. We’re not just talking new roads, bridges, dams and levees; but also a smart electric grid and the broadband internet and high-speed rail lines required to compete in the 21st century economy. We’re talking investments in tomorrow that are creating hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs today.
 
It was because of these investments, and the tens of thousands of projects they spurred all over the country, that the battered construction sector actually grew last month for the first time in a long time. Still, nearly one in five construction workers are unemployed. And it doesn’t do anybody any good when so many American workers have been idled for months, even years, at a time when there is so much of America to rebuild.
 
That’s why, today, I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads, rails and runways for the long-term.
 
Over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads-- enough to circle the world six times. We’re going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways-- enough to stretch coast-to-coast. We’re going to restore 150 miles of runways and advance a next generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers-- something I think folks across the political spectrum could agree on.
 
This is a plan that will be fully paid for and will not add to the deficit over time-- we’re going to work with Congress to see to that. It sets up an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on the smartest investments. It will continue our strategy to build a national high-speed rail network that reduces congestion, travel times, and harmful emissions. It will cut waste and bureaucracy by consolidating and collapsing more than 100 different, often duplicative programs. And it will change the way Washington spends your tax dollars; reforming the haphazard and patchwork way we fund and maintain our infrastructure to focus less on wasteful earmarks and outdated formulas, and more on competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck.
 
All of this will not only create jobs now, but will make our economy run better over the long haul.  It’s a plan that history tells us can and should attract bipartisan support. It’s a plan that says even in the still-smoldering aftermath of the worst recession in our lifetimes, America can act to shape our own destiny, to move this country forward, to leave our children something better-- something lasting.
 
So these are the things we’ve been working for. These are some of the victories that you helped us achieve. And we’re not done. We’ve got a lot more progress to make. And I believe we will.
 
But there are some folks in Washington who see things differently. When it comes to just about everything we’ve done to strengthen the middle class and rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress said no. Even where we usually agree, they say no. They think it’s better to score political points before an election than actually solve problems. So they said no to help for small businesses. No to middle-class tax cuts. No to unemployment insurance. No to clean energy jobs. No to making college affordable. No to reforming Wall Street. Even as we speak, these guys are saying no to cutting more taxes for small business owners. I mean, come on!  Remember when our campaign slogan was “Yes We Can?” These guys are running on “No, We Can’t,” and proud of it. Really inspiring, huh?
 
To steal a line from our old friend, Ted Kennedy: what is it about working men and women that they find so offensive?
 
When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said “no” to that, too. In fact, the Republican who’s already planning to take over as Speaker of the House dismissed them as “government jobs” that weren’t worth saving. Not worth saving?  These are the people who teach our kids.  Who keep our streets safe. Who put their lives on the line for our own.  I don’t know about you, but I think those jobs are worth saving.
 
We made sure that bill wouldn’t add to the deficit, either. We paid for it by finally closing a ridiculous tax loophole that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas. It let them write off the taxes they pay foreign governments-- even when they don’t pay taxes here. How do you like that-- middle class families footing tax breaks for corporations that create jobs somewhere else! Even a lot of America’s biggest corporations agreed the loophole should be closed, that it wasn’t fair-- but the man with the plan to be Speaker is already aiming to open it up again.
 
Bottom line is, these guys refuse to give up on the economic philosophy they peddled for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy: you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; you cut rules for special interests; you cut working folks like you loose to fend for yourselves. They called it the ownership society. What it really boiled down to was: if you couldn’t find a job, or afford college, or got dropped by your insurance company-- you’re on your own.
 
Well, that philosophy didn’t work out so well for working folks. It didn’t work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
 
I’m not bringing this up to re-litigate the past; I’m bringing it up because I don’t want to re-live the past. It would be one thing if Republicans in Washington had new ideas or policies to offer; if they said, you know, we’ve learned from our mistakes. We’ll do things differently this time. But that’s not what they’re doing. When the leader of their campaign committee was asked on national television what Republicans would do if they took over Congress, he actually said they’d follow “the exact same agenda” as they did before I took office. The exact same agenda.
 
So basically, they’re betting that between now and November, you’ll come down with a case of amnesia. They think you’ll forget what their agenda did to this country. They think you’ll just believe that they’ve changed. These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class and drive our economy into a ditch. And now they’re asking you for the keys back.
 
Do you want to give them the keys back? Me neither. And do you know why? Because they don’t know how to drive! At a time when we’re just getting out of the ditch, they’d pop it in reverse, let the special interests ride shotgun, and hit the gas, careening right back into that ditch.
 
Well, I refuse to go backwards, Milwaukee. And that’s the choice America faces this fall. Do we go back to the policies of the past? Or do we move forward? I say we move forward. America always moves forward. And we are going to keep moving forward today.

Yesterday I also got a note from Alan Grayson reminding me about another Democratic hero, one who was murdered before he was able to reach the presidency, Robert F. Kennedy. From the first time I ever met Grayson he's been talking with me about how to make the lives of ordinary Americans better-- not what one usually hears from many politicians. Yesterday's letter was classic Grayson:

Today is Labor Day. All across America, millions of people are discovering that the best way to celebrate Labor Day is by not working.

Do you live to work, or do you work to live?

If you are married, look at your wedding album; are there any pictures in there of you at work?

And on your tombstone, do you want it to say, "I wish that I could have spent more time at work"?

Here is what Robert Kennedy had to say about this, 42 years ago:

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that-- counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

When Robert Kennedy said these words, the unemployment rate in America was 3.7%. Today, it is almost three times as high. Too many of our working brothers and sisters are out of work, thanks to over a decade of economic mismanagement. 10% of us are unemployed, and the other 90% work like dogs to try to avoid joining them. Which is just what the bosses want.

But it doesn't have to be that way. I look forward to a Labor Day where every worker has a job, every worker has a pension, every worker has paid vacations, and every worker has the health care to enjoy life.

My opponents call that France. I call it America, an America that is Number One.

Not #1 in wasted military expenditures.

Not #1 in number of foreign countries occupied.

Number One in jobs. Number One in health. Number One in education. Number One in happiness.

As Robert Kennedy famously said, "I dream of things that never were, and ask 'why not?'" Why not? Let's make it happen.

And then all of us who are Americans, including the ones today who are jobless, homeless, sick and suffering, we all can then say, "I am proud to be an American."

Are you with me?

At Blue America we sure are, and we want so, so much to be with Obama too. So, so much, the way we were yesterday.

25 Miners Are Dead In West Virginia Because Rich Wingnut Mine Owner Only Abides By Laws He Approves Of

How many must die before the government protects us from predators like Blankenship?

A few days ago we introduced you to an especially unsavory character, multimillionaire robber baron, Republican campaign donor, union-buster, climate change denier and US Chamber board member, Don Blankenship. He still hasn't been arrested. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis doesn't look like she wants to let the tragic mine disaster at Blankenship's shoddily-run mine get swept under the rug. Obama has asked her and Mine Safety and Health Administrator Joe Main "to report on their early assessment of the deadly explosion’s cause, the safety record at the Upper Branch mine, and the steps that the Federal government should take to improve safety enforcement and prevent future tragedies."

Yesterday Think Progress an early assessment from Blankenship himself, an interview he gave almost exactly one year ago:

They’re very difficult to comply with. There’s so many of the laws that are, if you will, nonsensical from an engineering or a coal mining viewpoint. A lot of the politicians, they get emotional, as does the public, about the most recent accident, and it’s easy to get laws on the books that are not truly helping the health or safety of coal miners. I think we need to be very pragmatic and very careful when we’re passing laws of that nature to make sure that we create as much safety and as much health as can be created for each of the resources we expend.

Blankenship has spent a small fortune trying to elect right-wing Republicans who would let him get away with-- literally-- murder. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has been concerned that he's bought too much influence power for himself in West Virginia.

As detailed in an ABC News investigation, Blankenship vacationed on the Riviera with one West Virginia Supreme Court Justice and underwrote an ad campaign supporting the election of another while a $50 million judgment against Massey Energy was before the court. Blankenship's apparently successful multi-million-dollar attempt to change the composition of the court became the basis of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision-- and the source of a slew of controversial television ads... Blankenship... spent millions more of his own cash trying to oust Democrats from the state legislature.

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller called Massey Energy and it's CEO Don Blankenship "rogue" and is clear that "Massey is not doing its job when it comes to the safety of its miners."

"I think there's a growing feeling that there are a lot of coal companies that do a good job and then there are others that are outliers or rogues. They try to do as little as they can and I think there's a growing anger on my part, and the part of the people who work in those mines, that this distinction has to be closed."

Just last month, federal inspectors cited Massey Energy for high levels of methane and coal dust as well as a ventilation system that wasn't working properly at the UBB Mine.

Senator Rockefeller says Massey mines have a long history of violations, but never seem to pay the penalties.

"Mr. Blankenship, who's the head of Massey, said that every mine violation is somehow an improvement in safety. I've been pondering that for several days now and haven't been able to make any sense out of that. He's had a lot of fines. He hasn't had to pay those fines because of loopholes in the laws."

Meanwhile, Democrats will try again to rein in serial criminals like Blankenship, although until a CEO like him is dragged before a judge and jury, tried, convicted and made to suffer the consequences for multiple homicides, this kind of corporate exploitation and criminality will never end. This is nothing but bullshit game-playing to distract from the real issues and from the complicity of the ruling elites in this tragedy:

Democrats in Congress are trying to crack down on litigation by mining companies that kept federal safety officials at arm’s length from the Upper Big Branch mine... Massey Energy, the company that operates Upper Big Branch, was able to keep the Mine Safety and Health Administration at bay by regularly appealing safety violations.

Since 2005, Massey has gone to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission 89 times to dispute safety violations that federal inspectors found at Upper Big Branch, according to an official at the commission.

The litigation stalled many of the findings of safety violations and prevented the Mine Safety and Health Commission from finding a “pattern of violation” that would have enabled them to exercise more oversight... Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers have tried since last year to eliminate the backlog of cases at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, but experts estimate even the newest proposals could fall short.

We don't need a commission and we don't need a congressional investigation. We need a judge-- one who hasn't be paid for by Blankenship-- a jury and an electric chair... or whatever West Virginia uses to eliminate mass murderers. Perhaps Secretary Solis should show President Obama and Senator Rockefeller this video:

Another Tragic Consequence Of 8 Years Of Conservative Governance Unfolds In West Virginia

Don Blankenship-- Corporate murderer?

Massey Energy Co.'s sprawling Upper Big Branch mine, which is operated by serial bad faith players Performance Coal (a Massey front company history of violations for not properly ventilating highly combustible methane gas) is half an hour south of Charleston, West Virginia. Yesterday afternoon a massive explosion of the kind Performance has never been properly punished for, killed at least two dozen workers in the mine.

Following 8 years of lax enforcement of safety rules from the Bush administration-- if you can equate no enforcement with "lax"-- Massey has been fined $382,000 for repeated serious violations at Upper Big Branch as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis worked to fix the concerted damage corrupt conservatives have done to mine safety. The company's CEO, Don Blankenship, has neither committed hari kari nor been lynched-- or even arrested. He did offer some p.r. hack's crafted condolences though: "Tonight we mourn the deaths of our members at Massey Energy."

Am I saying billionaire Blankenship should be executed for murder? Well... he should get a fair trial. There's nothing inherently criminal about him funding the teabagger astroturf movement, even if he is contributing mightily to the ruin of our country, But the tragedy in West Virginia puts the spotlight, once again, on greed-driven mining executives, who have done all they could-- with the connivance of conservative legislators in their pockets-- to stifle regulations.

Resistance from mining companies in Kentucky and other states against tougher safety sanctions has created a backlog of cases, clogged the appeals process and-- in some instances-- allowed operators to delay paying hefty fines.

Members of the House Education and Labor Committee took the mining industry to task Tuesday for contributing to a backlog of mine-safety cases amid concerns that such practices put the nation's miners at risk... Mine owners, many of them in Kentucky and other Appalachian states, are litigating 67 percent of all penalties, according to the House committee. The backlog of cases due for review has jumped from 2,100 in 2006 to approximately 16,000 today.

"Blanket and indiscriminate appeals to the review commission allow irresponsible mine operators to avoid these stiffer penalties," the [House Education and Labor C]ommittee's chairman, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., told the panel.

In Kentucky, mine operators appeal 80 percent of the fines for serious safety violations, according to the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. The index of the 16,000 backlogged cases is 616 pages long and contains at least $195 million in potential fines, according to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

Mine safety advocates say the backlog of cases will undermine the 2006 Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, which is largely credited for improved safety provisions and a reduction of the number of miners who die on the job. In 2007, a collapse at Crandall Canyon in Utah killed nine miners. In 2006, an underground explosion at the Darby Mine in Harlan County, Ky., killed five people, and an explosion at the Sago Mine in West Virginia killed 12 miners.

Few people outside the coal industry, right-wing political inner circles, and outside West Virginia knew who Blankenship was until January when Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson did an expose on him as part of a major story on Climate Change deniers. What emerged was not a pretty picture but Blankenship was not removed from his positions as a grave danger to his employees and to society.

In an age when most CEOs are canny enough to at least pay lip service to the realities of climate change, Blankenship stands apart as corporate America's most unabashed denier. Global warming, he insists, is nothing but "a hoax and a Ponzi scheme." His fortune depends on such lies: Massey Energy, the nation's fourth-largest coal-mining operation, unearths more than 40 million tons of the fossil fuel each year-- often by blowing the tops off of Appalachian mountains.

The country's highest-paid coal executive, Blankenship is a villain ripped straight from the comic books: a jowly, mustache-sporting, union-busting coal baron who uses his fortune to bend politics to his will. He recently financed a $3.5 million campaign to oust a state Supreme Court justice who frequently ruled against his company, and he hung out on the French Riviera with another judge who was weighing an appeal by Massey. "Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office," Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia once observed. "He would be twice as accountable and half as feared."

On the national level, Blankenship enjoys a position of influence on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has led the fight to kill climate legislation. He enjoys inveighing against the "greeniacs"-- including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Al Gore — who are "taking over the world." And he has even taken to tweeting about climate change: "We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling."

In more unguarded moments, however, Blankenship confesses that his over-the-top rhetoric is strategic. "If it weren't for guys like me," he says, "the middle would be further to the left." He also admits that his efforts to block climate legislation are ultimately self-serving: "It would probably cut our business in half."

And I'm serious when I say that criminals like Blankenship deserve fair trials before punishment. On April 9, 1944, Sunday's NY Times Magazine featured an article by Vice President Henry Wallace on the danger of American fascism, pointing out that "it pollutes public opinion, encourages intolerance and presents a challenge to our democratic way of life." There are few better examples of current American fascism than Don Blankenship. The dictionary defines fascism as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." Thom Hartmann reminds us that "its core governing concept was that the business elite of a nation was far more qualified to run the country than were 'the people.'" With European fascism collapsing, Wallace gave Times readers this perspective:

If we define an American Fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoutably several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful."

This could be inscribed on Blankenship's headstone; but it won't be.



Have you ever seen an OpenSecrets.org page? You'll need to click on it to make it big enough to read:

The Labor Dept. under Hilda Solis gives us a glimpse of how this administration could be working

"Without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's."

-- Harold Meyerson, in his column yesterday (see below)

by Ken

The "Under the Radar" item in Tuesday's Progress Report from Think Progress tipped us off to a New Year's Day AP Business Week report that began:

Labor moves quickly on job safety, workers' rights

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON -- Soon after she became the nation's labor secretary, Hilda Solis warned corporate America there was "a new sheriff in town." Less than a year into her tenure, that figurative badge of authority is unmistakable.

Her aggressive moves to boost enforcement and crack down on businesses that violate workplace safety rules have sent employers scrambling to make sure they are following the rules.

The changes are a departure from the policies of Solis' predecessor, Elaine Chao. They follow through on President Barack Obama's campaign promise to boost funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, increase enforcement and safeguard workers in dangerous industries.

Solis made a splash in October when OSHA slapped the largest fine in its history on oil giant BP PLC for failing to fix safety problems after a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery.

Garnering less attention, she just finished hiring 250 new investigators to protect workers from being cheated out of wage and overtime pay. She also started a new program that scrutinizes business records to make sure worker injury and illness reports are accurate. And she is proposing new standards to protect workers from industrial dust explosions -- an effort the Bush administration had long resisted.

Some business groups say they prefer a more cooperative approach between government and businesses -- what the Bush administration called "compliance assistance." . . .

These are, of course, the "business groups" that can be counted on to let out a wounded roar anytime they don't get their way, which is their definition of being "anti-business." Which just goes to show that they haven't learned even the First Lesson of August 2008: that anyone who gives "business groups" everything they want can expect big-time trouble. These people are like children -- especially whiny and, it has to be said, thuggish children -- the kiddies from Lord of the Flies, say. They are incapable of checking their truly insatiable greed, and are prepared to destroy any number of economies in its pursuit.

Put the Republicans in charge of the economy, and it's just a matter of when and how bad the meltdown is going to be. They talk a lot about some mythical "free market," but of course the last thing they want is a truly free market. It's government's job to pave the way for, and grind into dust anyone who opposes, the free expression of their limitless greed. You know, the way the Bush regimistas did so spendidly.

One key component of the scheme is making sure you've always got your heel on the throat of labor. Corporations, you see, must have all the rights -- and none of the obligations -- of humans, but humans, if they happen to be working stiffs, have no rights, or at least none that they don't have to fight for tooth and claw.

And so in Republican administrations, the ideal -- hard to obtain but worth striving for -- is to derail the Department of Labor from its mandated function of protecting the labor force to its opposite, turning it into a functional Anti-Labor Department, the wedge of the organized effort to protect management from any rights mere laborers may try to claim. Previous administrations have striven for this anti-labor nirvana; I don't believe any has achieved it to anything like the degree that the Bush Anti-Labor Department under Elaine Chao did.

The philosophy apparently goes something like this: We value our workforce so much that we are prepared to continue paying them -- the absolute minimum possible, of course -- until they fall, and then goodness knows there are plenty more laborers where that poor sod came from. Probably the Bush regime's most successful area of job creation was the ones that opened up as a result of the Labor Department's "reluctance," to put it mildly, to enforce safety regulations. Hey, every miner who died opened up an available mining job.

If we can believe the AP report on the functioning of the Labor Department under Secretary Hilda Solis, for once it's clear that we had an election in 2008 in which people voted for change. Here's more of the Think Progress Report:

In many ways, Solis has reversed the course of the Labor Department that was set by her Bush-era predecessor, Elaine Chao. Solis' crackdown has business lobbyists yearning for the days when Chao ran the show. "Our members are concerned that the department is shifting its focus from compliance assistance back to more of the 'gotcha' or aggressive enforcement first approach," Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business' small business legal center, told BusinessWeek. Keith Smith, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, explained that his organizations wants "to build upon [Chao's] progress and recognize what's working." The business lobbyists' reaction to Solis' tenure is unsurprising, given the fact that her predecessor's Labor Department spent eight years "walking away from its regulatory function across a range of issues, including wage and hour law and workplace safety." The Government Accountability Office found that under Chao, the agency "did an inadequate job of investigating complaints by low-wage workers who alleged that their employers were stiffing them for overtime, or failing to pay the minimum wage." In one survey, 68 percent of low-income workers reported a pay violation in the previous week alone. Solis, meanwhile, has "slapped the largest fine in [Department] history on oil giant BP PLC for failing to fix safety problems after a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery."

[Note: The original text is studded with links.]

Now clearly none of this could be happening against the wishes of the Oval Office, but we have to give credit to Secretary Solis herself for (a) understanding her job very differently from the way her predecessor did, and (b) turning the wreckage of her department around and making it function in the interest of working people. It was shocking to read once again in Mary Jean Collins's DWT post last night, "Happy(?) Anniversary, Dawn Johnsen!," how casual the Obama administration remains about getting the Justice Department staffed and working.

We can't say we're surprised by the job Secretary Solis is doing. Because of Howie's nearness to her old congressional district, he's had a lot of opportunity to observe her at work, and she's remained a proud, committed progressive. It's why Blue America included her in our endorsements. It's not that her reelection was ever in doubt in her safely Democratic district, but that we hoped to add to her visibility and clout in Congress, or as Howie puts it, "to help her increase her profile so she would one day be a contender for a governorship, Senate seat-- or cabinet position." Another budding progressive powerhouse, Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, is the first endorsee of Blue America '10, and we hope you'll keep checking the Blue America '10 page to see the candidates we and our friends at Digby's Hullabaloo and Crooks and Liars are satisfied are worthy of progressive support.


POSTSCRIPT: HAROLD MEYERSON POINTS OUT
TODAY'S LACK OF A PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

"Every Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- has raised the hope that he would bring with him a new era of progressive reform," Harold Meyerson began his Washington Post column yesterday ("Without a movement, progressives can't aid Obama's agenda"), and that sure got my attention. "The legislative torrents of the New Deal and the Great Society -- a few brief years in the 1930s and the '60s that fundamentally reshaped the nation's economy and society -- are the templates that fire the liberal imagination."

[Liberals] have responded to the election of every Democratic president since LBJ -- each of whom entered office with a substantial Democratic majority in Congress -- with the hope that this time would be different, that a new burst of progressivism was at hand.

And each time, they have been disappointed. While Carter and Clinton could both point to progressive legislation enacted during their terms, many of their most significant achievements -- the deregulation of transportation, the consolidation and deregulation of finance, the abolition of welfare, the enactment of trade agreements with low-wage nations -- actually eroded the economic security that Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson and their congressional contemporaries had worked to hard to create.

And even though Obama "took office at a moment when the intellectual force of laissez-faire economics was plainly spent," and came in with a reform agenda that "was nothing if not ambitious,"

as the first anniversary of his inauguration approaches, it's clear that despite the impending enactment of a genuinely epochal expansion of health care, a progressive era has not burst forth. Major legislation languishes or is watered down. Right-wing pseudo-populism stalks the land. The liberal base is demobilized. The '30s or the '60s it ain't.

Meyerson notes some of the "reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era": "the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate." But, he says, "if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement."

He looks back at "the America over which FDR presided" and sees "mass organizations of the unemployed," farmers' groups, militant unions, communiss and democratic socialists who "were enough of a presence in America to help shape these movements, generating so much street heat in so many congressional districts that Democrats were compelled to look leftward as they crafted their response to the Depression." In LBJ's time, the civil rights movement "provided a new generation of street heat that both compelled and abetted the president and Congress to enact fundamental reforms."

In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies. For his part, Obama won election with something new under the political sun: a list of 13 million people who had supported his campaign. But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt or Johnson, who benefited from autonomous movements, Obama would be answerable for every loopy tactic his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.

The construction of social movements is always a bit of a mystery. The right has had great success over the past year in building a movement that isn't really for anything but that has channeled anew the fears and loathings of millions of Americans. If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can't, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs? It might well be too little too late, but without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's.

The most exciting political development of recent times has been the emergence of the progressive blogosphere. We know there's a lot of support out there for progressive principles, with a lot of heat behind it. The question then is, how do we translate that passion to the kind of force that moves the likes of Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid?

#