Did The DCCC Muck Up Jim Graves' Run In Minnesota... Again?

If you want to know how "Minnesota nice" sounds, call Jim Graves. He picked up the phone yesterday morning with the warmest, friendliest of greetings... and immediately said he isn't talking to the press until July first and suggested we talk about my upcoming trip to Tuscany instead. He suggested I spend time in Siena, long one of my favorite small European cities. As for questions around his dropping out of the congressional race in MN-06... not a peep, although he did follow up a few minutes later by sending this copy of the Bill Maher "the lights are a little bit dimmer in Crazy Town" video about Bachmann's withdrawal. Like me, Bill Maher will never be cited as an example of Minnesota Nice: "Michele Bachmann is out... still no word on her husband Marcus."

I think Jim likes Maher's interpretation of his leaving the field after vanquishing Bachmann. "Mission accomplished." But that wasn't his first reponse to Bachmann dropping out.

The morning that Bachmann suddenly announced she wouldn't seek reelection, Graves still seemed very interested in making the career leap from hotelier to congressman.

"I never ran against her. I ran for the people," Graves told KARE Wednesday morning.

He had been up late the night before watching the Minnesota Twins 14-inning game against the Milwaukee Brewers on TV, assuming he could sleep in for a change. His phone started ringing with media requests before 5:00 a.m.

The next day Graves apparently had a change of heart. He told reporter Eric Black of MinnPost that he was suspending his campaign for Congress. And furthermore, according to Black's MinnPost article, he would not be talking the other media about it.

"I think he then talked to some advisers, probably got some phone calls, talked to some of the folks he was expecting to get some campaign contributions from," Jacobs said.

He theorized Graves could no longer rely on national political money aimed at ousting Bachmann because she has voluntarily removed left the ballot. And the hotel executive has often said he had little interest in self-funding a campaign.

Notorious drunk Tom Emmer is running instead. Granted, it would be hard to get further right along the political spectrum than Bachmann, but ex-state legislator Emmer, currently working as a Hate Talk Radio host, is certainly not to her left... on anything. He's probably best known outside of Minnesota as the guy who Target had to apologize about contributing campaign funds to after Emmer's deranged homophobic mania became a campaign issue. (Target was probably so enamored of Emmer because one of the planks of his campaign platform was to lower the minimum wage.)

“I’m running for Congress to change the culture in Washington and restore Americans’ trust in our government,” Emmer told a group of about 100 supporters gathered Wednesday in his hometown of Delano, a Wright County community in the conservative heart of the 6th District. “Let’s get excessive regulation and taxes out of the way.”

He likely will face competition for the Republican endorsement, which he said he would respect.

State Sen. John Pederson of St. Cloud said he intends to file as a candidate by the end of the month. Former legislator Phil Krinkie, a 16-year legislator who now is president of the Taxpayers Leauge of Minnesota, and state Rep. Matt Dean have said they’re considering entering the contest.

However, Emmer, a former three-term state representative and the GOP nominee who lost to Gov. Mark Dayton in 2010, already has a base to build on.

“From the minute Bachmann got out, Emmer was in very strong position,” said political consultant Michael Brodkorb.

“He has a donor file, access to major fundraisers and the ability to pull together a team quickly," he said. "He lost a very close race for governor. It will make him a disciplined and hungry candidate who will assemble a team that will put him in a position to win.”

Emmer’s advantage as a seasoned campaigner is also his liability.

DFL Party Chair Ken Martin was quick to point that out in a statement: “In Emmer’s unsuccessful 2010 run for governor, he drained Republican Party resources and turned off the party’s major donor community. Many attribute his Ron Paul- and Sarah Palin-backed candidacy to sending Republican and independent votes Tom Horner’s way.”

Regular DWT readers probably don't need to be reminded that I tend to see Steve Israel and the DCCC lurking behind every door. But weeks before Jim Graves dropped out, we talked about how they had sabotaged his run in 2010. They decided to make up for it this year and named him a "Jump Start Candidate," on a par with Israel's most wretched zombie-like conservative candidates like Michael Eggman, Ann Callis, Gwen Graham, Kevin Strouse, et al.

Even before Bachmann dropped out, I started getting an inkling something was wrong. Rumors emanating from the DCCC were undercutting Graves' campaign and his relationships. One of the most corrupt DC organizations, the DCCC wanted to move their own band of incompetent crooks into the campaign so they could start pocketing the big cash the DCCC intended to spend there. With the DCCC, it's always about the rake off for the revolving door staffers. And then, on May 24, the Graves campaign sent out a press release slamming back at the DCCC:

Team Graves Running Independent Campaign

Following rumors reported in the national press from anonymous Washington “Democratic sources” that congressional candidate Jim Graves was pressured to replace his 2012 campaign team with Washington insiders, Graves released the following statement:

“We want to set the record straight. With all due respect to national figures rooting for our success, we are running our own campaign. One of the most valuable rules I have learned in business is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ While Adam Graves, my 2012 campaign manager, decided to turn down the position of campaign manager for 2014 in order to focus on his life’s work as an accomplished philosopher and academic, he remains the closest advisor and strategist to our team. I promoted his deputy campaign manager, Aaron Wells, to manage the 2014 race.”

“Our 2012 team ran an extremely effective and efficient campaign to restore real leadership to our community. We place a high value on loyalty, particularly when folks work tirelessly and with great passion like our 2012 campaign team.”

When the DCCC moves into a campaign, they always try taking over so they can funnel the money into the pockets of their cronies. I can't think of a DCCC campaign where this hasn't happened. And Jim Graves won't be the first.

So, while we're on the subject of MN-06, who will the Democrats put up against Emmer? Thank goodness we haven't heard any stirrings from Elwin Tinklenberg. Tarryl Clark has been telling half the people she meets she's running again. Problem is, she's telling the other half she's not. Another would-be candidate is the anti-Choice mayor-- yes a Democrat-- of Sartell, Joe Perske. And then there's a "secret businessman" who's nosing around and who may or may not run. This one should be safe for the Republicans for another cycle.

Can The Democrats Retake The House Next Year?

Steve Israel's talking point is "problem solvers." He repeats it like a mantra. But there's something else interesting that he said in his interview with USA Today, in response to a question about what it means that the DCCC spent so lavishly in South Carolina a few weeks ago, only to lose-- and by a wide margin-- to one of the most flawed Republican candidates ever, Mark Sanford. Israel pointed out the SC-01 "is one of the 100 most Republican districts in the country (which isn't exactly true. The PVI is R+11 and it's ranked the 118th most Republican): "I made a decision that we're not going to give up on any district and we're not going to give up on any candidate... It would have been easy for me to walk away, but we'll fight wherever we have a chance." Almost sounds less reptilian... and more like Churchill.

As we mentioned before a few times, last year Israel very much did walk away from Jim Graves in his race against Michele Bachmann. After putting him on the Red to Blue list, Israel decided not to spend any money at all in the district. Bachmann spent $11,946,232 to Graves' $2,279,384 but he came a lot closer to beating her than many of Israel's handpicked candidates where the DCCC spent millions. The 4,197 votes by which Bachmann beat Graves would certainly have been made up had the DCCC spent the kind of money in MN-06 that they spent bolstering losing candidates like Blue Dog Gary McDowell (1,282,979), Blue Dog Brendan Mullen ($483,721), New Dem Julian Schreibman ($2,037,612), Joe Oceguera ($2,649,541) or Pat Kreitlow ($2,069,595) to name a few.

And Graves wasn't the only viable Democratic candidate Israel gave the cold shoulder-- and a cold shoulder often comes with an explicit message to big donors to NOT give contributions. Had Israel been even vaguely competent last go-round, among the Republicans who wouldn't be serving in Congress this session are right-wingers in MUCH bluer districts than Bachmann's. These are Republicans who could have been defeated had Steve Israel just done his job. None comes from an R+11 district like SC-01. In fact none comes from a district above R+4-- and all are powerful GOP House leaders who were actively protected by Steve Israel:

• Darrell Issa (CA)
• John Mica (FL)
• Joe Pitts (PA)
• Scott Garrett (NJ)
• Paul Ryan (WI)
• Buck McKeon (CA)
• Frank Wolf (VA)
• Mike Rogers (MI)
• John Kline (MN)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Peter King (NY)

And this dozen only includes committee chairs and powerful Members that Israel put off the table, despite their political vulnerabilities and despite, in some cases, excellent Democratic candidates. The good news is that Israel may be lightening up on his protection racket a little and allowing DCCC staffers some leeway in going after vulnerable big shot Republicans. As you can see in the video above, he's very enthusiastic about Jim Graves this time around. There are reasons to believe he is equally enthusiastic about targeting Kline, McKeon and Garrett... at least a small step in the right direction.

There's a new national poll out that shows registered voters prefer to have a Democrat win their district than a Republican. And the margin is significant-- 48% of respondents picked the generic Democrat and 40% picked the generic Republican. But voters don't usually chose between generic candidates. That's why recruitment this year will determine what happens in November 2014.

One of the easiest districts for a Democrat to win would be FL-27, the seat now held by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. But there is no recruitment; there is anti-recruitment. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made it abundantly clear to Florida Democrats that she will not tolerate anyone credible running against Ileana, who, like her, is owned by the sugar baron Fanjul brothers. Last year Obama's 7 point margin in FL-27 was one of the highest margins of victory in any district held by a Republican Member of Congress. But Wasserman Schultz had the DCCC make sure there would be no viable candidate. The "Democrat" who ran, Manny Yevancey, still hasn't filed an FEC financial disclosure report, which means he raised and spent less than $5,000. His petitions-- which were commercially collected by a firm in Tampa that was paid by "someone else"-- is almost totally signed by folks in Tampa, not in Miami, Coral Gables, Hialeah, Miami Springs, South Miami, Westchester or anywhere else in Ros-Lehtinen's district. The total signatures on his petitions from Miami-Dade- 12. The total from Tampa- 1,147. And the other counties with significant petition numbers were also on the other side of the state, Hillsborough with 656 and Pasco with 502. Very convenient for Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen to have a candidate with no income, no roots and no chance-- and old dirty trick that anti-democracy hacks employee.

That all said, there were still 84,899 (37%) voters willing to cast their ballots against Ros-Lehtinen and for an unknown "Democrat" who didn't campaign. Imagine if Steve Israel had ignored Wasserman Schultz' demand that Ros-Lehtinen's seat be off limits and had instead recruited a good candidate and gone after her. So far this year, Wasserman Schultz is guarding the process like a mad dog again and despite several DCCC staffers who would like to target Ros-Lehtinen, there is no movement whatsoever on recruiting a Democrat with a reasonable chance to win. There is no way for the DCCC to win back the House with this kind of leadership. Israel and Wasserman Schultz are the worst examples of why grassroots Democrats hate Inside-the-Beltway Democrats and why so many refuse to even turn up at the polls on election day. When Nancy Pelosi re-appointed Steve Israel to chair the DCCC again this year, she sealed the fate of her party to be in the minority again for the 114th Congress.

Boehnercare Passes The House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DCCC's Tighty Whities

Good target?

This is a list of the closest House races from last November. We list the races where Democrats won first and then where Republicans won. The dollar figure next to each name is the amount put into outside spending by the DCCC and their SuperPAC, the House Majority PAC.

DEMOCRATS

• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)- 654 $2,005,888
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- 768 $1,269,713
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- 1,904 $2,924,208
• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)- 2,454 $1,768,506
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)- 3,326 $1,442,177
• John Tierney (D-MA)- 4,330 $861,652
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)- 4,985 $1,215,498
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- 6,992 $2,962,357
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)- 7,461 $2,170,479

REPUBLICANS

• Rodney Davis- 1,002 $3,000,927
• Dan Benishek- 1,881 $1,282,979
• Jackie Walorski- 3,920 $483,721
• Lee Terry- 4,197 $164,736
• Michele Bachmann- 4,296 $0
• Chris Collins- 5,001 $2,968,142
• Mike Coffman- 7,001 $2,968,142

You have probably noticed one glaring exception to the massive amounts of money the DCCC poured into these races-- an average of $1,710,159. In the 10th closest race, in Minnesota's 6th CD, first-time candidate Jim Graves came within 4,197 votes of longtime incumbent and right-wing icon, Michele Bachmann... and it is the only race the DCCC refused to spend any money on. Graves is a very indepedent-minded Democrat and, unlike almost all the other candidates the DCCC spent big on, he refused to join the reactionary and corrupt New Dems that Steve Israel and Steny Hoyer are determined to flood the House Democratic caucus with-- even to the point of losing races.

Not counting outside money, Bachmann spent $11,946,232 on her reelection campaign, an incredible $66.65 for every vote. Graves spent $2,279,384 or $13.03 per vote. Just as an exercise, had the DCCC spent on Graves the average of what they spent on these close races, it seems inconceivable that he wouldn't have won by a very substantial margin. Just sayin'.

But the good news is that Steve Israel has changed his mind this cycle. The DCCC announced that MN-06 is a priority target and that Jim Graves is now a blue chip candidate. He's one of eight in their "Jumpstart" program in key districts:

• CA-31- Pete Aguilar
• CA-10- Michael Eggman
• IL-13- Ann Callis
• FL-02- Gwen Graham
• MN-06- Jim Graves
• NY-11- Domenic Recchia
• CO-06- Andrew Romanoff
• PA-08- Kevin Strouse

I'm not sure how Jumpstart differs from Red to Blue but the DCCC says its selections for the program were based on the quality of the candidate and the competitiveness of the district. Obama tied Romney 49-49% in two of the districts, IL-13 and PA-08, beat Romney in 4 others (CA-31 by a whopping 17 points, CA-10 by 4 points, CO-06 by 5 points, and NY-11 by 4 points), lost to Romney in FL-02 by 6 and in MN-06 by 5. MN-06 is a pretty red district, Bachmann's unmitigated Tea Party extremism and tendency to embarrass her constituents with her bizarre pronouncements, making it competitive.

The DCCC's new Executive Director, Kelly Ward, explained it to top donors: “Since the beginning of the cycle, we have said that we will win in 2014 because of the success of our recruitment efforts in 2013. To that end we are excited to announce the Jumpstart program, the next phase in our recruitment efforts which are already ahead of schedule. The newly-created Jumpstart program provides early financial, communications, operational and strategic support to help top-tier candidates get a head start in these highly-targeted races."

How Would You Feel If Someone Wrote, "We Need Fewer Women In Congress?"

Women make up just about 51% of the population. Women hold 98, or 18.3%, of the 535 seats in the 113th US Congress-- 20, or 20.0%, of the 100 seats in the Senate and 78, or 17.9%, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. So, objectively, you would have to be an idiot to not see that there is a real need to elect more women to Congress-- as well as to elect a woman president and more women throughout the government. But not bad ones. Replacing, for example, a progressive senator like Brian Schatz with a more conservative woman, Colleen Hanabusa-- who's record even on women's health issues isn't nearly as good as Schatz's-- is doing anyone any good, except making the percentages look better.

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi, who was the first female Speaker of the House-- as well as one of the best speakers in history and certainly the best Speaker in recent times-- was on Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC show talking about the need for more women in Congress. I doubt she has women like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Martha Roby (R-AL) in mind. These women work actively against policies are in the best interests of women who don't happen to be in the top 1% of income earners. I'm certain what Pelosi wants to see more women like this elected. More women like Barbara Lee (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Donna Edwards (D-IL)...

As I mentioned yesterday, I'm in the middle of reading Rana Husseini's classic book on women's activism in the Middle East, Murder in the Name of Honour. Conservatives in Jordan-- like conservatives everyone and throughout time-- have fought long and hard to keep women from achieving any sense of equality. I'll get into the psychological infirmities the conservatives suffer when I discuss Husseini's book in greater detail. But I do want to point out a Parliament Deputy Mahmoud Kharabsheh insisting that brothers have the right to murder their sisters if they suspect the sisters are bringing "dishonor" to the family-- like by being the victim of rape. He adamantly opposed an initiative to overturn a law that permits this, claiming "the control over women prevents sexual diseases and mixed paternity." He claimed he wanted women to be protected, respected and afforded dignity, but added, "Jordan is still a male-dominated society and men are more capable than women are. Women have not developed themselves yet; they are not experienced enough, having not held high positions in authority as men have." Now there's a self-fulfilling prophesy of the universal conservative mind-- even if you believe that the only thing men are more capable of them women in pleasuring their own puds.

Let's forget for a moment that Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is the chair of the House Tea Party caucus, an anti-Choice fanatic and one of the most viciously anti-LGBT Members of Congress and let's make believe she's just a normal conservative congresswoman. Can you call her desire to shred the social safety net "anti-woman?" She doesn't just want to privatize Social Security and wreck Medicaid, she wants to ween everybody off Social Security and Medicare. Lee Fang recorded her in 2010 addressing a conservative group in St. Louis using fake Glenn Beck stats as the justification for ending Social Security.

Is the country too big to fail? No, the country can fail. We can, we’re not invincible. And we’re so close now to being at that point because the thing is, as Glenn Beck said last night, it is true. The $107 trillion that he put on the board. We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all. We have to do it simply because we can’t let the contract remain as they are because the older people are going to lose. So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is.

Is that anti-woman? Well... not anti-rich women. This comes from the Social Security Administration:

• With longer life expectancies than men, elderly women tend to live more years in retirement and have a greater chance of exhausting other sources of income. They benefit from Social Security's cost-of-living protections because benefits are annually adjusted for inflation.
* Women reaching age 65 in 2011 are expected to live, on average, an additional 20.7 years compared with 18.7 years for men.
* Women represent 56 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 68 percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older.

• The Social Security system is progressive in that lower-wage earners receive a higher percentage benefit than higher-wage earners do. The system returns a greater percentage of pre-retirement earnings to a lower-wage worker than to a higher-wage worker. Women who are low-wage workers receive back more benefits in relation to past earnings than do high-wage earners.
* In 2011, the median earnings of working-age women who worked full-time, year-round were $36,500, compared to $48,000 for men.

• In 2011, the average annual Social Security income received by women 65 years and older was $12,188, compared to $15,795 for men. Social Security provides dependent benefits to spouses, divorced spouses, elderly widows, and widows with young children.

• In 2011, for unmarried women-- including widows-- age 65 and older, Social Security comprises 50 percent of their total income. In contrast, Social Security benefits comprise only 36 percent of unmarried elderly men's income and only 31 percent of elderly couples' income.

• In 2011, 48 percent of all elderly unmarried females receiving Social Security benefits relied on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

• Elderly women are less likely than elderly men to have significant family income from pensions other than Social Security. In 2010, only 22.6 percent of unmarried women aged 65 or older were receiving their own private pensions (either as a retired worker or survivor), compared to 27.3 percent of unmarried men.
* Participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans is increasing for women in today's workforce. In 2011, 55.2 percent of women employed full-time participated in an employer-sponsored public and private sector plan compared to 52.5 percent of men. Women generally receive lower pension benefits due to their relatively lower earnings.

Sure, Pelosi wants to see more women in Congress, but I bet she'll be supporting Jim Graves when he runs against Bachmann next year. Last week, Graves, a successful businessman with a clear middle-American perspective, told me he's focused on "fixing" Social Security. His plan is very different from what Bachmann says and in contrast to Bachmann's voting record. "Let’s be clear," he began, "in that Social Security is an earned benefit that hard working Americans have paid into over the life of their working careers-- they’ve earned it, it’s not an entitlement."

Here are some of the specific ways he feels we can bolster and strengthen Social Security:

1. Let’s broaden the contribution base to all income. Why should rich folks that get their incomes from “carried interest,” “preferred dividends, and all forms of unearned income not pay into the pool? Hard working folks that get their income through a payroll should not carry the entire burden.

2. Adjust the income cap from $113,700 to a sustainable level. By expanding the tax base to all personal income (earned and unearned), the income cap should be adjusted to an amount needed to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent for a projected 75 year period. The average folks in my district make about $50,000 per year, so they are paying in on 100% of their incomes. All the while those with massive amounts of unearned income pay little if any into the fund.

...What we do not want to do is privatize Social Security that only defeats the purpose of the program. Social Security is to protect and provide a safety net for our seniors when they get to an age that they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Privatizing the program is great for the rich, but it destroys the program for those that most need it. The entire reason that Social Security works is that it creates a pool for the social good-- it averages the risk over a larger demographic. And we definitely do not want to move the retirement age up from 65 years like Bachmann and Ryan would like to do. If you worked your entire life laying bricks, hoisting boxes, building houses…your back is sore and body is tired.

Blue America Hires A Forensic Specialist To Look Over Bachmann's Crooked Dealings

You've probably seen that right-wing extremist Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been in trouble with federal regulators regarding monkey business with the huge flows of cash into and out of her political campaigns. The semi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating how she's been using her campaign funds, similar charges that forced Jesse Jackson, Jr. to resign and get sentenced to prison. She's now using her campaign funds to hire the biggest, most well-connected, most expensive-- and most people Inside-the-Beltway admit the absolute shadiest-- law firm in DC, Patton Boggs, to keep her out of jail.

Peter Waldron, who served as Bachmann’s national field coordinator in the 2012 presidential race, has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the lawmaker’s campaign improperly used leadership PAC funds to pay presidential campaign staff. Consultant Guy Short, he alleges, was paid with MichelePAC funds. He also charges that payments to Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman, state Sen. Kent Sorenson, were concealed due to ethics rules that bar legislators from being employed by campaigns. Both Bachmann and Sorenson have denied those allegations.

...Waldron has also filed a complaint against Sorenson with the Iowa Senate ethics committee, citing the testimony of Eric Woolson, who managed Bachmann’s Iowa campaign.

Bachmann’s presidential campaign came under fire in 2011 for sending two e-mails to a Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators (NICHE) list, in violation of the group’s non-profit status. Woolson testified in a sworn affidavit that Sorenson took the e-mail list and that Bachmann acknowledged that she was aware of the alleged theft. Bachmann’s campaign said at the time that the use was inadvertent, a characterization Woolson’s testimony appears to contradict. Barb Heki, who worked on Bachmann’s campaign, is suing the congresswoman and former senior aides over the misappropriation of the list, alleging that staffers stole it off her computer and then blamed her when the misuse went public. She has also filed a criminal complaint, which Urbandale police are investigating.

In January Waldron accused Bachmann’s team of not paying Iowa staffers and of attempting to force them to sign non-disclosure agreements that would prohibit them from discussing any immoral, unethical or criminal behavior with the media, the police or an attorney. Woolson says that all staffers were paid in full.

Blue America's own forensic expert has started dissecting Bachmann's FEC reports and has already come up with some interesting and hard to explain data-- right out in the open. She claims to have paid her credit card processor, Edonations, an exclusively right-wing operation out of Alexandria, VA, $928,528 during the last election cycle. Other than former Democrat Joe Lieberman, the company works exclusively with Republicans-- and mostly with Republicans with notorious records for sleazy dealings like Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ben "Brock Landers" Quayle (R-AZ), John Boehner (R-OH), Connie Mack (R-FL), Denny Hastert (R-IL), Dirty Dick Pombo (R-CA), Star Parker (R-CA), SarahPAC, and the group that handled the shady Mormon cash that financed California's Prop 8. This appears to be the same company as another right-wing bunch of GOP operatives, "Campaign Solutions," to which she paid another $186,091 and whose website brags: "We've raised more online money for Republican candidates, ballot initiatives, non-profit organizations, and public affairs clients than any consulting firm in history. But that seems like an awful lot of money for credit card processing, don't you think? Hopefully, the Office of Congressional Ethics will look a little more closely into what kind of "credit card processing" Edonations does that merits over a million dollars.

Last year Bachmann spent $11,946,232 towards reelection against Democrat Jim Graves, who spent $2,279,384). Graves, who got no help from the DCCC, was narrowly defeated by Bachmann 180,131 (51%) to 175,923 (49%), beating her in the district's biggest county, Stearns, 34,842 (56%) to 27,860 (44%). District-wide, Bachmann underperformed Romney significantly. Romney beat Obama in the MN-06 56.5- 41.5%, his best results, by far, in the state of Minnesota (which Obama won handily). There's no question that Bachmann would have been defeated if the DCCC had intervened in the race on Graves' behalf.

The World Is Changing-- Love Is Love And It Does Belong To Everybody

I talk to a lot of people running for Congress. I've been doing it, more or less, systematically since 2005. It's part of the Blue America vetting process. One of the questions I ask all the candidates is about marriage equality for the LGBT community. When I started, the question was about whether or not the candidate supported it. I was even interested if they supported it in their heart despite being able to say so aloud in a red, red district. That's changed remarkably fast. Almost all Democrats support marriage equality now, including all moderates. Only the most dire, ancient reactionaries who, for whatever reason, haven't flipped to the GOP yet, still oppose marriage equality. And the question has changed as well. Now I ask how the candidate is going to persuade conservative voters that marriage equality is the right path.

Last month I spoke with a self-described "very conservative" Washington state senator, Steve Hobbs. And he is very conservative-- but not on social issues, including LGBT equality. Hobb's is a pro-Choice, pro-LGBT Democrat, with a voting record to back up those claims. It's in contrast to the Blue Dogs in DC who swear they're just fiscally conservative and then vote straight-up reactionary when it comes to matters of Choice, corporate corruption and equality. In the guest post he did for DWT on the topic he talked about how his military service in Afghanistan helped him understand the need for equality on a very personal level. "How could I look my gay and lesbian comrades in the eye if I voted no? How could I stand next to them, train with them, fight with them and potentially die with them if I voted to deny them the same rights that I have? I represent a swing district in Snohomish County, Washington, where the majority of my constituents do not support marriage equality. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and, believe me-- they shared them with me before I took my vote." I'd have more respect for conservatives in general if there were more conservatives like Steve Hobbs.

Jim Graves, the Democrat running against Bachmann, may not be another Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee or Raúl Grijalva but he is somewhat more of a progressive, across the board, than Hobbs. His district, though, is as conservative as Hobbs' is. In a guest post he did for DWT he talked about how he combats Bachmann's deranged homophobia on the stump:

I also reject my opponent's understanding of the role of government. She talks a lot about making government smaller. But, in fact, she seems to think the government should interfere with the most personal decisions a person could ever make. She would like government officials to tell the victim of rape what she ought to do with her body. She would like the government to determine who a person can and cannot marry. Now, I have been married to my wife, Julie, for nearly forty years. Our marriage has been the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I don’t see how anyone would want our government to deprive individuals the freedom to experience that same joy and happiness no matter what their sexual orientation.

Sounds something like that ad at the top of the page... which is exactly how most Democrats are sounding these days. Most... but not all. And leave it to DCCC Chairman Steve Israel to find the crud left at that bottom of the toilet to lavish millions of dollars on in this year's congressional campaigns. Needless to say, Israel isn't helping Graves defeat Bachmann. Instead he's pouring money into the campaigns of homophobic psychopaths like Hayden Rogers (Blue Dog, NC-11) who would vote with Bachmann against LGBT community-- along with "Front-Line" homophobes in North Carolina Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell, each of who has a lifetime ZERO rating on crucial LGBT votes in Congress. Bachmann has a ZERO as well, but not many Democrats do-- aside from McIntyre and Kissell, only Mark Critz (also on the DCCC Front-Line list) and two reactionary Blue Dogs who are retiring, Heath Shuler (NC) and Mike Ross (AR).

The DCCC Front-Line candidates get most of the money that the DCCC spends. Here's the whole list and each member's lieftime crucial vote score on LGBT issues from Progressive Punch:

Ron Barber (AZ)- hasn't voted on any LGBT issues so far
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- 16.67
Tim Bishop (D-NY)- 28.57%
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)- 28.57%
Lois Capps (D-CA)- 100%
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- 16.67
Mark Critz (PA)- ZERO
John Garamendi (D-CA)- 100%
Kathy Hochul (NY)- 100%
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)- ZERO
David Loebsack (D-IA)- 50%
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- 14.29
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)- ZERO
Jerry McNerney (CA)- 50%
Bill Owens (NY)- 33.33%
Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 66.67%
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)- 71.43%
Betty Sutton (D-OH)- 50%
Tim Walz (MN)- 50%

Bolded names are of congressmen so consumed with homophobia that they are in severe need of psychological treatment for their mental illness. Please keep in mind that if you are contributing to the DCCC, some of your money is going to reelect these vicious hatemongers... but none of it goes to getting them mental health counseling.

As for the Republicans, the vast majority of them score ZERO. Blue America has a special page dedicated to helping replace Congress' worst homophobes with supporters of LGBT equality-- like in the Minnesota race pitting Jim Graves against Bachmann.

So Did They Kick Bachmann Off The Intelligence Committee Yet?

Tuesday Bachmann won her primary against two quixotic Republicans embarrassed about the freakshow she has turned their party into. Her real opposition, populist Democrat Jim Graves, also officially became the Minnesota DFL candidate. Graves must be doing something right; corporate whore Steve Israel has refused to put him on the Red-to-Blue list. So what happened with all the hubbub about throwing her censuring her or at least removing her from the Intelligence Committee?

Well, nothing. Boehner's is so weak and ineffectual that he's afraid to do anything. Even with Congress' most deranged publicity hound doubling tripling down on her ugly and divisive McCarthyism, mainstream Republicans have piped down, proving their were no teeth in their self-serving condemnations. Calls to censure Bachmann have, predictably, fallen on deaf ears, as have the flood of calls to kick her off the committee, even after both Boehner (who doesn't need anyone's agreement to just go ahead and do it) and Intelligence Committee leadership have condemned her dangerous demagoguery.

On the contrary, Republican politicians and their financiers have happily continued to support Bachmann’s reelection bid, knowing full well that when she bothers showing up she's a rubber-stamp for the House leadership despite her false claims of independence. In fact, my old elementary school buddy, former Senator Norm Coleman, who publicly condemned her baseless allegations, is still listed on her campaign website as officially endorsing her.

Besides relying on Bachmann’s Republican rubber stamp in Congress, truth be told, Republicans delight at the racist, hate- and fear-mongering rhetoric Bachmann uses to energize the GOP base and welcome millions of dollars into her campaign and the campaigns of Republicans across the country. Republicans across the country are already strategizing about how to utilize the wave of anti-Muslim hate Bachmann has been stirring up, although you sure don't see any of them manning up and taking responsibility for the mayhem at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek or for the shootings at Texas A&M this week, despite the fact that the murderer's Facebook page singled out Bachmann (and Glenn Beck) as his heroes.


With the DCCC not stepping up to the plate at all for Graves, he's left fighting all the money Bachmann raises from her hate-mongering and from the Koch brothers, Big Oil and the other special interests she serves so diligently.

So what’s the worst part about this? The fact that Republicans do not have the courage to stand up against McCarthyism and fear-mongering? The fact that Americans and special interests will fund the candidate of hate rather than her moderate opponent? The fact that "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel of the DCCC would rather waste money on trying to defeat freshmen teabaggers in solid red districts with his kennelful of Blue Dogs and New Dems, that work with Graves to oust one of the most despised and destructive Members of Congress?

Maybe it’s the fact that none of this was ever about national security in the first place. I have recently learned that when Bachmann was given the legitimate opportunity to deal with security issues related to the Muslim Brotherhood in the course of her actual job as Congresswoman at an April 13 subcommittee meeting on the subject, she just skipped the meeting, instead attending at least three separate interviews to bolster her laughable "presidential" campaign.

Some say that before Republicans completely brush this issue under the rug and leave Michele to spend her millions in blood money trying to buy another election, we should renew the call to have official action taken against Bachmann, call on Bachmann to say definitively whether or not she attended that April 13 meeting, and call on Sen. Coleman to retract his endorsement of the congresswoman he condemned. But I don't believe in any of that gameplaying. This is up to the voters of MN-06 and the only way to get rid of Michele Bachmann is to help Jim Graves put a stop to this hateful behavior once and for all by replacing her in Congress. You can help do that here on our ActBlue page.

We All Know Who-- And What-- Michele Bachmann Is... Meet Jim Graves, The Democrat Who Can Retire Her From Congress In November

With Bachmann's latest attention seeking stunt and lurch towards pure McCarthyism, people are asking who Jim Graves is, the Democratic nominee for MN-06, the district just north and west of the Twin Cities saddled with Congress' craziest Member. I reached out to Jim and asked him to introduce himself to DWT. This is the guest post he sent me yesterday. Please watch the video from the campaign and read Jim's own words and then consider contributing to his campaign here.

I'm Running To Represent The People Of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District

-by Jim Graves

Watching Michele Bachmann’s McCarthy-like witch-hunt unfold over the past few weeks has been truly disturbing. Her baseless attacks upon honorable, hard-working Americans is not only designed to divide us through hate and fear, it weakens our ability to take on the real challenges facing our nation today.

But these events have also reminded me exactly why I felt so compelled to take on Rep. Bachmann in this election-- for far too long she has gotten away with dangerous political stunts that come at the expense of the citizens she has been entrusted to serve.

Now people across Minnesota and across the nation are calling for her removal from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I understand their outrage and agree that her reckless behavior warrants such a move. That said, if we’ve learned anything from the past it is this: the only way to bring her politics of fear to an end is by bringing her congressional career to end once and for all this November.

I’ve never run for office before. I’m just a businessman who grew up as one of six kids in an ordinary working-class family in St. Cloud, Minnesota. After teaching elementary school for two years, I launched my own family business while working out of my basement office with little more than a typewriter and a plan. That company grew into a successful hospitality business that has employed thousands of people throughout Minnesota and across the country.

By Rep. Bachmann's definition, I am a "job creator." But, unlike Bachmann, I understand that the real job creators are hard working middle class Americans. They are the ones that produce demand for the products and services companies provide. In order to revive our economy, we need to make sure that ordinary working families have money to spend on those products and services. But those middle class families are the one's suffering most in today’s tough economic climate-- a climate brought on by a political establishment too concerned with Wall Street and not concerned enough with Main Street.

I believe it is high time that our elected officials begin focusing on the priorities of Main Street America. And I know something about that-- in fact, I achieved my American Dream by investing on the Main Streets, the highways, and the byways across Minnesota and the region. I’ve spent my life building business up (not by breaking businesses apart and sending American jobs overseas). Unlike my opponent, I know that the small business person doesn't worry as much about taxes as they do about making sure that costumers are coming in the front door and buying the products and services they sell.

As someone who employs hundreds of unionized workers and built dozens of buildings with union labor, I also understand the valuable roll that collective bargaining and organized labor play in building and maintaining a vibrant middle class that can afford to live a fulfilled life. That is an essential part of our country's heritage. I refuse to believe that unions and employers have mutually exclusive goals. At the end of the day, we want the same thing, success. Businesses do best when their employees can work with dignity, respect and good livable wages-- when that happens, everyone benefits.

I also reject my opponent's understanding of the role of government. She talks a lot about making government smaller. But, in fact, she seems to think the government should interfere with the most personal decisions a person could ever make. She would like government officials to tell the victim of rape what she ought to do with her body. She would like the government to determine who a person can and cannot marry. Now, I have been married to my wife, Julie, for nearly forty years. Our marriage has been the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I don’t see how anyone would want our government to deprive individuals the freedom to experience that same joy and happiness no matter what their sexual orientation.

I don’t need to go on about Rep. Bachmann because her exploits are well known and quite notorious. What I will say is that we have never had a better chance to defeat her. Our polling has us down by just 5 points and charging fast. Rep. Bachmann has paid a price for ignoring her constituents to pursue her intolerant political agenda aimed at promoting her own celebrity. She has done unbelievable damage. She has made a mockery of our political system and the people it represents. Now is the time to stop her. Please join our effort, and together we will end this painful chapter for good.

Republicans Don't Want Regulations... Not Even On Nuclear Safety

Wednesday we mentioned the GOP's attempt to disable to American federal regulatory system and how the whole dysfunctional effort got bogged down in some crazy typo. Yesterday they were back again and, presumably, someone had proof-read the bill. When the House Rules Committee presented it again, only 3 Democrats went along with the GOP effort to bring it up again-- slimy corporate whores and future lobbyists Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT) and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC). Two Republicans had second thoughts and crossed the aisle in the opposite direction, Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) and the most currently most vulnerable Republican in Congress, Buck McKeon (R-CA). The procedural resolution passed 235-183.

Frelinghuysen and McKeon were back on the reservation by the time Cantor called for a final vote on the bill itself. But two other ultra-vulnerable Republicans, Charlie Bass (R-NH) and Bob Dold (R-IL) switched their votes from Wednesday and now decided they didn't want to destroy the national regulatory system-- although nothing was changed in the bill except the typo.

13 anti-consumer, anti-worker. anti-family corporate whores among the Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP on this. The ones I've bolded are on the DCCC priority spend list and please be aware that if you contribute any money whatsoever to the DCCC some will be spent on these galoots:

John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog/New Dem-OK)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)

Wednesday we looked at one of the amendments scheduled to be voted on. This one, by Jerry Nadler, sought to exempt nuclear plants, since if they were to go unregulated, there could be a catastrophe of unprecedented consequences. That came up for a vote yesterday too-- and it failed 176-243. Nine Republicans realized the insanity of their party's position and scurried across the aisle to get on the record opposing Boehner and Cantor on this one. On the other hand, 16 Democratic corporate whores voted with the GOP to leave the safety of nuclear facilities to luck. Most of the 13 who voted with the GOP on the overall bill were joined by Blue Dogs Heath Shuler (NC) Tim Holden (PA), and Jason Altmire (PA) and by sleazy corporate shills Steve Israel (NY), Lipinksi, Jr (IL) and Gene Green (TX). Remember, Nadler amendment was meant to ensure that Americans who live in close proximity to nuclear reactors-- like Steve Israel's constituents-- are protected in the event of a catastrophic meltdown. "In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan, it is critical to ensure the safe operation of all nuclear reactors." Here's what Nadler had to say-- on the floor of the House-- about why he singled our nuclear safety for an exemption:

"[T]he underlying bill would block any and all major efforts to protect public health, safety, the environment, and so on, until the unemployment rate falls below the arbitrary figure of six percent. This blanket and arbitrary ban on potentially critical rules only would serve to help put profits ahead of people. This bill also would put profits ahead of the environment by mandating construction projects go ahead after a certain period, regardless of the environmental impact. And, the bill would impose needless costs on the government and make protecting public health and welfare that much more difficult by putting impediments to agreeing to consent decrees and settlements.

“What all of this means is that for the most potentially dangerous industries, like nuclear power, the safety of the American public would be put at serious risk by this bill. My amendment would attempt to make this Frankenstein bill slightly less of a horror show by exempting the issue of nuclear power plant safety from these sections of the bill-– Titles I, III, and V.
 
“The dangers of nuclear power are well known. One accident-- which could be caused by the power of nature, the negligence of man, or the evil of terrorism-- could doom millions of people. Because of the almost unimaginable disaster that could happen at a nuclear power plant, regulations to prevent accidents or meltdowns in advance are critically important. The underlying bill would make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to adopt such rules or policies, thereby putting millions of lives at risk. 

“Nuclear safety is of particular concern to me and the people I represent. Millions of my constituents live near an old nuclear power plant, Indian Point. It sits near two fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage due to an earthquake. Hampering the ability of the NRC to require safety measures, like preventing a meltdown in the event of an earthquake, could be devastating. My amendment would free the NRC from the burdens of this bill and allow it to help keep us safe."

As the vote was finishing on this yesterday, I just happened to be on the phone with Jim Graves, the Democrat seeking to replace Michele Bachmann in Minnesota's 6th district. We'll be hearing more from Jim next week, but since his background is from the private sector and since he's a successful entrepreneur, I did ask him how he would have voted on this bill. He said he would have opposed it because it wasn't even trying to solve any real problems, just make political points and sound bytes. By Bachmann's own definition Jim is "job creator." He doesn't just talk about small business, he's started quite a few of them himself and he has employed thousands of people throughout his congressional district and across Minnesota. But, unlike Bachmann, he knows that actual job creators are hard working middle class Americans-- and they are the one's suffering most in difficult economic times brought on by a political Establishment too concerned with Wall Street and not concerned enough with Main Street. In reality, the small business person doesn't worry as much about taxes as they do about making sure that costumers are coming in the front door and buying the products and services they sell. Like most Democrats, Jim understands that in order to revive our economy, we need to make sure that ordinary working families have money to spend on those products and services. Jim also understand the role, the value and importance collective bargaining and organized labor play in building and maintaining a vibrant middle class that can afford to purchase things. "It's an essential part of our country's heritage." He refuses to believe that unions and employers have mutually exclusive goals. He told me he knows that from first hand experience as an employer who, at the end of the day, has mutual inclusive goals with his employees and their union. "We want the same thing, success... businesses do best when their employees can work with dignity, respect and good livable wages-- when everyone mutually benefits." Jim was spontaneously endorsed by the union his workers belong to as soon as he announced he was running for Congress.

This morning Darcy Burner reminded us, once again, how good government isn't the enemy of our country. It's a servant of the people, a way to protect us from our real enemies, foreign and domestic. "Government isn't some abstract concept," she wrote, "it's made up of real people who work hard and help us face the challenges that we all worry about. Every time Republicans argue for cutting government to some mythically smaller size, what they are saying is they want less money for:

- Providing our active military and veterans with the income the need to survive and the health care they were promised when they volunteered to protect us,

- The retirement that our seniors earned and paid into for years,

- Regulating the Wall Street bankers who got rich gambling away our homes,

- Making sure that our education system can compete on a global scale,

- Protecting our environment and natural resources from Lake Washington to Mt. Baker so future generations can continue to enjoy them,

- The Food and Drug Administration's ability to make sure that we have safe and healthy food and prescription drugs.

"What we need is for our government to work for working Americans again-- not multimillionaires and corporations. In Congress, I’ll be a champion for fixing our broken Congress, bringing our troops and money back home, and will protect Social Security and Medicare."

We need people like Darcy Burner in government. Please consider helping her win her primary in Washington state against a self-funding corporate shill and tool of the special interests. You can contribute here.