Former Republican Congressman Joe Barton Proudly Explains How He And His Cronies Helped Destroy Planet Earth

Joe Barton (Villain-TX)

Republican former Congressman Joe Barton is a 70 year old energy lobbyist now. Once he was the all-powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the dean of the Texas congressional delegation. His dream was the deregulation of electric and gas-- and everything else. Barton, one of Congress' most corrupt members, was the ultimate climate change denier. After a trove of pornographic selfies of Barton surfaced in 2017, he announced he would not seek reelection in 2018. On Sunday, Barton wrote a long column, I knew my bill to lift the ban on U.S. oil exports was important. I hardly expected it to change the world for the Dallas Morning News. He has hardly reformed his views but the column condemns himself and his congressional cronies who seems to have set out to make global warming even worse.

To this day, the only person to serve in the House who solicited and accepted more bribes from the Energy Sector than Joe Barton ($4,626,327) was former Speaker John Boehner ($4,909,902). In 2014, his donors wanted one thing really badly-- and Barton delivered for them. In his own words: "I started hearing from oil companies about a new idea, to lift an old ban on oil exports... I agreed to try. As a longtime member of Congress, I knew this would be a long and difficult road that would require bipartisan cooperation, and I couldn’t guarantee success. At the time, I hardly understood how lifting this one rule could change the world."

Repeal was not initially popular, as many environmental groups wanted to restrict oil and gas production, not create new markets for it. Undaunted, several companies and individuals decided it was a job that needed to be done.

On Dec. 9, 2014, I introduced the bill. It had seven co-sponsors, all Republicans, including one Texan, Mike Conaway of Midland.

...On Feb. 4, 2015, I introduced HR 666. My staff immediately demanded I reintroduce the bill to get a better number. So I hurried back to the House floor and reintroduced the identical bill, but with a new number. HR 702 had 37 original co-sponsors, all Republicans.

Having only Republican sponsors was a big problem. In 2015, the Republicans had a comfortable majority in the House, but the bill would have to pass in the Senate and gain President Barack Obama’s signature. Obama was opposed to another energy issue of the time, the Keystone oil pipeline, and would later veto that bill when it came to his desk.

I needed Democratic support. Not just nominal support, but active participation in the effort to pass the bill. One of the seldom-discussed truths about Congress is that while most of the media attention goes to the bomb-throwers on both sides of the aisle, the way to actually pass law that improves the lives of everyday Americans is work together. Ideally, my Democratic leader should be a member of the Energy and Commerce committee, which had primary jurisdiction over the bill.

I asked Gene Green, from Houston, to be my primary Democrat sponsor. He was interested, but numerous refineries in his district were opposed to the bill, and he also was concerned about creating a totally open market for crude exports. My bill was only two pages long, and expressly prohibited any federal agency or official from imposing permits or restrictions on crude oil exports. The president would retain his emergency power to stop exports in an emergency.

So Green said no, as did Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas agreed to co-sponsor, but she didn’t want to be the lead Democrat. I turned to Henry Cuellar of Laredo, a member of the powerful appropriations committee with a history of working across the aisle. Plus, the Eagle Ford Shale was in his South Texas district. He needed time to consider the bill and communicate with people in his district. After about a month, he agreed to be the lead Democrat.

Of the 137 co-sponsors, 15 were scummy crooked Democrats, starting with Texas Blue Dog Henry Cuellar. He was followed by Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO), Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), Tony Cárdenas (D-CA) and Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL). It passed on October 9, 2015, 261-159. 6 Republicans and 153 Democrats voted against it. 26 Democrats voted in favor, the co-sponsors and a batch of other corrupt, easily bought whores including-- Lacy Clay (D-MO), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Beto O'Rourke (New Dem-TX), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA) and Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX).

Milwaukie, Oregon's progressive mayor, Mark Gamba, is running for the seat held by Kurt Schrader, who backed Barton's efforts to repeal the export ban. "This," he told us today, "is a prime example of why blue dog, 'moderate democrats', are in some ways more dangerous than Republicans. This bill would not have passed without their capitulation. Billions of gallons of American Oil would not currently be filling our atmosphere with carbon and other pollutants. Please note also, this bill kept the price of crude oil down worldwide when the Iranians attacked the Saudi oil fields! That is exactly the opposite of what is called for if we hope to curb the worst effects of the looming climate catastrophe! This is a perfect example of the lies that Kurt Schrader tells when he pretends to care about climate change. Stopping this one bill would have made a world of difference and passing it did nothing to benefit his district and most certainly sped up the climate chaos. Keep in mind that he is the leader of the blue dog caucus, his decision to support this bill undoubtedly brought many more democrats in line with the republican’s wishes. When I get into office, one of my top priorities will be to reinstate the ban. It’s really unfortunate that real Democrats have to work to fix problems that supposed Democrats caused in the first place."

Boston conservative New Dem Stephen Lynch, a longtime Climate Crisis denier, voted with Barton as well. His progressive primary opponent, Brianna Wu," sees a pattern in Lynch's conservatism. "Even though Stephen Lynch was against impeachment from the beginning, I'm sure a part of him is glad the hearings are finally happening.  He's one of those conservative establishment Democrats who want to silence the majority of us who want a more progressive agenda.  The differences between Lynch and myself are probably too many to mention, but I'll try.  I was for impeachment since before the Mueller Report; Lynch said we hadn't "made the case" and we would get Trump re-elected.  I support a Green New Deal; Lynch says it's too aspirational and we have 100 years to address climate change.  I support Medicare For All; Lynch says he isn't convinced it will work.  I could go on, but you get the idea.  Take a look at Lynch's donors and you'll see why he is beholden to the establishment and is not going to waiver. Lynch actually had the audacity to run for chair of the House Oversight Committee after being against impeachment until the very end.  My campaign launched an effort to tell Congress to say no to Lynch, and we won.  We will defeat Lynch in 2020.  Whether the establishment wants to admit it or not, the progressive movement is alive and well, and we will win in 2020 and beyond."

HR 702 had a reasonable number of co-sponsors, and it was bipartisan. So far, so good. But, to become law, it needed much, much, more. It needed a Senate companion bill with bipartisan Senate leadership. It needed to be blessed, or at least not opposed, by House and Senate party leadership. It needed to be passed by at least one of the congressional chambers as a stand-alone bill. It needed support from as many outside groups as possible and, conversely, to be opposed by as few outside groups as possible.

Last, but not least, it would be very helpful if the president supported it, because it would take a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override his veto. What we needed, in short, was a coordinated, organized strategy and a plan to implement that strategy.

The first order of business was to get Fred Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, on board. He agreed to support the bill. House Speaker John Boehner didn’t promise active support, but he thought the bill was a good idea and should be given a chance. In a similar fashion, the republican majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, gave his approval.

On the Democrat side, Cuellar and I both knew we couldn’t get the support of Democratic House leadership, but we hoped we could persuade them to be neutral. Nancy Pelosi, minority leader at the time, and assistant minority leader Steny Hoyer both agreed to let the bill, if it came to the floor, be a “free” vote. What this meant was while they would vote against the bill, they wouldn’t ask the Democratic whip to recommend a “no” vote or the House Democratic caucus to make it a binding “no” vote. Persuading the House Democratic leadership to take a hands-off approach was a major tactical and strategic victory. It would not have happened without Cuellar’s active leadership.

Meanwhile, I met with my Texas senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and obtained their support. I also asked for and received the support of the chairwoman of the Senate energy committee, Lisa Murkowski.

Murkowski was trying to move a comprehensive energy bill through the Senate, and she felt adding the export ban repeal would strengthen her larger bill. As it turned out, her bill didn’t move, but including the export ban repeal helped with the Senate later at the end of the year. Cornyn got the endorsement of Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell.

On the Democratic side, Cuellar and I met with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, another area of intense shale oil activity. She agreed to be the lead Senate Democrat, and she worked tirelessly to get her fellow Senate Democrats to vote yes.

...Environmental groups opposed the bill out of concern it would also inhibit switching to alternative, green energy. The environmentalists wanted to keep our oil in the ground. Luckily, their top legislative priority was stopping the Keystone oil pipeline, so while they opposed HR 702, they did not wage all-out war against it.

...What do oil executives think of the results? Pioneer’s Sheffield said, “When the Iranians attacked the Saudi oil fields, the world price of oil would have gone to over $200 a barrel,” if not for the repeal of the export ban.

And Jim Teague, chief executive of Enterprise Products, the country’s largest exporter of crude oil, said, “Without the crude oil export ban repeal, the United States would not be producing half of the oil it is today because it could not be exported.”

Justin Miller, who covers politics for the Texas Observer, noted in a series of tweets on Sunday that Bernie, Warren, Booker are among those who say they will reinstate the ban. Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete, Kamala and Castro haven't announced their stands. "It's hard to overstate just how significant the effect of ending the crude oil export ban has been-- both as a huge boon for the ONG industry and as a huge blow to the keep-it-in-the-ground movement. Hard to put this boom back in the box," he wrote. "Interestingly, Barton contends that passage was much smoother than anticipated because enviro groups were focused mostly on the Keystone pipeline fight. (26 Dems ended up voting to lift the ban)... There's some interesting nuggets in this though. Barton explains how Henry Cuellar was critical to getting Dem leadership to stay neutral, freeing up ONG lobbying campaign to court dozens of House Dems."

Do Members Of Congress Really Sell Out America For A Little Cash From Big Oil?

Since 1990 the Oil and Gas industry has pumped $221,453,356 into congressional campaigns, legalistic bribes that went almost four to one to Republicans, exceptions being a handful of Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party whom Big Oil finds it useful (and easy) to bribe. The Dirty Dozen House Members taking the most in bribes from Big Oil since 1990 are all Republicans:

• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,816,205
• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,675,914
• John Boehner (R-OH)- $1,398,338
• Don Young (R-AK)- $1,238,763
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $1,139,718
• Lord Charles Boustany II (R-LA)- $973,780
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $972,072
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $922,862
• Mike Pompeo (R-Koch)- $877,260
• John Sullivan (R-OK)- $835,900
• Kay Granger (R-TX)- $796,853
• Cory Gardner (R-CO)- $754,100

But these 12 crooks have more in common than just the Republican Party and the immense amounts of money they have gobbled up from Big Oil. Each and every one of them has, time and again, put the interests of Big Oil ahead of the interests of their own constituents and ahead of the interests of the United States. And with the possible exception of Steve Pearce, not a single one of these crooked Republicans is being challenged by the enfeebled and corrupt DCCC this year.

When Big Oil wants to get something done, even something absolutely antithetical to the best interests of the United States, these 12 Members are always the starting point. And no one carries their water more diligently than Joe "Oily Joe" Barton, who has made himself a detested comic figure by ritually dismissing and defending massive and deadly oil spills. This week though, Barton is trying to push through Big Oil's latest policy: lifting the ban on crude oil exports. Barton, safe from electoral challenge, doesn't care that his proposal puts American national security at risk-- just so long as it adds to the immense profits that Big Oil rakes in… and shares with him and his party.

The U.S. has had a moratorium on crude oil exports since the 1970s. But Big OIl and their GOP shills want it lifted now. Barton told The Hill this week that "The shale revolution has drastically reshaped America’s energy landscape, unlocking a vast supply of untapped oil and gas. In order to take full advantage of this opportunity, we need to rethink outdated laws that were passed during an era of energy scarcity, which is why I am in favor of overturning the ban on crude oil exports." Barton, who can't see beyond the next big bribe check he expects from Big Oil-- last cycle alone (although he had no viable opponents) he took $164,150 from the oil and gas industry-- claims the U.S. has “more than enough resources to meet our domestic energy needs." Barton says he is working on legislation-- meaning waiting for the exact wording from Big Oil lobbyists-- that would repeal the ban on crude oil exports altogether, and will be introducing that soon.

Barton isn’t alone in his push for exports, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) too wants to see the ban completely lifted. [So far this cycle he's taken $158,139 in legalistic Big Oil bribes.]

But where Barton sees real action coming next year, Flores thinks his Republican colleagues need time.

Flores is confident they will come around to agreeing with him. For now, though, he said it’s “premature” for the House to vote on the ban.

Flores said it was important to educate the public on the benefits from oil exports.

“We just need to get through the economic benefits for the American soccer mom about how she is better off, and her family’s better off, by having crude oil exports,” he said. “That’s just going to take a little time.”

Flores is being patient, allowing his fellow lawmakers time to think through the issue. He hopes that the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on lifting the ban next year-- or even in 2016.

“It’s going to take a full discussion to make sure everybody knows the economics and they know whose ox gets gored in this,” he said. “And really, if we do it right, nobody’s ox gets gored.”

The likelihood of any movement this year is slim.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy panel, said he is focused on natural gas exports, but is still studying crude exports. [His haul from Big Oil and Gas this cycle alone has been a whopping $646,950.]

When asked if he supported lifting the moratorium, Upton said he “hasn’t said yet,” but acknowledged “there is a push from the Texas folks.”

Next year is a different ball game, according to Barton.

“I am confident that it will gain traction legislatively next year,” he said.

“Pressure to remove the ban on crude oil exports is growing from both ends of the political spectrum,” he added.

Many Republicans and a majority of Democrats, though, are hesitant over the impact more oil exports could have on consumers.

Refiners like San Antonio-based Valero argue the system works as is.

“It would do more harm than good and lead to higher prices in the U.S. for consumers,” Valero told The Hill earlier this year.

Still, Barton says he is “seeing support grow every day” for a change in policy.

Jordan Haverly, a spokesman for Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), a top Republican on the Energy committee, said his boss is open to lifting the ban “and treating American crude oil like other domestically-produced commodities.” [Shimkus' haul from Big Oil and Gas has been $498,361 since 1990 and so far this cycle, a generous-- and persuasive-- $97,000.]

The Commerce Department too has indicated it is having a serious discussion about crude oil exports. The White House says it is “evaluating” the policy, but has not announced any changes.

But Barton is confident the ban will soon be lifted.

“I predict that no matter which party controls Capitol Hill or the White House, the ban will eventually be lifted for the same reasons Congress eventually overturned other failed government efforts to regulate energy price and supply,” he said.

He has a point. Democratic lobbyists and corporate whores-- take Lawrence Summers for example-- are, predictably, on the side of Big Oil too. But not all Democrats are as fast to sell out as Summers.

[N]ot everyone's convinced. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has argued that the export ban was put in place back in the 1970s to "protect U.S. consumers from volatility and price spikes." Allowing more exports, he argued, might cause U.S. gasoline prices to rise and hurt American consumers. And some environmental groups are leery of boosting fossil-fuel production even further.

…What was the point of the ban?

It all dates back to the 1973 oil embargo by several Arab nations. World oil prices were soaring, and Congress was trying to limit U.S. exposure to the global crude markets. So lawmakers enacted a bunch of conservation measures (including fuel standards for cars and trucks) as well as restrictions on exports. The idea was to keep as much crude oil at home, limit the nation's reliance on imports, and sidestep the volatile global markets.

…There are three common objections [to lifting the ban]:

Gas prices: First, opponents like Menendez have worried that lifting the export ban could raise the price of U.S. gasoline. Many consumers in the Midwest benefit from the current refinery bottleneck, because it artificially depresses the price of crude. If oil producers can sell abroad, prices would presumably rise.

Environment: Second, there's the environmental argument. A recent report (pdf) from Oil Change International agreed that lifting the export ban would probably allow U.S. companies to drill for more oil. But, the report added, this would be a bad thing-- because it would increase overall greenhouse-gas emissions. "In order to play its part in meeting global climate goals, it is imperative that the United States maintains the ban on crude oil exports and does everything it can to decrease, rather than increase, the global pool of fossil fuel reserves that are exploited," the report said.

Lobbying: Third, many U.S. refineries like the existing state of affairs just fine-- since they can buy oil at artificially low prices and then export the gasoline and diesel abroad at a markup. "We wouldn't be doing as well financially if it weren't for that [the ban]," one refinery lobbyist told National Journal's Amy Harder. And Valero Energy, a major U.S. refiner, has spoken out against allowing exports.

No one seems to be talking about dwindling oil supplies and asking what happens when domestic oil actually runs out? Thinking about the future isn't something people do-- not when millions of dollars are riding on not thinking about the future. Meanwhile… remember the "clean coal" scam? How about "clean oil" or "green oil?" Do I smell a huckster here?

How Many Republicans In Congress Does Oily Joe Barton Speak For When He Says He Wants To Abolish The Minimum Wage?

Monday candidate registration for the 2014 congressional elections close in Texas. So far "Oily" Joe Barton doesn't have a Democratic opponent, just a teabagger, Frank Kuchar, in the primary and then a Libertarian, Hugh Chauvin, in the general. Another dismal DCCC failure presided over by Steve Israel! Since Barton has no Democratic opponent to worry about, he strayed on Thursday from his usual diatribe on the fabulousness of Big Oil and ventured into one of the most unpopular positions in America-- abolishing the minimum wage. Yes, you read that correctly. Barton feels so secure thanks to the DCCC ignoring his seat that, even as most congressmen are talking about raising the minimum wage, he is trying to organize fellow reactionaries to abolish it altogether. Is that part of GOP re-branding-- something akin to slavery for our children? "I think it's outlived its usefulness," Oily Joe told the National Journal yesterday. "It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage."

As we saw Wednesday, Barton's far right position stands at odds with what most Americans want, not just normal Americans, but even Republican voters! I don't know what the polling on raising the minimum wage is in TX-06 but I suspect it isn't that much more conservative than more moderate parts of the country. It's a red district, but not as red as much of the state. Obama won 41% of the vote there last year. The most populous part of the district, Arlington/Tarrant County in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex only gave Barton 53% of it's vote in his reelection bid last year against underfunded grassroots Democrat Kenneth Sanders. (It was the Hate Talk Radio consumers in backward Ellis and Navarro counties where Barton racked up his votes.)

I suppose Barton's outburst came in response to President Obama's speech Wednesday about economic mobility and about remedying that by, among other things, raising the minimum wage. Take a look:

It Takes A Congress Of Morons To Hold Us Back

-by Noah

Sometimes satirists have a very hard time satirizing Congress. Case in point: the current Congressional hearings about glitches in the allegedly satanic, marxist, communist, Muslim jihad-influenced Affordable Care Act; aka, dare we say it out loud, Obamacare.

How does one satirize a bunch of morons in suits who have but one discernable talent-- satirizing themselves, whether intentionally or not, better than anyone else could ever hope to? Satirist Andy Borowitz makes a valiant effort below.

In an impressive white-knuckle performance on live television today, members of Congress spent several hours in a hearing room pretending to understand the Internet.

Beginning this morning, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee devoted four hours to grilling Web-site contractors about site architecture, Web traffic, software, and other I.T. concepts about which their ignorance is nearly complete.

“As members of this committee, we are supposed to have a deep understanding of the technology involved in the health-care Web site,” said Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan). “So it was absolutely imperative for us to fake that we do.”

For the duration of the hearings, the Web contractors offered detailed testimony about “end-to-end testing,” “enterprise identity management,” and other technical concepts to a group of elected officials who can barely use e-mail.

“I would say that, to a man, we did not understand ninety-nine per cent of that computer nonsense they were going on about,” Chairman Upton said. “To me it was a whole lot of blahbitty-blahbitty-blah. I hope it wasn’t too obvious.”

Rep. Upton said that “looking serious and nodding our heads a lot” contributed to the illusion that committee members had even scant comprehension of what was being discussed.

“At the end of the day, a lot of it came down to not asking the questions you really wanted to ask,” he said. “Like, ‘What exactly is a Web site?'"

Thursday’s hearing was a fine example of how politics more often than not, attracts the dumbest among us. It was chaired, as Borowitz says, by the infamous Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Upton, the representative from Michigan’s 6th District is best known for his endless hearings and non-stop wailings/lamentations about President Obama forcing us all to use those money saving, end of civilization-causing, more energy efficient curly-cue light bulbs instead of the more traditional values incandescent light bulbs; never mind that pushing them darn newfangled light bulbs was one of George Dubya Bush’s ideas, put forward in his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, an act that, get this, Upton co-sponsored in the House! Does this man hate himself? Is he a schizo?

To be fair, and I’m always fair, no less a luminary than Glenn Beck has called Upton a socialist for supporting the bill (before he stuck his finger in the teabag wind and turned against it), thus indirectly explaining how he got to Washington. It takes a district of morons to send a moron to Washington to represent their desires to go back to caveman times.

By Republican logic, if President Obama pushed for the old incandescent light bulbs, Upton and his brainless ilk would be demanding we light our homes only with kerosene lamps. Hey, that would make Upton’s big oil benefactors damn happy, wouldn’t it?

While it’s true that the website rollout has problems (It seems to work fine in my state, New York), personally, I’m struck by the irony that a bunch of clowns, who want to do away with Obamacare, are all up in arms about people not being able to participate in it; more of that Washington genius thing, I guess.

A thought: Is the nonsense over the ACA website glitches really just a measure of how spoiled and instant gratification oriented our society has become? What kind of people complain about the slowness of something that is still faster than sending away for a form, filling it out and sending it back via snailmail, especially with today’s Post Office, which Washington has done its best to bankrupt and ruin ?

Obviously, the Republicans, who walk among us almost passing for normal people, see the website glitches as a golden opportunity to end something they voted over 40 times to defund, before they shut down the government over it, without giving up their own “government healthcare”, of course.

New Jersey’s Democratic representative, Frank Pallone, adds a rare few moments of lucidity in the House cesspool. He does it with nice NJ style, too.



The shut down cost us taxpayers $24 billion in GDP. That’s a nice little wad of cash that is not in each of our pockets now, thank you so much, you a-holes. So, how do the bright lights of the Republican Party proceed?

Answer: We are seeing it right now. They are now uselessly, nihilistically, destructively and pointlessly spending millions more in our taxpayer dollars on hearings which will go on and on for days. Then, there will be more hearings; months of them, one after another, just like their non-stop, seemingly uncountable and desperate Benghazi hearings. How would a sane world treat these people? Satire is nowhere near enough.

God's Day... And God's Taunt

Above is a sermon by guest preacher Bill McKibben from last Sunday, April 28, 2013. If you know much about McKibben it won't surprise you to know that the sermon is about Climate Change-- starting with the Hebrew Bible's story of Job, moving on to the Hindu Bhagavad Gita and winding up with the Christian Bible's Matthew 19. I'd go to church on Sunday if I knew of any preachers giving sermons like McKibben's.

The is the largest social justice issue that we have ever faced... When I started this work, one of the things I'd always heard was that environmentalism was something for rich white people who had taken care of their other problems and if you worried where your next meal was coming from you wouldn't be an environmentalist. What we found as we worked around the world is exactly the opposite. Rich people tend to feel themselves immune from these changes. Most of the people we work with around the world are poor and black and brown and Asian and young because that is what most of the world consists of and, what do you know, those people care as much about the future of the world as anybody else, maybe more so because if you are poor in this world right now, the future bears down harder on you than it does on anybody else...

As I've said, so far we've raised the temperature one degree but the same scientists who told us that would happen have shown quite clearly that that one degree would be 4 or 5 by century's end unless we act very swiftly to get off coal and gas and oil. And the larger question is why aren't we doing that? Why aren't we trying to make ourselves somewhat smaller? Why aren't we following, say, the lead of Germany, the only major country that's really pursued renewable power at an appropriate pace? There are now more solar panels in Bavaria than there are in the United States. [Population of Bavaria- 12,595,891 in 27,239.29 square miles; population of the U.S.- 316,668,567 in 3.794 million square miles.] There were days last summer when Germany generated more than half the power it used from solar panels within its borders and this is Germany. Munich is north of Montreal. Think what a country could do if it had... oh, I don't know... Florida or Nevada, Texas or California or Arizona to work with!

But we don't act; and for a particular reason-- one that will be clear to those who are used to reading the Gospels. Our richest people don't want to act because it would reduce their wealth somewhat. The fossil fuel industry is the one percent of the one percent, the richest enterprise in human history. Exxon made more money last year than any company in the history of money... These companies have more money than God.

And so far, they have been able to deploy those funds in political ways to make sure that nothing ever changes. They have bought, in our nation's capital and many others, a 25-year bipartisan effort to accomplish nothing. By all means listen to the rest of McKibben's sermon; it gets better from here.

I just want to follow up on one of his thoughts. Below are the dozen current Members of Congress who have taken the biggest legalistic bribes from Oil and Gas since 1990, a time when Oil and Gas deployed $198,833,341 in bribes to Members of Congress and to candidates for Congress.

• John McCain (R-AZ)- $3,043,404
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $1,990,350
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,734,255
• Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,479,701
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $1,457,696
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $1,348,311
• Don Young (R-AK)- $1,193,613
• David Vitter (R-LA)- $1,144,385
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)- $1,086,084
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $942,118
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $868,346
• Charles "Lord" Boustany (R-LA)- $803,655

These 11 extraordinarily corrupt men and this one extraordinarily corrupt woman have been career-long, absolute shills for Big Oil and Gas. They have carried their agenda faithfully and blocked any and all attempts to deal with Climate Change realistically. Is there anything we can do about it? Next year, McConnell and Landrieu are up for reelection, as are all 6 of the House Members above. Once there's a plausible candidate running against McConnell, Blue America will be working to help him or her defeat the corrupt old closet case and oil shill. Of the House incumbents, Joe "Oily Joe" Barton, Big Oil's #1 shill in the House, already has an opponent, progressive Democrat Kenneth Sanders. You can help him overcome Big Oil cash with small grassroots contributions here.

Joe Barton also claims to be a Bible scholar and he uses a simplistic interpretation of the story of Noah in the Bible to justify the Oil and Gas Industry agenda. The biggest newspaper in his district, the Star-Telegram reported on Ken Sanders' response.

Apparently Congressman Joe Barton is also a Biblical scholar and a climate scientist as he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny the clear reality of human impact on climate change.

This is just another example of Rep. Joe Barton, placing his financial interest over the needs and concerns of fellow Texans in the 6th Congressional District. His statement does not come as a surprise considering how he has received $3.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, any number of plausible responses might well come to his mind. However, support of the Keystone Pipeline need not be conflated with the political rhetoric for the sake of Joe Barton's financial gain.

Joe Barton is a disappointment to Texans who count on him to represent their interest; his understanding of God’s holy word is somewhat suspect as well. As a person of faith, I'm personally disappointed that he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny any human impact on climate change. I believe most people in the faith community consult the Bible to strengthen their faith and for instruction on how to live a moral and upright life, not to twist and misinterpret the Word of God for political purposes. He simply supports big oil without restrictions. We have to consider the environmental impact of oil drilling and pipeline construction. His comments lack sound judgment or logic.

This is typical rhetoric from "Smokey" Joe. Joe Barton is not new to debate and where his loyalty lies when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Congressman Barton is the same person who in 2010 apologized to BP after the Gulf oil spill. He simply supports big oil, its use without hazardous restrictions to humankind and the environment in which we must live. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

The fact is that climate change is real, evident and supported more by scientific evidence daily. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

In the year 2013 it is completely unacceptable that a backward thinking politician like Joe Barton is voting on legislation that will affect the quality of life for future generations. The science on this issue is not debatable. Joe Barton simply does not believe in science. Voters in the 6th Congressional District must get to the polls in 2014 to retire Mr. Barton. His political reasoning or lack thereof on this critical issue must not be supported.

104 Republican Congressmen Voted To Reduce Benefits For Seniors And Vets

Looks like somebody stepped in it

The GOP is trying to decide how to best use Obama's screw up on Chained CPI for their own purposes. It's a Republican Party policy that he foolishly adopted for his dead-in-the-water budget at the urging of Boehner and McConnell. When will he ever learn that their ideas are toxic? (That's a rhetorical question; he'll never learn.) But while some Republicans praise the idea or say it doesn't go far enough, the chairman of the NRCC, Greg Walden (R-OR) has decided to use it in an attack against Democrats aimed at seniors and people who expect to be seniors someday. H was quick to run to CNN and tell Wolf Blitzer viewers that "the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well... you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go."

And yet... and yet... 104 House Republicans already voted for Chained CPI on March 20th, when it was presented as part of the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget. So whatever game Walden wants to try playing, the candidates he's charged with reelecting aren't running against Barack Obama. They're running against Democrats who, in most instances are strongly opposed to Chained CPI, no matter if it's being proposed by Boehner, Obama or a bunch of crackpot extremists. Let's take Buck McKeon, for example. McKeon is an extremist in a moderate suburban Los Angeles area district (CA-25). His likely opponent in 2014 will be Dr. Lee Rogers, one of America's most distinguished podiatric surgeons, a man who already came closer to beating McKeon than anyone else in his career. As soon as Alan Grayson and Mark Takano circulated their letter pledging not to vote for any cuts to benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Rogers announced he would have signed it on the day it was drafted. "As a doctor I am adamantly opposed to cutting benefits to our population in most need. I announced several weeks ago, I would have been a day-one signer of the letter Mark Takano and Alan Grayson authored pledging to protect seniors and veterans from cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, including chained CPI." So for voters in Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley, there is a clear choice: McKeon (and Obama) want to cut social security benefits for seniors and veterans using Chained CPI. Rogers is adamantly opposed. 104 Republican incumbents are in the same boat and although most of them are crazy fanatics in gerrymandered blood red districts with constituents as ignorant as they are, there are several, like McKeon, in more precarious political positions.

This is a list of Republicans (with their districts' PVIs) who already voted to reduce benefits for seniors and veterans and could be vulnerable to competent independent-minded Democratic opponents in 2014:

• Justin Amash (R-MI) R+4
• Joe Barton (R-TX) R+11
• Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) R+4
• Dave Camp (R-MI) R+5
• Steve Chabot (R-OH) R+6
• Ron DeSantis (R-FL) R+9
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ) R+4
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL) R+5
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) R+10
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC) R+11
• John Mica (R-FL) R+4
• Steve Pearce (R-NM) R+5
• Robert Pittenger (R-NC) R+8
• Scott Rigell (R-VA) R+2
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) R+7
• Pete Sessions (R-TX) R+10
• Lee Terry (R-NE) R+4
• Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) R+8

There are Democrats serving in Congress in districts with PVIs higher than these. It won't be easy for any of them, but it's not impossible either. The Democrats running against these guys-- and every one of them is a male (even Patrick McHenry and Dave Camp)-- have an opponent who voted to cut Social Security for seniors and vets. They did it already. That should be what the election in those districts are about.

Two of the Democrats in the Blue America Save Social Security contest, Nick Ruiz and Ken Sanders, are in that sweet spot, respectively running against John Mica and Joe Barton. As you can see, each is already running against Chained CPI and other unfair cuts their opponents back. Sanders has a message that will resonate in the suburbs between Dallas and Ft Worth, maybe even down in Waxahachie, Midlothian, Ennis and Corsicana:

"We cannot balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans, and our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled one inch. Chained CPI, cutting Social Security, is a terrible idea and a pointless exercise. Besides, Social Security isn't in serious trouble. The Social Security trust fund is flush for at least two decades. If we want to ensure it's there beyond that, there's an easy fix-- just lift the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes, which is now $113,700. This way people making above $113,700 will pay like everyone else does, is a far better way of keeping Social Security secure long into the future. We need Congressional leaders who support middle class families, seniors and veterans; those who have helped make this nation great. I will fight to defend social security from Chained CPI. Seniors spend 20-40% of their income on healthcare. Two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income; one-third relies on it for at least 90% of their income. These people aren’t stashing their Social Security checks in the Cayman Islands and buying vacation homes in Aruba-- they are hanging on by their fingernails to their place in the middle class. Right now, corporate profits are at an all time high, the wealthy are doing phenomenally well and we must not balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Support me and I will be your voice in Washington to fight against Chained CPI and any other cut that threatens the shrinking middle class families of this country."

Nick Ruiz is running in the suburbs just north of Orlando-- Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, Maitland, Apopka, and all the way up to Deltona and Orange City. He'd make a great neighbor for Alan Grayson, who represents the suburbs on the other side of Orlando. They sure see eye to eye on protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Ruiz: "I would never vote to diminish Social Security benefits.These benefits cover retirees, widows, children, disabled persons and veterans-- none of whom receive enough as it is by current economic standards of reasonable cost, inflation and common decency. In fact, it's part of my platform to actually increase Social Security benefits, financed by lifting the FICA cap, and Wall Street cost-sharing. My GOP opponent, John Mica wants to CUT Social Security benefits and make seniors retire even later in life, at 70 years of age. It's unacceptable. Help me stop him."

If you'd like to vote in our contest, just contribute at least one dollar to one of the anti-Chained CPI candidates on this page. The candidate who gets the most donors wins $1,000 from the Blue America PAC and everyone who donates is eligible to win an RIAA-certified platinum award for the eponymous 311 album. Win-win!

Joe Barton (R-TX) And A Buy Bull Environmental Strategy-- Soaked In Oil, Of Course

Joe Barton (R-Oil)

I don't watch much TV but, aside from Rachel Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Hayes, I spend most of my TV time watching the History Channel. Not Swamp People, Ax Men, American Pickers, Counting Cars, or that kind of garbage, but the quality stuff, like Ancient Aliens, Vikings and The Bible. I have this innate ability, though, to not mix up the real world with the TV world... even though I was tweeting back and forth a couple weeks ago with Ragnar Lodbrok and shieldmaiden Lagertha.

Texas Congressman Joe Barton (AKA, "Oily"Joe Barton, the former chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, who has taken more legalistic bribes from Big Oil and Gas than any other Member of the House, $1,727,055) is currently hoping to draw attention away from his latest ethics problems. So... out comes the clown makeup and the "Hey look over here; I'm bonkers" routine. Or maybe he really does have trouble distinguishing between what he sees on TV or reads in fairy tales and the real world-- which is fine, except that he's supposed to be a legislator helping set the country's policy agenda.

Like most Members of Congress whose careers are financed by Big Oil, Barton is a fanatic opponent of the findings of climate scientists. He claims, like the rest of the bribed "conservatives," that man has no responsibility for global warming if global warming even exists. (Barton admits it does.)

The Texas Republican Joe Barton stands out even among his fellow conservative Republicans who have made it an article of faith to deny the existence of a human component to climate change.

On Wednesday, Barton cemented that reputation by citing the Old Testament to refute scientific evidence of man-made global warming, drawing on the story of Noah's ark.

"I would point out that if you are a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change," Barton told a congressional hearing on Wednesday in a video first shown on the Buzzfeed website. "That certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."

Barton was speaking at a house subcommittee hearing called by the Republican leadership to promote a bill that would allow Congress to fast-track a controversial pipeline that would pump crude from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Texas coast.

The Texas congressman began by reiterating his support for the Keystone XL pipeline. He went on to say that he did not dispute the existence of climate change-- just any connection to human activity, such as the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

"I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don't deny that climate is changing," he said. "I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what's causing that change without automatically being either all in, that's all because of mankind, or it's all just natural. I think there's a divergence of evidence."

Barton has made a reputation for his outspoken rejection of man-made climate change, and for his support for the oil industry.

In 2010, in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Barton became an object of ridicule for offering a profuse apology to the oil company Barton told then-BP-chairman Tony Hayward he was ashamed that the White House had reached a deal requiring the company to set aside $20bn for clean-up and restoration costs. "I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20bn shakedown," Barton said at the time. "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that, again in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologise."

The Democrat running against Barton is Ken Sanders. I've been talking to him on the phone a lot lately but religion and Bible studies aren't matters we've gotten into. Legislation is. Ken seems like the kind of guy who appreciates the essential message Jesus brought to man, nut whenever I talk to him, he seems focused on things like job creation, economic justice and equality. I reached him this morning about Barton's pontificating and he was already putting together a statement for the local media:

Apparently Congressman Joe Barton is also a Biblical scholar and a climate scientist as he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny the clear reality of human impact on climate change.

Joe Barton is a disappointment to Texans who count on him to represent their interest; his understanding of God’s holy word is somewhat suspect as well. As a person of faith, I'm personally disappointed that he has looked into the Good Book and found evidence to deny any human impact on climate change. I believe most people in the faith community consult the Bible to strengthen their faith and for instruction on how to live a moral and upright life, not to twist and misinterpret the Word of God for political purposes. He simply supports big oil without restrictions. We have to consider the environmental impact of oil drilling and pipeline construction. His comments lack sound judgment or logic.

This is typical rhetoric from "Smokey" Joe. Joe Barton is not new to debate and where his loyalty lies when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Congressman Barton is the same person who in 2010 apologized to BP after the Gulf oil spill. He simply supports big oil, its use without hazardous restrictions to humankind and the environment in which we must live. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

This is just another example of Rep. Joe Barton, placing his financial interest over the needs and concerns of fellow Texans in the 6th Congressional District. His statement does not come as a surprise considering how he has received $3.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, any number of plausible responses might well come to his mind. However, support of the Keystone Pipeline need not be conflated with the political rhetoric for the sake of Joe Barton's financial gain.

The fact is that climate change is real, evident and supported more by scientific evidence daily. His comment, like his unfailing support for the oil industry, lacks reasoning.

In the year 2013 it is completely unacceptable that a backward thinking politician like Joe Barton is voting on legislation that will affect the quality of life for future generations. The science on this issue is not debatable. Joe Barton simply does not believe in science.

Far be it from me to try to compete with the Biblical interpretations of a scholar like Joe Barton. What’s next for Joe Barton? Will Barton cite the Lord turning water into blood as an argument against clean water? Will Joe Barton refer to plagues of locusts, flies, lice and frogs as arguments against mosquito control?

While you're watching Barton make a fool of himself at the hearing (below), please consider making a contribution to Ken's congressional campaign, here at the Saving Social Security Act Blue Page. Yes, Ken opposes Chained CPI and other schemes to take benefits away from seniors. Barton, of course, is a longtime opponent of social safety programs that benefit working families and the elderly.

Joe Barton And Bernie Sanders Are Both Members Of Congress But They're As Different As Night And Day

Do you remember when a Texas congressman apologized to BP over the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf that did so much damage to the economies of the Gulf states? It was Joe Barton, who's been representing a landlocked suburban and rural district between Dallas and Ft Worth since 1985. His exact words, addressed to the ceo of BP at a congressional hearing: "I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words-- amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize." Even Republicans were so embarrassed by Barton that he lost his leadership role on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That was the main reason he lost the committee chairmanship anyway. His blatant corruption was too much even for Republican congressmen, who rarely shy away from that sort of thing. He had been misrepresenting shady natural gas investments on his disclosure forms. And last year he made it into CREW's report on Congress' most corrupt members, stemming, they report "from misusing his position for personal financial benefit and failing to properly report a transaction on his financial disclosure forms.

In April 2008, Rep. Barton, then the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, bought an interest in natural gas wells. The congressman paid between $15,000 and $50,000, and earned an estimated $80,000 that year from the investment. Since 2009, Rep. Barton has earned between $10,002 and $30,000 in royalty payments from the wells.

On his 2008 personal financial disclosure forms, Rep. Barton reported buying his interests in the wells from EOG Resources, Inc., a natural gas producer that oversaw operations of the wells and owned a majority share. In 2010, however, the Dallas Morning News found land records listing the actual seller as late businessman Walter Mize. Mr. Mize, who died in 2008, and his wife were longtime donors to Rep. Barton’s campaigns, contributing more than $35,000 to his campaign committee and political action committee since 1985. In addition, Mr. Mize had advised Rep. Barton on energy policy. Rep. Barton publicly acknowledged Mr. Mize’s role in suggesting a $500 million federally funded grant program for oil and gas research, legislation pushed by Rep. Barton while he served as chairman of the energy committee.

Rep. Barton has not publicly addressed Mr. Mize’s role in his purchase of the wells, or explained why he reported the seller incorrectly on his financial disclosure statement. Instead, he told a reporter he acquired his interest after he “read something about” opportunities in natural gas wells. “I was aware of this one, and I decided to invest in this one as opposed to some others,” he said. Rep. Barton said he paid fair market value for his interest in the wells and assumed the same amount of risk as any other partner in the investment, which has proven lucrative. Rep. Barton’s personal financial disclosure forms for the past three years show the wells have brought in more income than any of his other investments. He credited “luck” that the investment has paid out, and said he had reported it in accordance with federal law and ethics rules. Rep. Barton has not, however, amended his financial disclosure form to correctly report Mr. Mize as the seller in the transaction.

The natural gas interest meant Rep. Barton, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was positioned to benefit from increased production of domestic natural gas even as he co-sponsored legislation that would have increased demand. For instance, he supported government subsidies to convert vehicles to run on natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel fuel."

The Ethics in Government Act of 1967 requires all members of Congress to file financial disclosure reports. Under the statute, the attorney general may seek a civil penalty of up to $11,000 against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or fails to file or report any information required by the Act. House Rule 26 incorporates the financial disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act.

Federal law further prohibits members of Congress from making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” on “a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch.” On financial disclosure forms, members of Congress are required to provide “the complete name of the asset for which a reportable transaction has occurred.”

By affirmatively misrepresenting the seller of the interests in the natural gas wells, Rep. Barton likely made a false statement. Rep. Barton also failed to correct this false statement even after it became public that his campaign contributor, Mr. Mize, was the actual seller in the transaction.

Members of the House are prohibited from “taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else.” House members are directed to adhere to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a), issued by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics for the Executive Branch, which provides:

An employee shall not use or permit use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person... to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.

If Rep. Barton took any official action, including supporting or sponsoring legislation, for the personal benefit of his natural gas interests, he may have violated this provision.

House Rule 23 requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.” This ethics standard is considered to be “the most comprehensive provision” of the code. When this section was first adopted, the Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 90th Congress noted it was included within the Code to deal with “flagrant” violations of the law that reflect on “Congress as a whole,” and that might otherwise go unpunished. This rule has been relied on by the committee in numerous prior cases in which the committee found unethical conduct including: the failure to report campaign contributions, making false statements to the committee, criminal convictions for bribery, or accepting illegal gratuities, and accepting gifts from persons with interest in legislation in violation of the gift rule.

By affirmatively misrepresenting the seller of the interests in the natural gas wells and failing to correct this false statement, Rep. Barton acted in a manner that brings discredit to the House. In addition, if Rep. Barton took any official action to provide himself a personal benefit by appreciation of his natural gas interests, he acted in a manner that brings discredit to the House.

Here's the definitive list of the 20 Members of Congress who have taken the most in [legalistic] bribes from energy and natural resources industries since 1990. No other congressman has crossed the $3 million mark, not even Boehner. And the current chairman of House Energy and Commerce, Fred Upton is a long way from scarfing up even half of the bribes Barton has taken.


I hope his Democratic opponent, Ken Sanders, knows how to use this information in the campaign. In 2010 Barton was reelected with 66% of the vote-- and even in a Democratic swing year like 2008, Barton won with 62%. All that said, it's just background for a commonsense proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil.

The way it works now is that DC politicians like Barton take billions from the taxpayers and transfer it to Big Oil companies, which then kick back a hefty portion to... DC politicians like Barton. Bernie:

At a time when we have a record debt, Congress should not continue to give away taxpayer money to the fossil fuel industry.

• Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy. From 2002 to 2008, the US Government gave the mature fossil fuel industry over $72 billion in subsidies, while investments in the emerging renewable industry totaled $12.2 billion. 

• The fossil fuel energy industry does not need taxpayer subsidies. In 2011, the Big Five oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits. During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day. 

• Unlike renewable energy incentives which periodically expire and require Congress to approve extensions, the fossil fuel industry has dozens of subsidies permanently engrained in the tax code from decades of successful lobbying. In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industries spent a combined $167 million on lobbying the federal government.

You can read he full tax of Bernie's proposed legislation-- being blocked by the GOP and corrupt right-wing Democrats, of course-- here. If it were to pass, the bill would comprehensively abolish fossil fuel subsidies, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It ends tax breaks, eliminates special financing, does away with taxpayer-funded fossil fuel R&D, and sets fair royalties policies to ensure the fossil fuel corporations pay their fair share. One provision that probably especially drives Joe Barton insane is that it would save taxpayers $6.8 billion by closing the loophole that allows corporations like BP to deduct money they spend cleaning up their own oil spills and paying damages.

This year Big Oil has given Barton another $105,150 in payoffs. Some righteous dude who works at an oil or gas company donated $2,400 to Bernie Sanders for the work he's doing to make America a fairer and most just, clean society. The oil industry itself, of course, hasn't donated a cent to keep Bernie Sanders in office. Quite the contrary. They are among Big Businesses encouraging Republican candidates to run against Bernie in November. If you'd like to help make sure he is reelected... he's the only senator running for reelection that Blue America has endorsed.

Voters Are Getting Sick Of Political Corruption-- As Buck McKeon Is About To Discover

Can corrupt incumbents, heavily financed by lobbyists and the industries they're supposed to regulate, be defeated? Historically, the answer would have to be, "almost never." This year, though, something is changing. Pennsylvania Blue Dog Tim Holden's defeat at the hands of political newcomer Matt Cartwright was nothing short of stunning for the corrupt Beltway establishment. Tuesday night we saw an almost identical phenomenon in El Paso, when a young and energetic reformer, Beto O'Rourke, vanquished one of the worst Military Industrial Complex shills in Washington, Silvestre Reyes. Reyes was elected in 1996 and Holden was elected in 1992. Both are likely to cross the real DC aisle and become lobbyists themselves. Yesterday's win for Beto O'Rourke in El Paso was surely the best news for progressives but it wasn't the only good news. Kenneth Sanders beat a fake Democrat, Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex district currently held by Big Oil's most prominent congressional whore, Joe Barton. Sanders won big and he won early and now he has to go up against the biggest recipient of Big Oil cash in DC. Sanders, Tuesday night after his victory: "It took a lot of passion and energy to get to this moment, but I have a lot more commitment and drive to offer in the upcoming general election." He'll need it.

the 10 biggest congressional Oil briber-takers since 1989

He took the moment as an opportunity to remind his supporters that Barton is not the candidate for District 6, but the candidate for Washington lobbyists.

“I am a strong democrat who stands for democratic values. Unlike Joe Barton, I’m not a leader in the “Party of NO.” I am going to work for the people of District 6, not the Washington lobbyists who are out of touch with our needs,” Sanders said.

Sanders continued, “I am prepared to fight for healthcare and Medicare, to create jobs, and to improve schools. I’m prepared to stand up for every resident in District 6, not just the wealthy. I know this district, and unlike Barton, I’m ready to fight for its needs.” He ended his speech by asking for continued support throughout the rest of election season and reminding everyone it’s not going to be easy, but he is prepared.

“We’ve just completed one part of the race, but the last leg is the hardest. I’m fired up, and I hope you are too,” Sanders said.

Sanders will have a very rough time. The old 6th CD gave Bush 66% against Gore and 66% against Kerry. And in 2008 it gave McCain 60%. Under the new boundaries, McCain would have won with 57%. Big Oil isn't likely to lose their most dedicated congressional servant this time around-- but, of course, "no one" though Holden or Reyes could possibly lose either. Still, a far better bet for cautious insiders would be Lee Rogers' race against another corrupt incumbent, Buck McKeon, in the northeast corner of Los Angeles County, the last Republican left in a primarily L.A. district. Obama won the old district 49-48% and he would have won under the new boundaries by the same percent. But the Republican civil war in CA-25 makes it nearly impossible for McKeon to win-- to the point where Republicans are already endorsing Rogers against him-- even before a primary with 3 Republicans in it!

McKeon's corruption, much like Reyes' and Holden's is perfectly normal in DC. It's what makes the system work. Let me repeat how Jack Abramoff-- and if anyone understands Beltway corruption it's him-- defined bribery in his book Capitol Punishmen:

[C]ontributions from parties with an interest in legislation are really nothing but bribes. Sure, it's legal for the most part. Sure, everyone in Washington does it. Sure it's the way the system works. It's one of Washington's dirty little secrets-- but it's bribery just the same...

But the voters back home are stunned when they find out. They were in PA-17 and they were in TX-16. TX-6, Barton's district, might be a stretch, but in CA-25, where McKeon is sinking in a swamp of scandal after scandal, voters are taking note. And now, even DC is starting to notice. (Not the DCCC, of course. They'll notice after the Cook Report does and that will be the first Wednesday of November. But yesterday one of the big DC think tanks took note that there's a bad guy in California taking a lot of bribes from the Military Industrial Complex. Here are the ten biggest bribe takers from the war industry so far this cycle; and it includes both houses of Congress:


And here's Eli Clifton's report, Defense Industry Campaign Contributions Create Incentive For 'Pentagon Pork' from Think Progress. No mention of Lee Rogers, but at least they spelled McKeon's name correctly.

Earlier this month, House lawmakers passed a $643 billion defense budget draft, $4 billion more than the president’s defense budget request and $8 billion more than the cap set on defense spending Congress last year. The bill’s passage brought criticisms from House Democrats and Pentagon officials-- including Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey-- and stood in striking contrast to recent polling data showing that 65 percent of Americans would support cuts to military spending. But generous campaign contributions from the defense industry, and related industries that benefit from other Defense Department contracts, may explain the willingness of House Republicans to ignore the preferences of the American public and the military’s leadership.

An investigation for Time.com by defense budgeting expert Winslow Wheeler into “Pentagon pork” found that “the money being added for ‘Restoration & Modernization of Facilities’ was being added without any meaningful guidance, none whatsoever.” Funding for “Restoration & Modernization of Facilities,” which Wheeler characterizes as a having “the distinct odor of being a slush fund,” totals $594.7 million.

But the House Armed Services Committee members who passed the oversized defense budget draft may have other interests in mind. Four of the top-ten industry campaign donors to House Armed Services Committee members, as categorized by OpenSecrets.org, would appear to benefit from this “slush fund.” “Defense Aerospace,” “Real Estate,” “Misc Defense,” and “Building Trade Unions,” already contributed a total of $4.89 million to House Armed Services Committee members in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that went to Republicans.

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and his leadership PAC are the top congressional recipients of defense industry campaign dollars.

...The apparent contradiction of House Armed Services Committee members passing an oversized defense budget which exceeds that requested by the military and defies the U.S. public’s preference for a reduction in defense spending makes more sense when viewed in the context of defense industry, and industries which benefit directly and indirectly from defense related appropriations, contributions to committee member’s campaign committees and leadership PACs. Indeed, the contributions offer a monetary incentive for committee members to advocate for additional budget items-- such as an East Coast missile defense system which Gen. Demspsey said was unnecessary-- and create “Pentagon pork.”

The Antelope Valley, which is filled with defense industries is not sympathetic to McKeon's reelection bid. A recent poll showed him being slaughtered by Rogers, 46.25-25.0% in a 4-way jungle primary. His morning Rogers told us that he supports a strong national defense program, strong and smart and effective. "But Buck McKeon's idea of a strong defense is overfunding the Pentagon beyond what they need or even want," Rogers told us. "Where will that extra funding go? To his campaign contributors, of course. His budget violates the Budget Control Act of 2011, which he voted for. But as the spending caps on defense and domestic spending become a reality for him, he's resorted to hysterics. He's all of a sudden discovered Keynesian economics and now believes that government spending will lead to more jobs and prevent an economic downturn, but only if that spending is on defense. People in our district want their Congressman to be responsible with our tax dollars and be responsive to the needs of the district. He's failed at both tasks."

Matt Cartwright and Beto O'Rourke won without any money from the DCCC or the corrupt DC Establishment. Lee Rogers will win the same way. Will you help him, the way so many of us helped Matt and Beto? You can do it here at the Blue America ActBlue page. The more candidates elected who are not supported by the corrupt DCCC-- and who owe them nothing-- the better off for progressives and the better off for American working families. Let's say NO to corruption. That's what the GOP is for & that's one place we don't need any bipartisanship.