Has Congress Ever Had A Spy For A Hostile Foreign Power In Its Midst Before?

Putin's favorite congressman, Dana Rohrabacher

This NY Times headline could have only been referring to 2 congressmen, both Californians-- and both of whom having made spectacles of themselves in relations to Putin-Gate: Dana Rohrabacjer from Orange County or Devin Nunes from the Central Valley. Both are in big trouble with voters in their districts. He’s a Member of Congress. The Kremlin Likes Him So Much It Gave Him a Code Name. The Times story, by Nick Fandos, was another nail in Dana Rohrabacher's political coffin. "For two decades," he began, "Representative Dana Rohrabacher has been of value to the Kremlin, so valuable in recent years that the F.B.I. warned him in 2012 that Russia regarded him as an intelligence source worthy of a Kremlin code name.The following year, the California Republican became even more valuable, assuming the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee that oversees Russia policy. He sailed to re-election again and again, even as he developed ties to Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia. Then came President Trump."

Before Trump was elected House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, believing he was speaking to a group of Republicans who would never rat him out, was recorded saying that "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." When other Republicans asked if it was really true that Putin was actually funneling money into the Trump campaign, McCarthy, who later claimed he was joking, said "Swear to God." Paul Ryan was there and tried to get all the other Republicans in the room to promise not to tell anyone. "No leaks," he warned. This stays in the family." And, indeed, McCarthy's and Ryan's secret about Putin and his two patsies stayed secret for almost a year. But now almost everyone in Rohrabacher's swingy Orange County district-- Hillary beat Trump there last year 47.9% to 46.2%-- knows why Rohrabacher is always being referred to as "Putin's favorite congressman." This cycle Rohrabacher is being challenged for reelection by 2 Republicans-- Stelian Onufrei and Paul Martin and by at least 7 Democrats-- New Dems Hans Keirstead and Harley Rouda, self-described "Reagan Democrat" Omar Siddiqui, millennial and out-of-the-box ideas man Michael Kotick, progressive Laura Oatman and some vanity candidates. Back to Fandos:

As revelations of Russia’s campaign to influence American politics consume Washington, Mr. Rohrabacher, 70, who had no known role in the Trump election campaign, has come under political and investigative scrutiny. The F.B.I. and the Senate Intelligence Committee are each seeking to interview him about an August meeting with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, Mr. Rohrabacher said. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is said to be interested in a meeting he had last year with Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s short-lived national security adviser.

At the same time, fellow Republicans-- questioning his judgment and intentions-- have moved to curtail his power as chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats. And back home in Southern California, where Democrats and Republicans alike smell blood, the 15-term congressman is facing his toughest re-election contest in decades, with well-funded candidates from both parties lining up to unseat him.

“I feel like I’m in good shape politically,” he said breezily during an interview last week, a day before he voted against his party’s tax bill. “My constituents couldn’t care less about this. They are not concerned about Russia. They are concerned about the taxes on their home. They are concerned about illegal immigrants coming into their neighborhood and raping people.”

...[A]s investigators in Washington scrutinize the Russian interference campaign, Mr. Rohrabacher, like an extra in an spy thriller, just keeps showing up-- if not quite at the scene of the action, then just off camera.

In April 2016, he was in Moscow, accepting a copy of a “confidential” memo containing accusations against prominent Democratic donors that would, months later, reappear in Trump Tower when a Russian lawyer who had reported those allegations to the Russian government, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, sat down with Donald Trump Jr. to deliver a similar document.

Last August he was in London on a quick diversion from an anniversary trip to the Iberian Peninsula to meet Mr. Assange at the fugitive’s sanctuary in the Ecuadorean Embassy. American intelligence agencies believe Mr. Assange acted as a conduit for Russian operatives seeking to release a trove of hacked Democratic emails. Mr. Assange denies the accusation, and Mr. Rohrabacher hoped to broker a meeting with Mr. Trump to allow him to make his case.

Then earlier this year, this time on Capitol Hill, Mr. Rohrabacher dined with Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of the Russian central bank who has been linked both to Russia’s security services and organized crime. During Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, Mr. Torshin tried to set up a “backdoor” meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, according to an email that has been turned over to Senate investigators.

Mr. Rohrabacher asserted that none of the meetings were untoward or inappropriate, given his chairmanship. Ms. Veselnitskaya and her allies are fighting the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russian officials for human rights abuses, and they deserved a hearing, he said. Russia, he argued, could be a key ally to defeat Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, and under Mr. Putin, the Kremlin has undertaken key reforms back home. “I want to treat Russia as if it is a nation state that deserves to be judged as all other nation states are judged,” he said.

Mr. Rohrabacher said his efforts to connect Mr. Assange with the president have been stonewalled by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff.

NBC News reported this month that Mr. Mueller’s investigators are looking at a 2016 meeting between Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Flynn, whose lobbying for foreign powers has come under scrutiny by the special counsel.

Mr. Rohrabacher acknowledged meeting Mr. Flynn twice, once to discuss computer chip technology and once to discuss a plan advanced by Mr. Flynn late last year to build a series of nuclear power plants across the Middle East. He said he did not remember discussing Russia.

“All I remember about that meeting is that they were promoting some kind of an idea about having Gulf State countries invest in building nuclear power plants of some kind, I think,” Mr. Rohrabacher said.

Mr. Rohrabacher may shrug off such scrutiny, but on the Foreign Affairs Committee, fellow Republicans have had enough. The committee’s chairman, Representative Ed Royce of California, pushed out Mr. Rohrabacher’s top committee aide, Paul Behrends, in July amid stories about his ties to pro-Russian lobbyists.

Since then, the chairman has taken a more hands-on approach to managing Mr. Rohrabacher’s subcommittee, a Republican House aide said. The chairman has not imposed a blanket ban on Mr. Rohrabacher’s travel or power to convene hearings, nor has he stripped Mr. Rohrabacher of his subcommittee chairmanship.

But Mr. Royce’s aides are closely scrutinizing his requests.

Mr. Rohrabacher has given conflicting assessments of his own status on the committee, most recently saying that he faced few limitations. But in an interview with The New York Times in late October, he acknowledged actions to curtail his activities and said they represented Republican regrets about leaving the gavel to someone who would not “just go along and get along with whatever the State Department wants.”

“What happens with our committee is, if there is anything positive to say about Russia, it is trash-canned,” he said.

I wonder if he thinks coastal Orange County voters care about that. Michael Kotick has a friendly warning for Rohrabacher: "If it’s true that Dana feels like he’s 'in good shape politically,' I’d call that best evidence of how out of touch he is. He speaks for his constituents as though he’s spoken to his constituents, but in truth he actively avoids most of us. If he’d been listening back home, he’d know that we DO care about Russia and we aren’t scared of immigrants. I don’t know where he is getting his view of things, but I can tell you that if 10 people were lining up for my job while I was under active investigation, I would know I wasn’t in good shape."

Laura Oatman sent me a few messages about the NY Times article over the last day. Speaking of Rohrabacher, she wrote that "his involvement levels with Russia have been troubling for some time-- especially given his lack of attention to his constituents here." She's been spending her time talking with her neighbors in Orange County about issues that concern their daily lives more than about Putin-Gate and Rohrabacher's Russian intrigues. But she did mention that she'd "like to think of an amusing code name, but there’s nothing funny about collaboration with a nation that has interfered with our Democratic process... Regardless of whether you voted for or against him, it is a shame that he will be remembered for this.  We’re watching the Titanic just before midnight. The malfeasance that starts in D.C. has reached our shores, unfortunately. Dana has shown through his actions that he isn’t the right person to represent this amazing district... People who live in Huntington Beach, Aliso Viejo, Westminster and other CA-48 cities shouldn’t need to compete with the citizens of Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Vladivostok for Congressman Rohrabacher’s attention."

Which California Republicans Are Willing To Sacrifice Their Careers To Give Billionaires A Tax Cut?

I hope Jonathan Chait is correct about the GOP tax plan being political suicide... but I'm not as certain as he is. Have you started seeing the ads yet? Millions of dollars of patently fake spots are blanketing TV from coast to coast claiming how fabulous the plan is. There isn't an ounce of truth in them but... when has that ever mattered in this kind of a propaganda effort. There's a lot of money at stake and the GOP fat cats will spend and spend and spend... whatever it takes. Just watch those polling numbers start to turn around as the ads saturate the minds of people who were tricked into voting for Trump by Russian trolls who were told to watch House of Cards in an office building on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. In fact, there are untold numbers of brain-dead Americans-- primarily in the old slave-holding states, but those aren't the only states with lots of morons-- still being told how to think by young Russian trolls working for the Kremlin (and Trump) for $700 a month.

An independent, liberal Russian TV channel also spoke to a man named Alan Beskaev who said he'd worked in the unit that specifically targeted America.

One minute, he said, "you needed to be a redneck from Kentucky and then later you had to be some kind of white dude from Minnesota. ... And then in 15 minutes, you need to be from New York, writing something in black slang."

Beskaev said some of his colleagues even traveled to the U.S. to do research.

Another former troll said in an interview published on Oct. 16 that he worked in a so-called "troll factory" in St. Petersburg for around 18 months until early 2015. He said that during his time there, trolls were instructed to watch the Netflix series House of Cards to improve their English and strengthen their knowledge of U.S. politics.

Lawmakers today released several of the thousands of ads they say were bought by Russian trolls. One Tweet from during the election falsely told fans of Hillary Clinton that they could avoid the line and vote from home.

One former troll told an independent, liberal Russian TV channel that the goal was not to promote pro-Russian views but to create turmoil in America. In fact, the former troll said, workers were punished if they mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Oops... back to Chait, taxes and suicide. He wrote in his New York Magazine column on Friday that "It is a testament to the power of self-delusion that Republicans have convinced themselves that their political self-interest demands that they pass a deeply unpopular tax-cut plan... The bill contains three categories of political poison. First, it cuts taxes on rich people and corporations, a wildly unpopular goal. Americans want to raise taxes on corporations and people with high incomes. Republicans would do the opposite... The second problem is that the bill raises taxes for a large number of middle-class families. It does so by scaling back personal exemptions and reducing the inflation adjustment. Around a quarter of middle-class families will pay more taxes under this plan. That’s millions of people. (Or, to translate it into attack ad–ese, 'MILLIONS of Middle-Class American families will get a TAX HIKE so CORPORATIONS CAN PAY LESS!')... Finally, the House Republican plan eliminates specific tax breaks that are both worthy and popular. There are two fiscal requirements for a tax plan to pass the Senate. It can increase the deficit by no more than $1.5 trillion over the first decade, and it cannot increase the deficit at all after ten years. The House plan utterly fails the second test, which makes it unpassable in anything like its current form, and raises the question of why they’re bothering to take all the political risk."

With the exception of NJ multimillionaire inheritor-- he even inherited his family's congressional seat!-- Rodney Frelinghuysen, and New York's Tom Reed and Chris Collins, Republicans in 2 of the 3 states whose taxpayers will be most immediately devastated by the Ryan's plan, New York and New Jersey, have signaled they're not voting for the thing. If they all hold-- that's Frank LoBiondo, Tom MacArthur, Chris Smith and Leonard Lance from New Jersey and Lee Zeldin, Peter King, Dan Donovan, John Faso, Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney and John Katko in New York-- that's 11 NO votes. 9 other Republicans voted against the budget setup that was needed to get this thing into a win possibility in the Senate-- so twenty. But not a single California Republican. There are 14 of them and their constituents are going to be murdered by this tax proposal.

Even if Chait is wrong about the national GOP being on the verge of political suicide, he is right about the California Republicans. Fully half the GOP congressmembers in the state delegate are unlikely to survive the midterms if they vote to raise their constituents taxes, which this bill would do, drastically: north to south, Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Steve Knight, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Mimi Walters and Darrell Issa. Also in serious jeopardy by supporting the bill: Devin Nunes, Duncan Hunter and Paul Cook, though those 3 would be more likely to feel their constituents wrath-- and lose their seats-- in 2020.

Here are how 5 California Democrats are already using Ryan's tax bill against their opponents:

• Katie Hill (CA-25)- "Steve Knight and the House Republicans are fighting for a policy that is so blatantly harmful that even the Trump administration is against it. I am running for Congress because I think my family, neighbors, friends, and community deserve a representative who will fight for them. Steve Knight's support of the Republican tax plan is proof that he has no intention of being that Representative. While I'm sure Steve's wealthy establishment donors are thrilled by his vote, the residents of the 25th district are outraged and will make their voices heard in November."
• Sam Jammal (CA-39)- "Ed Royce's support of the Trump tax on our community shows he no longer represents us. He only represents out of district millionaires and whatever Trump wants him to do. This tax plan-- just on the elimination of the state and local tax deduction alone-- will raise taxes on 37% of families in the district. That doesn't include the roughly 80% of families who own a home and likely benefit from the mortgage interest deduction or the thousands who save for retirement through 401(k)s. A lot of us have known for a long time that Ed no longer fits our community, but it is shocking that he is helping push a tax plan that directly penalizes families in our community to benefit out of district millionaires."
• Katie Porter (CA-45)- "Mimi Walters continues to do what she has done her whole career-- ignore the needs of middle class families here in Orange County to give handouts to corporations. Mimi Walters never fights for middle class families. She sided with Donald Trump over Californians 99% of the time. She sided with powerful drug and insurance companies over California families when she voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. She sided with the NRA over the safety of our communities when she refused to regulate bump stocks or vote for simple background checks. And now she’s siding with Paul Ryan’s tax plan, which guts 1.8 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, limits what people save from their own earnings in 401(k) plans, and eliminates state and local deductions for over 6 million California families."
• Michael Kotick (CA-48)- "If Rohrabacher votes for this bill, as proposed he will effectively be voting against Orange County residents keeping their hard-earned money (SALT), blocking the retirement savings pathway for millions (401k) and potentially kicking-off a snowball effect that will impact the property values of those in California, long-term. All of which goes almost perfectly against every anticipated benefit of a 'tax cut initiative,' except if you are in the top 0.2%. Let's just say that this tax plan is going to impact a lot of people, dramatically. If passed as proposed, it may be the single greatest action (besides #45) to help flip House seats in California from red to blue. If the tax cut is paid for as proposed by the 2018 House budget-- with more than a trillion dollars in cuts from healthcare, education and affordable housing-- that just rubs salt in the wound. By voting 'yes' on this budget with the hope of a tax plan that looks lopsided and shaky at best, Dana is directly voting against all of us in Orange County. Time's up, Dana."
• Laura Oatman (CA-48)- "At a time when income inequality is already out of control, Trump’s tax plan will do everything to help himself and his billionaire friends, who are already doing very well under this economy, and nothing to help working class and middle-class families who are struggling. Trickle down economics has never worked, but particularly not now when huge corporations are utilizing automation, not people, to maximize their profits. We need to close tax loopholes and ensure that corporations are paying their fair share-- not slash taxes for Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies. Trump’s tax plan is simply a rich man’s tax break. Targeting Orange County taxpayers by ending the state income tax deduction is something Mr. Rohrabacher should be pushing back against. If he doesn't, I will. People in these communities deserve a representative who fights for them, not for Paul Ryan and Donald Trump."

We Need To Get Some Millennials Into Congress-- But Good Ones

Last year, just after the general election, writing for Bloomberg, Dave Merrill and Yvette Romero explained how millennials haven't been able to crack Congress. "In 2016, millennials surpassed baby boomers as the nation's largest living generation," they wrote. "Yet for all that voting power, millennials are still woefully under-represented in Washington. Donald Trump just replaced Ronald Reagan as the oldest elected president in history, and in the new Congress, baby boomers will outnumber millennials 50 to one. About a third of millennials (age 19-35 years) aren't old enough to run for the House, since you need to be at least 25 years old to hold office. But if the 435 members of the House were apportioned to match the generational divide of everyone who meets the age requirement, millennials would hold 97 seats, about a quarter of the chamber."

But there aren't 97 millennials in the House. Today there are 5, only one of whom is a Democrat:

• Elise Stefanik (R-NY)- 33 years old
• Mike Gallagher (R-WI)- 33 years old
• Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)- 34 years old
• Matt Gaetz (R-FL)- 35 years old
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)- 36 years old

As Merrill and Romero mentioned, Congress has an abysmal approval rating-- worse now than when they were writing last year. The most current poll I saw, from YouGov for the Economist released on Halloween, shows congressional approval among registered voters at 9% and disapproval at 60%. PPP had similar numbers last month-- 9% approval and 68% disapproval. And yet... "Congress remains a mostly static body that re-elects incumbents 95 percent of the time. This is one reason why House members are disproportionately older-- the median age is 58 years-- than the voters they represent."

That can change more rapidly in a wave year-- and there are plenty of millennials running for Congress in the current cycle. Maybe there are some young imbeciles-- like Gaetz and Hollingsworth-- running, but the ones I've been talking with are incredibly intelligent. I just realized that I keep referring to them as out-of-the-box thinkers. But they are actually in a different box than the one I'm in. I was just on the phone with 28 year old Austin Frerick of Iowa-- a really smart "big picture" guy. He seems so smart that I just really want to see him in Congress. His mind seems to work differently... and then I realized it's because he's a millennial and grew up in a much more tech-savvy environment than I ever did. When we were talking today he noted that "The perfect DCCC candidate is a good telemarketer with a bunch of rich friends. Because of that, a lot of voices aren't being heard or represented in Congress. I'm running to be one of those missing voices."

Cautionary note: Millennial as an identity group won't work, of course. One of the very worst ass-wipes in Congress is young Matt Gaetz from Florida. Today, by way of example of his worstness, he was busying himself by working to protect Trump from Putin-Gate, demanding Robert Mueller recuse himself from the investigation based on the far right uranium trope popular on Hate Talk Radio and Fox. We need more millennials in Congress but not moron-millennials like Matt Gaetz.

Last night I had dinner with another millennial candidate, Orange County's Michael Kotick, who's taking on Putin-friendly senior citizen Dana Rohrabacher. Kotick and I ate at Michael Voltaggio's new restaurant, ink.well, a very food-forward restaurant where there is literally not one dish on the menu that you would ever find on another menu. Every single thing Voltaggio serves is unique and his own invention-- and incredible. And I know that many older people find that challenging and even uncomfortable. Kotick e-mailed me this morning and the first thing he mentioned was to thank me for turning him on to, in his words, "a great new restaurant choice!" Open minds are good. And then on to business:

"I grew up," he told me, "in a new millennial generation that reinvented almost every industry over the last decade. Whether it was businesses, apps or other breakthrough innovations, new ideas and a new way of doing things were created with a core set of principles-- collaboration, inclusion, and mutual respect. The last frontier that remains relatively untouched by this generation is government."

Last month, Kotick penned an OpEd for Bold, Millennials Will Save Our Country-- If They Opt Into Government. Quoting Ron Fournier's 2013 piece for The Atlantic he noted that "this generation 'believe[s] traditional politics and government (especially Washington) are the worst avenues to great things… They have no patience for inefficiency, stodgy institutions or the status quo.' It is for this reason that millennials have been opting out of government. We have felt effective solutions can only be made outside elected office-- in the private or nonprofit sectors where there is an open, entrepreneurial spirit. I get that. I have seen real change achieved that way. Now, at this moment, we need to bring that great promise back to government."

We are a generation raised in uncertain times. Through the 9/11 terror attacks (and the 16 years of war that have come after), we tumbled through the volatile economy of the Great Recession, searched for dwindling jobs and were burdened by staggering student loan debt. We saw our country polarized and gridlocked. All the while, our distrust in elected officials increased.

During this time, something else also was happening-- something no one mentions. Something that shows that we just have been waiting for the right time to bring our collaborative, inclusive and community-first spirit to the last frontier relatively untouched by my generation-- politics and government.

No other generation since World War II has volunteered as much as ours. According to the National Council on Citizenship, we “lead the way in volunteering” and are remarkably eager-- fiercely even-- to serve our community. We also are the most wired and connected generation ever, with such a sense of inclusion that we often view our neighbor’s problems and the globe’s challenges as our own. And, we did all of this while reinventing almost every major industry whether through new start-ups, apps or break-through innovations.

After four decades of government dominated by Baby Boomers, I believe it has never been more critical to finally bring our generational spirit of connectedness forward-- not defined by a particular political ideology, but by a collective commitment to progress. Our time is now-- 2018 will be the first election that we will be the largest generation of Americans eligible to vote.

Here is my challenge: Let us serve the greater community in a new way.

The technology that has empowered us as individuals and fueled our generation also empowers us as a group-- to band together for a greater good. Respectful collaboration, not insults and yelling. A world with tolerance-- less ideological and more welcoming for all of us to shape our future.

Connecting through pragmatic solutions and mutual respect rather than party divisions are key to facing our future in a new way. It is time for a connected age of government.

California has some mighty fine millennial candidates running for Congress this cycle-- sharp, idealistic, service-oriented... Another one is Katie Hill, the progressive Democrat in the Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Antelope Valley district still held by reactionary Republican Steve Knight. "Our representatives in Washington," Katie told us, "have failed to address the biggest problems facing our country for far too long, and it's our generation that is going to have to deal with the consequences of their inaction. We can't afford to wait any longer to address issues like ever-increasing income inequality, climate change, the rising cost of a college education, a permanent state of war in the middle east, and the staggering amount of money in politics. Our generation understands this, and we need to step up to the plate, to provide the new leadership, new ideas, and real solutions it will take for us to move forward as a country. It is clearer now than it has ever been that we need political change on a systemic level-- and the best way to do that is through a changing of the guard. It's time, and we're ready."

Another great young California candidate this cycle is Sam Jammal, running for the Orange County seat occupied by Ed Royce (unless Royce retires like so many Republicans in Congress are doing). "So much of the American Dream is at risk and has been for some time. We have a millennial generation with unprecedented student debt, the lowest home ownership rates since World War II and economy that still isn't creating middle class jobs. You can look no further on the need for millennials in office than the complete silence over the expiration of the Perkins Loan Program on September 30th or the continuing silence over the student debt crisis by both parties. This silence is largely the product of a lack of voices in Congress connected to the struggles of students and younger workers."

Also running in Orange County, in a district further south and against Mimi Walter, Kia Hamadanchy has put some thought into the role of millennials in government. "I’m not surprised that so many great millennial candidates are running for Congress," he told me yesterday. "Like many in my generation I had some of my first formative experiences in politics in 2007 and 2008 when Barack Obama was first running for President and that more than anything is what inspired me to go into public service. It also reinforced the idea that anything really is possible in our politics if we are willing to stand up and fight for it. Top to bottom the Democratic Party is in the worst shape its been since right before the Great Depression. For a long time we've been devoid of new ideas and 2017 is a great opportunity to elect young, fresh faces to Congress who who will not be afraid to push for bold policy ideas like single payer. Who better to work on issues like student debt and climate change?  More than anyone else we are the ones most impacted and we are the ones most willing to think outside the box to try and push the envelope to actually get something. I've been in the Senate and can tell you first-hand its time for a younger generation of leadership to step up to the plate. That's a big reason as to why I'm running for Congress."

Ricardo Franco is the progressive candidate running for the Central Valley seat that Devin Nunes holds. He told us that "Though Trump and I both went to Wharton, one of the biggest differences in our education is this: I and fellow millennials after me were REQUIRED to take ETHICS at Wharton. Though Trump's unethical practices are hardly new, today's GOP Tax Plan hits a new low: cutting the heart and life out of the millennial generation and middle-class to pour more money into the pockets of the ultra-rich and large corporations."

Twenty years of conservative trickle-down economic policy has left us with stock markets at all-time highs and interest rates at all-time lows. This means corporations are already flush with capital. Loopholes allow them to pay an effective tax rate of 18.5% Economic figures will suggest that the economy is doing well and growing with strong GDP figures and low unemployment.

However, those numbers don't show you the real struggle millennials are facing: underemployment. Millennials have been thrust into a working world, drowning in student debt, not being able to save enough money to buy a house, struggling to find affordable healthcare, and not being able to save for retirement. Now, the GOP has the audacity to eliminate state and local tax deductions from their federal filings with their new tax plan. The plan's reduction on the mortgage interest deduction will put more people out-of-reach in being able to buy a home. This will depreciate home prices, raise rents and possibly make refinancing more costly for those with equity to pay for their children's college in the future or use for retirement.

Did I mention the deduction on student loan interest is also removed?

This plan is nothing but a handout to the super-rich while straddling us millennials with $1.5 trillion in debt in 10 years. The GOP will position this as an investment in economic growth. That's a lie. Investment implies they're taking a risk. They aren't. Instead, this is daylight robbery.

We MUST increase our representation in government if we want our voices to be heard.  Private sector companies and non-profits can only do so much for the common good.  Government is where the rules are decided, and we must take action if we are to have an equal voice in our own future. We cannot wait to climb the ladder of local party politics. It must happen, and it must happen NOW-- because our economy and future depend on it.

See that thermometer above? You can contribute to any of our California congressional candidates, including millennials like Michael Kotick, Sam Jammal, Katie Hill, Ricardo Franco and Kia Hamadanchy.

The Trump/Ryan Tax Cuts For The Rich Take From The Middle Class

Zero Humility by Nancy Ohanian

Before Trumpanzee started demanding Ryan call his tax bill, "The Cut Cut Cut Act," Chuck Todd had reported that House Republicans were facing a major disadvantage with their tax plan, even before they delayed the rollout of their bill until today, namely that "their plan starts out underwater, according to our latest NBC/WSJ poll-- and by about the same margin as the poll's first track of George W. Bush's failed effort to partially privatize Social Security." Only 25% of Americans say they like the plan. About a quarter of Americans already know they'll pay more and just 14% believe they'll be less.

The plan was supposed to come out yesterday but was delayed until today because Ryan and his team don't know shit from Shinola. Katie Hunt reported that some issues were still unresolved hours before the bill had been slated for release.

The heart of the issue: whether the plan can meet the $1.5 trillion spending limit set by the budget and whether the cut will be distributed across the middle class. So-called distribution tables that outline the benefits for the wealth versus the middle class will be closely watched.

Republicans are under political pressure to make sure it's viewed as a broad middle-class tax cut and not a package of tax breaks for wealthy Americans.

So what does that mean? Trouble... big trouble. Jonathan Karl reported yesterday that the closely held, half done plan lowers caps on 401 (k)s and cuts state and local tax deductions for middle class taxpayers. In other words, a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 2%.

401Ks – The White House, as the President tweeted, wanted to keep the current amount of annual of tax-free contributions ($18,000); House Republicans wanted to lower the limit to $2,400. The bill, as of this morning, does lower what individuals can contribute tax-free to their 401(k)s-- but it lowers it to a point about halfway between the current limit and what House Republicans had initially proposed.

Deduction for State and Local Taxes – The latest draft eliminates the deduction for state and local income taxes. But it retains the deduction for local property taxes.

Estate Taxes – The latest draft of the bill retains the elimination of the estate tax. Although there had been intense internal debate as recently as Tuesday night about phasing it in-- increasing the amount exempt from estate taxes (it’s currently $10.9 million for married couples) for the first five years and then eliminating it altogether-- sources say the latest draft calls for the complete elimination of the estate tax.

This is it-- at least for now... their starting point as they debate each other and the lobbyists. It makes sweeping changes in corporate and individual taxes, including deep tax cuts, limits to the mortgage interest deduction and bigger family tax credits. It also includes provisions that are likely to stoke controversy and fierce lobbying, including limiting the deduction of mortgage interest for newly purchased homes up to $500,000. On two other flash points, the plan would "retain" 401(k) savings plans and allow people to write off the cost of state and local property taxes up to $10,000. The plan would slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent and create three new individual tax brackets of 12%, 25%, and 35%. It would maintain a 39.6 percent rate on top earners and boosts the child tax credit to $1,600. It would also double the exemption for the estate tax and repeal it after six years. Also gone: the medical expense deduction and the student loan interest deduction. The best headline I saw explaining the politics of the plan: "President with 33% approval rating pushes tax plan with 25% approval rating." Although Frank Clemente, Executive Director of Americans for Tax Fairness had a way with words on this too: "Apparently Donald Trump wants to call this tax plan 'The Cut Cut Cut Act.' That's appropriate because they're cutting taxes for billionaires, cutting taxes for corporations, and cutting funding for Medicaid and Medicare to pay for it all. In the meantime, some middle-class families will likely end up paying MORE in taxes because of the loss of popular deductions, while corporations will get a multi-trillion dollar windfall. It's outrageous and immoral, and voters will hold them accountable for it."

I spoke with some of the candidates Blue America has endorsed and some who we're still in the process of vetting. Sam Jammal is the non-multimillionaire running for the Orange County district as middle class as he is. The removal of the tax deduction for houses over $500,000 will cripple the home building industry-- and related endeavors-- in Orange County. The district, held by Trump rubber stamp Ed Royce, will go blue in 2018 unless the DCCC manages to insert someone no one in the district can relate to, a DCCC specialty. Sam told us that Royce's "support of the Trump tax on our community shows he no longer represents us. He only represents out of district millionaires and whatever Trump wants him to do. This tax plan-- just on the elimination of the state and local tax deduction alone-- will raise taxes on 37% of families in the district. That doesn't include the roughly 80% of families who own a home and likely benefit from the mortgage interest deduction or the thousands who save for retirement through 401(k)s. A lot of us have known for a long time that Ed no longer fits our community, but it is shocking that he is helping push a tax plan that directly penalizes families in our community to benefit out of district millionaires."

And all the California progressives are taking a similar approach. Katie Hill is running for a seat north of Sam's district (CA-25) that includes 3 valleys (Simi, Antelope and Santa Clarita) and is increasingly blue while still held by a Republican-- thanks again, DCCC-- Steve Knight. Like Sam, Katie is outraged that her congressman appears to think he represents Trump, Ryan and the GOP rather than the people who live in CA-25. "Steve Knight and the House Republicans," she told us, "are fighting for a policy that is so blatantly harmful that even the Trump administration is against it. I am running for Congress because I think my family, neighbors, friends, and community deserve a representative who will fight for them. Steve Knight's support of the Republican tax plan is proof that he has no intention of being that Representative. While I'm sure Steve's wealthy establishment donors are thrilled by his vote, the residents of the 25th district are outraged and will make their voices heard in November."

Katie Porter is also working to represent an Orange County congressional district that Hillary won. "Mimi Walters," she told us, referring to the rubber stamp Republican who holds the seat now, "continues to do what she has done her whole career-- ignore the needs of middle class families here in Orange County to give handouts to corporations. Mimi Walters never fights for middle class families. She sided with Donald Trump over Californians 99% of the time. She sided with powerful drug and insurance companies over California families when she voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. She sided with the NRA over the safety of our communities when she refused to regulate bump stocks or vote for simple background checks. And now she’s siding with Paul Ryan’s tax plan, which guts 1.8 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, limits what people save from their own earnings in 401(k) plans, and eliminates state and local deductions for over 6 million California families."

There is no presidential election in 2018. Randy Bryce's campaign to repeal and replace Paul Ryan in Wisconsin is the substitute for that. Yesterday he reminded us that "There used to be this thing called a 'pension.' It was something  brought about thanks to unions where you could put money aside while you donated the best years of your life in order to enjoy a time to sit back and be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.Thanks to this war on workers that has been  brought upon us by the Banana Republicans, pensions are very rare these days. Instead, 401(k)s have been put in place. Now even these are under attack. It is quite obvious that the GOP is determined to make all of us not within the top 1% need to work until we literally drop dead. As Americans it is our duty to fight to make sure that democracy consist of one person equals one vote, not one dollar equals one vote. We have some time, but not a lot.2018 is one year away. Our futures are worth fighting for."

Three of the most likely Republican-held districts in Texas to flip next year are John Culberson's in Houston, Pete Sessions' in Dallas and the Austin-San Antonio corridor district held by Lamar Smith. All 3 have hotly-contested primaries. We spoke with the best candidates in each. Lillian Salerno, a former Obama Agriculture Department under secretary who made a name for herself as an anti-trust advocate, told us that "This tax bill demonstrates the control corporate monopolies who boss around bagmen like Pete Sessions have over Congress. Just so they can have a tax cut, the monopolies want workers, small business owners, and independent family farmers to to pay more, work longer, and take more risk all for an ever-dwindling chance at retirement. Independent retailers and independent manufacturers are already feeling the squeeze from big tech controlling the marketplace. Small business owners and workers are wondering the same thing: how will they be able to retire when they don't even have a plan for mom and dad? This tax hike on the middle class will end up with more corporate concentration, less competition, less innovation, and more profits in the hands of the monopolies. Every day we see what happens when folks with the power control elected officials officials like Pete Sessions.   Shameful behavior by those unelected  power brokers who navigate the system through t bagmen like  Pete Sessions absent  any regard for  working families."

Over in Houston, Jason Westin hasn't had any government experience. Instead he's been working as an award-winning cancer doctor and researcher. But healthcare isn't the only reason he's running. He told us that " Culberson has been in office for nine terms, and it shows. The career politicians in Washington have become complacent to the concerns of their constituents, seen in the 'Cut Cut Cut' tax bill coming this week. This bill favors the wealthy donor class over the working family. Culberson has long sought to remove the estate tax, which only impacts the 0.02% wealthiest Americans with estates worth at least $5.6 Million and would increase the deficit by $270 Billion over a decade. The final details aren't clear, but it also appears the bill will dramatically shrink Americans' ability to save for their retirement with pre-tax dollars. How do these help moves help you? They don't. Culberson and his pals are passing a tax bill which will give huge breaks to the Billionaire-class Americans, and will leave the rest of us behind."

We reached Derrick Crow in Austin. He started with a rhetorical question. "Does anyone on the Republican side even pretend to care what happens to working families in this country? Lamar Smith and his allies want to give corporations tax cuts at a time when companies are hiding trillions of dollars in profits in offshore tax shelters. They want to repeal taxes on estates of more than $5.49 million or more. And they want to pay for all of this by taxing individual retirement accounts and slashing Social Security and Medicare. In other words, corporations and the one percent loot the treasury while the rest of us get the bill. How about this: how about Congress starts focusing on the real, central problem in this economy, which is that people who work the hardest for wages don't have enough money to get by. The bottom 50 percent in this country own 2 percent of the wealth, which is to say, they own nothing. We need to raise the minimum wage, provide health care and higher education as rights, and get government back on the side of the working class instead of the monopolists and the corporate bosses."

Dan Canon, who's running for a seat in south central Indiana, made similar points more tersely: "Many of our representatives, like the one currently occupying my district, bought their seats in Congress. They exist to serve the rich at the expense of the working class. Nowhere is this made more plain than in this GOP tax 'plan.' They're not even really trying to hide behind the great lie of 'trickle down' economics anymore. This scheme would pick clean the ever-shrinking carcass of the middle class, while ensuring that the top 1% stay infinitely wealthy for infinite generations. It isn't clear whether Trump's GOP merely wants a return to Dickensian England or something even worse, but it is quite clear that they are a party exclusively by and for the wealthy."

Austin Frerick, comes from a similar anti-monopoly perspective that Salerno espouses. He's running in the southwest Iowa district that stretches from Des Moines to the Nebraska border. "David Young," he told us, "is trying to deliver what his donors bought with this 1% tax cut on the backs of hard working Americans. The repeal of the estate tax especially irks me. Young says he wants to repeal it to help farmers. That's just a lie. He's doing it to save the Koch Brothers billions. Only 44 Iowans even paid the tax in 2016. This is just another example of David Young twisting reality for the 1%."

Jenny Marshall, a North Carolina public school teacher is taking on multimillionaire Republican, Virginia Foxx in a central Piedmont district (NC-05). "For far too long, Republicans like Rep. Virginia Foxx have been pushing trickle-down economics as a solution for working Americans," she said. "Donald Trump’s plans for a stripped-down budget are a result of these faulty economics and Foxx has been a giddy cheerleader for its passing. In her speech from the House floor, she claims that this tax plan will 'level the playing field,' but what she does not mention is the harm that will come from those who rely on 401(k) plans and itemized deductions of state and local income taxes. In addition, they will strip families of the personal exemption deduction in favor of tax cuts for large corporations. Under the leadership of Donald Trump and Virginia Foxx, working families will keep waiting for a 'level playing field' that will never come. I am demanding a fair economic system for the people, not for the wealthy elite."

Up in central Illinois, emergency room doctor, David Gill, comes from a similar place. "My Republican opponent, Rodney Davis," he said, "has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of concern for the ordinary citizens that live here in IL-13-- maybe he's forgotten that he became an 'accidental Congressman' back in 2012 through sheer luck, when a liberal independent split the progressive vote just enough to keep me out of Washington by a slim 0.3%. His votes in Congress have been a slap in the face to the hard-working individuals who live here. This tax reform bill that he supports will reward the ultra-wealthy and the corporations that fund his campaign, and it will bring true hardship to the vast majority of IL-13 citizens. Supporting the elimination of the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes for individuals shows, once again, that Davis is completely out of touch with the residents of his district. He was able to get away with such heartless votes the past few years, when he faced only token and conservative Democratic opposition. But after spending the past couple cycles on the sidelines, working in the Emergency Room and serving as the Assistant Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, I'm now running in IL-13 once more, and my boldly progressive campaign is shining an very bright light on Davis' performance. Voters from across the political spectrum are completely disgusted with 'swamp critters' like Mr. Davis; as I travel around the district, they are chomping at the bit, eager for the opportunity to end his political career in November 2018."

Michael Kotick is one of half a dozen serious Orange County candidates competing for the Democratic nomination to run against Putin's favorite congressman, Dana Rohrabacher. Michael, at 34, is also the youngest-- and a can-do, out-of-the-box problem solver from a business background. "If Rohrabacher votes for this bill, as proposed," he told us, "he will effectively be voting against Orange County residents keeping their hard-earned money (SALT), blocking the retirement savings pathway for millions (401k) and potentially kicking-off a snowball effect that will impact the property values of those in California, long-term. All of which goes almost perfectly against every anticipated benefit of a 'tax cut initiative,' except if you are in the top 0.2%. Let's just say that this tax plan is going to impact a lot of people, dramatically. If passed as proposed, it may be the single greatest action (besides #45) to help flip House seats in California from red to blue. If the tax cut is paid for as proposed by the 2018 House budget-- with more than a trillion dollars in cuts from healthcare, education and affordable housing- that just rubs salt in the wound. By voting 'yes' on this budget with the hope of a tax plan that looks lopsided and shaky at best, Dana is directly voting against all of us in Orange County. Time's up, Dana."

Kara Eastman is the most recent candidate Blue America has in our vetting process. She's running for the Nebraska Democratic nomination to take on Republican freshman Don Bacon who beat serial party-switcher and anti-choice far right Blue Dog Brad Ashford. Before Kara gets too run, she has to take on.. yep, Ashford again. (He lost his job in Omaha and figured he might as well run again. Needless to say the Blue Dogs and DCCC are encouraging him.) Kara told us that "While the GOP debates whether or not to lower the tax rate for the top 1% of earners in the United States and whether or not to limit the ability of the middle class to save for retirement in our 401(k) plans, they also are crafting legislation that will see more people lose their health insurance.This kind of sabotage doesn’t help Americans who have the right to quality and affordable health care. It’s also unacceptable that this Congress let the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expire a month ago. So it’s time for our leaders to prioritize our nation’s children and reform our health care system for the better. Instead, too many of them stand ready to subtly sabotage it and focus legislative efforts on benefiting the wealthiest people in our country who can afford to weather this storm."

This meme has been floating around the Internet for the last week or so. People seem agitated, surly and mistrustful of what Trump and Ryan are cooking up in the tax package.

Will Orange County Help Save America From Trump Next Year? Rohrabacher's Race

Dana Rohrabacher's district, CA-48, covers 42 miles of coastal Orange County-- the primest of the prime residential real estate in Southern California. It stretches from Seal Beach in the north through Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach down to Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel and Three Arch Bay where Darrell Issa's district starts. It's been a very Republican district for a very long time. In 2015 the PVI was R+7. This year, though... R+4. No one remembers a Democrat presidential candidate winning the district-- Romney beat Obama 54.7% to 43.0%-- but last year, the distaste for Trump was so pronounced that Hillary beat him 47.9-46.2%. The DCCC didn't back the Democratic candidate, Sue Savary and incumbent (since 1988) Dana Rohrabacher beat her 165,987 (58.5%) to 117,716 (41.5%). Rohrabacher spent $646,004 to Savory's $102,133.

2018 will be an entirely different race. Rohrabacher, who has been implicated in Putin-Gate and is viewed by U.S. intelligence agencies as a possible spy for the Russians, has 2 Republican challengers-- Stelian Onufrei and Paul Martin-- and 8 Democratic opponents. (The DCCC was determined to give Hans Keirstead the nomination and pushed two other CA-48 residents, "ex"-Republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros and pediatrician Mai-Khanh Tran into the equally crowded 39th district.) This are the Democratic challengers, listed in order of money raised-- with their self-funding in parenthesis:

• Harley Rouda- $600,292 ($230,500)
• Hans Keirstead- $464,307 ($55,400)
• Omar Siddiqui- $322,833 ($255,786)
• Michael Kotick- $236,727 ($130,452)
• Laura Oatman- $163,389 ($11,578)
• Tony Zarkades- no report
• Boyd Roberts- no report

Last week, Democratic front-runner, Harley Rouda, one of the 2 New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the other being Han Keirstead), was pushing a poll of likely voters that he commissioned from Tulchin Research. The memo claims "a statistical dead heat in a hypothetical general election between Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Democratic Harley Rouda" but doesn't include stats on hypothetical general election match-ups with any of the other candidates. Worse yet, a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in the district 42% to 40%.

Worse for Rohrabacher is that Trump, with whom he is closely associated, is "viewed unfavorably by nearly 6 in 10 voters (58%) and very unfavorably by nearly half (48%) of voters. Meanwhile Putin proves a universally unpopular figure as he is viewed unfavorably by 87 percent of voters, including nearly two-thirds (65%) who view him very unfavorably, and is viewed highly negatively by Democrats (96% unfavorable), independents (92% unfavorable), and Republicans (77% unfavorable)."

In California's jungle primary system, all the Democrats, all the Republicans and all the 3rd party candidates compete on the same ballot and the top two-- regardless of party-- move on to the general election. With 3 Republicans running it'd even possible, though unlikely, that 2 Democrats will wind up in the general election, although that would take evens stronger revelations about Rohrabacher's relations with the Kremlin than have come out so far. Last August we looked at the first GOP opponent that Rohrabacher drew, Stelian Onufrei and last week the OC Weekly looked at the new Republican in the race, Paul Martin. Hew refers to his party's incumbent as "Depraved Dana Rohrabacher."

But the best coverage of the CA-48 race this cycle is easily a blogger who goes by the nom de guerre "Crazy Dana Rohrabacher." His posts use the header: "The congressman for California's 48th district wants you to think he's a supercool surf dude who feels your pain. He's actually a Russia-loving, Trump-worshiping coward who avoids his constituents as if they carried a deadly virus. Heck, try giving him a call. You'll never hear back (Unless you're pledging a big donation)." And he digs for the details and presents the sharpest analysis of anyone covering the election so far. A couple of weeks ago he went to the Aliso Niguel Democratic Club's forum in Laguna Niguel and rated all 7 participants.



The big loser was-- as usual-- the DCCC, whose hand-picked recruit, Hans Keirstead has proven to be a much better candidate on paper than in real life. Here's the Crazy Dana ranking from the forum:

• 1. Harley Rouda: So I met Harley for breakfast several months ago, and came away with mixed feelings. I liked him, I thought his heart was in the right place. But I couldn’t tell how well versed he was on issues, and whether his background (Ohio, not California) would hurt. Well, he sorta owned tonight. Harley has a presence-- a factual presence. He speaks clearly, he stands straight, he looks like the president of a bank. When he referred to Donald Trump as “a madman … a threat to world security,” people felt the rage. Is he liberal enough for far-left Dems? Maybe not. But do the optics work when he stands next to Dana Rohrabacher? Yes. Can he hold his own in a debate setting? Based on this evening—also yes.

• 2. Michael Kotick: Throughout the early stages of this race, a solid 95 percent of the attention has been devoted to Rouda, Hans Keirstead and Laura Oatman. Among other things, that means guys like Kotick have sorta slipped beneath the radar. Well, tonight the 34-year-old Nestlé executive emerged. I found Kotick to be energetic, smart, extremely informed and articulate. Late in the evening the candidates were asked by a high school student to name what they considered to be the greatest threat to America. There were varied replies, most of them flat and predictable. Kotick’s statement, however, morphed into this poignant address on how we, as Democrats, need to stop bashing folks who voted for Trump, and instead work on wooing them. For my money, it was the moment of the night.

• 3. Laura Oatman: I met Laura for the first time earlier today, at Starbucks, and I walked away impressed. I thought she really soared through the first, oh, 40 percent of the event-- then dropped precipitously. In particular, three of the candidates were asked a question related to the FAA, and planes flying inappropriate patterns as they leave Orange County. Both Rouda and Keirstead deftly offered their takes. Oatman, meanwhile, admitted she really didn’t know much about the problem. This was both honest and (to be blunt) unfortunate. People tend to hate politics because the practitioners are deemed full of shit. But sometimes you do (factually) have to bullshit your way through an answer. This was one of those moments.

Oatman also went on a bit of a riff on how, with women in charge, things work out better. Which may well be true. In fact, it probably is true. But those sort of lines, while good for quick applause, don’t fly in a general election when 50 percent of your voters are male.

Bright side: She owned climate change and spoke passionately about her desire to run out of love for Orange County. Those were stirring (and important) moments.

• 4. Omar Siddiqui: Really interesting candidate with the most unique background of the bunch. Throughout the election I’ve repeatedly heard Siddiqui referred to as a “Reagan Democrat,” and (just being honest) I cringe. I mean, on the one hand, whoever runs against Dana Rohrabacher will have to be moderate. This is non-negotiable—you can’t win the 48th with a granola-eating, John Denver-quoting, Bernie Sanders-immitating uber liberal. I wish you could, but we’re not there yet. So perhaps “Reagan Democrat” is OK. But … well … um … when the phrase was uttered, you felt a cold shudder in the room. You just did. Stylistically, I also didn’t love his need to stand with every answer, as the other candidates sat. It felt rehearsed and inauthentic.

That all being said, Siddiqui has worked as a private advisor and consultant to the FBI, and he was the only person in the room able to name drop personal encounters with Barack Obama and James Comey. That kind of thing matters, especially when you’re running against a congressman who’s been around since the heyday of Juan Samuel and the Cabbage Patch Kid.

• 5. Hans Keirstead: So I’ve now seen Keirstead twice, and I’m increasingly confident that the Democratic National Committee*-- which seems committed to backing Hans as its candidate of choice-- is making a mistake. Resume? Check. Money? Check. Turns invisible in a room? Check. I’m not trying to be mean, because he seems like a lovely guy. But Keirstead was barely noticeable, even though he sat in the front of the room. He also tends to answer in long, winding statements and sentences. When asked to name America’s top threat, he said, “Macroeconomic destabilization of the country.” And while this is, in fact, a valid thought, it’s also one that leaves 75.7 percent of the folks in any room collectively scratching their heads.

In short, he’s quickly becoming the Jeb Bush of this race. That needs to change.

• 6. Tony Zarkades: Of the seven people on the stage, this is the one I’d choose to have a beer with. That said, I’d also enjoy a beer with George W. Bush.

Zarkades goes by “Tony Z.” That’s mistake No. 1-- it comes off amateurish. I’m selecting a congressman, not my son’s flag football coach. Mistake No. 2-- he just didn’t seem to have a strong grasp on the specifics of issues. These sort of events can by dry and sleep-inducing, but they do serve to expose people who might not be ready for the majors. Tony Z was entertaining, sincere, dogged, funny. But I couldn’t imagine voting for him over the five other prime candidates.

• 7. Boyd Roberts: I mean … um … eh … I’ll just leave it with this: His stated goal is to have 100 percent of Orange County voting blue.

My stated goal is to fly to Jupiter in five minutes powered by Coca Cola and Thin Mints.

Reminder: Siddiqui identifies as a "Reagan Democrat" and decided not to run in the district he lives in because the Republican incumbent, Ed Royce, is someone he really likes and respects and thinks is a great congressman. (Royce is a virulent racist and one of Ryan's most loyal lieutenants-- and a Trump rubber stamp). Keistead and Rouda were both endorsed by the corrupt Wall Street-owned New Dems, a very, very bad sign-- unless you're looking for Republican-lite candidates who will get to Congress and vote against progressive policies. The progressive in the race is Laura Oatman. We're still trying to figure Michael Kotick out but he sure comes off as an earnest, out-of-the-box, original thinker.

* He means the DCCC, not the DNC. The DNC isn't involved in congressional races and doesn't know Hans from Tony Z. The DCCC recruited Hans and has been trying to grease the skids for him. They should get way better recruiters or, better yet, stay out of recruiting altogether.

Being Happy

Last night I read a post off on a tangent by Jo Confino (at HuffPo), Environmental Destruction, Inequality And Loneliness. Why Capitalism Is Broken. Confino's piece is barely even about politics or policy at all. It's more important. He starts with a 1922 note that Albert Einstein scribbled on a piece of Imperial Hotel Tokyo stationery for a Japanese courier: "A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest." I thought about what Einstein was getting at when I spoke with an out-of-the-box young candidate, Michael Kotick, from Orange County, one of the candidates running for the seat crackpot Dana Rohrabacher is about to lose. He was talking about how society needs to figure out-- he had some ideas about it-- how to help young people map out a future that includes job satisfaction. This kind of big idea perspective is refreshing from a congressional candidate: "The skills required to succeed and find satisfaction in the jobs of tomorrow will look different than what we see today. As work changes, the ability to learn, unlearn and relearn new skills in pursuit of passion and opportunity will not only be our most critical skill, but it will take the support of strong teachers, parents and communities to help everyone find a fulfilling career at any age. At the heart of it all, our satisfaction will be linked to our ability to be agile and curious, while feeling supported by our families and communities. It’s the only way we can embrace the rapid change that lies ahead." Confino:

The note comes to light as more people are starting to reevaluate what success actually means and the purpose behind their increasingly fast-moving and complex lives.

Einstein’s scribbled message also aligns with a growing “new economy” movement that points out that our current form of capitalism, which puts the pursuit of success and profit as top priorities, is not only leading to unprecedented environmental destruction but is also increasing social inequality.

That inequality is one reason why people do not appear to be happier despite an expanding economy.

In a study of 16 developed countries, Selin Kesebir, assistant professor of Organisational Behaviour at London Business School, found that when income inequality is high, an increase in gross domestic product per capita was “virtually unrelated to life satisfaction.”

Writing in the Harvard Business Review, she concluded that “what we can say for sure is that it’s a fallacy to equate GDP with well-being. It’s not a foregone conclusion that growing the economy will make for a happier people.”

She also points to the data which shows that despite the post-war economic boom in America between 1946 and 1970, surveys showed no improvement in happiness.

That remains true today, with a United Nations World Happiness Study released in March 2017 showing that while the U.S. ranked third for happiness among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2007, it had fallen to 19th by 2016.

That’s not surprising when you see that the U.S. is facing an unprecedented opioid addiction crisis, while research presented at the American Psychological Association convention in August showed that loneliness and social isolation may represent a greater public health hazard than obesity and is getting worse.

Meanwhile, new analysis unveiled earlier this year showed that Americans are experiencing mental health problems in record numbers.

Some economists, such as the U.K.’s Kate Raworth and Tim Jackson, are calling for a complete rethink in the way we measure success, moving away from an obsession with GDP growth towards broader measures of wellness that include data on happiness and social stability.

Spiritual leaders are also recommending a fundamental change in the way success is measured and point out that our desires for success tend to lead only to suffering.

Pope Francis has issued several scathing critiques of the current capitalist system.

“Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the pope said, during a speech in Bolivia in 2015. He added that the capitalist system “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.”

This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable. The earth itsel-- our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say-- also finds it intolerable.

Zen Buddhist Master Thich Nhat Hanh also echoes Einstein’s words of wisdom. “If you have a healthy desire, such as a wish to protect life, or protect the environment, or live a simple life with time to take care of yourself and your beloved ones, your desire will bring you to happiness,” he writes in his 2001 book Calming the Fearful Mind.

“If you run after power, wealth, sex and fame, thinking that they will bring you happiness, you are consuming a very dangerous type of food and it will bring you a lot of suffering. You can see this is true just by looking around you,” he added.

Nhat Hanh recounted speaking with a business leader running a global company with more than 300,000 employees.

“He shared that people who are very rich are often extremely lonely because they are suspicious of others,” he wrote. “They think anyone who approaches them in friendship only does so because of their money and only wants to take advantage of them. They feel they do not have any real friends.”

The corporate world is starting to wake up to Einstein’s idea that a focus only on the pursuit of success can lead to constant unrest.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which represents more than 200 of the world’s largest corporations, has been carrying out research into what it terms the “The Good Life.”

Its recommendations very much fit into Einstein’s note. Julian Hill-Landolt, the council’s director of Sustainable Lifestyles, calls on brands to “rethink the picture of the world that they paint through their advertising. We’re not asking them to stop selling their products, we’re just asking them to stop selling their products in a world that is all about bigger, faster, and more.” 

“The [Good Life] Playbook shows how people are already taking pleasure from a different type of world, one where time with friends and family, health and good food are all luxuries to aspire to,” he said. “At the end of the day, this isn’t rocket science. We’re suggesting that forward-looking brands should check the structural integrity of their messaging.”

It can sometimes seem an impossible task for those that are seeking to transform the capitalist system, and help move away from the mantra of short-termism and profit maximization.

But for those who may start to lose hope that it is possible to create an economic system that generates prosperity for all within environmental limits, Einstein has another piece of wisdom that is worth remembering.

He wrote another short note to the Japanese courier in gratitude for delivering a message to him, which also sold at the same auction. It’s message: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”