John Kline-- Congress' Worst Enemy Of Public Education

John Kline's constituents are reading about their crooked congressman this week

Earlier this month we looked into the astounding legalistic bribes John Kline takes from the for-profit college industry, far more than any other Member of Congress. So far this cycle the for-profit education business has spent $1,488,432 in congressional races. Kline got $179,849 by himself. He wasn't just the biggest recipient of their bribes, he took in quite a bit more than the next two biggest recipients combined, Virginia Foxx ($88,380) and Senator Lamar Alexander ($51,500). Kline has been the industry's henchman on Capitol Hill.

This week, Kline's progressive opponent, Mike Obermueller, proposed cracking down on crooked for-profit college predators that have been targeting veterans and playing fast and loose-- thanks to Kline's efforts-- with taxpayer dollars. Obermueller's proposed legislation is geared to ensure schools are as invested in their students' education as their own bottom line. Obermueller went right to the point. According to the federal Department of Education students at for-profit colleges represent only about 13% of the total higher education population, but about 31% of all student loans and nearly half of all loan defaults.

Worse yet, most students at for-profit gainful employment programs who graduated with an associate degree were also left with federal student loan debt, which averaged $23,590, while the majority of students at community colleges did not borrow, earning the same degree. And of the for-profit gainful employment programs the Department of Education could analyze, the majority-- 72%-- produced graduates who on average earned less than high school dropouts.

"It's been made clear that the for-profit industry is simply not doing an acceptable job of producing a high quality education," said Obermueller. "Worse, these schools have been abusively targeting prospective students, using various lies and distortions of the truth to recruit them."

Recently the for-profit industry has come under increased scrutiny on both the state and federal level, with multiple schools being investigated on charges of fraud. Obermueller's proposed legislation seeks to put an end to the industry's ability to offer substandard programs and still profit.

The proposal will protect veterans, prevent abuses of federal dollars, increase transparency, and promote good performance.

One of the most egregious practices of these predatory actors is the targeting of veterans for access to their federal tuition benefits. Currently at least 10% of a school's revenue must come from non-Title IV federal dollars, which include Pell Grants and federal loans.

Because veterans' benefits are not Title IV dollars, veterans have become an attractive target for for-profit schools. One simple change-- counting all federally supplied dollars as federal dollars under this law-- would end the predatory targeting of veterans by for-profit schools.

"To these bad actors, veterans are walking dollar signs," said Obermueller. "It's disgusting to think that these schools have been targeting our veterans' tuition benefits without any intention of providing them with a real education. But unfortunately, current regulation is set up in a way that incentivizes these schools to go after veterans. This is an easy thing to change, and I would expect to find broad bipartisan support for this measure."

Our education dollars should be funding one thing: education. Taxpayers deserve to know their hard-earned tax dollars are going to actually fund what they're meant to fund. Marketing and recruitment makes up an average of 23% in many large for-profit budgets.

"It's surprising that these regulations don't already exist," said Obermueller. "Making sure our education funding is actually used to fund education seems like it should be an obvious requirement for these schools. Unfortunately, as sensible as it is, these for-profits are using large amounts of federal money for only one purpose-- getting more federal money."

The bad actors in the for-profit world will do everything they can to obscure the truth about their disgraceful practices. Much of their marketing and advertising plays on the heartstrings of those people who want to better themselves.

"The people going to these schools are trying to get ahead," said Obermueller. "In many cases, these folks have families that they're trying to provide for at the same time. We owe it to them to make sure they're armed with the best information possible, so they can make an informed choice about the school and program that's best for them."

Requiring schools to provide information both to the federal government and to prospective students would ensure that everyone has the information necessary to find the best fit for them, and to know when schools are acting maliciously. Simple facts, like graduation and job placement rates, as well as median income and debt upon graduation, would give students a fairer look at what these schools can offer them.

"Too often these schools are intentionally blinding prospective students from the truth about their programs, enticing them with promises that have no basis in reality," said Obermueller. "This is abuse we can prevent."

The most direct way to incentivize these bad actors to reform is by using federal money, the money these schools depend on, to leverage schools to adopt a more outcome-focused approach.

"Too many of these schools are focused solely on making money,"  said Obermueller. "As inconvenient as it might be for them, they're in the business of educating our nation's students, and our students have a right to expect a meaningful return on their investment.

"These schools need to share in the responsibility for their students' outcomes. To do anything less is to do nothing more than defraud our students, and that's completely unacceptable.

Tying outcomes, such as default rates and income to debt ratios, to federal money is a focused approach to getting these schools to clean up their act."

One of the most disappointing aspects of this situation is that many of these reforms could already have been enacted if it weren't for Congressman John Kline. As chair of the Education and Workforce Committee in the House, Kline has repeatedly refused to regulate the for-profit college industry. While advocating for the protection of veterans' benefits or transparency in school choice to constituents, Kline has been protecting the way these predatory colleges have been acting when he's in Washington.

"John Kline has been one of the largest single obstructions on the path to ensuring for-profit colleges offer a high quality education," said Obermueller. "Between his refusal to regulate this industry responsibly and his votes to increase student loan interest rates, it's clear he's comfortable with students being nothing more than a profit center.

"When education becomes about profits instead of producing high caliber students, we've failed. Unless we do something to counteract the status quo, that's the path we're heading down.

"We can turn this around. We can enact these pieces of legislation to help ensure high quality education is the priority in the for-profit industry. But it starts with removing the obstacles to these goals, and that means removing John Kline from office."

The highly respected Rochester Post-Bulletin sat down with all three candidates running for the congressional seat Kline is sitting in. Yesterday they announced their endorsement: Mike Obermueller. "Sending Kline back to Washington," wrote the editors, who had endorsed Kline in 2012 and are willing to admit they made a terrible error, "would be rewarding him for failure."

Obermueller's economic strategy focuses on college affordability, improving the Affordable Care Act and equalizing women's economic security. "We need to have working-class families with money in their pockets," he said. "You'll get more demand by having a stronger, bigger middle class. They are the real job creators."

Kline cites his work on the House Education Committee as evidence he can work in a bipartisan manner, pointing to the reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, a measure that streamlined 47 federal job-training programs to 32.

He also pointed to legislation that tied student loan rates to 10-year Treasury notes, stabilizing Stafford Subsidized Student Loans that had doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The loans are now at 4.6 percent.

Obermueller disagrees with Kline's approach, saying a better solution would allow people to refinance student loans. "You can refinance your home loan, you can refinance your car loan, but you can't refinance your student debt? And there's absolutely no reason for it," Obermueller said.

Not surprisingly, they differ on the Affordable Care Act, with Obermueller seeing it as "certainly not perfect, but it is having a big impact in terms of coverage." Obermueller predicted it will grow in popularity with both parties eventually taking credit for it. "Right now, it's a political hot potato," he said. "I don't think it should be. I think we should work to improve it, but repealing it is not an option."

As a preface to his position on health-care reform, Kline said: "By far the best way to approach it was to repeal whole Affordable Care Act before it was implemented and replace it with some other reforms." Kline listed some of the frequent Republican talking points, such as increasing competition among private insurers across state lines, creating coverage pools for people with pre-existing conditions and providing incentives for health savings accounts.

"Now that it's being implemented, it gets a lot trickier to do," Kline said. "It doesn't mean that we have to accept it just as it is. It means we have to go in and change much of the Affordable Care Act."

The Post-Bulletin's Editorial Board found the statement disingenuous. To "change much of the Affordable Care Act" is a euphemism for repealing the four-year law. Even if the Republicans control the House and the Senate, they won't have strong enough majorities to override a presidential veto. President Barack Obama, who has vetoed just two bills during his nearly six years in office, will not allow his signature legislation to be dismantled like a game of Jenga.

Two years ago, we endorsed Kline, believing his seniority and leadership would help Congress avoid the "fiscal cliff" of expiring tax cuts and sequestration that would impose mandatory, across-the-board budget cuts.

So what happened? Congress passed a series of temporary measures to postpone a decision on the debt limit. Finally, the federal government partially shut down for the first 16 days of October 2013, largely because of the Republican-controlled House tried to derail the Affordable Care Act and demand concessions on the budget.

"They shut the government down for 16 days as a political stunt to show them how much they don't like it," Obermueller said.

As much as Kline wants to point to the obstinacy of the Senate Democrats, the House Republicans are just as much to blame. Sending Kline back to Washington would be rewarding him for failure.

That's why the Post-Bulletin Editorial Board is endorsing Mike Obermueller for the 2nd Congressional District. When Obermueller served in the Minnesota Legislature, he was chosen to carry the omnibus state economic development bill, a rare honor for a freshman representative. Obermueller credits his moderate reputation for helping recruit Republican co-authors on that bill and for helping him win a state House seat once held by Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who later became Minnesota's governor.

"Most people are most enthused for a fight out there as opposed to the end game and the solution," Obermueller said. "We have to have people who can actually move forward on these important topics, so laying out actual plans, having vigorous debate and building coalitions around it is really the most important thing."

We agree with Mike Obermueller, and we recommend him to be the next representative for the 2nd Congressional District.

Steve Israel refuses to allow the DCCC, which he chairs, take on any senior Republican leaders or committee chairmen and has given Kline a free pass to reelection, despite all the damage he is doing to American education and to American students. Bill Maher and Blue America are trying to help call attention to the nature of Kline's tenure in Congress. If you have it in you for one last contribution today, you can give directly to Mike's campaign here.

The House Republican Extremists And Ebola

Tea Party extremist Frank Guinta voted to cut the Center for Disease Control budget-- and now he's whining about inadequate response to ebola

On February 19, 2011 the Republican Party decided to cut funding for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in 2011. Although Ron Paul didn't vote that day, only 3 Republicans recognized the folly of what the House Republicans were doing: John Campbell (R-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Walter Jones (R-NC). Although every single Democrat-- even the most corrupt reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems-- voted NO, the bill passed 235-189.

When asked what the biggest challenge facing the CDC was 4 months later, Thomas Frieden, who had been director for exactly two years, went right to the point: "CDC’s budget was cut by $740 million between fiscal ’10 and fiscal ’11. That’s an 11 percent reduction in our budget authority and the lowest budget authority CDC has had since fiscal 2003. We’ve had to make very difficult and painful choices that are resulting in program reductions and eliminations, reduction in the number of staff working on projects, reductions in dollars going out to state governments for prevention, for preparedness, for lead poisoning prevention, for asthma management. State and local governments have had to cut about 45,000 public health jobs in the past two years, and the CDC budget cuts may require them to reduce staffing by another 1,000 staff. So this, to me, is the biggest challenge."

Now Republicans like House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (MI-06) and House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (MN-02) are trying to use the fear of an Ebola epidemic against their Democratic opponents. But neither Paul Clements nor Mike Obermueller voted to cut funding for the CDC. Upton and Kline did. Clements and Obermueller both opposed the cuts. Upton used the ebola crisis as an excuse to cancel the one debate with Clements he agreed to, knowing full well that Clements would remind Michigan voters that Upton was key to cutting the CDC budget.

Votes like cutting the CDC budget went into the decision New Hampshire voters made in 2012 to fire crackpot extremist Frank Guinta, who favored the cuts and voted for them. NH-01 voters turned out for Carol Shea-Porter against Guinta, 171,650 to 158,659 in a red-leaning R+1 district. At a debate Tuesday evening, Shea-Porter reminded the audience that Guinta, who was whining about the CDC's response to Ebola, voted to drastically cut their budget: "I feel very comfortable saying the president and the administration should have done more, faster. I think that Frank Guinta should feel comfortable saying yeah, that he screwed up by cutting the funding there."

Republican scare-mongers have been going on TV and falsely telling voters that doctors are wrong on Ebola and that the virus is airborne. Republicans all say they aren't scientists when it comes to Climate Change but when it comes to ebola, they are doing everything they can to stoke fear and panic and the undercut health care professionals and experts. If you'd like to help replace Upton and Kline with Clements and Obermueller, (as well as replacing Ebola-enablers Paul Ryan and Sean Duffy in Wisconsin with Rob Zerban and Kelly Westlund) you can contribute here. And to keep Guinta from getting back into Congress, you can help Carol Shea-Porter here.

If You Want Change... You Gotta Back It Up

It's just two and a half weeks 'til election day.If someone feeds you a line about the Democrats taking back the House, you're talking with a dishonest huckster or someone steeped in ignorance. The House Democrats' sealed their fate when-- in the light of their 2012 disaster-- they allowed Pelosi to reappoint Steve Israel to chair the DCCC. The districts he chose to target (and not target), his third-rate recruits, his conservative talking points and block-headed strategies were all guaranteed to lose again. The Democrats will not win back the net of 17 seats it would take to win control of the House and replace Boehner with Pelosi. The Democrats will not win a net of even one seat. The Democrats will lose seats. That's what Steve Israel knows how to do-- lose. It's all he's ever done. He is a loser. Losers lose.

Two of his most egregious "errors"-- both by design-- were in MN-02 and MI-06, Democratic-leaning districts with especially vile senior Republican policy makers, respectively House Education and Work Force Committee Chairman John Kline and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton. Israel has been actively protecting both of them. Just yesterday Israel was again on the phone berating a Democratic-oriented PAC about contributing to Paul Clements' race in Michigan. This is a really repulsive character who knows if Clements beats Upton-- while the 4 awful recruits Israel backed (and has now abandoned) lose-- Israel may look bad to his colleagues... to put it mildly.

The best progressives can hope for this cycle is the election of more solid progressives, like Bonnie Watson Coleman in New Jersey, Pat Murphy in Iowa and Ted Lieu in California. Those look like the most likely wins. And there are two more up for grabs in a very major way, one in Michigan and one in Minnesota.

As one Steve Israel candidate after another is left behind as roadkill-- their dreams and hopes shattered-- the strongest campaigns standing are the ones that weren't touched by the plague, The Steve Israel Effect. And the two strongest and most competitive House campaigns right now-- the best places for last minute progressive money-- are MN-02 (Mike Obermueller) and MI-06 (Paul Clements). Both are busy mounting get-out-the-vote field operations. Obermueller's brand new ad (above) went up on TV yesterday. Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government MayDay PAC spent $1.4 million on independent ads against Upton this week alone! These are the races to put smart money. You can find both right here.

Paul Clements needs field volunteers in the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph/Niles area. If you're in western Michigan, please consider giving them a hand right here.

MayDay PAC, Lawrence Lessig's non-partisan, good government, crowd-sourced, peoples' PAC, just released their latest TV spot for South Dakota. I thought you might want to take a look. And if you'd like to contribute to Rick Weiland's get-out-the-vote field operation, you can do that right here.

For-Profit Education Profits Everyone... Except Students, Teachers, Taxpayers And America

Bob Herbert’s piece in last week’s Politico Magazine, The Plot Against Public Education— How Millionaires And Billionaires Are Ruining Our Schools, casts Microsoft’s Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, as the arch-villain of public education. Between 2000 and 2009 Gates spent $2 billion on his theory that smaller high schools would better educate students. He managed to break up 8% of America’s high schools. “Smaller schools,” wrote Herbert, “were supposed to attack the problems of low student achievement and high dropout rates by placing students in a more personal, easier-to-manage environment. Students, teachers and administrators would be more familiar with one another. Acts of violence and other criminal behavior would diminish as everybody got to know everybody else. Academic achievement would soar.” It didn’t work. “[H]is experiment was a flop. The size of a high school proved to have little or no effect on the achievement of its students. At the same time, fewer students made it more difficult to field athletic teams. Extracurricular activities withered. And the number of electives offered dwindled… There was very little media coverage of this experiment gone terribly wrong. A billionaire had had an idea. Many thousands had danced to his tune. It hadn’t worked out. C’est la vie.” That didn’t stop Gates. He then moved on to his relentless attack against American teachers.

I’ve covered Gates, and his desire to improve the quality of education in America seemed sincere. But his outsized influence on school policy has, to say the least, not always been helpful. Although he and his foundation were committed to the idea of putting a great teacher into every classroom, Gates acknowledged that there was not much of a road map for doing that. “Unfortunately,” he said, “it seems that the field doesn’t have a clear view on the characteristics of great teaching. Is it using one curriculum over another? Is it extra time after school? We don’t really know.”

This hit-or-miss attitude— let’s try this, let’s try that— has been a hallmark of school reform efforts in recent years. The experiments trotted out by the big-money crowd have been all over the map. But if there is one broad approach (in addition to the importance of testing) that the corporate-style reformers and privatization advocates have united around, it’s the efficacy of charter schools. Charter schools were supposed to prove beyond a doubt that poverty didn’t matter, that all you had to do was free up schools from the rigidities of the traditional public system and the kids would flourish, no matter how poor they were or how chaotic their home environments.

Corporate leaders, hedge fund managers and foundations with fabulous sums of money at their disposal lined up in support of charter schools, and politicians were quick to follow. They argued that charters would not only boost test scores and close achievement gaps but also make headway on the vexing problem of racial isolation in schools.

None of it was true. Charters never came close to living up to the hype. After several years of experimentation and the expenditure of billions of dollars, charter schools and their teachers proved, on the whole, to be no more effective than traditional schools. In many cases, the charters produced worse outcomes. And the levels of racial segregation and isolation in charter schools were often scandalous. While originally conceived a way for teachers to seek new ways to reach the kids who were having the most difficult time, the charter school system instead ended up leaving behind the most disadvantaged youngsters.

In her book Reign of Error, Diane Ravitch explains the problem: “Many studies show that charters enroll a disproportionately small share of students who are English-language learners or who have disabilities, as compared with their home district. A survey of expulsion rates in the District of Columbia found that the charters— which enroll nearly half the student population of the district— expel large numbers of children; the charters’ expulsion rate is seventy-two times the expulsion rate in the public schools. … As the charters shun these students, the local district gets a disproportionately large number of the students who are most expensive and most challenging to educate; when public students leave for charters, the budget of the public schools shrinks, leaving them less able to provide a quality education to the vast majority of students.”

…Few people would accuse Gates of acting out of greed. For other school reformers, however, a huge financial return has been the primary motivation. While schools and individual districts were being starved of resources, the system itself was viewed as a cash cow by so-called education entrepreneurs determined to make a killing. Even in the most trying economic times, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, earmarked for the education of children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade, are appropriated each year. For corporate types, especially for private equity and venture capital firms, that kind of money can prove irresistible. And the steadily increasing influence of free-market ideology in recent years made public education fair game.

Stephanie Simon, writing for Reuters in the summer of 2012, captured the excitement of investors eager to pounce: “The investors gathered in a tony private club in Manhattan were eager to hear about the next big thing, and education consultant Rob Lytle was happy to oblige. Think about the upcoming rollout of new national academic standards for public schools, he urged the crowd. If they’re as rigorous as advertised, a huge number of schools will suddenly look really bad, their students testing way behind in reading and math. They’ll want help, quick. And private, for-profit vendors selling lesson plans, educational software and student assessments will be right there to provide it.”

With billions to be reaped from the schools by proponents of online classes and entirely online charter schools— virtual schools— teachers would find that they, too, were expendable.

The foothold established by for-profit virtual schools was extremely disturbing. Their most fervent advocates spoke in the most glowing terms about getting rid of buildings, classroom teachers, playgrounds— everything most people associate with going to school. “Kids have been shackled to their brick-and-mortar school down the block for too long,” said Ronald Packard, a former Goldman Sachs banker who was the CEO of K12 Incorporated, the nation’s largest operator of online public schools, likes to say.

Packard was an operator, not an educator. When he founded K12 in 2000, one of his two primary financial backers was Michael Milken, the disgraced junk-bond king of the 1970s and 1980s. The other was Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle and the fourth-richest person in America. The first chairman and chief proselytizer of K12 was William Bennett, who had served as education secretary under Ronald Reagan and drug czar under George H. W. Bush. There was something odd about Bennett’s trumpeting the wonders of cyberschools. In his book The Educated Child, published just a year earlier, he had sounded less than enthralled about the potential of online schooling. “When you hear the next pitch about cyber-enriching your child’s education,” he wrote, “keep one thing in mind: so far, there is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve learning.”

He was, nevertheless, the energetic public face of K12 until 2005, when he had to resign because of a controversy that erupted over a comment he’d made on his radio program. (In response to a caller, Bennett had offered what he described as a thought experiment, saying, “If you wanted to reduce crime … you could abort every black baby in the country, and your crime rate would go down.” He added, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”)

Virtual schools remained under the radar for several years before eventually becoming too big to ignore. There were close to a quarter of a million full-time students attending online charter schools in the United States in 2014, and that number was growing. The schools were heavily advertised, and the companies running them spent tens of millions of dollars on political lobbying. Very few taxpayers were aware that some of the money they thought was paying for schools of the brick-and-mortar variety was actually being used for advertising and politics and to fatten the portfolios of virtual school proselytizers and promoters.

Performance results have been uniformly abysmal for students— although the investors, the lobbyists and the crooked politicians who take their legalistic bribes have done spectacularly well. And the crooked politicians aren’t just Republicans. Corporate Democrats like Cory Booker might as well be Republicans when it comes to destroying the public school system for profit. Eli Broad and the Walton family have been particularly predatory when it come sot stealing taxpayer dollars and funneling them into initiatives that wreck public schools while making wealthy investors wealthier. Political hucksters like Fox’s Rupert Murdoch, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, sleazy lobbyists Lanny Davis and Ed Rendell and would-be president Jeb Bush have looked at education as a big fat honey pot to further enrich themselves.

“Those who are genuinely interested in improving the quality of education for all American youngsters,” concluded Herbert, “are faced with two fundamental questions: First, how long can school systems continue to pursue market-based reforms that have failed year after demoralizing year to improve the education of the nation’s most disadvantaged children? And second, why should a small group of America’s richest individuals, families, and foundations be allowed to exercise such overwhelming— and often such toxic— influence over the ways in which public school students are taught?

Despite the New Dems and other corrupt corporate Democrats looking to line their own pockets and advance their miserable careers, most Democrats do support public education as much as most Republicans want to abolish it. The Education Opportunity Network makes the case that Democrats can win electorally by standing up to the Jeb Bush profiteers and fighting to fund public education.

Both anecdotal information and empirical data drawn from surveys confirm that voters don’t just value public education; they want candidates who will support classroom teachers and oppose funding cuts to public schools. The evidence is strong that Democrats can make support for public education a winning issue— if they’re willing to take the advice.

Democrats looking to score points with the voting public should talk up public education. At least that’s the conclusion that can be drawn from new survey data from pollster Celinda Lake.

…Education is not often viewed as a hot button issue that will turn out voters. Thus, candidates often mouth virtually identical platitudes about education being “a way out of poverty” and “America’s great equalizer.” Then after the election, they proceed to cut funding for public schools and saddle classroom teachers with more and more burdensome “accountability.”

But 2014 may be different.

According to Lake’s research, “The top testing turnout message overall emphasizes education, specifically Republicans’ efforts to cut programs for students while giving tax cuts to the wealthy. This message is the strongest argument for coming out to vote in all of the states except Colorado (where it ranks second, just behind a message focused on how Republicans are working to turn back the clock on women’s rights).”

Taking a strong stance for “education and public schools” was far and away the message that most survey responders found “very convincing.”

Further, Lake found that the “turnout message” with the greatest “intensity was:

Education & Public Schools


Republicans keep cutting education and attacking public schools, hurting our ability to compete economically and taking away opportunities for our children. Republicans proposed cutting billions in public education, including programs like Head Start, to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. That hurts our children, as good teachers leave, class sizes increase, art and music programs disappear, and schools become less safe. Families are struggling, paying for basic supplies, and seeing their schools decline. Those priorities are just wrong.

Lake’s work also examined more closely a potential target of “individuals who shift to higher interest (‘10’) in voting in November.” This group is a significant part of the sample (39 percent), which tends to be women (62 percent), married (54 percent), and under the age of 40 (42 percent).

These voters are particularly moved by education messaging. They are concerned that a GOP takeover of the Senate would result in Republicans shutting down the government again (71 percent) and cutting funding for Head Start and K-12 education (71 percent).

“Two messages are particularly strong with this group,” Lake found. “A message focusing on the middle class falling behind (73 percent very convincing) and the education message (72 percent)” were “the most effective with these targets.”

After hearing messages that include strong support for public schools, 39 percent of these important voters say they are “very interested (rate ’10′) in voting this November.” After being told the election in their state would “determine control of the U.S. Senate, 50 percent say they are very interested in voting.”

The discovery that Americans are highly supportive of public schools is nothing new. Recent polling results from the annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Towards the Public Schools show that Americans overwhelmingly support their public schools and respect classroom teachers.

That survey also found that a majority of Americans do not support current public education initiatives— such as new standards and teacher evaluations based on test scores— that most political candidates are touting as “reform.” When asked what they think are the biggest problems that public schools in their community deal with, Americans of all political persuasions cite “lack of financial support” number one.

This strong support for public schools is having an impact on upcoming elections. As an experienced education journalist at Education Week recently observed, education is top issue in most important senate races in November.

“In North Carolina, candidates are locking horns over education spending and teacher pay; in Georgia, the Common Core State Standards are taking center stage; and in Iowa, higher education and student loans are the subject of the latest skirmish between Senate hopefuls.”

The results of many of the gubernatorial races around the country also hinge on education.

In Georgia, education funding and the role of charter schools in the state’s system have come to the fore in the contest between incumbent Republican Nathan Deal and Democratic challenger Jason Carter, a state senator and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter.

In Kansas, widespread voter anger over school closures and funding cuts have imperiled the reelection of Republican Governor Sam Brownback.

In Florida, Republican incumbent Rick Scott’s support for new Common Core standards and his cuts in education spending have put him in hot water with a range of voters, from conservative Tea Party activists, to Independents, and Democratic Party voters alike.

In Pennsylvania, voters rank education as the most important issue, and current Republican Governor Tom Corbett has been rated “the most vulnerable governor in America” due in part to his support for severe cuts to education funding.

Whether Democrats can overcome the staggering odds against them this election remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Democratic candidates in these contests and others need to make support for public education front-and-center of their campaigns.

One of Blue America’s most ardent supporters of public education is former ACLU-Executive Director and current candidate for the Senate from Maine, Shenna Bellows. Her opponent, Susan Collins, is a lockstep Republican zombie who consistently votes for the for-profit education complex agenda. If you’d like to help Shenna beat her, you can do that here on the Blue America Senate 2014 page. Shenna:

I wouldn’t be running for US Senate today if it were not for good public schools. We are in a vicious cycle of testing and austerity that is hurting our schools and our children’s future. The only people who benefit from some of these testing schemes are private testing companies. Schools are not businesses, and our children are not a commodity. Susan Collins, has been on the wrong side. So-called bipartisan reforms like No Child Left Behind, which Collins voted for, are being implemented in such a way that is hurting our local schools and good teaching. In my husband’s hometown of Skowhegan, Maine, the local public schools are reeling from the diversion of much needed public funds to a new charter school with questionable civil rights practices. We need to get back to basics, and that means investing in good teachers and adequate infrastructure in a community-based system that strengthens our local public schools instead of tearing them apart and diverting students and resources into a profit-driven model.

No one in Congress has a worse record on education than the man John Boehner appointed chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, right-wing ideologue John Kline (R-MN). Since 1990 the for-profit education industry has handed out $10,453,60 to Members of Congress in legalistic bribes. The number one recipient— not just among House Members but among senators as well— was Kline: $441,258, significantly more than Speaker Boehner, who they gave $183,000. This cycle alone Kline is raking in more than anyone else in Congress: $168,849. The runner-up, another anti-education lunatic on his committee, Virginia Foxx (R-NC) “only” got $86,380 and Boehner only took in $34,800 from these predatory operators. In return, Kline has done more than anyone else in government to further their toxic agenda.

Last week, following an endorsement of Kline’s progressive Democratic opponent, Mike Obermueller, by the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association (NEA) also came out for Obermueller against Kline. "When you consider the number of votes Kline has taken against the best interest of students, teachers, and education support staff, it's not hard to figure out why these groups are tired of having Kline in Congress," said Obermueller. "We have problems to address in education, and we don't have an education chair willing to do what's necessary to solve those problems. People are tired of inaction, and it's time for change… "We need to be doing everything we can to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible. That means supporting our teachers in the classroom, making sure our young people are in safe learning environments, and prioritizing education above special interests."

Kline wrote and passed the #1 priority of the for-profit education industry, an amendment to prevent “the use of funds by the Department of Education to implement and enforce the gainful employment rule, which would prohibit college programs from receiving Federal student loans unless new complicated loan repayment criteria are met.” It passed 289-136, only 4 Republicans joining 132 Democrats sticking up for students and for public education. 58 mostly corrupt Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans, including almost all the corporately-owned New Dems and Blue Dogs, reactionaries and bribe-takers like Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Gary Peters (New Dem-MI), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), and Ron Kind (New Dem-WI).

If you'd like to help replace Kline with Mike Obermueller, you can do that on this ActBlue page. Not sure? Watch the forum on this video and I think you will be:

There's No Nice Way To Say This: John Kline Takes Bribes From Crooked For-Profit "Colleges"

We’ve talked a lot about how DCCC chairman Steve Israel refuses to target any Republican leaders or policy makers, including GOP committee chairs, even ones in vulnerable blue-leaning districts. MN-02 south of Minneapolis/St Paul is a good example. In 2008, Obama beat McCain there by 10,000 votes. Four years later it was much closer but he still beat Romney in the district, which had also voted for Amy Klobuchar in 2006 and 2012 and for Al Franken in 2008. All those blue victories don’t guarantee a Democrat can beat John Kline— not even this poll showing Mike Obermueller leading him 42-38% is a guarantee. But it takes an exceptionally venal and incompetent DCCC chair to interpret that information as meaning Democrats shouldn’t even fight in MN-02. Meet Steve Israel— venal, incompetent and corrupt.

This cycle, Kline had raised $2,185,735 by the July 23 FEC filing deadline, most of it special interest money— and only 6% in small contributions. Chairman of the House Education Committee, Kline’s single biggest source of cash is… the education industry— $250,849, more than double his second biggest contributor industry (the banksters). His single biggest donor this year is Apollo Education Group (University of Phoenix) for a nice $28,100. Other for-profit “universities” which profit by ripping off their students that contributed big bucks to Kline include Itt Educational Services, Globe University, Full Sail University (owned by TA Associates, a private equity firm), Herzing University, DeVry, Education Management Corp, Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Capella Education and his pals at Corinthian Colleges, a real doozy of a criminal enterprise.

Who remembers when Boehner took over the Speakership and said he wouldn’t tolerate any corruption from the Republican caucus? Apparently he doesn’t either. Kline wouldn’t return any of the legalistic bribes he gets from these crooks and won’t stop letting them craft predatory legislation for his committee to protect their own special interests while preying on students and their families. When the latest Corinthian scandal erupted in August, it was suggested that Kline disassociate himself from the scandal by getting rid of the money Corninthian had given him. This is what Mike Obermueller had to say when Kline refused:

"Last week, I challenged John Kline to donate the $10,000 he's received in campaign cash from those associated with the unscrupulous and legally embattled Corinthian College to a non-profit that would help students actually get a real college education. After more than a week of waiting, Kline has refused to act, demonstrating yet again that he chooses to prioritize himself over the interests of students.

"Congressman Kline should not be funding his campaign with money from people or organizations who willingly act in predatory ways toward students. Apparently, John Kline disagrees.

"Since he refuses to move forward legislation that would help students obtain the transparency they deserve, he should at least live up to the high standards of a committee chairperson and counter the perception that this school has purchased his allegiance.”

Corinthian has been subpoenaed by an Orange County grand jury. So far, John Kline hasn’t been.

The subpoena requests a broad range of documents and records related to the company's job placement rates, graduation rates and marketing materials used to recruit students. The Santa Ana firm has previously received subpoenas and similar document requests from state attorneys general, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but Wednesday's announcement was the first to signal the possibility of a federal criminal inquiry.

The subpoena, issued Friday, is the latest in a string of headaches for Corinthian, which announced last month that it would sell 85 of its 107 campuses and online programs amid heightened scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Education.

A company spokesman, Kent Jenkins, said in a statement that Corinthian would cooperate with the request, but added that the company is prepared to "vigorously defend its policies, practices and track record of serving students effectively."

Corinthian operates schools under the Everest College, WyoTech and Heald brand names. Nearly a quarter of the company's campuses are based in California— more than any other state.

The for-profit college industry has faced greater scrutiny from federal and state authorities in recent years, as attorneys general and federal investigators allege that some schools are aggressively targeting low-income students who are eligible for the maximum in federal aid.

The Obama administration in March proposed new rules for the industry and other vocational schools that are intended to weed out bad actors that leave students with enormous debts and few job prospects.

Other companies have faced declining enrollments in recent years, but Corinthian's recent troubles far outweigh those of its peers.

Over the last year, Corinthian has been inundated with investigations by state and federal authorities into its business practices, including concerns that employees falsified job placement rates and student attendance records to retain access to federal student loans and grants— the lifeblood of company profits.

The U.S. Department of Education set its sights on Corinthian in January, requesting extensive data and documentation to justify the company's job placement rates. In June, the Education Department contended Corinthian had failed to provide the information as requested, and put a 21-day hold on the company's access to federal student aid.

The sanctions put Corinthian on the brink of collapse. Last year, the company received nearly 85% of revenue from federal loans and grants.

In a June regulatory filing announcing the financial penalties, the company told investors it might have to shut down without additional funds. Amid declining enrollments and problems with an internal student lending program, Corinthian had already been struggling with cash flow this year.

In early July, Corinthian agreed to sell of most of its schools and close a dozen of them in a deal with U.S. education officials.

Patrick Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago, is serving as an independent monitor overseeing Corinthian's operations.

Corinthian is also facing a lawsuit filed by California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris last October. Harris' office alleged a wide range of fraudulent behavior, including having financial arrangements with temp agencies to count students as being "employed." Job placement rates are a key marketing tool for recruiting new students, and are crucial to maintaining accreditation and access to federal aid.

That lawsuit is ongoing. Corinthian faced a similar lawsuit from the California Attorney General's office in 2007. The company settled the case for $6.5 million, admitting no wrongdoing.

This is the Republican Party vision of education— crooked businessmen looking to lure students into worthless fake universities that benefit the businessmen and leave everyone else high and dry. Veterans have especially been targeted And John Boehner gave the job of overseeing the whole scam to John Kline. Solution? Replace John Kline with Mike Obermueller in 4 weeks. Bill Maher will be in MN-02 tomorrow to kick off his ground campaign to defeat Kline. He’s been zeroing in and taking Kline to task for being in the pocket of the student loan industry and for-profit education lobby. Kline has continually voted to raise student loan interest rates and let for-profit education institutions take advantage of students. Most voters in the district don’t know this. Hopefully Maher will see to it that voters in the suburbs south of the Twin cities, in Eagan, Northfield, Apple Valley, Red Wing and Cottage Grove find out what their congressman has been up to.

How Arkansas Extremist Tom Cotton Pissed Off Top Chef Tom Colicchio

With Steve Israel's policy of never targeting GOP leaders, policy makers and committee chairman keeping the DCCC out of the MN-02 race that pits progressive Mike Obermueller against reactionary incumbent John Kline-- chair of the powerful and destructive House Committee of Education and the Workforce-- Blue America was over the moon that Bill Maher has stepped into the breach. Maher is bashing Kline up but good and bringing his repulsive anti-family record to the attention of voters in southeast Minnesota. This was a Maher tweet from early Thursday morning:

Blue America is working the positive side of the street (for a change), talking about why Obermueller is a better candidate than Kline from a policy perspective and what a natural district MN-02 would be to flip, despite Steve Israel's intent on protecting Kline again. (Obama won the district against McCain by 10,000 votes and beat Romney in a squeaker by around 300 votes!) Al Franken is on the ballot this year and he's substantially ahead of disreputable bankster/GOP crackpot Mike McFadden who is struggling in the polls to get to 40%. (You can help Obermueller's grassroots campaign here.)

And, of course, Maher isn't the only celebrity out talking sense about midterm races this cycle. Up top is an excellent segment from Chris Hayes' Wednesday night show featuring Top Chef Tom Colicchio. TV viewers may know him as the positive, no-nonsense head judge on every season of Bravo's Top Chef, and foodies know him as the founder and executive chef of the Gramercy Tavern (NYC) and founder of Craft (NYC, L.A., Dallas, Las Vegas, San Francisco) and the winner of 5 James Beard awards. But he's also been one of the most stalwart political fighters for healthy and sustainable food policies in America. Wednesday night he was on with Hayes explaining why Tom Cotten is a terrible choice for the Arkansas Senate seat currently held by Mark Pryor. It made me wonder if other celebrity chefs are politically active.

I would bet that a dick like Robert Irvine is a Republican but he's a Brit so there's no way to be sure. He did make a bunch of bogus claims that you would generally expect from conservatives, not normal people-- being a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, receiving a Scottish castle from the Queen, being a White House chef and making Princess Di's wedding cake, all false-- and cheating investors out of their money, another very right-wing move. The one actual Republican among the celebrity chefs I could find was Texas meat cooker Tim Love. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant associated with him anyone-- nor with Irvine. Celebrity chefs who have been supportive of Democrats, besides Colicchio, include Alice Waters, Rachel Ray, Elizabeth Falkner, Bobby Flay, Marcus Samuelsson, Mario Batali, Jean-Georges Vongerichten (a major Obama bundler) and Daniel Boulud.

Remember, the best chance the Democrats have to keep conservative Mark Pryor in and neo-fascist closet case Tom Cotton out seems to rest with making Arkansas voters wonder why the rest of their congressional delegation-- 4 Republicans and Pryor-- voted for the Farm Bill while Cotton joined extreme right-wing ideologues from other states to oppose it. So who was right, voters are supposed to wonder, Senators Boozman and Pryor and Congressmen Womack, Griffin and Crawford… or a Tom Cotton who's happy to see taxpayer money flow into the coffers of his own family farm while voting no on a Farm Bill that everyone else in Arkansas sees as a reasonable compromise?

The most recent legitimate poll, from Suffolk University last week, shows Pryor leading 45-43%., even though 37.4% of respondents admitted their most trusted source of news is Fox. The polling analysis memo offered an interesting word association question for Cotton in which the top scoring words were "dishonest," "untrustworthy," "crook" and "dislike him." They didn't test for closet case or gay. Pryor's #1 word association, by far, was "like him."

This was Colicchio's OpEd for Food Policy Action:

The food that feeds our families and supports our agriculture industry is affected every day by the decisions that elected officials make in Washington. Members of Congress regularly vote on policies that affect the quality, availability, and sustainability of our food supply. And yet, there has been very little attention to bringing transparency and accountability to that discussion.

As someone who has spent his life in the food business, I firmly believe that when citizens enter the voting booth, they need to be as informed about food policy as they are about a candidate’s views on job creation, foreign policy, and social issues. Unfortunately, in Arkansas right now, we have a classic example of what’s wrong with the political discourse around food in this country.

U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, who is running for Senate, released a campaign ad that misleads voters and misconstrues the facts about the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill is a critically important law that shapes food production, determines nutrition assistance, and supports farmers, among other things. Sadly, Rep. Cotton’s ad wrongfully accuses President Obama of “hijacking the farm bill and turning it into a food stamp bill,” which simply isn’t true.

But don’t take my word for it. the Washington Post called the ad’s claims “invented history,” and the non-partisan fact-checker Politifact gave the dubious ad its “Pants On Fire” rating, which is the equivalent of an “F” on a high school report card. The truth is, SNAP (a.k.a. food stamps) first became a part of the Farm Bill during the Great Depression, and has been included in every Farm Bill that has become law since 1973. It has been supported by Members from both sides of the aisle for decades.

Today’s voters deserve better. We’ll never be able to improve food policies in this country if our leaders distort and distract instead of discuss and debate. Voters need information, which is why I co-founded Food Policy Action, a non-partisan organization dedicated to bringing light and accountability to the food debate.

Every year, Food Policy Action puts together a Legislative Scorecard to help voters get the information they need to know exactly how their elected officials vote on these important issues. You can find more information about the scorecard at www.foodpolicyaction.org.

Last year, Rep. Tom Cotton scored a 0% on the Legislative Scorecard. In other words, on every single vote that touched upon sensible food policy, Rep. Cotton voted the wrong way. In light of this score and his blatantly false ad, I know this much to be true: the public deserves better. It’s up to voters to make sure Rep. Cotton gets the message.

Warning To Democratic Candidates: The GOP Is Doctoring Your Wikipedia Pages

You can contribute to Mike Olbermueller's campaign here

America Rising LLC-funded America Rising PAC, a right-wing front group for the Republican Party, is pretty much acknowledged to be one of the shadiest political operations in the country, the bottom of the barrel for the anti-American right. The cover up their donors-- although the Koch brothers are known to be funneling huge sums into their operations-- but cross referencing contributions from some GOP groups show that they are being partially financed by the House Republicans' Young Guns, the NRCC, the NRSC, Karl Rove's Crossroads organizations, Citizens United, and American Action Network. They may be true believers, but they're peddling their malevolent crap and vicious, misleading attacks for profit. Their primary goal in life-- after making a profit for themselves-- is smearing Hillary Clinton and raising doubts about her in the minds of easily-influenced middle-of-the-roaders.

Founded by former Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, and former Republican National Committee operatives [Tim] Miller and Joe Pounder, America Rising LLC doesn’t report its earnings to the Federal Election Commission. But many of its clients, including campaigns and third party groups, do disclose payments to America Rising, prompting the group to open its own books this week before a key filing deadline. The $1.3 million sum only includes earnings from political groups that report to the FEC, including American Crossroads, American Action Network, Young Guns, Citizens United, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It does not include the firm’s corporate and individual clients; that information is not publicly available.

…“America Rising PAC has been successful at raising the funds necessary to run a robust earned media communications effort that has been leading the way in taking on Hillary Clinton ahead of her potential presidential bid,” Miller added in the Time statement. “We plan to significantly expand the groups digital footprint in the coming months targeting both Hillary and Democrats facing tough midterm elections in 2014.”

Much of their vitriol-for-pay is hilariously ineffective and banal-- like this silly, knee-jerk attack on Mike Obermueller no doubt inspired by polling numbers that show Obermueller ready to beat right-wing douche bag John Kline-- but their real goal is too please the partisan fanatics who write them checks… so why should they care that they look like fools?

Much of what they do isn't all that apparent. They're a sneaky, shady bunch and BuzzFeed caught them doctoring Democratic politicians' wikipedia pages. Technically, they're not breaking any rules because they are transparent if you know exactly what you're looking for and have endless time to search around on wikipedia back pages. So they make negative changes pushing their right-wing clients' agendas and talking points and then buried on linked pages is a disclaimer admitting a "possible conflict of interest."

This is the America Rising user contribution page that lists the sleazy little trick they're playing, a trick that will make wikipedia useless for people trying to use Wikipedia for serious research. Who saw Kenneth Anger's classic 28 minute film Scorpio Rising? Not you? Here's your chance. You're welcome.

Aaron Blake Is Wrong-- Bill Maher Didn't Pick The Wrong Guy When He Announced He Will Try To Defeat GOP Douche Bag John Kline

Actual wrong guy

Friday night, Bill Maher ended his big-buzz Flip A District competition by announcing the right-wing jerk he would work to defeat in November: John Kline in southeast Minnesota. Democrats have grown unaccustomed to anyone holding any Republican Party leaders or committee chairmen, like Kline, accountable for their destructive policy agendas. That's because DCCC chairman Steve Israel has taken the entire GOP leadership, including all their committee chairs, even ones like Kline in vulnerable districts, off the table. (Its a deal he has with them that keeps them from running campaigns against him in his very vulnerable swing district, the only PVI neutral district in the entire country that isn't ever a battleground.)

About a year ago Keith Ellison introduced us to Mike Obermeuller, the progressive Democrat running for the seat Kline currently occupies. Ellison looked at the poll below and so did Blue America and we came to the same conclusion: this is a winnable race. The Steve Israel brain trust looked at it too and decided to invest their money with Blue Dogs and New Dems in much redder seats that don't have half the chance to be taken by a Democrat. Look at the PPP results:

Who would you vote for now, the Republican or a Democrat? Democrat wins 46-36%. That's big; it must have scared Steve Israel who knows he's supposed to protect Republican committee chairs, not defeat them. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi saw the poll. Kline has a 42% to 32% unfavorable to favorable rating among his constituents. And a 40% to 31% negative to positive job disapproval rating. Then the key question-- "If the election for Congress were held today, would you vote for Republican Congressman John Kline or his opponent, Democratic state representative Mike Obermueller?" Kline scored 38%. Obermueller scored 42%. A DCCC chairman with even a modicum of competence would have started a crusade. Steve Israel, instead, decided right on the spot to start bad-mouthing the poll, bad-mouthing the race, bad-mouthing the district, bad-mouthing the Democratic candidate… and telling naive and gullible Beltway pundits that it is an unwinnable district.

That's why we saw pathetic DCCC lackeys moaning and groaning when Maher made his announcement Friday night. If only he picked one of Steve Israel's horrible conservative, anti-Choice, anti-gay recruits. Or how about one of the CIA spies Steve Israel is trying to infiltrate into Congress? Why Mike Obermeuller? No one's talking about it, by Maher did an independent poll that shows Kline is still very vulnerable. Everyone knows except people who get their information from Steve Israel.

Blue America has been slowly, steadily helping Mike build a war chest for his autumn ground game. We're cheered by what Bill Maher is going to do to make voters in MN-02 aware of what a real sack of garbage they have for a congressman now. He won't be doing compare and contrast ads, just ads about Kline. We want to remind everyone why we decided to back Mike Obermueller.

"I know," he told us over the weekend, "that Social Security is vital to the retirement security of all working Americans and that's why I will vigorously defend this vital program. To the extent solvency becomes a concern, it can be resolved by raising the cap for the wealthiest Americans. I'll stand up to those who are trying to weaken Social Security and decrease benefits through misguided policies like chained CPI." OK, Blue America doesn't endorse candidates who don't take that stand. Nor do we endorse candidates who don't take this one:

"Access to affordable health care is a fundamental human right and that's why I've been one of the few Democratic challengers not running away from the Affordable Care Act. In Congress, I'll fight to improve the ACA and will lead a renewed discussion regarding expanding Medicare to cover every American."

Check three: "I'll be a champion for the rights of women and I will oppose any attempt to weaken the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, will confront the epidemic of sexual assault occurring in our military and believe that a woman’s medical decisions are between her and her doctor." That's completely at odds what John Kline on every count, the same John Kline who is currently single-handedly bottling up the Paycheck Fairness Act in his committee, making sure women still don't get the same wage for doing the same work that men do. It's a backward and venal position and it's John Kline's position.

"I also understand the importance of moving forward in a big way on renewable energy," concluded Obermueller. "We've given huge tax breaks to oil and coal companies for far too long-- and it's impact on our environment has been terrible. While we can't change decades of poor energy policy overnight, I will work to eliminate these tax breaks as part of comprehensive tax reform and focus on  our efforts on renewable energy sources that will leave us with an environment that we are proud to hand onto our children."

Please consider helping Mike directly. You can do it here. Until Pelosi gets rid of Steve Israel, the DCCC will never take on John Kline or any other Republican policy-makers. It's the way he rolls-- which is why it's up to us. When Maher first announced Flip A District last January, we applauded him-- and suggested a really bold move that would do the most good possible for Democrats: defeating Steve Israel. Going after John Kline is a more modest goal, but one, if successful, that will be immensely beneficial to American working families (and students).

Foolishly, Crackpot Republican Die-hards Are Still Running Their Crazy War Against Women

Study: Wisconsin Republicans fear and loathe women even more than other Republicans do

Today is the twentieth anniversary of Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act, signed by Presdient Clinton on September 13, 1994. It had broad bipartisan support and passed the House 235-195 and the Senate 61-38. Needless to say, the opponents were conservatives, who almost immediately went into action trying to undercut it on every level after it became law. Reauthorizing VAWA has become more difficult as time went by, as fewer and fewer Republicans were willing to support something that flies so directly in the face of their cherished War Against Women.

The bill was introduced in the House on October 26, 1993 by Jack Brooks (D-TX), 131 Republicans voted against it; 46 Republicans voted for it. Shamefully 64 Democrats crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Republicans, including Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Nathan Deal (then a Georgia Blue Dog, now a corrupt, right-wing Republican governor of that state), Ralph Hall (then a Texas Blue Dog who soon switched parties and is now completely senile and drooling on himself and was recently defeated for reelection in a primary), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV).

Some of the prominent Republicans who you are still familiar with but who voted in favor of men beating up women with impunity are Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), sick and deranged sex criminal Ken Calvert (R-CA), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), presidential wannabe Rob Portman (R-OH), sex-obsessed sociopath Rick Santorum (R-PA), and, of course, GOP felons Duke Cunningham (CA), Tom DeLay (TX), and Newt Gingrich (GA).

Among the anti-woman senators who voted in favor of violence against women only 7 are in the Senate today: Dan Coats (R-IN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Richard Shelby (R-AL). Larry Craig (R-ID) was forced to resign after it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he spent virtually all his spare time trolling men's restrooms in airports and train stations looking for men to perform fellatio on; several of the most vehement GOP misogynists finally died and went to Hell-- like Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Jesse Helms (R-NC), although most of them are lobbyists or in rest homes today.

The last time the House voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, the GOP rammed through a weakened version that passed 222-205 while the actual reauthorization was defeated 187-236. Shockingly, only two Republicans voted for it. The Senate then went ahead and passed the real bill on February 12, 2013 with only 22 of the most virulent anti-women right-wing idiots in the history of Congress voting no-- all the regular suspects, like Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Thune (R-SD), Miss McConnell (R-TX), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL), etc. The Senate version was then shoved up the House's ass because of public outrage and it passed 286-138 every single Democrat + 87 Republicans voting YES, but with 138 Republicans still proudly waving their anti-women flags (including Tennessee rapist Scott DesJarlais).

Although it is an entirely different bill, Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, stems from the same sick, toxic worldview and hatred for and fear of women. On June 5, 2012 the Republicans were able to filibuster it to death in the Senate, even fake moderate Susan Collins (R-ME) voting to continue the filibuster. When the Democrats brought it up again this year, on April 9, the GOP successfully filibustered it again. Paycheck fairness, they made clear, is not something they believe in.

Because Senate Republicans keep killing it with filibusters, the House Republicans can keep it buried in committee. However, this week, miraculously, the Democrats overcame a Republican filibuster and now there will at least be an up or down vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act itself… at least in the Senate. The cloture vote passed 73-25, 18 Republicans trying to avoid the grief of another anti-women vote so close to the midterm election. (Of course, most of the die-hard haters-- folks like Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and sex pervert David "Diapers" Vitter-- happily filibustered away.

So that may put the House in an awkward position. The GOP strategy has been to bottle the bill up in John Kline's Education and the Workforce Committee and just let it die there. If it passes out of the Senate, that will make that strategy less effective and the pressure of Kline particularly will become intense. His Democratic opponent, Mike Obermueller, is already turning up the heat.

"It's not surprising that there would be strong bipartisan support for the Paycheck Fairness Act," he told voters in Minnesota this week. "This bill will help make sure that women get equal pay for equal work and will prevent employers from firing a female employee just because she asks her male co-worker how much he makes. Everyone in our country deserves a level playing field to work with and people here in Minnesota want action on this important middle class issue. Out in Washington D.C., Congressman John Kline doesn't seem to be listening, as he has been sitting on the Paycheck Fairness Act in his House committee for months. Nearly 200 members of Congress have demanded that the Paycheck Fairness Act be brought to the floor for a vote. Congressman Kline should immediately move this bill out of his committee and onto the House floor, where I predict it will pass with broad bipartisan support as well."

Obermueller is correct. If the bill gets to the floor of the House is should have smooth sailing. Most of the anti-women Blue Dogs who would vote against this kind of thing were defeated in 2010 and the handful of asshole left aren't enough to make a difference. And there are enough Republicans in precarious positions electorally-- despite Steve Israel's malpractice in running the DCCC-- to make it too dangerous for at least a couple dozen Republicans to vote NO on Paycheck Fairness. These dozen vulnerable Republicans, for example, wouldn't dare further piss off women voters in their districts by voting no:

• Fred Upton (MI-06)
• Dave Reichert (WA-08)
• Rodney Davis (IL-13)
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
• David Valadaio (CA-21)
• Chris Gibson (NY-19)
• Mike Coffman (CO-06)
• Joe Heck (NV-03)
• Peter King (NY-02)
• Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
• Jeff Denham (CA-10)
• Sean Duffy (WI-07)

Speaking of Sean Duffy, Wisconsin Republicans repealed the state's own statewide equal pay law a couple of years ago when they won control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's mansion. It's what Republicans do when they get the chance. In November Duffy is facing Blue America-backed Kelly Westlund in a swing district being ignored by the DCCC. Duffy is vulnerable and Westlund has been a strong and articulate advocate for equality. Yesterday she told us that "Ron Johnson's vote against paycheck fairness for women is, sadly, what we've come to expect from Republicans in Wisconsin. Sean Duffy voted against equal pay for equal work and co-sponsored Todd Akin's bill to redefine rape. Under Scott Walker's leadership, Wisconsin actually repealed the state version of the paycheck fairness law. This oppressive Republican Boys' Club has got to go."

All the Blue America candidates support equal pay for equal work and, going into the last months of the campaign, can all use whatever help you can afford to give them. Steve Israel has a deal to not go after any Republican committee chairmen or party leaders, like Upton, Ryan and Kline. He never has and until they throw his corrupt ass out of the DCCC, they never will. However… looks like someone else is riding to the rescue this year while Israel plays footsie with Boehner. The following statement from Mike Obermueller's campaign was issued last night in response to news that Kline had been selected for Bill Maher’s Flip-a-District contest:

“This news confirms what we’ve been hearing more and more of each day: folks in the second district are tired of John Kline, and they’re ready to kick him out office. People are fired up and are organizing across the district to remove him from a seat he’s become too comfortable in.

“From willingly shutting down the government as a political stunt, to holding up Equal Pay for Equal Work legislation, to trying to raise interest rates on student loans, Kline has proved again and again that he does not truly represent our neighbors in this district.

“We’re glad that the low-profile Kline is beginning to receive the attention he deserves for his actions. It’s a boost to everyone who has worked so hard on our campaign to know Kline is starting to be seen for the Tea Party congressman he is.

“Our momentum is building every day. And even with this attention, our efforts won’t change. We’re continuing to build our campaign on the strength of the grassroots organizing we know it will take to win this race.”

Suck on it, Steve Israel, you fucking crooked a-hole!