Congress Passes A First Step Towards Marijuana Legalization

The House was busy last night. At just past 1AM they passed, H.R. 4660, a huge appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and related agencies. The final vote was 321-87. Sounds routine and humdrum? There were 25 amendments, 14 of which got through. The one everyone is talking about today is a bipartisan amendment from two Californians, Dana Rohrabacher ® and Sam Farr (D), which restricts the Drug Enforcement Administration from targeting medical marijuana operations in states where it is legal. The House has never passed any pro-pot bill before. THis one passed 219-189. 170 Democrats were joined by 49 of the more libertarian-leaning Republicans to pass it. 172 Republicans voted no, as did 17 mostly conservative Democrats. These were the 17 Democrats who crossed the aisle because they want raids to continue. Remember, when you contribute to the DCCC, many of these rightists are the ones who get the money:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
• Karen Bass (D-CA)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX)
• Bill Keating (D-MA)
• Joe Kennedy (D-MA)
• Sandy Levin (D-MI)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Frederica Wilson (D-DL)

Signing on as co-sponsors were an array of extreme right Republicans-- Donald Young, Tom McClintock, Paul Broun, Steve Stockman and Justin Amash-- and center-left Democrats, Earl Blumenauer, Steve Cohen, Jared Polis, Barbara Lee, and Dina Titus. During the debate, Cohen, a feisty progressive from Memphis, said, "We saw Reefer Madness in the thirties, and it has come back to Congress here 80-some-odd years later… Marijuana does not make people commit crime. It makes them overeat."

Another amendment that passed with big bipartisan support was Mike Thompson's background checks amendment, which won 260-145. 76 Republicans joined all but 3 Democratic Party NRA whores to vote for the modest amendment. The 3 Democratic NRA whores:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)

142 Republicans voted for more mayhem and murder but Thompson's Republican co-sponsors were Pete King (R-NY), Joe Heck (R-NV) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA). The cosponsors, in a joint statement, said "Our national criminal background check system is only as good as the data you put in it, and right now all the information isn’t getting into the system. When this happens, we can’t enforce the law, and criminals, domestic abusers, or dangerously mentally ill individuals who otherwise wouldn't pass a background check can slip through the cracks and buy guns. Our bipartisan amendment addresses this dangerous shortfall of information by providing states with the resources they need to get their records into the criminal background checks system." The amendment provides an additional $19.5 million to help states improve their submissions into the criminal background checks system' a tiny baby step… but at least it's moving in the right direction.

The other amendment worth noting-- which passed 225-183-- was a profound piece if legislation by Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson which prohibits "the use of funds to compel a journalist or a reporter to testify about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential." That's right-- a codification to protect journalists sources. 53 Republicans joined 172 Democrats to pass this landmark amendment. Only 15 mostly conservative Democrats, led by Steny Hoyer, voted no, mostly the same old jerks from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who vote with the Republicans on just about everything: Barrow, Lipinski, McIntyre, Rahall...

The Democratic leadership rated the amendment a "no recommendation" and the Republican leadership recommended a NO vote. This was Grayson's Dear Colleague letter than swung the balance and passed the amendment:

Dear Colleague:

In the last set of votes on the CJS Appropriations Bill, there will be a vote on having the Federal Government join 49 states in protecting reporter sources.  The amendment reads as follows:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.”

This amendment would bring federal law in conformity with the law of the States; of the 50 States, only Wyoming lacks protection for reporter information and sources.  This gap between federal law and State law has persisted for over 40 years, since the closely contested 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Branzburg v. Hayes.  Ironically, even though the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees “freedom . . . of the press,” absent statutory authority, federal courts have been reluctant to follow the consensus established by the States that protects reporters and their sources.  For over four decades, Congress has failed to fill this gap.

Support for such a law is bipartisan and bicameral.  In the House, last July, Reps. John Conyers and Ted Poe joined together in a op-ed article entitled “A Shield Law Is Essential to a Robust Press.”  In the Senate, Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham have introduced a federal shield law that has drawn the approval of the White House, called the “Free Flow of Information Act.”

The need for a shield law is hardly abstract.  In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days for doing exactly what any reporter would do, i.e., refusing to reveal her source.

I encourage my colleagues to seize this opportunity, pass this amendment, and show our continuing respect for the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, and freedom itself.

And encouraged they were. The Establishment lost. America won.

Will Norman Solomon Be facing Off Against A Blue Dog Next Year?

Blue Dog Mike Thompson vs progressive Norman Solomon?

Not every Blue Dog is as bad as Dan Boren, Mike Ross, John Barrow, Jim Costa, Jason Altmire, Collin Peterson and Jim Matheson, the 7 bums who have voted with the GOP more than 65% of the time on crucial roll calls this year. Boren, whose district gave McCain a 66% landslide, has only voted with the Democrats 17% on these crucial roll calls. Normally he just sticks with Boehner and Cantor. California Blue Dog Mike Thompson isn't nearly as bad as Boren or the other 6. He's with the Democrats around 80% of the time. Interestingly, his northern California district was the mirror image of Boren's. Voters there have Obama a 66% landslide against McCain. And under the new redistricting, it looks like Thompson will be running in a district that is made up of the most Democratic parts of his old district plus most of Lynn Woolsey's even more Democratic district in Marin and Sonoma counties. (Woolsey's district gave Obama 76%, one of his best performances anywhere.)

This isn't a district that should be represented by a Blue Dog, even if he's a relatively house-broken one. Mike Thompson's agenda is not even nearly in sync with the progressive voters of the district. He's a middle-of-the-road, corporate-oriented Democrat who has chosen to join and participate in the decidedly anti-working family Blue Dog caucus. And one of the country's most promising progressive leaders, Norman Solomon, is running on a platform to continue and expand the work of retiring Representative Lynn Woolsey, who was often at odds with Thompson on important issues.

Last week, for example, Woolsey co-wrote a letter to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi bolstering her stand against trading away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to prevent the GOP from driving the U.S. Treasury into default. Norman Solomon told me he would have signed that letter. Mike Thompson, of course, didn't. Nor would he ever be involved in any progressive initiatives. He's a party hack who, at best, goes along to get along. His career is that of a backbencher serving his time before transitioning to K Street. This is as good a time as any for that transition. Here's the letter:

Leader Pelosi,
 
We write in strong agreement with your unwavering defense of the Democratic programs that form the bedrock of America’s middle and working classes, and which are overwhelmingly popular.
 
On July 7, you made very clear that “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and that “we do not support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. We agree completely.
 
Especially in these tough economic times, we should not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of our constituents paid into and depend on. Such benefit cuts should be off the table in current debt discussions.
 
Our Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by their insistence that unless Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are cut, the nation will default on its debts. Middle-class families have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.
 
We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a “final agreement” that we do not agree to -- and that the American people do not agree to.
 
We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side.

I think most Democrats and independents in Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties would agree with that-- and they deserve a congressman who will stand up and fight for those ideas. Clearly, that is not Mike Thompson. It is, however, Norman Solomon. Norman is committed to joining the Progressive Caucus once he's in Congress, a caucus Lynn Woolsey chaired for many years. He'll be working on legislation there with people like Raul Grijalva, Jerry Nadler, Donna Edwards, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison and Barney Frank. Thompson has chosen to spend his legislative career with Boren and Matheson and Barrow and working with them on the toxic Blue Dog legislative agenda. The work of progressive fighters like Bernie Sanders is anathema to that crowd. Norman applauded Sander's approach to keeping Social Security safe-- a far different perspective from how the Blue Dog Caucus views it. Bernie:

Social Security cuts under consideration by the White House in deficit-reduction talks would drive 245,000 people into poverty and lower widows’ benefits $1,200 a year by 2050, according to Social Security Administration calculations provided to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Changing the way inflation is measured to determine Social Security benefits is one option on the table in high-stakes budget negotiations that resume Sunday at the White House. The so-called Chained Consumer Price Index on average results in a lower inflation levels than the more common formula used to adjust benefits.

“The result would be devastating cuts for millions of American seniors and people with disabilities,” said Sanders. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders asked the Social Security Administration’s Office of Retirement Policy to calculate the impact on poverty rates and benefits if the revised inflation gauge were to be adopted.

In 2030, according to the report prepared for Sanders, there would be 173,400 more people living in poverty in the United States. The revised formula also would dramatically lower benefits for retirees. Widows would receive almost $70 a month less in benefits, a reduction of $840 a year. People who are 70-79 would receive $49 a month less, a drop of $588 a year. Benefits for those who are 80-89 would drop by $80/month or $960 a year. Benefits for women would fall by 3.5 percent overall while men’s benefits would drop by 2.9 percent.

By 2050, the impact would be much worse. There would be 245,000 more people living in poverty at mid-century. Widows’ benefits would be $1,200 a year less. Those 70-79 would lose $720 a year, and seniors in the 80-89 age bracket would see benefits fall by $1,200 a year. Overall, women would see a 4 percent reduction in benefits while benefits for men would drop 3.4 percent.

As the deficit negotiations were set to resume on Sunday, Sanders emphasized that Social Security has not contributed a dime to the deficit or the national debt. Funded by the payroll tax on workers and employers, Socials Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus and will be able to provide full benefits for every eligible American for the next 25 years.

Sanders called on President Barack Obama to publicly renounce the idea of cutting Social Security as part of any deal to lower deficits. "I am especially disturbed that the president is considering cuts in Social Security after he campaigned against cuts in 2008," Sanders said. "The American people expect the president to keep his word."

And if Norman has to face Thompson, it means he's going to be up against an extremely well-financed Blue Dog, with lots of support from all the worst places. Norman is going to need our help. There is a difference between Democrats who join the Progressive Caucus and Democrats who join the Blue Dog Caucus. It's life and death... for the most vulnerable segments of the population, quite literally. Today Norman put out a press release calling for an all out defense of Social Security:

A day after President Obama urged fellow Democrats to go along with “trimming benefits” for Social Security and other safety-net programs, North Bay congressional candidate Norman Solomon called for “an all-out defense of Social Security.”

Solomon, a progressive Democrat who was elected as an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, said Tuesday [July 12] that Social Security cuts would be “a tragic mistake, undermining our nation’s best values as well as its future.”

“Our leaders should be fighting to protect seniors, children, the jobless, the disabled and other vulnerable Americans, not throwing Social Security on the table and pulling out knives,” he said.

“I support the efforts by many Democrats in Congress to resist this looming assault on seniors and others who depend on Social Security and Medicare,” Solomon added.

“The idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare is not only a moral outrage-- it is a disastrous approach that would end up costing us dearly in the long run, severely damaging people’s quality of life and escalating healthcare costs,” Solomon said. “This is not how a civilized society solves its budgetary problems.”

Responding to the president’s statement Monday that “I’m prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done,” Solomon said: “We need to turn up the heat to protect Social Security.”

“Social Security does not add a penny to the deficit,” he said. “As it is now, the program will be solvent for more than two decades-- and adjustments such as raising the cap on Social Security taxes for well-to-do recipients can easily render it solvent through mid-century and beyond.”

Desperate Republican Party Goes For Softcore Pornographic Robocalls To Reach The Base

GOP purveyor of smut, Zane Starkewolf (CA-01)

Mike Thompson isn't exactly my favorite California Democratic congressman. He's a Blue Dog from way up in Northern California, but he's one of the better Blue Dogs and not even nearly as bad as the really reactionary California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa. His district is solidly Democratic-- and getting more so-- and the Republican clown who's challenging him, a 27 year old pip-squeak named Zane Starkewolf, has raised less money than the third party candidate! In fact, all little Zane could do in the way of a campaign was to annoy district residents with a sexually-implicit cheapo robocall. It sounds like he found a professional phone sex operator to spread the Republican Party message. Listen to the actual call.

Yes, yes, Republicans are perverts and hypocrites; we already know that. The problem with this call-- which is also illegal since in California robocalls have to be introduced by a live person-- is that dozens of parents complained that the calls were taken by young children. Yep, it isn't your parents' GOP. Starkewolf apologized and said he "took full responsibility"-- you know, the meaningless Republican genre of responsibility.

So... if it's not your parents' GOP, whose is it? Well, Sarah Palin says it will be hers after McCain is defeated on Tuesday. But 'til then... it's this guy's:



Oh... and speaking of robocalls, as Obama's polling numbers have steadily climbed in Arizona (it's a 46-44% race now), McCain's campaign has gotten more and more worried that there aren't enough Mormon extremists to keep the state in Republican hands Tuesday. So they're running robocalls there. That's embarrassing-- but at least they're not softcore porn, just the garden variety Republican attack filth.