Will Rubio And Jeb Destroy Each Other? Or Is This Just A One-Way Street To End The Bush Political Dynasty?

Thursday night the Senate stayed up uncharacteristicly late-- no French working week this time-- to debate and vote on the budget. Although, with Senate GOP leadership and 18 Republicans committed to passage, it was a forgone conclusion that there would not be another GOP government shutdown, most of the southern extremists followed presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio-- yes, he showed up, not to work but for an opportunity to grandstand-- and Rand Paul in a pitiful narcissistic charade to elevate nihilism and wreck the economic in pursuit of their own narrow career dreams. The legislation passed 64-35 at 2:43 AM this morning.

And, yes, Marco Rubio had shown up at the Senate-- although it can be effectively argued that he wasn't off the campaign trail but that he, Cruz and Paul had dragged the campaign trail with them back to Washington. The 4th senator running-- kiddie table closet case Lindsay Graham-- voted as well, but unlike the other candidates, he thought his path to the White House was through reasonable compromise; he was one of the 64, as were most senators in contested reelection bids: Ayotte (R-NH), Bennet (D-CO), Kirk (R-IL), McCain (R-AZ), and Murkowski (R-AK). Surprisingly, the exception was Rob Portman (R-OH), who is struggling in the polls but who decided to vote with the extremists. Right after the vote the Democrat with the best chance to beat him, P.G. Sittenfeld told us "This is typical of Rob Portman, who cultivates a moderate image while voting like Ted Cruz and all the other GOP extremists. By opposing this bi-partisan compromise to fulfill Congress' most basic function-- passing a budget-- Portman has shown that he's willing to risk the chaos of fiscal default and government shutdown. If we're serious about fixing Washington, we need to elect a new generation of leaders who won't put politics above principle or self-interest ahead of the national interest."

Forget Rubio's Commerce Committee work (as he has), where he chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard-- that has had exactly 2 meetings since he was appointed chairman in January, the last being in May. The subcommittee, through which all Climate Change legislation passes, has been a dead zone since Rubio decided to abandon his Senate work for a presidential run. You probably watched-- or read about-- the inept attempt Jeb Bush made to call Rubio out on it at the debate Wednesday. As a reminder, take a good look at Rubio's big moment... and Jeb's pathetic downfall:



That worked out badly-- for Jeb-- and very well for a better prepared Rubio, or as Marty Kaplan put it, "After Jeb criticized Rubio's attendance record, and Rubio broke his legs, you could just see it in his eyes," said the billionaire super PAC contributor, who did not want to be named because he never is named. "Poor Jeb's like a thoroughbred begging to be put out of his misery." Immediately afterwards Jeb's campaign "leaked" a 112 page campaign book he shared with the big donors in Houston this week who have kept him afloat while Republican primary voters have overwhelmingly rejected him. You can read all 112 mostly delusional pages at this link but I just wanted to point out some the pages that are so obsessed with Rubio as the relatively Establishment candidate-- compared to Trump, Carson and Cruz-- the Team Jeb feels is blocking their path to victory.

The "Marco Is A Risky Bet" slide, above, is instructive. This isn't the one about how everyone loves Jeb or about how inexperienced and untested Rubio is. This is the oppo-research hit that Jeb is letting his backers know that Hillary will be pounding Rubio with if he gets the nomination.

[I]t bullet-points Rubio's "misuse of state party credit cards, taxpayer funds and ties to scandal-tarred former Congressman David Rivera."

When Rubio was a state lawmaker, he used the state party credit card for personal expenses, a decision he later called a mistake. In 2005, he and Rivera jointly purchased a home that later faced foreclosure.

Another bullet point says Rubio's "closeness with Norman Braman, who doubles as personal benefactor[,] raises major ethical questions."

Braman, a billionaire auto dealer, is expected to pour $10 million into Rubio's White House endeavor, the New York Times reports. He's also paid Rubio's wife to oversee his charitable work.

The Bush team also mocks Rubio's "tomorrow versus yesterday" argument as one that would be "widely ridiculed by media" should he run against the first potential female president.

The most cryptic slight is left for last: "Those who have looked into Marco's background in the past have been concerned with what they have found."

A Bush aide says that line refers to concerns Mitt Romney's team unearthed when they vetted Rubio for vice president in 2012.

This morning Politico casually mentioned that "Democratic opposition researchers are increasing the hours that are being spent on Rubio, going into broader lines of inquiry about who he is and what skeletons they can find in his closet. Using FOIAs and document searches, they’re closely examining his time in Miami government as city commissioner, the Florida state house and his time in the Senate to look for instances where he did things for donors that he shouldn’t have like in his requests to federal agencies. It’s a massive project: Info is scattered across his time in various governments, and researchers are cross-referencing the data." That "cryptic" last line in the Jeb briefing slide (above), the substance of which we touched on briefly last night, refers to Marco's wild days in Tallahassee where the cocaine, lobbyist cash and loose women were features in the Rubio-Rivera party house that has never been adequately reported on by the media... one of those things that "everyone" knows about but never gets into print-- like all those decades Denny Hastert was raping underage boys. Sssshhhhhhhhh...

The Hastert Case Isn't Just About Him Raping A Handful Of Underage Boys-- Is It Bigger Than Watergate?

On the day the House was bidding a fond adieu to one corrupt Speaker, the corrupt Republican who played Speaker before Boehner, Denny Hastert, pleaded guilty to one carefully constructed charge of "structuring," evading reporting requirements in connection to a multimillion dollar blackmail scheme. As part of the deal Hastert admitted he knew what he was doing was illegal and said "I didn’t want them to know how I intended to spend the money." The part of the indictment that charged Hastert with lying to the FBI was dropped as part of the plea deal. The sentencing isn't until February 29 but federal prosecutors recommended a teeny-weeny wrist slap-- a fine and between zero and six months in prison.

For several years, we've covered the actual basis of Hastert's dilemma-- his serial rapes of underage males. But there's another aspect of this that been whispered about in Washington also for as many years. Yes, Hastert was being blackmailed by some of the boys-- now grown men-- who he used to rape. But was he also being blackmailed by foreign intelligence agencies? DWT has been writing about it since 2006. Last week, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, writing for the American Conservative brought up Israel and Turkey.

As former House Speaker Dennis Hastert prepares to plead guilty in accordance with a deal he has made with federal prosecutors, most media will focus on the crimes the FBI mentioned in his indictment. Since Hastert was charged in May, the public has been shocked to learn that the former high-school wrestling coach allegedly spent large sums trying to cover up past sexual abuse. But one prominent whistleblower has been speaking up about the possible misdeeds of Hastert for years now-- and the way that they may have compromised national security.

Longtime readers of the American Conservative are familiar with the Sibel Edmonds saga. Edmonds, an FBI translator who revealed large-scale corruption throughout the government, has received multiple gag orders under the State Secrets Act. She has nevertheless persevered in spite of concerns that she would be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. TAC interviewed her for a feature article in 2009, and I also reviewed her claims multiple times over the last few years, including when her book Classified Woman came out in 2012.

Many of Edmonds’s claims involved Turkish and Israeli front groups seeking to influence U.S. policy while sometimes also engaging in illegal activity. The scope of the corruption allegedly involved bribery of senior government officials and congressmen, arranging for export licenses to countries that were embargoed, and the exposure of classified information. Edmonds has been questioned by a congressional committee, by individual congressmen and staffers, as well as by the FBI inspector general, and her information was found to be “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review.” She also provided interviews for “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair, both of which were able to confirm key elements of her story.



...In the course of her various media appearances, Edmonds provided significant information on Congressman Hastert, who was under FBI investigation while he was speaker of the House, a role he assumed in 1999 and held for eight years. In her TAC interview, Edmonds related that “In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued… In 1999, [FBI agents in the Chicago field office] wiretapped the congressmen directly.”

In a deposition given in August 2009, Edmonds identified Hastert as “one of the primary U.S. persons involved in operations and activities that are not legal, and they’re not for the interest of the United States but for the interest of foreign governments and foreign entities.” She detailed what she believed to be Hastert’s wrongdoing: “This information has been public. The concerns, again would be several categories. The acceptance of large sums of bribery in forms of cash or laundered cash and laundering is to make it look legal for his campaigns, and also for his personal use, in order to do certain favors and call certain-- call for certain actions, make certain things happen for foreign entities and foreign governments’ interests, Turkish government’s interest and Turkish business entities’ interests.”

When asked in the deposition, “Did you have reason to believe that Mr. Hastert, for example, killed one of the Armenian genocide resolutions in exchange for money from these Turkish organizations?” she responded, “Yes, I do… Correct… and not only taking money, but other activities, too, including being blackmailed for various reasons.” At the time of the deposition Hastert had left Congress and was working for the Washington lobbying firm Dickstein Shapiro as a registered lobbyist for Turkey, reportedly earning millions of dollars in commissions.

Edmonds described her work on Turkish-language transcripts of investigations relating to Hastert covering the period 1996 until January 2003, elaborating on the possibility of blackmail. She recalled that Hastert “used the townhouse [in Chicago] that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities. Now, whether that was being used as blackmail I don’t know, but the fact that foreign entities [Turkey and Israel] knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week. So I can’t say if that was used as blackmail or not, but certain activities they would share. They were known.”

In testimony before congressional staffers and committees, Edmonds has reported hearing Turkish wiretap targets boast of their secret relationship with a “Hastert.” They discussed giving him tens of thousands of dollars in clandestine payments in exchange for political favors and information. Many of the transcripts involved a suspect at the city’s Turkish Consulate, as well as several members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, business entities that some FBI agents believed served as occasional covers for organized crime. Some calls appeared to be referring to drug shipments and other possible crimes.



...Fast forward to the Dennis Hastert case making the rounds today, which focuses on relatively minor federal banking laws and ignores the other evidence that has been collected by the FBI on Hastert for the past 20 years. One has to ask, “Why Hastert and why now?”, but there does not seem to be a simple answer. It might be little more than the result of frustrated FBI investigators demanding that some action be taken.

Edmonds, for her part, has described how the Hastert case has been ignored by the media and has predicted that it would eventually be made to go away by the government. Indeed, legal action following up on the original indictment has been delayed through postponement after postponement and more recently sidetracked into a plea bargain that will allow the former congressman to plead guilty to reduced charges while at the same time sealing forever the unsavory details linked to his being blackmailed.

Hastert and his lawyers understand that they are well placed to effectively threaten the government prosecutors because Hastert knows where a lot of bodies are buried, metaphorically speaking. By demanding that the investigative files on him-- which could include reports of illegal activity by a broad range of former officials-- be released as part of his defense, he can force the government to drop or mitigate the charges against him. It is a ploy similar to that used by alleged AIPAC spies Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman in 2009, which led to the presiding judge’s dismissal of the case.

Glenn Greenwald writes that “Those with political and financial clout are routinely allowed to break the law with no legal repercussions whatsoever. Often they need not even exploit their access to superior lawyers because they don’t see the inside of a courtroom in the first place-- not even when they get caught in the most egregious criminality.” There is a particular irony here: criminals in high office may avoid punishment through their willingness to implicate their peers who are engaged in much the same practices, in effect blackmailing the government to leave them alone or face the consequences. That is what the Dennis Hastert story appears to be all about.

Oh, and you might want to listen to this report too if this case interests you and you think we should have less corrupt people in government. If not, nevermind.

UPDATE: Irony?

On the same day that Hastert plead guilty, the House Republicans seem to have ended the odious Hastert Rule which dictated that only legislation that had at least 50% of Republicans backing it could come to the floor for a vote. Yesterday, within hours of Hastert's judicial disgrace, Patrick Meehan (R-PA) brought up the compromise Budget-- with co-sponsors Tom Reed (R-NY) and Peter Roskam (R-IL)-- and it passed with just 79 Republican votes. 167 GOP nihilists and extremists voted NO. The Southern Republicans were foiled when every single Democrat-- 187-- joined with the 79 Republicans to pass the budget and prevent another of the government shutdowns that Ted Cruz and the crazed and venal anti-USA faction love so much.

Dodged Another Bullet-- Budget Deal Doesn't Really Suck!

Boehner's revenge on the GOP's far right fringe?

Yesterday afternoon brought word that Obama and Boehner had come close to reaching a deal to raise the debt limit until March 2017 and bust sequestration spending limits by $112 billion, split evenly between defense and domestic spending. It lets Ryan off the hook and will let the right-wing loons all vent on Boehner as he packs up his gold clubs and heads back to Ohio-- and it also guarantees that there will be no threat of another Republican government shut down between now and the 2016 election. [UPDATE: And here's the bill, all ready to go. Someone has certainly been busy sneaking around, deceiving their conference-- both their conferences.]

Asked if Ryan participated in the talks, Sessions said the deal was arranged and negotiated by Boehner and would be finalized by Boehner.

“In my opinion Paul will be responsible for things when Paul becomes speaker,” Sessions said. “Paul is not responsible for this.”

Sounds good? On first blush my thoughts were: "Not so fast."

Early reports were that all $112 billion would come from cuts to Medicare and Social Security disability benefits, a non-starter for progressives. The deal was supposedly agreed to by McConnell, Reid and Pelosi, all of whom will have pissed off conferences to deal with.

The timeline is tight for building support for the plan with the Treasury Department saying the debt ceiling will be hit by Nov. 3.

Leaders presented details of the deal, which is expected to include equal increases in both domestic and military spending and would prevent a premium increase for Medicare Part B recipients from going into effect, to members late on Monday.

“What has been presented seems like a path forward,” Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) said after leaving a meeting of House Republicans. “I want to get all the details.”

He added: “People are just taking it all in.”

The deal would include about $80 billion more in spending over two years, which would be offset by savings from changes to the Social Security Disability Insurance fund and Medicare payments to doctors and other health care providers.

The proposal being negotiated would set the top-line spending numbers and give the House and Senate Appropriations Committees until Dec. 11 to decide how it should be parceled out among federal agencies and programs.

There is no guarantee that the spending cuts will be sufficient to convince wary Republicans to vote for the spending bill and an increase in the borrowing limit.

House Republicans met at 6 p.m. Monday to discuss the potential budget deal. And there was grumbling on the right-- since turned to sky-is-falling fury. Alabama's KKK Senator, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, says his knees are quivering. The far right is dismayed they don't get another government shut-down. The Establishment's attitude to their right fringe is "pound sound, assholes, and go whine about process." North Carolina extremist Mark Meadows immediately obliged, telling the media that "Anyone who supports this legislation is complicit in supporting the way things are in Washington." He demanded Ryan oppose it.

At first, wary progressives were concerned about cuts to benefits. Alan Grayson read about it in the NY Times and was immediately suspicious and said if the bill did include cuts to Social Security and Medicare and "if I were in the U.S. Senate, you can bet that I would filibuster" it. OK, good-- and he's right. In fact, the New Dem running against him for the open Florida Senate seat, Patrick Murphy, has said he's willing to make "structural changes to Medicare and Social Security," exactly what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan say, even though there's a strengthening consensus among Americans that Social Security and Medicare need to be expanded, not cut back. This afternoon, Grayson was still trying to come to grips with what's in the actual bill. He said there's much in the deal he wants to support but there also are items that "could mean a potential vote against it," signaling that progressive Democrats are not entirely on-board with the deal. Concerns include a new layer of means-testing to Social Security disability benefits; the extension of a 2 percent cut in doctors' reimbursements under Medicare; termination of a pilot program in Florida to determine disabilities; and no cost-of-living increases for seniors' Social Security benefits. He said the potential deal-breaker for him, though, is the budget package's elimination of mandates that small employers provide health care insurance, as required, but not yet administered, under the Affordable Care Act. "The single, most-destructive element of the deal-- I don't want to say it's entirely destructive-- is the last one," he said. "My hunch is we'll see hundreds of thousands of people losing their health care insurance... Some of those people will get seriously ill and some of them will die without mandated insurance."

As Jim Dean of DFA said yesterday "The White House needs to know that any budget deal that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits or eligibility for those benefits is unacceptable to the American people and roughly equivalent to declaring a holy war on struggling working families near the kick-off of the 2016 election... Democrats should be looking for ways to build on the momentum growing behind Social Security expansion, not working with Republicans to sneak in benefit cuts that will force widows, orphans, and the elderly to start eating cat food."

The first of the Blue America candidate to voice alarm was Lou Vince (CA-25) who had just been endorsed yesterday by Ted Lieu. "Yet again, Republicans have proven they are out to harm the working and middle classes in order to make the rich even richer. Social Security and Medicare should be off-limits to any cuts because these programs are what ensure that our seniors are not living in poverty and that they have a basic safety net. These programs are constantly under threat and it's ridiculous that these people's livelihoods are just a political bargaining chip to Republicans. These programs do not allow seniors to live comfortably but only give them the bare minimum they need to survive. I would do everything in my power to stop these cuts if I was in the House, instead of Steve Knight, who will surely vote to further impoverish our seniors."

As it turns out, though, Grayson and Vince can save their battle-preparedness for next time. In the light of day, this bill doesn't look nearly as dire as it did yesterday.

According to sources, Congress would cover some of the costs by selling additional broadcast spectrum bandwidth and oil from the strategic petroleum reserve, as well as by making changes to crop insurance programs. A host of lesser known items also would likely find the chopping block.

But the real pay-for would be felt on two major entitlement programs. The deal would extend the sequester's cuts to mandatory spending through 2025, which mostly involves a 2 percent cut in reimbursements to Medicare doctors. That reduction was scheduled to expire in 2021 under the 2011 Budget Control Act, which put sequestration into place. It was extended to 2023 under Murray-Ryan deal.

The new agreement also would prevent a 20 percent cut in benefits next year to the 11 million Americans enrolled in the Social Security Disability Insurance program. The cut would be avoided by diverting some of the incoming payroll tax money from Social Security's much bigger retirement insurance program for six years, something Republicans previously said they wouldn't do without cuts to benefits.

Hill sources said the disability changes would save roughly $4 billion to $5 billion over 10 years by requiring all states to have doctors review initial disability applications, which in some states are now checked by Social Security Administration officials and not medical professionals.

One source said the deal would also set up demonstration projects in which some people who receive disability benefits could earn money from working with less fear of triggering a review that can result in benefits being cut off. Instead, people participating in the projects could see their benefits gradually curtailed as their income rises-- an idea Ryan seemed to favor at a hearing earlier this year.

Democrats are unlikely to be overly offended by a demonstration project if the deal prevents the looming 20 percent benefit cut. Demonstration projects also served as a consolation prize for conservatives after they failed to get bigger cuts to food stamps in a farm bill last year.

One source questioned why Republicans would like the disability part of the bargain, since it's unlikely to be too upsetting to Democrats. "It's not bad enough to buy Freedom Caucus votes," said the source, referencing the band of House conservatives who have demanded continued austerity in such negotiations.

Though the topline numbers appear favorable to Democrats, the negotiations didn't come without concessions. Two major lingering issues-- the extension of the highway trust fund and the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank charter-- are not addressed in the prospective deal.

A source familiar with the talks said the bill also makes an alteration to the president's health care law by repealing a provision that requires employers with more than 200 workers to automatically enroll employees into employer-sponsored health care coverage. This change mirrors legislation sought for by the business community, sponsored by Sen, Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent talked with Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works, "a group that strenuously opposes benefits cuts and argues for their expansion, tells me that the deal 'doesn’t actually cut benefits or really hurt beneficiaries who aren’t gaming the system.'"

Altman says the Medicare cuts are all on the provider side, which could harm beneficiaries at some point, but it’s not a major concern. “On the Medicare side, they limited their cuts to far in the future, and to providers,” Altman says. “There’s time to correct that.”

On the change to Social Security disability, Altman says: “They stiffened the penalties for fraud, they extended nationwide efforts to make sure that payments are accurate and they closed a loophole in which people were gaming the system. They didn’t change eligibility requirements or reduce the level of benefits.”

Altman notes that Republicans had been threatening to demand serious Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit, but adds this threat has been defused. “The hostage has been released,” Altman says.

It still remains to be seen whether today’s deal will pass Congress. But for now, it needs to be judged against the alternative: lower spending levels that would constitute a drag on the recovery; more debt limit and government shutdown crises, with a worst-case scenario involving widespread economic damage (which also could have hurt Dem chances in 2016); a deal in which benefits really were cut.

If you are still nervous... AARP endorsed the deal: "On behalf of our 38 million members and as the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, AARP strongly supports the bipartisan agreement you have reached to avert deep reductions in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2016, and to address the imminent spike in Medicare Part B premiums which many older Americans would otherwise experience. Your efforts to reach across the aisle and together find sensible solutions to significant problems are appreciated and commended."

Dear Mr. President

By Noah
 
Dear Mr. President:
    
You have inspired me! But, perhaps not in the way you would have wanted. This morning, I received, in my email, your explanation for your proposed budget via your whitehouse.gov website. I composed a short, respectful note in response since your site claimed to welcome such things. I hit submit and instantly got a notice that you were unable to receive my message, that the site was being renovated, blah, blah, etc. Yeah, right. I guess it’s all an indication of the new austerity that you didn’t even bother with the old circular file trashcan. So, in response, I have decided to elaborate.
     
In both your speeches and in your emailed explanation, you talk about "shared sacrifice." To quote you directly:

"Getting our fiscal house in order requires shared sacrifice." 

You are often accused by media propagandists and their ignorant followers of wealth redistribution. They would have us believe that the distribution is downward when, in fact, you are continuing the distribution of wealth upward that was accelerated by your idol President Ronald Reagan and perfected by so-called President George W. Bush. As I write this, the wealthiest 1% in our country own a whopping 24% of the nation’s wealth and the same 1% “earns” more than the bottom 50%. Apparently, this isn’t enough to satisfy you or the criminals of Wall Street and our corporate boardrooms (or should I say, golf courses and yachts?). Yes, taxes are lower now than the Dubya years, and have been since you took over, but still, Warren Buffet pays more tax than his secretary. He pays an effective tax rate of 16% while his secretary pays the usual 35%. Even he is on record as saying it’s a ridiculous situation.
 
According to one of the very few trustworthy people in Washington, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), 18,000 businesses are allowed to list a single address for a single four story building in the Cayman Islands so they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes.Must be a very crowded building. Yet you folks in Washington continue to take pride in giving tax breaks to your rich cronies in the Top 2% and to corporations that use a wide variety of loopholes designed by the venal bribe-taking crooks in Congress and K Street Slime to avoid paying taxes at all to begin with. How much did Exxon pay on their $19 BILLION last year? Answer: ZERO. AND, they get a Congress approved Oil Subsidy culled from taxpayer dollars in addition! Taxpayers give lowlifes like Exxon their money so that poor abused Exxon won’t have to pay taxes themselves! Where do I get that deal, Mr. President? I could go on and on with a list of similar Corporate Welfare deals you all hand out but why bother? You and Boehner probably both play golf with the various CEOs and have some good laughs (at our expense, literally, no doubt) over some beers. Nah, probably Dom Perignon, eh?
    
You punish the victims but not the perps. To date, no one who deliberately caused the current economic chaos has gone to jail. At least Reagan put some of the S & L perps away for a while, even if it was only whose whitecollar tennis camp type of jails. You think we are stupid and not worthy of respect and fair treatment. History is full of the lessons of class warfare. I don't see why the middle and working classes have to pay not only their share but your share and your friend's shares too. Your vision of “shared sacrifice” is quite different than mine. Neither of us would be in the situations we are in if this country had a fair and sensible tax code. Dubya applied the coup de grace to that. At this point, you might want to look up Senator Ted Kennedy’s famous “What is the price” speech.



I have a few questions for you. The nation’s budget is a shambles. How do you expect to keep tax revenues pouring into our treasury when you allow the rich and the corporations not to pay taxes and how do you expect to get tax money from people who don’t have jobs because you allow and incentivize your cronies to ship their jobs out of our country? 43,000 factories closed during the Bush years. You can’t tax people who don’t have a job or an income, but you can try to squeeze blood from a stone and that is what you are attempting. Apparently, you even want to go after Social Security and other entitlements just as state governors want to loot state pension funds and bust unions to do it like the mob used to. How do you expect citizens to buy goods when you have taken all of their income, their savings, and then even gone after their pensions and the entitlements they paid into? Earth to Washington: A business without customers will not prevail! How many homeless people are required to be on the streets before you notice or should I say, care? A huge CONE OF DELUSION is covering the Washington Beltway and everything within its boundaries. There is no other way to explain the Washington disconnect unless there is nothing but meanness there. Will you be allowing tent cities on the Mall? Bathing in the reflecting pool?
    
I'm sure no one in the White House will bother to read this. It’s probably been deleted already. It wouldn’t surprise me if all email to Washington automatically went into a giant Spam folder. I was a Democrat. ENOUGH! MY DISGUST RUNNETH OVER. My vote may not matter so much when I vote for third party candidates in 2012, BUT it obviously already doesn't matter and besides, I will at least be voting in good conscience. Yeah, I know. The phrase 'good conscience' doesn't represent a concept that is well regarded in Washington. I suppose it's viewed as quaint or antiquated. 
 
You are all creating a class of people who have nothing to lose and no hope of gain. I wonder if all you suits can grasp the very unhealthy implications of that for all of us and our country. Your "invest in the future" sloganeering is not unlike the old "you'll get your reward in heaven." Both are merely slogans put forth by elite power entities, designed to buy time with false illusions of hope, delivered with fingers crossed behind the back. They amount to "Here, have some hope, so we can screw you now;" your version of the "Trickle Down" that never came, never will, and wasn’t meant to do anything but put smirks on the faces of government. I am reminded not only of one of our worst presidents, Ronald Reagan, but also one of the best, Franklin Roosevelt. When he died, a man was interviewed as FDR’s casket rode by in a funeral train. He was what you Washington types disdain as an “ordinary American,” rather than your favorite kind. He was asked why he was there and he famously said “I didn’t know President Roosevelt, but he knew me." Do you even care how you will be remembered? FDR created the safety net. Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway system. JFK put men on the moon. LBJ at least expanded voting rights to people who had been denied them. What will be your lasting, crowning achievement, the world’s largest tent city? Bigger morgues?

Obama's Budget Passes With No GOP Votes-- And No Heed To Arlen Specter's Warnings

GOP prospects in PA: The Pitts

Earlier this morning we looked at how members of Congress make it onto the dipshit dickwad list. We saw how a small handful of reactionary Democrats voted with every single Republican against even debating President Obama's budget. They lost, of course, and this morning the House approved the Conference Report on the Budget that would align the Senate's version and the House's version. A nice 100 days present for Obama-- 233-193. Having learned nothing from what Arlen Specter told them yesterday about the dangers of extremism and mindless intransigent obstructionism, every single Republican voted no. They were joined by the 16 worst Democratic reactionaries in the House (+ anti-war Dennis Kucinich):

John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Bill Foster (IL)
Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL)
Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
Betsy Markey (CO)
Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)
Harry Teague (NM)

And along with the real lunatic fringe of the GOP-- from historian Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) to the especially abhorrent flock of imbecile freshmen like Tom Clintock (R-CA) Bill Posey (R-FL) and Pete Olson (R-TX)-- every Pennsylvania Republican, even the ones who try portraying themselves as moderates at election time, voted against President Obama's budget, the blueprint for change so many of their constituents favor. They should have paid closer attention to what Snarlin' Arlen said yesterday and to what mainstream conservatives are saying today.

Joe Pitts has been the Republican congressman from Pennsylvania Ditch Country in the southeastern part of the state centered on Lancaster since 1996. In 2004 Bush swept the district with 61%. Last year PA-16 only narrowly went for McCain (51%) and Pitts' 57% share of the vote-- against an unknown and un-financed Democrat-- was his lowest ever. The district's PVI has dropped from R+11 to R+8, the same as the PVI in PA-10, IN-08, and AR-01, where Democratic Congressmen Carney, Ellsworth and Berry were all re-elected with substantial margins, Berry not even drawing a Republican opponent!

Are Pitts and other Republican congressmen in Pennsylvania frightened that their party's most senior elected official just joined the opposition? Well, despite the brave (crazy)talk from Club For Growth president Chris Chocola, a former radical right congressman defeated for re-election ("Sen. Specter has confirmed what we already knew-- he's a liberal devoted to more spending, more bailouts and less economic freedom"), I'd say the 7 Republicans left in the Pennsylvania delegation are shaking in their boots. This morning Pitts talked to the NY Times: "I am deeply disappointed that Sen. Specter would choose to align himself with so many of the irresponsible policies we are seeing the Democrats attempting to implement in Washington."

In the past two election cycles, Pennsylvania Republicans have seen the loss of an extreme right wing senator, Rick Santorum (59-41%) and 5 House seats previously held by Curt Weldon, Phil English, Melissa Hart, Mike Fitzpatrick, and Don Sherwood. Neither Charlie Dent nor Jim Gerlach is likely to survive another re-election bid-- although in their moderate districts having Specter on the ballot would have been a big plus. Toomey at the top of the ticket will be a tremendous drag, especially in districts like Dent's (where Toomey was once a congressman) and Gerlach's-- and perhaps even in Pitts'. The prognosis for the Pennsylvania Republican Party is pretty grim-- a fate not unlike the state of the GOP in states where it once ruled, like Massachusetts, Maryland and New York. There are over a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania and Obama crushed McCain in Gerlach's district and in Dent's district.

Eric Massa's congressional district along New York's Southern Tier, has a long border with Pennsylvania and is very similar economically and culturally to the northern Pennsylvania districts. Eric enthusiastically supported Obama's budget and summed up some of the accomplishments by pointing out how it would:

·    Cut taxes for 95% of working Americans;
·    Cut the deficit by 2/3 by 2013;
·    Cut non-defense discretionary spending;
·    Strategically invest in areas that will grow the economy;
·    Increase Veterans' health care funding by 11.7%

This afternoon he explained to his constituents that the "budget makes the hard choices. I came to Congress to help take this Nation in a new and better direction and by shifting our priorities to areas like health care, education, green job creation, and tax cuts for 95% of working Americans, we are doing just that. Additionally, I am proud to support a budget which does not short change our area's small family farmers. I fought very hard to make this critical change to the budget and to protect farmers and our local agricultural economy and I am proud to vote for this budget."

Many, though not all, of the Blue Dog scum who voted against the budget represent districts that McCain won. McCain also beat Obama in NY-29, Massa's district. Massa, unlike the Blue Dog scum, is a leader and a communicator. While pandering Republican-lite Blue Dogs such as Tim Mahoney (FL), Nick Lampson (TX) and Don Cazayoux (LA) were defeated by real Republicans, strong, proud Democratic leaders like Eric Massa show everyday how to win in traditionally Republican districts. Chet Edwards had no problem voting for the budget. McCain's 67% share of the vote last year in TX-17 was more daunting to confront than any of the treacherous Democrats who crossed the aisle this morning to essentially expose themselves as Republicans. The only traitor with a more Republican-leaning district is Gene Taylor's backward hellhole in Mississippi-- and even there McCain only had one percent more than he did in Edwards' district.



UPDATE: And In The Senate...

Early this evening the Senate got together and accepted the Conference Report, approving Obama's budget, 53-43. All Republicans, including Arlen Specter, voted against it and 3 Democrats from Evan Bayh's anti-Obama Bloc, cross the aisle to vote with their ideological brothers in the GOP-- Bayh himself, of course, plus Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson.


BREAKING NEWS

Ken Lewis, the chief bankster at Bank of America, was fired as chairman by share holders today. This was a great-- and rare-- moment in corporate democracy. Unfortunately, he'll be staying on as president.

Bayh's Anti-Obama Bloc Teams Up With Senate Republicans To Kill Cap And Trade

Indiana's Evan Bayh, as deaf to America's needs as ever

The Senate started voting on instructions for the conferees for Obama's first budget last night. There was a well-coordinated effort by the Evan Bayh anti-Obama bloc to team up with Republican obstructionists to trim President Obama's sails when it comes to the kind of change agenda he campaigned on.

The day after the president went to Iowa to campaign for his clean energy ideas, Mike Johanns introduced the instruction that would make sure anti-envirnomental Republicans could use the filibuster to kill climate change legislation. The vote was to prohibit the use of budgetary reconciliation when it comes to voting on Obama's cap and trade proposal that is anathema to Big Business polluters and the corrupt members of Congress they bankroll like, for example, the Republican Party. And more than a few sleazy Democrats.

Democrats only needed 50 votes-- out of the 58 seats they hold-- to pass this. Instead Bayh's bloc and a gaggle of other corrupt and reactionary Democrats (+ a contrary Russ Feingold and Amy Klobuchar) voted with every single Republican. The Democrats who killed any realistic chance for environmental progress this year were:

Max Baucus (MT)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Mark Begich (AK)
Michael Bennet (CO)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Roland Burris (IL)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Tom Carper (DE)
Robert Casey (PA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Russ Feingold (WI)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Herb Kohl (WI)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Carl Levin (MI)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Patty Murray (WA)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)
Jim Webb (VA)

27 Democrats voted with the Republicans and 28 Democrats voted with the president and 3 Democrats were absent. And that's the end of cap and trade. That was followed by just a standard anti-Obama proposal that basically says George Bush understood how to run an economy and Obama shouldn't do anything fiscally different from what he would have done had he decided to stay for another 4 years.

On Wednesday the House Republicans tried the same kind of stunt-- all 173 plus 23 mostly reactionary Democrats, trying to undercut Obama's change agenda. But they failed 196-227. The bad Democrats were basically the usual suspects who can't wait to prance across the aisle and vote with the Republicans against Obama: John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN), Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Betsy Markey (CO), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA), Tom Perriello (VA), Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND), Tim Ryan (OH), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC), Zach Space (Blue Dog-OH), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS) and Harry Teague (NM).

Back to the Senate-- it must have been hard for the Bayh bloc to resist but all but one of them stuck with the Democrats and helped defeat it 54-40. Of course it was Ben Nelson, the worst rat in the Senate, who scurried across the aisle to vote with his reactionary buddies on this one. Every Republican voted with Gregg and Nelson. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proposed an almost identical motion a few minutes later and it was defeated 56-38, Nelson, momentarily, back with the Democrats, playing the ridiculous game he and the clowns in his state love so well. Evan Bayh decided Obama needed another thumb in the eye, so he took Nelson's place with the GOP. Voinovich (R-OH), who hadn't voted earlier was back and he joined the Democrats in voting no, as did Susan Collins, though not, surprisingly, Olympia Snowe. Murkowski (R-AK) ducked out of voting this time.

There should be plenty more nonsense to come on this and the big one next week on whether Bayh's disloyal Democrats will also join the Republicans in killing health care reform the same way they killed cap and trade. If they do, it will be a much closer vote. Watch Obama explain what Bayh and his conspirators killed last night:



UPDATE: Will Blanche Lincoln Survive Politically?

Like reactionary Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, Lincoln's polling numbers show tremendous vulnerability.

45% of voters support the job she’s doing while 40% say they disapprove of her work. Hurting Lincoln’s numbers are poor marks from independents, only 31% of whom say they approve of her performance while 50% rate her negatively. 73% of Democrats but only 22% of Republicans express approval.

And there are rumblings on the left that could hurt her with Democrats. She keeps voting with the GOP without gaining support from Republicans, although plenty of legalized bribes from Republican-type donors-- her votes are always for sale. I keep hearing that the SEIU may be in Little Rock canvassing for a potential Green Party candidate. If a Green candidate does as well against her as their candidate did last year against Pryor, Lincoln will have no chance of winning re-election. The poll results you see here (from Firedoglake), asked respondents about whether they would support a Green against Lincoln. Looks like by an overwhelming margin they would love to. Personally, I think it would be a lot easier to knock off Bennet; in fact, I'd say he has virtually no chance to be re-elected and I sure hope a progressive gets into that race before Democrats lose the seat to a Repug. Progressives didn't primary Ben Nelson last time and now we have him opposing Obama's agenda and even his nominees whenever he gets a wild hair up his ass.

Happy Teabagger Protest Day!

Toiling diligently against the interests of working families

Today is tax day and many Republican extremists and their rightist allies are celebrating with teabag parties denigrating the country in an orgy of selfishness. The DCCC is marking the day by reminding voters in selected districts that their congressional representative opposed President Obama's tax cuts for working families and his economic recovery package. The DCCC is reminding voters that "Representative Young [and that goes for either Don in Alaska or Bill in Florida] just said no to the largest middle class tax cut in history that immediately puts money back in their pockets and helps families afford college tuition for their kids."

Explaining the radio ads they are running in several Republican-held districts, Jennifer Crider, the DCCC Communications Director tied it to today's events. “This year on Tax Day, Michigan’s middle class families can thank Representative Thaddeus McCotter for voting against middle class tax cuts that put money back in their pockets to help them make ends meet during this economic crisis. Times are tough, middle class families who are worried about keeping their jobs and paying for their kids’ college education want action in the form of middle class tax cuts and economic recovery, not Representative McCotter’s 'just say no' obstruction.” Listen to the ad running in Wayne and Oakland Counties today:



The ads in Livonia and Detroit radio can almost be heard in South Bend and Elkhart, Indiana; but they can't. The DCCC would have to change the name "McCotter" and run them on stations in those two hard-pressed cities to let the voters know that the congressman from that district, who has opposed President Obama nearly as much as McCotter-- and who has voted against some of the same bills the DCCC is complaining that McCotter obstructed-- also deserves to be defeated in 2010. But they won't do that because the congressman from Indiana's second district is Joe Donnelly, a quasi-Democrat. Aside from neo-Confederate kook Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Donnelly has spent more time crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans against Obama than any other Democrat. Odd in a district where McCain could only muster 45% of the vote. At least Childers can point out that Obama only drew 38% in his district and that supporting his policies could be very dangerous politically. Donnelly's constituents, on the other hand, voted for the very tax cuts and agenda for change that Obama proposed and Donnelly opposed. Joe Donnelly doesn't deserve to serve another term in Congress-- especially not as a Democrat-- any more than Thaddeus McCotter does.

Yesterday George Harrison was posthumously given a star on Hollywood Blvd-- actually around the corner on Vine in front of the old Capitol Records tower. Here's a little clip I put together of the tongue-in-cheek song he wrote to kick off the 1966 album Revolver by The Beatles, dedicated to the 176 Republicans and 20 Democrats who voted against President Obama's middle class tax cut on April 2, especially Thaddeus McCotter and Joe Donnelly, and to the 750 teabagger parties being thrown to protest a slight rise in the tax rate for millionaires to help finance a decrease in taxes on the middle class. Some of the very worst shills for the richest families in America, like John Boehner (R-OH) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) will be speaking at some of these rallies although they voted against President Obama's tax cuts. Most members of the Republican Party Establishment, however, are avoiding the teabaggers. Mitt Romney is hiding under his bed of course-- way too close to Bastille Day for him-- and Governors Palin, Huntsman and Barbour are all staying away-- as are Eric Cantor and Miss McConnell.

The conservative grass roots are into them-- thanks in part to Fox and [hate] talk radio-- but the enthusiasm has not spread throughout the party to the point that these events are command performances for Republican officials.

The concern, it would seem: being associated with a flop or an event that one cannot control and may feature language not entirely keeping with mainstream political discourse.

Teabagger Tax Day from Howie Klein on Vimeo.


Unlike the crazy, violence-spewing Republicans being herded little sheep into their teabag parties, President Obama is marking tax day by underscoring his administration's commitment to restoring the kind of fairness to the tax code-- providing relief to ordinary working families-- that was wrecked by decades of Republican ideological dominace in DC.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is based on the simple premise: what is good for working families is good for the economy and what is good for the economy is good for working families. Specifically, cutting taxes for working families helps to create jobs because these families are the most likely to spend the money. And staving off a deep recession disproportionately helps working families that would have been most likely to get hurt by the recession. Here are some of the highlights of the plan:
 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: A Plan to Create Jobs and Help Families
 
*     95% of all working families  will receive a tax cut
 
*     70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers
 
*     2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act
 
*     More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery
 
*     About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone
 
*     Already, over $3 billion of tax credits have been paid out to first-time homebuyers. 

Patterns In The Week's Budgetary Votes?

Photograph from the Wouter DeRuytter Billboards series

There were several amendments offered before this week's budget vote was called-- and passed 233-196, all Republicans voting for obstructionism (even poor little Ahn Cao who again had his arm twisted to stick with the reactionaries). The Republicans were joined by a sad gaggle of mostly far right Blue Dogs like Barrow, Marshall, Bright, Griffith, Childers, Taylor, Kratovil, Minnick, Mitchell, etc. All the amendments failed. Wisconsin's rubber stamp zombie Paul Ryan offered the utterly unserious GOP "alternative," which no one could even discuss with a straight face. Not even a single Blue Dog voted for it and, worse yet, the iron grip of the party's obstructionist leaders was broken as 38 Republicans refused to lend their names to such obviously unworkable and pathetic trash. 38 Republicans-- from across the spectrum-- told Ryan, Canter and Boehner to grow up and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. Obviously all the sociopaths like Bachmann, Foxx, McHenry, Schmidt, McClintock, and Garrett stuck with Ryan. But among the Republicans who knew they could never face their constituents if they gave a thumbs up to Ryan's crassly political blueprint for Depression were Joe Barton, Michael Burgess and Ron Paul of Texas and loads of Republicans in districts that have been hardest hit by the exact Republican economic delusionary policies Bush promulgated and Ryan is proposing to continue-- especially members from Florida (Ginny Brown-Waite, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Bilirakis the Younger, Vern Buchanan, Bill Young, Tom Rooney, and even lunatic-fringe reactionary Connie Mack!), Michigan (Thaddeus McCotter, Fred Upton and Candice Miller), Pennsylvania (Tim Murphy, Jim Gerlach, and Todd Platts), and Nevada (Dean Heller).

But while Ryan and his obstructionist cohorts were cooking up their childish games, members of the Progressive Caucus were offering far more serious alternatives to the Obama budget. 84 members voted for the progressive budget offered by Lynn Woolsey which proposed $469 billion more in non-military spending, the kind of stimulus spending that economists say will be needed if we're going to avoid a decade of Depression. "Savings come from eliminating Cold War era weapons systems, targeting waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, military redeployment and military contractors out of Iraq, repeal of Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year, crackdown on corporate welfare and reinstating a quarter-cent tax (0.25%) on all stock transactions. Spending increases include health care for all Americans, cutting poverty in half in ten years, additional economic stimulus, increased Foreign Assistance, combating global warming and establishing energy independence, providing comprehensive education, and providing health care to veterans as an entitlement."

The second offering by the Progressive Caucus, Barbara Lee's amendment, garnered much more support-- 123 Democrats voting yes. The idea was "to build upon the historic investments made by the President's budget and the Majority's budget. However, the budget builds on these investments by immediately repealing the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans. The budget also adds an extremely modest 0.565% surtax on adjustable gross income exceeding $500,000 for individuals ($1 million for joint filers). The budget shifts those savings and additional revenue towards Education, Health Care, Job Training, International Aid, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans, while still producing a five year deficit that is $67 billion smaller than the Majority's budget." Interestingly Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn and Democratic Policy Chair George Miller broke with Pelosi and Hoyer to vote yes on both amendments and on the Lee amendment most of the Democratic leadership joined them, including John Larson (CT), Rosa DeLauro (CT), and Chris Van Hollen (MD).

OK, the budget passed; the amendments and substitutes all failed. President Obama's got what he asked for. Now what? If Geithner is serious, and not just blowin' smoke, he'll follow through with noises he was making today about getting rid of the worst and most crooked of the banksters.

"If, in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we'll make sure that assistance comes with conditions, not just to protect the taxpayer but to make sure this is the kind of restructuring necessary for them to emerge stronger," he told Face the Nation on CBS. "And where that requires a change of management of the board, we'll do that."

The treasury chief said that is what has happened at some big institutions that are getting large amounts of government aid. They include the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed into conservatorship by the government last September, and insurer American International Group Inc., the recipient of more than $170 billion in help since last fall.

"We've already seen a substantial number of the largest banks in our country fail or be absorbed by other institutions, no longer existing at independent institutions. And where the government has acted, like in Fannie and Freddie or like in AIG, where we've had to do exceptional things to stabilize them, we have replaced the management and the board," Geithner said.

"And we've done that because we want to make sure that taxpayers' assistance is going to make these companies stronger, make sure there's accountability, make sure it comes with strong conditions. And we'll do that in the future if that is necessary," he added.

He went on, in answer to a question, to say that failed banks like Citibank and Bank of America could be restructured and new, more competent leadership brought in. This morning's Wall Street Journal is confirming my interpretation: banksters could be fired. Still, considering Geithner's background, instincts and behavior so far... I'll believe it when I see it.

McCain Leads Off Today's Budget Debate With A Retread Of Failed Republican Ideas

You probably heard McCain barking on TV this morning about his own personal budget-- put together for him by his favorite lobbyists-- and how every Republican in the Senate would follow his leadership and vote for it. I would guess that almost every Republican hates his guts and doesn't see any need to put up with his egocentric showboating any longer. When the McCain budget came up-- more tax cuts for the rich, coupled with the destruction of Medicare and Social Security-- it was soundly defeated 60-38.

Not only couldn't McCain get his best buddy Lieberman (I-CT) to vote for his harebrained scheme, not even ritual aisle crosser Ben Nelson (D-NE) would lower himself to be part of this kabuki silliness. As for "every Republican," Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and even Bob Corker (R-TN) looked it over, laughed and voted "no," along with every single Democrat. Specter is too scared to stray from partisan orthodoxy and he's letting John Cornyn and Jim DeMint determine his votes from now until primary day, 2010.

After the Senate voted down McCain's budgetary version of 4 more years, two serious amendments did pass, one from Chris Dodd and one from Bernie Sanders. Once burned, Dodd wanted to make certain that there would be enhanced oversight of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System concerning the use of emergency economic assistance. It passed 96-2, only bitter obstructionist fanatics Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) voting "no." Sander's amendment was more controversial since it requires more information than the Federal Reserve likes sharing with Congress. But is passed 59-39, in a very hard to read bipartisan vote, although I noticed that many of the more corrupt Democrats who are in Evan Bayh's anti-Obama bloc voted against it, along with die-hard obstructionists like Chambliss, Shelby, Miss McConnell, Gregg, Isakson, Kyl, etc.

Mike Johanns (R-NE) then offered the ritual Republican motion to recommit (kill) the budget. That failed, of course, 55-43, sickeningly Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh voting with the GOP. David Diapers Vitter followed up on that with a frivolous amendment to pull the plug on Bush's TARP program and he was joined by 26 Republicans plus Ben Nelson as the amendment went down to a 70-28 defeat. Jack Reed had a much better idea-- to spend the rest of the TARP money to benefit consumers rather than banksters. Vitter and his hypocritical Republican cronies were unwilling to vote for that, but it passed 56-42, with George Voinovich crossing the aisle in one direction while Nelson crossed in the other. And then the budget passed, every Republican voting obstructionism, joined by reactionary Democrats Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson.

Meanwhile, over on the House side, when a procedural vote was taken to consider the budget, every single Republican voted no-- presumably still preferring Paul Ryan's Never-Neverland term-paper. It passed 242-182, 6 of the slimiest and most corrupt Blue Dogs slinking across the aisle to, once again, show utter contempt for working families-- worst of the worst: John Barrow (GA), Chris Carney (PA), Travis Childers (MS), Frank Kratovil (MD), Charlie Melancon (LA) and Gene Taylor (MS). If you're wondering where Heath Shuler's name is, he chose not to vote and hid in the cloakroom, sure to rush back to the floor in time to vote against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, one of only 8 Democrats to do so.

Finally at 7:16 this evening the House passed the budget, 233-196, every Republican voting no. They were joined by 20 Democrats, John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Bill Foster (Blue Dogish-IL), Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Betsy Markey (CO), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS) and Harry Teague (NM). At least none of the filthy Blue Dogs voted for Paul Ryan's ridiculous budget "alternative," although 38 Republicans didn't have the stomach to vote for that garbage either.

Will corporate media persuade voters that suddenly Republicans will protect taxpayers from overspending and break with their past of running up gigantic deficits while mouthing off about responsibility? And what's the chance that knuckleheaded Republican House Whip Eric Cantor is correct when he predicts that the Party of No will retake the House in 2010? Well... even if Newt Gingrich is wrong about a breakaway third party of disgruntled rightists, unless grassroots Repugs follow Mike Huckabee's suggestion to cheat, there is no chance. Would a man of Gawd, like Rev Huck for example, suggest to Republicans that they steal elections? Watch for yourself as he gave Virginia Republicans their marching orders today:

Congressional Budget Battle In Full Swing-- First Casualty: Climate Change Legislation

Yesterday Republicans tried repairing some of the p.r. damage from their clownish budget-with-no-numbers stunt last week by marching Paul Ryan out to offer a rehash of failed Herbert Hoover/George Bush economic nostrums. Meanwhile, in the real world, both houses of Congress are debating the real budget bill submitted by the president. Yesterday an embittered Judd Gregg offered a snide Hooverish amendment that insisted that Obama's hands be tied as he tries to solve the mess Judd Gregg and his Republican colleagues worked so devotedly to help George Bush create over the past 8 years.

The amendment was defeated 54-43, every single Republican playing their irresponsible obstructionist game-- and joined by two Democrats, habitual aisle crosser Ben Nelson (NE) and, shamefully, Jon Tester (MT).

Soon after, 16 Senate Democrats helped the GOP kill any chance of passing meaningful legislation on climate change by rejecting the idea of voting for it under a budget reconciliation rule that prevents filibusters. Democrats crossing the aisle yesterday to doom the planet were Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Robert Byrd (WV), Bob Casey (PA), Kent Conrad (ND), Byron Dorgan (ND), Dick Durbin (IL), Russ Feingold (WI), Kay Hagan (NC), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Herb Kohl (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Carl Levin (MI), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Warner (VA), Jim Webb (VA), Patty Murray (WA) and Maria Cantwell (WA).

The measure deals a blow to the Obama administration and liberal senators who were looking to pass a cap-and-trade system to put limits on carbon emissions blamed for global warming and to generate more than $600 billion in new government revenue. By attaching the cap-and-trade system to the budget resolution by way of the reconciliation process, cap-and-trade supporters would have lowered the number of votes needed to pass it in the Senate from 60 to 51.

The restriction on using reconciliation was proposed by Sen. Mike Johanns (D-Neb.) as a budget amendment. It was approved 67-31, with 41 Republicans and 26 Democrats voting for it.

Over on the House side yesterday, a resolution was passed that sets the rule under which the budget will be considered. It's just a procedural vote but it gave a good indication of how the first post-Bush budget would be treated by the House. Every single Republican voted "no" and they were joined by 4 of the most reactionary Democrats in Congress: John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID) and Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)-- plus one disgruntled liberal (Dennis Kucinich). It passed 234-179. I hope Obama is pleased with himself for saving the worthless hide of John Barrow who, without Obama's heavy-handed intercession, would have probably been defeated by a progressive Georgia state Senator, Regina Thomas, in last year's primary.

Paul Ryan Throws A Poisoned T-Bone Towards The Blue Dogs

John Spratt (D-SC) has long been considered a decent moderate and a budget hawk. Unlike the Republican party-line rubber stamps, he believes the emergency our economy is experiencing now-- after 8 years of GOP governance and bankster looting-- means that he'll have to loosen up on the hawkishness. The ranking Republican on Spratt's committee is Wisconsin wingnut Paul Ryan. Ryan is also a budget hawk-- or at least he has turned into one now that Bush is no longer handing out tax cuts for billionaires and promulgating the most catastrophic economic and financial policies since the 3 Bush-like presidents of the 1920s. The difference between Ryan and a sane-- and consistent--legislator can be summed up by a statement from California Republican, state Senator Abel Maldonado who told the Santa Barbara Independent that his fellow Republicans "urged him to withhold his vote so that the stalemate would bankrupt California... It was ‘Abel-- let it go into bankruptcy, let it go off a cliff, we need to prove a point, that it’s the majority’s fault.’”

Maldonado has been excoriated for his vote on the budget by doctrinaire, anti-tax Republicans [Ryan type Republicans] because it includes $15 billion in higher taxes. Although a right-wing recall effort against him fizzled, the California Republican Party voted formally to deny him financial or any other political support. And most other Sacramento Republicans are giving him the cold shoulder.

Last month’s GOP convention was nasty, he said. “It wasn’t pretty,” he added. “There was a lot of shouting and a lot of insults. People were yelling at me, calling me a sell-out and stuff like that. I took my wife and maybe I shouldn’t have.”

..."I regret signing” the pledge, he said. “I regret not having a couple of words added-- ‘unless there’s an emergency.’ We have a fiscal emergency in our state. People want ideas and solutions, not political positions.”

Ahhh... "ideas and solutions, not positions." He's in the wrong party. Paul Ryan speaks for Republican obstructionism on all matters budgetary. And he's all about the hackneyed old right-wing nostrums that have laid our country low. That and... political positions. Yesterday at the Budget Committee markup of Obama's spending plans-- in effect his policy agenda-- Ryan reached out, quite eloquently, albeit disingenuously, to Blue Dogs and asked them to join him sabotaging President Obama's rescue plans and staying with Bush-Cheney economics. Even the Blue Dogs aren't-- well, most of them; I'm not counting the congenitally stoopid ones like Bobby Bright (AL) or the hopelessly reactionary ones like Walt Minnick (ID) and Heath Shuler (NC)-- lame enough to buy into Ryan's sophomoric and transparent partisanship. While you watch Ryan spreading his smooth GOP venom below, please consider making a contribution to StopPaulRyan.



Tuesday night Condoleezza Rice said something to the American people that knee-jerk obstructionists like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan should have listened to carefully:

"My view is we got to do it our way; we did our best. We did some things well, some things not so well. Now, they get their chance. And I agree with the president [Bush]. We owe them our loyalty and our silence while they do it. Because I know what it's like to have people chirping at you when they perhaps don't know what's going on inside. These are quality people. I know them. They love the country. And they won't make the same decisions, perhaps, that we did. But I believe they'll do what they think is best for the country..."

Despite Ryan's dramatics, the House Budget Committee voted to send the president's budget to the full House, all 24 Democrats voting yes, including Blue Dogs Allen Boyd (FL), Dennis Moore (KS), Marion Berry (AR), and even Jim Cooper (TN), and every single Republican, led by Ryan, voting to obstruct. Ryan tried disparaging it by likening it to the New Deal, something dittoheads and extreme right partisans hate but almost all Americans love and admire. In voting "yes," Marion Berry, a lifelong budget hawk, said "We hadn't heard a president in 8 years say the word 'infrastructure.' It is such a relief to have a president that understands that if you don't make the necessary investments in education and infrastructure, no matter what else happens you have absolutely no reason to expect that anything is going to get any better."

GOP House Chief Obstructionist Boehner popped out of his tanning booth long enough to fellate some lobbyists and slam the door on the paws of the very Blue Dogs the hapless Ryan was trying to woo. "To chuckles from the assembled lobbyists, Boehner called the Blue Dogs 'lap dogs' and said they refuse 'to get off people’s laps and actually do something.'”


UPDATE: Ryan Admits He's A Clown

Last week he did something he had never ever, ever thought he would do-- he voted against the rich, corrupt banksters who have completely financed his disgraceful political career. In a move that shocked everyone who knows what a sleazebag Ryan (R-WI- $1,555,321) he joined most House members, including half the Republicans, to vote for a tax to get back the hundreds of millions of dollars in government funds allocated as bonuses for AIG and other bankrupt companies on the dole. Now he's telling the rich banksters who make it possible for such a worthless shill to prosper as a politician that he's sorry... and he'll never do it again. He's says he was confused and blame sit on the Democrats, but that the banksters were naughty boys for handing out the bonuses which he termed "completely ridiculous. They rewarded failure." But if he had it to do all over again he wouldn't vote for it. In other words, he wants his cake and to eat it too, except it isn't cake; it's hundreds of thousands of dollars in legalized bribes from banksters per election cycle.

Ryan and party Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) voted for the legislation while Republican Leader John A. Boehner and the bulk of the party's conservative wing voted against it.

Ryan said he "wanted to send a message" to the companies that received bailout money.

But that vote last week stands in stark contrast to one late last fall when Ryan, Cantor, Boehner and others granted the administration approval to spend $700 billion to buy troubled mortgage-related securities. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quickly retooled the program to directly inject money into banks and other struggling financial institutions — an audible that caused heartburn for members on both sides of the aisle.

"I voted for TARP initially because I thought we were on the brink of a crisis," Ryan said.

Reminder: StopPaulRyan.