Susan Collins Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act Again

Maine Republican Susan Collins makes $174,000 a year, along with great retirement and health benefits-- the same as the boys make. And that's the way it should be. But yesterday Collins, a millionaire, joined the Republican Party filibuster seeking to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on Barbara Mikulski's Paycheck Fairness Act, S.2199. 52 senators voted to end the filibuster, a majority… but not a big enough majority.

Ever since Olympia Snowe retired, Collins has lost any inclination-- and spine-- to stand up against the extremists and radicals in her party. She's just another knee-jerk vote for whatever the Republican Party strategy happens to be-- and that means she's backing the neo-Confederates and fanatics who set GOP policy… even on women's equality. I mean, why would Susan Collins of Maine-- not Jefferson Beauregard Sessions IV of Alabama-- vote against allowing a bill that was meant to prevent employers from discriminating against women employees? And this is the 4th time Collins pulled this kind of crap since Snowe retired-- which might help explain when you don't see her out campaigning for Collins this cycle.

Her opponent in November, Shenna Bellows, has an entirely different perspective than Collins. "Women deserve equal pay for equal work," she said flatly. "The Paycheck Fairness Act would put in place commonsense protections for workers who stand up against pay discrimination. Any employer deliberately discriminating against his or her employees should be held accountable, and every working American should know that pay is based on merit. The working people of Maine deserve a senator who leads on equal pay, not one who finds reasons to vote against it."

Another Senate candidate Blue America is backing, South Dakota populist Rick Weiland, was also incensed about the GOP blocking the bill and, in effect, killing it for 2014. "Vote again and if it doesn’t pass, do it again. Keep voting on this bill until it passes because it is the right thing to do," he told his supporters yesterday right after the vote. "Instead of voting for everyday families, the Senate just voted to protect the bottom line of their billion dollar donors. Pay discrimination is robbing working women and we can’t afford it. South Dakota has the worst wages in the country, the lowest teacher pay, and a minimum wage that can’t keep our families out of poverty. And somehow there are Senators who oppose Equal Pay for Equal Work. No wonder the Senate approval is in the single digits." Rick's campaign released a more detailed position paper:

It is simply unconscionable that Mike Rounds’ Republican allies killed legislation that would have strengthened Equal Pay for Equal Work laws. If two people are doing the same exact job but one is a man and the other is a woman, the woman has to work 3 extra months to get the same pay. Somehow Mike Rounds and his Republican supporters think that is ok.

South Dakota leads the country in people working two jobs. Under Mike Rounds, we had the lowest wages. We had the third lowest weekly salary. We have the worst paid teachers. At the same time, South Dakota families are relying more and more on working moms to keep a roof over their heads and their kids fed. South Dakotans flat out can’t afford pay discrimination. Mike Rounds doesn’t get that. His idea of economic success is one where the rich get richer and the poor struggle to make ends meet. Rick Weiland stands for hardworking South Dakota women who need a fair shake and an even playing field.

49 days to go. You can lend a hand to both Shenna Bellows and Rick Weiland on this ActBlue Senate page.

Who's The Real Cancer On The Ass of The Republican Party These Days?

Neo-fascist Denver oil heir/billionaire Philip Anschutz owns 2 far right propaganda sheets in DC, the Weekly Standard and the Washington Examiner (which failed as a newspaper as of June 14 and is currently just a bizarre right-wing blog). Anschutz, who is being sued for his role in the death of Michael Jackson, is obsessed with homosexuality and pours countless millions of dollars into destroying the lives of gay men and women. Anschutz and his front groups have also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into electoral campaigns on behalf of far right extremists like Mike Coffman (R-CO), Ken Buck (R-CO), Joe Coors (R-CO), Mike Lee (R-UT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), etc. This week he had one of his toadies, Timothy Carney do a hatchet job on mainstream conservative and former Ohio Congressman Steve LaTourette.

LaTourette, who is working to drag the Republican Party back from its lunge towards extremism and irrelevancy, made the mistake-- in AnschutzWorld-- of challenging one of the crackpot right-wing fringe outfits, Club for Growth. LaTourette pointed out, very publicly, that the extremist Club is "a cancer on the Republican Party." Carney calls it "a Republican civil war" and backs the Club's attack against Boehner-ally Mike Simpson (R-ID).

This is where former congressman LaTourette and his group, Mainstreet Advocacy, jumped in. LaTourette announced his group would match the Club, dollar-for-dollar in any GOP primary. In this fight, the Mainstreet group holds itself up as the defenders of "pragmatism instead of social dogma."

Mainstreet Advocacy also describes itself as battling "special interests" and "political patronage." But here's the awkward truth: Republican "centrists" are more likely than GOP ideologues to be in bed with special interests. And the closer to the middle you are, the more susceptible you to patronage.

As exhibit A, let's look at Mainstreet Advocacy's point man.

The Washington Post's report on his recent comments described LaTourette only as a "former congressman." Here's a tip: Every time you read the words "former congressman," you should ask if he's now a lobbyist-- unless he's a "moderate" working towards "bipartisan solutions." Then you don't even need to ask.

For instance, Harvard's Center for Ethics pointed out that the Bipartisan Policy Center is a hotbed of K Street lobbyists. "The BPC was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, who all cashed in on their government experience by working for Beltway law and lobbying firms, and advising major corporations."

So it is with Mainstreet's LaTourette:

One day last decade, LaTourette called his wife Susan and told her that "he had a girlfriend and wanted a divorce," as she reported it. The girlfriend was LaTourette's chief of staff Jennifer Laptook, whom he soon married.

Jennifer then cashed out to K Street lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates. That website won clients by touting "As chief of staff, Laptook was responsible for advising on all legislative issues, particularly those that came before the committees on which Congressman LaTourette serves. Laptook worked intimately with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff, on which the congressman is a senior member."

Rep. LaTourette left Congress in January and today, of course, he is a lobbyist. He launched the lobbying arm of the McDonald Hopkins law firm, and hired his wife. So LaTourette lobbies on behalf of hospitals, alternative-energy interests, and other major companies and industries.

On the side, LaTourette champions compromise-minded Republicans for Congress. Because how else are you supposed to get bailouts and subsidies for your clients, except by getting some "pragmatic" Republicans in Congress. Ideological flexibility is what corporate lobbyists look for. Free-market dogma is a major turnoff to lobbyists seeking handouts.

Many folks in this town think ideological purity is the enemy of good government. Those folks have corporate lobbyists like Steve and Jennifer LaTourette on their side.

Aaron Blake, whose newspaper, the Washington Post, hasn't folded, reported that Maine's very wealthy former senator, Olympia Snowe-- a mainstream conservative-- will be working with LaTourette to raise the $8 million to combat the negative ads Anschutz and the Club are planning to run against anyone who doesn't toe the radical right line. Snowe: “The Club for Growth is homogenizing the Republican Party... The Republican Party is going to have to mature.” LaTourette has been pointing out that "the Club has crafted a fraudulent reputation as a grassroots organization."

“If this was some broad-based populist movement, I get that,” LaTourette said. “But if you peel back the onion, the Club for Growth is really five or six guys that have a lot of money and bigfoot the Republican primaries.”

The Club on Tuesday hit back at LaTourette, pointing out the amount of money Simpson has raised from another small group of influential players-- political action committees.

“It’s a joke for Mike Simpson and his allies to cry foul on outside groups supporting his conservative challenger; 64 percent of Mike Simpson’s campaign contributions have come from Washington PACs, not the people of Idaho,” said Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller. “Mike Simpson is the same congressman who rakes in millions from special interests that he regulates, all while voting to raise his own pay nine times and spending thousands on lavish events at Washington D.C. social clubs.”

LaTourette said his group will seek to play in a limited number of races where it can have a bigger influence. He mentioned potential Club for Growth targets including Senate candidate Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)-- who has been involved with the group-- and Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), along with Reps. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and David Joyce (R-Ohio). Joyce holds the seat LaTourette retired from last year.

LaTourette acknowledged his group has to walk a fine line in some of these races, as its involvement could lead candidates to be tagged as RINOs-- Republicans In Name Only. Another recently launched group seeking more electable GOP candidates, Karl Rove’s Conservative Victory Project, has dealt with similar accusations that it is anti-conservative.

“Some members might have the opinion, ‘Gosh, if these guys get involved I’ll be known as a friend of the RINOs,’” LaTourette said. “That’s something we’ll have to engage on a race-by-race basis.”

...LaTourette said Republicans need to focus on expanding their appeal rather than closing ranks around conservatives and having litmus tests for their congressional incumbents.

“You can’t wake up and go into an election and say, ‘Okay, let’s see who’s voting for us? Angry white guys in their 50s are voting for us. Who’s not voting for us? African-Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, women.’” LaTourette said. “It makes it pretty tough to win a national election if you’re writing off that chunk of the electorate.”

He forgot to mention people under 35. And people who don't get their news from Hate Talk Radio and that echo chamber.

What's Wrong With The Republican Party?

I know... it would take too long and it's all been said before. And whatever it is, let's all hope they choke on it and writhe around in pain before finally expiring. But let's look at it from the perspective of people who don't want to see piles of congressional Republicans on the floor screaming in agony and begging God for their own deaths to come as fast as possible. Bob Dole, who was the Senate Republican Leader for what seems like decades long before he was either the GOP presidential nominee or a Viagra salesman, doesn't wish any ill on his GOP colleagues and friends. But he was on Fox News Sunday tearing them a new one this past weekend. "I doubt [I could fit in with the modern party],” Dole said. “Reagan wouldn’t have made it, certainly Nixon wouldn’t have made it, because he had ideas. We might have made it, but I doubt it." Fact of the matter is, no one who puts country over party-- or, more precisely, crackpot, extremist ideology, can possibly make it in today's Republican Party. You want to find "your father's Republican Party?" That's now called the New Dems and the Blue Dogs.

Anyone with any ideas of appealing to a national mainstream might as well do what conservatives like Florida Republicans Charlie Crist and Patrick Murphy did-- quit the GOP and started working to make the Democrats more conservative.

And Tuesday morning on MSNBC, former Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) explained why she agrees with Dole that the Republican Party should be "closed for repairs" before they seriously run any national races again. "I certainly do agree with the former majority leader, Bob Dole, with whom I worked when I first entered the Senate and who was a consensus builder and understood what was essential and important for the Republican Party brand-- what was important for America and that unfortunately has been lost today on Capitol Hill... The Republican Party is undergoing some, you know, significant and serious changes and they are going to have to rethink their approach as a political party and how they are going to regroup and become a governing majority party that appeals to a broader group of Americans than they do today."

But do they even care about becoming a governing party again? The power inside the party has shifted to the nihilists, fascists, ignorant teabaggers and radicals and Greg Sargent says the whole "governing thing" isn't something they take seriously. Wrecking the government... that they're good at. But working for the betterment of ordinary American families? That's antithetical to the interests who finance their plush careers.

I’m not sure anyone could consciously create a headline that more perfectly captures the current GOP’s fundamental unseriousness about governing than this one from The Hill:

Senate GOP feels jilted after being wined and dined by Obama on deficit talks

As Jed Lewison points out in a good post, it’s stunning that Republican Senators actually feel no sense of embarrassment about making this self-refuting claim. Their complaint, per The Hill, is this:

Senate Republicans who shared laughs with President Obama over dinner at the Jefferson Hotel in March are grumbling there has since been little follow-through from him on deficit talks. [...]

Some Republicans think the president has become distracted from the deficit by intensified public controversies over the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups and the Justice Department’s investigation of the Associated Press.

Of course, Republicans themselves are the ones that are working feverishly, often in the face of clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary, to tie Obama to these “public controversies.” What’s more, the GOP leadership has said that no budget compromise is possible if it involves any concession on revenues, which is to effectively say that no compromise is possible unless Democrats make 100 percent of the concessions. And not only that, but as Steve Benen notes, Obama has already offered Republicans the entitlement cuts they claim they want as part of a larger deal, only to have Republicans suddenly decide they no longer want those cuts, after all.

Yet for Republicans, the problem continues to be that Obama isn’t sufficiently wooing them adequately. As The Hill puts it, paraphrasing one senator who remained anonymous but whose sentiments echoed many others: “The lawmaker said Obama needs to sit down regularly with about five or six GOP senators to begin making substantial progress toward a deficit-reduction deal.”

Yeah, that’ll work.

Even as Senate Republicans call for Obama to woo them harder, their leader, Mitch McConnell, is absurdly claiming that Obama’s plan to nominate people to fill vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals amounts to an effort to “stack the court.”

And we can't just blame Miss McConnell-- all 45 Senate Republicans, every single one of them, who have been obstructing the president's appointments since the day he took office-- signed a brief to the Supreme Court calling Obama's recess appointments an unconstitutional abuse of power. Unhinged right-wing sites are drumming up a "stacking the courts" jihad to help raise money for reactionary nihilists.

President Barack Obama is planning to simultaneously push through the appointments of three judges to what has been called the second-most-important court in the country, in a move seen by Republicans as an attempt to stack the court toward a liberal agenda.

...McConnell and other GOP lawmakers reportedly are preparing to challenge the appointments. One plan involves shifting the three empty slots from the court to other parts of the country. Failing that, Senate Republicans could filibuster the nominees if they can pull together 41 of their 45 members.

...Democrats say that if Republicans move to block Obama's three nominations in close succession, the public will take notice and disapprove. With a tide of public opinion in their favor, Democratic leaders argue, they could try to change Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on judicial nominations, even though Democrats themselves have blocked Republican judicial nominations in the past by using the filibuster.

The Party Of Rape

This afternoon, Noah gave us a frightening look into the Republican mindset where rape is the ultimate manifestation of tyranny. While he was working on his piece, retiring Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, one of the last pro-Choice Republicans left in the Senate, was working on her own OpEd for yesterday's Washington Post: How the GOP Can Mend Its Image Among Women. It's sad and dishonest and is premised on demonizing poor, pathetic Todd Akin, while drawing some laughable false distinction between him and virtual doppelgänger Paul Ryan or, for that matter, the man with no core whatsoever, Mitt Romney.

It is unfortunate that the stunningly insensitive statement about rape made last weekend by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is casting a shadow over the start of the Republican National Convention. Republican leaders, led by Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan, rightfully and strongly repudiated his remarks.

Yet, the comments from Akin reinforce the perception that we in the Republican Party are unsympathetic to issues of paramount concern to women.

I have worked for three decades as a staunch advocate of building a “big tent” party that includes both pro-choice and pro-life Republicans. In that time, I have seen controversies such as this one alienate a large segment of the female population and perpetuate the gender gap among voters that has historically plagued our party.

This is not where I hoped my party would be in 2012. Today, the Republican Party faces a clear challenge: Will we rebuild our relationship with women, thereby placing us on the road to success in November, or will we continue to isolate them and certainly lose this election?

She suggests that the Republican problem is merely one of perception that can be marketed away-- "He will be off to a good start when former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, my colleague, speak to the convention about why the Romney-Ryan ticket is right for women in this election"-- instead of a toxic pathology.

Few people even in Washington understand how intertwined the political careers of Mitt Romney and California Republican Buck McKeon are. McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and, like Romney, a devotee of Mormon power, worked hand in glove with Romney to finance Prop 8, an amendment that stripped the LGBT community of marriage equality. (Mitt and Ann Romney practically financed the entire operation and now have the temerity to claim they shouldn't have had to pay their fair share of taxes because they used that money to fund their own ugly hatred and bigotry.) Currently, McKeon is shaking down the arms manufacturers and military contractors and their lobbyists who have business before his committee on behalf of the Romney campaign. And in between the bribery and the bigotry, he's working with his pal Akin-- McKeon appointed Akin chairman of the Subcommittee on Expeditionary Forces-- on covering up the most horrifying series of rapes in American military history. Friday, Nancy Parrish, president of Protect Our Defenders, explained McKeon's role in the military rape scandal in an OpEd at Huffington Post. Her point was to announce that Lackland sexual abuse survivor, Ret. USAF Staff Sgt. Colleen Bushnell is biking across country, collecting signatures for the Protect Our Defenders petition calling on Congress to open a hearing into the sexual abuse scandal at Lackland Air Force Base. She will deliver the petitions to House Armed Services Chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon when she arrives in DC in October. So far McKeon has absolutely refused to hold a public hearing or to institute a serious investigation. Liz Trotta, a Fox newscaster who reported on this travesty by making excuses for it, knows her audience well-- Republicans, like Buck McKeon. Maybe Olympia Snowe should have a talk with McKeon and Trotta... or maybe sure knows she'd be wasting her time. Her party is the party of rape now.



Although Kay Bailey Hutchison announced today that the Republican party does not have a women problem, McKeon's refusal to hold hearings on this are starting to bubble up in a way that's going to add to the widespread perception that the GOP is fighting a war against women. The Air Force announced late last night that the number of victims in the sexual abuse scandal at Lackland Air Force Base has has climbed to 42 trainees and that the number of instructors under investigation has increased from 15 to 17 instructors.

"The sexual abuse scandal at Lackland Air Force Base continues to get worse day after day, week after week. Air Force leaders have told Congress they do not know how to fix the epidemic and have misled the public about the scope of the problem," said Nancy Parrish, President of Protect Our Defenders. "It is time for our elected officials to do their job and protect our sisters, neighbors, daughters and friends and hold an open hearing and investigation about Lackland. House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon should listen to his colleagues and more than 14,000 citizens and not let the Air Force hide behind closed doors and investigate and legislate fundamental reforms."

Maine Hodgepodge-- Good Stuff Between The Lines (I promise)

In 2010-- a year when Republicans surged everywhere-- I think less than 5 Democratic incumbents actually increased their support from the voters. One was Chellie Pingree of Maine, who Rachel Maddow interviewed about the newly opened Maine Senate seat above. In 2008, a year favorable to Democrats, Pingree won her congressional race to replace Tom Allen in the first district with 55%, while in Maine's other congressional district, longtime incumbent Mike Michaud, a Blue Dog, was reelected with 67%. Then came 2008-- the Blue Dog Apocalypse-- and Pingree, a stalwart and outspoken progressive, bucked the trend that swept Paul LePage into the governor's chair and saddled Maine with a teabaggy state legislature. Her percentage of the vote increased from 55% to 57%. Michaud, on the other hand, crashed. He went from 67% down to 55%-- his worst showing since first being elected in 2002. Maine has a funny political culture that isn't easy for an outsider to understand.

The first vote in Congress after the national Blue Dog Apocalypse that handed the House over to the GOP-- and after Maine elected LePage and that teabaggy legislature-- was to elect the new Speaker and the Democratic Leader. That was on January 5, 2011. All 241 Republicans voted for John Boehner to be Speaker. Chellie Pingree and 172 other Democrats voted for Nancy Pelosi to lead the Democratic Party. But the most conservative fringe of the Democratic caucus decided to put up their own candidate, an arch reactionary who lived in the C Street House with Jim DeMint and other right-wing sociopaths. They picked Heath Shuler. Eleven Democrats voted for Shuler against Pelosi. And one of those 11 was Mike Michaud. The other 10, simply put, were the 10 Democrats who went on to vote most frequently with the Republicans on the crucial rollcalls on 2011-12-- far right throwbacks like Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)... the worst of the worst. That's the pack in which Maine's bachelor congressman runs.


A few weeks ago, we looked at the Democratic primary race to find someone to run against Snowe. That's changed dramatically. Michaud is in. Pingree is in (though she hasn't officially announced) and former Governor John Baldacci, who served from 2003-2011, is in. (Before running for governor, he had served in Congress for 4 terms, where he was a member of the dangerous, right-wing C Street cult.) Independents-- and they make up almost a third of the voter base in Maine-- will probably have a candidate as well, which is how LePage wound up as governor. This time ex-Gov. Angus King and Eliot Cutler (the independent who threw the election to LePage) are both looking at running.

On the Republican side the highly unpopular state Senate president Kevin Raye, as well as former gubernatorial candidate Peter Cianchette and State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin are all making noises about running.

This was Snowe's stated reason to give up the seat:

"After an extraordinary amount of reflection and consideration, I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for re-election to the United States Senate.

"After 33 years in the Congress this was not an easy decision. My husband and I are in good health. We have laid an exceptionally strong foundation for the campaign, and I have no doubt I would have won re-election. It has been an indescribable honor and immeasurable privilege to serve the people of Maine, first in both houses of Maine's legislature and later in both houses of Congress. To this day, I remain deeply passionate about public service, and I cherish the opportunity I have been given for nearly four decades to help improve the lives of my fellow Mainers.

"As I have long said, what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion, and I am filled with that same sense of responsibility today as I was on my first day in the Maine House of Representatives. I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.

"With my Spartan ancestry I am a fighter at heart; and I am well prepared for the electoral battle, so that is not the issue. However, what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate, which is what a fourth term would entail.

"As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern, and I believe there are unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate. I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America.

"In the meantime, as I complete my third term, I look forward to continuing to fight for the people of Maine and the future of our nation. And I will be forever and unyieldingly grateful for the trust that the people of Maine have placed in me, and for the phenomenal friendship and assistance I have received over the years from my colleagues, my supporters, and my staff, both in Maine and in Washington."

And, no doubt, that has a lot to do with why she's retiring. But perhaps a scandal starting to engulf her husband, former Gov. John McKernan, figured into her decision as well.

The U.S. Justice Department, 11 states and the District of Columbia are backing an employee whistleblower lawsuit against Education Management Corp. (EDMC), a company once run by former Maine Governor John McKernan. McKernan continues to serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors. He also is the husband of Senator Olympia Snowe (R - Maine).

The complaint alleges that the for-profit college chain was illegally paying recruiters based on the number of students they could sign up. EDMC allegedly based recruiter salaries on their sales abilities and also gave recruiters prizes, including expensive trips, based on their ability to bring students in. Federal law bans for-profit colleges that accept federal aid from compensating employees based on their ability to recruit students. Harry Litman, an attorney for the two former employees who are serving as whistleblowers in this case, said EDMC's violations were obvious.

"It did it flagrantly," Litman said. "It did it for many years. It lied to the federal government about it. And [employee incentives] fueled their explosive growth to $2.5 billion a year, almost all of which is taxpayer money."

The federal government has been looking into whether for-profit colleges have been defrauding taxpayers by enrolling students who are not qualified, and therefore more likely to default on their student loans.

UPDATE: Michaud's Out

Of the race, I mean. He sent this out:

While I have been humbled by all the support and encouragement I have received in the last few days, I've decided to not run for the U.S. Senate this year. I want to continue to represent the wonderful people of Maine's second district and keep working on the unique issues and challenges we face. I am also very proud of what I have been able to accomplish on behalf of Maine's and America's veterans and that work must continue.

I join many Mainers in being frustrated with how Washington operates and believe that both sides of Capitol Hill have fallen into a partisan rut. However, I am proud of being able to work across the aisle to deliver results and I think, for now, I can best continue those efforts in the House.

Wise decision.

Remember Maine!

The Democrats are desperate to hold onto the Senate, something that looks next to impossible. Half a dozen Democrats (+ Lieberman) are retiring, 2 in solidly red states (Nebraska and North Dakota) and 3 in toss-up states (New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin). 16 Democrats are seeking reelection, two of whom-- Claire McCaskill (MO) and John Tester (MT) are in deep trouble. Only 2 Republicans are retiring, both in solidly red seats and without plausible Democratic opposition (Texas and Arizona). And only 8 Republicans are defending their seats, only one-- Scott Brown (MA)-- in a tough general election race. Everything has to break for the Democrats that conceivably could for them to hold onto the Senate. Does that ever happen?

The Democrats have decided to contest North Dakota's open seat and seem to be ignoring the possibility of denying Maine Senator Olympia Snowe reelection. How smart is that? In 2008, Obama lost North Dakota to John McCain 45-53%. He only took 13 of the state's 54 counties. And then, in 2010, the state's at-large incumbent congressman, conservative Democrat Earl Pomeroy, was trounced by the Majority Leader of the state House of Representatives, Rick Berg, 45-55%. Things don't appear all that blue in North Dakota. On the other hand, also in 2008, Obama beat McCain decisively in Maine, 58-40%, winning every county but one-- sparely populated Piscataquis (and even that was close). Both the state's congressmembers are Democrats, conservative Mike Michaud and liberal Chellie Pingree. Even in the midst of the Tea Party debacle that swept Maine in 2010, Pingree was reelected with 57% and Michaud won with 55%.

Democrats are counting on former North Dakota Attorney General (and failed gubernatorial candidate) Heidi Heitkamp to beat current Republican Congressman Rick Berg for that open Senate seat. It's almost as if their whole strategy for holding the Senate majority depends on it. They'll be appealing to the same voters who elected Berg last year. No one thinks they have a chance-- not even a small chance, even though Berg has turned out to be a dud.

And no one is paying much attention to Maine. Everyone's afraid of 3-term incumbent Olympia Snowe. Last time she ran, in 2006, she crushed the Democrat, Jean Hay Bright, 398,723 (74%) to 109,727 (21%). This time she has two inconsequential teabaggers running against her, Scott D'Amboise in the GOP primary and Andrew Ian Dodge, as an independent (an independent as of yesterday). Dodge says he unenrolled as a Republican because of the debacle of the botched-- possibly stolen-- caucuses.

On Wednesday, Dodge, 43, said he's been a registered Republican since he turned 18. He said he decided to leave the party after the Maine GOP's handling of the nonbinding caucuses, which was criticized for disenfranchising voters.

The party initially didn't count voting results from some towns and counties in the final tally, and declared Mitt Romney the winner. Critics claimed it was an effort by party leaders to bolster Romney, the so-called establishment presidential pick.

Last week, besieged GOP Chairman Charlie Webster responded to those complaints, saying some of the votes had been lost in his e-mail spam folder.

Dodge didn't buy that excuse, nor did he appreciate what he described as Webster's "patronizing attitude" toward those who were upset by how the caucuses were handled.

"Webster belittled members of his own party to save his own skin," Dodge said. "He said people who were complaining were wing nuts... I joined the tea party because we were bringing people into the Republican party. What the Maine GOP is doing is exactly the opposite."

Dodge added that Webster's excuse that caucus results went into a "spam folder" was "so bad it's beyond comment."

Webster and other GOP state party leaders did eventually agree to recount all caucus votes and to include late caucus votes in the final tally. Romney was still declared the winner.

Dodge also said he didn't believe he'd receive a fair shot in the GOP primary. "This whole thing is about Snowe getting re-elected now," he said.

He doesn't have much any money but his presence on the ballot as an independent-- in a state where independents routinely get as much as a third of the vote-- could be meaningful for a strong Democratic challenger to Snowe. If there was a strong Democratic challenger to Snowe. There are 4 in the primary (June 12) right now: former Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, state Rep. Jon Hinck of Portland, state Sen. Cynthia Dill of Cape Elizabeth and Portland home builder Benjamin Pollard. Snowe, one of Maine's wealthiest aristocrats, has all the name recognition and money she needs to defend her seat and has never lost an election.

Late last year, when Hinck threw his hat into the ring, we were relieved that at least there would be someone offering a progressive alternative to Snowe's conservative-- albeit mainstream conservative-- vision. He hopes to get Mainers to look at Snowe's actual voting record and forget the self-perpetuated hype about what a grand moderate she is. "She makes some really bad votes that cost us a lot," Hinck told the Portland Daily Sun when he announced. "So I may as well say, for example, in the last 10 years, I would have voted against the Iraq War; I would have voted against the Bush tax cuts; I would have voted against Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit). I am quite certain, I know that was my position when each of those came up. When the war came up, I was a lawyer in private practice, but I joined a rally and march in the streets of Portland, with my daughter, who was only five years old, I think. I saw her start to chant, 'No blood for oil.'"

Opposing the Bush tax cuts, he said, was a "no brainer" based on costs to the Federal Treasury and effects on the economy. Regarding the Medicare Part D benefit, "I'm not that keen on unpaid-for expensive things, I know that comes back to bite us later; and secondly it was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, part of my legal career has been doing legal battle with pharmaceutical companies over defective drugs and medical devices, and I'm not inclined to sweeten the deal with taxpayer money and pay them off."

Hinck's list of Snowe's wrong votes, he said, contributed to the current federal fiscal climate.

"If we did not do those three things, if the votes against them had prevailed, we would not be in the budget crisis that we are today," he said. "Our current senator was on the wrong side of those votes, and the consequences of us going the wrong way are stunning and enormous."

"If I was in Congress right now," continued Hinck, "there would be another vote for the Jobs Bill...This is where she breaks from a vast majority of Mainers. The proposal was a very small tax increase on the income someone makes above $1 million in a year. In this instance, the 5,000 jobs by far and away are a greater benefit than any possible harm from a small tax increase when someone has already made $1 million in a year. It is part of a bigger picture where unfortunately they're playing into an agenda which will not do the right thing for this country because they want to turn the president out of office. That, too, is grounds not to rehire the incumbent."

Snowe has received more than three times as much campaign money from outside of Maine than from within the state during her current term and close to half of that money came from PACs, mostly offering up corporate money (bribes). Over 80% of Hinck's contributions come from small donors in Maine and none of it came from PACs, corporations or sleazy special-interest groups. Hinck's record looks great; I haven't met him or heard him speak. Watching his YouTube videos don't seem as compelling as his record. But... he was an Eagle Scout.

The Democratic Party needs more candidates like this, who can talk like this and who think like this-- and less who are corprorate, careerist shills, like most of our sadsack political elite:

Unfortunately For Maine, It's Always Snowe-ing

The Democratic Party is in a desperate fight to hold onto the Senate-- it's a desperate fight not just for career-oriented party hacks but also for the people of America, who could be saddled with dangerous and unchecked fascism if the GOP wins the majority. And it looks like the GOP will win the majority. The Democrats are putting a lot of hope, as they should, in a victory by Elizabeth Warren (you can help her here) in Massachusetts that will displace Wall Street puppet/gay icon Scott Brown. Massachusetts is a solidly blue state and it makes sense to invest in making the progressive case there. Obama won each of Massachusetts' 10 congressional districts with between 55 and 86% of the vote. Unfortunately, the Democrats are putting as much hope-- and plenty of resources in winning in some really unlikely places-- like North Dakota (where Obama only managed 45%, a significant improvement from Gore's 33% and Kerry's 36%). With Kent Conrad retiring, Democrats are counting on former state Attorney General (and failed gubernatorial candidate) Heidi Heitkamp to beat current Republican Congressman Rick Berg. They'll be appealing to the same voters who elected Berg last year with 55% of the vote over longtime Democratic incumbent Earl Pomeroy. Or maybe they can win open Republican seats in Arizona or Texas? They hope so-- and have recruited candidates in each.

But where Democrats seem to be making no effort at all is in Maine, a state that voted heavily for Obama, Kerry and Gore in the last three presidential elections and has two Democratic congressmen (out of two districts). Everyone's afraid of 3-term incumbent Olympia Snowe. Last time she ran, in 2006, she crushed the Democrat, Jean Hay Bright, 398,723 (74%) to 109,727 (21%). This time she has two inconsequential teabaggers running in the GOP primary against her, Scott D'Amboise and Andrew Ian Dodge and two well-meaning but not very strong Democrats who want to take her on. Friday Jamison Foser explained what a great senator she's been-- for Maine's 375 multimillionaires. Mainers buy into her fake moderate pose that has allowed her to spend years rushing the legitimate aspirations of the 99% and protecting her own class. Snowe is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate and always votes in favor of the rich and against ordinary families... despite her rhetoric to the contrary. Last week, she said she supports extending the payroll tax cut "to some extent." Thursday night, we found out the extent of that support As Foser put it, "she's in favor of it as long as she can use it as an excuse to fire public servants, but opposed to it if it means raising taxes on a few hundred of the richest Mainers."

Snowe voted against the Democratic payroll tax proposal, which "would give a worker earning $50,000 a more than $1,500 tax cut," paid for by a surcharge on taxpayers who earn at least $1 million. Only 375 Mainers would pay that tax-- though it's worth noting that Snowe, who is worth between $12 million and $44 million, may be among them.

Then, Snowe voted for a less-generous Republican proposal that "would provide a $1,000 tax cut" for a worker earning $50,000, paid for by cutting 200,000 government jobs and freezing federal employees' pay through 2015. That essentially means giving them a pay cut, as inflation will erode their purchasing power. (Roughly 15,000 Mainers are employed by the federal government.)

Put the two votes together, and Snowe chose to give every working Mainer a smaller tax cut, and to pay for it by cutting jobs and forcing stagnant wages on thousands of Maine workers so she could spare 375 Maine millionaires a small tax increase. It's almost better if Snowe is among the tiny number of wealthy people she voted to protect-- at least then her vote would be understandable as an act of selfishness.

So how did Snowe explain her vote? Nonsensically, of course:

I do not want to see the existing payroll tax holiday end, and I could support a one-year extension if it is paid for sufficiently, fairly, and in a way that will not damage our economy. A permanent tax increase that will harm small businesses is the wrong prescription for our economy, and it won't promote economic growth.

Snowe's idea of paying for an extension "fairly" is to do so by cutting middle-class jobs and exacerbating wage stagnation among those lucky enough to be employed rather than asking millionaires to pay a little more.

And the damage Snowe claims the millionaire surcharge would do to small businesses and the economy? It's a figment of her imagination. The Democratic proposal would cut taxes for every small business with employees, and only about one percent of small business owners would be affected by the surcharge-- the "small business owners" whose businesses are actually fairly large. Given that the economy is struggling due to lack of demand-- something Olympia Snowe used to understand-- Snowe's preference is exactly backwards. She wants to keep money in the pockets of rich people who are least likely to spend it rather than helping those who are living paycheck to paycheck and would therefore be most likely to spend extra money. Middle class consumers, not Olympia Snowe's fellow wealthy elites, are the real job creators. 

Olympia Snowe's approach hurts the vast majority of Mainers, and it suffocates the economy by favoring wealthy elites who aren't creating jobs instead of consumers whose increased spending would give businesses a reason to hire. On the other hand, she saves 375 of her richest constituents a little bit of money.

Perhaps more important to many voters in Maine right this moment is the Republican attempt to sabotage the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP Heating Aid. Snowe paints herself as the Republican who will bridge the gap between the pro-LIHEAP Democrats and the anti-LIHEAP Republicans. But in the end it is the power of the Republican Party-- something voters in Maine enable by electing Snowe-- that has put LIHEAP in jeopardy.

Two weeks ago Portland state Rep Jon Hinck launched a bid for the Democratic nomination to take on Snowe. He hopes to get Mainers to look at Snowe's actual voting record and forget the self-perpetuated hype about what a grand moderate she is. "She makes some really bad votes that cost us a lot," Hinck told the Portland Daily Sun when he announced. "So I may as well say, for example, in the last 10 years, I would have voted against the Iraq War; I would have voted against the Bush tax cuts; I would have voted against Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit). I am quite certain, I know that was my position when each of those came up. When the war came up, I was a lawyer in private practice, but I joined a rally and march in the streets of Portland, with my daughter, who was only five years old, I think. I saw her start to chant, 'No blood for oil.'"

Opposing the Bush tax cuts, he said, was a "no brainer" based on costs to the Federal Treasury and effects on the economy. Regarding the Medicare Part D benefit, "I'm not that keen on unpaid-for expensive things, I know that comes back to bite us later; and secondly it was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, part of my legal career has been doing legal battle with pharmaceutical companies over defective drugs and medical devices, and I'm not inclined to sweeten the deal with taxpayer money and pay them off."

Hinck's list of Snowe's wrong votes, he said, contributed to the current federal fiscal climate.

"If we did not do those three things, if the votes against them had prevailed, we would not be in the budget crisis that we are today," he said. "Our current senator was on the wrong side of those votes, and the consequences of us going the wrong way are stunning and enormous."

"If I was in Congress right now," continued Hinck, "there would be another vote for the Jobs Bill...This is where she breaks from a vast majority of Mainers. The proposal was a very small tax increase on the income someone makes above $1 million in a year. In this instance, the 5,000 jobs by far and away are a greater benefit than any possible harm from a small tax increase when someone has already made $1 million in a year. It is part of a bigger picture where unfortunately they're playing into an agenda which will not do the right thing for this country because they want to turn the president out of office. That, too, is grounds not to rehire the incumbent."

Just under a year from now Snowe's going to be running for another term against the backdrop of the dueling OccupyWallStreet and Tea Party movements and heightened public unrest over the economy. Her legislative strategy all year has been to move sharply to the right to placate the teabaggers-- and their gorilla-in-the-room financial backers-- while ignoring the arguments being advanced by the 99% Movement.

Hinck said he understands the frustration reflected in the conservative and progressive public protest movements.

"Hubris and greed and also corruption" possibly played a part in the corporate bailout policy that infuriates many Americans, Hinck said.

"It seems to me that some of those bailouts were preventing an imminent financial disaster, and I bear in mind it's difficult for decision makers to get everything exactly right in an emergency like that. I can be harsh in criticism as other outsiders are. However, there's no way that taxpayer money can be forked over like that without conditions," Hinck said, noting that it's not right for bonuses to be covered by taxpayer money.

UPDATE: Filibustering

Snowe's disgraceful vote to continue the GOP filibuster of Obama's nomination Caitlin Joan Halligan of New York to the U.S. Circuit Judge shows what a craven, mindless partisan she's turned into-- mostly, I suspect, in fear of teh teabaggers. I think President Obama had Snowe in mind when he issued this statement, having hoped that her "moderate" hype would have been true enough today for her to do the right thing.

I am deeply disappointed that a minority of the United States Senate has blocked the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Halligan has the experience, integrity, and judgment to serve with distinction on this court, and she has broad bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities. But today, her nomination fell victim to the Republican pattern of obstructionism that puts party ahead of country. Today’s vote dramatically lowers the bar used to justify a filibuster, which had required “extraordinary circumstances.” The only extraordinary things about Ms. Halligan are her qualifications and her intellect.

Currently, Senate Republicans are blocking 20 other highly qualified judicial nominees, half of whom I have nominated to fill vacancies deemed “judicial emergencies” by the Administrative Office of the Courts. These are distinguished nominees who, historically, would be confirmed without delay. All of them have already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee–- most of them unanimously-– only to run into partisan roadblocks on the Senate floor. The American people deserve a fair and functioning judiciary. So I urge Senate Republicans to end this pattern of partisan obstructionism and confirm Ms. Halligan and the other judges they have blocked for purely partisan reasons.

Mainers should look at what Olympia Snowe has actually become, not at a carefully crafted reputation as a moderate that no longer fits.

Domestic Terrorism From The Right: Homemade Chemical Bomb Tossed Into An OccupyMaine Encampment

Maine seems like such a "moderate" place, doesn't it-- even with that aberration of a bizarre teabagger governor Paul LePage? Even when the two Republican senators vote as far to the right as extremist crackpots like Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul-- basically on all but the smallest handful of votes-- everyone is so used to calling Maine "moderate," that no one considers that, for example, Collins' and Snowe's votes against Obama's jobs bill last week cost the economically hard-pressed state $138,700,000 (and 1,800 construction jobs) dealing with infrastructure projects, $117,300,000 (and another 1,800 teaching jobs) and $90,700,000 in funding to support as many as 1,200 jobs in rebuilding and repairing Maine's schools. But {{Olympia Snowe}}, the tenth richest member of Congress, is worth something like $45 million and she objected to the .05% tax increase for people making over $1,000,000 annually (i.e., herself, her criminal husband and her 373 best friends back in the state.) Very moderate.

My best pal Roland is a Mainer. I mean, he's not just from Maine, he's a Mainer. He's been living in California over half his life and he still reads the Maine newspapers everyday. And he spends part of every summer back in Lewiston and driving through the state. A couple months ago he came back and told me something I haven't been able to get out of my head. We'd long discussed how Maine in general and Lewiston-Auburn in particular, had attracted an outsized Somali diaspora. Many of Roland's friends blamed the Somali refugees for _________ (fill in the blank, though Somali welfare queens figured into everything. Roland also told me how, despite Somali merchants helping to resuscitate the city's long-dying downtown, there was some KKK-type hostility, particularly aimed at the refugees' Muslim faith. He told me about how a storefront mosque was vandalized and desecrated by hoodlums rolling pigs' heads into it. But the latest story chilled me more deeply.

He told me when he got back to Los Angeles that few people talk with the Somalis... ever. They occupy-- if at times uneasily-- the same space, but don't interact. The native Mainers, he says, excuse it by saying the Somalis don't want anything to do with them. I haven't gotten that idea out of my mind.

Apparently, though, that's not the only manifestation of immoderate behavior in Maine. Sunday at 4am, someone-- perhaps the pigs' heads rollers?-- tossed a chemical bomb into the OccupyMaine encampment in Portland.

Occupy Maine protesters say Sunday morning's attack with a chemical explosive has left them with a mixture of anxiety and resolve.

"We are more motivated to keep doing what we're doing," said Stephanie Wilburn, of Portland, who was sitting near where the chemical mixture in a Gatorade bottle was tossed at 4 a.m. Sunday. "They have heard us and we're making a difference."

Witnesses said a silver car had been circling before the attack, its occupants shouting things like "Get a job" and "You communist." They believe someone from that car threw the device, according to a statement from Occupy Maine.

The demonstrators are protesting what they describe as unfairly favorable treatment given banks and other corporate interests at the expense of working people and those trying to find a job.

Shane Blodgett of Augusta was sleeping in his tent in the middle of the park when the explosion woke him up.
"I heard a sound which I thought was a gunshot," he said, gesturing at the collection of three dozen tents that cover the south side of the park at Congress and Pearl streets.

"I was in fear for my life. I thought someone was walking around with a gun. I didn't dare poke my head out," Blodgett said. He eventually went back to sleep.

OccupyMaine has been thriving in Portland for a full month-- and there's also an OccupyAugusta in the state's capital-- and their self-imposed rules look very much like the self-imposed Occupy rules elsewhere across the country:

[A] handwritten sign articulates rules:

“Welcome to the occupation. This is a safe space. We are all leaders here.”

Clean up after yourself and help others, it says. No drunkenness. No drugs. Quiet time at midnight.

Since rejecting the occupants’ attempt to pitch tents in Monument Square, city officials have allowed the camp to exist in the park. Police have received few complaints, and on a recent night no officers were seen patrolling the grounds.

The city also gave permission for Occupy Maine to set up a portable toilet, said John Branson, the group’s lawyer. The group just needs money to pay for it.

Portland’s accommodating spirit is being noticed worldwide by a movement that in some places has had violent run-ins with police, Branson says, and organizers are grateful.

But Occupy Maine, a movement without direct leaders or clear authority, is testing the boundaries of its principles. The camp has a zero-tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol. But as he looks around the park, Branson knows that people with substance abuse issues are part of the scene.

“The movement has given voice to wanderers and homeless people,” he says. “They feel they have a place to come. Some have become part of the movement, but they can’t just stay here and eat.”

It’s a difficult dance. At night, volunteers act as a security detail, watching possessions and steering intoxicated men away from the sleeping camp, though they can’t keep a group of men from sitting on lawn chairs outside a tent and chatting until dawn.

Still, there is an energy and a feeling of community in the park for participants who have embraced the message of the evolving, worldwide occupy movement.

Mainers... fighting back in defense of their liberty and their children's liberty:

Fluffing The 1%-- Last Night's Senate Vote Against Recovery

I doubt many senators read Andy Coghlan's and Debora MacKenzie's enlightening feature in New Scientist this week about the capitalist network (i.e., a manifestation of the 1%) that runs the world... runs it primarily to benefit not society but themselves, their families and their circles. And this isn't some kind of political polemic; it's science... so, right, conservatives can stop reading right now.

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

...The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere. But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

...The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms-- the "real" economy-- representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies-- all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity-- that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Wednesday night Harry Reid filed cloture to break the Republicans' filibuster of the first piece of President Obama's jobs legislation-- this bill to authorize $35 billion to keep teachers, policemen and firefighters employed and to pay for it with a pathetically small and inadequate tax on millionaires. Only money above a million dollars in annual remuneration would be subject to the tax, but, needless to say, even that's too much for the Republicans. Miss McConnell deceitfully referred to it as "a proposal to raise taxes on 300,000 business owners in order to send money down to states so they don’t have to lay off state employees."

Over half the members of the Senate-- probably close to 60% now-- are millionaires themselves and aren't eager to raise their own taxes... not even a tiny little bit. Wouldn't the decent thing be for the millionaires in the Senate to recuse themselves for voting on legislation that would have a significant effect on their own wealth? Among the super-rich decamillionaires in the Senate, 11 are filibustering the jobs bill, 10 Republicans and one quasi-Democrat:

Bob Corker (R-TN)- $96 million
Jim Risch (R-WY)- $87 million
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)- $45 million
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)- $40 million
Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $32 million
John McCain (R-AZ)- $26 million
Ben Nelson (D-NE)- $18 million
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)- $13 million
Dick Shelby (R-AL)- $10 million
John Barrasso (R-WY)- $10 million
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $10 million

As Jamison Foser pointed out, narrowing in on fake moderate Olympia Snowe, "when Sen. Olympia Snowe explained her vote against the Senate jobs bill last week, she identified only one provision of the bill she disagreed with: the surcharge on taxpayers who earn more than $1 million in adjusted gross income." Not counting herself, that's 374 people in the state of Maine, a state suffering immense unemployment. "Snowe's vote against a jobs bill that would greatly help Maine simply because it would raise taxes on about 375 of the state's richest residents doesn't make much sense-- but it's certainly easier to understand if Snowe and her husband [a notorious crook] are among those fortunate few," Foser concludes. Greg Sargent was just as straight to the point at the Washington Post before the vote.

Let’s be as clear as possible: Any Democratic or Republican senators who vote this week against the $35 billion package of aid to the states are putting the very narrow interests of an infinitesimal few over the interests of many thousands of their own constituents.

The Senate vote is on whether to send billions to the states to avert teacher layoffs and to facilitate the hiring of more teachers and first responders-- a key provision of Obama’s jobs plan. This would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on millionaires. As of now, it’s unclear how a handful of moderate Senators in both parties will vote, because they have “stimulus spending” and they oppose hiking taxes on the rich.

So here’s a way look at this: How many people would be impacted by this proposal in each state represented by each on-the-fence senator? And how does that compare to the number of constituents in each of those states who would pay that 0.5 percent surtax? And keep in mind, the impact of one teaching job is far vaster and affects far more people than the impact of the surtax on one constituent, which is only paid on income over one million dollars.

Sargent singles out 7 wealthy senators who his sources told him were on the fence:

* Snowe and fellow-Mainer Susan Collins, where $117 million in aid to the state will be lost so that 374 people (+ Snowe) wouldn't have to pay an extra 0.5% on income over a million dollars a year.

* Tennessee's two multimillionaire senators, Alexander and Corker, who had to think about turning down 9,400 education jobs and over $596 million for their state to help out the 2,450 people who make over a million dollars a year-- like themselves.

* Ben Nelson, who was willing to snub 2,800 education jobs in Omaha, Lincoln, Kearney, North Platte and across the state ($176 million) so that himself and 1,049 Nebraskans making over a million dollars a year won't have to pay a pittance more for the public good-- even though Nelson's wealthiest constituent, Warren Buffett, has endorsed the idea.

* John Tester, who once billed himself as a populist-- but that was when he was running for the Senate 5 years ago-- was looking at turning down 1,400 education jobs ($90 million) so that 340 millionaires wouldn't have to pay the tiny tax.

* And, of course, West Virginia's right-wing Democrat, Joe Manchin, always eager to screw working people on behalf of the wealthy, had to balance 2,600 education jobs ($162 million into West Virginia's hard-pressed economy) against 580 who make over a million dollars a year in his state.

The Senate voted at 10 last night and the Republicans managed to block allowing the debate to proceed. Reid's motion to end their smarmy filibuster lost 50-50, Lieberman plus 2 ultra-conservative Democrats-- Pryor (AR) and Nelson (NE)-- voting with Miss McConnell to keep the filibuster going. Tester, at least, had seen the light, but not one Republican-- not Scott Brown and not Olympia Snowe (both of whom are up for reelection next year)-- crossed the aisle to support teachers, policemen, firemen or their own states' economies. President Obama's statement (which rings unauthentic since it singles out Republicans instead of Republicans + Lieberman, Pryor and Nelson):

For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again. That’s unacceptable. We must do what’s right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act. Every Senate Republican voted to block a bill that would help middle class families and keep hundreds of thousands of firefighters on the job, police officers on the streets, and teachers in the classroom when our kids need them most.

Those Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don’t deserve those jobs-– and every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what’s necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now.

We must rebuild the economy the American way and restore security for the middle class, based on the values of balance and fairness. Independent economists have said the American Jobs Act could create up to two million jobs next year. So the choice is clear. Our fight isn’t over. We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers sounded more authentic in her outrage:

The senators who voted “no” late Thursday night on the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act have once again squandered the chance to help our kids, communities and the economy by putting teachers back in the classroom, and ensuring that police officers and firefighters protect our neighborhoods.

The 50 senators who voted against the jobs measure showed a callous disregard for our kids’ futures and the safety of our neighborhoods. The no-voters are more concerned about protecting the wealthiest Americans from a half-cent-per-dollar tax increase than about helping our kids and ensuring safe communities. These senators are clearly out of touch with the American people. This week’s CNN/Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Americans support the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act.

Our nation is in a state of economic emergency that requires an immediate response. The unrelenting layoff of teachers and first responders is putting educational quality and the safety of our cities and towns at risk. The $35 billion jobs bill would support nearly 400,000 education jobs and keep thousands of police officers and firefighters on the job. By asking millionaires and billionaires to pay an extra one-half of 1 percent, the jobs plan would strengthen the economy without adding to the deficit.

With a deep and grinding recession causing disinvestment in our schools, the American people are sick and tired of having their concerns about the future ignored by some members of Congress. It’s time to set aside the political gamesmanship and do what is right for our students, for the safety of our communities, and for our country.

Tea Party Express Goes After Olympia Snowe/Jonathan Tasini Goes After The Latest Tragic "Free Trade" Capitulation

Yesterday, just as the psychopaths from the Tea Party Express were painting a target on Olympia Snowe's back, the mainstream conservative Maine senator joined a bipartisan coalition introducing the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act of 2011. The other principle co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown (D-OH) in the Senate and Sander Levin (D-MI), Tim Murphy (R-PA), and Tim Ryan (D-OH) in the House, all 5 representing areas that have lost significant numbers of jobs to the misguided and misnamed "free trade" policies perpetrated on the country by Big Business with the active connivance of a transpartisan political elite that included not just the regular suspects like the two Bush clowns but also Clinton and now Obama. The bill is exactly the same one that the House passed with a huge bipartisan majority last year, 348-79 (249 Democrats and 99 Republicans), despite hysterical opposition from Boehner and his corporate cronies. The bill calls for China's manipulated and grossly undervalued currency to be treated as an actionable subsidy under U.S. trade law. You can imagine how the financiers of the Tea Party Express-- some of the wealthiest and most corrupt "businessmen" on Planet Earth-- reacted to that. (Actually, you don't have to imagine: "The conservative group, arguably the most organized and best funded campaign tool in the tea party movement, announced Thursday afternoon that it plans to fight the moderate Republican’s 2012 re-election effort. Snowe enjoys tremendous popularity across the political spectrum in her home state... 'As tea party activists we have a responsibility to support fiscally responsible, constitutional conservatives-- and Olympia Snowe is about as far as one can get from that,' the Tea Party Express wrote to supporters in a fundraising message Thursday evening. 'Olympia Snowe doesn’t respect the responsibility of her job to serve the American people-- she instead serves the liberal interests of the news media and Washington, D.C. political establishment,' the message added. 'It’s time for her to be voted out of office once and for all! We need to defeat Olympia Snowe. Please help us with the most generous contribution you can afford.'”)

Meanwhile, the U.S. trade deficit with China has cost more than 2.4 million jobs since George W, Bush took office and really ramped up the off-shoring and outsourcing big time. Maine is one of the state's hardest hit by a plague that Wall Street loves but by which the American middle class is being decimated and turned into a third world country. Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing was right on top of this early yesterday:

"Passing legislation to hold China accountable for its currency manipulation is one of the very few bipartisan things Congress could do to lower our trade deficit, create manufacturing jobs, boost economic growth, and cut spending-all at the same time. This bill passed overwhelmingly in the House last year. We challenge the House to pass the re-introduced legislation before the next semi-annual currency report is due: April 15. We will be working hard with manufacturers, labor union members, and Tea Party supporters to secure this goal."

Tea Party supporters are very different from Tea Party financiers-- as the Alliance for American Manufacturing us about to find out. Someone who has been talking about that for a very long time is labor actvist, author and former congressional candidate Jonathan Tasini. Yesterday in a post about the tragedy of "free trade" he concluded by pointing out that "We are being played. People against people. Worker against worker. Community against community."

Amid all the partisan rancor in Washington, Boehner and Obama have been blowing each other kisses over trade policy. Both are heavily financed by multinational corporate interests whose bottom line is "free trade," no matter by many Americans are pauperized. It's the most obvious place for them to work together, just like it was for Clinton and his Republican-controlled Congress, which passed-- with a lot of Democratic arm twisting by Rahm Emanuel on Clinton's behalf and even worse tactics by Tom DeLay on Wall Street's behalf-- the catastrophic NAFTA legislation. Obama and Boehner are determined to pass the same kind of job-exporting travesties for South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Tasini reminds us that this is no flip-flop by Obama.

As a candidate for office and as president, he has said, sadly, that he is a committed "free trader." So, it is not that he is abandoning promises--he simply is, in my opinion, wrong. But, he is very much keeping his promises: to the vast array of corporate interests who have supported him from the outset. Hiring Bill Daley as White House chief-of-staff sealed the deal: Daley was Bill Clinton's point person for the selling of NAFTA in 1993-- and I use the word "selling" because Daley used the U.S. Treasury to buy Congressional votes by promising a variety of projects (If you want an in-depth investigative look at that sorry story, I highly recommend the Center for Public Integrity's The Trading Game: Inside Lobbying for the North American Free Trade Agreement)

But, these agreements are a disaster for the future of decent wages and prosperity-- not just in this country but around the world.

We can have a reasoned debate about this. But, to do so, I would submit that we need to get away from the false, tired debate and marketing phrases that pit "free trade" versus "protectionism." There is no such thing as "free trade"-- it has probably never existed in the  form envisioned by David Ricardo.

Certainly, today, so-called "free trade" is in fact very much MANAGED trade. I urge people to read, as I have, so-called "free trade" deals-- they are densely-packed huge volumes of text that set out PROTECTIONS for capital and investment (particularly, intellectual property and patents).

And no one I know opposing these disastrous, middle-class killing trade deals is against trade. They are not "protectionists"-- they are people who want trade based not on corporate rights but on trade that creates a floor for wages around the world and boosts community standards, not tries to make a buck on the undercutting of standards.

One of the smoke-and-mirror tactics we will read a lot about is the "get-tough" position the Administration will take on enforcement.

But, enforcement is a complete sham, designed simply to convince people to support a disastrous trade policy.

...[W]e have an entirely inadequate system in this country just to watch over safety and health in the workplace, funded at a minuscule level of several hundred million dollars-- and, yet, we even more ludicrously proposed, in the past, to oversee labor rights enforcement over three countries (the U.S., Mexico and Canada) at a laughingly pathetic and criminal level of a couple of million bucks?

Why would anyone now believe that enforcement in South Korea, Colombia or Peru be any different?  

The fact is enforcement is a farce. It was a farce created to buy a few votes to jam NAFTA through a Democratic Congress. It was a farce concocted by a Democratic president and his Labor secretary (Robert Reich), who were both full-throated champions of NAFTA and so-called "free trade."

But, here is a larger point: there is no enforcement that can work. Ever.

The problem is not enforcement of NAFTA-like agreements.

It is NAFTA-style trade itself and its very conception and framework. Labor and environmental rights are slapped on as add-ons to deals that are sideshows to the meat of these agreements-- protecting capital and investors’ rights. We cannot "fix" NAFTA-style trade deals unless we destroy the fundamental motivation behind them-- lower wages and a careful obliteration of every reasonable regulation to protect individuals.

Which very much explains why Republicans are so gung-ho in their support. But why do conservative Democrats like Obama get behind it so vehemently. Perhaps the fact that Obama is Wall Street's most heavily financed candidate ever will help idealists in blue t-shirts understand the scope of the problem. He seems to have changed a bit: