Why Do Young People Have Such Contempt For The Republican Party? That's Easy

Last month Paul Ryan's corporately funded, sleazy SuperPAC ran thousands of dollars of really nasty radio ads beating up on progressive Democrat Kara Eastman for having been in a punk band, Pieces of Fuck, when she was in college. Ryan's PAC is desperate to save the Omaha congressional seat-- which is quickly slipping from their grasp-- for failed Trump rubber-step Don Bacon. That's why they've dug up something inocuous from when Kara was in school. What clowns they are-- and they pulled they same sort of silliness on Beto O'Rourke yesterday, in both cases to get voters' minds off the issues that contrast Kara with Bacon and Beto with Cruz.



Today, Philip Trapp, at Alternative Press, wrote about the GOP's rock'n'roll problem. The Texas Republican Party must have thought they were helping their pathetic U.S. Senate candidate-- and former mime-- Ted Cruz, by "tweeting photos of O’Rourke skating, rocking and just generally appearing relatable (as opposed to being a two-faced morality robot) in what seems a misguided effort to discredit the congressman and save Cruz’s [rapidly shrinking] lead."

Failed mime failed U.S. senator, Ted Cruz

Conservatives from both parties have always feared young people and feared and hated everything to do with young people. I remember spending too much time fighting with right-wing asshole Joe Lieberman when he started attacking one of the artists on my label, Ice-T. But it's usually Republicans who are the culprits. Now, they seem to believe that Beto can't be a senator from Texas because he was in a popular El Paso emo band, Foss, that started when he was in high school. One of his bandmates, Cedric Bixler-Zavala, became famous as the lead single for Mars Volta and At The Drive-In. Beto will be even more famous when Texans send him to the U.S. Senate. Here he is, more recently, playing with Texas music icon, Willy Nelson. Anything you want to say about that, Ted Cruz?

And it's not like Beto is the first politician-- or even first member of Congress-- to have been in a band. Probably the only nice thing that anyone can say about Dana Rohrabacher (R-Moscow) is that he was too. And when I asked someone in Palm Springs, some years ago, why they elected a goof ball like Republican Sonny Bono to the House, he said it was because everyone hoped Cher would show up in town sometimes. She didn't.



A few years ago, Blue America backed John Hall for Congress in upstate New York-- and he won. The fact that he had been a member of the band Orleans didn't play much of a part in the race but, if anything, it helped him with name recognition running against an entrenched Republican incumbent. People still love his song, "Still the One," which music-hating conservative Joe Lieberman tried appropriating as a campaign song, forcing Hall to serve him with a cease and desist order. It's still being payed on the radio today-- over 4 decades later. It had a positive impact on people's lives, more than you can say for most politicians.



I'm pretty sure Orrin Hatch was in a band too. He's definitely a serious songwriter. Here he was (below) at a recording session for one of his hit songs, "Eight Days of Hanukkah." It looks like he's trying to be the producer. Maybe he was. He definitely was eager to show everyone he was wearing a mezuzah, at least for the session.



Not my cup of tea but I'll give equal time to another well-known senator who served with Hatch, John Kerry whose 1960 high school band, The Electras has songs all over YouTube. Kerry was the bass player. Give it up or "Guitar Boogie Shuffle":



Back to Utah for a minute-- former governor (and serial presidential hopeful) Jon Huntsman dropped out of high school in the 1970s to join a Salt Lake City band called Wizard. He sported a mullet and played keyboards while they did covers of REO Speedwagon and Led Zeppelin.

In 1978, Senate majority whip Robert Byrd released an album called Mountain Fiddler with covers of folksy West Virginia standards like "Rye Whiskey" and "Cripple Creek." Like Beto and Kara, he was proud of his musical roots regardless of what assholes like Ted Cruz have to say. Here he was on TV-- fiddlin' and singing while he was already Senate Majority Whip. Audience loved it too!



Republican senators Connie Mack (FL), Larry Craig (ID, later caught trying to blow an undercover policeman in a public toilet), John Ashcroft (MO), Jim Jeffords (VT) and Trent Lott (MS) were in a barber-shop quartet, more of a Republican thing than a rock band. They released an album, Let Freedom Sing in 1998. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is always trying to jam with anyone and he was in a band called Capitol Offense, a band that mostly covered Boston songs, until Tom Scholz had him served with a cease and desist order for fucking up "More Than a Feeling" so badly. A video of them playing "Mustang Sally" can still be found on YouTube. Unfortunately, neither Mack Rice nor Wilson Pickett ever made them stop performing it.



Florida congressman-- now MSNBC host-- Joe Scarborough fronts-- to this day-- an eponymous nine-piece band, Scarborough, mostly performing covers of Prince and Eagles tunes.

I can't remember, but did the Texas GOP complain when Kinky Friedman ran for governor of their state? He sucked up 13% of the vote too. Others elected to office include Jon Fishman (Phish) who was elected a selectman (like city council member) in Lincolnville, Maine; Martha Reeves-- from Martha and the Vandellas-- who was elected to serve a term on the Detroit City Council; and Jerry Butler, the longest-serving Board Commissioner for Cook County, Illinois.




And still threatening to run for something or other every now and then are three somewhat crazy Republican crackpots, Ted Nugent, Kanye West and Kid Rock. Look, in the course of writing this, I was listening to a lot of songs and when I heard this song just below I literally could.not.keep.myself. from jumping up and dancing my ass off as if I was back at the Brooklyn Paramount Theater waiting to give Maxine Brown a kiss backstage.



One last thing-- this tweet by Dayna Steele, east Texas congressional candidate, absolutely owning the Republican Party of Texas:

UPDATE: Kara

Kara Eastman's Communications Director got me this statement, which is worth reading: "The Congressional Leadership Fund was quick to villanize Kara's membership in her college's performance art band, Pieces of Fuck. In high school, she was in a singing group called the All Americans (but you don't see the CLF talking about that band name). We find it ironic that the opposition would want to attack Kara, and Beto, for doing something many American teens do - join a band, sing songs about issues that matter to them, and express themselves through music. Congress would be a better place with more musicians, and while we were joking about a College Band Congressional Caucus, Kara is looking forward to working with politicians like Beto who lead with heart-- and music."

If you like music and free expression, you can contribute to Kara's campaign here.

Would Romney Vote Against Trump In An Impeachment Trial-- Most Republicans Won't Regardless Of The Evidence

As far as Orrin Hatch goes-- good riddance to a rotten and Trumpified piece of crap. As far as Romney… any enemy of Trump’s… Look, a Bernie Sanders clone we were never going to get in Utah. If the Democrats need 67 votes to convict Trump after the House impeaches him, I bet Senator Romney will be as open to looking at the evidence than Hatch would have been-- not to mention most Republicans. Once Romney started signaling he would like to run for the Senate seat if the doddering Hatch retired, TRump moved into action trying to persuade Hatch to start in Congress, senile and out of his gourd or not. Romney noticed. As Alex Isenstadt noted in Politico Tuesday after Hatch’s announcement, “Should Romney run and win, as many expect, he will be poised to be Trump’s most prominent GOP foil, representing the wing of traditional Republicanism that the president has purposefully cast aside. While laying the groundwork for a prospective bid, Romney has made little secret that he will be unafraid of taking on the president. The 2012 GOP nominee has informed a series of Republican Party donors, senators and power brokers in recent weeks that, while he isn’t looking to pick a fight with Trump, he is more than willing to speak out against him. During the 2016 campaign, Romney derided Trump as a ‘phony’ and ‘fraud’ and implored the party to nominate someone else.” And no one think Romney has forgotten how Trump humiliated him fly to NYC and making him eat frog’s legs with a phony promise of a job as Secretary of State.

Reporting for the Washington Post, Callum Borchers was quick to speculated that Trump’s neo-fascist attack dog, Steve Bannon will be looking to stop Romney. “The race to succeed Hatch in Utah,” he wrote, “could represent an irresistible challenge for Bannon, especially if Mitt Romney runs. As I have noted before, Romney and Breitbart News were very friendly in 2012, when the former Massachusetts governor was the GOP presidential nominee. But since Romney lost to Barack Obama-- an event that roughly coincided with Bannon assuming control of Breitbart-- Romney has become a symbol of the political establishment Breitbart reviles. When Romney opposed Roy Moore, Bannon's favored candidate in last month's special election for a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama, Bannon hit Romney with a personal attack. ‘You hid behind your religion,’ Bannon said at a rally for Moore, referring to Romney's Mormon faith. ‘You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.’ Just imagine what Bannon might say if Romney actually becomes a candidate for office.”

Bannon, of course, would need to find a Romney opponent to back— ideally one who won't be accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls, like Moore, or cozy up to white supremacists, like Paul Nehlen, a challenger to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) whom Breitbart supported in 2016.

The good news for Bannon is that expectations would be low for any candidate running against Romney, who is highly popular in Utah. The last candidate Bannon supported in Utah, President Trump, won the state in the 2016 general election but finished third in the Republican primary, 55 points behind Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) and just behind Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Utah is a great state for Romney and a bad one for Bannon, which means that the former White House chief strategist would be under little pressure. If he could field a candidate who could avoid embarrassment and make Romney sweat-- even a little-- Bannon might be able to use the Utah race as a big stage to take some shots at the GOP leadership.

Salt Lake City Tribune To Doddering And Trumpified Orrin Hatch: Time To Retire

A doddering fool, Hatch didn't understand the editorial was a put-down; he thanked the editors

On Christmas Day, the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah’s biggest newspaper, named the state’s senior senator, Orrin Hatch, Utahn of the Year— and told him it’s time to retire. With his head firmly up Trump’s ass of late, the 83-year old senator says he wants to run again, which would mean he would be 90 when his next term ends. The Tribune editors didn’t;’t mention it, but Hatch is already increasingly senile and increasingly dependent on his staffers to make him look viable. First elected in 1976— when Elton John and Kiki Dee were riding high with “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” and Gary Wright’s “Dream Weaver,” inspired by Yogananda’ s Autobiography of a Yogi, had hit #1 on the singles charts— Hatch is the longest-serving Republican Senator inAmerican history (and, as President pro tempore of the Senate, 3rd in line for the presidency after Pence and Ryan). Ironically, the first time Hatch ran for office, he took on 3-term Utah Senator Frank Moss, with the campaign quip, “What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years? You call him home." He vowed to support term limits and claimed that senators who live in Washington for that many terms lose touch with their constituents. He’s been in office more than double the amount ion time he denounced Moss for. In 2016 Hatch endorsed Jeb and then Rubio and didn’t endorse Trump until he had already won the nomination, calling his Access Hollywood revelations "offensive and disgusting… degrading,” although none of that has stopped Hatch from tying himself increasingly to Trump.

This week the editors of The Tribune went out of their way to emphasize that signs the Utah of the year label to the person who “has made the most news. Has had the biggest impact. For good or for ill.” They made it clear that they were recognizing his role in 3 important events:

• Hatch’s part in the dramatic dismantling of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.
• His role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in passing a major overhaul of the nation’s tax code.
• His utter lack of integrity that rises from his unquenchable thirst for power.

Each of these actions stands to impact the lives of every Utahn, now and for years to come. Whether those Utahns approve or disapprove of those actions has little consequence in this specific recognition. Only the breadth and depth of their significance matters.

As has been argued in this space before, the presidential decision to cut the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in half and to slash the size of the brand new Bears Ears National Monument by some 90 percent has no constitutional, legal or environmental logic.

To all appearances— appearances promoted by Hatch— this anti-environmental, anti-Native American and, yes, anti-business decommissioning of national monuments was basically a political favor the White House did for Hatch. A favor done in return for Hatch’s support of the president generally and of his tax reform plan in particular.

And, on the subject of tax reform: For a very long time indeed, Hatch has said that his desire to stick around long enough to have a say in what indeed would be a long-overdue overhaul of the nations’ Byzantine tax code is the primary reason he has run for re-election time after time.

Last week, he did it.

The tax bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law by the president Friday is being praised for bringing corporate tax rates in line with the nation’s post-industrial competitors and otherwise benefiting corporations and investors in a way that backers see as a boost to the economy, even as opponents vilify it for favoring the rich and adding to the federal budget deficit.

No matter who turns out to be right about that argument, the fact remains that tax reform has been talked about and talked about for decades and only now has anything been done. And Hatch, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has his fingerprints all over it.

But perhaps the most significant move of Hatch’s career is the one that should, if there is any justice, end it.

The last time the senator was up for re-election, in 2012, he promised that it would be his last campaign. That was enough for many likely successors, of both parties, to stand down, to let the elder statesman have his victory tour and to prepare to run for an open seat in 2018.

Clearly, it was a lie. Over the years, Hatch stared down a generation or two of highly qualified political leaders who were fully qualified to take his place, Hatch is now moving to run for another term— it would be his eighth— in the Senate. Once again, Hatch has moved to freeze the field to make it nigh unto impossible for any number of would-be senators to so much as mount a credible challenge. That’s not only not fair to all of those who were passed over. It is basically a theft from the Utah electorate.

It would be good for Utah if Hatch, having finally caught the Great White Whale of tax reform, were to call it a career. If he doesn’t, the voters should end it for him.

Common is the repetition of the catchphrase that Hatch successfully used to push aside three-term Sen. Frank Moss in this first election in, egad, 1976.

“What do you call a senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.”

Less well known is a bit of advice Hatch gave to Capitol Hill interns in 1983.

“You should not fall in love with D.C.” he admonished them. “Elected politicians shouldn’t stay here too long.”

If only he had listened to his own advice.

The Tribune editors, like most voters in Utah, would like to see Mitt Romney become the new Utah senator, something Trump and Bannon are completely opposed to. And will fight hard to prevent.

Trump Moves To Block Mitt Romney From Running For The Senate

No wonder Señor Trumpanzee prefers Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, first elected to the Senate in 1976, to Mitt Romney. Despite his family having lost their home and forced to live in a shack without plumbing, now that Orrin has somehow managed to making himself over as a miltimillionaire he has long advocated pulling up the ladder behind him and regularly castigates poor people as lazy and undeserving drunks. This past weekend: "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything." Trump's kind of guy-- and at 84, he practically makes the 71 year old senile Trump seen like a younger. If God suddenly rid us of Trump, Pence and Ryan in one fell swoop, Hatch, as president pro-tempore of the Senate, would become president of the United States.

Hatch was with Trumpanzee in Utah yesterday, doing a little anti-environment work and he told the media that he wants Hatch to run again. Previously Hatch had said he would consider not running for a 55th term or whatever it is if Mitt Romney would run. Romney has indicated that he'd like to. Trumpanzee at the State Capitol: "You are a true fighter, Orrin, I have to say. I've gotten to know him very well. I've gotten to know a lot of people very well. You meet fighters and you meet people who were thought they were fighters, but they're not so good at fighting. He's a fighter. We hope you will continue to serve your state and the country and the senate for a very long time to come."

[Senor Trumpanzee] has privately expressed concern about the prospect of Romney, perhaps his most prominent Republican critic during the 2016 election, joining the Senate, Politico reported. Trump has enjoyed strong support from Hatch, the longest-serving member of the Senate, and would likely face a more contentious relationship with Romney, who was once among the candidates under consideration to be Trump’s secretary of state.

Romney has expressed frustration that Hatch, 83, has not ruled out a run for an eighth term, according to three Republicans who have spoken to him, in part because it was Hatch who urged him to consider running to replace him in the Senate.

On Monday afternoon, Romney took the opposite stance of the president's on Roy Moore, the Alabama candidate for Senate who has been accused of misconduct with women when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. Trump called Moore to endorse him on Monday.

"Roy Moore in the US Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation. Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity," Romney tweeted.

The former Massachusetts governor, who was invited to Monday's event at the state capitol but was out of town and could not attend, has told people in Utah that if he were elected to the Senate, he would not be reflexively opposed to Trump's agenda but would speak out with criticism when merited.

Things like this piss off Trump:

Meanwhile, Mara Liasson reported for NPR that "Utah polls show that big majorities of voters want Hatch to retire and that Romney would easily win the seat. If that happened, Romney would immediately become the most prominent elder statesman of the GOP. Dignified and disciplined, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee would become the center of gravity for those in the party who are uncomfortable with Trump's behavior."

75% of Utah voters say Hatch should retire; and a huge plurality want Romney to replace him in the Senate. Trump probably sees him as a vote for guilty when the House impeaches Trump in 2019.

GOP Greed: Taking From Disabled Vets To Make Their Wealthy Donors Richer

"I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves-- won’t lift a finger-- and expect the federal government to do everything." Although reactionary vulture, Utah scumbag Orrin Hatch said this in regard to the children who count of CHIP (which he helped kill), he might as well have been talking about disabled veterans as well, since he just voted to set the government on a path of destroying their lives too.

The Republican Tax Scam will have serious, even devastating, consequences for the nearly 20% of us who have disabilities-- greater tax burdens and decreased opportunities. As Robyn Powell explained last week to Rewire readers, "People with disabilities already have massive expenses and far less income, on average, than their non-disabled counterparts. Many of their medical necessities-- such as long-term care and certain wheelchairs-- are not covered by some insurance plans, including Medicare, and can cost an individual tens of thousands of dollars. These services are not just about one’s health; having access to a power wheelchair or in-home care can be the difference between living in an institution or a private residence. Right now, taxpayers may deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses if they exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income. Notably, 8.8 million people-- primarily people with disabilities and seniors, as well as their caregivers-- benefited from this important deduction last year." But to make life a tad more bearable for overburdened private jet owners, Ryan's Tax Scam eliminates the out-of-pocket medical expenses deduction

The ability to live and move in the world is also under assault by the GOP. Currently, small businesses can receive tax incentives for modifying their facilities so that people with disabilities can patronize their place of business (as well as comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA).

Disability-related small business tax incentives also help businesses employ people with disabilities by allowing them to deduct some expenditures related to accommodating those employees, such as providing sign language interpreters. The employment rates for people with disabilities are shockingly low: In 2015, only 35 percent of people with disabilities were employed compared with 76 percent of people without disabilities. As the party of “individual responsibility,” you would think that increasing employment across the board would be a priority for the GOP. However, without these important tax breaks for small businesses... far fewer people will be able to work.

Los Angeles area Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), a veteran and an Air Force colonel is the West Coast regional Vice Chair for the DCCC. He told us that "The GOP tax scam will be a disaster for our veterans and our country. It is particularly disgusting that Republicans have proposed repealing tax credits to hire disabled veterans while at the same time giving billionaires and corporations a huge tax cut. Tax policy is ultimately a statement of priorities-- and Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are showing us what their priorities are, and it isn't our veterans."

I wonder if all those self professed Christians in the Republican Party ever think of Jesus' admonition: "As you do to the least of these, so do you do to me." This morning, Randy Bryce texted us that he had been going over parts of the GOP Tax Scam and one of the parts that infuriated him was how it penalizes veterans wounded in the line of duty. "After serving in the Army I returned home to Southeast Wisconsin," he told us. I saw fellow veterans without homes and I worked hand in hand-- through my union and with the Democratic Party and state government to bring needed assistance their way. That is the best of America and is the America I was proud to protect and serve. Targeting disabled veterans who served their country is especially cruel and unAmerican. Seeing this tax scam try and rip needed services away from my brothers and sisters who served sickens me. We didn't serve to protect a billionaires ability to fly a Learjet on the cheap. We served to protect the best of our American values. These frauds are shameful, and we will repeal and replace their leader in the house, Paul Ryan-- a man who appears to truly enjoy hurting those in need in order to see his billionaire buddy's smile."

Lieu and Bryce are exactly right: the Tax Scam falls especially hard on disabled veterans. Blue America talked to the progressive veterans running for Congress, listed on the page that clicking on the thermometer on the right takes you to. As Pennsylvania's Tom Prigg put it: "We fought for our country. Some returned home wounded. All we want is the ability to live a good, normal, productive life. To take care of our families. But now Keith Rothfus and the Republican’s new  tax bill will eliminate the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Credit  tax credits for businesses who hire disabled people like our vets. This heartless bill not only takes away our wounded warrior’s ability to work and take care of their families, it also takes away their dignity by undermining their livelihood. Keith Rothfus, a congressman who never misses an opportunity for a veteran photo-op, supports this bill that will hurt tens-of-thousands of American Veterans and their families."

And Tom's concerns were echoed by all the veteran candidates we talked with. James Thompson is running for the Wichita, Kansas seat, held by Ryan rubberstamp Ron Estes. "Ron Estes is a hypocrite," he told us. "He gives lip service to supporting veterans by showing up to some high profile events to get free media coverage. Yet when the rubber meets the road, and he is given a real opportunity to help veterans, especially disabled veterans, he didn't have their six. He voted in favor of the Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which will give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans, like the KOCH brothers here in my district. This is not tax reform, it is tax robbery paid for by robbing disabled veterans to pay the privileged princes of Wall Street. Ron Estes and his ilk, at the direction of these modern day robber barons, removed the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Simply put, the Work Opportunity Credit incentivizes companies to hire disabled veterans, while the Disabled Access Credit allows them to actually hire disabled vets by making it possible for those same companies to afford special accommodations like ramps. Ending these two credits, harms veterans. PERIOD. Veterans need representatives to watch their six, not use it as an opportunity to stab them in the back. I promise every veteran out there, regardless of party, I will have your six, and will lead the way in making sure our countries heroes are taken care of when they go to war and when they return from it. I hope everyone will call and encourage their Senators and Representatives to vote FOR VETERANS by voting no on the #GOPTaxScam."

Jared Golden is the Maine House whip. He told us that: "Bruce Poliquin and his corporate allies in Washington are intent on funding their tax cuts on the backs of our children and disabled veterans. By adding over $1 trillion to the debt, future generations will be on the hook for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Where the tax plan does make up costs are on the backs of the disabled including our wounded fighting men and women. These tax credits are designed to create an incentive for businesses to hire disabled veterans and others with disabilities, I find it morally reprehensible that these laudable and effective tax credits are where Rep Poliquin and the Republicans in Congress want to find 'savings' so that millionaires and billionaires can buy an extra yacht, or a corporation can move more jobs overseas."

 

Ron Wyden, Progressives & TPP

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

by Gaius Publius

Are progressives willing to attack Ron Wyden on TPP? The question isn't mine — it's from the National Journal (my emphasis throughout):

Are Progressives Willing to Attack One of Their Own on Free Trade?

Ron Wyden is seen as a strong progressive on many social and security issues, but his views on the Trans-Pacific Partnership may go too far for Oregonian progressives.

In recent months, progressives have been voicing their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And they might try and make an example out of Sen. Ron Wyden over it, even though he's been a reliable ally for years.

The free trade agreement, which would involve 12 Asia-Pacific countries—including the U.S. along with countries like Mexico, Japan and Canada—could account for 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of all world trade. Progressive groups say that the deal is no good: it could ship more jobs overseas, undercut environmental and labor standards, and increase Internet censorship. The deal's future may rest with Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, and his support for the partnership has some progressives thinking about going after one of their own in their fight against the deal.

Wyden's support for the partnership has led the Oregon wing of the Working Families Party, a minor political party that supports progressive candidates and causes, to challenge Wyden in his next Senate race in 2016, the party's state director Karly Edwards told National Journal on Wednesday. The group takes issue with Wyden's support for trade promotion authority, also known as "fast track," which would allow the Obama administration to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership with other nations without having Congress amend or filibuster. It's also not a fan of Wyden's previous support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

"Wyden has a track record of supporting job-killing trade deals," Edwards said, adding that the party also opposed Wyden in 2010. "We have smart, savvy voters. They will take account the entire picture."

Wyden may be an "ally" on some progressive issues, but he's an enemy on others:

[Paul] Ryan, [Ron] Wyden back a new Medicare option

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan on Thursday plan to introduce a new Medicare reform plan that would allow seniors to choose between traditional Medicare and new private insurance programs.

The plan has some key differences from the Ryan blueprint that Republicans had rallied around earlier this year — and which Democrats had been united in pummelling in Congress and on the campaign trail as the beginning of the end of Medicare.

The biggest difference is that seniors would have a choice between staying in traditional Medicare, or opting into new private plan alternatives, the two lawmakers said in an interview with POLITICO. Wyden is the first Democrat on Capitol Hill to so strongly embrace a variant of Ryan’s approach. And Ryan has accepted more flexibility than the Medicare approach in the House budget.

These are anti-progressive proposals, both of them. Allowing "private" alternatives to Medicare allows "one foot in the door" for the infamous Ryan Budget, and it's all on Ron Wyden for doing it. Supporting TPP enables job-killing "NAFTA on steroids" — TPP is "the largest accord since NAFTA," as you'll read shortly — and it may all come down to ... "progressive" Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden.

Stopping TPP Means Dealing With Ron Wyden

Here's the New York Times on Ron Wyden's pivotal role:

Fate of Obama’s Trade Agenda May Rest on Oregon Senator

When he’s not legislating, Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, is a wheat, barley and alfalfa farmer in Big Sandy, Mont. That makes him a good bet to support President Obama’s trade agenda, which is generally backed by agriculture interests.

But before he signs on to anything, Mr. Tester said Tuesday, he wants to see what Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, can come up with in arduous negotiations with Republicans.

“Oh, he’s important,” Mr. Tester, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said of Mr. Wyden. “He is the most important person in the caucus on this issue.”

More:

Mr. Obama’s ambitious trade agenda ... appears to rest on the narrow, somewhat wobbly shoulders of Mr. Wyden, a position acknowledged by both parties and the White House with some trepidation.

“[A]s the ranking Democrat, what I’ve tried to do is work closely with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put in place what I call ‘trade done right,’” [Wyden said].

The trade deal sought by the Obama administration, the Trans Pacific Partnership, would be the largest accord since the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] went into force in 1994. It would bind 12 nations along the Pacific Rim to a new economic regime with lower trade barriers; fortified protections for workers [note framing from corp-friendly NYT], the environment and corporate secrets; and new rules to govern the integration of state-owned companies into the global economy.

While some of the opposition to Fast Track comes from Republicans who don't want to cede Congressional power to "the Kenyan" (they're calling it "Obamatrade"), the main opposition to TPP itself comes from Democrats, especially progressive ones:

But even before it is completed, the deal is being challenged, largely by the president’s own party.

Mr. Wyden, whose interest in trade stems from his own export-focused state [note framing by NYT], has found himself trying to thread a maddeningly narrow needle with proposals that would placate Democrats who worry that any such deal will hasten the loss of United States manufacturing jobs while assuring Republicans that he is not undermining the free flow of global commerce.

That last sentence means this: Wyden (according to the Times) wants to reassure Republicans that he is not "undermining the free flow of global commerce." This suggests two questions: First, how does the Times know this? Via someone in Wyden's office, or Ron Wyden himself perhaps, speaking "on background"? That seems a more likely source than the writer taking the word of a Republican speaking "on background," or offering his own unsourced guess. But your call on that.

Second, who else, do you think, wants that "reassurance"? How about the billionaires who want "free flow of global commerce" — i.e., "commerce" unrestricted by government anywhere in the world — in order to ... you have to say it, further enrich their CEOs.

This is the world of billionaires; this is their big "want" — TPP — and Wyden is trying to find a way to give it to them.

More on Wyden's pivotal role, again via the Times:

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, says he cannot go forward with such “fast track” authority until the Senate can produce a bipartisan version. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, says he cannot produce one without the support of his committee’s ranking Democrat, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. Wyden is no stranger to controversy. He has long seen himself as a bridge between the parties. He teamed up with Mr. Ryan on an overhaul of Medicare ahead of the 2012 elections, enraging fellow Democrats. He tried to forge bipartisan comity with an approach to universal health care that broke with the Democratic leadership but also with most Republicans. He drafted, then redrafted, tax reform plans with successive Republican partners.

Wyden is positioning himself as using his key position to advocate for "progressive" changes:

“Right now it’s kind of stuck because I think some of the Democrats want things that we just can’t give them,” Mr. Hatch said on Tuesday.

The Obama administration and Republican negotiators say they have bent over backward to win Mr. Wyden’s support.

But they're both, Wyden and Hatch, looking for what's usually called "a path to yes."

Will Wyden Give Republicans a Path to Yes on TPP and Fast Track?

They're close to a deal. From a recent (subscription only) edition of Inside U.S. Trade, an industry publication. ("TPA" is industry-speak for "trade promotion authority" — Fast Track.)

Hatch, Wyden Closer to TPA [Fast Track]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said yesterday he may be just days away from agreement with ranking Democrat Ron Wyden (Ore) on a bipartisan bill giving President Obama Trade Promotion Authority (WTD, 3/19/15).

If the two senators can come to a meeting of minds on TPA before Congress leaves town at the end of this month [March 2015], Sen. Hatch said he will move the bill through his committee in April. With an agreement in place with Sen. Wyden, the Finance Committee Chairman is confident of having the votes to get TPA out of his committee. The two senators have been at odds over how easy it should be for Congress to remove “fast track” legislative protections from a trade agreement.

President Obama, who needs TPA in order to complete ongoing negotiations on the TransPacific Partnership, earlier this week called Sen. Hatch urging him to reach a deal with Sen. Wyden. The Finance chairman said he believes Sen. Wyden wants a deal as well. And in fact, Sen. Wyden has asked Sen. Hatch to move a little bit more in his direction so they can finish the bill. While he has already “given him a lot,” Sen. Hatch told reporters he will “do my best to find something that will bring him on board without ruining the bill.”

Does that sound like Wyden is looking for "a path to yes"? It does to me.

TPP, Increasing Billionaires' Wealth and Obama's Clintonian "Legacy"

The Inside U.S. Trade piece goes on to say how important TPP is for Obama and his "legacy":

In remarks to the American Apparel and Footwear Association, the Finance chairman [Sen. Orrin Hatch] said President Obama desperately needs a “legacy” issue. The two trade deals that the Administration is negotiating – the TPP and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – could be that legacy.

He's right. As I've written many times, Obama had four "legacy wants" coming into office, at least on the economic side:

1. Health care “reform” — a privatized alternative to Medicare expansion (i.e., no possibility of Medicare for those under 65).

2. A “grand bargain” in which social insurance benefits are rolled back.

3. Plentiful oil and gas, along with passage of the Keystone Pipeline (KXL).

4. Passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.

He has two — #1 and #3 — in spectacular fashion (KXL has been mooted by the many mini-Keystones and by oil trains). Obama may yet get #2 (let's watch those budgets and Pelosi-supported Medicare cuts in the "doc fix" bill). And Ron Wyden holds the key to #4, TPP, which comes just as Obama is close to leaving office.

What did Bill Clinton do as his own "legacy" before leaving office?

On December 21, 2000 [his last full month in office], President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law ensured that derivatives could not be regulated, setting the stage for the financial crisis.  Just two months later, on February 5, 2001, Clinton received  $125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave for the company in New York City.  A few weeks later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a lot of money, for not very much work.

Whether he intends it or not, Obama could guarantee himself and his family a Clintonian post-presidency with passage of the global billionaires' highest priority, TPP. Sometimes you only need to fool people some of the time, if it's the right people at the right time. One can always apologize "on reflection" — as Bill Clinton did about "free trade" and Haiti — after it's too late to roll back the damage or uncash the paychecks. (The question of whether these men are fooling themselves along with the rest of us is beyond the scope of this discussion; but it offers much food for thought.)

Will Progressives Punish Ron Wyden for Enabling TPP?

This is where the progressive rubber meets the Democratic Party road. There's no question in any real progressive mind that TPP is not just evil but spectacularly evil. It will do what NAFTA did — but in 20 countries, not just three. And it will pave the way for a deal with Europe that will double that damage and then some. (My own writing on NAFTA, TPP and "free trade" is collected here.)

Progressives, however, often have a blind spot for the Democratic Party, and especially for their "allies" within it. So let me put this plainly. This is about power, and winning, on the most important wealth distribution issue of the day. Progressives can punish Ron Wyden for even considering this deal — can tarnish his own "legacy" now — in order to back him away from "a path to yes." Or they can get played, again, by one of "their (supposed) own." Which will it be — victory, or another unfortunate (but self-imposed) defeat? Do we go soft on Wyden or not?

NAFTA Was Signed in 1994; Its Damage Is With Us Today

The second red splash you see in the chart below is the U.S. trade deficit since NAFTA. It's huge and ongoing.

NAFTA and the damage done; click to enlarge (source)

TPP (and TPIP, the trans-Atlantic version), if signed, will do like damage when your infant daughter is an adult with children of her own. Only the billionaires who want this badly — and their enablers — will benefit.

WFP of Oregon is taking Wyden on. Will the larger groups do the same? And if they do, will they kiss his feet before asking him nicely to stop? Or will they be forceful enough to make him stop?

These aren't rhetorical questions. Our children's economic future is literally in Ron Wyden's hands. Will progressives be effective enough to stop him? Or play too nice to win when it counts?

GP

Another Manifestation Of The GOP Civil War: Utah's 2 Republicans Parted Ways On Immigration Reform

Mike Lee & Orrin Hatch

What's a Republicano to do? The racist, hate-filled base they've nurtured equates comprehensive immigration reform with national suicide but the party elders and, more important, the corporate financial financiers, absolutely insist on it-- and assert it would be political suicide for the GOP to derail it.

The conservative rank-and-file have a loud and clear message for Republican officials: Support citizenship for illegal immigrants at your own peril.

A sizable plurality of registered GOP voters say they will be less likely to support their incumbent lawmaker if he or she votes for immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those currently living illegally in the United States.

That's what happens when you outsource your party messaging to ratings (profit)-motivated shock jocks on Hate Talk Radio. But Paul Ryan, always a patsy for the check-writing Establishment that funds right-wing politicians like himself-- he really is their Frankenstein monster-- is helping persuade House Members to buck up, just like he persuaded them to back Bush's big bankster bailout. Cantor, McCarthy and Ryan are the Establishment's shock troops inside the House GOP caucus to deliver enough Republicans so that Boehner can slip the Senate bill in without violating "the Hastert Rule" and triggering his own political demise.

To watch how this is playing out locally, let's look at the reddest and most backward state in America. In 2012, Utah voters gave Romney 73% of it's vote, far worse than Alabama (61%), Mississippi (56%), Georgia (53%), South Carolina (55%), Arkansas (61%), Kansas (60%), Wyoming (69%), Idaho (65%), Louisiana (58%), Oklahoma (67%), Alaska (55%) or Texas (57%). Romney won every single county in the state, even Salt Lake, Summit and Grand counties. And in 10 counties, Obama only managed to score 10% of the vote or less, just 8% in benighted, all Mormon Rich County. Utah is a Republican hellhole. The only Democrat Utah sends to Congress, corrupt Blue Dog Jim Matheson, has been a more reliable supporter of this year's Republican's conservative agenda than half a dozen Republicans!

Junior Senator Mike Lee is one of the most right-wing ideologues elected to the U.S. Senate since before the Civil War. And, of course, he's an unapologetic bigot who caters to the worst instincts of the Hate Talk Radio crowd and a leader of the anti-immigrant hard-liners. Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune features him vowing to fight on despite passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Hometown boy in the hometown paper:

Sen. Mike Lee has aggressively fought against the Senate’s immigration bill, but on Fox News Sunday he said not only is the Senate poised to pass the legislation this week, it may well get the 70 votes supporters have long desired.

That doesn’t mean Lee, R-Utah, is dropping his campaign. He is just shifting its target, hoping to bolster Republicans in the House who agree with him that the nation must not only pass border security legislation but also see it implemented before undocumented immigrants receive legal status.

...Lee argues the bill’s supporters are selling it on false promises.

"They told us that it would be tough but fair, and it is neither," he said. "It is not tough on those who have broken the law, and it’s not fair on those who have patiently been waiting in line to come to this country legally."

The legislation would allow many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants to begin a 13-year path to citizenship, with a green card contingent on border improvements and an expanded workplace verification system.

The state's other very conservative-- if more mainstream-- senator is Orrin Hatch. He was also in the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday... explaining why he was voting for the bill Lee and the hate Talk Radio crowd are so vehemently opposed to.

Eleven million people. That’s the number of undocumented immigrants estimated to be in our country, the result of our broken immigration system.

The question is not only what should be done with these 11 million people, but what should be done to prevent 11 million more from coming to the United States illegally. We can’t afford to ignore this reality any more.

Is this legislation perfect or what I would have drafted? Absolutely not. But as it stands now, the Senate immigration bill makes sure that these 11 million people are paying into society, and fixes many of the pressing issues associated with our broken immigration system.

That’s why I will vote for it this week.

This legislation significantly strengthens border security. An amendment by my colleagues Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., means that an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents will be stationed along the southern border, more than doubling the current force.

It also requires that an additional 700 miles of fencing be built and that E-verify-- an Internet-based system that ensures that employers hire only legal workers-- be used by all businesses in the country, making it virtually impossible to work in the United States illegally.

Some have said this bill grants amnesty, but that’s just not true. We have de facto amnesty right now, and this bill fixes that. The fact is that in order to be put on a pathway to citizenship, immigrants currently here illegally would be required to pay a fine, pass criminal and national security background checks and pay taxes.

Only after at least 10 years have passed and all five of these so-called “triggers” have been fully implemented can an illegal immigrant even apply for a green card. That’s hardly amnesty.

I successfully added an amendment to create a mandatory biometric exit system at the top airports to increase border security from the inside out.

Preventing individuals from entering the country illegally is only one side of the coin; the other side is preventing them from staying here illegally.

Two additional amendments I introduced to limit public benefits to newly legalized immigrants are a part of this package as well. Ensuring that federal welfare requirements are fully complied with and that unauthorized workers are prohibited from receiving Social Security benefits protects American taxpayers.

And I’m going to continue to push to include that back taxes must be paid for anyone who’s been here illegally.

The immigration reform legislation ensures that we can meet our labor needs in the short term and the long term.

First, the legislation creates a guest-worker program that’s vitally important for the agricultural sector of our economy, including Utah’s farmers and ranchers.

Second, the bill includes several amendments I introduced to improve our high-skilled employment base and education and training in the STEM fields-- science, technology, engineering, and math-- to ensure we can continue to compete in a global economy.

In the short term, the legislation creates a real-time, market-based escalator that allows additional high-skilled H-1B visas to be granted when these jobs are needed here in the U.S., and fall when they’re not.

The legislation also increases the number of visas allocated each year, which is important because the cap on these visas was met in only five days this year. And another one of my amendments included in the bill creates a STEM education and training account which takes money from visa fees and sends it to the states to use towards STEM education programs.

Finally, the legislation includes a number of additional provisions I fought for that also impact Utah.

It permanently extends a visa program for religious workers and establishes strong penalties for growing marijuana on federal land.

I’ve served in the Senate the last two times immigration has been undertaken-- in 1986 and in 2007. I voted against both of those pieces of legislation because they were the wrong approach.

I believe that the bill before the Senate today takes many important steps toward being the right solution for our country, but more needs to be done.

I will work with the House of Representatives to ensure that we continue to improve this bill for American families and taxpayers.

Why Is The Republican Party The Party Of Ultimate Failure?

Slimy Republican senators-- particularly off-the-rails Mormon obstructionist Orrin Hatch (R-UT)-- say the lame duck session is no place for so important a job as confirming almost two dozen judicial nominees. Changing the American social contract to wreck Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid... that's just what lame ducks are for in Orrin Hatch's oxygen-deprived world. That and overturning the very recently expressed will of the voters.

Voters were sending a clear message on taxes: it is time for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.

• Fully 62% of voters say they were sending the message that, “We should make sure the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes;” and these voters supported President Obama by 55 points. Only one in three voters wanted to reduce tax rates for all taxpayers.

• By 17 points, voters say they want to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 (55% to 38%).

• A strong majority (65%) oppose eliminating taxes on U.S. corporations’ offshore profits.

• There is also bipartisan support for ending preferential tax treatment for corporations that ship jobs overseas, with 64% of all voters favoring ending those loopholes. This includes 61% of Republicans, and 63% of self-identified Conservative Republicans.

In a very divided electorate, Obama voters and Romney voters agree on one thing: we should protect Medicare and Social Security.

• Fully three-quarters of the electorate report sending this message with their vote: “We should protect Medicare and Social Security benefits from cuts.” By contrast, just 18% feel that “we should reduce spending on Medicare and Social Security to bring down the budget deficit.” Both Obama voters (86% to 8%) and Romney voters (62% to 28%) agree that their vote was against-- not for--cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

• Sixty percent (60%) oppose raising the Social Security retirement age, and 68% oppose raising the Medicare eligibility age.

• Voters also overwhelmingly oppose cuts to Medicaid benefits (23% in favor, 69% oppose).

• Instead of cutting benefits, Americans want to reduce Medicare costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. Nearly 90% of voters support that change, compared to only 8% who oppose it.

There is virtually no support (outside the Beltway) for Congress and the President to move quickly to complete a “grand bargain” that reduces Social Security and Medicare benefits.

• When voters are informed of a possible “grand bargain” budget deal that would overhaul the tax code, reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits, and reduce the budget deficit, their reaction is overwhelmingly negative. Fully 75% say Congress should take more time and allow for public debate before even considering such large changes, while just 16% favor the “grand bargain.”

• Among President Obama’s supporters, just 8% say they voted for him so that he could work with Republicans for a deficit reduction deal, while 77% voted for him so that he would fix the economy by rebuilding the middle class and investing in America.

Voters remain focused on the core issue of protecting jobs, and helping Americans who are still struggling to find employment.

• By an overwhelming 70% to 25%, voters say they want Congress to continue federal unemployment insurance benefits for those who have lost their jobs and are unable to find new jobs.

• By more than two to one, Americans favor providing federal funding to local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers (64% favor, 31% oppose).

• More than 6 in 10 Americans favor maintaining public investments that create jobs while gradually reducing the budget deficit compared to just 31% who favor large reductions in spending in order to bring down the deficit now.

You may have noticed all the hubbub this week about how Romney had basically doubled down on his 47% comments-- even though the 47% turned out to be 53% of the voters earlier this month-- and claimed the reason he and Ryan lost wasn't because their ideas and agenda was defeated but because Obama had been handing out gifts to traditional Democratic voting blocs-- Latinos, Blacks, young people. Presumably he was talking about food stamps, health insurance and protection from Republican disenfranchisement efforts. No mention of the gifts he had been promising his wealthy donors-- tax breaks for them, failed Austerity policies for everyone else.

Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity-- I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

The ultimate irony is, of course, how Republican policies create poverty and misery and that the states that they control-- the red states-- are the states that fall behind... in everything. Republican states, particularly the old slave states, the solid base of the GOP, are what Paul Ryan would call "the takers, not the makers." They're the states that pay in less in taxes than they take back from the federal government. And they whine about it nonstop, primarily because they are also the least educated, most illiterate areas of the country, most prone to Bronze Age religionist superstitions and mindless brainwashing by Fox and Hate Talk Radio and historically the most easily manipulated by demagogues and plutocrats. Notice in the chart below that 100% of the top tax-producing states vote for Democrats and that 80% of the top tax-dependent states vote for Republicans:

And that carries over on a county by county level as well:

The Blue counties contribute the most state taxes relative to the services they consume. The Red counties consume the most services relative to the taxes they pay. For example, a recent study documented the pattern in Washington state. King County, the solidly-Democratic county that surrounds Seattle, provides "nearly 42% of the state's tax revenues, yet receives only 25% of the money spend from Washington's general fund." Conversely, five counties that require the most in services relative to the taxes they pay are largely Republican.

California shows a similar pattern. Republican Modoc and Tulare Counties consume the most in taxpayer-funded services from the state on a per-capita basis. Says San Francisco Chronicle writer Kevin Fagan: "The prevailing attitude among the right-wing ranchers and modern hippies who define Modoc County is of fierce self-reliance-- but more people here than just about anywhere else depend on welfare checks of some kind to get by." In contrast, famously liberal San Francisco and Marin Counties generate the most tax revenues for the state on a per capita basis.

Why do people in Red states and counties resent government spending so passionately even as they need so much of it? The central problem is poverty. Many of the residents of these counties are poor. They are ill-prepared to make a decent living no matter how hard they tug on their own bootstraps. For example, in California's conservative Modoc county only 12 percent of adults over 25 have a bachelor's degree. Nearly 20 percent live below the poverty line. Many Modoc residents can't afford to send their children to college. They need government programs to survive, let alone improve their financial outlook.

Without government support it's hard to see a way to break the cycle of poverty and dependence. At least so far, the formula of small government, limited services, low investment, and low taxes that conservative states have implemented for themselves hasn't helped their economies much.

This situation would be funny if it weren't so tragic. When a tax protester yelled "Keep your goddamn government hands off my Medicare" many scoffed at that one person's ignorance. But most Americans who rail against taxes and the size of government are profoundly unaware that taxes they hate fund the programs they want and need. And they are unaware that the states and counties inhabited by "welfare queens" and "freeloading illegals" are actually sending them the money that keeps them fed, cared for, and educated. 

Funny that Romney and Ryan-- avatars of the Austerity policies that produce these kinds of results-- kept referring to Obama as "the food stamp president." In a report in The New Republic last month, Jonathan Cohn pointed out the differences in how states with Democratic governance responds to the basic needs of their citizens in comparison to the hellholes that have fallen into the grasp of Republicans.

Today, Texas doesn’t even try to provide the kind of protection for its vulnerable residents that Massachusetts does. It has more uninsured residents than any other state in the country; its lawmakers have repeatedly refused money from the federal government to expand health insurance for kids. Its welfare program is among the nation’s stingiest: Eligible families get less than $300 a month, about 19 percent of the federal poverty line. The Texas state housing budget is a mere $5.5 million-- a tiny fraction of what Massachusetts spends, even though Texas has almost four times as many people. “There’s no other state money allocated for housing,” says John Henneberger, co-director of the Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, “unless you want to count prisons.”

This pattern generally holds for the red states and the blue states overall. In a statistical comparison complied at the request of The new republic, experts Marcia Meyers from the University of Washington and Sarah Bruch from the University of Iowa compared state performances on nine safety net programs for unemployed workers and low-income families. They found that blue states assisted more people in need and provided more generous benefits than the red states-- even after adjusting for the fact that the blue states tend to be more expensive places to live. “The story is pretty clear,” Meyers says. “If you are poor, you want to live in a blue state.”

Blue states also invest a higher proportion of their budget on safety net spending, according to a study compiled by Curtis Skinner, director of family economic security at the National Center for Children in Poverty. This category includes major, means-tested programs like Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, as well as smaller programs for foster care, homeless shelters, and so on. The ten “highest expenditure” states are blue states; eight of the ten “lowest expenditure states” are red.

The easiest way to grasp what this means for the actual residents of red and blue America is to look at Medicaid. Although the federal government sets minimum standards for coverage and benefits, states have discretion over how many additional people to include. Based on data compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the five states with the strictest criteria for working parents are Arkansas, Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas. The five states with the least restrictive requirements are Minnesota, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Wisconsin. A Minnesota mom with two kids and a job that doesn’t offer health insurance can get Medicaid as long her annual income doesn’t exceed about $40,000. But if she moves to Arkansas, she’ll be ineligible for Medicaid as soon as her household income reaches $3,150 a year-- not nearly enough to pay for basic living costs, let alone health insurance.

...By nearly every measure, people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states. It’s impossible to prove that this is the direct result of government spending. But the correlation is hard to dismiss. The four states with the highest poverty rates are all red: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. (The fifth is New Mexico, which has turned blue.) And the five states with the lowest poverty rates are all blue: New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Minnesota, and Hawaii. The numbers on infant mortality, life expectancy, teen pregnancy, and obesity break down in similar ways. A recent study by researchers at the American Institute for Physics evaluated how well-prepared high schoolers were for careers in math and science. Massachusetts was best, followed closely by Minnesota and New Jersey. Mississippi was worst, along with Louisiana and West Virginia. In fact, it is difficult to find any indicator of well-being in which red states consistently do better than blue states.