How Much Of A Scam Was Trump's Carrier Announcement Yesterday?

"Trump, who lost the popular vote, has now sent the message it is open season for massive corporations to seek specialized tax breaks from the incoming Administration. This is crony capitalism at its worst. Trump is not only failing to drain the swamp, he is fertilizing the swamp."
-Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)

In reference to what Gaius was talking about this morning, let's look at some of the fallout from Trump's Carrier announcement. The first time I ever heard about Carrier announcing they would move their plant from Indiana to Mexico was when Bernie started campaigning on it-- loudly. Trump saw that too and quickly started parroting Bernie's complaints on the the campaign trail. Yesterday Bernie penned an OpEd for the Washington Post, Carrier just showed corporations how to beat Donald Trump, warning that American workers have a lot to be worried about because of the nature of the deal Trump cut with United Technologies, Carrier's parent company (in which Trump holds an immense financial stake personally). The deal, he writes, "keeps less than 1,000 of the 2100 jobs in America that were previously scheduled to be transferred to Mexico. Let’s be clear: It is not good enough to save some of these jobs. Trump made a promise that he would save all of these jobs, and we cannot rest until an ironclad contract is signed to ensure that all of these workers are able to continue working in Indiana without having their pay or benefits slashed."

In exchange for allowing United Technologies to continue to offshore more than 1,000 jobs, Trump will reportedly give the company tax and regulatory favors that the corporation has sought. Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to “pay a damn tax.” He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How’s that for standing up to corporate greed? How’s that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?

In essence, United Technologies took Trump hostage and won. And that should send a shock wave of fear through all workers across the country.

Trump scores publicity win after Carrier keeps jobs in Indiana. Now will other companies take advantage?

...Trump has endangered the jobs of workers who were previously safe in the United States. Why? Because he has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives. Even corporations that weren’t thinking of offshoring jobs will most probably be re-evaluating their stance this morning. And who would pay for the high cost for tax cuts that go to the richest businessmen in America? The working class of America.

Let’s be clear. United Technologies is not going broke. Last year, it made a profit of $7.6 billion and received more than $6 billion in defense contracts. It has also received more than $50 million from the Export-Import Bank and very generous tax breaks. In 2014, United Technologies gave its former chief executive Louis Chenevert a golden parachute worth more than $172 million. Last year, the company’s five highest-paid executives made more than $50 million. The firm also spent $12 billion to inflate its stock price instead of using that money to invest in new plants and workers.

Does that sound like a company that deserves more corporate welfare from our government? Trump’s Band-Aid solution is only making the problem of wealth inequality in America even worse.

I said I would work with Trump if he was serious about the promises he made to members of the working class. But after running a campaign pledging to be tough on corporate America, Trump has hypocritically decided to do the exact opposite. He wants to treat corporate irresponsibility with kid gloves. The problem with our rigged economy is not that our policies have been too tough on corporations; it’s that we haven’t been tough enough.

We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.

If United Technologies or any other company wants to keep outsourcing decent-paying American jobs, those companies must pay an outsourcing tax equal to the amount of money it expects to save by moving factories to Mexico or other low-wage countries.  They should not receive federal contracts or other forms of corporate welfare. They must pay back all of the tax breaks and other corporate welfare they have received from the federal government. And they must not be allowed to reward their executives with stock options, bonuses or golden parachutes for outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. I will soon be introducing the Outsourcing Prevention Act, which will address exactly that.

If Donald Trump won’t stand up for America’s working class, we must.

As Joshua Holland pointed out at The Nation this week, whenTrump promised to get tough with companies that offshore jobs, he never said anything about buying them off with our tax dollars. And this isn't just about Carrier air conditioners, which Trump sued in 2007 because of air-conditioner malfunctions in one of his hotels. The single biggest customer for United Technology's $56 billion business is the U.S. government. Trump may have saved a few hundred jobs-- it won't even be a thousand-- but at what cost? Yesterday's Indie Star's headline told the whole story: Federal access likely biggest factor in Carrier deal.

State Rep. Kaniela Saito Ing (D-Maui) is certainly the most progressive political leader in Hawaii-- and the only progressive elected official in the whole state to back Bernie's hugely successful primary campaign-- and he saw right through the little ploy. "Trump," he told us after the announcement in Indiana yesterday, "is setting a dangerously low standard for corporate handouts. Threaten your workers with offshoring, exploit them as pawns, then watch the business-friendly corporate tax breaks roll in. The Carrier charade is an anti-worker moral hazard, that voids corporate bosses of all accountability. A true pro-worker agenda starts from the ground up through living and prevailing wage laws, collective bargaining, paid leave, and putting an end to Trump's union-busting agenda."

Retired Marine Colonel Doug Applegate, who nearly toppled predatory multimillionaire Darrell Issa this month in the suburbs north of San Diego-- and who is Blue America's first endorsed candidate for 2018-- took one look at Trump's "deal" and mentioned that "the annual tax rebates to Carrier from the State of Indiana in the amount of $700,000... Sounds like Republican corporate welfare checks to me!"

Even today's Wall Street Journal, a bastion of neo-liberalism with a screwed up but internally consistent way of analyzing this whole thing, looked askance at the clumsy, ineffective way Trump went about this.

[R]eal job security depends on the profitability of the business. Carrier wanted to move the production line to Mexico to stay competitive in the market for gas furnaces. If the extra costs of staying in Indianapolis erode that business, those workers will lose their jobs eventually in any case.

This isn’t to fault Mr. Hayes’s decision, since Mr. Trump made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. The state of Indiana threw in $7 million in tax incentives, but those weren’t decisive. Mr. Trump’s real hammer is his threat to impose a tariff on Carrier imports to the U.S. Carrier has a 30% share of the U.S. gas-furnace market, and a 35% tariff could kill the business. That’s the same sword Mr. Trump previously held over Ford Motor Co.

United Technologies also gets about 10% of its revenue from sales to the Pentagon, another source of government leverage. Then there’s the potential damage to the Carrier brand, especially its consumer air conditioner sales, if Mr. Trump decided to blast it from the bully-- and we mean bully-- pulpit. So United Technologies decided to take the small cost against earnings and invest to make the Indiana plant more competitive.

...A mercantilist Trump trade policy that jeopardized those exports would throw far more Americans out of work than the relatively low-paying jobs he’s preserved for now in Indianapolis. Mr. Trump’s Carrier squeeze might even cost more U.S. jobs if it makes CEOs more reluctant to build plants in the U.S. because it would be politically difficult to close them.

Mr. Trump has now muscled his way into at least two corporate decisions about where and how to do business. But who would you rather have making a decision about where to make furnaces or cars? A company whose profitability depends on making good decisions, or a branding executive turned politician who wants to claim political credit?

The larger point is that America won’t become more prosperous by forcing companies to make noneconomic investments. A nation gets rich when individuals and business are allowed to take risks as they see fit in a competitive economy. Politicians are rotten investors. Mr. Trump would help the economy, and his Presidency, far more if he focuses on getting the pro-growth parts of his agenda through Congress.

Like the Nixon Administration, Donald Trump’s unpredictable, non-ideological policy-making will sometimes be disorienting for those who claim to believe in free markets. Some conservatives will be tempted to tolerate bad policies that appear to be popular that they’d never accept from President Obama. Many Republicans stayed silent or supported Nixon as he imposed wage-and-price controls and created the EPA, only to regret it later. They shouldn’t make the same mistake with Mr. Trump.

The better strategy is to support him when his policies promote growth and try to block him when he veers into big-government cul-de-sacs. In that spirit, his Carrier shakedown is a short-term political victory that will hurt workers and the economy if it becomes the norm for the next four years.

Even Palin-- currently sucking around for a Cabinet appointment-- slapped Trump around today over the Carrier nonsense, calling it crony capitalism. "When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies," she wrote, "favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail... [F]undamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn’t the answer. Cajole only chosen ones on Main St or Wall St and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska full of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up. The lines strangle competition and really, really, dispiritingly screw with workers’ lives. It’s beyond unacceptable, so let’s anticipate equal incentivizes and positive reform all across the field-- to make the economy great again."

Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, is happy for the workers who will get to keep their jobs-- fewer than half-- but pointed out that "the Carrier deal is only a bandage on the economic wounds in our industrial heartland. Over the past 16 years, America has lost more than 60,000 manufacturing facilities, and 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. Not all of those jobs can be reclaimed, but smarter policies will give factory workers a brighter future. A tougher trade policy, a tax code that incentivizes reshoring jobs and production, investments in infrastructure, research, and training are all urgently needed. America has manufacturing know-how, abundant energy resources, a culture of entrepreneurship, a strong homegrown consumer market, and access to amazing innovation. Smarter policies will help us compete. We know these issues enjoy bipartisan support among voters, and they should be the focus of Congress and the Trump administration in 2017."

Frogs Legs, Anyone?

Last night I went to dinner with state Rep. Kaniela Saito Ing (D-Maui). Now state Senator Stanley Chang, once a Blue America congressional candidate, introduced us and told me he's one of the smartest and most progressive political leaders in Hawaii. At age 27, he's also the youngest chairperson in Hawaii's legislative history, heading up the Ocean, Marine Resources, and Hawaiian Affairs committee in the state legislature. His newborn son's middle name is Kekipi, which means "the rebel" in Hawaiian. We ate at chef Josef Centeno's new vegetarian restaurant, PYT. Here's the menu. It's nothing like Jean-Georges in New York, where Trump brought Romney Tuesday night. Their website announces that ties are not required. Here's the menu. I don't know what Romney or Reince ate-- the terminally nasty Mike Huckabee told Fox viewers yesterday that "On Mitt Romney’s plate there was a big, big slice of crow"-- but Trump ate Egg Caviar; Diver Scallops, Caramelized Cauliflower and Caper-Raisin Emulsion; Young Garlic Soup with Thyme and Sautéed Frog Legs; Turbot with Château Chalon Sauce; Lobster Tartine, Lemongrass and Fenugreek Broth, Pea Shoots; Broiled Squab, Onion Compote, Corn Pancake with Foie Gras; along with a Chocolate Dessert Tasting. I don't know if they went Dutch or not but Trump's portion costs $218. Romney looked awkward. God only knows what's going on in his head.

I wonder if making Romney eat frogs legs at the decadent Jean-Georges was part of Trump's public humiliation of the man who did everything he could to defeat him for the better part of the last two years.

NEWT GINGRICH: There's a scene in Pretty Women where Richard Gere goes up to the salesman on Rodeo Drive and says: "We need a little sucking up here."

You have never, ever, in your career seen a wealthy adult who is independent, has been a presidential candidate, suck up at the rate that Mitt Romney is sucking up.

I am confident that he thinks now that he and Donald Trump are the best of friends, they have so many things in common. That they're both such wise, brilliant people. And I'm sure last night at an elegant three-star restaurant, he was happy to share his version of populism, which involve a little fois gras, a certain amount of superb cooking, but put that in a populist happy manner.

LAURA INGRAHAM: I was trying to figure out what the frog legs on the menu meant.

GINGRICH: The frog legs are very elegant. Callista and I both had fathers who ate frog legs. I did notice that Reince Priebus of Kenosha, Wisconsin decided not to have frog legs. I can't wait to talk to Reince and find out exactly how a guy of his background worked his way through the menu.

Luckily for them, Mitt speaks French fluently. So he could help them with the menu. He could say: "Ahh, Mr. President-elect. This would be the perfect meal for you."

Something like maybe escargot, maybe pheasant. God, I'd love to have been there as a fly on the wall...

They know that every day that goes by the opposition to Romney grows...

Every day they let this thing hang out there it becomes harder and more expensive to pick Romney.

Romney isn't the only candidate for Secretary of Trump State being put through his paces. Rudy Giuliani, Gen. David Petraeus (ret.), Marine Corps General John Kelly (ret.), Gen. Keith Kellogg (ret.) and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee are all still in the running, according to ringmaster Trumpanzee. Kelly had a TV dinner last night with the many-chinned Trump in his Trump Tower aerie. Do they have frog leg TV dinners now? My dad once brought me to the original Nathan's on Coney Island-- Trump will have been there; the housing development where Woody Guthrie lived and wrote the song about Trump, Sr. being a racist slob was nearby-- and I noticed they had frog's legs on the menu. When I told him that's what I wanted he advised me against it but I insisted-- and then puked when I took a bite and imagined I was eating a slimy frog. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher claims Trump is also interested in him being Secretary of State but no one but the slightly crazy-- and more than slightly delusional-- Rohrabacher thinks so. Unless Putin is telling Trump to go with Rohrabacher.

Trump has turned the process into an undignified pageant. I only wish there was a televised swim suit competition as part of the spectacle. But none of that seems nearly as amusing as the ABC News report yesterday that His Trumpiness is seriously considering Sarah Palin as Secretary of Veteran's Affairs. He must really hate the vets. Palin-- ala Rudy Giuliani-- is opening lobbing for the gig. One of the guys who impregnated a Palin daughter and who served in the military is pumping for her. Trump probably wants to have her mud-wrestle Scott Brown for the job, although... Trumpy the Clown is also reported to be looking at Rick Perry and former Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL). Palin's pitch to the transition team:

"Stop blaming the victim and wake up, Mr. President. While Christians bow our heads to pray for you, radical Islamists want to cut off your head. The only thing standing between us and savages, it’s the red white and blue, it's the United States military! And if you love freedom, thank a vet! Thank them. Honor them."

Palin hasn't been invited to Trump Tower for frogs legs or a TV dinner but she loudly reminded everyone who would take her call that she was an early Trump supporter when no one knew who he was except people who watched his TV show. She says if she doesn't get the Veterans gig, she'll take Energy, reminding everyone that the "drill, baby, drill" slogan was hers.

“NOW is the time to shut off the Saudi oil cartel flow valve and develop our own God-given natural resources. The only excuse not to become energy independent is a political excuse,” she wrote.

That same day, she wrote about her family’s connection to native Alaskans, a relationship covered by the interior secretary position. Palin’s husband Todd is part-native Alaskan.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign CEO and the president-elect's pick for chief strategist, is close with Palin. In 2011, he made a documentary about her titled The Undefeated.

After ABC News reported on Palin being under consideration for the VA secretary position, she posted a message on Facebook, which she then tweeted, writing in part, "We should be grateful we'll soon have a commander-in-chief who will champion our vets and honor the promises our nation made."

Senator Palin?

Probably not, but stranger things have happened-- like that lady hog castrator from Iowa who's now a senator and there's Jim Inhofe, the climate change denier and Jeff Sessions, the KKK guy from Alabama. So who knows? Palin's Scottsdale home is on the market for $2.5 million and she's been mumbling about moving back to Alaska and taking on the more mainstream Murkowski, who's tenure has been anything but conventional.

Murkowski's father, Frank, was a crooked senator and a crooked governor. His first act as governor was to resign from the Senate and appoint his daughter to the job (2002). He was badly defeated in the Republican primary by Sarah Palin when he ran for a second gubernatorial term. Lisa ran for election when her father's term expired in 2004 and she beat former Governor Tony Knowles (D) 48.6- 45.5%. Six years later, with the Tea Party at full boil, she was challenged in the GOP primary by crackpot extemist Joe Miller-- backed by Palin-- who beat her 55,878 (50.91%) to 53,872 (49.09%). She then tried running as a Libertarian but was rejected by the party leadership and ran in the general as a write-in candidate, with major union support, beating Miller (the official Republican) and Scott McAdams (D). She got 101,091 votes (39.49%) to Miller's 90,839 (35.49%) and McAdams' 60,045 (23.46%), although Miller sued several times and kept her from being certified for two months. Her record in the Senate is one of the most mainstream of any Republican. This session her record is tied with Kelly Ayotte's as the 4th least right-wing of all the Republicans in the Senate, beaten only by Susan Collins (ME), Rand Paul (KY) and Mark Kirk (IL). She's been mixed on women's choice and has been supportive of LGBT equality.The Palin wing of the party hates her.

There have been rumblings that Miller might primary her again-- although he said today that he probably won't-- and another Tea Party crackpot, Karen Perry claims to be running. But Palin would change the dynamic drastically. Conventional wisdom is that Murkowski is a shoe-in for reelection. A Democratic nominee hasn't emerged yet. Palin would certainly throw a monkey wrench into everyone's calculations. Palin hasn't endorsed anyone in the presidential primary but she has plenty of praise for Cruz and Trumpf. When asked how she felt about Rubio, she had a perceptive one-word response: "robotic." And her one word response to the same question about Jeb Bush? "George."

Last month she penned a guest post for Breitbart, slamming Ryan and the Republican-controlled Congress. "They did it again. But like a battered wife, we keep going back because every four years they bring us flowers, beg our forgiveness, and swear they’ll never hit us again." She even called out the House Freedom Caucus as a bunch of phonies. "This is shameful, and it has to end. No mas! I have a feeling that if she runs for the Senate neither McConnell nor Ryan will be campaigning for her.

For the last seven years, grassroots conservatives rallied to action under the belief that change starts at the ballot box. As I’ve said many times: there is nothing wrong with this country that a good old-fashioned election can’t fix.

People put their own lives on hold to send these Republicans to Congress to take back control of the House and Senate, to get a handle on our bankrupt federal government, and put America on the right track. I think of all the cross-country redeye flights I took away from my young son in order to campaign for Republican candidates, so full of promises, over the years. Others gave up a lot more than I did to elect a “conservative” majority.

Together, we grassroots conservatives gave the GOP historic electoral victories because they promised us they would stop Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America.”

Instead, they abetted it. They are Obama’s accomplices.

With this omnibus bill, they broke every promise they made to us. Every single one. They’ve reached a level of brazen duplicity previously known only to Democrats.

Obamacare? It’s fully funded.

Planned Parenthood, which was caught red-handed haggling over the sale of dead babies? It’s funded too.

Obama’s illegal executive amnesty? Funded.

Illegal alien sanctuary cities? Funded.

Visas for un-vetted Muslim migrants (“refugees”) to resettle in America? Funded.

Obama’s green energy crony capitalism? Funded.

Tax credits for illegal aliens? Funded.

H-2B visas to replace American workers with cheap unskilled foreign workers? Yep, that’s in there too.

What about funds for the fence that we so desperately need on our southern border? Nope, sorry, they couldn’t find any money for that.

Basically, everything commonsense conservatives despise-- and Republicans promised to put an end to if elected-- was funded by this omnibus.

They weren’t worried about the promises they made to us. This omnibus was written by lobbyists for lobbyists and passed by corrupted politicians fulfilling promises to these cronies with deep pockets. They campaigned one way, then governed another way.

This is why people hate politics and politicians. This is why they tune out and stay home. Reading through chunks of this bloated spending bill that drives us further into bankruptcy I steamed, “That’s it. They can’t be trusted. I’m outta here because they do not stand on the planks of the GOP platform, not one iota.”

But you know what, my fellow conservatives-- that’s what the GOP establishment wants us to do!

They want us to leave the Party or just sit out elections.

Without us around, their handpicked puppets can be elected in gerrymandered districts without any pesky conservative primary challengers.

The Congressional GOP establishment doesn’t care about winning national elections. As far as they’re concerned, Hillary can have the White House-- just so long as they can keep their cushy jobs on Capitol Hill.

In fact, having a Democrat in the White House is probably good for business. They don’t want to have to lead on anything-- they’ve had ample opportunity to do so!--  and a Democrat president is a nice foil for them. They can enjoy the status quo, enjoy all the crony capital cash, enjoy the perks of office, and as the country continues to crash and burn, they can tell the folks back home it’s all President Hillary’s fault.

Thankfully, not everyone with an “R” after their name is happy with the corrupt status quo. And there are a lot more good guys in Congress now thanks to the Tea Party.

So, no, it’s not time to leave the GOP. We’re going to make our abusers leave.

We’re not going to let them hit us again.

It’s time to kick our abusers out of the House, change the locks, and keep a loaded shotgun next to the bed.

Makes you almost feel sorry for Murkowski.

How Many House Seats Will The Republican Civil War Cost The GOP In 2014?

I know just where to go for some Inside-the-Beltway convention wisdom and yesterday I found out that momentum has swung away from House Democrats and towards House Republicans-- they're tied at 39-39%-- because Obama's image has suffered due to the amateurish roll-out of the Affordable Care Act website. The GOP-directed media frenzy over the website worked. And now it's time to get back to reality. Luckily, Pope Francis doesn't have to face a teabagger in a GOP primary. If he did, Palin thinks first Jesus-oriented Pope in our lifetimes is someone she could beat. After all, nothing threatens religionist conservatives more than Jesus' message. But Palin and her ilk will be plenty busy without primarying Pope Francis. BuzzFeed reported yesterday that one of the crackpot Tea Party groups plans to primary 87 Republicans.

And Boehner is #1 on the list! Now, to be fair, this sounds more like a typical right-wing scam to get the low-info true believers to cough up some dough so that the scammers can line their own pockets. But… they do have a website. Last year the Tea Party Leadership Fund PAC raised $1,171,143. They contributed $39,500, mostly in small increments, to 35 House candidates and $12,500 to 5 Senate candidates ($2,500 each). Two of their Senate candidates won, Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Dean Heller (R-NV), both of whom are now hated by the Tea Party. Of their 35 House candidates, 11 won and 24 lost. So that came to $52,000 of the $1,171,143. Then they spent another $154,172 on Independent Expenditures-- $127,200 against Obama, $15,000 for Allen West and $11,972 for Jeff Landry (R-LA). So, most of the money they raised was not used for political purposes, typical of right-wing scam artists who see these PACs as get-rich-quick opportunities and the small amount that was spent on politics was almost entirely wasted.

This year they've already vacuumed up over $1.3 million. So far they wasted $25,783 on an Independent Expenditure on behalf of Paul McKinely, the Republican who ran against Robin Kelly in the IL-02 special election. McKinely took 22% of the vote. And these are their direct contributions so far this year:

But now they have 87 Republicans to primary (not counting Pope Francis. Let's see, what put the bee in their bonnets. Oh, yeah… these 87 "traitors," as they call them, voted for the deal to reopen the government and keep the U.S. from defaulting. How dare they!

“From our perspective, we see this as a signature vote. You can’t be a conservative and vote to raise the debt ceiling,” [teasurer Dan] Backer said. “I recognize there are some places where voters may actually think that was the right vote. And there may be places where you have an incumbent who wins with 90% of the vote every time and there’s not a credible challenger. I recognize that, but we’re certainly going to do our best.”

Backer says the group has honed in on a few specific members to start: Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, New York Rep. Peter King, North Carolina Rep. Robert Pittenger, Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany, and most importantly, Backer said, House Speaker John Boehner in Ohio.

“Our goal is to keep going one after another after another as our resources allow. To get our feet wet, we’re starting out with a few, but nobody is going to get a pass,” he said.

Among the already endangered and vulnerable Republicans on their death list is this bakers dozen, who actually do need to worry about a costly primary that splits the party and makes them spend money they need in the general:

• Gary Miller (R-CA)
• Buck McKeon (R-CA)
• David Valadao (R-CA)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY)
• John Kline (R-MN)
• Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
• Dave Reichert (R-WA)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Darrell Issa (R-CA)
• Joe Heck (R-NV)
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)

That's 13 seats, the teabaggers could give the Democrats. I'd add Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in there as well vbut Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Steve Israel are still determined to protect her seat against any Democrat, despite this:

Is Anyone Answering Right Wing Populism In Europe?

I just spent some time in Tuscany with one of my oldest friends, Toon Janssen, a guy I met in the '70s when I was living in Amsterdam. Toon's from decidedly working class Amsterdam Noord and he's been working as a school teacher in the crime-ridden Bijlmer. He doesn't have a single white student in his classes.

Inevitably our attention turned to Dutch neo-fascist, Geert Wilders who-- post trial-- has seen his following and his power grow immensely in the "liberal" Netherlands. In Europe "liberal" usually means neo-liberal (i.e.- conservative). The Dutch government is a neo-liberal right-wing coalition of their version of America's corporatist Republican Party and corporatist Democratic Party. Wilders is adamantly anti-immigrant, particularly anti-Muslim immigrant. And the Dutch are buying his racist claptrap... albeit mostly for economic reasons. The economy is tight and the jobs market sucks. Wilders' pitch against migrants from Morocco and Turkey sounds a lot like Steve King's pitch against Mexicans-- although even worse.

Toon wrote up some of his ideas for us this afternoon: "Today it was made clear by the Centraal Planbureau that the deficit made a rise of 0.2% to 3.7 and unemployment will rise to 9% soon to come, breaking all records. In fact now it's officially exposed what all Dutch people already know. Wilders makes gain out of this. He was little in the news these days, but that was a strategy. Without showing up or making statements his star is rising immensely. But now he calls Rutte a champion In destroying jobs and ruining Holland. He calls him the worst premier Holland ever had. He wants no cuts at all while the government wants to cut 16 billion euros + even 6 more to commit to Rehn's wishes. But he says Rutte destroys jobs (150,000 gone in just one year while Romanian and Polish workers take over), our money is slowly becoming worthless, inflation rises skyhigh and export is so much less, no investments in Dutch companies while we are an export oriented country-- all the result of cuts, and cuts and cuts, which is the policy. And not only cause of cuts but also of raising taxes, what Howie always calls Paul Ryan's Austerity Regime in America. This cabinet wants to frighten people about losing their jobs and while they are frightened new tax rises are inaugurated. All signals are turned to red, he says. Belgian economy is even better than the Dutch, even while that country was without a government! What Holland needs according to Wilders is lower taxes + no support of European countries like Greece etc. + also we better buy Dutch products so our companies get more air. New elections are vital to get rid of Rutte and his 'socialist' gang since Holland is almost drowning (a statement that appeals to the Dutch a lot), new elections even already tomorrow. I'm pretty much sure that Wilders star will grow even while he does almost nothing. The things he says are very appealing to anybody who lost security or stands at the edge of losing it. A lot of people are very afraid indeed and the political athmosphere in Holland is quite negative indeed. All too bad."

Cross the Channel for a moment and I'll tell you a little something about a big story in England that you probably missed in America. It's about how the Labour Party just tried-- and failed-- to articulate England's own problem with foreign workers. The corporate media, on an anti-Labour rampage at the moment, made sure Labour's message would be mangled beyond comprehension, which isn't very difficult while the inept and stumbling Ed Miliband is party Leader. From the Guardian coverage:

Labour has backed down on claims that Tesco and Next are examples of "unscrupulous employers" over their use of foreign workers.

The party became embroiled in a row after the shadow immigration minister, Chris Bryant, briefed newspapers that he would criticise both firms for favouring foreign workers over Britons. But just hours before he was due to give a keynote speech on the issue, Bryant was forced to retreat from his case as Tesco and Next accused him of making basic errors. The senior Labour MP insisted he had meant more generally that "sometimes there are negative sides of migration in terms of the labour market."

The controversy has added weight to concerns that Labour is failing to articulate its key policies this summer. It has also overshadowed Bryant's other messages about the exploitation of foreign workers and sham marriages.

Bryant was forced to clarify his position on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, saying the extracts had not conveyed the fullness of his argument.

In the text of his speech, due to be delivered on Monday but leaked over the weekend, Bryant had said: "It is unfair that unscrupulous employers whose only interest seems to be finding labour as cheaply as possible will recruit workers in large numbers in low-wage countries in the EU... Take the case of Tesco … they recently decided to move a distribution centre in the south-east. The new centre is larger and employs more people. But it has been alleged that the staff at the original site were told that they could only move to the new centre if they took a cut in pay. The result? A bigger percentage of the staff at the new centre are from eastern bloc countries."

Speaking later on the BBC, Bryant said he used the word "unscrupulous about another category of people", not Tesco and Next. He said those firms actually "often go the extra mile" to employ British workers, but can find it difficult to get local staff.

"Both Tesco and Next have had to use non-UK nationals in their new operations … in relatively large numbers. My question is, and always was going to be and still remains today, when we have 1 million unemployed youngsters under the age of 24 and a very high level of long-term unemployment, is there a way we can regulate labour markets better so foreign workers are not exploited, as happens in some cases, not specifically Tesco and Next, and also make sure local workers stand a better chance?"

He added: "I don't think it is unscrupulous to employ migrant workers."

Bryant was also pulled up on a mistake in the speech suggesting Tesco had opened a new distribution centre in Kent, when it should have been Dagenham, in Essex.

Challenged on his errors, Bryant told his interviewer: "You're wanting to get into very specific details which are contested and I'm not sure that's that fruitful."

OK, back to Holland... or at least to Wilders' negative influence on Europe. The Economist noted this week that where Holland was once at the center of the movement towards European integration, Wilders' populism has pulled the country in the opposite direction. Last month Wilders announced he would hold talks with right-wing parties in other countries about forming an anti-Europe bloc in the European Parliament elections this autumn. He has since spoken with Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, a party similar to Wilders’s Freedom Party, and with the fascist-leaning/racist Northern League in Italy. Having shattered the multi-cultural Netherlands, which once brokered the integration of Europe, Wilders is now proposing to undertake Europe’s dismantling.

Wilders’s party has taken advantage of rising Dutch anger over the euro crisis in the past two years by shifting the focus of its criticism from Islam to the EU. That strategy failed in elections last autumn, when the Freedom Party lost seats, but it seems to be paying off now. Dutch Euroscepticism is reaching unheard-of heights: a Gallup survey in early June found voters split evenly, 39% each, on whether to exit the EU entirely. Most recent political polls put the Freedom Party in a close scrum for the second-largest share of the vote, and one poll has it in the lead. The other strongly Eurosceptic party, the far-left Socialists, is doing nearly as well.

This spells trouble for the government, a coalition between the centre-right Liberals and centre-left Labour, for whom leaving the EU is not an option. Mark Rutte, the Liberal prime minister and a polished salesman, has been pitching voters a mixed message: on the one hand, the EU is the key to solving the economic crisis; on the other, the EU’s excesses must be tamed. In Germany in June he echoed the aphorism of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, that Europe’s economies are “all in the same boat.” At the same time, his foreign minister, Frans Timmermans, was unveiling a list of 54 policy areas that the Netherlands believes should stay in national hands rather than be handed to the EU, and declaring that the time of an ever-closer union in all policy areas is past.

Anti-European feeling in the Netherlands is rooted in the deteriorating economy. The country weathered the first years of the euro crisis relatively unscathed, maintaining its AAA credit rating and a 4.5% unemployment rate, the lowest in Europe. With their privileged economic position, the Dutch blamed profligate southern Europeans for demanding support from the north. In 2011 they led the AAA countries (along with Germany, Finland and Austria) that demanded Europe harden its 3% budget-deficit limit as part of the price for that support. Mr Rutte still claims the strong enforcement powers granted to Olli Rehn, the EU’s budget commissioner, as a personal achievement.

Yet as deficit-cutting progressed across Europe, the Dutch economy turned south. It has now been in recession for six quarters, with output 1.8% lower in May compared with a year earlier and unemployment rising to 6.8 %. Every economic projection has proved too optimistic. As revenues shrank, the Dutch missed the 3% deficit target they had themselves helped establish. Humiliating visits from Mr Rehn demanding ever-greater austerity have lent weight to Mr Wilders’s charges that the government is slashing spending and raising taxes merely to satisfy Brussels.

During his latest visit in June, Mr Rehn demanded that the Netherlands push through an additional €6 billion ($8 billion) in austerity measures in 2014, on top of those already planned. Mr Rutte will have to pass a revised budget in September though it is not clear whether he can. The Liberal-Labour coalition has a comfortable majority in the lower house of parliament, but is in the minority in the Senate, a sleepy constitutional body whose technical power to block the budget the opposition has now decided to use.

Worse, Mr Rehn’s demand has blown up a “social accord” reached in April, in which the government, labour unions, and business groups all signed on to a budget deal along with a set of labour-market reforms. The accord was a classic example of the old Dutch “polder model” of collective decision-making by different social stakeholders, and was intended to create support for the budget that would induce minority parties to vote for it. But the unions have now withdrawn from the deal. More remarkably, the powerful head of the country’s main business lobby has also come out against the cuts, recommending that the government demand to be granted an exception.

Should Mr Rutte manage to push through the cuts, it could improve Mr Wilders’s chances in the European elections. Mr Timmermans, one of the most pro-European voices in the cabinet, wants to turn the debate away from whether voters like or dislike the EU towards the role the EU ought to be playing. But with public resentment running high, that sort of subtlety will probably be lost.

Here's an ugly choice: choosing between Wilders-style right-wing populism or the bankster-backed Establishment self-serving, neo-liberal claptrap. Europe will really be just like America then! Except they don't have Sarah Palin, or anything like her. Who do you think paid her to do this, Rand Paul or Chris Christie?

Tea Party Civil War

We all love watching the Republican civil war between the greed and selfishness wing and the hate and bigotry wing as it unfolds. In the radio interview above, Palin declares war, again, on Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte. But how about the civil war that's tearing apart the Tea party itself... a civil war within a civil war? Those are always the most fun.

Over the weekend Luke Mullins covered an aspect of that for the Washingtonian: Armey In Exile. A month before Romney went down in flames, Dick Armey had agreed to resign as chairman of FreedomWorks, one of the big-money Tea Party fronts, forced out by Matt Kibbe with an $8 million payoff to just go away. Mullins asks and answers the question about what had turned Armey and Kibbe into bitter enemies and ripped FreedomWorks apart just as-- in their deranged minds-- Romney was sweeping into the White House and Republicans were taking over the Senate?

Though Armey rose to political prominence during the Gingrich Revolution, congressional staffers saw that he lacked political instincts-- "forgetting people’s names and arriving late to votes because he was chatting with his staff. 'He was a Mr. Magoo type of character,' says a former GOP leadership aide. 'Everyone knew that he didn’t know what was going on.' Armey also talked himself into controversy. He referred to Hillary Clinton as 'Marxist' and to Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank-- an openly gay congressman-- as 'Barney Fag.'" After resigning from Congress, Armey joined Matt Kibbe's radical right Citizens for a Sound Economy, an early version of the Tea Party, funded by the John Birch Society's Koch family. Armey's starting salary was $430,000 a year and he was able to keep his $750,000 a year job as a slimy K Street lobbyist at DLA Piper. The Kochs soon left in a huff over something or other and started their own teabagger front, Americans for Prosperity, and the Kibbe-Armey rump renamed itself FreedomWorks. They struggled for a while before glomming on to Rick Santelli's anti-Obama rant on CNBC, at which time Kibbe started quietly paying off Hate Talk Radio hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to endorse the organization on the air.

Despite being Beltway elites, Armey and Kibbe emerged as emissaries for the populist, anti-Washington revolution. The New Yorker described Armey-- who flew first class and had a chauffeur-- as “the de-facto leader of the Tea Party movement.” Newsweek called Kibbe-- a former chief of staff to a Republican congressman-- a Tea Party “mastermind.”

As FreedomWorks’ profile expanded, contributions doubled from $7 million to $14 million between 2008 and 2010. Its number of volunteers jumped from 500,000 to 1.2 million. FreedomWorks fired up a long-dormant political-action committee and supported hard-line conservatives-- such as Republicans Marco Rubio in Florida and Mike Lee in Utah-- in Senate primary campaigns against more moderate GOP opponents for the 2010 midterms.

Fueled by Tea Party enthusiasm, the GOP picked up 63 seats in the House-- enough for control of the chamber-- six seats in the Senate, six new governorships, and nearly 700 seats in state legislatures.

It was finally happening-- Armey and Kibbe were at the center of the most powerful conservative movement in a generation. Together they wrote a bestselling book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto, and appeared on NBC’s Today show. Driving to Tea Party rallies around the country, Kibbe played his Grateful Dead tapes for Armey, hoping to convert the country-music lover.

But Armey was lame and considered, at 70, too old. His public comments made right-wing operatives at FreedomWorks cringe, often insulting people on TV-- echoes of "Barney Fag"-- and more often screwing up details of anything he talked about, including the names and work of right-wing heroes. He clearly needed to be kept away from live microphones. The go-go wingnuts saw him as a liability that could destroy their whole mission-- and the big salaries they were drawing. Kibbe's wife, an ugly stereotype of a catty, overly ambitious wife, wanted to push Armey out and make Kibbe the sole head of FreedomWorks. She was jealous of Armey's wife and made fun of her for being a devout Christian. Mrs. Kibbe is an atheist filled with contempt for Christians. Meanwhile Mr. Kibbe's priorities were changing. He went from being obsessed with elections and campaigns and grassroots and public-policy fights to his own image and selling books and doing Glenn Beck TV. Armey was pushed out of the media spotlight and media requests for him were given to Kibbe.

The ostensible break came over Kibbe's new book. Profits from the book he and Armey had written belonged to FreedomWorks. Kibbe insisted that the profits from the new book were his personally, even though the book had been written by FreedomWorks staffers on company time. "Diverting nonprofit resources for personal use is a violation of federal tax code," writes Mullins. "If Kibbe had used 'significant staff resources' to produce his book, he would have put FreedomWorks’ tax-exempt status at risk. Kibbe, Armey says, 'had put the organization in jeopardy, and he had done it to line his own pockets.'”

Kibbe has mutton chops-- and a childish impulse to insult Hillary Clinton

Furious, Armey and his wife flew to Maine to show the document to FreedomWorks’ third trustee: C. Boyden Gray, a former White House counsel.

Armey and Gray called a special meeting of the board for Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Kibbe arrived at Gray’s DC law office without knowing why he’d been summoned. When they were around a conference table, Armey argued that Kibbe had pilfered his media requests and used FreedomWorks’ resources to profit personally.

The trustees voted two to one-- Armey and Gray for, Kibbe against-- to remove Kibbe from the board, and then put Kibbe and Brandon [FreedomWork's press secretary] on administrative leave.

Before Kibbe left, the trustees asked him to sign a document preventing him from launching an organization similar to FreedomWorks for the next four years, a FreedomWorks executive says, adding that the agreement came with a $100 signing bonus: “It was meant to be insulting.” (Armey denies that there was a signing bonus and says that the document was just a confidentiality agreement.)

Kibbe refused to sign.

Armey worried that Kibbe might instruct his allies to destroy documents related to the book deal, so he telephoned Jean Campbell, who was waiting outside FreedomWorks’ Capitol Hill headquarters.

“Go ahead,” Armey told her.

She secured the office, marshaling employees away from their computers and into the conference room. An armed former Capitol Police officer accompanied her-- in case there was any trouble.

“Dick Armey will be here soon with an announcement,” Campbell told the staff.

Some 30 anxious staffers surrounded the rectangular table when Armey and his wife marched in. Armey announced that Kibbe and Brandon had been put on leave, but he didn’t explain why.

FreedomWorks staff divided into two camps. While some senior employees respected Armey’s authority, many newer ones weren’t old enough to remember his days in Congress and-- because Armey worked from Texas-- didn’t really know him. In Kibbe, they found a hip libertarian who went on television and hosted parties at his home. Younger staffers developed a “cultish admiration” for Kibbe, a former official says. Some even wore their chops you can believe in T-shirt at the office.

To the young staffers, Armey seemed ill suited to run the organization. He put three additional FreedomWorks employees on administrative leave but-- when they broke down in tears-- immediately reinstated them. Staffers say he referred to a Japanese employee with a ponytail as “that Indian fella.” (Armey denies this.) And when Armey kicked his cowboy boots up on a table in Kibbe’s office, that was it. “It was kind of like, ‘Well, I’ll be damned if this is going to happen,’ ” a young employee says.

Kibbe and Brandon had retreated to Kibbe’s Capitol Hill home, where they contacted FreedomWorks donors, activists, and board directors to establish support outside of headquarters. Directors were angry that Armey hadn’t consulted them before taking action. Glenn Beck and members of Congress called Kibbe to offer encouragement.

Soon after Armey’s takeover, a group of young Kibbe loyalists arrived at Kibbe’s house for pizza and wine. They told Kibbe about Armey’s office management. Among Armey’s first moves was ordering the removal of all references to Kibbe from the FreedomWorks website. (Armey says he only asked for the removal of references to Kibbe’s book.)

“In our limited experience dealing with Armey, [we] saw him as this lovable grandpa,” says a young staffer. “To see him tailspin into this power-hungry, totally out-of-touch person was really frightening.”

The younger staffers used their cell phones to record conversations with Armey or Campbell. They disregarded Armey’s instructions, refusing, for example, to provide him with Kibbe’s schedule of upcoming donor meetings. Says Armey: “They started trying to sabotage things right from day one.”

...Armey and his wife stopped at the Chicago home of Richard Stephenson on their way back to Washington. A reclusive millionaire who had founded the for-profit Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Stephenson was a big FreedomWorks donor and Kibbe’s strongest ally on the board of directors.

When Armey arrived, Stephenson introduced a therapist who he suggested could mediate Armey and Kibbe’s dispute. Armey didn’t know it, but Kibbe had flown in from Washington and was waiting in another room. “If you think you’re going to therapize me into working with Matt Kibbe again, you’re kidding yourself,” Armey told the therapist.

He had previously told Stephenson that the allegedly rerouted media requests gave him a legal case against FreedomWorks for tortuous interference. He calculated damages at $8 million-- the potential earnings Armey felt he’d sacrificed by staying at FredeeomWorks. (The figure is based mostly on Armey’s $750,000 annual contract with DLA Piper, which his position at FreedomWorks forced him to give up.)

Either Kibbe goes or I go, Armey said. “And if I go, I’m going to have to sue. I can’t go away with empty pockets.”

As Armey left, he saw Kibbe sitting on a couch in an adjacent room. Neither said a word.

The next afternoon, C. Boyden Gray summoned Armey to his Washington office: Stephenson was willing to pay Armey $8 million to retire. The deal would be arranged as a consulting contract between Armey and Stephenson, payable in annual installments of $400,000 over 20 years. In return, the trustees would reinstate Kibbe as FreedomWorks president and Armey would leave the organization after the election.

Armey accepted.

Kibbe and Brandon were back in the office by the end of the day and spent the next few weeks settling scores, former staffers say. They labeled employees who had been helpful to Armey as “collaborators” and stripped them of authority. Kibbe promoted two young staffers who had remained loyal to him during the crisis, and he donated his $50,000 book advance to FreedomWorks. (Brandon denies punishing employees and says all promotions were merit-based.)

...Meanwhile, FreedomWorks is struggling. Key staffers and board members have fled, and first-quarter fundraising has slipped. Things may get even worse. Two watchdog groups have asked federal authorities to examine $12 million in suspicious donations that FreedomWorks received right before the election.

...Following the disastrous 2012 election, public support for the Tea Party has crumbled, and establishment GOP figures such as Karl Rove have launched initiatives to prevent less electable Tea Party candidates from winning primary campaigns. At its most recent tax-day rally at the Capitol, the crowd numbered in the dozens-- a turnout that recalled FreedomWorks’ early days.

Big Money Invented Paul Ryan To Work For Them, Not For Teabaggers

Palin's not happy with the Republican Party Establishment-- and she claims she may be ready to bolt and start one of her own. No one represents that Establishment better than Paul Ryan. Ryan's a packaged product, courtesy of Wall Street and Madison Avenue. That's all he's ever been and Boehner was more than happy to boost him into the chair of the Budget Committee to please the banksters both serve. Recall, if you will, Ryan's first big effort for the criminal banksters who lifted him out of obscurity.

It's September 2008 and the GOP kleptocrats are winding up their last months in office. They wanted to deliver one more grand giveaway to Wall Street-- Henry Paulsen's bankster bailout. One problem: enough Republicans (133 of 'em) joined with Democrats to defeat it 205-228 when it was first brought up for a vote. Wall Street's best-paid shills, Boehner, Cantor and Paul Ryan, mobilized for battle. At the time Ryan, a relatively junior Member, had already taken $1,704,095 in legalistic bribes from Wall Street (a number that has now risen to $$3,303,872, just slightly more than the $3,283,687 the banksters gave Democratic crook Steve Israel). After the defeat in the House, Wall Street and the banksters went bonkers and pulled all Bush's strings and he and Paulsen easily got the monstrosity passed in the House of Lords and then went back to the House with a no less odious version of the bill that they had rejected a few days before. This time it passed 263-171 with not 65, but 91 Republicans joining in. Among the vote switchers who had had their arms twisted by Boehner, Cantor and Ryan plus the official registered Wall Street lobbyists:

• Gresham Barrett (R-SC- $807,723)
• Judy Biggert (R-IL- $1,675,717)
• Charlie Dent (R-PA- $760,872)
• Mary Fallin (R-OK- $336,576)
• Jim Gerlach (R-PA- $1,670,352)
• Pete Hoekstra (R-MI- $295,830)
• Gary Miller (R-CA- $807,688)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL- $928,068)
• Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH- $458,449)
• John Shadegg (R-AZ- $1,218,261)
• Lee Terry (R-NE- $1,246,007)
• Patrick Tiberi (R-OH- $2,438,284)

At the time some people wondered if teabaggers and fiscal conservatives would hold a screamingly hypocritical Ryan accountable at all. Yesterday's selection by Romney-- popular with the GOP base-- shows they didn't give a damn. At the time, Ryan was the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee. He' had assigned himself the job of spokesperson for fiscal austerity but he had already taken more money from the banksters than any other politician in the history of Wisconsin politics and, as we saw, he voted for the bank bailout not once, but twice. In fact, Ryan was one of the hypocrites exposed in Michael Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story:

In a section of the critically acclaimed examination of how Wall Street insiders diverted hundreds of billions of tax dollars into their accounts, Moore illustrates how the bailout happened. Democratic and Republican members of Congress who do the bidding of the bankers scared their colleagues and the American people into approving a massive bailout of the speculators whose misdeeds created the financial meltdown that shocked the nation in September 2008.

Ryan, the Republican congressman from southeast Wisconsin's hard-pressed 1st District, is shown playing the fear card by telling the House that it had to steer almost $800 million BILLION to Wall Street's sleaziest players.

"If we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us-- if we fail to pass this I fear the worst is yet to come," claimed Ryan.

The statement from the Wisconsin Republican who has positioned himself as a budget specialist in the House played a significant role in securing support for a bailout bill that had not been adequately analyzed and that included few protections against fraud.

Had Ryan used his reputation and his role on key committees to aggressively oppose the bailout, he might have blocked the rush to judgment that economists now say could end up costing American taxpayers trillions of dollars-- and a big chunk of their country's future.

Instead, the GOP establishment's favored point man on fiscal issues claimed-- without benefit of facts, figures or any grounding in economic reality-- that a failure to give the bankers everything they were asking for could bring on a depression.

"This is a Herbert Hoover moment," Ryan told the House, as he reached a fear-mongering crescendo. "(Hoover) made mistakes during the Great Depression-- let's not make those mistakes."

It was a virtuoso performance. Moore was right to highlight it.

The filmmaker has given Wisconsin taxpayers a dramatic illustration of how it came to pass that we are bailing out bankers and billionaires at the same time that auto plants are closing in cities such as Janesville and Kenosha-- both of which are in the 1st District. More importantly, Moore has reminded the voters of southeastern Wisconsin how key members of Congress such as Paul Ryan determined to take care of the speculators on Wall Street rather than working families on Main Street.

Ryan was overjoyed to bail out his bankster/paymasters on Wall Street but when it came to bailing out their victims who, through no fault of their own, were swamped with screwed up mortgages, he changed his tune... drastically. Ryan always stands up for corporations and never stands up for working families.

And Ryan's a gift that keeps on giving. Over the weekend, a far right propaganda website wigged out at the way Ryan's playing Pied Piper to Republican House backbenchers over immigration, just as he did in the TARP battle.

Ryan has been meeting with House conservatives to persuade them that reform of the immigration system, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is an economic necessity and critical to fixing the nation's fiscal problems.

...Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said the sheer amount of time Ryan has spent talking with House Republicans about budget issues gives him the credibility to court them on immigration reform.

"I would bet you a nickel that he has had more face time with each member than anyone else in the caucus," said Norquist, an influential conservative who also believes immigration reform is vital to the economy.

Republican strategist Whit Ayres calls Ryan "one of the most effective messengers the Republican party has in the House," adding that "If Paul Ryan talks, the House Republicans will listen."

That assessment may be overly optimistic, considering the large number of House Republicans from conservative districts who see legalization of illegal immigrants and offering them a path to eventually become U.S. citizens as an "amnesty."

But Ryan said a Republican-backed amendment to the Senate bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexico border improves the chances that the House and Senate could ultimately agree on a compromise version of the legislation.

The amendment "brings the Senate bill closer to the House's position and that gives me the belief that we have a better chance at getting this law fixed at the end," he said.

Unlike Republican Senator Marco Rubio, an architect of the Senate immigration bill and a potential rival for Ryan if both seek the presidency, Ryan is not writing legislation or participating in a congressional working group on the issue.

But both Ryan and Rubio face risks from the divisiveness of the immigration issue among Republicans.

Support for immigration reform could cost either man votes with conservatives who will nominate a 2016 Republican candidate. On the other hand, the influence of Hispanic-Americans in U.S. elections could make it harder for any candidate who opposes immigration reform to win the White House.

...In April, Ryan teamed up with his friend, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who is a staunch supporter of immigration reform, to tout the issue at an event in Chicago. He has also co-sponsored immigration reform bills in the past.

Like Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, Ryan talks of the work ethic of immigrants and the high proportion who start businesses. He often tells of his Irish ancestors who fled the potato famine in the 1850s and started a family farm in Wisconsin.

In the interview, he cited future budget deficits as a reason for urgency on immigration reform. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring from the workforce each day, "our economy is going to need more labor in the future," he said.

Ryan said he believes the country needs a system "designed for the economy, to bring workers in to do jobs that people won't do or to bring their high-tech intellectual capital."

The fiscal argument helped fuel momentum for the Senate immigration bill when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce deficits by $197 billion over a decade because of additional workers paying income and payroll taxes.

If Ryan is worried about a conservative backlash on immigration, he is showing no signs of it.

He has offered to debate anyone who says an "earned" path to citizenship is the equivalent of amnesty.

And the man who has sparred for years with Democrats on budget issues believes he can play a role in getting the two parties to work together. "I think when you get Democrats to listen to Republicans and Republicans to listen to Democrats you can find the common ground," he said.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said Ryan could give other Republicans political cover to support immigration reform. "Nobody is going to question the conservative credentials of Paul Ryan," he said.

Really?