What Can We Learn From What The GOP Is Doing To North Carolina's Education System?

Last year, one of our favorite Blue America candidates was North Carolina state Rep. Patsy Keever, who was running against reactionary Republican closet case Patrick McHenry. Although Patsy kicked his ass where she was best known, Buncombe County-- where she rolled up a 46,240 (66%) to 23,740 (34%) victory-- the DCCC, angry that Patsy beat some conservative shill of theirs in the primary, refused to help her run in the general. In the end, the huge disparity in spending-- McHenry spent $1,127,555 and Patsy spent $419,465-- helped McHenry win big enough margins in Gaston, Cleveland and Catawba counties to beat her districtwide 57- 43%. Thanks for nothing, Steve Israel!

We were happy to see Patsy elected chairman of the Buncombe County Democratic Party Saturday. A lifelong school teacher, whose first priority has always been education, Patsy has been hard at work fighting the Republicans in the state legislature working to undermine North Carolina's public education system. This is an article she wrote last week for Diane Ravitch's blog:

To Educate Or Not To Educate In NC
by Patsy Keever

Our rulers in Raleigh are answering that question for us with bills that they could vote into law to change everything from how Carolina and State are funded, to whether tax money ought to be used for church schools, to whether or not Hamlet needs to be taught to “tech” kids. If our local legislators do not hear from us, they will vote on these bills in a vacuum-- which is contrary to representative democracy.

We have two education commandments in North Carolina. The first was spoken a century ago by Gov. Charles B. Aycock, our first education governor, “You cannot do the best for your child unless you also do the best for my child.”

The second is from our state Constitution, which mandates that “The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.”

Pretty simple. Education for all of our students is our ultimate long-range economic development tool, our best defense against politicians who would mislead us, and our moral and constitutional duty. How do we work together to ensure that all of our children get the best possible education? How do we ensure that the limited funds are fairly distributed? How do we ensure that our school personnel have the tools and resources they need? How do we incorporate the best ideas into all of our schools? How do we keep a positive attitude and continue to do the best for all our children? What can you do?

On April 23, from 6:30-8 p.m. at the Asheville City Schools boardroom on Mountain Street, Public Schools First North Carolina, a statewide nonpartisan nonprofit is hosting a gathering of parents, school personnel and the general public to provide information about pending legislation, to identify resources and to hear ideas and suggestions from the attendees. Asheville City Schools Foundation and Children First are co-sponsors of the meeting.

At a time when the citizens of Asheville and Buncombe County are facing water control issues, airport control issues and election issues, we cannot lose sight of the most long-lasting and important responsibility-- our children' s education. We can choose to sleep through this-- but in doing so, who knows what nightmares may come? And that is the rub. See you on the 23rd.

This isn't just happening in Asheville and it isn't just happening in North Carolina. It happens wherever voters give the Republican Party control of state government.

Blue America Welcomes Back Patsy Keever (D-NC)

The last time Patsy joined us for a chat she was going up against a conservative Democrat Steve Israel had recruited in the North Carolina primary. Patsy won-- and by a lot (Israel's candidate wound up with 26% of the vote)-- not just in her own Buncombe County but in every one of the district's seven counties.

Since then she's been running a grassroots campaign for a seat held by one of the banksters' favorite patsies, Wall Street shill Patrick McHenry who represents part of the district in the current Congress. The video above is a TV ad-- except it's not on TV. Patsy Keever has been one of the most consistently independent and progressive voices in the North Carolina legislature but that hasn't endeared her to the big money special interests she's been taking on on behalf on ordinary North Carolina working families. Meanwhile, as of June 30, McHenry had taken in over a million dollars-- only 2% of it from small grassroots contributions. He sits on the House Financial Services Committee and immense sums of money have flowed into his campaign from special interests with business before his committee. Wells Fargo, sleazy payday lenders Advance America Cash Advance Centers, American Bankers Association, Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, and Moneytree, Inc. are among his biggest donors. They've been financing his scurrilous political career and counted on him to stab his own neighbors in the backs on their account. He adamantly opposes all regulations to keep banksters from ripping off consumers. And up against his million-plus haul, Patsy's grassroots campaign has raised $482,279. She doesn't have the money she needs to put that ad up on TV and she's going to be pushing it online. Blue America wants her to get it up on television in the 10th district.

Although cable TV is a lot less expensive and we can probably help her get the ad on Anderson Cooper's show in Gastonia, Rachel Maddow's in Asheville and Real Housewives of Atlanta in Hickory, because of the hard fought presidential campaign in North Carolina, broadcast TV rates have gone sky high. In Patsy's part of North Carolina it costs $322 per point. You have to buy 100 points at a time, and 100 points will guarantee that your ad will be seen once by your target audience in the space of a week. So we can say we want to target high-information voters... then 100 points will get us one ad seen by high information voters (during the news) in the space of a week. Would you like to help us try?

This afternoon (2pm, EST, 11am on the West Coast), Patsy will be joining us for a live chat at Crooks and Liars. There are no races in the country where the difference between the two candidates is clearer and more stark. his week Patsy told us that "Patrick McHenry wants to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would cost seniors at minimum an additional $6,000 a year for their health care. I want to keep America’s promise to its seniors and protect the current Medicare benefits that they have earned by paying into the program throughout their lives. I would never support any effort to voucherize Medicare." And that's hardly the only difference between the two candidates. "Patrick McHenry voted to allow taxpayer money to be spent on companies that have outsourced our jobs to China, India and Mexico," she reminded us. "I will vote to support companies that keep our jobs right here in America... I think the flood of money pouring into campaigns from special interests is turning voters off and threatening our democracy. During this election cycle alone, PACs have contributed more than $500,000 to Patrick McHenry’s campaign, with Koch Industries’, Goldman Sachs’ and Morgan Stanley’s PACs contributing $10,000 each. To date, I have received an average donation of $138 from more than 2,700 people, showing I have strong grassroots support from voters who live in the 10th Congressional District."

Here's the page where you can watch the ad and contribute to Patsy's campaign at the same time. Do you have any friends you could send the link to? If they ask you why they should care about a district way out in North Carolina, remind them that, as Patsy told us, "McHenry voted to cut student loan assistance to middle and working class families. As a former public school teacher, I know that every child deserves the opportunity for a quality education–from early childhood through technical school or college. When elected, I will do everything in my power to see that they get it."

Very stark difference

Want To Help Patsy Keever Get An Ad Up On TV?

[Last Chance Announcement: Monday morning we'll pick the winner of the B-52's COSMIC THING platinum award. If you're still interested-- get the horse in gear now. All the info is right here.]

That video above is a TV ad-- except it's not on TV. Rep. Patsy Keever, one of the most consistently independent and progressive voices in the North Carolina legislature, is running for Congress in the newly redrawn 10th district. Her opponent is Wall Street shill Patrick McHenry and as of June 30, he had taken in $950,120. Of that money, 54% was from PACs, 44% was from large donors and only 2% came from small grassroots contributions. He sits on the House Financial Services Committee, so it may offend you, but shouldn't surprise you to know that he gets most of his money from special interests with business before his committee:

His half dozen single biggest contributors were Wells Fargo, sleazy payday lenders Advance America Cash Advance Centers, American Bankers Association, Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, and Moneytree, Inc. These are all interests who count on McHenry to screw over his own constituents on behalf of predator banksters. They have financed his career and he has stabbed his own neighbors in the backs on their account. Up against his million dollars-plus, Patsy's grassroots campaign has raised $482,279.15. She doesn't have the money she needs to put that ad up on TV and she's going to be pushing it online. Blue America wants her to get it up on television in the 10th district.

Although cable TV is a lot less expensive and we can probably help her get the ad on Anderson Cooper's show in Gastonia, Rachel Maddow's in Asheville and Real Housewives of Atlanta in Hickory, broadcast TV in Patsy's part of North Carolina costs $322 per point. You have to buy 100 points at a time, and 100 points will guarantee that your ad will be seen once by your target audience in the space of a week. So we can say we want to target high-information voters... then 100 points will get us one ad seen by high information voters (during the news) in the space of a week. Would you like to help us try?

Tuesday afternoon (2pm, EST), Patsy, who we haven't talked with since she beat her ConservaDem opponent in the primary, will be joining us for a live chat at Crooks and Liars. She's been focused like a laser on making sure folks in western North Carolina know just who Patrick McHenry is and that "he voted to allow taxpayer money to be spent on companies that have outsourced our jobs to China, India and Mexico. I will vote," she told voters, "to support companies that keep our jobs right here in America."

Here's the page where you can watch the ad and contribute to Patsy's campaign at the same time. Do you have any friends you could send the link to?

The CFPB Is Protecting Consumers From Financial Predators-- So The GOP Wants To Kill It

The campaign ad above is from Wayne Powell, the intrepid Democrat Steve Israel refuses to allow the DCCC to help take on Eric Cantor. Luckily we have men and women like Powell who are undaunted by corrupt Beltway Insiders-- like Cantor and Israel-- and work to  represent the interests of ordinary working families anyway. DCCC or not, Powell is hammering Cantor mercilessly. Cantor and his cronies, especially his cronies on the House Financial Services Committee, opposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, opposed the appointment of, first Elizabeth Warren and then Rich Cordray to head it, and have worked hard to make sure it would be unfunded, unmanned and ineffective. But Cantor and his fellow bankster shills in Congress have failed.

Yesterday the Bureau announced that it had ordered American Express to refund $85 million it had bilked from consumers with illegal credit card practices. American Express has its own PAC and spends massive amounts of money bribing Members of Congress, mostly Republicans (59%) but corrupt conservatives on both sides of the aisle. So far this cycle they have given federal candidates $436,700 and they sure hone right in on the Members of Congress with the sleaziest sense of ethics. The largest reported bribes ($10,000 each) went to powerful members who always put the banksters first and the consumers last:

• Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Chairman, Financial Services Committee 

• John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker

• Joe Crowley (New Dem chairman-NY), shadiest Democrat on the Ways & Means Committee

• Ron Kind (New Dem vice-chair-WI), second shadiest Democrat on the Ways & Means Committee

• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), member of the Financial Services Committee; just named by CREW one of Congress' most corrupt members for 2011-12

• Mel Watt (D-NC), member of the House Financial Services Committee

Other members known throughout Washington for being for sale who have received inordinately large sums of money from American Express include:

• Dave Camp (R-MI)- $5,000

• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $6,000 (In 2010 Cantor got $10,000)

• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)- $6,500

• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $7,500

• Steny Hoyer (D-MS)- $5,000

• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- $8,000

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $7,000

• Aaron Schock (R-IL)- $5,000

• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $7,500

Just in the past 4 years American Express has discovered Patrick McHenry, one of the sleaziest members of the House Financial Services Committee and known throughout Washington as a complete lackey for the banking industry. Since he does their bidding anyway, they just give him a thousand here and a thousand there. McHenry's in a tough reelection campaign this year, being challenged by a reform-oriented straight-shooter, Rep. Patsy Keever who told us that she was "not surprised to see that the American Express PAC contributed to Patrick McHenry during this election cycle. In fact, PACs have contributed more than $500,000 to his campaign so far.”

Right after the ruling former (and future) Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter told us she was delighted: "I am thrilled to hear that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has once again done its job of protecting Americans from illegal financial practices. As a member of Congress, I was proud to vote for the CFPB's creation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

My opponent voted to weaken the CFPB (H.R. 1315) and opposes Dodd-Frank. His new position on the Financial Services Committee means he has more power than ever to support Big Finance at the expense of his constituents. I look forward to his removal from this committee, and to protecting middle class families once again when I am elected to Congress this November."

Ed Royce takes far more than McHenry and Guinta do and his opponent, Jay Chen, has been focused like a laser on consumer protection.

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proven its importance by obtaining $85 million in refunds for mistreated consumers. Unfortunately, representatives like Ed Royce have opposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the very beginning, after taking millions in campaign contributions from the entities that the Bureau is supposed to monitor. We need leaders who will look out for consumers and the middle class, not just the financial institutions who are profiting off of them."

Hammer, meet nail; nail meet head. And basically that just what happened yesterday. The CFPB announced an enforcement action with orders requiring three American Express subsidiaries to refund an estimated $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers for illegal card practices. This action is the result of a multi-part federal investigation which found that at every stage of the consumer experience, from marketing, to enrollment, to payment, to debt collection, American Express violated consumer protection laws. That's why Republicans and conservative New Dems want to kill the bureau. It messes with their lucrative sources of bribery. The bill originally pass the House at the end of 2009 223-202, every single Republican voting NO, along with 27 Democrats, mostly corrupt Blue Dogs and New Dems, but a few progressives who felt the bill didn't go far enough to protect consumers. Among the Democrats who sold out to the banks (who are running for reelection in November) were Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR). Most of the Democrats who voted against the Consumer Protection Bureau were defeated in 2010 or are retiring, many to become lobbyists.

This is from a press statement by the CFPB: "Several American Express companies violated consumer protection laws and those laws were violated at all stages of the game-- from the moment a consumer shopped for a card to the moment the consumer got a phone call about long overdue debt," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today's orders require the American Express companies to fully refund about $85 million to consumers and it requires them to make specific changes in their business practices. The American Express companies will identify the harmed customers, notify them, and make sure they get back their money.” 

  

 •         Deceived consumers who signed up for the American Express “Blue Sky” credit card program: Consumers were sometimes led to believe they would receive $300 in addition to bonus points if they signed up for this American Express Centurion Bank program. But consumers who met the qualifications did not receive the $300. This violates federal laws prohibiting deceptive practices.

 •         Charged unlawful late fees: American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB billed late fees on certain cards based on a percentage of the debt in violation of the Credit CARD Act.

 •         Unlawfully discriminated against new account applicants on the basis of age:  American Express Centurion Bank used a credit scoring system that treated charge card applicants differently on the basis of age. For a period of time, the bank did not fully implement the system for applicants over the age of 35. This violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act because it requires credit scoring systems that take age into account to be properly designed and implemented.

 •         Failed to report consumer disputes to consumer reporting agencies: American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB failed to report the existence of certain customer disputes to credit bureaus, which is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

 •         Misled consumers about debt collection: All three of the American Express subsidiaries deceived consumers into believing there were certain benefits to paying off old debt. Consumers were wrongly told that if they paid off the old debt, the payment would be reported to credit bureaus and could improve their credit scores. In fact, American Express was not reporting the payments and the debts were so old that even if they had tried to report them, many of the payments would not have appeared on these consumers’ credit reports or affected their credit scores. American Express also told some consumers that a portion of their debt would be waived or forgiven if they accepted certain settlement offers.  But for customers who applied for a new American Express card, the company was not really forgiving or waiving the debt.

  

Aside from a $25.7 million fine, American Express has to pay restitution to consumers who were misled into paying old debt because they thought it would be reported to the credit bureaus. They'll reimbursed all the money American Express tricked out of them, plus interest. One of my favorite parts of the ruling is that consumers who were falsely promised their debt would be forgiven and who were denied new credit cards because the debt was not really forgiven, will receive $100 and a pre-approved offer for a new card with terms the CFPB and the FDIC find acceptable. If the consumer already paid the waived or forgiven amount in order to get a new card, they will be refunded that amount plus interest. Consumers who were tricked into paying illegal "late fees" are getting their money back as well (with interest) and American Express so-called Blue Sky customers who were promised $300 for signing up-- and then never got it-- will each now get the $300. 

Next time you ask yourself about how much of a difference there is between Democrats and Republicans, remember-- there are some really bad Democrats (and sleazy powermongers like Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Joe Crowley are working overtime to recruit more) but legislation like this could only have been enacted by progressive Democrats. And only Democrats would have ever enforced it. Does that mean we should back Blue Dogs and New Dems? Of course not. They may not always be as bad as Republicans, but they are always bad. Whenever possible, they should be replaced with progressives. That's why Beto O'Rourke's win against Silvestre Reyes in TX-16 (El Paso) was one of the most significant events of this election cycle. It's important to support reformers like Patsy Keever, Carol Shea-Porter, Beto O'Rourke and Jay Chen.

Oily Republicans Frank Guinta, Buck McKeon And Patrick McHenry-- 3 of The Worst

This week Carol Shea-Porter finally embarrassed Frank Guinta into debating her. But Shea-Porter came up against something very odd. This year the GOP-- having already publicly declared that they'll say whatever they want and not care what the fact checkers report-- has a simple theme to their campaigns: lie, lie, lie. It isn't just Romney who says one thing in public when cameras are rolling and another behind closed doors when he doesn't know cameras are rolling. And it isn't just Paul Ryan confirming every day on the campaign trail his well-deserved nickname, Lyin' Ryan. The whole congressional party is lying as well. As you can see on the video above, at the BIA debate, New Hampshire Public Radio moderator Laura Knoy asked Guinta point blank if the Ryan budget (which the House GOP passed with his vote-- as well as the votes of McKeon and McHenry) contains oil and gas subsidies. And his response, a bold-faced, verifiable lie, was "It does not."

How does someone deal with that kind of willful lying? Guinta was well aware he voted to maintain tax-funded subsidies for wealthy campaign donors in the oil and gas industry-- as did McKeon and McHenry. None of their districts have oil industries. But Guinta, McKeon and McHenry have made their own little cottage industries out of sucking up to oil lobbyists and oil executives and getting cash out of them for their campaigns-- or in McKeon's case, to filter back into his household, by paying his wife an unprecedented huge salary out of campaign funds. All three of these corporate shills voted to keep oil subsidies in place and here's what they got in return from Big Oil:

• Guinta- $29,250
• McHenry- $47,250
• McKeon- $31,200

In Guinta's case he voted repeatedly against ending oil subsidies on the Budget Committee mark-ups on the FY 2012 and the FY 2013 budgets. And, along with his McCronies he joined all but 10 Republicans on March 29, 2012 to vote-- again-- for the Ryan Budget. That Budget would end Medicare’s guaranteed benefit while protecting $40 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil. It would provide people earning more than $1 million a year with an average tax cut of $265,000, but middle class families could see their taxes go up by $1,400.

North Carolina state Rep. Patsy Keever, as we said above, is battling it out with one of Wall Street's pet shills, Patrick McHenry. He's never voted against Wall Street or for his own constituents since he managed to slip into Congress. "Paul Ryan, Patrick McHenry and their other extreme Republican colleagues including Buck McKeon," said Patsy yesterday, "have all supported continuing $40 billion worth of tax breaks over the next ten years to big oil companies. In the Ryan Budget, they voted to cut incentives for the production of smart, clean energy methods. This budget does not make sense. America needs to be investing in NEW energy that will create good, non-outsourceable jobs here at home. We do not need to continue to line the pockets of billionaire CEOs at the expense of middle-class families."

If you'd like to help elect Carol Shea-Porter, Patsy Keever and Lee Rogers to replace Guinta & his two crooked McCronies, you can find them all on this page.

Top 10 "Underground" House Races Party "Pros" Inside The Beltway Aren't Paying Any Attention To

Yes, Steve Israel is "reptilian," but whose side is he on?

Sarah Jaffe at Alternet seems a lot more tuned in than the DCCC or Cook. She looked at 10 congressional races this week that could spell big gains for progressives-- not reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems or even just garden variety lockstep Democrats-- in November. She examined 10 independent-minded progressives who stand out from the pack but who the DCCC is either ignoring, sabotaging or just paying lip service to.

One of the candidates Jaffe focuses on is Patsy Keever and yesterday the Keever camp sent out a press release to local media asking them to take a look:

Two days ago Sarah Jaffe, associate editor at AlterNet, released her top 10 list of under-the-radar Congressional races to watch. The battle here in NC-10 between Patsy Keever and Patrick McHenry rated a spot on the list.
 
She writes, “North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress […] But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry.” The article also quotes Alex Pareene at Salon as saying that McHenry was “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”
 
“I think that the article is on target,” said Keever's campaign manager Bruce Mulkey. “We are running a very well-organized, people powered campaign, and Patsy is being met with enthusiasm wherever she goes. I hope the pundits are paying attention on November 6, because I think they’re going to be in for a big surprise.”

These are the kinds of candidates being supported by Blue America and if you;d like to help, you can find them all either here or here. These were the 10 races Jaffe says are "flying under the radar, where you just might see an upset." She starts with the most winnable race in America that the DCCC is ignoring, Lee Rogers' courageous battle against backward and corrupt House armed Services Committee Chairman, Buck McKeon:

1. CA-25: Democrat Lee Rogers vs Republican Buck McKeon

Buck McKeon is a trifecta of loathsome: a Republican in a district that Obama won in 2008 who got preferential treatment from housing-bubble blowers Countrywide, and who, as the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, refused to hold hearings on sexual assault at the Air Force's training facility at Lackland. He was also one of the forces behind California's anti-gay Proposition 8, and is the co-chair of the House drone caucus (for real).

So why aren't we hearing more about his opponent, surgeon Lee Rogers? As could be expected, Rogers is running heavy on health care, leaning on his experience with the system-- he says that 75 percent of his patients (he's a podiatrist) are on Medicare-- and calling for improvements to the Affordable Care Act. He's called for keeping drug addicts out of prison, getting out of Afghanistan, and investing in infrastructure. As Blue America's Howie Klein notes, McKeon hasn't had real competition in a while, so this race could get interesting.

2. NY-23: Democrat Nate Shinagawa vs Republican Tom Reed

Nate Shinagawa is running as both the Democratic and Working Families Party candidate in upstate New York's 23rd district against Republican Tom Reed. He is one of the youngest candidates for Congress this year (just 28 years old) and a former student labor activist. He's already spent six years in the Tompkins County legislature, and has been an outspoken critic of fracking-- a practice his opponent is all for-- which New York Governor Cuomo would like to open up in his district.

In addition to welcoming fracking in his backyard, Reed was one of the GOP members of Congress on an infamous trip to Israel, where in addition to enjoying the hospitality of AIPAC's nonprofit offshoot the American Israel Education Foundation, at least one legislator copped to going skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee. (Reed says that he and his wife were “appropriately clothed.”) He's been cited as a possible future GOP “star” from New York, and he's a big fan of Paul Ryan and his (wildly unpopular, especially in New York) budget.

3. PA-16: Democrat Aryanna Strader vs Republican Joe Pitts

Joe Pitts's name is familiar to anyone who cares about reproductive justice-- along with Democrat Bart Stupak, the Pennsylvania Republican was the author of the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform bill-- a sneak attack on abortion rights that would've restricted access to abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.

Pitts should be a huge target for Democrats, but despite a leftward trend in his district and a bit of redistricting that might make it even more likely to swing Democratic, they're not pushing very hard. But Aryanna Strader is. She's a 29-year-old veteran, a mom, and a small business owner, and she leaves no question where she stands on reproductive freedoms-- she argues that Pitts “started the war on women's health.”

There are two independents running in the 16th as well-- Jim Bednarski, a former Republican who apparently wants to win the seat without fundraising, and John A. Murphy, who called Strader the Democrats' Sarah Palin. Pitts is smoking his competition when it comes to fundraising, though-- which might make one wonder about the Democrats' commitment to electing pro-choice politicians, since there's plenty of money being funneled into other Pennsylvania races, including Mark Critz's race at the other end of Pennsylvania-- despite his support for Pitts' H.R. 358, dubbed the “Let Women Die Act” because it would, well, let women die if their doctors were opposed to abortion.

4. MI-11: Democrat Syed Taj vs Republican Kerry Bentivolio

If this district sounds familiar, it's because Thaddeus McCotter resigned from it earlier this year after a chunk of the signatures qualifying him for the primary ballot were found to be fraudulent. (Four of his staffers were charged with violating election law.) Dr. Syed Taj is one of several M.D.'s running for Congress this year on their practical health care experience. He's skipping the special election for the remaining weeks of McCotter's term (really, weeks), choosing to focus on the general, where he's facing a Tea Party candidate, Kerry Bentivolio, who's well, unique-- Mother Jones describes him as “a reindeer rancher, Santa impersonator, and political novice who once starred in a low-budget movie suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.” A former teacher, he's facing questions about his treatment of students, and he got a chunk of funding for his campaign from a 21-year-old Ron Paul fanboy
.
Taj has spent over 40 years as a doctor, including a stint as Chief of Medicine at Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn. He's been endorsed by the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, Representative Keith Ellison, Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Nurses Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

5. WV-01: Democrat Sue Thorn vs Republican David McKinley

West Virginia is coal country, and any political battle in the state is likely to have Big Coal's dirty fingers all over the race. Sue Thorn's challenge to David McKinley is no exception. Multimillionaire McKinley (what is it with these rich members of Congress in some of the poorest districts?) has gotten a good chunk of his campaign cash from Murray Energy, the company whose Utah mine at Crandall Canyon collapsed and killed nine people-- and which got slapped with the largest fines ever from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (until the 2010 explosion at Upper Big Branch mine right in West Virginia, that is).

McKinley tries to claim that Thorn doesn't support coal mining and works under a big picture of a miner-- but Jack Spadaro, former head of the National Mine Safety and Health Academy, doesn't buy that:

There's no question about that, he's a hypocrite. He may say that and have that poster in his office, but he hasn't done anything to further the interests of miners and to make their workplace safe.

Meanwhile, Thorn has pointed out that McKinley's voted against stronger protections against black lung (which is having a resurgence) and better safety regulations. And she spent her Labor Day at events with actual workers, not just pictures of them.

6. WI-01: Democrat Rob Zerban vs Republican Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan's busy running for Veep, of course-- but just in case, he's also running for reelection in his House district. And Rob Zerban would like to take that job from him as well. Zerban's probably the first serious challenge Ryan has faced in Wisconsin since his election; he's raised over $1.4 million for his race so far, and points out that Obama carried the district in 2008 (and still would have even after redistricting). He told AlterNet's Joshua Holland:

I’ve lived my version of the American dream. I was only able to do that because our government was there when I needed help. I realize that being a successful small business owner-- someone who employed 45 people, providing excellent wages and benefits-- I realize that this isn’t something I accomplished all on my own. Our government helped me get an education on Pell Grants and loans, I was able to go on and start these small businesses. I want to make sure economic opportunity exists for everybody in this country, not just the wealthy and the well-connected.

Zerban's wife is a teacher and they were both part of the Capitol protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill. He endorses a “Medicare for All” single-payer system, noting that people don't start small businesses, in part, because of the sky-high costs of health insurance.

Ryan's selection to the presidential ticket may have helped put other Congressional races in play for the Democrats-- it'd be pretty funny if he managed to lose his own, too.

7. NC-10: Democrat Patsy Keever vs Republican Patrick McHenry

North Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress(Shuler decided to step down after some of the more Democratic-leaning parts of his 11th district were sliced out and dropped into the neighboring 10th). But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who's facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry, described by Alex Pareene at Salon as “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible 'governing' on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”

Keever, on the other hand, won a primary over more conservative Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy (who had the backing of the national party). The former schoolteacher is a sharp critic of the corporate education reform policy currently being celebrated at both party conventions, writing recently:

Vouchers and charter schools are not the answer. Defunding good programs and instituting unfunded mandates are not the answer. Adding more students to each classroom while decreasing support systems for teachers is not the answer.

Howie Klein notes that unlike Hayden Rogers, the anti-gay, anti-choice candidate (and Shuler's Chief of Staff) now running in the 11th district, Keever's getting little support from the Democratic party in the 10th. This, even though she strongly opposed North Carolina's anti-gay marriage Amendment One and was endorsed as pro-choice by NARAL. Interestingly, the DCCC named Rogers a “Red to Blue” candidate, which gives him additional funding even though he's running to replace his old boss, a theoretical Democrat, while Keever's running against an honest-to-goodness Republican.

8. CA-39: Democrat Jay Chen vs Republican Ed Royce

Ed Royce is a longtime incumbent who's gotten more money from the financial sector than any other member of the California delegation; he's one of the few senior Republicans to actually join the Tea Party Caucus, has said that Arizona's “Papers, Please” anti-immigrant law should be the national standard, railed against multi-language ballots, and voted against extending the Voting Rights Act. But he's in a new district this time, and this one is 30 percent Asian-American and 30 percent Latino-- creating a perfect opening for Jay Chen to take a crack at defeating him.

Chen still faces an uphill battle, but the school board member and Navy Reservist is running on the issues that matter-- making education more accessible, better health care (he's ultimately a single-payer supporter) and financial regulation. He recorded Mandarin-language ads to urge the Chinese-American community to vote against Proposition 8, and even though the DCCC doesn't see fit to spend money on his race, he's determined to keep fighting.

9. PA-03: Democrat Missa Eaton vs Republican Mike Kelly

Missa Eaton is one of many educators running as a Democrat in a time of reduced funding for schools and universities. The daughter of a union bus driver, the assistant professor of psychology is challenging super-rich incumbent Mike Kelly and mentions the student debt crisis as one of her issues to tackle. She's also no slouch on trade policy, an issue that might not be sexy but is deeply important in the era of outsourcing.

Eaton's getting union support in her blue-collar western Pennsylvania district (represented, before Kelly, by Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper) and won the “Keystone Challenge” from the state Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, Mike Kelly compared the health insurance mandate to cover contraception to Pearl Harbor and September 11. No, really.

10. TX-16: Democrat Beto O'Rourke vs Republican Barbara Carrasco

Beto O'Rourke's already won one rough race this year-- his primary, where he knocked off conservative Democrat Silvestre Reyes, in part in a battle over drug policy. O'Rourke favors marijuana legalization and bluntly calls the drug war a “failure.” The El Paso city representative argued that marijuana prohibition only fuels the cartels and stokes violence just over the border. It didn't hurt that Reyes had other problems-- $600,000 in campaign funds steered to himself and family members, say, or a vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Tim Murphy at Mother Jones notes that try as Reyes might have to make drugs an issue in the campaign, the race was really won on the economy.

O'Rourke's also pushed for benefits for same-sex partners and is pro-choice, pro-contraception, and pro-health care. The district remains largely Democratic even after redistricting, but O'Rourke still has to go through Barbara Carrasco, a Republican whose website pledges that she'll “FIGHT for America's Free-Market Economy” and “PROTECT our Children-- Born and Unborn.”

"Ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel, the head of the DCCC-- who Nancy Pelosi endearing refers to as "reptilian"-- would rather see Republicans win than watch more progressives get into the Democratic House caucus. He's not supporting these candidates and there is documentary evidence that he's personally told major Democratic big dollar donors to not give them any support or contributions. Nancy was sure right when she used the term "reptilian" to describe Israel, regardless of what she had in her heart, which no one can really know for sure anyway.


Once again, these are candidates who can win but who the DCCC is basically ignoring so they can fight for more anti-Choice, anti-gay, pro-Business conservative Democrats in the imagine of horrible Beltway hacks like Steve Israel, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, careerists with their own corrupt agendas. If you'd like to help the progressive candidates win seats in Congress instead of more Blue Dogs, you can contribute here and here.

Eric Clapton, B.B. King And... Patsy Keever

When I was a teenager I worked at the Cafe Au Go Go in Greenwich Village for a stint. It's where I first met many artists I later became involved with, from Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, the Grateful Dead to the Jefferson Airplane and The Animals. In 1967 I saw Eric Clapton, then 22 and a member of Cream, perform with American blues great, B.B. King. More than 30 years later I was the president of Reprise Records when Eric, one of our biggest-selling and most respected artists, told me he had gone into the studio with B.B., who he idolizes, and they had recorded several songs. This turned into a collaborative album, Riding With The King, which hit #1 on the Billboard blues chart, #3 on the Billboard album chart, sold over 2 million copies and won a Grammy Award. The RIAA certified the album "double platinum" in 2000 and the custom award plaque is one of the most aesthetically beautiful RIAA awards ever made. Only a small handful were given out and, of course, it was never sold or made available to the public. Eric and B. B. gave me one. I want to use it to help raise some money for one of the most deserving progressives running anywhere in America, Rep. Patsy Keever, an intrepid Democrat taking on Wall Street shill Patrick McHenry-- much the same way we used the Green Day signed guitar to raise $37,000 for Alan Grayson's campaign a few weeks ago.

Another fighter for working families from North Carolina, Congressman Brad Miller, is supporting Patsy's run. He told us that "The contrast between Patsy and Patrick McHenry couldn't be greater. Patsy is a respected community leader, not a self-promoting political operative. Patsy has strong progressive instincts grounded in her understanding of what people's lives are really like." Patsy's record as a representative of the North Carolina legislature showed she is a staunch believer in helping working families, standing up for civil rights and including everyone who wants to pitch in and work hard in the American dream.

I never talked with either Eric or B. B. about politics and don't know where they stand on the issues... but they did cover Charlie "Hoss" Singleton's classic "Help the Poor" [below] on Riding With The King-- and they're both very decent, generous human beings so... I'll just jump to the logical conclusion. To get a chance to wind up with this plaque on your wall, just contribute to Patsy's campaign-- any amount-- at this ActBlue page. We'll randomly select one person to thank by sending him or her the plaque.

McHenry is widely considered one of the worst Members of Congress and his record shows him to be a total shill for Wall Street's corrupt banksters. On issue after issue after issue, Patsy Keever is showing the voters how they differ. "Patrick McHenry," she told North Carolina voters last week, "wants to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would cost seniors at minimum an additional six thousand dollars a year for their health care. I want to keep our promise to our seniors and protect the current Medicare benefits that they have earned by paying into the program throughout their lifetimes." Clear and simple, so there can be no confusion in voters' minds who's with them and... who's not. Please consider standing with Patsy today and contributing whatever you can spare. And if you wind up with an Eric Clapton/B. B. King collectible, all the better. You can contribute by clicking on this link or by sending a check to Blue America at P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027. And if you want a chance to win the award plaque but don't have even a dollar to spare, just send us a note to that P.O. Box and we'll include you're name as well.

A Not Very Happy Anniversary Today For The American Jobs Act

I assume Boehner has the same flunky tweeting for him on each of his Twitter accounts. Whomever it was, was busy after the convention in Charlotte attempting to change the subject as fast as possible to the disappointing jobs numbers. Although Paul Krugman termed the report unremarkable-- "the US economy this past year and more is that it has been steadily adding jobs at a pace roughly fast enough to keep up with but not get ahead of population growth"-- the right-wing propaganda machine is on full throttle about how it proves Obama has been horrible for the economy. And it's rare that the mass media-- outside of, say, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz-- ever mentions anything about the Republican efforts to obstruct President Obama's job creation plans and the efforts of the GOP governors in Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas and several other states going on a destructive binge of firing public service employees (teachers, foremen, policemen, etc).




It was on September 8, 2011 that Obama went before Congress (see video above) to explain the American Jobs Act and ask for bipartisan support to put the country back to work again. His plan called for the creation of something like 2 million new jobs and the American public was firmly behind it. But Boehner, Cantor and Ryan killed the proposal immediately and without proposing anything to take its place except their long discredited snake oil-- more tax cuts for the rich and fewer regulations for the corporate greed hogs. Obama's plan emphasized investing in desperately needed infrastructure, aid to states to shore up collapsing budgets that were pointing towards more layoffs for teachers, policemen and firemen and tax credits for employers that would encourage domestic job growth. All this is not just anathema to Republicans ideologically, this flies in the face of their decision to sabotage President Obama (and, incidentally, the American economy and the American people).

So yesterday we had an anemic jobs report and a twittering Speaker of the House. And a pathetic Republican presidential nominee who pulled a number out of his ass-- 11.5 million-- and claimed that's how many jobs he would (magically) create in his first term. Needless to say, he's being as cagey about how he would do it as he is about what he's hiding in his tax forms. Hounded by the media to get a little more specific-- even the Wall Street Journal was laughing at him-- he finally offered six specific ideas:

He said he would tap our energy resources to “put a lot of people to work in the energy sector.” He said he’d repeal Obamacare, which is “scaring small businesses from hiring.” He said he’d balance the budget so people know “investing in America is going to yield a return in dollars worth something.” He vowed to “open up new markets in American trade.” He said he’d revamp the National Labor Relations Board and lower tax rates on employers, both of which would make it easier to hire people.

[Greg] Sargent asked a few top economists whether Romney’s ideas would actually create jobs. “On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,” responded Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. “If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.”

The American Jobs Act (H.R. 12) was officially introduced in the House by John Larson (D-CT) on September 21 with 105 cosponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, where it was shelved by 10 Republicans acting on orders from Eric Cantor-- Judy Biggert (R-IL), the subcommittee chair, Robert Hurt (R-VA), Gary Miller (R-CA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Robert Dold (R-IL), and Steve Stivers (R-OH). But clownish Texan Louie Gohmert introduced his own bizarro-world "American Jobs Act" (H.R. 2911) that abolishes corporate income taxes entirely. Embarrassed, Boehner also buried that in committee.

McHenry's independent-minded opponent this year, Rep. Patsy Keever, was dismayed when she saw the role McHenry had played in killing the American Jobs Act. "People in North Carolina are hurting economically," she told us last night. "We are just coming out of the worst recession since the great depression. Workers in this state need a representative in Congress who will work with both sides of the aisle to help them. Just getting a job is the goal of too many North Carolinians! Not only do they need a job, they need a chance to earn a living wage. Part of what helps women in our state secure a living wage is receiving equal pay for equal work. Too often women are paid less than men. My opponent thinks there is nothing wrong with that, that being a women is reason enough for wage discrimination. I ask voters to stand with me this fall in recognition of the fact that their current representative doesn't actually represent them and that equal pay is not just about equality, it's about economics."

Working to kill the Jobs Act with McHenry was one of the Wall Street banksters favorite congressional shills, Steve Stivers. This year he's in a tough reelection battle with Democratic populist Pat Lang. And Lang isn't mincing any words about Stivers' malfeasance. "Every American," he told us this morning, "should be appalled that the 112th Congress has failed to pass a single piece of comprehensive jobs legislation. Steve Stivers and House Republicans refused to even consider President Obama's American Jobs Act, which would have put a million people to work, immediately. Steve Stivers and House Republicans are more concerned with denying President Obama a legislative 'victory' than they are with strengthening our economic recovery."

On October 11, Harry Reid attempted to block the filibuster of the bill in the Senate but his cloture move only got 50 votes. Every single Republican-- even fake moderates like Scott Brown R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME)-- voted NO, as did 2 conservative Democrats, Ben Nelson (R-NE) and Jon Tester (D-MT). And now we have almost half the voters in the country seriously contemplating the alternative to letting Obama finish his modest agenda for cleaning up after Bush and his GOP allies in Congress whose policies tanked the economy in the first place. I don't expect most voters in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and Idaho to grasp why this is important-- nor in any way alter their self-destructive behavior at the polls. But what about in Massachusetts. Independent voters in the Bay State could hold the future well-being of our country in their hands. Elizabeth Warren is very different from Wall Street construct Scott Brown. In fact... this is something you can do.

Americans For REAL Prosperity

Over the course of the last week, House candidates from every part of America have vowed to fight the failed Austerity agenda being pushed by Romney, Ryan and their Republican cronies in Congress. The full-- and growing-- list of candidates, with their statements, is on this page, where you will see an inspiring diversity of thought and approach. Patsy Keever, the intrepid Democratic state Rep from Asheville, NC, was the first to respond and she focused primarily on tending to the nation's infrastructure, something her opponent, Patrick McHenry, has blocked:

This country has faced the slowest economic recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Our Congress has been hijacked by extremely radical members who refuse to come together to put the best interests of all Americans before party allegiance. This country needs its infrastructure re-built. Thirty percent of North Carolina’s bridges are structurally deficient, 215 of the state’s damns fall short of its safety standards, 27% of our highways are in poor condition and 54% of them are congested. These statistics have a wide-ranging and devastating impact on our economy. Small businesses need roads and bridges to support their work. People need safe and uncongested roads to get to their jobs. Infrastructure spending not only ensures that people who do have jobs can keep them, but it creates jobs for people who don’t have them. It is critical for our country to invest in its own future. We need leaders willing to work for the people, not merely their parties.

The most recent candidate to sign on, Beto O'Rourke, the independent-minded Democrat in El Paso, is also a big booster of infrastructure. He's concentrating on strengthening communities from the ground up, starting with employment opportunities:

In order to strengthen our nation and revive our economy, we need strong communities. That means investing in infrastructure, in innovation, and in the public resources that ensure our continued competitiveness.

And while we certainly should rigorously review spending, and ensure that we are delivering government services as effectively and efficiently as possible, we will not cut our way to prosperity.

When it comes to raising revenues-- let's put every special interest, loophole and deduction on the table and-- with our eyes wide open-- decide what our priorities are and how we're going to pay for them. Right now the wealthy and connected are best equipped to navigate, and at times bend, the tax system to their advantage. My vote is to have a transparent, progressive structure that gives struggling families the best shot at moving up the economic ladder and creating greater wealth and opportunity in their communities.

I've knocked on nearly 20,000 doors in my district since I started campaigning a year ago. The number one issue people talk to me about is the economy and their most pressing concern is finding a job.

That's why I'm committed to investing in our communities, getting people back to work and ensuring that everyone's paying their fair share to move this country forward.

William Greider also tackled the notion-- in great depth-- at The Nation. Like our candidates, he seems very impressed with the work Jacob Hacker has done on the Prosperity Economics proposal and he's looking for a strategy that's in an entirely different world than what you'll find from Beltway careerist organizations like the DCCC. Greider identifies the real task progressive Americans have right now-- reelecting Barack Obama and resetting his priorities.

The challenge is forbidding and doubtless sounds naïve to establishment politicians. But the risks of failure are huge. Faced with the growing fear that Obama will pursue a “grand bargain” with conservatives after the election, further compromising core principles, leading liberal-labor forces are toughening up their tactics. They see the prospect of re-election as a great opportunity to coax or push the president toward the fundamental economic reforms he ducked in his first term-- a source of great disappointment on the left.

Cynics may sneer at part of the strategy for renewal, but it’s a novel approach, and I think it may represent a meaningful turn in the road. Instead of bombing voters with hyped-up TV messages, progressive leaders are going for big ideas. They are rolling out a meaty agenda of economic reforms, giving voters a firm grasp of the issues that affect their lives and charting a path toward a prosperous, more secure future. The ultimate goal is long-term and larger than Obama: reviving small-d democracy and rebuilding the left by helping ordinary people regain their power as citizens. Is that still possible in our dysfunctional system? We are going to find out.

Organizers say Americans are hungry for liberal alternatives to the austerity agenda. People everywhere are tired of manipulative rhetoric. They want to hear serious proposals for how to restore prosperity and an equitable society. Trouble is, neither the president nor the Democratic Party much wants to talk about solutions that sound suspiciously liberal. Mitt Romney is mocked for not having a coherent plan for economic recovery, but Obama doesn’t have much of one either. “Fairness” is not a governing strategy. Frequent factory visits are not going to bring back manufacturing jobs.

...Hacker lays out the principal steps for restoring progressive taxation, re-regulating the financial system and breaking up the mega-banks. He does not pause to note that the Democratic Party has been deeply complicit in these scandals. But his report could be read as a “shadow platform” for a party that has drifted rightward and lost its way.

“This campaign is basically the choice between austerity-- more pain for working people-- or an economy of growth and jobs and prosperity,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka explains. “Our president is campaigning for that future. Professor Hacker’s agenda spells out how to get there-- the ideas and actions that deliver what people want and need in their lives. ... Our agenda is about governing solutions that work, that can heal our wounded country,” Trumka adds. “The conservative corporate machine will oppose nearly everything we propose. But we know from polls that people are overwhelmingly for these propositions-- typically with 75 to 90 percent support.” By arming people with the truth about debt reduction and who gets hurt, Trumka thinks, Hacker’s blueprint should have an immediate impact on postelection decisions.

...As the election season heats up, organized labor and allied groups are trying to walk a delicate line. On the one hand, they intend to push these comprehensive reform proposals aggressively on Congress and the White House, no matter who wins in November. On the other hand, they are committed to Obama’s re-election and anxious to avoid making problems for him. After the election, however, all bets are off. Liberals and labor will be ready to play hardball. Or so they say.

Progressive leaders think they have figured out how to get the president’s attention and compel him to take their agenda seriously. The familiar pattern in Obama’s first term was serial disappointment and occasional anger. The cautious president kept his distance on major decisions while vaguely expressing sympathy with liberal aspirations. He seemed more worried about upsetting independents in the ambivalent middle. He worked especially hard at courting corporate and financial titans.

Looking back, many liberal activists realize they were much too deferential when the White House seemed to take them for granted. Because the GOP was savaging and slandering Obama, trying to block everything he proposed, faithful supporters were reluctant to add to his grief. But they have belatedly concluded that Obama, like most politicians, sometimes needs a poke in the chest from his friends.

The pattern of Obama’s encounters with frustrated supporters suggests what succeeds is a smartly focused strategy of tactical pressuring—a willingness to get in his face, up the ante with direct action, and withhold affection until you get a meaningful response. The president and White House staffers insisted that impatient agitators would only hurt their cause, since Obama had already declared his sympathy for their goals. Overzealous pressure campaigns would make it harder for him to act.

Obama’s track record indicates the opposite: he doesn’t like to be pushed, and he resents it especially when the pressure comes from allies. But if they keep the heat on, he is more likely to address their grievances. On at least four notable issues of great concern to Democratic constituencies—immigration reform, gays in the military, the Keystone pipeline and same-sex marriage—the pattern of sustained pressure and protest aimed at the president led him to “evolve” in his views. Instead of offering mere rhetoric, he responded concretely to their demands.

Two years ago, immigration advocates lost patience with the administration’s aggressive approach to deportation and its foot-dragging on the DREAM Act. They escalated the terms of their complaints in harsh and highly visible ways and started marching en masse. Bhargava, a leading organizer of the pro-immigration forces, told the president face-to-face at a White House meeting that the administration was presiding over a “moral catastrophe.” The president rebuked Bhargava for exaggeration and ingratitude and became “pissy” with immigration advocates in other meetings.

In June, nonetheless, Obama announced a great victory for immigrants’ rights. At the president’s command, the Department of Homeland Security stopped deporting DREAM Act–eligible young people-- as many as 1.5 million-- and arranged to provide work permits for them. This was a very big deal: the largest legalization of undocumented immigrants since Ronald Reagan’s sweeping amnesty in 1986. Certainly the approaching election had something to do with Obama’s change of heart. (That is what elections are for.) But it was the advocates’ persistence that persuaded the nervous White House to go for it. As the Obama team discovered, good policy can also be good politics.

Similar tactics produced similar victories-- or at least forward motion-- on the other issues. Liberal-labor forces intend to adapt these lessons as they push for the fundamental reforms enumerated in the Hacker blueprint. They recognize that they cannot easily emulate the model unless they go to work at the grassroots, building a popular base of citizens who are mobilized to demand action. Right now, the economic reformers lack the level of sophistication and solidarity that helped deliver results for gays, Latinos and environmentalists in recent years. Americans do not need to be told about their pain and insecurity. They need to learn how to do something about it.

...But will labor and other mediating organizations actually follow through with the plan? Can they establish enough distance from the Democrats and the White House to advance an effective pressure campaign? Skeptics doubt it. They recall earlier moments of crisis when similar declarations of independence were voiced but nothing much changed. This time is different, and for important reasons I think the results will be different too.

For one thing, the economic crisis has severely altered the political context. The new circumstances are especially adverse for working people, but an adequate response from government has not been forthcoming. As the broad middle class festered in desperation and bitterness in the wake of the crash, Democrats, including the president, were surprisingly restrained. The White House seemed reluctant to advocate aggressive measures that might alienate independents or upset financial interests and other malefactors.

Then Occupy Wall Street came along and blew away Obama’s soft talk. Now, candidate Obama has wisely adapted Occupy’s brilliantly succinct message as his own. He does not have the nerve to invoke “the 99 percent,” but his rhetoric of fairness plays to the same music. Occupy likewise became a wake-up call for labor liberals. When people in the streets began shouting what the left had been too shy to broadcast forcefully, unions got a welcome jolt. Soon enough, they began shouting too.

With any luck, this surge of energy and enthusiasm-- and the attendant rejection of 1 percent politics, as embodied by Mitt Romney-- will propel Obama to a second term. But some activists are already worried about what will happen if Obama wins. Will he abandon his “inner liberal” again and opt for a grand bargain with Republicans that will do brutal damage to the liberal legacy and long-loyal constituencies?

These enduring suspicions reveal the fraught nature of the marriage between organized labor and the Democratic Party. Unless the party renews its vows and honors them, this marriage may be headed for a trial separation.

For more than three decades, the union movement has faithfully turned out labor votes and raised many millions to finance Democratic campaigns. But as its membership shrank, it gradually became weaker and more dependent on the Democratic Party. Union membership was decimated by globalized production and the business campaign to destroy workers’ rights. But the Democrats became less reliable as the defenders of labor at precisely the moment labor really needed them.

Dissident union leaders and rank-and-file workers repeatedly complained that labor was getting the worse end of the bargain. Unions should put aside party loyalty, they argued, and free themselves to pursue more combative and radical strategies in both politics and the workplace. Labor leaders mostly resisted the demands-- partly out of inertia, but also because they understood how vulnerable union members would be if they lost their political allies.

This dilemma has finally reached the breaking point: labor and its liberal allies must chart a new course or face extinction. Given their weakened condition, it is especially difficult to imagine a reinvigorated labor movement or a more independent approach to politics. But the status quo looks like a loser for sure.

A different strategy might start with people on the ground who have no voice at all, represented by neither unions nor politicians. In order to launch a mass movement for economic justice, organized labor would have to relearn some of the things it used to know, including how to wage a campaign to address large economic grievances and speak for working people everywhere.

Jacob Hacker makes the basic point that securing shared prosperity necessarily requires the restoration of democracy. A strategy that gives voice to the people who cannot be heard amid the clamor of big-money politics would not just be about winning elections; it would apply as well to the workplace and financial markets, to corporations and governing institutions. The excluded who need to gain a voice and power might not add up to 99 percent, but they surely represent a majority large enough to change the country.

That said... let me invite you again to our Americans For REAL Prosperity page and ask you to take a look at what the candidates there have to say about these ideas. Jay Chen is running against egregious Wall Street shill Ed Royce in a new southern California district. The DCCC has expressed no particular interest in the race, even though it's certainly winnable. Jay is an enthusiastic supporter of Prosperity Economics and I'll leave you with his statement-- and The Clash:

"When I first read up on Prosperity Economics, I thought someone must have really taken a liking to my stump speeches. The ideas espoused by Professor Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil are completely aligned with my core beliefs for getting our country and economy back on track. These beliefs, which include investing in infrastructure, education, and our social safety nets, and limiting the power of corporations to distort our political system, are not new. They are part of the original formula that drove the unparalleled success our nation has enjoyed up until recently.

But these ideas are now under constant attack, as is the prosperity of our nation, by corporate interests and social extremists whose ultimate goal is to increase income inequality and cultural disharmony. Wealth accumulation has now been confused with job creation, and the right wants to slash government services further to grow the war machine. All the while our middle class, which is the true engine of economic growth and stability, continues to shrink. We simply cannot cut our way to prosperity anymore than we can drill our way out of oil dependence. We need leaders who understand how smart, sound investment made us the great nation we are today, and how prosperity economics can ensure our leadership in the world for generations to come."

Republicans Are Way Out On A Limb When It Comes To Ryan's Plan To Kill Medicare

Father Stephen Umhoefer, 72, was the pastor for Paul Ryan when he was growing up. The idea of Ryan becoming vice president has him "worried" because Ryan‘s austerity budget and proposed steep cuts in social programs are inconsistent with the Catholic teachings that Ryan cites to justify the policies. "He shouldn't wrap himself in Catholic teaching because he is not using that [teaching] in what I would say is a balanced way," said Umhoefer.

For Umhoefer, the test of the budget is a simple one: "The first question is how does this affect the poor. And everything else follows from that. That doesn't mean it's a Republican or Democrat [question]-- you could argue that. But the primary question is how does this affect the poor?"

Umhoefer said that Ryan's lack of attention to the poor and the emphasis on individualism espoused by role models such as Ayn Rand concerned him. "Paul would say that the only way to save the country from a coming [fiscal] disaster is 'follow my plan.'" But according to Umhoefer, the problem is "you can't tell somebody that in ten years your economic situation is going to be just wonderful because meanwhile your kids may starve to death."

Umhoefer said that in Janesville, which lost some 5,000 jobs related to the auto industry after a GM plant closed in 2009, residents continue to seek emergency food and housing support and social service organizations have been running out of funds. A house across the street from the church sits with a red "condemned" sticker prominently on the door, and another house on the block has a sign that declares, "Price Reduced."

"The welfare check runs out and people are suffering now in ways that they haven't before," he said, noting that the church has hired two former auto workers with wages and benefits far below their former level.

Umhoefer said that wealthy church members have offered support for shared sacrifice and revenue raising proposals such as the Warren Buffet rule that asks millionaires to avoid loopholes and pay a tax rate of 30 percent. "I can't always invite my neighbor over to dinner, but I... need to pay a certain amount of taxes. And I need to vote to make sure taxes are used to help make sure that my neighbor isn’t starving," he said.

The video up top is the first DCCC television independent expenditure and, in his attempt to elect reactionary Blue Dog Gary McDowell (MI-01), Steve Israel seeks, appropriately enough, to tie Republican freshman Dan Benishek to Paul Ryan's plan to kill Medicare. Kill Medicare? Is that really what Ryan, Benishek and the rest of the GOP want to do? Oh, absolutely. Yesterday, Paul Krugman did what he calls a utility post as "a summary of what’s actually in the Ryan plan."

In the first decade, the big things are (i) conversion of Medicaid into a block grant program, with much lower funding than projected under current law and (ii) sharp cuts in top tax rates and corporate taxes.

...After the first decade, Medicare is gradually transformed into a voucher scheme, with the value of the vouchers lagging well behind projected health care costs. Even so, however, much of the supposed deficit reduction comes not from Medicare but from further cuts in discretionary spending relative to GDP, with the number eventually falling to 3.5 percent of GDP (see Table 2 in the CBO report). There is, once again, no specification of how this is to be accomplished; bear in mind that this number includes defense, which is currently around 4 percent of GDP.

Ryan basically proposes three big things: slashing Medicaid, cutting taxes on corporations and high-income people, and replacing Medicare with a drastically less well funded voucher system. These concrete proposals would, taken together, actually increase the deficit for the first decade and beyond.

Krugman claims the Ryan plan is so vague and so filled with untenable assumptions that it "isn’t even a plan, it’s just a set of assertions." For a someone who idiots inside the Beltway have been trying to sell for several years as "serious" and a "wonk," Ryan, it turns out, really is just a well-scrubbed gym bunny who can usually regurgitate Wall Street and Insurance Industry talking points fairly well-- even though the talking points don't add up. And now that he's playing in the Big Times, and coming under real scrutiny for those assertions, he's looking more and more like a goof ball and another major Romney embarrassment. Josh Barro's report for Bloomberg yesterday detailed the confusion for the Romney campaign which is hammering Obama for cutting $716 billion out of Medicare even while Ryan's budget, approved by the Republican-controlled House, includes those same cuts. "Conservatives," Barro writes, "are protesting that Ryan's plan to cut Medicare is different from the president's. They're right-- Ryan would actually cut $205 billion more out of Medicare over the next ten years than Obama would... What Romney and Ryan are up to is simple: They want to have it both ways on Medicare. They are for Medicare cuts, because Medicare is expensive and the federal budget needs to be controlled. And they are against Medicare cuts, because Medicare cuts are unpopular. The political impulses behind this strategy are clear. Why any policy experts would try to offer a substantive defense of it is not."

Steve Benen helped clarify what the argument is all about-- inasmuch as anyone could given the confusion at the base of it. "Consider," he suggests, "this remarkable series of events:"

1. President Obama extends new benefits to seniors on Medicare and finds savings in the system to strengthen Medicare's finances.

2. Paul Ryan approves of Obama's Medicare savings and incorporates them into his own budget plan.

3. Mitt Romney endorses Ryan's plan, which includes Obama's Medicare savings.

4. Romney changes his mind, and tries to argue he's for and against the Medicare savings at the same time (for them in Ryan's plan, against then in Obama's law).

And finally 5. Ryan denounces the Medicare savings he supports.

So to review, the Romney/Ryan ticket is for and against Obama's Medicare savings, for and against including Obama's Medicare savings in the Republican budget, for and against extending benefits for seniors, and for and against strengthening Medicare's finance-- all at the same time.

Democratic challengers to Republicans who voted for Ryan's plan to kill Medicare and Medicaid have to figure out how to clarify the issue to local voters. And if they're not anti-Choice and antigay Blue Dogs, it's not very likely Steve Israel will allow the DCCC to help them. They're on their own. In NC-10, for example, state Rep. Patsy Keever gets no help from the DCCC in her battle against Ryan lackey Patrick McHenry, despite the fact that McHenry's support for Ryan's budget who have been absolutely devastating for the residents of the area, raising costs for seniors and individuals with disabilities enrolled in Medicare, reducing their benefits, and putting predatory private insurance companies in charge of the program. For current beneficiaries, important benefits-- such as closing the hole in Medicare’s drug coverage-- would be immediately eliminated. For individuals age 54 and under, Medicare’s guarantee of comprehensive coverage would be replaced with a “voucher,” what Ryan, Romney and McHenry call "premium support,” to buy private health insurance. By design, this federal contribution does not keep pace with medical costs, shifting thousands of dollars in costs onto the individual. Under the old boundaries of NC-10, the budget would have increased prescription drug costs for 8,800 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $87 million for drugs over the next decade. It also would have eliminated new preventive care benefits for 120,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district. According to a study for the House Energy and Commerce Committee the Ryan-McHenry plan "would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare." It would:

• Deny 510,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 115,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.

• Require the 115,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $26.9 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual-- to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.

• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 64,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 393,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.

With no help from the venal, Blue Dog-loving Israel, how is a progressive like Patsy Keever going to get the money she needs to get the message out in the sprawling North Carolina district. That's where we come in.

And this morning Patsy weighed in-- and very specifically:

By choosing Ryan as his running mate, Governor Romney sent a loud and clear message to all Americans: he’s betting on the far right. We now have a crystal-clear picture of the plan Romney has for America, because it’s the same plan that Congressional Republicans like Patrick McHenry have been trying to push on us for years. Congressman Ryan has been its chief architect, Patrick McHenry has been his faithful servant, and now Mitt Romney has hopped aboard.

The Romney-Ryan-McHenry plan would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system and leaving seniors to fend for themselves in the private market. A nonpartisan expert found that the Ryan/McHenry proposal would cost seniors up to $6,350 every year in additional health care costs. I don’t know where Romney, Ryan and McHenry come from, but most seniors I know can’t afford to pay over $6,000 more a year for health care.

With that-- I’d like to announce my second policy difference in the series of differences that my campaign will be laying out to illustrate the choice voters have to make this fall:

Patrick McHenry wants to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would cost seniors at minimum an additional six thousand dollars a year for their health care. I want to keep our promise to our seniors and protect the current Medicare benefits that they have earned by paying into the program throughout their lifetimes.

We need congressmembers like Patsy Keever to replace corporate shills like McHenry but we're not going to wake up on the first Wednesday in November and find the good fairy waved a magic wand. It's going to take a lot of work between now and then-- and Patsy and her team are willing to do it. And they need help.