Darkness, Darkness-- The Mercers Are Disappointed In Trump

There are plenty of evil families in the Trump orbit. But-- no offense meant to the DeVos/Prince monsters-- none come close to the Long Island billionaire Mercer clan. At least as much as Putin and Hillary, they delivered a victory to Trump in 2016. They gave him Bannon, Kellyanne, Bossie, Cambridge Analytica... a whole campaign. And then once he won, Rebekah, the imperious, ultra-spoiled daughter, called the shots. She was a heavy hitter on the executive committee of the Trump transition team and pushed for Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn and John Bolton and vetoed Mitt Romney.

The father, Robert, pretty much viewed as a complete crackpot by everyone who has ever met him, is obsessed with urine research, revels in the death penalty, Islamophobia and Obama-hatred. He told his co-workers in Setauket that "your value as a human being is equivalent to what you are paid... [and] by definition, teachers are not worth much because they aren't paid much." The crazy daughter has the same bestial ideology as her dad. They "invested" $10 million in Breitbart to spread their crackpot ideas to the kind of mentally-weak people attracted to fascism, xenophobia, racism and generalized hate-mongering, the core of their lives. The Mercers we're merely angling to influence the Republican establishment-- they wanted to obliterate it. Now, according to Vanity Fair's Gabriel Sherman they're disappointed, complain Trump was a bad investment and are essentially gone from TrumpWorld. And that's a problem because the Trump campaign says it isn't raising enough money from big donors.

With their ties to Steve Bannon, Breitbart, and Cambridge Analytica, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah were superstars last cycle. According to half a dozen sources familiar with the reclusive family’s political activities, the Mercers have drastically curtailed their political donations in recent months and will likely not play a significant role in 2020. “They think that the administration could do so much more. They’ve been very vocal about that to the president,” a person familiar with the Mercers’ thinking told me. “It’s like they’ve disappeared,” the former West Wing official added. “Crickets. They’re gone,” a prominent Republican strategist said.

The numbers tell the story. In 2016, Robert Mercer, the former co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, and his wife, Diana, donated $15.5 million to a variety of different organizations to help elect Trump, and they put up another $1 million for the inaugural committee. They also provided substantial support to Breitbart, which at times seemed to function as an extra arm of the Trump campaign. The Washington Post reported they spent more than $49 million on political activities in 2016 and that year’s election cycle. “The Mercers laid the groundwork for the Trump revolution,” Steve Bannon said in 2017. In addition to the millions the Mercers pumped into Trump’s election, they spent $10 million on Breitbart News and millions more on Cambridge Analytica, the data firm cofounded by Robert Mercer in 2013.

But in 2018 the Mercers donated only $400,000 to the pro-Trump Great America PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Their total political spending dropped to $2.9 million last year. Sources said the Mercers cut back their spending because they felt scarred by the press scrutiny that followed their association with Trump. Two sources said Rebekah’s divorce from her husband is also motivating her to keep a low profile. “This whole thing did not end up well for them,” former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg told me. “They’ve been destroyed,” a former West Wing official said. A former Renaissance executive said: “Bob views all his political spending as a bad investment.” (The Mercers did not respond to requests for comment.)

Like Trump, the Mercers exploded onto the national scene from seemingly nowhere. Robert, a painfully shy computer scientist who reportedly prefers cats to people, never gave interviews. When I approached Robert at Trump’s 2016 election-night party at the New York Hilton, he smiled and walked away.

At that time, the Mercers had become so influential with Trump that they successfully installed their handpicked strategists, Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, to run Trump’s campaign in the closing months of 2016. After Trump won, Rebekah served as a senior member of the transition team. And in December 2016, Trump repaid their loyalty by making an appearance at Robert’s annual costume ball held at his Long Island mansion known as the Owl’s Nest.

But the relationship was stress tested from the beginning of Trump’s term. In March 2017, the New Yorker published an embarrassing profile of Robert Mercer, depicting him as an eccentric recluse. Five months later, Trump exiled Bannon, which drove a wedge between Trump and the Mercers, Bannon’s longtime patrons. Around the same time, Mercer’s support for Trump and Breitbart was outraging Renaissance employees and the fund’s investors, sources told me. (The hedge fund’s founder, James Simons, is among the country’s biggest Democratic donors.) In November 2017, Mercer was pushed out of Renaissance and he publicly transferred his stake in Breitbart to his daughters. A month later, the Mercers’ relationship with Bannon reached a breaking point when Bannon was quoted extensively in Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury criticizing the Trump family. Rebekah issued a rare statement distancing herself from Bannon. “My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements,” it read. “Bob and Rebekah both felt so burned by Bannon and the negative publicity,” a person close to the Mercers told me.

Meanwhile, the Mercers’ investment in Cambridge Analytica was putting them in legal jeopardy. A few months after Robert left Renaissance, it was reported that the FBI opened an investigation of Cambridge in the wake of revelations that the firm appropriated private data from more than 50 million Facebook profiles. Last May, the Mercers shut the company down. “The Cambridge investigation really spooked them,” said the prominent Republican strategist.

Another factor driving the Mercers off the national stage is that Trump was never their ideal candidate, despite the millions they spent helping him, sources told me. “They never really liked Trump,” the person close to the Mercers said. During the 2016 Republican primary, the Mercers put all their cards on Ted Cruz. The source recalled that Robert invited Kellyanne Conway, who was then working for a pro-Cruz super PAC, to his Florida mansion and told her to “beat Trump!” What seemed to be most driving the Mercers was a hatred of Hillary Clinton. “Trump was just Bob’s play against Hillary,” the former Renaissance executive said. “Bob said she and her husband were murderers who would destroy the country. He thought she was an evil person and a socialist.”

Without the specter of a Clinton presidency to motivate them, the Mercers are returning to their pre-Trump private existence. Robert didn’t host a costume ball last year. But the family remains active outside of politics. For example, the Mercers’ foundation continues to donate to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, whose cofounder, Arthur Robinson, is a pro-nuclear energy climate change skeptic who does research on slowing down human aging. “They’re still supporting us at levels that are comparable to what they’ve been,” Robinson told me.

Robinson is Mercer's urine guy and Mercer keeps funding campaigns for Robinson to run against Pete DeFazio (OR-04). His Concerned Taxpayers of America PAC spent $597,172 bolstering the Pee Guy in 2010 and spent another $438,455 through Mercer's Republican Super PAC in 2012. In 2014 Mercer ponied up $1,750,000 to the Ending Spending Super PAC, $736,712 of which went to Pee Guy. He also ran in 2016 and 2018. Last year DeFazio beat Robinson 208,710 (56%) to 152,414 (40.9%). He's running again this cycle, of course.

Even Stonewall McConnell Thinks There Can Be Bipartisan Headway On Infrastructure-- But Can There Be... With Trump Thowing Bombs On Twitter?

As I mentioned earlier, Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio will be the next chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He's about to have a lot on his plate, since infrastructure may be one of the few places Trump will be able to work together with congressional Democrats to accomplish something... anything. Trump's own plan is just an enrichment scam for his Wall Street amigos, so Democrats are going to have to come up with something that will look good for Trump's populist peanut gallery. It's doable, as Leo Hindrey, Jr.-- a highly successful businessman and author of It Takes a CEO: It’s Time to Lead with Integrity and he Biggest Game of All-- wrote in a piece for the Washington Monthly: How Democrats Can Affordably Fix America’s Infrastructure. DeFazio has said that Trump "gets it" because his "is a builder." God only knows what DeFazio was smoking.

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration’s infrastructure plan has been a one trillion dollar “public private partnership,” funded with $200 billion from Congress and with $800 billion in loans from Wall Street institutions like Goldman Sachs and Blackstone. The $200 billion paid by Congress would be quickly spent. But Wall Street says it would demand an annual interest rate of 10 to 12 percent on their loans. Getting a return on these large, Wall Street-funded infrastructure projects would be very expensive. It would be so expensive, in fact, that the women and men intended to use these new rail lines, benefit from new broadband networks, cross repaired bridges, or fly out of upgraded airports won’t be able to afford to do so.

Trump’s plan is a slap in the face to the mayors and governors who have been waiting decades for help funding infrastructure projects that their constituents need. Even if it weren’t prohibitively costly for communities, Trump’s plan doesn’t provide the full $1.5 trillion which the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) believes is outside the current capabilities of the states and municipalities. Trump has proposed a half-baked half-measure which won’t affordably solve our current problems, let alone address our future needs.

But while the nation’s infrastructure needs are great, they are not an emergency. Our infrastructure must be fixed in a timely matter, but not necessarily tomorrow. Democrats don’t have to settle with Trump on a bad plan, and they shouldn’t. They can instead push for a lasting solution. And thankfully, the party already has one in mind: an infrastructure bank.

As a term, “infrastructure bank” might sound boring. But the idea can be elegant and ingenious. The federal government first establishes a bank and seeds it with billions of dollars–a lot of money, but still only a small fraction of what Trump is proposing. Next, the bank invites outside investors to add more money–orders of magnitude more than what the government provided. The bank would then finance infrastructure projects across the country, so long as they pay for themselves over time through user fees or associated taxes. States or cities could apply to fund projects ranging from passenger trains and toll roads to electricity grids and sewage pipes. And unlike Trump’s proposal, an infrastructure bank would not be a one-off funding initiative. Rather, once seeded, it would be self-sustaining, as loan repayments from earlier projects allow the bank to lend money for future ones.

Every administration since Ronald Reagan’s has at least talked about a national infrastructure bank, and both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama initially pushed to create one. So why hasn’t it happened? For starters, it’s difficult to establish a bank structure that fully respects Congress’ right to appropriate but doesn’t unduly politicize project selection and project oversight.

Some people believe that Congress would be able to fairly and efficiently manage these decisions, but I’m not one of them. Members of Congress are very able to decide what they want funded. But they would be less focused on selecting good projects and more likely to select ones which favor their own region or political views on infrastructure.

I believe that a proper national infrastructure bank must instead be a wholly owned government corporation with non-partisan directors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. These directors should be experts when it comes to infrastructure and macroeconomics. They should include women and men with proven expertise in heavy construction, business, labor and government policy. And in order to make the bank as informed as possible about America’s diverse infrastructure needs, the bankshould, like the Federal Reserve, be regionalized into operating districts.

A second challenge for the bank will be melding project selection with current and future national needs. Not every road project should be approved, not every urban project should be favored, and certainly no project should irreparably damage the environment. The bank’s board will need to be Solomon-likein its stewardship. But by having experienced directors and devolving power across the country, the bank I’m proposing will more likely make the right calls than would either Congress or a Washington-centric band of technocrats.

Finally, the bank has to avoid leaving cities and states drowning in high-cost debt. To make sure this doesn’t happen, my proposed bank avoids Wall Street entirely. Instead, complemented by support from the U.S. Treasury, the bank would be primarily capitalized with and find its liquidity from $1.5 trillion in long-term loans from America’s large state and municipal pension plans, as well as by some of the world’s largeoverseas sovereign wealth funds (like Norway’s massive oil-rich permanent fund). The interest rate on these loans would be in the range of 3 to 4 percent. This may appear low, but it is actually consistent with the interest rate these plans and fundsearned over the last decade on their fixed-income assets.

It would, in other words, be a good investment. And to meet these returns, cities and states won’t have to make tolls, tickets, and fees astronomically high. Unlike Trump’s plan, this bank would lead to infrastructure that is affordable for Americans.

...For six consecutive administrations, presidents have had three overriding objectives for funding moneymaking infrastructure. First, finance all of the infrastructure projects that are beyond the capabilities of states and cities–not just some of them. Second, prioritize projects in a fair and efficient manner. Third, minimize the federal government’s contribution. The National Infrastructure Bank I’m proposing, with its specific characteristics, is designed to achieve these objectives. It will fund infrastructure that’s affordable, accessible, and dearly needed. It won’t drain federal coffers. Democrats in Congress should now show their leadership and reach out across the aisle and to President Trump to pass legislation that creates this institution.

At the same time, however, Democrats in Congress need to strongly resist pressure to cut a less than perfect deal. They should oppose infrastructure packages that leave some projects behind or that overburden user communities with exorbitant fees. While our nation’s infrastructure needs are great, they are not dire. We can afford to wait. And if President Trump and Senate Republicans refuse, or if they insist on the President’s unacceptably costly and unfair pro-Wall Street plan, then Democrats should wait until they control both chambers of Congress and until we have a new President. American infrastructure has had too many patchwork fixes. It’s time we get this right.

The 115th Congress' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee consisted of 33 Republicans and 27 Democrats. That number will be at least reversed in the 116th. Several Democrats will therefor be added, not to mention that 3 Democrats from the committee-- Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT), Richard Nolan (D-MN) and Mike Capuano (D-MA)-- are leaving Congress, making more room. aside from losing a number of positions on the committee, 10 Republicans were defeated or are retiring, including ex-chairman Bill Shuster. The new ranking member is Sam Graves of Missouri since two of the guys slated to take over after Shuster-- Johnny Duncan (TN) and Frank LoBiondo (NJ) both retired.

When you see those ads from the California tourist bureau touting the state as a vacation getaway, it's all about the beaches and L.A., San Francisco and San Diego, not about the beautiful, if remote northeast part of the state where congressional candidate Audrey Denney grew up on her families farm. Her part of California is a mostly small town and rural, a world apart from Hollywood or Silicon Valley. And infrastructure is one of the issues Denney has been hammering on-- perhaps more so because the GOP incumbent she's running to replace, Doug LaMalfa, is a do-nothing member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This morning, Denney told me that "The crumbling infrastructure in my vast district puts us at an economic disadvantage and threatens lives. It is one of our most pressing issues. Much of CA-01 is made unnecessarily remote by poorly maintained roads and a lack of highways, which discourage investment, raise costs for businesses, and increase road accidents. Lack of broadband internet and cell service in large areas of the north state inhibit access to public safety resources, education, services, and economic opportunities. Additionally, the Oroville Dam spillway disaster that happened in our district in 2017 showed us all just how critical is the need for maintenance, repair, and improvement to California’s aging water infrastructure system."

Is Trump's Infrastructure Plan Just An Excuse For A Privatization Agenda?

You might not know it from Señor Trumpanzee's demented early morning tweet storms since Monday, but this is what the Regime dubbed "Infrastructure Week." Not counting all the deranged distractions, he kicked off Infrastructure Week with an announcement that he's going to try to privatize U.S. air traffic control. Señor signed a memo and letter to Congress outlining his a plan written by a lobbyist who the airline industry gifted to the chair of the filthy-corrupt House Transportation Committee, Bill Shuster (who also received $148,499 in airline industry bribes last year alone). Trumpanzee then handed out pens and reveled in several rounds of applause from invited sycophants. Like most of his nonsensical signings, the announcement had no binding effect, and normal people quickly denounced the proposal.

Bill Nelson, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee: "The safety of the flying public should not be for sale. Handing air traffic control over to a private entity partly governed by the airlines is both a risk and liability we can't afford to take." House Transportation ranking Democrat Peter DeFazio said turning air traffic control operations over to a non-governmental entity "was a bad idea when it was proposed in the last Congress, and it remains a bad idea today despite President Trump's support," noting that opponents on both sides of the aisle "have raised serious concerns about whether it would guarantee safety, protect national security, expedite new technology and keep our aviation system solvent." It isn't the kind of infrastructure people eager to see a boost to the economy were looking for. Last week we talked about a real plan-- the one Ted Lieu penned on behalf of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday, a statement from Lieu, along with CPC co-cahirs Raul Grijalva and Mark Pocan emphasized that "Trump’s attempt to shift public attention away from his Russia troubles by rolling out an infrastructure privatization scheme only exposes his Administration’s radical agenda to sell off the highways, bridges, and clean water we all rely on to benefit foreign corporations and Wall Street investors. President Trump’s push today to dismantle the Federal Aviation Administration and put it under private control is just the first step of a larger scheme that appears to cut existing infrastructure spending while forcing taxpayers to subsidize the construction of border walls and private prisons. If this administration was serious about putting people to work and addressing our infrastructure needs they would be touting something very different. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has a real solution. Our 21st Century New Deal for Jobs is a bold vision that puts 2.5 million people to work in revitalizing our schools, parks, bridges, roads and drinking water, while laying the foundations of a 21st-century economy through clean energy, high-speed rail, and lightning-fast internet for all. Rather than selling off public assets to the highest bidder, as Trump intends to do, our $2 trillion plan makes big corporations pay their fair share. Over the past week, over 30 House Democrats have rallied behind our resolution, which lays out clear principles for an infrastructure plan that creates millions of good jobs while preventing Trump and the Republicans in Congress from selling off and privatizing our public roads, bridges, and ports. Public money must serve the public good. Americans don’t want to pay for a Trump corporate giveaway, and his feeble attempt at an infrastructure plan will fall flat, while the CPC’s New Deal for Jobs will continue to gain momentum across the country."

The handover of about 300 airport towers and other flight tracking centers would be one of the largest transfers of U.S. government assets. About 35,000 workers, including 14,000 controllers and 6,000 technicians, would be affected. Small airports fear it would result in higher fees and less service. Kansas Republican Jerry Moran: "Proposals to privatize air traffic control threaten the reliable transportation options provided by small airports and the general aviation community for millions of Americans. All but our largest airports nationwide stand to be hurt by this proposal. Privatization eliminates the chance for Congress and the American people to provide oversight, creates uncertainty in the marketplace and is likely to raise costs for consumers."

Writing for The Atlantic, Russell Berman went into some detail about why Trump is trying to privatize air traffic control. It's cheap, easy and ideologically pure enough to serve as red meat for some conservatives, though not the radicals like the House Freedom Caucus. The orange-hued baboon "pitched the proposal as transformative, spicing up air-traffic control with plenty of Trump-ian flourishes at a White House ceremony." To a normal person he sounds... like an orange-hued baboon who has learned a few words of English. To his followers, he sounds like the president they've been waiting for to put them out of their misery.

He described the status quo in dire terms-- “an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn’t work,” he said. (“Other than that, it’s quite good,” Trump added for laughs.) And he said the principles he was endorsing would fix just about every complaint that Americans have with flying today. “We’re proposing reduced wait times, increased route efficiency, and far fewer delays,” the president promised. “Our plan will get you where you need to go more quickly, more reliably, more affordably and, yes-- for the first time in a long time-- on time. We will launch this air travel revolution by modernizing the outdated system of air traffic control. It’s about time.”

All those things sound nice, but to skeptics of the proposal, converting the air-traffic control system into a not-for-profit cooperative isn’t necessary to achieve them. The key to reducing delays and increasing efficiency, they say, is not a bureaucratic overhaul but the full implementation of technology known as NextGen that is shifting air-traffic control to a satellite, GPS-based system. The shift has been slow and costly, which has led Republicans to call for getting the government out of the way. But air-traffic control, per se, isn’t the problem, and despite the outdated technology, the system’s safety record remains strong. “If something isn’t broken, why fix it?” asked Paul Hudson, a member of an FAA advisory committee and the president of a passenger advocacy group called FlyersRights.org.

...In a victory for conservatives, the president is no longer touting new public investments on a grand scale; the $1 trillion he once promised has fallen to just $200 billion in direct federal spending. Instead, he’s relying on ideas Republicans have already proposed to incentivize private development and reduce the federal role in infrastructure altogether. The president plans to promote his infrastructure plans on the road in Cincinnati on Wednesday and again back in Washington later in the week, but he is expected to focus on permitting reform rather than new federal money.

In part, that’s a political calculation. Trump has already seen the two issues Republicans most prized-- health care and taxes-- stall on Capitol Hill. Conservatives were never particularly excited about infrastructure to begin with, and Democrats are loathe to cooperate with Trump on anything. The president needs something-- anything-- to pass Congress, and if nothing else, privatizing air-traffic control was an idea that had already gotten off the ground, so to speak.

It was a priority of Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, an early Trump supporter who is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and will be key to enacting the administration’s other infrastructure proposals. Shuster said he pitched his plan to Trump back in the winter of 2014, before he even became a candidate, and the White House based its principles largely on legislation the chairman introduced last year. “It seemed like naturally low-hanging fruit from a policy perspective,”  Gribbin told reporters on Monday in explaining why the president chose to lead off with air-traffic control.

Yet in the current legislative environment, even the lowest-hanging fruit have long odds of making it into law. Shuster’s bill never made it to the House floor last year, suggesting that even Republicans were not fully onboard. The proposal ran into turf battles with the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy, and it is likely to draw opposition from lawmakers representing rural districts that rely more on government support.

Its path through the Senate is even rockier, since Democrats who have the power to block the measure are opposed to privatization. A lukewarm statement from Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a top Republican who leads the Commerce Committee, sent an ominous signal on Monday. “As we move forward in discussing potential reforms, getting a bill to President Trump’s desk will require bipartisan support as well as a consensus among the aviation community on a way forward,” Thune said. Another Republican, Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, panned the proposal altogether, saying it would “threaten reliable transportation options provided by small airports and general aviation for millions of Americans.”

...On Monday afternoon, the president made a show of putting his signature on the statement of principles he would be sending to Congress. This wasn’t a bill-signing, of course, but with no infrastructure legislation before him and obstacles looming even for his pared-down privatization plan, it might be the closest Trump is going to get.

Opportunity Knocks, Will Democratic Leadership Answer-- Or Even Hear?

by Hermina Rodriguez

You wouldn’t know it from the headlines, but tomorrow is a very big day for the environment. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee is meeting to decide who will succeed newly minted Sen. Ed Markey as ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee. Whoever the Committee chooses will be a leading Democratic spokesman on environmental policy for years to come. Rep. Raúl Grijalva is up for the position, and I hope he gets it. [Editor's Note: Everyone at DWT hopes he gets it.]

Rep. Grijalva stands as the only challenger to Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the second-ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee. There is no doubt that many members in the Democratic Caucus leadership support Rep. DeFazio, the longest-serving member sitting on the Natural Resources Committee, as the more conventional candidate despite DeFazio’s inconsistent voting record on central Democratic issues. Powerful Democrats, including Reps. George Miller and Rosa DeLauro, are speaking up for Rep. DeFazio-- who himself sits on Steering and Policy-- as the more senior choice. Rep. Grijalva needs our voices to be heard on his behalf.

In making its recommendations, the Democratic Policy and Steering Committee is charged to consider merit, service to the committee, commitment to the party’s agenda, and diversity in addition to seniority. Yet many of Rep. DeFazio’s supporters insist the Oregon Democrat deserved the position by virtue of his seniority alone, overlooking and even ignoring Rep. DeFazio’s dismal voting record on environmental issues, immigration policy and gun violence.

Meanwhile Grijalva has been mischaracterized as a candidate seeking to undermine the Democratic Caucus’ seniority system. In reality his bid is neither unusual nor disrespectful to the process. On many occasions the Democratic Caucus elected the less senior member over more senior colleagues vying for the same leadership position. If seniority were the only thing that mattered, Democrats wouldn’t have the leadership team they have today. We all remember when Rep. Henry Waxman took over Energy and Commerce from Rep. John Dingell. More recently, Rep. Mike Michaud took over as the top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee over the more senior Rep. Corrine Brown; Rep. Nita Lowey jumped over Rep. Marcy Kaptur on Appropriations; Rep. Elijah Cummings took over on Oversight and Government Reform ahead of Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

If the years have taught us anything, it’s that seniority is important but it is not absolute in determining the next party leaders. In many cases Democrats pick the person they think best represents the values of the party rather than just someone with more years in Washington.

Seniority is not-- and should not-- be at issue here. The real issue here is whether the Democratic leadership will choose to be representative of diverse voices that reflect America’s changing demographics. In the aftermath of the 2012 one thing remains clear: with Latinos at the epicenter of a historic policy debate around immigration reform and related policies, Democratic leadership can ill-afford not to have the unique perspective and voice of Latino members of Congress among its leadership ranks.

Tomorrow’s closed door meeting will offer Democratic leadership the opportunity to address the stark Latino disparity among its ranks. Whether they will seize the opportunity and respond to the call of almost 200 environmental groups, tribal nations, and Latino organizations supporting Grijalva’s appointment to ranking member remains to be seen. But these groups are offering a perspective of a growing demographic-- one that is not usually involved in deciding party leadership, but certainly will be deciding the nation’s leadership in just fourteen short months from now. If the Steering and Policy Committee chooses to ignore their voices, it will be certain that their deliberations are more about their personal agenda and egos rather than the concerns of their constituents or the merits of the candidate.

I hope Grijalva wins, but I know that his bid faces an uphill battle. This does not have to be the case and it won’t be the reality if the Democratic Caucus is serious about the Latino community and embracing diversity and solid environmental positions by choosing to elect Raúl Grijalva to lead the Natural Resources Committee. Latinos have earned the opportunity to be well represented in Congress. It would be unacceptable for Democratic leaders to forgo this opportunity.

Latino advocates are watching closely, as are environmentalists, labor leaders and progressives.  While we may never know where each Members stood on this private ballot vote, if and when Rep. Grijalva’s bid for ranking member is rejected the blame will be universal. These are the members of the Steering Committee:

Xavier Becerra (CA)
Joe Crowley (NY)
Karen Bass (CA)
John Lewis (GA)
GK Butterfield (NC)
Diane DeGette (CO)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
Peter Welch (VT)
Robert Andrews (NJ)
Steny Hoyer (MD)
Nita Lowey (NY)
Maxine Waters (CA)
Louise Slaughter (NY)
Sander Levin (MI)
Barabara Lee (CA)
Bobby Rush (IL)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
Cedric Richmond (LA)
Yvette Clarke (NY)
Niki Tsongas (MA)
Gwen Moore (WI)
Frank Pallone (NJ)
Tim Ryan (OH)
Jackie Speier (CA)
Nydia Velazquez (NY)
Dan Kildee (MI)
Keith Ellison (MN)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Mike Doyle (PA)
Tammy Duckworth (IL)
John Larson (CT)
Carolyn Maloney (NY)
Nancy Pelosi (CA)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Allyson Schwartz (PA)
Jim Clyburn (SC)
Steve Israel (NY)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
Chris Van Hollen (MD)
Henry Waxman (CA)
Susan Davis (CA)
Betty McCollum (MN)
John Barrow (GA)
John Carney DE)
John Yarmouth (KY)
Jared Polis (CO)
Tim Walz (MN)
Ben Ray Lujan (NM)
Rosa DeLauro (CT)
George Miller (CA)
Pete DeFazio (OR)

Europeans Move Forward On A Robin Hood Tax On Financial Transactions-- U.K. And U.S... Dragging Their Feet

In December the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the kind of financial transaction tax Wall Street has bribed conservatives in America to reject. And on Tuesday E.U. Finance Ministers OK-ed the new tax which will cover inter-bank trading in stocks, bonds and derivatives, something that's expected to bring in over $50 billion dollars in revenues in 2014 when it's up and rolling. There's a 0.1 per cent tax on stock and bond transactions and a 0.01 per cent tax on derivatives trades. David Cameron, who shares the distinction with Paul Ryan of being a deranged advocate of bone-crunching Austerity, has kept Britain from participating.

Just as David Cameron appeared to be grabbing his coat for an EU exit, other European countries took a step towards greater unity with agreement for eleven countries to implement a multi-billion pound tax on the banks.

Not tax rises on low income families, or cuts to public services to balance the books, but a tax on banks. It's not every day you get to write that. The eleven hope that the Financial Transaction Tax of between 0.1-0.01 per cent on stocks, bonds and derivatives could be implemented as early as next year and will raise around £30bn.

The FTT has for years stirred controversy. Banks, following the Mayan's lead, warned that the end of the world was nigh. As campaigners for a Robin Hood Tax we have often been told "you may have a nice video with Bill Nighy in it [see video above], but your idea won't wash in the complex world of finance, nor will it cut it at the coalface of Government."

Yet it has-- Europe's biggest economies including France, Germany, Italy and Spain are signed up. The group of eleven makes up an impressive 90 percent of Eurozone GDP. Other European nations agreed to let them press ahead. Yet there was one notable abstention, from the UK Government.

Why? It could be argued that a right of centre Government, a powerful financial sector and an economy struggling to return to growth would never add up to much of an appetite to take a chunk out of the banks. Yet all of this applies to Germany, one of the FTT's biggest champions.

The difference is that Germany sees the FTT as a necessary part of the economic equation. It too is implementing tough austerity measures. Germany understands the need to balance and indeed improve the economy by ensuring the financial sector pays its fair share. The richest sector in the world, paying a modest additional tax for causing the largest financial crisis of a generation: quid pro quo.

As Wolfgang Schauble, German finance minister said:

It’s in the interest of the financial sector itself that it should concentrate more on its proper role of financing the real economy and ensuring that capital is allocated in the most intelligent way, instead of banks conducting the bulk of their trading on their own account. That’s in the long-term interest of the financial sector.

Cameron, conversely, opted to call the Financial Transaction Tax "madness," fighting hammer and tong to protect the hallowed elite in the City, whilst cutting benefits and services for the poorest. The Government's much touted bank levy, will raise a just £2.5bn a year and be offset by a lowering of Corporation Tax that Osborne has boasted will be the lowest of any major western economy.

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England pointed out the irony that "the price of the financial crisis is being borne by people who did absolutely nothing to cause it," adding that he was "surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has."

But if the moral argument doesn't sway you, then the fiscal case should. Leading City figure Avinash Persaud has calculated that if the UK were to join in with the European Financial Transaction Tax it would raise the Exchequer at least £8bn a year. This could lift over three million people struggling on minimum pay above the living wage threshold.

Ten thousand teachers lost their jobs in 2010/2011 and there are 5,780 fewer nurses than at the time of the last general election-- in eleven days an FTT could raise enough revenue to re-employ every one. In just a single day the tax could raise enough money to reinstate Sure Start centres for 25,000 children.

American efforts to do the same thing were defeated by Wall Street and their allies in 2011. But Pete DeFazio (D-OR) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are going to try again, hoping to institute a minuscule o.o3% tax on some financial transactions that will yield something like $35 billion dollars a year.

A financial transactions tax would slow down high-frequency trading, which has exploded in the last five years. Such trading “has absolutely no social value,” according to one of its pioneers, and only increases volatility in the market. The tax would have little effect on normal traders.

And in response to Wall Street traders claiming "businesses" would move elsewhere-- Dubai? Beijing? Somalia?-- DeFazio has pointed out that 52 financial executives have endorsed the tax and rejected the scare tactics. “For 50 years we had a tax that was about seven times larger than this when the country was seeing the greatest growth in its history, post-World War II,” he said. “So we’ve proven this will not have a detrimental impact on growth. In fact, it perhaps is beneficial to growth. It’s not necessarily beneficial to salaries of hedge fund managers on Wall Street.”

And, it turns out, DeFazio and Harkin aren't the only Members of Congress talking about a financial transaction tax. Boehner pawn Dave Camp (R-MI), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is reportedly about to introduce some kind of twisted, partisan version of the tax, that smacks of Republican revenge against businessmen asking them to cooperate with Democrats for the sake of the country.

The draft legislation, which may get significant revision before it's presented to a congressional committee, would be vehemently opposed by Wall Street and other major corporations that trade heavily in derivative securities.

Sleazy Boehner ally Dave Camp (R-MI)

They may have only themselves to blame. Congressional Republicans have been furious at top corporate executives lobbying heavily for a "grand bargain" that would include tax hikes and cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, according to congressional GOP insiders. Republican leaders were further piqued when business executives began lobbying for certain corporate tax reforms, leading to a sharply worded letter from Camp to the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group of corporate CEOs.

One Republican operative told HuffPost that Camp's bill is political payback for the CEOs collaborating with the Fix the Debt coalition, which worked with corporate chiefs who had pressured Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at the close of 2012.

"This transaction tax was only a matter of time after Camp's letter to the Business Roundtable," the GOP operative said. "In just a few months, their lobbying campaign has resulted in Republicans initiating new revenues on their backs. Maybe the CEOs can kill it by Democrats insisting the taxes aren't high enough."

...Camp's new bill would harvest government revenues from complex financial transactions involving derivatives, some of which figured prominently in the 2008 banking collapse. Although the 2010 financial reform legislation would curb some excesses in the derivatives market, the legislation isn't yet fully implemented, and leaves much of the market unregulated. Financial reform advocates have urged new taxes on derivatives to deter excessive risk-taking by big banks.

...Camp's bill would establish a new tax regime for derivatives, requiring banks to declare the fair market value of the products at the end of each year. Any increase in value would be considered corporate income, subject to taxation. It's a more aggressive tax treatment than Wall Street enjoys for either derivatives or for trading in more traditional securities.

...The bill would significantly strengthen the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from speculating in securities markets with taxpayer money. The Volcker Rule's implementation has been delayed as bank lobbyists have flooded regulatory agencies in Washington, pillorying the ban with loopholes. Hefty tax burdens for proprietary trading would reduce bank incentives to engage in the risky activity.

Camp's legislation also would permanently establish a homeowner aid plan advocated by former Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who retired this month. When banks grant homeowners mortgage relief, the IRS considers the debt-reduction taxable income. As a result, struggling homeowners can face an unmanageable tax burden. A $50,000 debt reduction can spark an $18,000 tax bill-- money that borrowers struggling to avoid foreclosure simply do not have. Miller successfully lobbied to include a one-year fix on the tax policy in the fiscal cliff deal. Camp's legislation would permanently end the tax policy.

What's Happened So Far In The Class War Reagan Started in 1981?

Boehner, who signed his pledge, referred to him as a "random person" today

This week, Beltway scold-- and former Wyoming senator-- Alan Simpson (R) was scolding the Republicans on the SuperCommittee.

“Just a quick note about Grover Norquist,” Simpson testified. “If Grover Norquist is now the most powerful man in America, he should run for president. There’s no question about his power. And let me tell you, he has people in thrall. That’s a terrible phrase. Lincoln used it. It means your mind has been captured. You’re in bondage with a soul."

Simpson went on: “So here he is. I asked him. He said, ‘My hero is Ronald Reagan.’ I said, ‘Well, he raised taxes 11 times in his eight years.’ And he said, ‘I know. I didn’t like that at all.’ I said, ‘Well, he did it. Why do you suppose?’ He said, ‘I don’t know. Very disappointing.’ I said, ‘He probably did it to make the country run, another sick idea.’”

Oh, boy... Grover got his weiner whacked. But why should he care? He's already won over and over and over-- and I mean won. Since 1981, when Reagan overtly aligned the government with the interests of the 1% again-- there was that brief New Deal and post-New Deal interregnum-- the rich whose interests Norquist (and the Republican Party and Blue Dogs) champion have scored knock out punch after knock out punch.

[T]he vast majority of the Rich Class really are engaged in a massive cover-up, a widespread conspiracy that includes the Super Rich, Forbes 400 billionaires, Wall Street bank CEOs, all their high-paid Washington lobbyists, all the Congressional puppets they keep in office by spending hundreds of millions on campaign payola and all the conservative presidential candidates praying the same Rich Class dogma.

They’re fighting you, winning big-time, and you’re the loser. It’s just one generation since conservatives put Reagan in office: In those three short decades the income and wealth of the top 1% has tripled while the income of the bottom 99% of all Americans has stagnated or dropped.

Yes, they are at war with you, fighting to gain absolute power over America … and they will never stop their brutal attacks.

...Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

In spite of that unequivocal declaration, Buffett’s Rich Class buddies still want you to believe that it’s the Occupiers, the lazy unemployed, the 99%, someone else, anyone other than their Rich Class that’s fomenting class warfare.

So you need occasional reminders, because the “Rich Class” has been spending mega-bucks for decades to shift responsibility. Fortunately today, folks like the Occupiers aren’t buying the con job. Here’s a few:

Rich Class warriors: puppet-politicians in GOP-controlled Congress

We know the GOP is the Party of the Rich Class. But the Dems are co-conspirators fighting the class war as pawns of the wealthy. No wonder the Occupy Wall Street crowd focuses on the inequality gap between America’s top 1% and the 99% who’ve seen no income growth since the Reaganomics ideology took over American politics. Many are like House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, clones of Ayn Rand’s narcissistic cult of selfish capitalism.
Listen, both parties are singing in harmony: “Yes, there’s class warfare. And yes, it’s our duty to fight for the richest class of capitalists who are making this war. We must help them win, get richer, squeeze more and more out of all Americans.”

Rich Class warriors: Federal Reserve-Wall Street bankers conspiracy

Yes, there are five banks in America that control about 90% of all the deposits … they control over 90% of America’s trading in the $650 trillion global derivatives casino … they control the Federal Reserve through directors and governors … their campaign payola and lobbyists virtually control the presidency, the Senate and Congress … they siphon huge bonuses from depositors, shareholders and pensioners alike:

“So yes, there is a class warfare running our banking system, every day. And yes, the CEOs in our rich class are leading that class war, and winning big. But more in never enough, so we want new ways to skim off profits, because we are invincible, too big and too greedy to fail.”

Rich Class warriors: Pentagon’s Perpetual War-Mongering Machine

The rich class loves war (war profiteering is a big business). Of course they often have to brainwash the 99% with fears like the mushroom-cloud lies Bush-Cheney used to get America into the $3 trillion Iraq War. Americans have a powerful love-hate relationship with war. Why else would we spend almost half our federal budget, several hundred billion dollars, on war every year?

“Yes, there’s class warfare, all right,” the former vice president might say as a one-time defense contractor CEO and oilman who continued profiting in office. He’d obviously admit:
“Yes, we’re in a class war, and it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we proud that we kept winning that war while we was in office.”

Rich Class fighting to turn America back into Reagan’s ol’ Wild West

The list goes on: The Rich Class wants to time-travel America back to a lawless Old Wild West, back to a free-market Reaganomics anarchy where the top 1% trickle down leftovers to the 99% using this kind of self-destructive programs:

• Privatize: Turn Social Security over to Wall Street bankers to run Main Street’s retirements into the dirt (worse than they did in 2008), a $20 trillion blunder that’s guaranteed to trigger total bankruptcy of the America economy.

• Vouchers: Turn our educational and health-care systems into a voucher system so that private companies owned by the Rich Class can siphon off even bigger profits from every little trickle-down bone the wealthy toss to parents, the sick and elderly.

• Regulations: They’ll also turn over environmental, drugs, food, banking and all other regulatory agencies back to be controlled by the very company executives they’re supposed to be regulating, just like Bush and Cheney did for eight years.

• Tax-Free: Extend Bush tax cuts to Rich Class, eliminate estate taxes and give Corporate America another tax–free holiday to return huge foreign profits so they can deposit those profits direct into pockets of the Rich Class.

But, of course, there’s nothing new here. We just forget so easily, because it’s so bad. Which is why we’ll be reminding you often that the Rich Class has been fighting this war against you for 30 years, since Reagan.

And they’re so greedy they cannot stop fighting. So they will likely keep attacking the 99% for another decade, till the 2020 presidential elections, or more likely, till a catastrophic collapse of the economy coming soon.

Yes, folks, America really is under attack daily. We are fighting on the defense in an historic class warfare. Yes, the Rich Class really did start this war. And yes, they really are winning, big-time. And yes, they are addicted to winning at all costs, to get richer and richer just for the sake of getting richer and richer.

They have no conscience about the collateral damage done to the rest of Americans. They’ve lost their moral compass. In short, they will fight this war to the death, yours, theirs, even the death of America. Bet on it: Because more is never enough for America’s morally bankrupt Rich Class.

The Wall Street Journal made a little space on its editorial page yesterday for a non-1%-er, Ralph Nader, no less. He's not talking about guillotines. He's talking about a modest tax of speculation. "Elected representatives," he writes, "have virtually ignored the outrage expressed by protesters on Wall Street and across the country. But the message will keep coming until Congress finally demonstrates that it is listening. A good start would be a tax on financial speculation"-- the kind German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, both conservatives, are pressing on the Euro-zone.

Occupiers throughout the country are pushing elected officials to break the corporate stranglehold on our economy. Both Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) have proposed legislation in the past that would enact a 0.25% tax on the value of stock, bond and derivatives transactions.

But that is far too small. National Nurses United and other progressive groups believe that we would be better served by a rate of 0.5%. This could help curb the wheeling and dealing on Wall Street and raise hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to help with our country's economic recovery. According to estimates from a 2009 Center for Economic and Policy Research paper, a small tax perhaps ranging from one-half to one-hundredth of a percent, depending upon which financial product is taxed, could reap $350 billion.

This tax offers another significant benefit: It has the potential to curb risky speculative trading that contributes little real economic value. The Capital Institute's John Fullerton has stated that a financial speculation tax could have a significant impact on the high-frequency trading and other "quant" trading strategies that now comprise an astonishing 70% of vastly bloated equity-trading volume. Over the past few decades, trading volume has grown exponentially. In 1995 the total shares of stock traded on the Nasdaq and the NYSE, not including derivatives and other options, was 188 billion. By the peak of the financial crisis, in 2008, this annual number had skyrocketed to three trillion.

Critics argue that this tax would be borne by ordinary investors, retirement funds or mutual funds. But these arguments fall flat when one considers the enormity of speculative trading that occurs in the stock market. Sen. Harkin, Rep. DeFazio and others in the past few years have proposed protecting ordinary investors from the direct effects of the tax by providing exemptions for mutual funds, retirement funds and for the first $100,000 in trades made annually by an individual.

Worth mentioning: DeFazio's Robin Hood tax is hated by the 1%-ers and their hacks-- from Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Fred Upton and John Boehner to Harold Ford, Ben Nelson and Dan Boren-- but you know who really hated Robin Hood? Yes, Ryan's very own personal anti-Jesus, Ayn Rand. And very childhood!

"The thing that Occupy Wall Street has done is give a clear visual image of the policies the three of us have been advocating since the collapse of our economy in 2007," said Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa who joined DeFazio and Harkin at the news conference.

"The simple truth is, this speculation fee we're talking about is simply designed so those who have abused the system are paying to play," he said.

"These super computers are based on timing principles that have no consideration of how these companies are being managed, the shareholders who are being impacted or the employees who work at those companies.

The transaction fee, which the United States levied for decades until it was abolished in 1966, would also raise billions of dollars that could be used to reduce the deficit or for other purposes. DeFazio and Harkin said their current proposal has not yet been "scored" so there are no precise revenue estimates. Independent budget analysts calculated that their 2009 proposal would have raised $150 billion over 10 years.

DeFazio said that the rate he proposes is far lower than existing rates in most developed nations. He mocked arguments that adding the tax would drive investors overseas.

"I'd say 'sure,'" DeFazio said. "If you want to pay a tax that's three-times higher go to Europe."

It's also less than a fee currently being considered by the European Union. For the average worker who, according to federal data, invests $3,400 a year in a 401(k) retirement account, the transaction tax would add a $1 in addition cost each year.

I'm with Nader on this one-- DeFazio isn't asking for even nearly enough.

Is It Too Late For Obama? Are Weprin And Marshall Warnings Of A Catastrophic 2012 For America?

Weprin's got the sleazy-looking little mustache

I grew up in what is now NY's 9th CD, a solidly Democratic Brooklyn district (which wanders into western Queens these days), which is also where Ken, Bernie Sanders, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandy Pearlman, and Chuck Schumer grew up. Even if the 6 of us still voted there, I don't think it would be enough to save the candidacy of David Weprin tomorrow, at least not according to the PPP data released last night, showing Obama's disapproval numbers just killing Weprin, who is losing 47-41. (Even 29% of Democrats want to send Obama a message. And the message is decidedly not what Obama's blinkered campaign manager, Jim Messina, termed a "Washington conversation.")

Radical right teabagger Bob Turner, who brags that he never met a tax loophole he didn't love, who wants to end Medicare and who is best known as the creator of Jerry Springer's trash TV show, looks like he'll be the first Republican to represent the district since Andrew Petersen's single term from 1921 to 1923. More recently the district was represented by Geraldine Ferraro, Chuck Schumer before he ascended to the Senate, and Anthony Weiner before the ridiculous texting "scandal."

When I was growing up, I don't even remember Republicans bothering to run serious candidates. Sometimes some rich Republican lawyer or realtor would run as a vanity candidate. In 2006 and 2008 there were no GOP candidates against Weiner. But something funny happened in 2008. Almost everywhere in the country-- except in the most viciously racist precincts of the Old Confederacy-- Obama was expanding on John Kerry's electoral results from 4 years before. But not in the 9th. Even in neighboring Republican Staten Island (NY-13), Obama did better than Kerry had. The only district in NYC where he did worse than Kerry was the 9th. Gore had beaten Bush 67-30%. Kerry had beaten Bush 56-44%. Obama dropped a percentage point down to 55%, at a time when other districts in the city were going up for Obama by 5 or 6%. At the same time, Weiner had only a third-party opponent and won with 112,205 votes, 93.1% of those cast.

But the GOP sensed a change, and in 2010, at the height of teabag-mania, they ran the self-financing Turner. The result, at a time when disappointed Democrats began staying away from the polls, was a victory for Weiner, 67,011 (60.8%) versus 43,129 (39.2%) for Turner. Although other Republicans have scored more votes than Turner in past elections, no one had ever scored a bigger percentage of votes. The GOP saw an opportunity. Would Democrats who were disappointed in 2010 also be disappointed in 2011? Late polling shows that's exactly what's going to happen. (According the the PPP, even the large Jewish population is ready to vote against Weprin-- 56-39%-- to give Obama the finger.) It looks like Democrats are demotivated and plan to just not vote tomorrow.

The Republican candidate is in a strong position heading into Tuesday’s special election in the heavily Democratic Congressional district formerly represented by Anthony D. Weiner, according to a new poll released on Friday.

Fifty percent of likely voters in New York’s Ninth Congressional District supported the Republican, Bob Turner, compared with 44 percent who supported his Democratic opponent, Assemblyman David I. Weprin, according to the poll (pdf), conducted from Tuesday to Thursday by the Siena Research Institute.

The gap between Mr. Turner and Mr. Weprin lies within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. But the poll, which was conducted by telephone of 886 likely voters, suggests that Mr. Turner, who sought to frame the race as a referendum on President Obama, has managed to turn what was expected to be a coronation for Mr. Weprin into a highly competitive contest.

The Ninth Congressional District, which includes portions of Brooklyn and Queens, has three registered Democrats for every one registered Republican. Last year, Mr. Weiner, a Democrat, defeated Mr. Turner by nearly 22 percentage points. But the poll found considerable disenchantment among likely voters: 74 percent said the country was headed in the wrong direction, and only 43 percent had a favorable impression of Mr. Obama, compared with 54 percent who viewed the president unfavorably.

I doubt Obama ever needed much persuading, but his first-- and now his second-- chief of staff (first Rahm Emanuel now William Daley) insisted that he govern as a center-right compassionate conservative. Emanuel is famous for having predicted he could screw over the aspirations of the Democratic coalition because they had nowhere else to go. He was probably shocked when they showed where else they had to go last November: nowhere, all right-- they didn't vote. And it looks like their disdain for Obama and his center-right governing philosophy will cost Democrats the 9th District tomorrow as tens of thousands of progressives sit it out again.

Saturday the NY Times pointed out that Democrats are increasingly worried that the Emanuel/Daley strategy is failing and that their hope that the Republicans will nominate a presidential candidate so extreme and so unpalatable (someone like Bob Turner?) that Democrats will just hold their collective nose and reelect Obama. It isn't working out that way. Even worse than Obama losing, "Some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races," a big turnaround from when "Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections."

Instead of going for a populist, New Deal approach, conservatives in the Democratic Party are doubling down in their anti-working family, pro-Big Business, Republican-light stance. As I pointed out earlier, Nevada party bosses actually shoved a Blue Dog down the rank-and-file's throats and will lose the special election in NV-2 tomorrow.

“In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

The president’s economic address last week offered a measure of solace to discouraged Democrats by employing an assertive and scrappy style that many supporters complain has been absent for the last year as he has struggled to rise above Washington gridlock. Several Democrats suggested that he watch a tape of the jobs speech over and over and use it as a guide until the election.

But a survey of two dozen Democratic officials found a palpable sense of concern that transcended a single week of ups and downs. The conversations signaled a change in mood from only a few months ago, when Democrats widely believed that Mr. Obama’s path to re-election, while challenging, was secure.

“The frustrations are real,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who was the state chairman of Mr. Obama’s campaign four years ago. “I think we know that there is a Barack Obama that’s deep in there, but he’s got to synchronize it with passion and principles.”

There is little cause for immediate optimism, with polls showing Mr. Obama at one of the lowest points of his presidency.

His own economic advisers concede that the unemployment rate, currently 9.1 percent, is unlikely to drop substantially over the next year, creating a daunting obstacle to re-election.

Liberals have grown frustrated by some of his actions, like the decision this month to drop tougher air-quality standards.

And polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections.

“The alarms have already gone off in the Democratic grass roots,” said Robert Zimmerman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from New York, who hopes the president’s jobs plan can be a turning point. “If the Obama administration hasn’t heard them, they should check the wiring of their alarm system.”

Obama has entrusted his reelection efforts to Jim Messina (AKA- Rahm Emanuel Jr.), a Machiavellian clown with only the most superficial political skills and no dedication whatsoever to core progressive values. He told the Times the criticism was largely a “Washington conversation." Is it a "Washington conversation" in NV-2 or NY-9?

Pete DeFazio scoffs at the idea: “I have one heck of a lot of Democrats saying, ‘I voted for him before, don’t know if I can do it again.’”

Progressives Have Come Up With A Bill Worth Backing But Will Rahm Emanuel And His Allies Kill It?

Yesterday Alan Grayson, the Blue America endorsed candidate for the Orlando congressional seat held by pathetic Bush rubber stamp Ric Keller, sent an e-mail to everyone in his district whose e-mail address he had. You may recall that when we first asked Alan for his thoughts on the bailout a week and a half ago, he said of the perpetrators: string 'em up-- which is pretty much what most Americans seem to feel. Alan's letter:

Thank you to so many of you, for writing to share your thoughts on the proposed Wall Street bailout.  As we work our way through your comments, we wanted to offer a few more observations of our own.

Carl Sagan, the famous American scientist, often said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." We are now being told that if taxpayers don't fork over $700 billion to Wall Street bankers who made bad choices, then "credit" (mortgages, car loans, business loans, etc.) will disappear. That is a really, really extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary proof.  Where is that proof?

We have never done anything like this before, even during the Great Depression. Since the Federal Reserve was created, whenever there was a need to ease credit, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates and bought bonds for cash, thereby "injecting" liquidity into the financial system. Just yesterday, the Federal Reserve did this, to the tune of over $600 billion.  Where is the evidence that these tools, which have worked for almost a century, suddenly are broken?  And if they are, then how did that happen?

Credit relies up the ability of intelligent, hard-working people to pay back that credit. Americans are just as intelligent and hard-working now as they were last month, and last year. Why, then, should we now suddenly fear that credit disappear?

Since this bailout would be financed with debt, we would be more than doubling the federal deficit this year, and burdening every man, woman and child with over $2000 to pay back. That's over $15,000 for my family alone. Because these are troubled times, I'm not anxious to do that.

It's worth noting that the people who are telling us that we must spend $700 billion of our money to avoid the collapse of credit are the same people who told us that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which would be used against us. The same people who surveyed the wreckage of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and said that FEMA was doing "a heckuva job."

We are often reminded that we live in a free market system. That certainly does not mean that the taxpayers are the suckers of last resort.  It seems as though the free market's "invisible hand" has been balled into a fist, and that fist is about to punch you and me in the face.

We all agree that the credit markets need to function properly. And we are still waiting to see the proof that dumping $700 billion in worthless assets on the taxpayers is necessary for that to continue.

As an attorney Alan has been suing Bush Regime cronies for war profiteering in Iraq. He knows first hand the extent of their deviousness and treachery and not trusting the Bush Regime at this point should be a jumping off point for any plan. Their trickle down bailout bill was a disaster and, although Congress improved on it a bit it was still, in the words of one wag who emerged from his tanning booth to sniff it, "a shit sandwich." Yesterday two progressive stalwarts, Pete DeFazio (D-OR) and Donna Edwards (D-MD) presented legislation that actually addresses the economic concerns of everyday Americans. Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer will put their heads together with fellow insider crooks in an attempt to make sure it is stillborn. The bill is worth supporting because it:

1. Stabilizes the financial markets without writing a blank check to the big banks and CEOs who got us into this mess.

2. Limits future losses by banks without asking taxpayers to pick up the tab. By suspending the application of fair value accounting standards by financial institutions, the bill will limit bank's artificial write-downs on the value of their mortgage-related and other securities.

3. Protects against predatory financial behavior by enacting permanent regulations against short-selling. By requiring the SEC permanently to block short-selling and restore the "up-tick rule" that blocks short-selling in a down market, the bill will protect against predatory financial behavior that harms investor confidence and hurts the ability of banks and other companies to raise needed capital.

4. Loans capital to banks that need it, with taxpayers making money on interest when the banks pay off the loans. By creating a Net Worth Certificate Program to allow the FDIC to lend short term capital to failing banks with the promise of repayment with interest, the bill replicates a successful program that worked to stabilize banks from 1982 to 1993. Banks that participate in the program must submit to strict oversight of their executives' compensation.

5. Restores consumer and small business confidence in banks. By requiring the FDIC to raise its insurance limit on costumers' deposits from $100,000 to $250,000, the bill assures consumers and small businesses their money is safe and helps eliminate runs on banks that threaten the stability of the financial markets.

The DeFazio No Bailouts plan is an important, short-term solution that protects taxpayers and their savings accounts and reins in the reckless behavior of big banks.

But unless we adopt a comprehensive economic plan that addresses the priorities of working Americans-- a plan that deals with the underlying weaknesses in the economy-- we will not succeed in reviving our economy and we will fail to achieve a sustainable economic recovery.

Congress needs to act on a more comprehensive plan to address rising unemployment, stagnant wages, declining home values, the healthcare crisis, and a tax system that is tilted in favor of the wealthy.

The Senate can start this week by taking up the economic stimulus plan passed last week by the House. The stimulus bill:

• helps people hit hard by job losses
• creates jobs by investing in American infrastructure
• provides relief for people bracing themselves for record heating bills this winter, and
• increases access to healthcare by providing Medicaid assistance to states

There's a great deal of money-- and power-- riding on this bill. And not all the bad guys are Republicans (although all Republicans are bad guys). The House member who has taken the most bribes from the mortgage crisis culprits is none other than the Democrats' own Dark Prince, Rahm Emanuel. Along with the other well-paid servants of these industries, he will work diligently to wreck this plan and push for a tarted up version of Paulson's monstrosity. Keep these numbers in mind this week when the voting moves back to the House. A dozen of the worst and most culpable crooks:

Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)- $729,200
Spencer Bauchus (R-AL)- $483,350
Melissa Bean (D-IL)- $383,278
Chris Shays (R-CT)- $362,720
John Boehner (R-OH)- $357,000
Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $318,650
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $286,099
Tim Mahoney (D-FL)- $270,590
Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $227,025
Dennis Moore (D-KS)- $170,751
Tom Feeney (R-FL)- $126,200
Patrick McHenry (R-NC) $61,550

Most likely scenario though is that the Senate, many of whose members-- most of whose members-- are financially tied to the culprits in the meltdown, will pass a stinker of a bill today with some sweeteners for the Republicans and then the leadership will ram it down the House's throats to overcome the threat they perceive from a New Deal type bill being offered by DeFazio and Edwards.