House Democrats Sell Out And Back GOP Tax Extenders Bill-- So Why Should Anyone Vote For A Democrat (Other Than Gays)?

Our coverage of the tax extenders bill the lame duck session is dealing with-- basically more tax breaks for the wealthy-- have all been about the Senate and how the Democratic majority there can still maneuver. Wednesday, though, it was the Republican-controlled House that went first. H.R. 5771 is euphemistically called Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 but it increase taxes on poor people and green energy companies and is overly generous to corporate hogs who don't pay their fair share of taxes. House Ways and Means Committee chair Dave Camp (R-MI) is the sponsor and there was never any doubt of the outcome in the House.

The first vote, at 3pm, was enabling legislation to allow a vote on the bill itself. Only 3 Republicans bucked the GOP leadership to vote against it: libertarian leaners Walter Jones (R-NC) and Tom Massey (R-KY) and lunatic domestic terrorist Steve Stockman (R-TX). Worse than not having enough Republicans willing to stand up for working people and stop the bill-- which came as no surprise-- is that 6 of the worst New Dem sell-outs (plus a miserable Blue Dog straggler) crossed the aisle in the other direction and backed the bill. Clearly these are going to be 7 of the most useless Democrats in Congress this session:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• James Himes (New Dem-CT)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Mike McIntyre (New Dem-NC)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (new Dem-AZ)

Two and a half-hours later Jones and another libertarian-oriented Member, Jimmy Duncan (R-TN) voted with the Democrats on their Motion to Recommit, which was defeated 197-223. In the end, though, just a handful of progressives (17) , 2 Blue Dogs and a transactional guy from Indiana who must have had something cooking for himself, plus 26 anti-Establishment Republicans voted against the final bill, which passed 378-46. The only Democrats with the guts to vote NO were:

• Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
• Lacy Clay (D-MO)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)
• Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• John Lewis (D-GA)
• Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
• Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
• Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Jared Polis (D-CO)
• Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
• Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
• Peter Welch (D-VT)

All that Democratic support in the House makes it more difficult for any grouping of principled Democrats in the Senate to kill this travesty. Some say the final bill wasn't "that bad." Well it wasn't as bad as the Republicans were trying to make it, but it was plenty bad. Here's how Citizens for Tax Justice characterized what they passed:

After President Barack Obama’s veto threat last week ended discussion of a $450 billion package of tax breaks mostly benefiting businesses, the House of Representatives approved a smaller bill, H.R. 5771, that would extend most of the tax cuts for one year at a cost of $42 billion. While the President deserves credit for stopping a much bigger corporate giveaway, even the $42 billion bill is an absurd waste of money from a Congress that has been unable to find a way to fund basic public investments like highways and bridges.

Here are just a few of the problems with H.R. 5771:

• Most of the tax breaks fail to achieve any desirable policy goals. For example, they include bonus depreciation breaks for investments in equipment that the Congressional Research Service have found to be a “relatively ineffective tool for stimulating the economy, a tax credit for research defined so loosely that it includes the work soft drink companies put into developing new flavors, and a tax break that allows General Electric to do financial business offshore without paying U.S. taxes on the profits.

• The tax breaks cannot possibly be effective in encouraging businesses to do anything because they are almost entirely retroactive. The tax breaks actually expired at the end of 2013 and this bill will extend them (almost entirely retroactively) through 2014. These tax provisions are supposedly justified as incentives for companies to do things Congress thinks are desirable, like investing in equipment or research, but that justification makes no sense when tax breaks are provided to businesses for things they have done in the past.

• The bill increases the deficit by $42 billion to provide tax breaks that mostly benefit businesses, even after members of Congress have refused to enact any measure that helps working people unless the costs are offset. The measures that Congress refused to enact without offsets include everything from creating jobs by funding highway projects to extending emergency unemployment benefits.

Confusing "Moderates" With Corporate Bribe Takers-- A Common Mistake For Beltway Media

Most of these fake moderates (20) were defeated or forced to retire

When Broderite shills in the corporate media solemnly bemoan the fate of the corporate hacks they lionize as the great all-wise "moderates," what they're actually describing are the congressional careerist hacks who have sold themselves to corporate interests on their way to cushy criminal jobs in the world of lobbying. And how nice of Congress was it to redefine "bribery" in a way that will exempt their-- and their staffers'-- future careers from criminal procedures? Never forget how Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff define bribery in his book Capitol Punishment:

[C]ontributions from parties with an interest in legislation are really nothing but bribes. Sure, it's legal for the most part. Sure, everyone in Washington does it. Sure it's the way the system works. It's one of Washington's dirty little secrets-- but it's bribery just the same...

To the corporate media, that's The Cult of The Moderate in American politics. Everyone else is, by definition, a radical, an extremist, a danger to the corporate state.

Next month will be the one year anniversary of a much-ignored amendment introduced by Vermont Democrat Peter Welch to get a handle on the massive subsidies-- billions and billions of dollars in taxes-- being given to the Oil and Gas giants, the most profitable businesses in the history of mankind. Welch's amendment was defeated 183-238. Although 10 Republicans' had enough of a conscience-- or (at least in Reid Ribble's) fear of their constituents-- to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats in support of the amendment, 16 corrupt, mostly conservative Democrats cross the aisle in the other direction.

A yes vote on the amendment, to a bill the Republicans used to loosen regulations on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, would have required Big Oil to disclose all federal subsidies they receive on applications for oil drilling permits. (By the way, the bill the Republicans passed would eliminate the Environmental Review Board’s authority to review applications for oil drilling leases.)

In pushing for his Amendment, Welch told Congress that “We have many in this body, myself among them, who believe that these subsidies are too rich and they're unnecessary. When oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year, when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and $113 a barrel, when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a mature industry-- an important industry, but a mature industry and a very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that industry. This is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad-- we have oil companies that are doing their job-- but it is about whether taxpayers should be, at the very minimum, made explicitly aware as to how much it is they're being asked to subsidize oil companies when they seek these leases.”

Cantor tasked Mike Pompeo (R-KS), a freshman who has already received $139,000 from Big Oil, the 7th biggest haul of anyone in Congress this year, with the job of offering a defense against Welch’s argument: “The Welch amendment requires a company applying for a permit to provide data on 'oil subsidies provided by the federal government.’… this is an absolute red herring. There's no definition of 'oil subsidy.' That's intentional. The gentleman who proffered this amendment is an attorney. He ought to know better. I don't know what oil subsidies to which he's referring… What Mr. Welch is really interested in… what this amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for producing American energy and American jobs. This piece of legislation, H.R. 2021, will do just that, and this amendment attempts to stop it." [The chart on the right shows the 30 biggest Big Oil bribe-taker so far for the 2012 election cycle. All of them have careers of fluffing Big Oil every time they get the opportunity. If you click on the chart itself, you'll be able to reda the names more easily and see the amounts of their payoffs this year. You'll also notice that there is only one so-called "Democrat" among them.]

These are the 16 Democrats-- the ones the corporate media lionizes as "moderates"-- who worked with the Republicans to defeat the very modest amendment. I've arranged them in order-- from most criminal to less criminal-- in terms of how much bribery they've solicited or accepted from Big Oil over the course of their moderate careers:

Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)- most of any Dem- $699,440
Gene Greene (TX)- $467,063
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)- $341,997
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- $331,300
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- $210,100
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)- $201,975
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $179,450
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- $175,700
Charlie Gonzalez (TX)- $162,500
Rick Larsen (WA)- $116,300
Rubén Hinojosa (TX)- $105,584
Silvestre Reyes (TX)- $98,400
Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- $79,789
Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)- $47,760
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)- $46,400
Mark Critz (PA)- $18,000

Although the biggest recipient of bribes from the Oil and Gas industry in the entire Congress-- more even that any of the corrupt senators from Texas and Oklahoma-- is Joe Barton, who has taken in $1,638,855 so far. But the Republicans Blue America watches most closely haven't been slouches in bribery collection from Big Oil either. These four, all of whom, obviously, voted against Welch's amendment, are all Blue America targets for 2012:

Eric Cantor- $418,850
Paul Ryan- $242,850
Patrick McHenry- $46,250
Buck McKeon- $30,200

Their Democratic opponents this year are, respectively, Wayne Powell, Rob Zerban, Patsy Keever and Lee Rogers. Each of them has a path to victory, although none are being helped along that path by the DCCC. If you'd like to see some real change in DC, please consider helping these four progressive candidates against four of DC's worst corrupt conservative villains. And you can do that right here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Rep. Peter Welch Introduces Bill To Tax Overly Large Bankster Bonuses

Yesterday, Vermont progressive Peter Welch introduced legislation that would tax bonuses over $50,000 paid by the financial institutions that were bailed out with taxpayer funds. Under Welch's bill, the proceeds, expected to be "billions" will go exclusively to a small-business lending program.

"As most Americans struggle to endure a long and wrenching recession, the same Wall Street bankers who came to the American taxpayer with hat in hand are now preparing to pocket record-breaking bonuses," Welch said. "Financial firms that received taxpayer assistance must remember that they owe their return to profitability to hard-working Americans."

...Welch said the legislation, for which he is seeking co-sponsors, was prompted in part by widespread popular "outrage" that banks earning substantial profits after receiving taxpayer assistance expect to funnel money into their own huge compensation packages "instead of lending" to businesses, as Congress intended.

He said those banks scaled back small-business lending by $11 billion since April 2009. Revenue created by his bill would provide low-interest loans to otherwise healthy businesses that are having difficulty obtaining credit.

Welch's proposal is pretty moderate-- the rate is only 50%, where others are sticking to the tax on financial transactions or a 75% rate-- and would effect banksters working at Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, which have put aside $90 billion for bonuses this year. Goldman Sachs' average bonus payout this year is slated at just under $600,000, although most of the money goes to a small handful of top-level crooks gobbling up millions each. Welch's first two co-sponsors are Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) all of whom agree that record bank profits didn't come from anything beyond record bank hand-outs from government and their ability to borrow at near zero percent interest while charging their customers sky high, unregulated interest rates (on credit cards, for example). “When people are robbing a bank, it’s time to stop them," said Welch.

Meanwhile, as expected, the Wall Street-friendly Obama Administration-- I mean how else can you describe an Administration with seedy characters like Wall Street crooks Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithner at the top of the heap?-- has their own, less ambitious, proposal going to Congress. Today Obama announced a proposed tax on large banks which is intended to restrain speculation (as opposed to investment) and restrain outrageous bonuses. Wall Street says they will fight him on it and since we all know who owns the Senate...

The administration wants to collect about $120 billion from banks over 10 years, taxing banks based on the amounts they have borrowed to finance lending and other activities, according to officials who agreed to speak before the president's announcement on the condition of anonymity.

Industry executives already warn that hitting banks will hurt the broader economy because banks would seek to impose the cost of any tax on customers. Officials said the tax was designed to encourage a different result: Raising prices to give a competitive advantage to smaller banks, which would not pay the tax, and giving larger banks incentives to borrow less money or pay smaller bonuses to employees.

The avaricious banksters, many of whom view themselves, predictably, not as people lucky enough or shrewd enough to wind up in good corporate managerial positions-- these people are decidedly not entrepreneurs or heroic risk takers (other than with other people's money) or even especially innovative or brilliant-- claim that what they term "talent" will flee the industry. Does that mean we won't have another series of multi-billion dollar bank failures? Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, laughed in their faces: "I don't know where people would go for comparable salaries. I guess perhaps they could star in major motion pictures."

Well they could get jobs on K Street or run for the Senate or start a reality show or take up NFL quarterbacking. Or maybe one will invent a cure for cancer. Oh scratch that last one; inventors don't make nearly enough as banksters.

The proposal is modeled on the fee that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. collects from all banks to repay depositors in failed banks. The FDIC fee is based on insured deposits-- the largest funding source for bank activities-- but the new fee would be based on money raised from other sources.

The financial industry already is marshalling a case against the proposal. The American Bankers Association noted that the Treasury Department projected in December that every government program aimed specifically at stabilizing the banking industry would turn a profit. Industry executives said the tax likely would not achieve its stated purpose of placing large banks at a competitive disadvantage.

"Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, told reporters following his testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers."

No one is talking about prison terms or even criminal investigations to get to the bottom of the greatest transference of wealth from ordinary working families to a handful of rich parasites.




UPDATE: As Expected...

Republicans immediately came down firmly on the side of the banksters and against consumers. Here are some of the reactions from a trio of Republican clowns on the House Financial Services Committee who have taken some of the biggest bribes from Wall Street and Wall Street lobbyists-- along with how President Obama had already addressed their specific "concerns."

Spencer Bachus (R-AL- $4,077,924) was all worked up: "There is no way the Administration can design a tax on financial firms that will not be passed on to consumers and investors in the form of higher interest rates and increased fees. The tax will only drain capital from the financial system at a time when it’s needed to create jobs and fuel economic growth."

The President addressed that: “What I’d say to these executives is this: Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal, or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities. And I’d urge you to cover the costs of the rescue not by sticking it to your shareholders or your customers or fellow citizens with the bill, but by rolling back bonuses for top earners and executives.”

Scott Garrett (R-NJ- $1,325,659) was screaming all over Capitol Hill that "any tax or fee could hinder the economic recovery and further limit the industry’s ability to extend more loans." President Obama had already discussed that, although Garrett probably wasn't listening to anything by the crazy voices in his head. Obama: “Ultimately, it is by taking responsibility-- on Wall Street, here in Washington, all the way to Main Street-- that we’re going to move past this period of turmoil. That’s how we’re going to avoid the cycles of boom and bust that have caused so much havoc. That’s how we’re going to promote vibrant markets that reward innovation and entrepreneurship and hard work. That’s how we’re going to create sustained growth without the looming threat of another costly crisis. That’s not only in the best interests of the economy as a whole; it’s actually in the interest of these large banks.”

Jeb Hensarling (R-TX- $2,429,700), not exactly a professorial type, snarled that "to think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance." He's just another congressmember so in love with his own bloviating that he ignored the president: "The financial industry has even launched a massive lobbying campaign, locking arms with the opposition party, to stand in the way of reforms to prevent another crisis. That, too, unfortunately, is business as usual. And we’re already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair-- that by some twisted logic it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the costs of the bailout, rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses.”

And, of course, the shill the GOP is running for Ted Kennedy's old Massachusetts Senate seat joined his Republican colleagues in backing the banksters over their hard-pressed customers. Big surprise (not)!

Congressional Goings On From Vermont To Missouri

Rep. Peter Welch, progressive Republican?

A few months ago my friend Pach and I went to a voter registration fundraiser for Head Count in DC that featured a concert by Bob Weir. We ran into Peter Welch (D-VT), who had just exposed and prevented a huge Bush Regime taxpayer rip off and we were eager to congratulate and thank him.

Since being elected in 2006 Welch has amassed a stunningly progressive voting record, right up there with Keith Ellison (D-MN), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Yvette Clark (D-NY), John Sarbanes (D-MD), and Betty Sutton (D-OH) all of whom live in much safer blue districts. In fact no sooner had we finished lavishing praise on Welch than he started babbling about how he was in a tough re-election battle and how endangered he is. "Dude," I said, "you don't have an opponent. The Republicans can't even find someone to run against you. That's not endangered."

But sure enough, last week's Vermont primary yielded a strong and admirable Republican candidate: Peter Welch. Enough Republicans in the at-large district wrote in Welch's name so that he will appear on the ballot as both a Democrat and a Republican. Now that's bipartisan!

And speaking of "bipartisan," yesterday we saw Republican Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) say that he could never endorse John McCain, followed today by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) telling Americans that Palin is not ready for the vice-presidency, let alone the presidency. On top of that, the only Republican moderate in the House of Representatives, Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) endorsed Obama yesterday, calling the Democratic nominee "prudent, knowledgeable...(and that) we can't use four more years of the same kind of policy that's hazardous and leads to recklessness."

Mainstream conservatives like Gilchrest and Hagel think their party has gone way too far to the extreme right and they want nothing to do with wacko candidates like McCain, Palin and some of the lunatic fringe congressional offerings. One of the craziest and most clueless of all is Missouri kook Blaine Leutkemeyer running for Kenny Hulshof's open seat in the northeastern part of the state against mainstream progressive Judy Baker. Watch this video of Leutkemeyer insisting nothing needs to be changed and that "we're going in the right direction."



Still, today's Washington Post posits that Republican chances to hold onto most of their Senate and House seats has gotten better because of the enthusiasm generated by the nomination at the base level by fellow extremist Palin. "Both sides concede that the GOP stands almost no chance of taking back the House or Senate in November, but party leaders think the Palin factor and an increasingly competitive fight for the White House have generated enthusiasm and momentum that could limit GOP losses to only a few Senate seats and perhaps fewer than a dozen House seats."

Republicans are especially bullish about the changing Senate landscape. Democrats have never envisioned an easy path to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority, but polls suggest that prospect has been reduced to a near impossibility in recent weeks.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has pulled out of Georgia, probably a fatal blow to former state representative Jim Martin in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Another long shot, state Rep. Rick Noriega in Texas, has been outraised 9 to 1 by Republican Sen. John Cornyn. State Sen. Andrew Rice is not showing significant gains against GOP Sen. James M. Inhofe in Oklahoma, and Republican Sen. Susan Collins appears to be holding firm in Maine, where she faces Rep. Tom Allen.

Tomorrow, at 11am EST, Blue America will start a competition to address 5 of those tough Senate contests, targeting Republican rubber stamps Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Stevens (AK), James Inhofe (OK), and Gordon Smith (OR). Please join us at Firedoglake.

SHOW DOWN AT THE OK CORRAL-- BUSH AND HOYER vs AMERICA

Shove the bouquet; Steny wants the cold hard cash for his services

Yesterday we had an explosion of reactions from members of Congress and from our Blue America-endorsed candidates regarding what many people feel is a betrayal by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Hit that link and read why respected congressional legal minds like Jerrold Nadler, Tom Allen Russ Feingold, and Chris Dodd are saying no to Hoyer's compromise capitulation. As this morning's Washington Post points out, the bill is all about protecting Bush's and Hoyer's campaign donors from the law but is very short on protecting the American people from the very real threat of tyranny.

When I was in DC recently I ran into Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) and I congratulated him on finding a very nasty little loophole the Bush Regime had somehow inserted in some legislation when no one was looking. He beamed and was happy that someone recognized his efforts... and then told me his re-election was in jeopardy and asked for help from our PAC. "Congressman Welch," I said politely, "you can't be in jeopardy when the Republicans can't even find a third-tier candidate to run against you." He laughed. He wasn't laughing today, though, when he explained why he would vote against the Hoyer-Bush plan that proposes such grave violence to the Constitution:

“I simply do not believe any president, especially this president, should have unilateral or unchecked authority to conduct surveillance without judicial oversight.  Congress has an obligation to protect our national security without sacrificing basic rights provided in our Constitution. 

“While this compromise reflects improvements over previous flawed proposals, it is a compromise I will not support.  I have consistently opposed any legislation that grants retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping.  Regrettably, this latest proposal fails to hold the administration and the companies accountable for their actions.  The American people deserve to know exactly what happened and they deserve to know who is accountable.  This bill fails that test."

Very polite but very much to the point. Peter Welch stands with the people of Vermont and the people of the United States, not with Bush, Hoyer and their big criminal campaign donors. Another member, who has asked to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons, just said this: "Steny Hoyer is the best friend money can buy." We'll see all the competition for the best friends money can buy during the vote today.

Down the road a piece, Debbie Cook is running for Congress against lunatic fringe rubber stamp Dana Rohrabacher who, basically, doesn't see why anyone has a problem with wiretaps. I get the idea that Debbie wants to be in Congress because she knows her expertise on energy is desperately needed and because she's dead serious about protecting the environment. Those are really the issues she's most concerned with and almost anything you bring up she can trace back to energy policy. When we asked her about illegal wiretaps, though, a different Debbie came out, one just as passionate about old fashioned American liberty as about clean drinking water:

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution's most basic and essential protections against government abuse.

Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.

You don't fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.

I would expect no less from anyone who offered herself or himself up for public service. Another Blue America candidate who feels very strongly about this is Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat, taking on, Ric Keller, another Republican who would be utterly lost without his rubber stamp. Like Rohrabacher, Keller is all gung-ho to tape every American's phone on any president's whim. Alan is probably more in sync with most Americans-- regardless of political party-- when he says No Way. He's a celebrated attorney and, predictably, a stickler for the fine print and, in this case, the bold print:

This is what the Fourth Amendment actually says:
 
"[N]o warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 
What, exactly, is the Right Wing's problem with the Fourth Amendment? Why do they constantly seek ways to evade and subvert the Fourth Amendment? It seems to have worked pretty well, for over 200 years. And over 99% of the time, the federal judges give all POTUS the warrants he wants.
 
What it really comes down to is that they want a dictatorship. It's issues like this one, where the Right has to choose between conservatism and fascism, when you see their true colors.

Now that's what I call straight talk, not that mealy-mouthed flip flopping we're hearing from John McCain on every issue that comes up. And another straightforward, straight-talking attorney-- this one from McCain's own state-- is Howard Shanker. His point last night was basic and went right to the obvious core of what it means to be an American and why our country is unique:

It was Ben Franklin who said that “any man who is willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of security deserves, neither.” We seem to have a country full of people who are willing to sacrifice essential liberties for the sake of an empty promise of security. As a free country, founded on concepts like justice and liberty, the de-evolution of our free society should not be tolerated by any people of conscience.

I think it's more the Insider leadership than the people themselves, who are willing to sacrifice our liberties... if the price is right. 

The ACLU explained yesterday why Hoyer's contemptible deal with Bush is unconstitutional and crap. And how can Steny Hoyer feel about being described in the NY Times as one of Bush's allies? "In the waning months of his tenure, President Bush and his allies are once again trying to scare Congress into expanding the president’s powers to spy on Americans without a court order." Hoyer will attempt to do the dirty deed today. We'll be watching. And meanwhile, we can only wish there were more members of this current Congress like Colorado's progressive candidate Jared Polis. Jared worries about our country's prestige abroad.

“It is disappointing that some of our Democratic leaders are rushing FISA reform through Congress. I strongly oppose telecom immunity that paves the ground for the further erosion of our privacy and civil liberties."

"Our Democratic leaders in Washington should stand firm against allowing Republicans and the Bush Administration to violate the civil liberties of our citizens any more than they already have; phone companies should not be given a pass and should be held fully accountable for their involvement in unwarranted wiretapping.

"Rather than providing cover for the Bush administration, our leaders should show backbone and not allow FISA reform to be rushed through Congress"
 
“The fear mongering tactics of President Bush and his cronies on Capitol Hill are tired; the American public now understands that we can have security at home while also protecting the civil liberties of our law abiding citizens.”

WHY DID CONGRESSMAN PETER WELCH (D-VT) SAY HE DOESN'T TRUST THE BUSH REGIME?

I hope you didn't get the idea that the only reason I went to DC last week was to harass Rahm Emanuel; that was a bonus. The night before the Rahm encounter, Pachacutec and I went to see Bob Weir play at a benefit for HeadCount, the outfit that registers voters at concerts. While Weir was signing hundreds of autographs we ran into Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) who I was eager to congratulate for exposing the sneaky Bush Regime loophole for their contractor buddies.

It was awesome meeting Rep Welch; great guy... really friendly and straight forward. We had to explain to him that in order to be considered an incumbent in danger, one needed to have a viable opponent-- and that because the GOP can't drum up anyone to run against him, it probably means he isn't "in danger." But once we passed that hurdle it was all great and all about the Loophole. Today he followed through by sending me an update on the story.

Caught red-handed, the Regime is backing away. Today the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had a hearing to go over Rep. Welch's “Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act,” H.R. 5712, to require all contractors, regardless of where the work is performed, to be subject to fraud reporting requirements. Regime operatives were sent over to the Hill to swear that the loophole was a “bureaucratic mistake,” although Regime allies from the Professional Services Council (dirty lobbyists representing contractors like KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater) testified against Welch’s legislation to close the loophole. 

Congressman Welch noted that "the Bush administration is denying conspiracy by pleading incompetence... When was the last time we saw the Bush administration reverse itself under pressure?  This shows just how important aggressive congressional oversight is to assure accountability and the protection of taxpayer dollars.”

Speaking for the vast majority of Americans, Welch stated clearly "I don’t trust this administration. I want taxpayer dollars to have the protection of the law." See, I told you he was cool. He also sent us this video to look at: