Blue Dogs Urge Ryan To Ignore Pelosi-- Negotiate With Them Instead

Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL) are three of the most right-wing Democrats in Congress. They are the co-chairs of the 18-member Blue Dog Coalition the House and each has a lifetime "F" rating from Progressive Punch. On crucial roll calls in the current session Lipinski-- who just voted with the Republicans this week to ban Choice at 20 weeks-- has voted with progressives 51.79% of the time. Cuellar is far worse, having voted with progressives just 44.64% of the time. And then there's Costa-- 37.25% with progressives. Are they in red districts where they have to vote like a Republican to be reelected? Not at all. Hillary beat Trump in all 3 of their districts very blue districts. These are the PVIs and the Hillary wins over Trump:

• Lipinski- D+6 (55.2% to 39.9%)
• Cuellar- D+9 (58.3% to 38.5%)
• Costa- D+9 (58.0% to 36.4%)

If the three lost primary battles to actual Democrats there would be no chance the Republicans would win their seats. But only Lipinski has a primary challenger. (You can contribute to Marie Newman's campaign here.) Yesterday the 3 of them penned an OpEd for USA Today urging Ryan and Trump to bypass Pelosi and normal House Democrats and work with the Blue Dogs on a tax plan. The Blue Dogs, a caucus almost entirely funded by corporate interests, are as eager as ever to deliver on the wish-list of the special interests that finance the careers of the corrupt, GOP-lite members.

"Since its founding in 1995," wrote the 3 fake Democrats, "the Blue Dog Coalition has served as a bridge from Democrats to Republicans on important legislation. In a time when the American people worry about extreme partisanship and whether Congress can get things done on their behalf, the Blue Dogs stand ready to help move our country forward... We call on Congressional Republicans to stop catering to the extremes of their party and to give the Blue Dog Coalition a real seat at the negotiating table on tax reform. The American people want to see Democrats and Republicans stop the partisan bickering and do our job-- to govern."

The Blue Dogs are espousing a corporat-friendly approach that most Republicans recognize as the same thing they stand for themselves. The 3 gave examples that could have just as easily been written by corporate lobbyists-- and probably were, since Costa, Cuellar and Lipinksi are all morons who together couldn't write a junior high school essay on governance. A give-away about where they stand: "In order to maintain our ability to compete globally, American companies need a more competitive corporate tax rate and structure." What Republican doesn't back that? None that I know of.

The real tragedy is that the DCCC is now openly and publicly admitting that they are working with the Blue Dog caucus to recruit even more right-wing fake Democrats from the Republican wing of the party to run for Congress disguised as actual Democrats. These are the 8 who the Blue Dogs are pushing so far this cycle, 5 of whom are running in districts Bernie won (bolded):

• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Brad Ashford (NE-02)
• Jay Hulings (TX-23)
• Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
• Roger Huffstetler (VA-05)
• Brendan Kelly (IL-12)
• Dan McCready (NC-09)
• Paul Davis (KS-02)

Very much related, last night, Raul Grijalva introduced a substitute budget by the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- the People's Budget. It was defeated 314-108. Every Republican voted against it-- and so did 79 from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Blue Dogs and New Dems and the mostly crap Dems who vote with them. And then Bobby Scott introduced a substitute budget on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and it was defeated 292-130. Every Republican voted against it-- and so did 57 from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Looking at the names of the Democratic members who crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans against the progressive budgets should give you an idea about who's in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party-- and who's not. 108 Democrats voted for the progressive budget and these are all 79-- organized by state-- who voted against it:

• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)
• Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)
• Anna Eshoo (CA)
• John Garamendi (CA)
• Doris Matsui (CA)
• Jerry McNerney (CA)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
• Jackie Speier (CA)
• Eric Swalwell (CA)
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
• Norma Torres (New Dem-CA)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Diana DeGette (CO)
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
• Jared Polis (New Dem-CO)
• Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)
• Rosa DeLauro (CT)
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
• John Larson (CT)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Ted Deutch (FL)
• Al Lawson (FL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Colleen Hanabusa (New Dem-HI)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Raja Krishnamoorthi (New Dem-IL)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Mike Quigley (New Dem-IL)
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
• Pete Visclosky (IN)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Steny Hoyer (K Street-MD)
• Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
• Bill Keating (New Dem-MA)
• Seth Moulton (New Dem-MA)
• Richard Neal (MA)
• Niki Tsongas (MA)
• Sandy Levin (MI)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tim Walz (MN)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM)
• Nita Lowey (NY)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
• Tom Suozzi (NY)
• Suzanne Bonamici (OR)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Matt Cartwright (PA)
• Jim Langevin (RI)
• David Cicilline (RI)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Gene Green (TX)
• Beto O'Rourke (New Dem-TX)
• Marc Veasey (TX)
• Gerry Connolly (New Dem-VA)
• Suzan DelBene (New Dem- WA)
• Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)
• Derick Kilmer (New Dem-WA)
• Rick Larsen (New Dem-WA)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)

On Tuesday Alec Baldwin interviewed Bernie on WNYC about saving the Democratic Party from itself. "Here’s what the facts are," said Bernie. "The Democratic Party, in general, is in trouble and has been in trouble for a long time. In the last nine years or so, Democrats have lost not just the White House, the Senate, and the House. There are 25 states in America where the Democratic Party is in some cases non-existent. I visited those states. They are extremely weak, and these are some of the poorer states... I think that the problem is, over the years, money [from corporate and very wealthy donors] has had a very significant influence on the Democratic Party. If you look back to the years of FDR, even Harry Truman, and you go to a person on the street and say, 'Which is the party of the working class in America?' Everybody knew it.

During the interview, Baldwin quipped that voters in 2016 rejected a “flabby, tired, unimaginative, out of touch” Democratic Party. Sanders retorted, “I’ll get in trouble if I say that. You said it, right?”

Sanders explained that the Democratic Party has shifted its focus to parts of the country where wealthy donors are concentrated. In doing so, Democrats have written off large regions of the United States, effectively ceding them to Republicans. “What has happened I think is the Democrats became a party of the upper middle-class on the West Coast in the East Coast, here in New York City, and they forgot. They forgot that while the economy under Obama did improve, surely from where he took over after the Wall Street debacle, the truth was and is that millions and millions of people are struggling to put food on the table.”

Sanders noted that economic despair is worsening for younger generations who are on a trajectory toward a lower standard of living than their parents. “That is the reality the Democrats kind of forgot about.” He added, “This is not complicated stuff. You have to address the people who are hurting right now. There is incredible pain in this country right now. Incredible pain.”

Apparently 108 Democrats agree-- and 79 don't. Today the House will vote to approve the official Paul Ryan GOP budget that includes a $473 billion cut to Medicare and $1 TRILLION in Medicaid cuts.


UPDATE: ConservaDems Had Reasons To Vote For The People's Budget

Several of the sleaziest conservative Democrats, the ones in fear of primary challenges or even potential primary challenges, tended to vote for the People's Budget. Most laughable: Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Darren Soto (New Dem-FL), Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX), Little Brother Norcross (Criminal-NJ), Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Val Demings (New Dem-FL), even Ben Ray Luján (NM)! And look who's trying to pretend she's a progressive: Tulsi Gabbard, who has voted against every previous Progressive Budget. Maybe she's changing? Anyone want to buy a bridge?

Tulsi Gabbard vs The Progressive Caucus

For more than a quarter-century, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been doggedly working to advance liberal policy and opinion in Washington, with success even in times of conservative leadership.

The largest House Democratic caucus, the Progressive Caucus has repeatedly been able to block right-leaning legislation, while working to improve Democrats’ bills and positively influence public discourse.

The 1991 founding of the Congressional Progressive Caucus was a partnership of Bernie Sanders (I-VT), then his first term in the House; Patsy Mink (D-HI), the first woman of color elected to Congress; and several other liberal Members of Congress, including some who still serve in the House, such as Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

Meanwhile, the Gabbard family of Hawaii spent the ‘90s moving in another direction, in a tenacious but ultimately unsuccessful fight against marriage equality.

The Chicago Tribune reported on the Gabbards' marriage battle in a 1994 story:

"I think that the whole issue of same-sex marriage comes down to examining the values of family, and society has an interest in keeping families strong. The bedrock of family is marriage," said Mike Gabbard, president of the two main local groups opposing same-sex marriage, Common Sense Now and Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii.

"To me, the whole thing is about acceptance," Gabbard said. "They want homosexual behavior to be accepted on a par with heterosexual behavior."

Mike Gabbard’s daughter Tulsi caught the political bug in early adulthood and was elected to the state legislature in 2002. Mike was also elected to the Honolulu City Council that year. Carol Gabbard (Mike’s wife and Tulsi’s mom) was already an elected member of the state Board of Education. All three Gabbards won their seats with anti-LGBTQ campaign messages. Even in tolerant Hawaii, those kinds of campaigns were effective in those days.

Tulsi’s unremarkable tenure as a young, inexperienced state legislator is remembered mostly for her crusade against anti-bullying efforts:

State Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, D-42nd (Waipahu, Honouliuli, 'Ewa), Gabbard's daughter, said the figures released by her mother contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment.

Tamayo said a study that asks students questions about their sexuality would be a violation of student privacy. She also said many parents would see the study as an indirect attempt by government to encourage young people to question their sexual orientation.

Gabbard Tamayo said the harassment figures "show that our schools are not rampant with anti-gay harassment."

Tulsi Gabbard (after dropping "Tamayo" following a divorce) won her own seat on the Honolulu City Council, with the endorsement of the Hawaii Rifle Association, in 2010.

But by 2012, she said had shifted leftward and announced she was running for Congress as the progressive alternative to then-frontrunner Mufi Hannemann, whose conservative social views were out of step with the district. Hawaii’s Second Congressional District has never come close to electing a Republican and has previously been represented by Mink and Progressive Caucus member Mazie Hirono, who left the seat in a successful 2012 run for Senate.

Tulsi Gabbard had helped run her Republican father’s vociferously anti-LGBTQ campaign for the seat in 2004. But with newly minted support for marriage equality, reproductive freedom and expanding Social Security and Medicare, the younger Gabbard gave every indication that she would follow in the footsteps of Mink and Hirono and join the Progressive Caucus if she were elected.

With near-universal backing of Hawaii’s progressive community, the new Tulsi was welcomed with open arms, as she trounced Hannemann in the primary and the no-name GOP candidate in the general election.

But Gabbard betrayed her liberal supporters. She never joined the Progressive Caucus. Instead, she formed the ageist Congressional Future Caucus with now-disgraced Republican Aaron Schock. And she’s compiled an F grade on Progressive Punch's rating system. She’s been a favorite guest on Fox News throughout her tenure, most frequently bashing fellow Democrats for not being sufficiently xenophobic.

Some liberals give her a pass on her record just because she backed Sanders. But Gabbard's left-leaning detractors increasingly see that endorsement as opportunistic, and they are becoming more and more vocal, from the Progress AAPI group on Facebook to journalist Sonali Kolhatkar.

Gabbard reportedly has been disinvited from this month’s People Summit, with organizers facing pressure from those who support Syrian refugees and from other activists. Critics noted she spoke at the summit last year just days after receiving >an award from GOP uber donor Sheldon Adelson. The prior summer she was the only Democrat to speak at the annual conference of the apocalyptic, Adelson-funded Christians United for Israel.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has unveiled its most recent version of the People's Budget, its formal budget proposal, just this week. The People’s Budget has for years been regarded as a thorough, significant and coherent example of smart, compassionate public policy. And it's only gotten stronger and more popular over the years, with a majority of House Democrats voting for it in 2015.

So, it’s a good time to remember that not only has Gabbard refused to join the Progressive Caucus, she’s voted against the People’s Budget all three times it was presented to her, putting her outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

The founding and nurturing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a huge part of Bernie Sanders’ legacy. The Senate doesn’t have caucuses, but Sanders has been allowed to remain a Progressive Caucus member even after becoming a senator because it’s so important to him.

Will Gabbard have another well-timed leftward epiphany and, for the first time, support the budget put forward by Sanders’ Progressive Caucus?

Or will Gabbard maintain her perfect record of resistance to the Congressional Progressive Caucus and vote against the People’s Budget for a fourth time?

What's Behind The Progressive Budget-- And Which Democrats Oppose It?

For all it's faults politically-- its nearly worthless as an electoral vehicle for progressives-- there is one thing the Congressional Progressive caucus gets right: their annual budget. The budget lays out the policy agenda and vision for a progressive, very much at odds with the reactionary Republican agenda and very much at odds with the status quo-maintenance agenda of the post-New Deal Democratic Party (the one Thomas Frank laid out so eloquently-- and tragically for Thom Hartmann last week). Last year the House defeated the Progressive Caucus's Budget... again, the roadmap to uplifting ordinary American working families-- and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. Conservatives easily beat it back without breaking a sweat, 96 to 244. Of course, every single Republican voted against it but more than half (51.5%) of the Democrats in Congress voted for it and it was the most votes the CPC budget ever got (even though the Democratic caucus is smaller).

It certainly is not the kind of budget that would please the paymasters of the American political system, what Thomas Frank refers to as the top 10%, the heart of the New Dem Democratic Party. The big losers in that budget would've been the special interest parasites who thrive on the life's blood of working people. By ending unfair tax cuts to the very rich, the People's Budget was meant to finance a robust program of public investment that would create as many as 8.4 million sustainable jobs. Among the 86 Democrats who voted against it were the slimy bribe-taking characters we have been warning you about: worthless garbage like Chuck Schumer's pick for Rubio's Senate seat, Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Steve Israel ("ex"-Blue Dog-NY), Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Donald Norcross (NJ), Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and-- look what the cat dragged in-- Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, eagerly running as the Establishment candidate for the open Maryland Senate seat against Donna Edwards, who, of course, did vote for the People's Budget. Van Hollen, whose establishment perspective and colossal incompetence led directly to the catastrophic loss of the House while he was DCCC chair is running around Maryland now, lying to voters, pretending to be a progressive instead of the establishment avatar of the status quo he has always been. When Thomas Frank describes the new post-New Deal Democratic Party, he's talking about Chris Van Hollen more than anyone else in the House.

The real tragedy of last year's progressive budget was the phony progressives who are members of the caucus and who crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP against it anyway-- so not the Blue Dogs and New Dem scum like Kurt Schrader, Ann Kirkpatrick, Jim Costa, Ami Bera, John Delaney and Patrick Murphy (who are blatantly anti-working family) but fakers like Lois Frankel (FL), Dave Loebsack (IA), Carolyn Maloney (Wall Street), Suzanne Bonamici (OR), Mark Takai (HI), Rosa DeLauro (CT), etc.

Alex Law is the progressive candidate running for the South Jersey seat currently held by Machine boss George Norcross' crooked kid brother, Donald. Norcross, of course, a die-hard economic conservative, opposed the progressive budget. Law told us that Norcross had "yet again shown his commitment to protecting special interests over protecting real people... [H]e voted with Republicans against the CPC People's Budget despite the fact that it included important pieces such as raising wages, better child care programs, significant investment in our decaying infrastructure, comprehensive corporate tax reform, student loan reform, environmental protection, and campaign finance reform measures. These are all central tenants of my progressive campaign, and I would have proudly voted to support this legislation if I were in Washington." You can contribute to Alex Law's grassroots campaign here. Please do, if you can.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has a new budget they've introduced, The People’s Budget-- Prosperity not Austerity. The Economic Policy Institute asserts that "it builds on recent CPC budget alternatives in setting the following priorities: near-term job creation, financing public investments, strengthening low- and middle-income families' economic security, raising adequate revenue to meet budgetary needs while restoring fairness to the tax code, strengthening social insurance programs, and ensuring long-run fiscal sustainability."

The People’s Budget aims to improve the economic well-being of low- and middle-income families by finally closing the persistent jobs gap that has plagued the U.S. economy since the Great Recession began. For that purpose, The People’s Budget provides upfront economic stimulus large enough to go beyond closing the CBO’s measure of the output gap (a measure of how far from potential the economy is operating). The budget would close the output gap and target genuine full employment by pushing the unemployment rate down to 4 percent.

...We find that The People’s Budget would have significant, positive impacts. Specifically, it would:

• Finally complete the economic recovery. The People’s Budget would sharply accelerate economic and employment growth; it would boost gross domestic product (GDP) by 3 percent and employment by 3.6 million jobs in the near term. This would both close the CBO estimate of the output gap and further push unemployment down, to 4 percent, our estimate of genuine full employment. The budget would also ensure that the mixture of spending and revenue changes provides a net fiscal boost long enough to avoid a future fiscal cliff (i.e., a sharp drop in demand caused by budget deficits closing too quickly to sustain growth) that could throw recovery into reverse.

• Make necessary public investments. The budget finances roughly $295 billion in job-creation and public-investment measures in calendar year 2016 alone and roughly $565 billion over calendar years 2016–2017.3 This fiscal expansion is consistent with the amount of fiscal support needed to rapidly reduce labor market slack and restore the economy to full health. Furthermore, The People’s Budget also aims to hit more ambitious long-term public investment targets, by returning nondefense discretionary spending (NDD) to its historical average as a percentage of GDP by 2021.

• Facilitate economic opportunity for all. By expanding tax credits and other programs for low- and middle-wage workers, boosting public employment, and offering incentives for employers to create new jobs, The People’s Budget aims to boost economic opportunity for all segments of the population.

• Strengthen the social safety net. The People’s Budget strengthens the social safety net and proposes no benefit reductions to social insurance programs—in other words, it does not rely on simple cost-shifting to reduce the budgetary strain of health and retirement programs. Instead, it uses government purchasing power to lower health care costs (health care costs are the largest threat to long-term fiscal sustainability) and builds upon efficiency savings from the Affordable Care Act. The budget also expands and extends emergency unemployment benefits and increases funding for education, training, employment, and social services as well as income security programs in the discretionary budget.

• Smartly cut spending. The budget focuses on modern security needs by repealing sequestration cuts and spending caps that affect the Defense Department but replacing them with similarly sized funding reductions that are less front-loaded and will allow more considered cuts. It ends emergency overseas contingency operation (OCO) spending in FY2017 and beyond, and ensures a slow rate of spending growth for the Defense Department for the remainder of the decade.

• Increase tax progressivity and adequacy. The budget restores adequate revenue and pushes back against income inequality by adding higher marginal tax rates for millionaires and billionaires, equalizing the tax treatment of capital income and labor income, restoring a more progressive estate tax, eliminating inefficient corporate tax loopholes, levying a tax on systemically important financial institutions, and enacting a financial transactions tax, among other tax policies.

• Reduce the deficit in the medium term. The budget increases near-term deficits to boost job creation, but reduces the deficit in FY2017 and beyond relative to CBO’s current law baseline. The budget would achieve primary budget balance (excluding net interest) and sustainable budget deficits in FY2018 and beyond. After increasing near-term borrowing to restore full employment, the budget gradually reduces the debt ratio in the now full-employment economy over time, actually exceeding a key benchmark of sustainability (of a stable debt-to-GDP ratio during times of full employment). Relative to current law, the budget would reduce public debt by $5.1 trillion (18.5 percent of GDP) by FY2026.

It should be interesting to watch which Democrats support it and which ones vote with the GOP against it. That should serve as a good guide to how you might want to consider voting in primaries... and even in November. Meanwhile, who can you trust on the progressive vision behind the budget? The men and women you'll find on the page that pops up when you click on the thermometer below.

Corrupt DC Democratic Establishment Crumbling?

The entire corrupt Democratic establishment and its media lackeys went full bore against Bernie in Michigan. The final Fox poll of Michigan Democrats, released Monday, showed Hillary ahead 61-34%. MSNBC repeated Hillary's well-rehearsed ugly debate smear of Bernie regarding the auto bailout for two solid days. I thought Chris Matthews had a tape of it implanted in his parched, ancient brain. But in the end Bernie beat her 50% to 48% and it looks like he'll walk away with 65 delegates to her 58. His win will only make the corrupt Democratic establishment dig its heels in even deeper and harder. For them, it isn't about values or principles; it's about their careerist business model (power and corruption). Right after Bernie was declared the winner, Working Families Party National Director Dan Cantor issued a press release that said, "The Beltway elite may never have really understood why job-killing trade deals are such a big deal. But the people of Michigan surely do, and Bernie Sanders does too. The political revolution is only getting started. This is a movement that has baffled the political establishment from day one, and it's sure to surprise them a few more times in the months to come." By tomorrow we can all expect Hillary to solemnly swear that when she was out knocking on doors for Nixon and Goldwater, she was handing out anti-trade agreement pamphlets.

Yesterday, The Hill asked the question, Could Herr Trumpf nomination put House up for grabs? Short answer: no, not with this DCCC. No matter how bad it gets for the Republicans, the Democrats are incapable of winning. Pelosi's DCCC is corrupt and incompetent. The only thing they know how to do is lose. And lose. And lose. And lose.

The Republicans are up by 30 seats and the DSCC has recruited viable candidates in enough districts to win the House back and MOST-- the majority-- of the candidates they have recruited are unelectable losers chosen because they are wealthy enough to self-fund and because they are conservative. The DCCC started losing when they started a systemic policy of sabotaging progressives and working class Democrats. As the GOP moved further and further right, away from conservatism and into a fully reactionary stance, the DC Democratic establishment followed them further right-- into the conservatism the GOP has pretty much abandoned.

So far the DCCC is backing just two dozen candidates, including several with viable primaries, supporting, for example Val Demings in the Orlando area, Bill Golderer in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and Monica Vernon (a Republican disguised as a Democrat) in northeast Iowa running against more electable candidates (Bob Poe and Geraldine Thompson in Florida, Mary Ellen Balchunis in Pennsylvania and Pat Murphy in Iowa).

Conservatives like Wall Streeter Josh Gottheimer, 2014-defeated Texas Blue Dog Pete Gallego and Michigan drunkard Lon Johnson are exactly the wrong kinds of candidates to recruit and support if the DCCC wanted to rebuild a vibrant Democrat Party in Congress. But the DCCC doesn't. The DCCC wants tools like Demings and Johnson, who will do what they're told by party leaders and they want corrupt individuals who will be happy to play the money game that makes American politics go round and round. Instead the DCCC is building up a New Dem/Blue Dog power nexus in Congress. In district after district around the country they are undermining Democrats and trying to push their own horrible candidates.

What would a progressive-run Democratic House be able to accomplish if we were able to rid Congress of the corrupt bosses like Schumer, Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz, et al? Look no further than the budget the Congressional Progressive Caucus just proposed. Conservative Establishment Democrats from the Hillary Clinton wing of the party will join with the GOP to defeat it but if you want to see what electing candidates like the ones Blue America has endorsed, this is the place to look. Richard Kirsch from the Roosevelt Institute did a good summary today of how all those big progressive ideas would work if there were enough progressives in Congress to pass the People's Budget, which would make "major investments in creating good jobs, educating our children, stopping the disruption of our climate, changing the priorities in Pentagon spending, and restoring our democracy. It would pay for these and other public goods by turning our upside-down tax system right side up. In doing so, it would actually cut the federal budget deficit..

A core premise of the People’s Budget is that every American who wants to work should have a good job that allows them to care for and support their family. The budget aims to reach full employment and makes a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure in addition to financing for clean and renewable energy. It would also make essential investments in families, like universal pre-K, funding for every child eligible for Head Start, and building more affordable housing.

In addition to boosting wages through full employment, the People’s Budget calls for raising the minimum wage and the overtime threshold so companies can no longer avoid paying overtime to millions of workers. It would help working people care for loved ones and for themselves by guaranteeing paid sick days and by assisting states that establish insurance funds for paid family leave. And it would repeal the federal ban on Medicaid paying for abortions so that mothers who rely on that program for their health care can decide whether it’s the right time for them to have a child.

...Mindful that so much of our spending is driven by lobbyists and campaign cash, the People’s Budget would fund a small-donor matching system so candidates for Congress could compete for office without taking big money.

All that and more adds up to spending $3.4 trillion more over the next 10 years than we would under current law. Sound like a lot? Not when compared to how much revenue the People’s Budget would generate by rejecting the idea that raising taxes is unpopular. In fact, raising taxes on the wealthy and closing big corporate loopholes is hugely popular with everyone outside of the super-rich and corporate lobbyists.

By asking the wealthy and big corporations to stop shirking their responsibility to support the working families that create wealth and the public structures that enable businesses to operate, the People’s Budget would raise $8.8 trillion more than the budget that’s in place now. How? Corporations would not be able to dodge taxes by shipping their profits overseas. Too-big-to-fail banks would be taxed. A tiny tax on Wall Street trades would discourage speculation while raising $900 billion over 10 years. Corporations would no longer be able to write off multimillion-dollar CEO compensation.

The People’s Budget takes aim at climate change, too. Oil and gas companies would stop getting tax breaks for pulling more of their planet-destroying products out of the ground. A new tax on oil would finance modernizing our transportation system. More broadly, a tax on all carbon-- with most of the proceeds going to investments in renewable energy-- would power a 26 percent reduction in climate-destroying pollution. At the same time, families with low-incomes would be protected from the hike in oil and gas prices from taxing carbon.

The budget also asks those who make more to pay more. returning the income tax rate for the 2 percent of people making more than $250,000 a year to what it was under President Clinton. The budget would also lower the estate tax exemption to $2.5 million for an individual; while not exactly a daring proposal, this would still raise $231 billion.

A public option would, in effect, quickly turn Obamacare into Medicare-For-All and negotiated prices for drugs may upset Big Pharma and their lobbyists but it will bring the costs of health care down significantly for all Americans.

Last year when the Progressive Caucus' budget was defeated in the House, many of today's worst Senate candidates, the establishment and Wall Street shills Schumer is pushing, voted with the Republicans against it-- like Patrick Murphy (FL), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Chris Van Hollen (MD) and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ). Voting matters-- and so does supporting candidates who are willing to stand and fight.

Sorting Through This Week's Budget Mess In Washington

Louisville Congressman John Yarmouth, a Democratic member of the House Budget Committee, was right when he said the latest edition of Paul Ryan's annual Austerity budget "is pretty much a rhetorical exercise" that isn't going anywhere. It passed Thursday 219-205, every Democrat voting NO, as did a dozen Republicans:

• Paul Broun (R-GA)
• Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
• Jack Kingston (R-GA)
• Rick Crawford (R-AR)
• Chris Gibson (R-NY)
• Ralph Hall (R-TX)
• David Jolly (R-FL)
• Walter Jones (R-NC)
• Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
• Tom Massie (R-KY)
• David McKinley (R-WV)
• Austin Scott (R-GA)

There were 4 other budgets proposed, one from the neo-fascist wing of the GOP, which was presented by Georgia teabagger Rob Woodall. That one got a majority of Republican votes, 133 as opposed to 97 Republicans who voted NO and failed 133-291. Hard to believe but it is even a more destructive plan than Ryan's! The official Democratic budget was presented by Chris Van Hollen and that failed 163-261. 31 Democrats voted with the GOP against it, including virtually all the Blue Dogs and New Dems (the Republican wing of the Democratic Party). The Congressional Black Caucus budget was presented by Gwen Moore and that failed 116-300. Again, the Blue Dogs and New Dems voted with the GOP against it, although most Democrats, 116-76, favored it. The best budget of all, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget was presented by Raul Grijalva and it failed 89-327, almost all the most corrupt corporate Dems happily skipping across the aisle to vote with the Republicans. 103 of the most corrupted Democrats joined Steny Hoyer and his pathetic puppet, Joe Crowley, to vote NO. Oddly, the third of that trio of sleaze, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, voted with the progressives for a change.



As Danny Vinik put it in his epic take-down of the GOP Austerity blueprint yesterday, The Ryan Budget Doesn't Just Sin Against The Poor, It Sins Against Math Too, "the real test of Republican priorities isn’t what they say. It’s what they propose to do with the federal budget… House Republicans made their priorities abundantly clear when they passed the Ryan Budget without any Democratic support. The plan balances the budget in 10 years through dramatic spending cuts, particularly on programs and services for low-income Americans… But focusing on the Ryan budget’s moral failings obscures its equally apparent logical flaws. For all the axe-wielding, it does little to tackle the drivers of our long-term debt-- the rationale behind the steep cuts to begin with. " He has 4 main critiques:

• The budget calls for severe spending cuts, in a way that’s likely to undermine the recovery

• The mandatory cuts come disproportionately from programs affecting the poor

• The discretionary cuts would also come disproportionately from programs affecting the poor

• The budget ignores the long-term drivers of our debt

Denunciations of the Ryan budget have been coming fast and furious. For example, Mike Obermueller, candidate for Congress in MN-02, the seat being held by right-wing extremist John Kline, made it clear that he would have voted no and that in November, voters should keep in mind that Kline voted for it. "John Kline," he said, "is so out of touch with reality that he released a statement yesterday calling the Ryan budget a 'responsible plan'-- a budget that gives a $200,000 tax cut to millionaires and pays for it by increasing taxes on middle class families. A responsible plan cuts wasteful spending while protecting investments that create jobs like education, job training, and high tech research-- all things that this Republican budget guts in order to give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Congressman Kline, like many in Washington, is more concerned with his wealthy donors and party leadership than he is with representing hard working Minnesotans and their best interests. Congressman Kline continues to say this budget will 'foster opportunities for all Americans'-- but it really only helps some Americans, the wealthiest. It certainly doesn’t help seniors that would see their Medicare benefits slashed. For middle class families who will lose $2,000 to tax hikes just to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, this budget does the opposite of foster opportunity. In addition, this budget makes the job market an uphill battle by costing the country 3 million jobs."

On Monday, Patrick Hope, the progressive Democrat running for the open VA-08 seat Jim Moran is giving up, will hold a press conference outside of the IRS Building in Washington as he delivers his petition in support of a Millionaire’s Tax requiring millionaires and giant corporations to pay their fair share in taxes. Hope is one of the Democratic congressional candidates supporting the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget which would raise tax rates on those making over $250,000 per year and create new brackets for those making over $1,000,000 a year.

Mike Honda, who has been the single biggest force in writing the Progressive Budget over the years, took to the pages of the San Jose Mercury News to explain to his constituents exactly what's wrong with what Ryan and all but a dozen Republicans are pushing.

Any budget, whether it's for a family, a company, or a government, reflects the values of its creators. Do you save for college or buy a new car? Do you offer a dividend or put more money into R&D? Do you invest in programs to help support the middle class or do you reward the powerful and influential with extra tax advantages?

The House Republican budget, introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., shows once again that their party values the whims of the wealthy over the needs of the middle class and poor.

Ryan's budget proposes severe domestic spending cuts for programs that aid the most vulnerable Americans, and inexplicably offers tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. It raises taxes on middle class families with children by an average of over $2,000 a year. It cuts payments for SNAP (food stamps) and Medicare, and raises drug costs and insurance premiums-- all to fund an average tax cut of $200,000 for millionaires and tax subsidies for highly-profitable oil companies.

Ryan's budget is especially cruel to seniors. Traditional Medicare premiums would rise an average of 50 percent. The budget brings back the Medicare "doughnut hole," which means prescription drug costs would increase almost $1,200 a year. Medicaid would be slashed by $732 billion.

This year's Progressive Caucus budget, which I have authored in past years, would protect the Medicare guarantee, preserves Medicaid, and expands coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) so that all Americans can have access to quality, affordable health care.

The Ryan budget also has no plan for the retirement security of our seniors. The Strengthen Social Security Act, which I introduced with Reps. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., and Rush Holt, D-N.J., would ensure that everyone pays into Social Security fairly. Also, my Consumer Price Index for the elderly legislation, the CPI-E Act, would allow us to adopt a realistic cost of living calculator so that seniors can retire with dignity.

Perhaps worst of all, the Republican budget has no plan for America's future. It guts funding for education, which we need to keep our leadership in the innovation economy. It would eliminate up to 29,000 teaching and teacher's aide jobs. It would remove 170,000 children from Head Start. It would cut support for higher education, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, by $205 billion over 10 years.

At the same time, Ryan's budget eliminates federal support for infrastructure improvements that not only would improve the day-to-day lives of millions of Americans, but also support our small and large businesses. It cuts transportation budgets by over $52 billion in 2015 alone.

If Ryan were truly interested in the economic health of our country, his budget would include comprehensive immigration reform. Economists say such reform would reduce our deficit by almost $900 billion, along with stimulating our economy and creating jobs. For America to succeed in the face of global economic pressures and competition, we need every American to be productive. To do this, they must be allowed to come out of the shadows. We need to bring fairness and foresight to our vision for America so that tomorrow's opportunities are greater than today's.

The Ryan budget combines shortsightedness with economic deception and financial cruelty. It hurts the poor to help the rich. It ignores our future to protect the well-off today. The Republican budget proposes Robin Hood in reverse. It is something none of us can afford.

This is as good a time as any to remind readers that Honda is in a tough fight with conservatives for reelection. They know they can't elect a Republican in his blue district so they found an ambitious and unprincipled patsy, Ro Khanna, who they've been pumping millions of dollars into. Khanna claims to be a Democrat but his economic agenda is the agenda of the plutocrats and on issue after issue he would cut protections and benefits for the middle class on behalf of the wealthy. You can contribute to Honda's campaign here.

Hawaii House Of Representatives Passes $10.10 Minimum Wage Bill

As expected, the political theater that is the annual battle of the budgets, yielded two defeats for progressives Wednesday. First the Congressional Black Caucus Budget was defeated 116-300 and then the more rigorously shaped Progressive Caucus budget, the Better Off Budget, went down by an even greater margin, losing 89-327. At least a majority of Democrats-- 116-76-- backed the CBC budget, which was pretty standard Democratic fare for all but the worst anti-working family Blue Dogs and New Dems. The Better Off Budget, which is truly innovative and powerful and would move America off the dime and back towards genuine middle class-fueled prosperity, didn't even get a majority of Democrats, most of the corporate shills following the lead of Steny Hoyer, Joe Crowley, Ron Kind and other dreadful Big Business suck-ups to vote with the GOP-- which, needless to say voted unanimously against it. Only 89 Democrats voted for it; 103 voted against it.

A minority of Democrats voted against both, the hard-corp, untrustworthy lot from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Last week, we pointed out how Hawaii New Dem, Colleen Hanabusa was working against the Hawaiian Democratic Party in trying to broker a compromise against President Obama's and the Senate Democrats' plan to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. She sent an e-mail claiming she would be happy with the $9.25 her restaurant association campaign donors told her they would rather have. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back and caused President Obama to step in and endorse Brian Schatz for the Senate seat Hanabusa (and her money-grubbing husband) are lusting for.

Distinguished economist Jared Bernstein, writing on his own blog, called the progressive budget Hanabusa opposes A Vison for Our Time. None of the priorities Bernstein is concerned with are on the top of Hanabusa's list: "Accelerating and sustaining economic growth, promoting economic opportunity, and pushing back against the sharp rise in income inequality remain the most pressing economic challenges confronting policymakers. To directly address these issues, the Better Off Budget invests heavily in front-loaded job creation measures aimed not only at putting people back to work, but also at addressing the deficit in physical infrastructure and human capital investments. In stark contrast to the current austerity trajectory for fiscal policy-- notably the expiration of emergency unemployment insurance, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), and the continuation of discretionary spending caps and sequestration spending cuts-- the Better Off Budget substantially increases near-term budget deficits to finance targeted stimulus, including infrastructure investment, aid to state and local governments, targeted tax credits, and public works programs. These types of investments would yield enormous returns-- particularly by reducing long-run economic scarring that is resulting from underutilization of productive resources-- and, as the name 'Better Off Budget' implies, raise national income and living standards." These are some of what the progressive budget does that Hanabusa either opposes or just doesn't care about"

• Returns to Clinton tax rates for households making over $250,000 and implements new brackets for those making over $1 million.
• Equalizes tax rates for investment income and income from a hard day’s work.
• Eliminates the ability of U.S. corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits.
• Enacts a Financial Transaction tax on various financial market transactions.
• Implements Chairman Dave Camp’s financial institution excise tax.

This week, while Hanabusa was joining the Republicans in voting first against the Congressional Black Caucus budget and then against the Better Off Budget-- the name along must send shudders of horror down her spine-- the Hawaiian legislature slapped down her GOP-backed proposal to water down the minimum wage legislation and passed a model $10.10 bill. Derrick DePledge and Sarah Zoellick, writing for the Star Advertiser, reported that "the state House on Tuesday approved a minimum wage increase, and there were new signs that the state Senate might accept the House draft rather than force conference committee negotiations that could endanger a pay raise for low-income workers." Hanabusa, in short, was foiled again.

The minimum wage would increase to $10 an hour by January 2018 and the tip credit would expand to 75 cents an hour under the House bill. Businesses would not be able to deduct the tip credit from workers who earn tips unless workers earn at least $7 an hour more than the minimum wage, up from 50 cents.

House lawmakers rejected Republican amendments for higher tip credits that would have helped restaurant owners and other businesses absorb a higher minimum wage.

"Raising the minimum wage is good for Hawaii's families and good for Hawaii's economy," said Rep. Mark Naka­shima (D, Kukui­ha­ele-Lau­pa­hoe­hoe-North Hilo), chairman of the House Labor and Public EmploymentCommittee. "Money in the pocket of working people will be spent to make ends meet, boost our economy and create jobs in our community."

The state's $7.25-an-hour minimum wage has not been raised since 2007. The tip credit is 25 cents. House and Senate leaders have said they want to avoid conference committee if possible because a minimum wage increase died last year in conference over disagreements on the size of a tip credit.

Senate leaders who met privately Tuesday said they would recommend that senators accept the House version and send the bill to Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

"We'd like to deal with the minimum wage sooner than later. So that seems to be the consensus," said Senate President Donna Mercado Kim (D, Kalihi Valley-Moana­lua-Halawa). "We don't know if that's what the caucus is going to agree with."

Sen. Clayton Hee (D, Heeia-Laie-Waia­lua), chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee, might hold out for a Senate draft that would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by January 2017. He said an increase to $10.10 an hour is in line with President Barack Obama's goal nationally and would be more meaningful to the working poor.

"If the Legislature is truly concerned about helping the working poor, $10.10 over three years is, in my opinion, a better way of achieving it as opposed to the House version," Hee said.

The $10.10 victory was seen as a big win for Senator Brian Schatz, who has been one of the most persistent advocates of that proposal in Washington. But it was also a big win for Honolulu City Councilman Stanley Chang, the progressive candidate for the congressional seat Hanabusa is abandoning. This week, Chang is in Washington meeting with Members of Congress and national progressive leaders. Yesterday, he came out strongly in favor of the Progressive Budget and, of course, he has been a proponent of the $10.10 minimum wage as well. In fact, this morning he told us the legislature has a little more work to do on the issue. "While I am encouraged the Hawaii state legislature is taking up the important issue of raising the minimum wage," he told us, "my hope is that they will find a way to meet President Obama's goal of $10.10 per hour in three years. The current version passed by the House only increases the minimum wage to $10.00 and does it in four years. Hard-working Hawaii families have earned this raise and it's long overdue that they are paid what they deserve. If we truly want to help the working poor make ends meet we must stand with President Obama and raise the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2017."

You can help keep Hawaii bright blue by contributing to Stanley Chang here and Brian Schatz here. Both candidates have been endorsed by Blue America.

What A Real Budget Looks Like... When No One Takes Ayn Rand Fairy Tales Into Account

This year's Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative budget, the Better Off Budget, was developed by Mike Honda (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Obviously, it's a complex document. The goal, as far as I can tell so far, is to stimulate the economy with the express purpose of creating 8.8 million new jobs between now and 2017, while shaving $4 trillion from the nation;s deficit. Investing in the American people is the theme. All of that is completely foreign to the Austerity budgets Paul Ryan has been introducing. Madison's Mark Pocan never took his mind off ordinary working families in Wisconsin when he was working on it. When it was released he told me "Unlike past Ryan budgets our Better Off Budget helps ease the pain ordinary working families face every day under the Ryan Budget’s draconian austerity agenda by investing in job creation and training, and proven anti-poverty programs. The day Paul Ryan offers a budget that actually helps lift up Americans out of poverty is the day I’ll join him for a P90X workout." Here's how Grijalva explained the budget to his constituents in Tucson:

During our economy’s best decades, Congress invested in the American workforce and every family was better off for it. But recent years have been dominated by growing inequality and a Republican majority in Congress obsessed with slashing the budget, making it harder for working Americans to find decent jobs and save for the future. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Better Off Budget reverses the damage budget austerity has inflicted on hard-working families and restores our economy to its full potential by creating 8.8 million jobs by 2017.

The Better Off Budget reverses harmful cuts that have hit working families the hardest-- starting with repealing across-the-board budget cuts known as the “sequester.” It creates a fairer tax code so that low and middle-income families no longer pay more than they should while the world’s biggest corporations benefit from unnecessary loopholes. Our budget reverses harmful pay freezes, expands benefits for federal retirees and strengthens federal health care and retirement programs Americans rely on.

When the federal budget invests resources wisely, we can meet the needs of working families and shrink the deficit. The Better Off Budget not only creates jobs, it reduces the deficit by $4.08 trillion over the next 10 years. It’s the right budget for the country, for working families and for our future.

Although creating jobs is the top priority, there are several other pieces of the budget that should play well among voters. For example, the budget

• Eliminates the ability of U.S. corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits.

• Enacts a Financial Transaction tax on various financial market transactions.

• Implements Chairman Dave Camp’s financial institution excise tax

• Allows states to transition to single-payer health care systems.

• Closes tax loopholes and ends subsidies provided to oil, gas and coal companies.

• Implements comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship.

• Calls for transparency in national security budgets to bring accountability to bulk data collection programs.

• Funds public financing of campaigns to curb special interest influence in politics.

• Endorses “Scrapping-the-Cap” and expanding Social Security benefits separately from the federal budget process.

Blue America congressional candidates have been calling to tell me they support the new budget. George Gollin, who's primary is Tuesday issued a press release endorsing it. Ann Callis, the DCCC candidate, makes no statements regarding policies so there is no way to tell how she feels about the budget-- or anything else. Gollin: “I have consistently supported the alternative budgets that the Progressive Caucus has put forth under co-chairs Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. The Better Off Budget would reverse harmful Republican cuts, create 8.8 million jobs in the next three years and reduce the budget deficit by over $4 trillion over the next 10 years. It is a blueprint for a prosperous and fair America, and I will co-sponsor the plan in Congress.”


Patrick Hope, who's fighting a tough primary in northern Virginia has a similar perspective on the budget proposal. "The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget is full of good ideas. It invests in public workers, repairs the crumbling American infrastructure and makes our tax code more fair. As someone who has worked in health care, I am especially excited to see a public option mandated in the budget, as well as allowing states to try single payer health care if they choose to do so. This budget shows how much progress we have left to make on a number of issues in Congress. In Virginia, I founded our legislative Progressive Caucus in order to push forward new progressive ideas and give them the public attention they deserve. I look forward to working in Congress as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to do the same with great policy documents like this one."

Stanley Chang, the Blue America candidate running for the Honolulu congressional seat, has also endorsed the new budget proposal. "The Better Off Budget shows that investing in the American people and implementing progressive policies will grow our economy and create jobs. Congress must repeal the sequester, restore unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits, and reverse years of destructive austerity. The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposal includes smart solutions to address our unfair tax system, the climate change crisis, unsustainable defense spending, and many other key issues. I am particularly encouraged by its strong argument for enacting comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Sadly, we can count on Congressional Republicans to continue their obstruction of progress and obsession with spending cuts. If they truly cared about creating jobs and shrinking the deficit as they claim, they would take a serious look at the Better Off Budget."