Trump Willing To Sacrifice American Rural Communities As Part Of His Trade Wars

There are a lot of farmers losing a lot because of Trump's pig-headed, badly-handled trade wars. Including, presumably, a lot of sleep. Family farms are particularly badly hit and farmers have been losing their land; many more are on the verge of bankruptcy. Soybean farmers have been hit worse than anyone else. There are 11 states that each produce over 100 million bushels of soybeans annually-- Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota, Arkansas, North Dakota and Kansas. Most of them are red states, but even in the two blue states with massive soybean production, the counties with the soybean farms are red counties. Illinois and Minnesota are the first and second-biggest soybean states. The big 3 soybean counties in Illinois are Trump bastions. Trump's victory margin over Hillary in each:

• Iroquois- 75.3% to 19.3%
• Livingston- 67.5% to 26.5%
• McLean- 46.9% to 45.5%

The big 5 Minnesota soybean counties and their Trump over Hillary wins:

• Redwood- 67.5% to 24.8%
• Renville- 64.3% to 27.8%
• Faribault- 62.9% to 29.0%
• Polk- 60.7% to 31.8%
• Lac Qui Parle- 59.4% to 33.81%

These counties are too red to flip blue. But there are farmers who will not vote for Trump and will not vote for Republicans. Last year, in fact, McLean County in Illinois-- the least red of the big Illinois soybean counties-- went strongly for Democratic challenger Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in her bid to replace GOP incumbent Rodney Davis. It was a tight race, Davis' reelected by around 2,000 votes of over 270,000 cast-- 50.4% to 49.6%. McLean county broke blue-- D+25. Next year Davis could well lose his seat because of underperformance in rural areas that are being devastated by Trump's trade wars. Yesterday, Vox asserted that farmers are losing patience with Trump. And not just soybean farmers.

Trump insists that his trade war will benefit farmers, but it’s actually crushing them. It seems unlikely that China will scrap the 25 percent tariff on American soybeans anytime soon, and now it’s adding higher taxes on American apples, oranges, pork, and almonds, too.

That’s why farmers are freaking out. Some are facing financial ruin now that millions of Chinese consumers, who once bought about 60 percent of American agriculture exports, have stopped buying their products. Exports to China from Minnesota dropped about 25 percent after the first round of tariffs went into effect last year, said Paap, who is president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau.

“The patience of American farmers has worn very thin,” Shayne Isane, who is borrowing money to keep his pork and soybean farm running in northern Minnesota, told me. “If a trade deal can be reached then it was all worth it, but if it doesn’t getting settled soon, it will be disastrous for American farmers.”

Isane, who voted for Trump, told me that the president may lose political support from farmers if the trade dispute continues. “Rural Americans were some of his biggest supporters,” he said. “Now that support is a little tenuous.”

Trump seems to be acutely aware of this, and has taken steps to help farmers who have been hurt by the trade war-- and shore up their support going into the 2020 election campaign. Last year, Trump created a $12 billion bailout program for farmers, and on Monday, he outlined another plan to give them an additional $15 billion.

But it’s not clear if those bailouts will be enough to keep farmers happy. “We don’t want another check from the government,” Isane said. “People don’t realize that once you lose a market, it’s hard to get it back.”

Every year before planting season, US farmers take out loans to cover operating costs. But lately, farmers have been defaulting on their loan payments, and many went out of business last year.

A total of 84 farms in the upper Midwest filed for bankruptcy between July 2017 and June 2018, according to the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis. That’s more than double the number of Chapter 12 filings during the same period in 2013 and 2014 in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana.

Farms that produce corn, soybeans, milk, and beef were already suffering due to low global demand and low prices, according to economists, but Trump’s trade war is ruining them. The problem got so bad that the Trump administration launched a $12 billion aid package for US farmers coping with retaliatory tariffs that foreign countries have imposed on their products.

But that bailout has not been enough to keep farms open. Paap, one of the Minnesota farmers I spoke to, said the money they got from the government last year was barely enough for his family to get by on.

Another bad harvest season would send farmers over the edge. Not to mention the other industries that are getting hit too.

Over the past year, the US has placed about $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, in part to make Chinese products more expensive so Americans don’t buy them. The administration has also placed steep tariffs on all imported steel, angering other major U.S. trade partners.

The idea was to level out the trade deficit and make China buy more U.S. goods, but, as expected, China responded by slapping its own tariffs on American imports. And Trump’s steep tariffs on all imported steel and aluminum, which went into effect in March 2018, have led other US trading partners to add their own retaliatory duties on American goods, including dairy, pork, apples, and potatoes.

Auto manufacturers and appliance makers in the U.S. are fuming about the cost of paying more for steel. A few sectors, like the American steel industry, are thrilled about the new taxes on steel from foreign competitors.

But the impact of tariffs on the U.S. agricultural industry is no joke. Prices for agricultural products like soybeans have dropped to a 10-year low since Trump imposed sweeping tariffs. And farmers across different markets have grown increasingly nervous about how their businesses will fare if the trade war continues.

That’s why Trump in July proposed the idea of a government program to stabilize the agriculture industry in three ways: by giving farmers direct cash assistance, buying surplus crops and giving them to food banks, and a vague trade promotion program.

The administration used a Depression-era program to borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury without congressional approval, according to the Washington Post. In September, the Agriculture Department sent farmers about $12 million in aid.

On Monday, he announced plans for another round of aid-- $15 billion this time. But Trump was either badly mistaken or lied when he said China would pay for the bailout with money from the tariffs. It’s actually businesses and consumers who will end up paying.

But even if these bailouts do keep some farms open, they don’t address the fact that Trump’s trade policies just aren’t working.

...In 2018, America’s trade deficit with China reached an all-time high: $419 billion. That’s a 13 percent increase compared to the previous year. Ford, America’s second-largest car company, said in August that Trump’s tariffs cost the company $1 billion, and the company now expects massive layoffs. GM made a similar announcement a few months later.

This impact of Trump’s trade policies is striking, considering how often he repeated that his goal is to boost US manufacturing. His trade war might help the small US steel industry, but it’s hurting nearly every other sector of the US economy. And now taxpayers are stuck with the bill of Trump’s latest $15 billion bailout.

Still, Trump insists that somehow this is all good for rural America. “Our great Patriot Farmers will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of what is happening now,” Trump announced on Twitter Monday.

So far, though, they’re the biggest losers.

And by targeting apples, almonds, oranges and pork, the Chinese were being very politically strategic. Apples will hurt Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Republican congressmen who could be hurt because of the apple retaliation include Dan Newhouse (WA-04) Chris Collins (NY-27), Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Tom Reed (NY-23), John Katko (NY-24), Fred Upton (MI-06), Justin Amash (MI-03) and Bill Huizenga (MI-02), Lloyd Smucker (PA-11), John Joyce (PA-13), and Duncan Hunter CA-50).

Almond farmers in California aren't going to do Trump and damage but the almond vote is important for Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, Doug LaMalfa and Tom McClintock and votes in almond growing counties could easily cost Nunes and LaMalfa their seats.

Tariffs on oranges are going to sting in Florida, California, Texas and Arizona. The 4 biggest orange-growing counties in Florida all went for Trump in 2016:

• Polk- 55.4% to 41.3%
• Hendry- 55.8% to 41.5%
• Highlands- 64.7% to 32.7%
• DeSoto- 62.7% to 35.0%

Two Republican congressmen could be especially hurt by the tariffs-- Tom Rooney (R-17) and Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25). And Trump's 49.1% to 47.8% win in Florida won't withstand a soybean-sized disaster to the orange industry. In Arizona, the orange industry is now gigantic and it is primarily in Yuma county. Trump won the county nattily-- with just 50.5%. The GOP is extremely worried about losing Arizona. Chinese retaliatory tariffs could do the trick. Last year, Martha McSally lost statewide in her Senate run but won Yuma County with 51.5%. When McCain died she was appointed to his seat and will face the voters again next year. Voters employed by Yuma's orange industry, may not feel well-disposed towards her.

There are 5 states that have pork-producing industries that bring in over a billion annually: Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina and Indiana. It's not just that tariffs on pork could swing Iowa and North Carolina, but it's also which Republican members of Congress are most likely to be hurt by the pork tariffs. These are the 10 biggest pork-producing counties in America, along with their member of Congres:

• Sampson, NC- David Rouzer (R)
• Duplin, NC- David Rouzer (R)
• Texas, OK- Frank Lucas (R)
• Sioux, IA- Steve King (R)
• Washington, IA- (open seat in 2020)
• Martin, MN- Jim Hagedorn (R)
• Plymouth, IA- Steve King (R)
• Lyon, IA- Steve King (R)
• Hardin, IA- Steve King (R)
• Beaver, UT- Chris Stewart (R)

King, Rouzer and Hagedorn could all be vulnerable. Salt-pork? No, but Trump has some salt to rub on the wounds of farmers his tariffs are putting out of business. Chris Sommerfeldt broke the story for the New York Daily News: Trump Administration Showers Brazilian Crooks With $62M Bailout Money Meant For Struggling U.S. Farmers.

The Trump administration has forked over more than $62 million-- taxpayer cash that was supposed to be earmarked for struggling American farmers-- to a massive meatpacking company owned by a couple of corrupt Brazilian brothers.

The Department of Agriculture cut a contract in January to purchase $22.3 million worth of pork from plants operated by JBS USA, a Colorado-based subsidiary of Brazil’s JBS SA, which ranks as the largest meatpacker in the world.

The bailout raised eyebrows from industry insiders at the time, as it was sourced from a $12 billion program meant for American farmers harmed by President Trump’s escalating trade war with China and other countries.

But previously undisclosed purchase reports obtained by the Daily News this week reveal the administration has since issued at least two more bailouts to JBS, even as Trump’s own Justice Department began investigating the meatpacker, whose owners are Joesley and Wesley Batista-- two wealthy brothers who have confessed to bribing hundreds of top officials in Brazil.

Both brothers have spent time in jail over the sweeping corruption scandal.

Local prosecutors rescinded the Batistas’ plea deals last year after accusing them of withholding evidence. The seedy brothers aren’t allowed to leave Brazil as their complex cases go to court.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, is probing JBS for possible violations in the U.S. of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to filings in an unrelated court case reviewed by The News. Reuters reported in December that Justice Department investigators interviewed the Batistas in Brazil late last year as part of that investigation.

Nonetheless, Trump’s Agriculture Department issued $14.5 million in bailout cash for pork products from JBS in February and another $25.6 million earlier this month, totaling more than $62.4 million, according to the purchase reports.

The sheer size of the payouts stoked outrage from industry watchdogs, who question how subsidizing a deep-pocketed, Brazilian-owned company would help farmers in the American heartland.

“Why is the USDA bailing out plants operated by JBS, the largest meatpacker in the world, with a program designed to help domestic companies and producers under economic duress?” said Tony Corbo, a lobbyist at Food & Water Watch, noting that the meat giant reported a net income of $273 million for the first quarter of 2019.

Moreover, JBS appears to have benefited from the trade tensions between Beijing and Washington that the bailouts are supposed to mitigate.

The company’s exports to China ballooned to more than 24% in 2018, compared to less than 21% the previous year, according to public records, raising questions about the need for the Trump subsidy.

“This company does not seem to be hurting,” Corbo said.

By comparison, a similar Trump bailout to Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese firm, was cancelled last year amid pushback from members of Congress that money meant for American farmers was ending up in the hands of foreigners.

...“It is clear the president is not the least bit knowledgeable about trade policy, nor aware of the chaos his failed approach has caused‚” said Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who introduced a bill earlier this year restricting the administration’s bailouts to American-owned companies.

“We now know that tens of millions of these dollars went to large, multinational corporations-- including Brazilian-owned JBS-- who are racking up profits while family farmers face collapse. That is outrageous.”

In addition to payment restrictions, DeLauro’s bill would require the Agriculture Department release explanations for its bailouts.

“Their incompetence and lack of transparency has shown that they cannot be trusted to get this right,” she said.

Is Medicare For All Important To You? If It Is, Forget Status Quo Joe

Most Americans tell pollsters they like Medicare-For-All... but corrupt conservatives-- primarily Republicans but from both parties-- haven't finished their attempts to brainwash the public that it's a bad idea. Crooked bankster Robert Pozen pointed out in a Wall Street Journal OpEd Wednesday that "The title is deeply misleading. It implies that the current Medicare system would be extended to all Americans. In fact, Medicare-For-All, differs from Medicare in fundamental ways." Yes? Yes? What are the socialist bastards trying to do to us now? The fundamental ways he cites are "much broader coverage" and "no cost sharing." The MoFos!

Despite not allowing us to pay anything and despite making dental care, vision care, hearing care and a patient friendly (rather than profit-friendly) prescription drug plan, a Charge Research poll released yesterday ""71% of Democratic voters are more likely to vote for a candidate if the candidate supports Medicare-for-All." That's tough on a corporate whore like Status Quo Joe Biden. His allies at Big PhRMA are counting on him to do what he has always done best: stab working families in the back while pretending to be one of them. But the word is starting to get out-- The health care industry is betting on Joe Biden in its war against Medicare-for-all-- that in issues involving corporate greed, Biden is still the corrupt slime bag he's been since first getting elected to the Senate in 1972-- when he beat Republican Caleb Boggs 116,006 (50%) to 112,844 (49%). That's an incredibly small number of voters who sent that asshole to the U.S. Senate where he did so much harm to so many people.

Yesterday, Henry Gomez, reporting for BuzzFeed News from Biden's Potemkin Village event in Pittsburgh, wrote that "While others rally around ideas such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, Biden used his kickoff rally to advocate for a more moderate public option for health insurance and less sexy policy proposals." Ahhh... that word again: "moderate." What makes Biden's corrupt corporatist proposal "moderate," instead of "corrupt," "corporatist" and "conservative." Biden constantly lies-- he's more like Trump in that way than any of the 20 Democrats running for the nomination-- telling his audiences, usually too ignorant to know any better, that he's the most progressive candidate. He's actually the most conservative of the viable candidates. (It's arguable that some of the non-viable candidates-- think one-percenters like Frackenlooper, Bennet and Delaney-- are more conservative; and no one has any idea what McKinsey Pete stands for from one speech to the next.)

Biden diverged from much of the rest of the Democratic field on health care. He called the Affordable Care Act-- which as Obama’s vice president he proclaimed a “big fucking deal”-- a “huge step forward” before talking up a public option to purchase government-run health care.

“Whether you’re covering it through your employer, or on your own, or not, you all should have a choice to buy into a public option plan for Medicare,” he said.

Biden, who was late to the stage and kept his speech to under a half hour, promised more specific policy proposals later, noting that those in the audience had stood waiting for him for hours.

Convenient. I wonder if that will be what he does to avoid policy questions at future events as well. Meanwhile one of Pelosi top henchmen Rosa DeLauro, 76 year old former Rahm Emanuel housemate, has introduced a weak and ineffective bill, Medicare for America, that the insurance companies and mainstream conservatives prefer. The more confusion sewn-- especially by doddering old hacks like DeLauro-- the better for Biden and the insurance and drug companies. Right-of-center Democratic Party establishment operation, Center for American Progress, is pushing DeLauro's plan in the hope of derailing the actual progressive legislation proposed by Jayapal in the House and Bernie in the Senate.

High profile and much loved progressive activist Ady Barkan, who is dying of ALS, infuriated the conservative Democrats with a heart-wrenching speech. "Some people argue that although Medicare for All is a great idea, we need to move slowly to get there," Barkan said in his opening statement. "But I needed Medicare for All yesterday. Millions of people need it today. The time to pass this law is now."

If Bernie wins and progressives can get rid of Pelosi in 2020-- both very doable-- they would have to take back at least a bare minority in the Senate and pass Medicare-For-All through budget reconciliation. The problem there would be the fake Dems in the Senate like Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, Tom Carper, Mark Warner and Jacky Rosen. Tough hill to climb! Bernie penned an OpEd yesterday urging his allies in the fight for health care not to back down in the face of adversaries like Pelosi, Biden and DeLauro.

A decade ago, when I introduced legislation guaranteeing medical care to every American, the proposal was cast as a "radical" and "unrealistic" measure, and I could not convince a single senator to cosponsor the bill.

Ten years later, our Medicare for All bill has widespread support in the House and Senate, and polls show Medicare for All is supported by a majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans.

As the House this week held historic hearings about Medicare for All, we must remember that this transformation did not happen by accident. It happened because Americans from all walks of life understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system designed to make huge profits for the drug companies and the insurance companies, while tens of millions remain uninsured or underinsured and we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

And these Americans are now fighting back. They are not only resisting Trump's efforts to throw 32 million people off the health care they have; they are demanding that health care in the United States be considered a right, not a privilege.

Now, because of these grassroots efforts, we are on the verge of a historic victory-- and that reality is prompting a backlash from the powerful special interests that continue to reap hundreds of billions of dollars from the status quo.

But our message must be clear: We must remember the lessons of history and refuse to back down.

This is not going to be an easy fight. To try to stop our movement’s momentum for Medicare for All, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries have recently formed a front group called the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future. In reality, this is a partnership to protect health industry profits. Through deceptive ads, the group’s goal is to try to persuade legislators to oppose Medicare for All, or divide and confuse us with weaker proposals.

This group’s members aren’t patients or consumers or people impacted by our current health care system-- they are insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying group. These groups spent $143 million on lobbying in 2018 to try to preserve a system that is a disaster for millions of Americans, but that is making big money for CEOs. In 2017 alone, while Americans were getting crushed by higher premiums and prescription drug prices, the top 65 health care CEOs made $1.7 billion in compensation, and the 25 highest-paid CEOs in the pharmaceutical industry made roughly $440 million.

So it should be no surprise that these companies and their political groups will spend enormous sums of money to try to stop us.

But let us be absolutely clear: These frantic attempts to derail our progress are a sign that we are winning-- and that means we cannot rest, we cannot back down, and we cannot accept any substitute.

We must stand firm in unequivocally declaring that through a Medicare for All system, we are going to make health care a human right for all people in this country. Our bill expands Medicare to cover all people and to cover long-term care. It will reduce overall health care spending and finally end the situation whereby Americans are forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for medicine.

And here is some good news to remember as we begin the 2020 presidential election campaign: If we keep pushing, history suggests that we will be victorious.

Recall that in the mid–20th century, President Harry Truman first proposed guaranteeing health care to seniors. This idea was billed as radical, “un-American,” and an attack on basic freedom that would be a political loser. And because of that withering assault, the idea stalled in Congress for years-- until voters made their voices heard.

In 1960, America elected John F. Kennedy after he campaigned in support of Truman’s idea. That election prompted a health care bill to finally begin being debated in Congress, and Kennedy at the time noted that “what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago.”

Of course, the legislation was initially blocked by Republicans and conservative Democrats, who argued that if the proposal passed, it would be nothing short of the end of the republic. Americans, though, were not deterred-- they fought back with a 1964 election landslide that was so enormous, the new Congress was all but forced to immediately pass what is now known as Medicare.

“It took a big election, with voters changing the balance of power on Capitol Hill,” as Princeton historian Julian Zelizer wrote.

More than a half-century after that achievement, we are now at a similar moment in American history.

This is a moment that requires us to say louder and more clearly than ever that health care is a human right, not a privilege.

This is a moment to point out that Medicare is the country’s most popular and cost-effective health care program-- and that by expanding it to cover everyone, we will save Americans money.

This is a moment to say that we cannot accept any more Americans dying or going bankrupt for lack of medical care. This is a moment to proudly declare that Medicare for All’s time has come.

In short, this is a moment to stand up, not stand down. If we do that, we will win.

Blue America Welcomes Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)

We've been doing the Blue America live chats for almost seven years. Today at 3pm (ET, noon on the West Coast) we're proud to welcome our very first Republican ever, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina. As usual, the live session will be at Crooks and Liars. Please stop by. This isn't a fundraiser or an endorsement session, although I couldn't help noticing that last year the mainstream conservative, libertarian-leaning Jones voted more frequently with progressives on crucial roll call votes than 3 of North Carolina's "Democratic" congressmen-- Shuler, McIntyre and Kissell.

If you watched one of MSNBC's presentations of Hubris in recent weeks, you must have noticed the spotlight that was shined on Rep. Jones because of the way he reached inside himself-- and reached out through his strongly held religious beliefs-- to reassess his vote for Bush's illegitimate attack on Iraq in 2002. It profoundly changed Walter Jones-- if not as a man (I barely know him enough to say), as a Member of Congress. Now you find him working across the aisle-- with sincere advocates of peace from both parties-- on issues that aren't especially partisan... just especially American. It was Alan Grayson who introduced me to him and when I told Raul Grijalva Rep. Jones would be a Blue America guest today he told me he recalled, vividly, "the long years of the Bush/Cheney machine and how hard it was to find a Republican to speak the truth. My colleague Walter Jones became an almost lone voice of reason in his party and he's stayed true to his word every day since. I'm glad to have him on our side. When it comes to real checks and balances, Congress' oversight duties, drone attacks and warmaking, he's been as right as anyone, and I'm happy to see him get the recognition he deserves for his courage."

Last year John Boehner had Rep. Jones' bill, HCR 107 (which was co-sponsored by, among others, Grijalva, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich, as well as Ron Paul and... Louie Gohmert, who, admittedly, will cosponsor anything that uses the word "impeachable") bottled up in committee, where it died without so much as a hearing. The bill simply expressed "the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."

In November Walter Jones was reelected with a robust 63% of the vote, the biggest margin of any Republican in the state-- much to the chagrin of Eric Cantor, who had encouraged a primary challenge against him with money he got from Sheldon Adelson. Immediately upon reelection, Jones reintroduced his resolution, this time as HCR 3. This is the letter he sent to every Member of Congress explaining it, prefaced with a quote from James Madison: allowing the President alone to take the country into war would be "too much of a temptation for one man."

Dear Colleague:

Over the last 20 years American presidents have assumed powers that our Constitution does not explicitly give the commander-in-chief. From the U.S. intervention in Bosnia to the recent U.S. involvement in Libya, Congress did not authorize the use of military force. However, the president continues to send our forces into harm's way without congressional approval. To address this issue, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 3. This resolution reaffirms that the power to declare war resides in the U.S. Congress. Under Article 1, Section 8, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the president must come to the Congress to initiate hostilities. The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the framers firmly believed that the momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be decided not by a single individual, but only by concurrence of both houses of Congress.

H. Con. Res. 3 affirms that if a president, any president, violates this most fundamental constitutional provision, doing so would constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article 2, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution.

I ask you to join me as a co-sponsor of this important resolution. Thank you for your consideration.

"[M]y concern has always been," he said last year, "since we were misled with the intelligence to go into Iraq, and all the number of young men and women who have been killed, and loss of limbs, that Congress needs to come back to what the Constitution says, and that is, if you’re going to commit our young men and women to fight and die, you must declare war.” This session he's also co-sponsoring a bill, HR 125 with Rosa DeLauro (R-CT) that has a fascinating genesis. The bill was originally introduced in the Senate by then-Senators Clinton and Obama. Jones simply changed the word “Iraq” to “Afghanistan.” The bill directs the Secretary of State to submit to Congress an unclassified report providing the justification for the President's decision to deny Congress its constitutionally protected role by concluding an agreement on the future of the security relationship between the United States and Afghanistan as an executive agreement." Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Mo Brooks (R-AL) have since signed on as cosponsors. Boehner has it bottled up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee where Ed Royce is sitting on it. (Brooks is also a member of the committee, as is Grayson.)

Don't forget-- today at 3pm (ET) at Crooks and Liars... let's see how progressives and libertarians can work together on issues of common interest.

Contribute To The DCCC... If You Want To Make It Easier For The GOP To Abolish The EPA And Defund Planned Parenthood

Last night, when even politicians started wondering if they should take a stand on the OccupyWallStreet movement-- maybe they had read Van Jones' powerful Which Side Are You On framing-- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the eternal, craven Beltway apparachik, was tweeting away mindlessly about the grandeur of Iowa Blue Dog Leonard Boswell.


Nothing from ole Debbie about a crucial Outside-the-Beltway movement that could shake the foundations of America, just mindless cheerleading for a conservative shill who had just a few days before joined 230 Republicans in another move to hamper the operations of the EPA. Wasserman Schultz, of course, voted with the Democrats. It was the last vote before Boehner let everyone go home for another super-long "weekend." Those who would see nothing wrong with taking legalistic bribes from corporations that pollute our air and water and then voting to cut back on the regulators won the vote, 249-169, a landslide against social sanity. Bosell was hardly the only Democrat joining the Republicans on that one. The list reads like a cross between what's left of the mangy Blue Dog caucus and the DCCC's Front Line list of priority races that they're sinking virtually all their contributions into this cycle. If you donate to the DCCC, you're donating to "Democrats" who vote with Republicans against the EPA. These are the Democrats who rallied behind Boehner and Cantor and against the EPA:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)
Terry Sewell (AL)

The bolded names are on the DCCC list of endangered incumbents who vote with the GOP so often that Democratic voters won't support them. In the case of the EPA bill, there were actually 4 Republicans who crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Democrats against the polluters. Each of the 4 represents a blue-leaning district and is likely to face a life-or-death match-up next year: Charlie Bass (NH), Judy Biggert (IL), Robert Dold (IL) and Nan Hayworth (NY).

Many on that same list of Blue Dogs and other "Democrats" the DCCC wastes all its money on, are also the traitors working with Boehner and Cantor on yet another attack against Planned Parenthood. Last week the Republican Leadership had Montanan teabag zombie Denny Rehberg introduce an appropriations bill with no input which they are now planning to push without any subcommittee hearings-- remember how the used to whine that Nancy Pelosi operated the House like a Soviet politburo or some nonsense? It prohibits any funds going to Planned Parenthood unless they stop providing abortions entirely (even if it's with non-federal funds). Progressive Caucus Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the ranking Democrat on the Labor, Education, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, responded for the House Democrats (well, for most of the House Democrats):

"Today, Chairman Rehberg posted on the Internet a draft bill and other materials, representing his proposals for the fiscal year 2012 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act.

"I am very concerned by reports that the Chairman has no plans to convene a meeting of our subcommittee to consider and mark up this legislation. While this posting of the Chairman’s proposals is interesting, it is by no means an acceptable substitute for public debate and amendment. The Chairman, by himself, is not the subcommittee.

"Eleven of the 12 House appropriations subcommittees have now marked up their fiscal year 2012 legislation. The Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee stands alone in its failure to take even this first step, with markup dates having been twice announced and twice postponed. While the House has failed to act, the Senate Appropriations Committee has considered and approved their version of the Labor-HHS-Education bill at both the subcommittee and full committee levels. If no House markup is held, this would be the first time in nearly a decade that our subcommittee has failed to report out a bill.

"Such a course is a clear violation of the Republican majority’s pledge to follow regular legislative order in dealing with appropriations-- a pledge which the majority leadership of the House and the committee have emphasized time and again this year. I certainly hope that the majority will keep its promises, and convene a meeting of the subcommittee and then the full committee to consider a Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill.

"Further, if these documents represent the position that Chairman Rehberg intends to take into negotiations with the Senate, it looks like we’re in for a long, difficult process. After a year of contentious budget debates, radical proposals from the new majority, and multiple threats of government shutdowns and even defaults, there had been hope that we’d be able to put all that behind us for a while and complete action on fiscal year 2012 appropriations in a reasonably timely and cooperative manner based on the spending levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act enacted last month. Judging from these proposals, though, the Republican majority doesn’t seem to be on board for that goal.

"Instead, the Rehberg draft injects a whole host of new, contentious legislative issues into the process-- most of them quite extraneous to the task at hand of setting funding levels for federal agencies and programs for the upcoming fiscal year. His proposal contains at least 40 brand new legislative provisions and riders, many of them highly controversial, and most dealing with complicated subjects well outside the expertise of the Appropriations Committees.

"For example, the draft bill contains no fewer than six controversial new riders relating to the National Labor Relations Board. One of them, for example, overturns 75 years of practice by removing the protections of the National Labor Relations Act from workers in any firm that falls within the SBA’s definition of "small business"-- a definition broad enough to encompass companies with a thousand employees in some cases. The bill also includes language amending the Davis-Bacon Act, along with provisions interfering with pending rules on subjects such as the fiduciary duties of pension plan investment advisors, wage rates for temporary foreign workers, and coal dust exposure for miners.

"Then, there’s a provision to block Education Department rules designed to protect students and taxpayers from those for-profit colleges with the very worst records as far as student debt loads and defaults. There’s also language prohibiting local public radio stations from using any funds they receive from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to acquire programming from one particular provider that has evidently been singled out for the Republican majority’s displeasure-- National Public Radio.

"In the health area, the Rehberg draft once again includes language prohibiting use of funds to implement almost any part of the Affordable Care Act. (It makes exceptions for certain Medicare payment regulations and a few provisions relating to drug costs under Medicaid.) The prohibition would continue “until 90 days after the date on which all legal challenges to any of such provisions are complete"-- which in practice will probably be a very long term and certainly the entire fiscal year covered by this bill.

"There are at least 50 million people in this country without health coverage and yet all that we hear from the Republican majority on this subject is "no." The bill’s prohibition would prevent use of funds to implement reforms like prohibiting insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions for children, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ policies, and placing restrictions on lifetime and annual coverage limits, to give just a few examples. It would also deny funds to implement the interim “risk pool” coverage for uninsured people with health problems and to continue putting in place the systems needed for full health reform implementation in 2014.

"Another health-related provision prohibits any funding under the bill from going to any Planned Parenthood affiliate unless the organization promises not to perform abortions with non-federal funds. Remarkably, these particular health care providers-- and the patients they serve-- would be denied federal funding for any purpose unless they agree to stop providing a lawful medical service using funds from patients and other non-federal sources. The main effect would probably be to prohibit Medicaid patients from choosing to receive services such as contraception and cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood clinics.

"On Pell Grants for college students, the Rehberg plan does maintain the total maximum grant at the current level of $5,550. However, it makes a long series of amendments to the authorizing law governing Pell Grants (and, in some cases student loans and other financial aid as well), which allow the appropriation to be cut $2.3 billion below the FY 2011 amount. Some of these changes may have merit, as a means of improving the long-term viability of the program, and I will be interested in the views of experts in the field once they have a chance to review the Chairman’s legislation.

"However, some of these proposed authorizing law amendments cause serious concern. Most notably, the largest single change appears to be targeted to students who are working while going to school-- especially adult students independent of their parents-- and appears likely to reduce Pell Grant assistance for many in this group by many hundreds of dollars. That seems exactly the wrong step to be taking when so many people are relying on Pell Grants to go back to school or stay in school to gain the education and skills they need for jobs in the new economy.

"Turning from riders to money issues, one thing that seems puzzling about the Chairman’s draft is the spending total. It’s not at all clear how the Rehberg proposal fits into the Republican leadership’s stated intent of producing appropriations bills consistent with the limits set in the Budget Control Act. At about $4 billion below last year’s level, it produces more savings than the $2.5 billion in total savings prescribed for all eight “non-security” appropriations bills together. Is the majority’s intent to target all of the Budget Control Act’s non-security cuts (plus some more) to the education, health and other important programs funded in this bill? That seems a case of badly misplaced priorities. Or are they not intending after all to produce bills at the totals negotiated just last month? There’s really no way to answer those questions unless the majority discloses how they are allocating the Budget Control Act discretionary spending totals among all of the various appropriations bills. I hope they will do so.

"As for the specific funding levels in Chairman Rehberg’s proposal, there are some I strongly support. For example, Head Start receives an increase in order to continue to serve the same number of children as in the current year. Biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health gets the 3.5 percent increase recommended by the President (although I regret that the draft does not adopt the Administration’s proposal to create a new National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, to improve the process of turning basic research into new treatments). Additional funding is provided for the two main programs that assist local school districts throughout the country: increases of $1 billion for title I grants for education for the disadvantaged and $1.2 billion for special education. I am also glad to see that the Chairman’s draft rejects the President’s proposal to cut the Community Services Block Grant almost in half.

"Unfortunately, the Chairman’s proposal also contains a number of harmful and ill-advised cuts. One of the most egregious items is the almost complete elimination of the Corporation for National and Community Service-- the agency that administers successful programs such as Americorps and the Social Innovation Fund. The Chairman’s mark simply dissolves the entire enterprise without regard for the unique role CNCS plays in our democracy. Without CNCS, there will be no Americorps, Senior Corps or Learn and Serve-- programs which, taken together, serve as a powerful engine for community volunteerism to tackle America’s challenges that exist right here at home.

"I am also deeply disturbed by the massive cuts to our nation’s job training system. With unemployment at a staggering 9.1%, more Americans than ever are depending on the 3,000 one-stop career and training centers located in communities nationwide. This is a network funded with federal dollars but adapted at the local level to best serve each individual community. Yet the Rehberg plan proposes to cut approximately 75% from the funding level currently provided for basic grants to states and localities for training and employment. In addition, while I am relieved to see that his draft measure protects reemployment programs for veterans, it reduces funding by more than half for other nationally administered training programs that have proven results, such as Youthbuild.

"I understand the majority may claim that these cuts reflect a decision to provide only a part-year appropriation in this bill, as part of a plan to shift the federal funding cycle for job training programs. However, for the local agencies that run these programs, this technical effort is, at best, a serious disruption. Further, if the amount in the Rehberg bill is actually intended as only part-year funding, how can the majority plausibly claim that they will restore the cut and go back to the full year amount next year, when the Budget Control Act will continue to tightly constrain spending? With millions of Americans out of work, it is hard to imagine a worse time to inject such uncertainty into the workforce development system.

"Another cut that will reduce assistance to the unemployed, as well as to others in need, comes in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The Rehberg bill reduces LIHEAP by $1.3 billion or 28 percent, even though there will be just as many people needing help this winter as last and some fuel costs are likely to be rising-- especially for heating oil.

"The Rehberg plan also once again proposes to wipe out all funding for the title X family planning program, which received $299 million in fiscal year 2011. This program helps support family planning and reproductive health services to more than 5 million people annually at 4,500 community-based clinics.

"Further, under the Rehberg plan, the Centers for Disease Control receives about $670 million less in fiscal year 2012 than in 2011, a 10 percent cut. This is the result of reduced regular appropriations combined with rescission of all fiscal year 2012 funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Support for training health professionals-- particularly primary care providers-- is cut by $321 million or 62 percent. All funding under the Affordable Care Act for Community Health Centers and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) is rescinded. As a result, Health Centers will have no more funds than last year to help care for the unemployed and uninsured. The NHSC—which provides scholarships and loan repayment assistance to doctors, dentists, and nurses who work in underserved areas-- will have 55 percent less funding than in fiscal year 2011.

"Finally, the Rehberg plan fails to provide the traditional advance appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. By far the largest portion of this appropriation is used for direct grants to help support the operation of approximately 1,300 local public television and radio stations throughout the country.

"In conclusion, the Rehberg plan fails to adequately address our nation’s needs in the midst of economic crisis, while bogging down the process with politically driven legislative riders. I cannot support this measure in its current form and am eager to engage with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of Congress to find solutions that will make the best use of federal resources in pursuit of job creation and economic growth, as well as in support of the neediest Americans."

Rehberg, a member of Michele Bachmann's House Tea Party caucus and a corrupt multimillionaire whose relationships with the worst of the Beltway lobbyists is notorious all over Washington, isn't seeking reelection to the House next year and is instead challenging Jon Tester for his Senate seat. The Republicans are deciding who to nominate to replace him-- Steve Daines, a millionaire job exporter from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the party or John Abarr, a KKK and GOP organizer from the Hatred and Bigotry wing. But the Democrats are also struggling with their nomination. The two front-runners are state Rep. Franke Wilmer, a populist professor we've talked about before frequently with the Republicans, Gillan.

It's crucial, as we've been saying for years, to elect progressives, not conservatives, whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats. Although she's gotten better since then, in 1999 Kim Gillen boasted a dismal 20% pro-choice voting record. And that isn't the only place where she's lined up with the GOP. No Democrat who voted for deregulation of Montana's energy utilities-- as Gillan did in 1997-- has ever won statewide office since then. But the Beltway insiders are behind her, just the way they were behind corporate shill John Morrison in 2006-- before savvy Montana Democratic voters handed them his head. We asked Franke, an articulate advocate of women's right to choice, about Rehberg's proposal. Her response (below) is why we urge all DWT readers who can afford to to consider assisting her in her campaign:

"During one of our country’s worst economic downturns Congressman Rehberg's proposal just pushes a partisan ideology instead of solving the real problems average people are facing. Instead of looking for ways to put people back to work, he attacks women's rights and proposes huge cuts to Planned Parenthood-– an organization that works primarily to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Planned Parenthood has absolutely nothing to do with our current economic problems and Congressman Rehberg is just using it as pretext to attack women's rights. It is an outrage.

"Our economic problems were created by irresponsible conduct on Wall Street, driven by greed. Rep. Rehberg not only proposes leaving people literally out in the cold by cutting home heating assistance for low-income families, but also cutting unemployment benefits during a time of record unemployment; cutting job services and limiting access to college and other programs that help people to get back to work. I know from my personal experience the effects these cuts will have. I was a waitress for sixteen years and put myself through school with the help of a few Pell grants-– which he has called welfare. Of course we need to balance the budget, but balancing the budget on the backs of people down on their luck is not the America I grew up in."

I ran into Rob Zerban yesterday. He's the Democratic candidate battling it out with Wall Street superstar Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin-based congressman advocating to end Medicare and other social and regulatory programs in order to be able to cut taxes further for his wealthy backers. Over the course of the campaign Rob has become more and more attuned to the inequities rampant in our society and championed by his opponent. When I asked him how he feels about the Occupy Wall Street movement, he didn't hesitate for a second:

"What is happening on Wall Street is indicative of what is happening everywhere in the US. The vanishing middle class is finally waking up to the class warfare that has been waged against them. This is evident by the redistribution of wealth over the past thirty years. Stagnant wages along with the rollback of workers rights is creating a destabilization of our society, along with any security the middle-class had. They are no longer willing to sit by and watch the disastrous plans of the GOP & Paul Ryan drive this country to ruin. It is time to stand up and fight back. My running to replace Paul Ryan is a moral imperative for me, and part of our countries struggle in the larger narrative of our domestic priorities to determine what our country will look like for future generations of Americans. The debate in DC will determine the fate of the middle class. It is a fight we must win."

Time to Stop Paul Ryan?


UPDATE: Beware The Mangy Blue Dogs

I just got an e-mail from a friend, a political consultant who had been telling me about a Democratic candidate running for Congress in Illinois. He told me the candidate was claiming to be a solid progressive but when I checked with people I know in the area-- friends in labor unions, bloggers, activists-- they all responded the same way: "GAG!" But I agreed to talk with him anyway and hear what he had to say. Today's e-mail:

"I just got word back from the candidate's campaign manager that he is not looking to work the progressive/blog money and we have walked away from his campaign. He thinks that they can find enough money from Blue Dog groups to fund this campaign and is moving him right into center right to 'attract Democrats and Republicans'.

"GAG these assholes never learn!"

Not the right match for a Blue America candidate.