Will Lamb And Saccone Wind Up Both Serving In Congress Next Year?

The old gerrymandered map is on top and the new ungerrymandered map is below

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court moved to ungerrymander the state, the Pittsburgh area changed considerably. The city itself, PA-14 didn't change too much other than being re-numbered from PA-14 to PA-18. The PVI went from D+17 to a still very safe D+13, extra Democrats going to the newly created PA-17 which was formerly Republican Keith Rothfus' safe red seat (PA-12). The old PVI was R+11 and the new PVI is a very competitive R+3. That leaves the sprawling PA-18 district Conor Lamb just won. It's been cut down quite a bit and one of the areas cut out of the district is Lamb's hometown, Mount Lebanon. So what was a blood red district with a PVI of R+11 is now... and even worse R+14 (re-numbered PA-14).

The incumbent in the new PA-18 (Pittsburg's old PA-14) is Democrat Mike Doyle and he should have zero problem being reelected. Technically the incumbent in the new redder PA-14 Is Lamb but no one thinks he'll run there again. And the incumbent in the very red old PA-12 (now the competitive PA-17) is Keith Rothfus, basically a dead man walking. And that's where Lamb's home in and where Lamb will run, even though very few few of Rothfus' constituents were part of the old PA-18 who just participated in the election that put Lamb into office.

Right now there are 4 Democrats campaigning against Rothfus in the new 17th,  Elizabeth Tarasi, Aaron Anthony, Raymond Linsenmayer and Erin McClelland. The district includes Beaver County, part of Cranberry Township in Butler County, and northern and western portions of Allegheny County; it would have gone for Trump by just 2.5 percentage points. Lamb filed papers Wednesday seeking the Beaver County Democratic Party's endorsement in the new 17th. The Beaver County Democratic Committee plans to endorse a candidate next Thursday.

Meanwhile, Rick Saccone-- despite being blamed for his own loss on Tuesday, despite being derided for his "porn mustache" and despite not living in the new district-- is already circulating petitions to run in PA-14 (which includes half, including all the reddest parts of the district, he just lost). Republican State Senator Guy Reschenthaler is also running there. Reschenthaler doesn't live in the district either. The Democrat with the best-- the only-- chance to win in that race is Tom Prigg, who had been running against Rothfus, but decided to switch to the district he grew up in (Washington) after the new boundaries were announced and after Lamb made it clear he would take on Rothfus. (Prigg and Lamb are both veterans and although Prigg is much more progressive than Lamb, he had put a lot of time and energy into campaigning for him over the last month.) The establishment Democrat in the race, if she can get enough signatures by Tuesday, is Bibiana Boerio.

Pennsylvania Looking Even Better For Most Democratic Candidates

Republicans worry they can't win when there are fair sensible boundaries

Corrupt gerrymandrerers, Republican Senate President Joe Scarnati and state House Speaker Mike Turzai, are not taking the new ungerrymandered congressional map of Pennsylvania laying down. They're asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in-- and step on-- the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

But experts have said Republicans face an uphill battle. Several noted that Mr. Scarnati and Mr. Turzai have fought the court’s ruling for weeks in an increasingly nasty political and legal battle but have been unsuccessful.

Just days after the state Supreme Court overturned the congressional district map, the top Republican lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and stay the order, arguing that the state court was usurping the legislature’s power. That request was denied by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who did not refer the matter to the full court, as is often done, noted Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

“If you’re a Republican defending a map and you can’t even get Justice Alito to refer the thing to the whole court, that’s a pretty weak challenge,” he said Monday, saying he could not think of one that would be successful.

The Republican advantage in 13 of the state's unfairly carefully-drawn 18 districts will now yield far more competitive seats where Democratic voters have a chance to elect candidates who represent them. The Republican advantage disappears entirely in 3 districts. Democrats will now have an even-- or better than even-- chance to win seats that are currently held by Republicans Pat Meehan, Brian Fitzpatrick, Charlie Dent, Ryan Costello and Keith Rothfus. This morning Tom Prigg, the progressive candidate who decide to take on Rothfus when it looked like an impossible climb, is very happy with the new district lines. "The new district map has made my district far more competitive. The previous District 12 was 200 miles long and could take 3 hours to drive from end to end. The Partisan Voter Index gave the Republicans an 11 point advantage. Now it's far more compact, an hours drive with only a 3 point Republican advantage. This is a significantly improved district. Not all Pennsylvania districts were so lucky, but mine gives me a much better chance to beat an undesirable incumbent."

Scarnati and Turzai, not to mention Señor Trumpanzee and congressional Republicans and their big money allies, are screaming like stuck pigs. How dare anyone try to keep them from cheating? What's this world coming to? Their whining is likely to fail. Elena Schneider for Politico: "most operatives and experts see little hope in a legal challenge to the new districts... [B]ehind the scenes, Republican consultants are already urging their clients to get ready for these new districts in 2018... 'The likelihood that [Republicans] will get a response from the [U.S.] Supreme Court is near zero,' said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles."

And, of course, the Republican version of the DCCC-- the NRCC-- is already in court demanding the right to cheat. Naturally, their statement didn't call it cheating: "state and federal GOP officials will sue in federal court as soon as tomorrow to prevent the new partisan map from taking effect. The suit will highlight the state Supreme Court’s rushed decision that created chaos, confusion, and unnecessary expense in the 2018 election cycle."

For Republicans, it’s not clear yet what legal avenue they plan to proceed with first, or what relief they will seek. But if they return to the U.S. Supreme Court, experts said it’s unlikely the court will change its position from earlier this month, when it rejected a request for a stay.

“The one thing they have going for them now is that the state Supreme Court has now acted, as opposed to threatening to act, but the big factor against that is [Justice Samuel] Alito already turned them down,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine. “They’re playing a weak hand.”

“Republicans have no real option left,” said Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who’s worked on several redistricting cases. “It’s the same argument that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to entertain last time, and I don’t expect them to entertain it this time.”

“The map you see is the map we’re going to have [in 2018],” Elias added.

That map opens up opportunities for Democrats-- who currently hold only five of the 18 House seats in the battleground state-- particularly in the greater Philadelphia area.

The Pennsylvania case isn’t the only partisan gerrymandering case working its way through the federal courts. Similar suits in North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin are also currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court did intervene in North Carolina, setting aside a ruling that threw out that state’s congressional map. But unlike the Pennsylvania case, the other cases involve questions of federal, not state, law.

...Dan Meuser-- a Republican running to replace Rep. Lou Barletta, who is running for Senate-- exemplified that tension with a post on Facebook on Monday.

“We will note, the court-drawn 9th Congressional District overlaps many areas in the 11th District where we have been campaigning hard for the past five months,” Meuser wrote. “At this time, we are going to continue to campaign in what was the original 11th Congressional District and will comment further once all legal challenges are resolved and district lines become definitive.”

Meuser is an imbecile who, unfortunately, has little to worry about. Barletta's hellhole of a red district, the 11th, went for Trump by 24 points. The new hellhole's boundaries wound have seen Trump winning by an even greater margin-- +34. What was once an R+10 district will be completely untouchable for a Democrat. The Blue Dogs have a hopeless candidate of their own running, Denny Wolff and he's raised $208,775, but two Republicans-- Meuser and Stephen Bloom has each outraised him, with Meuser way out ahead-- $530,293. In 2016 Barletta beat Democrat Mike Marsicano 194,889 (63.7%) to 111,025 (36.3%).

Great News For Pennsylvania Voters From The U.S. Supreme Court (No, Really)

The Republicans got greedy and now the whole state will be redrawn

A friend of mine called last night and I could practically hear him biting his nails. He was being driven to distraction over his fear that the U.S. Supreme Court-- and especially his neighbor Samuel Alito-- was about to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling striking down the legislature's über-partisan gerrymandering. Today the Alito-- for the U.S. Supreme Court-- denied the request from Senate President Joe Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai to delay drawing new congressional maps. That means they either finish by Friday or the state Supreme Court draws the districts themselves!

They better get busy! They've stalled and wasted a month. If they already started working on it today, they have almost 5 days, more or less. Oh, and they have to get Gov. Tom Wolf (D) to agree with whatever they come up with. The Philly suburban districts are going to look a lot different, that's for sure. The worst gerrymandered district (PA-07) will certainly be gone and will probably turn into a more compact Delaware County district, although the population is only around 560,000 so it will have to include a bit of either Montgomery or Chester. (The incumbent, Part Meehan, has already announced he's not running for reelection, primarily because he was caught using tax payer funds to pay off a woman staffer hush company, although a less friendly map may have played a significant role as well.) If it includes some of Montgomery, I'll bet state Senator Daylin Leach, who lives there, will jump back into the congressional race. This morning he told me this: "If you had asked me 5 years ago what 3 things I would most like to see accomplished in Pennsylvania I would have said 1. Marriage equality, 2. legalizing medical marijuana, and 3. fixing the obscene congressional gerrymander. I am ecstatic that with today's US Supreme Court decision all 3 things on my wish list have been achieved. Finally, the voters will again be relevant in Pennsylvania congressional elections. This is a great day for democracy, at a time in our history when democracy doesn't have a lot of great days.;"

I'm going to guess that the other incumbents besides Meehan who are freaking out today are Ryan Costello (PA-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-08), and Keith Rothfus (PA-12)-- and whomever was planning on taking over for Charlie Dent (PA-15), Tim Murphy (PA-18), Bill Shuster (PA-09) and Lou Barletta (PA-11) all of whom are leaving Congress.

The progressive Democrat opposing Rothfuss seemed buoyed by what Alito did a few hours ago: "Today's decision to stay out of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was a huge win for constitutional law, Democracy and the people to choose their representatives instead of the representatives choosing the voters. The playing field has been leveled in Pennsylvania, Keith Rothfus will have to run on his record and platform and that will not fair well for him. A millionaire lawyer backed by the Koch Brothers will have to convince the voters of the new district that he is a better representative than the veteran and scientist from Washington county. Although it's still a David versus Goliath story in terms of money, I believe that I have the people behind my message and today's decision has put the power of the election back into their hands."

And Jenny Marshall, a candidate in North Carolina was feeling solidarity today for the Democrats in Pennsylvania. She said that "The Supreme Court's decision regarding Pennsylvania's legislative maps gives me hope for the future of North Carolina. In our state, gerrymandered maps have diminished the freedom of constituents to choose their elected officials. Instead, our elected officials choose their constituents. The practice of unfair maps and political gerrymandering must come to an end if we hope to uphold the most basic tenets of our democracy. I am hopeful that North Carolina will be next to receive a Supreme Court order for fair maps."

Meanwhile, just moments ago-- back in Pennsylvania-- far right extremists in the state legislature, led by crackpot Cris Dush sent out a co-sponsorship memo for the impeachment of Justices Max Baer, David Wecht, Debra Todd, Christine Donahue and Kevin Dougherty.

GOP Greed: Taking From Disabled Vets To Make Their Wealthy Donors Richer

"I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves-- won’t lift a finger-- and expect the federal government to do everything." Although reactionary vulture, Utah scumbag Orrin Hatch said this in regard to the children who count of CHIP (which he helped kill), he might as well have been talking about disabled veterans as well, since he just voted to set the government on a path of destroying their lives too.

The Republican Tax Scam will have serious, even devastating, consequences for the nearly 20% of us who have disabilities-- greater tax burdens and decreased opportunities. As Robyn Powell explained last week to Rewire readers, "People with disabilities already have massive expenses and far less income, on average, than their non-disabled counterparts. Many of their medical necessities-- such as long-term care and certain wheelchairs-- are not covered by some insurance plans, including Medicare, and can cost an individual tens of thousands of dollars. These services are not just about one’s health; having access to a power wheelchair or in-home care can be the difference between living in an institution or a private residence. Right now, taxpayers may deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses if they exceed 10 percent of their adjusted gross income. Notably, 8.8 million people-- primarily people with disabilities and seniors, as well as their caregivers-- benefited from this important deduction last year." But to make life a tad more bearable for overburdened private jet owners, Ryan's Tax Scam eliminates the out-of-pocket medical expenses deduction

The ability to live and move in the world is also under assault by the GOP. Currently, small businesses can receive tax incentives for modifying their facilities so that people with disabilities can patronize their place of business (as well as comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA).

Disability-related small business tax incentives also help businesses employ people with disabilities by allowing them to deduct some expenditures related to accommodating those employees, such as providing sign language interpreters. The employment rates for people with disabilities are shockingly low: In 2015, only 35 percent of people with disabilities were employed compared with 76 percent of people without disabilities. As the party of “individual responsibility,” you would think that increasing employment across the board would be a priority for the GOP. However, without these important tax breaks for small businesses... far fewer people will be able to work.

Los Angeles area Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), a veteran and an Air Force colonel is the West Coast regional Vice Chair for the DCCC. He told us that "The GOP tax scam will be a disaster for our veterans and our country. It is particularly disgusting that Republicans have proposed repealing tax credits to hire disabled veterans while at the same time giving billionaires and corporations a huge tax cut. Tax policy is ultimately a statement of priorities-- and Republicans like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are showing us what their priorities are, and it isn't our veterans."

I wonder if all those self professed Christians in the Republican Party ever think of Jesus' admonition: "As you do to the least of these, so do you do to me." This morning, Randy Bryce texted us that he had been going over parts of the GOP Tax Scam and one of the parts that infuriated him was how it penalizes veterans wounded in the line of duty. "After serving in the Army I returned home to Southeast Wisconsin," he told us. I saw fellow veterans without homes and I worked hand in hand-- through my union and with the Democratic Party and state government to bring needed assistance their way. That is the best of America and is the America I was proud to protect and serve. Targeting disabled veterans who served their country is especially cruel and unAmerican. Seeing this tax scam try and rip needed services away from my brothers and sisters who served sickens me. We didn't serve to protect a billionaires ability to fly a Learjet on the cheap. We served to protect the best of our American values. These frauds are shameful, and we will repeal and replace their leader in the house, Paul Ryan-- a man who appears to truly enjoy hurting those in need in order to see his billionaire buddy's smile."

Lieu and Bryce are exactly right: the Tax Scam falls especially hard on disabled veterans. Blue America talked to the progressive veterans running for Congress, listed on the page that clicking on the thermometer on the right takes you to. As Pennsylvania's Tom Prigg put it: "We fought for our country. Some returned home wounded. All we want is the ability to live a good, normal, productive life. To take care of our families. But now Keith Rothfus and the Republican’s new  tax bill will eliminate the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Credit  tax credits for businesses who hire disabled people like our vets. This heartless bill not only takes away our wounded warrior’s ability to work and take care of their families, it also takes away their dignity by undermining their livelihood. Keith Rothfus, a congressman who never misses an opportunity for a veteran photo-op, supports this bill that will hurt tens-of-thousands of American Veterans and their families."

And Tom's concerns were echoed by all the veteran candidates we talked with. James Thompson is running for the Wichita, Kansas seat, held by Ryan rubberstamp Ron Estes. "Ron Estes is a hypocrite," he told us. "He gives lip service to supporting veterans by showing up to some high profile events to get free media coverage. Yet when the rubber meets the road, and he is given a real opportunity to help veterans, especially disabled veterans, he didn't have their six. He voted in favor of the Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which will give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans, like the KOCH brothers here in my district. This is not tax reform, it is tax robbery paid for by robbing disabled veterans to pay the privileged princes of Wall Street. Ron Estes and his ilk, at the direction of these modern day robber barons, removed the Disabled Access Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Simply put, the Work Opportunity Credit incentivizes companies to hire disabled veterans, while the Disabled Access Credit allows them to actually hire disabled vets by making it possible for those same companies to afford special accommodations like ramps. Ending these two credits, harms veterans. PERIOD. Veterans need representatives to watch their six, not use it as an opportunity to stab them in the back. I promise every veteran out there, regardless of party, I will have your six, and will lead the way in making sure our countries heroes are taken care of when they go to war and when they return from it. I hope everyone will call and encourage their Senators and Representatives to vote FOR VETERANS by voting no on the #GOPTaxScam."

Jared Golden is the Maine House whip. He told us that: "Bruce Poliquin and his corporate allies in Washington are intent on funding their tax cuts on the backs of our children and disabled veterans. By adding over $1 trillion to the debt, future generations will be on the hook for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Where the tax plan does make up costs are on the backs of the disabled including our wounded fighting men and women. These tax credits are designed to create an incentive for businesses to hire disabled veterans and others with disabilities, I find it morally reprehensible that these laudable and effective tax credits are where Rep Poliquin and the Republicans in Congress want to find 'savings' so that millionaires and billionaires can buy an extra yacht, or a corporation can move more jobs overseas."

 

Not All Trump's Malfeasance And Bungling Is Reversible: Korea

Sunday, Nick Kristof, wrote that Korea experts estimate that the chance of a war between the U.S. and North Korea are between 20 and 50%. "Yet," he wrote, "we’re complacent: Neither the public nor the financial markets appreciate how high the risk is of a war, and how devastating one could be. The Congressional Research Service last month estimated that as many as 300,000 people could die in the first few days of war-- and that’s if it remains nonnuclear. If there is a nuclear exchange, 'there easily could be a million deaths on the first day,' says Scott Sagan, an international security expert at Stanford. Sagan says the odds of war 'are certainly greater than is widely recognized by the American public.' ... Almost no expert believes that sanctions will force Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons or halt his missile program. That puts us on a collision course, for North Korea seems determined to develop a clear capacity to target the U.S. with nuclear weapons, while the White House hints that it would rather have a war than allow the North to become a nuclear threat."

“Our president has been really clear about this,” H. R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, said on Fox News. “He is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon. And so he is willing to do anything necessary to prevent that from happening.”

The whispers in Washington are that “anything necessary” includes airstrikes on North Korea, such as a strike on a missile as it is being prepared for launch. When I asked North Korean officials what would happen in those circumstances, they answered unambiguously: war.

Tammy Duckworth, a former military pilot who is now a Democratic senator from Illinois, says that from what she hears, the chance is greater than 50/50 that the president will order a strike.

“I see a change in posture,” she told me. “I am extremely worried that we’ve moved beyond ‘Let’s prevent war’ to ‘It’s acceptable to do a first strike.’”

Duckworth and other Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would prevent the president from making a pre-emptive strike on North Korea without congressional approval, barring an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has said that Trump told him he’d choose a war with North Korea over allowing it to continue on its course.

“There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the Today show, relaying a conversation with Trump. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here-- and he’s told me that to my face.”

Graham said that if North Korea continues to test intercontinental ballistic missiles, a war is “inevitable.”

This may be a bluff, but, if not, war is coming, for almost every expert believes that North Korea will continue its testing.

Arizona congressional candidate Mary Matiella (AZ-02) was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Army by President Obama, the Pentagon civilian equivalent of a Brigadier General. This morning, she told me that "another war is unthinkable. A war with North Korea will result in more casualties and deaths than Viet Nam. I hope that there are enough sane thinkers in Congress and the Pentagon to keep us out of North Korea. But, the President has power, so the President can start a war even without congressional support and can tell the Department of Defense what to do."

Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), both military veterans, asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to give them a picture of how a war North Korea would unfold and what the military consequences would be. Lieu told Newsweek that they were "trying to get the administration to explain to the American people what a war in North Korea would look like. People need to understand if there is military conflict in North Korea we would be going to war against a nuclear power." Defense Secretary Mattis' and the Joint Chiefs' response was chilling. "The only way to 'locate and destroy-- with complete certainty-- all components of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs' is through a ground invasion... 'North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons as an option' in the event of a conflict, adding, 'It has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood, and choking agents, and it likely possess a [chemical weapon] stockpile.'"

North Korea and the U.S. have been enemies for decades, but tensions have reached new heights in recent months as Pyongyang has ramped up its long-range missile tests in pursuit of a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the mainland U.S. North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test in early September and has threatened to conduct a seventh over the Pacific Ocean. Amid all of this, Trump and Kim Jong Un have been engaged in a global rap battle, frequently trading insults and threats.

Trump's top advisers have publicly championed a diplomatic approach to North Korea, but the president has exhibited a preference for military options. Over the summer, he said North Korea would experience "fire and fury" if it didn't stop threatening the U.S. During his first address to the United Nations in late September, Trump threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea if it forced the U.S. to defend itself or its allies.

A recent Pew Research Center survey showed a strong majority of Americans (84 percent) feel Trump is "really willing" to go to war with North Korea and less than half (39 percent) were confident in his ability to handle the current heightened tensions.

Given the potential consequences of a military conflict and President Donald Trump's apparent aversion to diplomacy, Lieu is not satisfied with the response he received to his letter. He wants the Trump administration and the Pentagon to offer far more details about the potential consequences of a war with North Korea.

The California congressman and U.S. Air Force veteran is not only concerned about what might happen during such a conflict, but also once it's concluded.

"There’s no plan for the aftermath. What about refugees? What would happen with China?" Lieu said. "South Korea would basically take over after the shooting stops. I imagine we would still need ground troops there. How long would that take? We’ve been in Afghanistan for 16 years. We have not won that war. And you’ve got a brainwashed North Korean military that could continue to cause problems."

Lieu, an Air Force Reserve Colonel, has been working with other congressional military vets-- from both parties-- to urge restraint. This week he and 16 other vets currently serving in Congress-- Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Salud Carbajal (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Anthony Brown (D-MD), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Del. Gregorio Sablan (D-Mariana Islands-- issued a joint statement on a potential ground invasion. The statement follows a letter from the Joint Chiefs addressing the questions raised by Lieu and Gallego about the Pentagon’s plan for military action against North Korea.

The statement warns that since the letter from the Joint Chiefs confirms that the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is through a ground invasion, the result could be "hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting."

As Veterans, we have defended this nation in war and we remain committed to this country’s security. We also understand that entering into a protracted and massive ground war with North Korea would be disastrous for U.S. troops and our allies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, it appears, agree. Their assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea. Invading North Korea could result in a catastrophic loss of lives for U.S. troops and U.S. civilians in South Korea. It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk. The Joint Chiefs said they have no reason to believe North Korea would resist using their stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action.

A nonpartisan report by the Congressional Research Service indicates conflict on the peninsula could impact as many as 25 million people on either side of the border, including more than 100,000 U.S. citizens. We must pursue every other option before even considering a massive ground invasion. The Administration has also failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over. We’re still engaged in the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan with no end in sight.

With that in mind, the thought of sending troops into harm’s way and expending resources on another potentially unwinnable war is chilling. The President needs to stop making provocative statements that hinder diplomatic options and put American troops further at risk.

The Joint Chiefs’ assessment and the CRS report clearly demonstrate that every diplomatic and economic option must be exhausted before military options are considered. If President Trump does intend to pursue a military option against North Korea, he must come to Congress as required by our Constitution. The stakes are too high and the potential outcome too grave for President Trump to violate his constitutional duty to come to Congress to authorize and oversee use of force.

Over the weekend Trump arrived in Japan and his stance-- recognized as the bluster of a babbling imbecile in Pyongyang-- was aggressive and destabilizing. A new poll published by the Washington Post on Saturday, emphasizes that Trump, with an abysmal 37-59% approval rating, does not have the confidence of the American people. 53% of Americans say that under Trump America's leadership in the world has gotten weaker; only 26% say it has gotten stronger. And 59% of Americans say he's not a strong leader. 58% say he's a bad deal maker. In terms of the North Korea situation most Americans are very wary of his abilities:

Now that Trump has failed to get China to help solve the Korea problem for him, he's trying with his pal Vlad Putin, who helped him on another matter last year, to come to his rescue. Putin is expected to grant him an audience in Da Nang on Thursday or Friday.

Doug Applegate, the progressive Democrat likely to end the disgraceful political career of Darrell Issa next year (CA-49-- norther San Diego and southern Orange counties), is a former Marine Colonel. His own perspective is that "Trump can only offer the rhetoric of a tin horn dictator who would never go In Harm's Way himself. Worse yet, he abandons diplomacy, intelligence and coordinated economic leverage with the rest of the world."

Tom Prigg, a military vet running for Congress in western Pennsylvania against corrupt Trump rubber stamp Keith Rothfus, would have been the 18th signature on Lieu's letter. "Conservative estimates of casualties," he told us, "in a ground offense are in the tens of thousands in South Korea alone, where at least 100,000, and as many as 500,000, Americans reside. If combat were to expand beyond Korea’s borders, massive casualties could push casualties into the millions." He has a far more rational approach than Trump does"

The report does maintain that there are other alternatives to a ground offensive, and highlighted seven possibilities, though this is not an exhaustive list of possible actions:

1- Maintaining the military status quo.
2- Enhanced containment and deterrence.
3- Denying DPRK acquisition of delivery systems capable of threatening the United States.
4- Eliminating ICBM facilities and launch pads.
5- Eliminating DPRK nuclear facilities.
6- DPRK regime change.
7- Withdrawing U.S. military forces.  

North Korea is not an imminent threat. We’ve faced nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union and have exercised diplomacy down to the 11th hour during the Cuban Missile crisis. North Korea doesn’t have the nuclear arsenal that the Soviet Union once had. They don’t have the technological advancements that the United States possesses. The United States has active cyber operations against their nuclear programs that can cause their missiles to blow up on take-off. 

Despite the nuclear threats we faced against the Soviet Union, which actually did invade other countries, we never resorted to a ground offensive. The Soviet Union fell through peaceful means, and so can North Korea.

In an all out war, the United States would not only face a nuclear threat and prolonged ground offensive, it would face possible Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks from at least two North Korean satellites. Such an attack could cause planes to crash, hospital equipment to fail, among a myriad of other catastrophes.

As a veteran, I stand behind the policy that war should always be the last option, and only used when absolutely necessary. The Trump administration has approached war with North Korea as the first.

In these difficult times, we need leaders with compassion and foresight who can think beyond the simple mentality of smashing nations we label enemies, and can recognize the virtues of diplomacy and the long-term value of avoiding wars started for the sake of bravado.

Even Before The Merger With Amazon, Whole Foods "Inspired" Tom Prigg To Run For Congress

PA-12 in the western part of the state stretches from the Ohio border in the vicinity of Little Blue Run Lake into suburbs north of Pittsburgh from Aliquippa through McCandless, Ross, West Deer and Harrison townships and the east to Johnstown and Somerset. Very blue collar and very white, the district used to be a strong Democratic Party stronghold. But Obama lost it both time-- with 45% against McCain and just 41% against Romney. Trump couldn't have asked for a weaker opponent there than Hillary Clinton and he eviscerated her 58.7% to 37.9%. This is the area where Peter Hart's now famous focus group on disappointment with Trump came from. By and large, the participants expressed disappointment and even exasperation with how Señor Trumpanzee has handled his time in office. Trump was described as having "no social skills," a disappointing learning curve, lacking in empathy, as feeding off racial divisions and as "crazy," an "abject failure," "unfit," "outrageous" and as unable tp get out of his own way. Christina Lees, an independent who leans Republican and voted for Trump, declared that "everybody knew he was a nut," but that they hoped for him to achieve good things when they backed him. And yet, PA-12 has a strong red PVI-- R+9.

The incumbent Republican, Keith Rothfus is a Wall Street hack who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, taking bribes from the banksters and carrying their water. A month ago a Wall Street lobbyist-written bill, sponsored by Rothfus with the express purpose of hampering the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect bank customers from the kinds of systemic abuse and predatory behavior that led directly to Bush's Great Recession passed. Last cycle Rothfus took $518,489 in legalistic bribes from the Finance sector he's supposed to be overseeing. Since his election in 2012, his Wall Street haul has been $1,567,038. So far this cycle there are at least 4 Democrats who have declared their candidacies. At least one, Tom Prigg, is a progressive. I asked him to introduce himself with a guest post.


Why I'm Running For Congress
-by Tom Prigg

One of the most common questions I'm asked is, "Why are you running for Congress?" I think people ask because I'm not the typical manicured, white-collar candidate with money or powerful connections. I tell people that I’m an Army veteran of the 82nd Airborne. I’m a scientist who has studied the brain for twenty years. I’ve climbed icebergs in the Atlantic ocean, and mountains on other continents. I’ve also completed a professional stunt school and performed stunts in movies. But these are things I’ve done; it is not who I am. They’re not reasons that I’m running for congress, nor reasons anyone should vote for me. These aren’t my values or motivations; they’re stories that exemplify what I’ve accomplished despite where I began. So, the real answer to why I’m running is deeper than the 30-second answer I can usually give, so I would like to take the opportunity to do it justice. It's important to me that people understand where I came from and why I am confident I’ll get to where I intend to go.

Like millions of unfortunate Americans, I was born into a family struggling to make ends meet, and that life was all I knew. My parents worked full-time, but we lived in abject poverty. And, when my father left us in 1980, we inherited what seemed like impossible odds to overcome. I was the oldest of three, so I was more aware than my sisters that our family was living on the edge. We were greatly in debt and lost utilities on a regular basis. When our heat was turned off, I still remember stacking several blankets on top of myself and desperately snuggling with my dog for warmth. I would sleep with the covers pulled over my head so my breath would help keep me warm. Sleep was a sanctuary from the hunger pangs. If the lack of food wasn’t causing my gut to twist, it was the ulcers from worrying that did. At ten, life seemed like an impossible pit to climb out of.

I wish I could say my experiences with poverty and deprivation were uncommon, but unfortunately they aren’t. In my district of six counties, child poverty is as high as 26% in one county. My struggles may be over, but theirs are not. I may have clawed my way out of poverty, but I can’t live a comfortable life knowing that there are kids out there suffering the way I once did, and do nothing to help them.

After high school, I joined the military and fulfilled a dream of becoming a sniper in the 82nd Airborne division. Being an infantryman is a hard life; it’s essentially the blue collar of the military. Our packs and gear could weigh more than a hundred pounds. I graduated high school weighing only 130 lbs, and as an assistant gunner on an M60 team, my pack seemed heavier than I was. Every step I took felt like my legs were being driven through the ground. In the military there is no place for whining, so you rely on character and fortitude to complete the mission. Those are hard lessons, but the military taught me how to carry out an objective and overcome obstacles. That’s how I can now balance a full-time job, my family with two small children and a daughter in college with a congressional campaign that requires me to have meetings or events every single night, seven days a week. I do it because it’s my mission, and I refuse to fail.

I was inspired to run for Congress four years ago after a life experience that harkened back to my childhood. In 2013, I found myself in the position of losing my job due to the nonrenewal of my scientific grant. In science we call it “soft money,” because it’s only there as long as the government desires to keep funding your research. If the grants run out, your job and benefits go with it. That’s just the nature of the beast in academia, and we accept that. But 2013 was different. At that time scientists were only getting ~5% of their grants funded. Today it’s even less. At the time, my lab at the University of Pittsburgh was working to develop a way for people to feel sensations of “touch” through their prosthetics by stimulating a subcortical region of the brain. You may be thinking, “Well, that’s potentially groundbreaking work, of course his funding would be renewed.” Well, that is sometimes true, but usually not. For example, the Pierce lab at UT Austin has turned to crowdfunding on more than one occasion to support Alzheimer's research. To drive home the point that it’s not necessarily about the quality of research, they successfully published their results from those crowdsourced funds. In other words, their science was good enough for a high impact peer-reviewed journal, but somehow it wasn’t “worthy” for grant funding at the time of review. This is not how science should progress, but it’s how the current system works.

On February 1st, 2013, I joined the ranks of the unemployed, and remained there for a year. I was unable to find a job despite having a good education and sixteen years of experience in neuroscience. I applied for everything under the sun. Biology, psychology, emergency management, writing jobs...anything and everything, yet nothing panned out.

It was at this time I realized, “If this is so difficult for me, what is it like for someone without a college education or a marketable skill, experience, or a good employment record?” While I recognized that others probably had a harder time, that didn’t stop me from feeling cheated, just like I felt when I was growing up poor. I always felt behind the eight-ball, and to be honest, why shouldn’t I? The Economic Mobility Project has shown that low-achieving, wealthy students are more likely to advance to college compared to high-achieving, low-income students. This pattern persists after college as well: low-achieving, wealthy students received better jobs than their high-achieving, low-income counterparts. This system is, and always has been, rigged.

I began thinking about how dysfunctional our system had become. It seemed futile to protest or complain about politicians, laws, or the direction of the country. It was clear that our elected officials weren’t listening to us. Millions of people were struggling and they didn’t seem to care. They said they did, but their policies told a different story. I felt the only way I could fix this was to become a lawmaker myself. If my voice and vote as a citizen couldn’t change things, I would become a person whose voice did matter. It was with this rationale that I set out to ultimately run for US Congress, and despite my unemployment status, I began the prep work to make this seemingly unattainable goal, especially for a middle-class worker, a reality.

Ten months later, I’d never felt so depressed and powerless in my life; I had no job prospects and my daughter, Riley, had just been born on December 20th, 2013. The ceaseless worry of being able to support my family while unemployed paired with the persistent brain-fog and exhaustion that always accompanies caring for a newborn cumulated into what felt like a constant vice-like tightness in my chest making it difficult to breathe. I frequently thought about my unattainable goal. I questioned my motives and my ability to pull this off. I was nobody; what chance did I really have? My wife, Kathy, encouraged me to press on. I refused to let her down, and so I persisted in laying the groundwork for a congressional campaign as I continued to apply for jobs. Months passed before I was called for my first job interview. When the call finally came, it was from a grocery store. It was May of 2014, my daughter was now six months old, but I was determined to spin my new situation in the most positive way. I decided that I’d learn a new trade and eventually become managment, all the while with plans for Congress on my mind.

They started me on the counter as a part-time meat guy. It didn’t take long for one of those weird, demoralizing customer encounters. It was my second night on the job when an older lady walked up to the counter. She looked like the 101 Dalmatians character Cruella de Vil. Her lipstick was a bit smeared and her hair was barely styled with sprigs of loose hair sticking out at weird angles like springs from a worn mattress. As I wrapped up her three pounds of sausage into two packages, just like she had instructed, she stopped me and asked, “Did you remember the discount?” Whole Foods gives a dollar off per pound of sausage when the order exceeds three pounds.

“Yep, I got it.” I answered. I handed her the order and she looked at it then looked back at me with a stone hardened face.

“You forgot the discount,” she said.

I didn’t think much about it, it was my second day on the job so maybe I mis-punched the numbers. I took the sausage back and looked at the labels. Nope, the discount was there. “The discount is right here,” I said pointing at the price per pound.

Her face wrinkled into a sneer, “If you gave me the discount, the price would be three dollars cheaper.”

“It is three dollars cheaper, it’s just distributed between two packs of sausage.” I realized there was no way she was going to understand this, her eyes were wild with anger, but void of comprehension. I could sense that all those missed math homework assignments she skipped as a child were going to doom me into a sales clerk beatdown of sausage induced rage.

Each package weighed a little more or less than a pound-in-a-half. It was clear that this customer wasn’t doing the internal math to understand this relatively simple transaction. At this point, Rick, a longtime employee walked over from down the counter and asked, “Can I help you ma'am?”

“Yes, he didn’t give me my discount.”

“Oh, I’m sorry ma’am, Tom is new here. He’s a good guy; he’s not going to cheat you,” Rick told her.

“Oh, I know he’s trying his best.” Her face stretched into a plastic smile, or maybe her face simply cracked; I’m still not sure to this day.

After she had left, I pointed to the label and explained to Rick, “I did give her the discount, but she doesn’t understand the discount is between these two packages. She thought that she would see the three dollars on a single label and just lost her mind.”

“I know, Tom, you’re going to get that a lot more.” He said before returning to the back.

This is when I realized that my new job was not going to be like academia at all. In fact, by all accounts, it was going to be a constant demeaning, patronizing, condescending lesson in life. Your paycheck is a direct reflection of your intelligence. It doesn’t matter if that is true, but it’s going to be how everyone on the customer side of the counter will measure you. I think this is probably why so many people in the service industry joke about “crazy customer” experiences. It’s a coping mechanism, like the dark humor of police or soldiers. It’s a way to hold onto our sanity, and, in this case, our dignity as well.

My experience was not unique. In fact, our government predicted these circumstances would happen. Alan Greenspan told Congress in 1997 that he believed the economic boon for the financial sector was largely due to workforce insecurity. Meaning that workers will accept pay and benefit cuts when they’re afraid they won’t be able to find a better job. Cuts like these are something that Unions traditionally fight against, and why corporations have always lobbied government representatives to favor union busting. At Whole Foods, there was always a constant fear of being fired. It’s a side effect of having one of the best of the worst jobs. People know that it’s bad, but it’s the best of the bad, so getting fired was a constant fear. It seems silly for that to be the case. If you come to work and do your job there shouldn’t be a problem, but there is. A constant cloud of judgment hangs over you.

One day I while I was cutting up some chickens, my co-worker, Jess, looked up at me and said, “Regional is coming in. Her eyes were wide as she scanned my face for recognition of this potentially impending doom. Regional seemed to be a bi-monthly occurrence that I grew accustomed to by the second or third time, although most of my co-workers never seemed to adjust.

“I’m not worried about it. I do my job. Why should I get myself worked up. I do this same job everyday, it’s a non-issue.” I said to her. Jess’s face went from informational to annoyance.

“You’ll care if they find a problem. You better have your shelves stocked.” She snapped back.


“I’ll be fine. I do my job. I’m not going to live in fear.”


They worked people below 32 hours so they wouldn’t have to pay for benefits. They did this despite the fact that they claimed to “care” about their workers, and even though they could see that their employees were struggling. Most major corporations do this, so up to this point those small “cost savings” and “corner cuttings” were annoying, but it wasn’t too far out of what I expected. Then, it was November of 2014. The air was getting chilly and Christmas was around the corner. At Whole foods, we had just wrapped up our Thanksgiving push. Working in the meat department was always a busy job, but nothing compares to a meat department at Thanksgiving. We had teams of people running back and forth delivering turkeys from semis parked out back to the front counter. There never seemed to be a moment’s rest. Besides the constant request for certain cuts of turkey, we got our normal meat requests on top of that, too.

Being partially bent over at the butcher’s table made your spine feel like it was being crushed in a vice. But, as difficult as the work may have been, we were fine with it. We knew we’d get one hell of a Gains Share going into Christmas. “Gains Share” is a type of financial motivator for employees to work hard for high sales. Whole Foods describes it as, “a program that rewards teams based on labor productivity.” Each department is granted a labor budget, and from there the managers figure out the schedules. When our sales exceed some expected average number of sales based a given labor pool, bonuses are paid out in the form of Gains Share. We were working our butts off to maximize our bonuses because, let's face it, working a $23,000 dollar/year job doesn’t exactly buy much at Christmas.

Everything that year was looking great, until word came down just a few days after Thanksgiving: “Hey guys, I’m really sorry, but our Gains Share was cut at the beginning of November.” Management knew about it, but didn’t tell us because they wanted us to work hard for Thanksgiving. Our hard work earned them massive profits, but earned us nothing. Right before Christmas, too. It was a pretty devastating blow to many of us behind the counter, where every penny earned was important.

“Wow, talk about social engineering. The corporations don’t give a damn about us.” I said to Dave, the butcher.

Dave looked back at me, “You know, Tom, those poor executives need their Christmas bonuses this year.” His knife slammed down on thigh of meat. His hands sawed in short, choppy strokes back and forth. He didn’t say another word and neither did I.

The final straw came shortly after Thanksgiving. My six month job evaluation period had come and past. Usually people don’t like getting job evaluations, but I knew that I did my job and every day I worked without a raise was a day I earned less towards the next pay check.

I finally got my job dialog for my self-evaluation. I was still a little bitter about Whole Foods cutting our Gains Share before the holidays; that entire ordeal made me suspicious of the company's dedication toward their workers. Kathy and I were counting on my getting a decent raise. Hell, I took over a position they wanted to improve, and I did just that! I was a reliable worker-- I had never been late to work or called off, and I got my job done, and I did it well. I worked hard to make sure I met and exceeded their standards and tried my best to keep improving the position. A raise should be a no-brainer, right?

I asked my manager Dan, “Did you get a chance to look over my self evaluation?” It was more of a question to get a vibe of where they were with their portion of the job dialog.

Dan said, “Yeah, it was interesting.” Then laughed nervously and plastered an awkward grin across his face. I thought for a second and realized that he didn’t appreciate me scoring myself as “Excellent” in all categories. It’s not that I believe that I’m the best thing since sliced bread, I just didn’t want to fall for the game that corporations play to trick employees into giving themselves a lower raise than they deserve. By scoring myself lower in some categories, I would disqualify myself for a maximum raise. This is because the manager will average the self-scores with their scores for the actual raise. So, the only sensible tactic was to give myself the highest scores available to give myself the best position to bargain from. All this angling for a max raise of fifty cents an hour.

Dan brought me into a room with my other manager, Scott. They were both quiet so I knew something was up. They were dreading this meeting. Scott pulled out his evaluation onto the table. Penciled circles lined up in the row of threes. I could taste my anger.

“Threes? I’ve never called off a day. I’ve increased our sales in my section. I’ve done nothing but bust my butt!”

Scott started, “Well there are some things...” He paused, “People don’t get your jokes.”

That statement completely blindsided me. I didn’t know what to say. Writing this now, I’m still bewildered that was the best excuse they could come up with to cut my raise.

“What are you talking about?” Mind you, we had some snarky people in our department, including the very manager who’s taking away my full raise.

“Yeah, sometimes you can irritate people,” he said.

“Do you mean Rick? Come on, the guy dishes it out just as much. Everyone jokes around. This is really about you not wanting to give me a full raise,” I countered.

The two managers glanced at one another, and then Dan spoke up. “We’re giving you a forty cent raise. That’s more than most people get.”

“I don’t care what most people get. I want what I should get.”


“It’s based on this scale of your evaluation. We can’t do anything about that.”
“A scale that you set by giving me crap scores. And I don’t care what other people are getting. Frankly you’re ripping them off too.” I looked down at the tabletop. I already knew this was useless. “This is what happens when we don’t have Unions,” I thought to myself. We went back and forth a bit more before Dan agreed to an additional five cents, but my time at Whole foods was over. I was done with Corporate America. Later, before I left the store, Dan told me that I was right. He wasn’t allowed to give a fair wage or raises. He told me managers were reprimanded in their own evaluations for giving their employees fair wages - this is what the job market is like these days. Get as much as possible from your workers. Get them as close to slavery as possible. Keep driving down wages and benefits. Profits are for the executives and CEOs, not the working class.

I went home that night and told my wife Kathy, “Forty-five cents.”


“Really? You barely make anything now.” Her voice trailed off. We felt utterly defeated.

“I can’t believe this crap. I’m getting back into science and I’ll run for Congress. I’m so sick of the way we’re treated. These corporations and politicians don’t give a damn about us.”

Four years later, here I am running for Congress. I’m running both because of, and in spite of, my history of being the little guy in a system built to break people down and extract all possible value from them. These experiences have made me strong, and taught me to overcome long odds in a struggle that’s stacked against me. A lifetime of witnessing injustices-- both against myself and other citizens like those in PA’a District 12-- have given me both the tools and the passion to fight for better and fairer outcomes for working-class people like me who have been marginalized for too long. We can do this, but we, as citizens must come together and start fighting for each other, not against each other. I am ready and able to lead that fight.

The GOP Ramps Up Their War Against Consumer Protections While Everyone Is Looking At The Horrors Of Trump And TrumpCare

The vote in the House Tuesday evening was 231-190. Every Republican but Walter Jones of North Carolina voted to hamper the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect bank customers from the kinds of systemic abuse and predatory behavior that led directly to Bush's Great Recession and destroyed the financial stability of millions of American families. Every single Democrat-- even the worst paid-off Blue Dogs and New Dems-- opposed bankster-pawn Keith Rothfus' bill.

What the Republicans are doing is stripping the rights of consumers to use class action lawsuits to protect themselves from the big banks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyists who wrote Rothfus' bill for him, were dancing for joy. They are furious that over 34 million bank customers received $1 billion in payments from lawsuits over the past 5 years and want to destroy the Bureau.

Here in California, several progressive Democrats running for congressional seats alerted voters in their districts that their own congressmen had betrayed their interests once again. The architect of the CFPB was Elizabeth Warren, who noted that the rule the Republicans just voted to repeal "allows working families to hold big banks accountable when they’re cheated and help discourage the kinds of surprise fees that consumers hate." The Orange County candidate who has worked with her on this issues is Katie Porter, who is running for the seat held by rubber stamp Republican Mimi Walters. This issue is part of Porter's field of expertise and we asked her for a reaction last night. This is what she told us:

As the Senate voted to take away health care for millions, Congresswoman Mimi Walters and the House GOP were taking away justice for all consumers. Today, they rewrote the rules in order to protect Wall Street banks that cheat consumers, no matter how outrageous the banks' conduct. "Mandatory predispute arbitration" agreements ban consumers from telling their stories to judges, instead forcing them into an arbitration process that exists only to protect the big banks from being held accountable.

I've fought against arbitration in my decades of work as a consumer advocate. That's a fundamental difference in this race. I have stood up to powerful financial institutions that break the law and hurt families. In Congress, Mimi Walters has done the opposite. She is as consistent of an ally for big banks, as she is for President Trump's agenda. Wall Street banks can count on Walters' support 100% of the time. Our district needs a congresswoman who will stand up to powerful interests, and that's my pledge to Californians.

Ironically, Porter isn't the only stalwart progressive in the CA-45 race who worked on this issue. Kia Hamadanchy worked on the staff of another top Democrat concerned with Republican collusion with Wall Street predators, Sherrod Brown. Hamadanchy told us that "Once again Mimi Walters has put the interests of her donors and those in Wall Street who have ripped off consumers time and time again above the people of Orange County. If this rule is repealed it would mean that a bank like Wells Fargo could avoid being held accountable for its actions despite a clear evidence of a pattern and practice of wrongdoing. Every American deserves their day in court when they are taken advantage of by the financial services industry and its not surprising that Mimi Walters doesn't agree. Time and time again she continues to vote against the interests of her constituents and in November 2018 she is going to see where that gets her."

North of CA-45, we get to Wall Street puppet Ed Royce's congressional district. Since 1990 Royce, who is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken an astounding $7,116,597 in legalistic bribes from the Financial Sector. The only current members of the House to have taken bigger bribes than Royce are Paul Ryan ($9,781,835) and House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling ($7,468,190). All three should be rotting in prison.

The DCCC is trying to run some qualification-less "ex"-Republican lottery winner and self-funder, Gil Cisneros, against Royce. Fortunately there's an eminently qualified progressive determined to take on Royce instead, Sam Jammal. Yesterday he pointed out that "If you're wronged, Americans believe you should be able to have your day in court. It's a fundamental check on absuses by the most powerful. This apparently doesn't apply to the biggest banks. It's hard to tell who Ed Royce really represents. Common sense would say that consumers should know their rights and have options to preserve those rights. But, if that is upsetting to his big donors, it looks like Ed is perfectly fine forgetting about consumers in Buena Park or small businesses in Walnut. We need our voices heard again in Washington."

No one ever doubted CA-25 Rep, Steve Knight, would vote to repeal the amendment protecting financial consumers. He's perversely dependable in that sense-- the perfect little rubber-stamp for Ryan and Trump. His progressive opponent, Katie Hill told us "This is yet another example of Steve Knight putting special interests-- in this case big banks-- ahead of working Americans. I personally know so many people in the 25th district who have been taken advantage of or harmed by Wall Street in some way or another. This simple rule would give every day people some small protection and a way of banding together to fight back-- but Steve Knight and other Republicans are too concerned with protecting the profits of their own financial backers. We need representatives in Congress who will once again return power to the people."

Some good news in regard to the Republican war against consumer protections-- yesterday Allied Progress launched the CFPB Action Tracker, a new interactive website that tracks, state-by-state, the CFPB's enforcement actions against big banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions that have preyed on consumers. The website is a great resource for elected officials and organization in the states, allowing them to see what the CFPB has done to benefit local consumers and arming them with important information in the fight to protect the CFPB from attacks by Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress, like Ed Royce, Paul; Ryan, Jeb Hensarling and Mimi Walters.

Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress: "The Consumer Bureau has played a pivotal role in bringing justice to consumers over the past six years. They have cracked down on big banks, payday lenders, and other financial bad actors and put an end to the irresponsible practices that caused the great recession that cost so many Americans their jobs, their homes, and their savings. Lawmakers in the pockets of big banks have spread misinformation in their efforts to eliminate the Consumer Bureau, but the truth is in the data. Our new interactive Consumer Bureau Action Tracker shows just how much the Bureau has put back into the pockets of Americans. In just six years, the Consumer Bureau has taken $12 billion from predatory financial institutions and returned it to the more than 29 million Americans they ripped off."

The DCCC, of course, is doing nothing about targeting Rothfus and his traditionally blue district (PA-12) north and east of Pittsburgh. The second biggest veterans' district in the country, it was John Murtha's seat forever but has been abandoned to the Republicans by a DCCC eager to woo white collar suburbanites while ignoring the legitimate interests of blue collar workers. Hillary did worse than Obama had both times he ran and she was crushed by Trump, 58.7% to 37.9%. But a progressive veteran who was knocking on doors for Bernie last year, Tom Prigg, has every intention of replacing Rothfus in 2018... running on a progressive platform geared for the people in his district.

This morning Prigg told us that "It's absolutely unacceptable for our Congress to, once again, expose the American people to the unfair banking practices exercised that led to the 2008 housing crash. During that time, America saw the loss of ten million American homes-- that’s five-times more than during the Great Depression. It is bad enough that none of the perpetrators of this crash faced criminal charges; but now our representatives are trying remove any possible class-action litigation to protect the public. The dissolution of this agency is a direct attack on the American public. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in just 5 ½ years of its existence, has awarded five billion dollars in lawsuits against unfair banking practices for twenty-nine million Americans. Not only are those impressive numbers for such a young agency, it’s also a testament to how important this agency is for the American public. It’s this type of irresponsible behavior and special-interest policy making that we can no longer accept. I will never let the American people, and our families, take the fall for irresponsible banking practices like we saw ten years ago. We must vote out politicians who’ll sacrifice the security of American citizens in favor of greed. This is one of the reasons why I’m running against the author of this bill, Keith Rothfus."

Expect to hear more from Tom Prigg here at DWT.