What Will Make People Decide Who To Vote For In November?

There are a bunch of run-of the-mill Democrats and semi-Democrats running in Michigan this year, including for the district in the southwest corner of the state (MI-06) held by Fred Upton. One-- sleazy lobbyist George Franklin-- is especially bad. He's been helping finance Upton against Democrats for years. And now he wants to run against him. What a joke! I can see the GOP ads now: "I was for him before I was against him." And he was. Why? What changed, Georgie?

Upton is real bad but but Franklin is-- at best-- the lesser of two evils. The best Democrat in the race is Paul Clements. This week he told his supporters that "despite hearing that we're in a prolonged economic recovery, over half of all Americans are economically insecure-- unable to maintain long-term savings, fearful of emergencies they can't afford, unable to relax even a little. Whether you're below or above the poverty line, economic insecurity is unhealthy, exhausting, and bad for our democracy. You can read my entire economic agenda here, but I want to focus on three things I will do in Congress to reduce economic insecurity in America.

1. Medicare for All

Canada's health care system has not only produced longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the United States; Canadians also know they won't go broke if they get sick. In Congress, I will push for, support, and vote for Medicare for all.

2. Increased Wages

Americans should be able to support their families by working one job. I will work to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or, for now, half the regional median ($12 an hour in Michigan).

3. Postal Banking

Millions of Americans lack access to affordable banking and financial services, and that means it costs more money to be poor. In Congress I will support the revival of United States Post Office banking, facilitating basic banking services and low-interest loans that can help working class Americans.

There are 6 counties in MI-06. Obama won all 6 both times he ran. Then in 2016 Bernie beat Hillary in 5 counties. And then along comes Trumpanzee-- he won all the counties but one in the district too and beat Hillary district-wide 51.3% to 42.9%, a district Bernie won in the primaries and Obama won against McCain. Here was primary day, 2016

• Allegan County:

• Bernie- 5,545
• Hillary- 3,489
• Trump- 5,327

• Berrien County:

• Bernie- 5,942
• Hillary- 6,546
• Trump- 7,817

• Cass County:

• Bernie- 1,683
• Hillary- 1,657
• Trump- 2,859

• Kalamazoo County:

• Bernie- 20,146
• Hillary- 12,593
• Trump- 8,655

• St. Joseph County:

• Bernie- 2,219
• Hillary- 1,382
• Trump- 2,655

• Van Buren County:

• Bernie- 3,656
• Hillary- 2,484
• Trump- 3,287

Clements is the candidate running on a Bernie-like platform, but the Democratic Party establishment, of course, prefers the lobbyist, Franklin. As of March 31, Franklin had raised $534,743 (the source of $100,000 of it unaccounted for) while Clements had raised $257,757.

Meanwhile, as Clements pushes a cutting edge progressive economic message for working families, Trump and Ryan-- with Upton firmly in tow-- are still trying to chip away at the social safety net-- including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Remember the tax scam that lined the pockets of multimillionaires and billionaires, while doing nothing for the rest of us? They always had the idea of making the rest if us pay for it. Yesterday, the New York Times asserted that "Trump, spurred on by conservatives who want him to slash safety net programs, unveiled on Thursday a plan to overhaul the federal government that could have a profound effect on millions of poor and working-class Americans. Produced over the last year by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, it would reshuffle social welfare programs in a way that would make them easier to cut, scale back or restructure. Among the most consequential ideas is a proposal to shift the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a subsistence benefit that provides aid to 42 million poor and working Americans, from the Agriculture Department to a new mega-agency that would have 'welfare' in its title-- a term Mr. Trump uses as a pejorative catchall for most government benefit programs." A couple of days ago, writing for the Washington Post, Erica Werner warned that the budget Trump and Ryan (and Upton) purposely exploded will be balanced on the backs on cuts to Medicare and other programs Trump vowed over and over to not touch while he was campaigning.

[T]he budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions-- including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt-- Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.

“The time is now for our Congress to step up and confront the biggest challenge to our society,” said House Budget Chairman Steve Womack (R-AR). “There is not a bigger enemy on the domestic side than the debt and deficits.”

The Republican budget confronts this enemy by taking a whack at entitlement spending. Lawmakers of both parties agree that spending that is not subject to Congress’s annual appropriations process is becoming unsustainable. But Trump has largely taken it off the table by refusing to touch Medicare or Social Security, and Democrats have little interest in addressing it except as part of a larger deal including tax increases-- the sort of “Grand Bargain” that eluded President Barack Obama.

The House Republican budget, titled “A Brighter American Future,” would remake Medicare by giving seniors the option of enrolling in private plans that compete with traditional Medicare, a system of competition designed to keep costs down but dismissed by critics as an effort to privatize the program. Along with other changes, the budget proposes to squeeze $537 billion out of Medicare over the next decade.

The budget would transform Medicaid, the federal-state health-care program for the poor, by limiting per capita payments or allowing states to turn it into a block-grant program-- the same approach House Republicans took in their legislation that passed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act (the repeal effort died in the Senate, but the GOP budget assumes that the repeal takes place).  It also proposes adding work requirements for certain adults enrolled in Medicaid. Changes to Medicaid and other health programs would account for $1.5 trillion in savings.

Social Security comes in for more modest cuts of $4 billion over the decade, which the budget projects could be reached by eliminating concurrent receipt of unemployment benefits and Social Security disability insurance.

The budget also proposes a number of other cost-saving measures, some of which could prove unpopular if implemented, such as adding more work requirements for food-stamp and welfare recipients and requiring federal employees-- including members of Congress-- to contribute more to their retirement plans. It assumes repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act that regulated banks after the financial crisis 10 years ago, something Congress recently rejected in passing a banking bill into law that softened some of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank but left its overall structures intact. And the budget proposes $230 billion in cuts from education and training programs, including consolidating student loan programs and reducing Pell Grant awards.

The budget also relies on rosy economic-growth projections and proposes using a budgetary mechanism to require other congressional committees to come up with a combined $302 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Overall, the partisan proposal is reminiscent of the budget released in 2011 by now-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who was then the Budget Committee chairman and advanced a bold proposal attacking entitlements, slashing spending-- and creating lines of attack for Democrats once Ryan became Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate on the GOP ticket the following year.

How is this going to go over with voters? Latest Monmouth poll shows the tax scam is losing more and more support: "34% of the public approve of the tax reform plan passed by Congress last December and 41% disapprove. Another 24% are not sure how they feel.  These results have shifted in the past six weeks. Approval is down 6 points from 40% in late April and disapproval is down 3 points from 44%. The number who give no opinion on the plan has risen 8 points from 16%.  Polls earlier this year had shown a more evenly divided public-- 41% approve to 42% disapprove in March and 44% approve to 44% disapprove in January-- with a smaller percentage of undecided opinion. Public opinion on the Republican lawmakers’ signature accomplishment has never been positive, but potentially growing uncertainty about how American taxpayers will be affected does not seem to be helping the GOP’s prospects for November,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute."

The chair of the House Budget Committee is Steve Womack (R-A). He's in a safe Republican seat that Trump won with 62%. The PVI is R+19, the worst and most backward district in Arkansas, so he doesn't care... but his local paper, the Arkansas Times castigated him for the betrayal. Commenting on his dishonest press conference touting the bonus "A Brighter Future," they reported that "He didn't mention that rising deficits were made worse by the tax cut for the rich he supported. Nor did he mention the pain his budget will cause millions of Americans.

With the nation's attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump's horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

"It's morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP's budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued in a statement that the Republican proposal demonstrates clearly shows the "House majority's fiscal priorities haven't changed.

"It’s easy to become numb to the harshness of these budgets and to brush aside their policy implications based on the assumption (likely correct) that few, if any, of these policies will be enacted this year," Greenstein said. "But this budget reflects where many congressional leaders—and the president—would like to take the country if they get the opportunity to enact these measures in the years ahead. Rather than help more families have a shot at the American dream, it asks the most from those who have the least, and it would leave our nation less prepared for the economic and other challenges that lie ahead."

Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP's plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.

"Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last," Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. "We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts."

In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.

Josh Mahony is the Democrat running against Womack this cycle. He noted that "Womack has forgotten the very people he represents. Cuts to these programs will seriously affect Arkansas families. With cuts to education, healthcare, and Social Security, this bill shows the true priorities of Republicans and it’s not to hard-working Arkansans."

My guess if that the good folks in Arkadelphia, Hope and Texarkana noticed that the person Trump was shooting on 5th Avenue was their kid, they'd vote for him anyway. (Yes indeed; these are the ones.) And they're the ones who were probably offended and totally pissed off yesterday when Ted Lieu played this on the floor of the House of Representatives:

Arkansas-- Hopelessly Red?

Until recently, Arkansas had two Democrats in the Senate and three Democrats in the House and just one Republican in its congressional delegation. But you know what happened? The Democrats started abandoning the New Deal values that had made Arkansas one of the bluest states in the South. The state's delegation became synonymous with Blue Dogs and corporate-friendly/family-unfriendly/Republican-light shills. Everyone was glad to see one-percenter Blanche Lincoln dumped unceremoniously, but that was followed by a loss of two of the three House seats the Democrats held, and they may well lose the last one this year. The delegation is now composed of: (1) in the Senate, a radical right sociopath corporate-whore Republican and a marginally better Democrat; in the House, three extremist right-wing Republicans and a disgusting, corrupt Blue Dog reactionary, Mike Ross, who is, thankfully, finally retiring.

So what is the Democratic Party doing to fight back? Nothin' much. They have a horrid Blue Dog, Clark Hall, running in the First CD against Rick Crawford in a race that will leave voters wondering if the subtle differences between the two are enough to bother turning out for. In the Second District-- the Little Rock-based one, which should be a Democratic stronghold-- there isn't even a candidate against Rove protégé Tim Griffin; there are just unsubstantiated rumors that Bill Halter or Wes Clark "might" run. And in the 4th, Ross is making sure the Democratic nominee will be as far to the right as he is. Keep in mind that according to ProgressivePunch, Ross voted with the Republicans 82% of the time this year (on crucial roll call votes), more frequently than all but one other Democrat, Blue Dog Dan Boren, also retiring, and more than seven Republicans!

That leaves one district, so far at least, where Democrats have reason to hope-- the Third, usually Arkansas's most hopeless of all. Even when Democrats were real Democrats and served the interests of ordinary working families, the Third, in the northwest part of the state, was a GOP bastion, under the near-feudal control of the Walton family. The district has been under Republican control back to Civil War times, and in 1974 a right-wing fanatic, John Paul Hammerschmidt, beat Bill Clinton, then 28, in his first try for office. Although the district did vote for favorite son Clinton in 1992, it was back voting GOP in 1996 and gave Bush 60% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. McCain did even better in 2008 (something that happened in only the most racist and/or fascist-oriented districts in the country), with 64% against Obama. In 2010, with Congressman John Boozman pulverizing the despised Lincoln on his way to the Senate, the district elected one-percenter Steve Womack with a startling 72%, winning all 12 counties with over 60% of the vote.

And yet... even in the darkest of situations, the brightest of lights can shine through. Of all the unlikely places, home to Walmart and Tyson Chickens, a genuine blue-collar New Deal fighting Democrat is running a real race against one of the most vile Republicans in Congress. Ken Aden is taking on self-entitled would-be plutocrat Steve Womack in a race that is finally starting to get national attention. Oh, I don't mean from "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel and his discredited DCCC, which, of course, is only backing guaranteed loser Blue Dog Clark Hall. But more and more national groups are starting to take a look at the brilliant and inspirational campaign that Aden is running against the bungling, arrogant Womack.

Last week he was endorsed by Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva. For one of the most dogged and effective champions of working families to take note of Ken's race must be startling to voters in Arkansas, where politicians usually serve the special interests of big corporations. Here's what Grijalva has to say in his endorsement:

The next Congress must protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. In the face of such weighty issues that have the potential to affect millions of Americans, we need more members of Congress with a true, progressive vision for the future, a representative who will put the interests of American families first.

We need people like Ken Aden in Congress.

After serving his country in Iraq and Afghanistan as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army, Ken returned home to Arkansas and helped found a nonprofit organization dedicated to the belief that people from every economic background and walk of life can come together in some small way to create for themselves a better community and neighborhood.

Ken will bring this same vision, understanding and energy to the United States Congress and fight on the behalf of the people northwestern Arkansas.

Womack's biggest single source of contributions is Walmart, his second a bank that thrives on foreclosures, and the third Tyson Foods. You get the picture? Another major donor: Koch Industries. So far this year 60% of his campaign cash has come from corporate and far right PACs, less than a third from real people. Every dime Ken has gotten has come from individual donors, all of it in small amounts. If you can, please step up and consider helping get his message out in the sprawling Arkansas district where he means to make history. You can do it here at the Blue America ActBlue page.

The End of Empire-- Economist David Korten And Progressive Candidate Ken Aden

Another book that's been absolutely invaluable to me this past year was David Korten's Agenda for a New Economy. It helps me keep current economic events in historical context and part of a meaningful and hopeful narrative. Korten sees the current economic and political dominance of Wall Street as perhaps the last gasp of empire. He calls for a serious makeover of the entire economy, one that services the greater good of mankind, not just the tiny percentage (actually far less than one percent) that owns nearly everything and has the system rigged to perpetuate itself.

We have for too long put up with an economic system designed to make money for rich people and maintain them in a condition of obscene excess by confining billions to lives of desperation and reducing Earth to a toxic waste dump. We can do better.

...In an earlier time, rulers were kings and emperors. Now they are corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers. Wall Street is Empire's most recent stage, and hopefully the last, in this tragic drama. Five thousand years is enough.

This week Romney accused President Obama of favoring an "entitlement society"-- yet he seems to consider himself and his bracket entitled to taxation at half the rate imposed on the middle class. That's the kind of thing Korten was talking about when he wrote how the wealthiest among us feel they have the right to "maintain them[selves] in a condition of obscene excess." That's the entire basis of the Romney tax plan.

Individuals in the top 0.1 percent, or those making over $2.8 million, would get an income tax cut of nearly half a million dollars.

Individuals in the top one percent, or those making over $629,000, would get a cut of over $80,000.

...If Romney’s tax plans pass, in 2015, they would add $180 billion to the deficit-- on top of the $400 billion cost of extending the Bush tax cuts-- for a total deficit explosion of nearly $600 billion. And over 10 years, it would be roughly 10 times that.

Ezra Klein looked at it as well and came to similar conclusions: "Compared to current rates, Romney’s plan would cost a family in the bottom 20 percent $157 and save a family in the top 1 percent $82,000. That looks pretty tilted toward the rich."

Perry's and Gingrich's plans are even more slanted against ordinary working families and toward the richest people. Coincidentally, the NY Times ran an interesting feature the same day on the ossification of the American class structure, now the worst in the developed world, Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs.

Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion.

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

...“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent)-- a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality. While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile.

...The causes of America’s mobility problem are a topic of dispute-- starting with the debates over poverty. The United States maintains a thinner safety net than other rich countries, leaving more children vulnerable to debilitating hardships.

Poor Americans are also more likely than foreign peers to grow up with single mothers. That places them at an elevated risk of experiencing poverty and related problems, a point frequently made by Mr. Santorum, who surged into contention in the Iowa caucuses. The United States also has uniquely high incarceration rates, and a longer history of racial stratification than its peers.

“The bottom fifth in the U.S. looks very different from the bottom fifth in other countries,” said Scott Winship, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, who wrote the article for National Review. “Poor Americans have to work their way up from a lower floor.”

A second distinguishing American trait is the pay tilt toward educated workers. While in theory that could help poor children rise-- good learners can become high earners-- more often it favors the children of the educated and affluent, who have access to better schools and arrive in them more prepared to learn.

“Upper-income families can invest more in their children’s education and they may have a better understanding of what it takes to get a good education,” said Eric Wanner, president of the Russell Sage Foundation, which gives grants to social scientists.

The United States is also less unionized than many of its peers, which may lower wages among the least skilled, and has public health problems, like obesity and diabetes, which can limit education and employment.

Perhaps another brake on American mobility is the sheer magnitude of the gaps between rich and the rest-- the theme of the Occupy Wall Street protests, which emphasize the power of the privileged to protect their interests. Countries with less equality generally have less mobility.

This week at Counterpunch Mike Lofgren asks the very relevant question, Have the Super-Rich Seceded from the United States? He wasn't talking about secession in terms of physical withdrawal from the territory of the country, although that happens occasionally. "It means," he writes, "a withdrawal into enclaves, a sort of internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well-being except as a place to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension-- and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call, who cares about Medicare?" To have these people in Congress, let alone dominating Congress, is a death senteence for the interests of the 99%.

The Kennedys have served America far better than any other wealthy dynasty in our lifetimes, and I have no reason to think Joseph Kennedy III is anything but a fine fellow, but I wasn't one of those doing a jig Thursday when he announced he plans to run for the Massachusetts seat being vacated by Barney Frank. Don't we have enough millionaires in Congress? Something like half the Members are millionaires. Even the right-wing faux-populist movement, the Tea Party, is represented by a pack of millionaires.

While the median average net worth in the U.S. House of Representatives was $755,000 in 2010, the comparable figure for the House Tea Party Caucus’ 60 members was $1.8 million, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The caucus-- known for its populist politics-- has 33 millionaires, including six members who are worth more than $20 million, the center found.

By comparison, the House Progressive Caucus’ 73 members reported a median average net worth of $639,500. Twenty-four members of the progressive caucus are millionaires.

A Fred Upton, the Michigan plutocrat and heir of the notorious jobs-offshoring bandits Whirlpool, will never have a clue about how 99% of Americans live. Neither will John Kerry. We need to start electing more teachers and other ordinary working Americans to Congress. You may have noticed over the years that we have a great deal of animus towards the DCCC. That is in part because they always favor wealthy candidates over working-class candidates. The DCCC would rather persuade a rich Republican to switch parties and run as a Democrat than back a blue-collar true-blue Democrat.

There are no hereditary millionaires among the Blue America endorsements. Our Senate page has exactly three candidates, all from modest backgrounds. And our House list is made up exclusively of men and women proud of their working-class backgrounds. Don't expect to see any Kennedys on that list, or anyone else whose parents can cover the campaign with a personal check.

Instead, you'll find a guy like Ken Aden. Actually, you'll find Ken Aden. If Ken goes to Congress to represent northwest Arkansas, you'll never have to worry about him compromising away Social Security or Medicare or anything that harms working Americans. Ken's from a working-class background, and he's an 11-year combat veteran who saw active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's nothing like incumbent Steve Womack, an aloof, self-entitled one percenter, whose family (conveniently) owns a bunch of radio stations.

Folks who attended a Womack town hall meeting Wednesday got a firsthand experience of what it's like being "represented" by a self-entitled one percenter, a kind of junior Mitt Romney. Womack doesn't like being questioned by a lowly constituent. He blew his top publicly, as Blue Arkansas reported Thursday. Kelly Eubanks, a Fayetteville resident who works two jobs to support her two children and is finishing a degree at the University of Arkansas, went to Womack's town hall meeting to find out why her congressman voted to cut the Pell Grants but defends oil subsidies for the most profitable corporations in the history of mankind. Womack's reaction is typical of what happens when, as Blue Arkansas put it, "the schoolyard bully grows up and gets elected to something."

According to Kelley and a handful of other witnesses, Womack happily retorted that it wasn’t the federal government’s job to pay for education (he’s doing this in a college town mind you) and then quickly added that he paid for his education by joining the military, apparently suggesting that the mom of two do the same and totally oblivious I guess to the fact that it was, in fact, the federal government that paid for his education then. Well Womack tried to skirt the rest of Ms. Eubanks question and she proceeded to try and get him to address the discrepancy she pointed out. Well at this point, according to Kelly and several other people that were in the room, Womack blew a gasket.

"He skirted the rest of my question and I called him out on it... he ended up getting pissed off... and screaming at me... 'are you going to be quiet and listen'?”

According to Kelly, some of his aides came up and tried to get the mic from her, but she held her ground and kept her cool, insisting her congressman answer her question. Following being shouted at by Womack and told to “be quiet and listen” like a good little girl, Kelly had to put up with some of the usual Rethuglican sleaze telling her to get a job, even after she told them she had two. (They’ve continued this on Womack’s facebook page.) What’s more, according to Kelly, Womack’s constituent service representative, Pam Forester, cornered her and according to Kelly got right in her face to inform her that if she wanted to talk with the Congressman again she needed to go through her and set up an appointment.

Aden didn't seem surprised by Womack's arrogance, and says screaming at constituents is --

symptomatic of the obstructionist Republican Congress... Womack's display of unbridled arrogance is beyond the pale. Why anyone would behave this way toward a constituent, much less a mother working her way through school by working two jobs, is unbelievable... This is arrogance and pretentiousness run amok. Congressman Womack needs to publicly apologize to Ms. Eubanks and everyone in his district for treating a constituent this way. A member of Congress should be above this kind of behavior. I'd expect something like this from a defendant on Judge Judy, but not from our Member of Congress... Womack, like his radical, Tea Party colleagues that want to shut down the government, kill tax relief to the middle class, and ensure that corporations continue to get the biggest tax exemptions in American history while exporting our jobs overseas, has lost sight of the fact that he was elected to represent the people and hear their concerns.

More like Ken Aden, fewer like Steve Womack? You can help here. Ken's just $115 away from our first goal for him.

Boehner, William Wallace? Um... Mel Gibson... Maybe

Gibson and Boehner are both drunken right-wing slobs. That's about as close to Braveheart as the congressional Republicans are going to manage to get. Unless David Dreier, Patrick McHenry and Aaron Schock decide to use their makeup kits to lather on some warpaint. No one can see how raising taxes on 160 million Americans a week before Christmas somehow conflates to Phil Gingrey's Braveheart moment-- with Boehner, no less, in the role of a kilt wearing William Wallace. Are these delusional handmaidens of the one-percent really that delusional?

Apparently not every single one of them. Tuesday, despairing and freaking out over Elizabeth Warren's polling numbers, Scott Brown (R-MA) called Boehner's inability to control the House Republicans "irresponsible and wrong," just a few minutes before McCain ran to CNN to whine that the House Republicans are "harming" the party. And this morning it was Tennessee Republican Bob Corker's turn, claiming his own party is "losing the public relations battle over a payroll tax cut extension and should find a way to extend the tax holiday and move on:"

"Are Republicans getting killed now in public opinion? There's no question," Corker said Wednesday on CNBC. 

"Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed that this is going to happen and probably the best thing to happen now is just to get it over with-- one more policy blunder-- but just get it over with and move on because now it's been framed as a tax increase which it's not," he said.

Gingrey needs to tell Aaron Schock to try a different kind of makeup for today's talking point

Corker was responding to a Wall Street Journal missive that basically said Boehner and his extremist House caucus are not only putting their majority in jeopardy, but handing Obama reelection and making it harder for the GOP to capture the Senate.

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.

...House Republicans yesterday voted down the Senate's two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday to 4.2% from 6.2%. They say the short extension makes no economic sense, but then neither does a one-year extension. No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year's tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.

Their first mistake was adopting the President's language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference-- and discount the benefit.

Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy. The House passed a one-year extension last week that included spending cuts to offset the $120 billion or so in lost revenue, such as a one-year freeze on raises for federal employees. Then Mr. McConnell agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the two-month extension financed by higher fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (meaning on mortgage borrowers), among other things. It passed with 89 votes and all but seven Republicans.

...One reason for the revolt of House backbenchers is the accumulated frustration over a year of political disappointment. Their high point was the Paul Ryan budget in the spring that set the terms of debate and forced Mr. Obama to adopt at least the rhetoric of budget reform and spending cuts.

But then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell were gulled into going behind closed doors with the President, who dragged out negotiations and later emerged to sandbag them with his blame-the-GOP and soak-the-rich re-election strategy. Any difference between the parties on taxes and spending has been blurred in the interim.

After a year of the tea party House, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have had to make no major policy concessions beyond extending the Bush tax rates for two years. Mr. Obama is in a stronger re-election position today than he was a year ago, and the chances of Mr. McConnell becoming Majority Leader in 2013 are declining.

At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.

Looks like the House Republicans hadn't read the Journal's suggestions before this morning's session, when Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) gaveled the session to a close as soon as the Democrats tried to get a vote on the Senate payroll tax bill. Hoyer, playing his role, feigned concern: "You're walking out, you're walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers, the unemployed, and… those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors... We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country." Boehner's office then turned off the CSPAN cameras as fast as they could find the controls.



UPDATE: Reid Tosses Boehner A Lifeline

A couple of hours ago Harry Reid sent Boehner a letter that could help him save face and get himself out of the predicament his insane caucus got him into:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

Our respective chambers have been seeking for weeks to negotiate a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut for middle-class families, as well as unemployment benefits and Medicare payments for physicians.

You and I agree that this should be our goal. But as these weeks have made clear, there remain differences between our parties over how to fund and implement these programs that will take longer then a few days to reconcile.

Recognizing this reality, eighty-nine Republican and Democratic senators came together to agree to a short-term extension of these programs. As you requested when we met last Wednesday, Senator McConnell and I worked together to find this common ground. Once the House of Representatives acts on this immediate extension, we will be able to sit down and complete negotiations on a longer extension. But because we have a responsibility to assure middle-class families that their taxes will not go up while we work out our differences, we must pass this immediate extension first.

As the Senate vote made clear, there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. I am fully confident that we can work out our differences and find common ground on a year-long extension. But in the meantime, families should not have to worry that they will wake up to a tax increase on January 1, 2012.

To provide middle-class families the certainty they deserve, I urge you to reconvene the House to act on the Senate’s bipartisan compromise as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Senator Harry Reid

ANOTHER UPDATE: How's This Playing Out In The Congressional Districts With Hot Elecions?

You're not going to find House race anywhere with a clearer difference than in northwest Arkansas where one-percenter Steve Womack is desperately fighting off a challenge from blue collar progressive Democrat Ken Aden. Womack, as always, rubberstamped the House leadership's decision to torpedo the unemployment extension and the payroll tax cut for middle-class workers. As Ken showed us last night, that means the average Arkansas working family will have $900 a year left in their pockets to spend every month. Boehner, who lives in a gated golfing community, dismissed that as "chickenshit." Womack should know better; Ken Aden sure does.

Congressman Steve Womack’s vote yesterday against bi-partisan legislation extending tax cuts to middle class families is the equivalent of a giant lump of coal in the stockings of thousands of Northwest Arkansas families and seniors, the campaign of Ken Aden, Democratic candidate for Congress from Arkansas’ Third Congressional District said early Wednesday.

Aden notes that not only does Womack’s vote against the tax cut harm middle class families now facing a tax hike, but it hurts the district’s long-term unemployed because an extension of unemployment benefits were included as part of the legislation. In addition, Womack’s “no” vote on the bi-partisan legislation places many Medicare recipients in jeopardy of loosing access to affordable healthcare, as the bill included a two-year fix preventing drastic cuts to physicians serving Medicare patients.

"Congressman Steve Womack gave the voters of the 3rd Congressional District an early Christmas present yesterday when he joined with Speaker Boehner and radical elements in the House in rejecting a bipartisan plan to extend tax cuts to the middle class, give a hand-up to the long-term unemployed, and protect our seniors on Medicare from loosing access to their doctors,” Aden said. “Womack’s holiday gift to his constituents, is a tax hike for middle class families, seniors on Medicare getting shut out of their doctor’s offices, and the long-term unemployed being sent into poverty,” he continued.

Aden said it is time for Womack to stop doing the bidding of House Speaker John Boehner and the radical Tea Party elements in Congress and do what is right for middle class families.

"Speaker Boehner has devised a perfectly evil plan for the citizens of this country. His plan raises taxes for middle class families and adds in massive amounts of red tape to the heart wrenching process of filing for unemployment insurance-- and Steve Womack is sticking with Boehner like a wrapper on a candy cain,” Aden said. “It is unconscionable,” he noted.

Finally, Speaker Boehner and his ally Womack, have added in a proposal to use American tax payer funds as part of a scheme to build out the KeystoneXL pipeline, the primary purpose of which is to aid Canadians in selling oil extracted from tar sands to China.

“Why on earth Rep. Womack would rather help China than his own constituents should be perfectly understandable. He's not there to represent the people of Arkansas, he's in Congress to help out Speaker Boehner. It's offensive and positively anti-American."

By contrast, while Womack was voting in Congress to kill unemployment benefits, raise taxes, and block seniors on Medicare from their doctors, Ken Aden and his campaign staff were collecting and distributing toys to children’s homes across Northwest Arkansas.

“The citizens of the Third District should look carefully at these two men and observe this contrast. While Womack is in Washington voting with Speaker Boehner to hurt thousands of people in our district, Ken is out helping he less fortunate,” said Jacob Burris, campaign director for Aden’s campaign.

You can help Ken Aden get Womack out of government by contributing to his campaign here. And just west of Arkansas, is great big Texas, where all the Republicans voted against the payroll tax break for the middle class and against an unemployment extension. Dan Grant recently declared he'd be taking on reprehensible reactionary plutocrat Michale McCaul, a multimillionaire who married into the Clear Channel family. Dan sent a summary of what happened yesterday to Austin area voters:

Yesterday, millionaire Michael McCaul, the single richest member of Congress, voted to do nothing to stop a tax increase on working families that will take effect on January 1st. He rejected a bipartisan measure backed by nearly 90% of the Senate, and supported across America. This forces Congress into another dangerous game of political chicken that threatens to add $1000 annually-- or $40 per paycheck-- to the tax burdens of millions of families while the country is still struggling out of the worst recession in decades. This complete refusal to act and rejection of the most basic Congressional responsibility-- to govern-- hurts all Americans and threatens our economy. It’s a shameful failure of both priorities and leadership in Washington.

This is infuriating. But sadly it's not surprising.

Michael McCaul and this out-of-touch Congress have spent more time playing politics than doing their jobs: supporting political theater, showdowns, and standoffs, rather than working to address the issues that truly matter.

We need more people in Congress who understand that their job is to look out for hardworking families, not to play games with their lives and livelihoods. We need people in Congress who understand what $1000 dollars means to a family at Christmas, to a family saving for college, or struggling to stay afloat in these tough times.

And, despairing, one of Miss McConnell's top aides told media sources that the House Republicans have put the party into an untenable position and that their stupidity and blundering is "inexcusable... This is a lose/lose situation for us. They've let the Democrats get the messaging advantage and more specifically we've turned one of our key issues on its head. The Republicans look like they are the ones blocking tax relief... The House Republicans pulled defeat from the jaws of victory."

The GOP Sure Is Queer-- And Not Only In The Good Sense Of The Word

This isn't another post about the plethora of Republican closet queens-- from semi-"out" freaks like Lindsey Graham, Aaron Schock and David Dreier to the hysterical sociopaths who do everything anti-gay under the sun to hide their identity, like Patrick McHenry, Trent Franks and Adrian Smith-- and voting against LGBT equality in Congress and it's not just about how Darrell Issa and his cronies have set about to destroy (see video above) the U.S. post office. Let me start with 3 who don't have much in common beyond how classically queer they are: Arkansas Congressman Steve Womack, California Congressman Buck McKeon and Willard "Mitt" Romney (like McKeon, a Mormon).

Who would defend the Supreme Court's misguided, corporatist and profoundly anti-democratic decision to grant corporations personhood (Citizens United)? Well... Arkansas corporate whore Steve Womack. He likes that floodgate of corporate money perverting democracy. "I believe," wrote Womack, "that the Citizens United decision strengthens the fundamental right to free speech afforded to all Americans by the First Amendment.  In the same way that individual Americans and political groups are able to speak out during election season, corporations should be allowed to have their voices heard. They are now allowed to use the same media outlets that as large political and interest groups are allowed to use…Corporations are comprised of Americans too and it is important that we uphold the Constitution without selectively granting First Amendment rights."

Blue Arkansas Blog admits being stunned by Womack's cluelessness. "I really don’t think any Republican in Congress has ever laid out their support for corporate personhood and the corrupting corporate influence in elections quite like that. For all that lofty talk about the Constitution, what Citizen’s United actually does is give corporations the chance to dump millions or even billions into shaping public opinion."

Womack set the tone for the AR-03 debate from the start. He did that when he made the comment about how he and Ken Aden ran in different circles-- Ken in middle class circles, him with so called high society. Aden has stood solidly with the 99% of Americans while Womack has done the bidding of big business every day of his short congressional career. And while Ken Aden has been getting a lot of donations from ordinary Arkansans who believe in his campaign but can only give a small donation, Womack has just had to sit back and let the corporations he’s been defending hand him the cash in a form of perfectly legal, commonly accepted bribery. The good news for those of us who can’t just cough up a six figure ad buy?  Even a ton of money will only go so far, and the power of ordinary people can still match that of the already powerful.

Buck McKeon was born during the Great Depression of the 1930's. He's utterly out of touch with the modern era and rarely makes any sense. Unfortunately, Boehner made him chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, where he uses his power to push the Mormon agenda of ant-gay bigotry. He's gone as far as threatening to sit on the entire Pentagon budget unless Obama reconsiders implementing Congress' decision to abolish Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Yes, he'd jeopardize the nation's security because he hates gay people so much-- or at least his sick, bizarre, throwback view of gay people! (It looks like he failed again this week.) But that's not the only thing-- nor by a long shot-- that's queer about Buck.

Born into a wealthy Mormon family that he eventually drove into bankruptcy, ole Buck has a strange relationship with money. Widely considered one of the most corrupt Members of Congress in either parties, he's also one of the most hypocritical. The GOP banned earmarks... well, not really. They announced they banned earmarks and then set about with vigor and determination to get around their own ban, McKeon in the lead.

One of the first efforts this year to sidestep the ban came in May, when the House Armed Services Committee crafted the National Defense Authorization Act. Lawmakers added 111 amendments totaling more than $650 million in special projects for their districts. Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) set aside $1 billion in a special fund that was used for member-directed projects. Lawmakers said the projects were not earmarks and promised to create a competitive process for the money.

But 59 of the 111 amendments contained language nearly identical to that used to describe previous earmarks, according to an analysis by the earmark watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

McKeon, who illegally uses campaign contributions to enrich his wife and son, won't left a finger to help anyone in his own district other than big campaign contributors. Case in point: there's widespread support in McKeon's southern California district for Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposal to block a giant, environmentally-unsound sand and gravel pit mine in Soledad Canyon for Cemex, a Mexican mining firm. Boxer's bill (S.759), which requires House approval (since it involves land owned by the federal government) would authorize a land swap that would provide Cemex with property near Victorville in exchange for giving up its right to mine in Soledad Canyon. The city of Santa Clarita, where McKeon got his political start as mayor-- and the biggest town in the district-- is leading the charge (mostly based on clean air and heavy truck traffic concerns. Organizations that are behind the swap include:

• Breathe California of Los Angeles County
• Clean Air Now
• Coalition for Clean Air
• Planning & Conservation League
• The Sierra Club
• Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
• Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment (SCOPE)
• SCV Green
• Endangered Habitats League
• Friends of the Santa Clara River
• Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
• Safe Action for the Environment (SAFE)
• Los Angeles Conservation Corps
• San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
• California Association of Realtors
• Valley Industry and Commerce Association
• Valley Industry Association
• Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
• City of Glendale
• City of Palmdale
• City of Bellflower
• City of Santa Clarita
• Castaic Lake Water Agency
• Newhall County Water District
• Los Angeles County Democratic Party
• Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
• Santa Clarita Valley Congress of Republicans
• Democratic Club of the Santa Clarita Valley
• Santa Clarita Valley Fair Elections Committee
• Santa Clarita Valley Community College District
• William S. Hart Union High School District
• Castaic Union School District
• Newhall School District
• Sulphur Springs School District

Not on that list-- or any list supporting the bill-- is the local congressman, Buck McKeon. In fact, the local paper says McKeon refuses to sponsor the bill, calling it "an earmark." McKeon's Democratic opponent, Lee Rogers, calls it "a questionable excuse from a Congressman who has been a leader in securing earmarks for his special interest friends. In fact, he was voted "Porker of the Month" in July 2011 by Citizen's Against Government Waste for legislation which helps defense special interest groups even during the Republican moratorium on earmarks." This is a big deal in the district and time is ticking-- they have 2 weeks to work this out-- but McKeon refuses to get off the dime. Some speculate that he's waiting for a payoff, although he insists it's because of the earmark ban (which he's ignoring when it involves defense contractors who routinely bribe him and his family members). Rogers hit him again last week-- hard:

McKeon is no stranger to earmarks. Between 2008 and 2010 McKeon requested $78.5 million in earmarks, 76% of which were directed to defense projects, including a $9.6 million payday to the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Additionally, he is responsible for loads of fat in the National Defense Authorization Act, including a $650 million slush fund that earned him the title “Porker of the Month” from Citizens Against Government Waste in July 2011.

As for McKeon's co-religionist... where does one even begin? Another old video of the country's most flip-floppin'-est politician EVAH!



Queer? Not as queer as Jonathan Chait's post $10,000 bet goof-up report on Romney's little rich kid persona in the new New York.

Wealthy though Romney may be, as a committed Mormon who can’t gamble and an equally committed tightwad, he’s the last guy who’s going to run around throwing down high-stakes bets on a whim.

I do think the debate exposed a deeper problem for Romney and the Republican Party. Romney is obviously conscious of his wealth and determined to avoid the stereotype of an out-of-touch rich guy interested only in protecting his own. And yet the party is committed to a policy agenda that involves enriching people in Romney’s tax bracket. This combination renders him an especially poor vehicle for the GOP agenda.

All the presidential candidates, including President Obama, are rich by the standards of the average American. But Romney is especially rich, and not just numerically. He looks and sounds like a paragon of the upper class, with his regal appearance, precise diction, and dignified graying sideburns. This has forced him to defensively cast himself as a middle-class champion, foreswearing at every turn any interest in benefiting the rich.

The most dramatic example concerns his proposal on capital gains. Reducing the tax rate on capital gains is the centerpiece of the Republican domestic agenda. Capital gains represent a huge share of income for the very rich, and the lower rate for capital gains income (as opposed to salary income) largely accounts for the fact that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. George W. Bush cut the capital gains tax, and most leading Republicans want to eliminate it altogether.

Romney proposes only to eliminate capital gains taxes on income under $200,000 a year. That would cover just a tiny portion of capital gains, making it essentially a symbolic measure. A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial page railed against Romney’s plan. The problem, the editorial noted, was not just that Romney wasn’t offering any new tax breaks for the rich. It was that the retreat “suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric”-- that, in general, he will shrink from the task of advocating for policies that increase income inequality.

Any conservatives liable to worry about this would be positively alarmed after hearing Romney defend his position on Saturday night. During one portion of the debate, Romney mentioned that he, unlike Newt Gingrich, would restrict his capital gains tax cut to those under the $200,000 annual threshold. Gingrich replied, accurately, that households under that ceiling have barely any capital gains. Romney replied:

And-- and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that's been most hurt by the Obama economy. That's where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.

“Spend our precious tax dollars”-- that is a phrase to strike terror in right-wing hearts. For twenty years, the basis for Republican budgeting has been to refuse to acknowledge any tradeoff between cutting taxes for the rich and other governmental priorities. The Democratic position is to insist that tax cuts for the rich be measured against other possible choices-- lower taxes for the rich mean higher taxes for the middle class, or lower social spending, or higher deficits. Here, Romney is actually employing the Democratic formulation.

Indeed, he is doing it in the way most prone to enraging conservatives-- by describing the choice to cut taxes as a form of spending-- a formulation that for several decades has prompted the conservative auto-response that this phrasing presumes all taxpayer dollars belong to the government.

Every additional episode that highlights Romney’s wealth merely increases the pressure he surely feels to avoid the vulnerabilities associated with championing the rich. Republicans have usually sought to avoid this problem by nominating candidates who can at least sell themselves as authentic representatives of the middle class. George W. Bush may have been handed enormous wealth by his patrician family, but he crafted an image of himself as a kind of Texas dirt farmer, with his modest “ranch” serving as the background. Nominating Romney, stripped of any such cover, raises the risk for Republicans that he may be a pacifist in the class war.

This is one screwed up party. They need a rest-- a nice long one, out of governance entirely. Are you registered to vote?

Can A Drive By The 1% To Institutionalize l'aristocratie Here Be Slowed Down Without Bloodshed?

You would never know it by talking to an imbecile dressed up in a tri-corner hat and calling himself a teabagger-- although they stopped calling themselves that when someone told them what it means-- but the establishment of an aristocracy of inherited wealth in this country is about as antithetical to what the American Revolution was all about as... unification with the United Kingdom. And yet decades of conservative policies and the Republican Party agenda has been based on exactly that-- establishing an American aristocracy of inherited wealth. Their aversion to an estate tax-- which the corporate media they own has successfully dubbed "the death tax"-- is a clear indication of their barely disguised intent. Last year Lexington took it up at The Economist.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent"-- in fact an inheritance tax-- on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

Yesterday progressive Jim McDermott (D-WA), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced the “Sensible Estate Tax Act of 2011” to begin the process of restoring some kind of fairness to the estate tax. It's the first estate tax reform bill introduced by a member of the tax-writing committee that does not simply extend or repeal the existing estate tax law. It doesn't go nearly far enough but it does propose bringing the estate tax rates back to the pre-2001 levels, with a maximum marginal rate of 55% and a $1 million exemption ($2 million for married couples) instead of the current $5 million exemption at a maximum rate of 35%. The current law was designed to allow over 99% of estates to pass tax-free. 

McDermott: "The U.S. economy and the American people are struggling through one of the worst recessions in our history. Now is the time to ensure our tax policy is fair and equitable for all Americans, and the estate tax bill that I am introducing today embodies these values... This legislation will take us back to an estate tax that worked during one of America’s most prolonged periods of economic prosperity. It provides the kind of certainty that practitioners and taxpayers have been calling for since the Bush tax cuts took effect. Never in our history has an exemption increased over 500% in less than a decade and known loopholes been left open for abuse. The estate tax is broken, and it’s time we fix it.” Besides the fairer rate, McDermont's bill proposes the following:

·         Reunify and make permanent the portability for spouses of the gift and estate tax exclusions;

·         Restore the credit for state transfer taxes paid;

·         Close loopholes in the asset valuation and minority discount rules;

·         Provide for consistent basis reporting between estates and beneficiaries;

·         Require a minimum 10-year period for grantor retained annuity trusts; and,

·         Provide meaningful limits to the generation skipping transfer tax exemption.

Many prominent wealthy Americans have expressed their support of an estate tax. Among them is Bill Gates, Sr. who said, “An estate tax ensures that those who have benefited the most from this great country reinvest in the very promise of wealth and opportunity America provided them.” And many less wealthy Americans like the direction McDermott is headed. Ken Aden, the Blue America endorsed candidate for the seat currently occupied with reactionary corporate shill and 1%-er Steve Womack is not just running against inherited wealth, but inherited radio stations that are being used-- probably illegally-- to undermine democracy. The very idea that Womack feels the need to hide behind his father's radio station or use his limited non combat military career as a shield from questions of his corporate agenda is nothing less than spineless. "Who," asks Aden, "wants a congressman who runs from a debate? Not one individual who fought, bled or died next to me would have. When I decided to put my life on the line for my country my constitutional values were a constant in my thought process. I ask Steve Womack who the hell is he to wear the uniform strictly for political purposes. The best of us have given their lives wearing it. Who is he to exploit it? He is a corporate owned puppet and disgrace to his constituents... The idea that we are having this argument is constitutionally absurd. No king in history is guaranteed to father a worthy prince; no heir to an American fortune could be expected to do the same. We threw away the concept of divine right to power long ago. Your father's or mother's work has little to do with the talent you possess as an individual. My opponent has yet to grasp this concept. For all his talk about entitlements, he has yet to grasp the idea of personal responsibility."

Band Of Brothers? That Isn't How Republican 1%-ers See It

I asked David Mcavoy from Blue Arkansas to help me get my heard around the story breaking in his state regarding reactionary 1%-er Rep. Steve Womack and his bizarre attack on a former enlisted man-- a decorated active duty former enlisted man-- who, as one point, served under him. That ex-soldier is Ken Aden, Blue America's most recently endorsed Democratic candidate for Congress. David agreed and here's the post he put together over the weekend which brings everyone up-to-date:

Sleazy 1% Womack Attacks Progressive Democrat Ken Aden And His Military Record

-by David Mcavoy

“If Ken was a dynamic leader and outstanding soldier in every respect, I probably would have had reason to have crossed paths with him during that deployment, but honestly I don’t remember him,” said Womack.

Aden said they did cross paths and spoke to each other on several occasions.

“He had to cross paths with me because I was on the Force Skills team,” said Aden. “He knew who I was.”

When asked about the Force Skills Competition, the congressman compared it to “intramural sports” that gave the soldiers something to do.

“Bless his heart, Ken Aden does not need to over-embellish being a member of the Force Skills Competition,” said Womack, who at 54, is 20 years older than Aden.

“The primary mission over there was not related to what I call kind of an intramural sport. … It’s surprising that anyone would try to make some hay out of being on the Force Skills team,” said Womack.

The background on this, if you didn’t already know, was that Aden served under Womack at one point in his extensive military career. Womack could have simply said that he met a lot of people and didn’t remember Aden, but he couldn’t resist going the extra distance and dissing Aden’s service as a soldier. What’s more, Aden wasn’t touting the Force Skills Competition as service, he was just saying that’s where he shook hands with Womack. So yeah, Steve Womack is a dick. I’m sorry, that’s just the only way to say it.

So I placed a phone call to Aden today and asked him a little bit more about his service and recognition from the military. The first thing he said was:

I didn’t want to get into this as I think there are more important issues facing this district, but if this is the hand I’m dealt then I’m going to play it and win.

From there, I asked him to detail his military service, and learned that he’d received:

A Combat Infantry Badge, which you only get when you’re shot at on three separate occasions.

Airborne Wings for jumping out of planes.

4 Army Commendation Medals.

3 Army Achievement Medals.

3 Overseas Service Ribbons

2 National Defense Service Medals 

1 Army Service Ribbon
 
A Global War On Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

Iraqi Campaign Service Medal 

A Global War on Terrorism Service Medal

An Armed Service Reserve Medal

A Multinational Forces Observer Medal

3 Good Conduct Medals

An Arkansas Federal Service Ribbon

2 NCO Professional Development Ribbons, which you only get if you have troops under your command.

A Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal

A Presidential Unit Citation Award

A Joint Meritorious Unit Award
Regimental Affiliation with the following units 5/73 Cav and 39th Inf Brigade 

I was taken aback by all this, especially as Aden had to sit down and double check the list to make sure he’d gotten everything. On top of all that, Aden said he had performed a number of jobs in the military including airborne infantry, airborne reconnaissance, special forces weapons sergeant, peace keeping in Sinai, and, my personal favorite, airborne mortar-man, which from the way Ken described it amounts to jumping out of a plane with a big cannon strapped to your body.

Sounds pretty remarkable to me. But seriously, what kind of a Judas do you have to be to swiftboat someone you served in the military with like this? Now to be fair I’m sure there’s no way Womack could know about all of Aden’s accomplishment after their service together ended, but did he really have to go that extra mile and attack Aden’s service like that? Of course he didn’t, but he’s a miserable excuse for a human being and so he couldn’t resist doing what was uncalled for.

So, if you think that attacking a veteran’s service is the most rotten thing on the planet and should disqualify anyone who goes that route from public service, donate to Ken’s campaign either on ActBlue or through his website. This kind of thing has no place in our politics, and if Womack wants to pick this fight then we’ll show him that he’s bit off more than he can chew.

I’m thinking Steve Womack probably regrets opening up his mouth and dissing Aden’s military service.

In response to Womack’s diss Ken Aden’s campaign released documentation showing that he was not only awarded while he served under Womack, but that Womack personally signed off on it.

According to documents released by the campaign, Womack approved the awarding of an Army Achievement Medal to Aden. According to the commendation documents, Aden was recognized for his leadership that “motivated others by setting the example,” and for being “a vital asset to Alpha Company.” The Army Achievement Medal is awarded for outstanding achievement or meritorious service and is generally awarded to junior Army personnel.

Womack’s office is now backpedaling as fast as they can on the military service smear.

More from Beau Walker after he talked to Womack. He said Womack signed a large number of commendations as the officer at the top of the chain of command and doesn’t remember all those either. He reiterated that it would not be unusual not to remember someone except for an unusual reason. “He did not intend to belittle or condescend,” Walker said. “He served his country. That’s an honorable thing. He didn’t mean to demean his service.”

Bullshit! How the hell is this not belittling or condescending?

“If Ken was a dynamic leader and outstanding soldier in every respect, I probably would have had reason to have crossed paths with him during that deployment, but honestly I don’t remember him,” said Womack.

Aden said they did cross paths and spoke to each other on several occasions.

“He had to cross paths with me because I was on the Force Skills team,” said Aden. “He knew who I was.”

When asked about the Force Skills Competition, the congressman compared it to “intramural sports” that gave the soldiers something to do.

“Bless his heart, Ken Aden does not need to over-embellish being a member of the Force Skills Competition,” said Womack, who at 54, is 20 years older than Aden.

“The primary mission over there was not related to what I call kind of an intramural sport. … It’s surprising that anyone would try to make some hay out of being on the Force Skills team,” said Womack.

If there’s anything to take away from this, it’s that Womack sees a reason to attack Aden. Last year, I don’t think he ever even vaguely alluded to David Whitaker. Hell, for all intents and purposes, Womack’s campaign ended after he won the nomination against Cecile Bledsoe. For that matter, I don’t recall Boozman ever getting into the mud with one of his opponents. In other words, Aden has managed to get under the invincible Mr. Womack’s skin enough that he felt the need to attack him.

What’s more, he picked the worst possible thing he could hit Aden with and lost the scuffle. And that is a better bit of news than we’ve gotten out of the third district in a long time. So throw Ken Aden some change on ActBlue. No one, no matter how “safe” their seat is deemed to be, should be allowed to get away with this kind of rotten smear. And if Ken can best Womack like this in their first scuffle, imagine what he can do if he ends up with the resources to run a fully charged campaign. Contribute!

There was a lot of stuff that disgusted me about Womack’s attack that his staffer swears wasn’t an attack on Ken Aden’s military service. But I want to draw your attention to one of the many revolting aspects of it:

When asked about the Force Skills Competition, the congressman compared it to “intramural sports” that gave the soldiers something to do.

“Bless his heart, Ken Aden does not need to over-embellish being a member of the Force Skills Competition,” said Womack, who at 54, is 20 years older than Aden.

“The primary mission over there was not related to what I call kind of an intramural sport. … It’s surprising that anyone would try to make some hay out of being on the Force Skills team,” said Womack.

Keep in mind, that’s in addition to claiming Aden must have been a mediocre soldier or Womack would have remembered him. But anyway, following that attack and Womack’s non-apology that he didn’t even have the guts to deliver himself, this image from Womack’s 2010 campaign was brought to my attention:

Now look, I have never once in the past taken a shot at Womack’s, Griffin’s, Crawford’s, or anyone else’s military service, and I never will, nor will I allow anyone that writes or may someday write for this blog to do so. It’s wrong, pure and simple. I have gone after Tim Griffin for running on his service after working to disenfranchise soldiers serving overseas and I have gone after all three of our GOPer congressmen for voting to protect their pay in the shutdown but not that of troops serving overseas (Crawford pretty much called me a liar for that one. But what’s that the teabaggers shrieked about last cycle? Oh yeah, read the damn bill, Congressman.) But in those cases, it wasn’t their service I was attacking, but their treatment towards soldiers while waving their own uniforms at us.

See, Womack, to my knowledge, was pretty much a part time soldier who’s overseas service amounted to his six month trip to the Sinai Peninsula in 2001 where Ken Aden served under him.

That’s still admirable service and I’m not attacking him for it. (And if I inadvertently said something uncalled for or untrue I’d own up to it and not send La Voix running out to cover for me the way Womack hid behind his staffer.) But Womack started this by dissing Aden’s service, and after suggesting that Aden, a decorated veteran who saw combat in two countries, was exaggerating his service to get votes, you’ve got to admit that it’s pretty hypocritical of Womack to have run on “the courage to lead” based on his short stint in Egypt and then dis Aden for supposedly exaggerating his service. Again, any service is admirable, but trying to attack a decorated combat vet for supposedly exaggerating his service.


UPDATE

Like Ken, John Waltz fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And like Ken, he's running for Congress against a ruthless 1%-er. in his case, Fred Upton, the Whirlpool heir, one of America's worst job outsourcers. Waltz is a longtime veteran's rights advocate. I sent him some of the reporting on Womack's insult to veterans and early this morning he send me this statement:

It is bad enough when someone disrespects a veteran considering the slap in the face they get from the underfunded Veterans Administration, but from a sitting Congressman? Quite frankly he is not fit for office if this is the disrespect he holds for veterans.

You can find Ken and John on the same ActBlue page... if you're so inclined. Even $5 and $10 contributions go a long way towards building effective grassroots campaigns against two characters with loads of corporate money flowing in and with big donations from the Koch brothers and their front groups.