The Grand Bargain Isn't Shared Sacrifice, It's Human Sacrifice

If you're on the Blue America mailing list, you get an e-mail every week from Digby, John and I, usually about a new candidate or an action Blue America is taking. The only way to get on the list is to donate-- even if just one dollar-- to any one of our candidates on any of our many ActBlue pages, like the standard page for our House candidates or the page for our 3 Senate candidates or one of the more exotic pages, like the one to stop Paul Ryan or for stopping Eric Cantor and for permanently stomping out homophobia in Congress... or for our next awesome contest (which no one knows about but you, since it doesn't officially start 'til next weekend). So a buck to any candidate on any of those sites (or any other Blue America contribution site) and you're on. This week, though I want to share the latest newsletter. Digby wrote it for us and my favorite line is the subject of this post: "The Grand Bargain isn't shared sacrifice, it's human sacrifice."

Last week we alerted you to professor Jacob Hacker's manifesto called Prosperity Economics and asked you to take a look at what could be the blueprint for a progressive approach to our nation's economic problems. We believe this is a plan that can restore growth, reverse inequality and revitalize our democracy. It will even cut the deficit without resorting to slashing vital government services and the already frayed and weakened social insurance programs.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the plan of many of the leadership of the Democratic Party which remains focused on Grand Bargains, "balanced approaches" and Simpson-Bowles, all of which are basically conservative con games devised to slash government at the worst possible time. The Democrats have inexplicably defined victory in these negotiations not as the preservation of vital government programs but winning a nominal tax hike for the wealthiest Americans in exchange for their cooperation in cutting the safety net. Unfortunately for the American people, the Republicans seem to be seeing their winning hand: GOP moneybags David Koch revealed this week that he would be in favor of the tax increases. If his congressional minions follow suit,  the Democrats may get their "victory." Unfortunately, the people will lose, and lose big.

This is why we must have a progressive bloc in Congress that is willing to stand up to both parties in cases like this and be the bulwark against a raid on important government services in the name of austerity. This is why we need our Blue America candidates to be elected this November.

Just as we asked you to look at Prosperity Economics, we asked them too. And the response was remarkable. We asked our candidates to look at them too. You can read them all at this page.

Alan Grayson  had this to say:

"This coming election is too important to be about nothing. And that is why Jacob Hacker and Nate Loewentheil's 'Prosperity Economics' platform is important-- it's not nothing, it's something. Something big. For a Democratic victory to be meaningful, for it to create a 'mandate,' we owe it to America to explain what we would do with that victory. We need to make some promises, and then do our darnedest to try to keep them. 'Prosperity Economics' is a coherent, comprehensive plan that offers the hope-- the essential hope-- of leading us out of the wilderness."

This is where the Democrats should be planting their flag. Agreeing to cut vital government programs including Social Security and Medicare in order to obtain some tip money from millionaires isn't "shared sacrifice"-- it's human sacrifice. Up until now the Tea Partiers in Congress have refused to take yes for an answer. But if David Koch is now willing to accept some token tax hikes you can be sure the Republicans are waking up to how foolish that stance is.

No matter who wins the presidency and the majority after November's election, the nation will be facing the GOP's well-laid trap of the so-called "fiscal cliff." And unless there is a bloc of Democrats willing to demand Prosperity instead of Austerity there is a very good chance we will be thrown into another recession, just as our British friends across the pond faced when their government chose the slash government  in the midst of an epic slump. And even if we manage to dodge that bullet, we will have more slow growth, rising inequality and the further degradation of our vital social safety net. It is the wrong prescription for the Democratic Party and the people of this country.

You can help by helping elect these progressive House candidates who will come to congress with Prosperity Economics as their mandate. We urge you to read their comments at Blue America's Americans for REAL Prosperity page and give what you can. We simply must make our voices heard in Washington on this important issue. 

And the newest candidate to get behind "Prosperity Economics" as the antidote to the failed Austerity agenda being pushed on us by conservatives and corporate shills, is Missa Eaton who's running against reactionary multimillionaire Mike Kelly in northwestern Pennsylvania (PA-03). Like most of us, she explained that she's "been a part of a middle class family all my life. I have seen the hard work that goes into making sure dinner is on the table every night. I know what is like to live paycheck to paycheck, and sadly I have seen the American dream beginning to slip away. I announced my campaign as a candidate who believes the American dream is still attainable for anyone who follows the rules and works hard. The “New Strategy for Prosperity” given to us by Jacob Hacker will help us achieve just that. The principles of this new economic policy are something anyone should be able to support. It ensures an economic policy that isn’t built on deregulation and tax cuts, policy that works for the middle class. The policy keeps Medicare and Social Security solvent and adds a public option to the Affordable Care Act. This policy does not allow corporations the same rights as individuals and allows us to move our country forward."

Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Will Help Dave Lutrin Win A House Seat In Florida?

Thursday when the DCCC was introducing candidates to the "realities of life" in the DC bubble and throwing a meet and greet for the new recruits at the headquarters of one of the sleaziest Inside the Beltway DLC-type consulting firms, the Majority Group (founded by defeated, GOP-voting, Blue Dogs Walt Minnick and Rob Ellsworth-- along with "Wall Street attorney" Chris DiAngelo) and while DCCC chairman (and "ex"-Blue Dog) Steve Israel was bragging how the biggest one day haul of grassroots contributions the Blue Dog-funding DCCC had had all year was when they sent out an e-mail cynically claiming a bond with OccupyWallStreet, progressive stalwart Dave Lutrin was back in Palm Beach County announcing his candidacy for Congress (video above).

Dave's reason to run and his plan to win, is far more alien from any DCCC vision than the DCCC vision is from a Republican vision. Think about that. Dave is running as part of the 99% Movement. The DCCC may see the 99% Movement as another interest group-- like banksters, lobbyists, unions-- from whom to solicit contributions for their career goals, but the DCCC is exactly as connected to the 99% movement as the Republican Party is. You'll be hearing lot's more about Dave's campaign here at DWT as the campaign unfolds. But for now, I want to ask you to listen closely to his announcement of candidacy in the video above. And read a post by another Dave in Slate. This vision, like the Republican vision, is the opposite vision that New Deal Democrats and proponents of the 99% Movement share. Instead of hearing what John Boehner, Eric Cantor or Steny Hoyer have to say about it, Dave Weigel gives as a look at what Nancy Pelosi is saying: "It Is Clear We Must Enter an Era of Austerity".

That's the sound of the Democratic Party's leader in the House caving on the argument that motivated Democrats for the past three years; or 80 years, if you want to get smart about it. But that's the statement in support of the Reid Plan: "It is clear we must enter an era of austerity; to reduce the deficit through shared sacrifice."

Has Pelosi gone over to the Dark Side? Been hanging around with Hoyer too much? Spending too much time at The Majority Group? I've known Dave Lutrin a very long time. He'd cut his own throat out before ever saying any such thing ever. Please help elect Dave and Democrats like him. If you can join me, I just contributed $50 to his campaign here at ActBlue.

Fluffing The 1%-- Last Night's Senate Vote Against Recovery

I doubt many senators read Andy Coghlan's and Debora MacKenzie's enlightening feature in New Scientist this week about the capitalist network (i.e., a manifestation of the 1%) that runs the world... runs it primarily to benefit not society but themselves, their families and their circles. And this isn't some kind of political polemic; it's science... so, right, conservatives can stop reading right now.

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

...The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere. But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).

...The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms-- the "real" economy-- representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies-- all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity-- that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Wednesday night Harry Reid filed cloture to break the Republicans' filibuster of the first piece of President Obama's jobs legislation-- this bill to authorize $35 billion to keep teachers, policemen and firefighters employed and to pay for it with a pathetically small and inadequate tax on millionaires. Only money above a million dollars in annual remuneration would be subject to the tax, but, needless to say, even that's too much for the Republicans. Miss McConnell deceitfully referred to it as "a proposal to raise taxes on 300,000 business owners in order to send money down to states so they don’t have to lay off state employees."

Over half the members of the Senate-- probably close to 60% now-- are millionaires themselves and aren't eager to raise their own taxes... not even a tiny little bit. Wouldn't the decent thing be for the millionaires in the Senate to recuse themselves for voting on legislation that would have a significant effect on their own wealth? Among the super-rich decamillionaires in the Senate, 11 are filibustering the jobs bill, 10 Republicans and one quasi-Democrat:

Bob Corker (R-TN)- $96 million
Jim Risch (R-WY)- $87 million
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)- $45 million
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)- $40 million
Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $32 million
John McCain (R-AZ)- $26 million
Ben Nelson (D-NE)- $18 million
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)- $13 million
Dick Shelby (R-AL)- $10 million
John Barrasso (R-WY)- $10 million
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $10 million

As Jamison Foser pointed out, narrowing in on fake moderate Olympia Snowe, "when Sen. Olympia Snowe explained her vote against the Senate jobs bill last week, she identified only one provision of the bill she disagreed with: the surcharge on taxpayers who earn more than $1 million in adjusted gross income." Not counting herself, that's 374 people in the state of Maine, a state suffering immense unemployment. "Snowe's vote against a jobs bill that would greatly help Maine simply because it would raise taxes on about 375 of the state's richest residents doesn't make much sense-- but it's certainly easier to understand if Snowe and her husband [a notorious crook] are among those fortunate few," Foser concludes. Greg Sargent was just as straight to the point at the Washington Post before the vote.

Let’s be as clear as possible: Any Democratic or Republican senators who vote this week against the $35 billion package of aid to the states are putting the very narrow interests of an infinitesimal few over the interests of many thousands of their own constituents.

The Senate vote is on whether to send billions to the states to avert teacher layoffs and to facilitate the hiring of more teachers and first responders-- a key provision of Obama’s jobs plan. This would be paid for by a 0.5 percent surtax on millionaires. As of now, it’s unclear how a handful of moderate Senators in both parties will vote, because they have “stimulus spending” and they oppose hiking taxes on the rich.

So here’s a way look at this: How many people would be impacted by this proposal in each state represented by each on-the-fence senator? And how does that compare to the number of constituents in each of those states who would pay that 0.5 percent surtax? And keep in mind, the impact of one teaching job is far vaster and affects far more people than the impact of the surtax on one constituent, which is only paid on income over one million dollars.

Sargent singles out 7 wealthy senators who his sources told him were on the fence:

* Snowe and fellow-Mainer Susan Collins, where $117 million in aid to the state will be lost so that 374 people (+ Snowe) wouldn't have to pay an extra 0.5% on income over a million dollars a year.

* Tennessee's two multimillionaire senators, Alexander and Corker, who had to think about turning down 9,400 education jobs and over $596 million for their state to help out the 2,450 people who make over a million dollars a year-- like themselves.

* Ben Nelson, who was willing to snub 2,800 education jobs in Omaha, Lincoln, Kearney, North Platte and across the state ($176 million) so that himself and 1,049 Nebraskans making over a million dollars a year won't have to pay a pittance more for the public good-- even though Nelson's wealthiest constituent, Warren Buffett, has endorsed the idea.

* John Tester, who once billed himself as a populist-- but that was when he was running for the Senate 5 years ago-- was looking at turning down 1,400 education jobs ($90 million) so that 340 millionaires wouldn't have to pay the tiny tax.

* And, of course, West Virginia's right-wing Democrat, Joe Manchin, always eager to screw working people on behalf of the wealthy, had to balance 2,600 education jobs ($162 million into West Virginia's hard-pressed economy) against 580 who make over a million dollars a year in his state.

The Senate voted at 10 last night and the Republicans managed to block allowing the debate to proceed. Reid's motion to end their smarmy filibuster lost 50-50, Lieberman plus 2 ultra-conservative Democrats-- Pryor (AR) and Nelson (NE)-- voting with Miss McConnell to keep the filibuster going. Tester, at least, had seen the light, but not one Republican-- not Scott Brown and not Olympia Snowe (both of whom are up for reelection next year)-- crossed the aisle to support teachers, policemen, firemen or their own states' economies. President Obama's statement (which rings unauthentic since it singles out Republicans instead of Republicans + Lieberman, Pryor and Nelson):

For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again. That’s unacceptable. We must do what’s right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act. Every Senate Republican voted to block a bill that would help middle class families and keep hundreds of thousands of firefighters on the job, police officers on the streets, and teachers in the classroom when our kids need them most.

Those Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don’t deserve those jobs-– and every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what’s necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now.

We must rebuild the economy the American way and restore security for the middle class, based on the values of balance and fairness. Independent economists have said the American Jobs Act could create up to two million jobs next year. So the choice is clear. Our fight isn’t over. We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers sounded more authentic in her outrage:

The senators who voted “no” late Thursday night on the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act have once again squandered the chance to help our kids, communities and the economy by putting teachers back in the classroom, and ensuring that police officers and firefighters protect our neighborhoods.

The 50 senators who voted against the jobs measure showed a callous disregard for our kids’ futures and the safety of our neighborhoods. The no-voters are more concerned about protecting the wealthiest Americans from a half-cent-per-dollar tax increase than about helping our kids and ensuring safe communities. These senators are clearly out of touch with the American people. This week’s CNN/Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Americans support the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act.

Our nation is in a state of economic emergency that requires an immediate response. The unrelenting layoff of teachers and first responders is putting educational quality and the safety of our cities and towns at risk. The $35 billion jobs bill would support nearly 400,000 education jobs and keep thousands of police officers and firefighters on the job. By asking millionaires and billionaires to pay an extra one-half of 1 percent, the jobs plan would strengthen the economy without adding to the deficit.

With a deep and grinding recession causing disinvestment in our schools, the American people are sick and tired of having their concerns about the future ignored by some members of Congress. It’s time to set aside the political gamesmanship and do what is right for our students, for the safety of our communities, and for our country.

Of Course The Conservative Consensus Is Completely Wrong

I often go to sleep watching MSNBC. The other night I turned off the TV right after Ed Schultz's show, where he had Bernie Sanders on as a guest. Bernie's the greatest, a national treasure. We need more like him... desperately. The problem with going to sleep right after the Ed Show is that when I wake up, before I can catch myself, I've tuned into MSNBC's insidious Republican propaganda program, Morning Joe.

Yesterday before I had even fully opened my eyes and gotten out of bed, I was being bombarded by deranged Inside the Beltway consensus. Everyone agreed that America went wrong by passing Social Security and that that has led us down the road to ruin, culminating in Medicare, which must be ended or America is doomed. Thanks, MSNBC! And thanks, Democrats, for not even standing up against this well-planned attack on our country by the Austerity Monster.

Jared Bernstein is one of the few economists the Obama Administration hired for a top-level position who isn't a dedicated Wall Street shill and a class enemy of 95% of America. He didn't last long. His blog, On The Economy is worth following. Thursday he found the Beltway debate unbelievable.

–How could it be that we’re a less than a week out from a totally self-inflicted wound to our already frail economy?

–Why are policy makers spending every waking minute on deficit reduction when jobs are the most immediate problem facing the economy?

–How did a relatively small group of far right activists totally highjack the national debate?

According to Greg Sargent (citing E. J. Dionne), more people are beginning to buy the most insidious arguments about immediate fiscal austerity-- large spending cuts that kick in right away-- leading to growth, even in the light of the current slowdown, which is itself driven in part by the fading of fiscal support.

As I noted last night, the UK is a living example of the damage done by premature contraculation, but you don’t have to look abroad to see the problem. The figure shows how much diminished gov’t spending has shaved off of GDP growth in the past six months. No wonder employment is in a stall, driven by job losses in the public sector.


But those are facts. And facts are not winning. Facts, in fact, are getting crushed. One almost feels embarrassed to raise them in this climate, as if you’re impolitely butting your pointy head into the dream world of the Washington policy debate.

A highly subsidized Big Oil industry's second quarter haul is a staggering $35.4 billion profit, but the Conservative Consensus doesn't factor getting them to share the sacrifice as part of a problem worth addressing-- not like abolishing Medicare.

Yesterday I was talking with Ed Potosnak about the Blue America candidates' commitment-- absolute commitment-- to not just preserving but strengthening Medicare, for a healthier and more equitable society. Monday we're planning to release a statement from all the Blue America candidates. Ed mentioned that his mom was "near tears telling me about how important Medicare is to her, and she's not alone. I have heard a similar impassioned pleas to preserve Medicare from seniors and their families across the district." His opponent, wealthy Republican career politician Leonard Lance, has voted several times to gut Medicare. In fact... every Republican has.

We don't need more politicians like Leonard Lance. We need more political leaders like Bernie Sanders. I know I started this post with him on the Ed Show. At the bottom is a speech he gave on the floor of the Senate this week. It's worth-- really worth-- listening to the whole thing. Here's a painful synopsis for video-haters:

The rich are getting richer, and their effective tax rate is the lowest in modern history. Many corporations are enjoying huge profits and, because of outrageous loopholes, pay nothing in taxes. Among many other absurdities, we lose about $100 billion every year from companies and individuals who stash their wealth in tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other locations.

And yet, the Republicans have been fanatically determined to protect the interests of billionaires and large multi-national corporations so that they do not contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. The Republicans want the entire burden of deficit reduction sacrifice to be placed on the elderly, the sick, children, and working families. That is morally wrong and, in terms of getting us out of this recession, bad economic policy.

Sadly, the Democrats have yielded far, far too much. In December, with the Democrats controlling the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate they extended Bush's tax breaks for the rich and lowered the tax rates on estates for the very rich. In April, they allowed tens of billions of dollars in cuts to vitally important programs for low- and moderate-income Americans.

And now, we find ourselves debating two plans. The Reid plan, which calls for $2.2 trillion in cuts over a 10-year period, includes $900 billion in cuts (which will be determined later by committees) in education, health care, nutrition, affordable housing, child care and many other programs desperately needed by working families. Appropriately, it calls for meaningful cuts in military spending and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Reid plan does not require the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations to pay one nickel in deficit reduction.

The Reid plan is bad. The Boehner plan is much worse. It calls for large cuts in discretionary spending now and demands that this debt-ceiling discussion be revisited next year-- which is totally absurd and which will likely keep the Congress paralyzed.

Lastly, both plans call for a congressional committee to determine future efforts toward deficit reduction. Based on recent committees-- Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six, etc.-- I have little doubt that that new committee will call for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and will ask very little of the wealthy and multi-national corporations.

Meanwhile, while all of this is occurring in Washington the American people have consistently stated, in poll after poll, that they want the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and they want to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For example, a recent Washington Post poll found that 72 percent of the American people believe that Americans earning over $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes.

Given that reality, is there any reason to wonder why the American people are so angry and frustrated with what's going on in Washington?

If the GOP is determined to wage a fanatic class war against the American people, we need stalwart fighters who won't back down on our side to fight back. You will always find them here.

Shared Sacrifice

The middle class and the working class have sacrificed and sacrificed and sacrificed... up the wazoo. We paid when the greed-driven banksters drove the economy off the cliff and demanded mammoth bailouts-- or else. So shared sacrifice means, or should mean, it's time for the rich and privileged to pay their fair share. But their politicians protect them. Our politicians don't protect us. The GOP would rather let the good faith and credit of the United States government disintegrate than rescind the unsustainable Bush tax cuts-- or should we now face reality and call them the Bush/Obama tax cuts?

There were two important developments Tuesday, both bad. Washington's always problematic Gang problem reared its head as the Conservative Consensus rushed in to take control of the situation. And tthis transpartisan conservative stunt almost looked reasonable-- I suppose that was the idea-- as the House Republicans passed their ridiculous latest gimmick to pass Ryan's kill-Medicare budget, this time on steroids and this time called Cut, Cap & Balance.

Let's start with the Gang problem. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research got right to the heart of the matter:

The budget plan produced by the Senate’s “Gang of Six” offers the promise of huge tax breaks for some of the wealthiest people in the country, while lowering Social Security benefits for retirees and the disabled. Despite claiming that they will "reform" Social Security on a "separate track, isolated from deficit reduction," the plan includes cuts to Social Security that would be felt in less than six months, as the plan calls for a new inflation formula that will reduce benefits by 0.3 percentage points a year compared with currently scheduled benefits. The plan also calls for a process that is likely to reduce benefits further for future retirees.

The proposed cuts to Social Security are cumulative. This means that after ten years, a beneficiary in her 70s will see a cut of close to 3 percent. After 20 years, the cuts for beneficiaries in their 80s will be close to 6 percent, while the reduction in annual benefits will be close to 9 percent by the time beneficiaries are in their 90s. For a beneficiary in her 90s living on a Social Security income of $15,000, this means a loss of more $1,200 a year in benefits.

The plan also calls for large cuts in tax rates including a targeted top rate of between 23-29 percent, which will be at least partially offset by elimination of tax deductions. For the highest-income people, this is likely to mean a very large reduction in taxes. For example, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, the CEOs of J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, respectively, are both paid close to $20 million a year at present. If this pay is taxed as ordinary income, then they would be paying close to $7.5 million a year in taxes on it after 2012. However, if the top rate is set at 29 percent, they may save as much as $1.9 million a year on their tax bill. If the top tax rate is set at 23 percent then the Gang of Six plan may increase their after-tax income by more than $3 million a year.

It is striking that the Gang of Six chose to respond to the crisis created by the collapse of the housing bubble by developing a plan that will give even more money to top Wall Street executives andtraders. By contrast, the European Union is considering imposing financial speculation taxes to reduce the power of the financial industry and raise more than $40 billion a year in revenue.

"The plan calls for substantial cuts elsewhere in the budget which are likely to cut into the incomes of large segments of the population, especially the sick and the elderly. The cuts it proposes to the
military are just over 1.0 percent of projected spending over the next decade.

In short, this is a plan that should be expected to please the wealthy since it will mean large reductions in their tax liability in the decades ahead. On the other hand, most of the rest of the country is likely to feel the effects of lower Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, in addition to other cuts that are not yet fully specified.

Baker's an economist-- a real one, not like the corporate shills Wall Street provides all our presidents for their economic teams. And Bernie Sanders (I-VT) isn't the kind of politician Wall Street gets behind either. Funny, his perspective Tuesday was very similar to Baker's.

While all of the details from the so-called Gang of Six proposals are not yet clear, what is apparent is that the plan would result in devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other programs that are of vital importance to working families in this country. Meanwhile, tax rates would be lowered for the wealthiest people and the largest, most profitable corporations.

This is an approach that should be rejected by the American people.  At a time when the rich are becoming richer and corporate profits are soaring, at least half of any deficit-reduction package must come from upper income people and profitable corporations.  We must also take a hard look at military spending, which has tripled since 1997.

So while Obama seems to be begging CEOs to donate-- in lieu of their refusal to pay their fair share of taxes-- to the public schools that their greed is destroying, the Party of Greed and Selfishness was passing their Cut, Cap & Balance stunt 234-190, almost every single Republican and five disgusting Blue Dogs-- Boren (OK), McIntyre (NC), Matheson (UT), Cooper (TN) and Shuler (NC)-- voting to screw ordinary working families on behalf of their rich campaign donors once again. Real Democrats voted against it... even the just sworn in conservative Janice Hahn. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) stripped GOP intentions bare:

“This terrible plan could cut Medicare and Medicaid to unsustainably low levels and put seniors’ well-being at risk. Anyone who wants to pass it through Congress should remember that more than 70 House Democrats have already pledged their opposition, and more are signing on every day. The letter we sent to Leader Pelosi July 8 vowing to oppose any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid as part of these budget negotiations has become a growing wave of House resolve to protect these programs. We’re keeping it open for more signatures, and our Gang of 70-plus has the ‘Gang of Six’ completely outnumbered. Newly minted Rep. Janice Hahn signed on as one of her first official acts as a Congresswoman-- that’s how quickly it’s picking up momentum.
 
"Republicans have already said they won’t vote for any package, period, because of their opposition to a functional economy. House Democrats hold the key to whatever plan can pass Congress. That’s why the Senate ‘Gang of Six’ proposal is dead on arrival. Instead of toying with ways to slash vital programs in just such a way as to make different budget numbers align on paper, Congress and the White House should follow the path of our People’s Budget: creating jobs, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, ending corporate subsidies and millionaire tax giveaways, and ensuring our economy works for everyone rather than a greedy few.”

What can we do? Elect political leaders like Norman Solomon. Why? Watch the video:

The Senate's Theoretical Vote On Shared Sacrifice-- Teactionary Filibuster Broken... And The GOP's Efforts In The House To Shut Out The Lights

S.1323 is Harry Reid's bill that "expresses the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." Reid and his colleagues have, perhaps, been shamed by Bernie Sander's relentless work in the area. Bernie, in fact, cosponsored the resolution with Reid. Needless to say, the Republican extremists, lead by teabag phony Jim DeMint moved immediately to filibuster it and prevent a vote. Shockingly most Republicans joined the Democrats and passed a cloture motion to end the filibuster last week. The right-wing filibuster failed 22-74, only one putative Democrat, Nebraska reactionary Ben Nelson, joining the likes of Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, Tom Coburn, Dean Heller, Chris Lee, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt and the rest of the far right garbage who feel millionaires and billionaires shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. These are the followers of the fascist ideology first propounded by American pro-Nazi plutocrat Lammont DuPont in a 1942 address to the National Manufacturers Association:

"We will win the war by reducing taxes on corporations, high income brackets, and increasing taxes on lower incomes, by removing unions from any power to tell industry how to produce, how to deal with their employees or anything else, by destroying any and all government agencies that stand in the way of free enterprise."

The far right believed it then and they believe it today. DuPont introduced the far right's freshly minted new religion: so-called "free enterprise." Among the conservative Republicans voting with the Democrats against this creed-- and against the sociopaths in their caucus-- included Miss McConnell, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, John McCain, Jon Kyl, John Thune, David "Diapers" Vitter, Pat Roberts and Dan Coats.

Meanwhile over in the House-- run by sociopaths and nihilists-- they have a vote scheduled today that would repeal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs set in 2007 with strong bipartisan support. Republicans no longer support anything that makes sense and will surely vote en masse to take a giant step backwards. The standards the Republicans plan to gut today will save consumers about $100 per family per year, or about $12 billion nationally, when fully implemented. They will also reduce energy demand, avoiding the need for 30 large power plants. The standards will prevent more than 100 million tons of carbon pollution per year-- the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road. And the new standards are sparking investment in American jobs-- prompting manufacturers to build new U.S. plants and create new U.S. jobs making more energy efficient lighting technologies. For example, TCP, a bulb maker that traditionally has done all of its manufacturing in China, plans to open its first U.S. plant, in Ohio, where it will make new CFL bulbs. When’s the last time you heard of something like that happening? Does that explain their opposition? Progress is a horrible thing for reactionaries; it always has been-- which is why they are always on the wrong side of history.

Soviet-Style Privatization vs Actual Shared Sacrifice

Yesterday the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) issued a joint statement on the unconscionable Walker power grab in Wisconsin:

These dead-of-night tactics are a common theme in the Republican war on working families. Just as Washington Republicans passed their slash-and-burn budget bill at 4:40 a.m. on a Saturday morning, Wisconsin Republicans passed their anti-working family bill last night without a single Democrat in the room.
 
The New York Times tells the story: a tiny group of Republicans acted against the will of the people, without debate and without public representation. Last night they demonstrated their disrespect for Americans who only want to do good work, support their families and pay their bills. Instead of creating jobs, which they promised the nation they would do, Republicans have spent the last three months firing hard-working Americans and taking away their rights and freedoms.
 
The Republican war on working families is far from over. The Progressive Caucus is standing with everyday Americans every step of the way, fighting to stop Republicans’ shameless power grabs and layoffs.
 
To the working people of America we say: Stay strong. We stand with you. This is only the beginning of a long road that leads to a better America.

Another CPC member, Vermont independent senator, made a speech on the Senate floor yesterday explaining his bill for balancing the budget. It's a proposal that actually puts forward the whole idea of "shared sacrifice"-- which everyone inside the Beltway somehow has come to think means a bunch of middle class non-campaign donors/non-lobbyist hirerers sharing the sacrifice among themselves. Please take a couple of minutes to watch Bernie introducing his bill:



It would raise $50 billion annually from a paltry tax on the wealthiest of Americans who have been made even wealthier in recent years by unfair tinkering with tax policy by their conservative shills in both parties. There are so many multimillionaires in Congress and the media that the chances of this commonsense, popular approach will never be taken seriously, let alone enacted. Instead, the wealthy will soon have an opportunity to buy the valuable "commons" Americans have built up over decades. The Republicans and Blue Dogs want to sell off as much infrastructure as they can to their cronies-- just the way corrupt Russian hacks did in the dying days of the Soviet Union. There are now more billionaires-- all of them criminals-- living in Moscow than anywhere else on earth. All got that way through the kinds of unfair sales of publicly owned assets. Of the 101 Russian billionaires 79 live in Moscow, all of whom "built their empires during the country's anarchic 1990s." They bought up state-owned-- meaning people-owned-- resources from the collapsing Soviet Union for pennies on the dollar. Russian citizens have fared very badly under these arrangements and their standard of living has gone markedly down. Will the same thing happen in states controlled by Republican Stalinists like Ohio, Florida and Michigan? It certainly looks that way.

According to InThePublicInterest.org privatization in America is a very risky business... for most of us, if not for the well-placed very rich looking, through political cronyism, to become mega, super-rich.

Since the 1980s, governments from the local to national level have experimented with privatizing public services and assets. The trend has been spurred by the belief that the private sector can achieve efficiencies and cost savings for government budgets. Unfortunately, numerous examples demonstrate that these supposed benefits of privatization are merely myths. Privatization has often moved forward without adequate public deliberation or oversight. Poorly conceived and constructed contracts have resulted in cost increases, as well as diminished service quality, and have failed to protect against corruption, profiteering, and loss of the accountability and openness required of government processes.

Privatization involves turning over previously governmental functions to private entities. It takes two basic forms:

• The government receives money for the purchase or long-term lease of revenue-producing infrastructure, facilities or other assets.

• The government pays a contractor to provide public services.

Many complex variations have evolved, including various forms of public-private partnerships, known as P3s.
 
Concerned with the loss of democratic accountability and control, many groups and communities are reconsidering privatization. They are working with lawmakers to provide protections against contracts that are against the public interest by promoting fair and responsible contracting standards, and requiring full public deliberation of decisions to sell or lease public assets.

Without proper protections, putting public services and assets in private hands can result in lost accountability and transparency, increased costs for  government and taxpayers and degraded quality.

Other common risks of privatization include: corruption, reduced access, reduced labor standards, lost public capacity for core functions, environmental harm, and human and civil rights violations.

Wisconsin is now in the process of privatizing everything Scott Walker can sell off before he can be recalled by outraged Wisconsinites next January-- including the state's power plants, public parks and Wisconsin's beloved state university system. And Wall Street predators are jumping for joy, unable to contain themselves, over Michigan's quieter, but even more deadly, lurch down the same path Walker is dragging Wisconsin. They're already passed heinous legislation that will enable the state to turn over local government entities to private corporations, and will also enable union contracts to be broken, pension boards to be overturned... a right-wing wet dream. Turning elected government entities over to corporations is the height of anti-democratic privatization. It's a whole new concept in both sharing and redistributing the wealth... it's the Republican way.

Dear Mr. President

By Noah
 
Dear Mr. President:
    
You have inspired me! But, perhaps not in the way you would have wanted. This morning, I received, in my email, your explanation for your proposed budget via your whitehouse.gov website. I composed a short, respectful note in response since your site claimed to welcome such things. I hit submit and instantly got a notice that you were unable to receive my message, that the site was being renovated, blah, blah, etc. Yeah, right. I guess it’s all an indication of the new austerity that you didn’t even bother with the old circular file trashcan. So, in response, I have decided to elaborate.
     
In both your speeches and in your emailed explanation, you talk about "shared sacrifice." To quote you directly:

"Getting our fiscal house in order requires shared sacrifice." 

You are often accused by media propagandists and their ignorant followers of wealth redistribution. They would have us believe that the distribution is downward when, in fact, you are continuing the distribution of wealth upward that was accelerated by your idol President Ronald Reagan and perfected by so-called President George W. Bush. As I write this, the wealthiest 1% in our country own a whopping 24% of the nation’s wealth and the same 1% “earns” more than the bottom 50%. Apparently, this isn’t enough to satisfy you or the criminals of Wall Street and our corporate boardrooms (or should I say, golf courses and yachts?). Yes, taxes are lower now than the Dubya years, and have been since you took over, but still, Warren Buffet pays more tax than his secretary. He pays an effective tax rate of 16% while his secretary pays the usual 35%. Even he is on record as saying it’s a ridiculous situation.
 
According to one of the very few trustworthy people in Washington, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), 18,000 businesses are allowed to list a single address for a single four story building in the Cayman Islands so they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes.Must be a very crowded building. Yet you folks in Washington continue to take pride in giving tax breaks to your rich cronies in the Top 2% and to corporations that use a wide variety of loopholes designed by the venal bribe-taking crooks in Congress and K Street Slime to avoid paying taxes at all to begin with. How much did Exxon pay on their $19 BILLION last year? Answer: ZERO. AND, they get a Congress approved Oil Subsidy culled from taxpayer dollars in addition! Taxpayers give lowlifes like Exxon their money so that poor abused Exxon won’t have to pay taxes themselves! Where do I get that deal, Mr. President? I could go on and on with a list of similar Corporate Welfare deals you all hand out but why bother? You and Boehner probably both play golf with the various CEOs and have some good laughs (at our expense, literally, no doubt) over some beers. Nah, probably Dom Perignon, eh?
    
You punish the victims but not the perps. To date, no one who deliberately caused the current economic chaos has gone to jail. At least Reagan put some of the S & L perps away for a while, even if it was only whose whitecollar tennis camp type of jails. You think we are stupid and not worthy of respect and fair treatment. History is full of the lessons of class warfare. I don't see why the middle and working classes have to pay not only their share but your share and your friend's shares too. Your vision of “shared sacrifice” is quite different than mine. Neither of us would be in the situations we are in if this country had a fair and sensible tax code. Dubya applied the coup de grace to that. At this point, you might want to look up Senator Ted Kennedy’s famous “What is the price” speech.



I have a few questions for you. The nation’s budget is a shambles. How do you expect to keep tax revenues pouring into our treasury when you allow the rich and the corporations not to pay taxes and how do you expect to get tax money from people who don’t have jobs because you allow and incentivize your cronies to ship their jobs out of our country? 43,000 factories closed during the Bush years. You can’t tax people who don’t have a job or an income, but you can try to squeeze blood from a stone and that is what you are attempting. Apparently, you even want to go after Social Security and other entitlements just as state governors want to loot state pension funds and bust unions to do it like the mob used to. How do you expect citizens to buy goods when you have taken all of their income, their savings, and then even gone after their pensions and the entitlements they paid into? Earth to Washington: A business without customers will not prevail! How many homeless people are required to be on the streets before you notice or should I say, care? A huge CONE OF DELUSION is covering the Washington Beltway and everything within its boundaries. There is no other way to explain the Washington disconnect unless there is nothing but meanness there. Will you be allowing tent cities on the Mall? Bathing in the reflecting pool?
    
I'm sure no one in the White House will bother to read this. It’s probably been deleted already. It wouldn’t surprise me if all email to Washington automatically went into a giant Spam folder. I was a Democrat. ENOUGH! MY DISGUST RUNNETH OVER. My vote may not matter so much when I vote for third party candidates in 2012, BUT it obviously already doesn't matter and besides, I will at least be voting in good conscience. Yeah, I know. The phrase 'good conscience' doesn't represent a concept that is well regarded in Washington. I suppose it's viewed as quaint or antiquated. 
 
You are all creating a class of people who have nothing to lose and no hope of gain. I wonder if all you suits can grasp the very unhealthy implications of that for all of us and our country. Your "invest in the future" sloganeering is not unlike the old "you'll get your reward in heaven." Both are merely slogans put forth by elite power entities, designed to buy time with false illusions of hope, delivered with fingers crossed behind the back. They amount to "Here, have some hope, so we can screw you now;" your version of the "Trickle Down" that never came, never will, and wasn’t meant to do anything but put smirks on the faces of government. I am reminded not only of one of our worst presidents, Ronald Reagan, but also one of the best, Franklin Roosevelt. When he died, a man was interviewed as FDR’s casket rode by in a funeral train. He was what you Washington types disdain as an “ordinary American,” rather than your favorite kind. He was asked why he was there and he famously said “I didn’t know President Roosevelt, but he knew me." Do you even care how you will be remembered? FDR created the safety net. Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway system. JFK put men on the moon. LBJ at least expanded voting rights to people who had been denied them. What will be your lasting, crowning achievement, the world’s largest tent city? Bigger morgues?