State Senator Daylin Leach Gives Pennsylvania Legislators A Reality Check

Daylin Leach is a candidate for Congress. Since Allyson Schwartz is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, he's running to replace her as the Representative for northwest Philly/Montgomery County. He's campaigning hard, but that doesn't mean he's neglecting his current job as a state senator. The video above was in response to the reactionary Republican budget, which passed the House 111-92 just hours before the Sunday deadline. Gov. Tom Corbett signed it immediately, although it is likely to result in immediate credit ratings downgrades (and higher borrowing costs for the state). Last week, Moody's rated Pennsylvania the 8th worst among all 50 states in terms of liabilities to revenues. Corbett scheme to privatize state-run liquor stores and hike taxes and fees to fund a $2 billion transportation plan failed.

Daylin's speech addressed the root causes-- right-wing ideological derangement when it comes to adequately finding crucial public services, particularly public education, which Republicans have been on a jihad against.

Findings from a secret poll conducted by a prominent Republican firm [Public Opinion Strategies] proposes that Gov. Tom Corbett attack the Philadelphia teachers union to overcome widespread opposition to his education policies and bolster his faltering re-election prospects. "Taking on this fight moves Corbett's approval scores on handling education" and "boosts his overall approval numbers."

...The poll suggests that Corbett, a governor who has long suffered from low public-approval ratings, condition state aid to Philadelphia schools on major union concessions and kickstart his hobbled reelection campaign with a high-profile fight against the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

...The poll first establishes Corbett's low approval ratings and widespread public opposition to his education policies, finding that "not only do voters believe that public education in the state is off-track, but they overwhelmingly disapprove of the way Corbett's handling the issue."

Sixty-nine percent of respondents said that Pennsylvania public education is on the "wrong track," and 64 percent blame Corbett-- 43 percent strongly so. In the Philly suburbs, 84 percent said that the city's schools are in the wrong trac. Seventy percent statewide believe that it is Corbett's job to help find a solution.

...[T]he poll does not query voters as to their attitude toward the nearly $1 billion in budget cuts to schools orchestrated by Corbett, which have affected school districts statewide and forced many to enact extraordinary property tax hikes... Twenty-one percent of voters say that education is the most important problem facing the state, second only to the economy.

"When," Daylin reminded his fellow legislators Sunday, "a politician debating the budget says 'We have to do with less' what they really mean is that poor kids, schools and sick folks have to do with less." That kind of attitude-- and a willingness to speak out about it-- is why Blue America has endorsed Daylin. This Daylin:

When people say, “we only can spend what we have,” it’s an odd thing to say because we control what we have.

It is not like we are given a limited amount of money from an outside source and that’s all the legislature and the government can spend-- we decide what the tax rates are, we decide what the fee rates are, we decide what the tax breaks are-- we decide all of that. But we make the decision as to what we have to spend.

To say, "we can only spend what we have," ignores the fact that we control what we have. It implies that we have no choice in what policies are made in this chamber, and the effects that they have on people are something that are just forced upon us. That we are innocent vehicles for realities beyond our control-- but we all know that is not true.

Previous speakers on this budget have said, “No one wants to pay more to the state government. If you take a poll and ask the voters, 'Do you want to pay more taxes?' the answer will be 'No.'" And I agree, that is probably the answer the poll would get.

I would, however, say that I know about polling. I know a lot about how poll questions can be skewed to produce desirable answers. For instance, if a pollster asks someone, "Do you want to spend more money out of your own pocket?" in a vacuum, without that person knowing what that money is going to be spent on, most people being polled will say "no."

It becomes interesting when you ask people, "Do you think we should neglect our schools? Do you think that we should shred our social safety net? Do you think that we should not provide adequate funds to protect our air and our water?” People say "no" to that too.

Then, when you juxtapose the two issues, "Would you pay more taxes if you knew that it would make the schools better?" people say "yes." Of course, people do not say they want to pay more money to the government for no apparent purpose-- but they will say they want to spend money to make our schools and our roads better.

I believe the people of Pennsylvania and the people of the United States are not hard-hearted people. They are not indifferent to the condition of our society. If you ask people in my district (and I can only go by my district), "Do you want to invest in the public schools?" They say "Yes."

When you ask people in my district, "Do you want to hire enough water quality inspectors to go out and make sure that the industries that are providing energy in this state are doing so safely and in a way that does not harm people, animals, wildlife, or the environment generally?" They will say "Yes." They will say "yes" overwhelmingly.

If you ask, "Is it a good idea to cut off all cash assistance for the poorest people in Pennsylvania?" They say "No." And you tell them, "There are 800,000 people in Pennsylvania right now who don’t have health insurance and the state government has increased that number by eliminating Adult Basic Care and other policies that provide health care." Then ask them, "Is that a good idea?” They say "No."

If we are going to make the argument that "we are doing what the people of Pennsylvania want," we should be accurate about what the people of Pennsylvania want.

One of my other colleagues said earlier during this debate said we can’t play "Santa Claus" with state spending. And, with due respect, saying that is demeaning. We are not playing Santa Claus, we are not giving gifts on Christmas morning. When you provide health care for a sick child, that is not playing Santa Claus. When you provide enough money for someone to be able to afford a lousy flop room so they don’t have to lay down on the streets at night-- that’s not Santa Claus, that’s not a Christmas gift. When you tell a kid that lives in a poor neighborhood that we’re going to give you an education that will enable you to someday get out of this poor neighborhood - that is not a Christmas gift, that is not Santa Claus.

The idea that the people of Pennsylvania are saying, "Not one penny, not one more penny for schools-- not one more penny for any of these things-- if it comes out of my pocket!" is just not accurate.

And beyond that, other members of this body keep quoting the private sector. But the private sector doesn’t want these things. The truth is, the private sector doesn’t want us to neglect education because today's school children are the people who will be working jobs in the private sector in the next five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years. The private sector does not want us to neglect roads and bridges because that’s how the private sector's work force gets to their jobs and that’s how the private sector moves its products to market.

As we consider this budget and as we consider future budgets, this legislative body should not fall for the idea that we are forced to neglect the basic roles of government and our society.

There is one more thing that troubled me, when someone said, "Families are struggling, so we are going to have to make do with less." This implies-- well, I don’t know what this implies-- but let's be clear, no money goes to "us." We are not spending tax money on beer and knockwurst for legislators. This money is going to help poor people. This money is going to help kids all across the Commonwealth. This money is going to fix roads. This money is going to aid law enforcement. But more than that, this money is going to programs that will make it unnecessary to spend so much money in the future on law enforcement because these programs are proven to reduce crime.

Saying state government is "doing with less," is framing the discussion in such a way that somehow by spending less money, we are doing something noble.

However, when we say we are "doing with less," what we really mean is that poor kids are "doing with less." Sick people are "doing with less." Handicapped and the elderly people are "doing with less." People who have to drive over crumbling roads and bridges every day to get to work are “doing with less.” Those are the people who are "doing with less."

"We" are fine either way. It’s not "us" that has anything at stake in this budget. It’s the people of Pennsylvania who desperately need the services that, in my view, we are not funding adequately. And I just wanted to make it clear that this really is what’s at stake here.

Please help make sure this safe Democratic seat goes to the progressive, not to some pathetic corporate shill being pushed by the Establishment (nor someone's mekhutonim). You can contribute to Daylin's congressional campaign here.

Read More

Things Are Bleak In Boehnerland This Week

Boehnerland, the community of revolving door K Street lobbyists who run the House Republican caucus through their man John, is very troubled this week. The unexpected defeat of the Farm Bill has shaken up the lobbyist community to its core.

“We were shocked. We were watching the vote on TV and in the final minutes were saying ‘what are they doing? This thing isn’t going to pass!” said one commodity group lobbyist.

“I’m shocked,” said another lobbyist. “Our job as agriculture is to go to the House and say Mr. Speaker what is your plan for getting this done?”

The intense blame game that broke out immediately after the bill was rejected in a 195-234 vote will only make it harder to get a bill over the hump, supporters of the measure said.

...Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said.

One lobbying source said salvaging the bill may have to wait a few months.

“Bringing the bill back while the House is being hyper-partisan on this issue is probably not going to work,” he said.

The House bill was heavily backed by commodity groups, from rice and peanut producers in the South to corn, wheat and soy growers in the Midwest to the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union.

It won only 24 votes from Democrats after the party balked over the inclusion of $20.5 billion in cuts to food stamp programs.

One lobbyist noted the bill appeared to lose support after an amendment requiring food stamp recipients to be working or looking to be worked-- sponsored by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.)-- was added to the bill. The solution, the lobbyist said, is to move the bill to the left.

“The Southerland amendment was a bridge too far for the Democrats,” the lobbyist said.

This source said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) need to agree on a number for food stamp cuts. The Senate farm bill, approved in a bipartisan vote, includes $4 billion in cuts to food stamps.

Another lobbyist wasn’t so sure that would work.

“I don’t know how you solve this. If you reduce the food stamp cuts to $16 billion how many Democrats do you gain, how many people do you lose?” he said.

The gloom in the official statements from farm organizations was pervasive.

"Rather than pass a bill that reduces the deficit by $40 billion while meeting the commitments of a farm bill, the country was treated to more Washington dysfunction,” USA Rice Producers' Group chairwoman Linda Raun said. “Patience in farm country is wearing thin.”

Southerland's toxic amendment was #102, the very last amendment voted on before the bill itself. It passed 227-198. It was a bridge too far for half a dozen Republicans-- vulnerable northerners, Chris Gibson (NY), Pat Meehan (PA), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), Peter King (NY), Richard Hanna (NY), David Joyce (OH) who are desperate to not be seen as lackeys for Confederate hardliners-- and only one slimy, corrupt Blue Dog/New Dem voted for it, Jim Cooper of Nashville.

Ron Kind (D-WI) had introduced an amendment that would have seriously reformed welfare to rich farmers by limiting government subsidies to wealthy farmers netting over a quarter million dollars annually. It would have saved $11 billion a year. That was voted down 208-217. 74 Republicans joined the vast majority of Democrats to back it. Big Ag shill Mike Conaway (R-TX) wasn't one of them. He called Kind's proposal a "slap in the face" to farmers that is supported by "radical environmental groups." Kind begged to differ:

"Unless my good friend wants to include the National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, Committee for Responsible Taxation, American Commitment for the Center for Individual Liberty, 'R' Street Competitive Enterprise Institute in that category of radical environmental groups ... they've all come out in support, endorsing this legislation."

For the most part, the only Democrats who joined Cantor and the corrupt GOP establishment in voting against it were the sleazy corruptionists who suck up legalistic bribes from AgriBuisness (primarily New Dems and Blue Dogs) like John Barrow (GA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Jim Costa (CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Bill Owens (NY), Ron Barber (AZ), etc. That's why Chris Hayes called the bill (in the video above), very appropriately, a "colossal piece of crap" and "Robin Hood in reverse."

Another amendment that failed came from California rightist Tom McClintock, who wanted to eliminate funding to promote and expand farmers markets (something that is very popular in his own state). It was defeated in a bipartisan landslide 156-269. Only one Democrat voted for it, sleazy Florida New Dem Patrick Murphy, and 76 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats against McClintock's unpopular proposal.

Now Boehner has to decide if he will make the bill worse to get some of those Republicans back on board by, say cutting more billions out of food stamps, or making the bill less toxic to lure Democratic votes. He has to have some kind of a vote to send to the Senate-House conference committee!

Read More

Threats Of Primaries By GOP Racists Make It Harder For Non-Southerners To Back Popular Mainstream Positions

As soon as Jim DeMint took over the already right-wing Heritage Foundation, he made sure it would be even more extreme and, especially, more racist. Their first big effort under his regime was to put out a phony "study" claiming immigration would cost American taxpayers gazillions of dollars-- or, to be more "exact," 6 trillion dollars. No doubt, South Carolina's former KKK senator brought the figure with him and asked the propagandists at Heritage to write a justification of it. The KKK senator from Alabama, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was so sold on the Heritage nonsense, he demanded the professional and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirm it. The report, as we mentioned yesterday, didn't go the way Beauregard expected. Instead of DeMint's $6 trillion deficit, it "estimates that in the first decade after the immigration bill is carried out, the net effect of adding millions of additional taxpayers would decrease the federal budget deficit by $197 billion. Over the next decade, the report found, the deficit reduction would be even greater-- an estimated $700 billion, from 2024 to 2033."

This is bad news for Republicans who prefer to keep their racism and bigotry under cover. It's not going to matter for the real crazies-- mostly in the South-- whose overt appeal is racism anyway, your Steve Southerlands (R-FL), Patrick McHenrys (R-NC), Louie Gohmerts (R-TX), Tom Prices (R-GA), Alan Nunnelees (R-MS), Steve Stockmen (R-TX), Virginia Foxxes (R-NC), Rob Pittengers (R-NC), Steve Scalises (R-LA), Tom Rices (R-SC), Trey Gowdys (R-SC), John Micas (R-FL), or Bob Goodlattes (R-VA). But what happens to the Republicans who were looking for a legitimate fiscal excuse to vote against comprehensive immigration reform-- the ones who want to maintain a veneer of not being pawns to the racist yahoos who run their party?

It puts "mainstream" Republicans like Chris Gibson (R-NY), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Pat Meehan (R-PA), Tom Petri (R-WI), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Mike Turner (R-OH), Tom Reed (R-NY), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Richard Hanna (R-NY), David Joyce (R-OH), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Dan Benichek (R-MI), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA)... in a bind. The immigration bill turns out to be a gigantic deficit-reduction plan-- both in the short term and in the long term! Their constituents are different from the die-hard racists in the backward parts of Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. The voters in these districts may not appreciate racism as a raison d'etre for refusing the solve a pressing national problem. Of course, on the other hand, there is an overt threat to these congressmen. Either vote NO on immigration reform, or face a well-financed primary.

And if you won't think primaries by radical extremists are real enough to scare the hell out of Republicans, look what's already happening to high profile Tea Party Senator Marco Rubio. During an interview the other night on WMAL, anti-Hispanic sociopath Allen West, who has the ability to raise millions of dollars from fellow extremists, said he will look into a primary challenge against Rubio.

"That's a pretty heavy lift, because you're talking about running against a sitting senator, and then, of course, that creates that schism that the other side would love to see happen," said West, who appeared as a guest co-host on WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Wednesday.  West was pressed further by WMAL's Larry O'Connor, who asked him directly if he would rule out a challenge against Rubio.

"Chirping... chirping... chirping...," replied West with a chuckle, before elaborating with a more direct response.

"If I see people that are not taking our country down the right path, if I see people that are not standing up for the right type of principles, and putting their own party politics before what is best for the United States of America," West indicated he might make a run.

Rubio, who rode a wave of Tea Party momentum to the Senate in 2010 in the same election that sent West to the House, has fallen out of favor with some Republicans because of his support for the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill. West told WMAL he has a "lot of concerns" about the measure himself.

...But will he attempt to make that point as a Senate candidate against Rubio?

"We'll see what happens down the pike," said West. "God will set my feet on the right path."

And if you doubt Heritage and other far right extremist groups have the clout to mount effective primaries against mainstream Republicans you've probably never heard of Heritage's venal Conservative Action Project, which Lee Fang has exposed in his new book, The Machine.

The Heritage Foundation’s most audacious move to harness the conservative movement has been its role in crafting the Conservative Action Project-- a strategy committee that meets at the Wednesday morning breakfast hosted by the Family Research Council. This is the same meeting that rivals Norquist’s Wednesday morning planning meeting and is closely connected to the aggressively ideological Weyrich Lunch. The Conservative Action Project is actually part of a broader plan set forth by Heritage vice president Becky Norton Dunlop, a point person for Heritage’s sprawling external affairs program. Throughout her career, Dunlop had spun through the revolving door of working in various Republican administrations on both the state and federal level, a corporate PR firm, and multiple conservative nonprofits, including Heritage, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, and the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. A committed conservative, Dunlop was once asked how to spread conservative ideas at a panel discussion hosted by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. “How do you maintain liberty?” Dunlop replied, “Well, at the end it’s at the cartridge box if you can’t win at the ballot box.” She then smiled and said that her response was probably too “extreme” for her audience of international right-of-center donors.

As the Heritage Foundation’s “chief ambassador” to the movement, Dunlop helps the American Conservative Union plan its annual CPAC convention, the largest annual gathering of conservatives. Philanthropy Roundtable, Dunlop and her external affairs team also organize multiple events to bring corporate donors and conservative foundations together, and she organizes regional and President’s Club events. Dunlop sits on the boards of over half a dozen other organizations, from the Phillips Foundation, which disburses grants to young right-wing journalists, to the Family Foundation of Virginia, a religious right powerhouse in the state, to the American Conservative Union itself.

Despite Dunlop’s impressive set of official responsibilities, her most important duty is not revealed on her profile page on the Heritage Foundation website. Behind the scenes, Dunlop serves as the president of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive right-wing committee that has brought together key Republican officials, Christian right eaders, and wealthy right-wing donors to set the conservative agenda since 1981. Although she had been a director for the CNP for many years, according to tax disclosures filed with the IRS, Dunlop appeared to take the reins of the organization in 2008. Called the “most powerful conservative group you’ve never heard of” by ABC News, the CNP is still critical to the conservative movement, and deeply entwined with Heritage and other prime players of the conservative movement.

Initially organized by fundamentalist preacher Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind Rapture-genre series, the CNP is credited with cementing the role of the religious right within the modern Republican Party. The CNP initially hosted Pat Robertson, the televangelist owner of a network of different Christian media companies, Moral Majority Founder Jerry Falwell, LaHaye, and theologian Cleon Skousen, an influential thinker within the religious right who wrote that white slave masters were the real victims in the antebellum South. Some of the first wealthy businessmen included in CNP were Amway’s Richard DeVos and oilman Charles koch. Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese eagerly embraced the group and served as a direct link between the CNP and the Reagan White House. In addition to Republican Party officials, the religious right, and wealthy donors, CNP members include representatives from the conservative media infrastructure, libertarians, and many neoconservatives. Although the CNP has never allowed the press access to its events, it is widely known that the group hosts several meetings a year to allow Republican leaders to consult with movement conservative types. According to Bob Barr, the Republican lawmaker who spearheaded the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, Barr met with the CNP to hone “our message and focus” around the impeachment effort at a CNP meeting in 1997, well before Clinton made his claim that he did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky. In his memoirs, Barr said the CNP members were in “near universal agreement” that impeachment was necessary because of Clinton’s “abuses of power” concerning “national security.” However, CNP continued to support the impeachment when it transformed into a crusade against Clinton’s claims about his sexual improprieties.

In 1999, George W. Bush reportedly gave a speech to the CNP promising to only appoint pro-life judges, which in turn helped guarantee the support of CNP members and solidify Bush’s nomination in the Republican primaries. Although little is known about the activities of CNP events, many have speculated about the degree to which CNP used its influence within the Bush administration. Salon’s Ben Van Heuvelen has noted that the rise of the private military contractor Blackwater, now known as Academi, might have stemmed from the fact that Blackwater CEO Erik Prince’s parents Edgar and Elsa Prince were prominent donors to the CNP and its affiliates, especially the Family Research Council. Prince family members met regularly with prominent Bush administration war planners, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Bremer, through the CNP.

John McCain kowtowed to the CNP in a speech shortly after locking up the GOP nomination in 2008, but still struggled to gain their trust. “I want to look you in the eye and tell you that I won’t let you down,” pledged McCain to the group of evangelicals and donors in his March 2008 address to the group. According to the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick, several audience members in the CNP crowd said that McCain made “little impression” despite his pandering. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and many social conservatives simply did not trust McCain, and viewed his acclaimed “maverick” streak as a liability to the movement. According to the New York Times and The Nation’s Max Blumenthal, CNP officials finally pledged their support to the McCain campaign-- and in turn the support of tens of thousands of evangelical churches organized by CNP members, various right-wing front groups owned by CNP members, and other conservative organizations-- only after McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Heritage can put a lot of resources behind targeting mainstream Republicans who are looking towards independent swing voters. The GOP base is still predominantly racist, bigoted and unable to think beyond the latest rants on Hate Talk Radio. But in many districts outside of the South, that's not enough to win elections. Look at the report from the new Iowa Poll for example. Steve King, one of the most viciously anti-Hispanic xenophobes in Congress spent Wednesday lying about immigrants and about the reform bill. The picture up top is from his rally yesterday. And King is backed by Iowa's increasingly senile Senator Chuck Grassley. But 54% of their state's voters approve of the Senate bill with a path to citizenship. 68% of Democrats approve and 54% of independents approve. True, just 44% of Republicans approve but only 48% of Republicans are opposed. The only demographic group that is against immigration reform are the elderly-- 65 years or older-- and even in that case, 48% approve but only 40% oppose. The rest are unsure.

Read More

Does The DCCC Actually Care About Immigration Policy?

I was invited to the White House yesterday for a briefing. I passed on the hassle and the opportunity. I suppose I would have heard President Obama reiterating his strong support for commonsense reform legislation to fix our broken immigration system, and the economic and national security benefits that reform will deliver. Tom Donohue of the US Chamber of Commerce, always pumping for cheap labor, was there-- as were labor leaders Mary Kay Henry and Richard Trumka. The President also invited two DREAMers, Gabriela Pacheco and Tolu Olubunmi. Later in the day, despite opposition from ugly little Texas fascist Ted Cruz and the KKK's Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), the Senate stopped the GOP filibuster against the comprehensive immigration bill 82-15. Meanwhile, Boehner was even heard muttering that the House might pass it with mostly Democratic support in the House and just a few Republican votes there. “It’s not about what I want," said a Speaker clearly caught between a rock and a very, very hard place. "It’s about what the House wants…we’re gonna let the House work its will.” Forget the Hastert rule... again.

The old video at the top of the page-- and from the top of the current DCCC website geared towards Spanish-speaking voters is dramatically out of date and hints at how "important" to DCCC Chair Steve Israel (D-Princesses: Long Island) Hispanic voters are-- i.e., not at all. Israel takes them for granted and expects they'll vote for Democrats because the Republicans are so absolutely horrible. And the Republicans are horrible. As we saw last week, Republicans sent Hispanic voters a signal by voting overwhelmingly to deport DREAMers. Luckily Boehner and Issa weren't waiting outside the Rose Garden yesterday with the House Seargant-at-arms to arrest Gabriela Pacheco and Tolu Olubunmi. Only 6 Republicans voted against the bigoted Steve King Amendment that demanded DREAMers be deported. And only three Democrats voted for it (while 195 Democrats opposed it).




So the DCCC response, predictably, has been to take out Spanish-language ads against some of the Republican miscreants, vulnerable Republicans in swing districts. Mike Coffman (CO), Blake Farenthold (TX), John Kline (MN), Joe Heck (NV), Buck McKeon (CA), Gary Miller (CA), Erik Paulsen (MN), Steve Pearce (NM), and Frank Wolf (VA) were the targets.

"The Republican party insists that they have changed, but once again, House Republicans like Gary Miller have betrayed our community, rejecting President Obama’s executive order that ended the deportation of DREAM Act-eligible young people," the ad's narrator says in the version targeting Miller. "What’s more, Congressman Miller wants to restart the deportations of 800,000 young people who grew up in this country, worked hard, and are just looking for their chance to achieve the American Dream. Now, instead of celebrating the first anniversary of the deferred action program, our young DREAMers again face an uncertain future."

Decent targeting and a decent and effective ad. There is a problem with the DCCC delivering it though. Any money the DCCC raises through these efforts will be used, in part, to bolster their Frontline program. The Frontline program is the top priority for the DCCC. It is all about rescuing Democratic incumbents who look like they could lose their seats for one reason or another. And two of the most likely Democrats in this loser category are reactionary Blue Dogs/New Dems John Barrow (GA) and Mike McIntyre (NC). Both crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans to deport the DREAMers. A case study in hypocrisy? Is this what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when, on reappointing Steve Israel to head the DCCC despite his abysmal job performance in 2012, she remarked that he's sufficiently "reptilian" to do the job? Just keep in mind, if you contribute even one dollar to the DCCC, some of that money goes to bolster the miserable careers of bigots like John Barrow and Mike McIntyre.

Si usted aporta ni un dólar al DCCC, parte de ese dinero se destina a impulsar las carreras miserables fanáticos como John Barrow y Mike McIntyre.

Pardon my French.

McKeon (R) and Barrow (D) both voted to deport DREAMers

Read More

Joe Manchin-- Best Friend Of King Coal

Conservative Democrat Joe Manchin is very popular in West Virginia and he is widely associated with the state's coal mining industry, not necessarily with the coal miners and their families, but with the coal mine owners and managers. When Cecil Roberts, United Mine Workers president, in the video above, yells, "They tried to bamboozle us, they tried to rob us, they tried to steal from us.," no one could have mistaken him for the state's junior senator. "Peabody's got thousand dollar an hour attorneys; and they got a dollar an hour morals." Last year alone Peabody ponied up $34,100 for Manchin's reelection campaign. The crooked parent company, Patriot Coal, kicked down another $48,400. During the 2012 cycle the mining industry greased Manchin's procession into the Senate with $641,548 in legalistic bribes. Their second favorite Member of Congress was John Boehner and they gave him $379,917. Among their top 15 most bribed Members of Congress, Manchin was the only Democrat.

So it was pretty extraordinary to see Manchin-- and Manchin looking pretty chastened-- on MSNBC with Chris Hayes Thursday evening. Not on Fox News-- on MSNBC. He seemed in shock that King Coal could be so ruthless in its unending war against West Virginia's working families. Where has he been? Oh, yeah... cashing all the checks the industry bankrolled his campaign with. Meanwhile, Patriot Coal thinks they can just steal a BILLION dollars from workers' pensions without any consequences or accountability. The Charleston Gazette called it "a travesty" in an editorial... and that was a quote from King Coal's best friend, Joe Manchin!

Here's a sobering question: If huge coal corporations like Peabody and Arch can elude pension and medical liabilities by transferring them to a spinoff firm that declares bankruptcy, why can't many U.S. companies escape their union contracts in the same manner?

This possibility is raised by Wednesday's bankruptcy court decision letting Patriot Coal shed $150 million yearly obligations owed to retired miners. U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., exploded:

"This ruling is a travesty. It is wrong that Peabody can set up a company such as Patriot, fill that company with its liabilities and then spin that company off for the sole purpose of avoiding its contractual and moral obligations to its workers. I don't think bankruptcy laws were ever designed to shield corporations from their promises and responsibilities."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., added:

"Once again, we are seeing how the bankruptcy system is stacked against the American worker. I will continue fighting to put workers and employers on a level playing field by closing the legal loopholes that allow companies to pad their profits while abusing the legal system to escape from the promises they made. It's tragic to watch how some industries treat their workers after they've given much of their lives to these companies."

In 2007, Peabody Energy-- the world's largest coal firm-- created Patriot and put its unionized mines into it. The following year, Arch Coal did likewise, putting union mines into a spinoff that merged into Patriot. Then Patriot declared bankruptcy, saying it can't afford $1.6 billion worker and retiree commitments it made.

Wiping out Patriot's pension and health benefits would halt life support for about 10,000 retired West Virginia and Kentucky miners, plus 13,000 dependents. In the bankruptcy plan approved Wednesday, Patriot will cease pension contributions and put medical insurance into a voluntary system funded by $15 million up-front cash and a $300 million profit-sharing pledge. The United Mine Workers would be given 35 percent ownership of Patriot.

More complications: If Patriot leaves an industry-wide miner pension system, it may be forced to pay a $959 million "withdrawal liability," say other coal corporations who would have to make up the lost pension funds.

Further, Patriot says it may sue Peabody on grounds that the coal giant committed a "fraudulent transfer" by giving Patriot its union obligations in 2007. What a mess.

Labor professor Bob Bruno of the University of Illinois summed up:

"If you can in fact spin off ... your legacy obligations ... and then walk away ... it's going to completely undermine what it means to get into contractual obligations in the workplace."

Stacked deck anyone? Inspiration:

Read More

Sean Patrick Maloney: Pond Scum Of The Week

A GOP ad that was inadvertently correct about Sean Patrick Maloney

Every now and then David Feldman, originally a San Francisco standup comedian, more recently a TV script writer, interviews me for his radio show on one of the public stations here in L.A. I've never heard it but everyone now and then I'll get an e-mail from someone who heard it, usually as a podcast they listened to in Sweden or Germany or Australia. We did another one on Thursday and David asked me if there was a political villain of the week. There were so many but the one I was focused on at the moment was rotten New Dem Sean Patrick Maloney, a freshman from New York's Hudson Valley. He's been voting really badly all week-- in committee and on the floor... and especially as it pertains to the plutocracy he's obviously enamored of (like most New Dems).

Maloney is openly gay and supports LGBT rights. That's about the only good thing you can say about his time in Congress. He represents a swing district but Obama beat McCain 52-47% in 2008 and beat Romney 51-47% last year. Maloney votes as though he were representing a deep red district and had to cater to wingnuts to keep his career going. On Wednesday, for example, he was one of the 19 Democrats-- mostly Blue Dogs and frightened members from oil states-- who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans on their unconstitutional scheme to take President Obama out of the Keystone XL pipeline decision-making process. Maloney has a lot of very wealthy friends. Last year an astronomical 72% of his campaign contributions were from big donors. Small contributions made up just 10%, one of the smallest numbers for any Democrat in Congress. That helps explain why he always votes in the interest of the wealthy and is as against normal working families as any garden variety Republican. (Except, like I said, on gay issues; he's good on gay issues.) But it isn't the full story. On his blog yesterday, Robert Reich filled in another piece, although it wasn't just about Maloney but about bad Dems in general, and especially the Big Business-financed New Dems:

Who needs Republicans when Wall Street has the Democrats? With the help of congressional Democrats, the Street is rolling back financial reforms enacted after its near meltdown.

According to the New York Times, a bill that’s already moved through the House Financial Services Committee, allowing more of the very kind of derivatives trading (bets on bets) that got the Street into trouble, was drafted by Citigroup-- whose recommended language was copied nearly word for word in 70 lines of the 85-line bill.

Where were House Democrats? Right behind it. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, a major recipient of the Street’s political largesse, co-sponsored it. [Reich didn't mention that Goldman Sachs was one of Maloney's Top half dozen contributors for 2012; I thought you'd want to know.] Most of the Democrats on the Committee, also receiving generous donations from the big banks, voted for it. Rep. Jim Himes, another proponent of the bill and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, now leads the Democrat’s fund-raising effort in the House.

Bob Rubin-- co-chair of Goldman before he joined the Clinton White House, and chair of Citigroup’s management committee after he left it-- is still influential in the Party, and his protégés are all over the Obama administration. I like Bob personally but I battled his Street-centric views the whole time I served, and soon after I left the administration he persuaded Clinton to support a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Jack Lew, Obama’s current Treasury Secretary, was chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group, from 2006 to 2008, before he joined the Obama administration. Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, left the Obama Administration to become Citigroup’s vice chairman of corporate and investment banking, and chairman of the financial strategy and solutions group.

All these men are honorable. [I have to interrupt again; that last sentence is crazy and it's wrong and Reich is jumping to conclusions because these are people he knows personally.] None has broken any law [as far as Reich knows]. But they and their ilk in Congress-- the Democrats who are now rolling back Dodd-Frank-- don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which Wall Street has harmed, and continues to harm, America.

It’s not entirely coincidental that the Obama Administration never put tough conditions on banks receiving bailout money, never prosecuted a single top Wall Street executive for the excesses that led to the near meltdown, and still refuses to support a tiny tax on financial transactions that would bring in tens of billions of dollars as well as discourage program trading.

Democrats can’t be trusted to control Wall Street. If there were ever an issue ripe for a third party, the Street would be it.

Or serious campaign finance reform?

Friday night Chris Hayes and Eliot Spitzer showed the inherent corruption endemic to the New Dem freshmen like Maloney-- and why they should be defeated for reelection. This is a pretty amazing video:

Read More

How Buck McKeon's Mormonism Played Right Into The Military Rape Epidemic Coverup

Last summer the cover-up of the epidemic of military rapes at Lackland-- engineered by House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon-- began to unravel, due, primarily, to the tireless efforts by Protect Our Defenders. POD battled McKeon's determination to cover up the scandal and keep it out of the public view. At all times, he insisted on closed briefings rather than the public hearings this kind of scandal demanded. And who was McKeon's point person on the Committee, with his own peculiar take on rape? Todd Akin, of course. It was two of Congress' most backward, patriarchal and misogynistic Neanderthals that John Boehner put in charge of "protecting" the Pentagon... and leaving the rape victims to twist in the wind. This from last summer:

For one of the most misogynistic members of Congress, Buck McKeon, the decision on whether or not to have an open hearing on rape in the military was easy. No! That’s been the answer given to Protect Our Defenders (POD) and Lt. Paula Coughlin-Puopulo, USN (ret.) who delivered 10,000 signed petitions to McKeon asking for an open investigation into the sexual assaults at Lackland Air Force Base. Some may remember Lt. Coughlin as the whistleblower in the Tailhook Scandal in the early 1990’s where 83 women and 7 men were sexually assaulted in a Las Vegas Hotel. A statement from POD read, “More than 20 years ago, 87 servicewomen were sexually assaulted while serving in the U.S. Navy, in what became known as the “Tailhook scandal.” Paula was one of the 87. The former Naval aviator reported the incident to senior officers, but they did nothing. So she went public. Today, Paula is going public again demanding Rep. McKeon open a congressional hearing about Lackland and then legislate fundamental reforms.”

A closed briefing was held instead and one general reportedly asked McKeon not “to hobble base commanders” in determining how to handle sexual assault cases.

Military sexual assaults have been put back in the spotlight after 38 female Air Force recruits came forward with complaints of sexual assault or rape by instructors at Lackland AFB. Fifteen instructors have been implicated and two already found guilty. One awaits sentencing and another given only 30 days’ confinement and a reduction in rank-- a punishment criticized by POD asserting the military doesn’t take these crimes seriously.

I'm in the middle of reading Rana Husseini's courageous book on how men brutally enforce their will on women, Murder in the Name of Honor. Much of the book covers her beat as a journalist and activist: so-called "honor" crimes in her native Jordan. But she goes beyond Jordan and talks about the dynamics of these horrific and barbaric crimes against women around the world. Patriarchy is so ingrained that even many women are ready to blame the victims like this 25 year old Jordanian with a Masters degree in economics:

"Women are the source of seduction for men and if all women are chastised then men would become good on their own. We are in a Middle Eastern society and I am for punishing women more than men because men cannot resist the seduction of girls who are dressed improperly... When women are punished, fear of their families will build up among them and they will think twice before committing any immoral mistake."

She was talking about women who are brutally, savagely murdered by their own families because they are raped-- and about the murderers who go unpunished by patriarchal legal systems-- whether sharia courts in Muslim countries or outmoded military chain of command decisions in our own Pentagon.

In an interview with Jordan Member of Parliament Mahmoud Kharabesheh for the Jordan Times Husseini found an attitude that many privileged males feel all over the world: "Women adulterers cause a great threat to our society, because they are the main reason that such acts [of adultery] happen. If men do not find women with whom to commit adultery, then they will become good on their own." Well, if they can't find a woman to rape, some rape children or other men. Others turn to sheep. And when Jordan decided to start allowing women deputies in Parliament, religious conservatives there reacted the same way religious conservatives did here. A deputy from Amman's fourth district, explains Husseini, "strongly opposed the idea. He said that being an MP was a man's job; a woman can jeopardize her honor by going out late at night to take part in related social activities. If his daughter stayed out late at night he would shoot her himself, he added. He told the gathering that a woman's presence in Parliament 'would be damaging, since a woman in the house would distract make deputies and stir trouble when male deputies instinctively look at her breasts.'" Husseini traces these attitudes back to the primitive Bronze Age origins of the three Abrahamic religions:

This has its roots in numerous ancient texts, including the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy (22:12- 21), where proof of the bribe's virginity could be presented to both sets of parents in the form of stains on the bedsheets. If an unwed woman was found not to have been a virgin, then she was to be punished by being stoned to death.

This was convenient for men in a patriarchal society who might be paranoid about "his" woman comparing his prowess in the sack with other partners. And, all across the patriarchal world even murdering women who are perceived as not living up to the patriarchal rules, is forgiven because it is judged to be in "accordance with tradition." A Pakistani Senator insisted that "We have fought for human rights and civil liberties all our lives but wonder what sort of human rights are being claimed by these girls in jeans."

In February 2008 an Islamic fundamentalist shot and killed a government minister because of her refusal to wear a Muslim veil. Zilla Huma Usman, the Punjab Provincial Minister for Social Welfare, was shot as she prepared to address a public gathering in the town of Gujranwala. The attacker, Mululvi Ghulam Sarwar, said that he was opposed to the participation of women in politics and the refusal of many professional women in Pakistan to wear the veil.

Speaking to a local TV channel, he said, 'I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah's commandment. Islam will not allow women to hold, positions of leadership. I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path. if I am freed again.'

What about Iraq, where the Bush Regime proclaimed that women's rights would be at the center of the project to make Iraq a democratic model for the rest of the Arab world? In Iraq women's rights have deteriorated dramatically since the start of the U.S.-led coalition's occupation.



And this kind of patriarchal mentality is certainly not unique to the Muslim world.

In Brazil, it is widely believed that a man can legitimately kill allegedly adulterous wife on the grounds of honor and such cases are regularly treated with leniency in the courtroom. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of women killed by their husbands from the 1970s to the late 1990s for leaving or divorcing their husbands, returning home late from work, refusing to sleep with their husband, suspicion of adultery or because they had been caught in an adulterous situation.

So what does this have to do with Buck McKeon's Mormonism and how he orchestrated the cover-up of the military rape epidemic? After all, Mormonism isn't the same as the Muslim faith, even if both were rooted in extreme patriarchy and polygamy... right?

Anyone who has lived among Mormons has observed the sect’s legendarily happy families and tight-knit communities. They are self-satisfied, devout and abstemious; overwhelmingly white and middle to upper class. Hard working, acquisitive, conservative and disciplined. A whopping majority of them consider helping the poor a top priority-- an admirable quality even if their anti-poverty efforts are mostly directed at their own ranks.

...Mormonism is a valid issue of concern not as a religious test for office, but for its most distinctive characteristic — male authoritarianism. The controversial and secretive religion is a multibillion-dollar business empire ruled by a stern patriarchal gerontocracy. Only “worthy males” can ascend to positions of power-- both now and in the afterlife-- and women are relegated to supporting roles. Male dominance is the essence of the faith, as the Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson found when she was excommunicated for her support of the Equal Rights Amendment. In her memoir, From Housewife to Heretic, Johnson describes a patriarchal world in which everyone is taught that "God, being male, values maleness much more than he values femaleness, that God and men are in an Old Boys’ Club together, with God as president.”

Protecting the victims of rape was the last thing on Buck McKeon's mind as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Protecting the old boys' network at the Pentagon was. This week President Obama called the military heads into his office for a chat. He had a very different perspective:

[O]ne of the great honors of my life is serving as Commander-in-Chief to what I consider to be the best military in the history of the world. And I am in awe of the work that the vast majority of our men and women in uniform do.

But the reason we are so good is not because of the fancy equipment. It’s not because of our incredible weapon systems and technology. It’s because of our people. And the capacity for our men and women in uniform to work as a team, a disciplined unit looking out for each other in the most severe of circumstances, is premised, as Ray Odierno said, on trust. It comes down to do people trust each other and do they understand that they’re all part of a single system that has to operate under whatever circumstances effectively.

The issue of sexual assault in our armed forces undermines that trust. So not only is it a crime, not only is it shameful and disgraceful, but it also is going to make and has made the military less effective than it can be. And as such, it is dangerous to our national security  So this is not a sideshow. This is not sort of a second-order problem that we’re experiencing. This goes to the heart and the core of who we are and how effective we’re going to be.

Now, the good news is I am absolutely confident that everybody in this room and our leadership, starting with Chuck Hagel and Marty Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our top enlisted men and women, they care about this. And they’re angry about it. And I heard directly from all of them that they’re ashamed by some of what’s happened.

But it’s not fixed yet, and that’s clear. So even though I think there’s a level of concern and interest that is appropriate, we haven’t actually been able to ensure that our men and women in uniform are not experiencing this, and if they do experience it, that there’s serious accountability.

So what I’ve done is I’ve asked Secretary of Defense Hagel and Marty Dempsey to help lead a process to continue to get at this. That starts with accountability, and that means at every level. And that includes accountability not just for enforcing the law, but also training our personnel effectively, putting our best people on this challenge.

I think Secretary of the Army McHugh made a very good point, which is I’m not sure we’ve incentivized some of our top people to understand this is as core to our mission as anything else. And we’ve got to reward them, not think of this as a sideline for anything else that they do, but incentivize ambitious folks in the ranks to make sure that they understand this is important. So that’s part of accountability.

Empowering victims. We’ve got to create an environment in which victims feel that they’re comfortable coming forward and they know people have their backs, and that they will work through this process in a way that keeps the focus on justice and make right what’s been wrong as opposed to suddenly they’re on trial, it may weaken their position, it make compromise their ability to advance.  That’s going to be important. They’ve got to know that they should have no fear of retaliation, no fear of stigma, no damage to their careers, and certainly no protection for criminals.

Third thing is justice for the victims. When victims do come forward, they deserve justice. Perpetrators have to experience consequences. And I’m pleased that Secretary Hagel has proposed reforms that would restrict the ability of commanders to overturn convictions after trial. Those reforms have my full support.

...I want to emphasize-- everybody in this room has heard from me directly. They’ve heard from Secretary Hagel, and they’ve heard from Marty Dempsey. They all understand this is a priority and we will not stop until we’ve seen this scourge, from what is the greatest military in the world, eliminated.

Read More