CONTEST TIME: Nick Ruiz Is Into The Cult

My first serious, non-hippie job-- my friend Andy started calling me "corporate Howie"-- was working for Sire Records. At the first label meeting, Seymour Stein assigned me responsibilty for The Ramones, Talking Heads, The Smiths, Depeche Mode, Erasure, The Replacements, Echo and the Bunnymen, Ice-T, Aztec Camera, Book of Love, Throwing Muses, the Tom Tom Club, Ofra Haza, Yaz, Seal, k.d. lang, Kid Creole & the Coconuts, My Bloody Valentine, Dinosaur Jr. and The Pretenders. Seymour said I looked glum. "What's the matter? You're not getting Madonna." I responded, "I don't want Madonna; I don't even know what her music sounds like. I want The Cult." So he, grudgingly, gave me The Cult too.

The band is back together and in July they'll embark on a long tour of the U.S. and U.K., culminating (at least so far) on Halloween at the legendary Roundhouse in London. The U.S. portion kicks off in San Diego on July 25 and circumnavigates America to end with two nights in L.A. on September 7 and 8. They'll be performing their entire 1987 smash album Electric. Ian Astbury came up with the brilliant idea of hiring Grateful Dead postermaker Rick Griffin (of Zap Comix reknown) to design the artwork for the "Wildflower" single and 12" from Electric. 700 numbered prints were made and around 100 were signed by the four band members-- Ian Astbury, Billy Duffy, Jamie Stewart and Les Warner-- and Griffin, who was killed in a motorcycle accident 3 years later.

Blue America wants to offer one of the ultra rare, fully signed, numbered, framed prints to a Nick Ruiz supporter. Nick told me he wore out his cassette copy of Electric and he's eager to see them at the House of Blues in Orlando August 14.

Here's how you win; it's simple. Just contribute (any amount) to Nick's congressional campaign at the Blue America page and you get a chance to win the print. We'll pick one random donor. And if you don't want to contribute just because Nick wore out his Electric tape, how about because he's one of the only candidates running for Congress with the courageousness and independence of Members like Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders?

"Politics doesn't have to be a humdrum affair," Nick told us. "Politics can be serious, meaningful, creative-- and fun, too. No one knows that better than Blue America, and I really enjoy being able to be part of this kind of work. We're raising awareness about the campaign, but we're also letting people know that politics is an art form, as much as anything else. I can't thank Blue America enough for the work they do. And especially, to Howie, for parting with a very elegant piece of rock memorabilia."

Read More

Boehnercare Passes The House

Thursday there were 3 votes leading up to Boehner's 37th attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and allow the big insurance companies to pick the pockets of every American who needs a doctor once again. This time Boehner gave the dubious honor of introducing the waste-of-time bill to Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann, who also has the dubious honor of being the first Republican incumbent so certain she's going to lose her reelection that she's already started running TV ads in her district. Pelosi was still disparagingly calling the bill Boehnercare.

There were 3 votes leading up to Bachmann's repeal rollcall. First was for ordering the question to agree to bring it up for consideration. It passed 228-193 every Republican + reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting YES and every Democrats except reactionary Blue Dog Jim Matheson of Utah voting NO. I should mention at this point that when you see a million e-mails from the DCCC castigating the Republicans for this repeal circus, Matheson is not just on their Frontline list of priority incumbents to be protected, he's been promised between two and three million dollars for his campaign. Matheson has the worst voting record of any Democrat in Congress. His crucial vote score as tracked by ProgressivePunch is 21.74 for the 113th Congress, identical with Georgia sociopath Phil Gingrey. There are a dozen Republicans that vote more frequently for progressive positions this year than Matheon (but Steve Israel isn't spending $2 million to help any of them win reelection).

The second vote, 10 minutes later, was another procedural one to basically just agree to the first one. This one passed 226-192, the change being another DCCC top priority Frontline reactionary Democrat, this time Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, voting with the GOP and Matheson. McIntyre has amassed as nearly a far-right voting record as Matheson. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score this session is a putrid 40.91, right between Republican Mafioso figure Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY) of Staten Island (42.11) and craven and cowardly Arizona New Dem Ron Barber (39.13). Last November enough discouraged Democrats stayed away from the polls in Matheson's and McIntyre's districts so that they both these mangy Blue Dogs came closer to losing than any other Members of Congress. McIntyre's margin was 654 votes and Mathson's was 768.

Next up was a Motion to Recommit by Lois Capps (D-CA), which would have at least preserved benefits of the Affordable Care Act for women and children by excluding from repeal: (1) elimination of cost sharing for preventive health services, including breast cancer screening, screening for gestational diabetes, and screening for domestic abuse; (2) access to health care coverage for those with preexisting conditions (children and adults); (3) medical loss ratio requirements that ensure consumers receive good value for their premiums; (4) elimination of lifetime and annual limits on benefits; and (5) dependent coverage of adult children until age 26. It failed 190-230. McIntyre hid in the toilet while the vote was taking place, but Matheson was joined by right-wing Democrats Collin Peterson (MN), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Nick Rahall (WV) on the Republican side of the aisle. McIntyre flushed-- though unfortunately not himself-- and came back in time for the final vote on the bill, which passed with all 229 Republicans (+ Matheson and McIntyre) voting YES and 195 Democrats voting NO.

A few minutes after the vote, I spoke with three Democratic challengers running against high-profile Republican backers of the bill. Ohio steel worker Andy Hounshell is taking on Boehner himself-- with no help from the DCCC, of course, who needs all that money to prop up Matheson and McIntyre-- and like many of us, he would like to see the Affordable Care Act improved, not destroyed. "At a time when our country needs good leadership," he told me, "we are stuck with a Speaker of the House who's idea of moving our country forward is having the House vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act for the 37th time. While I don't agree with the entire Act, it provides health care coverage for millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it. Instead of trying 37 times to repeal or defund it, imagine if the House would have tried 37 times to improve it. This blatant disregard for the millions of uninsured Americans who have picked up coverage under the act highlights the differences between our beliefs. This is not the leadership we need in Congress. We need job creation in this country and that is what our Representatives should be doing, not voting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

John Mica, the Orlando-area Boehner puppet is being taken on by progressive Democrat Nick Ruiz, who agrees with Hounshell that Obamacare has a lot of room for improvement. He's a Medicare for all, single-payer advocate. And he's eager to take the battle to the voters. "It's time to replace John Mica. He voted to kill overtime. He voted against minimum wage. He voted to cut Social Security. Mica just introduced a measure Tuesday to stymie the federal Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to the Clean Water Act permitting process; what is he thinking-- that coal pollution helps American families? The measure, called the 'Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2013,' would place limits on the EPA’s ability to reject bad mining practices. And his position on universal healthcare is that America should not have it. We'll all be better off without John Mica in Congress-- and that's why I'm running against him in 2014." The DCCC isn't helping him either.

Although they undercut his race in 2012, the DCCC has come around on one candidate we spoke with, Jim Graves, the Minnesota Democrat taking on Bachmann again. And, of course, he sees right through her tired circus act. "Once again, Bachmann is using tax payers' money to put on a show. Her actions exemplify the wasteful government spending which she claims to decry. It is worse than Einstein’s definition of "insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"-- it is dereliction of duty and an insult to the public."

Read More

Why Is Buck McKeon Gung-ho To Allow Insurance Companies To Deny Coverage To People With Pre-existing Conditions?

90% or so of Americans would like to see Congress pass a law to enhance background checks for criminals, terrorists and the mentally-ill before they can purchase a gun. But Republicans have steadfastly refused to even allow a debate, let alone a vote, in the House. Instead, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has scheduled a 37th-- literally-- pointless vote on repealing Obamacare... not on making Obamacare better, which most people would like, but to repeal it, which would require a huge majority in the Senate and a signature from President Obama. So why are Cantor and Boehner wasting everyone's time? It means they don't have to do any real work and, more importantly, is allows freshmen from super red gerrymandered rural districts in the Old Confederacy to have a chance to vote NO as a way of showing lo-info voters back in their district that they're standing up to the illegitimate black usurper in the White House.

The DCCC is making their own political hay out of it. And, I was happy to see that just as they have realized they screwed up by not helping Jim Graves defeat Michele Bachmann in 2010-- and are working to remedy that situation next year-- they seem to have figured out the same dynamic here in the Los Angeles area. Yesterday they sent out a press release tying vulnerable Republican committee chairman Buck McKeon to Cantor's anti-healthcare nonsense.

The Republican Congress will cast its 37th vote this week to put insurance companies back in charge of health care-- will Congressman Buck McKeon go along? House Republicans have Tea Party Caucus Chair Michele Bachmann as their sponsor. Instead of finding smart reforms to our health care system, House Republicans are voting on Tea Party Caucus Chair Michele Bachmann’s bill that refights old ideological battles to take away consumer health care benefits and put insurance companies back in charge of health care.

  House Republicans already voted 36 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act during the last Congress-- costing the taxpayers $50 million.

    If Congressman McKeon votes yes, he will be:

•         Raising prescription drug costs by re-opening the prescription drug donut hole
•         Denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions
•         Ending tax credits for small businesses
•         Kicking children off their parents health care before they turn 26
•         Closing prevention and wellness initiatives that lower costs and improve health
•         Eliminating the cap on health care costs and let people go back into bankruptcy because of health costs

"California families want solutions that lower health care costs and protect consumers but Congressman McKeon’s Republican Congress just wants to refight old ideological battles instead,” said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Republicans will vote to put insurance companies back in charge of health care, which will raise prescription drug costs, deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and even drive people back into bankruptcy because of health care costs--but will Congressman McKeon go along with this backwards plan? Middle class families will clearly suffer if Congressman McKeon puts insurance companies back in charge of health care."

Last November, Lee Rogers won in the Antelope Valley third of McKeon's district and came closer to defeating him than anyone had in his career. Local activists are hoping to persuade Rogers to run again. When we first met him last year, he had an entirely different persepctive on health care policy than McKeon-- although he told us he would have voted against the bill that came to be known as Obamacare.

As a doctor, I see the effects of health policy and health funding on Americans every day. There are several tenets of basic health policy that I believe in. I believe health care is a right, not a privilege. Every American should be able to choose their own doctor or other heath care provider. Insurance portability, allowing you to take your same insurance from job to job, is important. Discrimination for pre-existing conditions must not be allowed.

But this is a deeper problem because our current heath care crisis cannot be separated from our current fiscal crisis. They are one in the same. Health care represents about 23% of the federal budget-- and it’s growing. Part of the increase is because of the aging baby boomers who are requiring more care and part of it relates to the advances in medicine which are more costly. These costs cannot be controlled. Take my specialty, diabetes, for example. Diabetes affects 26 million Americans and an additional 79 million more have “pre-diabetes.” Diabetes alone is responsible for about a third of health spending. In most cases, diabetes is a preventable disease. For the first time in human history, chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.) surpassed infectious diseases (pneumonia, HIV/AIDS, etc.) as the leading causes of death. The World Economic Forum (WEF) estimates that chronic diseases will cost the world $47 Trillion by 2030. We must get control of chronic diseases, lest we bankrupt ourselves. This problem is not going away in 5, 10, or 15 years. It is a problem that is going to last decades and will be a major draw on the country’s finances.

But there is something that can be done. We can intervene to prevent chronic disease, before they occur, before they become more expensive. We can invest in research to treat disease and prevent complications. We shouldn’t slash the health care budget leaving more people to seek treatment later when the diseases are more advanced and costly.

Many people have asked my opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or the health reform law. Yes, I am a Democrat, but I’m also a doctor and I would not have voted for the bill. It is about 2700 pages long filled with payoffs to corporations and legislator’s home districts funded by taxpayers. It’s a sad state of affairs when legislators couldn’t care about what’s best for the country, only what pet projects they can get funded so they can fill their re-election coffers.

Certainly the law contains some beneficial provisions, like outlawing exclusions for pre-existing conditions, allowing adult children to stay on parents insurance until age 26, and eliminating lifetime maximums on policies. But there is more bad about the law than good. It creates an executive branch appointed panel to legislate reimbursement decisions by Medicare, instead of Congress. It creates Accountable Care Organizations (ACO), which sounds responsible, but they are really HMOs for Medicare patients without the ability to contain costs that traditional HMOs have. In the few pilot ACOs from around the country, all have lost money.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to repeal the law, but I think that we can take the good parts of it and improve upon them and repeal some of the bad provisions and pork.

One significant cost saving opportunity missed by Congress was failing to allow Medicare Part D (the prescription drug plan) to negotiate medication prices. Why should we pay more for the same medication in the US than they pay in England or in Canada. In effect, we’re subsidizing health care in other wealthy nations.

As I have stated, the health issue is a fiscal issue. We need legislators with the right priorities in Washington. There will have to be shared sacrifice including a combination of cuts and increases in revenue. Irresponsible behavior in Washington caused this debt and we can’t let it solely fall on the backs of our middle class, poor, and seniors by cutting their benefits and raising premiums. That will only lead to a poorer health quality for all, and result in larger expenses down the road. We can’t bury our heads in the sand. Let’s put America first.

The DCCC isn't sending e-mails like that blasting all Republican culprits though (let alone to media in districts with anti-health care Democrats like Jim Matheson and Mike McIntyre). One especially bad Republican they ignored was John Mica in the Orlando area. But the progressive Democrat running against him, Nick Ruiz, isn't ignoring Mica's vile record.

"When John Mica votes with the GOP's plan to roll back the Affordable Care Act, what does it mean? Does he believe that Americans don't need or want it? Most do. Or does he believe that he has a better idea for American healthcare? He doesn't. And he certainly is against other alternatives like single payer care for all. So what is it with representatives like John Mica? And what is it about the GOP? Do they want people to suffer? Do they want illness to go uncared for? There's no logical explanation for their position against expanding insurance coverage for American families. The only question now is-- will American families act to remove people like him and his party from office, because they clearly do not represent the best interests of America."

You can help Nick do that-- here.

UPDATE: DCCC Staffers Seem To Be Making Good Decisions Without Interference From Israel

The DCCC is launching a campaign of robocalls against 10 Republicans who keep voting against Obamacare in blue districts. In the past Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have prevented staffers from launching these kinds of campaigns against their personal Republican friends. This list includes two Republicans the dynamic duo have protected in the past, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ). We'll see if Israel allows the DCCC to follow through with real recruitment efforts and campaigns against these two. The other eight Republicans who are getting the robocalls: Chris Gibson (R-NY), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Gary Miller (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Bill Young (R-FL), Joe Heck (R-NV) and Steve Pearce (R-NM). The script people living in Coalinga, Hanford, Delano and in Fresno's southern suburbs are getting: today:

The Republican Congress is scheduled to vote tomorrow to put insurance companies back in charge of your health care and repeal vital consumer protections and benefits that you’ve earned.

And your Congressman might be part of the problem. Tell Congressman Valadao to stand up for middle class families here in California-- and don't help the Republican Congress give insurance companies more control over your life.

We don’t need any more ideological wars in Washington, we need solutions that reduce health care costs and protect consumers. Sadly, Congressman Valadao might deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, raise prescription drug costs, kick kids off their parents' health care before they turn 26 and even eliminate the cap on health care costs, forcing people into bankruptcy to take care of their families.

That would be a devastating blow to middle class families like yours across the country. Call Congressman David Valadao now at [xxx-xxx-xxxx] and tell him to vote no. Tell him it’s time to move forward and strengthen our health care, not join the partisans in Congress who want to put insurance companies back in charge.

Read More

Wall Street Shill Maria Bartiromo Exposes A "Continued Assault On The Banks" (No, Really)

Watch CNBC's Maria Bartiromo (above) further ingratiating herself with the banksters on Thursday: "While the banks have done wrong, it is time to ask the question, 'what more does the public want from the banks and why are we trying to destroy this vital industry?' Federal Reserve official Dan Tarullo's recent speech on the banks, creating another alternative to break up the mega banks, he is proposing linking liquidity and capital, meaning the more a financial firm relies on wholesale funding, the more capital it must carry. This is one way to target the big supermarket banks like J.P. Morgan, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, and others. Those all have large broker/dealer operations and tend to rely more on wholesale funding than traditional banks. My question is 'how come we never hear about the changes that have already been put in place in the last few years?' Debt: it's been cut by institutions. Capital: it is soaring; has been raised by hundreds of billions of dollars across the industry. Compensation has come down, has been cut across the world, in particular severely in Europe. Money in reserve: the highest levels many of these companies have ever seen. That's why some of them are not lending the way you would want. Yet it is probably inevitable that regulators will adopt more measures that go beyond what they are proposing in Europe, the Basel Three, to ensure that the biggest banks have huge piles of cash in the event of another financial Armageddon. While I do not believe the push for this kind of capital, stockpile and other regulations will in fact result in the major banks splitting up right now, it is having a major impact nonetheless. The uncertainty, the confusion-- we don't even know which companies will be deemed systemically important to the economy, which would totally change the terms for those banks and how they would need to operate-- all of these open questions are causing the banks to sit on money, reluctant to hire, reluctant to lend, unable to invest in the future, and hire workers. I would love to hear some of the positives from regulators as opposed to the constant drumbeat of attacks. Banks are not angels, but they are not the devils they are being made out to be. They remain a vital part of what makes capitalism the best system in the history of the world."

Blue America doesn't endorse candidates who aren't 100% pro-Choice and pro-equality. But that isn't to say that we endorse every pro-Choice/pro-equality candidate. We look for courageous men and women of good character who have fully embraced economic and well as social justice. Right now there is a concerted-- and quite successful-- effort to roll back the modest achievements of Dodd-Frank reforming a few aspects of the giant Wall Street rip-off. Despite Bartiromo's wailing, none of the criminal banksters-- not one-- was sent to prison. Not one was arrested or tried or forced to pay back the millions they looted from the economy. I haven't heard a single politician demanding that banksters should be rounded up en masse and put in front of firing squads before their estates are confiscated. If that happened, I might not agree with Bartiromo, but I could at least understand her pathetic caterwauling on behalf of the horribly beset .001%.

Lately we've seen sleazy New Dems make common cause with the Republicans and the banksters to undermine Dodd Frank. EVERY New Dem on the House Financial Services Committee was pimping the Wall Street agenda last week. Fighting valiantly for working families and ordinary bank customers were Maxine Waters (D-CA), Al Green (D-TX), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Mike Capuano (D-MA), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). The worst culprits and bank whores on the committee were Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ), John Delaney (New Dem-MD), John Carney (New Dem-DE), Denny Heck (New Dem-WA), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL) and David Scott (New Dem-GA). Maria Bartiromo and her CNBC colleagues are part of the captive media pumping those efforts up to the public. ALL of the Blue America candidates want to strengthen financial reform, not weaken it. We asked a couple of them to take a look at what Bartiromo had to say about the banks.

Massachusetts state Rep. Carl Sciortino is running for the congressional seat that Ed Markey is giving up. He faces a gaggle of middle-of-the-road, garden variety Democrats. That's not something anyone will ever label Carl, who helped organize the Massachusetts legislature progressive caucus and takes on the cutting edge issues that everyone else is afraid of. "The worst economic collapse in three generations was created when big Wall Street banks exploited policies of severe under-regulation. Does anyone just assume that banks left to their own devises would protect the interests of the economy and middle class? History would clearly tell us otherwise.

"We have seen far too many predatory loans resulting in foreclosures, a barely-avoided systemic collapse of our financial system, and blatantly illegal practices by some of our largest institutions. When private institutions have so much power over the economic security of our citizens, it is the federal government’s role to make sure they operate on a level playing field and everyday peoples' interests are protected.

"It’s true that banks are a vital part of the economy. But appropriate regulations ensure banks continue to function and support our economy-- instead of being a part of breaking it.

'What more does the public want from banks,' she asks? We should demand full accountability for past illegal and predatory practices, and less whining about how big banks are somehow the victim."

Daylin Leach is also a progressive icon in his state legislature, the Pennsylvania Senate. He's running for the seat Allyson Schwartz is abandoning in northeast Philly/Montgomery County and he sees Bartiromo's outburst a lot like Carl did. "Nobody is assigning religious attributes to banks," he began. "It's not a question of them being 'angels' or 'devils.' Mitt Romney's musing aside, they are not even people. They are financial institutions created to serve us. When they do so honestly, fairly and transparently, they should be applauded. When they cheat, lie, rig the system or violate the law they should be punished and reformed.

"Maria's apologia glosses over the very real damage that some banking practices have wrought on our country. She dedicates precisely one sentence to 'banks have done wrong.' Really? Have they?? The rest of her speech makes the case for not enacting the very changes that will ensure we never have the sort of economic collapse we've recently seen again. If I could distill her speech down to its essence, it would be 'move along, nothing to see here.' The truth is, that consumers are going to need a lot more than that to ever again feel the system works for them."

And Nick Ruiz, a young father and professor, is taking on grotesque and longtime bankster apologist, John Mica in the Orlando area. As always, he sees the problem through the eyes of a typical American family. "The public wants the banks to work for everyone, not just the mega-account holders, and those receiving mega-compensation and mega-bonuses."

Banks are vital, and should be treated as such. But what that means, is that they must function to sustain adequate levels of capital circulation, rather than function to exact austerity and sequestration. Their job is to help people and society through the 'miracle' of reasonable capital security and credit-- not cause people and society enormous pain and suffering. But that is what they have done.

And so now, we have to process that history and decide what to do. It's clear that left to their own devices, too many financial institutions will hoard and speculate, but that does not in itself produce a greater society with a better standard of living. Left to their own devices, too many have acted in such a way as to concentrate their wealth and political power, sequestering the lion's share of the gains to themselves and their most intimate beneficiaries. Their behavior has a wide-ranging effect: it is devastating our society and we must act to alter this historical course now.

The truth of the matter is, a change in this financial aspect of our society will require far more than shoring up capital requirements and the size of different financial institutions-- rather, it will require a progressive change in the ideology of finance and banking itself, along with the redefinition of what banks exist to do. There is a new measure of corporate social responsibility that banks have come to be recognized as worthy of, and it's up to us to be sure that responsibility materializes in our body of laws. In reality, the collective activity of these financial institutions comes to bear upon all sectors of society; from employment, basic scientific research and industry-- to the arts, childhood education, the military, the social safety net and more-- their reach is foundational and constitutive of our entire socioeconomic circulatory system. If they fail-- all of society fails with them. It is this level of understanding, collective reciprocity and solidarity that must come to be expected and managed between Wall Street and Main Street. It is all of this that we must work toward.

Again, if you'd like to help bring about a different world that folks like John Mica, Maria Bartiromo, Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan envision, you can help Carl, Daylin and Nick here.

Read More

Dust-Up In Orlando-- Alan Grayson vs John Mica vs Nick Ruiz

The Orlando Metro has 4 congressmen, Corrine Brown (D-FL-05), John Mica (R-FL-07), Alan Grayson (D-FL-09) and Daniel Webster (R-FL-10). These were the election results last November:

• Corrine Brown- 71%
• Alan Grayson- 63%
• Daniel Webster- 52%
• John Mica- 59%

Monday, Lauren Rowe, a feisty, albeit simpleminded, reporter from WKMG, Local 6, invited two of them, Orlando's dynamic duo, Grayson and Mica, on to Flashpoint to discuss the Sequester, which Mica voted for and which Grayson strenuously opposes. "Anybody," Grayson patiently explained to Rowe, "who's looked at this agrees it will cost at least 700,00 jobs nationally and maybe as high as 3 million. At a time when the economy is already weak, slowing recovering-- and could easily double dip into a double dip recession-- I think it's a mistake from any sort of view of economic management... And I'm against it; I voted against it. I've been pretty consistent about that. Remember, we're talking about federal employees. Every one of those jobs is a job in the United States. You give a tax cut to a multinational corporation and the money either ends up in Zurich, Switzerland or it ends up in Singapore or it ends up in Tokyo or Seoul. It hardly ever ends up here creating new jobs in the United States. When you cut federal spending, you're cutting U.S. jobs," he tried explaining to the bobble-head who was already on to the next question someone had written for her about "some seniors who are maybe missing their Meals on Wheels."

Grayson, who Democratic freshmen admiringly call "the Kraken," was like a patient professor trying to make Rowe understand. But she seemed neither capable nor interested. "OK, let's move on to immigration..." She seemed far more deferential to Mica. As you can hear on the video above, Mica regurgitated the stale Republican Party talking points of failed European Austerity. Not on the video, of course, is the actual Democrat who is running against Mica and will replace him as the fourth Orlando congressmember if the DCCC decides to spend money on a real Democrat instead of on a celebrity's sister who publicly bashes unions. We asked Nick Ruiz to take a look at the interview and tell us what Orlando voters would have heard from him instead of Mica. If you like it and would like to help him get into Congress, please consider a contribution on this page. Nick:

"The problems America has come to face are simply not being handled well by people like John Mica. People need higher wages. Mica votes against higher wages. Social Security does not pay enough for retirement purposes. Mica votes to cut Social Security. Government spending per se isn't out of control. The lack of appropriate levels of historic taxation are out of control. Pollution is out of control. Banks are out of control. Military escapades are out of control. People like John Mica are out of control, and left so, continue to unbalance and mismanage the federal affairs of the United States of America to the point where we lag behind nearly all other Western nations on multiple historic measures. That's a fact. John Mica, along with countless other Republicans, and even some horribly unreliable Democrats, have brought about mass American failure. That is their legacy. Be it on education, fair wages, healthcare, the military, energy policy, social justice issues and more. Repeatedly, people like John Mica default to senseless policies of social bigotry and economic hardship, that are breaking the back of our domestic social and economic systems, and have squandered our reputation amongst a world of nations. It's time for him to go. And I look forward to replacing him for you in 2014."

Can you imagine the look on Rowe's face when she has Nick on her show and he let's loose with something like that? Two krakens... better than one.

Read More

Our Chained CPI "Contest" Is Over Tomorrow Morning

Tomorrow at 6AM (PT) we'll do two things: award the congressional candidate who had the most donations-- not the most money, the most people donating-- a $1,000 Blue America PAC check; and we'll randomly chose one donor to get the RIAA-certified 311 platinum award pictured above. So, there's still plenty of time for you to "vote." You do it here.

Although it's close enough so that it could go any way, the two leaders right now are Nick Ruiz, who's running in central Florida against Republican anti-Social Security reactionary John Mica, and Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach, who's running for the open congressional seat being abandoned by New Dem Allyson Schwartz in northeast Philadelphia. All the statements are on the page but here are the two that have the most votes so far. Daylin:

"At a time when corporate profits, executive compensation, the stock market and wealth disparity are at near record highs, it is obscene to even consider balancing our budget on the backs of seniors and veterans. I fully supported President Obama's election, but I can't support any drift towards corporatism to appease tea-party extremists. If we are really serious about ensuring the solvency of Social Security while preserving benefits well into the future, there is a simple solution. We should raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax from $110,000 per year to $200,000 per year. This is fair, reasonable, and keeps faith with those who rely on Social Security to survive."

And Nick:

"I would never vote to diminish Social Security benefits. These benefits cover retirees, widows, children, disabled persons and veterans-- none of whom receive enough as it is by current economic standards of reasonable cost, inflation and common decency. In fact, it's part of my platform to actually increase Social Security benefits, financed by lifting the FICA cap, and Wall Street cost-sharing. My GOP opponent, John Mica wants to CUT Social Security benefits and make seniors retire even later in life, at 70 years of age. It's unacceptable. Help me stop him."

Just a handful of "votes" separate these two-- and separate them from the other candidates. So, please don't forget to vote before 6AM tomorrow. Again, here's where you can do it-- a place where one dollar counts as much as $100.

Read More

CISPA... Who Betrayed Us Yesterday And What It Means Now

2 who spoke up against Big Brother yesterday: Amash (R)  & Grayson (D)

We tried explaining CISPA on Wednesday when the House voted on a few amendments to CISPA that were permitted by Pete Sessions' very fascistic Rules Committee. The serious amendments that were offered by champions of individual liberty-- opponents of CISPA-- like Justin Amash (R-MI) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) were not allowed to even be voted on, ruled inappropriate by Sessions (R-TX). Amash's disallowed amendment was meant to "permit a company to provide through contract that it won't share personally identifiable information with the government." Sessions tossed it out unceremoniously. Grayson's amendment insisted on Constitutionally mandated search warrants.

Grayson’s amendment intended to protect Americans from cyber-security-related searches without a warrant, in keeping with the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant prior to conducting searches and seizures.

CISPA adds provisions to the National Security Act of 1947 related to cyber threat intelligence and information-sharing. The legislation has raised considerable privacy concerns amongst civil liberties groups, who worry that CISPA lacks provisions requiring the government to obtain a warrant when conducting searches based on cyber threat intelligence. The Obama Administration announced yesterday that it would not support CISPA in its current form, because of privacy concerns.

Despite these concerns, the House Committee on Rules rejected Grayson’s amendment, and offered no explanation for its rejection.

..."I offered a simple, straightforward amendment that would have protected American citizens from unreasonable and unconstitutional searches by the government under CISPA,” he said. “I’m disappointed that the Rules Committee refused even to allow this important amendment to be voted upon by the full House of Representatives."

CISPA passed Thursday afternoon 288-127, 92 mostly conservative Democrats joining all but 29 Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Grayson rallied 98 Democrats against it. Obama has threatened to veto it in its current form. Among the Democrats making common cause with Boehner and Cantor Thursday were many of the usual suspects, Blue Dogs and New Dems, led by Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Allyson Schwartz and Ron Kind. Some of the worst of Israel's right-of-center freshmen who backed CISPA Thursday were:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Bill Enyart (IL)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Ann Kuster (NH)
• Dan Lipinski (IL)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)
• Eric Swalwell (CA)
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA)

Rob Zerban, who came closer to defeating Paul Ryan-- a big CISPA backer-- is probably going to challenge him again in 2014. Zerban is an advocate for Internet privacy and he opposed the bill. Right after the vote, he told me "I wish the Tea Party Republicans would get their story straight. With so many Senate Republicans citing privacy concerns while voting against bi-partisan, common sense background checks for gun purchases, it is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to turn around today to vote for expanding privacy violations in the name of a nonexistent threat to security. CISPA is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist, while expanding background checks for gun purchases could literally save lives. We need real representatives who want to solve real problems. The families of the victims of the Newtown shooting deserve better, and the people of Wisconsin deserve better."

Nick Ruiz is also up against a senior Republican CISPA backer, John Mica in the central Florida district just north of Orlando. Ruiz is also a dedicated privacy defender and he also said he would have voted against the bill: "John Mica voted: Yes, to government spying. I would have voted: No, to government spying. Which is to say, no, to intrusive Big Brother spying on citizens' private information as collected by private corporations for commercial purposes. Its been said that this bill effectively 'deputizes' corporations to spy on citizens and give that information to the government. It's interesting that the CISPA cyber-gestapo bill tellingly splits Democrats right down the middle. Alan Grayson, reliably held the line with a 'no' vote. And some of the far less reliably progressive Democrats (Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz et al.) came through with the correct 'no' vote, because they probably perceived it was 'safe' to do so. On the other hand, some of the more reliable progressives (Hastings, Brown, etc.) came out with an incorrect 'yes' vote.

"In the end however, it's clear that a whole swath of progressively-backed shills (Kuster, Kirkpatrick, Payne, Sinema, Murphy, Frankel, etc.) let America down with an incorrect 'yes' vote to government spying. And that is what is entirely unacceptable for the progressive community. And it's obvious why that is: an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation reported that the interests supporting the bill 'spent 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate and have dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders working on their behalf.' We can do better than people like this, who respond to lobbying pressure with open arms."

Andrew Zaleski at Technically Baltimore fleshed out what Nick was alluding to with the Sunlight Foundation report.

Supporters of the bill include big companies like Microsoft and Google, as well as major telecommunications firms, including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. And, according to the political finance research organization MapLight, those supporters contribute a significant amount of money to the campaigns of national politicians in favor of CISPA:

• Pro-CISPA organizations and companies outspent CISPA opponents $55 million to $4 million in campaign contributions to House representatives from July 2010 through June 2012, two months after CISPA advanced through the House of Representatives the first time it was introduced, according to MapLight data compiled from OpenSecrets.org

• House Intelligence Committee members have benefited the most: they’ve received on average 15 times more money in campaign contributions from CISPA supporters than CISPA opponents, a fact Congressman Mike Rogers, CISPA sponsor and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, unwittingly tweeted-- and then deleted from his Twitter feed-- in late March.

Maryland’s own 2nd District representative Dutch Ruppersberger-- ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and co-sponsor of CISPA-- has received $162,510 from interest groups that support CISPA, with $22,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T, Comcast and Verizon alone, according to the MapLight data. Those contributions were made between July 2010 and June 2012.

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers says this is another example of "corporate money drowning out the voice of the people. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act-- or CISPA-- is a vaguely-worded bill that could allow private e-mails, posts on social media, or personal information to be read by federal intelligence agencies like the NSA or law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Even worse, following an intense lobbying campaign by private corporate interests, House Republicans have not allowed critical privacy amendments to fix the core problems with the bill... If CISPA becomes law, the federal government could have access to anything from private medical records to personal family e-mails.  And the large companies involved in sharing this private information will not be held responsible if they fail to make the right decisions with your personal information and about cyber threats."

Before the vote, Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) offered a Motion to Recommit-- backed by every Democrat plus libertarian Walter Jones (R-NC). It was designed to fix some of the flaws in CISPA:

•        This measure prohibits employers, a prospective employer, or the federal government from asking for the release of social networking passwords.

•        This final amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a mechanism to control Americans’ access to the internet through the creation of a national internet firewall.

•        This measure requires an annual report on the number of Americans whose privacy has been breached by attack or intrusion.

Read More

104 Republican Congressmen Voted To Reduce Benefits For Seniors And Vets

Looks like somebody stepped in it

The GOP is trying to decide how to best use Obama's screw up on Chained CPI for their own purposes. It's a Republican Party policy that he foolishly adopted for his dead-in-the-water budget at the urging of Boehner and McConnell. When will he ever learn that their ideas are toxic? (That's a rhetorical question; he'll never learn.) But while some Republicans praise the idea or say it doesn't go far enough, the chairman of the NRCC, Greg Walden (R-OR) has decided to use it in an attack against Democrats aimed at seniors and people who expect to be seniors someday. H was quick to run to CNN and tell Wolf Blitzer viewers that "the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well... you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go."

And yet... and yet... 104 House Republicans already voted for Chained CPI on March 20th, when it was presented as part of the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget. So whatever game Walden wants to try playing, the candidates he's charged with reelecting aren't running against Barack Obama. They're running against Democrats who, in most instances are strongly opposed to Chained CPI, no matter if it's being proposed by Boehner, Obama or a bunch of crackpot extremists. Let's take Buck McKeon, for example. McKeon is an extremist in a moderate suburban Los Angeles area district (CA-25). His likely opponent in 2014 will be Dr. Lee Rogers, one of America's most distinguished podiatric surgeons, a man who already came closer to beating McKeon than anyone else in his career. As soon as Alan Grayson and Mark Takano circulated their letter pledging not to vote for any cuts to benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Rogers announced he would have signed it on the day it was drafted. "As a doctor I am adamantly opposed to cutting benefits to our population in most need. I announced several weeks ago, I would have been a day-one signer of the letter Mark Takano and Alan Grayson authored pledging to protect seniors and veterans from cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, including chained CPI." So for voters in Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley, there is a clear choice: McKeon (and Obama) want to cut social security benefits for seniors and veterans using Chained CPI. Rogers is adamantly opposed. 104 Republican incumbents are in the same boat and although most of them are crazy fanatics in gerrymandered blood red districts with constituents as ignorant as they are, there are several, like McKeon, in more precarious political positions.

This is a list of Republicans (with their districts' PVIs) who already voted to reduce benefits for seniors and veterans and could be vulnerable to competent independent-minded Democratic opponents in 2014:

• Justin Amash (R-MI) R+4
• Joe Barton (R-TX) R+11
• Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) R+4
• Dave Camp (R-MI) R+5
• Steve Chabot (R-OH) R+6
• Ron DeSantis (R-FL) R+9
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ) R+4
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL) R+5
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) R+10
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC) R+11
• John Mica (R-FL) R+4
• Steve Pearce (R-NM) R+5
• Robert Pittenger (R-NC) R+8
• Scott Rigell (R-VA) R+2
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) R+7
• Pete Sessions (R-TX) R+10
• Lee Terry (R-NE) R+4
• Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) R+8

There are Democrats serving in Congress in districts with PVIs higher than these. It won't be easy for any of them, but it's not impossible either. The Democrats running against these guys-- and every one of them is a male (even Patrick McHenry and Dave Camp)-- have an opponent who voted to cut Social Security for seniors and vets. They did it already. That should be what the election in those districts are about.

Two of the Democrats in the Blue America Save Social Security contest, Nick Ruiz and Ken Sanders, are in that sweet spot, respectively running against John Mica and Joe Barton. As you can see, each is already running against Chained CPI and other unfair cuts their opponents back. Sanders has a message that will resonate in the suburbs between Dallas and Ft Worth, maybe even down in Waxahachie, Midlothian, Ennis and Corsicana:

"We cannot balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans, and our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled one inch. Chained CPI, cutting Social Security, is a terrible idea and a pointless exercise. Besides, Social Security isn't in serious trouble. The Social Security trust fund is flush for at least two decades. If we want to ensure it's there beyond that, there's an easy fix-- just lift the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes, which is now $113,700. This way people making above $113,700 will pay like everyone else does, is a far better way of keeping Social Security secure long into the future. We need Congressional leaders who support middle class families, seniors and veterans; those who have helped make this nation great. I will fight to defend social security from Chained CPI. Seniors spend 20-40% of their income on healthcare. Two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income; one-third relies on it for at least 90% of their income. These people aren’t stashing their Social Security checks in the Cayman Islands and buying vacation homes in Aruba-- they are hanging on by their fingernails to their place in the middle class. Right now, corporate profits are at an all time high, the wealthy are doing phenomenally well and we must not balance the budget on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Support me and I will be your voice in Washington to fight against Chained CPI and any other cut that threatens the shrinking middle class families of this country."

Nick Ruiz is running in the suburbs just north of Orlando-- Winter Park, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, Maitland, Apopka, and all the way up to Deltona and Orange City. He'd make a great neighbor for Alan Grayson, who represents the suburbs on the other side of Orlando. They sure see eye to eye on protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Ruiz: "I would never vote to diminish Social Security benefits.These benefits cover retirees, widows, children, disabled persons and veterans-- none of whom receive enough as it is by current economic standards of reasonable cost, inflation and common decency. In fact, it's part of my platform to actually increase Social Security benefits, financed by lifting the FICA cap, and Wall Street cost-sharing. My GOP opponent, John Mica wants to CUT Social Security benefits and make seniors retire even later in life, at 70 years of age. It's unacceptable. Help me stop him."

If you'd like to vote in our contest, just contribute at least one dollar to one of the anti-Chained CPI candidates on this page. The candidate who gets the most donors wins $1,000 from the Blue America PAC and everyone who donates is eligible to win an RIAA-certified platinum award for the eponymous 311 album. Win-win!

Read More

How Badly Will Obama's Chained CPI Error Hurt Democrats In The Midterms?

Social Security has long been the third rail of American politics. It has generally kept Republican predators, fearful of losing their careers, at bay. By introducing the Republicans' plan for Chained CPI, Obama has weakened the power of the third rail. It's the worst thing he's done since taking office. In the long run, it could well permanently tarnish the Democratic Party brand. And in the short run, many Democrats worry it will destroy the party in the midterms.

Although Boehner and Miss McConnell demanded that Obama include Chained CPI in his budget proposal, the GOP immediately jumped on it as a betrayal of seniors and vets (which it certainly is). Greg Walden (R-OR), head of the NRCC, immediately went on the attack against Democrats for this "shocking attack on seniors." Who couldn't have seen that coming?

Democratic candidates are being put into the uncomfortable position of having no choice but to distance themselves from Obama. Mike Lillis at The Hill reported that no less a party Establishment shill than Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a former-- failed-- head of the DCCC, who oversaw the catastrophic Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010, recognizes the danger for Democrats running for Congress next year and that "Walden's comments foreshadow a line of attack the GOP will use on the campaign trail."

"There are the substantive concerns about the chained CPI-- I share many of them-- but there are also the political concerns," Van Hollen said Friday. "And the fact [is] that Republicans were very quick to show they would use this as a political weapon against Democrats.

"I know there have been efforts to rewind the tape on that," Van Hollen said, referencing Republican criticisms of Walden's comments, "but that first salvo demonstrated what the Republican campaign committee intends to do."

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Obama's Social Security proposal was a gift to Republicans that could single-handedly kill any chance the party had at regaining the Speaker's gavel in 2014.

"Seniors vote in even heavier numbers, proportionately, in off-year elections," he said. "So just looking at a political standpoint... I would think that this would be a damning blow to our chances of taking back the House next year."

...Walden delivered a different verdict, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Obama was “trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors."

That's precisely the message Republicans used to great effect in 2010, when, despite their own calls to slash Medicare spending, they accused Democrats of threatening seniors by enacting billions of dollars in Medicare cuts under Obama's signature healthcare reform law.

"I don't underestimate the degree to which they'll be disingenuous," Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.), a freshman Democrat who has emerged as one of the loudest critics of Social Security benefit cuts, said Friday. "It harkens back to the charge that $700 billion was taken from Medicare and put into ObamaCare, and [they] told all the seniors it was a [benefit] cut. That was very deceptive, [and] this is another instance of that."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), another staunch defender of Social Security, echoed that charge Friday.

"I never underestimate Republican hypocrisy," he said.

Not all Democrats fear Obama's chained CPI proposal will be a liability for the party during the midterms. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that the president proposed the change, so any political fallout should be directed at him.

"They cannot lay that dead cat at our door," Ellison said Friday. "I don't know how it's going to affect the president's brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it."

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), another fierce critic of chained CPI, offered another reason he thinks GOP attacks on Obama's budget won’t stick: Republicans, he said, have crusaded for similar entitlement cuts for too long to reverse course convincingly.

"The party that champions the dismantling of Medicare has a hard time attacking anybody for going after seniors," Deutch said Friday. "They would not come with clean hands to that argument."

Deutch predicted the conservative House Republican conference would ultimately prevent Walden and his National Republican Congressional Committee from attacking Obama's chained CPI proposal on the campaign trail, even if it would prove effective.

"There are too many members of his caucus who want to do real harm to Social Security and Medicare," Deutch said. "They won't allow him to even make that political argument because he'll expose them for what they really want to do."

Complicating the GOP attacks on Obama's proposal, more than 100 Republicans voted this year in favor of the Republican Study Committee budget, which includes a shift to the chained CPI.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) argued that the Republicans' track record on Social Security-- which includes the effort by President George W. Bush to privatize the program-- would make it "immensely difficult" for GOP leaders to make an effective campaign strategy out of Obama's proposal.

"They are firmly embedded in the minds of the public as being a party that does not support Social Security," DeFazio said. "Hypocrisy is rife around here, but I think that was a personal statement by Greg Walden. … I don't think this is a budding strategy."

..."Our job is to make clear that Mr. Walden's crocodile tears over [Obama's proposal] rings insincere and hollow," Takano said. "As a whole, Republicans want to do far, far, far more damage than chained CPI."

And aside from the obvious crackpots like Louie Gohmert, Phil Gingrey, Ted Yoho, Steve King, Mike Pompeo, Steve Stockman and Paul Broun, among the Republicans who voted for Chained CPI in the Republican Study Committee budget were members of Boehner's inner-circle like House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), House Homeland Security Committee chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX), and House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX). In CA-25, for example, Lee Rogers has been very clear that he opposes Chained CPI and all cuts to earned benefits for seniors and veterans, while McKeon already voted for it. Rogers: "I’m eager to find out where McKeon stands on taking away benefits from seniors, since he’s supported previous measures like ending the Medicare benefit and raising the Social Security age. As a doctor I am adamantly opposed to cutting benefits to our population in most need. I announced several weeks ago, I would have been a day-one signer of the letter Mark Takano and Alan Grayson authored pledging to protect seniors and veterans from cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, including chained CPI."

Other Democrats have similar dynamics at work. Florida anti-Social Security Republican, John Mica, voted for the Study Committee Budget and for Chained CPI. His opponent, Nick Ruiz has this to say about the Chained CPI scheme: "I would never vote to diminish Social Security benefits.These benefits cover retirees, widows, children, disabled persons and veterans-- none of whom receive enough as it is by current economic standards of reasonable cost, inflation and common decency. In fact, it's part of my platform to actually increase Social Security benefits, financed by lifting the FICA cap, and Wall Street cost-sharing." Same for Kenneth Sanders in TX-06. Joe Barton is a Chained CPI fan and voted for it. Sanders has been clear that "Chained CPI and the Ryan budget are both wrong for America. What this country needs right now is the kind of booming job creation that will get the economy running again. Penalizing seniors by taking Social Security earnings out of their pockets in not just wrong for the economy; it's immoral."

But will voters be able to distinguish? Or will they just have Obama and Chained CPI in mind-- with the help of a misleading GOP advertising blitz-- when they go to the polls in 2014?

Read More

Nick Ruiz And The Inaugural Issue Of New Left Now

In the premier issue of New Left Now, I interviewed progressive congressional candidate Nick Ruiz, who's running against a GOP Establishment hack in the Orlando area, John Mica. They said it would be OK for me to run the entire interview here at DWT. I want to remind you as you dig in, that Nick is a grassroots candidate with no personal wealthy, no corporate ties and no backing from the DC Establishment. If you want to help put someone into Congress who will kick ass for working families and never back down, please consider contributing to Nick's campaign.

New Left Now: This is the inaugural issue of New Left Now. Why don’t you tell us a little bit about what it is and why you’ve started it?

Nick Ruiz: Well, the premise is simple enough. American politics and media have taken such a hard turn to the right, that the progressives in this country, in trying to work within the current political and cultural circumstances, are unrecognizable to themselves. They don’t understand their own legacy. They don’t know where they come from and even, what they truly think today, about the real problems of engaging progressivism. And most importantly, because of all that, they don’t know where they are going. They’ve lost their cultural memory, along with their social and historical bearings. I want to change that.

New Left Now: So how does New Left Now fit in that process?

Nick Ruiz:  New Left Now is a forum for progressives. It’s the magazine of the New American Left. Essentially, it will follow an interview format. It will ask progressives: What are you doing? Is it working? Why? Why not? What’s your vision and hope for progressivism in the U.S.? Progressives are failing this country, in the most horrible of ways. Look at the Social Security cuts coming our way-- are you kidding me? We’re in one of the worst chapters of American history in terms of the lives of millions of people working every day and getting nowhere, even sliding backward, on voting rights, economics, racism, education and more-- and our irresponsible and inexcusable answer as a community-- is to decide that we’re cutting social services, we’re closing schools; that we’ll allow rampant voter suppression efforts; that we’ll tolerate congressmen calling Hispanics ‘wetbacks’ as in the case of the Alaska rep. Is this America? Yeah, this must be the place. Progressives are supposed to combat these things. But we’re losing this war, and we need to talk about it, so we can turn it around.

New Left Now: What’s your answer to all of this?

Nick Ruiz: Lots of things. I reach students through the college teaching and work I do in philosophy and humanities, because those subjects are rich environments for considering sociocultural questions, and students have the most time to develop insight and proceed to progressively change the world they live in. I’m running for Congress. Third time, I do so. I’ve started a leadership PAC called the Florida Forum for Social Justice in 2011 that supports authentic progressive federal candidates. At the same time, I started a non-profit think tank/advocacy group called the Progressive Leadership Council that troubleshoots current progressive trends and advocates for what needs to change in progressive culture in the U.S. We need authentic progressive representation, and we need a cultural environment that understands the benefits and realities of progressivism, as well the challenges progressivism faces in an increasingly hyper-corporate American culture.

New Left Now: How will you help voters-- who are often busy with their day to day struggles-- understand the difference between a progressive and a garden variety corporate Democrat?

Nick Ruiz: That’s really the question, isn’t it? Plenty of ‘Democrats’ running around. They just don’t do democratic things. They don’t write democratic policy. Modern Democrats have lost their way. We have to rethink the entire enterprise. I see the word ‘progressive’ as synonymous with ‘democratic’, because to be truly democratic, you have to make policy and support agendas that are fair to the most amount of people. Decisions have to be socioeconomically just. That’s the progressive test. In addition to that, policy objectives should seek to improve people’s lot in life, where reasonably possible. That’s New Deal policy. Garden variety corporate Democrats don’t do these things. Often enough, they do the opposite. Take the President’s move to cut Social Security-- and the Democratic establishment complicity with it. Not democratic. Not progressive. In fact, it’s Republican, and anti-social justice. It’s this sort of difference that must be pointed out for people. People have to understand that these kinds of people cannot be politically supported, nor elected.

New Left Now: Many Democrats just finished supporting and voting for President Obama, and now that he has broken his most fundamental campaign promise to not reduce Social Security benefits for seniors-- how do you deal with that without turning off voters entirely and making them cynical, repeating the words Republicans love hearing most, “They’re all the same.”

Nick Ruiz:  We have to be honest about it. The people of this country don’t want this, not when they understand the parameters of it, and not even superficially on the face of it. And most Democrats don’t want to do it. So why do it? Because they are not listening to the people. They are listening to the wealth establishment, and they are cognizant of the funding of their political campaigns. They want to curry favor with the wealth establishment. That’s who wants this done. In that sense, corporate politicians, and the PACS that support them, are all the same. But we have choices to make. You can vote for me in FL-7-- I’m the anti-social justice establishment’s worst nightmare. Because I will not acquiesce to social injustice. In fact, I will work to reorder the entirely unjust scenario just described, by replacing corporate Democrats with authentic progressive people.

New Left Now: Many Democrats here in Florida are celebrating new recruits to the party like Charlie Crist and Patrick Murphy, lifelong Republicans who are now opportunistically calling themselves “Democrats.” How do you make grassroots Democrats understand how this hurts what the party stands for?

Nick Ruiz: There’s a certain level of intellectual and emotional maturity that has escaped too many Democrats today, I think. And they don’t know what being a Democrat, really means. It means you can’t legislate against the socioeconomically-just, greater interests of people. That’s something Republicans do, consistently. Not Lincoln, and those kinds of Republicans. They’re in the past. Today’s Republicans. The Bush regime. The Romney/Ryan riot. The Fox News channel that propagandizes all politics to the point of farce. Grassroots Democrats have to support the Democrats that actually matter to the greater good. Everything else is waste of time, energy and money.

Read More