Bipartisanship... The Good Kind

Yesterday we talked about how cowardly New Dem freshmen Patrick Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema, who Boehner and Cantor know they can count on to almost always betray progressive Democratic ideals and vote with the GOP in a way that allows them to claim their toxic agenda is "bipartisan," have a phony-baloney bipartisan caucus that helps round up naive Democratic freshman to vote with the GOP. That isn't bipartisan-- that's self-loathing surrender-monkey opportunism. And Murphy and Sinema are probably the two worst mistakes of 2012.

This week Alan Grayson (D-FL) showed the way real bipartisanship actually works, something people like Murphy and Sinema will never understand even if they manage to survive in 2014. For Grayson, it comes natural and reminds people of how he was able to work with Ron Paul and bring along enough Democrats to pass Audit the Fed legislation that neither corrupt party establishment wanted to see happen.

This week Grayson's amendment to H.R. 1613 (the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act) was suddenly reported out of the House Rules Committee and was voted on Thursday. The amendment is simple: "Nothing in this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, affects the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath navigable waters, and the natural resources within such lands, within its boundaries." His amendment makes sure that States can do what they wish within their own boundaries. If Florida or New Jersey want to ban offshore oil drilling off their own coasts, they should be guaranteed the right to. In fact, Grayson rallied nearly the entire Florida delegation-- Democrats and Republicans-- in a way that left the entire House in shock. The Thursday go failed-- primarily because Henry Waxman, who supports it, was out of the room when it was time to vote and no one could find him. It was an unprecedented 213-213 tie. Only 5 rotgut Blue Dogs-- John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Jim Cooper (TN), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Costa (CA), among the most corrupt Members in the history of a very corrupt institution-- voted against the bill on the Democratic side.

Meanwhile, Grayson was able to personally persuade state's rights-supporting Republicans, that this bill fit into their worldview. The Florida Republicans who went along with him:

• Gus Bilirakis
• Vern Buchanan
• Ron De Santis
• Mario Diaz-Balart
• John Mica
• Jeff Miller
• Richard Nugent
• Bill Posey
• Trey Radel
• Tom Rooney
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster
• Ted Yoho

Doddering and incompetent imbecile Lois Frankel voted NO, but Pelosi woke her up and read her the riot act and she was quickly back on board. Today it was Hoyer, Israel and Pelosi that were corralling reluctant Democrats when Grayson introduced the same amendment for H.R. 2231, Doc Hastings' heinous Offshore Energy Act, It failed by one vote, 209-210 because the only two Democrats who wouldn't vote for it were the two biggest oil whores in the Democratic caucus, John Barrow and Jim Matheson. Barrow, especially-- coming from a state with a long coastline-- was happy to screw his own constituents and Georgians traditional preference for state's rights because Barrow takes more in bribes from Big Oil than any other Democrat in the House. Matheson, by the way, is #2.

Hastings freaked out that so many Republicans voted for the amendment Thursday and he got the GOP leadership to lean on Members. Doug LaMalfa voted against it yesterday but voted for it today-- until Hastings made him switch back to a NO voted again! Florida Republicans who voted for the amendment Thursday but were unable to resist leadership pressure Friday and switched to NO votes were:

• Ron De Santis
• John Mica
• Richard Nugent
• Tom Rooney
• Dennis Ross
• Daniel Webster

I wonder if GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy reminded Webster that it was Grayson's team who gave him the nickname "Taliban Dan." But the real culprit in this was clearly John Barrow, who had every reason in the world to vote for it-- and whose vote would have changed the outcome-- but who delivered for the oil companies that gave him $106,900 last year alone. Grayson doesn't get paid off by Big Oil the way Barrow and Matheson do and he works for us, not them. He's asking for contributions this weekend for his end-of-the-quarter FEC deadline. Give him a hand here.

Read More

"Ballpark bipartisanship," Al Kamen calls it

"McKinley and DeGette initially hoped to get 50 members to sign up for the outing, but they’re at nearly 100, and the new goal is to get 150 participants."

-- from the item "Ballpark bipartisanship"
in Al Kamen's Washington Post "In the Loop" column

by Ken

"Ask old-timers why Congress is so divisive these days," our pal Al Kamen writes, "and many will say it’s because lawmakers of opposing parties rarely hang out and socialize like they did in days of yore."

Now you or I might find the idea of hanging out and socializing with the average run of today's congresscreeps kind of chilling, but maybe it takes one not to know one. Anyway, Al has a breakthrough in bipartisan hanging out to report (links onsite).

Harkening to an earlier era, members of Congress are planning a bipartisan evening at Nationals Park, where next Wednesday they’ll leave politics aside and take in a game between the New York Mets and the Nats.

While we can’t guarantee that there won’t be some friction between, say, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and such fanatic Mets boosters as Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the event’s fare is more likely to include hot dogs and beer than political bickering.

Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) are organizing the event, which will include a reception before the game (at which the only rule is “no talking about work”), the Capitol Police Honor Guard presenting the flag and a performance of the national anthem by the Congressional Chorus.

McKinley had initially hoped to throw a bipartisan holiday party, but the “fiscal cliff” negotiations at the end of last year ensured that no one had time for such a fete — not to mention that few were in a festive mood.

It appears their colleagues are now game: McKinley and DeGette initially hoped to get 50 members to sign up for the outing, but they’re at nearly 100, and the new goal is to get 150 participants.

The event benefits the Wounded Warrior project, which helps injured veterans transition to civilian life.

And as if you needed more evidence that it won’t be business as usual, the lawmakers are paying for the $34 tickets (or $36 for seats in the right-field corner) out of their own pockets.

Let's hope they all have a ball. (Sorry!)

#

Read More

Intellectual Dishonesty Bi-Partisan Style

Patrick Murphy has managed to recruit Steve Stockman for his bipartisan coalition  of morons, the far right extremist who is suspected to have been in cahoots with the domestic terrorists who blew up the OK City Federal Building

-by Bob Lord

If you're sick and tired of partisan bickering in Congress, you may want to reconsider.

You see, one month ago, the "freshman bi-partisan caucus," or "United Solutions" gang, as they're calling themselves, led by 29 year-old Democrat Patrick Murphy of Florida, issued their manifesto, in the form of a statement to President Obama and House leaders in both parties, outlining their supposed bi-partisan solutions. You can find the entire letter here. According to this bi-partisan caucus, which by my count numbers 36 including 13 Democrats, their statement outlines areas of "common ground." My own assessment is that the supposedly common ground bullet points in the statement either are taken straight from the Republican playbook or are proposals with which nobody could conceivably take issue, like "aggressively pursuing Medicare fraud." Wow, that's thinking outside the box.

But the real gem in the United Solutions manifesto is the second bullet point, which reads in full:

Promote economic growth to generate revenue-- Of critical importance is a fair and broad tax plan including eliminating excessive corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and other subsidies to provide lower rates, that will encourage a pro-growth economy, providing added revenue for the federal budget.  We must also encourage innovation with less stringent regulation to help small businesses grow, which will lower unemployment.

How clever! A bi-partisan pander to the top 1% and corporate America. In order to reduce deficits at a time when tax rates on those at the top are near 75-year lows, their "United Solution" is to lower rates.

Of course, if you read the bullet point without keeping its heading in mind, you easily could get the feeling that our bi-partisan friends want to close loopholes and eliminate subsidies as a means of raising revenue. Something tells me this misimpression is what the Democrats in the caucus were hoping for. But you need to read closely. The "fair and broad tax plan" is not intended to close loopholes and eliminate subsidies for the purpose of raising revenue, at least not directly (more on that later). Instead, the loophole closing / subsidy elimination is to be done in order "to provide lower rates."

And, reading carefully, our bi-partisan friends do not wish to eliminate all corporate subsidies, but only the "excessive" corporate subsidies and "other subsidies." Unless there is intellectual dishonesty afoot here (now there's a loophole you can drive a truck through), this means the United Solutions caucus intends to identify for us which corporate subsidies that flow to the members of their collective donor base are "excessive" and must be eliminated, and which corporate subsidies are just sort of, you know, modest, run of the mill subsidies. And supposedly, the "other subsidies" must not refer to any corporate subsidies. Otherwise, there'd be no need to single out the "excessive" corporate subsidies. The net-net: the United Solutions gang is going to eliminate all subsidies except those corporate subsidies they do not deem excessive. So, if you're a non-corporate subsidy recipient, buh-bye, but if you're a corporate subsidy recipient, well, what's not to love? They're going to have a friendly discussion about excessiveness with you. And, of course, your lobbyist is most welcome. Oh, and bring your checkbook.

How about the revenue raising? This will be done through a variant of supply side economics in which you deem one segment of the supply side to be more prolific at revving up the economy than another. Under traditional supply side economic theory, you reduce taxes on all those capable of making investments that will spur economic growth. Our bi-partisan friends have refined that strategy. They're going to reduce taxes on some, but not all, of their friends and increase taxes on others by the same amount. In other words, they're going to "redistribute" wealth. Logically, the increased tax on those who have their loopholes closed or "excessive" subsidies eliminated would reduce growth. But because our bi-partisan friends have ascertained that the folks whose taxes will be reduced are the more prolific of the "job creator" class, the gains will outweigh the losses, and we'll be awash in new revenue. It's really quite simple.

And interesting, too. Under W. Bush, we learned that redistributing wealth from the bottom and the middle to the top would spur the economy and generate revenue. Now, we're learning that if we redistribute that wealth from some of those at the top to others at the top, we'll spur growth and generate revenue. The overall result is that we'll have redistributed wealth from the bottom and the middle to a portion of the top. I'm looking forward to see how this works out. I guess if the economy contracts, we could try going the other way-- that is, reverse the United Solutions plan, then raise rates further while creating more "excessive" corporate subsidies. Heck, maybe we'll just cut GE a big check each year. Oh wait, we already do.

Of course, last but not least, the United Solutions gang proposes we "encourage innovation with less stringent regulation." At first I thought that was a sop to the porn industry, but they must intend something else. I'm a bit at a loss here because everytime I try to think of an industry other than the porn industry where regulation gets in the way of innovation I think of the finance industry (you know, derivatives, credit default swaps, high-speed trading, etc.). Certainly, 36 freshmen would not be that cynical, would they?

I must say, after this tiny taste of bi-partisanship, partisan bickering doesn't seem quite so bad anymore.

And I hope that after Nancy Pelosi read this, she had a nice, motherly conversation with her 13 young pups and explained to them that they need to be more careful with their lunch money.

Read More