TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | April, 2011

Obama Responds with Economic Roadmap

By on 13 April 2011

A trick question: If Congress takes no action in coming years, what will happen to the budget deficit? It will shrink — and shrink a lot. This simple fact may offer the best hope for deficit reduction. – David Leonhardt

Obama’s reelection econ speech teaser (the part released from embargo): The President is setting a goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years or less, phased in over time.

I’m not sure today’s speech will help him in Pennsylvania, where his primary ’08 woes have returned, via PPP:

Obama has two major problems in the state: independents and white Democrats. A majority of independents disapprove of him- 54% give him bad marks to 39% who think he’s doing a good job. More concerning is that his approval rating with Democrats is only 68%, well below the 81% we find for him nationally. He’s doing fine with black Democrats- an 86% approval rating- but with white Democrats he’s at only a 64/27 spread.

…and in case you haven’t noticed, there’s been massive push back on the premise to what’s being written about the “liberal base” being disgruntled with Pres. Obama to the point of mutiny. As I’ve also written, there is still huge Democratic support among rank and file for Obama. But that activist base is another matter, which people writing the push back are discounting.

The big issue is the enthusiasm gap, which is why I cited current Pennsylvania polling.

Pres. Obama’s biggest problem on the economy is revenue and jobs, so adopting the Republican economic model is simply folly. But that’s what Independents want to hear, the White House is convinced, so this is where they’re going.

If Obama keeps making Independents out of Democrats, however, it could cause the mother of all blowbacks.

Segue to the the White House fact sheet on Pres. Obama’s fiscal framework.

FACT SHEET: THE PRESIDENT’S FRAMEWORK FOR SHARED PROSPERITY AND SHARED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

The President believes that we need a comprehensive, pro-growth economic strategy that invests in winning the future, lays the foundation for strong private-sector job growth and ensures that shared prosperity will keep the American dream alive for generations to come. A key component of that strategy must be a commitment to fiscal responsibility and to living within our means. Today, the President is laying out a comprehensive, balanced deficit reduction framework to cut spending, bring down our debt and increase confidence in our nation’s fiscal strength, while supporting our economic recovery and ensuring we are making the investments we need to win the future.

  • $4 Trillion in Deficit Reduction: The President is setting a goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years or less. This deficit reduction would be phased in over time to protect and strengthen our economic recovery and the recovering labor market.
  • Debt on a Declining Path, Backed Up By An Across the Board “Debt Failsafe” Trigger: The President’s framework would require that, by the second half of the decade, our nation’s debt is on a declining path as a share of our economy. To enforce this requirement, the President is calling on Congress to enact:

Ø  A Debt Failsafe that will trigger across-the-board spending reductions (both in direct spending and spending through the tax code) if, by 2014, the projected ratio of debt-to-GDP is not stabilized and declining toward the end of the decade. Consistent with prior fiscal enforcement triggers put in place by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, the trigger should not apply to Social Security, low-income programs, or Medicare benefits.

  • Balance Between Spending Cuts and Tax Reform: The President’s framework would seek a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit, with three dollars of spending cuts and interest savings for every one dollar from tax reform that contributes to deficit reduction. This is consistent with the bipartisan Fiscal Commission’s approach.
  • Shared Sacrifice from All, Including the Most Fortunate Americans: The President believes strongly that, as we make difficult choices to live within our means, we cannot afford to make our deficit problem worse by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  • Bipartisan, Bicameral Negotiations on a Legislative Framework: The President has asked Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Leader McConnell to each designate four Members from their caucuses to participate in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations led by the Vice President, beginning in early May. The goal of these negotiations is to agree on a legislative framework for comprehensive deficit reduction.
  • Policy Highlights. The policy highlights in the President’s framework build on the down-payment included in his FY 2012 Budget. They include:

Ø  Non-security discretionary spending: The President is proposing to build on the savings from the FY 2011 budget agreement, while investing in key drivers of economic growth like energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. This would entail cutting non-security discretionary spending to levels consistent with the Fiscal Commission, saving $770 billion by 2023.

Ø  Security spending: The President’s framework will go beyond the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to achieve deeper reductions in security spending. It sets a goal of holding the growth in base security spending below inflation, while ensuring our capacity to meet our national security responsibilities, which would save $400 billion by 2023.

Ø  Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:

CONTINUE READING Pres. Obama’s full fiscal fact sheet….
Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Obama Reelect Speech on Deficit Reduction

By on 13 April 2011

Republicans and even some fiscally conservative Democrats want to use the debt limit fight as leverage to wring more significant spending cuts out of the White House. Politicians of all stripes are worried about how independents will react to a vote — or multiple stop-gap votes — to raise the debt ceiling. Many executives on Wall Street believe Washington is playing an enormously dangerous game with what is typically a non-controversial vote. The Wall Street executives say even pushing close to the deadline — or talking about it — could have grave consequences in the marketplace. “They don’t seem to understand that you can’t put everything back in the box. Once that fear of default is in the markets, it doesn’t just go away. We’ll be paying the price for years in higher rates,” said one executive. – Wall Street warns Boehner on debt limit, by Ben White

Wall Street honchos, as well as Tea Party Republicans, know how to play hard ball with their own interests, and so does Pres. Obama when it comes to his own reelection, with his speech today simply a document out of his 2012 playbook.

The biggest problem for U.S. economic futures is that Pres. Obama continues to ignore revenue and jobs, because he doesn’t have one clue how to inspire economic growth. This is the sad reality the Democratic Party is facing, as Pres. Obama continues to pull us all rightward.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) this week said Obama should start acting like a Democrat, while two left-wing grassroots groups warned their members could withhold funds from the president’s reelection campaign. The criticisms highlight the problem facing Obama, who is trying to lead from the center without alienating his political base. The White House strategy could help the president with independents, but risks leaving liberals at home in the fall of 2012. – Left’s angst grows over Obama’s shift to the political center

Pres. Obama has made the Right the political center. I’ve been writing about this for over a year, so all I can say is I told you so.

Obama’s financial reality is just one reason Donald Trump is appealing to Independents even more than Republicans. Even amidst though he’s very unlikely to want to undergo the scrutiny that a dirty campaign will invite, with Barack Obama, Axelrod and Plouffe as dirty fighters as there are in politics, no one can doubt Trump on finances. There are many industry titans who have lost it all and remade themselves, but if the economy slows, which the right-leading focus of taking money out of the economy will cause, trust in Obama’s ability to rescue the U.S. economic fortunes will sag.

As Grover Norquist explained yesterday, around 270 Republicans in the House and Senate have signed a no tax pledge, so whatever is going on right now isn’t about dealing with the debt or deficit seriously. As always, it remains about ideology on the Right, which is why it’s so easy to play Pres. Obama, who has no guiding principle or ideology to follow, with his guiding light his reelection. Independents are his guide, the majority of which are conservative, though his leadership is making a whole lot of those from Democrats.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

To understand just how bad Pres. Obama is on managing the Democratic message (and his own fiscal policy) you really must go back to before the Bush tax cuts were extended last year, when all the cable yakkers, including the usual suspects on “Morning Joe,” minus Mika who stayed focus on reality. Because Pres. Obama didn’t want to rile up Republicans and have a bad ending to 2010, he and Democrats caved and extended the Bush tax cuts. Now there’s scuttlebutt on today’s Obama’s reelection speech on deficit reduction, that he will propose rescinding Bush tax cuts above $250,000. This proposal is not only too late, but a monumental fantasy, because the Republican House and their friends in the Senate will never suck that up, because they don’t have to anymore and have pledged not to. By compromising and capitulating in December, to wild applause let me add, Pres. Obama can now only jabber about the big bad tax cuts for the wealthy that should be reversed, but in reality should never have been given.

As for the mileage Pres. Obama got out of last week’s capitulation to the Republican economic model? From Gallup:

Few Americans see a political winner in the outcome — with 5% saying it was a victory specifically for the Democrats, 8% specifically for the Republicans, and 20% for both. Rather, the majority of Americans, 56%, say the long-negotiated compromise was not a victory for either side.

As much as I respect the efforts of progressive groups to hold Pres. Obama accountable, the reality is that Democrats and progressives in the Democratic Party overwhelmingly support him. So there’s good reason Obama doesn’t believe enough Democrats or progressives will stay committed to holding him accountable once reelection season comes along.

Talking about what will or won’t be in Pres. Obama’s reelection speech today really is weaving yourself into a straight jacket. Because he’ll be talking to Independents not progressives or Democrats, while trying to stave off a threatened mutiny, which is already on the rise among activists. Today will more likely be very short on specifics and very big on buzz words. All you have to do is listen to the President’s parrot, White House Pres. Sec. Jay Carney, to get the theme of “balance” and “vision,” with the joke on the White House for being so overbearing on messaging that they’re now an easy punch line.

That said, the most common foreshadowing and conventional wisdom about his reelection speech today is that he will embrace the Bowles-Simpson commission recommendations; for me that means more lip service, which will be short on commitment, but we’ll see. Pres. Obama creating the deficit commission was actually one of his biggest mistakes on the economy, because as many economists and analysts have weighed in, none of them believe that keeping federal spending to 21 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is at all realistic, given the responsibilities. This equation throws the most needy into a drastic situation that is immoral. It also solidified Democratic vision in Republican territory on economics, delivering a fatal blow for progressives.

Under Pres. Obama, Democrats no longer abide by budgets as moral documents. If he did he would never have caved on extending the Bush tax cuts in the first place, or for that matter excused Democrats from crafting a budget before midterms, something that resulted in a catastrophic collapse on principle last week, though on economics, polling and wind direction is Obama’s guide.

Today’s reelection speech by Pres. Obama is not about the economy as much as it is saying and sounding the right tone for 2012. Oh, and he’s not talking to you, because you’re a given. He’s talking to independents.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

2012: Donald Trump Tied With Huckabee for First

By on 12 April 2011

Donald Trump is now tied with Mike Huckabee for first place when Republicans are asked who they support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, according to a new national poll. But while a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday indicates that the real estate mogul and reality TV star has nearly doubled his support since mid-March, it doesn’t mean he has smooth sailing ahead. – CNN Poll: Trump tied for first in GOP horserace



Not surprised in the least. After hearing Trump with Rush Limbaugh talking about China it was clear the man knew what he was talking about on trade, but he also sounded like a man with passion for what’s going on and that he believes he can fix it.

Mr. Trump is the un-Obama. He’s got the arrogance and the swagger, but he doesn’t come with the never ending patter that never lands on a line.

He’s blunt.

He’s fearless.

He’s not worried about your approval.

He’s simply stating he can change the situation and he doesn’t have anything to lose by being on the scene, because he can’t declare until after the “Apprentice” winds down this season.

He’s also of the Republican Party without being from it. That he can run as an Independent is another plus.

He’s a conservative who doesn’t come off as preachy about his pro-life views.

Trump jumped from 10 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last month, with Romney dropping from 18 percent to 11 percent.

“Are Republicans switching from Romney to Trump? Some are, but it’s a lot more complicated than that, as you would expect with 11 potential hats in the ring,” adds Holland. “Only one in five Trump supporters say that Romney would be their second choice. It looks like Trump pulls as much support from Gingrich and Palin as from Romney, and Romney’s support would go down even if Trump were not in the list of potential candidates.”

He’s a lot of other things, which I’ve mentioned before, but hey, 2012 isn’t the best year for Republican candidates, so why not Trump? He’s courting the birther crowd, which makes his primary chances interesting and the possibility of him in a debate hilarious to ponder. I honestly bet the thought of facing Trump in a debate on live TV scares the crap out of the likes of Romney and Pawlenty, who just don’t have the fire power to keep pace with The Donald.

I’m buying tickets to this show.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Obama Loyalists Make Their Case and It’s Weak

By on 12 April 2011

**UPDATED**

Obama continues to anger progressives in his party and has created a huge amount of running room to his left: He abandoned a single-payer health care option, he agreed to extend tax cuts to the rich, he has expanded the war in Afghanistan and, instead of keeping his campaign promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, he is going to resume military trials there. – Roger Simon, Politico

The weekend after Pres. Obama once again used women’s freedoms as a bargaining chip, just like he did on health care, he signs a proclamation declaring today “national equal pay day.” Buying people off after you’ve sold them out is what establishment politicians do.

Evidently, Pres. Obama, as well as the loyalists who lap up his comprising leadership style, think we’re supposed to care. Just because our President seems like a very nice guy, has a fantastic wife and family isn’t a reason to swoon over his signature.

Progressives, liberals and even Democrats need to start asking one question: What would the Tea Party do? As galling as it is there can no longer be any doubt that their fealty to principle has worked for them. No, they won’t win every battle, but they’ve earned clout. You don’t when you support a leader who sells you out time and again, with the announcement now that the anti-Social Security debt commission report will be where Obama begins when he delivers his speech on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post.

An earlier analysis of what this means:

The Social Security proposal would change the inflation measurement used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for benefits, reducing annual increases. It immediately drew a withering assault from advocates for seniors, who already are upset that there will be no inflation increase for 2011, the second consecutive year. The plan also would raise the regular Social Security retirement age to 68 by about 2050 and to 69 in 2075. The full retirement age for those retiring now is 66. For those born in 1960 or after, the full retirement age is now 67. – Social Security, Medicare, Pentagon slashed by deficit commission

In a post entitled “our structural disadvantage,” an Obama loyalist quotes Digby who made much the same point I did yesterday saying: The fact is that there is no liberal establishment willing to validate liberalism. He goes on from there:

The intertubes are clogged with the choral wailing of frustrated liberals. But what’s strange is that it almost seems to come as a surprise to people. [...] … .. So, I’m obviously troubled and concerned about our country and the future, but I am pretty clear-sighted about what our limitations are and why we have to settle for so little. Our problems are not one man’s fault. One man cannot fix them. But we also need to remember that we have one man standing between where we are now and an immeasurably worse situation. I think about that every day, too.

A surprise? Hardly. But is this guy kidding?

Forget liberal and progressive, Pres. Obama isn’t even standing up for basic, foundational Democratic principles.

But what the Obama loyalists won’t admit is that Pres. Obama is even worse than what liberals have had to deal with before, because he’s also adopting Republican economic models.

Not only are the Obama loyalists ready to campaign on If You Think Obama’s Bad Wait ‘Til You See What The Other Guy Will Do. But as gullible and fact free as their campaigning was in 2008, they also are going to try to float the unmitigated nonsense that Pres. Obama is the “one man standing between” that fate. It would be embarrassing, if it weren’t the biggest part of the problem for progressives.

These types of Democrats and progressives are willing to continue to enable the Democratic establishment, while propping up Pres. Obama to win a second term, even though he no longer represents the interests of the middle class or the poor, let alone progressives, which he was never going to do. I told you that years ago, while Obama loyalists said simply “he’s the one.” Now they’re saying, “he’s still the one,” even with proof he isn’t, which I warned he never would be.

The Obama blogs are back only this time they’re the establishment’s foot soldiers of 2012.

There is life beyond campaigning for Barack Obama, in 2012 for Democratic progressives and liberals, even if it’s not in Washington. But only if people refuse to stand with the man who is selling progressive principles out. He’ll have plenty of help from loyalists and will likely get elected anyway given the Republican circus on the Right. But he doesn’t have to humiliate you to do it and you don’t have to sell out progressive beliefs to get it done.

Ask the women of Washington, D.C. who Pres. Obama sold out, with few women in the room when it happened, which Sam Stein mentioned today on “Morning Joe.” What happened on the D.C. rider doesn’t bother the Obama loyalists, and it’s representative of Pres. Obama’s leadership on health care too. Women to him are a bargaining chip, while Republicans are waging war on us.

There’s a reason women split their vote equally in the midterms and it’s because it’s a jump ball on who represents us at all. There’s little reason to remain a Democrat anymore, except for nostalgia’s sake.

This isn’t 2008, with George W. Bush a fresh nightmare.

It’s 2012, with the latest fresh nightmare Pres. Barack Obama. The kicker is he’s unwilling and unable to make any Democratic case at all.

But anyone making the argument that Obama is the only thing standing between Republicans and selling your soul for someone who is enabling them is in a co-dependent political relationship that will get this country nowhere.

What would a Tea Party activist do with a leader who sold them out like Pres. Obama has done with, not liberal or progressive, but basic Democratic ideals? They sure as hell wouldn’t support him or her. They’d challenge the person, mobilize and organize, then lead in another direction.

Read full story · Comments { 61 }

Donald Trump’s Sharpie Marker Missive

By on 11 April 2011

**UPDATED**

Following on Donald Trump’s op-ed in response to Gail Collins’ column, “Trump Gets Weirder,” this latest reaction to another writer, this time it’s Juli Weiner of Vanity Fair, is just too precious not to post, if only for posterity’s sake. At least Trump isn’t boring. He’s also announced he’ll run as an Independent (video interview at the link) if he doesn’t snag the GOP trophy.

“I think the Republicans are very concerned that I [may] run as an independent,” Mr. Trump said. His support is highest among the conservative wing of the party, not least because he is among the so-called “birthers” who doubt that President Obama in fact was born in the U.S. “It’s a very important issue,” Mr. Trump said of demanding that President Obama show his birth certificate, which has separately been reviewed by the media and deemed legitimate. “I’m not ashamed of having raised that issue.”

“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”

The other thing is that with Pres. Obama masquerading as a Democrat, Republicans trying to find anyone they can slap on the ticket to keep from giving the 2012 election to Obama at a time when he really is vulnerable, as D.C. Mayor Gray gets arrested for sticking up for Democratic principles as the President sells them out, I think Donald Trump fits the cast of characters perfectly.

The whole 2012 presidential election is going to be a joke, though the consequences obviously won’t be. But considering the 2008 elections have turned into a joke on Democrats and progressives, especially those die hard progressives who sucked up Barack Obama’s marketing campaign with a straw, it’s only fitting our two political parties continue on their current trajectory.

What a circus.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and the Missing Word: JOBS

By on 11 April 2011

“He and virtually all the people around him have never worked in the real economy,” Romney said in the message. “They just don’t know how jobs are created in the private sector. That’s where I spent my entire career.” – Mitt Romney Announces 2012 Presidential Exploratory Committee



Pres. Obama hasn’t one clue how to inspire job creation in the private sector. It’s hard to imagine anyone worse on the economy, believing that taking money out of the economy is the answer; particularly since he doesn’t even want to hail how he steered the American economy away from a near disastrous depression.

At least Mr. Romney also understands the core problem in the economy. It’s just watching this video he doesn’t look like he can sell it.

Romney also makes another classic candidate mistake by trying to appear as someone he’s not. He’ll never be the average guy, never. So whoever advised him to stand in this setting wearing these clothes should be fired.

It’s a mistake Donald Trump would never make. He’s an egotistical, misogynistic, birther front man, but he is who he is and he’s not going to make the mistake of trying to remake himself for the masses. It would be impossible anyway.

Someone on my FB page asked whether he’s the new Bullworth. I think that pegs it. Trump claims he’s the Obama campaign’s “worst nightmare.”

The comments come after Plouffe joked on ABC’s “This Week” that he would love to face off against Trump in a general election match-up.

“I saw Donald Trump kind of rising in the polls. Given his behavior, and the spectacle of the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising,” Plouffe said with a smile. “There’s zero chance that Donald Trump would ever be hired by the American people to do this job.”

But Trump contends the opposite is true:

“I am not the person they want to run against,” he said. “They know it, and I know it, and I know it for a fact. Because I have a lot of people that, frankly, are contributors to him and they tell me, ‘Donald you are not the person you want to run against.’”

Trump, Pawlenty, Santorum, they’re all minor league players, with Trump a wild card who isn’t afraid of anything, because he’s not looking for anyone’s approval. He’s also got nothing to lose, which is always dangerous in an election season where volatility may be the foundation. His patter on China is the best in the field until and unless Jon Hunstman gets in the game.

As for Trump being Obama’s “worst nightmare,” I doubt it. His worst nightmare is if Democrats do what they should and walk away from Pres. Obama’s disastrous path, just saying no. That’s it. I’m through. No more. You’re on your own, pal. Then go concentrate on good progressive candidates.

Though if Trump throws down, I won’t miss one Republican debate. His candor is just, well, entertaining.

Oh, and mark tomorrow’s date. It’s RomneyCare’s anniversary.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Don’t Negotiate with Hostage Takers

By on 11 April 2011

Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan’s new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues. – The Tea Party’s First Victory

First they come for the easy stuff. Then they take what keeps you alive: your safety net. But to get to that they must first make you squeal.

Yglesias has this exactly right:

But for a while, the people administering the federal government (to wit Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner) will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. Don’t make some farm payments. Stop sending Medicare reimbursements. Make the doctors & hospitals, the farmers and defense contractors, and the currently elderly bear the inconvenient for a few weeks of uncertain payment schedules. And explain to the American people that the circle of people who need to be inconvenienced will necessarily grow week after week until congress gives in. Remind people that the concessions the right is after mean the permanent abolition of Medicare, followed by higher taxes on the middle to finance additional tax cuts for the rich.

The White House needs to start pouring concrete, because a line in the sand won’t do it.

Unfortunately, there are multiple hostages in this scenario.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Tax Increases Mixed with Death Blow for Progressives

By on 11 April 2011



Coming off a scene reminiscent of Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday (see video above), Pres. Obama has made some momentous decisions that will take us where we’ve never gone before. Inspired by the traditional media fanfare of Paul Ryan’s “brave” budget proposal, Pres. Obama has accepted the challenge to step out on the coming economic battles for 2012 to offer his own ideas to the mix. Knowing how Obama abhors the vision thing, because sticking his neck out just isn’t his thing, this will be a defining moment. Pres. Obama will be swinging for the fences of history, with no eye whatsoever on Democratic Party foundation, its roots or traditions, taking the party away from liberalism forever.

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes to Social Security. – Obama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt

It’s easy to predict the usual traditional media response, especially on cable, which will be positive on raising the retirement age. The rationale is that we’re living longer, it won’t hit anyone over 50 and it must be done. Talking heads will scoff that someone 35 shouldn’t have to work until they’re 68 or 69, keeping it just below 70, because it’s longevity reality. What it will mean is that what’s already happened to the Democratic Party message will be solidified in something far away from what it meant in the 20th century, with the principles that guide liberals and progressives not only irrelevant, but seen as too expensive for 21st century America.

Pres. Obama is betting there are still plenty of Democrats who will support him no matter what he does, especially seen against the alternative, while being certain that his plan to take on entitlements, including “unspecified” changes to Social Security, will solidify Independents securely, because of the midterm message he heard and intends to heed. That’s a bet his entire reelection team will take, because it’s a very good wager.

The reported tax increases mentioned in the Wall Street Journal today are what he should have done in December and is good news, though like everything Pres. Obama does, he just can’t ask too much of the wealthy. From “Obama puts taxes on the table”:

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

Couple the budget compromise with “unspecified” Social Security changes, add in serving up poor women’s freedoms in D.C. that goes along with making women jump through hoops in the health care bill fro reproductive services, and what you’ve got is a Democratic President making his final moves away from the traditions of party and recalibrating the Democratic Party into something different.

Outside the budget but very much part of this whole shift, making matters worse as well, is Obama’s war in Libya, with a stalemate that could morph into something much larger with SecDef Gates poised to leave soon. Because with Obama committed he can’t be seen to lose the war, so boots on the ground to keep this from happening is a very real possibility.

Pres. Obama’s already committed himself to an imperial presidency, with actions on military tribunals closely tied to that of his predecessor George W. Bush, and the treatment of Bradley Manning now widely seen as “inhumane.” Not even criticism of the policy from esteemed lawyers like Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School, Yochai Benkler of Harvard Law School, Lawrence Tribe and many, many others has made a dent.

With Republican power entrenched in the Tea Party extremes it makes what Pres. Obama is about to do more possible while seeming smart and moderately centrist, because what they want is so “draconian,” one of the Democratic talking points no doubt decided in the elite chambers of power.

The outcome is the country and our politics will move another rightward step, putting helping people further into the private sector column, with progressives and liberals needing a completely different political party. They won’t have any less success than if they stay attached to the Democratic Party, which no longer has a place for liberals, doesn’t speak for the working class anymore, and has no idea or interest on how to create jobs, which is actually hurt by starving the economy.

Now Democrats will have to decide if they’d rather see Democratic ideals cut away by someone who runs as a Democrat, and support him doing so, or by Republicans if they win in 2012, assuming they’ll have a decent candidate, which is still anything but certain.

Triangulation has a big brother, but this one is on chewable steroids.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Don’t Be Desperate, Reject

By on 10 April 2011

Paul Krugman isn’t the only one “disheartened”. He even offered up a part 3, complete with cat snark. Meanwhile, the Republicans celebrate.



Why did Tea Partiers win such a major victory? Money, for starters. The Tea Party’s generously funded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, and ultra-conservative policies are given “nonpartisan” ideological cover by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson and his network of allies and paid savants. Corporate campaign financing, now made limitless by the GOP’s ideological packing of the Supreme Court, allows the mega-corporations of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to impose policies that crush the middle class and smaller businesses. And decades’ worth of funding for ad campaigns and “conservative think tanks” (an oxymoron, perhaps?) continue to lay the groundwork for destructive moves like the one we so last night. – Why Progressives Keep On Losing and the Right Keeps On Winning, Richard Eskow, Campaign for America’s Future

So there’s a real effort to keep spirits up among movement progressives. To tell people there’s “no reason to give up… Don’t mourn, organize,” as Eskow does in his post. But blaming Pres. Obama’s complete capitulation, comprising collapse on the Right having more money is simply moronic. It’s also dishonest. Of course, that’s not the crux of his argument, but the rest is just as incoherent.

At least Democrats are admitting the cuts are “draconian” and that Republicans got “20.2135%” than originally asked or Democrats would really be down the rabbit hole.

Eskow continues: If these popular positions weren’t always being labelled (sic) “progressive” in the media, they’d probably be even more popular.

Good grief, it’s not enough Democrats ran away from liberal, now activists from leading organizations are saying that “progressive” is the problem, too.

The Tea Party has taken all amounts of grief, much well aimed, but they’re not whining about labeling.

Then Eskow targets DailyKos, because a diarist let loose a perfect screed directed at where it belongs: Pres. Obama. But like all good activists in Democratic organizations, it’s not his fault either:

Once again the unpopular views of a minority have been imposed on the majority. Others will rant and rave about the Democratic leadership, and in fact that process has already begun. But progressives in this country should be asking themselves a serious question: Why does the Tea Party seem to be so much more effective than the left as a movement?

Now, “excessive party loyalty… the desire for a charismatic leader,” to quote Eskow, is an interesting answer to his own question. But it’s not the problem, neither is “prematurely celebrating accomplishments,” flawed, incomplete or other. Sarah Palin is considered both by her followers, charismatic and inspires excessive Tea Party loyalty. If Independents could find either attribute in a candidate they’d have taken the presidency long ago. These elements are required, but they don’t have to exist in an unprincipled policy vacuum.

Anyone else see the irony in a progressive like Eskow saying loyalty isn’t required in a movement? He wants progressives to ignore party loyalty, but misses that it’s this same loyalty required of progressive ideas that’s missing. Simultaneously, by attacking movement progressives like the DailyKos diarist who’s had hit with Obama, Eskow is saying to COME HOME, which is basically endorsing the same thing he’s saying needs to be changed. Because supporting Obama’s reelection without demanding change of him is what he’s suggesting. It boggles the mind.

This is one of the big problems with Democratic institutions. They mean well, but their dependency on your optimism, because they’re funded by Democrats, including establishment elites, keeps everyone hooked on the hamster wheel of hope. They have to support the guy at the top because it’s all they’ve got. As the DailyKos diarist wrote, maybe movement progressives should ignore Pres. Obama, because he’s not servicing the desires of the people who elected him.

“Well,” Plouffe replied, “some of the cuts were draconian. Because it’s not just the number, it’s what composes the number. [...] The President was comfortable with the composition of this deal that, again, there were some tough cuts in there…but in these fiscal times, everyone is going to have to make tough decisions. So it was a historic deal for the American people.” – ABC News

But to ignore Obama would mean that progressive politics are more important than one election. That’s what the Tea Party decided: that principle and commitment to their beliefs, however horrific progressives find them, was more important than worrying about outcome. The result was Speaker Boehner had a political shiv in his back that got the largest yearly reductions in history, all compliments of a Democratic president, who then calmly stated that it’s too bad, but people who need help from government programs will just have to suck it up.

Mr. Plouffe is being dishonest, too. The “tough decisions” that need making begin with raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, while taking it to corporations and the Pentagon, and it certainly isn’t about another war in Libya. These are policy as well as economic problems, which are directly tied to Pres. Obama, because his words never result in progressive actions.

Remember, Plouffe wants one thing only: to reelect Barack Obama. He nor Obama care about whether Democratic principles are forwarded in the process.

There is one reason Democrats lost the budget battle and it’s the same reason Sarah Palin handed Obama his ass on health care messaging back in 2009 and helped lead the Tea Party to a rout in 2010. The Democrats aren’t making the case for progressive economic justice anymore, because in the era of Obama the boss doesn’t have the principles or belief in foundational Democratic ideals to do it, because he’s too busy making tactical moves to look non-ideological. That may be good for him, but it’s awful for Democrats.

This economic and political fiasco is not the fault of anyone but Pres. Obama who is a lousy negotiator with no line he won’t cross.

So the next person who offers up elementary school activist cheerleading talking points saying it’s not the Democratic leadership’s fault make a note of the person’s name, because you simply can’t trust them anymore.

At a news conference New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed, “I happen to think some of their cuts are extreme and go overboard. But every week they keep upping the ante and proposing extreme cuts.” – Fox News

Sen. Schumer sounds like some feckless freshman instead of the veteran senator he is. The lack of leadership from these people should be unacceptable to all Democrats, the notion of coming home because their is no choice equally galling.

Since there’s no leadership from anyone it leaves movement progressives with only a fallback question to ask themselves in order to correct this catastrophe: What would the Tea Party do?

They don’t take prisoners and they don’t support weak politicians who sell them out, consequences be damned. But yes, the Tea Party can compromise, as we saw with Rep. Michele Bachmann, who gave Speaker Boehner the room he needed to keep the government from shutting down, but only after the Tea Party got 20% more than they originally asked for in budget cuts. Then she went right back to railing for the Right.

Today Plouffe is also reportedly to announce Pres. Obama will deliver a “major speech” this coming week for an even more aggressive path for deficit reduction. He’s also supposed to “continue calling for higher taxes on the wealthy,” according to Politico. Pres. Obama has to do a lot more than that. There has to be a serious campaign for higher taxes on the mil-billionaire class, without caving to conservative economic points, which is all Pres. Obama has done for months. Take it to the people and be willing to lose on principle, neither of which Obama is willing to risk.

So don’t be bought off by reelection word salads alone. It’s how Democrats and progressives got into this mess in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

The Sunday Early Bird Round-Up

By on 10 April 2011

Decorah Eagle and Eaglet- see link below for livestream

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, April 10, 1912, the ill-fated Titanic set out on it’s maiden voyage.

I’ve rounded up some news so you don’t have to:

~The GOP continues to put its thumb on the scales in favor of big business. Because, you know, if they don’t look out for those poor, beleaguered CEOs who will? On Friday House Republicans voted to overturn net neutrality rules. While they will have a harder time in the Senate and a Presidential veto would be likely, it raises the stakes in 2012. It’s become obvious that the GOP assault on “Big Government” is really a red herring to allow them to erode consumer protections while boosting corporate profits by getting rid of those meddlesome regulations which reign in corporate abuse.

~The situation in Gaza continues to worsen with dozens of rockets entering Israel and war planes over Gaza and some are worried that this could be the start of Cast Lead II. UPDATE: As of this morning, Israel has offered a cease-fire.

~An interesting opinion piece by the NYT’ Richard Cohen about Judge Goldstone’s Washington Post editorial from two weeks ago. While many are claiming that Judge Goldstone has done a total reversal, that view doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny and Goldstone himself has said he won’t seek to nullify the report. Cohen points out that Goldstone seems to misrepresent the findings of the independent report issued by Judge Mary McGowan Davis. To add to the confusion, Ynet published an article quoting the head of the South African Zionist Federation stating that intense pressure from South African Jewish groups played a role in Goldstone’s change of tone regarding his report. Regardless of one’s view of the report, the debate it provoked isn’t going away.

~Ok, so we have a nice, new, warm, fuzzy budget “compromise.” Or not. Here is one of the definitions of the word compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands. Is that what this budget deal was? Because other than pap smears and family planning, I’m not sure what the GOP compromised.

~Nick Kristof takes aim at the cowardice of the democrats during the budget debate and Paul Ryan’s refusal to take on the obvious need to end the Bush tax cuts.

~If this is the best Obama’s political advisers can do in the wake of the budget deal then they all need to be replaced.

~Saturday marked the 8th anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr and about ten thousand of his followers sent a message to the U.S. by warning that if the administration doesn’t stand by it’s December 2011 pull-out date then he will reactivate his army and target not only U.S. military, but civilians (ie. contractors and diplomats) who stay in the country. Well, we sure made things better there, didn’t we? But, as is always the case, timing is everything — Secretary Gates took a quiet trip to Iraq this week and essentially offered Iraq the option of requesting some U.S. troops stay beyond the December deadline. WTF?!?

By the way, the new U.S. embassy in Iraq is roughly the size of Vatican City, cost the U.S. taxpayers roughly $600 million, has gyms, a cinema, polls, it’s own electricity grids and water systems (when most Iraqis only have electricity for part of the day) and is a provocative symbol of American hubris and it has rubbed Iraqis the wrong way. Operating costs for the Embassy are expected to be around $1.2 billion a year. How big is the home for the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq? 16,000 square feet. Cozy. It will have a private security force (aka private contractor Army) of about 5,500. And did the construction of this monolith create American jobs? No, a Kuwaiti contracting firm oversaw the project.

~Even if you don’t click on a single link in this round-up, click on this. It’s a 24/7 live-stream of the Decorah Eagles taking care of their 3 brand new hatchlings in Iowa. I just checked in on them. Mom is watching them sleep, dad is off flying around (getting breakfast?)- she’s sitting on top of them to keep them warm. Every once in a while she stands up to check on them. When they are all awake they are too funny. That photo at the top of this post is of the Decorah Eagles.

~We simply cannot forget about Egypt. There has been escalating violence between protesters and the military in Tahrir Square and the Egyptian people seem to be turning against the military. This poses a problem for the U.S. government, which has been a bit too complimentary of the Egyptian military’s “restraint” and we have been awfully quiet about the allegations of torture, sexual abuse and other forms of violence perpetrated by the military and security forces.

~In case you missed it, Steve Clemons over at the Washington Note recently pointed out the total lack of discussion over the incredible cost of the Afghanistan War, particularly in light of the fact that Hamid Karzai and his buddies are funneling huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars into offshore accounts almost as fast as the U.S. hands it over, while at the same time the U.S. builds Afghan infrastructure, schools etc. while neglecting those things here at home. How in the world can any politician have a serious debate about reigning in spending without a honest discussion about Afghanistan? To make matters worse, as we speak, the usual suspects [Gen. Petraeus, Gates, etc.] are lining up to blow sunshine up our backside by telling us something along the lines of “the surge is working, it’s a tough slog, but if we leave now we’ll lose whatever ground we’ve gained.” You know the deal-you’ve heard it before. Get used to it, we could be hearing it 20 years from now.

~It is becoming very clear that the situation in Cote d’Ivoire is long past a humanitarian crisis- bloodbath is more like it. In fact, it’s starting to look like a Rwanda-type situation. Human Rights Watch has reported mass killings and rape by President-elect Alassane Ouattara’s loyalists. The Obama administration has released several strongly-worded statements about the violence in Cote d’Ivoire over the past few weeks but given the growing number of atrocities taking place, I can’t help but have a hard time finding any consistency in President Obama’s foreign policy when it comes to humanitarian intervention, particularly in light of our actions in Libya.

~Big banks win again. Change you can believe in.

~Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

~The blazing headline on Politico today “The GOP’s Winning Streak.” Maybe someone should pass the link onto Obama.

~In Libya, Gadhafi’s forces gain more ground.

~According to the Joint Chiefs, the repeal of DADT isn’t causing the slightest bit of concern in the military. Sorry John McCain.

~Almost half of the U.S. Senate signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to focus more on anti-pornography/obscenity cases. Uh, ok.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Working Class Whites Remain Cold on Obama

By on 09 April 2011

Details on the appropriations deal are still hard to come by, but you don’t need the details to know that substantial short-term cuts in domestic discretionary spending will hurt the poor while harming macroeconomic performance. The problem with not agreeing to the deal, of course, is that a government shutdown would also hurt the poor while harming macroeconomic performance. If you genuinely don’t care about the interests of poor people and stand to benefit electorally from weak economic growth, this gives you a very strong hand to play as a hostage taker. And John Boehner is willing to play that hand. …- Matthew Yglesias


by John Lennon

The day after the Democratic budget surrender, the point to remember is that Pres. Obama and Democrats allowed themselves to be taken hostage, because they wouldn’t make the case for Democratic economic policy. It’s why many Americans don’t feel Democrats are fighting for them. Look how health care was handled and the marketing fiasco that resulted. In addition, all people see is the Tea Party railing, while Democrats try to compromise to make them happy. We saw the results of that strategy in the 2010 midterms, followed by extending the Bush tax cuts that set up Boehner’s win on the budget, as well as Paul Ryan’s hallucinations, which has taken the entire economic argument further Right.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that without the racial and cultural ties that bind, Pres. Obama continues to struggle with working class white voters. Immediately people like to attribute this to race alone. That’s a mistake.

People who struggle to pay the bills are less interested in the emotional ties to their leaders and their president. While it’s understandable the close alliance Barack Obama has with African Americans, because of being the first African American president, his policies don’t help the middle class. The blue collar crowd, as well as working class whites, have a stark reality right now, so they’re not squishy about their loyalty to a man to which they cannot relate. They’re brutally practical.

That’s not to say racial issues don’t drive some people. In America, the black and brown factor is always hovering, sometimes front and center.

From Ron Brownstein in the National Journal:

The latest Pew Research Center national poll released today underscores how slender a beachhead President Obama has established among whites more than two years into his presidency.

…polls consistently suggest he may struggle to match the modest 43 percent support among whites that he drew in 2008, according to the Edison Research exit poll. In the 2010 mid-term election, according to the Edison exit poll, just 37 percent of whites backed Democrats in House races, while 60 percent supported Republicans-the highest share of the white vote Republicans have won in a House election in the history of modern polling. Obama’s approval rating among all whites in the Pew survey stands at a similar 38 percent.

[...] Obama’s best group in the white electorate remains well-educated women, who tend toward more liberal positions on social issues as well as greater receptivity to government activism. In the new poll, 56 percent of college-educated white women said they approved of Obama’s performance. That’s a slight improvement from the 52 percent of such women who voted for him in 2008…

[...] Obama’s approval rating in the Pew survey stood at just 34 percent among white women without a college education-the so-called waitress moms. Democrats have often had high hopes for capturing those economically-strained, culturally-conservative women, but the new result only underscores their consistent Republican tilt: Obama won just 41 percent of them in 2008, and House Democrats just 34 percent of them in 2010.

It’s also not hard to understand why educated white women have come home to Obama. The Right’s war against women being waged across the country is in their face. When you have your bills covered it’s easier to focus outside your own economic struggle.

However, when you look at the budget deal Obama and the Democrats served up to Republicans on a plate, which Speaker Boehner is rightly boasting is a win for him, you have to wonder if these same educated white women know that Obama just carved another piece out of the wall of women’s freedom. He did it in D.C., with female Democrats in the Senate going along, so maybe no one will notice. After all, D.C. isn’t a state.

On Saturday morning, a tweet on Mayor Gray’s twitter account called both riders a “shameful violation of our right to govern ourselves.” “This is ludicrous. While one rider purports to provide educational aid to children in need, the other takes away desperately needed aid from poor women. Hypocrisy is alive and well in the United States Congress,” says Gray in a written statement. – WTOP.com

This all started with the health care bill, when Speaker Pelosi invited the Catholic Church into the debate, with Pres. Obama acquiescing to Bart Stupak, so that women’s reproductive health became a system of hurdles. It happened during a Democratic majority, so when you compare it to what Boehner got with just a majority in the House it’s stunning. Pelosi served up a main constituent, women, while Boehner went to the mat for the Tea Party budget extremists.

The aide says he witnessed the president say to Speaker Boehner in the Oval Office, “John, I will give you D.C. I’m not happy about it.” – MSNBC

Pres. Obama didn’t “give” Speaker Boehner D.C. He handed over the rights of poor women in D.C., using them as a bargaining chip.

But tactically, what Obama wanted to do with the Bush tax cuts, as well as the budget, was get as close to the Right as he can so he positions himself as politically neutered going into 2012. It’s not about principle or governing strategy, because Pres. Obama has neither. All he wants is a second term.

As for the “waitress moms” who are not coming home to Obama, they’re not watching his surrendering triangulation on abortion that has empowered states rights against women’s freedoms. They have a far more stressful reality, with no one they can relate to on the Democratic side, with their financial future looking as bad as it’s been in a long time. The negative Tea Party messaging on Obama works, because there is no positive message that reaches them.

Try thinking of this in terms of how many Democrats and progressives feel about Pres. Obama’s capitulation and compromises.

Working class don’t have the luxury of trusting someone who never delivers hoping it might get better. There’s no loyalty to someone who doesn’t stand up for them through his actions.

Sometimes it reality does get down to are you better off than you were before Obama? Few people are, and when you couple that with the I Can’t Relate To Him factor, support for Obama slips further.

As for Democratic and progressive support for Pres. Obama, after the budget battle, laid on top of every other capitulation and compromise, it’s hard to understand how any progressive can support him since he prefers to adopt Republican economic principles rather than make the Democratic case.

This column has been updated and bumped.

Read full story · Comments { 39 }

Progressive Notes: Progressive Budget, People Power in Texas, Let’s Pay for War

By on 09 April 2011

Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Senator Sanders and Representative Schakowsky give the progressive case on the budget on Ed’s Show April 7th:

Senator Sanders does it again on Spitzer’s CNN show as well. Spitzer and Sanders agree: the Democrats brought this crisis on themselves for they did NOT pass a 2011 budget when they controlled the entire government. See video here.

In Texas a massive lobby/protest day on April 6th drew over 5,000 to Austin, and got results. The Texas House just passed the most draconian budget in America- cutting 25 billion dollars from education, healthcare, removing funding for HIV patient programs and way more. 350,000 will lose their jobs if the House gets it’s way. Pressure is mounting on the Texas Senate to cut much less. Right after the capitol was flooded by citizens urging NO to 25 billion in cuts leaders in the Texas Senate announced they was greatly reduce cuts. Priceless :

… Senate budget-writers have been working to soften proposed deep cuts in areas including public education, Medicaid and criminal justice as the state faces a shortfall through the next two years of $15 billion to $27 billion.

Hike in funding seen
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said Wednesday that the working Senate proposal includes $16 billion more in state and federal funds than the House measure, but he did not detail where the additional state money would come from.

Republican state leaders are against new taxes, and Gov. Rick Perry has limited how much he’s willing for lawmakers to spend from the rainy-day fund….

The Senate plan under development at this point would cut $7 billion from current spending, according to Ogden’s estimate. Ogden cautioned, however, that his figure assumes other programs would stay as currently proposed in the Senate version.

“I’ve said we’ve got three priorities: public ed, health care and criminal justice,” Ogden said. “I think that the Senate’s proposal adequately funds all three of those right now. The question I’m wrassling with is, how much money do we have left for everything else?”

Senate budget-writers are looking for non-tax revenue, as are some House members….

One Texas student nailed it:

Osadeba Omoliaro, a student at PrairieView A and M and representative of the Texas League of Young Voters, said cuts to education would be devastating for students and that young voters will make their voices heard in the next election.

“You can’t make these cuts and kill our dreams,” Omoliaro told the cheering crowd. “You can’t make these cuts and expect us to be quiet.”

While people protest the Right, Congressman Honda of the House Progressive Caucus writes about Ryan’s effort to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Better, he discusses a counter budget progressives in Congress have crafted (see it here) as counter to Congressman Ryan’s Medican’t plan:

I have been working with my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues, economists and tax policy experts to develop a budget that eliminates the deficit (which Ryan fails to do), puts America to work building a competitive economy, invests in our schools, brings the troops home, protects Social Security and represents a fair deal for working families.

America has stacked the deck against working people. Our budget reverses this trend while cutting $1 trillion in waste. We make the tax code fair, asking wealthiest individuals, corporations hiding money overseas, oil companies raking in record profits and Wall Street banks that gambled away our money to pay their fair share.

We fix roads, bridges and waterways, we build a world-class, high-speed rail system and broadband, we end our addiction to oil and the endless wars that come with it, we meet our obligations to seniors, and we educate our children for the global workforce. Our budget does all this while eliminating the deficit and reducing debt burden. This is the America that lies within grasp, if we stop accepting the spin and start saving this country from itself.

Congresswoman Schakowsky and many Democrats are pushing bravely to raise taxes on the super rich and have presented a new bill to make the upper class pay their share:

(Credit: CBS) While Congress is primarily focused on cutting spending in the debate over reducing the federal budget deficit, some progressive lawmakers say it’s time to start collecting more revenues from the wealthiest Americans.

Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois unveiled a bill … to create new, higher tax brackets for Americans making more than $1 million a year.

“This isn’t about punishment or revenge. It’s about fairness,” Schakowsky said. “It’s about avoiding budget cuts that harm middle class families and those who aspire to it. We can choose to cut education, job creation and health care, or we can choose to ask those who can contribute more to do so.”

Currently, the top tax bracket begins at an income of $373,000 per year; income above that level is taxed at 35 percent. Schakowsky contends this fails to distinguish between the “well off” and the superrich, such as a group of hedge fund managers whose average income last year topped $1 billion.

Schakowsky’s bill, called the Fairness in Taxation Act, would tax income between $1 million and $10 million at a rate of 45 percent. Income between $10 and $20 million would be taxed at a rate of 46 percent, and income between $20 and $100 million would be taxed at 47 percent.

Income between $100 million and $1 billion would be taxed at a rate of 48 percent, and income over $1 billion would be taxed at 49 percent. For those making over $1 million a year, capital gains and dividends would also be taxed as income.

Schakowsky claims the bill could raise more than $78 billion for the government.

“A tax system where families earning several thousand dollars are taxed at the same rate as millionaires is unfair, and unsustainable,” Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said Wednesday. “At a time when House Republicans are demanding that working families, teachers, and firefighters bear the burden of reducing the deficit, millionaires should be required to contribute their fair share.”

The bill’s other co-sponsors include Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.); Bob Filner (D-Calif.); Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.); Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); John Yarmuth (D-Ken.); and Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)…

We must raise revenue and NOT slash billions from the budget. You cut those billions and those are jobs and help for the suffering. Period.

Senator Franken came out with his Pay for War Resolution. This legislation would require congress to pay for our wars upfront with taxes in combination with or without cuts. A novel idea: paying for war and not charging it on our credit card! Franken and Senate liberals are pushing it. And it has incredible support:

A diverse range of groups and individuals have already lent their support to the resolution. In a letter for endorsement from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Senior Fellow Lawrence J. Korb said the resolution would “help restore fiscal discipline to our defense budget process,” while the Cato Institute’s William A. Niskanen, Chairman Emeritus and Distinguished Senior Economist, and Benjamin Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Studies, noted that “deficit financing sends war bills to future taxpayers,” the effect of which “is to make war feel cheaper” than it really is.

Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy and defense budget expert at the Brookings Institution, called the resolution “serious and smart,” while Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which endorsed the legislation, called it “a sensible approach to ensuring that we budget for war.” David M. Walker, Former Comptroller General of the United States, said “the Pay For War Resolution makes sense.” The Bipartisan Policy Center, which also endorsed the legislation, said “Congress and the president should adhere to the principles of pay-as-you-go throughout the budget—war funding should not be exempt.”

American University International Relations Professor Dr. Gordon Adams said, “This proposed resolution could help open an important discussion about how we can restore some of the fiscal discipline we lost over the defense budget.” And Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research, said, “If we think that a situation requires the men and women in our military to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least be willing to pay for the cost of this adventure with our tax dollars.”

We so need a laugh these days and than the stars for this hot youtube video.

Congresswoman Biggert (R) abhors talking about jobs. The Progressive Caucus has a smart video out on the Right’s job plan:

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Queer Talk: Making Noise with A Day of Silence

By on 09 April 2011

With the “Are you in?” early marketing of the Obama 2012 campaign, efforts to make us feel as if we’re important enough to be heard come around again in our oligarchy-fronted-by-two-corporate-parties-system. We have our assigned roles: Get involved. Be wildly enthusiastic on cue. Vote as directed. Then post-election, be quiet until called.

But if done as a part of a bigger plan, “quiet” can be very effective, making its own kind of noise. There are times for cheering crowds – campaign rallies, and Pride events. There are other times when silence can make loud demands.

On The National Day of Silence “hundreds of thousands of students nationwide take a vow of silence to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in their schools.” That Day, April 15 this year, is one piece of a much larger effort by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Some background:

In 1996, students at the University of Virginia organized the first Day of Silence in response to a class assignment on non-violent protests. Over 150 students participated in this inaugural DOS. In 1997, organizers took their effort nationally and nearly 100 colleges and universities participated. In 2001, GLSEN became the official organizational sponsor for the event.

In 2008, hundreds of thousands of students from more than 8,000 K-12 schools, colleges and universities organized Day of Silence events. …

The Day of Silence is one element of a larger effort to create safe schools for all students regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Many communities, in addition to supporting the Day of Silence, host Breaking The Silence events, rallies, legislative lobby days, performances and more – both on the Day of Silence and all year round.

One way of knowing that silence can be noisy is by the reactions to it. According to conservative Focus on the Family, in 2005 the also conservative Alliance Defense Fund launched The Day of Truth, “with the goal of supporting students of faith who want to peacefully engage in a free exchange of ideas and respectfully share a Biblical perspective when issues like homosexuality are brought up and celebrated in their public school.”

FOF states that “thousands of students annually celebrate the Day of Truth.” In 2009, ADF “transitioned sponsorship to Exodus International ‘due to Exodus’ excellent experience in providing a Biblical point of view on sexuality issues.’” The endorsement of Exodus in itself waves the red flag of caution.

In 2010, FOF became the official sponsor, a “logical step due to the ministry’s long history of supporting individuals-especially students and their families-who want an equal opportunity to express their faith-based viewpoint in a loving and respectful way.”

FOF changed the Day of Truth to the Day of Dialogue, scheduled this year for April 18. The name change seems a good marketing move, though they hold on to their understanding of “truth” as applicable to all.

The Day of Dialogue gives students a key opportunity to provide a balanced perspective and a loving, redemptive response to homosexual-themed events and discussions already occurring in public schools, such as GLSEN’s … Day of Silence.

In contrast to the whole idea of silence, the Day of Dialogue encourages student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality.

The “contrast to the whole idea of silence” implies that the Day of Silence discourages conversation, and ignores the often “silenced” realities of LGBT youth, and allies. The Day of Silence materials include “Speaking Cards”:

Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence (DOS), a national youth movement bringing attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by anti-LGBT bullying, name-calling and harassment. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward building awareness and making a commitment to address these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today.

The “respectfully” provided but still misinformation from Day of Dialogue includes a great deal of the usual fear rhetoric. Reading the material directed to parents is hearing the familiar voices that want the “homosexuals” (itself a consistently used scare tactic word) to keep quiet. The Day of Silence, FOF says, is organized by GLSEN, “one of the nation’s largest homosexual advocacy groups. … GLSEN encourages students celebrating this event to lobby for legislation supported by homosexual-advocacy groups and to pressure school officials to implement things such as a ‘queer friendly’ prom” – visions of a sinister Recruitment to the Queer Cause Prom.

The Alliance Defense Fund provides information that is a bit less careful about being “respectful,” with a section on “The Homosexual Agenda: The Principle Threat to Your Religious Freedom.” Once again I am amazed at the perceived power of Queerdom, who are linked with the ACLU. From ADF’s “Homosexual Agenda”:

For decades, radical activists, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, have tried to divorce America from its Christian heritage and values. Their strategy is twofold: dilute moral values so that homosexual behavior is thought to be normal, natural, and good, while suppressing the religious and free speech rights of those who disagree. If they successfully impose their radical legal agenda, then all people – especially Christians – who do not affirm homosexual behavior could be silenced, punished, and possibly even jailed for so-called discrimination and intolerance.

I think it’s a mistake using “divorce” imagery, since they can’t want folks to think of the 50% + divorce rate as a possibly bigger threat than the “homosexual agenda.” But the frequent use of “radical,” making Christians “especially endangered, mentioning “homosexual behavior,” sets the stage for something more like a sermon than a dialogue.

Kind of like the words that come down from Democratic and Republican Electeds and Elites, and campaign marketing.

We can make noise with words, money, work. And with silence. Cheers to all, especially the students, who will keep quiet on The Day of Silence.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

My $0.02/Saturday: Cerebral Is as Cerebral Does

By on 09 April 2011

Hillary at Blair House, April 4, 2011 (during a bilateral with Shimon Peres).

Morning, news junkies.

First up… a personal note of congratulations to my blogger friend, Lake Lady, who on Wednesday was elected mayor of her small town in MO. Mayor Lake Lady, you are a true inspiration! Throughout your campaign, I’ve been reminded of this quote from Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Now, onto my Saturday reads…

Once the politics are over, we can assess the policy with clear eyes. And I think you’ll find that the failure to put the 2011 budget to bed in the last Congress cost the economy $60 billion.

  • ABC News asks the $64,000 question: Where were the women in the budget debate? Here’s the other $64,000 question, the one that the MSM–as well as most of the prog blogs for that matter–won’t ask: What happened when Nancy Pelosi and “This is what a feminist looks like” Obama were at the Stupakistan table? (The war on women didn’t start with the Republican midterm gains…it just got an upgrade from easily ignored tropical storm to Cat 5 hurricane.)
  • The Atlantic’s James Fallows has a couple of posts up on the “uncertainty tax” that the possibility alone of a government shutdown has imposed on government operations, particularly at Hillary Clinton’s State Department… the first post is called Third World on the Potomac, followed up by Government-Shutdown Watch: An Inside View. The good news: Whether or not there was a shutdown, Hillary’s meeting with the highest-ranking woman in the Chinese government, State Councilor Liu Yandong, got the okay to proceed as planned next week. The not-so-good news: According to a reader whose wife works at the State department and wrote in to Fallows (see the “Inside View” link above), “it seems as though the government has been doing nothing this week other than preparing for the shutdown.” Another interesting tidbit from Fallows’ reader:

A semi-hard news tidbit: the disagreement over Planned Parenthood is a smokescreen to hide the fact that they can’t agree on the numbers. What I find so troubling about this is that the WH has met the Republicans about 70% of the way, yet Boehner keep moving the goal posts. Why the WH can’t this storyline into the media is beyond me. But then again, as Dan Balz observes today, we are seeing perhaps yet another example of a cerebral leadership style that is still not working.

  • I’d also like to say that when it comes to the kind of intelligence that matters, cerebral is as cerebral does. It’s not mere lack of ideas that is plaguing our politics, nor is it as benign as the sanitized “cerebral style” meme would like you to believe. What is plaguing our politics is lack of action and political will. Simple and reasonable ideas like ones on closing the corporate tax loopholes only get floated by the Bernie Sanders in our political class, precisely to be designated as outside the realm of what’s achievable in our current political system.
  • Speaking of political bankruptcy, and to link to James Fallows again… he has written an excellent takedown of the “brave and serious” Mr. Ryan, in which he elaborates on his contention that Ryan’s budget proposal is neither brave nor serious but rather “partisan and gimmicky,” which — as Fallows notes — would be par for the course as far as these sorts of plans go, if it weren’t for the laudatory way it has been received.
  • Meanwhile, here are the two descriptors Krugman uses for Ryan’s plan: Ludicrous and Cruel. From the link:

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Dealmakers: Dems Pay $1 Billion for Tea Party House Members to Drop Objection to Pap Smears

By on 08 April 2011

Of course there was a deal.

Numerous GOP and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill tell National Journal that the outline of the deal is as follows: up to $39 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget, $514 billion in spending for the defense budget covering the remainder of this fiscal year, a GOP agreement to abandon controversial policy riders dealing with Planned Parenthood and the EPA, and an agreement to pass a “bridge” continuing resolution late Friday night to keep the government operating while the deal is written in bill form. – National Journal, Susan Davis and Dan Friedman

Chuck Todd on Rachel Maddow confirmed budget negotiators think they have a deal. Now it’s up to Speaker Boehner to sell it to his caucus, which evidently has happened, according to Chris Hayes, sitting in for Ed Schultz.

When Pres. Obama spoke he made a point to log another accomplishment, the “largest annual spending cut in our history… programs people rely on will be cut back…” Hey, but at least mil-billionaires were saved a tax increase.

There was no way Speaker Boehner was going to pull a Newt. Not in this political climate with all that’s at stake on the next budget as an election year looms. A strong partner for Boehner was Tea Party caucus leader, Rep. Michele Bachmann, with both helping Pres. Obama to “win the future” by agreeing to spending cuts that ended up being larger than what Paul Ryan wanted. Huge win for Republicans any way you look at it.

Pres. Obama isn’t as popular as he was and Boehner isn’t Newt, so the chances of getting hit as the blowback from a shutdown spreads is something he was also not willing to risk.

So, Democrats went from $33 billion to $38 billion, now to $39 billion, if reports are correct. Obviously Democrats didn’t want to go to $40 billion. Because if you’re selling stuff you don’t want a big round number; better to have $1.99 rather than $2.00.

That means those clever, tough-minded political masterminds in the Democratic Party paid $1 billion for Boehner to push the Tea Party conservatives to drop their objections to allow women to have access to health care coverage like pap smears and other lifesaving services.

Man those Democrats, they’re some bargainers.

As for Republicans and especially the Tea Party, they wrangled $39 billion out of Democrats who control the Senate and the White House. You’d think Democrats would have learned from health care, but then fumbling that cost them their majority in the House, so what’s a Democrat to do?

Fish in a barrel, baby, while Pres. Obama “hovers” until the last moment, to quote Marc Ambinder.

But Obama might not escape the blame after a series of fights like this one. Washington can be a blur to those who don’t live here. It’s harder for a president to hover above the fray, and Obama’s tone matters as much as his policies. He cannot simultaneously be aloof and engaged.

Obama probably had no choice but to intervene in the way he did. A government shutdown would damage the country. But his tactical decision was dictated by a strategic calculation made a long time ago: in 2010, the White House would not prioritize the passing of a budget without significant spending reductions. That was a fair move at the time: two wars, the fall-out of health care, a twitchy Democratic Congress, and the November elections—these are enough to make any president wary of pushing an unpopular budget through a Congress controlled by his own party. Those choices echo loudly today.

No wonder we can’t get out of Afghanistan.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

Jon Stewart’s Farewell to Glenn Beck

By on 08 April 2011

Jon Stewart gave Glenn Beck the mother of all send offs last night. It’s bound to put the insanity in our world out of your mind for a little while.

But it is Friday, so consider this a free for all, with anything goes on topics.

I’m still betting there won’t be a shutdown. Major Garrett’s points to today’s tell:

As the clock ticked down toward a federal government shutdown, signs surfaced on Friday that a deal would be struck before the midnight deadline. One telling indication was the fact that Democrats, out there aggressively defending funding for community health clinics and Title X funding, were met by mostly Republican silence. – Muted Abortion Response Speaks Volumes

Rep. Michele Bachmann has also backed way off.





Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Start Your Shutdown Clock. Seriously?

By on 08 April 2011

There’s a spending agreement, $38 billion, according to Reid, with the Democratic talking point being it’s all about defunding Planned Parenthood. Huh, $38 billion? That’s new. Anyway, Boehner is still contending the number’s too small and there’s no agreement and it’s not about funding Planned Parenthood. Either way it comes down to an ideological battle that Democrats fell for, because they went into negotiations with Republicans adopting their economic model, spending cuts over tax revenue. Too bad Michele Bachmann isn’t Speaker of the House.

Every time I write about Rep. Michele Bachmann I have an immediate need to first point out that her latest smart move doesn’t wipe away the political insanity she’s regurgitated over the long months, particularly her defunding “Obamacare” mantra. That said, after Pres. Obama said he’d veto the House bill, she quickly ascertained that pushing it forward anyway would be a huge waste of time. She’s correct even if nobody in her caucus followed her. Bachmann’s also showing leadership by stepping away from her own Tea Party caucus.

Bachmann wants a “clean bill” to fund the military, but also to take the government shutdown off the table for one week. Speaker Boehner just made this point in a quickie public statement. She’s also committed her pay to a non-profit for military families if the shutdown comes. From John King last night:

In an interview with CNN’s John King on Thursday night, Bachmann called for a “clean” bill to fund the government for a week, and fund the Pentagon through September.

“Well, my opinion is this: I think that we should have a clean bill that makes sure that the paycheck gets to the troops on time,” Bachmann said.

“After all, now that President Obama has us engaged in a third war in Libya, I think it’s imperative that our troops not pay a price and none of the families back home should worry whether or not they’re getting a check,” Bachmann added. 



Right now, Michele Bachmann is the only woman on the Tea Party far right leading the Republican fight with any discernible astute comprehension of reality.

Back in ’95, during the shutdowns during Pres. Clinton’s term, the military didn’t get caught in the political crossfire. From the Congressional Research Service: Government Shutdown Operations of the Department of Defense During a Lapse in Appropriations study.

A frequent question is how this compares to the last government shutdown in 1995-1996. There were two shutdowns at that time, one of five days, from November 13 through November 19, 1995, and one of 21 days, from December 15, 1995 through January 5, 1996. The first shutdown was not long enough to affect pay checks, and DOD was not affected by the second because defense appropriations were enacted on December 1, so funding was available.

Pres. Obama and the current Congress aren’t so lucky on timing, but there is a simple way around this if egos are put to the side.

That’s exactly what Rep. Bachmann is willing to do on this one, which considering the mess our troops are in is the least that should be done and done first.

So, I have a confession. There’s a reason I haven’t run breathless headlines and panting posts and columns, which have blanketed new media and cable TV, about what everyone sees as inevitable, the government shutdown. I just didn’t believe it was going to happen, never have.

But today both Sen. Reid and Speaker Boehner are acting like that’s exactly where we’re headed.

Rep. Bachmann is smart on troop funding, so why is she so stupid as to refuse to give on Planned Parenthood? Why is she leading the Republican Right’s war on women?

The Democrats and Republicans in Washington can’t possibly be this stupid. Did I just write that?

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Why Are Democrats Helping Boehner Keep His Job?

By on 08 April 2011

The United States government is on the verge of shutting down over a dispute about subsidized pap smears. The White House and Senate Democrats have publicly capitulated to ever increasing GOP demands for spending cuts, but the negotiations over whether to shut down the government no longer hinge on money but instead are focused on so-called riders: Provisions in a budget that restrict the federal government from spending money on certain projects or entities. – Ryan Grimm

There are two stop gap measures in the works to avert a shutdown. It’s all about John Boehner’s need to keep the Tea Party members appeased, with Democrats caving all the way.

“It’s good to have a leader on,” Chris Matthews said on “Hardball,” sucking up to Mark Meckler, Tea Party activist. I don’t know about you, but I get nauseous from Matthews’ cyclical man crushes.

“Consider this a trap well set and sprung,” writes Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air. After Obama said he’d veto a short-term CR, Eric Cantor played the troops must get paid card, so now the Tea Party crew is gloating, starting with Meckler.

Steve Benen says it’s “good news” that Democrats and Republicans have agreed to $34.5 billion, up from $33 billion, in spending cuts. Why exactly is this good news for Democrats? It’s not. Once again they caved and accepted the Republican economic agenda.

I’ve been thinking a lot about all the hype associated with the budget blather that’s filled new media, TV, late night comic scripts and everything in between. I find it all so stunningly stupid, with Democrats playing the puppet dancing on strings held by Boehner, who’s got a shiv at his back.

First of all, Democrats have already caved, showing no principles whatsoever, just like they did in December with the Bush tax cut extension, by once again going along with the Cutting Government Spending is The Awesome mantra. I don’t know when holding the White House and the Senate meant a political party had to genuflect to a group of people who only have power in the House, but I think it started with Stupak-Pitts when Dems had the White House, Senate and the House.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for spending cuts if you’re talking about farm or big oil subsidies, corporate welfare giveaways and things like that, but I don’t think a dime should be cut from programs people in need utilize.

Second of all, whether it’s $33 billion or $34.5 billion in cuts this theater we’ve been watching does nothing to take on our real financial challenges that could benefit from some basic Democratic moves, which I’ve been writing about for months: 1. a surtax on mil-billionaires, as well as estates, capital gains, and dividends; 2. follow SecDef Gates’s recommendations for Pentagon cuts; 3. end farm subsidies; 4. stop corporate welfare; 5. rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I also believe in a substantial gasoline tax, but no one would sign off on that idea. That’s what some would call a middle class tax hike, but I call it an investment in alternative energy. The middle class are going to have to take a hit somewhere and this is a lot more controllable for them than Paul Ryan’s scheme.

It’s been especially embarrassing to watch Democrats demean themselves by jumping through Tea Party constructed hoops and forgetting that a little class warfare can be a good thing, especially when it happens to hit a nerve, even if the war has actually been lost.

The rich are still getting richer and richer, even after the ’08 financial catastrophe, with Republicans wanting to help them improve on their position, while Democrats sit around on their hands and allow it to happen as they, too, adopt spending cuts instead of working to level the playing field with tax increases where they’re needed. Raising taxes is an important revenue generator when targeted to the people who can afford it most.

It’s about time we saw some economic nationalism coming from corporate America, instead of the embarrassing spectacle of GE being proud they’re paying no taxes, while our servicemen and women die for their country overseas and get a pittance for the privilege.

As for the whole sorry budget spectacle, for my tastes there’s been way too much hand wringing, principle caving, compromising and capitulation, as well as contortion politics going on from Democrats all to help Speaker Boehner keep his job.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Take a Load Off and Talk About…

By on 07 April 2011



I love Coco. My husband gets up at 5:00 a.m., so he can’t stay up to watch him, but I’m awake until the wee hours doing research, reading and writing, so I rarely miss him. I thought this bit was particularly hilarious.

Speaking of laughable, it’s 2000 all over again in Wisconsin.

The latest vote count in the state Supreme Court race in Winnebago County indicates incumbent David Prosser is leading Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg in votes.

A tally compiled by The Associated Press Wednesday and used by news organizations statewide, including the Journal Sentinel, indicated Kloppenburg was leading the race by 204 votes. Figures on Winnebago County’s website are now different from those collected by the AP.

Rush Limbaugh was talking about voter fraud today on his show, blaming Democrats. I’m reminded of the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000. If you don’t remember it use The Google.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

The Next Obamas

By on 07 April 2011

Did that mean, I asked, that Mario Cuomo, who strongly opposed Clintonian compromises like the welfare-reform law of 1996, had come at last to appreciate triangulation? “No,” he said quickly, shifting a bit in his swivel chair. Then, more softly, “I’m still a liberal, I guess.” – Mario Cuomo Still Believes, by Matt Bai

They don’t make Democratic leaders like Mario Cuomo anymore.

The Obama era is now producing clones that stand for nothing, certainly not Democratic principles, with the idea to keep their options open so that voters can dress them like a political Ken doll.

This template has been bronzed through Barack Obama’s success in slick talking Democrats into submission. So now Andrew Cuomo is trying it on for size as he eyes the spot his father couldn’t reach, the White House in 2016.

Cuomo’s 2010 campaign slogan was “experience and independence.” Of course you need “independence,” because in the Obama era standing up for Democratic principles is considered too limiting. Cuomo’s the latest Obama clone, another “pragmatist,” who shows “little interest in ideological labels.”

From the New York Times:

He has clashed with unions, who he believes have helped drive his state toward bankruptcy. He has been praised by prominent conservatives like Sarah Palin and Rudolph W. Giuliani. And he has taken thousands of dollars in campaign money from the New York billionaire David H. Koch, who with his family has helped financed the Tea Party movement.

[...] “Candidly, progressives are quite disappointed with the governor’s budget,” said Jon Kest, a veteran organizer and executive director of New York Communities for Change, an advocacy group for low-income New Yorkers. “We will stand with him when his actions align with our values, but that is not the case today.”

… Mr. Cuomo declined to be interviewed for this article. In a rare on-the-record interview last October, as he was running for governor, he showed little interest in ideological labels. “I’m a realist,” Mr. Cuomo said at the time. “Numbers are numbers. ‘I want to have a political-philosophical discussion,’ ” he mimicked. “They’re numbers. Forget the philosophy. Here are the numbers.”

Oh, sweet Jesus, spare me.

A political “realist” is someone who admits he’ll do anything to get elected, because he realizes he doesn’t have the intellect to sell what he believes, because principles might hem him in.

I honestly don’t know what it’s going to take to get movement progressives to wake up and challenge the establishment in the Democratic Party, but they’d better do it soon or all they’ll have to choose from in 2016 is Obama knock offs who stand for everything, but whose political principles are nonexistent, and whose promises and pledges to get your vote mean nothing.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }