The GOP’s “Uncertainty” Myth

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

“Call Their Bluff, Mr. President”

Wendell Potter: “My Apologies to Michael Moore and the Health Insurance Industry”

Submitted by Wendell Potter

In advance of my appearance with Michael Moore on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight on MSNBC (8 and 11 p.m. ET), I would like to offer an apology to both Moore and his arch enemy, the health insurance industry, which spent a lot of policyholder premiums in 2007 to attack his movie, Sicko.

I need to apologize to Moore for the role I played in the insurance industry’s public relations attack campaign again him and Sicko, which was about the increasingly unfair and dysfunctional U.S. health care system. (I was head of corporate communications at one of the country’s biggest insurance companies when I left my job in May 2008.) And I need to apologize to health insurers for failing to note in my new book, Deadly Spin, that the front group they used to attack Moore and Sicko — Health Care America — was originally a front group for drug companies. APCO Worldwide, the PR firm that operated the front group for insurers during the summer of 2007, was outraged — outraged, I tell you — that I wrote in the book that the raison d’être for Health Care America was to disseminate the insurance industry’s talking points as part of a multi-pronged, fear-mongering campaign against Moore and his movie. An APCO executive told a reporter who had reviewed the book that I was guilty of one of the deceptive PR tactics I condemned: the selective disclosure of information to manipulate public opinion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsNbZ8x5Oas[/youtube]

Time For A Vote On New START

by Faiz Shakir, Benjamin Armbruster, George Zornick, Zaid Jilani, Alex Seitz-Wald, Max Bergmann, and Tanya Somanader

Last week, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta explained that the New START treaty was a test for Republicans to see if they were ready to govern. It now appears as if the GOP is prepared to fail that test. In a sign that nothing is above partisan politics, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the number two Republican in the Senate shocked the White House this week when he abruptly blew up months of negotiations and dismissed the prospects of a vote during the lame duck period. Republicans are stalling, either hoping to kill the treaty quietly to avoid giving President Obama a perceived victory, or to extort so much pork for the nuclear weapons-industrial complex that it makes further progress in this area impossible. Still, the vast majority of Republicans, including Kyl, refuse to say they actually oppose the treaty. The White House therefore is not backing down, as the New York Times writes today, “Mr. Obama on Thursday escalated ratification of the agreement, the so-called New Start treaty, into a public showdown.” After seven months of consideration in the Senate and more than 20 hearings on the treaty, Senate Republicans have had more than enough time to review the treaty. While back room talks with Kyl appear to be continuing, it is now up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to force Republicans to stop their equivocating by holding a vote on the Senate floor.

ENDANGERING NATIONAL SECURITY: By delaying the treaty, Senate Republicans put U.S. national security at risk. The original treaty expired last December, and it has now been 349 days since Americans have been on the ground in Russia monitoring and inspecting the country’s nuclear facilities — a vital provision that has helped maintain post-Cold War nuclear stability. As Vice President Biden said today, “We’re blind now.” The stakes are high, which is why the treaty has the unanimous support of the U.S. military and of a wide array of Republican foreign policy officials. Delaying a vote into the next senate would require that the treaty ratification process start from scratch. This promises to upset the “reset” with Russia, potentially destroying the careful coalition against Iran, which has seen Russia back sanctions and stop the sale of an anti-aircraft missile to Iran. U.S. troops in Afghanistan are also dependent on sensitive supply routes through Russia, which would also be at risk. More broadly, the delay and presumed defeat of the treaty would weaken Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, who pushed the treaty, and strengthen Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Perhaps even worse is the impact on stopping states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ambassador Richard Burt, who negotiated the original START treaty on behalf of President Reagan, said on PBS this week, “There are only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea.”

PARTY ABOVE COUNTRY: Editorial pages in newspapers throughout the U.S. erupted in anger at news of Kyl’s stunt. He was described as “narrow-minded,” politically “craven,” and as putting forth “lame excuses.” West Virginia’s Charleston Gazzette noted, “What a galling situation. Kyl cares more about playing politics than about protecting America.” The New York Times editorialized, “The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl. … [T]he objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.” The San Jose Mercury News summed it up, “If you doubted that Republicans could be so craven as to put their own political interests above national security, the proof was delivered Tuesday: Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl announced he will block New START.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the leading nuclear expert in the Senate and treaty backer, unloaded on his Republican colleagues for their dithering this week: “The Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don’t want to make choices. … Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now. … There are still thousands of missiles out there. You better get that through your heads.”

FORCE A VOTE: Despite much of the press reporting, Kyl doesn’t run the Senate. Majority Leader Reid does. It is now up to Reid to find the time on the Senate floor to overcome Kyl’s inevitable obstructionism, which will draw out the process taking up considerable senate floor time. Importantly, the vast majority of Republicans, including Kyl, have not said they oppose the treaty. It is time to force them to make a decision. As Podesta explained in Politico yesterday, Reid and the White House have nothing to lose by forcing a vote: “Even if Republicans are actually willing to vote against New START in the lame duck session, why would anyone think they would more cooperative next year? Delay would simply reinforce partisan stalling tactics.” Lugar sent a clear message to Reid and the White House: “I’m advising that the treaty should come on the floor so people will have to vote aye or nay [even if there's no deal with Kyl]. … I think when it finally comes down to it, we have sufficient number or senators who do have a sense of our national security. This is the time, this is the priority. Do it.” Given that 73 percent of Americans support the New START treaty, according to a just released CNN poll, the stance of Kyl and Senate Republicans is proving incredibly unpopular, and the time to have a vote is now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcPAOaP_5DE[/youtube]

Living in a Rich Man’s World

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

Congressional Members’ Personal Wealth Expands Despite Sour National Economy

MANY CONGRESSIONAL HAVES, BUT A FEW HAVE-NOTS, TOO
By law, members of Congress are only required to report their wealth and liabilities in broad ranges. It’s therefore impossible to precisely determine how much value their assets are worth, or have gained or lost. Federal law also requires that members of Congress detail any assets owned or debts owed by their spouses and dependent children.

The Center for Responsive Politics determines the minimum and maximum possible asset values for each member of Congress to calculate a member’s average estimated wealth. Sometimes, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars separate a lawmaker’s minimum calculated wealth from his or her maximum calculated wealth.

When averaging lawmakers’ minimum and maximum potential wealth for 2009, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) tops the list with holdings exceeding $303.5 million. Issa (pictured right) is followed by a fellow Californian, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), with $293.4 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) places third at $238.8 million.

Issa, Harman and Kerry realized wealth gains of nearly 21 percent, 19.8 percent and 14.3 percent respectively.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) round the list of lawmakers who in 2009 recorded an average wealth of at least $100 million.

In the House, there are five Democrats and five Republicans among the 10 wealthiest members. On the Senate side, six Democrats and four Republicans rank among the top 10 wealthiest.

On the other end of the wealth spectrum is Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), whose average calculated wealth for 2009 is a

bank-busting -$4.73 million. But because of the broad ranges lawmakers may use to report their assets and liabilities, Hastings (pictured right) could be even deeper in the red — -$7.35 million at worst – or a more minor anti-millionaire at -$2.11 million in the hole.

Reps. John Salazar (D-Colo.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) find themselves in similar situations with average calculated wealth well below $0. But while their minimum potential wealth each dips into -$4 million territory, their maximum potential wealth rockets them each above the $3 million mark.

Matters appear more straightforward – and grim – for Rep. Louis Gohmert Jr. (R-Texas), who’s minimum and maximum calculated wealth both fall into six-figure negative territory. Gohmert’s’ average calculated wealth for 2009 is -$150,001.

Reps. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), Artur Davis (D-Ala.), Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) aren’t in much better shape, as both their minimum and maximum wealth values appear with minus symbols.

But even this may – or may not – mean that these members are financially destitute. In addition to only requiring congressional members to report their assets in ranges, federal financial disclosures don’t require members of Congress to report certain assets such as personal residences, which may represent significant stores of wealth.

“For most members of Congress, available federal data provides a pretty good sense as to who’s particularly wealthy and who’s not,” said Dan Auble, who manages the Center’s personal financial disclosure database. “But the data has its limitations, and in a few notable cases, it’s simply impossible to predict whether a member of Congress is more likely to conduct an emergency garage sale or lease a new Porsche.”

WILD SWINGS IN WEALTH FOR SOME MEMBERS
Most members of Congress witnessed only modest financial gains or losses between 2008 and 2009, a comparison of personal financial disclosures from both years indicates.

In all, more than 300 current members saw their average wealth either increase or drop by no more than 20 percent .

Outliers abound, however, such as Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.). Fallin (pictured left) had an average wealth in 2008 that amounted to a paltry $32,002. In 2009, it has jumped to nearly $3.6 million – an increase of 11,141 percent – thanks in large part to her getting married and sharing in her husband’s assets.

Reps. Patrick Kennedy (R-R.I.), Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Pete Olson (R-Texas), Joseph Cao (R-La.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) also experienced between a 1,000 percent and 10,000 percent increase in their year-to-year average calculated wealth, as did Puerto Rico Del. Pedro Pierluisi. The reasons for such gains vary. Kennedy, for example, inherited significant assets from his late father, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Murphy purchased a valuable life insurance policy.

Overall, party affiliation appeared to play little discernable role in predicting an increase in the value of lawmakers’ personal assets: 12 Democrats and seven Republicans ranked among the top 20 congressmen whose average wealth increased by the greatest percentage between 2008 and 2009. That’s roughly proportional with Congress’ partisan makeup.

Meanwhile, Diaz-Balart led all federal lawmakers with a more than 506 percent drop in his average wealth, which sunk to -$32,500 in 2009 from $8,000 in 2008.

Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Howard McKeon (R-Calif.), Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Meeks each sustained 100 percent or more reductions in their year-over-year average calculated wealth.

Then there’s the curious case of Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.).

The 2009 personal financial disclosure report of Stark (pictured right) seemingly indicates his average wealth figure dropped by more than 368 percent from 2008. But portions of Stark’s handwritten federal report are illegible, making an accurate analysis impossible.

Stark’s office did not immediately return calls seeking clarification.

Meanwhile, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who a House Ethics Committee panel on Tuesday convicted on 11 counts of ethics violations – including improper disclosure of his personal finances – reported assets of $872,006 in 2009. That’s above the median amount for a House member.

POWERFUL POLITICAL PLAYERS AMONG MOST POPULAR INVESTMENTS
The most popular investment among congressional members reads as a who’s who list of the most powerful corporate political forces in Washington, D.C. — companies that each spend millions, if not tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying federal officials. Many of them likewise donate millions of dollars to federal candidates each election cycle through their top employees and political action committees.

With 82 current members of Congress invested, General Electric tops this list. It’s followed by Bank of America (63), Cisco Systems (61), Proctor & Gamble (61) and Microsoft (54).

Apple, with 42 current congressional investors, edges IBM, with 41. Coca-Cola’s 39 congressional investors pop it a notch above PepsiCo, with 36.

And at least 20 current members of Congress were also last year invested in companies that found themselves the subject of congressional or federal agency inquiries, including Goldman Sachs and BP.

Furthermore, the companies behind a number of lawmakers’ favorite investments played key roles in lobbying Congress on two of the most critical legislative initiatives of the past two years: health care reform and financial regulatory reform.

Among health care-related companies, at least 20 current lawmakers reported owning stakes in Pfizer (49), Johnson & Johnson (39), Merck (27), Abbott Laboratories (25), CVS/Caremark (23), Bristol-Myers Squibb (22) and Amgen (20).

As for financial firms, Bank of American and Goldman Sachs are joined by Wells Fargo (45), JPMorgan Chase (38) and Citigroup (24).

In all, there were 50 separate stocks or investment funds in which at least 20 current members of Congress invested during 2009.

PAPER DOCUMENTS HINDER DISCLOSURE
Federal lawmakers are required to file personal financial disclosure reports with the federal government by May 15 of each year.

Because of the volume of data they contain, coupled with Congress’ practice of filing personal financial disclosure reports on paper , it takes the Center for Responsive Politics several months to fully analyze them. Reports that are illegible, such as those filed by Stark, further complicate efforts to accurately analyze lawmakers’ personal finances in a timely fashion.

The Center advocates for electronic submission of all personal financial disclosure reports in sortable and downloadable formats to provide greater transparency and more meaningful access to this valuable public data.

Complete analysis of federal lawmakers’ personal finances are contained within the Center for Responsive Politics’ updated personal financial disclosure database, available here.

This database is a one-of-a-kind resource and the product of months of research and analysis by the Center.

#  #  #

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report was made possible by the generous support of the Sunlight Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Open Society Institute and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS

The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking and reporting on money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Center aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. The Center’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. The Center relies on support from a combination of foundation grants, individual contributions and custom data work. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations.

Republicans Block An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Paycheck Fairness Act

Amanda Terkel

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats were unable to overcome a Republican filibuster of the Paycheck Fairness Act on Tuesday, with the chamber falling two votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and proceed to a vote on the measure that would help combat wage discrimination on the basis of gender.

The vote broke down along party lines with the exception of sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who sided with Republicans and voted against cloture. Not a single member of the GOP broke rank.

Observers closely watched the votes of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), all women senators who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides basic protections against wage discrimination.

“Senate Republicans had their latest opportunity to do the right thing, work with Democrats to reduce wage inequality for women, and help the American families they support,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a statement after the vote. “This was a prime opportunity to enact the kind of common-sense, bipartisan solutions to our economic problems that the American people are demanding, but Republicans spurned it.”

“Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to address our shared challenges, but compromise is a two-way street,” he added. “I am hopeful that moving forward, Republicans put partisanship aside and focus on doing what’s right and fair for the American people.”

“Forty-five years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, it is unacceptable that women still earn, on average, 77 cents to the dollar earned by men,” said National Women’s Law Center Co-President Marcia Greenberger. “The law needs to be stronger. This persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker. In this difficult economy, in which nearly 40 percent of mothers are primary breadwinners, women shoulder increased responsibility for supporting their families and cannot afford to have employers discounting their salaries.”

Among other provisions, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which has already passed the House, would ensure that a law already on the books — the Equal Pay Act of 1963 — is properly enforced. It would also make sure that women aren’t punished for seeking out information about what their male colleagues are earning in order to ensure they are being paid properly.

Opponents of the legislation, including Collins, have voiced concern that it would lead to “excessive litigation on to the small-business community.” “This bill appears to go way beyond the Lilly Ledbetter Act and I am concerned what the impact would be,” she said in September.

But in a Slate article, Center for American Progress senior economist Heather Boushey argued, “[I]t strains credulity to imagine that the law would have this attenuated effect. If businesses are worried about more litigation, maybe that’s because women armed with knowledge about pay gaps would be more likely to bring suits that have merit to enforce the laws that already exist.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but she was not present in Washington for the vote, instead in Alaska for the wrap-up of the ballot-counting process in her re-election fight against Republican Joe Miller.

UPDATE, 2:14 p.m.: Statement from the President on the vote:

I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote. This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, this bill would ensure that American women and their families aren’t bringing home smaller paychecks because of discrimination. It also helps businesses that pay equal wages as they struggle to compete against discriminatory competition. But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law. Despite today’s vote, my Administration will continue to fight for a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work.

UPDATE, 2:29 p.m.: Hutchison’s office put out a statement also citing concern that the legislation would encourage more class action lawsuits and allows for uncapped compensatory and punitive damages.

“It is critical that victims of gender-based pay discrimination are given a chance to seek legal recourse through the court system,” said Hutchison. “I believe current law, including the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which I supported in 2009, protects against wage discrimination. We must ensure that the legal system is fair to both sides in any disagreement. The bill that failed to win cloture overextends by having no limits for compensatory and punitive damages, which I believe are adequately covered by the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.”

In 2009, Hutchison also expressed concerns over the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and introduced an alternative bill — which ultimately failed — that she said would have “alleviated the concerns that many small business owners expressed to me.”

UPDATE, 4:15 p.m.: Collins issued a statement explaining her vote:

I support equal pay for equal work. I voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year because I believed the Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company case placed an unreasonable burden on a worker’s ability to seek recourse in wage discrimination cases because it did not take into account the realities of the workplace. However, I am concerned that this particular legislation would unnecessarily impose increased costs and restrictions on small businesses in an already difficult economic climate. By eliminating caps on punitive and compensatory damages, this bill would expose the small business community to excessive litigation, force employers to devote significantly more resources toward legal protections, and could stunt job creation, ultimately hurting those its supporters say they’re trying to protect.In addition, this bill would require businesses to disclose previously confidential salary information to the government, and it relies upon faulty methods for identifying wage discrimination. That is why many business groups oppose this legislation, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, our nation’s largest small business advocacy group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Publicized GOP Statement Ignores Shortcomings of GOP Policy

Spending Worries Put Jobless Benefits at Risk

By JANET HOOK And SARA MURRAY

Congress is unlikely to agree to extend jobless benefits for two million unemployed workers by the time the program begins to lapse in two weeks, as lawmakers struggle with a packed lame-duck session and voter antipathy toward government spending.

But cutting off benefits could drag on a fragile economic recovery by reducing consumer spending, economists say, and Democrats are looking for a compromise that could put the program back on track before Christmas.

The program, which provides aid for up to 99 weeks after workers are laid off, has been extended seven times during the economic downturn. Last summer when Congress extended it, the battle was so pitched that benefits lapsed for over a month.

Democrats are under pressure from supporters to extend benefits because their prospects will likely dim after Republicans take over the House in January.

In a concession, senior congressional aides say Democrats are weighing options to scale back the program and its costs. One option would be to extend it for one year but reduce the number of weeks aid would be provided as the economy improves.

The issue could also be swept into the debate over the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest earners. Liberal Democrats, disappointed their party likely will have to compromise and allow those tax cuts to be extended at least temporarily, want that move linked to an extension of unemployment benefits.

Republicans opposed an extension last summer on the grounds it would have added to the deficit, a concern that has grown more prominent since the midterm elections. But the party’s current position is still taking shape, with most arguing for now that any extension would have to be funded.

An aide to Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said Republicans’ leading concern will be to make sure the cost of any extension will be offset with cuts in other areas. One option, the aide said, would be to use unspent money from the economic stimulus bill.

Given the complexity of negotiations over the tax cuts, aides say it’s unlikely the debate will be resolved before benefits begin to expire Nov. 30. The lame-duck Congress convened Monday amid uncertainty about a wide range of issues. Congress is scheduled to take off again Thanksgiving week and return Nov. 29.

The patchwork nature of jobless-benefits system means the impact of a lapse would roll slowly through the ranks of the unemployed. Without an extension, jobless workers in most states would receive a maximum of 26 weeks of benefits through their regular state programs.

A separate state-federal program, currently 100% federally funded, offered another 13 to 20 weeks of benefits to workers in high unemployment states. Some 800,000 workers in those programs would be quickly cut off.

Another 1.2 million jobless Americans would stop receiving benefits by the end of December. Some of those workers would exhaust state benefits and be unable to access the federal program. The majority that is already receiving federal emergency extended benefits would gradually lose them.

Congress initiated federal extended benefits in July 2008, relatively early on in the downturn. In past recessions, Congress tended to wait longer to initiate benefits and didn’t let them expire until the jobless rate had fallen further. When extended benefits expired after the 1980s recession, the jobless rate was 7.2%. Today, it is 9.6%.

The economy grew at a 2% annual rate in the third quarter, which has not been enough to bring down the unemployment rate.

Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips estimated that if the extensions were allowed to expire it would shave half a percentage point from growth.

Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance has the effect of $2 spent in the economy, according to a report the Labor Department will release this week.

The report, commissioned by the Bush administration and conducted by research firm IMPAQ International and the Urban Institute think tank, showed an average of 1.6 million jobs were preserved each quarter because of unemployment insurance and 1.8 million job losses were averted in the depths of the current recession.

“When you give a dollar to the unemployed they’re the most likely to spend it,” said Betsey Stevenson, the Labor Department’s chief economist.

Capping benefit recipients at 60 weeks would be a better alternative than cutting extended benefits altogether, said James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“Certainly you don’t want to be doing anything cold turkey,” he said, but “if Congress is going to pass another extension they should at least budget for this.”

Write to Janet Hook at janet.hook@wsj.com and Sara Murray at sara.murray@wsj.com

Where Did Our Debt Come From?

By James Fallows

Chuck Spinney, who spent his career as a budget analyst in the Pentagon — that’s him, on the cover of Time for his defense-reform work in the Reagan era — has an idea about the answer. The green in the chart below shows periods when America’s overall federal debt burden shrank; red, when it grew. Spinney, by the way, is no one’s idea of a standard liberal. He’s more a deficit hawk than anything else, meaning both that he’s hard-line against excess spending and that he’s pro-defense but cheap. He explains the chart he has prepared:
>>Obama inherited a federal deficit that was spinning out of control (mostly because of decreased tax take and increased expenditures for automatic stabilizers, e.g. unemployment insurance), and pressure is growing to cut Social Security (perhaps the most efficiently run program in government) while placing Defense (one of the most inefficiently run programs) off limits. These political pressures are not new and in fact have been building up for years. So, as a first cut into a complex issue, perhaps it is time for the angry masses to ask which political party put them into the fiscal straight jacket that is setting them up for this horrible choice?

A. Democrats?
B. Moderate Republicans?
C. Right Wing Republicans?

Hint:
Green => Reductions in the burden of Gr. Fed. Debt (as measured by the debt to GDP ratio)
Red => Increases in the burden of Gr. Fed. Debt <<

To be clear: the middle column is how much overall federal debt grew, or shrank, as a share of gross domestic product during each administration, and the right-hand chart is the average annual rate of growth or reduction during that administration. As Spinney said in a note to me, “The idea of this column is simply to show the average annual change for the period covered in the first column — so you can compare one term administrations to two term administrations in terms of their annual performance.  The first row of the second column says, for example, that the average debt burden ratio declined by 4.7% during each year of the Truman administration.”

When the economy is growing faster than the debt, that administration looks “green.” When it isn’t, red. The chart may give a slightly unfair boost to Harry Truman, whose administration coincided with the end of huge outlays and borrowing for World War II. Otherwise…

GOP Frosh: “Where’s My Heath Care?”

By GLENN THRUSH

Nazis Rally For Arizona Immigration Law

By Nick Wing

A Neo-Nazi march held in favor of Arizona’s SB-1070 immigration law in Phoenix over the weekend was disrupted by equal rights activists in what quickly devolved into a mob scene.

Members of the National Socialist Movement were heavily outnumbered by protesters who confronted the Neo-Nazi parade on its way to the federal courthouse. Police arrived in riot gear to separate the two factions, a move that was followed by multiple injuries and the arrests of two protesters who threw rocks at officers.

In the video, the Neo-Nazi march organizer, J.T. Ready, can be seen explaining to a group of protesters that the assault of his members is not acceptable.

Ready reportedly shares a connection to SB-1070 architect and Arizona state Rep. Russell Pearce (R).

Though Pearce denied having knowledge of Ready’s involvement with the National Socialist Movement during his alleged proximity to the group’s organizer in 2007, when Ready was in the midst of being ousted from a low-level GOP post, a video released last year showed Pearce in attendance at a 2009 rally headlined by Ready.

As ThinkProgress points out, the alliance between white-supremacy groups and Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration legislation appears to be more than a matter of personal associations.

According to an immigration report from change.org earlier this year, numerous groups linked to white nationalist causes have provided monetary support to Arizona’s SB-1070, both in its early stages as well as to its legal defense fund.

Flip-flop: Cindy McCain Says She Backs Effort to Keep ‘Don’t Ask’

By Daniel Tencer

Barely a day after she appeared in a gay-rights video urging the repeal of the military’s gay ban, Cindy McCain announced she supports her husband’s efforts to keep the policy in place.

“I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it,” Ms. McCain Tweeted Friday. “But I stand by my husband’s stance on DADT.”

In a video released this week by gay-rights campaign NOH8, the wife of Sen. John McCain took a direct swipe at the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

“Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future … they can’t serve our country openly,” McCain said.

Reporters and bloggers were quick to point out the awkwardness of McCain’s stance in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” when her husband led a filibuster of the repeal in the Senate this fall. He has promised to filibuster any future attempts at repealing the law as well.

Now some political observers are suggesting that Ms. McCain may have caved to pressure by the senator.

“McCain has apparently been knocked into line by her husband,” suggests Joe.My.God.

“With all due respect, Cindy McCain is a liar,” a clearly angry John Aravosis writes. “The only question is when she lied – today, or yesterday.”

The question still outstanding is where the McCains’ daughter, Meghan, stands on the issue. Meghan McCain was also part of the NOH8 campaign, and has spoken out in favor of gay marriage.

Political observers note that time is running out to repeal “don’t ask.” With a Republican House about to convene, chances of a repeal past the current session are considered nonexistent. But the current lame-duck session appears only marginally more hospitable to the idea.

The result could be that the repeal is stripped from a defense appropriations bill currently before Congress, but some activists see a chance to add the repeal to another “must-pass” bill before the end of the current session.

The following video was released by the NOH8 Campaign.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFZ7qjrw5U[/youtube]

Next Page »

• TWITTER

  

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

• Categories

  • Hi, I'm_______and I'm unemployed
  • Uncategorized

•  

  May 2012

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Nov
  	1	2	3	4	5	6
  7	8	9	10	11	12	13
  14	15	16	17	18	19	20
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	31

• Archives

  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010

• Right Wing Watch

  • Right Wing Round-Up - 5/18/12
    Good As You: More on Harry Jackson's 24 hour anti-equality rave. Mariah Blake @ Salon: Coverup at Washington Times. Scott Keyes @ Think Progress: DOCUMENTARY PROOF: James O’Keefe’s Latest Video Is A Fraud. Nick R. Martin @ TPM: Arizona Goes Birther: Secretary Of State Says It’s ‘Possible’ Obama Won’t Be On Ballot. Paul Abowd @ Mother Jones: Think Tanks […]
  • Right Wing Leftovers - 5/18/12
    As expected, Randall Terry's acolytes interrupted a speech HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius delivered at at Georgetown University today. Herman Cain says President Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright are "fair game." FRC is coming to Bristol Pailn's defense after she criticized President Obama's support for marriage equality. Is Grov […]
  • The Religious Right and the Rise of Quasi-Birtherism
    It is pretty interesting to watch the Religious Right delicately attempt to embrace the anti-Obama Birther conspiracies while desperately trying to avoid being tagged as Birthers.  Just a few weeks ago, Tony Perkins was saying he was not a Birther while simultaneously claiming that questions about Obama's birth certificate were "legitimate issues. […]

• Think Progress

  • BREAKING: NAACP Endorses Marriage Equality
    The board of the NAACP, the “nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization,” endorsed marriage equality at a meeting this afternoon. The move comes 10 days after President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage. The NAACP’s move comes as attitudes about gays and lesbians in the African American community are changing rapidly. A recent […]
  • April 2012: Earth’s 5th Warmest On Record And La Niña Officially Ends, So The Heat Is On.
    JR: It’s remarkable how warm it was globally in April considering that we were only just coming out of a double dip La Niña. If we don’t triple dip, we’ll set more temperature records soon. Indeed, NOAA models predict a good chance of an El Niño forming in the late summer, which would make it quite […]
  • Congressmen seek to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.’
    BuzzFeed reports that Rep. Mark Thornberry (R-TX) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) have inserted a provision into the latest defense authorization bill that would “‘strike the current ban on domestic dissemination’ of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon.” The proposal would “give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentago […]

• Daily Kos

  • This week in the War on Workers: Unions still grappling with American Airlines bankruptcy
    American Airlines unions continue fighting for the best possible outcome in the bankruptcy of parent company AMR. Earlier this week, five out of seven work groups in the Transport Workers Union, the largest union at American, voted to accept contract offers: Under the deal, according to TWU, workers would make make concessions on wages and benefits, and Amer […]
  • This week in the War on Women: Damn broads are greedy, lying whores
    Praise great Gaia for the awesome perks of being a woman! Sure, we women may have once been second-class citizens, but ever since the radical feminists destroyed the patriarchal structure of our society and totally ended sexism forever, usurping all the levers of power in the public and private sector, it's been a non-stop gravy train of government hand […]
  • Open thread: Failure, injustice and cowardice
    What's coming up on Sunday Kos ... William Galston talks 2012 election with Daily Kos, by DemFromCT Two Daily Kos/SEIU polls show why Americans Elect failed, by Chris Bowers Billionaire donors drive anti-teacher, pro-testing education reform agenda, by Laura Clawson Injustice and jury selection, by Denise Oliver Velez Mitt Romney is a coward, by brookly […]

• Fire Dog Lake

  • A Dissenters’ Digest for May 13-19
    Dissenters' Digest takes a look back at the week's stories covering whistleblowers, watchdogs, and government accountability. […]
  • Chicago PD, FBI & Secret Service Claim NATO 3 Came to Chicago to Commit ‘Terrorist Acts of Violence’
    Three Occupy activists raided on May 16 and disappeared for a period of time by Chicago police were brought before a bond judge this afternoon and officially charged with material support for terrorism, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and possession of explosives or explosive or incendiary devices. The State's Attorney Anita Alvarez asked for bail to be […]
  • Merkel Intervention at G8 Summit on Stimulus for Eurozone
    Most of the leaders of the free world are meeting at the G8 Summit today at Camp David, and it sounds like the event has the look of an intervention where the other heads of state try to sit Angela Merkel down and convince her to reverse the austerity policies that are crushing European economies and threatening the euro currency union. […]

• Huffington Post

  • Newt Gingrich's Mountain Of Debt Grows Higher
    Newt Gingrich may have ended his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, but his journey to retire the $4.7 million in debt he piled up... […]
  • Columnist: Obama Is Condescending To Women
    WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years... […]
  • William Bradley: Flailing NATO? Big Questions Surround Obama's Showcase Chicago Summit
    There's a lot of confusion about the ballyhooed NATO Summit in Chicago, intended as a big boost to Obama's geopolitical leadership, showcased in his hometown. Here are some big outstanding questions about NATO's future. […]

• Progressive Democrats of America

• Rachel Maddow Show

  • Video: Ugly echoes of 2008 encroach on Romney message
  • Video: Improving economy undermines Romney narrative
  • Video: Paper plane proxy pitcher a lesson in unfair advantage

• Recent Comments

  • 传奇私服 on Wilkerson Accuses George W. Bush ‘knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent’
  • 传奇私服 on Wilkerson Accuses George W. Bush ‘knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent’
  • Download Music on Wilkerson Accuses George W. Bush ‘knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent’
  • 传奇私服 on 2010 Candidates Refuse To Debate Their Opponents: What Are They So Afraid Of?
  • limesat ultra on Net Neutrality Bill Gives FCC No New Rulemaking Power
  • 传奇私服 on United Mine Workers Pres. Cecil Roberts: Massey Energy CEO Blankenship Should Be Held Accountable
  • Andrew A. Sailer on President Signs Bill to Extend Jobless Aid
  • Algarve Golf on Primary 2010 Results: Lincoln Holds On, GOP Women Soar
  • Chester Holtgrewe on Huckabee Compares Gays to Drug Users, Says They’re Not Fit to Adopt Kids Because “Children Are Not Puppies.”
  • Robert Moses on Judge Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
  • Leighann Somes on House Passes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Amendment, Senate Bill Advances
  • Keith Kujawa on 2010 Candidates Refuse To Debate Their Opponents: What Are They So Afraid Of?
  • inchirieri iasi on United Mine Workers Pres. Cecil Roberts: Massey Energy CEO Blankenship Should Be Held Accountable
  • Jackie Howard on Debate Over Ground Zero Mosque Is About American Values
  • doit center david on Senate Ready to Hang States, the Unemployed, the Economy Out to Dry

• Recent Posts

  • The GOP’s “Uncertainty” Myth
  • Wendell Potter: “My Apologies to Michael Moore and the Health Insurance Industry”
  • Time For A Vote On New START
  • Living in a Rich Man’s World
  • Republicans Block An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Paycheck Fairness Act
  • Publicized GOP Statement Ignores Shortcomings of GOP Policy
  • Where Did Our Debt Come From?
  • GOP Frosh: “Where’s My Heath Care?”
  • Nazis Rally For Arizona Immigration Law
  • Flip-flop: Cindy McCain Says She Backs Effort to Keep ‘Don’t Ask’

• FACEBOOK

• Need More Gift Idea? Not sure? Then click the banner above!

• Does Your Representatives Pass or Fail The Middle Class?

• Petitions

  Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

• Polls

• Check Their Vote!

  Project Vote Smart - Search Candidates, Elections and Officials
  
  Javascript must be enabled.

• Cost of 2010 Elections

• Political Tweets of the Day

• Tags

  AP Bill Clinton BP Bush Tax Cuts Deficit Democrats Economy FDR FireDogLake Fox News Gay Rights George W Bush George W Bush Tax Breaks Glenn Beck GOP Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Health Care Bill House Minority Leader John Boehner Huffington Post Joe Miller John McCain Keith Olbermann Michele Bachmann Mid term Elections Mitch McConnell Msnbc Net neutrality Newt Gingrich November Election 2010 President Obama Rachel Maddow Rand Paul Republicans right wing Rush Limbaugh Sarah Palin Sharron Angle Social Security Talking Points Memo tea party Think Progress TPM Unemployment Benefits Washington Post Zaid Jilani

• VOTE! VOTE! GET OUT THE VOTE!!!

  Register to Vote Here