Category Archives: Democrats

Just the Facts, Ma’am

11 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Tea Party

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say on the old Dragnet series, “Just the facts, ma’am.” The facts, as we know them, are these:

Jared Lee Loughner is a mentally ill young man. Even an untrained eye can take one look at this mug shot and plainly see that. Unlike noted ophthalmologists who like to play amateur psychiatrist on the side, I’ll leave the diagnosis of the nature and scope of Loughner’s mental illness for the experts in the field to decide.

There is no indication at the present time that Loughner’s motivation, as far as any motivation can be discerned from the actions of a mentally ill person, had anything to do with politics. Reports from various sources, such as McClatchy, the Wall Street Journal, and Mother Jones to name only 3, indicate that Congresswoman Giffords was the target dating back to a 2007 meeting similar to the one held this past Saturday in Tucson, during which Loughner asked Giffords a question, “What is government if words have no meaning?” Loughner didn’t get what he felt was a satisfactory answer. His friend, Bryce Tierney, recalls, “Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.”

Despite claims from Republicans that Loughner is a “far left liberal” and from Democrats that he is a “Tea Party conservative,” neither appears to be the case. Although Loughner registered as an independent, he is currently on the “inactive” voter list in Arizona.

A few more facts brought to light in the aftermath of the shootings:

Nothing in our political discourse will change. Despite initial calls for a return to some degree of civility and a toning down of the incendiary rhetoric, Republicans will point fingers Democrats and Democrats will point fingers at Republicans. There is too much power and too much profit at stake to expect otherwise.

On both sides, we have politicians and pundits who ignore facts in pursuit of their political agenda, as usual. There’s former congressman Patrick Kennedy saying there’s an “obvious connection” between the rhetoric and the shootings. Rep. James Clyburn says there’s “no way not to make that connection” between Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” statement and the events in Tucson. From what we know now, there is no way to make any connection.

On the other side there’s Rush Limbaugh’s diatribe against the “sick, desperate American Left” in which he blasts everybody from the sheriff of Pima County, who he calls a “fool,” to the usual Limbaugh targets which he calls the “Drive-by media.” There’s Andrew Klavan’s piece at City Journal ranting about “The Hateful Left” in which he runs the gamut from the “dishonest and increasingly desperate leftist media” to “the bankrupting of nations and states by greedy unions and unfundable social programs, the destruction of inner cities by identity politics, and the appeasement of Muslim extremists in the face of worldwide jihad.” Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole said, “I’ve never heard the Tea Party preaching violence; I’ve heard them preaching participation.” Apparently Rep. Cole missed this:


And this:

One more fact. Knee-jerk, finger in the wind politicians will be knee-jerk, finger in the wind politicians, no matter what.

“Shocked and saddened lawmakers grappled on Monday with the weekend shooting of one of their own, with some suggesting that new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

New laws and regulations like this:

“Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.”

What could go wrong there?

Senate Caves, House Soon to Follow

14 Tuesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Senate voted 83-15 yesterday to invoke cloture on President Obama’s sell-out compromise on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. Nine Democrats and Bernie Sanders voted “no.” The nine were: Jeff Bingaman (NM), Sherrod Brown (OH), Russ Feingold (WI), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Pat Leahy (VT), Carl Levin (MI), and Mark Udall (CO). One of the poster children for duplicity and hypocrisy, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who previously said that the deal “borders on moral recklessness,” voted “yes.” I’m shocked.

The president is happy:

“For Mr. Obama, the Senate vote offered affirmation that his administration had made the most of what seemed to be a rough political predicament, in which it was [BS Alert] forced to negotiate a tax agreement with the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the month and Congressional Republicans empowered by their big victory in the midterm elections.

“This proves that both parties can in fact work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people,” Mr. Obama said.”

Absolutely. Those tax cuts have done such a wonderful job growing the economy in the past decade, no reason to expect that won’t continue for the next decade and beyond. Oh, but I forgot. The president is going to fight to end these cuts in two years. And if you’ll buy that….

“Mr. Obama said he understood that there were lawmakers unhappy with parts of the plan on both sides of the aisle, and he and his aides have made clear in recent days that he [BS Alert, Part Two] still fiercely disagrees with the Republicans over extending the lower tax rates on annual incomes above $250,000 per couple or $200,000 per individual.”

Co-president Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is also pleased:

“This bipartisan compromise represents an essential first step in tackling the debt — because in keeping taxes where they are, we are officially cutting off the spigot,” Mr. McConnell said in a floor speech.”

Cut off the spigot, aka starve the beast. Straight out of the Grover Norquist playbook for making government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.

Don’t expect the final outcome in the House to be any different, after the dog and pony show, that is:

“By all indications, the anger and opposition to the deal among House Democrats shows no sign of abating. At the same time, however, House Dem leaders have sent very clear signs that despite their own unhappiness with the deal, they believe it would be irresponsible to sink the compromise and have no intention of thwarting the President’s will.

Here’s the challenge for House Dem leaders right now, as I understand it: Come up with a way for Dem members to vent their disapproval of the deal, so they don’t feel too stiffarmed and marginalized by the process, without it resulting in changes significant enough to cause Republicans to walk away.”

Heavens no. Let’s be sure we don’t do anything that might piss off the Republicans. Appeasement at all costs.

“The result could be a situation in which Dems hold a vote on amendments to the bill that are likely to fail… Dem leaders could hold a vote amending that provision, allowing Dem members to register disapproval. But the amendment would likely be opposed by almost all Republicans and some moderate Dems. So it would likely lose.”

Like I said. Dog and pony show.

Sen. Gillibrand had this to say:

“Although this deal includes important measures I have fiercely advocated for, extending Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy will saddle our children with billions of dollars of debt. With unemployment near 10 percent and a growing budget deficit, every dollar in this deal should be spent in a way that creates jobs and gets our economy growing, and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not create jobs and will not help our economy grow.”

Creating jobs and getting the economy going. Not with more trickle-down bullshit, but the way China is doing it. Yes, China:

“The Chinese have doubled their spending on education – with stunning results – and continue to build the world’s best infrastructure. Reuters reports that Beijing is contemplating a plan to invest $1.5 trillion over the next five years in seven crucial industries. The targeted sectors are alternative energy, biotechnology, new-generation information technology, high-end equipment manufacturing, advanced materials, alternative-fuel cars, and energy-saving and environmentally friendly technologies…While China spends its money to invest in long-term growth, it lends us cash so that we can give ourselves [well, not all of ourselves, just the chosen few] one more big tax break. Someone in Beijing must be smiling.”

Not just smiling, laughing.

Mammoth Cave Straight Ahead

03 Friday Dec 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The old Mammoth Cave:

The new Mammoth Cave:

“White House negotiators and congressional Republicans have the outlines of a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and federal unemployment benefits, which would end a partisan stalemate on Capitol Hill. Under the prospective deal, all the Bush tax cuts would be extended for two years and unemployment benefits would be extended for one, according to congressional sources.”

But the extension of unemployment benefits comes with a caveat:

“Senior Senate Republican aides said that an extension of all the income tax cuts was a foregone conclusion, but that a deal on jobless aid was possible if Democrats agreed to cover the cost.”

So Democrats agree to extend the tax cuts for 2 years in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits–provided the unemployment extension is paid for. No mention of paying for the tax cuts. What great negotiators those Democrats are, huh?

This comes a day after the House Dems take what they admit was a “symbolic” vote on only extending tax cuts for those making under $250,000 (a vote Senate Democrats are expected to take today) so as to make Republicans go on the record as being protectors of the rich—a month after the mid-term elections. A vote they refused to take before the election.

With strategery like that it’s hard to understand why they lost 60+ seats in the House.

There are some Democratic dissenters:

“I am opposed to extending any tax breaks for anybody over $250,000, period. That’s where I am,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “I would hope that the president would stand firm on what he campaigned on in Iowa.”

Hold on to that hope, Tom. Personally, I’m hoping to get a pony for Christmas. I think we have equal chances of having those hopes fulfilled.

What E.J. Dionne said:

“…every signal out of the White House is that it is prepared to cave in to Republican demands for a temporary extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for millionaires…What we are witnessing here is the political power that comes from the Republican Party’s single-minded focus on high-end tax cuts and the strategic incoherence of a Democratic Party that is confused and divided — and not getting much help from its president.

Obama seems to have decided that showing how conciliatory he can be is more important than making clear where he stands. The administration’s strategy is rooted in a fear of what the Republicans are willing to do, which only strengthens the GOP’s bargaining position.”

Shorter Frank Rich: ‘We’re Screwed’

29 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in Campaign Financing, Democrats, economy, Obama, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This quote by Virginia Senator Jim Webb referenced in Frank Rich’s op-ed yesterday entitled, “Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy” says all we need to know about our broken, corrupt, two-party system:

“Webb has pushed for a onetime windfall profits tax on Wall Street’s record bonuses. He talks about the “unusual circumstances of the bailout,” that the bonuses wouldn’t be there without the bailout.

“I couldn’t even get a vote,” Webb says. “And it wasn’t because of the Republicans. I mean they obviously weren’t going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.”

More from Rich:

“Now corporations of all kinds can buy more of Washington than before, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and to the rise of outside “nonprofit groups” that can legally front for those who prefer to donate anonymously. The money laundering at the base of Tom DeLay’s conviction by a Texas jury last week — his circumventing of the state’s post-Gilded Age law forbidding corporate campaign contributions directly to candidates — is now easily and legally doable at the national level.

[…]

The story of recent corporate political donations — which we may never learn in its entirety — is just beginning to be told. Bloomberg News reported after Election Day that the United States Chamber of Commerce’s anti-Democratic war chest included a mind-boggling $86 million contribution from the insurance lobby to fight the health care bill. The Times has identified other big chamber donors as Prudential Financial, Goldman Sachs and Chevron.”

How do Democrats plan to combat this influx of corporate cash? By playing the same game:

“Since the election, the Obama White House has sent signals that it will make nice to these interests.”

Such as:

“President Barack Obama is preparing new overtures to business that may start with a walk into the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a retreat with corporate chief executive officers, according to people familiar with his plans.”

And:

“To address corporate criticism, Obama is also contemplating bringing business leaders into his administration. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Obama hasn’t had a prominent corporate leader in a high-level administration job.”

That was kind of the whole point of “change,” wasn’t it?

Look in the Mirror, Democrats

02 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Democrats, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If the election results go as expected tonight and Republicans take control of at least the House, the hand-wringing and ‘what happened?’ from the Democratic side of the aisle will commence shortly thereafter. In the search for someone or something to blame I suggest Democrats, including President Obama, need look no further than the nearest mirror. This blurb from Politico pretty much sums up the problem:

“…even White House advisers quietly admit a far more jobs-focused, targeted stimulus would have been more effective as a policy and political tool.”

Ya think? Do ya freakin’ think so? That epiphany comes about 18 months too late, but I guess better late than never. Maybe if the president had listened to someone outside of his inner circle jerk of “advisers” who were saying that from the get-go he wouldn’t be preparing to deal with a Republican Congress in January.

But that wasn’t the only serious misstep that put Obama and the Democrats in the situation in which they find themselves. It goes back to before Inauguration Day of 2009. Beginning when the candidate who said he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington named a poster child of the way business is done in Washington to be his chief of staff.

Then, faced with an economic crisis not seen in this country since the 1930′ s, he named as his chief economic adviser one of the main culprits in creating the conditions that led to the financial meltdown, Larry Summers. He then nominated as his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, a protégé of another architect of the collapse, Robert Rubin. Enjoy your stay at the henhouse, Mr. Fox.

This was the change we could believe in?

When it came to the stimulus package there were a number of economists (outside of that sacred inner circle) who were saying that it needed to be bigger and focused almost entirely on spending to create jobs. They were summarily ignored. An arbitrary figure was arrived at–$1 trillion–which for political purposes the stimulus could not exceed. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, a good chunk of the package was made to include tax cuts. This was done to supposedly draw Republican support for the stimulus. How did that work out?

Just as an aside here, President Obama later said that he underestimated the size and intensity of the opposition from Republicans in Congress. Was he asleep during the 90’s when Republicans impeached a Democratic president for…well, you know what for. His estimation of the GOP opposition should have been Clinton X 10.

On health care reform, the candidate who ran on a public option and no individual mandate did a sudden 180 and became the president of no public option and an individual mandate. The candidate who promised lower prescription drug prices by way of drug importation from Canada and elsewhere cut a backroom deal with Pharma to insure their monopoly.

Also on health care reform, if the president and Democrats would ask those who supported them in ‘08 (instead of calling them whiners and telling them to buck up) they might find out that just as many, if not more, will tell them too little was done in the way of “reform,” not too much.

The candidate who railed against the Bush “war on terror” constitutional and civil liberties abuses not only continued those policies but now seeks to increase them by expanding the government’s wiretap powers and targeting American citizens who are suspected of terrorist ties for assassination. Not to mention tripling down on the number of troops in Afghanistan,  and expanding the drone war and covert operations into Pakistan, Yemen, and only God and the CIA knows where else.

And they wonder why there’s an enthusiasm gap?

Democrats in Congress don’t escape blame either. In two consecutive elections, 2006 and 2008, they were given overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof number in the Senate, plus the White House. Memo to Democrats: American voters didn’t  give you those majorities because of your sparkling personalities, they wanted things done.

Just for future reference, if and when you get that kind of power again—use it. Don’t squander it bickering amongst yourselves. Take a page from the Republican playbook and enforce some party discipline. By whatever means necessary. It would help to have a Senate Majority Leader with something resembling a spine. You had the Republican Party down for the count, but you let them up and look at what is about to happen.

“The Stealth Coup D’Etat”

30 Saturday Oct 2010

Posted by in Democrats, economy, Republicans, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”—Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

From Tyler Durden’s, The Stealth Coup D’Etat:

“…for the past 25 years or so, finance has boomed, becoming ever more powerful. The boom began with the Reagan years, and it only gained strength with the deregulatory policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

…From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent…The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man).”

…Once you have control of the financial powers of the U.S. via the tiny Elites of the Congress, the Executive Branch, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, then the rest of the government will follow.

This is how the Stealth Coup D’Etat works: the machinery of governance grinds through a simulacrum [ a slight, unreal, or vague semblance] of democracy, but it’s all for show; the theoretical structures are now completely different from the political realities…The Power Elites and their Stealth Coup are apolitical. They don’t care about the color of your uniform; whether you wear a blue shirt or a red shirt is inconsequential.”

Or as Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker put it, “You’re just voting for which of the two bank robbers you like being assaulted by more – the guy with the red ski mask or the one with the blue one.”

Going back to where we began, Durden concludes:

“The Stealth Coup can be traced by a simple dictum: follow the money. Once you control the money–the money supply, the manipulation of yields and bond sales, the budgeting and borrowing–then you control everything.

This is how a small Financial Power Elite dominates the vast, sprawling American Empire.”

Dems Get $32 Million Line of Credit from Bank of America

28 Thursday Oct 2010

Posted by in Bank of America, Congress, Democrats, Foreclosures, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I’m sure the Obama administration’s opposition to a national foreclosure moratorium and its willingness to look forward and give the big banks, Bank of America for instance, a do-over on fraudulent court documents has absolutely nothing to do with this:

“Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections. Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.”

Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Party of “No” or The Party of No Backbone

24 Friday Sep 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Gutless. Spineless. Cowards.

“Senate Democrats said Thursday that they had abandoned plans for a pre-election showdown with Republicans over taxes, postponing any vote on extending Bush administration tax cuts until after the November midterms.

Democrats discussed the issue during a caucus luncheon but left the final decision to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)”

That was your first mistake, leaving it up to Sir Robin Harry Reid.

“Late Thursday, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said, “We will come back in November and stay in session as long as it takes to get this done.”

Bullshit. If the Republicans take control of Congress, and how can they not with opposition like this, does anybody with half a brain (which excludes Reid) think they’ll be in the mood to make a deal after the election. Here’s what will happen:

“…the GOP is going to shout and scream and throw feces and demand what it will deem one of two acceptable options:  a permanent extension of all cuts or a one- or two-year extension.  And one of these will pass.  And if it’s the temporary extension, the renewal will come up before the very Congress these midterms are going to elect, meaning it will be an even more Republican Congress than the one in the lame-duck session.  So the tax cuts for the rich will be made permanent then.”

Meanwhile, back in D.C.:

“The Senate left for the weekend Thursday afternoon and will not return until early next week, when Reid has scheduled a vote on a bill to prevent firms from sending jobs overseas and reward those that bring jobs back to the United States. Congressional leaders are aiming to get lawmakers out on the campaign trail by the end of next week.”

No, don’t go back at all. Slither your worthless invertebrate asses home and stay there. Don’t even come back for the lame-duck session. Get ready for your post-Senatorial careers. At least we can save on the cost of utilities by keeping the Capitol building dark, you useless wastes of space.

The party of no or the party of no backbone. One hell of a choice.

Krugman: “Sacrifice is For the Little People”

20 Monday Sep 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Never mind this, let’s just be sure we keep rich people’s taxes low.


And it’s not just Republicans. Why? Paul Krugman explains:

“You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.”

Democrats Losing the Message Battle—As Usual

14 Tuesday Sep 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans, Taxes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is why Democrats consistently lose the message battle—theirs is not cohesive and it’s too convoluted and complex for non-political junkies to understand. One “senior House leadership aide” tells Talking Points Memo that there won’t be a vote on extension of the Bush tax cuts, another says there may be a vote after all. Make up your mind.

After John Boehner’s alleged “misstep” on Sunday when he said he would vote for an extension that didn’t include those making over $250,000 a year “if that were the only option” it would appear that Democrats have an opportunity to make Boehner put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.

Not so simple when one of those “senior House leadership aides” says Democrats don’t want to “force his hand” by scheduling a vote on the extension, they just want to use it as a campaign issue. Dumb de dumb dumb.

“You don’t need a vote in the House to say the party is blocking tax relief for the middle class – you can just point and say, ‘Look! Senate Republicans blocked it,'” the aide said. “If Republicans killed a tax cut, that could be potentially game changing for Democrats in both chambers.”

Wrong. Here’s where Democrats get too cute by half and get too far into the political weeds with their message. The average voter who doesn’t follow this stuff every day doesn’t know and doesn’t care about how the Bush tax cuts were written by Republicans with an expiration date, and that if they are allowed to expire it will actually be Republicans who have raised taxes.

The average voter doesn’t get, and doesn’t care about, all the intricacies of who did what and why. They don’t know and don’t care about parliamentary procedures and filibusters. They know this—Democrats are in charge of both Houses. If nothing gets passed, taxes go up on everybody. Therefore, Democrats raised their taxes. Nobody wants taxes raised, so throw the bums out, which is the simple to understand Republican message.

If Democrats would use their head, and if they really wanted to take advantage of the apparent “rift” between Boehner and McConnell on this issue (I say apparent because it’s not really a rift, it’s a kabuki dance designed to set a trap which Democrats are stepping into) they would introduce a simple piece of legislation in both Houses. The Bush rates remain in effect for people making under $250,000 and go up for those making over that amount. Make Republicans go on the record as being in favor of tax cuts for rich people, a simple message that everyone can grasp.

KISS. And for once, get everybody on the same page. Please.