Chart of the Day: Tax Cut Fever & GOP Cynicism Gone Wild from MOJO 30 NOV10 & 2DEZ10

HERE'S the difference in tax cut proposals in simple terms and a simple blue & red graph. AND it offers more proof of how corporate America / Republicorp deceived and manipulated the electorate (many willingly deceived and manipulated due to their prejudice and voluntary ignorance) to vote for the gop and tea-bagger candidates in the last elections. BY THE BY, if you didn't vote then you are responsible for this too because DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT!

Speaking of tax cuts, I thought everyone should see a nice picture that compares the Obama position with the Republican position. As you can see, under the Obama plan (in blue) everyone gets a tax cut. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, your average middle class household gets a cut of $916. An upper middle class household gets $3,766. A millionaire household gets $6,349. Money for everyone!
But that's not enough. The red lines roughly show the additional tax cuts under the Republican plan. Everyone making up to $250,000 gets nothing. But the tiny number of households above that threshold get huge pots of money, and the pots get bigger the more money they make. I don't have enough room on the blog to show it properly, but millionaire households get an extra $100,000 or so over and above what they'd get from Obama's broad tax cut.
That's what we're fighting over: a broad tax cut with something for everybody, or a broad tax cut plus an extra bonus for the upper middle class and an extra super duper bonus for the millionaire class. That's what the Republican Party has unanimously staked its future to.

GOP Cynicism Gone Wild

— By Kevin Drum

This is ridiculous. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the new 1099 reporting requirements included in the healthcare reform bill should be repealed. The pain-in-the-ass factor is simply too high to justify forcing everyone to create the mountains of new paperwork it would require. The problem is that the new requirements essentially raise taxes on contractors and small businesses and this raises revenue. So if you want to repeal the requirements, you need to figure out how to make up the revenue, and Democrats and Republicans have been unable to agree on how to do this.
Yesterday, however, Sen. Max Baucus decided the hell with it. The amount of revenue is tiny (less than $2 billion per year), so why not just repeal the 1099 provision, lower everyone's taxes, and forget about paying for it? This is an eminently sensible position, since Republicans want the provision repealed and have repeatedly and unanimously taken the position that tax cuts don't need to be paid for.
So Baucus introduced an amendment to do the deed. And it failed because all but two Republicans voted against it.
Can anyone defend this in any kind of principled way? Republicans are eager to extend the Bush tax cuts on the rich without paying for them, and this will cost over $70 billion per year. Ditto for the estate tax. But the $2 billion 1099 tax? That's a no go. Gotta be paid for. If I didn't know better, I'd say that Republicans don't really want to repeal the 1099 provision at all. They want to keep it around so they have an issue to hammer Democrats with, even if it means voting not to relieve small businesses of a widely cursed new paperwork burden.
Even for a confirmed cynic, though, this is cynical beyond measure. Anybody got a more Republican-friendly explanation?

How the GOP Blew it on the Paycheck Fairness Act -- and Who the Biggest Cowards Were 17NOV10

HEY all you tea-bagging gop women! Congrats!!!! Whether you voted or didn't, the people you sent to Congress with the results of the mid-term elections of 2010 are already paying you back, and they haven't even taken office yet. They are setting the agenda though, and so you will keep earning less than men for doing the same job, and it is all legal! White women, you'll make $.78 for every dollar a man earns; Black women, you'll get $.62 on the dollar and Latina women, you get $.53 on the dollar. That is what you all wanted.....isn't it?!?!?!?!?
 
Well, it didn't take long. The Republican Party was handed a historic opportunity with women. For the first time since the advent of exit polling data in 1982, women voters favored the GOP in the 2010 election. A rather shocking occurrence given that just two short years ago, President Obama had a 14 point advantage with women. What does the GOP do with this historic opportunity? Blow it!
Wednesday, The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Not a single Republican voted "yea." Wise up there GOP -- if you have any hopes of taking the White House in 2012, you'll need women voters. But after shooting down the Paycheck Fairness Act Wednesday and perpetuating a boys' club in Congress, you ain't showing us much.
Here's what we know from the 2010 election: issue #1 for women is economic security. That's why women gave the GOP a once in a generation opportunity to win us over. Absurdly, the Republican Party then turns around and pushes women away by thwarting our financial security. Ya know, us 'wimminz' -- the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families.
Is the Paycheck Fairness Act perfect? No. Does it solve the disparity of pay that women face? Not totally. But it is a huge step towards women's financial security. Sadly, here's what the GOP said to women Wednesday: "we don't believe women deserve to make the same wage as men for doing the same job." It's not much more complicated than that. Even if the bill in it's current form (which likely no Republican Senator actually read) wasn't nirvana, then bring it to the floor and hash it out.
There's plenty of blame to go around. And, it's time for some accountability! Here are the recipients of the Paycheck Fairness Act Coward Awards.
1. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) -- after courageously going against their party to vote with the Democrats in February 2009 for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Wednesday Senators Snowe and Collins showed that they care more about their 2012 re-elections than women. Cowards!
2. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) -- after much ballyhoo as a bipartisan leader for women, including voting for the Fair Pay Act and a joint appearance with Secretary Clinton at the Women's History Museum, Senator Hutchinson let us down. Coward!
3. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) -- who also voted for the Fair Pay Act, recently boasted that she will not be beholden to the GOP. She will, however, sell-out women. Standing ovation on the Senate Floor Tuesday - jet set out of town before the vote Wednesday. Coward!
4. Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D) (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) -- progressive blogger Joanne Bamberger said it best on Facebook: President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett have said time and again they are committed to passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and it was a priority to them. Wednesday, fair pay failed by 2 votes. They couldn't use their "commitment" to women to get us 2 votes?
It's unclear which offense is worse: not fighting for women or being completely ineffectual as Chair of the White House Council. What is clear: Coward!
5. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- who has buried the Paycheck Fairness Act since its passage in the House in January 2009. Senator Reid failed to use the momentum of the passage of the Fair Pay Act. Fighter for women? You kidding? Coward!
The only ray of light for women in this fiasco is the continued ascension of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, an unabashed and unapologetic advocate for women. After being written off as an 'easy target' in 2010, Senator Gillibrand went on to slay over 30 would-be challengers, and then romp her opponent Joseph DioGuardi 62-36. Senator Gillibrand took the airwaves slamming the Republicans and clearly explaining how their actions Wednesday hurt both women and children:

Can you say: Gillibrand 2016!
As for the cowards, we need to hold them accountable. Even though it was the GOP that blew it this week, there's plenty of blame to go around.
What we do know from the 2010 election is that women's votes are in play. Time will tell which party will seize the opportunity!

President Obama’s Press Conference: "Let's Find Those Areas Where We Can Agree" 3NOV10 &Mitch McConnell: Dumping Obama In 2012 Is The Only Way To Achieve The GOP Agenda 4NOV10

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S news conference the day after the election. Unfortunately I don't see the gop and their tea-bagger allies, controlled by repiblicorp, working with the administration or for the common good of the nation for the next two years....Think this is just my disdain for the gop and tea-baggers...read sen mitch mcconnel's remarks to the heritage foundation on 4NOV10 below....

President Obama’s Press Conference: "Let's Find Those Areas Where We Can Agree"

In a news conference in the East Room this afternoon, the President spoke openly about the lessons of the previous night’s elections, and his hope for working with the new Congress going forward.  He made clear that he understood the profound frustrations and anxiety around the economy felt by so many families, and pledged to redouble his efforts to work across the aisle to speed up our recovery and move the country forward:

I’m not suggesting this will be easy.  I won’t pretend that we will be able to bridge every difference or solve every disagreement.  There’s a reason we have two parties in this country, and both Democrats and Republicans have certain beliefs and certain principles that each feels cannot be compromised.  But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future:  reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

Because the most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans.  In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world.  To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

None of the challenges we face lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper-sticker slogans.  Nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology.  As I’ve said before, no person, no party, has a monopoly on wisdom.  And that’s why I’m eager to hear good ideas wherever they come from, whoever proposes them. And that’s why I believe it’s important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face.  That’s why I want to engage both Democrats and Republicans in serious conversations about where we’re going as a nation.

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.  We just had a tough election.  We will have another in 2012.  I’m not so naïve as to think that everybody will put politics aside until then, but I do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now. And that’s going to require all of us, including me, to work harder at building consensus.

You know, a little over a month ago, we held a town hall meeting in Richmond, Virginia.  And one of the most telling questions came from a small business owner who runs a tree care firm.  He told me how hard he works and how busy he was; how he doesn’t have time to pay attention to all the back-and-forth in Washington.  And he asked, is there hope for us returning to civility in our discourse, to a healthy legislative process, so as I strap on the boots again tomorrow, I know that you guys got it under control?  It’s hard to have a faith in that right now, he said.

President Barack Obama holds a news conference in the East Room of the White House, November 3, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Asked later to discuss how other issues aside from the economy played in the election, the President looked back at the way things got done in Washington during the last two years and before:

I’m doing a whole lot of reflecting and I think that there are going to be areas in policy where we’re going to have to do a better job. I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.
But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious -- a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies -- I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.
Now, the reason was it was an emergency situation.  But I think it’s understandable that folks said to themselves, you know, maybe this is the agenda, as opposed to a response to an emergency.  And that’s something that I think everybody in the White House understood was a danger.  We thought it was necessary, but I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.
In addition, there were a bunch of price tags that went with that.  And so, even though these were emergency situations, people rightly said, gosh, we already have all this debt, we already have these big deficits; this is potentially going to compound it, and at what point are we going to get back to a situation where we’re doing what families all around the country do, which is make sure that if you spend something you know how to pay for it -- as opposed to racking up the credit card for the next generation.
And I think that the other thing that happened is that when I won election in 2008, one of the reasons I think that people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that we would change how business is done in Washington.  And we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done.  And I think that frustrated people.

Mitch McConnell: Dumping Obama In 2012 Is The Only Way To Achieve The GOP Agenda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/mitch-mcconnell-heritage-health-care_n_778796.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110410&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) damped down expectations about the repeal of health care reform on Thursday, saying that the only way that goal can truly be achieved is if voters help get rid of President Obama in 2012.
McConnell stood by his recent comments that the "single most important thing" for the GOP to achieve in the new Congress is to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term.
"Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office," McConnell will say at a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation on Thursday at 11:00 a.m, according to his prepared remarks. "But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it."
McConnell added that Republicans will still nevertheless repeatedly propose and vote on straight repeal. "But we can't expect the president to sign it," he added. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."
In his speech, McConnell also sent a warning to the Obama administration to be ready for constant investigations.
"Oversight will play a crucial role in Republican efforts going forward," he said in his prepared remarks, adding, "Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation."
In the House, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Cali.) is likely to take over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and aggressively use his newfound power to probe the administration. He has already gained praise in conservative circles for aggressively going after Obama on issues such as what offer the White House made Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) in an effort to persuade him to drop his Senate run.

In addition to investigations, McConnell will talk on Thursday about plans to "freeze and cut discretionary spending" and "fight to make sure that any spending bill that reaches the Senate floor is amendable, so members can vote for the spending cuts Americans are asking for."

And 2010's Biggest Winner Is…from MOJO 2NOV10

— Flickr/Tracy O

Dark money, shadowy groups, and secret millionaires.

One result of the 2010 campaign is clear before any ballots are counted: Democracy is in danger.
That sounds hyperbolic. But whatever remains of the quaint notion—call it a myth—that in a democracy citizens are more or less equal is in the process of being shredded, due to the rise this year of super PACs and secretive political nonprofits. Thanks to the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens United decision and other rulings, a small number of well-heeled individuals (or corporations or unions) can now amass a tremendous amount of political influence by throwing an unlimited amount of money into efforts to elect their preferred candidates. And certain political nonprofits, such as Crossroads GPS—the outfit set up this year by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie (which with an affiliated group is spending about $50 million)—can pour tens of millions of dollars into the elections without revealing the source of their campaign cash.
The secret and unlimited flow of dollars into congressional campaigns this year is largely unprecedented—at least since campaign finance reform was implemented following Watergate in the 1970s. Almost half a trillion dollars have been spent so far by outside groups—with about one-quarter of that coming from dark-money groups that don't disclose donors. And it's not just a Republican phenomenon. Unions and Democratic-leaning advocacy outfits are playing the game. Still, the advantage goes to the GOP. Of the outside groups not connected to either political party, those supporting Republicans and opposing Democrats have so far spent $119.2 million, and those supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans have dumped $73.8 million into races. This split is dramatic, but there's another factor to consider: Much of the pro-Democratic money comes from large membership groups (including the SEIU and the National Education Association), yet much of the pro-Republican money originates from a small number of millionaires (or billionaires). Consequently, fat cats have gained even more disproportionate influence.
The White House has complained about the rise of super PACs and the spread of secret money, though it miscalculated by focusing on the possible flow of foreign money into these endeavors—blasting the Chamber of Commerce's pro-Republican efforts—when the issue is the overall boost in special interest money. And here's the kicker: The 2010 campaign is merely a warmup for 2012 and campaigns after that.

It doesn't take a New York Times article—such as the one headlined "Conservative Donor Groups Lay a Base for 2012 Elections"—to predict what's coming. The permanent, neverending campaign will become even more permanent and neverending. These big-and-secret-money groups will be working 24/7, opposing and discrediting President Barack Obama and the Democrats in the so-called off-year and then revving up for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. The negative ads never have to stop. ("President Obama and Representative [fill in the name of a local House Democrat] are trying to ruin this nation's future with their reckless and risky schemes to [expand government spending/raise taxes/provide amnesty to illegal immigrants/impose socialized medicine on American families].") Surely, Rove and others can find enough right-wing millionaires to underwrite a constant blitzkrieg against Obama and the Democrats.
The argument for this is an obvious one: It will soften up the Dems for the final kill in 2012. Rep. Tom Perriello, the incumbent House Democrat freshman in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, has faced such a daunting reelection this year partly because outside conservative and corporate groups started running ads against him soon after he took office in January 2009. Perriello stood out as a target, given that he won by a measly 727 votes in a GOP-friendly district. But if enough money is bagged, Rove and his comrades will be able to target not just out-on-a-limb Democrats but a host of House and Senate Democrats year-round. Local television station owners, your payday has come. Secret money will flow before, during, and after elections.
Campaign finance reform advocates are in total despair. For decades, they have tried to lessen the impact of special interest money on the political system. (The House Democrats passed Obama-backed legislation earlier this year to force disclosure of contributors, but the bill stalled in the GOP-obstructed Senate.) Now the dam seems gone, blown up, in rubble. Moreover, the Federal Election Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the campaign finance rules that still exist, is in shambles. And the Internal Revenue Service has not yet demonstrated an ability or willingness to go after the political nonprofits under its jurisdiction, which may be violating IRS rules that supposedly limit their campaign-related activities. (And how bad would it be for any of these groups to be slapped with an IRS fine after succeeding in changing the political landscape?)
All this places Obama in a jam. Does he continue to decry the rise of super PACs and secret-donor nonprofits? Or does he encourage Democrats to fight big-secret money with big-secret money of their own? In the past, the Democrats have had success marshaling such resources. (See George Soros.) But can Obama do both—assail the new campaign finance order and explain that Democrats have no choice but to play by these anti-democratic rules? Mixed messages tend not to resonate well with voters. If Obama signals Democrats that he'd like them to unleash their own big-money hounds, he will likely find it tough to score political points by opposing the GOP's big-money efforts. Then again, can racking up debate points help Obama and his Democrats stand up to a tsunami of campaign cash? It's a dilemma.
The election news tomorrow night and in the days ahead will naturally focus on who won and who lost and the subsequent shift in the balance of power in Washington. But this campaign season has brought about a profound and fundamental shift in systemic, money-based political power. And it's far from done.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• "Campaign Finance Reform Is on Its Last Legs"

  The mastermind behind Citizens United explains why corporations are entitled to hide their political spending..

• All Checks, No Balances: Campaign Finance Sells Out

  Thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations are free to spend whatever they want on elections. They just don't want to be seen doing it.

• Crashing the Covert Campaign Spending Spree

  What do secretive independent expenditure groups hate more than disclosure rules? When we show up at their doors with a camera rolling.

10 ACTIONS / REACTIONS TO THE 2010 ELECTIONS FOR PROGRESSIVES FROM CREDO ACTION 3NOV10

HERE ARE 10 ACTIONS / REACTIONS TO THE ELECTION RESULTS OF 2010 FOR PROGRESSIVES, PARTICIPATE AND SHARE WITH OTHER PROGRESSIVES, FAMILY, FRIENDS, CO-WORKERS.....

What a truly brutal election. One rare exception was the crushing of Texas Oil's Proposition 23 in California (see CREDO's campaign at stoptexasoil.org), which proves that even unlimited corporate cash can be beaten back — if it is disclosed and fought by grassroots mobilization. At CREDO, we fight hard on the issues, but we don't take sides in partisan elections. As someone who cares about progressive issues, there is no doubt that Tuesday's results will make for even harder times for our country. It is crazy making to realize just how extreme and misinformed much of the new Congress will be. There is little reason to expect any useful legislation from the Tea Party-dominated House or the dysfunctional Senate. Swing votes in the Senate have really troublesome names: Lieberman, Nelson, Manchin, and Pryor. In fact, this Congress will do damage to anything even remotely progressive. So let's take a look at what happened and what we can do now. Bear with us as this is a bit longer than our usual missives. The media, unfortunately but not surprisingly, will be of no use in making sense of Tuesday's results, and even less so in helping chart a course for the future. There is a lot of evidence that the state of the economy, and employment in particular, drive the results of elections — and this one was no exception. As the saying goes, "If you think the economy is working, ask someone who isn't." We have an economy stuck in a deep ditch, with corporate profits and bank bonuses soaring while long-term unemployment is at near Depression levels. The Republicans shrunk the first "stimulus" package and filled it with tax breaks, even as corporate Democrats helped them along, blocking any effort to restructure mortgages in bankruptcies, freeze foreclosures or force banks to lend money. The election outcome was partially baked in early 2009, when the White House preemptively conceded on the scale and provisions of the stimulus package and chose to coddle the banks. To watch this unfold was simply maddening. Making matters worse were other factors. Among the most damaging were the actions of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which seemed energized by the new President, and took the radical step of rehearing a campaign finance case — now known forever as Citizens United. In ruling 5-4 that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money for and against candidates, the Court transformed the electoral landscape in a way potentially more profound than its 5-4 ruling that seated George W. Bush as president. As many predicted, the Citizens United ruling unleashed the greatest wave of corporate spending in history, though it's a safe bet to say that their spending in 2012 will make this year's outlay look modest. In an astonishing turn of events, the right wing was able to kill — essentially murder in public view — the organization that registered millions of poor and working class African-American and Hispanic voters in the last six years. I am speaking of ACORN, of course. By editing video completely out of context, and using the right-wing media machine to perfection, Andrew Breitbart was able to convince the mainstream media and eventually Congress, that ACORN was an election-stealing organization that had no qualms giving advice to pimps on how to increase revenues. Fulfilling Karl Rove's wildest dreams, Congress, including most Democrats, voted to block public funding for any of ACORN's laudable and effective housing or tax assistance programs, and ACORN died a quiet death. There would be no millions of new registrants. Traditions are important in the Senate, but almost always to the detriment of progressive change. The health care reform effort was a victim of Senate conventions. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who chairs the critical Senate Finance Committee solely due to his long tenure, stalled development of a health reform package for many months in order to "negotiate" with Republicans on his committee. They weren't interested in the least, and walked away from the discussions muttering bizarre comments about reforms "killing grandma" and setting up "death panels," because Sarah Palin says so. The behavior of Baucus would be laughable if it were not so utterly destructive. No matter what one thought of FOX News in the 2008 election, Murdoch's monster went on a rampage over the past two years. Serving as both an instigator and an amplifier for the craziest and most offensive pundits, FOX News misled and misinformed the American people on every issue, and effectively became the public face of the Republican Party. Glenn Beck's show became so toxic and spewed so much venom that one of his devoted fans took it upon himself to plot the execution of key leaders of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, who had figured prominently in Beck's rants. Fortunately, the madman (the fan, not Beck) was stopped before he accomplished his mission. We could go on, of course, on all the missed opportunities, the cave-ins, the sell outs, and the unpopular and misguided war in Afghanistan. But the results are in. The House of Representatives is in the hands of the most corrupt Speaker-in-waiting ever, the Tea Party is ascendant, and the U.S. Senate, however dysfunctional it has been, is poised to be much worse. For those of us who had hopes that the Obama Administration could seize the moment and enact popular progressive changes, this is a bitter pill. And like many, we grieve at the lost opportunities. But now we need to brush off the dust, suck it up, and plunge back into substantive fights. Politics is not fair — indeed, U.S. elections are rigged in profound ways! But walking away is not an option at CREDO Action, and we hope you will join us in some of the actions below we think are strategic in the new political landscape: 1. Commit to Taking Down FOX News. So long as FOX News has any credibility within the Beltway, it will be a pipeline for malicious material that will poison our political culture. Join our friends at Color of Change: turnofffox.org/landing?credo. 2.Tell the Senate to pass the DISCLOSE Act during the lame duck session. We were able to defeat the Texas Oil Initiative, Prop 23 in California, in part because we knew who the enemy was — having disclosure of corporate contributions brings the enemy out in the open for us to take on and fight. The DISCLOSE Act passed the House and came within a single vote of passing the Senate. One vote. You can join this fight by taking action with Public Citizen at citizen.org/disclose-act-action. 3. Keep fighting to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This issue will get resolved during the lame duck session. Take action at act.credoaction.com/campaign/bushtaxcuts. 4. Sign up for the fight for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision by declaring that corporations do not have the legal rights of humans. This may take years, if not decades, but we should start now. Please join Free Speech for People: freespeechforpeople.org/. 5. Tell the FCC to use its existing authority to establish and defend net neutrality. Our friends at Free Press are leading this charge: act2.freepress.net/sign/put_up/. 6. Demand that the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service investigate the political organizations set up by Karl Rove to launder millions of dollars in secret cash to change the outcome of elections. Act now at act.credoaction.com/campaign/investigate_crossroads. 7. Defend the EPA from castration by pro-coal interests in Congress. The EPA accomplished almost nothing during the Clinton years because the Gingrich-led Congress used the budget process to prohibit the agency from doing its work. This battle has already started. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign is a great way to join this fight: sierraclub.org/coal. 8. Convince the Obama administration to stop appealing progressive court rulings on matters like the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the state secrets defense against torture and wiretapping. Urge the Department of Justice to change its approach at act.credoaction.com/campaign/stop_appealing. 9. Urge Democratic senators to do away with lifetime tenure for committee chairs and open up all chair positions to majority vote elections. This will go a long way towards more progressive legislation. Take action with us at act.credoaction.com/campaign/end_seniority_system. 10. Demand that the Department of Justice enforce the provisions of the national voter registration law that require state governments to offer to register all voters at departments of public welfare and motor vehicles. Many state governments simply ignore these requirements and this is a cheaper and more inclusive way of registering voters than the campaigns of the now dead ACORN. Urge Attorney General Eric Holder to expand voter registration: credoaction.com/campaign/enforce_motor_voter. I suspect you are angry and exhausted at this point. I know I am. But let us not forget that the values and ideals we fight for are greater than any one election. They still endure, and so must our fight. We have a lot of work to do. Michael Kieschnick, CEO CREDO Action from Working Assets

Boehner and the Republicans Didn't Win a Majority to Deny Our Care 3NOV10

EVERYBODY who worked so hard to get this passed, grass-roots activist, progressive groups, politicians in Congress, many who will not be back in JAN 2011, can be very proud of this legislation, and be assured that while the gop and their fanatical tea-bagger allies will concentrate on repealing it, the legislation is safe from them, and the American people are going to benefit. This from Health Care For America Now.

Here's a crucial fact that should not be obscured by the ballyhoo surrounding the shift in control of the House: Most of the Republicans who won last night got a lower percentage at the ballot box than the percentage of Americans who support the new health care law's requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
That's why yesterday was hardly a repudiation of the health care law.

Furthermore, this election was clearly dominated by voter worries about the economy and jobs. Only 19 percent of voters named health care as their top concern, a distant second to the 61 percent most focused on the economy, according to CNN. There were winners and losers among both supporters and opponents of health reform. For example, more than half of the 34 Democrats who voted against the health care legislation still lost their races.

After a wildly toxic political debate over the issue, people are split over the larger question of "reform" and key components of the law enjoy overwhelming public support. Specifically, over the last several months, even as the public has been divided on reform, two-thirds of Americans have supported the outlawing of pre-existing condition exclusions (Anzalone Liszt Research poll conducted for the Herndon Alliance of 1,000 2010 likely voters, conducted April 19-25, 2010. Margin of error +/-3%). For example, while a recent New York Times/CBS poll showed the public split over on the new law, only one-quarter of repeal supporters stuck with their position when told repeal would mean that insurance companies would no longer be required to cover people with medical conditions or prior illnesses.

This is the reality even after a contentious political season marked by an unprecedented deluge of attack ads that spread one lie after another about health reform. In fact, opponents of the new law spent $108 million since March to advertise against it - six times more than supporters.

That's something members of the new Republican majority will have to navigate as they square real-world legislative proposals on health care (if they have any) with their campaign rhetoric about repeal. They may try on Day One to repeal the health care law's individual mandate, but they can't do that without also throwing out the many new consumer protections, including the prohibition on insurers denying people care simply because they're sick or ending lifetime limits on coverage. Both of those provisions are more popular with the American public than the Republicans are.

The Republicans also talk about de-funding the law, interfering with its implementation and holding endless oversight hearings to gratuitously harass Obama administration officials. That's not progress, that's pointless, cynical politics.

We all know that the law is not going to be repealed, so the debateisn't going to be about what gets done--it will be about defining whose side members of Congress are on. For Republican repeal-mongers, that will be clear. They're for the insurance companies and against consumers.

The Republicans want to protect the excessive profits of the insurance companies and the bloated salaries of company CEOs, no matter how badly that hurts America's consumers. That's what repeal means. It means rolling back the clock and letting the insurance companies deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions and drop people's coverage when they get sick. It means that small businesses will continue paying higher rates for health insurance than big corporations. It means repealing measures to cut down waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. It means opposing much-needed relief in prescription drug costs for seniors. That's the Republican repeal agenda - the insurance companies get the profits and we get the shaft.

The American people don't want to give our health care back to the insurance companies. Repeal would cause real harm to real people. That may not matter to the Republican majority, but it matters a great deal to the people they now represent.

---

 

Angry Voters Choose Government Gridlock, Investigations and Shutdown 3NOV10

THE election results come as no surprise to me, I knew the Democrats would loose the House when health care reform was passed. Just as the Democrats suffered big losses in the elections due to ignorance, prejudice, and propaganda fueled fear after Congress passed civil rights, voting rights, fair housing and anti-discrimination in employment during the Johnson administration (while we were at war in Vietnam), the Democrats suffered in these elections after passing health care reform, financial and banking reform, an economic stimulus package, all benefiting all Americans right, left and center, rich and poor. It may take some time, but as the republicans and the tea-baggers drag the nation further into economic decline and greater income inequality the American people may realize the stupidity of their election decisions. Until they have a chance to change their elected officials again I fear they will rue their  vote on 2 NOV 10. This from Bob Cesca of HuffPost.
It's continues to be a mystery to me why Americans voted they way they voted yesterday. Clearly they were dissatisfied somehow with the objective reality that the Obama administration and the congressional Democrats actually made things better -- cutting the deficit by an historic $122 billion; creating upwards of three million new jobs; ending the war in Iraq; passing the largest middle class tax cut in history; rescuing the economy from the brink of collapse. Not good enough. Obviously.
Or did voters simply not know about these accomplishments? That's entirely possible given the Democratic Party's uncanny penchant for running away from its successes, while also fumbling very basic add-water-and-serve marketing chores. (And, by the way, adding to the party's failures to ballyhoo its accomplishments, the progressive movement was systematically out-hustled, out-gunned and out-maneuvered for much of the last two years.)
Of course there's also the Flailing Rage Factor, which I tend to favor as a reason for yesterday's outcome more than ignorance or lack of Democratic marketing chops. For two years now, Americans have been incited by fakery and horror stories to the point of being pumped up into a 'roid raging mob chanting shallow platitudes and bumper sticker zingers -- incoherently attacking Speaker Pelosi's face, and bent out of shape by the fact that there's not a doddering old white guy stumbling through the west wing spinning grandfatherly yarns about American mornings and saintly cowboys.
Ultimately, what Americans voted for yesterday was divided government, which admittedly isn't new in American politics. We typically like the idea of two sides, Congress and the White House, locking horns and ultimately compromising on the important matters of the day.
Unfortunately, this is a "pre-01/20/09" mindset. It's a mass delusion based on antiquated political attitudes.
The era when Republicans would, at least reluctantly, compromise with a Democratic president is long gone.
What voters unknowingly asked for yesterday was gridlock: immovable, unprecedented, insufferable gridlock of the worst kind, and at the worst time imaginable.
The Republicans have no intention of handing the president any successes. They'll never in a million years compromise with this White House, or the Senate Democrats for that matter, because any move in that direction will bring down the loud, screechy tweet wrath of Sarah Palin and the tea party who will neither accept nor support anyone who appears to be leaning in the direction of the Obama agenda.
How do I know this? There's two years of precedent, naturally -- and the Republicans weren't even the majority party in the House during that time. They voted against anything and everything that came down the line, regardless of how politically awful it looked (health care for 9/11 workers, bonuses for the troops, etc.). Now imagine what they're going to accomplishment in the name of "Hell No You Can't!" now that they enjoy a decent majority in the House and a narrow minority in the Senate.
Now that they're in control of appropriations and all House legislation, they'll only take up business the president would never in a million years sign into law, because as soon as he signs a bill, any bill, it becomes a win for the White House. A victory, however minor, that the president would be able to campaign on in 2012. Consequently, the Republican Party and its tea party base will only deliver far-right crap on a stick, with deceptive names and semi-hidden, unacceptable amendments that will make the legislation instant veto fodder.
So it's difficult to imagine a scenario whereby anything gets done from January 2011 through, at least, January 2013.
Strike that.
Yesterday's election launched America headlong across the zero barrier of the Darrell Issa Decade. Welcome, everyone, to the suck that never ends. Let the cartoons begin!
Brace yourself for a wide variety of investigations designed to slowly fester into an all out impeachment necrosis. The Republicans will absolutely investigate ACORN, those two Black Panther guys in Philadelphia, birth certificates, Joe Sestak's (unpaid) job offer, the oil spill response, the tax records of anyone even remotely associated with the White House and, for good measure, I'll go out on a McCarthy limb and predict another congressional witch hunt for commies, with maybe even a bonus witch hunt for Muslim evildoers, in the Obama government.
The cable news media will enjoy this thoroughly. And by "enjoy" I mean "inject it into its bloodstream like black tar heroin laced with permanent orgasms." And we can all rest assured knowing that, with a few obvious exceptions (Maddow, Olbermann), the coverage will be framed with advantage Issa.
Oh, and did I mention the inevitable government shutdown? Just wait until the House attempts to de-fund health care reform in the next budget and, predictably, the president refuses to sign it. The government will shut down and all of those anti-government-health-care, anti-socialism retirees stop receiving their Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursement checks. And why? Who knows. They'll tell you something about "freedom" and "slavery" and trail off when they begin to slowly realize that they can pay the bills that month because they elected a Congress that would rather torment the president than actually accomplish the business of governing.
See, unlike the Democratic Party -- and the pre-Bush-era Republican Party for that matter -- the modern Republican Party, driven by the contradictory memes of the tea party movement, doesn't require or seek legislative success to thrive as long as there's fear, inchoate rage and a mega-funded media apparatus (Fox News and talk radio) to spread the nonsense far and wide. So why bother digging into the ugly business of compromise with the other side? There's no need. The total lack of legislative accomplishment can simply be masked over with loud noises and sloganeering aimed at blaming, you know, the black guy.
Again, how do I know? The strategy paid off bigtime yesterday.
One final thought: I wonder if this will help to ameliorate a slow growth economy. Don't bet on it.