"Shame On You!": Senate Rejects Gun Background Check Compromise (VIDEO) & OUTRAGE: Bad Dems kill gun bill 17APR13

REACTION from the survivors of gun violence, the families those killed by gun violence, and Pres Obama. The defeat of background checks, a ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammo clips is shameful. It exposes the hypocrisy of the gop and tea-baggers and a few cowardly Democrats who claim to be pro-life but who not only vote against government funding to improve the quality of life but also vote against legislation to protect life. With their votes they showed the gun industry and the nra matter more that the lives of the Americans who elected them to office. We should be ashamed of these politicians. This defeat in the Senate should be a wake up call to Pres Obama on the ongoing budget negotiations, showing the gop/tea-baggers in Congress can not be trusted to negotiate for the good of the American people but will only represent the greed of the wealthy and corporate powers who control them. Be sure to check out the call to action from the PCCC (Progressive Change Campaign Committee) to hold the Democrats who turned their backs on the American people and donate if you can. From Mother Jones and the PCCC....

Obama tells dejected Democrats and gun-control advocates, "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill."

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Wed Apr. 17, 2013 5:45 PM PDT

Published on Apr 17, 2013

President Obama makes a statement from the Rose Garden following the Senate's vote to block common-sense measures to reduce gun violence. April 17, 2013.

http://youtu.be/yr9x1CzW2Yw

"Shame on you!" Patricia Maisch, a survivor of the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, yelled from the Senate gallery on Wednesday afternoon after the amendment to expand gun background checks fell six votes short of the 60 it required to overcome a filibuster. Maisch, regarded as a hero for having grabbed gunman Jared Loughner's third magazine after other bystanders tackled him, was escorted out of the Senate chamber and swarmed by reporters as police attempted to kick her out of the Capitol.

Maisch watched the vote with other survivors and the families of victims of recent mass shootings, who left the chamber raw with emotion. As they waited for Senate Democrats to emerge to speak with reporters, the families of Newtown victims were consoled by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had introduced a universal background check bill but supported the bill authored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) after his was rejected by Republicans, told reporters, "Today, fear, mistruth, brute political force won out over what is right. America will be a less safer place because of it."

President Barack Obama, who has made a push for expanded background checks a central focus of his second term, railed against the National Rifle Association at a separate Rose Garden press conference. "Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," he said. "They claimed that it would create some sort of 'Big Brother' gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite."

In fact, the bipartisan bill contained a number of concessions to the gun lobby, which was involved in the compromise talks. But Manchin stood behind his legislation, which would have expanded background checks to gun shows and online sales. "I would hope that common sense would prevail," he said, vowing to continue working with Toomey. Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially cast a procedural vote against the bill, he can reintroduce it later.

But Toomey and just three other Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), and John McCain (Ariz.)—supported the bill. An equal number of Democrats—Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Mark Pryor (Ark.)—voted against it. (Asked by reporters to explain his vote, Baucus simply replied, "Montana.")

Still, families of the victims of gun violence and gun reform groups had plenty of reason to hope for the bill's passage. Andrew Goddard, whose son Colin survived the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, said he had learned from past mistakes that "a step forward is a step forward even if it's only a small step forward." After his son was shot, he explained, "We were going for a gun show loophole bill in Virginia and [opponents] offered us a watered-down version, which would have been a voluntary [background check] system. Being new to the game, we figured no, we'd hang on for the full mandatory system. And of course we ended up with nothing."

However, Goddard added, after Newtown he has seen a coalescence of gun reform groups that had been more parochial in the past. That was reflected by the strongly worded statements the groups released after the vote. Mayors Against Illegal Guns called it a "damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington." The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said it was a "stain on the reputation of the US Senate, and insulting to victims and survivors of gun violence nationwide." Americans for Responsible Solutions said the Senate "ignored the will of the American people," who overwhelmingly support expanded background checks.

Erica Lafferty, whose mother, Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung, died in Newtown, called the vote "disappointing." But she said she was grateful there had been one. "The next time a mass shooting happens and [senators who voted against the bill] are asked what they did to make sure this didn't happen again, they're going to have to respond, 'Nothing.'"

Sarah Brady was also present for the Senate vote. Her husband, former White House press secretary James Brady, was left permanently disabled during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Twelve years later, when Congress passed the first federal background check law, it was named in his honor. "Of course I'm disappointed that even a watered-down bill like this couldn't get through," Brady said. But after the shootings in Aurora and Newtown, she added, "I think the fervor is there now" to pass stronger gun laws. Gun reformers "just have to get some political work done, be as intense in our views as the opposite side is with theirs."

• 
  

Reporter

Gavin Aronsen is a reporter at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. Follow him onTwitter or send an email to garonsen [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | TWITTER

• Meet the 45 Senators Who Blocked Background Checks

  President Obama said that "there was no coherent argument for why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics."

• 10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA

  The Manchin-Toomey compromise is riddled with concessions the gun lobby will love.

• Gun Control Bill Is Dead

  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/senate-rejects-gun-background-check-compromise
  
  

  

  ---

  See the ad holding Democrats who voted against reform accountable, and donate $3 to run it in their local newspapers.

  The Senate just voted against gun reform.
  Several Republicans voted "yes." If all Democrats did the same, we would have had the momentum necessary to get 60 votes and defeat right-wing obstruction. But 4 Democrats voted with the NRA -- against 91% of the public who support background checks on gun sales.
  It's outrageous. But the fight isn't over. Another vote will be scheduled.
  We're increasing the pressure by running full-page ads in the states of Democratic senators who voted no -- to shame them and feature the voices of local gun owners who demand their senators reverse course and support reform.
  Can you donate $3 to hold accountable Democratic senators who just voted to let more people die? Preview the ad -- and donate here to run it.
  

  Thanks for being a bold progressive.

  -- Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, Amanda Johnson, Anton Medvedev, and the PCCC team
  

  P.S. The Democrats who voted against reform are Max Baucus (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Begich (D-AK). Donate $3 to hold them accountable.

  
  
  

  ---

  Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in $3 here.
  

  Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

   

The War Must Not Go On! from SOJO 23JUN11

AMEN!!!! A very well thought, well written commentary on the war in Afghanistan from Sojourners....
Last evening, President Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the 103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that 10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going into 2014.

But that’s not good enough. President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of the American people want the troops to come home. Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last night, he did not.

We constantly hear the message, “Support the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working families, who in the current economy have few other options. The military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.

Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military. Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business -- claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified in Afghanistan.

The president acknowledged and honored the sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.

To truly support the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.

The president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.

+Click here for Sojourners’ FREE “War No More” bumper sticker as a gift for your involvement!

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Democrats Consider Offering Medicare Provider Cuts In Exchange For Revenue Increases 23JUN11

"Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
- Proverbs 31:9

MORE from HuffPost on the debt ceiling talks. Any cuts to the Medicare program MUST be matched by increasing taxes on the rich and corporate America. Tax cuts for corporate America must be restricted, granted only for jobs created in the U.S. and not to subsidize outsourcing at taxpayer expense.
NEW YORK -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) decision on Thursday to leave ongoing debt ceiling negotiations seemed to bring those talks to an abrupt standstill. But aides on the Hill and a statement from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney seem to suggest that Cantor's absence means, simply, that the discussions will now get picked up by President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
As the heavier hitters get set to pick up the slack, the contours of a grand bargain are once again emerging, and it may not be to the liking of either party. In exchange for revenue-raisers (most likely in the form of siphoned off tax breaks or the closing of loopholes) Democrats will agree to Medicare cuts -- not on the beneficiary side, which would have produced deafening howls from within the caucus, but on the provider side.
The first hint of this deal came on Thursday morning, when Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said the following with respect to the Cantor news:

I think we should stay at the table. I think we should keep working, difficult as it is, and try to balance between Medicare cuts -- additional Medicare cuts -- so long as there is commensurate additional revenue. We need balance here.

The notion that "additional Medicare cuts" would be exchanged for "commensurate" revenue increases piqued the interest of more than one Democratic operative, several of whom highlighted the quote in emails to The Huffington Post. Baucus has been one of the most steadfast backers of keeping Medicare out of the debt ceiling negotiations. For him to express newfound openness seemed suggestive about the party's thinking at large.
"No one has fought harder than Chairman Baucus against the House proposal to that would end Medicare as we know it and increase costs for seniors by thousands of dollars," a Senate Finance Committee aide emailed The Huffington Post. "Senator Baucus continues to fight for Medicare and made clear at the hearing that no changes in Medicare will be made unless Republicans agree to use revenue – in addition to spending reductions – to reduce the deficit, and any Medicare changes or savings would build on the type of efficiencies made in the Affordable Care Act, while protecting guaranteed benefits for seniors."
While such an explanation won't likely be enough to calm the nerves of inherently anxious progressives, the idea that lawmakers will build on the "efficiencies of the Affordable Care Act" is a notable tell. During the crafting of that legislation, Democrats had tried to lower the type of payments that Medicare makes to medical device manufacturers. They got fairly close to doing so, only to be told by now-former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) that he would oppose the bill if it cut too deep. Desperate for 60 votes, it was an easy tradeoff to make. The language was dropped and Bayh, whose state houses many of those medical device manufacturers, became a yes vote.
Bayh is now gone from the Senate, and Democrats, eager to find some way to get Republicans to sign off on additional revenues, are now looking to trade in that chip. As one plugged in operative predicted: "There will be cuts on the provider side but not on the beneficiary side."

A second Senate source confirmed that cuts to Medicare providers were indeed being discussed as a tradeoff for revenue-raisers elsewhere. The source added that lawmakers would be looking beyond just medical device manufacturers, toward the hospital and prescription drug industries as well.
"We've been very careful distinguishing between cuts to Medicare beneficiaries and cuts to Medicare providers," the source said.
Whether this will work, practically or politically, remains unclear. Democratic voters will certainly be more open to protecting beneficiaries of Medicare at the cost of providers. But they also are wary that any cuts agreed to during the debt ceiling negotiations will dull the attacks that the party has been launching against the Medicare plan introduced by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Then there is the question of whether the revenue increases will match the medical device cuts in size.
"They will never go near the type of tax revenue that progressives want," said the plugged in operative. "And, of course, providers can always come back and try to get more money."

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?