From The Washington Post -- December 23, 2011:
Dems win one as GOP Caves
By Greg Sargent
A GOP leadership aide confirms that a deal has been reached with Senate Dems under which Republicans will allow a vote on the Senate payroll tax cut extension bill.
Under the agreement, the Senate bill will get new language ensuring that “small businesses are protected from the costly new reporting requirements in the Senate bill,” the aide says. And Reid will appoint conferees for talks to begin on a year long extension.
This appears to be the main thing Republicans gained in exchange for agreeing to support the bill. Reid’s agreement to appoint
“conferees” isn’t materially any different from his previous willingness to negotiate a deal on the long term extension after the shorter term one passed. No fixed deadline was set for those talks to begin.
Now Boehner has to take the agreement to his caucus. While that didn’t go too well last time around, he’s allowing a vote on it, and only around two dozen Republicans have to support the extension for it to pass, presuming it will get overwhelming Dem support. The bill may pass with a huge majority of House Dems supporting it, while a minority of Republicans back it. What that means for Boehner’s speakership remains to be seen.
This is a very significant victory for Obama and Dems, and it stands as an all too rare example of what can happen when they draw hard lines and refuse to budge, secure in the knowledge that the public is on their side. That said, a few caveats are necessary. First, Dems already made significant concessions just to get to this point: They dropped the millionaire surtax (which had very broad public support) and agreed to an expedited decision on the Keystone XL pipeline (though it remains unclear what this means in practice, both substantively and politically).
Second, this tough stand by Dems was enabled by a unique turn of events. Either through a failure of communication among GOP leaders or a bad misjudgment of sentiment in the House GOP caucus, a bizarre situation developed which gave Dems all the leverage and left the House GOP with none. This upended the dynamic we’ve seen for the last year, in which Dems had regularly been placed on the defensive and Republicans held much of the leverage, due to their apparent willingness to flirt with true disaster in order to get the concessions they were demanding. In this case, the Senate passed the extension with overwhelming bipartisan support — putting virtually every GOP Senator on record in favor of the proposal, before they went home for the holidays — even as the House GOP leadership was confronted with a rebellion in its caucus that suddenly left the House GOP isolated. This strange turn made it far easier for Obama and Dems to drive a wedge among Republicans and ensured that pressure on House Republicans would only mount from within their own party.
Third, this is the only piece of Obama’s jobs plan that Dems have been able to pressure Republicans into supporting. As a result, the basic overall dynamic may remain unchanged: A bad economy next year; Congressional gridlock; rising public disenchantment with government; and an incumbent running for reelection after failing to prevail on Congress to pass many of his major proposals to fix the economy. And forth, on the payroll tax cut itself, there’s a whole new set of talks set for January; Dems will be facing a more unified GOP and will not enjoy the leverage they did this time around. While the coming standoff will be good election year politics for Dems, they will likely have to make some concessions that will not be fun for liberals to swallow.
But still, for Dems and Obama, it’s not a bad way to end 2011. It’s a big win. And its overall storyline dovetails perfectly with the message about the GOP’s true priorities — and the Dems’ willingness to fight for the middle class against Republicans who place the interests of the wealthy first — that Dems had been hoping to take into next year.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Is Obama Headed for a Landslide?
From The Daily Beast -- December 13, 2011:
Michael Tomasky: Could Obama Be Headed for a Landslide?
Obama’s approval rating is soft, but new polls of South Carolina and Florida show him ahead of Gingrich and Romney. Michael Tomasky asks: could the GOP be headed for disaster?
How can Barack Obama, as this new NBC/Marist poll has it, be beating Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in South Carolina, of all places? The leads are narrow—it’s just 45-42 over Romney and 46-42 over Gingrich. But still, this is South Carolina, the home state of a senator (Lindsey Graham) who, just this past Sunday on Meet the Press, was talking nullification of federal laws in the shameful style that is his state’s benighted tradition. Is it conceivable that 10 months and three weeks from now, Obama could actually win the state? If it happens, we will know that the Republicans are headed off the cliff. And that is precisely where we should all hope they go.
Everyone wants sanity and civility restored to our politics. Some moderate Democrats and a smattering of Republicans have this fantasy that a centrist third party will do it. Nonsense. As I’ve written before, all a centrist third party will accomplish is ensure the election of the right-wing candidate. The only thing that might bring back sanity and civility is the destruction of the current GOP. If Republicans wake up next Nov. 7 to see that their extremist-obstructionist posture of the last four years has only reelected a president who started the year below 50 percent (as he will) and whom they should have been able to beat, then they might finally return to earth.
Nothing would say that the American people thought Republicans had vacated our planet like losing South Carolina. Everything was going gangbusters for the GOP there recently, even more than usual. The last remaining Democratic federal-level officials were all wiped out, except for James Clyburn, the congressman who represents the one majority-black district. The Democrats’ last Senate candidate was a laughingstock. And the Palmetto State had this hot new governor, Nikki Haley: right wing; a Sikh, of all improbable things (by birth—she's a fervent Christian now); a heavyweight endorsee of Sarah Palin; and a rising star.
Now? Well, the Democrats aren’t going to take over state politics anytime soon. But Haley’s star is very much on the wane. Her approval rating in the state, 36 percent, is 8 points lower than Obama’s. A state agency of her administration—get this—voted to grant Savannah, Ga., the right to deepen its port channels, thereby potentially putting the port of Savannah in a position to take business away in the future from the port of Charleston. Haley’s appointees to the board voted with Georgia.
In a new NBC/Marist poll, Obama is beating Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in South Carolina.
There are various allegations flying about. But on the central question of why the appointees of a governor of South Carolina would side with Georgia’s interests and against their own state’s, one South Carolina politics website, linked to above, has this to say: “According to our sources, moneyed Georgia interests with connections to the Port of Savannah threw a big fundraiser for Haley in Atlanta last month. Also, our sources say that the chairman of the Georgia Ports Authority—a major GOP donor who will select speakers for next year’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida—has been negotiating with Haley and her political consultant to land the governor a coveted prime time speaking gig at the event.”
Ten months and three weeks is a long, long time. But today’s poll suggests that a wipeout is not unimaginable—by a president whose anemic approval rating is just 44 percent!
Haley is sinking like a stone. Meanwhile, South Carolina Republicans surely know deep down that Gingrich is unelectable, and they find Romney unpalatable. The state’s black voters, about 30 percent of the total, have no such reservations about the Democratic candidate. And his 45 or 46 percent in the new poll suggests he’s getting some white support, too—more than he got in 2008, arguably, when he won just under 45 percent of the vote against John McCain.
OK. Realistically, South Carolina is a reach. But nobody cares about South Carolina, really—it is assumed to be in the red column just as Massachusetts is assumed to be in the blue. But now let’s look at the Florida numbers from the NBC/Marist poll. There Obama is beating both Romney and Gingrich by outside the margin of error. He leads Romney 48-41 and Gingrich 51-39.
Again, all politics is local. Republican Rick Scott is the least popular governor in the United States—right now at 26 percent and still sinking. Scott and Haley are prime examples of governors who were supposed to show a new and better way, with politics forged in the cauldron of Tea Party fervor about an absence of accountability, and so on. But these politicians have turned out to be just like all the old ones, except less competent. And if Obama holds Florida, he can afford to lose—take note of this list—Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and either Michigan or Pennsylvania, and still rack up a winning 270 electoral votes. (Here, go click the states yourself.) But of course, if he’s winning Florida, he’s likely not losing any of those other states, with the exception of Indiana. Indeed, if he’s winning Florida by around double digits, he’s winning Missouri, Arizona, and maybe Georgia (yes, even—I’d say especially—against Gingrich).
Ten months and three weeks is a long, long time. But today’s poll suggests that a wipeout of such proportions is not unimaginable. By a president whose anemic approval rating is just 44 percent! But I am not here to say the GOP had better grow up fast. Quite the contrary. If this tantrum lasts through the election, and if 2012 is for the Republicans what 1984 was for the Democrats, then finally our polity stands a chance of functioning again. The Tea Party will be dead and buried. Grover Norquist’s vise lock on the GOP will loosen. Someone will start a centrist Republican Leadership Council, just as people started the centrist DLC back in 1985. A certain number of elected Republicans will understand that being the Party of No didn’t get them much of anywhere. So this poll should not be a wake-up call for Republican voters. Hit the snooze button, folks, and keep fuming away.
Michael Tomasky: Could Obama Be Headed for a Landslide?
Obama’s approval rating is soft, but new polls of South Carolina and Florida show him ahead of Gingrich and Romney. Michael Tomasky asks: could the GOP be headed for disaster?
How can Barack Obama, as this new NBC/Marist poll has it, be beating Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in South Carolina, of all places? The leads are narrow—it’s just 45-42 over Romney and 46-42 over Gingrich. But still, this is South Carolina, the home state of a senator (Lindsey Graham) who, just this past Sunday on Meet the Press, was talking nullification of federal laws in the shameful style that is his state’s benighted tradition. Is it conceivable that 10 months and three weeks from now, Obama could actually win the state? If it happens, we will know that the Republicans are headed off the cliff. And that is precisely where we should all hope they go.
Everyone wants sanity and civility restored to our politics. Some moderate Democrats and a smattering of Republicans have this fantasy that a centrist third party will do it. Nonsense. As I’ve written before, all a centrist third party will accomplish is ensure the election of the right-wing candidate. The only thing that might bring back sanity and civility is the destruction of the current GOP. If Republicans wake up next Nov. 7 to see that their extremist-obstructionist posture of the last four years has only reelected a president who started the year below 50 percent (as he will) and whom they should have been able to beat, then they might finally return to earth.
Nothing would say that the American people thought Republicans had vacated our planet like losing South Carolina. Everything was going gangbusters for the GOP there recently, even more than usual. The last remaining Democratic federal-level officials were all wiped out, except for James Clyburn, the congressman who represents the one majority-black district. The Democrats’ last Senate candidate was a laughingstock. And the Palmetto State had this hot new governor, Nikki Haley: right wing; a Sikh, of all improbable things (by birth—she's a fervent Christian now); a heavyweight endorsee of Sarah Palin; and a rising star.
Now? Well, the Democrats aren’t going to take over state politics anytime soon. But Haley’s star is very much on the wane. Her approval rating in the state, 36 percent, is 8 points lower than Obama’s. A state agency of her administration—get this—voted to grant Savannah, Ga., the right to deepen its port channels, thereby potentially putting the port of Savannah in a position to take business away in the future from the port of Charleston. Haley’s appointees to the board voted with Georgia.
In a new NBC/Marist poll, Obama is beating Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in South Carolina.
There are various allegations flying about. But on the central question of why the appointees of a governor of South Carolina would side with Georgia’s interests and against their own state’s, one South Carolina politics website, linked to above, has this to say: “According to our sources, moneyed Georgia interests with connections to the Port of Savannah threw a big fundraiser for Haley in Atlanta last month. Also, our sources say that the chairman of the Georgia Ports Authority—a major GOP donor who will select speakers for next year’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida—has been negotiating with Haley and her political consultant to land the governor a coveted prime time speaking gig at the event.”
Ten months and three weeks is a long, long time. But today’s poll suggests that a wipeout is not unimaginable—by a president whose anemic approval rating is just 44 percent!
Haley is sinking like a stone. Meanwhile, South Carolina Republicans surely know deep down that Gingrich is unelectable, and they find Romney unpalatable. The state’s black voters, about 30 percent of the total, have no such reservations about the Democratic candidate. And his 45 or 46 percent in the new poll suggests he’s getting some white support, too—more than he got in 2008, arguably, when he won just under 45 percent of the vote against John McCain.
OK. Realistically, South Carolina is a reach. But nobody cares about South Carolina, really—it is assumed to be in the red column just as Massachusetts is assumed to be in the blue. But now let’s look at the Florida numbers from the NBC/Marist poll. There Obama is beating both Romney and Gingrich by outside the margin of error. He leads Romney 48-41 and Gingrich 51-39.
Again, all politics is local. Republican Rick Scott is the least popular governor in the United States—right now at 26 percent and still sinking. Scott and Haley are prime examples of governors who were supposed to show a new and better way, with politics forged in the cauldron of Tea Party fervor about an absence of accountability, and so on. But these politicians have turned out to be just like all the old ones, except less competent. And if Obama holds Florida, he can afford to lose—take note of this list—Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and either Michigan or Pennsylvania, and still rack up a winning 270 electoral votes. (Here, go click the states yourself.) But of course, if he’s winning Florida, he’s likely not losing any of those other states, with the exception of Indiana. Indeed, if he’s winning Florida by around double digits, he’s winning Missouri, Arizona, and maybe Georgia (yes, even—I’d say especially—against Gingrich).
Ten months and three weeks is a long, long time. But today’s poll suggests that a wipeout of such proportions is not unimaginable. By a president whose anemic approval rating is just 44 percent! But I am not here to say the GOP had better grow up fast. Quite the contrary. If this tantrum lasts through the election, and if 2012 is for the Republicans what 1984 was for the Democrats, then finally our polity stands a chance of functioning again. The Tea Party will be dead and buried. Grover Norquist’s vise lock on the GOP will loosen. Someone will start a centrist Republican Leadership Council, just as people started the centrist DLC back in 1985. A certain number of elected Republicans will understand that being the Party of No didn’t get them much of anywhere. So this poll should not be a wake-up call for Republican voters. Hit the snooze button, folks, and keep fuming away.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Republicans Poropose Billions in Budget-Busting Tax Cuts for the Top 1% and Higher Taxes for the Remaining 99%
From The Progress Report -- December 13, 2011:
While Mitt Romney’s plan economic plan — a windfall for the 1 Percent paid for by the 99 Percent — would provide $6.6 TRILLION in budget-busting tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Newt Gingrich’s plan far outdoes him on both scores:
The average millionaire would get a whopping $615,689 annual tax cut.
Those in the wealthiest top 0.1 percent would receive an annual tax cut of more than $2 MILLION each — on top of what they’re already getting from the Bush tax cuts.
Millionaires would pay a lower tax rate than middle class families making $40-50,000 a year.
In 2015, the tax giveaway to millionaires and billionaire alone would be about the same size as the entire Medicare budget under the Paul Ryan GOP budget plan.
In the best year of his plan, 2015, the deficit would be a whopping $1.2 TRILLION — even after taking into account the draconian spending cuts imposed by the Paul Ryan GOP budget plan. The publicly held debt would double by 2019 and triple by 2024.
IN ONE SENTENCE: In the race to deliver trillions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, Newt Gingrich is the winner in a landslide.
While Mitt Romney’s plan economic plan — a windfall for the 1 Percent paid for by the 99 Percent — would provide $6.6 TRILLION in budget-busting tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Newt Gingrich’s plan far outdoes him on both scores:
The average millionaire would get a whopping $615,689 annual tax cut.
Those in the wealthiest top 0.1 percent would receive an annual tax cut of more than $2 MILLION each — on top of what they’re already getting from the Bush tax cuts.
Millionaires would pay a lower tax rate than middle class families making $40-50,000 a year.
In 2015, the tax giveaway to millionaires and billionaire alone would be about the same size as the entire Medicare budget under the Paul Ryan GOP budget plan.
In the best year of his plan, 2015, the deficit would be a whopping $1.2 TRILLION — even after taking into account the draconian spending cuts imposed by the Paul Ryan GOP budget plan. The publicly held debt would double by 2019 and triple by 2024.
IN ONE SENTENCE: In the race to deliver trillions in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, Newt Gingrich is the winner in a landslide.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Congressional Al Quaida Republicans Continue Their War Against America, Cutting Heating Aid to the Poor and Not Raising taxes on the Top 1%
From The Daily Beast -- Dec 11, 2011:
Northeast states cut heating aid to poor
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press
Cuts in heating aid may leave a lot of poor people out in the cold. AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports.
AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports several Northeast states have reduced heating aid benefits to families as Congress considers slicing more than $1 billion out of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports thousands of poor people across the Northeast are bracing for a difficult winter with substantially less home heating aid coming from the federal government.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mary Power is 92 and worried about surviving another frigid New England winter because deep cuts in federal home heating assistance benefits mean she probably can't afford enough heating oil to stay warm.
She lives in a drafty trailer in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood and gets by on $11,148 a year in pension and Social Security benefits. Her heating aid help this year will drop from $1,035 to $685. With rising heating oil prices, it probably will cost her more than $3,000 for enough oil to keep warm unless she turns her thermostat down to 60 degrees, as she plans.
"I will just have to crawl into bed with the covers over me and stay there," said Power, a widow who worked as a cashier and waitress until she was 80. "I will do what I have to do."
Thousands of poor people across the Northeast are bracing for a difficult winter with substantially less home heating aid coming from the federal government.
"They're playing Russian roulette with people's lives," said John Drew, who heads Action for Boston Community Development, Inc., which provides aid to low-income residents in Massachusetts.
The issue could flare just as New Hampshire votes in the Republican presidential primary.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she hopes the candidates will take up the region's heating aid crunch because it underscores how badly the country needs a comprehensive energy policy.
Several Northeast states already have reduced heating aid benefits to families as Congress considers cutting more than $1 billion from last year's $4.7 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that served nearly 9 million households.
Families in New England, where the winters are long and cold and people rely heavily on costly oil heat, are expected to be especially hard hit. Many poor and elderly people on fixed incomes struggle with rising heating bills that can run into thousands of dollars. That can force them to cut back on other necessities like food or medicine.
"The winter of 2011-12 could be memorable for the misery and suffering of thousands of frigid households," New Hampshire's Concord Monitor newspaper said in an editorial. "Heating oil prices are expected to hit record highs, and federal fuel assistance may reach a record low for recent years."
Higher home heating oil prices and more families seeking aid due to the sour economy are straining resources. There's a 10 percent surge in new applicants in Boston, Drew said.
"Our whole program could hit a rock soon," said Mark Wolfe of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.
Families can expect to pay, on average, about $3,300 to heat a home with oil this winter in New England, Wolfe said. That's about $500 more than last winter. About half of the region's homes use oil heat.
Congress, which is locked in a bitter battle over reducing spending, still must decide how much money to give the program for the budget year that began Oct. 1.
In fall 2008, amid concerns about rising fuel prices, the government nearly doubled fuel assistance, releasing $5.1 billion to states for the following winter.
But last February, President Barack Obama proposed cutting the program nearly in half, calling for about $2.5 billion. The House is considering $3.4 billion for fuel assistance, while the Senate reviews a $3.6 billion proposal.
Snowe, along with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are pushing for $4.7 billion, last year's funding level, but they face long odds.
The government has given an initial round of funding, $1.7 billion, to the states.
In Maine, one of the coldest states, the average benefit has been reduced by about $500. The state's average benefit last winter was about $800 among 63,842 households served. The average income of recipients was $16,757. About 80 percent of Maine households use oil heat.
"It's a very serious situation," Dale McCormick, director of MaineHousing, a state agency that administers heating aid, said. "We can't send out money we don't have."
That view is shared by home heat aid advocates across New England and into New York and Pennsylvania. Most of those states have cut benefits. New Hampshire has tightened eligibility requirements.
Vermont's average benefit was cut from $866 to $474. New York's maximum benefit this year is $500, down from $700 last winter. Pennsylvania's minimum benefit is dropping from $300 last year to $100, Wolfe said.
"We have a lot of terrified people who can't see how they are going to survive," said Drew.
Northeast states cut heating aid to poor
By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press
Cuts in heating aid may leave a lot of poor people out in the cold. AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports.
AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports several Northeast states have reduced heating aid benefits to families as Congress considers slicing more than $1 billion out of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
AP correspondent Shirley Smith reports thousands of poor people across the Northeast are bracing for a difficult winter with substantially less home heating aid coming from the federal government.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mary Power is 92 and worried about surviving another frigid New England winter because deep cuts in federal home heating assistance benefits mean she probably can't afford enough heating oil to stay warm.
She lives in a drafty trailer in Boston's West Roxbury neighborhood and gets by on $11,148 a year in pension and Social Security benefits. Her heating aid help this year will drop from $1,035 to $685. With rising heating oil prices, it probably will cost her more than $3,000 for enough oil to keep warm unless she turns her thermostat down to 60 degrees, as she plans.
"I will just have to crawl into bed with the covers over me and stay there," said Power, a widow who worked as a cashier and waitress until she was 80. "I will do what I have to do."
Thousands of poor people across the Northeast are bracing for a difficult winter with substantially less home heating aid coming from the federal government.
"They're playing Russian roulette with people's lives," said John Drew, who heads Action for Boston Community Development, Inc., which provides aid to low-income residents in Massachusetts.
The issue could flare just as New Hampshire votes in the Republican presidential primary.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she hopes the candidates will take up the region's heating aid crunch because it underscores how badly the country needs a comprehensive energy policy.
Several Northeast states already have reduced heating aid benefits to families as Congress considers cutting more than $1 billion from last year's $4.7 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that served nearly 9 million households.
Families in New England, where the winters are long and cold and people rely heavily on costly oil heat, are expected to be especially hard hit. Many poor and elderly people on fixed incomes struggle with rising heating bills that can run into thousands of dollars. That can force them to cut back on other necessities like food or medicine.
"The winter of 2011-12 could be memorable for the misery and suffering of thousands of frigid households," New Hampshire's Concord Monitor newspaper said in an editorial. "Heating oil prices are expected to hit record highs, and federal fuel assistance may reach a record low for recent years."
Higher home heating oil prices and more families seeking aid due to the sour economy are straining resources. There's a 10 percent surge in new applicants in Boston, Drew said.
"Our whole program could hit a rock soon," said Mark Wolfe of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.
Families can expect to pay, on average, about $3,300 to heat a home with oil this winter in New England, Wolfe said. That's about $500 more than last winter. About half of the region's homes use oil heat.
Congress, which is locked in a bitter battle over reducing spending, still must decide how much money to give the program for the budget year that began Oct. 1.
In fall 2008, amid concerns about rising fuel prices, the government nearly doubled fuel assistance, releasing $5.1 billion to states for the following winter.
But last February, President Barack Obama proposed cutting the program nearly in half, calling for about $2.5 billion. The House is considering $3.4 billion for fuel assistance, while the Senate reviews a $3.6 billion proposal.
Snowe, along with Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are pushing for $4.7 billion, last year's funding level, but they face long odds.
The government has given an initial round of funding, $1.7 billion, to the states.
In Maine, one of the coldest states, the average benefit has been reduced by about $500. The state's average benefit last winter was about $800 among 63,842 households served. The average income of recipients was $16,757. About 80 percent of Maine households use oil heat.
"It's a very serious situation," Dale McCormick, director of MaineHousing, a state agency that administers heating aid, said. "We can't send out money we don't have."
That view is shared by home heat aid advocates across New England and into New York and Pennsylvania. Most of those states have cut benefits. New Hampshire has tightened eligibility requirements.
Vermont's average benefit was cut from $866 to $474. New York's maximum benefit this year is $500, down from $700 last winter. Pennsylvania's minimum benefit is dropping from $300 last year to $100, Wolfe said.
"We have a lot of terrified people who can't see how they are going to survive," said Drew.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Wendi Smith Gives Us a True Picture of Barack Obama As Opposed to the Relentless Barrage of Lying Conservative Slimeball Smears
Charles --
My name is Wendi, and about a month ago, I had dinner with President Obama.
It was one of the most significant experiences of my life.
It all happened because I responded to a "Dinner with Barack" email in my inbox. I was planning on making a donation anyway, so I thought I might as well do it now.
When I got the call, I couldn't believe it -- and when I flew out to D.C. for the dinner, I really couldn't believe it. I'm just one of more than a million grassroots supporters of this campaign. But a few hours later there I was.
I never imagined that I would sit down for a conversation, let alone a meal, with the President of the United States.
If you've thought about entering but haven't taken the chance yet, I urge you to do so now. You never know what might happen.
And I hear the First Lady is going to be there for this one, too ... very cool.
I've supported Barack Obama for a long time, and in 2008, I phone banked and canvassed for him near my hometown of Corydon, Indiana.
To be able to talk to him in person, to connect with him across the dinner table, was very special.
I told him about my son and his college loans, my work as an artist, and asked him about public education -- I could tell that he was genuinely listening to each of us, even though I'm sure he had a lot going on that day, and his own family back at the White House.
When I got back home, I told my husband and friends that the President was exactly the man we all thought he was: modest, genuine, engaged, and very caring.
It's a memory I will cherish for the rest of my life. I'm so glad I decided to enter.
Wendi Smith
My name is Wendi, and about a month ago, I had dinner with President Obama.
It was one of the most significant experiences of my life.
It all happened because I responded to a "Dinner with Barack" email in my inbox. I was planning on making a donation anyway, so I thought I might as well do it now.
When I got the call, I couldn't believe it -- and when I flew out to D.C. for the dinner, I really couldn't believe it. I'm just one of more than a million grassroots supporters of this campaign. But a few hours later there I was.
I never imagined that I would sit down for a conversation, let alone a meal, with the President of the United States.
If you've thought about entering but haven't taken the chance yet, I urge you to do so now. You never know what might happen.
And I hear the First Lady is going to be there for this one, too ... very cool.
I've supported Barack Obama for a long time, and in 2008, I phone banked and canvassed for him near my hometown of Corydon, Indiana.
To be able to talk to him in person, to connect with him across the dinner table, was very special.
I told him about my son and his college loans, my work as an artist, and asked him about public education -- I could tell that he was genuinely listening to each of us, even though I'm sure he had a lot going on that day, and his own family back at the White House.
When I got back home, I told my husband and friends that the President was exactly the man we all thought he was: modest, genuine, engaged, and very caring.
It's a memory I will cherish for the rest of my life. I'm so glad I decided to enter.
Wendi Smith
Real American Values Vs. The Phony, Un-American Values of So-Called "Conservatives" (Destructionists)
From The Progress Report -- December 5, 2011:
A Fair Shot v. You’re-On-Your-Own Economics
A Truly American Idea: An Economy That Works For Everyone
“I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.”
“The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.”
President Obama gave a major speech on the economy and economic inequality today, but those aren’t his words. They are the words of two Republican presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, respectively.
Today’s speech by the president paid particular homage to Roosevelt’s famous 1910 “New Nationalism” speech, which like President Obama’s speech today was also delivered in Osawatomie, Kansas. In his speech, Roosevelt attacked the power of corporate special interests and the wealthy few and called for a Square Deal for everyone. Today, President Obama laid out his own vision of a fair shot and an America with economy that works for everyone, just as it did in the past when “hard work paid off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started out.”
What Conservatives Believe In: You’re-On-Your-Own Economics
“Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”
“Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.”
“It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.”
What Progressives Believe In: An Economy That Works For Everyone
“We are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.”
“Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s been about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together, we pitch in, and we do our part, believing that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.”
FACTS: America Isn’t Supposed to Work for the Top 1 Percent Alone
The top 1 percent of Americans own 40 percent of our country’s wealth while the bottom 80 percent owns only 7 percent.
The richest 1 percent earned $1 out of every $4 in 2007. Thirty years earlier the richest only made one out of every $11.
The top 1 percent is taking in more of the nation’s income than at any time since the 1920s.
The average income in the top .01 percent is now $27 MILLION.
A typical CEO used to earn 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more.
Millionaires are making more money and paying fewer taxes – their taxes declined from about 31 percent in 1995 to about 22 percent in 2009.
One in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than 10 MILLION middle-class Americans.
Tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were sliced in half as their income quadrupled. Now they’re paying just 16.6 percent.
Nearly 1,500 millionaires paid NO income taxes in 2009.
FACTS: When the Economy Isn’t Working for Everyone, It’s Not Working
Fourteen million Americans are unemployed.
Nearly one in two young adults are not employed. This is the lowest rate since the end of World War II.
Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash—more cash than at any time in nearly a half century—instead of hiring more employees.
While the richest 1 percent saw their incomes triple between 1974 and 2007, most Americans’ incomes didn’t grow at all.
The bottom 90 percent are responsible for paying 73 percent of all credit card and mortgage debt.
One in four homeowners are underwater, meaning they owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth.
College tuition and fees increased 274.7 percent from 1990 to 2009. That’s faster than any other goods or services besides cigarettes.
Almost one in four American children are growing up in poverty.
In Short
“This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get to the middle class, and the economy as a whole.”
And Finally…
From Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 New Nationalism speech:
“If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.”
From President Obama’s speech today, a passage which elicited knowing laughter from the audience:
“For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight hour work day and a minimum wage for women; insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.”
A Fair Shot v. You’re-On-Your-Own Economics
A Truly American Idea: An Economy That Works For Everyone
“I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.”
“The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.”
President Obama gave a major speech on the economy and economic inequality today, but those aren’t his words. They are the words of two Republican presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, respectively.
Today’s speech by the president paid particular homage to Roosevelt’s famous 1910 “New Nationalism” speech, which like President Obama’s speech today was also delivered in Osawatomie, Kansas. In his speech, Roosevelt attacked the power of corporate special interests and the wealthy few and called for a Square Deal for everyone. Today, President Obama laid out his own vision of a fair shot and an America with economy that works for everyone, just as it did in the past when “hard work paid off, responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, where you came from, or how you started out.”
What Conservatives Believe In: You’re-On-Your-Own Economics
“Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”
“Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.”
“It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.”
What Progressives Believe In: An Economy That Works For Everyone
“We are greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.”
“Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s been about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together, we pitch in, and we do our part, believing that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.”
FACTS: America Isn’t Supposed to Work for the Top 1 Percent Alone
The top 1 percent of Americans own 40 percent of our country’s wealth while the bottom 80 percent owns only 7 percent.
The richest 1 percent earned $1 out of every $4 in 2007. Thirty years earlier the richest only made one out of every $11.
The top 1 percent is taking in more of the nation’s income than at any time since the 1920s.
The average income in the top .01 percent is now $27 MILLION.
A typical CEO used to earn 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more.
Millionaires are making more money and paying fewer taxes – their taxes declined from about 31 percent in 1995 to about 22 percent in 2009.
One in four millionaires pays a lower tax rate than 10 MILLION middle-class Americans.
Tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were sliced in half as their income quadrupled. Now they’re paying just 16.6 percent.
Nearly 1,500 millionaires paid NO income taxes in 2009.
FACTS: When the Economy Isn’t Working for Everyone, It’s Not Working
Fourteen million Americans are unemployed.
Nearly one in two young adults are not employed. This is the lowest rate since the end of World War II.
Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash—more cash than at any time in nearly a half century—instead of hiring more employees.
While the richest 1 percent saw their incomes triple between 1974 and 2007, most Americans’ incomes didn’t grow at all.
The bottom 90 percent are responsible for paying 73 percent of all credit card and mortgage debt.
One in four homeowners are underwater, meaning they owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth.
College tuition and fees increased 274.7 percent from 1990 to 2009. That’s faster than any other goods or services besides cigarettes.
Almost one in four American children are growing up in poverty.
In Short
“This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get to the middle class, and the economy as a whole.”
And Finally…
From Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 New Nationalism speech:
“If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.”
From President Obama’s speech today, a passage which elicited knowing laughter from the audience:
“For this, Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight hour work day and a minimum wage for women; insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.”
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Republicans are Hired Guns -- Hired by the Top 1% to Destroy Most Other Americans
From Democracy For America -- December 3, 2011:
Republicans only care about one thing -- tax cuts. It's the only thing they talk about.
When Americans demand jobs -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
When Democrats take action on education, healthcare and job creation -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
When people demand Wall Street be held accountable for wrecking the economy -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
Republicans are obsessed with cutting taxes, but now that Democrats have put forward a payroll tax cut that will put real money in the pockets of working Americans, Republicans say "No!"
Republicans are hypocrites that only care about lining the pockets of their big-money friends and it's time we called them out for it.
We're demanding answers. Click here to ask Republicans in Congress -- Why do you hate tax cuts for working families?
Republicans have been getting a free pass on this too for too long. It's time that we stand up and called them out for propping up the super rich while pushing working families down.
Republicans only care about one thing -- tax cuts. It's the only thing they talk about.
When Americans demand jobs -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
When Democrats take action on education, healthcare and job creation -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
When people demand Wall Street be held accountable for wrecking the economy -- Republicans say "tax cuts."
Republicans are obsessed with cutting taxes, but now that Democrats have put forward a payroll tax cut that will put real money in the pockets of working Americans, Republicans say "No!"
Republicans are hypocrites that only care about lining the pockets of their big-money friends and it's time we called them out for it.
We're demanding answers. Click here to ask Republicans in Congress -- Why do you hate tax cuts for working families?
Republicans have been getting a free pass on this too for too long. It's time that we stand up and called them out for propping up the super rich while pushing working families down.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The 1% Are Not "Job Creators" -- They Are Parasites
From The Progress Report -- December 1, 2011:
YOU Have The GOP On The Run
By ThinkProgress War Room
Back on Their Heels After the 99 Percent Fight Back
What a difference two and a half months makes. The 99 Percent movement is now part of our culture, is changing the narrative, and is here to stay. The New York Times looked at just one example of the impact the movement is having:
Protesters have succeeded in implanting “We are the 99 percent,” referring to the vast majority of Americans (and its implied opposite, “You are the one percent” referring to the tiny proportion of Americans with a vastly disproportionate share of wealth), into the cultural and political lexicon. [...]
Perhaps most important for the movement, there was a sevenfold increase in Google searches for the term “99 percent” between September and October and a spike in news stories about income inequality throughout the fall, heaping attention on the issues raised by activists.
“The ‘99 percent,’ and the ‘one percent,’ too, are part of our vocabulary now,” said Judith Stein, a professor of history at the City University of New York.
GOP Tries to Message Away the 99 Percent — Because the Movement is Having an Impact
At a retreat with Republican governors, Republican message guru Frank Luntz expressed his concerns at the growing power of the 99 Percent:
I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.
In response to his fears, Luntz held a seminar to instruct Republicans on how to discuss the issues the 99 Percent have elevated. Here are some lowlights of Luntz’s anti-99 Percent newspeak:
1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’
“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’ ” Luntz said. “The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”
2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’
“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But ”if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no.Taxing, the public will say yes.”
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’
“They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”
Some unsolicited advice for the GOP: the 99 Percent and our economic problems can’t be dismissed
One Percenter Piles On: Tax the Rich to Help the 99 Percent — The Real ‘Job Creators’
When it comes to protecting the wealthiest Americans from having to pay their fair share, the GOP usually trots out one of two euphemisms for the wealthiest Americans: “small businesses” or “job creators.” (Neither of which are really valid, by the way.)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for example, explained yesterday why 345,000 millionaires shouldn’t have to pay a very small surtax on their income above $1 MILLION in order to prevent a tax increase on 160 MILLION Americans:
We just think we shouldn’t be punishing job creators to pay for it. The Democrats can say they just want some people to pay a little bit more to cover this or that dubious proposal. Think about that. The Democrats’ response to the jobs crisis we’re in right now is to raise taxes on those who create jobs. This isn’t just counterproductive. It’s absurd.
In a must-read op-ed on Bloomberg News today, successful entrepreneur and bona fide member of the 1 Percent Nick Hanauer destroys the Republican argument:
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
YOU Have The GOP On The Run
By ThinkProgress War Room
Back on Their Heels After the 99 Percent Fight Back
What a difference two and a half months makes. The 99 Percent movement is now part of our culture, is changing the narrative, and is here to stay. The New York Times looked at just one example of the impact the movement is having:
Protesters have succeeded in implanting “We are the 99 percent,” referring to the vast majority of Americans (and its implied opposite, “You are the one percent” referring to the tiny proportion of Americans with a vastly disproportionate share of wealth), into the cultural and political lexicon. [...]
Perhaps most important for the movement, there was a sevenfold increase in Google searches for the term “99 percent” between September and October and a spike in news stories about income inequality throughout the fall, heaping attention on the issues raised by activists.
“The ‘99 percent,’ and the ‘one percent,’ too, are part of our vocabulary now,” said Judith Stein, a professor of history at the City University of New York.
GOP Tries to Message Away the 99 Percent — Because the Movement is Having an Impact
At a retreat with Republican governors, Republican message guru Frank Luntz expressed his concerns at the growing power of the 99 Percent:
I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.
In response to his fears, Luntz held a seminar to instruct Republicans on how to discuss the issues the 99 Percent have elevated. Here are some lowlights of Luntz’s anti-99 Percent newspeak:
1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’
“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’ ” Luntz said. “The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”
2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’
“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But ”if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no.Taxing, the public will say yes.”
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’
“They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”
Some unsolicited advice for the GOP: the 99 Percent and our economic problems can’t be dismissed
One Percenter Piles On: Tax the Rich to Help the 99 Percent — The Real ‘Job Creators’
When it comes to protecting the wealthiest Americans from having to pay their fair share, the GOP usually trots out one of two euphemisms for the wealthiest Americans: “small businesses” or “job creators.” (Neither of which are really valid, by the way.)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for example, explained yesterday why 345,000 millionaires shouldn’t have to pay a very small surtax on their income above $1 MILLION in order to prevent a tax increase on 160 MILLION Americans:
We just think we shouldn’t be punishing job creators to pay for it. The Democrats can say they just want some people to pay a little bit more to cover this or that dubious proposal. Think about that. The Democrats’ response to the jobs crisis we’re in right now is to raise taxes on those who create jobs. This isn’t just counterproductive. It’s absurd.
In a must-read op-ed on Bloomberg News today, successful entrepreneur and bona fide member of the 1 Percent Nick Hanauer destroys the Republican argument:
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
