GOP opposes the Disclose Act-- so what else is new?

..................................................................................................................................
Senate Republicans block Democratic bill to require disclosure of large political donors
July 16, 2012

Senate Republicans blocked Democratic-backed legislation requiring organizations pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign ads to disclose their top donors and the amounts they spend.

GOP opposition prevented Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to bring what is known as the Disclose Act to the Senate floor. The vote was 51-44.

Democrats revived the act during a presidential election campaign in which political action committees and nonprofit organizations, funded by deep-pocketed and largely anonymous contributors, are dominating the airwaves with largely negative political ads.

Another version of the Disclose Act passed the then-Democratic-controlled House in 2010 but was similarly blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Republicans cite First Amendment rights and say the bill favors unions in opposing the legislation.

In a statement late Monday, President Barack Obama said he was disappointed and chided Republicans for blocking the bill.

“Instead of standing up for the American people, Republicans stood with big banks and oil companies — special interests that certainly don’t need more clout in Washington,” Obama said. “I’m disappointed Republicans in Congress failed to take action and hold corporations and special interests accountable to the American people.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky accused Democrats of wasting time on bills “they know won’t pass but which give them a chance to make a fuss about a problem that doesn’t exist and blow a kiss to the unions for good measure.”

The bill, which would not have gone into effect until next January, would have required any organization that spends $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report within 24 hours identifying any donors who gave $10,000 or more. Current election law requires super political action committees, or PACS, to make periodic reports to the Federal Election Commission, but nonprofit groups, including social welfare organizations, labor unions and trade groups, generally do not have to reveal the sources of election-related spending.

“Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said this election was in danger of being bought by “17 angry, old, white men.”

The White House, in a statement, said the bill was needed so Americans would “know who is attempting to influence the nation’s elections.” Without the bill, it said, “corporations and wealthy individuals will continue to be able to shield their donations from disclosure.”

Democrats have been pushing for more disclosure since the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case that overturned a decades-old law barring corporations, unions and other organizations from spending on advertising and other forms of political activity.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said super PACS and other outside groups have spent some $150 million during this election cycle, double the amount spent during the same period in 2008. Election campaigns, he said, are “now waged by shadowy political attack groups posing as social welfare organizations.”

The Sunlight Foundation watchdog group said Monday that Crossroads GPS, a conservative organization formed by Republican strategist Karl Rove, has announced ad buys so far totaling $83 million while Americans for Prosperity, another conservative group founded by brothers Charles and David Koch, have bought ads worth $32 billion.

Groups such as Crossroads GPS, are classified as social welfare organizations not subject to disclosure laws as long as they spend more than half their resources toward “social welfare” purposes. But that 50 percent can go for “public education” that can be highly political in nature.

Knowing they were facing defeat, Democratic supporters announced earlier in the day that they would hold a “midnight vigil,” speeches going late into the evening on the need for greater campaign transparency. “We can’t let the special interests off the hook after just one round,” Whitehouse said.

Monday’s vote was strictly along party lines except for Reid, who changed his vote to “no” in a procedural move that allows him to bring up the legislation again on Tuesday.

..................................................................................................................................

OK, GOP, the ball's in your court

..................................................................................................................................
Democrats threaten to push America over ‘fiscal cliff’ in absence of tax increases
By Rachel Rose Hartman, July 16, 2012

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Monday announced that Democrats are willing to allow a slew of tax cuts and spending provisions to expire if Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, potentially inching the country off a "fiscal cliff."

"If we can't get a good deal, a balanced deal, that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus," Murray, a budget committee member and former co-chair of the debt supercommittee, said at a Brookings Institution discussion of the "fiscal cliff."

"Fiscal cliff" is a reference to the potential crisis faced by the government at the end of this year when the Bush tax cuts and other tax and spending provisions amounting to an estimated $600 billion are set to expire.

Murray added she hopes "it doesn't come to that" and said there are reasons to believe a deal between Democrats and Republicans can be reached before the end of the year. But Murray's threat was clear, and she placed the onus squarely on Republicans to make an agreement a reality.

"If Republicans won't work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal," Murray said. Murray suggested that "responsible Republicans" must take the lead in pushing for revenue and raising taxes, adding that if no deal is reached by Jan. 1, 2013, and the cuts expire, Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist's "no tax" pledge "is no longer relevant to this conversation" and "responsible Republicans" will be free to make decisions outside of Norquist's rigid pledge.

Murray's threat, first reported Sunday by the Washington Post, has drawn fierce blowback from Republican leaders who argue—with the backing of economists—that Democrats appear willing to risk a recession to win a battle over taxes for the wealthy.

"In their near-fanatical crusade to inflict even more pain on American businesses, Democrats are now openly admitting that they plan to wait until this debate reaches full throttle and Americans are panicked about the outcome to do anything, because they think it will make it likelier they'll get their way," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor Monday, adding that the current fight amounts to a political ploy.

"And if they don't, then so be it. They're ready to accept the economic and fiscal consequences. They see a crisis coming, and they don't want to waste it." McConnell said Democrats have ignored Republican proposals to prevent tax increases.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed similar criticism, asking in a statement Monday: "Has it come to this, that Democrats are willing to hurt jobs and tank our economy for the sake of a small business tax hike that would also have disastrous consequences?"

"Are Dems Open to Another Recession?" the Senate Republican Communications Center posed in a press release.

Inaction means expiration of the current provisions and uncertainty as to how or when new initiatives will be agreed upon.

Republicans note that economists say uncertainty surrounding the fiscal cliff is already prompting hiring freezes in the public and private sectors and negatively affecting the economy.

Murray's threat follows an edict issued by President Barack Obama this month to allow Bush tax cuts to expire for Americans who make more than $250,000 while extending cuts for those making under $250,000.

..................................................................................................................................

GOP likes Roberts and SCOTUS less; Demos like them more

..................................................................................................................................
Conservatives turn on Roberts, Supreme Court after health care ruling
By Liz Goodwin, July 16, 2012

Republicans have a much lower opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court in general following the court's June 28 decision that upheld President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

Only 27 percent of Republicans surveyed by Gallup last week said they had a favorable opinion of Roberts, down from 67 percent after he was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005. Democrats, meanwhile, profess a new affection for the conservative justice, who sided with the four liberal-leaning Supreme Court justices to uphold the health care law as a tax last month. More than half of Democrats approved of Roberts in July, compared to only 35 percent in 2005.

Republicans' approval of the Supreme Court as a whole has dropped by 21 points since September, the Gallup poll found. Democrats' approval of the court jumped 22 points, meanwhile, to 68 percent approval over the same period.

..................................................................................................................................

Bush 41 doesn't like Grover Norquist-- for once he's being smart

..................................................................................................................................
Bush 41: ‘Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?’
By Chris Moody, July 13, 2012

Former President George H.W. Bush, who famously said "Read my lips: no new taxes" at the 1988 Republican National Convention before going on to raise taxes during his presidency, does not think highly of pledges that keep lawmakers from hiking rates.

In a forthcoming interview with Parade Magazine, the elder Bush knocks Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, whose organization has convinced hundreds of policymakers and candidates to sign a pledge promising never to raise rates.

From the magazine:

During your presidency you gave in on your "no new taxes" pledge. You've been vindicated in many respects for that decision. I wonder how you view the "no new tax" pledge from Grover Norquist that seems to be requisite for GOP political candidates.

GB: The rigidity of those pledges is something I don't like. The circumstances change, and you can't be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It's—who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?

For Americans for Tax Reform, the feelings appear mutual. The group is currently using the one-term president's image on its Facebook page to remind Republicans what happened to "the last Republican to compromise on tax increases."

Americans for Tax Reform

"Any lawmaker willing to consider such a deal is poised to become another fool of history," the text reads below the photo.

..................................................................................................................................

Farm bill: a headache for House GOP leadership

..................................................................................................................................
GOP leaders may squash farm bill
By Jake Sherman, July 12, 2012

The House Agriculture Committee has given birth to a 600-page farm bill that Republican leaders seem to want nothing to do with. And just months from Election Day, it could prove to be a headache for House GOP leadership.

The bipartisan bill, which united Democrats, hardened conservatives, farmers and food stamp reformers in committee, is unlikely to see a floor vote, more than a half-dozen sources said.

Publicly, Speaker John Boehner has been coy about bringing the farm bill to the floor — it would be messy, aides say, pitting regional and ideological interests against one another other in an election year. Officially, Boehner said “no decisions have been made” about if and when to bring it to the floor.

Behind the scenes, the plan is far clearer.

The committee’s product won’t see the light of day. Instead, Republicans are likely to try to extend the current farm policy that they’ve consistently decried as broken. And they won’t even do it this month, GOP aides say — they’ll likely wait until September.

The reality is that GOP leaders are worried about a messy floor fight over divisive regional policies months before voters head to the ballot boxes. Odd couples could abound: The far left and far right would likely vote against the bill on the floor, the former thinking the bill cuts too much from food stamps, the latter insisting cuts aren’t deep enough. There’s also division over how much the government should be subsidizing the farm industry and whether it should control commodity prices. Arguing complex farm policy on the House floor in this political climate gives many Republican members pause.

If the House can’t pass a bill, then it would go into negotiations with the Senate with a weak negotiating stance.

And that’s why this will be another chapter of griping from the rank and file about the leadership. Rural lawmakers, whose districts are dotted with farms and cattle, have long been talking about their desire to reform the nation’s agricultural policy. Not to mention that the droughts that have swept through the Midwest could add pressure to move on this legislation.

Now, they’ll likely have to grit their teeth and vote to extend current policy. And that will come only after rural lawmakers go home for all of August and face questions about why the bill hasn’t been debated on the House floor.

There are also concerns in the Senate that the upper chamber won’t be able to pass a simple extension.

GOP leadership’s noncommittal stance is already chafing House Republicans.

“Bring this bill to the floor — fast,” said Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, who is running for reelection against Christie Vilsack, the wife of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “I would’ve been happy to bring this to the floor last night, the minute it passed out of committee.”

King, who sits on the committee and voted for the bill, has a northwestern Iowa district filled with corn growers, soybean producers, cattle, hogs and turkeys. King refuses to even entertain the idea that his leadership would extend current policy. He said he would be “terribly disappointed if we don’t have floor time to debate this ag bill.”

“They should’ve stood up and told everybody before we went through 14 or 15 hours of a markup where we beat each other up,” King told POLITICO Thursday afternoon. “To put everybody through that, if leadership didn’t want to put this on the floor, that would be something that would cause considerable anger among Democrats and Republicans.”

That feeling reaches across Chairman Frank Lucas’s Agriculture Committee.

“The American people deserve to have a vote,” said Rep. Reid Ribble, a Wisconsin Republican on the committee. “At this point, the bill came out. What are we going to do? The Senate has a bill passed. I’d rather work with our actual language so we aren’t in the same situation as we were on the highway bill.”

The gripes are not only from the Midwest, and the angst of these Republicans shows that some of them simply want to be able to show constituents that they’re doing something good for the folks back home.

“This is ready to be brought to the floor now,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), who also sits on the committee. “Let’s debate it and move forward. It’s a five-year bill. The farmers of my district are expecting us to do our job.”

Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who voted against the committee bill because it didn’t have enough cuts from food stamp programs, has a farm show Friday at noon in his massive Kansas district, which has the most agribusiness in the nation.

“It’s going to have a problem on the floor,” Huelskamp told POLITICO. “On one hand, we don’t have enough food stamp savings for most Republicans, and too much for most Democrats. We have a dairy and sugar policy a lot of folks are not comfortable with.”

It’s not like the House is doing anything else that will become law this month: It’s mostly a political schedule that includes votes on defense spending, regulation slashing and tax cuts. There were some rumblings Thursday afternoon that the House would take up an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this month.

Farm policy isn’t the only issue falling out of focus this summer. A plan by Rep. Darrell Issa’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee to rework the United States Postal Service is likely to drop, as well. The Postal Service is on the brink of bankruptcy.

If Congress were to somehow agree on a new farm bill, it would have to do so this summer, lawmakers say. If they wait until September, they’ll run into a new crop year.

The old policy runs out Sept. 30.

Members of the Agriculture Committee warn of political peril if GOP farm policy isn’t enacted.

“We have a lot of folks that won with 55 percent and less in rural areas,” Huelskamp said, adding his district would be content with an extension of current policy.

Boehner, personally, seems cool about provisions of the bill that many of his members are touting. While he praised Lucas, he called the bill’s dairy policy “Soviet-style” and said “one of the proposals in the farm bill would actually make it worse.”

Ribble, whose state is filled with dairy farms, said he has a solution for the speaker.

“The speaker has a way to address it,” Ribble said. “And it’s on the floor.”

..................................................................................................................................

33 exercises in futility

..................................................................................................................................
Obamacare: GOP moves to repeal, and then what?

Our view: Symbolic vote to dump court-approved health care reform an exercise in futility that only underscores GOP's failure to produce a reasonable alternative

July 11, 2012

Next time the more bombastic in Washington rail against government waste, let them include every cent lost to Wednesday's dog and pony show in the House of Representatives, where time that might have been used constructively was frittered away with yet another attack on health care reform.

For those who might have accidentally tuned into C-Span shortly before 1:30 p.m., that was not a repeat but an actual live telecast. For the 33^rd time since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, the House held a vote to repeal part or all of it.

Thirty-three times! One might assume the American public had gotten the message that House Republicans opposed the measure after one or two votes against it. OK, maybe after a dozen. But this was firmly in farcical territory, akin to the guy who likes to hit himself in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when he stops.

Here's the only way in which the House vote represented something new (and it's not really much new at that): the GOP is no longer even bothering to promote the idea that they plan to replace what they deride as "Obamacare" with something else. They just want to kill it.

Apparently, the consequences of a repeal for the millions of uninsured or those with pre-existing conditions or young people needing to stay on a parent's policy — or any of the other popular reforms included in the law — is no longer important to the empathy-free GOP.

Let's dispense with any notion that the vote was meaningful from a policy standpoint despite the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the law. Any repeal is dead on arrival in the Democratically-controlled Senate, and even if by some miracle (and it would take a big one) it won a filibuster-proof majority, President Barack Obama would veto it. So the repeal is not just dead, as they like to say in Annapolis, it's dead-dead, as it was the last 32 times it was attempted.

But in GOP-dominated states, complaining about the ACA is practically a requirement of running for public office, and the louder, the better. Never mind that this idea of preserving and expanding on employer-sponsored health insurance originated with Republicans or that the Affordable Care Act was based largely on Mitt Romney's own health care reforms in Massachusetts.

It was also somewhat doubtful that Republicans ever wanted to do something serious about replacing the ACA or insuring the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack coverage because they either can't afford it or can't qualify for it. Even in past attempts at repeal, the so-called "replacement" initiatives were sketchy at best.

Whatever one might think of tort reform, for instance, limiting damages in malpractice lawsuits isn't going to suddenly make health insurance affordable. Same with expanded health care savings accounts or deregulating insurance companies or many of the other ideas conservatives like to kick around from time to time.

The real reason Republicans dropped all efforts to replace Obamacare with their own ideas is that they know such proposals wouldn't bear up to close scrutiny by independent analysts. Their choice was to either keep the proposals so vague as to be difficult to measure or drop them entirely. This time, the latter course must have simply seemed easier.

..................................................................................................................................

Smallest government spender since Eisenhower is OBAMA

..................................................................................................................................
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
By Rick Ungar, May 24, 2012

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20^, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
•  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare  only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

..................................................................................................................................

Republicans themselves distrust Romney; shouldn't we all?

..................................................................................................................................
Why Romney isn’t trusted
By Brent Budowsky, 07/11/12

The demand is growing for Mitt Romney to disclose the 23 still-secret tax returns he turned over to the McCain campaign in 2008. Don’t worry. If the unpleasant details aren’t released by Romney soon, they will almost certainly be bannered as “breaking news” by a leading newspaper or television network, sourced from “well-placed Republicans” who supported McCain in 2008.

The Romney campaign raises profound questions for voters and the media. Voters do not like or trust Mitt Romney. Political commentators should thoughtfully consider why. The presidency is the most important job in the world. Commentators should question whether Romney’s career suggests that he possesses the qualifications of political integrity, compassion for all Americans, and decisiveness of command to be president and commander in chief.

Jon Huntsman called him the well-lubricated weathervane. Rick Perry, among others, has called him a vulture. More than one senior figure in his party has accused him of lying. Several GOP primary opponents said he cheated in dirty campaign ads. A growing list of Republicans have called on him to disclose his tax returns. Primary opponents warned he could be hiding harmful truths therein. His own staff called him the Etch A Sketch candidate. These are serious charges. They come from Republicans.

The matter of Romney’s youthful bullying is important, not because of his youthful indiscretions but because of the lessons he might have learned from the episode that are reflected in his public life. What kind of bully needs a group of pals to pin down the victim while he imposes his cruelty?

Why was Romney not more severely punished by his exclusive school? Did he learn that if you have a rich and powerful father, you play by special rules for those with money, and that the only thing that matters is to say and do anything to get what you want?

Mitt Romney’s brief governorship is no qualification for the presidency. He was one of the worst job-creating governors in the nation. His healthcare law, which he celebrated alongside Ted Kennedy, was a model for the Obama program. Now Romney runs away from his healthcare law faster than an Olympic sprinter. He did not run for reelection. He would probably have been defeated by a Democrat.

In business, we know Romney made handsome profit from firms that outsourced American jobs. We know he exploited offshore opportunities in Swiss banks, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. We know Romney has disclosed fewer tax returns than any presidential candidate in decades. He plays by special rules. What is he hiding?

The presidency is different. Any politician can say the president should not kill bin Laden in Pakistan. But with America facing great danger, only the commander in chief can push the button to order the kill. President Obama did. Mitt Romney would not have, if he believed what he proposed.

The presidency is different. Obama made the big call to save the auto industry and countless jobs in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and other states. Romney denounced him. When it worked brilliantly, Romney deceitfully claimed credit.

Romney was for abortion rights. Now he would overturn Roe. Romney was for gay rights. Now he is against. Romney claimed credit for the mandate. Then he denounced it. Romney said it was not a tax. Now he says it is. Except when Romney does it. Then it isn’t.

Romney said he was to the left of Ted Kennedy. Then he was to the right of Newt Gingrich. Romney slandered Rick Perry when Perry was humane about immigration. Now Romney hugs Marco Rubio. But he does not support the Rubio proposal. Even Rubio no longer champions the Rubio proposal. Cowardice is contagious.

On the matter of whether women should receive equal pay, Romney takes both sides in the same sentence!

I rest my case.

..................................................................................................................................

Yep, very appropriate!

.................................................................................................................................
"The House Republicans have scheduled a meaningless vote on Wednesday to vent their anger at Obamacare, yet again.  I thought I would draw a giant GOP elephant pooping in a pop-top Capitol toilet. It seemed appropriate."
  -- Daryl Cagle
..................................................................................................................................

Republicans compared to raccoons!

............................................................................................................................
From Jack Cafferty's blog on CNN:

Topic of the hour: "Whom do you trust more to turn around the economy: President Obama or Mitt Romney?"

Gary Hardenbrook:

Republicans will say and do anything in order to get back into our financial kitchen like a bunch of racoons [sic]. Why any average middle class person would support them is beyond me.

July 9, 2012 at 4:21 pm

............................................................................................................................

Not voter fraud but negligence!

....................................................................................................................
New voter ID laws carry a political agenda
Editorial, July 09, 2012

Mike Turzai, the Pennsylvania House majority leader, is honest if nothing else. His exact statement to a crowd of state Republicans — that the state’s new voter ID law “is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania” — was the most truthful accounting of why the party is pushing for allegedly more stringent voting rules across the nation. This is not about combating voter fraud, a claim that has never been substantiated, but about limiting the participation of people likely to vote for the other party.

Pennsylvania’s new rules will require a government photo ID to be able to vote, which disproportionately burdens those without cars: the poor, elderly, and minority voters who trend Democratic. Students without drivers’ licenses will also be stuck.

Since 2011, nearly 200 bills have been introduced in 41 states that seek to impose tougher voting rules and would disproportionately strike at core Democratic constituencies. The proposed rules include, beyond photo IDs, efforts to reduce early and absentee voting and limiting same-day registration programs. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is now investigating the impact of these new laws and must continue to do so.

Improving voting systems is an important agenda but the problem is not voter fraud, it is negligence. The nation’s voting infrastructure is antiquated, and an embarrassment for a nation that upholds democratic engagement to the rest of the world. New programs for allowing electronic ballots, creating enhanced voter-registration databases, and guaranteeing ballot security are all legitimate efforts to improve the integrity of the voting system.

But laws like Pennsylvania’s aren’t about the integrity of voting. As Turzai was clear to remind us, they are about who wins elections. He should be applauded for making it so clear.

.....................................................................................................................

Voter ID laws: misguided attempts to combat non-existent voter fraud

................................................................................................................
Foes of Voter ID Laws Find Ways to Mute Their Impact
By Naureen Khan, July 8, 2012

As most legislative work around the country came to a standstill over the July 4th holiday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder made headlines last week when he broke with the Republican Party to veto a law that would have tightened Michigan’s current “voter ID” law, just a few months ahead ofElection Day.

The move is an indication that despite the intense anxiety about the wave of voter ID laws, which place new restrictions on voters before they can cast a ballot, the legislation is facing tough challenges even before being enacted. Opponents have found a variety of means to mute the impact of such legislation.

Republicans backing the laws, which have passed in 11 statesin the past two years alone, insist that the measures are meant to curb voter fraud and are commonsense requirements that shouldn't prove to be too onerous for any legitimately eligible voter. But Democrats see a more sinister design in the measures -- as part of a broader GOP effort to rig elections in its favor by suppressing constituencies that tend to vote Democratic: minorities, low-income voters, students, and even women.

That impression was fueled recently when Republican Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House, highlighted the partisan impact of the state’s new voting restrictions. “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,”Turzai said to applause at a Republican State Committee meeting.

The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many as 11 percent of voters do not have the government-issued photo IDs that are the center of much of the legislation, and that as many as 5 million voters could be impacted by the most recent spate of legislation.

“People don’t realize that these voter ID laws aren’t the reasonable ID laws that we’ve seen in the past,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan arm of the New York University School of Law that has been involved in lawsuits challenging the new laws. “These are far more restrictive, and these will exclude large number of eligible voters, and that’s a much bigger deal than any of the kinds of measures that we’ve seen before.”

Some states have provided multiple ways around the photo-ID requirements. But others take a hard line, permitting those who are not able to procure a satisfactory ID to vote only by provisional ballot and prove they are who they say are within a given time frame.

A few also appear to favor certain constituencies over others: In Texas, for example, concealed handgun licenses are an acceptable form of ID under a new law that's yet to take effect, but student ID cards are not.

Nonetheless, Democrats and other groups battling the legislation have scored key victories. Many of the measures will not be in effect by Election Day, blocked by pending litigation, slapped down by the Justice Department, or vetoed.

Democratic governors in five states -- Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina -- have joined Snyder in vetoing versions of voter-ID laws. Meanwhile, a strict photo-ID law in Wisconsin was declared unconstitutional by a state judge earlier this year and will not be in effect in November unless a higher court reverses the decision.

In some states, the laws are mired in a thicket of lawsuits and countersuit. In others, any change to election procedure has to be cleared by the Justice Department under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The department denied voter-ID laws proposed by Texas and South Carolina, although both are appealing the decisions. Virginia’s new law is pending approval by Justice.

Daniel Fee, a Pennsylvania-based Democratic consultant, says he thinks his state’s strict photo-ID law, passed earlier this year, will be blocked before Election Day by one of the lawsuits currently working their way through the system. More worrisome is if the march of the laws spreads to states where elections will be decided by smaller margins.

“That seems to be the intent,” Fee said.

The momentum, at least, seems to be on Republicans' side. Georgia was among the first states to pass a voter-ID law in 2006. Now, 30 states have some version on the books, varying in degree, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In some states, photo-identification laws are only the tip of the iceberg. In Florida, for example, a sweeping election law signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott shortened the period for early voting and required third-party groups registering voters to turn in documentation within 48 hours or risk heavy fines. That provision was ultimately knocked down by a federal judge.

Elisabeth MacNamara, national president of the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan group that works to lower barriers to participation, said that the patchwork of rules across the states is cumbersome and intimidating for historically reluctant groups of voters.

“The mere fact that these laws exist can be intimidating and discourage folks,” she said. “The fact they are the least heard and rarely listened to is very disturbing.”

Fighting the laws is also a drain on time and resources, she said, and must be waged on a case-by-case basis. And the organization isn’t expecting the tussles over voter-ID laws to subside.

“No matter which party is in power, I think people are intent on keeping their power and utilize the system to win their elections,” said Jeanette Senecal, elections director for the League. “It will always be necessary to defend voters.”

................................................................................................................

Boehner: "I wasn't elected to play God". Gee, we're glad to hear him admit THAT!

....................................................................................................................
Boehner: I can't make you love Mitt Romney
By Lucy Madison, July 7, 2012

(CBS News) When House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, endorsed Mitt Romney for president in April, he pledged to do "everything I can to help him win."

In his words, however, the one thing he can't do is make voters "fall in love" with the candidate.

Speaking last week at a fundraiser in Wheeling, W.Va., Boehner was surprisingly candid in his characterization of Romney's candidacy when asked, in a question-and-answer session: "Can you make me love Mitt Romney?"

"No," he answered, as first reported by Roll Call. "Listen, we're just politicians. I wasn't elected to play God. The American people probably aren't going to fall in love with Mitt Romney."

He added that the presumptive Republican nominee had "some friends, relatives, and fellow Mormons... some people that are going to vote for him," but suggested that at the end of the day, Republicans would be voting against President Obama rather than for Romney.

"I'll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama," Boehner said. "This election is going to be a referendum on the president's failed economic policies. "

Calling Romney a "solid guy," Boehner went on to say that the former Massachusetts governor is "going to do a great job, even if you don't fall in love with him."

Asked about the comments on Saturday, Boehner spokesperson Cory Fritz pointed out that the Speaker had attended campaign events for Romney in Ohio that very morning. He also opened up a campaign office for Romney in Ohio on Saturday.

"Four years ago, President Obama was greeted as a celebrity, but that hasn't resulted in jobs and growth for families and small businesses," Fritz said in an e-mailed statement. "Americans are going to be voting this November based on who can get our economy moving, and Mitt Romney - with his experience as a private-sector job creator and a governor - is the best candidate to do just that."

Responding to the comment, Romney adviser Kevin Madden said Saturday that "John [Boehner]'s right in that speeches and lofty rhetoric haven't gotten the job done for the American people in the Obama era, and that Governor Romney's dedicated focus on the economy can and will put the country back on track."

"This is an election about fixing the American economy, putting Americans back to work and putting the country back on track towards a brighter future," he said. "It's an election about competence, particularly after three and a half years of incompetence and a total lack of leadership on the economy."

.....................................................................................................................

Change in Olympian's Disqus format

............................................................................................................
Wow, the good ol' Olympian has jumped in with both feet and has changed the format for commenting with no forewarning that I'm aware of.  Now we have the option of clicking on the equivalent of a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" or replying-- no longer do we have the "Report Abuse" function. [EDIT: however, there is a "flag as inappropriate" down arrow to the right, visible only when you mouse over the entry.]   Since we haven't gotten any explanations by Olympian staff, I don't know whether or not a set accumulation of "thumbs down" will trigger the disappearances of comments.  Oh, and the comments aren't divided into pages now, either.
............................................................................................................

The audacity of wanting to be healthy and well

....................................................................................................................
Health care and the arts
By Liam R.W. Doyle, May 10, 2012
[snipped]

The U.S. is the only modern nation in which people go without lifesaving healthcare because they can’t afford it. Now, I try not to get political on this blog (that’s what Facebook is for), except when critiquing a work, but this very directly affects artists, like us writers. If you live in the U.S., it’s almost impossible to be an artist unless you’re single, young and healthy, and can risk living without health insurance. (Technically, no one can risk being without health insurance, considering everything from a car wreak to cancer can happen to you no matter what your age.)

The only reason I can’t devote myself full-time to my writing, the reason it’s taken me years to write anything significant, and I can’t put more writing out in a timely manner, much less make my publishing imprint viable, is because I’m forced to treat all that as a hobby in my spare time as I have to work full-time for the health insurance to cover my family. Don’t get me wrong, I like my full-time day job OK–it could be worse. But I’m trapped and chained to a job that’s my second choice, unable to do what I love, because of our country’s for-profit insurance-based “healthcare” system.

I’ve seen blog after blog, post after post, article after article, of people in Canada and Europe, who are able to spend those crucial early years honing their craft by throwing themselves completely into it, unafraid of how they’re going to be able to afford a broken leg or a bout of pneumonia, knowing there’s no such thing as going bankrupt for having the audacity to want to be healthy and well.

Okay, again, sorry for the rant; I promise it’s a rare occasion. The subject just really, really bothers me. People whose occupation is to write our culture’s novels, paint our art, compose our music, shouldn’t be forced to choose amongnot doing those things, becoming financially ruined paying the bills for staying alive despite producing a career full of works, or choosing to not have medically necessary treatments. Nobody should be forced to die because they can’t afford life-saving treatment.

Xeni Jardin of, among other things, BoingBoing.net, has been posting healthcare relevant articles lately as she’s been dealing with her own cancer.One recent article has a collection of stories by people in the U.S. who have had family members who have died from disease because they couldn’t afford the treatments and chose not to tell their family about it until too late, so as to spare them the financial ruin and destitution of medical costs.

And, unlike every other modern nation, we’ve set ours up so that our artists and creators are unfairly more often than not the victims of this for-profit health care insurance system. It’s very depressing.

....................................................................................................................

Unfortunately, this is too true in too many cases!

......................................................................................................................

Another Michael Crain video

For you fans of country music and whimsy:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+crain+in+the+doghouse&oq=michael+crain+in+the+doghouse&gs_l=youtube.3...28438.30297.0.30750.7.6.1.0.0.0.125.703.0j6.6.0...0.0.Kgs9v8aK50k

Christie-- a VP candidate? ARE YOU KIDDING???!!!

......................................................................................................................
Christie Calls Reporter 'Idiot' and 'Stupid' at Press Conference
By Shushannah Walshe, July 2, 2012

 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, known for his tough talking style, snapped at a reporter Saturday because he asked a question unrelated to the nature of the press conference.

Reporters were told to keep the questions on topic and related to an emergency at a water treatment plant in Monmouth County. But when one reporter strayed from the after-effects of the storm in asking a question, Christie fired back.

"Did I say on topic? Are you stupid? On topic, on topic. Next question," Christie said, clearly angry at the question.

According to ABC News video of the incident, the reporter asked if the governor was "going to be addressing the state legislature" on Monday. Christie is in the midst of a budget battle with state legislators and has called a special session in Trenton. But he did not want to talk about it at the press conference over the weekend.

Christie asked the group of reporters if they had any on topic questions before ending the press conference.

"Thank you all very much, and I'm sorry for the idiot over there. Take care," Christie said before leaving the podium.

Christie is known for a sometimes brusque style and has a history of getting angry at reporters and constituents. In March, Christie called a former Navy SEAL an "idiot." Last year he got into a shouting match with a teacher when she asked the governor, "You don't send your children to public schools. You send them to private schools, so I was wondering why you think it's fair to be cutting funding to public schools?" Christie angrily replied that it was "none of your business."

Mitt Romney tends to tease Christie about his style when the two campaign together. He did it just last Tuesday when the two appeared at a fundraiser together in the Garden State.

"That man really is something, you know that? I was hoping someone in here would start to heckle him so I could watch him go to town here. But you know better, don't ya? What an extraordinary leader," Romney said, according to a pool report.

......................................................................................................................

Ooh, ooh! Romney agrees with the President!

....................................................................................................
Health care mandate: Tax or Penalty?
Mon Jul 2, 2012

Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney Campaign, said to Chuck on today's Daily Rundown that Gov. Romney believes the health care mandate put in place in Massachusetts was a penatly, and not a tax.

"The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was  a tax," Fehrnstrom said.

When pressed by Chuck to clarify that Romney agrees with the President's take on the mandate - that it is not a tax - Fehrnstrom said yes.

"That's correct," Fehrnstrom said. "But the President also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements because he has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax, he needs to reconcile those two very different statements."

....................................................................................................