...................................................................................................................................................................
Pulse of religion still beats in conservative politics
The Christian right isn’t what it once was, but not going away anytime soon
By Nat Stein, July 24, 2014
"Am I the only guy who’s ending sentences with ‘amen’ this weekend?” Ralph Reed, conservative political operative and born-again Christian, asked during his speech at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver this weekend. If the enthusiastic round of cheers and applause offered by the audience in response is any indication, then no—he’s not alone.
Despite his boyish looks, Reed is an old hand in the right-wing political scene. Some might recognize him from a 1995 Time Magazine cover featuring a medium closeup of his face in ominous low-key lighting, with a headline that reads “The Right Hand of God” splashed across. Reed is perhaps best known for his tenure as executive director of the Christian Coalition, the voter mobilization machine founded by famed televangelist Pat Robertson after his failed 1988 presidential bid. Throughout the 90s, Reed built a vast and sophisticated voter turnout operation, organizing evangelical Protestants into an invaluable asset for the GOP.
But now, in 2014, Reed is speaking to a different audience. Yes, the far right crowd that attends this summit is still openly and vocally religious, by and large. It seems like not a single speech ends without a “God Bless America,” and references to the Bible are plentiful. But the culture wars of the 90s and early 2000s have died down considerably as American society becomes increasingly secularized. One study now puts the number of faithless in America at 12 percent, another as high as 20.
Issues like gay marriage—which was once a major source of contention—have more or less been approved by cultural consensus over the last few years. Colorado legalized marijuana last year and there wasn’t much more than a peep out of the Christian right.
Still, about 78 percent of Americans say they’re Christian, according to the Pew Research center. Around a quarter of Protestants, who are themselves slightly more than half of all Christians in the U.S. population, still self-identifies as evangelical. Though the fervor around certain cultural issues has slowed to a simmer, the call to protect religious liberty and fortify the family and community against secular forces lives on.
“The great awakening will begin at home,” Reed said thunderously, “and ripple out from there.”
In 1999, still in its glory days, the Christian Coalition lost tax exempt status after a long battle with the IRS for passing out partisan voter guides and engaging in other overtly political activities prohibited for a 501(c)3 organization. From there, the Christian Coalition regrouped under the name the Christian Coalition of America, a 501(c)4 that could finally be the political animal it always wanted to be. In the 2000 presidential election, the Coalition distributed over 70 million voter guides in American churches, and the next time around, in 2004, the group spearheaded such an effective get-out-the-vote effort that it was credited with helping to carry Bush to victory.
Then, things took a turn for the worse. In 2006, Reed lost a race for lieutenant governor of Georgia. Around the same time, he became embroiled in national scandal when it was reported that lobbyist Jack Abramoff—an old friend of Reed’s—enlisted the Christian Coalition to push an anti-gambling campaign in Alabama, forcing casino-owning Native American tribes in the region to pay Abramoff more and more for his lobbying services. When all was said and done, Reed had casino money in its pocket and some explaining to do.
At that point, the once mighty Ralph Reed had all but fallen from grace. His Christian Coalition was drastically shrunken, not to mention in considerable debt: a far cry from its turn-of-the-century heyday.
But while Reed may have lost some credibility, he did not lose his savvy. In 2009, he founded the Freedom and Faith Coalition, describing it as “a 21st century version of the Christian Coalition.” Soon enough, he was back in the game: throwing star-studded Republican gala fundraisers that showcased the Christian capacity for forgiveness.
And now, here he is: addressing some 3,000 conservatives gathered at the Hyatt Regency in Denver with hair slicked back and a fierce gleam in his eyes. We need a “moral and spiritual great awakening” in American culture, he said, evoking a classic adage of the religious right. Mainstream secular culture has all but abandoned traditional family values over the years, as the reasoning goes, and the resulting dearth of morality is reflected in the liberal politics of Barack Obama and the like.
Much like the narrative put forward during a panel discussion on millennials, Reed made the case that conservative Christian values are victimized in the media. As an example, he pointed to what he saw as the unfair treatment of Phil Robertson, one of the stars of A&E’s Duck Dynasty, who was suspended from the show after an interview with GQ magazine in which he called homosexuality “illogical,” fondly reminisced about pre-civil rights Louisiana and proudly proclaimed himself a Bible-thumper. A&E ultimately reinstated Robertson after a public outcry by Christian conservatives threatening to boycott the network. Reed lamented the way he saw the media initially “bully” Robertson for his Christian beliefs. “We’ve got to quit apologizing for being believers in Christ,” Reed said.
This notion that religious practice should be both proud and public was also present in his—and other speakers’—praise of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby ruling. “We’ve seen a tremendous victory for religious liberty in the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, referring to what has been defined as an employer’s First Amendment right to exclude types of health care he or she religiously opposes—like birth control—in coverage offered to employees.
The Texas senator applauded the right of employers to exclude “abortion-inducing drugs,” tying it in with the biggest culture war issue there is: abortion (which was also called baby-killing and genocide throughout the course of the summit.)
“On women’s reproductive rights, it’s arguable that the Christian right is way more conservative than it was in the 90s,” said Nancy Wadsworth, political science professor at Denver University who specializes in the role of religion and social movements in political culture. People then just weren’t talking about birth control in the context of public policy; only in the last decade has the topic reemerged in this politicized form. “It’s really become quite extreme,” Wadsworth said.
Despite the hard-line rhetoric on abortion, other culture war issues were somewhat downplayed at the summit. Reed said that straight people have done more damage to the institution of marriage than anyone else and there were some hollers of agreement from the audience. Forty percent of marriages in America end in divorce, he pointed out, resulting in a generation of children growing up without a loving mother and father. Reed noted that rates of babies being born out of wedlock are higher in African-American and Hispanic communities.
Before moving on, he enunciated very clearly: “I believe very strongly that marriage should be defined as the sacred union between a man and a woman.” That statement got a loud ovation. But few, if any, speakers at the summit gave any indication that fighting gay marriage is necessarily a policy concern anymore. When the issue was mentioned, it was solely in a cultural context. “Marriage is a value rooted in our Judeo-Christian traditions,” said Dennis Prager, syndicated radio talk show host, “and when they die, marriage dies.”
Other speakers—who are representative of the conservative movement generally, not necessarily the religious wing of it—barely brushed up against the issue. “We shouldn’t be fighting about gay marriage,” conservative journalist Mary Katherine Ham said point-blank.
For an issue that was majorly contentious just a few years ago, gay marriage has almost completely lost its potency as a wedge issue. “With gay marriage, there’s been a retreat,” Wadsworth said, “the younger [evangelicals] are less willing to legislate their values.”
Retreat from overtly political battles is not uncommon, according to patterns of social movements at this stage of maturation. “The heat of the grassroots fervor has diminished a lot,” Wadsworth noted. “The Christian right knows it’s been losing a lot of battles around cultural consensus… so they’ve professionalized. There’s a lot of work behind the scenes.”
There’s a back-and-forth tension within the movement over whether to engage with politics or retreat, and to what extent. At this point, mainstream society is too sinful to be saved, so perhaps evangelicals are better off turning inward to fortify their own communities, one line of reasoning within the movement goes. Others, like Reed, would rather see the Christian right emboldened to instigate “a greater reliance on God” in broader American culture, and the politics will follow.
“The Bible says we’ve been given a spirit not of timidity, but of power,” Reed said, calling on conservatives “to restore this last best hope of mankind—which is one nation, under God.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, July 26, 2014
"Republicans = frivolous. Democrats = serious."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Democrats love all the ‘impeach Obama’ talk
At a Monitor breakfast Friday, an Obama aide said that House Speaker John Boehner’s move to sue President Obama has ‘opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment.’
By Linda Feldmann, July 25, 2014
When Dan Pfeiffer sat down for a Monitor breakfast Friday with reporters, the senior Obama adviser didn’t need to be asked about impeachment. He brought it up himself.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s move to sue President Obama has “opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.
A few hours later, White House spokesman Josh Earnest also didn’t seem to mind talking impeachment, after a reporter brought up Pfeiffer’s comment.
“There are some prominent members of the Republican Party who have articulated their support for articles of impeachment,” Mr. Earnest said at his daily briefing. “What we’re focused on is the business of the American people.”
Translation: Republicans = frivolous. Democrats = serious.
It might not even be too strong to say that Democrats love all the talk of impeachment, even if the most prominent Republican to beat that drum is former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
Or perhaps it’s especially because Ms. Palin is leading the charge that Democrats are gleeful. She’s the perfect foil. Now several years out of elective office, the ex-governor of Alaska and tea party rabble-rouser still knows how to grab headlines. And when she brings up the “I-word,” you can be sure a Democratic fundraising e-mail isn’t far behind.
Less than four months before the November midterms, Palin’s impeachment talk is a gift to Democrats. And it’s not just about money: It’s also about turnout. Democrats are famous for not voting in midterms as reliably as Republicans.
Pfeiffer mentioned a CNN/ORC poll that came out Friday showing that 35 percent of Americans support the impeachment of Mr. Obama, while 57 percent of Republicans do. Pfeiffer even put a timeline on possible impeachment: after Obama takes executive action on immigration, which the aide said would come after the summer.
“I think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point,” he said.
Speaker Boehner’s spokesman called Pfeiffer’s comments “political games.”
Pfeiffer’s comments also created fodder for Democratic fundraising e-mails on impeachment.
“This is an all-hands-on-deck moment,” said an e-mail from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “A top White House official just said that ‘Speaker Boehner ... has opened the door to impeachment ....’ "
Never mind that Boehner and other establishment Republicans know that an effort to impeach Obama would almost surely backfire. Right after House Republicans impeached President Clinton in December 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice, his job approval rating shot up 10 percentage points to 73 percent in the Gallup poll.
It was an all-time high for Mr. Clinton’s presidency, and one of the higher job approval ratings of any US president since the mid-1960s, according to Gallup.
Clinton had also just launched airstrikes against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, a popular move. But there’s no doubt that the House vote for impeachment also boosted Clinton’s stock. Only 31 percent of those polled said the Senate should proceed with a trial. Two months later, Clinton was easily acquitted in the Senate.
Fast-forward to today. Will Republican backbenchers in the House, many of them elected with tea party support, keep up the talk of impeachment, despite the history? Not if their party elders have a say.
“We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment,” House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte (R) of Virginia said July 13 on ABC News’s “This Week.” “The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States. He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.”
But Boehner’s lawsuit is a different matter. On Thursday, the House Rules Committee approved a resolution backing the suit over Obama’s delay of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Republicans say the president overstepped his constitutional authority. The full House is expected to take up the measure before its August recess.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Democrats love all the ‘impeach Obama’ talk
At a Monitor breakfast Friday, an Obama aide said that House Speaker John Boehner’s move to sue President Obama has ‘opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment.’
By Linda Feldmann, July 25, 2014
When Dan Pfeiffer sat down for a Monitor breakfast Friday with reporters, the senior Obama adviser didn’t need to be asked about impeachment. He brought it up himself.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner’s move to sue President Obama has “opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.
A few hours later, White House spokesman Josh Earnest also didn’t seem to mind talking impeachment, after a reporter brought up Pfeiffer’s comment.
“There are some prominent members of the Republican Party who have articulated their support for articles of impeachment,” Mr. Earnest said at his daily briefing. “What we’re focused on is the business of the American people.”
Translation: Republicans = frivolous. Democrats = serious.
It might not even be too strong to say that Democrats love all the talk of impeachment, even if the most prominent Republican to beat that drum is former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
Or perhaps it’s especially because Ms. Palin is leading the charge that Democrats are gleeful. She’s the perfect foil. Now several years out of elective office, the ex-governor of Alaska and tea party rabble-rouser still knows how to grab headlines. And when she brings up the “I-word,” you can be sure a Democratic fundraising e-mail isn’t far behind.
Less than four months before the November midterms, Palin’s impeachment talk is a gift to Democrats. And it’s not just about money: It’s also about turnout. Democrats are famous for not voting in midterms as reliably as Republicans.
Pfeiffer mentioned a CNN/ORC poll that came out Friday showing that 35 percent of Americans support the impeachment of Mr. Obama, while 57 percent of Republicans do. Pfeiffer even put a timeline on possible impeachment: after Obama takes executive action on immigration, which the aide said would come after the summer.
“I think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point,” he said.
Speaker Boehner’s spokesman called Pfeiffer’s comments “political games.”
Pfeiffer’s comments also created fodder for Democratic fundraising e-mails on impeachment.
“This is an all-hands-on-deck moment,” said an e-mail from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “A top White House official just said that ‘Speaker Boehner ... has opened the door to impeachment ....’ "
Never mind that Boehner and other establishment Republicans know that an effort to impeach Obama would almost surely backfire. Right after House Republicans impeached President Clinton in December 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice, his job approval rating shot up 10 percentage points to 73 percent in the Gallup poll.
It was an all-time high for Mr. Clinton’s presidency, and one of the higher job approval ratings of any US president since the mid-1960s, according to Gallup.
Clinton had also just launched airstrikes against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, a popular move. But there’s no doubt that the House vote for impeachment also boosted Clinton’s stock. Only 31 percent of those polled said the Senate should proceed with a trial. Two months later, Clinton was easily acquitted in the Senate.
Fast-forward to today. Will Republican backbenchers in the House, many of them elected with tea party support, keep up the talk of impeachment, despite the history? Not if their party elders have a say.
“We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment,” House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte (R) of Virginia said July 13 on ABC News’s “This Week.” “The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States. He has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.”
But Boehner’s lawsuit is a different matter. On Thursday, the House Rules Committee approved a resolution backing the suit over Obama’s delay of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Republicans say the president overstepped his constitutional authority. The full House is expected to take up the measure before its August recess.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Federal judge tosses out just one of many Republican "political stunts"... err, "cases"
...................................................................................................................................................................
An ‘unfortunate political stunt’ goes awry
By Steve Benen, July 22, 2014
Earlier this year, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) thought he’d come up with a great idea: he’d file a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in the hopes of making coverage more expensive for Capitol Hill staff. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Johnson’s home state of Wisconsin, conceded the senator’s lawsuit was “frivolous” and an “unfortunate political stunt.”
Yesterday, in a development that was arguably even more important than it appears at first blush, a federal judge threw out the case.
Johnson couldn’t, so his case was dismissed. But this is more than just a setback for one Republican senator with a partisan axe to grind; this is also likely the start of things to come for the GOP’s anti-Obama litigation.
Let’s not forget that in April, Johnson not only had high hopes for his case, he also had the enthusiastic support of his Republican colleagues. As we talked about at the time, 38 GOP senators signed onto a legal brief, urging the courts to rule in Johnson’s favor.
As these lawmakers saw it, they were fighting for the preservation of the republic. “The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident,” the brief said. “Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the executive branch to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on a wholesale basis.”
The courts must side with Johnson, the GOP lawmakers’ brief added, because the administration’s campaign “threatens to subvert the most basic precept of our system of government.”
It was, to be sure, a dumb and overdramatic argument. But more important, it also failed miserably – a federal judge ruled late yesterday that without standing to argue the case, far-right lawmakers will have to pursue their preservation of the republic in some other way.
One wonders if House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took note of the developments.
As for the underlying policy issue, a little background is probably in order. Johnson argued that Democrats came up with a congressional subsidy in the ACA “once members realized how harmful Obamacare actually was.” That was brazenly false.
In reality, the law includes a provision that says members of Congress and their staffs have to sign up for coverage through an exchange. This became tricky because the exchange marketplaces were designed primarily for the uninsured, but Republicans said they wanted this in the law, so it’s in there.
But the story got a little more complicated when the Office of Personnel Management had to decide whether lawmakers and their staffs should also receive the same employer subsidy as everyone else, or whether everyone on Capitol Hill should face higher costs just because they work on Capitol Hill. OPM, with the blessing of the House Republican leadership, said lawmakers and aides can keep the same employer subsidy and play by the same rules as everyone else.
And that’s why Johnson sued – he wanted Capitol Hill employees to pay more for health care because it would make the right feel better. As of yesterday, the argument is a bust.
...................................................................................................................................................................
An ‘unfortunate political stunt’ goes awry
By Steve Benen, July 22, 2014
Earlier this year, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) thought he’d come up with a great idea: he’d file a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in the hopes of making coverage more expensive for Capitol Hill staff. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Johnson’s home state of Wisconsin, conceded the senator’s lawsuit was “frivolous” and an “unfortunate political stunt.”
Yesterday, in a development that was arguably even more important than it appears at first blush, a federal judge threw out the case.
A federal judge based in Green Bay has tossed a Sen. Ron Johnson’s Obamacare lawsuit targeting the health benefits for members of Congress and their staff.The hurdle for Johnson’s lawyers was always going to be difficult to clear: how would the Republican senator demonstrate he’d been harmed by the health care policy he doesn’t like? Remember, when filing a lawsuit challenging the legality of a law, plaintiffs can’t just say, “I don’t like it.” They need to show how they’ve been adversely affected by it.
The court dismissed the lawsuit, which contended the Obama administration decision to grant employer contributions for health plans purchased through the District of Columbia’s Obamacare health exchange ran afoul of the law.
Chief Judge William C. Griesbach of the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that Johnson and fellow plaintiff Brooke Ericson lacked standing, siding with the argument made by the government’s lawyers.
Johnson couldn’t, so his case was dismissed. But this is more than just a setback for one Republican senator with a partisan axe to grind; this is also likely the start of things to come for the GOP’s anti-Obama litigation.
Let’s not forget that in April, Johnson not only had high hopes for his case, he also had the enthusiastic support of his Republican colleagues. As we talked about at the time, 38 GOP senators signed onto a legal brief, urging the courts to rule in Johnson’s favor.
As these lawmakers saw it, they were fighting for the preservation of the republic. “The unlawful executive action at issue in this case is not an isolated incident,” the brief said. “Rather, it is part of an ongoing campaign by the executive branch to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on a wholesale basis.”
The courts must side with Johnson, the GOP lawmakers’ brief added, because the administration’s campaign “threatens to subvert the most basic precept of our system of government.”
It was, to be sure, a dumb and overdramatic argument. But more important, it also failed miserably – a federal judge ruled late yesterday that without standing to argue the case, far-right lawmakers will have to pursue their preservation of the republic in some other way.
One wonders if House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took note of the developments.
As for the underlying policy issue, a little background is probably in order. Johnson argued that Democrats came up with a congressional subsidy in the ACA “once members realized how harmful Obamacare actually was.” That was brazenly false.
In reality, the law includes a provision that says members of Congress and their staffs have to sign up for coverage through an exchange. This became tricky because the exchange marketplaces were designed primarily for the uninsured, but Republicans said they wanted this in the law, so it’s in there.
But the story got a little more complicated when the Office of Personnel Management had to decide whether lawmakers and their staffs should also receive the same employer subsidy as everyone else, or whether everyone on Capitol Hill should face higher costs just because they work on Capitol Hill. OPM, with the blessing of the House Republican leadership, said lawmakers and aides can keep the same employer subsidy and play by the same rules as everyone else.
And that’s why Johnson sued – he wanted Capitol Hill employees to pay more for health care because it would make the right feel better. As of yesterday, the argument is a bust.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Excuse me? Doesn't this assume that Republicans actually have principles?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Again Violate Their Own Principles
By David Morris, July 26, 2014
By the time you read this, Congressional Republicans will have overwhelmingly voted to violate one of their most cherished guiding principles: A service should be paid for by those who use the service. If we don't fully pay for services, Republicans usually insist, markets can't work effectively. We undervalue and overuse services, resulting in wasteful overspending.
All of which makes the debate about renewing and replenishing the months-long federal highway trust fund so revealing. This spring Republicans made clear their position: No new taxes. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), speaking for himself and his party declared, "I do not support, and the House will not support, billions of dollars in higher taxes to pay for more spending" on transportation.
Camp's position might be reasonable if he and his fellow Republicans were at the same time willing to abide by another of their basic principles: Live within your budget. If you don't have the money, don't spend it. In this instance, if drivers are unwilling to pay the road budget then cut federal highway spending by 28 percent, which would reduce overall national road spending by about 7 percent.
But Republicans don't want to cut road expenditures. They just don't want drivers to pay. The result has been months devising strategies to divert money from other sources. In May, in a memo to rank and file House Speaker John Beohner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) insisted they had come up with a perfect "way to ensure continued funding of highway projects in a fiscally responsible manner." They would make up the highway-financing gap by eliminating Saturday postal delivery! To ensure that the roads are adequate for delivering the mail they will no longer deliver the mail.
Eventually Republicans decided that sacrificing the post office to ensure that drivers could use the roads more cheaply was politically unworkable.
By now I know many readers are asking, "What about Democrats?" After all, the House proposal was passed by a bipartisan vote of 367-55. True. But Democrats swear no fealty to the proposition that all services should, whenever possible, be fully paid by users. They believe I should pay for the public library even if I don't use it. I should pay for the public park even if I don't use it. They believe these are public goods available always to all. Republicans, or at least Republicans circa 2014 don't seem to believe there are public goods.
Certainly some aspects of roads may be considered public goods. Even those who don't drive may need them to deliver fire or police protection or ambulance services. Which would argue that some part of the road budget could justifiably come from the general public purse.
But the Republicans don't make that argument. And if they did they would have to confront the fact that there are public costs as well as public benefits to roads. The environmental damages caused by driving, for example, far outweigh the taxes paid at the pump. To redress these damages some propose raising the gas tax by $1 or $2 per gallon or more. Republicans refuse to even entertain the notion. If they are so ideologically hidebound that they won't even require drivers to pay for their roads, how could they possibly ask them to pay for the actual damages caused by their driving?
Republicans have not always been willing to so quickly violate basic conservative economic principles. Prior to l956 highways were financed directly from the federal Treasury. Then in 1956, at the insistence of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower the Highway Trust Fund was established with revenue generated from a dedicated fuel tax. The original tax was 3 cents per gallon. Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush each raised the tax by 5 cents per gallon. In 1993, President Clinton raised it by a little over 4 cents. And there, at 18.4 cents per gallon, it has remained for the last 21 years.
In 2008 the highway trust fund experienced a shortfall, a result of reduced driving due to sky-high oil prices. Congress made up the shortfall with $8 billion from general funds. In 2009 and 2010, Congress again supplied general funds.
The hope was that eventually Congr,ess would develop a long term funding plan that would include a gas tax increase. In 2013 none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported such a move. The Republicans would have none of it.
Washington Republicans are not the only ones violating the user pays principle. The Tax Foundation estimates that overall state and local governments finance only 32 percent out of user fees. Federal funding brings this total up to 50 percent. The rest comes out of general funds. In the case of cities the majority comes from property taxes.
Recently states, Republican as well as Democrat, have begun raising gas taxes. Eighteen states currently impose a gasoline sales tax whose revenue rises with gas prices or pegs the tax to the rate of inflation. But 16 states have not raised their gas taxes for two decades or more. Recently Wyoming raised its gas tax for the first time in 16 years. New Hampshire hiked its gas tax for the first time in 23 years. But states and cities have a long way to go before they could consider their transportation funding mechanisms self-sustaining.
By the time you read this, Congress may have jimmy rigged a temporary solution to the highway funding shortfall. Which means we get to have the same debate again next year. Perhaps Republicans will propose slashing food stamps or Medicare or Pell grants. Anything to avoid having to require those who use the roads to pay for the roads.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Again Violate Their Own Principles
By David Morris, July 26, 2014
By the time you read this, Congressional Republicans will have overwhelmingly voted to violate one of their most cherished guiding principles: A service should be paid for by those who use the service. If we don't fully pay for services, Republicans usually insist, markets can't work effectively. We undervalue and overuse services, resulting in wasteful overspending.
All of which makes the debate about renewing and replenishing the months-long federal highway trust fund so revealing. This spring Republicans made clear their position: No new taxes. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), speaking for himself and his party declared, "I do not support, and the House will not support, billions of dollars in higher taxes to pay for more spending" on transportation.
Camp's position might be reasonable if he and his fellow Republicans were at the same time willing to abide by another of their basic principles: Live within your budget. If you don't have the money, don't spend it. In this instance, if drivers are unwilling to pay the road budget then cut federal highway spending by 28 percent, which would reduce overall national road spending by about 7 percent.
But Republicans don't want to cut road expenditures. They just don't want drivers to pay. The result has been months devising strategies to divert money from other sources. In May, in a memo to rank and file House Speaker John Beohner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) insisted they had come up with a perfect "way to ensure continued funding of highway projects in a fiscally responsible manner." They would make up the highway-financing gap by eliminating Saturday postal delivery! To ensure that the roads are adequate for delivering the mail they will no longer deliver the mail.
Eventually Republicans decided that sacrificing the post office to ensure that drivers could use the roads more cheaply was politically unworkable.
By now I know many readers are asking, "What about Democrats?" After all, the House proposal was passed by a bipartisan vote of 367-55. True. But Democrats swear no fealty to the proposition that all services should, whenever possible, be fully paid by users. They believe I should pay for the public library even if I don't use it. I should pay for the public park even if I don't use it. They believe these are public goods available always to all. Republicans, or at least Republicans circa 2014 don't seem to believe there are public goods.
Certainly some aspects of roads may be considered public goods. Even those who don't drive may need them to deliver fire or police protection or ambulance services. Which would argue that some part of the road budget could justifiably come from the general public purse.
But the Republicans don't make that argument. And if they did they would have to confront the fact that there are public costs as well as public benefits to roads. The environmental damages caused by driving, for example, far outweigh the taxes paid at the pump. To redress these damages some propose raising the gas tax by $1 or $2 per gallon or more. Republicans refuse to even entertain the notion. If they are so ideologically hidebound that they won't even require drivers to pay for their roads, how could they possibly ask them to pay for the actual damages caused by their driving?
Republicans have not always been willing to so quickly violate basic conservative economic principles. Prior to l956 highways were financed directly from the federal Treasury. Then in 1956, at the insistence of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower the Highway Trust Fund was established with revenue generated from a dedicated fuel tax. The original tax was 3 cents per gallon. Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush each raised the tax by 5 cents per gallon. In 1993, President Clinton raised it by a little over 4 cents. And there, at 18.4 cents per gallon, it has remained for the last 21 years.
In 2008 the highway trust fund experienced a shortfall, a result of reduced driving due to sky-high oil prices. Congress made up the shortfall with $8 billion from general funds. In 2009 and 2010, Congress again supplied general funds.
The hope was that eventually Congr,ess would develop a long term funding plan that would include a gas tax increase. In 2013 none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported such a move. The Republicans would have none of it.
Washington Republicans are not the only ones violating the user pays principle. The Tax Foundation estimates that overall state and local governments finance only 32 percent out of user fees. Federal funding brings this total up to 50 percent. The rest comes out of general funds. In the case of cities the majority comes from property taxes.
Recently states, Republican as well as Democrat, have begun raising gas taxes. Eighteen states currently impose a gasoline sales tax whose revenue rises with gas prices or pegs the tax to the rate of inflation. But 16 states have not raised their gas taxes for two decades or more. Recently Wyoming raised its gas tax for the first time in 16 years. New Hampshire hiked its gas tax for the first time in 23 years. But states and cities have a long way to go before they could consider their transportation funding mechanisms self-sustaining.
By the time you read this, Congress may have jimmy rigged a temporary solution to the highway funding shortfall. Which means we get to have the same debate again next year. Perhaps Republicans will propose slashing food stamps or Medicare or Pell grants. Anything to avoid having to require those who use the roads to pay for the roads.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, July 25, 2014
"The primary offense of Justices Clark, Lee and Wade? Appointing an attorney general who did not join 27 other state AGs in a 2012 lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act." Gee, isn't that too bad?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers direct ire, money against Tennessee judges
By Rob Robertson, July 24, 2014
The Tennessee chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a network of conservative organizations founded and funded by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, says it is launching “a major new effort” to unseat three Tennessee Supreme Court justices and the state’s attorney general.
The AFP (“the state's foremost advocate for economic freedom”) says it will launch radio and direct mail efforts across the state to “educate the public on the liberal records” of Tennessee Supreme Court Justices Gary Wade, Sharon Lee and Cornelia A. Clark and Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper.
The primary offense of Justices Clark, Lee and Wade? Appointing an attorney general who did not join 27 other state AGs in a 2012 lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act.
The AFP campaign is part of an effort initiated by Tennessee Lt. Gov. and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville) and the Republican State Leadership Committee, which seeks to defeat the three justices, all of whom were appointed by former Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat.
The GOP campaign is the first serious challenge to sitting Supreme Court justices in nearly two decades.
Only one Supreme Court justice, Penny White, has been defeated in a retention election. White lost her position in 1996 after a campaign centered on her stance in a death penalty case.
Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court are appointed by the governor to serve eight-year terms, and then voters determine whether the justices should be retained or replaced during the August election. Ordinarily this process is benign and not particularly partisan, but this year is different.
Ramsey is also working to build support for a constitutional amendment that would get the state legislature much more involved with how appellate court judges are seated.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers direct ire, money against Tennessee judges
By Rob Robertson, July 24, 2014
The Tennessee chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a network of conservative organizations founded and funded by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, says it is launching “a major new effort” to unseat three Tennessee Supreme Court justices and the state’s attorney general.
The AFP (“the state's foremost advocate for economic freedom”) says it will launch radio and direct mail efforts across the state to “educate the public on the liberal records” of Tennessee Supreme Court Justices Gary Wade, Sharon Lee and Cornelia A. Clark and Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper.
The primary offense of Justices Clark, Lee and Wade? Appointing an attorney general who did not join 27 other state AGs in a 2012 lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act.
The AFP campaign is part of an effort initiated by Tennessee Lt. Gov. and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville) and the Republican State Leadership Committee, which seeks to defeat the three justices, all of whom were appointed by former Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat.
The GOP campaign is the first serious challenge to sitting Supreme Court justices in nearly two decades.
Only one Supreme Court justice, Penny White, has been defeated in a retention election. White lost her position in 1996 after a campaign centered on her stance in a death penalty case.
Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court are appointed by the governor to serve eight-year terms, and then voters determine whether the justices should be retained or replaced during the August election. Ordinarily this process is benign and not particularly partisan, but this year is different.
Ramsey is also working to build support for a constitutional amendment that would get the state legislature much more involved with how appellate court judges are seated.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... in America, armed men and women marching around spouting hatred for the president at the very spot where a former president was assassinated is business as usual."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas gun nuts’ scary ritual: How hatred of a president turned profane
Three weeks before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a concerned citizen from Dallas named Mrs. Nelle M. Doyle wrote a letter to White House press secretary Pierre Salinger. She was worried about the president’s visit. This is what she wrote:
The right-wing hatred for John F. Kennedy was in some ways as extreme as the hatred for Barack Obama and nowhere was it more energized than Dallas in 1963. Three years earlier, right-wingers in the city had signaled their anti-Kennedy zeal by turning on its native son, Lyndon Johnson, after he accepted the nomination for vice president. He and his wife, Lady Bird, were accosted by a shrieking mob of conservative women in front of their hotel armed with signs saying he’d sold out to “Yankee Socialists.” It was downhill from there. Over the next three years the simmer burst into a full boil as various luminaries of the John Birch Society such as millionaire oil man H.L. Hunt and the anti-communist fanatic Gen. Edwin Walker, a zealot so far to the right that he even believed Eisenhower was a communist, fanned the flames of anti-Kennedy hatred.
Walker was at the center of the plot against Adlai Stephenson to which Mrs. Doyle referred in her letter. He had exhorted his followers (some of whom belonged to group that unironically called itself the “National Indignation Convention”) to confront the U.N. ambassador when he came to town and they did, hitting him with signs and spitting in his face before he could be rescued by the police. At the scene he famously asked, “Are these human beings or are these animals?”
It’s estimated about 5,000 of these fliers were distributed all over downtown Dallas in the days leading up to the presidential visit.
[snipped]
The morning of Nov. 22, the Dallas Morning News featured a full-page ad “welcoming” the president to Dallas. After a preamble in which they proclaimed their fealty to the Constitution and defiantly asserted their right to be conservative, they demanded to be allowed to “address their grievances.” They posed a long series of “when did you stop beating your wife” questions asking why Kennedy was helping the Communist cause around the world. Here’s an example:
As we all know, later that day the president was gunned down in Dealey Plaza. The entire world was shocked and traumatized by that event and the course of history was changed.
So why bring this up today? That was a long time ago and we’ve moved on from those days, right? The John Birch Society is a relic of another time. Anti-communism is still a rallying cry on the right, but without the Soviet threat, it’s lost much of its power.
Unfortunately, the venom, the incoherent conspiracy-mongering, the visceral loathing still exist. In fact, in one of the most obliviously obtuse acts of sacrilege imaginable, Dealey Plaza is now the regular site of open-carry demonstrations. That’s right, a group of looney gun proliferation activists meet regularly on the site of one of the most notorious acts of gun violence in the nation’s history to spout right-wing conspiracy theories about the president while ostentatiously waving around deadly weapons.
Travelers from other nations who come to Dealey Plaza to pay their respects are undoubtedly startled to see yahoos carrying guns and passing out extremist literature very much like the literature that was distributed in Dallas in the fall of 1963. In most places in this world such contempt for national hallowed ground would be frowned upon by decent people. But in America, armed men and women marching around spouting hatred for the president at the very spot where a former president was assassinated is business as usual. We are “free” here to carry guns in public and dare others to argue with us. But that doesn’t make it any less vulgar and profane to do it in a place of national grief — and what should be a monument to right-wing ignominy.
On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, historian Darwin Payne, who was a journalist in Dallas in 1963, said, “You could feel it in the air. When I hear some people express hatred for Obama, it feels the same. But I never have felt we are on the verge of anything like the events I witnessed back then.” Let’s hope he’s right. There are a whole lot of people with a political ax to grind who are wandering around our streets armed to the teeth. As Mrs. Doyle said in her letter, “These people are crazy, or crazed, and I’m sure that we must realize that their actions in the future are unpredictable.”
Here’s the video of the Dealey Plaza open carry event.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas gun nuts’ scary ritual: How hatred of a president turned profane
The "open carry" crew is now spouting right-wing conspiracy theories and waving guns in the worst place imaginable
By Heather Digby Parton, July 24, 2014Three weeks before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a concerned citizen from Dallas named Mrs. Nelle M. Doyle wrote a letter to White House press secretary Pierre Salinger. She was worried about the president’s visit. This is what she wrote:
Although I do not consider myself an ‘alarmist’, I do fervently hope that President kennedy can be dissuaded from appearing in the city of Dallas, Texas as much as I would enjoy hearing and seeing him.Unfortunately, her prediction wasn’t alarmist enough as it turned out.
This ‘hoodlum mob’ in Dallas is frenzied and infuriated that their attack on Ambassador Adlai Stephenson on the 24th, backfired on them. I have heard that some of them have said they “have just started.”
No number of policemen, plainclothes men or militia can control the “air” Mr Salinger — it is a dreadful thought but all remember the fate of President McKinley.
These people are crazy, or crazed, and I’m sure that we must realize that their actions in the future are unpredictable.
The right-wing hatred for John F. Kennedy was in some ways as extreme as the hatred for Barack Obama and nowhere was it more energized than Dallas in 1963. Three years earlier, right-wingers in the city had signaled their anti-Kennedy zeal by turning on its native son, Lyndon Johnson, after he accepted the nomination for vice president. He and his wife, Lady Bird, were accosted by a shrieking mob of conservative women in front of their hotel armed with signs saying he’d sold out to “Yankee Socialists.” It was downhill from there. Over the next three years the simmer burst into a full boil as various luminaries of the John Birch Society such as millionaire oil man H.L. Hunt and the anti-communist fanatic Gen. Edwin Walker, a zealot so far to the right that he even believed Eisenhower was a communist, fanned the flames of anti-Kennedy hatred.
Walker was at the center of the plot against Adlai Stephenson to which Mrs. Doyle referred in her letter. He had exhorted his followers (some of whom belonged to group that unironically called itself the “National Indignation Convention”) to confront the U.N. ambassador when he came to town and they did, hitting him with signs and spitting in his face before he could be rescued by the police. At the scene he famously asked, “Are these human beings or are these animals?”
It’s estimated about 5,000 of these fliers were distributed all over downtown Dallas in the days leading up to the presidential visit.
[snipped]
The morning of Nov. 22, the Dallas Morning News featured a full-page ad “welcoming” the president to Dallas. After a preamble in which they proclaimed their fealty to the Constitution and defiantly asserted their right to be conservative, they demanded to be allowed to “address their grievances.” They posed a long series of “when did you stop beating your wife” questions asking why Kennedy was helping the Communist cause around the world. Here’s an example:
WHY has Gus Hall, head of the U.S. Communist Party praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your re-election in 1964?You get the drift. And you probably recognize the tone. The subject may have changed somewhat but the arrogant attitude combined with the aggrieved victimization is a hallmark of right-wing politics even today.
WHY have you banned the showing at U.S. military bases of the film “Operation Abolition”–the movie by the House Committee on Un-American Activities exposing Communism in America?
WHY have you ordered or permitted your brother Bobby, the Attorney General, to go soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America, while permitting him to persecute loyal Americans who criticize you, your administration, and your leadership?
WHY has the Foreign Policy of the United States degenerated to the point that the C.I.A. is arranging coups and having staunch Anti-Communists Allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated.
WHY have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the “Spirit of Moscow”?
MR. KENNEDY, as citizens of the United States of America, we DEMAND answers to these questions, and we want them NOW.
As we all know, later that day the president was gunned down in Dealey Plaza. The entire world was shocked and traumatized by that event and the course of history was changed.
So why bring this up today? That was a long time ago and we’ve moved on from those days, right? The John Birch Society is a relic of another time. Anti-communism is still a rallying cry on the right, but without the Soviet threat, it’s lost much of its power.
Unfortunately, the venom, the incoherent conspiracy-mongering, the visceral loathing still exist. In fact, in one of the most obliviously obtuse acts of sacrilege imaginable, Dealey Plaza is now the regular site of open-carry demonstrations. That’s right, a group of looney gun proliferation activists meet regularly on the site of one of the most notorious acts of gun violence in the nation’s history to spout right-wing conspiracy theories about the president while ostentatiously waving around deadly weapons.
Travelers from other nations who come to Dealey Plaza to pay their respects are undoubtedly startled to see yahoos carrying guns and passing out extremist literature very much like the literature that was distributed in Dallas in the fall of 1963. In most places in this world such contempt for national hallowed ground would be frowned upon by decent people. But in America, armed men and women marching around spouting hatred for the president at the very spot where a former president was assassinated is business as usual. We are “free” here to carry guns in public and dare others to argue with us. But that doesn’t make it any less vulgar and profane to do it in a place of national grief — and what should be a monument to right-wing ignominy.
On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, historian Darwin Payne, who was a journalist in Dallas in 1963, said, “You could feel it in the air. When I hear some people express hatred for Obama, it feels the same. But I never have felt we are on the verge of anything like the events I witnessed back then.” Let’s hope he’s right. There are a whole lot of people with a political ax to grind who are wandering around our streets armed to the teeth. As Mrs. Doyle said in her letter, “These people are crazy, or crazed, and I’m sure that we must realize that their actions in the future are unpredictable.”
Here’s the video of the Dealey Plaza open carry event.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"This is a Congress that will happily fund things that create orphans but when it comes to taking care of any—suddenly the coffers are dry."
...................................................................................................................................................................
About the Wilburforce law:
Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking
Summary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Reauthorizations
...................................................................................................................................................................
Children Seeking Asylum and Finding Antipathy
By Tina Dupuy, July 24, 2014
I might be the only syndicated columnist in the country who was raised by the state. So when lawmakers and public pontificators discuss the welfare of unaccompanied minors who’ve been dropped on our proverbial doorstep, I should probably speak up.
I was a ward of the court starting at 13 until I aged out after graduating high school at 17. (In retrospect, I should have been put in foster care much earlier.) My birth parents were not able to take care of me; I was handed over to an entity that would: The Government.
Now when I’ve told people I was raised by the state, sometimes I’ll get pushback. They’ll say, “Tina, you were raised by people.” And yes, both statements are true. My adolescence was paid for by taxpayers, funded by legislators and organized by administrators. They, like corporations, are people.
And those people took great interest and care in my emotional and intellectual wellbeing. And those people made sure I was safe. And those people didn’t feel the need to punish me for the shortcomings of my parents.
There’s an old English law referred to as “corruption of blood.” Essentially if the father committed treason, they’d also punish his children. North Korea, the bastion of human rights, has a similar philosophy. They will lock up the entire family of anyone who commits a crime and also the next two generations will be born in gulags for that crime. But we don’t do that in the U.S. The framers were so appalled by this practice that they put into the Constitution, Article III, Section III “…but no attainder of treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”
Meaning, in this country you’re not tainted for the sins of your parents. You don’t inherit their debt, you don’t serve time for their crimes and you’re not held accountable for them shipping you away from The Murder Capital of the World.
But that was before the Grand Old Party made “empathy” into a bad word. That was before they deemed “amnesty” to be the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Republic. That was before Republicans in the House had a single goal which crushes out all common decency: Foil Obama.
It’s the only reasonable explanation as to why when a flood of what are essentially orphans end up at our border because of a 2008 bipartisan law signed by George W. Bush, Republican lawmakers and their echosphere support team feel obligated to call it Obama’s Katrina.
Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest natural disaster in this country in nearly 100 years. The comparison is an affront to all 1,833 Americans who lost their lives while Bush was celebrating John McCain’s birthday.
If this is Obama’s Katrina, everyone gleefully using the analogy is the festering mold that ate the city after the waters receded.
Children are not illegal. Refugees are not illegal. Actually, because of the law Bush signed these kids at the border are here legally. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, gives protections to children here alone and not from Mexico or Canada. One protection is not sending them back to their country of origin immediately—instead giving them access to an immigration hearing with an advocate and counsel.
These are not criminals. It’s irrelevant who their parents are or how they got here. These children are an expected consequence of a law to shelter children from unspeakable situations.
We are not Arizona state lawmaker, Adam Kwasman, now running for Congress, who while protesting tweeted a picture of a bus full of YMCA campers because he thought they were migrant children. “This is the abrogation of the rule of law,” he wrote. (It’s like if Wallace wanted to stand in the schoolhouse door and ended up blocking the entrance to a DMV instead.)
We are not this. We are better than this.
Congress has another week to address this crisis before their undeserved break. Since Republicans have vowed to not get anything done, the bill they proposed has in it funding to fight wildfires in the west and “$225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.”
This is a Congress that will happily fund things that create orphans but when it comes to taking care of any—suddenly the coffers are dry.
Tell Congress to take care of these evacuee children. It’s the least (absolutely the least) they can do.
...................................................................................................................................................................
About the Wilburforce law:
Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking
Summary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Reauthorizations
...................................................................................................................................................................
Children Seeking Asylum and Finding Antipathy
By Tina Dupuy, July 24, 2014
I might be the only syndicated columnist in the country who was raised by the state. So when lawmakers and public pontificators discuss the welfare of unaccompanied minors who’ve been dropped on our proverbial doorstep, I should probably speak up.
I was a ward of the court starting at 13 until I aged out after graduating high school at 17. (In retrospect, I should have been put in foster care much earlier.) My birth parents were not able to take care of me; I was handed over to an entity that would: The Government.
Now when I’ve told people I was raised by the state, sometimes I’ll get pushback. They’ll say, “Tina, you were raised by people.” And yes, both statements are true. My adolescence was paid for by taxpayers, funded by legislators and organized by administrators. They, like corporations, are people.
And those people took great interest and care in my emotional and intellectual wellbeing. And those people made sure I was safe. And those people didn’t feel the need to punish me for the shortcomings of my parents.
There’s an old English law referred to as “corruption of blood.” Essentially if the father committed treason, they’d also punish his children. North Korea, the bastion of human rights, has a similar philosophy. They will lock up the entire family of anyone who commits a crime and also the next two generations will be born in gulags for that crime. But we don’t do that in the U.S. The framers were so appalled by this practice that they put into the Constitution, Article III, Section III “…but no attainder of treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”
Meaning, in this country you’re not tainted for the sins of your parents. You don’t inherit their debt, you don’t serve time for their crimes and you’re not held accountable for them shipping you away from The Murder Capital of the World.
But that was before the Grand Old Party made “empathy” into a bad word. That was before they deemed “amnesty” to be the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse of the Republic. That was before Republicans in the House had a single goal which crushes out all common decency: Foil Obama.
It’s the only reasonable explanation as to why when a flood of what are essentially orphans end up at our border because of a 2008 bipartisan law signed by George W. Bush, Republican lawmakers and their echosphere support team feel obligated to call it Obama’s Katrina.
Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest natural disaster in this country in nearly 100 years. The comparison is an affront to all 1,833 Americans who lost their lives while Bush was celebrating John McCain’s birthday.
If this is Obama’s Katrina, everyone gleefully using the analogy is the festering mold that ate the city after the waters receded.
Children are not illegal. Refugees are not illegal. Actually, because of the law Bush signed these kids at the border are here legally. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, gives protections to children here alone and not from Mexico or Canada. One protection is not sending them back to their country of origin immediately—instead giving them access to an immigration hearing with an advocate and counsel.
These are not criminals. It’s irrelevant who their parents are or how they got here. These children are an expected consequence of a law to shelter children from unspeakable situations.
We are not Arizona state lawmaker, Adam Kwasman, now running for Congress, who while protesting tweeted a picture of a bus full of YMCA campers because he thought they were migrant children. “This is the abrogation of the rule of law,” he wrote. (It’s like if Wallace wanted to stand in the schoolhouse door and ended up blocking the entrance to a DMV instead.)
We are not this. We are better than this.
Congress has another week to address this crisis before their undeserved break. Since Republicans have vowed to not get anything done, the bill they proposed has in it funding to fight wildfires in the west and “$225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.”
This is a Congress that will happily fund things that create orphans but when it comes to taking care of any—suddenly the coffers are dry.
Tell Congress to take care of these evacuee children. It’s the least (absolutely the least) they can do.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, July 24, 2014
"A majority of Americans no longer believe either party represents America ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Redefining Our Terms: How Discussing Politics in America Needs to Change
By Shawn M. Griffiths, July 24, 2014
As the political divide between the Republican and Democratic parties widens and voters increasingly reject not only major party candidates, but an election system that disenfranchises millions of voters nationwide and disenchants millions more, it is important to examine the traditional “red versus blue” paradigm and whether or not certain terms can still apply — or were ever truly applicable — in the contemporary political environment.
Current trends suggest that the number of voters who choose not to register with the Republican and Democratic parties will continue to rise while a plurality of voters now choose to self-identify as independent of either major party. A majority of Americans no longer believe either party represents America and partisan gridlock has gotten so bad that the Legislative Branch is no longer productive or even functional.
The result of all this is an increased call to “moderate the nation’s politics,” but what exactly does this mean? Is the goal to just find a solution that falls somewhere between Republican and Democratic ideals? Or, is the goal to get lawmakers to focus on the most critical issues facing their constituents and finding practical and pragmatic solutions that actually work?
How does one define moderate or centrist? In the current political environment, centrists are often defined as people who hold a mix of conservative and liberal ideas, but as Chad Peace appropriately asks, “What if some voters are “left” of the Democrats on some issues, and “right” of the Republicans on others?” Can that really be described as a form of moderation? The short answer is no.
IVN contributor Josh Alvarez points out that people often make the mistake of confusing the terms “independent” and “moderate.”
Analysts like to say independents lean toward one party or the other as if these voters are standing in the middle of two poles — swaying to one side or the other. Yet, a closer examination of so-called “moderates” shows that these voters are just as likely to hold extreme positions on various issues as partisan voters — sometimes even more extreme.
So, how is the term “moderate” appropriate?
There may indeed be people who believe that somewhere between Republican and Democratic ideals, there is a practical solution to be found. However, what would the moderate view on privacy be? If many Democratic and Republican lawmakers agree on, say, NSA surveillance, how would the “middle” be defined?
Further, suggesting that merely finding a moderate or bipartisan solution to a problem is going to produce a positive result suggests that we should continue to look at issues the same way.
Bipartisan solutions have, historically, not resulted in real solutions. At best, these “solutions” just kick the proverbial can down the road for the next generation to deal with. At worst, the middle-of-the-road approach can have an adverse effect and make things harder for the next generation.
The reason this happens is because the bipartisan approach often looks at issues and topics the same way.
How has the partisan conversation on the economy, taxes, foreign affairs, national security, defense, etc. changed over the years? The party leaders may change, but the conversation always stays the same.
Republicans and Democrats look at issues the same way they always have. They continue to ask the same questions and yet the answers given to these questions have not successfully resulted in real solutions, even when the answers are combined to form bipartisan compromise.
To have a real conversation about voters, elections, ending partisan gridlock, increasing voter turnout, and solving the most critical issues facing the nation, we first need to re-evaluate the way we examine problems.
While the initial response to this may be that it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated, it is something people rarely do. The temptation is to look at problems the same way because society has been conditioned to look at them a certain way. We rarely think about questions that are not being examined, but could benefit the problem-solving process.
People talk about taking a “bipartisan” or “centrist-leaning” approach without actually defining what that means or taking the time to ask if such an approach actually works. If we want to look at problems from a truly independent-minded perspective, then we need to be willing to redefine the questions we ask and the terms we use.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Redefining Our Terms: How Discussing Politics in America Needs to Change
By Shawn M. Griffiths, July 24, 2014
As the political divide between the Republican and Democratic parties widens and voters increasingly reject not only major party candidates, but an election system that disenfranchises millions of voters nationwide and disenchants millions more, it is important to examine the traditional “red versus blue” paradigm and whether or not certain terms can still apply — or were ever truly applicable — in the contemporary political environment.
Current trends suggest that the number of voters who choose not to register with the Republican and Democratic parties will continue to rise while a plurality of voters now choose to self-identify as independent of either major party. A majority of Americans no longer believe either party represents America and partisan gridlock has gotten so bad that the Legislative Branch is no longer productive or even functional.
The result of all this is an increased call to “moderate the nation’s politics,” but what exactly does this mean? Is the goal to just find a solution that falls somewhere between Republican and Democratic ideals? Or, is the goal to get lawmakers to focus on the most critical issues facing their constituents and finding practical and pragmatic solutions that actually work?
How does one define moderate or centrist? In the current political environment, centrists are often defined as people who hold a mix of conservative and liberal ideas, but as Chad Peace appropriately asks, “What if some voters are “left” of the Democrats on some issues, and “right” of the Republicans on others?” Can that really be described as a form of moderation? The short answer is no.
IVN contributor Josh Alvarez points out that people often make the mistake of confusing the terms “independent” and “moderate.”
Analysts like to say independents lean toward one party or the other as if these voters are standing in the middle of two poles — swaying to one side or the other. Yet, a closer examination of so-called “moderates” shows that these voters are just as likely to hold extreme positions on various issues as partisan voters — sometimes even more extreme.
So, how is the term “moderate” appropriate?
There may indeed be people who believe that somewhere between Republican and Democratic ideals, there is a practical solution to be found. However, what would the moderate view on privacy be? If many Democratic and Republican lawmakers agree on, say, NSA surveillance, how would the “middle” be defined?
Further, suggesting that merely finding a moderate or bipartisan solution to a problem is going to produce a positive result suggests that we should continue to look at issues the same way.
Bipartisan solutions have, historically, not resulted in real solutions. At best, these “solutions” just kick the proverbial can down the road for the next generation to deal with. At worst, the middle-of-the-road approach can have an adverse effect and make things harder for the next generation.
The reason this happens is because the bipartisan approach often looks at issues and topics the same way.
How has the partisan conversation on the economy, taxes, foreign affairs, national security, defense, etc. changed over the years? The party leaders may change, but the conversation always stays the same.
Republicans and Democrats look at issues the same way they always have. They continue to ask the same questions and yet the answers given to these questions have not successfully resulted in real solutions, even when the answers are combined to form bipartisan compromise.
To have a real conversation about voters, elections, ending partisan gridlock, increasing voter turnout, and solving the most critical issues facing the nation, we first need to re-evaluate the way we examine problems.
While the initial response to this may be that it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated, it is something people rarely do. The temptation is to look at problems the same way because society has been conditioned to look at them a certain way. We rarely think about questions that are not being examined, but could benefit the problem-solving process.
People talk about taking a “bipartisan” or “centrist-leaning” approach without actually defining what that means or taking the time to ask if such an approach actually works. If we want to look at problems from a truly independent-minded perspective, then we need to be willing to redefine the questions we ask and the terms we use.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Senatortoise"-- new label for Senators
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pardon me for chortling, but I just discovered a wonderful, absolutely marvelous term for our esteemed members of the U.S. Senate: "Senatortoise". It has been especially applied to Mitch McConnell, but many of his GOP cohorts also deserve it, don't you think? Even some of the Democrats should carry the label.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pardon me for chortling, but I just discovered a wonderful, absolutely marvelous term for our esteemed members of the U.S. Senate: "Senatortoise". It has been especially applied to Mitch McConnell, but many of his GOP cohorts also deserve it, don't you think? Even some of the Democrats should carry the label.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Greg Abbott doesn’t want Texans to know if there are hazardous substances in their neighborhoods because his donors [the Koch brothers!] paid him off to keep that information secret."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Pay Greg Abbott to Play Chemical Russian Roulette With Texas Residents
By Adalia Woodbury, July 17, 2014
Take one Greg Abbott add some Koch money and you get policies that put Koch profit over the safety of people in Texas.
According to Abbott’s latest campaign finance report, the Koch Brothers donated a total of $100,000 to the Abbott campaign. Koch interests donated $75,000 following the deadly explosion at the West Fertilizer Company. That explosion killed 15 and injured 160 people. It destroyed 200 homes and caused a total of $100 million in property damage.
The subsequent investigation revealed numerous safety violations at the West Fertilizer company, including unsafe handling and storage of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate. OSHA found poor labeling of ammonia storage tanks as well as replacement hoses that were not tested for pressure.
Although sensible people recognize the purpose of safety standards is to prevent tragedies like the West Fertilizer Company explosion, in Koch world safety standards mean government interference in the free market. It comes as little surprise that they would provide Abbott with a $100,000 to date incentive to place Koch profits above the safety of Texas voters and their families.
Abbott already has a record of looking after his donors at the expense of Texas cancer patients. It was a safe bet that he would react the same way when it comes to choosing the self-interests of Koch Industries and similar corporate interests even after the devastating explosion in West.
The Koch Brothers are not the only corporate donors that Greg Abbott cares more about than Texas community members.
Abbott got an additional $12,500 from three members of the Texas Chemical Council. Dow Chemical and
Honeywell International donated $5,000 each, while the Vice President of Formosa Plastics Corporation donated $2500.
The bottom line is Greg Abbott doesn’t want Texans to know if there are hazardous substances in their neighborhoods because his donors paid him off to keep that information secret.
A Davis aide rebuked Abbott for his willingness to put Texans at risk in the name of protecting his donors.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Pay Greg Abbott to Play Chemical Russian Roulette With Texas Residents
By Adalia Woodbury, July 17, 2014
Take one Greg Abbott add some Koch money and you get policies that put Koch profit over the safety of people in Texas.
According to Abbott’s latest campaign finance report, the Koch Brothers donated a total of $100,000 to the Abbott campaign. Koch interests donated $75,000 following the deadly explosion at the West Fertilizer Company. That explosion killed 15 and injured 160 people. It destroyed 200 homes and caused a total of $100 million in property damage.
The subsequent investigation revealed numerous safety violations at the West Fertilizer company, including unsafe handling and storage of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate. OSHA found poor labeling of ammonia storage tanks as well as replacement hoses that were not tested for pressure.
Although sensible people recognize the purpose of safety standards is to prevent tragedies like the West Fertilizer Company explosion, in Koch world safety standards mean government interference in the free market. It comes as little surprise that they would provide Abbott with a $100,000 to date incentive to place Koch profits above the safety of Texas voters and their families.
Abbott already has a record of looking after his donors at the expense of Texas cancer patients. It was a safe bet that he would react the same way when it comes to choosing the self-interests of Koch Industries and similar corporate interests even after the devastating explosion in West.
Five months after an ammonium nitrate explosion that killed 15 people in West, Attorney General Greg Abbott received a $25,000 contribution from a first-time donor to his political campaigns – the head of Koch Industries’ fertilizer division. The donor, Chase Koch, is the son of one of the billionaire brothers atop Koch Industries’ politically influential business empire. Abbott, who has since been criticized for allowing Texas chemical facilities to keep secret the contents of their plants, received more than $75,000 from Koch interests after the April 2013 explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. storage and distribution facility, campaign finance records filed with the state showed.In fact, the Kochs’ investment in Abbott is already reaping results. Abbott changed a decades old standard in Texas under which Texans had a right to know about the dangerous chemicals in their neighborhoods. He blocked the release of chemical inventory lists to the public. Abbott went on to propose that if Texans are concerned, they can just drive around to spot sites with hazardous substances. If they see something suspicious, they can ask the companies to disclose what sort of hazardous substances they have. Of course, the companies will be cooperative and tell people everything they want to know.
“You know where they are if you drive around,” Abbott told reporters at an event in Austin. “You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not. You can ask them if they do and they can tell you, ‘Well, we do have chemicals or we don’t have chemicals.’ And if they do, they tell which ones they have.”According to Abbott, you are entitled to that information, as a member of the community so that means you will get it.
You, as a community member of this state, can go to any chemical facility in the entire state of Texas and say, ‘Identify for me all chemical you have on your facility, And you are entitled to get that information.Now don’t you feel better? All you have to do is ask and these corporations who paid Abbott off to block public access to lists of their hazardous chemical inventories. They will tell you everything you want to know because, according to Greg Abbott, you are entitled to that information as a member of the community.
The Koch Brothers are not the only corporate donors that Greg Abbott cares more about than Texas community members.
Abbott got an additional $12,500 from three members of the Texas Chemical Council. Dow Chemical and
Honeywell International donated $5,000 each, while the Vice President of Formosa Plastics Corporation donated $2500.
The bottom line is Greg Abbott doesn’t want Texans to know if there are hazardous substances in their neighborhoods because his donors paid him off to keep that information secret.
A Davis aide rebuked Abbott for his willingness to put Texans at risk in the name of protecting his donors.
The only thing more outrageous than Greg Abbott keeping the location of chemical facilities secret is telling Texas parents they literally need to go door to door in order to find out if their child’s school is in the blast radius of dangerous explosives. Parents have a right to know whether their kids are playing hopscotch next door to the type of facility that exploded in West.Elections are about choosing between candidates and their respective visions for the future. In Texas, the choice is literally a choice between a sensible governor like Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott who is willing to play a chemical version of Russian roulette with your life.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... it seems unlikely that any new executive branch holds by Cruz would make much difference."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Renders Himself Impotent
By Jonathan Bernstein, July 24, 2014
Tailgunner Ted Cruz, the Republican Senator from Texas, has said he will put a hold on all State Department nominees because . . . oh, something to do with Israel, but I’ll leave you all to argue about that part elsewhere. Here, we’re all about Senate procedure, so the question is: What kind of threat is it, at this point in the partisan war, to put a “hold” on anyone? The answer: Thanks to Senate Republicans adopting the very tactics that Cruz embraces, not very much.
The reason a Senate majority leader must respect a hold in the first place is that it's essentially a threat to filibuster. It is not, however, a threat to defeat something by filibuster; a single senator can never defeat something that the other 99 support. That was as true when the threshold to overcome a nomination filibuster was 60 votes as it is now, when it requires only a simple majority of votes. Without majority support, a hold is merely a senator's threat to use every stalling tactic available. Non-controversial nominations take essentially zero time to confirm on the Senate floor. They require no debate and are subject to a voice vote or, in some cases, unanimous consent for several nominations to be confirmed at once.
Even though a lone filibuster can delay things for only about a week, the threat of one is still fairly significant from the majority leader’s perspective. He is responsible for scheduling, and doesn't want monkey wrenches in the works. So why are holds tolerated? Because they empower each individual senator, and thus the Senate as whole. They’re a means of exerting influence over executive branch departments and agencies. Putting aside the question of whether Cruz’s holds are responsible oversight or demagogic nonsense, it empowers the Senate if individual senators are able to use routine nominations to extract information and policy commitments from the executive branch.
Trouble is, the Senate also wants to get its work done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Interfering with that, or threatening to, is how a hold provides leverage. But in the post-nuclear Senate, at least for now, a hold isn't what it used to be. Holds on judges, for example, are currently meaningless. Senate Republicans, as a group, are already delaying each judicial nomination as much as possible -- in effect exercising a party-wide hold against all judges. There’s nothing an individual Senator can do to extend the agony.
Executive branch nominations are more complicated. Quite a few are being approved by voice vote, without cloture votes. That doesn't, however, imply smooth sailing. Republicans often impose extended delays before allowing nominations to go forward. Roll Call’s Niels Lesniewski and Humberto Sanchez have done good reporting on the current logjam, but the nature and duration of various delays remains unclear. In any case, it seems unlikely that any new executive branch holds by Cruz would make much difference.
The upshot, as I’ve said before, is that the Republicans' collective decision to “punish” majority leader Harry Reid by delaying all nominations also has the effect of depriving individual Republicans of any leverage over individual nominations. Consequently, what Reid must do to overcome Cruz’s holds is pretty much what he does regardless. It's possible that Reid might prioritize other nominations over those opposed by Cruz. But only if Republicans provide a clearer path to some alternative set of nominees. Otherwise, it's all one undifferentiated delay, with very little leverage held by any individual Republican. Cruz and his radical allies are the main reason for that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Renders Himself Impotent
By Jonathan Bernstein, July 24, 2014
Tailgunner Ted Cruz, the Republican Senator from Texas, has said he will put a hold on all State Department nominees because . . . oh, something to do with Israel, but I’ll leave you all to argue about that part elsewhere. Here, we’re all about Senate procedure, so the question is: What kind of threat is it, at this point in the partisan war, to put a “hold” on anyone? The answer: Thanks to Senate Republicans adopting the very tactics that Cruz embraces, not very much.
The reason a Senate majority leader must respect a hold in the first place is that it's essentially a threat to filibuster. It is not, however, a threat to defeat something by filibuster; a single senator can never defeat something that the other 99 support. That was as true when the threshold to overcome a nomination filibuster was 60 votes as it is now, when it requires only a simple majority of votes. Without majority support, a hold is merely a senator's threat to use every stalling tactic available. Non-controversial nominations take essentially zero time to confirm on the Senate floor. They require no debate and are subject to a voice vote or, in some cases, unanimous consent for several nominations to be confirmed at once.
Even though a lone filibuster can delay things for only about a week, the threat of one is still fairly significant from the majority leader’s perspective. He is responsible for scheduling, and doesn't want monkey wrenches in the works. So why are holds tolerated? Because they empower each individual senator, and thus the Senate as whole. They’re a means of exerting influence over executive branch departments and agencies. Putting aside the question of whether Cruz’s holds are responsible oversight or demagogic nonsense, it empowers the Senate if individual senators are able to use routine nominations to extract information and policy commitments from the executive branch.
Trouble is, the Senate also wants to get its work done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Interfering with that, or threatening to, is how a hold provides leverage. But in the post-nuclear Senate, at least for now, a hold isn't what it used to be. Holds on judges, for example, are currently meaningless. Senate Republicans, as a group, are already delaying each judicial nomination as much as possible -- in effect exercising a party-wide hold against all judges. There’s nothing an individual Senator can do to extend the agony.
Executive branch nominations are more complicated. Quite a few are being approved by voice vote, without cloture votes. That doesn't, however, imply smooth sailing. Republicans often impose extended delays before allowing nominations to go forward. Roll Call’s Niels Lesniewski and Humberto Sanchez have done good reporting on the current logjam, but the nature and duration of various delays remains unclear. In any case, it seems unlikely that any new executive branch holds by Cruz would make much difference.
The upshot, as I’ve said before, is that the Republicans' collective decision to “punish” majority leader Harry Reid by delaying all nominations also has the effect of depriving individual Republicans of any leverage over individual nominations. Consequently, what Reid must do to overcome Cruz’s holds is pretty much what he does regardless. It's possible that Reid might prioritize other nominations over those opposed by Cruz. But only if Republicans provide a clearer path to some alternative set of nominees. Otherwise, it's all one undifferentiated delay, with very little leverage held by any individual Republican. Cruz and his radical allies are the main reason for that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
UPDATE: Nugent's concerts at Emerald Queen canceled!
...................................................................................................................................................................
According to TV news reports, the Puyallup tribe had received death threats if they didn't cancel Nugent. That's hardly the proper way to protest.....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Emerald Queen Casino cancels Ted Nugent concerts in wake of alleged racist comments by the rocker
Q13 Fox News Staff, July 24, 2014
A second venue in the Pacific Northwest is cancelling scheduled concerts by Ted Nugent after a wave of complaints appeared online and in the media that the singer had made racist remarks about President Obama.
The Emerald Queen Casino announced the Nugent concerts scheduled for August 2nd and 3rd had been cancelled and refunds would be given at the point of purchase.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
According to TV news reports, the Puyallup tribe had received death threats if they didn't cancel Nugent. That's hardly the proper way to protest.....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Emerald Queen Casino cancels Ted Nugent concerts in wake of alleged racist comments by the rocker
Q13 Fox News Staff, July 24, 2014
A second venue in the Pacific Northwest is cancelling scheduled concerts by Ted Nugent after a wave of complaints appeared online and in the media that the singer had made racist remarks about President Obama.
The Emerald Queen Casino announced the Nugent concerts scheduled for August 2nd and 3rd had been cancelled and refunds would be given at the point of purchase.
[snipped]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Give me a break! Bachmann thinks her fundraising prowess qualifies her for the Presidency.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bachmann Says She Might Seek Presidency in 2016
By Scott Conroy, July 22, 2014
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.
The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.
Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.
“The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it’s going to be various men that are running,” she replied. “They haven’t speculated, for instance, that I’m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there’s a chance I could run.”
Bachmann entered the last presidential race in June 2011 as a long-shot contender but was able to use her sway with elements of the Tea Party and an effective media campaign to rise temporarily toward the front of the Republican pack in a deeply fluid race.
The high point of her candidacy came in August 2011 when she won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
But Bachmann’s campaign soon withered amid a string of gaffes and controversial claims, staff defections, and a rise in the fortunes of other candidates in the race.
She ended up finishing in sixth place in the Iowa caucuses less than five months after her Ames triumph, earning just 5 percent of the vote and dropping out the next day.
The four-term congresswoman that she would “certainly” reap the benefits of having run once before, if she were to launch a second White House bid.
“Like with anything else, practice makes perfect,” she said. “And I think if a person has gone through the process -- for instance, I had gone through 15 presidential debates -- it’s easy to see a person’s improvement going through that.”
In November 2012, Bachmann barely managed to hold onto her 6th District seat, defeating hotel executive Jim Graves by 4,298 votes. Last May, she announced that she would not seek a fifth term in the House.
Bachmann told RCP that if she decides to run for president again, she will make sure that she has a strong campaign infrastructure in place.
“I haven’t made a decision one way or another if I’m going to run again, but I think the organization is probably the key,” she said. “To have an organization and people who surround you who are loyal, who are highly competent, who know how to be able to run the ball down the field in state after state -- because now I think the primary process will be very different this time. It will tighten up; it will be a much shorter run than it was before.”
Bachmann said that she is looking at “a lot of different options” for her post-congressional life and that another presidential campaign is just one of them.
If she were to run again, Bachmann could struggle to be seen as a credible candidate in what is expected to be a far stronger Republican field in 2016 than the one that she competed in four years earlier.
But in the interview, Bachmann alluded to her fundraising prowess as a reason she should be taken seriously, calling herself “one of the top -- if not the top -- fundraisers in the history of the United States Congress.”
“And it’s because people saw that I had an authentic voice, and I was fighting for them,” she said. “I wasn’t speaking to them like a politician. I was speaking like a real person who was fighting for what they believed in.”
Asked to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton’s potential candidacy, Bachmann said that the presumed 2016 Democratic frontrunner has “fatal problems” related to her tenure as secretary of state that should “disqualify her” from the nation’s highest office.
Bachmann suggested that she would zero in on making her own 2016 decision soon after she wraps up her tenure in the House.
“I think it’s important to have sufficient time to lay the necessary groundwork to have a really solid campaign and a campaign team put together,” she said. “And I think probably I would think about that decision earlier than I did last time.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bachmann Says She Might Seek Presidency in 2016
By Scott Conroy, July 22, 2014
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.
The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.
Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.
“The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it’s going to be various men that are running,” she replied. “They haven’t speculated, for instance, that I’m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there’s a chance I could run.”
Bachmann entered the last presidential race in June 2011 as a long-shot contender but was able to use her sway with elements of the Tea Party and an effective media campaign to rise temporarily toward the front of the Republican pack in a deeply fluid race.
The high point of her candidacy came in August 2011 when she won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
But Bachmann’s campaign soon withered amid a string of gaffes and controversial claims, staff defections, and a rise in the fortunes of other candidates in the race.
She ended up finishing in sixth place in the Iowa caucuses less than five months after her Ames triumph, earning just 5 percent of the vote and dropping out the next day.
The four-term congresswoman that she would “certainly” reap the benefits of having run once before, if she were to launch a second White House bid.
“Like with anything else, practice makes perfect,” she said. “And I think if a person has gone through the process -- for instance, I had gone through 15 presidential debates -- it’s easy to see a person’s improvement going through that.”
In November 2012, Bachmann barely managed to hold onto her 6th District seat, defeating hotel executive Jim Graves by 4,298 votes. Last May, she announced that she would not seek a fifth term in the House.
Bachmann told RCP that if she decides to run for president again, she will make sure that she has a strong campaign infrastructure in place.
“I haven’t made a decision one way or another if I’m going to run again, but I think the organization is probably the key,” she said. “To have an organization and people who surround you who are loyal, who are highly competent, who know how to be able to run the ball down the field in state after state -- because now I think the primary process will be very different this time. It will tighten up; it will be a much shorter run than it was before.”
Bachmann said that she is looking at “a lot of different options” for her post-congressional life and that another presidential campaign is just one of them.
If she were to run again, Bachmann could struggle to be seen as a credible candidate in what is expected to be a far stronger Republican field in 2016 than the one that she competed in four years earlier.
But in the interview, Bachmann alluded to her fundraising prowess as a reason she should be taken seriously, calling herself “one of the top -- if not the top -- fundraisers in the history of the United States Congress.”
“And it’s because people saw that I had an authentic voice, and I was fighting for them,” she said. “I wasn’t speaking to them like a politician. I was speaking like a real person who was fighting for what they believed in.”
Asked to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton’s potential candidacy, Bachmann said that the presumed 2016 Democratic frontrunner has “fatal problems” related to her tenure as secretary of state that should “disqualify her” from the nation’s highest office.
Bachmann suggested that she would zero in on making her own 2016 decision soon after she wraps up her tenure in the House.
“I think it’s important to have sufficient time to lay the necessary groundwork to have a really solid campaign and a campaign team put together,” she said. “And I think probably I would think about that decision earlier than I did last time.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... electoral apathy is in large part a result of government dysfunction."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will Americans Set a New Record for Political Apathy in 2014?
By Joshua Holland, July 23, 2014
It’s a paradox: The United States is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, yet Americans have one of the lowest levels of electoral participation in the world. In fact, a 2012 study found that the US ranked “120th of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin.”
Our turnout rate has been consistently declining since the 1970s.
In Monday’s Washington Post, Aaron Blake highlighted a new study that suggests that trend is likely to continue in November’s midterm elections.
Of course, we’re not all equally turned off by politics. Whites are more likely to vote than other groups, and older people are more likely to go to the polls than younger people. This is a source of endless consternation for Democrats. As Blake notes, “Republican primary turnout overtook Democratic turnout for the first time in 2010, and that difference is even bigger this primary season.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Will Americans Set a New Record for Political Apathy in 2014?
By Joshua Holland, July 23, 2014
It’s a paradox: The United States is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, yet Americans have one of the lowest levels of electoral participation in the world. In fact, a 2012 study found that the US ranked “120th of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin.”
Our turnout rate has been consistently declining since the 1970s.
In Monday’s Washington Post, Aaron Blake highlighted a new study that suggests that trend is likely to continue in November’s midterm elections.
A new study shows that Americans are on-track to set a new low for turnout in a midterm election, and a record number of states could set their own new records for lowest percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots.Blake finds it ironic that so few vote at a time when Congress is less popular than colonoscopies, root canal or Nickelback. “Americans,” he writes, “appear prepared to deal with their historic unhappiness using perhaps the least-productive response: Staying home.” But this gets the causal relationship backwards — electoral apathy is in large part a result of government dysfunction. After logistical problems like having a disability, the number one reason why people don’t vote is that they feel their ballot won’t change anything.
The study, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, shows turnout in the 25 states that have held statewide primaries for both parties is down by nearly one-fifth from the last midterm, in 2010. While 18.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots back then, it has been just 14.8 percent so far this year. Similarly, 15 of the 25 states that have held statewide primaries so far have recorded record-low turnout.
Of course, we’re not all equally turned off by politics. Whites are more likely to vote than other groups, and older people are more likely to go to the polls than younger people. This is a source of endless consternation for Democrats. As Blake notes, “Republican primary turnout overtook Democratic turnout for the first time in 2010, and that difference is even bigger this primary season.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
The DISCLOSE Act "... would force donor disclosure on the big-money, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations that are flourishing in post-Citizens United politics."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Make New Bid To Require Donor Transparency
By Peter Overby, July 23, 2014
Senate Democrats have rolled out this year's model of the DISCLOSE Act. Or, if you want to be more formal: the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.
It's the third version of DISCLOSE since 2010. Broadly speaking, it would force donor disclosure on the big-money, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations that are flourishing in post-Citizens United politics. Unlike almost all other players in an election campaign, 501(c)(4)s are not covered by the disclosure laws. Their donors are never publicly named.
A Senate rules committee hearing on DISCLOSE on Wednesday made one thing clear: Republicans despise the bill. Previous versions of DISCLOSE all failed due to united opposition by GOP lawmakers.
Chairing the hearing was Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats. He said political transparency is good for democracy, and compared the ads run by social welfare groups with debate at a New England town meeting.
"No one's allowed to speak in a Maine town meeting with a bag over their head," King said, calling the town meeting "the purest form of political speech in our country today."
"Who the speaker is, is part of the information" that voters and citizens use to evaluate political messages, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't a member of the rules committee, but he came to bury the bill.
"Let me be blunt," he said. "This proposal is little more than a crude intimidation tactic masquerading as good government."
And that's the essential conflict. Liberals say the anti-corruption benefits of disclosure outweigh the free speech issues. They point out that the Supreme Court has agreed with that proposition, including a passage in the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed corporations to explicitly support and oppose candidates.
Conservatives argue that the anti-corruption argument doesn't apply because the money is raised by outside groups, not candidates. They say that disclosure can lead to reprisals against donors, but it's acceptable for contributions to candidate campaigns. The Citizens United decision only endorses disclosure rules already in effect, they argue.
On Wednesday, they also said too much disclosure would cause double-reporting of some activity and lead to less accurate data.
And, of course, each side accuses the other of playing partisan angles. Democrats say Republicans, who used to support disclosure over restrictions on political money, are simply protecting their wealthy benefactors. Republicans say Democrats are using the DISCLOSE Act to agitate liberal voters for November.
The 2014 version of DISCLOSE would apply to 501(c)(4) social welfare groups, 501(c)(6) business associations, corporations and labor unions. If one of those entities spent more than $50,000 a cycle on campaign politics, it would have to publicly identify donors who gave $10,000 or more.
In this election cycle, here's one practical, dollars-and-more-dollars example:
The social welfare group Americans for Prosperity, the most prominent element of the Koch brothers' political network, has been running attack ads all year against Democratic senators and Senate candidates. That costs AFP about $44 million.
A few of the ads actually ran late in 2013, so they wouldn't be affected by the DISCLOSE Act. But for all the other AFP ads, big donors would have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Make New Bid To Require Donor Transparency
By Peter Overby, July 23, 2014
Senate Democrats have rolled out this year's model of the DISCLOSE Act. Or, if you want to be more formal: the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.
It's the third version of DISCLOSE since 2010. Broadly speaking, it would force donor disclosure on the big-money, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations that are flourishing in post-Citizens United politics. Unlike almost all other players in an election campaign, 501(c)(4)s are not covered by the disclosure laws. Their donors are never publicly named.
A Senate rules committee hearing on DISCLOSE on Wednesday made one thing clear: Republicans despise the bill. Previous versions of DISCLOSE all failed due to united opposition by GOP lawmakers.
Chairing the hearing was Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats. He said political transparency is good for democracy, and compared the ads run by social welfare groups with debate at a New England town meeting.
"No one's allowed to speak in a Maine town meeting with a bag over their head," King said, calling the town meeting "the purest form of political speech in our country today."
"Who the speaker is, is part of the information" that voters and citizens use to evaluate political messages, he said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't a member of the rules committee, but he came to bury the bill.
"Let me be blunt," he said. "This proposal is little more than a crude intimidation tactic masquerading as good government."
And that's the essential conflict. Liberals say the anti-corruption benefits of disclosure outweigh the free speech issues. They point out that the Supreme Court has agreed with that proposition, including a passage in the 2010 Citizens United ruling that allowed corporations to explicitly support and oppose candidates.
Conservatives argue that the anti-corruption argument doesn't apply because the money is raised by outside groups, not candidates. They say that disclosure can lead to reprisals against donors, but it's acceptable for contributions to candidate campaigns. The Citizens United decision only endorses disclosure rules already in effect, they argue.
On Wednesday, they also said too much disclosure would cause double-reporting of some activity and lead to less accurate data.
And, of course, each side accuses the other of playing partisan angles. Democrats say Republicans, who used to support disclosure over restrictions on political money, are simply protecting their wealthy benefactors. Republicans say Democrats are using the DISCLOSE Act to agitate liberal voters for November.
The 2014 version of DISCLOSE would apply to 501(c)(4) social welfare groups, 501(c)(6) business associations, corporations and labor unions. If one of those entities spent more than $50,000 a cycle on campaign politics, it would have to publicly identify donors who gave $10,000 or more.
In this election cycle, here's one practical, dollars-and-more-dollars example:
The social welfare group Americans for Prosperity, the most prominent element of the Koch brothers' political network, has been running attack ads all year against Democratic senators and Senate candidates. That costs AFP about $44 million.
A few of the ads actually ran late in 2013, so they wouldn't be affected by the DISCLOSE Act. But for all the other AFP ads, big donors would have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The creepy Koch brothers are bringing back "creepy Uncle Sam"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Back 'Creepy Carenival' Where Clowns Deter Millenials From Obamacare
By Chloe Sorvino, July 22, 2014
Creepy Uncle Sam is back. This time, he’s bringing you to a “Creepy Carenival” – an anti-Obamacare spectacle backed by the billionaire Koch brothers where smirking clowns choose patients’ surgeries by throwing knives at a revolving wheel, insurance premiums explode and a “Dropped Coverage” game dunks millenials into a “High-Risk Pool.”
The carnival, featuring carnies, jugglers and a “Creepy Hospital,” hits the National Mall on Wednesday and will tour the nation this fall. Generation Opportunity, the Koch-funded organization putting on the show, hopes it will sway 20-somethings against signing up for health insurance through the government’s exchanges, rendering the system ineffective.
Media stunt? Yes. The group promises “to expose Obamacare for the freak show that it really is.”
“It’s no secret that Obamacare hasn’t lived up to the hype: All across the country premiums have spiked, millions have lost their insurance and their doctors, and, what’s worse, we’re continually being sold a bundle of lies about how great Obamacare has been for our generation!” the invitation on Eventbrite reads.
Here’s a preview of the spectacle, via a video released by the group on Tuesday.
“It’s a seemingly exciting event where all the games are rigged against young people with a little bit of creepiness,” Evan Feinberg, the president of Generation Opportunity, explained to Buzzfeed. “The ultimate goal is to educate and mobilize young Americans to kick the Obamacare disaster out of their towns.” Feinberg did not return immediate request from FORBES for comment.
Creepy Uncle Sam first made his video debut last year when the group unveiled an ad in which he gave a college-age woman a gynecological exam, warning millenials to not “let the government play doctor.”
The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, worth a combined $82.4 billion based on FORBES’ estimated value of private conglomerate Koch Industries, have made headlines during recent election cycles for pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns and attack ads through conservative organizations. Ardent libertarians, they’ve reportedly committed to pumping about $15 million into this fall’s midterm elections, with an overall goal of giving about $300 million.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch Brothers Back 'Creepy Carenival' Where Clowns Deter Millenials From Obamacare
By Chloe Sorvino, July 22, 2014
Creepy Uncle Sam is back. This time, he’s bringing you to a “Creepy Carenival” – an anti-Obamacare spectacle backed by the billionaire Koch brothers where smirking clowns choose patients’ surgeries by throwing knives at a revolving wheel, insurance premiums explode and a “Dropped Coverage” game dunks millenials into a “High-Risk Pool.”
The carnival, featuring carnies, jugglers and a “Creepy Hospital,” hits the National Mall on Wednesday and will tour the nation this fall. Generation Opportunity, the Koch-funded organization putting on the show, hopes it will sway 20-somethings against signing up for health insurance through the government’s exchanges, rendering the system ineffective.
Media stunt? Yes. The group promises “to expose Obamacare for the freak show that it really is.”
“It’s no secret that Obamacare hasn’t lived up to the hype: All across the country premiums have spiked, millions have lost their insurance and their doctors, and, what’s worse, we’re continually being sold a bundle of lies about how great Obamacare has been for our generation!” the invitation on Eventbrite reads.
Here’s a preview of the spectacle, via a video released by the group on Tuesday.
“It’s a seemingly exciting event where all the games are rigged against young people with a little bit of creepiness,” Evan Feinberg, the president of Generation Opportunity, explained to Buzzfeed. “The ultimate goal is to educate and mobilize young Americans to kick the Obamacare disaster out of their towns.” Feinberg did not return immediate request from FORBES for comment.
Creepy Uncle Sam first made his video debut last year when the group unveiled an ad in which he gave a college-age woman a gynecological exam, warning millenials to not “let the government play doctor.”
The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, worth a combined $82.4 billion based on FORBES’ estimated value of private conglomerate Koch Industries, have made headlines during recent election cycles for pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns and attack ads through conservative organizations. Ardent libertarians, they’ve reportedly committed to pumping about $15 million into this fall’s midterm elections, with an overall goal of giving about $300 million.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Unfortunately Nugent is still slated to appear at Tacoma's Emerald Queen Casino. Apparently the Puyallup Tribe cares more about the money he will bring in than his racism.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Idaho American Indian Tribe That Cancelled Nugent Concert Will Miss Out On His Vile Commentary
After an American Indian tribe canceled a Ted Nugent concert because of his history of using racist language, recently posted footage of Nugent shows what else they're missing out on: the use of anti-gay slurs to attack President Obama.
The Coeur d'Alene Tribe had initially hired Nugent, a National Rifle Association board member and spokesman for the Outdoor Channel, to perform on August 4 at its Idaho casino. The tribe had been unaware of Nugent's background of racially inflammatory commentary until being contacted by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch project, and it canceled the concert hours later.
In video posted online, Nugent is seen during his July 6 concert at River Road Ice House in New Braunfels, Texas, calling Obama a "piece of shit," a "cocksucker," and a "motherfucker." (Nugent had previously promised to stop name-calling following controversy over his characterization of Obama as a "subhuman mongrel.")
During an onstage rant, Nugent claimed he is "the number one man that the president hates more than anybody in the whole world" and added, "I must be a fucking angel, because the devil don't like my ass."
Nugent's "subhuman mongrel" comment came into the national spotlight because of his campaign work with Republican Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, which generated significant negative attention for Abbott. In recent weeks, Nugent has offered his endorsement to Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Frank Riggs and fellow NRA board member Bob Barr, who is running for a House seat in Georgia as a Republican.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Idaho American Indian Tribe That Cancelled Nugent Concert Will Miss Out On His Vile Commentary
NRA's Nugent Recently Used Anti-Gay Slur To Describe Obama At Concert
By Timothy Johnson, July 22, 2014After an American Indian tribe canceled a Ted Nugent concert because of his history of using racist language, recently posted footage of Nugent shows what else they're missing out on: the use of anti-gay slurs to attack President Obama.
The Coeur d'Alene Tribe had initially hired Nugent, a National Rifle Association board member and spokesman for the Outdoor Channel, to perform on August 4 at its Idaho casino. The tribe had been unaware of Nugent's background of racially inflammatory commentary until being contacted by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch project, and it canceled the concert hours later.
In video posted online, Nugent is seen during his July 6 concert at River Road Ice House in New Braunfels, Texas, calling Obama a "piece of shit," a "cocksucker," and a "motherfucker." (Nugent had previously promised to stop name-calling following controversy over his characterization of Obama as a "subhuman mongrel.")
During an onstage rant, Nugent claimed he is "the number one man that the president hates more than anybody in the whole world" and added, "I must be a fucking angel, because the devil don't like my ass."
NUGENT: The most important thing about tonight, the most important thing maybe in life, the most important thing certainly on planet earth, is that you are in the presence of the number one man that the president hates more than anybody in the whole world. That's right. I piss that piece of shit off every day, and I don't even try. I scare that cocksucker, you know what I mean? He don't like Uncle Ted because I celebrate freedom. That motherfucker don't like freedom. He don't like Texas. He don't like liberty, that piece of shit. He hates Uncle Ted. I'm proud. I'm proud. I must be an angel; I must be a fucking angel, because the devil don't like my ass.Controversy has surrounded Nugent's concerts since his "subhuman mongrel" remark about Obama. In March, the town of Longview, Texas, paid Nugent not to show up to a scheduled concert. His concert scheduled for July 22 in Montclair, New Jersey, is expected to be protested by local progressive groups.
Nugent's "subhuman mongrel" comment came into the national spotlight because of his campaign work with Republican Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, which generated significant negative attention for Abbott. In recent weeks, Nugent has offered his endorsement to Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Frank Riggs and fellow NRA board member Bob Barr, who is running for a House seat in Georgia as a Republican.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clinton supporter: "You have to play the game with the rules as they are ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hillary Clinton would consider backing bid to limit money in politics
By Dan Merica, July 21, 2014
When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, she raised and spent more than $250 million to eventually lose to Barack Obama, according to the Federal Election Commission.
That was then.
On Monday, Clinton - who is now weighing another run at the presidency in 2016 - was asked during a Facebook question and answer session whether she would "support a constitutional amendment" to overturn the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" ruling and limit the amount corporations and outside influences can contribute to political campaigns.
"I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines," Clinton responded. "That would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision."
The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for outside money in politics and ballooned the amount spent on campaigns.
Even though Clinton has said she wants to limit money in politics, people close to her are preparing to raise massive sums for a possible presidential bid.
Some of her biggest 2008 donors told CNN in January that they are waiting for her decision on whether to run with open wallets, while a cadre of outside groups – many of whom were created because of the Citizens United decision – have begun to raise money in order to be helpful to her possible candidacy.
Although many pro-Clinton Democratic operatives say they wish big money was not a part of politics, the pro-Clinton groups have embraced the law.
"You have to play the game with the rules as they are," said a source at Priorities USA, a group that plans to raise big money to support Clinton if she runs. "We can't unilaterally disarm."
[major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hillary Clinton would consider backing bid to limit money in politics
By Dan Merica, July 21, 2014
When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, she raised and spent more than $250 million to eventually lose to Barack Obama, according to the Federal Election Commission.
That was then.
On Monday, Clinton - who is now weighing another run at the presidency in 2016 - was asked during a Facebook question and answer session whether she would "support a constitutional amendment" to overturn the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" ruling and limit the amount corporations and outside influences can contribute to political campaigns.
"I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines," Clinton responded. "That would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's United decision."
The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for outside money in politics and ballooned the amount spent on campaigns.
Even though Clinton has said she wants to limit money in politics, people close to her are preparing to raise massive sums for a possible presidential bid.
Some of her biggest 2008 donors told CNN in January that they are waiting for her decision on whether to run with open wallets, while a cadre of outside groups – many of whom were created because of the Citizens United decision – have begun to raise money in order to be helpful to her possible candidacy.
Although many pro-Clinton Democratic operatives say they wish big money was not a part of politics, the pro-Clinton groups have embraced the law.
"You have to play the game with the rules as they are," said a source at Priorities USA, a group that plans to raise big money to support Clinton if she runs. "We can't unilaterally disarm."
[major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Sadly, while 46% of Republicans feel positive about women in office, nearly one-fifth of them say the country would be governed worse if more women were in positions of political power"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Poll: Americans Want More Women In Political Office
July 22, 2014
The government would do a better job if there were more female leaders in place, most Americans say.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans surveyed feel the government would govern better if more women were in political office. That’s up from 57% in 1995 and 2000.
Sixty-nine percent of women want more females in government, as do 55% of men. Self-identifying liberals, unmarried women and women between 18 and 49 are most optimistic about female leaders, and a large majority of African-Americans, Democrats and people between the ages of 18 to 29 are also in favor of increased female leadership.
Sadly, while 46% of Republicans feel positive about women in office, nearly one-fifth of them say the country would be governed worse if more women were in positions of political power. That’s the highest percentage, Gallup says, among any demographic.
To read more on the Gallup poll, click here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Poll: Americans Want More Women In Political Office
July 22, 2014
The government would do a better job if there were more female leaders in place, most Americans say.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans surveyed feel the government would govern better if more women were in political office. That’s up from 57% in 1995 and 2000.
Sixty-nine percent of women want more females in government, as do 55% of men. Self-identifying liberals, unmarried women and women between 18 and 49 are most optimistic about female leaders, and a large majority of African-Americans, Democrats and people between the ages of 18 to 29 are also in favor of increased female leadership.
Sadly, while 46% of Republicans feel positive about women in office, nearly one-fifth of them say the country would be governed worse if more women were in positions of political power. That’s the highest percentage, Gallup says, among any demographic.
To read more on the Gallup poll, click here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Politico could have written a different story — “Why women do give” — but missed it."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Politico finds one more reason for women to feel guilty: No Koch sisters!
Life as a woman is a cavalcade of guilt and inadequacy. You didn’t have children, or had too many children; the kids you had certainly didn’t get the time they deserved. If you’re not rich and you don’t work, you’re a welfare queen; if you leave your kids alone while you work, you’re a criminal. You’re almost definitely too fat or too thin, too old or too young. If you’re a Democrat, you obviously “cannot control your libido.” Which is going to be a problem, because you’ll be lucky to find even an AARP member who finds you sexy after 42.
And now comes Politico with something else for women to feel bad about, in a story starkly headlined: “Money gap: Why don’t women give?”
Why women, why? Why don’t you give?
Politico explains: “For all the progress women have made in Congress and in elections, they are practically sitting out the new game that is redefining American politics: big money…The top 10 male donors gave over $51 million to political candidates; the top 10 female donors combined for just over $8 million.” We all know the Koch brothers, but where are the Koch sisters?
Now, this could have been a fairly short story. Women are “sitting out” the “big money game,” because very few of us have big money. Next question?
Seriously, women make 77 cents to a man’s dollar, but own only 36% as much wealth – and the wealth gap between men and women has widened even as the income gap slowly narrows. Women who never married own 6 percent of the wealth of their bachelor brothers. It gets worse: black and Latino never-married women own a penny for every dollar of wealth controlled by men of their race. And of course, women make up almost two out of three adults living in poverty.
Since the capacity to make big political donations is a factor of having disposable wealth, not just income, the wealth gap between men and women is the crucial factor behind the donor gap. That’s the main reason “why women don’t give.” You’re welcome, Politico.
Unbelievably, the Politico story doesn’t even mention the wealth gap between men and women. Way down in the second page of the piece, Democratic donor Laura Ricketts does mention the money gap, as an aside. “In general, many women don’t make as much money as men,” she notes perceptively. But there’s no data presented on the wage or wealth gap. Instead we are informed about the innovative – and often condescending — strategies fundraisers are using to reach women:
Women, we also learn, are often more receptive to outreach from other women, but that’s a problem too, because, well, women have less free time than men. “Persuading women to devote a significant amount of their free time is a challenge, considering that they might already be busy with family, work and other obligations,” Politico explains. “Certainly men face the time crunch, but sources noted women mention the problem more often.” Women “mention the problem more often;” those whiners. If only there was research documenting the “second shift” women work at home. Oh, there is.
Republican women seem to have more success on the woman-to-woman front. “I don’t ride horses and I don’t play golf,” says one big female GOP fundraiser. “I have two hobbies: One is my grandkids, the second is political fundraising for people I believe in.” That sounds nice.
The downside for Republican women? Republican policies for women. “[GOP] fundraisers say it’s important not to talk to women just about so-called women’s issues when seeking contributions,” Politico reports. “While some donors are motivated by causes like abortion or federal funding for breast cancer research, many also want to hear about the economy, health care and other issues.” It’s not working all that well for Republicans: only five of the top 20 female donors gave to the GOP.
Maybe it’s cranky to complain about the class bias of an article about rich people, but the utter ignorance of the context in which big money is a) controlled by wealthy men and b) rigging politics on behalf of wealthy men was jaw-dropping. It also ignored remarkable female success stories: in 2008, President Obama’s small donors (under $200) were disproportionately women, 56-44 percent. Men and women were equally divided among who gave Obama less than $2,500; over that number, his donors were three-fifths men.
Another success story for women that’s only mentioned at the end of the Politico piece is Emily’s List, which likewise cultivates smaller donors, expressly to support pro-reproductive rights Democrats. Three quarters of its six figure donors are women, but it doesn’t ignore women who aren’t wealthy. “What we’ve seen at Emily’s List is that a donor who comes in at $100 today, very possibly could be that six-figure donor in 20 years,” said Stephanie Schriock, head of EMILY’s List. And even if she doesn’t become a six figure donor, Emily’s List thinks her opinion is valuable.
Maybe there’s something to that: the group is just had its best quarter ever, raising $9.2 million, and 90 percent of its donations were under $200.
It seems like Politico could have written a different story — “Why women do give” — but missed it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Politico finds one more reason for women to feel guilty: No Koch sisters!
BREAKING: Ladies don’t give as much big political money as men do. Maybe because they don’t have as much money?
By Joan Walsh, July 22, 2014Life as a woman is a cavalcade of guilt and inadequacy. You didn’t have children, or had too many children; the kids you had certainly didn’t get the time they deserved. If you’re not rich and you don’t work, you’re a welfare queen; if you leave your kids alone while you work, you’re a criminal. You’re almost definitely too fat or too thin, too old or too young. If you’re a Democrat, you obviously “cannot control your libido.” Which is going to be a problem, because you’ll be lucky to find even an AARP member who finds you sexy after 42.
And now comes Politico with something else for women to feel bad about, in a story starkly headlined: “Money gap: Why don’t women give?”
Why women, why? Why don’t you give?
Politico explains: “For all the progress women have made in Congress and in elections, they are practically sitting out the new game that is redefining American politics: big money…The top 10 male donors gave over $51 million to political candidates; the top 10 female donors combined for just over $8 million.” We all know the Koch brothers, but where are the Koch sisters?
Now, this could have been a fairly short story. Women are “sitting out” the “big money game,” because very few of us have big money. Next question?
Seriously, women make 77 cents to a man’s dollar, but own only 36% as much wealth – and the wealth gap between men and women has widened even as the income gap slowly narrows. Women who never married own 6 percent of the wealth of their bachelor brothers. It gets worse: black and Latino never-married women own a penny for every dollar of wealth controlled by men of their race. And of course, women make up almost two out of three adults living in poverty.
Since the capacity to make big political donations is a factor of having disposable wealth, not just income, the wealth gap between men and women is the crucial factor behind the donor gap. That’s the main reason “why women don’t give.” You’re welcome, Politico.
Unbelievably, the Politico story doesn’t even mention the wealth gap between men and women. Way down in the second page of the piece, Democratic donor Laura Ricketts does mention the money gap, as an aside. “In general, many women don’t make as much money as men,” she notes perceptively. But there’s no data presented on the wage or wealth gap. Instead we are informed about the innovative – and often condescending — strategies fundraisers are using to reach women:
Wooing female donors takes a more personal touch: Often they want more of a relationship with candidates or outside groups and to have a clear understanding of where their money is going, according to several fundraisers and donors.Those ladies: Always wanting more of a relationship.
Women, we also learn, are often more receptive to outreach from other women, but that’s a problem too, because, well, women have less free time than men. “Persuading women to devote a significant amount of their free time is a challenge, considering that they might already be busy with family, work and other obligations,” Politico explains. “Certainly men face the time crunch, but sources noted women mention the problem more often.” Women “mention the problem more often;” those whiners. If only there was research documenting the “second shift” women work at home. Oh, there is.
Republican women seem to have more success on the woman-to-woman front. “I don’t ride horses and I don’t play golf,” says one big female GOP fundraiser. “I have two hobbies: One is my grandkids, the second is political fundraising for people I believe in.” That sounds nice.
The downside for Republican women? Republican policies for women. “[GOP] fundraisers say it’s important not to talk to women just about so-called women’s issues when seeking contributions,” Politico reports. “While some donors are motivated by causes like abortion or federal funding for breast cancer research, many also want to hear about the economy, health care and other issues.” It’s not working all that well for Republicans: only five of the top 20 female donors gave to the GOP.
Maybe it’s cranky to complain about the class bias of an article about rich people, but the utter ignorance of the context in which big money is a) controlled by wealthy men and b) rigging politics on behalf of wealthy men was jaw-dropping. It also ignored remarkable female success stories: in 2008, President Obama’s small donors (under $200) were disproportionately women, 56-44 percent. Men and women were equally divided among who gave Obama less than $2,500; over that number, his donors were three-fifths men.
Another success story for women that’s only mentioned at the end of the Politico piece is Emily’s List, which likewise cultivates smaller donors, expressly to support pro-reproductive rights Democrats. Three quarters of its six figure donors are women, but it doesn’t ignore women who aren’t wealthy. “What we’ve seen at Emily’s List is that a donor who comes in at $100 today, very possibly could be that six-figure donor in 20 years,” said Stephanie Schriock, head of EMILY’s List. And even if she doesn’t become a six figure donor, Emily’s List thinks her opinion is valuable.
Maybe there’s something to that: the group is just had its best quarter ever, raising $9.2 million, and 90 percent of its donations were under $200.
It seems like Politico could have written a different story — “Why women do give” — but missed it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)