Senate Passes FAA Authorization Bill with Anti-Union Elements
Despite fierce opposition from major transit unions, the Senate yesterday gave final approval to the FAA Authorization bill, a five-year extension that removes uncertainty from the FAA, approves a next-generation air traffic monitoring system and, in Harry Reid's telling, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. But unions were unhappy about changes to labor law insisted upon by House Republicans, and they expressed betrayal at the hands of Senate Democrats. (Ho hum. -Ed.)
But 37 Democrats supported the bill, including Commerce Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and top leadership members Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. Here were the 15 Democrats who opposed it:
Not worthy of mention to Dayen were Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both of whom voted for a bill that makes it more difficult for unions to exist and for middle class workers to maintain quality employment and working conditions. Both senators will give justification for their votes on this bill and say it's just one vote of many.
But the pattern is clear and well-established with our 2 Democratic senators. And it is nothing to write home about. Though Mark Udall writes, and tries, he continues to be a milquetoast who compares quite poorly to his blood-relation senator from New Mexico. Bennet, like his political benefactor Bill Ritter, has shown a complete disregard for labor and unions.
In case you don't trust this Cheetoh-stained blogger, take a peek at Ed Schultz, former Republican and expert on Upper Midwest values, discussing on the tube:
Not to be outdone, freshman Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) offered an amendment that would impose a lifetime ban on lawmakers ever becoming federal lobbyists.
Since the Senator presumably would apply this rule to all Americans, and knowing he would only submit amendments with the full intent they pass congress and are signed into law, one can only presume he will hold himself to this same strict standard. Bottom line: I expect that Michael Bennet will hold to this principle and never become a lobbyist once his term of office completes.
Or, this could be just another P.R. move by a senator who has learned the broken ways of our capital well enough to denounce them at the same time he uses them to his political advantage. I certainly hope it's the former and not the latter....I fear he would be a much better lobbyist than senator.
On the front of Politico is an article about how the big bipartisan deals that used to be relatively common in Congress now appear to be a thing of the past. From Politico:
Call it the Split the Difference Scenario - a dream of Washington at its civic-minded best that has flourished for decades, even as the reality of Washington became ever more snarling and contentious.
Sometimes, the dream even came true, in iconic closed-door moments: a bipartisan bargain over Social Security in 1983, a high-drama budget summit at Andrews Air Force Base in 1990, a landmark spending accord between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in 1997.
The striking fact about Washington at the start of 2012 is how many people, in public and private, say they have concluded that the capital is no longer a city of splittable differences.
A-effin'-men to that. Do-Nothing Doug Lamborn didn't need to read this news. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet do. And if they don't believe it, tell them about that Great Bipartisan Rapist Grover Norquist. Instead, Democrats in DC have permission (as if they ever didn't, see Truman, Harry; Roosevelt, Franklin Delano) to act like Democrats and quit negotiating with those who have no intention to negotiate.
During the few months when his party had 60 votes in the Senate, he was the proverbial 60th vote, and with Republicans unwilling to negotiate on health-care reform he held enormous sway. He held out the longest, and he could have used his vote to demand almost anything. He could have asked for malpractice reform, tougher cost controls, or any other concession that pushed the bill to the right. What he chose to use it for was a parochial demand to give his home state a special Medicaid subsidy.
The maneuver may ultimately haunt Democrats, Mr. Collegio added. "By trying to be clever in helping Nelson," he said, "they may be opening up a can of worms they may not have wanted to open up."
Democrats in DC love bipartisanship, encouraged by media in a pursuit that most Americans say they can do without. It is also true that very few care what the roll call was on a piece of good legislation, while they almost always know who to blame for bad legislation. Ben Nelson was partly the victim of Washington's isolation from the 99% and partly of the false assumption that voters want a bipartisan solution to everything.
Ben Nelson made the right call today. If he really desired to continue serving the people for another six years he could have actually started listening to them again. That shouldn't be so difficult. But many Democrats still have a hard time doing what's right for the people while in the thrall of staffers and media whose priorities are far different than ours.
Michael Bennet, who rightly criticizes the work ethic of his peers in Washington, still can't seem to grasp the basics of Populism 101. His spokesman recently touted the number of votes he made in concurrence with Joe Lieberman. Really? Lieberman? Bennet could learn a thing or two from Nelson's early departure. He might also pass off some of this wisdom to Barack Obama if the opportunity presents itself.
Or he could keep pursuing the path of bipartisanship with the same results he's already achieved - few to none.
Republicans And Business Groups Unable To Find One 'Job Creator' Who Opposes A Tax On Millionaires
From the article:
NPR put out a request to Republican offices and the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax to find business owners who'd be affected. Unsurprisingly, Republican leadership and the business groups came up empty:
We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to. A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio.
They are probably unwilling to talk about it because it would expose their greed and selfishness. If the number of Millionaires who said they support increased taxes on the wealthy was increased by two, we would be that much closer to reversing the income inequality trend begun under the Ronald Reagan Presidency.
More Pepper Spray uses against peaceful Americans by our Hyper-militarized Police forces here, here, here, here, here....h/t FDL, tumblr and the Pepper Spraying Cop.
We are writing to ask you to do the right thing for our country and REJECT ANY Super Committee deal that does not raise tax rates on incomes over $1 million to AT LEAST 39.6%, REGARDLESS of how many deductions are eliminated.
Private jets shouldn't have been tax deductible in the first place.
Thank you,
Patriotic Millionaires and Patriotic Americans
Love it. Poll after poll after poll shows Americans - even Indys and Republicans - agree. The politics of the day say Democrats should pound this message home hourly. But our congressional millionaires, Jared Polis and Michael Bennet have been clearly corrupted by the air in DC and are faint examples of what a Colorado Democrat can be.
Shame on both of them. They are shamed by their Peers in the One Percent: Millionaires who urgently want to preserve the Middle Class, Millionaires who can afford and want to pay more taxes so everyone in America can participate and thrive within a democracy that could be the most wealthy nation in history.
If there was any doubt in your mind to just how indifferent the 1% is to the needs of the 99%, or whether Bloomberg sees Occupy Wall Street as a mere nuisance, I think this news will clear that right up:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will host an intimate dinner at Gracie Mansion on Sunday night that brings together a bipartisan group of senators, Xerox chief executive Ursula Burns and other business and labor leaders to discuss how to pave the way for the Super Committee to "go big" and cut $4 trillion in federal spending, according to a source familiar with the dinner.
The Washington contingent includes Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Warner and Republican Sens. Bob Corker, and Saxby Chambliss, among others. The meeting will be a much smaller, more strategic affair -- 10 to 20 people -- than a similar dinner Warner threw at his home in September, which had a guest list of 60.
The records of the meeting should be released to the public immediately and Bennet should come clean on everything that goes on there. Michael Bennet continues to be disgusting failure as a representative of the people of Colorado.
Maybe a Tea Party senator wouldn't have been so bad after all - at least they laid their cards out up front.
According to exclusive reporting from Reuters the Democrats on the Super Committee are offering to cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits as part of a roughly $3 trillion grand bargain, which would well exceed the $1.2 trillion minimum goal the committee is tasked with meeting. From Reuters:
It calls for between $200 billion and $300 billion in new economic stimulus spending that would be paid for with lower interest payments from reducing deficits.
It also seeks around $400 billion in Medicare savings, with half coming in benefit cuts and the other half in cuts to healthcare providers. Details of that proposal were scant but tackling the popular Medicare program is always politically risky for politicians.
It is unlikely this specific deal being offered by the Democrats on the committee will be accepted by Republicans, because it calls for tax increases and more stimulus, but it still puts our social safety net in danger. It is another instance of the Democratic party steadily moving towards the official position of saying Medicare benefits can and should be cut.
Both our senators are still afraid to do that's truly needed to fulfill their oaths and fix our budget mess. They are in mortal electoral fear of Grover Norquist's idiotic pledge and its adherents and the constant rhetorical war Republicans wage on common sense. And they do almost nothing to fight either.
WASHINGTON - Colorado Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall? both voted Tuesday to couple a debt-ceiling increase with more than $2 trillion in cuts and deficit reduction over 10 years - a compromise that disappointed them.
Udall said it wasn't the bill he wanted because it didn't include revenues or elimination of tax breaks for billion-dollar corporations, which would have ensured "that the wealthiest among us will help shoulder the burden of balancing our books."
[...] "It will protect our economy from crisis and make a down payment on our debt, two critical first steps."
Bennet called the last four weeks in Washington "disappointing."
Those are two critical first steps, but the most important would be to have the federal government spend more money to actually stimulate the economy.
Both Michael Bennet and Mark Udall have caved on issue after issue since coming to office. Both complain about the results, but both have done nothing that would have changed those results. If they are being team players on the Obama re-election campaign, they better figure out this crap ain't working and that President Obama, sadly, may end up the primary casualty in Mitch McConnell's terror campaign:
Ikea is, not unlike T-Mobile and its German parent company, one of these companies that have good labor practices in Europe and then come to the United States for cheap, union-free labor.
Rather than remaining neutral and supporting a "Fair and Friendly" election as IKEA management had discussed with BWI and the IAMAW, the United States-based Swedwood management continued to follow the advise of its union avoidance law firm and conducted several activities designed to alter the outcome of the election. Regardless of these intrusive tactics that ranged from "voluntary" meetings with Swedwood management; rumours of plant closure; and promises of bonuses should the union be defeated, the workers decided to join the union. Issues of safety and health, racial discrimination, dignity and basic human respect were the main grievances that the workers had expressed as reasons for voting to join the Machinists Union.
And for all the anti-labor, anti-union, pro-corporate whiners who will decry this - you know who you are - let them take the side of this highly profitable foreign corporation over the local Colorado workers who sweat within its walls. I hope they whine about it every day.....
Like Lucy taking the football from Charlie Brown's poised kicking toe, Republicans have once again punked Democrats on the budget process. Will our side ever learn that they are congenital liars and that Republican leaders cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith?
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pulled out of bipartisan negotiations to raise the nation's debt limit, according to multiple reports.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Cantor indicated an impasse over taxes prompted his exit from the budget discussions for now. A GOP aide close to the talks told The Huffington Post that the disagreement could only be settled by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.
The aide said that Cantor was open to returning to the table, but that they've come to an impasse over "not so small tax increases" that Democrats are insisting on. "We can't go there, so until Boehner and Obama resolve that, it doesn't make much sense for Eric to keep going to the meetings."
Here again Democrats have demurred on making the case for fairly taxing the rich and corporations to resolve current budget and deficit issues. Cowards like Michael Bennet continue to neglect the fact that taxes are the lowest in generations, and those who aren't paying their fair share are banking trillions of dollars as our economy continues to piddle.
Democrats had better go on the offense, had better figure out how to make tax increases an inevitable occurrence and prepare themselves for the onslaught of lies until the economy turns around.
President Obama could lead the way to sound progressive policies on the budget "crisis". He will certainly have to change some of his assumptions and tactics. Senator Bennet might have the nerve to follow. But now the issue is being kicked down the road again thanks to another strategic win by Republicans and the continuing inability of Democrats to propose common-sense solutions that the public wants and needs. In order to truly kill this ongoing recession - a recession and debt that Republicans are mostly responsible for - Democrats will have to take the heat during the next election cycle and do what's right, maybe even fight for some "not so small" tax increases........something they've been unwilling to do even after given a clear mandate in 2008.
Both Colorado Democrat Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet were among the first senators outside the so-called "Gang of Five" to get details - and support - a plan to slash more than $4 trillion from the federal debt through a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and Medicare and Social Security reforms.
Udall and Bennet have been briefed on the details of a still-working plan and officials from their offices said Thursday they are on board to help move the process forward in any way they can.
Sirota was pointing out the other day how DC is a self-contained business model that is completely detached from reality and the rest of America. Colorado's Senators are about to prove his point with another bipartisan compromise* emanating from an institution universally declared dysfunctional even within Washington, DC's prallel universe.
A bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission's recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt.
When Gang of Six talks broke down due to Senator Tom Coburn's congenital defects (hypocrisy and lying) Senator Bennet protested that the Gang was still viable and that the talks should continue:
"I don't think it's dead. And I think, in fact, I would say that has some of the most promise we have because we've got three Democrats, three Republicans, working together to try to come up with a plan."
One can only assume that Michael Bennet supported the plan of all six senators to cut up to $530 BILLION from Medicare. He supported the Gang of Six even after Coburn had quit...with one of the most pitiful quotes I've heard from a United States Senator.
And with all that one can only ask why Bennet wanted the job in the first place.
Because if he is too cowardly to tell the people of our state that he, too, thinks we need to cut that money from our elderly and sick then he is not properly representing us. And he has no business taking the $174,000 salary we pay him to analyze our nation's problems and make the tough policy decisions that the job, and our citizens, rightly demand.
Bennet's Bipartisan Budget Buddies II: Mitch McConnell and Tom Coburn
Michael Bennet wanted to be a United States Senator. And he wanted the full imprimatur of voters to a full six-year term to an institution that he repeatedly stated was "broken". He even employed his three daughters to gain sympathy and help drive home his campaign's message:
I agree with the Senator that Washington, DC is a cesspool of too-close relationships and shop-worn rules rituals. Yet why does Bennet time and again endorse those failed habits? Why does he enable the phony bipartisanship loved only by The Denver Post's Editorial page and DC's most elite, and usually conservative, pundits?
When you do something together, the result is that it's not usable in the election. I think there's an understanding that if there's a grand bargain, none of it will be usable in next year's election.
And this, I'm afraid, is the most likely explanation for Bennet's insatiable quest for bipartisanship in Congress' guerrilla war over how to fund and pay for government. Even as each attempt at bipartisanship fails, Bennet plaintively wails that it really will work, Toto:
Talks among a bipartisan group of senators to try to solve the nation's fiscal woes seem to have stalled in recent weeks, with a separate set of talks led by Vice President Joe Biden taking a larger share of the spotlight.
But senators continue to root them on. On ABC's "Top Line" today, we featured an interview with Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. - who is not among the so-called "Gang of Six" - where he praised their talks and said they are continuing to make progress.
"It's not dead," Bennet told ABC's Jonathan Karl, in the latest installment of the "Subway Series."
Senator Michael Bennet is desperate for a bipartisan budget agreement to hide behind. An irrational exuberance for bipartisanship must have been one of the conditions for his job. More likely, I still think he's afraid to actually make a policy decision that will get him a yucky Denver Post Editorial. So much for that (D) behind his name, because that forever makes him a target of the Dan Haley/Dean Singleton Hydra. I don't get our leaders' reticence to act like Democrats here in Colorado: (D) must stand for Defensive in this state.
So, who shall this inexperienced Senator be bi with on the budget?
The Gang of Six simply didn't finish the job, and indeed, it was built to not finish the job, with Republicans desirous to drag out talks so Senate Democrats looked like they didn't have a plan. In this sense it was no different than the Max Baucus-led Gang of Six on the health care law.
Bennet has constantly complained that DC is broken, yet time and again he has deferred to the status quo and ensured that those who broke the system are able to keep it broken. The Baucus Health care "product" was horribly weak and Republicans kept nitpicking at it even after the bipartisan gang had an "agreement". The current debate to bring the budget into balance has all the same dynamic, and a Republican Party that continues to deceive even as they pretend to negotiate in good faith with their peers.
Bennet seemingly couldn't resist another shot at bipartisanship despite its repeated failures. It's just as likely he doesn't have the fortitude to take a real stand in the debate. Or maybe he just doesn't want to do anything that could piss anyone off.
Fat chance of that in this day and age.
Bennet shouldn't think his opponents will change a 100% successful strategy of PNK'ing D's and perverting democracy in the budget and deficit discussions. Why would they? Yes, Senator Bennet is green, but he's been in the Senate long enough to see the dominant pattern. He shouldn't trust Republicans on the budget and shouldn't be allowed to pass off his decisions to another round of dysfunctional bipartisanship. Time for Bennet to lead for once and show voters at least some of what they voted for.
First, he didn't come out of the starting block with a compromise pleasing to the entrenched extremist Republican minority obstructing a tax increase (unlike a certain President we know) (ref. John Hickenlooper). He made a definite proposal and he stuck to it. When the Tea Party gurus tried to change the subject and make unions the issue, not taxes, Brown refused to fall for the Shock Capitalist feignt and stuck by the unions. He didn't flinch or apologize for his support of higher taxes, even suggesting - mirabile dictu - that the GOP's zombielike anti-tax dogma showed their bad faith and lack of concern for Californians (ref. Bennet and Udall). They squealed like stuck pigs with lipstick on (don't apologize Obama) and looked foolish.
What else could the supremely intelligent Brown teach our timid Senators?
Second, Brown talked directly to the people of California, not just the obstreperous and incoherent Republican commandants. Again, unlike a certain President. Over and over again, he took his message to YouTube (you got to love that), as well as highschool gyms and union halls. For a septuagenarian he made a certain young president look like a geezer. Again the GOP squealed, and most people here saw the Republicans for what they are: ideological bullies who act like South Park's Cartman when somebody stands up to them.
There are more lessons for local (D)'s that can be learned from Jerry Brown. Sure, Mike Rosen would make fun of them and him, but is there an issue that he wouldn't -- no matter the source?
No, and that's the primary lesson our Senators, our Governor, and our unemployed Representatives can learn from a successful Democratic Leader.
Even after back-to-back landslides delivered them the White House and huge majorities in both houses of Congress, they refused to take a stand for sound policy or Democratic principles.
Instead, they sought common ground with the Republicans no matter how wrong and cruel they might be, inching ever rightward until they achieved a suitably pro-corporate outcome.
It can't be said much more clearly than that.
Michael Bennet has been a key to Barack Obama's capitulation on a large number of key Democratic and democratic principles. It really needs to come to an end before we lose The New Deal, The Great Society, and what's left of The Middle Class. Michael Bennet, as the old Tennessee saying goes, is either with us or agin' us.
Right now I fear it's the latter. It should be the former.
March 18, 2011
Bennet, Johanns Lead Bipartisan Call for President to Support Comprehensive Deficit Reduction 32 Republicans, 32 Democrats Sign Letter
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet(D-Colo.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today led a bipartisan call for President Obama to support a comprehensive deficit reduction package in any negotiations on the budget.
In a letter to the President, 64 Senators ask him to engage in budget negotiations beyond FY2011 that include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform, to create meaningful deficit reduction. The letter notes that a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission, and that the group's work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt.
"By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue," the senators wrote.
They are pretending to want to "balance the budget" when what they are really doing is ramping up their war against the poor and middle class. Where is there any mention here of the multi-trillion-dollar pricetags for our wars in the Middle East and other military expenditures? Where is there any mention of the deregulatory factors that caused the global financial meltdown, which led to the colossal bailout of Wall Street? These are the same senators who recently doubled down on the budget deficit by extending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but now they want us to believe that the reason why they're attacking essential public services is because they're "deficit hawks"?
This isn't about the budget, people. The budget is a pretext for expanding the oligarchy's class warfare against the poor and the middle class in America and around the world.
