Republican hatred of Barack Obama has only ramped up since the election. Some naive Dems, including the president, thought their jungle fever would "break".
Jim DeMint wanted to break Obama when he was a senator. He couldn't. Then he retired from the senate and is trying to break Obama, and Democrats, and any possibility of passing any legislation, from his chair at The Heritage Foundation.
Republicans haven't been able to lie enough about Barack Obama to cause any scandals. Things that should be scandals (drill almost everywhere, unlimited government wire taps, innocents killed by drones, too-big-to-fail-or-jail banksters gone wild, etc..) have that Bipartisan support. They said "muslim", "socialist", "Kenyan" a million times each with no effect.
People still like him and support him.
So when Benghazi, Libya, consulate was attacked and several of our foreign service officers killed, Republicans wound up the scandal machine, had some lies placed with a key news reporter, and went to work at what they do best, Lie to the American People:
From a logical standpoint, it was pretty obvious that Republicans were the source of the inaccurate Benghazi talking point emails reported last Friday by ABC News White House correspondent Jon Karl, but when the actual emails surfaced, Karl did not acknowledge who his sources were.
Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday. Here's what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans.
John Boehner obviously has to try to keep his Tea Party Far-Right members happy. Semi-literates like Doug Lamborn, dullards like Louie Gohmert, McCarthyites like Ted "Calgary" Cruz are in a constant state of agitation against the good operations of government and the faith and loyalty of those who serve our society in almost every capacity.
They hold themselves in such high regard that the rest of us barely rate a thoughts.
John Boehner On Debt Ceiling: Let's Pay China First, Then U.S. Troops
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday essentially agreed with Democrats' arguments that a Republican bill to prioritize debt payments would put China before U.S. troops -- except he suggested that would be a good thing.
During an interview with Bloomberg TV, Boehner was asked about this week's vote on the Full Faith and Credit Act, which, in the event that the U.S hits its debt ceiling, would direct the treasury secretary to pay only the principal and interest owed to bondholders before making any other payments. Money for other payments, such as those for veterans, Medicare and national security, would have to be divvied up from what remained of the scarce federal funds.
Republican supporters of the bill maintain that the most important thing is that the nation won't default on its credit as as long as those interest payments are made on time.
"Our goal here is to get ourselves on a sustainable path from a fiscal standpoint," Boehner said. "I think doing a debt prioritization bill makes it clear to our bondholders that we're going to meet our obligations."
When show host Peter Cook asked if Boehner's comments mean that, as Democrats have suggested, Republicans are basically choosing to pay China before paying U.S. troops, Boehner didn't disagree.
That's your ideal, responsible, support the troops, economically conservative, modern-day Republican - An Unrepentant Asshole to the end (that's just my stupid blogger self, saying what oh-so-reasonable Op-Editors can't or won't -z), who, in order to pay down our nation's debt, mostly generated under Republican rule, would pay off Chinese bondholders before our Brave and Loyal Troops.
President Obama told supporters that he expected the gridlock to end after the election, when Republicans can stop worrying about voting him out of office.
"My expectation is that if we can break this fever, that we can invest in clean energy and energy efficiency because that's not a partisan issue," Obama said, speaking to supporters in Minneapolis.
Obama pointed to deficit reduction, a transportation bill (There's a transportation bill? Ha! - z), and immigration reform as initiatives that could well pass in November.
"In this election, the Republican Party has moved in a fundamentally different direction. The center of gravity for their party has shifted," Obama said.
But Obama held out hope of the party moving back towards the center.
"I believe that If we're successful in this election, when we're successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there's a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that. My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn't make much sense because I'm not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again," Obama said.
Still, Obama was careful not to take the contest for granted - saying it would be a very close race.
"This is going to be a very close race. It's going to be close because there's a lot of folks out there who are having a tough time," he said.
How wrong he was.
How many political assumptions and decisions have been made based on his belief?
How many of those decisions been held to despite Republicans' unceasing hatred and obstruction?
Each year, about one million infants around the world die on the same day they're born. That figure includes about 11,300 U.S. babies - the highest first-day infant mortality rate of any other country in the industrialized world, according to a new report from Save the Children. In fact, the United States' rate of first-day infant death is 50 percent more than all the other industrialized countries in the report combined.
Many babies who die at birth were born too early, and others suffer infections or complications at birth. Many of those infants could be actually be saved with fairly cheap medical interventions, the advocacy group says. The first day of life is the most dangerous day for mothers and babies, but expanding access to several products that cost under $6 each - bag-and-mask devices to help babies breathe, antiseptic to prevent umbilical cord infections, antibiotics to treat infections, and steroids to delay pre-term labor - could help save an estimated one million infants around the world.
Former President George W. Bush isn't quite a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln, his former campaign strategist Karl Rove admitted to ABC News on Thursday, but according to Rove, he's not too far off.
"The greats, you can't touch: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, FDR," Rove said in Dallas at the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center. "But yeah, I'd put him up there."
The House Republicans release a scathing report blaming Hillary Clinton for something-something-Benghazi, because something-something-Benghazi is the newest Fox News conspiracy theory and there's really just nothing, and I mean nothing, that the Congress of the United States of America needs to spend their time on more than Fox News conspiracy theories. That's a given.
Darrell Issa exists to investigate those theories.
The entire House Oversight Committee has been turned into an episode of Scooby Doo where Obama or Hillary Clinton are behind literally every bad thing that happens in America, from solar companies going bust to children getting cavities.
The smoking gun in the new Republican report? That Hillary Clinton "signed" memos rejecting stepped-up security at the compound, thus proving that everything was all her fault, period, exclamation point, Ronald Reagan smiley face. There's only one little problem with that: Clinton did not "sign" the letter.
Darrell Issa and the rest of the Crack House Investigative Team of Superheroes got confused on a basic fact of how the State Department works, and not one of them bothered to actually freaking check, just once, with the State Department as to their top-notch theory of things:
[By tradition], every cable from an embassy bears the "signature" of the ambassador - and every cable from Washington bears the "signature" of the secretary of state. The protocol is explained in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual.
Maybe Doug Lamborn could've done a quick scan of the manual for his brethren.
"This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America."
Louie Gohmert is a moron, and a perfect symbol of today's Republican party: its gaping ignorance, its barely hidden racism, and its complete disdain for common sense. Gohmert is the perfect representative of the absolutely clueless, racist, and monumentally ignorant voters who put him in office.
And these are the people we are supposed to be bipartisan with!
So, they've crunched some real numbers and determined exactly how much money the average Social Security recipient can expect to lose if the Chained-CPI is implemented. I'm going to assume that if someone told you that the government was going to seize $15,000.00 from your 401k you'd think it was a cut.
...
To rich people, 15 grand amounts to tip money so they cannot see why average Americans shouldn't be willing to give up such a paltry sum especially if it will "save" Social Security for their grandchildren.
Funny thing about that --- it won't. Save Social Security, that is.
So Social Security's status will barely be improved by Udall and Bennet and Obama and Pete Peterson's solution. Though it will absolutely be felt by almost every recipient - young, old, retired, working, disabled.
And that $15,000 is a little over a month's pay for our esteemed senators who will soon make those "tough" decisions to cut Social Security and bless America's wealthy with another generation of low-tax, America the Beautiful living.
Thank God they are not average, for they all do so deserve their bounty...
Kelly Ayotte's Approval Rating Plunges After Vote Against Gun Background Checks
WASHINGTON -- A new poll has New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) down a total of 15 points from her previous approval rating in a survey that followed her vote against requiring background checks for firearms purchases.
Ayotte's plunge underscores the changing politics around gun control and gun safety. In years past, lawmakers worried that a vote for gun control would bring the anger of the National Rifle Association. In the new reality, votes against gun control also carry a political risk, as the Ayotte poll indicates.
Maybe US Senators will start listening to their constituents a little bit more than the ppl that bring bags of campaign cash to their doorsteps.
There is nothing here to disabuse me of my long-held notion that most economists reach their conclusions by cutting up a sheep on a rock and reading the entrails.
This error is needed to get the results they published, and it would go a long way to explaining why it has been impossible for others to replicate these results. If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-Rogoff made, well, all I can hope is that future historians note that one of the core empirical points providing the intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity in the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.
And are we at all surprised that a certain zombie-eyed granny-starver of our casual acquaintance was one of the delivery mechanisms into our politics for what may be one of the great public-intellectual blunders (or worse) of the century?
Why, no, we are not at all.
This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession.Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget states their study "found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth." The Washington Post editorial board takes it as an economic consensus view, stating that "debt-to-GDP could keep rising - and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth."
This is a case of political malpractice on the part of state and national Democrats.
Senator Mitch McConnell is a leading symbol of the GOP and of what Democrats loathe about the GOP. And he is, on paper, the most vulnerable Senate incumbent.
In his fifth term now, McConnell has an approval rating in Kentucky of 36 percent. Silent but sullen, most of his own party doesn't really like him. The state's Democrats, who still control the governorship and the lower house, positively despise the man.
Yet out of a toxic mix of fear, self-interest and timidity, no credible candidate has stepped forward to challenge him.
Bennet says he took almost a month to decide whether to take on the role because in part he wanted confirmation, from Republicans in particular, that the job would not imperil relationships he has painstakingly built in four years on Capitol Hill.
"I wanted to make sure it would not interfere with my ability to work in a bipartisan way in the Senate," Bennet said in a short, guarded phone interview. "I talked to people on both sides of the aisle about that and became convinced."
Here's hoping Mitch McConnell gets the challenger he so well deserves. Maybe Michael Bennet and the DSCC will have something to do with it.
It's quite obvious ColoradoPols doesn't give a crap what most D's do as long as there's a (D) behind their name. Maybe it's because they use the "don't get caught with a live girl or a dead boy" standard. Maybe it's that they're mostly insiders, the Professional Left of Colorado, and don't want embarrass the boss - even if he or she embarrasses the Brand.
I expect our side to uphold the ideals laid down by their Democratic forebears who made history: FDR, Harry Truman, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter even Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt. If you dare to think you can lead, it should be with a purpose beyond your family's welfare and your own checking brokerage account.
That being said, I shall praise Colorado's Senator Mikey* Bennet for one act, and condemn him for 2 others.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is a Democrat's Democrat and it is very clear she will hold bankers and regulators feet to the fire for the profound responsibility the have in causing our current economic mess.
Here is some of what Mikey Bennet could have done if he gave a crap about what bankers did to you and me:
Now I condemn Bennet's egregious acts, committed in a way to curry more favor from bankers and further distance himself from ordinary citizens:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today welcomed Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who will join the committee for the 113th Congress starting in January. Senators Brown and Bennet will replace outgoing Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), both retiring this year.
"Michael Bennet brings a wealth of practical, real-world experience to the Finance Committee. He has proven himself to be an up-and-coming leader who is always willing to reach across party lines," Senator Baucus said. "As a fellow Westerner, I know Michael has a top-notch work ethic and will deliver common-sense solutions."
This is a case of political malpractice on the part of state and national Democrats.
(Michael Bennet is Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. It is his job to find a candidate that will defeat the man whose only goal was to defeat Barack Obama. -z)
McConnell is a leading symbol of the GOP and of what Democrats loathe about the GOP. And he is, on paper, the most vulnerable Senate incumbent.
In his fifth term now, McConnell has an approval rating in Kentucky of 36 percent. Silent but sullen, most of his own party doesn't really like him. The state's Democrats, who still control the governorship and the lower house, positively despise the man.
Yet out of a toxic mix of fear, self-interest and timidity, no credible candidate has stepped forward to challenge him.
So I thank Bennet for stepping down from a committee on which he did not care to perform his most basic responsibility as a senator. He could've stayed and gummed up the works.
I derisively call Bennet "Mikey" because this is just how he treats his constituents: as his lessers who should be seen and not heard.
I criticize his continued transformation into the Ultimate DC Insider: a man who'll use committee seats to boost his campaign accounts and as an employment agent for his staffers. Senator Bennet has been transformed from a green politico who saw the how broken DC was to an insider who makes every move political and who only sees how his own future can benefit fro his days ahead as one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, DC.
Of course, George W. Bush politicizing the attacks of 9/11 - for years following the event - was perfectly OK with Republicans and Conservatives and Warmongers and, not coincidentally, the NRA.
In essence he spells this out in great detail, with graphics and charts:
[Social Security] is not generous enough to counteract the sorry state of retirement savings nationwide. In a report for the New American Foundation, Michael Lind, Steven Hill, Robert Hiltonsmith and Joshua Holland survey this data and conclude that the ongoing debate over how to cut Social Security is all wrong:
We need to make Social Security much more generous.
And then this --- problematic in some respects, but really radical by establishment discourse standards:
Medicare uses its massive market power to negotiate much lower prices than private insurers. For that reason, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that "average spending in traditional Medicare will be 89 percent of (that is, 11 percent less than) the spending that would occur if that same package of benefits was purchased from a private insurer." Back during the health-care debate, the CBO estimated that a public option able to use Medicare's pricing power could save more than $100 billion over 10 years.
In a policy paper for the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, Robert Berenson, John Holahan and Stephen Zuckerman propose a package of changes that would save more than $700 billion over 10 years. One of the changes they propose is raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. But in order to blunt the impact of that change, they propose letting people between the ages of 65 and 67 buy in to Medicare on their own - that way, they can take advantage of Medicare's lower prices, even if they're paying for them out-of-pocket. "Buying into Medicare gives them as good a deal as they're going to get," Berenson says.
If it's such a good deal for the 65-to-67 crowd, then why not let 55-year-olds buy into Medicare, or even let everybody buy into Medicare? "I've always assumed it was just political opposition from Republicans," Berenson replied. I asked him to put aside the politics and just assess whether it would work. "Conceptually, I don't see a problem," he said.
The problem is if Udall proposed expanding Social Security then Kudlow would never stop calling him names, and he'd never again get his ego stroked on national basic cable again.
And if Bennet ever stopped listening to, let alone greasing the skids for, his Bankster friends they would never invite him to drinks at the Ritz again.
Senior elected Democrats in Washinton, DC, have a serious choice ahead of them in the very near future. And there is absolutely no evidence they will make the truly difficult and moral choice to support the elderly, veteran's and their families, the retired, and the disabled over their Big-Time, Big-Money Friends who have them on speed dial.
Now that Obama has fully embraced the cuts, no amount of White House spin is going to be able to permanently pin the chained CPI on Republicans, as the administration official is trying to do. Republicans have been demanding for months that Obama specifically spell out the cuts to social insurance programs he would accept; now he's done so, they will make sure he owns them.
The White House seems to believe that this will show the American public that he is Very Serious about both deficit reduction and working with Republicans, that "he is willing to compromise and do tough things to reduce the deficit," in the words of a senior administration official. Because of course a willingness to compromise is all that it takes to make the Republicans come around. That and his charm offensive.
Republicans aren't going to come around, and now have a weapon.
And what the American people will probably remember is that in 2008 candidate Obama promised that as president, he would not cut Social Security, a promise reiterated by Vice President Biden in 2012.
In fact, we're probably not going to be allowed to forget that, once the Republicans get their ads running in congressional districts around the country saying that Barack Obama broke his promise and wants to cut your Social Security.
Besides the fact that Obama and his henchmen Polis, Udall, Bennet are determined to cut the most successful and popular social welfare (check the Constitution for use of that word) program in human history, we also know that
You will pat each other on the back at the "tough" decision to cut Grandma's Social Security, keep those damned lazy slacker kids off Head Start, and continue to let the unemployed starve and our infrastructure crumble.
You will lie to yourself that it "had to be done" and you,yes You, were the adult in the room.
As an emailer said of Polis, Udall and Bennet et al.:
Making seniors have to decide between food, medicine or rent in exchange for the lint in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires is NOT courageous.
Betraying the principles of his party, betraying fundamental humane values, betraying people who voted for you, people who just can't believe you would do this, is the opposite of courage.
Being the handmaiden of plutocrats is not the sign of bold leadership.
Your donors will reward you handsomely and ask where the next cuts may be made as you dine on champagne and caviar at the post-signing dinner.
And Republican ads blaming Democrats for cutting Social Security will begin taping in 3...2...1...
P.P.S. Administration Hacks telling us "the American people want a solution that is halfway between R's and D's". Hacks forget that Republicans are Sociopathic Racists and Democrats are thisclose to enacting Eisenhower-era conservative policies.
I have said that part of getting our economy going and creating jobs means setting our budget on a sustainable footing and reducing the deficit. I supported President Obama's work in 2009 to create a bipartisan commission focused on reducing the deficit. And since then, I have called on Congress to embrace its balanced and bipartisan final recommendations. Confronting sequestration is just the latest challenge in the process to responsibly reduce government spending.
That's "Bowles-Simpson" that Udall still thinks is relevant and has a reasonable approach to our budget issues. Shame on him for thinking we could be so ignorant.
"Washington needs to have a broad and serious conversation about our nation's deficits and debt. We need a bipartisan and comprehensive deficit solution that builds on the work done by the President's Fiscal Commission that materially addresses the problem, ensures we're all in it together and is bipartisan."
-Michael F. Bennet
Sweet Jesus, that is just friggin' stoopid.
I think we can safely say "bipartisanship" is a higher goal than good policy and/or listening to voters for both Udall and Bennet.
Man, Ted Cruz is a real piece of work isn't he? This interview shows him to be a very nimble liar. For instance:
"The Democrats' budget does nothing to solve the enormous challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Every one of us would like to see those critical bulwarks of our society strengthened, and right now those programs are careening toward bankruptcy."
1. Republicans do not want them "strengthened. This is not just a matter of semantics. You only have to look at what these people have been saying since these programs were enacted to understand that they do not believe that the government should administer these programs at all.
2. These programs are not careening towards bankruptcy. Social Security is funded as long as there are people working in this country. The only question is whether there is enough money in the dedicated funding stream to pay out the benefits that are currently mandated.
Like everyone else who makes this specious claim, he's saying that the only way to deal with a projected shortfall in the dedicated funding stream is to make it official immediately and prepare everyone but the well-off to live in penury in their old age.
Would Mike Bennet or Mark Udall ever call out such lying hypocrisy by their peers? No, it's a "professional courtesy" and they sure wouldn't like to be called out for the same.
Instead, they want us to be bipartisan with any old Liar and Hypocrite who happens to hold national office and despises everything a Democrat should stand for.
He is from Texas, but I'm not going to give him a pass:
Rep. Louie Gohmert proves he's not just a dick in Congress. U.S. Park police said the Congressman was "rude and irate" after they ticketed him March 13 for parking near the Lincoln Memorial in a space reserved National Park Service Vehicles:
Gohmert took the ticket off his windshield and placed it on a police car along with his business card with a message written: "Oversight of Park Service is my job! Natural Resources Thus the Congressional Plate in window."
This is also illustrative of the fact that congress loves to exempt themselves from laws they expect the rest of us to have to follow.
The Senate voted Friday night to oppose cutting entitlement benefits for veterans using a new method of calculating inflation.
President Obama has put the new method, known as chained consumer price index, on the table in deficit talks with Republicans. Using it reduces entitlement benefits like Social Security over time and also raises revenues by reducing the value of tax breaks.
First, for the millionth time, Social Security is not an "entitlement", it is one of the most successful and popular social insurance programs devised by man.
And using chained CPI is definitely a cut -- the last thing the elderly and retired need. America's seniors are not living the high life with corporate jets and seaside homes paid for by tax-exempt stock-option, million-dollar bonuses. That would be another portion of society that is pushing for chained CPI.
The vote on the amendment was by voice vote, so its usefulness in quantifying Senate opposition to the proposal is minimal. The amendment is non-binding because it is attached to the budget resolution, which does not have the force of law.
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sponsored the amendment.
....
Sanders pushed for a roll call vote, but was talked out of it by Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
Were it not for Patty Murray, we might know know how our two Towers of Pudding, Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, voted.
They don't want us to know.
They probably voted for this amendment as a P.R. move with the full intent to then vote for a "Grand Bargain" that includes chained CPI cuts to Social Security that will be so harmful to our seniors and retirees.
That's how you roll if you are a United States Senator....
News reporters and editors claim "both sides do it" so they won't have to do the hard work of, and take the heat for, using empirical evidence and logic to pick a reasonable side in our political arguments.
Politicians, especially Democrats like Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, say "both sides do it" to pander to voters who won't take the time to delve into the issues and find trustworthy sources of information and to increase their ability to pass bad laws for special interests with bipartisan support rather than passing good laws with their constituents in mind that require principle and guts.
The Senate on Friday rejected an effort by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to repeal Obamacare, an outcome that was expected but is far from the last attempt by Republicans to dismantle President Barack Obama's signature accomplishment.
Cruz's amendment to the Democratic budget resolution failed 45 to 54. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) voted "no" with the Democrats.
The amendment sought to "establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010."
Ahead of the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Konfederacy) put out a statement trashing Obamacare for being too expensive and "not working" in the way that was promised by Democrats.
Let me sum their atrocious, partisan behavior this way:
Republican Tea Partiers are destroying our democracy with each and every vote on this quite mild effort to reign in health care costs and provide quality health care to all Americans.
Republican Tea Partiers continue to deny the will of the people which clearly supported Democratic candidates and progressive policies in the last election.
Republican Tea Partiers continue to obstruct the president with parliamentary tricks, abusive amendments and filibuster threats that have knocked more than one Obama nominee out of the running for an important administration job.
Both sides don't do it. No matter what the milquetoast press and cowardly politicians say, it should be clear that Republicans are the obstructive, destructive force in Washington, DC.
And it'd be nice if someone besides a dumb blogger pointed it out.
An anonymous $2 million gift to the Denver Scholarship Foundation will provide aid to a group of students who are ineligible for federal assistance for college.
The gift will aid Denver Public Schools students who are undocumented immigrants but have received federal deferred-action status.
The foundation also changed some of its scholarship-application requirements for the same group of students.
....
The $2 million will be divided among all undocumented students who apply, so the size of the scholarship will depend on how many students apply.
