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.
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-House Republicans have announced plans to cut heating subsidies for the poor, job training and President Barack Obama's "Race to the Top" program providing grants to better-performing schools, as they unveil a massive spending bill for labor, health and education programs.
The controversial GOP measure also seeks to block implementation of Obama's signature health care law, cut off National Public Radio from federal grants and reduce eligibility for Pell Grants to low-income college students.
The policy needs are beyond obvious. Though they've failed this basic test before, it would be politically brain-dead for Democrats, especially Colorado's Wimpy Senators Udall and Bennet, to not fully support the goals behind this speech. (I'm looking at you too, me!)
Republicans will bitch and moan about every fine point, but cannot refudiate the President's challenge that America's greatest leaders have never hesitated to invest in a future that would help their progeny at every turn. Republicans will not and cannot do what's right in today's environment. Democrats will hesitate to do what's right and might fritter away the opportunity while the economy continues to suffer. That is truly the most disconcerting part of this drama.
But I have been waiting for this President Obama for three years. I hope his team in DC sees the light and supports him in this critical plan for our economy. If they don't, then once again his eloquent words will be the narration to an empty dream. This is the dream that was expected by the millions who voted for him in November, 2008. They will never see it without unwavering support from those citizens and leaders who also said "Yes, we can" that election day.
That's the day I voted for President Barack Obama, the president we saw flashes of again last night.
(If Sen. Udall votes to "spread the pain" to the Big Three, will Democrats re-elect him? - promoted by WeatherDem)
Colorado Senator Mark Udall complained on the senate floor late last year about the nation's short-term memory loss wrt our budget situation. This was about the time Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires were extended at the behest of a hostage-taking Republican Tea Party:
"We are suffering from the worst possible case of collective short-term memory loss. During the past decade, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans didn't lead to job creation and instead helped cause a skyrocketing deficit. Why would we believe it will be any different this time around? As I've said many times, instead of borrowing more money to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, we should focus our attention on reducing our national debt, stabilizing Social Security for the long term, and finding common-sense ways to create jobs."
That's real purty, and the fact this statement was meant for public consumption goes with the inclusion of contacts for Udall's spokes-ghost* Tara Trujillo at (303) 650-7820.
I'm thinking Udall is counting on our memory loss to have us forget he actually had the proper answer for our budget problem. By now the Esteemed Senator has changed his tune on Social Security and is prescribing "pain" for all of us that will come in varying forms: the pain for Udall would be undoing the Udall legacy while having to read some nasty blog posts about how he has lied to Colorado's citizens; the pain for us would be in the cuts to Social Security and Medicare that he now feels are absolutely necessary but which will won't fix a thing but how Lawrence Kudlow thinks of Mark Udall. I would describe the pain as more like a medieval treatment with leeches.
President Obama is asking the CEOs of Time Warner, AT&T, and other major companies in a meeting today to funnel money into the nation's public schools, which are facing steep budget cuts on the state level this year.
The Wall Street Journal's Stephanie Banchero writes that both Bank of America and Microsoft will announce new investments in K-12 education after the meeting: $50 million for programs to prepare low-income students for college and a $15 million investment in video-game technology for the classroom, respectively.
According to data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, 18 states cut spending for K-12 instruction in fiscal year 2011 by $1.8 billion. Proposed cuts for the next fiscal year are much steeper: They total $2.5 billion for K-12 schools.
He may get some slight investments from corporations who hope to eventually earn a profit from their minor good will. He may even replace the horrible multi-billion-dollar cuts, but it's doubtful. Most CEO's would choke at the thought of a no-strings-attached disbursement from their corporate coffers into the public domain.
He should welcome the hatred of the CEO, the Oligarch, the Reactionary and the Radical. He'd have Joe Sixpack on his side. He'd have me on his side, for what it's worth. It might be uncomfortable at first, but he would warm to it, and he could easily win re-election from a public still yearning for his leadership.
Many, including I, had projected a bit of FDR onto Obama as he came into office. I'm beyond hoping for that much at this point. I hope we're not all beyond such feelings.
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.
After taking control of the House of Representatives last November, congressional Republicans came up with a surefire way to cut government spending and shrink the federal deficit - ban earmarks.
U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, who represents Colorado Springs, wrote an editorial supporting the ban, and targeted what he called "an important first step toward fundamentally changing the way taxpayer dollars are spent in Washington."
By the time he threw his support behind the ban, Lamborn had requested at least $156 million in earmarks, much of it for military bases in his Colorado district, but also tens of millions in contracts for companies that had donated to his campaign.
From the 2008 through 2010 fiscal years, Lamborn got the second-highest amount of earmark money of the 10 Colorado House members who served during those years, including three who were in the House for a part of that time - Reps. Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo and Sen. Mark Udall.
It's never a surprise to me that Republicans can lie about, and get away with, their love of family values, their hatred of earmarks, their concern about the (Democratic) debt, their disgust with (Democratic) wars. Dougie-boy says he's a good Christian. In Colorado Springs that means funding a perpetual war machine to make sure we can kill our enemies, sending our young off to fight at a moment's notice, and making sure our major corporations never want for a profit.
The Mad Men 1960s America - where average families dominated the consumer market - has totally disappeared, this Ad Age New Wave of Affluence study details. And Madison Avenue has moved on - to where the money sits.
And that money does not sit in average American pockets. The global economic recession, Ad Age relates, has thrown "a spotlight on the yawning divide between the richest Americans and everyone else."
Taking inflation into account, Ad Age goes on to explain, the "incomes of most American workers have remained more or less static since the 1970s," while "the income of the rich (and the very rich) has grown exponentially."
Billie Holiday summed up our situation with profoundly simple lyrics and a deep sadness in her voice:
The Koch Brothers, their little helpers on the right and the populist phonies on the left, will all sleep well tonight.
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.
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.
A lot of local government officials act like buses don't exist, so I was excited and thankful on Monday when one of my city council members recognized their importance.
Vicki Stack is the representative for Ward One on the Lakewood City Council, and she would like connecting service to the West Corridor light rail line to run every two and a half minutes. She asked an RTD how to get buses running that often. He was somewhat wishy washy on that point, so I thought that I would answer her question here.
We get buses to run frequently by paying for them. Lakewood can get the money in a variety of ways. The city can apply for state and federal money that RTD is not eligible for. (It would help if the city lobbied to make sure the state and federal governments fund transit.) Lakewood could ask Jefferson County to support transit. Lakewood could calculate how much a significant increase in transit could save in road repairs, health care costs, etc. to see if transit improvements would pay for themselves. Lakewood could ask voters for a sales tax or mill levy increase. Similar ballot issues pass more often than they fail.
Roads and driving are not going to get any cheaper. As WeatherDem pointed out, global warming is not getting better. People are moving out of suburban into urban environments. Local governments need to support policies that recognize these realities. And we need to support government representatives who do so.
Though that's the last piece of advice Republicans will ever take Obama's criticisms were exact and moral. He was cheered on the left, scorned on the right (what's new?) and left only one thing to be answered: will he follow his tough words with the deeds to salvage something of this economy and will he instill a bit of confidence in others with (D)'s behind their names I'm looking at you, Senators) who congenitally cave in to Washington, DC's conventional wisdom on taxes and the budget?
A bipartisan forum to address the federal deficit problem in Denver Friday was supposed to be headlined by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. But the pair was stuck Washington while Congress tried to avert a looming government shutdown over federal spending.
...
Former Colorado U.S. Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and current co-chair of the President Obama's bi-partisan deficit commission Alan "Snoopy Poop" Simpson, R-Wyo., then led a panel intertwined with local CEO's, military veterans and small business owners to discuss the nation's fiscal condition.
Sen. Hart said there are certain key areas of focus when it comes to the federal deficit: social security, Medicare, Medicad and the military.
"Those are the key components," said Hart "You have to deal with each of those things."
One would hope Gary Hart is smarter than to believe the misplaced conventional wisdom that SS contributes in any way to our current fiscal problems. Those who spout it want to kill the program, but it doesn't affect the deficit and there are many sources that say so:
So, now that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan has unveiled his steaming tightly coiled pile of a budget the argument in the media is starting. It is to be strongly hoped that the Traditional Media outlets will look at the facts of this budget.
You know the little problems like the draconian cuts are not going to actual deficit reduction because they are being used to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Just to raise your blood pressure a little this morning, let me give you and example. Under this budget a single person making $75,000 a year (a nice chunk of change) would pay the same tax rates as people who make multiple millions a year.
Another issue that has to be brought up again and again is that this budget would gut the newly minted financial regulations, would gut the EPA, would gut the Social Security Administration (setting up the argument that it is poorly run and needs to be ended all together) as well as ending Medicare and Medicaid as we know them within ten years.
As if all that shite were not enough, there is the fact that like all of the proposals that Rep. Ryan puts forward, the numbers don't work. He assumes that if we pass his budget in 4 years, just 48 months, the unemployment rate will fall to 4%.
I'd love that to happen, but I have this mental defect, I can't get behind something that has no basis in reality, or as in this case is actually counter factual. Over the last two years the only thing that has kept the economy afloat was major federal spending. Business is sitting on 1.4 trillion in cash and has shown no sign of wanting to use it to stimulate demand. Rep. Ryan wants to slash hundreds of billions from the budget every year for the next decade. Is there really anyone out there who thinks that the resultant loss of jobs is going to improve the growth rate or the unemployment numbers?
If there was anything to this, then we would have had the boom that Rep. Ryan and the Heritage Foundation both predicted from the original Bush tax cuts. Instead of job growth we lost 600,000 private sector jobs in that time period. I think we have been "trickled down" upon enough to show that it is insane and does not work.
There is one piece of the Republican push that I do agree with; there is no plan from the Democrats, yet. For all its flaws (and lets face it they are legion) the Republicans have put forward an ideological marker for budgets. Everyone can see they want to slash government at the expense of the young, the poor and the elderly. I think it is more than a little bit of political suicide, but this is what you get when the inmates run the asylum as has happened with the modern Republican Party.
