A CHALLENGE TO THE NEW CONGRESS!

The President has been taking an unprecedented amount of grief from his own party for having abandoned his pledge to let his predecessor's generous corporate welfare plan for the rich expire at the end of the year, as it was supposed to.

The Republicans, the PARTY OF THE RICH, appear poised to start the new year with not only control of the House, but their dearest and fondest hope about to realized: continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. They have told us all along that cutting taxes on the wealthy would end uncertainty and lead to the creation of new jobs. We here in the sane world know that this is absolute rubbish. Having had these cuts in place since 2001, the only real job growth we have seen has come under the Obama administration, and that was due to his controversial Stimulus Plan. Job growth rates for the entire Bush presidency ranked the LOWEST of any President since the Great Depression. Still, the Republican Party clings to the myth that tax cuts for millionaires = jobs. OK, Rrpublicans: I'm calling your bluff. Starting with my January 3, 2011 post, I will ask at the very top of the page, "WHERE ARE THE JOBS, MR. BOEHNER?" I will continue to ask this question until the national unemployment rate falls below 7%. I know this may not happen at all during the next 2 years, but here is the challenge nonetheless.


So consider yourselves forewarned, Republicans. You won't have the Democrats or anyone else to blame if these tax cuts do not produce the jobs you say they will. For now you've been granted the second chance you've been hoping for. No longer will you be able to hide behind or blame anyone else. Now it will be up to YOU to put ip or shut up. Will you be up to the challenge?






I doubt it.

TIME FOR A CHANGE!

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, folks. Talking to some old friends this past week, it finally dawned on me: I've been holding on to some flawed assumptions and bad ideas for a long time now. What I present here today may come as a bit of a shock to you, because it's different from what I have been presenting for some time. It may seem as a sudden and abrupt change, because most of my posts are prepared a number of weeks in advance, but this one is a "fresh" one. So here goes...


Let's be honest here. Our country is still in terrible shape, more than a year after Barack Obama took office with a large Democratic majority. So far, very little has been accomplished, other than a pledge to close Guantanamo which hasn't been met, and the passage of a health care bill that I now realize will benefit huge insurance companies more than any of us. Main Street has not benefitted from any of the government's initiatives this past year. Only Wall Street has. The President and his party have saddled us and future generations with debt, overtaxed businesses don't have the money to upgrade or hire new people, federal regulation actually is crippling small business, and millions of our countrymen are imprisoned by unemployment, with no real relief in sight. With Barack Obama, we didn't really get change - only hyperliberalism that has done nothing for anybody EXCEPT WALL STREET. It is time for a change. No, I have not developed a brain tumor or lost my mind, but I have now reached some new conclusions. Please hear me out about this: the Republicans may actually have a valid point in some of their arguments. Please read on - you'll better understand where I'm coming from as we go along...

I have been restlessly channel-surfing of late, and I have discovered that many of the beliefs I once held no longer apply. Having done extensive research into the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as to the true nature of radical Islamic fundamentalism, I now understand that the pre-emptive military action we took was absolutely right. I mean, WE WERE ATTACKED, people! Such an attack must never happen again, and we should do everything in our power to make sure one never does. I never thought I'd ever say it, but I now feel terrible about having called George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld war criminals. They were actually patriotic American heroes to respond to 9/11 as quickly and thoroughly as they did!

Laugh if you will, but I have been watching a lot of Fox News lately, particularly Glenn Beck. I was so impressed by one recent segment that I actually phoned Fox News and was lucky enough to get to speak with him DIRECTLY! I explained that I was a (formerly) left-leaning blogger who had now seen the light, and I complimented him on his vision and deep concern for the well-being of our country, as well as the extensive research and deep thought he puts into what he presents on his show. He mentioned he was familiar with my blog (imagine THAT!), and that he was delighted at my change of heart and outlook. HE EVEN INVITED ME TO APPEAR ON HIS SHOW and that segment will air MAY 3! I am no longer a Glenn Beck skeptic, and I know beyond all doubt he genuinely loves this country, and that his tears of concern for it are real.

During the taping for the May 3 Glenn Beck show, I actually got to meet Sarah Palin! She amazed me with her friendliness and charm. She explained how the mainstream media has mistaken portrayed her as a mindless buffoon, and she amazed me with the wide amount of historical, geographical, and political knowledge she really DOES have...I even learned things from HER! I now know I was mistaken about her, too, and I realize she is very much the concerned-for-her-family-and-loves-America person she has always claimed to be. I co-taped a brief segment with her, too, and I am uncertain as to when that will air, but air it will and I'll keep you posted!


I also had the chance to actually meet Rush Limbaugh recently, too. We were on the same plane and conversed nonstop for nearly two hours. The man is fascinating! He tends to get excitable and spout off from time to time, but deep down inside, he is a very warm and caring man. He also has a tremendous sense of humor. I'm sure if any of you had the chance to meet him, you would like him a great deal, as I now do. Poor Rush. He is suffering so much from his chronic back condition, that it, along with irresponsible spending by the President and Congress, causes him to constantly grimace and seem like a mean-spirited sort. But he really and truly is a very nice guy. MAN ALIVE---have I been wrong about a lot of stuff and people for the past few years!!!Please scroll down and you'll see documentation on what I've been saying here so far...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


APRIL FOOLS'! You have been punked, my friends! Not one word of what I have written up to here for this post is true: In fact, while writing this, it's all I could do to keep from alternately howling with laughter and vomiting. I do NOT prepare my posts weeks in advance: 99% of them are written fresh on the day they're posted. I am still convinced beyond all doubt that conservative Republicans ruined our economy and that their obstructionism has greatly slowed our recovery. I still firmly and correctly believe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are indeed war criminals and should be tried for their crimes; I NEVER met Beck, Palin, or Limbaugh, and I hope I never do! BLECCCHHH!!! This post, just like Fox "News" and statements made by conservative Republican congresspersons and talk-show jockeys, has been composed of one lie after another! So lower your blood pressure, my friends---I remain opposed to conservative Republicanism, and I steadfastly support the progressive cause, as I have always done! I still support a universal, single-payer health care system and increasing taxes on the top 2 or 3 tiers of our income-earners while reducing them for everybody else! I still champion environmentalism and MUCH more oversight on Wall Street and huge corporations!

Hope you've had a good spoof, my friends, and will remember THIS April Fools' Day for years to come! HAPPY EASTER, EVERYBODY, AND NOW LET'S KEEP WORKING TO ENSURE A GIGANTIC TEABAGGER/REPUBLICAN DISAPPOINTMENT THIS FALL! :-) :-) :-)!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP NEXT (TOMORROW): "GROWING PAINS: A LOOK AT OUR VANISHING FAMILY FARMS (Part I)"

"GIVE 'EM HELL, BARRY!"

In recent weeks, President Obama has been barnstorming the country to gin up support for his health care reform plan. That is a very good thing, as Presidents from Reagan to LBJ to Truman have successfully gone over the heads of Congress to appeal directly to the people to get their sometimes controversial agendas passed by both houses of the legislative branch. As one of my favorite Republicans, President Theodore Roosevelt, once observed, the presidency is a unique "bully pulpit" from which a President can plead his case to stir up mass support behind him, a privilege no member of Congress can match.

The success of our current President's efforts are yet to be determined. He has had the "pulpit" all right, but he hasn't been much of a "bully." Presidents have always had opposition in Congress, but none have been faced with the degree of downright uncivil and wholly uncooperative obstructionist tactics that President Obama has endured from his current ultra-conservative Republican Party opposition over the past year. To his credit, Obama has maintained his civility and repeatedly reached out to his opponents. Each and every time, they have rejected his overtures and have attacked him repeatedly with lies and distortion. The time has come for Obama to drop the "Mr. Nice Guy" demeanor and start a robust strategic counterattack on those who are dead set of making him a failure and destroying his presidency. He needs to attack these Republicans on their philosophy, lack of practical policy ideas, and even on their very method of campaigning. To date, the Obama pulpit has resembled that of Ronald Reagan to a degree: friendly, smiley, with an occasional mild zinger. But Obama's time is far different than the Reagan era. Unlike Reagan, he is faced with an opposition party who rabidly hates him and a public who has heard so many vicious lies about him they are starting to wonder about him.



















In 1948, then-President Harry S Truman faced a similar situation. At that time, two years before, Republicans had recaptured contol of the House and Senate for the first time in 14 years; they appeared to be on the rise; and Truman was in political trouble. Inflation was being felt and there was a housing shortage. Soviet Russia was appearing to be on an expansionist kick, and many people were getting nervous about foreign affairs. It was doubtful Truman would retain office the next year. The Republicans jeered at him and mocked him, and, then as now, tried to pass legislation beneficial to the rich but harmful to everybody else. Things looked bleak for Truman and his Democratic Party.

Then Truman hit the road, traveling more than 30,000 miles in 10 months. He lambasted the uncooperative, "do nothing" Republicans at every stop. In a speech delivered in West Virginia, ol' Harry really let it rip. A voice from the assembled crowd called out, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" To which Truman wittily replied, "I just tell the truth, and the Republicans think it's hell."

Here is a slightly abridged version of that speech:


"The Republicans wrote part of their record from 1921 to 1933. They led the
country to depression, poverty, and despair...

In 1932, after 12 years of Republican bungling, more than 12 million men and
women were unemployed.

In 1932 the average worker in manufacturing industries was making 45 cents an
hour -- if he was lucky enough to have a job. In coal mining, the most hazardous
of all occupations, miners were making 52 cents an hour -- if they were lucky
enough to have jobs.

The working men and women in this country could not do much to help themselves,
because the strength of their unions had been broken by the reactionary labor
policies of the Republican administration.

The Republican bubble burst in 1929, and when it burst:

-- There was no minimum wage to cushion the blow.

-- There was no unemployment compensation to carry the working man's family
along.

-- There was no work relief program to help people through the crisis.

-- But the party of privilege was ready to carry big business through the
crisis. It created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for that purpose. The
banks, the railways, the insurance companies -- they got relief, but not the
American people.

-- For the unemployed, it was Hoovervilles and soup kitchens. Veterans were
encouraged to go into business for themselves -- selling apples.

That is the Republican record. Most of us well remember it. The Democratic part
of the record begins in 1933, when the Democratic Party began to build
prosperity for business, labor, and agriculture.


We wrote into law the right of the working men and women to organize in unions
of their own choice, and to bargain collectively.

We put a floor under wages.

We outlawed child labor.

We created a great insurance system to protect working men and women against the
hazards of unemployment and old age.

We wrote into law a system of price supports for farm products, so that the
bottom would not drop from under the farmer's income the way it did in the
1920's.

We put a curb on Wall Street speculation, and stopped the money changers from
gambling with people's savings.


With these reforms and many others, the Democratic Party brought the country to
the greatest period of prosperity ever known in the history of the world.

Things are far different now from what they were in 1932.

The average farm income of the farmer in 1947 was $725 per person, nearly ten
times as great. In 1932 it was $74 per person.

The coal miner who got 52 cents an hour in 1932, gets $1.94 an hour in 1948. He
deserves every cent of it, too; and I'm glad to see him get it.

And business hasn't suffered too much under the New Deal! Corporations had a
loss of $4 billion in 1932. But in 1947 they had a profit of $17 billion, after
taxes.

These same corporations -- these same corporations now claim the Democrats are
hostile to business. If I were in their shoes, I would want some more of that
kind of hostility.

Today, signs of prosperity are all over the country. I have been all over the
country, and I know what I am talking about!

Farm production is greater than it ever was. Industrial production is greater
than it ever was. Everybody who wants a job can get one.

That's the way America is today. The real question facing us in this election is
whether or not we are going to keep it that way.

For all this did not come about by accident. Some people would like to make you
think it did. The leaders of the Republican Party would like you to believe that
the country just drifted into the great depression, and that it just drifted out
again into prosperity. They would like you to believe that the Democratic New
Deal had nothing to do with recovery -- and that the Republicans had nothing to
do with the Hoover panic.

That is not true and the people know it is not true.

The country was driven into depression by the policies of a Republican
administration and a Republican Congress that served the selfish interests of
the rich and powerful business groups.

The country was brought out of the depression by the intelligent foresight and
planning of the Democratic Party -- and above all by following the fundamental
belief of the Democratic Party that the true road to prosperity begins with
looking after the little fellow. The Republicans believe in taking care of big
business first and letting the little fellow take care of himself.

The Republicans would like you to forget these fundamental differences between
the two parties. But during the past 2 years we have been given a sharp warning
that these differences still exist, and these differences are wide and deep.
That has been made completely clear by the record of this Republican
'do-nothing' 80th Congress.

No matter what the Republicans do or say, the Republicans cannot escape
responsibility for that black record.

I know, of course, that there are many fine people throughout the United States,
who from habit or choice are members of the Republican Party. To them I say that
the national leadership of their party has failed them miserably.

I know, too, that among the Republicans of the 80th Congress there were a few
liberal men who joined the battle against special privilege. You can pick these
men out by their votes. They voted with the Democrats in the Congress more often
than they did with their own Republican leadership. When these men went to their
party caucuses they must have felt very lonesome.

The record of the 80th Congress was made by the forces that dominate the
Republican Party... on domestic issues...the Republican leadership
started out to follow the same policies that nearly wrecked the country under
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

Some people have accused me of failing to cooperate with the Republican
leadership in carrying out those policies. Now, I must confess to you that I am
going to plead guilty to that charge. Of course, I did not cooperate in carrying
out policies that I knew would bring disaster on the American people.

But I will tell you how you can get some cooperation in carrying out those
policies -- if that's what you want. I will tell l you how you can achieve unity
in a headlong dash toward another depression. Just elect a Republican President
to go along with a Republican Congress.

Just elect a man who said -- and I quote: 'I am proud of the record of my party
and of the 80th Congress.'

Just elect a man who said: 'The 80th Congress delivered as no other Congress
ever did for the future of our country.'

Apparently he will be glad to help deliver a lot more of the same kind of blows
you got from the 80th Congress. But bigger blows -- and faster and more of them.

What did this Republican Congress deliver for the future of the country?

For one thing, it delivered a body blow at labor in the form of the Taft-Hartley
Act.

The fundamental purpose of the Taft-Hartley Act is to weaken organized labor.
Its supporters want management to have the upper hand in collective bargaining.
Do you know why? They want management to have the upper hand so that wages can
be driven down.

What else did the Republican Congress deliver for the future of our country?

It delivered a body blow at nearly a million workers by taking away their social
security rights.

It delivered a body blow at millions of our veterans by refusing to provide a
decent housing program.

It delivered a blow at every family in the Nation by failing to act on high
prices.

What else did the Republican Congress deliver for the future of our country? It
delivered a whole long list of blows at every foundation of our present
prosperity and at our hopes for progress in the future. I can't cover them all
tonight, but I will tell you about just one more.

That is the rich man's tax relief bill.

The Republican Congress passed a tax bill that reduced the revenues of the
Government by more than $5 billion. That Congress passed it three times and I
vetoed it every time. But on the third try, they passed it over my veto.

I believed that the safety of our national finances required that we make large
payments on the public debt in times of prosperity. I still think so.

But the Republican rich man's tax relief bill has brought us face to face with
the prospect of going into the red again.

I believed that when the wartime taxes were reduced, the poor man should be
relieved first and most. I still think so. But the Republican tax bill doesn't
work that way.

I warned that the tax reduction bill would add to the inflationary pressures and
make prices go even higher. And it did.

For most of you, the tax bill hasn't helped a bit. If you make $60 a week, your
taxes were reduced about $1.50 a week. But since May, when that $1.50 began to
show up in your pay envelope, prices have gone up so much that the $1.50 is
already wiped out.

The rich man fared much better under the tax bill. A married couple with an
income of $100,000 a year got a tax cut of $16,725 a year -- $16,725 a year!
That's about $12,000 more than my net salary as President of the United States.

Of course, prices haven't gone up for them any more than they have for you. So I
would say that they came out pretty well.

Is it any wonder that we call this a rich man's tax relief bill?

That's typical of the way the Republican 80th Congress delivered for the future
of the country. Some time later, I am going to elaborate on just exactly what
they did with the budget this year. And it fits in with this rich man's tax
relief bill. It's outrageous what they did to the country on that.

That Congress delivered for the interests that had their lobbyists swarming all
over the Capital. It delivered for special privilege groups that put up the big
money at election time.

They are doing that right now in this election. That same bunch of lobbyists and
people whom they represent are paying for the Republican campaign right this
minute.

Now, they passed a great many bills, which I vetoed. There is only one President
who has a greater veto record than I have, in the short time that I have been
President, and that is Grover Cleveland; and I am proud of that veto record,
because I was standing there working for the people, when I was signing those
vetoes.

But they passed a great many -- not a great many, but several -- among them this
tax relief bill and the Taft-Hartley bill. They passed those bills over my veto.

But when a bill becomes the law of the land, the President of the United States
has sworn to enforce the law, and as President of the United States, I have
lived up to that oath which I took to support the Constitution and the laws of
the United States.

But if you want these bad things remedied, you had better give me a Congress for
the next 4 years that is working for the people and not for the special
interests.

Now, if you want unity and harmony and sweetness and light in getting more
deliveries of the kind I have been describing, just shut your eyes and vote
Republican.

But if you want something delivered for labor, if you want something delivered
for the farmers, and if you want something delivered for the small businessmen,
and for the white-collar worker -- there is just one way you can make your vote
count. Vote the Democratic ticket.

Today, the Democratic Party is the party of the American people. It was the
party of the people under Jefferson and Jackson. It was the party of the people
under Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

Today, we of the Democratic Party express the will of the American people to
move forward, under liberty, yielding neither to communism nor to reaction.

Today, the Democratic Party stands before the country a living force for peace
and freedom.

Today, we are rallying our forces for the greatest struggle in our history. In
that struggle, I ask your support.

Just give us the votes on election day, and we will do the job."
----------------------------------------------

In this remarkable speech, Truman brilliantly and truthfully framed the Republicans as exactly what they are: a party for the rich, completely out of touch with the wants and needs of the rest of the country. He did so with specific and easy-to-understand examples. He clearly outlined their failures and hoisted them on their own petard.

Barack Obama must now do exactly the same thing. Republican obstinance and unproductivity must be spotlighted and hammered upon. Republican policies favoring the rich but harming everyone else must be clearly presented. The President needs to drop his foolish obsession with bipartisanship. In today's political climate, that is an impossible dream. He must instead attack and expose the Republicans for the liars and obstructionists they are. That is the only way he will stave off electoral defeat for his party this year, and for himself AND his party in 2012. It worked fabulously well for Truman in 1948, and will do so again in 2010 and 2012. He, like Truman before him, must make Republicans the issue, not himself.

Now "GIVE 'EM HELL, BARRY!"

HAITI: THE GOOD AND BAD OF IT

I have been heartsick over the horrifying misery and suffering I have seen on the news these past few days about the disastrous earthquake in Haiti. From stories of rising death counts, to husbands losing wives and children when just at the brink of rescuing them, to an 11 year old girl being pulled from the rubble with a crushed leg only to die the very next day - it has been a very sad and wrenching week.


I have never been so proud of our country or a President as I was to see the immediate responses to aid the needs of this impoverished, devastated Haitian nation. President Obama immediately called upon his two previous predecessors to help raise relief aid, both of them having been superb fundraisers. Major League Baseball stepped up to deliver $1 million in aid. The National Football League and many other groups publicized the need for emergency donations repeatedly on its own NFL Network and also numerous times during heavily-watched playoff games. Hollywood celebrities opened their wallets. And hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens started donating personally to the relief cause through churches and charitable organizations. All of this was done quickly and continues. THAT is what a civilized nation is supposed to do, and I am happy to say we rose to the challenge at hand.

But, as always, cynically dark forces of the far right muddied up the picture. Rush Limbaugh, vile, racist puke that he is, questioned the President's motive in responding so quickly to this disaster. He accused the President of trying to appeal to black voters by responding quickly. He also questioned whether donations for aid sent through the White House would actually go to disaster relief, suggesting that Obama might pocket some of the money for political campaigning. This conscientious scumbag never once on his radio show advocated any of his listeners making ANY donations to ANY charity for relief, nor is there any evidence HE has donated even a penny to relieve the misery of suffering Haitians, even though he himself is a multimillionaire...

And then, of course, the far right, insane "Reverend" Pat Robertson broadcast that the Haitian earthquake was God's punishment on the Haitian people for their supposedly javing made a pact with the devil 200 years ago enlisting his help in gaining freedom from France. What absolute idiocy! And how hypocritical, too---he makes this claim even as his website provides a link for sending donations for Haitian relief in! Well, that's better than Limbaugh's been doing, I guess, which has been nothing. But not much better...

That other darling of the far right, Sarah Palin, has been strangely silent on the Haiti disaster. There has been no report of her raising money to aid the stricken people, nor has she herself contributed any money that we know of, nor has she made appeals for her followers to donate. Surely we would have expected much more leadership from one who believes she is a leader qualified to be President, and who professes to have both strong family and Christian values! (I never knew Jesus was so arbitrary about these matters of helping those in dire need). Perhaps she has been confused about it all. I can just hear her backstage at Fox "News", asking bewilderedly: "What's Haiti? WHERE'S Haiti? Why don't they have any money, and why can't they take care of their own problems themselves?" But more likely, Sarah Palin has been far too busy making money for HERSELF and advancing HER TV career to have had time to even think of the needs of a devastated people outside our borders!



As I mentioned earlier, I am very satisfied that most of the country has responded so well and quickly to this tragic situation in Haiti. We have averaged well over $2 million per day in small contributions, these coming from a population beset with high unemployment, high pharmaceutical and health care costs, frozen and/or declining wages, and eroded buying power. It is a testament to our compassion and generosity as well as our sense of responsibility and obligation. If you yourself have not yet contributed to Haiti relief, won't you join others and please do so today? The Red Cross can accept your donation online at http://american.redcross.org/HaitiRelief (my apologies for this not properly hyperlinking). Or, you may also contribute through World Vision International at http://www.worldvision.org/, Catholic Relief Services at http://crs.org/, or NICEF at http://www.unicefusa.org/. There are many, many others as well.

It appears that the good in this disaster (if there is such a thing) has been the rekindling of American benevolence and sense of duty, as well as a new and heightened awareness of Haiti, its current situation, and its needs going forward among the world community. This is truly a nation which has been needlessly neglected for far too long. The bad, of course, has manifested itself in the words and behavior of far right ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, as well as the ignorance and inaction of Sarah Palin and many of those corporatist plutocrats in the upper 1% of the income scale. If each and every corporate executive drawing an eight figure income in the banking, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries were to climb down from their pedestals and donate $5 million apiece, relief and rebuilding of a collapsed Haiti would proceed at a very rapid rate. Instead, many of those upper elite prefer to remain blissfully ignorant, sitting on their money in their counting houses, counting it over and over again as people starve and wail in distress.

That, my friends, is the good and bad of the unfortunate Haiti situation, as I see it from here.

COMING SOON: "THE U.S. AND HAITI'S LONG, UNEVEN RELATIONSHIP"

HOUSE REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY HALL OF FAME

I recently received the information below from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While I normally don't pass on a lot of official Party bulletins, I found this one to be particularly interesting, because it was well documented, easily reviewable, and fully substantiated. It gives 68 instances of House Republicans taking advantage of, or credit for, good economic opportunities or developments which occurred as a result of the Obama Stimulus Plan, which EACH OF THESE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST.

I will be happy to post any similar hypocrisies by Democratic politicians (and for sure, these DO occur), but all I ever get from official Republican communiques is unsubstantiated, undocumented innuendo or distorted hyperbole, similar to what Fox "News" constantly presents. So, here is a fact list on congressional Republicans talking out of their backsides...


HOUSE REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY HALL OF FAME

1. Representative Bill Shuster (PA-09) - Representative Shuster attended a groundbreaking ceremony for a sewage treatment plant that was only possible because of Recovery funds. [Blairsville Municipal Authority launches plant expansion, Blairsville Dispatch, 11/25/09]
Representative Shuster asked Governor Ed Rendell to use Recovery funds to reopen Scotland School for Veterans' Children, noting it could save about 134 full-time jobs. [Shuster wants to use stimulus money to reopen Scotland School, The Herald-Mail, 11/4/09
----------
2. Representative Eric Cantor (VA-07) “Nearly half of the 30 organizations participating in a job fair Cantor is holding Monday in Culpeper were recipients of the stimulus." [Dems call Cantor a hypocrite on stimulus, Washington Post, 11/18/09]
The Culpeper Star-Exponent (Allison Brophy Champion) reports that Democrats are calling out Republican Whip Eric Cantor for what they claim is contradictory support of federal funding for high-speed rail in Virginia. The funding would be part of President Barack Obama's stimulus package -- the same stimulus package Cantor vehemently opposed earlier this year. [Dems: Cantor a hypocrite on high-speed rail, Culpeper Star-Exponent, 6/24/09]
---------------
3. Representative Pete Sessions (TX-32) - Representative Pete Sessions showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
4. Representative Jack Kingston (GA-01) - Representative Jack Kingston has announced federal funding for his constituents without mentioning that the money comes from the stimulus program. [GOP won't turn down stimulus spending, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/18/09]
---------------
5.Representative Michael McCaul (TX-10) - "I didn't support final passage but at the same time I wanted to make sure if we are spending that kind of money that much of that gets directed to Texas." [KVUE News; 2/22/09]
Representative Michael McCaul showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
6. Representative Joe Barton (TX-06) - Representative Joe Barton showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
7. Representative Michael Burgess (TX-26) - Representative Michael Burgess showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
8. Representative John Carter (TX-31) - Representative John Carter showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------------
9. Representative Mike Conaway (TX-11) - Representative Mike Conaway showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
10. Representative John Culberson (TX-07) - Representative John Culberson showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
11. Representative Louie Gohmert (TX-01) - Representative Louie Gohmert showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
12.Representative Kay Granger (TX-12) - Representative Kay Granger showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
13. Representative Ralph Hall (TX-04) - Representative Ralph Hall showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
14.Representative Sam Johnson (TX-03) - Representative Sam Johnson showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
15. Representative Kenny Marchant (TX-24) - Representative Kenny Marchant showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
16.Representative Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) - Representative Randy Neugebauer showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
17. Representative Pete Olson (TX-22) - Representative Pete Olson showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
18. Representative Ron Paul (TX-14) - Representative Ron Paul showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
19. Representative Ted Poe (TX-02) - Representative Ted Poe showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
20. Representative Lamar Smith (TX-21) - Representative Lamar Smith showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
----------
20. Representative Mac Thornberry (TX-13) - Representative Lamar Smith showed his hypocrisy after asking the Obama Administration for three billion in funds for NASA from the economic recovery act, which he voted against. Members of the Texas delegation signed the letter, including two Republican Senators and 19 House Republicans who all voted against the recovery act in February. [Texas delegation wants stimulus money for NASA, Houston Chronicle, 10/5/09]
---------------
21. Representative Frank Wolf (VA-10) - Representative Wolf recently blamed Gov. Tim Kaine for being slow in spending economic recovery money allocated to their state. Wolf told reporters, "We could use that money desperately," however if he had his way, the money never would have been allocated in the first place. [GOP Blasts Kaine on Transportation Spending, Washington Post, 10/5/09]
----------
22. Representative Phil Gingrey (GA-11) - Earlier this month, Gingrey presented a giant check of $625,000 in stimulus funds to the city commission of Cedartown, Georgia, to help fund the installation of new sidewalks and infrastructure - funds he voted against in the economic recovery package. [Cedartown receives federal stimulus funds for Streetscape project, Cedartown Standard, 10/13/09]
---------------
23. Representative Eric Cantor (VA-07) - The Culpeper Star-Exponent (Allison Brophy Champion) reports that Democrats are calling out Republican Whip Eric Cantor for what they claim is contradictory support of federal funding for high-speed rail in Virginia. The funding would be part of President Barack Obama's stimulus package - the same stimulus package Cantor vehemently opposed earlier this year. [Dems: Cantor a hypocrite on high-speed rail, Culpeper Star-Exponent, 6/24/09]
[Dem's High Speed Hit, The Huddle, 6/24/09]
[Cantor criticizes stimulus package, suggests alterations, Richmond Times Dispatch, 7/7/09]
[Cantor blasts stimulus, defends rail request, Politico, 7/6/09]
[DCCC sets sights on Cantor for 'hypocrisy', The Hill, 7/6/09]
----------
24.Representative Bill Young (FL-10) - Rep. Bill Young of Florida's congressional Web site contains a page with dozens of links to help Floridians "take advantage of federal stimulus money." [GOP opposes plan then seeks money, AP, 8/27/09]
---------------
25. Representative Judy Biggert (IL-13) - Last Thursday, the House passed a $123.1 billion transportation and housing appropriations bill that included an 8 percent boost for the Section 8 housing voucher program and $4 billion for President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. It also included $1.5 million in funding for two projects requested by Rep. Judy Biggert -- a Metra Station in Tinley Park and freight-related traffic relief along Ogden Avenue in Aurora. ‘These important investments will create local jobs and help keep our area's road and transit systems working for commuters,' Biggert said in a statement Friday. ‘I'm very grateful to my House colleagues for recognizing the rapidly growing transportation needs of communities and centers of commerce in our suburban area'...one tiny detail -- along with the rest of Illinois' Republican delegation, Biggert voted against the bill. [Progress Illinois, 7/28/09]
Daily Herald reported on Congresswoman Biggert’s hypocrisy in applauding recently awarded funding for Naperville to make infrastructure upgrades, when the money came out of the economic recovery package she voted against. [Stimulus Foe Biggert Supports Naperville's Use of Funds, Daily Herald 10/28/09]
----------
26. Representative Mary Fallin (OK-05) - Oklahoma Republican Mary Fallin asked Army Secretary Pete Geren to use $8.4 million in stimulus money for repairs to buildings at two Oklahoma National Guard sites. Fallin had called the stimulus a "Big Brother spending program" that didn't do enough to finance needed infrastructure projects. The money she and Boren sought isn't in the Pentagon's spending plans. [GOP opposes plan then seeks money, AP, 8/27/09]
---------------
27. Representative Patrick Tiberi (OH-10) - "I am sorely disappointed that the Cherry Valley Road Interchange will not receive stimulus funding." [News Release; 3/26/09]
----------
28. Representative Don Manzullo (IL-16) - "Don Manzullo announced today he has secured $714,000 in federal funding to help improve health care services and higher education opportunities for residents at three institutions in Rockford." [News Release; 3/2/09]
---------------
29. Representative Kevin McCarthy (CA-22) - "I applaud this funding for the Bakersfield Federal courthouse. Over the years, we have faced many obstacles related to this project, but worked together as a community to ensure that this project remained a high priority and would come to fruition." [KERO 23; 4/1/09]

McCarthy uses events like the one at Cal Poly to give lip service to renewable energy. [For Congressmen thinking green at Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo Tribune, 5/29/09]
----------
30. Representative Ed Whitfield (KY-01) - Representative Ed Whitfield sent out a press release calling himself "a tireless champion for community health centers both in Kentucky and throughout the country." Yet, Representative Whitfield voted against the economic recovery package which provided more than $10 million to meet demand at Kentucky health centers and to build new ones across the state. [News Release; 3/26/09]
---------------
31. Representative Mike Rogers (AL-03) - Representative Mike Rogers voted against his own legislation to protect the Little River Canyon National Preserve in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. [Roll Call Vote, 3/25/2009]
----------
32. Representative Dan Lungren (CA -03) - Lungren's change of heart might be related to the fact that the Democratic Congressional Candidate (DCCC) has identified that Lungren as vulnerable to defeat in the 2010 congressional midterm elections. [Elk Grove News - Sensing Vulnerability, Lungren Backpedals on Stimulus Vote, 8/6/09]

Representative Dan Lungren sought millions in earmarks for projects in his district, then voted against the legislation to fund those projects. "I would not apologize for any of those (earmarks), but I would give them up if the president had vetoed the bill." [Amador Ledger-Dispatch; 3/17/09]

As California's economic woes continue to threaten public services to the point where 47 pink slips were recently issued to Stockton police officers, Congressman Dan Lungren is coming under fire from the blue side of the aisle in Washington for his April 23 vote against "The COPS Improvement Act." [Dems, Lungren clash on COPS funding - Amador Ledger-Dispatch, 5/29/09]
---------------
33. Representative David Dreier (CA-26) - Representative David Dreier said, "The nation relies on Southern California's infrastructure and innovation. Strategic federal investments in these areas will yield tremendous returns from coast to coast." However Representative Dreier voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which will provide $13 billion in tax cuts, nearly $4.5 billion in infrastructure investments, and billions more for job training and education programs in California. [Southern California on the Hill; 3/10/09]
----------
34. Representative Jerry Moran (KS-010 - "Four Kansas Republicans had earmarked requests in the package, but voted against the overall $410 billion package... Not only did Moran and Tiahrt vote against the spending bill when the House took action in February, they also voted last week for a measure that would have removed all earmarks." [The Hutchinson News; 3/13/09]
---------------
35. Representative Todd Tiahrt (KS-04) - "Four Kansas Republicans had earmarked requests in the package, but voted against the overall $410 billion package... Not only did Moran and Tiahrt vote against the spending bill when the House took action in February, they also voted last week for a measure that would have removed all earmarks." [The Hutchinson News; 3/13/09]
----------
36. Representative Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02) - "Capito informed the group that roughly $1.5 million in neighborhood stabilization funds have been made available to West Virginia, and she said the situation that many are facing in the current financial times is heartwrenching. ‘It's just breaks your heart,' Capito said." [The Journal; 3/10/09]
---------------
37. Representative Steve King (IA-05) - "Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, announced today that $570,000 for the U.S. Highway 20 widening project has been included in the federal stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama earlier in the week." [Sioux City Journal; 3/13/09]
----------
38. Representative Elton Gallegly (CA-24) - "Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, announced Thursday that Thousand Oaks will get $182,881 in community development block grants through the stimulus package... In addition to the stimulus money, Gallegly's office said money for other local projects has been included in a separate funding bill the House passed Wednesday." [Ventura County Star; 2/27/09]
---------------
39. Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon (CA-25) - "Rep. Howard P. ‘Buck' McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) called the bill ‘not the example of fiscal restraint that we need right now.' Yet it includes McKeon earmarks such as $333,000 to assist Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital in designing and building a helipad and $167,000 for the Autry National Center of the American West to help pay for a new Southwest museum facility." [Los Angeles Times; 3/5/09]
----------
40. Representative Jerry Lewis (CA-41) - "Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) declared: ‘I'm embarrassed by this omnibus spending bill.' Yet the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee secured more than $18 million in earmarks." [Los Angeles Times; 3/5/09]
----------------
41. Representative George Radanovich (CA-19) - "Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa) issued a statement on Feb. 4 declaring that he would forego earmarks... Three weeks later, Radanovich submitted a statement to the congressional record listing nearly $6.3 million in earmarks in the omnibus spending bill." [Los Angeles Times; 3/5/09]
----------
42. Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) - After voting against the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Representative Latham issued three press releases congratulating himself for securing funds for projects at home. [Representative Latham's Press Release; 3/2/09, 2/27/09, 2/27/09]
---------------
43. Representative Tom Petri (WI-06) - Representative Petri is a "strong supporter of the allocation" of $754,000 to restore and maintain navigable channels in the Two Rivers harbor, as "maintaining navigable waters in the area is essential for the local economy." [Manitowoc Herald Times; 2/27/09] Representative Petri voted against the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
----------
44. Representative Steven LaTourette (OH-14) - According to a press release from Representative LaTourette's office, LaTourette said, "I know our local departments are facing rough financial times, and there have been some department layoffs and hiring freezes across the state." It then continues to say that he "is pleased that some departments will benefit from this new COPS program." [Representative LaTourette's Press Release; 2/27/09]
---------------
45. Representative Dean Heller (NV-02) - "We can ill afford to lose any jobs in Nevada, or anywhere else for that matter." [Elko Daily Free Press; 2/27/09]
----------
46. Representative Aaron Schock (IL-18) - "The biodiesel plant is ready to go. I want to call for a meeting with the state to guarantee $20 million in loans for the building of the plant. This could produce real jobs and a real stimulus in the next 30 days." [Peoria Journal Star; 2/17/09]

"Last week, U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock was in East Peoria to award the city's Police Department a $410,000 federal grant to update its aging in-car video camera systems and portable radios... that money was included in the FY 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill that Schock, a Peoria Republican, voted against. [Peoria Journal Star; 6/29/09]
---------------
47. Representative Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) - "This funding will provide much-needed assistance to local residents who are at risk of losing their homes or experiencing homelessness... I am pleased that our community will benefit from this funding." [Representative Bono Mack's Press Release; 2/25/09]
----------
48. Representative Dave Reichert (WA-08) - "Reichert acknowledges that the stimulus bill will deliver tangible good news to his constituents... ‘I feel a responsibility at this point to make this still work.'" [Boston Globe; 2/24/09]
---------------
49. Representative Mike Coffman (CO-06) - "I see myself in two roles as a congressman. I think the first role as a policymaker in Washington and the second as an advocate for people inside this district and there are elements we'll probably be discussing - the mortgage proposal - there are probably elements that I disagree with that but if there's somebody in my district eligible for that, I'll fight to make sure they get them." [KUSA-TV; Your Show; 2/22/09]
----------
50. Representative Glenn Thompson (PA-05) - Thompson "said he hoped the residents within the county would benefit from the plan's massive spending and tax cuts." [Daily Collegian; 2/19/09]
---------------
51. Representative Denny Rehberg (MT-AL)) - "I'll do anything I can to make this work." [KULR-8; 2/17/09]
-----------
52. Representative Frank Lucas (OK-03) - "We all need to work very aggressively to make sure that every community that qualifies should be a recipient of whatever we can find in that bill." [Edmond Sun; 2/18/09]
---------------
53. Representative Chris Lee (NY-26) - "Rep. Chris Lee was opposed to a $787 billion stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday but said he would now fight for funds included in the bill for his district... ‘Now that the bill is passed, I obviously want to ensure I do fight for projects in western New York,' Lee said." [Democrat and Chronicle; 2/18/09]
----------
54. Representative Adam Putnam (FL-12) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09]
===============
55. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09] "'Just because you vote no, doesn't mean you don't get the money,' assured Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). ‘We will fight like tigers for us to get our share.'" [National League of Cities; 3/2/09]
----------
56. Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09] "Miami Republican Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart also voted against the bill but secured funding - from $600,000 for Hialeah's police department to upgrade equipment to $6 million for the University of Miami's William Lehman Injury Research Center." [Miami Herald; 3/3/09]
---------------
57. Representative Tom Rooney (FL-16) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09] "'The money's coming, Rooney said. ‘So I can sit on the sidelines or I can advocate for my constituents. I think it would be irresponsible of me not to fight for what I think is important in that money.'" [Palm Beach Post; 2/22/09]
----------
58. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09] "Miami Republican Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart also voted against the bill but secured funding - from $600,000 for Hialeah's police department to upgrade equipment to $6 million for the University of Miami's William Lehman Injury Research Center." [Miami Herald; 3/3/09]
---------------
59. Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09]
----------
60. Representative Cliff Stearns (FL-06) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09]
---------------
61. Representative Bill Posey (FL-15) - "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09]
----------
62. Representative Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) - "If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time. Stimulus incentive is very generous! Up to 8k! Check it out." [Representative Pete Hoekstra's Twitter page; 2/18/09]
---------------
63. Representative Leonard Lance (NJ-07) - "Officials are hoping more federal money will soon be flowing to the Green Brook Flood Control Project. Under the terms of the stimulus plan signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama, infrastructure projects that are "shovel-ready" could be the first to be funded with economic recovery money. That's the hope of Rep. Leonard Lance, R-Clinton Township...'This is a classic example of a ‘shovel-ready' project,' Lance said after the tour." [mycentraljersey.com; 2/17/09]
----------
64. Representative Greg Walden (OR-02) - "I figure my job is to try and do whatever I can to clear the hurdles and get the projects going and the people back to work using these funds." [Mail Tribune; 2/19/09]
---------------
65. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09) - "Luetkemeyer said the project is considered ‘shovel ready' and that's what the economy needs. President Darrell Krueger and Luetkemeyer discussed the educational benefits of the economic stimulus package." [KTVO-TV, 2/16/09]
----------
66. Representative Don Young (AK-AL) - "Alaskan Congressman Don Young won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. [Congressman Don Young's Press Release; 2/13/09]
---------------
67. Representative Ken Calvert (CA-44) - "All of us in the Inland Empire will do what we can to direct as much money as we can." [The Press Enterprise; 2/13/09]
----------
68. Representative John Mica (FL-07) - "I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future." [Congressman John Mica Press Release; 2/13/09] Mica was also one of "Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash." [Politico; 2/19/09]



This goes beyond mere hypocrisy. This is strong evidence of a deliberate Republican conspiracy to discredit and belittle the President constantly so as to politically weaken him in an attempt to regain control of Congress and the White House for themselves. These conservative Republicans have nothing to offer this country, and all they can do is try to steal the credit from a President who DOES.


UP NEXT: "SANTA'S BOZOS FOR 2009"

THE MORNING AFTER

The great "bellwether" election of 2009 is over, and, regardless of how the Democratic or Republican Parties spin it, the end result was really a headache for both.


Yes, the Republicans recaptured the Virginia and New Jersey governorships, but they also lost a U.S. House seat they had held since before the Civil War. They will undoubtedly celebrate loudly and feed us a lot of ballyhoo about the election being a nationwide referendum against the Obama administration, but that is a load of hogwash, as voter exit poll surveys clearly showed. This was NOT a vote against Obama so much as a vote against an unpopular Democratic politician running a negative campaign in a state rife with corruption and unemployment (NJ), and a vote for a more personable candidate the public was warmer to than his detached, standoffish opponent (VA). Not only that, but BOTH states have had a long tendency of voting against the party holding the White House in gubernatorial elections.

And, no matter how they may try to spin it, the Palin-Bachmann-Limbaugh-Beck-Pawlenty far-right conservative anschluss of New York's 23rd Congressional District was an absolute failure. Yes, the far-right wingnut "base" attempt to oust a moderate Republican from the race succeeded, but they failed to win a majority of the voters in that heavily Republican and conservative district. Typically, off-year elections are dominated by out-of-power party enthusiasts rather than independents or average voters, so, actually, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (a Glenn Beck protege) should have won that House seat. But no, wingnuts: you LOST. And the reason you lost is because you fielded an ideological carpetbagger in a blatant attempt to purge and upstage the moderate Republican candidate. Naturally, wild-eyed fools like Beck and Limbaugh will spin this as an example of what they'll call "RINO treachery" by moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozafava, who, upon being dumped by the far-right Hoffman, publicly endorsed the Democratic challenger Bill Owens, who ended up winning the election. In reality, the only treachery here was by these far, far-right wingnuts, whose views are NOT shared by the majority of the country, having grabbed nearly total control of the Republican Party and pushing moderate candidates out. This should serve as a giant warning to the Republican Party to purge these ultra-conservative fanatics, rather than moderates, from the party if they ever hope to win another national election. For with wingnuts at the helm, the GOP ship will certainly be smashed against the cliff going forward, and that should be a source of huge concern to every Republican!


The Democrats will revel in their New York win, but they should soberly take stock and realize that the victory would never have occurred without a Republican split. This win was NOT a resounding endorsement of their national performance or of President Obama's policies! For one thing, far too many progressive and Democratic voters stayed home. For another, just as Nancy Hanks predicted in her recent post over at The Hankster, the Republicans DID manage to peel off a few independent votes and this does not bode well for the President's or the progressive agenda in 2010. President Obama is not being perceived as a strong, effective, and decisive leader. His efforts at bipartisanship have hurt rather than helped him, for they have borne no fruit. Joblessness is still rising, and hurting people want ACTION---NOW! Many are starting to wonder why huge banks and auto companies got bailouts but the average citizen got very, very little in return. Conservative Republicans, aided by timid "Blue Dog" Democrats' (DINOs) inaction, are gaining some ground by spinning this disastrous Bush-bequeathed economy into "the Obama recession", and they won't let up. People have GOT to start seeing some big results from the Obama agenda, and that means he and his Democrats must begin to push and lead boldly rather than proceeding along with the "Republican Lite" methodology they have been using. That means JOBS programs - NOW - and passing meaningful health care reform WITH A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION - NOW! Democrats must UNITE and boldly enact legislation benefitting average people, as they did from 1933-1968, rather than playing the Republican game of cozying up to big business. And that also means getting a more people-oriented and fiery Senate Majority Leader than that wimpy Harry Reid, too!

This country elected Barack Obama one year ago for bold, decisive CHANGE on behalf of the people. He has managed to save the economy, but it is still very sick and ordinary peoples' lives are still negatively affected. If he wants to get anything major accomplished in this term, and to hold onto good Congressional majorities, he must rekindle his base and implement a progressive, for-the-people agenda and stop pussyfooting around with conservative Republicans!

WARNING: INDEPENDENTS MAY GO REPUBLICAN IN 2010!

I received this which I post below from Nancy Hanks, creator of THE premier progressive independent website The Hankster , which can be found at http://grassrootsindependent.blogspot.com/. For those of us who may mistakenly think President Obama won the last election simply because of strong support by Democrats, that just isn't so. He won by capturing a large bloc of independent voters.

As Nancy points out in her current blog post, there is a very real danger that the Republican right may lie their way into siphoning off a number of independent votes next year. Coupled with the namby-pampy support we've seen the President get so far from "Blue Dog" Democrats during his term, large conservative gains could prove disastrous toward passing and implementing the progressive agenda this country so desperately needs. We cannot allow Republican gains to push the moderate/conservative "Blue Dogs" further to the right. Read and learn here in Nancy's informative post. With Nancy's blessing, please feel free to share her post with all the liberals and progressives you know. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent and thus enable the far-right Cheneyesque factions to strengthen their hand or even regain control of Congress!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independents are vulnerable to being peeled away by the Republican right. The Pew Research Center reports that were the 2010 midterms to be held today, independents would lean towards Republicans by a 43 to 38 percent margin. But, the evolution of a 21st century independent movement is not that simple. First, the movement is very fluid and very new. Historical movements develop through twists and turns, not in a straight line. The far right has attempted to take over the independent movement before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich crafted the “Contract with America” to woo Perotistas back into the Republican tent. And in 2000, social conservative Pat Buchanan hijacked the Reform Party presidential nomination, though he was roundly repudiated by independents in the general election. [FULL PIECE BELOW]


SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK: THE INDEPENDENTS’ STORY
By: Jackie Salit

When we finally get far enough down the road on health care reform, it will become clear that a driving force in the intensity of the fight was a heart attack. Not the medical kind. The political kind.

Independents swung decisively to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. And it is this shift by independents – who repositioned themselves from center-right to center-left – that gave the Republican right the political equivalent of cardiac arrest.

In 1992, 19 million independents voted for Ross Perot. In 2008, 19 million independents voted for Barack Obama. Over the span of 15 years, the largely white, center-right independent movement re-aligned itself with Black America and progressive-minded voters.

This did not happen out of the blue. It did not happen by magic. It happened because the progressive wing of the independent movement did the painstaking and often controversial work of bringing the Perot movement and the Fulani movement together at the grassroots. The Fulani movement refers to the country’s leading African American independent, Dr. Lenora Fulani, who exposed the black community to independent politics and introduced the independent movement to an alliance with Black America.

No doubt the dramatics that the right wing brought to the Town Hall meetings this summer were intended for the television cameras. But the organizers, strategists and radio personalities who orchestrated the theatrics had a particular audience in mind: Independents. If they could tarnish Obama’s image with indies, they could damage the black and independent alliance and re-establish the Republican Party as an influential force amongst independents. Some of that could be accomplished, they felt, by claiming Obama’s health plan would drive up the national debt – a concern that animated the early Perot movement. Some Republican strategists felt that if they simply branded Obama a socialist, it would scare independents away – not from the health care plan (everyone recognizes a plan of some kind will get passed) but away from the center-left coalition that elected him.

If indies are feeling somewhat disillusioned with President Obama over the health care reform fight, it has more to do with fears that he is being overly influenced by the partisans in Congress. Since independents voted for him to be a more independent president, it’s easy to see how some felt disappointed by his handling of the Republican onslaught. Obama’s independent appeal was based on his challenge to the prevailing culture of Clintonian opportunism in the Democratic Party and partisanship inside the Beltway. Put another way, the independent vote for Obama was an effort to define a new kind of progressivism, one that was not synonymous with Democratic Party control.

After years of hard work and organizing, independents have become a sought-after partner in American politics. They elected President Obama and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, arguably the country’s two most independent and pragmatically progressive elected officials. No wonder the Republican Party right wants a clawback.

Independents are vulnerable to being peeled away by the Republican right. The Pew Research Center reports that were the 2010 midterms to be held today, independents would lean towards Republicans by a 43 to 38 percent margin. But, the evolution of a 21st century independent movement is not that simple. First, the movement is very fluid and very new. Historical movements develop through twists and turns, not in a straight line. The far right has attempted to take over the independent movement before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich crafted the “Contract with America” to woo Perotistas back into the Republican tent. And in 2000, social conservative Pat Buchanan hijacked the Reform Party presidential nomination, though he was roundly repudiated by independents in the general election.

If Republicans are increasing their influence among independents, it’s also because the Democratic Party Left has not been a friend to the independent movement. Sure, Democrats were happy that indies broke for Obama. But they were disappointed that we didn’t become Democrats. They equate progressivism with being in the Democratic Party. But they’re wrong.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has been enthusiastic about the development of indies as a third force. For different reasons, surely. But they share a common goal: to maintain the primacy of two-value logic (where there is only one or the other, never neither) and make sure independents are passive companions. That’s one reason that the fight for open primaries – which allow independents to cast ballots in every round of voting – and the campaign to appoint independents to the Federal Election Commission are so important. Those fights are about our right to participate and our right to represent our interests in changing the political culture.

The independent movement went left in 2008, after many years of grassroots organizing to link it to progressive leadership. Now the right wants to peel it back. Obama, presumably, wants to hold on to the partnership, but must also privilege his own party, which turns independents off and makes them more susceptible to Republican attacks. Meanwhile, independents are working hard at the grassroots to hold our own.


Jackie Salit is the president of IndependentVoting.org and the campaign coordinator for Mike Bloomberg’s mayoral campaign on the Independence Party line.

BALANCE OF POWER

There is an outstandingly thoughtful post called "All Aboard" penned by Mycue23 currently running (Monday, October 5, 2009) on the superb blog Random Thoughts (http://hamsandwich66.blogspot.com/). He expresses frustration with the way the Democrats have not been able to get much done even though they enjoy lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. He illustrates how the Democrats are a bigger tent, and more fragmented party than are the Republicans, who are overwhelmingly conservative in ideology, and more disciplined and cohesive in methodology, and are therefore usually more effective in passing their agenda than are the Democrats. I would say this is entirely accurate, and I would suggest a few other reasons for the lakluster Democratic performance that weren't presented.

As Mycue23 points out, the Republicans are a near monolithic force today. The Democrats, supermajority and all, are not. Looking back in history, we will find this is not a unique occurence. There were disputes among Democrats even dating back to the 1930s and 1940s. When asked about the fragmented nature of his Democratic Party, four times elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt observed that there were many ways to move forward, but only one way to stand still. So it was then and so it is today: Democrats favoring many new initiatives and Republicans not wanting to budge at all. But there are critical differences between FDR's time and today, and even the LBJ era of the 1960s and today, both periods of strong Democratic control which resulted in huge amounts of legislation being passed which benefitted the poor, minorities, and working America.

The Democrats enjoyed even larger majorities in Congress during the 1930s and 1960s than they do today. Then, as now, they were composed of a coalition of northern liberals and southern conservatives and moderates (the Blue Dogs of their day). But in those decades, the Congressional delegation was composed of a much greater proportion of liberals and progressives, supported and funded by strong labor unions. Today, labor unions are far weaker, their rank and file membership is far smaller, and their influence is very pale compared with 35-70 years ago. Recent decades have also seen the rise in influence of political action committees and lobbyists, both of which are funded by special interests and both of which line the ever-hungry coffers of congressional reelection campaign warchests. These newly-powerful groups not only fuel congressional opinion, but now are attempting to fuel popular opinion too through the use of one-sided TV, radio, newspaper, and magazine ads. We average citizens are getting shut out in the process. Our wants and needs are being swept away in a tsunami of corporate buy-outs of, and domination over, our government.

Much of this corporate collusion has benefitted Republicans, as they have always been traditional friends of big business and big finance. But a good amount of this corporate dominance has also affected a number of Democrats as well. This explains the existence of Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who blatantly opposes a public option for health care even though a majority of those in her state and those in the medical field in her state favor it. Senator Lincoln has been bought out by the health insurance industry, plain and simple. She represents them, not her constituents or the rest of us.

Another reason congressional Democrats have failed to get much done is their, and the President's, silly focus on "bipartisanship." George W. Bush and his then-dominant Republican Party didn't reach across the aisle to pass their insane tax cuts for the rich and deregulation schemes. Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert and crew simply rammed it through and got it done. They didn't waste time courting Democratic approval. They simply got the legislation passed in spite of the Democrats. They used their majority to pass legislation. They didn't waste time being nice. So today should it be with the Democrats.

Congressional and Presidential leadership was far stronger in past decades, and this, yoo, explains why passing the Democratic agenda has been so slow this time around. FDR enjoyed huge popular support due to the dire straits his predecessor and the GOP had left us in during the Great Depression. He had far more liberals pushing legislation then than we see today. LBJ, long a power-broker and insider, knew how to manipulate and bully to get the job done. While in Congress, LBJ had nuts - big ones - and he used them to great success. Today's counterpart, Harry Reid, has only shriveled-up raisins by comparison, and couldn't bully me aside even in a crowded elevator. As President, LBJ was a masterful dominator and manipulator, and used his insider knowledge and influence to browbeat congressional opponents into submission. Unfortunately, President Obama lacks this dominance and has adopted a nice guy approach. But unfortrunately, when it comes to getting things done in Washington, nice guys finish last.

The balance of political power in this country is teetering. I thought after Bush's disastrous presidency and the abysmal failure of the Republicans' economic policies that the GOP may disappear altogether, but now I'm not so sure. Democrats hold the numbers, now at least, and Republicans are deservedly at their weakest numbers of electoral support in 80 years. But their alliance with big money and big business, along with the pathetic corporatist media we have today, plus their proven propensity to lie, cheat, and steal to gain office, makes me think the balance of power just might be tipping a bit in their direction once more. The Democrats seem too weak and disjointed to effectively govern, and the Republicans seem too corrupt and short sighted. Barring a miracle, like Harry Reid suddenly sprouting pumpkins and President Obama becoming tougher and finally getting a few breaks, I don't see much hope for the progressive cause in the very near future. For Reid and Obama were both able to sell the country on the President last November, but both have failed miserably in selling us his very important agenda. If this situation persists, the ultra-conservative Republicans will emerge as de facto winners, and the balance of power will be on their side. The result will be endless stalemate and preservation of the status quo, and that is exactly what the country does NOT need going forward!

ANOTHER GREAT HEALTH CARE IDEA!

"With virtually no Republicans agreeing with their own constituents that a public option is the way to go, you can take any state in the Union (especially in the Old Confederacy) and find a disconnect between members of Congress following a lock-step anti-family ideology and average families wanting the reasonable health insurance like the rest of the industrialized world already has---and for far, far less money than the U.S. spends on health care."
- Howie Klein, in his june 26 post "Why Are So Many Members Of Congress Going Against Their Own Constituents' Demands For Health Care Reform?" on his superb blog "Down With Tyranny!" (http://www.downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/) -


Here is another tremendously intriguing idea on reforming health care which appeared in the Sunday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 28, 2009. Yes, we in Minnesota DO have brains and aren't all wacko eccentrics like Michele Bachmann and Jesse Ventura! FYI: "DFL" stands for Democratic-Farmer-Laborer, the Minnesota version of the Democratic Party.


The White House wants help, and state Rep. Tom Huntley gets the call. Here's why:

By LORI STURDEVANT, Star Tribune

Last update: June 27, 2009 - 11:57 PM

You don't get a telephone call inviting you to the White House every day -- or ever -- even if you're a nine-term DFL state representative from Duluth.

Rep. Tom Huntley picked up the phone and heard "This is the White House calling" on June 13. He had to catch his breath before he could utter, "I'll be there."

Four days later, Huntley sat at 1600 Pennsylvania Av. with 21 other state legislators from around the country and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, discussing the hottest national policy topic of the season, health care reform.

It may say something noteworthy about the Obama administration's policy focus that among all of Minnesota health-minded legislators, Huntley got the call.

It isn't surprising that the president would seek out someone with Huntley's expertise. The 71-year-old Ph.D. biochemist taught at medical schools for 40 years, most of them at the University of Minnesota-Duluth School of Medicine. At the Legislature, he has chaired the House's health care finance division since DFLers took control of the chamber in 2007.

What's interesting is that the White House tapped someone with Huntley's take on how to proceed with reform. More than any other DFLer in St. Paul, Huntley has been a champion of changing the way medicine is practiced and paid for, in order to control costs.

Huntley's stock line is, "You've got to fix the system for the 93 percent in order to have money to serve the 7 percent" -- that is, the share of the Minnesota population that lacks health insurance. For the nation, that share is closer to 16 percent.

He says that Minnesota's doctors, some of whom he trained, treat insured people in ways that are too often duplicative and ineffective. For that, he does not blame them. Rather, he faults a fee-for-service payment system that rewards doctors for the number of procedures they do, not for keeping patients healthy.

Only if the galloping growth in health care spending can be slowed can the state or the nation afford to insure the uninsured. "You have to get after the costs," he says.

Other DFL legislators who carry a health care portfolio -- Sens. Linda Berglin and John Marty, to name two -- have made themselves almost synonymous with expanding access to health insurance via government efforts. Their difference with Huntley is more one of emphasis than of substance. They too favor lower-cost, prevention-focused medical practices, and Huntley is not averse to a government-sponsored health insurance program.

But if you're President Obama, and you see the access expansion train beginning to move in Congress without cost-containment cars firmly attached, the Minnesotan whose advice you want is Tom Huntley.

And if you're Huntley, itching to change the way Minnesota doctors treat the big-ticket diseases -- diabetes, depression, asthma, heart and coronary artery disease -- you want the White House to bring a Medicare and Medicaid payment-reform pilot project to this state. That's what he pitched in D.C.

He explained: "If you have a clinic and 5 percent of your patients are in a special payment program, you're not going to change the way you deliver medicine. But if 60 percent of your patients are paid in a certain way, that will change your behavior. I want to be able to combine Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance to get that critical mass for change."

Huntley's 2008 bill started down that road. When fully implemented later this year, it will pay primary care doctors to coordinate the care of their patients with chronic conditions. That idea -- "medical homes," in Capitol shorthand -- is intended to minimize high-cost, duplicative treatment by medical specialists.

But without the big federal programs involved, there's only so far that Huntley's 2008 bill can go in saving money. "We're asking that Minnesota be allowed to change the way Medicare pays," he said.

If Huntley gets his pilot, Minnesota could find itself positioned as a make-or-break proving ground for President Obama's biggest domestic initiative. The pressure will be on a lot of Minnesotans - not least of them Huntley - to show that it's possible to rein in health care costs while still insuring more people.

Huntley acknowledges that changing the way medicine is practiced is "very difficult." But, he says, "it's what we have to do.

"If this doesn't work, then you really will have a system where government sets the cost of everything...I don't think that's good for anybody. That wouldn't do anything for quality improvement. That's the club that's hanging out there."


Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She is at lsturdevant@startribune.com.

Treat the disease: Change how health care is paid for. A novel idea indeed!