Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
So here it is, almost halfway through this President's first term, and it's starting to become abundantly clear that there is no way Obama is going to pursue the same agenda that he ran on in 2008.
In fact, as the President announces a deal that even he agrees the majority of the American people do not support, and he prepares the Nation for the news that we're going to have to borrow money for the very tax cuts he said we couldn't afford a few weeks ago, it's starting to look like Obama isn't even going to pursue the same agenda he campaigned for in October.
Now it is true that a lot of the problem here is the President's-but it's also fair to say that we Progressives have failed to force the President, and certain reluctant Members of Congress, to govern in a way that promotes that agenda.
That's a real problem, and it needs a real solution; before we get done today I'll offer a suggestion that could be not only highly effective, and a lot of fun besides, but a great chance to release your artistic muse as well.
I took a couple of weeks off, as Thanksgiving and snow came around (a subject we'll address in a day or so), but we are all again occupied as lots of things we've been talking about either will or won't come to pass, and it seems like all that's happening all at once.
Today we'll take on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT); this because the Pentagon's top leadership just came out and reported that revocation of the policy, following a period of preparation, would be their preferred way to go.
There will be lots of others who will take on the question of what's right and wrong here, and exactly how implementation might occur; my interest is, instead, to focus on one little fact that makes all teh rest of the conversation a lot more relevant.
That is the fact that about 70,000 LBGT troops serve in the military today, DADT notwithstanding, and, that if it wasn't for DADT, almost 45,000 more troops would be serving that aren't today.
And that one little fact leads to today's Great Big Question: exactly how much military would 115,000 troops be, exactly?
Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
I tried to avoid writing a blowhardy, why we lost post-election diatribe. But my hand has been forced. By me.
We lost because we suck.
Hey! Wait a second! We don't suck! I don't! My friends don't, and my candidate certainly didn't!
Right. But collectively, we do. We the Democratic Party. We the American political system.
Republicans suck more!
I agree. Unfortunately, they disagree, and there are a lot of them.
Think about the last 10 years. After the closest election in history, the American electorate gave a ringing mandate to George W. Bush in 2002. Two years later, John Kerry came within a football stadium (60,000 votes, in Ohio) of being president. Two years after that, we took the House and the Senate. Then in 2008, we won with a wildly popular candidate and gained some seats in both the House and Senate. Now the House is gone, and we hold the Senate by a smaller margin.
We oppose term limits, but the American people have imposed them. On us. Because we suck.
In Massachusetts, John Walsh pulled an unprecedented miracle. He combined the lists of all 10 Democratic members of Congress, and identified that there were a million Democratic votes available. And boy, did he call it. The results.
Patrick - 1,108,104
Baker - 962,848
Total: 2,070,952
Difference: 145,526
Hurray John Walsh! (Seriously -- hurray John Walsh! And Clare Kelly, and a lot of others.)
ALL that effort, in one of the bluest states in the nation -- in a field of four -- and the margin was essentially 55-45. Great. Wondrous. Miraculous. Sustainable? No.
Barney Frank, Chair of the Banking Committee, one of the most powerful guys in Washington before the election, liberal hero, running against a seemingly affable and presentable young guy (but with no experience) -- 54-43.
Bill Keating, white knight district attorney, famously took on Billy Bulger, running against a candidate who became a national name because of a scandal that was said to "cut across party lines" -- 47-42 (with three other candidates on the ballot). These figures also from Boston.com.
We escaped with our lives from a national wave, but we still lost. Our delegation is less powerful today.
And as impressive as the effort was, I come back to that 1 million vote figure. There are six million people in Massachusetts. We can reasonably assume there are 4 million eligible voters. But only a million votes were available to the overwhelming majority party.
A lot of people are looking to figure out what happened, see what worked and didn't, which messages took hold, which tactics paid off. I am grateful for those people and really appreciate their efforts.
But the rest of us have to focus on what we all know. We lost because we suck.
More later on why we suck, but it comes down to this. We are not focusing on the things people care about. We are not giving them a reason to vote for us instead of Republicans. I am not saying, "It's the economy, stupid" -- far from it -- but, for lack of a better term, we are not focused on the American dream. Not the white picket fence of old -- I want to talk about Detroit, among other things -- but all aspects of it. The rent IS too damn high, and the landlord refuses to paint.
Given the dynamics of these things, she is unlikely to return as Speaker when Democrats take the House back, even if that happens in just two years.
I would like to note that she served her country and the Democratic Party honorably. She showed toughness when she had to, and she was vital in passing the healthcare law, which remains the signature accomplishment of the last two years.
She defended a couple of people that I would not have defended, but she hasn't had a personal scandal or even a whiff of one. And frankly, such loyalty (within reason) is the side I'd like to see leaders err on, because too many people in politics are too quick to throw others under the proverbial bus.
There was that awkward moment when she said, "Oh, he [Obama] was for a lot of things on the campaign trail," but she was hardly the only one who had that type of thought. I'm not going to blame her for saying it out loud.
She "took impeachment off the table" when she took the gavel. This annoyed many people, but I believe it was the right thing to do. It avoided creating a revenge cycle of impeachment proceedings. And it did not exclude other actions taken, say, by the Justice Department. People can say it created a certain climate where that was more difficult, and they may have a point, but let's not kid ourselves, any such action was always going to be difficult. It should be difficult.
Finally, when the GOP tried to make her a lightning rod -- really starting on day one, but especially this year -- and some Democratic members distanced themselves to save themselves (see above), she never wavered. She never condemned anyone who did that. Privately, who knows, it had to hurt and maybe that showed. But in public, she held strong.
(The following is a letter written by my daughter, Ariana, which I wanted to share with all of you)
You may know Paul Hodes as a public servant, a lawyer, or perhaps as a musician. I know him as something entirely different and unique. With less than a week left to go before New Hampshire decides who they'll send down to the US Senate, I want to tell you what I know about my father.
My father is a man of integrity, thoughtfulness, and strength of character who can stand behind any decision he makes because it's his own. He's smart, kind, and genuinely sensitive to the needs of his constituents; the combination of which allows him to weigh different outcomes of a situation, see the big picture, and understand how individuals might be affected by different decisions.
Out of everything I know about my father, the one thing that proves his earnest desire to do good is a simple choice he made many years ago: the decision he and my mom made to raise their family in New Hampshire.
Stories begat other stories, or at least they do for me; this two-part conversation came from a comment that was made after I posted a story suggesting that voting matters this time, especially if you don't want environmental disasters like the recent Hungarian "toxic lake" that burst from its containment and polluted the Danube River happening in your neighborhood.
Long story short, we are going to be moving on to ask what, for some, is a more fundamental question: if you're an LBGT voter, and the Democratic Party hasn't, to put it charitably, "been all they could be" when it comes to issues like repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the Federal Defense of Marriage Act...what should you do?
Now normally I would be the one trying to develop an answer to the question, but instead, we're going to be posing the question to a group of experts, and we'll be letting them give the answers.
And just because you, The Valued Reader, deserve the extra effort, for Part Two we've trying to get you a "Special Bonus Expert" to add some input to the conversation: a Democratic Member of Congress who represents a large LBGT community.
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
It is about a week before early voting begins for a bunch of us around the country, and that means this may be one of the last times I have to convince you that, frustrated progressive or not, you better get your butt to a ballot box or a mail-in envelope this November, because it really does matter.
Now I could give you a bunch of "what ifs" to make my point, or I could remind you how we spent all summer watching oil gush into the Gulf, and how that came to be...but, instead, it's "Even More Current Event Day", and we're going to visit Hungary for a extremely real-world reminder of what can go wrong when the environmental cops are considered just too much of a burden by the environmental robbers-and if today's story doesn't scare you to death, I don't know what will.
It ain't Texas, but we will surely visit a Red River Valley...and you surely won't like what you're gonna see.
Some say Rove and and his bad seeds left the GOP but I am here to tell you do not accept the GOP lies-He and his friends never left!
http://beforeitsnews.com/story...
Text removed for copyright violation. Please restrict use of copyrighted pieces to short excerpts. - Laura
James Galbraith, son of that wise economist (and there sure aren't many of those around, or in history for that matter) John Kenneth Galbraith, and my favorite economist along with Krugman, has a good article up. I think the money quote is:
The clear and pressing priorities are energy and climate change. To address these challenges is a grand task, requiring decades of research, careful planning and many investments, if we are to pass on a livable planet and a decent living standard. Institutionally it will require new lending agencies to assure that the funds needed are available over the long term. And the work can provide jobs for millions, for many years.
(Imagine the positive impact of having both Paul Hodes and Jeanne Shaheen in the Senate... now go make some phone calls or knock on some doors. - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
Yesterday, I stood with environmental leaders in New Hampshire to talk about my dedication to a national renewable energy standard. I challenged my global-warming denying opponent, Kelly Ayotte, to take a position on the issue. She responded that she would look at the proposal.
It's puzzling. Why would someone who doesn't think global warming exists think that we need to enact a proposal aimed at reducing carbon emissions? Why would someone who supports things like drilling off the coast of New Hampshire all of a sudden try to convince us she'd be supportive of renewable energy efforts in the US Senate?
In her competitive primary, we watched Ms. Ayotte move to the far-right wing of her party. Now, with the general election less than a month away, she's trying to have it both ways. She's hoping New Hampshire won't notice that big oil and coal companies continue to fill her campaign coffers as she talks about drilling off the coast of New Hampshire.
The bottom line is that Kelly Ayotte has as many doubts about global warming as I have about her ability to stand up to her special interest donors in the oil and coal industry.
There is less than one week to go before the September 14th Democratic primary, and one candidate has proven herself as the only choice. Katrina Swett is the candidate who can win in November. She is our choice for the 2nd Congressional District, and we hope she will be yours as well.
Here is why Katrina Swett should be your candidate.
Over the past twenty-years Katrina has stood with Democrats in New Hampshire during the good times and during the lean times. She has never wavered in her commitment to progressive ideals, never ceased to fight for expanding health insurance as a right not a privilege, and never backed down from corporate lobbyists and big-moneyed special interests.
As I travel across the Granite State on this campaign, there seems to be one thing the people of New Hampshire can agree on - Washington is broken. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat or Independent. You've seen exactly what I see down there: a system that is simply not serving the needs of our middle-class families and small businesses any more. A system that has become rigged against the people it's supposed to support.
That's why yesterday I announced my proposals to change the Senate rules to increase accountability and break the partisan gridlock in Washington. Right now, Washington Republicans in the Senate are blocking a vote on a critical bill that will provide tax cuts and increased credit to New Hampshire's small businesses. My plan calls for an end to anonymous holds and gradually lowering the threshold needed to end debate and hold an up or down vote on Senate bills.
Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don't view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it's time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America's energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America's best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act-the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives-in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
