Google Search

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Occupy Wall Street May Help or Hinder Democrats (ContributorNetwork)

The Occupy Wall Street is taking a dynamic new turn. About two dozen protesters left their encampment at Zuccotti Park to being a trek to Washington, D.C. The group's aim is to show up in the capital Nov. 23, the deadline for the congressional "super committee" to reveal its findings to Congress to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. Occupy the Highway is determined to make its presence known in the nation's capital.

Politicians have gotten involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Depending upon how the protests are viewed by the American public, Democrats may either be helped or hindered by the movement.

Polls

Two recent polls seem to suggest the Americans are becoming more aware of a widening income gap. Sixty-one percent of people polled by the Washington Post and ABC News say they believe the income gap is widening in the United States. More importantly, 60 percent say the federal government should do something about it. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll states 76 percent of its respondents feel the government should reduce the power of major banks and corporations.

This income gap is precisely why some Occupy Wall Street protesters have taken their demands to some of the richest individuals in the United States. One person walking to Washington, D.C., stated the purpose of the march was to ensure Congress taxes billionaires.

Statements and Elections

Many politicians have made statements on their websites supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. Democratic New York State Sen. Thomas K. Duane posted a message in solidarity with the protests Nov. 2 for a planned march five days later. Adirano Espaillat from the state's 31st Senate District posted an annoucement about an 11-mile march planned for Nov. 7. He helped lead the march between Yonkers and New York City.

One potential candidate is already getting backlash for her 2012 Senate run. Crossroads GPS released an attack ad against Elizabeth Warren who is seeking a Senate seat in Massachusetts. The commercial claims her support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement means she advocates drug use, violence and radical policies.

Help or Hinder Campaigns

Republicans and Democrats may start using the Occupy Wall Street movement for political leverage. Bloomberg reports public opinion favors doing something about the widening income gap. That income disparity is part of what fuels the Occupy movement.

Republicans have already started one attack ad using a Democrat's statement about Occupy Wall Street against her. How the group is received in Washington, D.C., Nov. 23 may also lead to more political bickering.

One thing is certain. Two major forces will collide in the nation's capital right before Thanksgiving. Protesters who are fed up with rich people who have destroyed the American dream and 12 members of Congress tasked with finding out how to fix the government's finances. If the two groups find common ground, political debates may heat up even more.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.


View the original article here

Fast and Furious: Dems radio silent (Daily Caller)

North Carolina Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell won’t follow through on a promise he made to the American people  for Operation Fast and Furious accountability, his 2012 challenger told The Daily Caller.

One of Kissell’s 2012 Republican challengers, Richard Hudson, told TheDC that the Democrat’s continued failure to follow through on a June 3 letter to President Barack Obama demanding answers and accountability for Fast and Furious shows Kissell is more interested in playing politics and getting re-elected than he is in the truth.

“What happened in Fast and Furious is an absolute tragedy, but that tragedy was compounded by the failure of the Obama administration to tell the truth about it,” Hudson told TheDC. “It is apparent that Attorney General Holder did not tell the truth when testifying before Congress and that is unacceptable. I wish I could tell you why Larry Kissell doesn’t feel the same way.”

Kissell, he said, “owes it to the people he represents to come forward and call for Holder’s resignation.”

“I believe Kissell is afraid this would embarrass President Obama and hurt his re-election. The truth is the American people don’t care about politics.  Lives were lost, and those who played a role, had knowledge, or misled the Congress should be removed from office.”

Kissell was one of 31 Democrats who wrote to Obama on June 3 asking him to direct Holder and the Department of Justice to “promptly provide complete answers to all congressional inquiries” about Fast and Furious. Holder and the DOJ have not fulfilled that request.

Kissell and his 30 colleagues said the “tactics” used in Operation Fast and Furious “are extremely troubling.”

“Our concerns were heightened with news that one of the firearms sold may have been used in the murder of a Border Patrol agent,” the Democrats wrote. “These allegations call into question the judgment of the agents involved. It is equally troubling that the Department of Justice has delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries.”

As recently as this month, Holder and the DOJ have continued to refuse to provide witnesses and documents that House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa has not only requested, but subpoenaed. If Holder continues to delay action and withhold information from Congress, the subpoena can ultimately be enforced by Contempt of Congress proceedings.

Since the Democrats’ letter, Republican Rep. Raul Labrador and 50 of his GOP colleagues have made clear that they believe Holder “is either lying or grossly incompetent. Either way, he is unfit to serve the American people as the highest law enforcement officer in the land.”

Though the 51 congressmen are demanding Holder’s immediate resignation, Kissell won’t talk. He has gone silent now that a high-ranking Obama administration official — and personal ally of the president — is implicated in the scandal.

Hudson said Kissell’s lack of action is unacceptable and his failure to lead on this issue has become “typical” behavior for the North Carolina Democat. “He talks a good game but refuses to lead,” Hudson said. “The people of the 8th District need real conservative leadership from a congressman who will take a principled stand. Larry Kissell has not led — I will.”

“Attorney General Holder has lost the confidence of the American people and should be replaced,” Hudson added. “Unfortunately, the people in the 8th District cannot count on Larry Kissell to stand up for what is right.”

The Daily Caller has given Kissell and his spokesman Christopher Schuler several days to respond to questions about this issue. On at least four occasions, an intern or staffer who answered the phone in Kissell’s Washington, D.C., office told TheDC that Schuler was in the office but unavailable to talk about Fast and Furious. TheDC left detailed messages and sent email requests asking for Kissell’s comment. He has not responded.

Follow Matthew on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Chris Matthews spanked by KABC radio's Larry Elder

Fast and Furious: Dems radio silent

Chuck Schumer ordered tea partiers out of Capitol [VIDEO]

Do candidates still need an Iowa ground game?

Occupy's greatest hits


View the original article here

Will Wisconsin Republican Gov. Walker Be Ousted in a Recall? (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | Wisconsin Democrats are attempting to oust Gov. Scott Walker as result of the messy debate over unions earlier this year. They are emboldened by recent recall elections and an Ohio referendum, but history shows it won't be so easy.

The Dairy State was treated to a fight over proposed new government powers to curtail union rights. We saw the spectacle of Democrat politicians fleeing the state to avoid a vote, Republicans going the extra mile to drag them back, and protesters disrupting the state capitol in a preview of "Occupy Wall Street." The GOP got its legislative victory, but Democrats struck back. Two Republican legislators (Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper) were recalled in special elections. In other states, two more Republicans were booted in recall elections in November, while an anti-union measure was slammed by Ohio voters.

Democrats hope to bag their biggest prize: Scott Walker himself. The recall movement kicks off less than a week after the November election. Polls show several Wisconsin Democrats (Russ Feingold, Tom Barrett) would beat Walker in an election. But Democrats may well fall short.

Hopper and Kapanke may have gone down to defeat, as did Russell Pearce and Paul Scott, but not all recall elections are successful. Analysis of the National Conference of State Legislatures data reveals that such a strategy has only worked 17 times against state legislators. In 15 cases, it didn't. This includes several GOP state legislators in Wisconsin this year (and a few Democrats in the state, as Republicans retaliated unsuccessfully).

Recall supporters point out that other politicians have been ousted, but that list includes only two governors: Republican Lynn Frazier in North Dakota in 1921 and Gray Davis in California in 2003. Many other attempts to dump governors, mayors, and municipal politicians have fizzled.

On many occasions, petitioners have tried to oust Federal officials (mostly for political reasons rather than any real malfeasance) without success, as the Constitution has no such provision (though the Founding Fathers kicked around the idea).

Recalls bids have a spotty record at best. When enough petitions are gathered, the ousting rate is barely 50 percent, and that doesn't include failed court challenges or cases where organizers couldn't muster the minimum number of petitions. And while Walker may have higher disapproval ratings and less popularity than Feingold and Barrett, a slight majority doesn't support a recall at this time. So even though Democrats are on a hot streak, they have their work cut out for them in a recall effort against Walker.


View the original article here

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Texas AG blasts court's redistricting maps (AP)

AUSTIN, Texas – Texas' attorney general sharply criticized a federal court Friday over its proposed maps for state House and Senate districts in the 2012 election, saying the judges overstepped their bounds.

The San Antonio-based federal court released the proposed redistricting maps late Thursday and gave those involved in the case until noon Friday to comment. Minority groups have filed a legal challenge to the Republican-drawn maps, saying they are discriminatory. The court's maps are intended to be an interim solution until the case is resolved after the 2012 elections.

Maps for the House and Senate released Thursday restore many of the minority districts — where Democrats hold the seats — to their previous shapes. Republican lawmakers have denied their maps were intended to minimize minority representation, and say they merely reflect the GOP majority in Texas.

In his filing, Attorney General Gregg Abbot said the court went too far in redrawing the Legislature's maps.

"A court's job is to apply the law, not to make policy," Abbott wrote in his objection to the proposed House map. "A federal court lacks the constitutional authority to interfere with the expressed will of the state Legislature unless it is compelled to remedy a specific identifiable violation of law."

Abbott argued that there is no violation of law. Included in his court filing were letters and emails from 18 Republican lawmakers and two Democrats objecting to portions of the court-drawn House map.

The objections by the Republican attorney general and lawmakers followed praise by many Democrats on Thursday night. But two Democrats, Representatives Senfronia Thompson and Harold Dutton, objected to the court's version of their House Districts 141 and 142 in Harris County

"The traditional communities of interest, which have existed since 1972, are destroyed under the court's plan," Dutton said. Thompson said her district was fundamentally changed by removing a key neighborhood from it.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, also denounced the court's state Senate maps. As the leader of the Senate, he supervised the creation of the district map for that chamber.

"The Senate's map was not hastily crafted, but was the product of careful balancing and intense negotiation by the senators," Dewhurst said in a letter Friday. "The court's proposed interim map completely disregards the careful work of the members of the Senate."

Since 1965, Texas has been subject to the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with a history of racial discrimination to first gain approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before instituting new political districts. A federal court in Washington rejected Abbott's request to give approval to the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Legislature, and the Department of Justice has called the method for drafting the maps seriously flawed.

The courts have played a role in drafting every legislative or congressional redistricting map in Texas since 1970.


View the original article here

Both Dems, GOP pleased: Supreme Court taking up Obama health-care law (The Christian Science Monitor)

There isn’t much these days that can spread unanimity across party lines in Washington. But that’s what happened following the US Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it will examine the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care reform law.

The news was greeted across the ideological spectrum as a positive development – but for different reasons.

“We are pleased the court has agreed to hear this case,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, said in a statement. “We know the Affordable Care Act [ACA] is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the sentiments. “Today’s announcement places the Affordable Care Act before the highest court in our country,” she said. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will find the law constitutional.”

Others are equally confident that the law is unconstitutional, and they’re looking forward to the Supreme Court saying so.

“Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

“In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same,â€

“The American people did not support this law when it was rushed through Congress and they do not support it now that they’ve seen what’s in it,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “This government takeover of health care is threatening jobs, increasing costs, and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans, and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it.”

Rep. Pete Stark (D) of California had a different take. “I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court ruling that will force Republicans to join Democrats in governing instead of continuing their political grandstanding,” he said.

In announcing that they will take up the issue, the justices set aside an extraordinary 5-1/2 hours for oral argument. They have agreed to examine the ACA’s controversial independent mandate, the requirement that all Americans must purchase a government-approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court has also agreed to hear an appeal by Florida and 24 other states that the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid is overly coercive of state government, forcing the states to either adopt the federal reforms or lose federal health-care funding.

Beyond the fate of the ACA, the high court’s decision could establish new boundaries for federal power under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The Supreme Court has set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade,” said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. “Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did.”

Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, was among the first legal scholars to raise serious questions about the constitutionality of the health-care reform law. When most other legal analysts scoffed, Professor Barnett argued that the ACA’s individual mandate represented a sizable expansion of federal power.

“Upholding the individual mandate would end the notion that Congress is one of limited and enumerated powers, and fundamentally transform the relationship of Americans to their doctors and their government,” he said in a statement Monday. “It is high time for the high court to strike down this unconstitutional, unworkable, and unpopular law.”

Elizabeth Wydra, general counsel of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, noted that two highly regarded conservative jurists have voted in lower court cases to uphold the ACA. Conservative members of the high court may follow the same path, she said.

“Observers should note the very real possibility that the tea party’s basic constitutional vision could be rejected by the Supreme Court – particularly its most conservative members,” she said. A high court endorsement of the ACA, Ms. Wydra added, “could deal a devastating blow to tea partiers’ ability to have their constitutional theories taken seriously by the American public in the future.”

Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., says he’s hopeful the Supreme Court case sparks even more discussion, not less.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement marks an historic opportunity for a nationwide debate over the Constitution and its continued significance in our lives – the kind of debate this nation has not had since the 1930s,” Mr. Sandefur said. “The founding fathers made it clear that they were designing a federal government of limited powers. But since the 1930s, Congress has pushed its authority further and further, and courts have refused to enforce the constitutional limits.”

Sandefur added: “Today’s announcement means the justices will be faced with the question of whether the federal government is still bound by constitutional limits, or whether we will persist in our decades-long habit of ignoring the letter and spirit of our nation’s supreme law.”

Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, offered a different perspective. “I am confident the law will be upheld in its entirety,” she said.

Ms. Tanden called the lawsuits challenging the ACA “nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the Constitution to thwart national solutions to national problems.”

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said he is confident the high court will invalidate the ACA. “Each day that these cases remain unresolved means that states must spend more time and money to prepare for the expensive and burdensome requirements of the health care law, while uncertainty looms over its constitutionality,” he said.

“Today’s news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments,” the governor said, “is reassuring news that we will soon reach finality on this critically important issue.”

The National Federation of Independent Business is a party to one of the appeals challenging the ACA’s constitutionality. The high court’s decision to hear its case is welcome news, said NFIB president Dan Danner.

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Danner said. “The health care law has not lived up to its promise of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees.”

He added, “The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.


View the original article here

How Did Ohio, Mississippi Ballot Initiatives Fare in 2011 Election? (ContributorNetwork)

The election that took place on Nov. 8, 2011 featured a number of statewide initiatives that have national import. Two of the results would seem to favor Democrats while two other results favored Republicans.

What the meaning these initiatives have for the 2012 election, if any, will be the subject of considerable debate for the next few weeks. Both sides of the political aisle find reason for comfort and for concern.

Ohio Issue 2: Collective Bargaining Rights for Public Sector Unions

Ohio voters rejected the Issue 2 ballot initiative, a result that had the effect of repealing a law passed in the Ohio legislature that restricted the rights of public sector employees to collectively bargain. Labor unions poured in tens of millions of dollars and many thousands of man hours to defeat the initiative. They succeeded by about a two to one margin. Conservatives warn, however, that this means that either taxes will have to be raised or services cut and employees laid off.

Ohio Issue 3: The Individual Insurance Mandate Under Obamacare

Proving that health care reform, also known as Obamacare, remains universally unpopular, voters in Ohio voted to pass Issue 3, which would exempt Ohioans from having to comply with the individual insurance mandate. Unfortunately if Obamacare remains law and if the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, the results of the measure are largely moot. It would, however, prevent Ohio from enacting its own version of Romneycare, passed in Massachusetts, which also has an individual mandate.

Mississippi Initiative 26: The Personhood Amendment

This ballot initiative would have defined a human being a legal person from the moment of conception, effectively outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. This initiative proved to be too much, even for conservative, Bible belt Mississippi. The fear of unintended consequences, including the possibility that a woman suffering a miscarriage might be charged with involuntary manslaughter, influenced Mississippi voters to turn down the amendment.

Mississippi Initiative 31: Eminent Domain Reform

Even since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which permitted state and local governments to seize private property and to give that property to another private entity under eminent domain, states and localities have been scrambling to pass laws to tighten restrictions on eminent domain. Mississippi is the latest state to do so, passing a ballot initiative that largely prohibits state and local governments from taking private property and giving it to another private entity, even if it can claim that a public purpose, usually higher tax revenues, is being facilitated. It is another victory for property rights.


View the original article here

RNC surpasses DNC in October fundraising (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee raised $8.5 million in October as it gears up for a challenge to President Barack Obama next year.

The RNC raised slightly more during the month than the Democratic National Committee, which collected $7.9 million. The RNC ended October with $13.5 million in the bank, while the DNC's cash on hand fell to $11.1 million.

RNC officials said the party's debt was $13.9 million. That's down from $24 million when RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (ryns PREE'-bus) took over the committee. The DNC had debts of $9 million.

The DNC fundraising included $2 million for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the DNC and Obama's e-election campaign.


View the original article here

Senate Passes Its First Portion of Obama's Jobs Plan (The Atlantic Wire)

A bill giving businesses tax credits for hiring military veterans became the first part of President Barack Obama's sweeping American Jobs Act to pass the Senate on Thursday. It's also the first bit of jobs-bill cooperation for the Senate in a while, Politico notes. After Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act as a whole back in October, Democrats tried to introduce it piece by piece, but the two bills they've brought to the Senate floor have both failed. Earlier on Thursday, Democrats scored some retribution on the Republicans by defeating its alternative jobs plan. But later, in an especially rare bit of bipartisanship, the vote to approve the veteran-hiring bill (on the eve of Veterans' Day, no less) was 94-to-1, with only Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, saying the government shouldn't "privilege one American over another when it comes to work." DeMint's counterpart, Lindsey Graham, had the quote of the day, however, with this pep talk: "There is more potential [for bipartisanship] than people realize. You just got to want it."


View the original article here

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Chicago mayor rallies Obama support in Iowa (AP)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel launched an ardent defense of President Barack Obama in Iowa on Saturday, telling local Democrats that in order to create security for the middle class, "we just can't cut our way to prosperity."

Obama's former chief of staff rallied about 1,300 people during the Iowa Democratic Party's largest annual fundraiser in Des Moines. Emanuel told the crowd that Republicans want to solve the nation's debt problem only through spending cuts, while Obama favors a balanced approach of cuts and tax increases.

"To create true middle-class security, we can't just cut our way to prosperity," Emanuel said. "We must out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the world."

Emanuel said Obama has made crucial, tough decisions based on his principles to help the country — and not in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a second term in the White House. And he asked the crowd whose judgment they wanted leading the country during such a critical economic time.

"In the next four years, there will be more challenges and more crises that will determine the economic vitality of the middle class and the economic future of this country," Emanuel said. "Whose character, whose judgment do you want in that office?"

Obama has a solid history in Iowa. His surprising win in the state's precinct caucuses four years ago launched him on the road to the White House, and he easily carried the state in the 2008 general election.

Emanuel's appearance in the key early-caucus state was a chance for Democrats to grab attention from several Republican presidential candidates making their case to social conservatives across town. Emanuel used the opportunity to criticize GOP candidate Mitt Romney, even though Romney wasn't in Iowa.

The mayor cited the sharply different views that Obama and Romney had on rescuing the auto industry and propping up the nation's financial system. He argued that Obama's views have been proven right, while Romney's stance to not offer federal financial assistance would have destroyed the two key industries.

Emanuel also said Romney has flip-flopped in his political views, such as taking a more conservative stance on abortion and gun control.

"Mitt Romney says he's a man of steadiness and consistency. If that's true, then I'm a linebacker for the Chicago Bears," said the slim, 5-foot-8 1/2 mayor.

In an interview before the event, Emanuel said he was looking forward to the prospect of a lengthy, heated Republican primary race — and the exposure it gives to the GOP candidates.

"I think a lot of people want to see it over quickly, and I don't think they're going to get that," he said.

Sounding the populist theme that Obama has been offering in recent weeks, Emanuel also said the president is focused less on the difficulty of his tasks as president and more on the struggles of the American middle class.

"He continues to help them try to get their feet back on the ground. That's the struggle he's worried about, not his struggle," Emanuel said.


View the original article here

Dems plan midnight launch for Wis. governor recall (AP)

MADISON, Wis. – Political foes hoping to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker over his moves to significantly curb union rights in Wisconsin planned a late-night rally and early morning pajama parties to officially kick off the effort.

More than 100 events were planned across the state Tuesday to begin collecting the more than 540,000 signatures required to get a recall election on Wisconsin's ballot next year. Supporters have until Jan. 17 to turn in signatures.

Walker came out swinging, running his first television ad in reaction to the recall during the Green Bay Packers' Monday night football game. The 30-second ad features a school board member from Waukesha speaking in support of the governor, followed by Walker talking directly to the camera.

"Wisconsin's best days are yet to come," Walker says in the ad. "It won't happen overnight, but we are on our way."

Walker's campaign manager Keith Gilkes said the ad was running in all Wisconsin markets except Milwaukee and would be up for at least a week.

Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefsich and at least three Republican state senators also will be targeted for recall next year. Two GOP state senators lost their seats during recall elections this summer.

"I fully anticipate there will be signatures collected in every single Wisconsin county tomorrow," said state Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate. He said he hoped to collect at least 600,000 signatures by the deadline.

The recalls organized by Democrats, labor unions and others, are largely motivated by Republicans' adoption of a Walker-supported law that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers. Wrangling over the law earlier this year spurred protests that grew as large as 100,000 people and motivated all 14 Democratic state senators to flee for three weeks in an ultimately vain attempt to stop the proposal.

Walker said Monday he remains focused on fulfilling his campaign promise to grow jobs by 250,000 by 2015, when the term he was elected to last year ends. He defended his record and said voters were ready to move forward and didn't want to get stuck in an endless campaign cycle.

"We've made a lot of progress," he said. "It's a new day in Wisconsin."

Governors have only been recalled from office twice in U.S. history, in North Dakota in 1921 and in California when voters removed Gov. Gray Davis from office in 2003.

Walker recall organizers hope to tap ongoing anger over the collective bargaining law and build on momentum from last week's vote rejecting a similar law in Ohio. Wisconsin doesn't allow for a referendum challenging its law to be put on the ballot, so opponents targeted Walker and the three state senators.

"Any recall attempts filed will be nothing more than a shameless power grab by the Democrats and their liberal special interests, and will not deter Republicans from moving the state forward under responsible leadership," Republican Party spokeswoman Nicole Larson said Monday.

One Tuesday march and rally is planned for outside Walker's private residence in the Milwaukee suburb of Wauwatosa. Organizers said they would gather petition signatures on the lawns of Walker's neighbors. In downtown Madison, a Democratic state lawmaker planned to circulate the petitions in his neighborhood near the Capitol.

This summer nine state senators — three Democrats and six Republicans — underwent recall elections spawned by their position on the collective bargaining law. Two Republican incumbents lost, leaving the GOP with a narrow one-vote majority in the state Senate. Republicans also control the Assembly.

The three Republican state senators being targeted for recall by the Democratic Party this time around are Van Wanggaard of Racine, Pam Galloway of Wausau and Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls, according to Tate. All three defeated Democratic incumbents in 2010.

"I can't be distracted by what they're going to do," Wanggaard said. "If this is going to happen, it's going to happen. We're going to work hard to stay."

Galloway and Moulton had no comment.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he has not ruled out Republicans running as Democrats on the ballot to force a primary election and prolong the process, as was done in the summer recalls. He also said he expected to be targeted for recall, but would wait until when signatures are returned in January to decide whether to go after any Democrats.

But he said others not operating with support of the party may file their own recall petitions sooner.

The Senate races will be fought in their current legislative districts, not under new boundaries set to take effect with the November 2012 elections. Republicans redrew the district maps earlier this year as required every 10 years when new Census data is released.

The new lines are generally more favorable to Republicans, making it more urgent for Democrats to target the incumbents before those boundaries take effect.

The Wisconsin Republican Party announced Monday that it was launching a website to gather details about potential fraud related to recall petition circulation. Party executive director Stephan Thompson encouraged people to submit videos, recordings, photos and other incident reports that he said would be reviewed by party staff as well as retired law enforcement officers.

One Wisconsin Now director Scot Ross said his liberal group also would be closely monitoring the recall process to dispel misinformation and make sure the work of those legally seeking signatures isn't impeded.

Democrats do not yet have an announced candidate to take on Walker should enough signatures be collected to force an election. The earliest such an election could occur, without any expected delays in verifying the signatures or legal challenges, is March 27. Most expect any election would be later in the spring or in the summer.


View the original article here

5 Reasons Kentucky Democrat Win Boosts Obama Re-Election Chances (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | President Barack Obama's re-election hopes got a huge boost on Election Day 2011, as Kentucky Democratic Gov. Stephen Beshear coasted to an easy re-election, defeating a veteran Republican politician and a frequent independent candidate by a wide margin. This is good news for Obama for several reasons.

First, as Kentucky goes, so goes the Democratic Party's chances in the next election. Democrat Brereton Jones won his gubernatorial race in 1991, a year before Bill Clinton prevailed in 1992. Democrat Paul Patton's close victory in 1995 preceded Bill Clinton's successful re-election. Patton was re-elected in 1999, a year before the 2000 election. Yeah, Al Gore didn't win the contest against George W. Bush, but he won the popular vote.

Patton's scandal hurt the Democrat nominee Ben Chandler. He lost to Republican Ernie Fletcher in 2003, a year before Bush was re-elected. Then Beshear thumped Fletcher in 2007, a year before Barack Obama's historic win.

Of course, the state doesn't always go Democratic in the presidential elections. But if Republicans have to work to win it, that's less money for another state winds up flipping to the Democrats.

Second, four states that voted against Obama in 2008 held elections in 2011. Democrats won two of them: Kentucky and West Virginia. That doesn't bode well for Republicans. And, if you think about it, the other two states that picked the GOP (Louisiana, Mississippi) often go against presidential election trends over the same time frame.

In fact, given the showings in Louisiana and Mississippi, the Democrats should be scolded for being less effective in those states. Wins by Beshear in Kentucky and Tomblin in West Virginia demonstrate that being in a red state is no excuse. Other Southern state Democratic parties should take heed.

Third, Kentucky isn't some oasis of growth in a sea of slow recovery. In fact, Kentucky is a bit behind the curve when it comes to hiring. So it wasn't some rosy recovery scenario that gave Beshear another term in office.

Fourth, it isn't like Stephen Beshear was some political superman. The former Attorney General and Lt. Governor lost a gubernatorial primary in 1987. Senator Mitch McConnell thumped him in 1996 in an otherwise good year for Democrats. His victory in the 2007 primary was considered a shocker. As for the Republicans, David Williams was a veteran politician, and the state senate president. Williams' running mate Richie Farmer was a University of Kentucky basketball star. They should have done much better than this.

Fifth, it was a win for all Kentucky Democrats, as they won plenty of down-ticket races. Beshear's victory alone should unnerve Republicans. His margin of victory and the Democratic Party sweep shows that the GOP has its work cut out for them. They could ignore the contest, like they did in West Virginia. But history shows that it is a bad sign for Republicans next year.

John A. Tures is an associate professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Ga.


View the original article here

House Democrats ask for tougher Volcker rule (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A group of House Democrats are asking regulators to start over with a proposed ban on proprietary trading by banks, arguing the current proposal has too many loopholes.

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke released on Wednesday, a group of 17 House Democrats said the draft rule unveiled last month should be scrapped and replaced with a more simple approach.

"The Federal Reserve's draft Volcker Rule is unnecessarily complex and includes several large loopholes that undermine Congress's intent to protect banking deposits from risky trading activities," the lawmakers wrote in their letter, which was spearheaded by Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Peter Welch.

The Volcker rule, named for former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker who championed the measure, aims to prevent banks that receive government backstops like deposit insurance from making risky trades with their own funds in securities, derivatives and other financial products.

It will also prohibit banks from investing in, or sponsoring, hedge funds or private equity funds.

The trading ban will have the most impact on large banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

The Volcker rule was included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law and the draft rule released last month was written by the Fed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The rule is out for comment until January 13 after which a final proposal has to be drafted to fully implement the policy.

Some of the complaints the lawmakers are aiming at regulators have more to do with provisions included in the law passed by Congress.

For instance, the letter complains that the proposed rule would allow banks to engage in proprietary trading if it is done to make a market for a client or to hedge against related risks.

These exemptions to the ban, however, are permitted by the law.

Regulators have faced complaints that their interpretation of these exemptions is too broad.

The letter also cites recent comments from Volcker himself that the rule may be too complex.

At a November 9 event on the rule, however, Volcker's top aide, Tony Dowd, said the former Fed chairman is mostly supportive of the proposal, particularly the provision that lays responsibility for following the trading ban with senior management.

Dowd said Volcker feels it is more complex than needed, only because the banking industry was successful in its efforts to have exemptions added to the law.

"From Mr. Volcker's standpoint I think he is hanging his hat on the strong wording of the general prohibition on prop trading and the accountability for senior management and boards of directors to implement the policy," he said at an event hosted by Americans for Financial Reform, which supports the Volcker rule.

(Reporting by Dave Clarke; Editing by Carol Bishopric)


View the original article here

Congressional Democrats Are Missing the OWS Boat (ContributorNetwork)

The Democratic Party is missing the boat with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. The OWS ideals of equality and fair treatment are shared by the Democrats. The Democrats seem reluctant to get involved, says an AP story, and offer widespread, public support of OWS. They seem afraid to connect themselves to a movement that clashes with police and local ordinances. The Democrats are missing the point.

The reason the OWS movement looks disorganized and lacks a formal structure is that no one person or group is really leading it. Democrats should be supporting OWS by offering assistance and organizational help. They could help direct it, use their public standing to get better treatment for protesters, and link themselves to the ideals on which OWS rests. Instead they look at the protesters as a raggedy mob to be kept at a distance.

Congressional Democrats are missing a huge opportunity. Next year is a critical election year. The Democrats need public support and are struggling to keep it. The problem is that the American people don't see them as supporting the little guy any more.

Democrats don't unite to pass legislation that benefits the public. The Republicans can rally to enact tax breaks for the rich. Democrats should be able to unite to push agendas that benefit the poor and middle classes.

Many Democrats were worried about things like the USA-PATRIOT ACT but failed to vote against it. It's becoming apparent that is is being used against the citizenry. The Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies are helping organize crackdowns on OWS protests. The American people don't see the Democrats standing against that abuse of power.

Senators and Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party should take advantage of the opportunity before them. Support the OWS movement. It really does represent the interests of most American citizens. Help them organize. Go on record with support. Offer guidance. Help them and the American people will help you. The poor and middle classes will remember who helps them the most next time Election Day rolls around.

To the elected Democrats I say this: If you want us to watch your back in November of 2012 you need to watch our backs today. Stop being so moderate. Get in there and fight for the little guy. We need you and you need us.


View the original article here

Democrats’ ‘Daddy Warbucks’ want more tax bucks (Daily Caller)

A party calling themselves the “Patriotic Millionaires” are planning to lobby legislators Wednesday for higher taxes on the wealthy, but the group of taxpayers have left behind one of their founders: Andrew Tobias, the Democratic Party’s treasurer.

Tobias is listed as a member in the Nov. 14 message from the group, but his name is absent from the list of 19 wealthy men — and only 2 wealthy women — who will ask Congress on Wednesday to boost tax bills for them and roughly 375,000 other people earning more than $1 million per year.

Tobias has served as treasurer and chief fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee since 1999. The committee has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to help elect numerous Democratic legislators and President Barack Obama.

Since 1999, the national debt has risen from $5.6 trillion to almost $15 trillion. That works out to an average of $3.74 billion for every day that Tobias has worked at the DNC.

The debt has increased by roughly $5 trillion since Tobias helped elect Obama in 2008.

Tobias is personally wealthy, mainly owing to income earned from writing financial advice books.

Tobias’s promotion of higher taxes compliments the campaign by Obama to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” The pitch is a central part of his re-election campaign, and some have alleged it is intended to portray Republicans as defenders of the rich and as comfortable during a tough recession.

In contrast, Republicans say wealthy people should be allowed to keep most of their money, and that low taxes spur the economic growth and job-creation that may reduce today’s unemployment rate below its national level of 9 percent.

The number of millionaires plunged 27 percent in 2008. However, since Obama’s election, despite a stalled economy, the number has risen by 16 percent in 2009 and 8 percent in 2010, according to a March 2011 report by the Spectrem Group, a market-research firm.

In 2008, the top 10 percent of earners paid 71 percent of all income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 38 percent of all income taxes, according to federal data analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. That’s a higher proportion than prior to the tax cuts won by by former President George W. Bush, when the top 10 percent paid 66 percent of all income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 34 percent of income taxes.

In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of earners paid 2.7 percent of income taxes.

The 21 wealthy people seeking higher taxes today are all Democrats, and most have contributed heavily to Obama and other Democrats.

For example, David desJardins, a Californian who made his fortune while working for Google, has donated $335,000 to Democratic causes since 2008.

The 21 protestors, including several Google employees, lawyers and venture capitalists, have donated at least $3.2 million to Democratic political groups since 2008, according to the Open Secrets database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

For every $1 donated by this group, the national debt grew b $1.56 million while Obama served as president.

It is not clear how many jobs the “Patriotic Millionaires” have created since 2008.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrats' 'Daddy Warbucks' want more tax bucks

EPA using 'press release science' to justify regulations, congressmen say

Romney campaign refuses to clarify position on working with Iranian terrorist group

Kagan controversy good for the public, court watchers say

Kagan emails lead to calls for inquiry over her involvement in Obamacare


View the original article here

Arizona recall vote energizes Democrats (AP)

By JERI CLAUSING and PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Jeri Clausing And Paul Davenport, Associated Press – Sun Nov 13, 8:54 am ET

PHOENIX – Last week's recall election defeat of the Republican legislator who wrote Arizona's tough anti-immigration law and the seating of Democratic mayors in Phoenix and Tucson have given Democrats renewed hope for picking up the state in next year's Senate and presidential elections.

Combined, the outcomes underscored the diversity of voters in what many view as a conservative state even though voters here are split nearly in thirds among Republicans, independents and Democrats.

The Democratic Party argued that Tuesday's recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce was evidence of a broader shift to the left that will reverberate in 2012.

"For the first time in 20 years, we will have Democratic mayors of Tucson and Phoenix," state Democratic Party Chairman Andrei Cherny wrote in an email to supporters. "And for the first time in American history, a state legislative leader - the most powerful politician in Arizona - was recalled from office. These are victories for all Arizonans - ones that six months ago would have seemed all but impossible."

"A year from now, when we are looking back on Election Day 2012, we will point to last night as where things turned around for our party and state," he added.

Republicans dismissed Tuesday's results as coming from an "abnormal election" funded by out-of-state interests upset by Arizona's 2010 enactment of the groundbreaking immigration enforcement law known as SB1070.

"They thought this proved a point. It didn't," said Arizona GOP chairman Tom Morrissey. "It will all be undone in the next election. It was a power grab by the left. They won a battle, they have not won the war by any means."

But the rhetoric, new polls and the emphasis being put on Arizona by the Democrats and President Barack Obama's campaign indicates that the state — which on the surface appears solidly red with its two longtime Republican U.S. Senators, a GOP near-sweep of statewide offices and one of the country's most conservative legislatures — is heading into the 2012 elections solidly purple.

In the 2008 presidential race, Arizona was a given for home-state candidate John McCain, the Republican nominee.

And while Republican Gov. Jan Brewer was an easy winner in 2010, Democrat Janet Napolitano twice ran gubernatorial races in the last decade.

"I think that some on the East Coast don't put us there," said Cherny. "But every indication is we are there. The Obama campaign has said Arizona is at the top of the places they are looking at to compete very hard."

In 2012, Obama spokeswoman Ofelia Casillas said, the state will play a "critical role" and has been among the battleground states where its grassroots movement, Organizing for America, has been active. The campaign has also recently hired a Mexican-American regional field director and a Mexican-American fellow who is focused on reaching out to the Latino community.

Those efforts may find fertile ground in a state where Hispanics make up nearly 30 percent of the population.

A recent Rocky Mountain Poll from October showed Obama either about even or apparently ahead of three Republican presidential contenders: Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

The same survey also found that only 38 percent of the state's voters call themselves conservative. Thirty-four percent consider themselves moderate while 28 percent call themselves liberal.

"The impression of Arizona as a majority conservative state is more a reflection of gerrymandering and the historically superior strength of conservative forces in getting their voters to the polls," the Behavior Research Center said of the ideological splits.

Indeed, neither party holds a majority of the state's voters. Republicans hold a slight lead with roughly 36 percent of registered voters while roughly 33 percent are independent and 31 percent are Democrats.

The Behavior Research Center pollsters said the recall of Pearce, whom they called "the most powerful conservative voice in state government," may be a "harbinger of what can happen when voters in the center organize to get out their vote and make their election preferences felt."

Organization and appealing to mainstream voters more interested in solving problems than championing extreme politics and hot-button issues like immigration are the focus of the Arizona Democratic party, Cherny said.

In that vein, their hopes in the state's 2012 race for U.S. Senate may have been bolstered last week when Richard Carmona officially entered the race for the seat now held by retiring Republican Jon Kyl. The former surgeon general under President George W. Bush was aggressively recruited by Democratic leaders who hope he will appeal to the state's moderate and independent voters.

Carmona describes himself as a fierce independent and notes that Republicans in the past had also recruited him to run for office. He'll face lesser-known Don Bivens, an attorney and former state party chairman, in the primary, while U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake and businessman Will Cardon will battle for the Republican nomination.

Morrissey, the state Republican chairman, said Tuesday's vote only provides his party's activists with an incentive to work harder. And there's reason for optimism, he said.

"In the wake of all this we still face the same problems: immigration, jobs, education, the economy. It all happens to be tied together," Morrissey said.

___

Clausing reported from Albuquerque, N.M.


View the original article here

Monday, November 21, 2011

Report: Black Dems lose clout in southern capitols (AP)

ATLANTA – Black lawmakers have lost clout in Southern state capitols as their overwhelming allegiance to the Democratic Party has left them without power in increasingly GOP-controlled state legislatures.

The nonpartisan Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies says in a report issued Friday that despite Barack Obama's election as president, black voters and elected officials in the South have less influence now than at any time since the civil rights era.

"Since conservative whites control all the power in the region, they are enacting legislation both neglectful of the needs of African Americans and other communities of color ..." writes senior research associate David Bositis in a paper titled "Resegregation in Southern Politics?" The Washington-based think tank conducts research and policy analysis, particularly on issues that affect blacks and people of color.

Bositis points out state legislatures are increasingly divided along racial lines — making Republican synonymous with whites and Democrat and black interchangeable. According to the report, a majority of Democrats in both chambers in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi are black. In half of the southern state legislative chambers, blacks are a majority or near-majority of Democratic members.

"This begs the question, `what is the purpose of having a legislative black caucus when the majority of members in your legislative body are black?'" the report says.

It's a phenomenon unique to the South, as a majority of black state lawmakers serving in legislative bodies outside of the region belong to the party in charge, the report says.

"That's one of the costs of putting all your political capital in a single party," said Emory University professor Merle Black, who is currently researching the rise of the Republican party in the South. "When the Democrats were in power, there was a period there when black lawmakers were very influential."

That era is over, at least for now, Black said.

"Unless the Democrats can work out some kind of deal with the Republicans, the issues that African Americans want to get passed along would have to have enough support among Republicans to pass them," he said.

Kansas state Rep. Barbara Ballard, who chairs the state House Democratic Caucus and is president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, said Southern black lawmakers who find themselves on the margins of power need to get more creative to remain effective.

"When you have smaller numbers, you work harder and you work smarter," said Ballard, who has served in the Kansas House for 19 years. "We still have to represent our constituents. Just because someone else is running the agenda, if we weren't there, they would totally control everything."

Ballard said neither black lawmakers nor their constituents can afford to look at the odds and throw up their hands.

"Look at history," she said. "When African Americans were not able to get what they wanted, they found another avenue to increase the numbers and they started putting the pressure on. We need to look at a wider definition of clout and influence outside of the statehouse."

Chris Jankowski, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said that without question, the Voting Rights Act as applied to redistricting has led to the consolidation of a key voting bloc in the Democratic Party: African Americans.

"The effect of that is, in the South, to weaken the ability in the party to compete in other districts," Jankowski said. "It does have an unintended, but very clear impact on Republican prospects."

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Tyrone Brooks remembers a different dynamic at the state Capitol. First elected in 1980, Brooks has mostly served under Democratic rule at the General Assembly, including on the influential appropriations committee, where he helped write the budget.

Based on his seniority, he could get things done, bringing his issues to the floor and getting them passed and signed into the law.

"Being in the minority, it's not pleasant," Brooks said. "The perception across the state is the Democratic Party is the party of black folk. When you have a racially polarized body politic, race becomes a major factor. Where we are today is a step backwards."

In recent years, Republicans have taken over Georgia state government and now control the governor's office and both chambers of the Legislature.

Today, Brooks no longer serves on the appropriations committee. Despite serving in the Georgia House for more than three decades, he said he has a hard time getting buy-in from his Republican colleagues — many of whom he has known and worked alongside for years.

"You have to work extremely hard if you're a Democrat to get anything done," Brooks said.

White Democrats are fewer and far between in Southern statehouses. More than a dozen state lawmakers in five states defected to the GOP right after the 2010 midterm elections, underscoring dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democrats amid high unemployment and following a contentious fight over health care reform.

Before the 1994 midterm elections, nearly all black lawmakers served in the majority. Even prior to the 2010 midterm elections, about half of black state legislators in the South were in the majority, the report says. Now, only about 5 percent are in the majority.

And of the 318 black state legislators in the South, only three are Republican, according to the center.

"Virtually all black elected officials in the region are outsiders looking in," the report claims.

The trend has strengthened the GOP's hand in redistricting fights. Black Democrats have accused majority-Republicans in several Southern states of reducing their overall influence by packing more African-American voters than needed into black-majority districts drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Several of these battles are shifting to the courts.

The report goes on to assert that Republican-controlled Southern legislatures are both failing to address the needs of blacks in areas such as health care and education, and leading "an assault on voting rights through photo identification laws and other means." Republicans reject the charges, saying they are only trying to maintain the integrity of the voting process.

Jankowski said Southern Democrats are hurt less by racially polarized politics than by the social disparity between the region and national party.

"The Southern states, both culturally and on other issues, are more conservative than the rest of the country," Jankowski said. "It is hard as a Democrat, whether you're an African American or not, to defend the national Democratic Party in Southern communities at times."

Jankowski added that Republican governors and majorities in state houses are pro-right-to-work, pro-growth and for lower taxes — positions they believe will serve as a rising tide that lifts all boats.

"They believe ... the best way to get their economies going is to pursue those policies that apply equally to everyone," he said. "I would not concede the premise that one group of people are not being addressed and others are."

Experts say reduced black influence in Southern state capitols is not irreversible. Demographic patterns suggest an increasing number of potential minority voters such as Latinos, which could work to the advantage of African American lawmakers.

"Republicans don't have an appeal beyond whites," Black said. "The voting electorates in these states are becoming more diverse, and the share of the white voting population is a declining majority. That's a factor that could potentially help Democrats."

Brooks agreed, but said that the black electorate will also be a key to reversing the trend.

"There's really not full participation by those we're trying to help," Brooks said. "When you talk about the loss of power and where we are today, a lot of that translates to the lack of participation by the very people who need our help the most. In so many ways, they've become their own worst enemy."

___

Online:

http://www.jointcenter.org/research/resegregation-in-southern-politics

http://www.nbcsl.org/

http://www.rslc.com

Follow Errin Haines on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/emarvelous


View the original article here

Deficit gridlock looms, supercommittee deadlocked (AP)

By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press David Espo And Andrew Taylor, Associated Press – Fri Nov 18, 5:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Deadline nearing, the deficit-reduction talks in Congress sank toward gridlock Friday after supercommittee Democrats rejected a late Republican offer that included next-to-nothing in new tax revenue. Each side maneuvered to blame the other for a looming stalemate.

The panel faces a deadline of next Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, and lawmakers on both sides stressed they were ready to meet through the weekend in a last-ditch search for compromise.

But there was little indication after a day of closed-door meetings that a breakthrough was likely, both Democrats and Republicans emphasizing long-held political positions.

"Where the divide is right now is over taxes, and whether the wealthiest Americans should share in the sacrifices," said Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Democratic co-chair of the panel.

But Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said Republicans had offered "a balanced, bipartisan plan - the fact that it was rejected makes it clear that Washington Democrats won't cut a dime in government spending without job-killing tax hikes."

While prospects for a deal faded, House Democrats checked a Republican attempt to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The vote was 261-165, or 23 shy of the two-thirds majority required. GOP lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor, while Democrats generally opposed it, sealing its doom.

The vote on a noisy House floor contrasted to the secretive proceedings inside the supercommittee, a panel that projected optimism when it began its quest for a deficit deal late last summer but has yet to come to any significant compromise.

Republicans disclosed during the day they had outlined an offer on Thursday for about $543 billion in spending cuts — leaving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security untouched — and $3 billion in higher tax revenue.

Most if not all of the recommended savings were items that Democrats have agreed to in earlier talks, but only, party officials said, on condition they part of a larger deal in which Republicans agreed to additional tax increases.

Democrats have long demanded that Republicans agree to significant amounts of higher taxes on the wealthy as part of any deal, and they quickly rejected the offer, according to officials in both parties.

It was unclear where the talks would turn next, but the GOP proposal suggested the discussions had effectively moved into a range of savings far below the $1.2 trillion the committee has been seeking.

It also appeared Republicans were jettisoning a plan for $300 billion in higher tax revenue, an offer that had exposed internal GOP divisions when it was presented two weeks ago. It also has failed to generate momentum for a compromise among Democrats.

If the panel fails to reach agreement, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts are to take effect beginning in 2013, a prospect that lawmakers in both parties say they want to avoid.

That is particularly true among defense hawks, who argue that the Pentagon cannot sustain the estimated $500 billion in cuts that would be required on top of the $450 billion already in the works.

In a letter to Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, the GOP chairman of the supercommittee, the head of the House Armed Services Committee warned of "immediate, dire and in some cases irrevocable" damage to the nation's military. "Our ability to respond to national security crises or humanitarian disasters would be disrupted," added Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, R-Calif.

Republicans familiar with the GOP plan said it included $543 billion in spending cuts, fees and other non-tax revenue, as well as the $3 billion corporate jet provision. There also would be $98 billion in reduced interest costs.

Officials familiar with the offer said it would save the government $121 billion by requiring federal civilian workers to contribute more to their pension plans, shave $23 billion from farm and nutrition programs and generate $15 billion from new auctions of broadcast spectrum to wireless companies.

It also would claim about $100 billion in savings from Pentagon civilian personnel costs and another $35 billion by increasing the fee that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders to guarantee repayment of new loans. The fee increase would add $15 a month to the monthly cost of an average new mortgage.

The per-ticket security fee to pay for Transportation Security Administration operations at the nation's airports would increase, and $18 billion would come from savings within Postal Service accounts.

__

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Senate Democrats block vote to overturn FCC Internet regulations (Daily Caller)

The U.S. Senate voted 46-52 along partisan lines, shooting down a Republican effort to stop the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the Internet through net neutrality.

The net neutrality rules will take affect November 20. The White House had promised to veto the Republican legislation if it passed. The fate of net neutrality will now likely be determined in 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Six Democrats and 280 Republicans in the House and Senate voted  to overturn net neutrality. Two Republicans, 228 Democrats and one independent voted to uphold it.

Before the vote, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell — one of the two dissenting voices on the FCC — told TheDC, ”This used to not be a partisan issue to keep government influence out of the Internet, both in the U.S. and internationally.”

The rules were passed by the FCC in December 2010 in a highly controversial vote that went against a previous ruling by a D.C. court that said net neutrality regulations were outside the commission’s authority.

Supporters of the FCC’s rules say the regulatory agency is within its legal jurisdiction to issue the rules as a means to protect tech startups and small businesses from larger companies, thereby, they hope, ensuring the protection of free speech. Opponents say the Internet’s success is due to market forces working free of government intervention.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry called the results of the vote a “victory for innovation, consumers, and common sense.” (RELATED: Norquist threatens Senate on net neutrality vote)

“Today, the Senate refused to hand over the Internet to a small group of corporate interests, and we need to keep up the fight because we know this isn’t the last we’ve heard of the assault on net neutrality,” Kerry said in a statement following the vote.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Al Franken, a staunch supporter of the FCC’s Internet rules, has argued that net neutrality is “the most important free speech issue of our time.”

The view that net neutrality ensures free speech permeates the FCC’s Internet rules and is a perspective echoed on the international level by the United Nations.

“There are no free speech issues on the Internet in the U.S.,” McDowell told TheDC. McDowell said the First Amendment was the “bullwark” against government encroachment of free speech, making net neutrality regulation unnecessary.

On the Senate floor Wednesday, Franken argued that the success of YouTube and Google would not have been possible without net neutrality.” Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who led the Republican effort to end the regulation, reminded Franken that the FCC’s net neutrality rules did not exist when those companies were created. Franken was elected to the Senate in a highly controversial election, in which he was backed by billionaire George Soros — a significant contributor to organizations that are ardent proponents of net neutrality.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist joined with other tax reform advocacy groups to send a letter to senators on Tuesday stating that votes on net neutrality would be taken into consideration when their organizations rated the senators for their yearly voting scorecards.

“Politicians on both sides of the aisle always talk about opposing job-killing and unnecessary regulations,” Kelly Cobb, government affairs manager at ATR, told TheDC.  ”Here, they had their chance, but Senate Democrats voted as a block to impose new, unwarranted Internet rules.”

“It’s discouraging that the Senate was unable to overcome partisan political bickering to overturn a regulation for which the FCC has no congressional authority to implement,” Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams  — another signee of Tuesday’s letter — told TheDC. “The Internet has become another casualty in the war against the free market.”

“Today, 52 lawmakers decided to give up on making law and instead allow unelected, unaccountable Obama administration bureaucrats to illegally do their jobs for them,” said Seton Motley, president of Less Government, in a statement following the vote.

“If these 52 senators don’t want to do their jobs, why did they ask their constituents to give them the honor and opportunity?,” Motley asked. ” These egregious misrepresentations are easily correctable.  And we the people will begin doing so, starting next November.”

Follow Josh on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Senate Democrats block vote to overturn FCC Internet regulations

Romney: Send Out the Aides!

Mitt Romney: Lawyer for NLRB should lose his job

Daley FAIL: What it means

Occupy movement's 'vibrant brand of urbanism' sends EMT to hospital


View the original article here

Republican 'Fall Back Guy' Ahead by Default (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Republicans, for the second election in a row, seem determined to line up for a bite of a distasteful sandwich made of the offal and effluvium that has followed the rise and fall of the party's momentary favorites. The aftermath is sure to exsanguinate the spirit of the party, leaving them as Democrats experienced in 2004, despite rising hatred for a sitting president, rudderless and forced to select the candidate that wasn't terrible, instead of an inspiring candidate that's really great.

According to the Huffington Post, recent trouble in Herman Cain's camp and a poorer than poor series of debate flubs by once party darling Gov. Rick Perry, combined with a decline of fascination with the rhetoric of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, has left the GOP nomination as Mitt Romney's honor to lose.

Romney is ahead, but party insiders are still pushing other candidates. Newt Gingrich, for example, long disregarded as unelectable, is beginning to rise in the polls, and the news media is chomping at the bit to talk about it. Former U.S. Ambassador John Huntsman has benefited from the falls of Bachmann, Paul, Cain, and Perry as well, but in the end, he's left with the same problem as Romney-- religion. Evangelical Christians that make up the base of the Republican party are simply never going to get behind a Mormon for the presidency. Period.

I've spent most of my life wanting to be president of the United States, and right now, I wouldn't switch places with Romney for all of the tea in China. He may be ahead, but he simply doesn't have the stuff to ignite his party's soul.

So while he holds the top spot, and will likely win the nomination by default, don't look for the circus to end any time soon. Party insiders seem determined to roll out as many clown cars as they can before finally conceding that they just don't have the chops to beat the president in 2012, thereby resigning themselves to select the "also ran" mediocrity offered and rejected by voters in 2008 and now again for 2012. Sometimes that just the way it goes.


View the original article here

AP Interview: Branstad: Debate gaffe hurts Perry (AP)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad on Friday said Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's debate gaffe this week was one of those unfortunate iconic moments, just like former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's memorable scream was in 2004.

The veteran Republican governor said Perry's inability to remember the name of the third Cabinet department he would eliminate was not a fatal blow, but that the episode served to punctuate doubts about the Texas governor.

"It's not helpful especially in light of the fact that he had had several previous debates where he had not performed well," Branstad told The Associated Press in an interview. "It is kind of comparable to, it was the governor of Vermont, Howard Dean's scream here at caucus night in Iowa."

During a GOP presidential debate Wednesday night in Michigan, Perry couldn't name the third department.

"Commerce, Education and the — what's the third one there? Let's see," he said, before checking his notes and eventually admitting he couldn't remember.

Later in the debate, Perry said Energy was the third department.

But the minute-long video of Perry's stumble spread quickly as he made the rounds of network and cable television news programs to put a lighthearted spin on the situation and dismiss questions about his ability to stay in the race.

Dean, once the poll leader for Iowa's 2004 Democratic presidential caucuses, famously rallied supporters on caucus night after finishing a disappointing third. He shouted the names of state contests ahead, capping it with a red-faced yell.

The circumstances were different but the episodes reinforced doubts about each candidate.

In Dean's case, the concerns were about his demeanor. In Perry's case, his sometimes awkward and wandering debate answers have raised questions about his ability to perform under pressure.

Like Dean, Perry's moment also comes as the he is trying to regain his footing after slipping sharply in the polls.

Branstad said he was unlikely to endorse any of the seven candidates who are campaigning to win the state's Jan. 3 caucuses. He previously had held out the possibility of doing so.

Branstad said strong performances in Iowa were essential for Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, both of whom have slumped in the polls since August.

He also said former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum "could be the real sleeper in this thing." Santorum last week reached his goal of visiting each of Iowa's 99 counties, a feat made famous by Iowa GOP icons Branstad and U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley. Santorum is the only candidate to invest that much time on retail politics in the state.

Branstad also said it was possible that Mitt Romney could win the caucuses, despite the former Massachusetts governor's less aggressive campaign in Iowa this year than four years ago. Romney recently said he would like to win in Iowa. Doing so would help him build momentum heading into the leadoff primary a week later in New Hampshire, where he is heavily favored.


View the original article here

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

House Democrats Want Republicans to Stop Saying 'Obamacare' (The Atlantic Wire)

Arguing that Obamacare is at this point a derogatory term, House Democrats want to ban the term from mailers sent from Congressional offices, reports Roll Call's Jonathan Strong. Democrats on the House Committee that oversees their franking privileges -- that is, the right to send campaign mailers to constituents thinly disguised as official correspondence for free -- say Obamacare violates the rules against sending mailers for "personal, partisan, or political reasons." For example, Republicans got Democrats to stop sending mailers that claimed Rep. Paul Ryan would "end" Medicare.

Related: Brooks and Olbermann Kill the Bill

Obama tried to reappropriate Obamacare back in August, pulling some reverse discourse action: "I have no problem with folks saying 'Obamacares' ... I do care," Obama said. Back then, ABC News's Jake Tapper wondered if the president made it okay to use the term again. But House Republicans really know what's up. "You know, if it was popular they’d be all about calling it Obamacare," a Republican source told Strong.


View the original article here

Durbin: If 2012 is a ‘referendum,’ Democrats are ‘in trouble’ (Daily Caller)

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told the Chicago Tribune that if the 2012 election is a “referendum” on President Barack Obama, then Democrats are “in trouble.”

In an interview Thursday for the Tribune’s “Chicago Live” series, Durbin was asked about the election.

“If it is a referendum, then we’re in trouble because the economy’s not good and people’ll say, ‘well, I just want to make it clear I don’t like the way things are,’” Durbin said.

“However,” Durbin clarified, “it won’t be. It’ll be a contest. And there’ll be two people — the president, and the Republican nominee — with very different views on what to do with America, where it should go from here, and that’s what the voters will make their choice on.”

See the video here. Durbin’s comments are six minutes in.

Follow Alexis on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Durbin: If 2012 is a 'referendum,' Democrats are 'in trouble'

Matthew Perry lists $20 million in real estate but has no comment on capital gains tax

FBI report warns of growing Juggalo threat

Rep. Trey Gowdy: I'm not a 'tea party congressman'

Critics: Obama's college aid plan increases tuition costs, hurts students


View the original article here

Democrats Propose $1.5 Trillion in New Taxes (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | With the statutory deadline approaching in less than a month, congressional Democrats still have their heads buried in the sand when it comes to the federal budget.

Reuters reported Thursday that the super committee Democrats introduced a $3 trillion savings package that aims to far exceed the $1.2 trillion they are required to cut before Thanksgiving. The plan was dead on arrival, according to Republican staffers for the ultra-secret committee.

Democrats seek $1.5 trillion in new revenues from tax increases and new taxes. What part of "no new taxes" do they not understand? The House is not going to pass any new revenues - they have been perfectly clear on that all year. For Dems to present a plan that calls for 50 percent of the proposed savings to come from new revenue is a waste of breath in proposing it, and a gallant waste of time should any committee give it debate time.

The proposal doesn't have the support of all Democrats on the special committee, and is likely to have problems with the Democratic leadership. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has repeatedly said she will not consider cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, although The Hill reports she is mum on the subject today wanting to "wait until I can see the whole package." That's an interesting comment from the former speaker who insisted the Congress pass Obamacare before they knew what was in the bill.

Nearly $100 billion in Medicaid cuts are proposed, as well as long term Medicare cuts. The details were carefully omitted from leaks to the media. The cream of the plan includes another $300 billion stimulus plan.

Basically, the Democrats are proposing massive tax hikes that cannot pass either chamber. They are proposing social program cuts that even their own leadership will not support, therefore effectively killing it in the Senate. And, they are proposing new stimulus spending that Republicans will not allow to happen. The time it took to design the plan was a further waste of government spending.

House Speaker John Boehner told Seattle Times that it would be difficult to pass any plan from the super committee, but he would strive to accomplish some compromise. The clock is ticking - the committee needs to get serious and make some concerted tough decisions. Then they need to muscle it past their respective caucuses.

Dan McGinnis is a freelance writer, published author and former newspaper publisher. He has been a candidate, campaign manager and press secretary for state and local political campaigns for more than 30 years.


View the original article here

Supercommittee GOP, Democrats swap offers (AP)

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – Wed Oct 26, 7:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Republicans on Congress' deficit-reduction supercommittee outlined a plan Wednesday that includes spending cuts but none of the increases in tax revenue sought by Democrats, completing an initial exchange of offers that left the two sides far apart despite weeks of secret talks.

Officials also said the Democratic proposal on Tuesday and the GOP counter-proposal 24 hours later both included a provision to slow the inflationary increase in future Social Security benefits, suggesting it could become part of any compromise that might emerge.

The Republican offer calls for somewhat more than $2 trillion in deficit savings over a decade, according to officials in both parties. Less than half of that amount would come from increases in items such as Medicare premiums, the sale of public lands and airport fees — measures that increase government revenue without changing personal or corporate taxes.

Spending cuts include about $500 billion from Medicare over a decade and another $185 billion from Medicaid, these officials said.

By contrast, Democrats want $1.3 trillion in higher tax revenue, a similar amount in spending cuts and enough other savings elsewhere in the budget to finance a $450 billion jobs bill along the lines that President Barack Obama is recommending.

The officials who described the rival approaches did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to provide details of the committee's confidential discussions. In private, each side also disparaged the other, providing yet another indication that the panel's deliberations have not shown significant progress.

Still, the exchange marked a quickening in the pace of activity by the committee after dozens of hours of closed-door meetings, and senior leaders in both parties are becoming more involved.

The panel of six Republicans and six Democrats has until Nov. 23 to recommend deficit savings of $1.2 trillion. But in fact, most if not all of the decisions must be made by early next month to give the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office time to render precise estimates on their costs and impact on future deficits.

Whatever the committee recommends must be approved by both houses of Congress in December if lawmakers want to avoid automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion across a range of federal programs.

There were signs of Democratic dissension one day after Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., outlined a proposal on behalf of his party's negotiators.

According to several officials, he called for $1.3 trillion in increased tax revenue over a decade, and $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. Another $1 trillion in savings would come from the presumed reduction of Pentagon costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and $500 billion more from a reduction in interest costs resulting from declining deficits.

Those savings would be on top of cuts that Congress approved earlier in the year of nearly $1 trillion.

For Democrats on the committee, it appeared that the most contentious of the items would slow the growth of monthly checks to recipients of Social Security and other benefit programs, curtail Medicare spending by $400 billion over a decade and Medicaid by another $75 billion.

Several Democrats said during the day that the presentation had the support of a majority of the six Democrats on the panel, leaving the impression that at least one, and possibly two, of the party's lawmakers had not signed on.

Others suggested that Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a member of the party's leadership, and Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., had not agreed to support the recommendations.

A spokesman for Clyburn declined comment.

James Gleeson, a spokesman for Becerra, said, "I wouldn't assume he's one way or the other."

By contrast, Republicans appeared to avoid any ideological pitfalls in their counter-offer, pulling well back from a position that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took earlier in the year in private talks with Obama.

In those discussions, Boehner and the president discussed legislation to enact tax reform that was assumed to result in economic expansion and increases in tax revenue of $800 billion over a decade.

After the collapse of those talks, Republicans have struggled in the ensuing months to avoid any conflict with Grover Norquist, a prominent conservative activist and author of a pledge not to raise taxes that many GOP lawmakers have signed.

In fact, tax reform has figured prominently in the deficit committee's private discussions, according to officials in both parties, and is viewed as a possible key to an agreement.

Under this theory, if Republicans are willing to agree that additional revenue does not constitute a tax increase, it might entice Democrats to agree to savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs that account for much of the growth in federal spending in recent years.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Fraud case leaves California Democrats scrambling (Reuters)

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Stunning accusations that a top California Democratic campaign treasurer looted the war chests of her big-name clients have left candidates across the state scrambling to raise more money as election season looms.

Kinde Durkee, who controlled the funds of roughly 400 candidates and groups, ranging from Senator Dianne Feinstein to local Democratic youth clubs, was arrested in September and charged with fraud.

While the extent of the losses isn't yet clear, the coffers of dozens of Democratic politicians have been frozen, prompting the crippled campaigns to ask the California Fair Political Practices Commission to permit further donations from contributors who have already given the maximum.

Feinstein, seeking re-election in 2012, has been forced to start from "square one" to raise campaign money, said Bill Carrick, political strategist and consultant to the Senator.

But a commission official said it wasn't that simple.

"It's quite clear that we can't just say 'the contribution limit is set aside'," California Fair Political Practices Commission chair Ann Ravel said, adding that the commission's legal team was researching what options were permissible by law.

Feinstein donated $5 million of her own money to her re-election bid after the campaign lost access to an estimated $5.2 million, Carrick said. The senator has sued Durkee for fraud and breach of contract in a lawsuit that also accused First California Bank of aiding that fraud.

Durkee, the 58-year-old daughter of a Hollywood pastor, is accused of co-mingling money in the roughly 400 accounts she controlled at the bank, making it unclear to whom any recovered money actually belongs.

The bank reported $2.5 million in Durkee-controlled accounts, according to court documents, far less than the at least $9.8 million that her clients had raised, according to the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.

"We lost at least $200,000 and the impact of that, for us, is much more immediate than it is for most candidates," Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair Eric Bauman said.

"We've got more than 50 races on the November 11 ballot. Our ability to support our endorsed candidates in these local elections is significantly affected," Bauman said, adding that the loss represents 90 percent of the party's total funds.

'GOING TO BE TOUGH'

If a donor's campaign contributions were never received, Ravel said, there is a possibility that they could donate again. The commission hopes to decide if and how donors could contribute again by its next hearing on November 10.

That deadline, however, would be too late for local elections slated for the following day, and the sudden loss of funds will be most acutely felt in grass-roots operations.

"It's definitely going to be tough," Carrick said. "It's going to be very difficult for them to replenish that kind of money."

Not everybody is as sympathetic to the sudden fund-raising challenges facing the California Democratic campaigns.

"Most of these Democrats are very influential, powerful incumbents, and the political parties are able to contribute as much as they want to the candidates," said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican political consultant.

"I don't think any client of (Durkee's) will lose because of this. There's plenty of money out there," he said

Durkee, who has been called the "Bernie Madoff of campaign finance treasurers" by one former client, Representative Susan Davis of San Diego, admitted to using campaign funds for her own personal expenses, according to court documents.

The mail fraud case against her in federal court alleges that Durkee used campaign donations to make mortgage payments and pay her American Express bills.

"Durkee admitted that she had been misappropriating her clients' money for years and that forms she filed with the state were false," according to an account of an interview by Federal Bureau of Investigations agents in September, according to the federal complaint.

The bank angered clients when it handed over control of the 398 bank accounts associated with Durkee to a California state court on September 23, recusing itself from sorting out how much of the recovered money should be doled out to whom.

"In yet another attempt to escape liability for the fiasco that they helped create, First California Bank has turned most of the accounts that Durkee controlled over to the courts," the Los Angeles County Democratic Party said.

It added that smaller parties who lost funds lack the financial resources to fight in court to get their money back.

First California Bank marketing director Diane Dickerson told Reuters: "It will all come out in time, I promise." She declined further comment.

Durkee is next expected to appear in court in December. Her attorney could not be reached for comment and a phone number listed in court documents as belonging to her appeared to have been disconnected.

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Cynthia Johnston)


View the original article here

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The Steady Disintegration of Obama and the Democrat Party (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In 2008, the majority of Americans saw President Barack Obama as a rock-star who could do no wrong. Today, they pretty much disapprove of everything he does. While the disenchantment with Hope and Change is destroying Obama's favor among voters, stress cracks between Obama and fellow Democrats threaten to collapse the party from within.

Obama has lost support in every demographic in his base; the youth, Jews, Unions, Hispanics and African-Americans. Not even the death of Osama bin Laden could breathe lasting life into his approval rating. The majority now blame him for the economic mess.

Congressional Democrats have publicly criticized Obama's jobs bill. The Hill reports Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is giving the president "the silent treatment."

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are simply fed up.

Just like in 2010, incumbent Democrats are avoiding Obama like the plague. Democrats in Virginia's state legislature even told Obama to stay away from their districts.

In early October, Michael Goodwin described in the New York Post a picture of "an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency" whose only happiness can be found "on the campaign trail, where the adoration of the crowd lifts his spirits."

But even that respite is starting to evade him.

At his May 2008 campaign rally in Tampa, Fla., it was standing room only in St. Pete Times Forum -- a venue that seats 21,500. For a June fundraiser in Miami only 980 people were willing to purchase tickets for the 2,200-seat Adrienne Arsht Center for Performing Arts.

In 2008, thousands came to see candidate Obama at the Mellon Center in Pittsburgh. After three years of his presidency only 300 cared to hear him speak at a South Side union hall.

Where Democrats in 2008 were "fired up," even the idea of voting in 2012 leaves them depressed.

Even the president admitted: "It's not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all that stuff."

Rasmussen and Zogby have Herman Cain leading Obama by two points.

Evolving Strategies shows Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry could beat him.

Asked about the power of the GOP field of candidates, CNN reported Vice President Joe Biden saying; "It's strong enough to beat both of us."

A month ago, Politico reported Democrat strategist James Carville offering a single word of advice for the struggling president: "Panic."

Considering the steady disintegration of Obama and the entire Democrat party since then, perhaps next time Carville will be inspired to offer two words of counsel -- give up.


View the original article here

Obama Jobs Bill Fails Senate Vote... Again (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The U.S. Senate continued on Thursday the smack down of President Barack Obama's jobs bill for the second time this week. This time, a few Democrats broke ranks and joined in opposing the revised measure.

Republicans successfully defeated an attempt on Tuesday to spend $30 to prop up the jobs of - what Obama claims to be - 400,000 teachers. That's an insane amount of very targeted government spending just to protect such a small number of jobs in a time when vast industries are suffering the effects of a recessed economy.

Associated Press reported that Senate on Thursday took up a revised measure that would add an additional $5 billion to that plan for firefighters and police salaries. This didn't sit well with members either. If the previous bill wasn't going to work, adding more money that would have to be borrowed wasn't going to work either. But it shows how desperate Obama is for any kind of victory with this bill - however meager it may be.

The defections of senators Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut sunk that measure on a split 50-50 vote -- substantially short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure. Clearly, Obama is struggling to hold on to his own party supporters as the jobs bill continues to morph into something acceptable to the Senate.

This aspect of the jobs bill just isn't going to pass - and rightfully so. The country doesn't need highly targeted stimulus plans. It needs a comprehensive, broad-based jobs bill that promotes hiring across many sectors. Given the immediate opposition to Obama's bill from the moment he announced it, it would make more sense for congressional leaders to advance portions of the bill that actually have bipartisan support. Instead, they waste their time and taxpayer's money by promoting dead-end issues.

The real solution to creating jobs rests with small business. A $2,000 tax credit for hiring new employees promotes job growth and is more easily introduced into the market. More importantly, it doesn't cost the Treasury any money up front. This is a solution that - if it were to fail - wouldn't increase the national debt at all. If it works -- all the better.

Congress needs to think outside the box and stop writing checks to solve every national problem. If they need help, ask the citizens of Louisa County, Virginia. They are doing just that to recover from the August earthquake.


View the original article here