Kentuckians, vote for Allison Grimes! Get Turtleface out of there!
Showing posts with label Mitch McConnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitch McConnell. Show all posts
The job outlook is bad because Republicans are making it that way
From Colorlines (July 9, 2012)
Last week the United States celebrated the 236th anniversary of its independence and self-rule with joyous gusto. Days later, after the smoke from the fireworks and grills had cleared, the government released its latest jobs report. Unfortunately, it left little to cheer.
In June, just 80,000 jobs were created. That’s only 11,000 more than in May and still below what’s needed to keep up with population growth. As a result, the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent.
Black unemployment climbed to 14.4 percent. Latino unemployment remained in the double digits. Youth unemployment is still the highest in decades. One out of six Americans is underemployed. Five million Americans have given up looking for jobs and just disappeared from the workforce all together. If they were back in the jobs market, the unemployment rate would stand at over 11 percent.
In sum, the economy is wounded and struggling against increasing odds to repair itself. Though it’s not forecast to happen, the risk of sliding back into recession is greater than at any point in over a year.
What’s troubling is that the anemic jobs number and fragility of the overall economy are the result of an utterly broken political process in Washington—specifically, amongst Republicans who dominate the legislative branch.
To the detriment of us all, the GOP has opted out of taking any responsibility for fixing the entirely solvable problems of employment and economic growth.
At every turn, congressional Republicans have stonewalled President Obama on jobs. But if his proposals were fully implemented, our economy would have added 257,000 jobs more in June. That’s three times greater than what we actually added and close to the 300,000-jobs-a-month mark we must hit to put a real dent in joblessness.
Moreover, if Congress had passed Obama’s job program and extended his 2009 initiative to prevent up to a 100 percent of the public sector job losses at the state and local level, unemployment would fall below 7 percent. That’s pre-recession territory. And overall economic growth would be at 4.5 percent. Notably, fixing the public-sector employment crisis would solve much of black joblessness.
The bottom line is that we remain in recession because Republicans have chosen to gum up the political process during a time of national crisis. Washington guru Thomas Mann calls what they’ve done “hostage taking.”
In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell told the conservative Heritage Foundation, “The single most impost important thing [Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
According to Gallup, the most important thing to Americans every year since 2008 is for Washington to fix the economy.
These two things are at cross purpose: what’s in the best short-term political interest of the Republican Party is not what’s in the best interest of most Americans.
Economic growth is no mystery. Since Adam Smith published his rulebook in 1776, we have spent centuries getting better at figuring out how to make poorer countries wealthier. China, Brazil and now some African nations are but the latest examples.
Essential to each come-out-of-nowhere success story is a government focused on improving the living standards of its people. They do so through policies that have the biggest impact on employment. The number one goal is to benefit the maximum number of citizens in the shortest amount of time. Nations that do this effectively make it.
Countries centered on the opposite—government-sponsored wealth transfers to the few over the benefit of the many—remain poor.
From his first day in office, President Obama has tried to get the economy right for most Americans. Though sometimes too tepid, badly sold, or disappointingly weakened in an attempt to get non-existent Republican support, Obama has in fact pushed policy after policy to turn the economy around. He needs to do even more.
But like Destiny’s Child, Republicans have taken every opportunity to say “No, No, No”: “no” to the stimulus bill, “no” the health bill (which will create 400,000 jobs a year when fully implemented, according to the Center for American Progress), “no” the climate change bill (1.9 million jobs over 10 years, according to University of Berkeley researchers), and “no” to the jobs bill (almost 2 million jobs in 12 months, according to Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi).
Three out of four of these bills received not one Republican vote. The stimulus garnered just three Republican votes in the Senate.
The GOP answer to the jobs crisis is, instead, a retread of the policies that broke the economy in the first place. They center on trickle down economics, which: 1) have concentrated wealth amongst the top 5 percent through tax cuts and 2) rolled back government oversight of key areas of the economy, such that Wall Street was able to transform itself into a ring of trillion dollar betting casinos.
The Republicans are so committed to their orthodoxy of lower taxes for the wealthy that they were willing to take the country to the brink of default last summer—and risk another recession—to extend Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires. Facing united Republican opposition, the president agreed.
The Republicans and their wealthy backers won that battle, but the country lost. Their antics cost the country its “AAA” debt rating for the first time in history.
The problem is that this is not your father’s Republican party. The GOP of Eisenhower, Ford, and George H.W. Bush has been hijacked by a small group of anti-government diehards and radical social conservatives, funded by dark pools of money.
Through the Tea Party network of secretive political action committees, the monied few have been successful at remaking the GOP; so much so that former Gov. Jeb Bush declared himself “uncomfortable” in the hardened party that they’ve fashioned. Colin Powell has long alluded to the same.
The takeover of the GOP led Norman Ornstein, a fiercely non-partisan congressional watcher at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, to conclude that, “We have a Republican party that has two elements: one is an extreme element and other is ruthlessly pragmatic—Mitch McConnell embodying them—which put blocking policies and embarrassing the party of the president ahead of solving problems that are immediate and deep. It’s just outside the bounds.”
Ornstein is right and Americans are living the result.
If things have any hope of getting better the Republican Party needs to get serious about governing again.
America wasn’t designed to function with one grown-up party and the other a bomb- throwing one. It only works when you have people from different political backgrounds who fight hard but act in the best interest of us all.
A small group of people pushing a narrow agenda was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers. They worried that it could sink the country and ruin the democratic experiment.
James Madison, Declaration of Independence-signee, warned against the “violence of the faction,” which could wreck the system of governance. He defined this group as “a number of citizens … united by [a] common impulse of passion or of interest [that is adverse] … to the rights of … the aggregate interests of the community.”
What Madison described sounds a lot like the Republican Party we’ve got right now.
But we can turn this situation around. In an election year, each of our voices matters more. We need to use them to demand a credible plan from the Republican Party to fix the chaos that it helped to create. It’s actually the only way things will get better.
Last week the United States celebrated the 236th anniversary of its independence and self-rule with joyous gusto. Days later, after the smoke from the fireworks and grills had cleared, the government released its latest jobs report. Unfortunately, it left little to cheer.
In June, just 80,000 jobs were created. That’s only 11,000 more than in May and still below what’s needed to keep up with population growth. As a result, the overall unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent.
Black unemployment climbed to 14.4 percent. Latino unemployment remained in the double digits. Youth unemployment is still the highest in decades. One out of six Americans is underemployed. Five million Americans have given up looking for jobs and just disappeared from the workforce all together. If they were back in the jobs market, the unemployment rate would stand at over 11 percent.
In sum, the economy is wounded and struggling against increasing odds to repair itself. Though it’s not forecast to happen, the risk of sliding back into recession is greater than at any point in over a year.
What’s troubling is that the anemic jobs number and fragility of the overall economy are the result of an utterly broken political process in Washington—specifically, amongst Republicans who dominate the legislative branch.
To the detriment of us all, the GOP has opted out of taking any responsibility for fixing the entirely solvable problems of employment and economic growth.
At every turn, congressional Republicans have stonewalled President Obama on jobs. But if his proposals were fully implemented, our economy would have added 257,000 jobs more in June. That’s three times greater than what we actually added and close to the 300,000-jobs-a-month mark we must hit to put a real dent in joblessness.
Moreover, if Congress had passed Obama’s job program and extended his 2009 initiative to prevent up to a 100 percent of the public sector job losses at the state and local level, unemployment would fall below 7 percent. That’s pre-recession territory. And overall economic growth would be at 4.5 percent. Notably, fixing the public-sector employment crisis would solve much of black joblessness.
The bottom line is that we remain in recession because Republicans have chosen to gum up the political process during a time of national crisis. Washington guru Thomas Mann calls what they’ve done “hostage taking.”
In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell told the conservative Heritage Foundation, “The single most impost important thing [Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
According to Gallup, the most important thing to Americans every year since 2008 is for Washington to fix the economy.
These two things are at cross purpose: what’s in the best short-term political interest of the Republican Party is not what’s in the best interest of most Americans.
Economic growth is no mystery. Since Adam Smith published his rulebook in 1776, we have spent centuries getting better at figuring out how to make poorer countries wealthier. China, Brazil and now some African nations are but the latest examples.
Essential to each come-out-of-nowhere success story is a government focused on improving the living standards of its people. They do so through policies that have the biggest impact on employment. The number one goal is to benefit the maximum number of citizens in the shortest amount of time. Nations that do this effectively make it.
Countries centered on the opposite—government-sponsored wealth transfers to the few over the benefit of the many—remain poor.
From his first day in office, President Obama has tried to get the economy right for most Americans. Though sometimes too tepid, badly sold, or disappointingly weakened in an attempt to get non-existent Republican support, Obama has in fact pushed policy after policy to turn the economy around. He needs to do even more.
But like Destiny’s Child, Republicans have taken every opportunity to say “No, No, No”: “no” to the stimulus bill, “no” the health bill (which will create 400,000 jobs a year when fully implemented, according to the Center for American Progress), “no” the climate change bill (1.9 million jobs over 10 years, according to University of Berkeley researchers), and “no” to the jobs bill (almost 2 million jobs in 12 months, according to Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi).
Three out of four of these bills received not one Republican vote. The stimulus garnered just three Republican votes in the Senate.
The GOP answer to the jobs crisis is, instead, a retread of the policies that broke the economy in the first place. They center on trickle down economics, which: 1) have concentrated wealth amongst the top 5 percent through tax cuts and 2) rolled back government oversight of key areas of the economy, such that Wall Street was able to transform itself into a ring of trillion dollar betting casinos.
The Republicans are so committed to their orthodoxy of lower taxes for the wealthy that they were willing to take the country to the brink of default last summer—and risk another recession—to extend Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires. Facing united Republican opposition, the president agreed.
The Republicans and their wealthy backers won that battle, but the country lost. Their antics cost the country its “AAA” debt rating for the first time in history.
The problem is that this is not your father’s Republican party. The GOP of Eisenhower, Ford, and George H.W. Bush has been hijacked by a small group of anti-government diehards and radical social conservatives, funded by dark pools of money.
Through the Tea Party network of secretive political action committees, the monied few have been successful at remaking the GOP; so much so that former Gov. Jeb Bush declared himself “uncomfortable” in the hardened party that they’ve fashioned. Colin Powell has long alluded to the same.
The takeover of the GOP led Norman Ornstein, a fiercely non-partisan congressional watcher at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, to conclude that, “We have a Republican party that has two elements: one is an extreme element and other is ruthlessly pragmatic—Mitch McConnell embodying them—which put blocking policies and embarrassing the party of the president ahead of solving problems that are immediate and deep. It’s just outside the bounds.”
Ornstein is right and Americans are living the result.
If things have any hope of getting better the Republican Party needs to get serious about governing again.
America wasn’t designed to function with one grown-up party and the other a bomb- throwing one. It only works when you have people from different political backgrounds who fight hard but act in the best interest of us all.
A small group of people pushing a narrow agenda was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers. They worried that it could sink the country and ruin the democratic experiment.
James Madison, Declaration of Independence-signee, warned against the “violence of the faction,” which could wreck the system of governance. He defined this group as “a number of citizens … united by [a] common impulse of passion or of interest [that is adverse] … to the rights of … the aggregate interests of the community.”
What Madison described sounds a lot like the Republican Party we’ve got right now.
But we can turn this situation around. In an election year, each of our voices matters more. We need to use them to demand a credible plan from the Republican Party to fix the chaos that it helped to create. It’s actually the only way things will get better.
Top 15 Most Dangerous Conservative Politicians and Government Officials to watch in 2012
From Addicting Info
From the Supreme Court to the halls of Congress to governor’s mansions across the country, conservatives have ruthlessly pushed an agenda that has torn America asunder since 1980. As 2011 comes to a close, conservatives are still trying to push failed policies. This is a list of 15 individual conservatives that pose a significant threat to American society as we move into 2012 and beyond.
1. John Roberts) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court leads four other conservative judges on the bench. Placed on the high court by President Bush, John Roberts has been influential in changing campaign finance laws (Citizens United) and has since ruled in favor of big corporations. And the conservative court isn’t through yet. Conservatives desire to overturn abortion, environmental laws, President Obama’s health care law, and voting rights laws, and you can bet that they are aiming to use the Supreme Court to do it.
2. Eric Cantor) The House Majority Leader has been very busy since his party took over the House in 2010. Cantor has proven that he has more power than John Boehner does, hence the fact that Boehner isn’t even on the list. Cantor is willing to do whatever it takes to slam every right-wing bill through Congress. He also has the backing of Tea Party House members. Cantor is still young, which means he could be a major player on the right for decades to come. It’s also likely that he could be the next Speaker of the House if the GOP keeps control after the 2012 Election.
3. Clarence Thomas) The second Supreme Court Justice to make the list has deep ties to the conservative movement. He has ties to Koch Industries and has received money from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations. He has refused to recuse himself from cases that he has ties to and that is what makes him dangerous. Thomas ruled with the other conservatives in Citizens United even though he had a conflict of interest in that case as well. As long as he is on the bench with Roberts, outside influences can dictate how the conservative wing rules.
4. Mitch McConnell) He may be the Senate Minority Leader but that doesn’t make McConnell any less poisonous to America. He has led the effort to block and stall many important pieces of legislation in the Senate and has blocked Presidential nominees from taking their posts, leaving many departments leaderless. We’ll see more of the same thing in 2012.
5. Paul Ryan) The second member of the U.S. House of Representatives to make the list, Ryan is a major threat because he introduced legislation that would kill Medicare by privatizing it. Essentially, Ryan’s plan throws all American senior citizens under a speeding bus. Ryan isn’t an old man either. He could remain active in politics for decades, which means his ideas will still be around as well. Even if the people of Wisconsin don’t re-elect him to Congress, Ryan could still join any conservative think tank or organization, or become a lobbyist. They would love to have him too. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are in danger as long as Ryan is around.
6. Scott Walker) The first of two governors on the list has been busy since he took office. The Governor of Wisconsin is on this list because he is an example of just how involved the Koch brothers are in shaping public policy. Under Walker’s “leadership” he has severely weakened labor unions and worker’s rights, weakened environmental laws, weakened pubic education, weakened voter rights, and has put public lands and facilities up for grabs as a way to increase privatization. Some of these facilities are of deep interest to the Koch brothers. As further evidence that Walker is basically a Koch slave, he took a fake call from a person pretending to be David Koch at the height of the collective bargaining debate. Walker could very well be recalled by the people of Wisconsin but Walker intends to sabotage that effort. Walker’s career in Wisconsin may not last beyond this year, but that doesn’t make him any less of a threat, as governors around the country are following his lead and he could always run for federal office later on.
7. Chris Christie) The Governor of New Jersey is the second governor on the list because he has been instrumental in weakening collective bargaining rights, public education, infrastructure, etc… Like Walker, Christie has put a lot of strain on the poor and middle class to benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is a shameless bully that abuses his position on a daily basis. Unlike Walker, however, Christie has his eye on the Presidency in 2016 and if you think Republicans don’t compromise with Democrats now, just imagine if Christie were in the White House. And that scenario is precisely why he is on the list.
8. Michele Bachmann) She is by far the craziest conservative serving in the House of Representatives and she is running for President which makes her a frightening politician and a dangerous one as well. And it looks like she will continue her Presidential bid deep into 2012. Bachmann is a major Christian Right Wing nut and she knows absolutely nothing about American history. She has already signed a pledge to persecute the LGBT community and has promised Christian fundamentalists that Christianity will play a dominant role in government if she is elected. Bachmann would also ban abortion for any reason and would make life hard for the unemployed and the poor. Stupid and crazy is never a good combination and Bachmann has both in spades.
9. Reince Priebus) The current Chairman of the RNC is the big reason why Wisconsin got saddled with Scott Walker as Governor and why Republicans control the legislature there. As Chairman of the RNC, he aims to screw over the United States as much as he screwed over Wisconsin. And the RNC is a major money player in national and state elections across the country. If he can architect a landslide victory for conservative extremists in Wisconsin, he can do the same nationally and that is why Priebus makes the list. That, and the fact that he once made a Freudian slip about assassinating President Obama.
10. Fred Upton) The Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is also a major Koch brothers lackey. As such, he is committed to ending the Environmental Protection Agency and giving the Koch brothers free rein to pollute the air, the water, and the land. Being in the pocket of the Kochs makes Upton a very dangerous player in Congress and as his term comes to a close, Upton will try to speed along his destructive Koch agenda.
11. Ron Paul) Michele Bachmann is crazy, but Ron Paul is crazy with a rabid following of supporters. Paul has a history of racism, is supported by the Ku Klux Klan, and wants anarchy in America. If Paul were to capture the Presidency, he would make the federal government powerless in both domestic policy and foreign policy. Paul would destroy Social Security, Medicare, public education, the EPA, and would withdraw the United States from international participation. Paul also believes states have the right to secede and would more than likely support states that choose to become independent nations. Ron Paul would allow the dismantling of America which makes him perhaps the most dangerous man on the list. And don’t forget, Ron Paul also has a son that may have an eye on the White House as well.
12. Samuel Alito) Samuel Alito is yet another Supreme Court Justice on the list. And like all the others, he is dangerous because he will decide in favor of big corporations and other conservative groups who wish to challenge everything from health care to abortion to gay marriage. Alito, like Roberts, is a Bush nominee, which makes him at least as dangerous as Bush, but the fact that he will serve for life on the court makes him more dangerous.
13. John McCain) Once a stalwart of compromise and crossing the aisle to get things done, McCain has since become a hawkish die-hard conservative. McCain may not be President and he never will be, but he is still a dangerous politician. The longtime Arizona Senator still wields considerable influence in Congress and is one the strongest proponents for war with Iran. Many have since joined him in pushing for such a war. War with Iran would be disastrous and that is why McCain makes the list.
14. Antonin Scalia) And a fourth Supreme Court Justice makes the list. Why? Because he votes overwhelmingly with his conservative colleagues in favor of big corporations, and against civil rights, disregarding all the precedents set by past courts and laws passed by Congress. Given the divided nature of the court these past few years, it’s likely that Scalia will keep voting the way conservatives want him to.
15. Rand Paul) The demon spawn of Ron Paul, Rand Paul would do everything his father would do and then some. He’s a Senator, and he has blocked many a bill since taking office. He has been vocal about wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and has attempted to block safety regulations and oversight regulations. If Ron Paul ever stops running for President, you can bet that Rand Paul will take up where his father left off. That means Paul could be a threat for decades to come.
All in all, the four Supreme Court Justices on this list are by far the most dangerous conservative government officials. They aren’t elected by the people and they never will have to answer for their extreme decisions. They will be on the high court for life which means they are in a position to strike down anything as unconstitutional that the extreme right-wing doesn’t like, from Social Security to Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act, to Roe v. Wade, and any other legislation that conservatives hate. All the other conservatives on the list can be voted out of office by the American electorate. As America enters 2012, we need to keep a sharp eye on these dangerous conservatives and we must seek to unseat them, because if we don’t, we can expect another thirty years of failed policies that only benefit the wealthy and the conservative effort to rule America.
From the Supreme Court to the halls of Congress to governor’s mansions across the country, conservatives have ruthlessly pushed an agenda that has torn America asunder since 1980. As 2011 comes to a close, conservatives are still trying to push failed policies. This is a list of 15 individual conservatives that pose a significant threat to American society as we move into 2012 and beyond.
1. John Roberts) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court leads four other conservative judges on the bench. Placed on the high court by President Bush, John Roberts has been influential in changing campaign finance laws (Citizens United) and has since ruled in favor of big corporations. And the conservative court isn’t through yet. Conservatives desire to overturn abortion, environmental laws, President Obama’s health care law, and voting rights laws, and you can bet that they are aiming to use the Supreme Court to do it.
2. Eric Cantor) The House Majority Leader has been very busy since his party took over the House in 2010. Cantor has proven that he has more power than John Boehner does, hence the fact that Boehner isn’t even on the list. Cantor is willing to do whatever it takes to slam every right-wing bill through Congress. He also has the backing of Tea Party House members. Cantor is still young, which means he could be a major player on the right for decades to come. It’s also likely that he could be the next Speaker of the House if the GOP keeps control after the 2012 Election.
3. Clarence Thomas) The second Supreme Court Justice to make the list has deep ties to the conservative movement. He has ties to Koch Industries and has received money from the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations. He has refused to recuse himself from cases that he has ties to and that is what makes him dangerous. Thomas ruled with the other conservatives in Citizens United even though he had a conflict of interest in that case as well. As long as he is on the bench with Roberts, outside influences can dictate how the conservative wing rules.
4. Mitch McConnell) He may be the Senate Minority Leader but that doesn’t make McConnell any less poisonous to America. He has led the effort to block and stall many important pieces of legislation in the Senate and has blocked Presidential nominees from taking their posts, leaving many departments leaderless. We’ll see more of the same thing in 2012.
5. Paul Ryan) The second member of the U.S. House of Representatives to make the list, Ryan is a major threat because he introduced legislation that would kill Medicare by privatizing it. Essentially, Ryan’s plan throws all American senior citizens under a speeding bus. Ryan isn’t an old man either. He could remain active in politics for decades, which means his ideas will still be around as well. Even if the people of Wisconsin don’t re-elect him to Congress, Ryan could still join any conservative think tank or organization, or become a lobbyist. They would love to have him too. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are in danger as long as Ryan is around.
6. Scott Walker) The first of two governors on the list has been busy since he took office. The Governor of Wisconsin is on this list because he is an example of just how involved the Koch brothers are in shaping public policy. Under Walker’s “leadership” he has severely weakened labor unions and worker’s rights, weakened environmental laws, weakened pubic education, weakened voter rights, and has put public lands and facilities up for grabs as a way to increase privatization. Some of these facilities are of deep interest to the Koch brothers. As further evidence that Walker is basically a Koch slave, he took a fake call from a person pretending to be David Koch at the height of the collective bargaining debate. Walker could very well be recalled by the people of Wisconsin but Walker intends to sabotage that effort. Walker’s career in Wisconsin may not last beyond this year, but that doesn’t make him any less of a threat, as governors around the country are following his lead and he could always run for federal office later on.
7. Chris Christie) The Governor of New Jersey is the second governor on the list because he has been instrumental in weakening collective bargaining rights, public education, infrastructure, etc… Like Walker, Christie has put a lot of strain on the poor and middle class to benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is a shameless bully that abuses his position on a daily basis. Unlike Walker, however, Christie has his eye on the Presidency in 2016 and if you think Republicans don’t compromise with Democrats now, just imagine if Christie were in the White House. And that scenario is precisely why he is on the list.
8. Michele Bachmann) She is by far the craziest conservative serving in the House of Representatives and she is running for President which makes her a frightening politician and a dangerous one as well. And it looks like she will continue her Presidential bid deep into 2012. Bachmann is a major Christian Right Wing nut and she knows absolutely nothing about American history. She has already signed a pledge to persecute the LGBT community and has promised Christian fundamentalists that Christianity will play a dominant role in government if she is elected. Bachmann would also ban abortion for any reason and would make life hard for the unemployed and the poor. Stupid and crazy is never a good combination and Bachmann has both in spades.
9. Reince Priebus) The current Chairman of the RNC is the big reason why Wisconsin got saddled with Scott Walker as Governor and why Republicans control the legislature there. As Chairman of the RNC, he aims to screw over the United States as much as he screwed over Wisconsin. And the RNC is a major money player in national and state elections across the country. If he can architect a landslide victory for conservative extremists in Wisconsin, he can do the same nationally and that is why Priebus makes the list. That, and the fact that he once made a Freudian slip about assassinating President Obama.
10. Fred Upton) The Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is also a major Koch brothers lackey. As such, he is committed to ending the Environmental Protection Agency and giving the Koch brothers free rein to pollute the air, the water, and the land. Being in the pocket of the Kochs makes Upton a very dangerous player in Congress and as his term comes to a close, Upton will try to speed along his destructive Koch agenda.
11. Ron Paul) Michele Bachmann is crazy, but Ron Paul is crazy with a rabid following of supporters. Paul has a history of racism, is supported by the Ku Klux Klan, and wants anarchy in America. If Paul were to capture the Presidency, he would make the federal government powerless in both domestic policy and foreign policy. Paul would destroy Social Security, Medicare, public education, the EPA, and would withdraw the United States from international participation. Paul also believes states have the right to secede and would more than likely support states that choose to become independent nations. Ron Paul would allow the dismantling of America which makes him perhaps the most dangerous man on the list. And don’t forget, Ron Paul also has a son that may have an eye on the White House as well.
12. Samuel Alito) Samuel Alito is yet another Supreme Court Justice on the list. And like all the others, he is dangerous because he will decide in favor of big corporations and other conservative groups who wish to challenge everything from health care to abortion to gay marriage. Alito, like Roberts, is a Bush nominee, which makes him at least as dangerous as Bush, but the fact that he will serve for life on the court makes him more dangerous.
13. John McCain) Once a stalwart of compromise and crossing the aisle to get things done, McCain has since become a hawkish die-hard conservative. McCain may not be President and he never will be, but he is still a dangerous politician. The longtime Arizona Senator still wields considerable influence in Congress and is one the strongest proponents for war with Iran. Many have since joined him in pushing for such a war. War with Iran would be disastrous and that is why McCain makes the list.
14. Antonin Scalia) And a fourth Supreme Court Justice makes the list. Why? Because he votes overwhelmingly with his conservative colleagues in favor of big corporations, and against civil rights, disregarding all the precedents set by past courts and laws passed by Congress. Given the divided nature of the court these past few years, it’s likely that Scalia will keep voting the way conservatives want him to.
15. Rand Paul) The demon spawn of Ron Paul, Rand Paul would do everything his father would do and then some. He’s a Senator, and he has blocked many a bill since taking office. He has been vocal about wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and has attempted to block safety regulations and oversight regulations. If Ron Paul ever stops running for President, you can bet that Rand Paul will take up where his father left off. That means Paul could be a threat for decades to come.
All in all, the four Supreme Court Justices on this list are by far the most dangerous conservative government officials. They aren’t elected by the people and they never will have to answer for their extreme decisions. They will be on the high court for life which means they are in a position to strike down anything as unconstitutional that the extreme right-wing doesn’t like, from Social Security to Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act, to Roe v. Wade, and any other legislation that conservatives hate. All the other conservatives on the list can be voted out of office by the American electorate. As America enters 2012, we need to keep a sharp eye on these dangerous conservatives and we must seek to unseat them, because if we don’t, we can expect another thirty years of failed policies that only benefit the wealthy and the conservative effort to rule America.
Breaking News-President Obama announces deal
From CNN
Washington (CNN) -- Two days before the deadline for a possible U.S. government default, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached agreement Sunday on a legislative package that would extend the federal debt ceiling while cutting spending and guaranteeing further deficit-reduction steps.
The proposed $3 trillion deal, which still requires congressional approval, brought some immediate relief to global markets closely watching the situation play out and a nation filled with anger and frustration over partisan political wrangling that threatened further economic harm to an already struggling recovery.
However, there was no guarantee the plan will win enough support to pass both chambers of Congress.
Democratic and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate were briefing their caucuses about the agreement on Sunday night or Monday.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, earlier told CNN that cuts to military spending were a final sticking point.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told reporters that she needs to see "the final product" in writing before she can decide if she supports it.
Pelosi said she would meet with the House Democratic caucus on Monday to discuss the matter.
"I don't know all the particulars of what the final product is in writing and what the ramifications will be," Pelosi said, noting the measure will have an impact for a decade or more. Asked about the outcome, she warned: "We all may not be able to support it or none of us may be able to support it."
In the face of an August 2 deadline to get new authorization to borrow money or face a possible government default, congressional leaders and the White House were trying to complete the agreement that would extend the debt limit through 2012 -- a presidential election year.
Earlier, Reid's Republican counterpart in the Senate said the two parties were "very close" to reaching a deal that would bring $3 trillion in deficit reduction.
"We had a very good day yesterday," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN, adding that the two sides "made dramatic progress" in negotiations on a deal that would cut government spending and raise the federal debt ceiling.
Another Republican senator, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, later told reporters he expected a Monday vote on a compromise.
"It feels like they're going to finish the deal today and then we'll have the vote tomorrow," Isakson said, adding he supports the plan under discussion.
Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration agreed that progress has been made.
"If there's a word right here that would sum up the mood, it would be relief -- relief that we won't default," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said on CNN. "That's not a certainty, but default is far less of a possibility now than it was even a day ago."
If Congress fails to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Tuesday, Americans could face rising interest rates and a declining dollar, among other problems.
Some financial experts have warned of a downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating and a potential stock market plunge. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped for a sixth straight day on Friday.
Without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government will not be able to pay all its bills next month. President Barack Obama recently indicated he can't guarantee Social Security checks will be mailed out on time.
In Afghanistan on Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen was unable to assure U.S. troops they would get their paychecks following the August 2 deadline without a deal. Mullen said August 15 would be the first payday jeopardized if the United States defaults.
Last week, a Department of Defense official told CNN on condition of not being identified that "it's not a question of whether, but when" military pay gets withheld if no agreement is reached.
Vice President Joe Biden arrived at the White House on Sunday morning, though no additional formal talks involving the administration and congressional leaders have been announced. A Democratic source told CNN on condition of not being identified that Biden was engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations with both congressional legislators and the administration.
Initial news of a possible deal came shortly after the Senate delayed consideration of a debt ceiling proposal by Reid late Saturday night, pushing back a key procedural vote by 12 hours. When that vote occurred on Sunday afternoon, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to end debate on the Reid proposal and move to a vote, extending consideration of the plan while negotiations continue.
The vote was 50-49, short of the super-majority of 60 required to pass.
Reid plans to insert a negotiated final agreement into the proposal once a deal has been reached. When it became clear that Democrats would lose Sunday's vote, Reid voted against his own plan in a procedural move to preserve the ability to bring it up again.
According to McConnell and other congressional and administration officials interviewed Sunday, as well as various sources who spoke to CNN on condition of not being identified, the deal under discussion would be a two-step process intended to bring as much as $3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.
Some sources provided differing targets for the total, ranging from $2.4 trillion up to $3 trillion.
A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps -- including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
The committee's recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called "trigger" mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way -- with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts -- a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval.
In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states -- a process likely to take years.
Schumer told CNN that a main sticking point still under discussion was the trigger mechanism of automatic spending cuts in case Congress fails to enact the special committee's recommendations.
According to sources, cuts in the trigger mechanism would be across-the-board, including Medicare and defense spending, to present an unpalatable alternative for both parties in the event Congress fails to pass the special committee's proposal.
"You want to make it hard for them just to walk away and wash their hands," Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, told CNN. "You want them to say, if nothing happens, there will be a very tough degree of pain that will take place."
Preliminary reaction showed sensitivity to that pain. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said the automatic spending cuts under a trigger mechanism should not affect Medicare benefits for senior citizens.
"The way we understand it's going to be worded is it does not affect beneficiaries. It would affect providers and insurance companies," Levin said. "That should be the case, because if it hits beneficiaries, you're going to lose lots of Democratic votes."
Meanwhile, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, an aide to former Republican President George W. Bush, warned that automatic spending cuts for the military under the trigger would put national security at risk.
"By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the 'trigger mechanism,' there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out," Bolton said in a statement.
Overall, the agreement under discussion would increase the debt limit in two stages, both of which would occur automatically -- a key Democratic demand that would prevent a repeat of the current crisis before the next election.
McConnell, who appears to have become the lead Republican negotiator, said he is "very, very close to being able ... to recommend to my members that this is something that they ought to support."
The deal will not include tax increases, McConnell added, expressing a key demand of Republicans. Obama has pushed for a comprehensive approach that would include additional tax revenue as well as spending cuts and entitlement reforms to reduce budget deficits.
Reid, D-Nevada, said Saturday night that the delay in considering his proposal was additional time for negotiations at the White House.
His announcement capped a day of sharp partisan voting in the House and extended talks behind closed doors between congressional and administration officials. Concern continued to grow that Congress will fail to raise the nation's debt ceiling in time to avoid a potentially devastating national default this week.
Earlier Saturday, the Republican-controlled House rejected Reid's plan -- partisan payback for the Democratic-controlled Senate's rejection of Boehner's plan Friday night.
House members rejected Reid's plan in a 246-173 vote. Most Democrats supported the measure; every Republican voted against it.
For their part, Republicans continued to trumpet Boehner's proposal. The measure won House approval Friday, but only by a narrow margin after a one-day delay during which the speaker was forced to round up support from wary tea party conservatives.
Boehner's deal with conservatives -- which added a provision requiring congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment in order to raise the debt limit next year -- was sharply criticized by Democrats, who called it a political nonstarter.
Democratic leaders vehemently object not only to the balanced budget amendment, but also the GOP's insistence that a second debt ceiling vote be held before the next election. They argue that reaching bipartisan agreement on another debt ceiling hike during an election year could be nearly impossible, and that short-term extensions of the limit could further destabilize the economy.
Leaders of both parties now agree that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include long-term spending reductions to help control spiraling deficits. But they have differed on both the timetable and requirements tied to certain cuts.
Boehner's plan proposed generating a total of $917 billion in savings while initially raising the debt ceiling by $900 billion. The speaker has pledged to match any debt ceiling hike with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.
His plan would require a second vote by Congress to raise the debt ceiling by a combined $2.5 trillion -- enough to last through the end of 2012. It would create a special congressional committee to recommend additional savings of $1.6 trillion or more.
Any failure on the part of Congress to enact mandated spending reductions or abide by new spending caps would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.
The plan also calls for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment before the second vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Reid's plan, meanwhile, would reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.4 trillion and raise the debt ceiling by a similar amount. It includes $1 trillion in savings based on the planned U.S. withdrawals from military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reid's plan also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed by a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.
In addition, it incorporates a process based on a proposal by McConnell that would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two steps while providing Congress the opportunity to vote its disapproval.
Among other things, Reid has stressed that his plan meets the key GOP demand for no additional taxes. Boehner, however, argued last week that Reid's plan fails to tackle popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, which are among the biggest drivers of the debt.
A recent CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.
According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Bout fucking time! And to all you 535 members of Congress, vote yes!
Washington (CNN) -- Two days before the deadline for a possible U.S. government default, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached agreement Sunday on a legislative package that would extend the federal debt ceiling while cutting spending and guaranteeing further deficit-reduction steps.
The proposed $3 trillion deal, which still requires congressional approval, brought some immediate relief to global markets closely watching the situation play out and a nation filled with anger and frustration over partisan political wrangling that threatened further economic harm to an already struggling recovery.
However, there was no guarantee the plan will win enough support to pass both chambers of Congress.
Democratic and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate were briefing their caucuses about the agreement on Sunday night or Monday.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, earlier told CNN that cuts to military spending were a final sticking point.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told reporters that she needs to see "the final product" in writing before she can decide if she supports it.
Pelosi said she would meet with the House Democratic caucus on Monday to discuss the matter.
"I don't know all the particulars of what the final product is in writing and what the ramifications will be," Pelosi said, noting the measure will have an impact for a decade or more. Asked about the outcome, she warned: "We all may not be able to support it or none of us may be able to support it."
In the face of an August 2 deadline to get new authorization to borrow money or face a possible government default, congressional leaders and the White House were trying to complete the agreement that would extend the debt limit through 2012 -- a presidential election year.
Earlier, Reid's Republican counterpart in the Senate said the two parties were "very close" to reaching a deal that would bring $3 trillion in deficit reduction.
"We had a very good day yesterday," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told CNN, adding that the two sides "made dramatic progress" in negotiations on a deal that would cut government spending and raise the federal debt ceiling.
Another Republican senator, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, later told reporters he expected a Monday vote on a compromise.
"It feels like they're going to finish the deal today and then we'll have the vote tomorrow," Isakson said, adding he supports the plan under discussion.
Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration agreed that progress has been made.
"If there's a word right here that would sum up the mood, it would be relief -- relief that we won't default," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said on CNN. "That's not a certainty, but default is far less of a possibility now than it was even a day ago."
If Congress fails to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Tuesday, Americans could face rising interest rates and a declining dollar, among other problems.
Some financial experts have warned of a downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating and a potential stock market plunge. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped for a sixth straight day on Friday.
Without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government will not be able to pay all its bills next month. President Barack Obama recently indicated he can't guarantee Social Security checks will be mailed out on time.
In Afghanistan on Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen was unable to assure U.S. troops they would get their paychecks following the August 2 deadline without a deal. Mullen said August 15 would be the first payday jeopardized if the United States defaults.
Last week, a Department of Defense official told CNN on condition of not being identified that "it's not a question of whether, but when" military pay gets withheld if no agreement is reached.
Vice President Joe Biden arrived at the White House on Sunday morning, though no additional formal talks involving the administration and congressional leaders have been announced. A Democratic source told CNN on condition of not being identified that Biden was engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations with both congressional legislators and the administration.
Initial news of a possible deal came shortly after the Senate delayed consideration of a debt ceiling proposal by Reid late Saturday night, pushing back a key procedural vote by 12 hours. When that vote occurred on Sunday afternoon, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to end debate on the Reid proposal and move to a vote, extending consideration of the plan while negotiations continue.
The vote was 50-49, short of the super-majority of 60 required to pass.
Reid plans to insert a negotiated final agreement into the proposal once a deal has been reached. When it became clear that Democrats would lose Sunday's vote, Reid voted against his own plan in a procedural move to preserve the ability to bring it up again.
According to McConnell and other congressional and administration officials interviewed Sunday, as well as various sources who spoke to CNN on condition of not being identified, the deal under discussion would be a two-step process intended to bring as much as $3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.
Some sources provided differing targets for the total, ranging from $2.4 trillion up to $3 trillion.
A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps -- including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
The committee's recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called "trigger" mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way -- with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts -- a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval.
In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states -- a process likely to take years.
Schumer told CNN that a main sticking point still under discussion was the trigger mechanism of automatic spending cuts in case Congress fails to enact the special committee's recommendations.
According to sources, cuts in the trigger mechanism would be across-the-board, including Medicare and defense spending, to present an unpalatable alternative for both parties in the event Congress fails to pass the special committee's proposal.
"You want to make it hard for them just to walk away and wash their hands," Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, told CNN. "You want them to say, if nothing happens, there will be a very tough degree of pain that will take place."
Preliminary reaction showed sensitivity to that pain. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said the automatic spending cuts under a trigger mechanism should not affect Medicare benefits for senior citizens.
"The way we understand it's going to be worded is it does not affect beneficiaries. It would affect providers and insurance companies," Levin said. "That should be the case, because if it hits beneficiaries, you're going to lose lots of Democratic votes."
Meanwhile, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, an aide to former Republican President George W. Bush, warned that automatic spending cuts for the military under the trigger would put national security at risk.
"By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the 'trigger mechanism,' there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out," Bolton said in a statement.
Overall, the agreement under discussion would increase the debt limit in two stages, both of which would occur automatically -- a key Democratic demand that would prevent a repeat of the current crisis before the next election.
McConnell, who appears to have become the lead Republican negotiator, said he is "very, very close to being able ... to recommend to my members that this is something that they ought to support."
The deal will not include tax increases, McConnell added, expressing a key demand of Republicans. Obama has pushed for a comprehensive approach that would include additional tax revenue as well as spending cuts and entitlement reforms to reduce budget deficits.
Reid, D-Nevada, said Saturday night that the delay in considering his proposal was additional time for negotiations at the White House.
His announcement capped a day of sharp partisan voting in the House and extended talks behind closed doors between congressional and administration officials. Concern continued to grow that Congress will fail to raise the nation's debt ceiling in time to avoid a potentially devastating national default this week.
Earlier Saturday, the Republican-controlled House rejected Reid's plan -- partisan payback for the Democratic-controlled Senate's rejection of Boehner's plan Friday night.
House members rejected Reid's plan in a 246-173 vote. Most Democrats supported the measure; every Republican voted against it.
For their part, Republicans continued to trumpet Boehner's proposal. The measure won House approval Friday, but only by a narrow margin after a one-day delay during which the speaker was forced to round up support from wary tea party conservatives.
Boehner's deal with conservatives -- which added a provision requiring congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment in order to raise the debt limit next year -- was sharply criticized by Democrats, who called it a political nonstarter.
Democratic leaders vehemently object not only to the balanced budget amendment, but also the GOP's insistence that a second debt ceiling vote be held before the next election. They argue that reaching bipartisan agreement on another debt ceiling hike during an election year could be nearly impossible, and that short-term extensions of the limit could further destabilize the economy.
Leaders of both parties now agree that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include long-term spending reductions to help control spiraling deficits. But they have differed on both the timetable and requirements tied to certain cuts.
Boehner's plan proposed generating a total of $917 billion in savings while initially raising the debt ceiling by $900 billion. The speaker has pledged to match any debt ceiling hike with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.
His plan would require a second vote by Congress to raise the debt ceiling by a combined $2.5 trillion -- enough to last through the end of 2012. It would create a special congressional committee to recommend additional savings of $1.6 trillion or more.
Any failure on the part of Congress to enact mandated spending reductions or abide by new spending caps would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.
The plan also calls for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment before the second vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Reid's plan, meanwhile, would reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.4 trillion and raise the debt ceiling by a similar amount. It includes $1 trillion in savings based on the planned U.S. withdrawals from military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reid's plan also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed by a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.
In addition, it incorporates a process based on a proposal by McConnell that would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two steps while providing Congress the opportunity to vote its disapproval.
Among other things, Reid has stressed that his plan meets the key GOP demand for no additional taxes. Boehner, however, argued last week that Reid's plan fails to tackle popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, which are among the biggest drivers of the debt.
A recent CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.
According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Bout fucking time! And to all you 535 members of Congress, vote yes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
