Blog

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will relinquish the gavel to the perpetually tanned, lachrymose Republican leader John Boehner when the new Congress convenes next January. It will be four years after that January 4, 2007 day when she “broke the marble ceiling” and became the first woman Speaker in the two century history of the House.

At the time, Republican pundits mocked Democrats for the choice of a “San Francisco liberal” woman as Speaker, suggesting she’d be a weak leader, unable to control the conservatives in the ever disputatious Democratic party, and easy to burlesque in campaigns across the country.

But this was Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, raised in a tough Baltimore Italian political family, who imbibed politics with her mother’s milk. Republicans soon discovered that Democrats had chosen not just the most progressive, but also the most effective and powerful Speaker in memory.

She was disciplined, shepherding her flock of progressives, Blue Dogs, New Dems, blacks, Latinos, women and good old boys, to focus on core issues — the kitchen table concerns that Americans worry over every night at home, the challenge to George Bush’s disastrous wars abroad. She was tireless, intent on consolidating her majority and helping Democrats to take the White House. She was practical, raising record sums of money in fundraisers across the country, the necessary coin of America’s debauched politics. She was tough, getting members to take votes they wanted to duck, forging the majorities she need to overcome unified Republican opposition. And she was, for better and worse, independent, willing to block the left’s efforts to impeach the president or end funding for the war that she thought would be damaging electorally.

In the face of the Bush White House and launch of the Republican strategy of obstruction through misuse of the filibuster, Pelosi produced far more in her first term as Speaker than anyone expected; far more, for example, than the much ballyhooed Gingrich Contract with America Congress in 1995-96. (more…)

Les Leopold

By Les Leopold
Author, “The Looting of America”

What a great year for Wall Street: profits up, bonuses up and, best of all, criticism down, especially from Washington. Somehow Wall Street has much of America believing its lies and rationalizations. We’re even beginning to forget that Wall Street is largely responsible for the economic mess we’re in.

So before we’re completely overtaken by financial Alzheimer’s, let’s revisit Wall Street’s greatest fabrications for 2010. (For the full story, please see The Looting of America.)

1.”Honest, we didn’t do it!”
Two years ago Wall Street’s colossal greed crashed our economy. Our financial elites created and spewed highly leveraged toxic assets around the globe. These poisonous “innovations” pumped up the housing bubble and Wall Street grew insanely rich in the process. When it all burst, we learned that the big Wall Street institutions that had caused the crash were far too big to fail — and too connected. High government officials came to their rescue with trillions in cash and guarantees — underwritten, of course, by we taxpayers. Everyone knew this at the time. But if you asked just about anyone on “The Street” they denied all culpability and pointed the finger everywhere else: Fannie, Freddie, the Fed, the Community Reinvestment Act, tax deductions for home buying, bad regulations, not enough regulations, too many regulations, too much consumer debt, the rating agencies, the Chinese — and on and on. Sadly, their blame-shifting strategy worked, bamboozling the media and people across the political spectrum. The GOP members of the Financial Crisis Commission are so drunk with this Kool-Aid that in their minority report, they refuse even to use the words “Wall Street” or “speculation” in assessing the causes of the crash. Hypocrites? Crooks? Morons? Take your pick. (more…)

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

Blame the unions, blame the unemployed, blame loans to the poor, blame the government. As income and wealth increasingly go to a few at the top, public anger is directed at the economy’s victims.

I am in a clinic all day participating in a medical study, so I was talking to one of the nurses. She brought up that California is in real trouble, is going broke, it’s a real mess. She says she doesn’t know what we’re going to do. She has heard that, “lots of states are going bankrupt. There is no money anymore.”

So I asked her what we should do about it.

She said it is because of the unions. “It’s just ridiculous. They want so much.”

I asked if she follows the news closely, she said she does. “I watch the news a lot.”

Some facts: California is famous for leading the country in a wave of anti-government tax-cutting and into Reaganism. We cut taxes in an anti-government ferver and increased prison spending in a law-and-order fever. Then the federal government cut taxes and increased military spending, leading to big deficits. Now we’re out of money to run the state government and the country is getting there, too. California’s problems have little or nothing to do with what state employees are paid, and a lot to do with tax cuts and people across the state not getting paid enough. (more…)

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Political journalist, best-selling author and syndicated newspaper columnist

Over the years, we’ve all seen solid examples of the Versailles mentality in our media — ie. the mentality that glorifies Washington and its inhabitants as heroes saving the rest of America from itself. But usually these examples are a bit subtle in how they weave the arrogance into the prose. Usually, you have to really stop and do a careful double-take when you see a piece of Versailles propaganda.

That’s why this recent piece from the notoriously servile Matt Bai in the New York Times is such a groundbreaker. Never have I seen such a monumentally blatant piece of Versailles triumphalism. In that sense, it is truly The Versailles Manifesto. Here are the key excerpts to show you what I mean:

“In theory, all the people who populate the federal government, whether as senators or midlevel bureaucrats, are on loan from other places, often doing the nation’s business at the cost of more lucrative or convenient opportunities back home.”

“Plenty of people don’t like [Rahm] Emanuel, and plenty more don’t like his politics. But whatever one thinks of the man, it’s indisputable that he has spent most of his adult life doing the people’s work.”

“Had the elections board counted that against him, whether or not he had set foot back in Chicago for months at time, it would have lent credence to the destructive idea that there is Washington and there is the rest of us.”

In the first example, Bai asks us to ignore the revolving door between government and business, whereby many politicians invest time in Congress to then cash in on that time as lobbyists. Nothing to see there, he says — we are asked to believe that instead, most D.C. pols are making a noble sacrifice to serve the public “at the cost of more lucrative or convenient opportunities back home.” (more…)

Robert Reich

By Robert Reich
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley

Two important victories for President Obama this week — the New Start anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia to reduce weapons and re-start inspections, and the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell after a 17-year ban on gays in the military.

Why have Senate Republicans been willing to break ranks on these two, while not a single Republican went along with Obama’s plan to extend the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income? Why has Obama consistently caved on economic and taxes, but held his ground on foreign policy and issues like gays in the military?

A hint of an answer can be found in another Senate defeat for Obama over the last few weeks that got almost no attention in the media but was a big one: Republicans blocked consideration of the House-passed Disclose Act, which would have required groups that spend money on outside political advertising to disclose the major sources of their funding.

The answer is this. When it comes to protecting the fortunes of America’s rich (mostly top corporate executives and Wall Street) and maintaining their strangle-hold on the political process, Senate Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, don’t budge. (more…)

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Beware of conservatives bearing gifts. Today in the Washington Post, former Bush policy advisor Michael Gerson echoes a growing chorus of conservatiuve pundits offering up “Social Security reform” as “the answer to Obama’s problems.” The advice is illogical on its face, pernicious in its consequence, and poisoned from its source.

Gerson argues that Obama faces a major strategic decision in his coming State of the Union address, which must take the “first cut at the reelection message he carries to reelection or defeat.” Gerson helpfully offers a course virtually guaranteed to increase the chances of the latter.

He predicts the president will focus on a multi-year discretionary spending freeze, and on banning earmarks. But, in a classic Republican negotiating stance, he dismisses this embrace of conservative policies as meaningless, since Republicans will trump anything the president suggests on spending cuts.

So to gain agreement with Republicans, Gerson argues, the president will have to offer up more, choosing between tax reform and entlement reform. The former is dismissed as too hard. (And is dangerous for Republicans since it is hard to do tax reform without insisting that the wealthy no longer pay an effective tax rate that is lower than their secretaries).

On entitlement reform, Gerson repeats virtually word for word what has become beltway conventional wisdom among conservatives in both parties. The real force behind rising deficit and debt projections is our broken health care system, reflected in the federal budget through Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. But Gerson doesn’t even suggest continuing to challenge the drug, hospital and medical complexes that have succeeded in driving US costs per capita almost twice that of other industrial countries. He focuses instead simply on Medicare, but argues that “Medicare reform — the topic of intense, ideological debate — is a political nonstarter.” (more…)

Robert Creamer

By Robert Creamer
Political organizer, strategist and author

I was struck several days ago to hear Arizona’s Senator Jon Kyl claim that the Democrats’ insistence on considering the new START nuclear inspection treaty in the short time before Christmas somehow defiled the holiday.

Perhaps, I thought, Senator Kyl forgot for a moment that Christmas celebrates the birth of the “Prince of Peace” — that the Christmas story is about “Peace on Earth, good will to men.” Could there be a better way to celebrate Christmas than to approve a peace accord that would reduce the risk of nuclear war?

Of course, this particular episode is actually emblematic of the fundamental disconnect between the values held by Senator Kyl and many of his radical conservative colleagues, and the progressive values that have served as the very definition of human morality, freedom and progress.

When you think of the heroes and heroines of American — and world — history you think of the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Cesar Chavez, Robert Kennedy, Mohandas Gandhi and Franklin Roosevelt.

They are people who expanded the realm of human freedom for everyone. They stood up for everyday people — not the rich and powerful — of their times. They are the people who ended wars, not those who began them. They are the people who created mechanisms that help us avoid violence; who enhanced the ability of every child — no matter her background or income — to live a fulfilling life; who stood up against ignorance and oppression and greed; who understood that we’re all in this together — not all in this alone.

Most of all, they were people who believed that what is important in life is what you can do for other people — not simply what you can do for yourself. (more…)

By Robert Kuttner
Co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect

President Obama and the late Democratic Congress had a terrific valedictory week. Obama reminded us of the leader whom we elected. His December 22 press conference was one of his best performances as president.

Democratic senators rose to rare heights of leadership.

Obama seems to rally mainly when his back is against the wall, after much damage has already been done. But unlike his 2008 election victory, the prior damage cannot be undone this time by one heroic come-from-behind sprint. Next week, Republicans will formally take over the House thanks to the 2010 midterm election debacle, and they will make their 2009-2010 brand of obstruction seem tame.

What’s astonishing is that the several unlikely legislative wins were accomplished in the waning days of the lame-duck session, when Republicans had every possible motivation to obstruct. Yet somehow, more difficult legislating was done by the Senate in the final week of the session than was done in the whole prior year, when Democrats had a much more secure majority. How do we explain that?

For the apostles of bipartisan cooperation, the successes on New START, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, health care for 9/11 first responders, food safety legislation, temporary funding of the government pending the next budget, as well as the near miss on immigration reform (the DREAM Act) were all achieved by the splendidly constructive tone set by the president earlier in the month by his embrace of a mostly Republican tax deal. As the story goes, this put the Republicans in a more collaborative frame of mind.

I don’t buy that fable, and neither should you. The evidence just doesn’t support such a conclusion, even though this is the Beltway pundit storyline. (See Broder, Krauthammer, Brooks, et al.)

Take the bills where Democrats prevailed, one at a time, and you’ll see why.

New START. The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, never wavered in his opposition. It was the reality-based wing of the Republican Party in the Senate that came around, thanks to a very effective campaign by the White House, the military joint chiefs of staff, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry and his traditionalist GOP collaborator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Just enough Republicans put aside the plum of one more partisan bloody nose for Democrats and voted for the national interest. They also recognized that rejecting an arms control deal that is needed to prevent nuclear proliferation would have reflected very badly on their party. The rosy glow of the tax deal had nothing to do with it. Democrats led, pursued sensible policy, played hardball, and won.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Here again, the Republican leadership did everything it could to kill the bill, and were simply out-played. There were no further compromises intended to appease GOP hard-liners. Democrats displayed the kind of partisan hardball that has eluded them all year. Republicans outside the Bible Belt realized that they were on the wrong side of public opinion, and that acceptance of gays in the military and elsewhere will only increase over time, to their disadvantage if they are identified as the party of bigotry. Even Joe Lieberman emerged as a progressive leader on this one.

Health Care for First Responders. This really infuriated and ultimately stymied the Republicans. It’s hard to imagine a more patriotically resonant issue not to be on the wrong side of. Stories of the GOP defeating a bill to help those are now suffering for having risked their lives to save others in the iconic attack on America was an escalating P.R. disaster for the right. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and others showed real leadership in fighting for this. Even worse than the main story was the fine print. Democrats proposed to pay for the cost of this program by repealing a tax preference that rewards corporations for sheltering foreign dividend income. So Republicans were not just blocking aid to first responders but doing so in order to preserve a tax giveaway. Even so, the Republican leadership did force a cut in the amount of the aid and a change in how it was paid for.

Food Safety. Republicans also found themselves on the wrong side of the Food Safety Modernization Act, after widely publicized deaths and illnesses from E. coli and other outbreaks. Democrats hung tough, and the Senate passed the measure by voice vote December 19.

The point is that all of these votes were victories for Democratic principle and tenacity, not for Democratic conciliation and capitulation.

Temporary Funding of the Government. Despite the supposed goodwill engendered by Obama’s tax-deal compromise, incoming House Speaker John Boehner tried to demand a general $100 billion spending cut as the Republicans’ price for allowing government to be funded into the new year. Ultimately, they supported a “continuing resolution” — a spending freeze at 2010 levels — but only for now, realizing that they will have the votes to slash discretionary spending in March or April, via the budget resolution and the mandatory vote to raise the national debt ceiling.
The DREAM Act. Democrats narrowly lost this one, because immigration is a hot-button pocketbook issue for native born voters in a deep recession. It’s hard to gin up compassion for immigrants, even for the innocent and hard working children of undocumented immigrants, when unemployment is ten percent in the general population. That’s why most Senate Republicans (and five faithless Democrats) felt there was not much risk in voting against this bill and even a little peril in voting for it. If there was a victory to be denied Democrats who were otherwise on a Christmas roll, this was the vote. President Obama put it beautifully at that year-end press conference:

I get letters from kids all across the country — came here when they were five, came here when they were eight; their parents were undocumented. The kids didn’t know — kids are going to school like any other American kid, they’re growing up, they’re playing football, they’re going to class, they’re dreaming about college. And suddenly they come to 18, 19 years old and they realize even though I feel American, I am an American, the law doesn’t recognize me as an American. I’m willing to serve my country, I’m willing to fight for this country, I want to go to college and better myself — and I’m at risk of deportation.

And it is heartbreaking. That can’t be who we are, to have kids — our kids, classmates of our children — who are suddenly under this shadow of fear through no fault of their own. They didn’t break a law — they were kids….

I am determined and this administration is determined to get immigration reform done.

But as well as Obama and the lame-duck Democrats did on the several recent issues that were not pocketbook issues, his success or failure as president will depend on whether he can get a real recovery going. And sadly, there is not much linkage between his success and enhanced stature on issues like New Start and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the pressing issues of jobs and economic security.

The new, more heavily Republican Congress will be promoting policies to cut public spending, in the teeth of a recession. The more they succeed, the slower will be the recovery and the more Obama will look like an economic failure. Even if Obama and the Democrats now lack the votes to put the economy on a radically different course, at the very least they can display the resolve that they showed in the closing days of the last Congress, and show the contrasts between the parties rather than their convergence.

***

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His best-selling book is Obama’s Challenge. His new book is “A Presidency in Peril.“

***

This piece is re-published from The Huffington Post.

Mike Hall

By Mike Hall
AFL-CIO Senior Writer

Flight attendants at Allegiant Air voted by an overwhelming margin to join the Transport Workers (TWU), the National Mediation Board (NMB) certified today. The nearly 400 flight attendants are the first group of workers at the fast growing airline to form a union. Allegiant flight dispatchers are voting on TWU representation and the mail ballot process will conclude Jan. 24.

Kristi Cohen, an Allegiant flight attendant based in Las Vegas, says:

Allegiant is a good place to work, and now it’s going to get better.  Now we’ve got a voice on the job—which means we can do an even better job of providing great service to our customers.  Once we can negotiate about our schedules, work rules, and other issues, we’ll be full partners in growing the business. (more…)

Richard (R.J.) Eskow

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

Peter J. Wallison has a bright future … as a surrealist author.. He and the other Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission tried to undermine that group’s work by attempting to ban phrases like “Wall Street” from its final report. Now he’s trying to rebut news reports about their behavior. His response is a brilliant example of what might be called “uninentional literature,” a hallucinogenic mashup of Lewis Carroll and George Orwell that belongs on everyone’s shelf.

News reports said that Wallison and his fellow Republicans on the Commission also wanted to ban the words “shadow banking,” “interconnection,” and “deregulation” from a report on the Great Recession and its causes. That’s like banning the phrase “plastic surgery” from a story about the Kardashians.

Not true, insists Wallison. “Only in the fever-swamps of the left could anyone believe that,” he writes. For example, Wallison says he and his colleagues merely objected to the Commission’s use of “Wall Street” as “a general term for the financial system.” Wallison says it’s unacceptable, politically motivated, and imprecise to use the phrase “Wall Street” as if it referred to the controlling financial interests of the United States.

Wall Street: n. The controlling financial interests of the United States.
- American Heritage Dictionary

What do dictionaries matter when you’re rewriting reality? Wallison says he and his fellow Republicans were only willing to use the phrase “Wall Street” to mean “the major commercial and investment banks that were underwriters for the private label securities that the commission majority’s report discusses.”

That’s like defining “Republicans” as “the people who tried to block health care for 9/11 responders.” While it’s true, it’s only one, very narrow aspect of a much larger reality. (more…)