Wall Street Dem Cory Booker Expresses Interest in Raising the Retirement Age for Social Security

In an interview with the editorial board of North Jersey's The Record last Tuesday, Cory Booker staked out several policy positions that should make progressives wary.
Most notable was his support for raising the Social Security retirement age for individuals under 30:

For Social Security, Booker said he opposes raising the retirement age for most people in the country – except, perhaps, for people in their 20s or younger – because the country made promises to them.

This contrast between old and young is characteristic of Republicans like Paul Ryan, who want to make sure that their older electoral base does not fret about the efforts to gut social insurance programs.

The millennial generation (i.e., the under 30 crowd) will face the brunt of the retirement security crisis in this country because the transition away from pensions to 401 (k)s--or nothing at all--started long before they entered the workforce.

In a report from earlier this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics explained that pensions "are becoming rare for workers in private industry. In 2011, only 10 percent of all private sector establishments provided defined benefit plans, covering 18 percent of private industry employees."
Reuters similarly reported on the decline of the pension and the rise of retirement insecurity:

As recently as 1998, 52 percent of Americans over age 60 received income from a defined benefit pension, according to a new study by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS). By 2010, that figure had fallen to 43 percent. In the private sector, the decline has been more dramatic - down from 38 percent in 1979 to 15 percent in 2010. The erosion is continuing, with automotive giants General Motors Co and Ford Motor Co announcing plans to terminate pension plans for hundreds of thousands of retirees, and public sector plans facing financial pressure to increase funding levels and curtail benefits.

How important are defined benefit pensions in keeping seniors out of poverty? The study - which is based on U.S. Census Bureau data - found poverty rates were nine times greater in 2010 in households without defined benefit pension income. Pensions resulted in 4.7 million fewer poor or "near poor" families and 1.2 million fewer families on various forms of public assistance.

"But people will be living longer, so the retirement age has to go up," you might think.  Not so fast.   Recent studies have found that whites without a high school diploma have actually seen their life expectancy decline over the past two decades. White women without a high school diploma lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008; white men without a high school diploma, three.

For a robust defense of Social Security, turn to NJ senate candidate and progressive representative from NJ-12 (mainly Mercer and Middlesex counties). Holt recently released a video explaining how to shore up Social Security and guarantee retirement security.

Here's Holt on his website explaining how to address Social Security:

Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in U.S. history.  Today more than 44 million seniors benefit from the program (1), and without it, 21 million of them would be in poverty. (2)  In New Jersey alone, it is estimated that 357,000 seniors are kept out of poverty by the program.

After Wall Street blew up the economy, Social Security became even more important.  Nearly half of all households have savings significantly below what they need. (3)  We should expand this successful program, not cut it.  Yet it’s become bipartisan to talk about cutting Social Security – especially since major cuts were proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission – and that’s wrong.  If everyone paid the same rate into Social Security, we’d have more than enough money to make the program solvent and expand it.

A Simple Solution

Most people think everyone pays the same rate on payroll taxes.  In fact, the taxes are only collected on the first $113,700 an individual makes.  The result is a middle-class worker making $50,000 a year pays the full 6.2% rate while someone making a million pays less than a single percentage point.  This has effectively increased the burden on the vast majority of workers while giving the top one percent a pass. (4)

As income inequality has worsened in recent years, a smaller and smaller fraction of overall income has been covered by Social Security taxes.  In fact, the amount of income not taxed for Social Security has increased 88% since the 1983 tax reform. (5)  Simply returning the fraction of wages subject to the tax back up to the 1983 level (90%) would make Social Security solvent for another generation.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this step alone would allow the Social Security trust fund to be fully funded through 2082. (6)  Covering all income would allow us to actually expand Social Security.

Social Security is a program that everyone participates in and everyone should have to pay the same rate.  It’s simply unfair that millionaires pay a LOWER rate than average Americans.

Despite the fact that lifting the payroll tax cap is such a popular idea, with 68% of Americans supporting elimination of the cap, Congress refuses to take any action.(7) This isn’t rocket science.  It isn’t even fifth-grade math.  To save Social Security, make the wealthy pay their fair share.  End of story.

Holt has opposed privatization, chained CPI, and raising the retirement age, and he is a co-sponsor of Ted Deutch's Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would expand Social Security benefits for seniors.  (Deutch's legislation is identical to that which Mark Begich introduced earlier this year.)

Social Security was not the only issue where Booker took a position that should concern progressives.

He said that he had "not formed an opinion" on a carbon tax.  Forty-one Democrats in the Senate, including NJ's Bob Menendez, voted for a carbon tax during the budget vote-a-rama earlier this year. (Frank Lautenberg would have done so, but he was too ill to attend.)

Rush Holt, who would be the only scientist in the Senate if elected, is a strong supporter of a carbon tax.  You can read about why on his website or by watching a short video he created.

Booker also called Rush Holt's support for repealing the USA PATRIOT Act "a little irresponsible."  Frankly, I think that the federal government is the irresponsible party here--because of its abuse of powers under the act.

The section entitled Balancing Privacy and Security on Booker's website manages to avoid even mentioning the USA PATRIOT Act.

Holt introduced the Surveillance State Repeal Act last week:

Wednesday, 24 July 2013 00:00 (Washington, DC) Today Rep. Rush Holt introduced legislation to repeal federal surveillance laws that the government abused by collecting personal information on millions of Americans in violation of the Constitution, as revealed by a federal whistleblower and multiple media outlets last month.

“As we now know, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been collecting the personal communications of literally millions of innocent Americans for no legitimate reason,” said Holt. “Instead of using these powers to zero in on the tiny number of real terrorist threats we face, the executive branch turned these surveillance powers against the American people as a whole. My legislation would put a stop to that right now.”

Holt’s bill, the “Surveillance State Repeal Act”, would repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, each of which contains provisions that allowed the dragnet surveillance.  The bill would reinstate a uniform probable cause-based warrant standard for surveillance requests, and prohibit the federal government from forcing technology companies from building in hardware or software “back doors” to make it easier for the government to spy on the public. Additional features of the bill include the true legal protections for national security whistleblowers, as well as changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give it greater expertise in reviewing and challenging executive branch applications for surveillance operations.

“The executive branch’s groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects.”

New Jersey has an important choice to make in its upcoming Senate primary.  Do Jersey Democrats want a neoliberal Wall Street Democrat with deep ties to right-wing think tanks or a stalwart progressive who will be one of the Senate's strongest civil liberties champions and will, as he noted in his Geek Out web hangout last night, join the ranks of Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Tammy Baldwin to push for economic fairness, justice, and opportunity?

Grand Bargain Fetishism Began in 2009--Enablers and Righteous Opposition in Congress Then to Now

I'll begin with a snippet from ABC's Jennifer Parker's exclusive interview with Obama on This Week in January 2009:

"Well, right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?"

"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" I asked.

"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.

Pensions are disappearing, 401(k) plans suffer from market volatility, and many lost their savings in the financial crash. Yet there Obama was, claiming that the seniors of today and those of tomorrow (i.e. everyone) will need to sacrifice their ability to retire with dignity for a Social Security crisis that does not exist.

Obama is currently engaging in a speaking tour to promote a "better bargain" for the middle-class; however, he has yet to take cuts to Social Security and Medicare off the negotiating table with Senate and House Republicans. Obama condemns the negative economic impact of sequestration and blames it on Congress, yet he fails to acknowledge that Jack Lew and Gene Sperling had designed sequestration (to force Democrats to agree to cut social insurance programs and Republicans to agree to raise taxes) and that he himself pledged to veto any effort by Congress to undo the automatic cuts of sequestration. The sequestration cuts are not bad enough to him that he would be willing to cancel them. Obama has maintained that he only supports ending the sequestration cuts by replacing them with equivalent deficit reduction--an unwise idea in a still depressed economy as Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, and other have been continually arguing to the deaf ears of the Very Serious People.

My diary opened with a quote from 2009 with Obama expressing his interest in a "grand bargain," a concept which has always referred to a combination of cuts to social insurance and mild tax increases. In the rest of the diary, I want to track the votes and bills, from 2010 to today, that have attempted to make this "grand bargain" a reality and the attempts to block such a quest and the damage it would inflict on seniors and working families. It is important to note that the shift to austerity, embodied in the Simpson-Bowles Commission, occurred when Democrats still had control of both houses. The shift from job creation to austerity was not merely the result of Republican intransigence.  Rather, it was long desired by White House officials and advisers, many of whom had opposed the very idea of stimulus.

Tracking votes and volte faces also allows us to know who has been consistent in advocating economic justice and who deserves blame for the austerity trap that exists in the mind of our legislators and the economic reality on the ground. I am particularly interested in identifying which Democrats warrant our praise for their steadfast opposition to the fetishization of the "grand bargain."

**
You can read the rest on my Daily Kos page. 

Bernie Sanders Declines Secrecy on Tax Plan Because He Has Nothing to Hide

On Wednesday, conservative Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) and conservative Republican Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who head the Senate Finance Committee, helped the country reach another nadir in transparency in their efforts at reforming the nation's tax code.

Baucus and Hatch previously decided that to design tax reform legislation, they would create a "blank slate" process, in which senators have to argue for the various credits and deductions that they would like to see kept in the tax code. That's not yet a blow to transparency although it has been a cash cow for K Street.

Here's the troubling part, from the perspective of transparency:

The Senate’s top tax writers have promised their colleagues 50 years worth of secrecy in exchange for suggestions on what deductions and credits to preserve in tax reform. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), assured lawmakers that any submission they receive will be kept under lock and key by the committee and the National Archives until the end of 2064.

Deeming the submissions confidential, the Senate’s top tax writers have said only certain staff members — 10 in all — will get direct access to a senator’s written suggestions. Each submission will also be given its own ID number and be kept on password-protected servers, with printed versions kept in locked safes.

In other words, Baucus and Hatch believe that you, the voting public, have no right to know what your senators want to see in the tax code.  That is an affront to transparency and democratic accountability because we cannot keep our legislators accountable if we do not even know what they are proposing and how they are laying out their priorities. If senators would like to see elements of the tax code changed, then they should be willing to stand up for their beliefs and share them with the public--both in their home state and in the country at large. 

The deadline for tax proposals was yesterday. We'll see how many senators are willing to include the public in the discussion. I know we at least have one: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

In his letter to Baucus and Hatch, Bernie Sanders turned down the offer for secrecy, noting that he had nothing to hide:

“Given the fact that my suggestions represent the interests of the middle class of this country and not powerful corporate special interests, I have no problem with making them public.”

Sanders's plan outlined five major tax proposals that, together, would raise $1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade. 

(1) Closing the loopholes that allow corporations to hide profits overseas: S. 250 The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act

Stop profitable Wall Street banks and corporations from sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Closing that tax loophole would reduce the deficit and create jobs that millions of Americans need.

(2) Impose a tax on financial speculation: S. 410, the Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act

Establish a Wall Street speculation fee to ensure that large financial institutions pay their fair share in taxes. A fee of 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $352 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

(3) Ending tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies: S. 3080, the End Polluter Welfare Act

End tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas and coal companies to reduce the deficit by more than $113 billion over the next 10 years.  The five largest oil companies in the United States have made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade.  Exxon Mobil is now the most profitable corporation in the world.  Large, profitable fossil fuel companies do not need a tax break.

(4) Implementing a carbon tax: the Climate Protection Act

Tax carbon and methane emissions that cause global warming. A bill by Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the Senate environment committee chairman, would apply fee at coal mines, oil refineries, national gas processing plants and other sites. Imported fuels would be subject to equivalent carbon fees. Some of the revenue would be returned to consumers and some would pay for investments in energy efficiency, sustainable energy, worker training and deficit reduction.

(5) Raising the tax on capital gains

Tax capital gains and dividends of the wealthiest 2 percent at the same rate as ordinary income to yield about $500 billion over the next decade.  Today, the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends taxed at a much lower rate than work.  The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20 percent.  That is not fair.  

Sanders posted the three letters he sent to Baucus and Hatch on his website. The first deals with proposals #1, #2, #3, and #5 outlined above. The second outlines the rationale for a carbon tax.  The third discusses campaign finance reform and outlines measures to address the rise in spending from dark money groups by imposing stricter limits on political activity from 501(c)4s, 5s, and 6s.  If they want to do politicking, they should register as political action committees, or 527s. 

It will be interesting to see if any other senators are willing to share their ideas with the public. Unfortunately, I do not expect many will jump at the opportunity.

Foreign Policy Credits Pelosi with Defeat of Amash-Conyers

The most publicized amendment of the defense appropriations amendment voting process was certainly the Amash-Conyers "Defund the NSA" amendment, which would have severely curbed the NSA's blanket surveillance powers. The Republican leadership tried to prevent the bill from even getting to a vote. The White House vehemently opposed it and sent NSA Director Keith Alexander to the Hill to have closed, separate meetings with each party to fear monger against the bill and dissuade members of Congress from voting for it.  The party leadership on both sides of the aisle were furiously whipping against it.

Unfortunately, it failed 205 to 217. However, it surpassed many people's expectations; the slim margin of defeat sent a powerful message, and the bill's backers in and out of Congress are not going to let the issue die easily. 111 Democrats (a majority) and 94 Republicans voted for it. 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats voted against it.

Who deserves the credit--or, more aptly, the blame--for the defeat of this bill?
In an article written after consulting with sources on the Hill ("How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program", Foreign Policy national security reporter John Hudson deems Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as the architect of the bill's defeat.

Hudson details the anti-anti-surveillance lobbying efforts:

Ahead of the razor-thin 205-217 vote, which would have severely limited the NSA's ability to collect data on Americans' telephone records if passed, Pelosi privately and aggressively lobbied wayward Democrats to torpedo the amendment, a Democratic committee aid with knowledge of the deliberations tells The Cable.

"Pelosi had meetings and made a plea to vote against the amendment and that had a much bigger effect on swing Democratic votes against the amendment than anything Alexander had to say," said the source, keeping in mind concerted White House efforts to influence Congress by Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. "Had Pelosi not been as forceful as she had been, it's unlikely there would've been more Democrats for the amendment."

He continues,

"Pelosi had a big effect on more middle-of-the road hawkish Democrats who didn't want to be identified with a bunch of lefties [voting for the amendment]," said the aide. "As for the Alexander briefings: Did they hurt? No, but that was not the central force, at least among House Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's political power far outshines that of Keith Alexander's."

Nancy Pelosi voted against the extension of the PATRIOT Act extensions in 2005 and again in 2011.  Neither was a close vote, so she did not have to worry about influencing ultimate passage.  Back in 2005, she called the PATRIOT Act a "massive invasion of privacy."  However, recently, she has been willing to be on the record defending it. Back at Netroots Nation last month, Pelosi defended the NSA and its surveillance activities--to the obvious displeasure of the progressive audience. 

 

As a typical politician, Pelosi has tried to argue--disingenuously--that her vote against the Amash-Conyers amendment was not a statement of approval for the NSA's blanket surveillance powers.  During a press conference this morning, she said, "Well, I didn't vote for the PATRIOT Act the last time it was up. I don't want anybody to misunderstand a vote against the Amash resolution yesterday."

And to feign concern and curb liberal backlash, she organized a letter from opponents and supporters of the bill to show how much they all cared about civil liberties:

"Dear Mr. President," reads the letter. "Although the amendment was defeated 205-217, it is clear that concerns remain about the continued implementation of the program in its current form. Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all agree that there are lingering questions and concerns about the current 215 collection program."

However, letters do not matter nearly as much as votes. And Nancy Pelosi's whipping is probably responsible for the change of heart from the17 Democrats who opposed the extension of the PATRIOT Act in 2011 but voted against Amash-Conyers yesterday:

Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Al Green (TX-09)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23

If half of those Democrats had kept to past principles, the amendment would have passed. Votes are what count.  Votes, not mere letters, involve true displays of principle and of conscience.

Which 39 Democrats Want a War That Never Ends--and Voted Against Sunsetting the AUMF?

During the defense appropriations amendment process, Adam Schiff (CA-28) proposed an amendment that would sunset the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) with the end of our combat role in Afghanistan, i.e. December 31, 2014.

Here's Barbara Lee (CA-13), the sole vote against the AUMF back in 2001, on why it needs to be repealed:

The AUMF is an overly broad, deeply concerning law that gives any president the authority to wage war at any time, in any place, for nearly any purpose. It has reportedly been invoked dozens of times around the world, including to deploy troops in Ethiopia, Yemen and the Philippines.

The law allows for a state of perpetual war, which we cannot and must not sustain. Our troops, our nation, and our reputation around the world depend on it.

But the AUMF is about more than war. The AUMF has reportedly been used to justify wiretapping and Gitmo, and the recent revelations about domestic and international surveillance have reignited this conversation. These leaks not only underscore the need to ensure a better balance between our privacy and national security, but also the urgent need for debate on these issues.

This time, we need the kind of full debate we did not have in 2001. We can't just tweak the authorization — we have to fully repeal it. For that reason, I have introduced legislation to repeal the AUMF, but I have also introduced amendments calling for the AUMF to sunset at the end of the war in Afghanistan or by January 1, 2015, whichever comes first. Both of those efforts have the same goal: the end of the AUMF.

For the integrity of our Constitution, we must ensure that we have full accountability and transparency in our nation's war powers.

Schiff's amendment failed 185 to 236.  155 Democrats and 30 Republicans voted in favor of it.  39 Democrats and 197 Republicans voted against it.

Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen, who both embraced limitless surveillance in their vote against Amash-Conyers, at least opposed limitless war, voting in favor of this amendment. Steny Hoyer, the most conservative member of the Democratic leadership, voted for limitless surveillance and limitless war.

Which 39 Democrats voted for limitless war?

Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

I was disappointed to see Allyson Schwartz's name on this list because she is running for governor in my home state of PA.  I hope that the new representative of PA-13 will be more progressive.  The district has gotten bluer over the years, so there's hope.

30 out of the 39 were also opponents of the Amash-Conyers amendment. However, nine supporters of the Amash-Conyers amendment—curbing surveillance power—opposed Schiff’s amendment.  They are opposed to limitless surveillance, but not to limitless war.

Those 9 Democrats are Matt Cartwright, John Dingell, Marcia Fudge, Bill Owens, Cedric Richmond, Carol Shea-Porter, Brad Sherman, Filemon Vela, and Tim Walz.

That gives us 102 Democrats against both limitless surveillance and limitless war, by these votes.

And which 30 Republicans supported sunsetting the AUMF?

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Dan Benishek (MI-01)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Thomas Rooney (FL-17)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Rob Woodall (GA-07)

26 out of these 30 Republicans also voted in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment, expressing opposition to limitless surveillance and limitless war. Four of them opposed Amash-Conyers: Bachmann, Benishek, Rooney, and Woodall.

68 of the Republicans against limitless surveillance voted for limitless war, a strange mix indeed.

Which 22 Democrats Don't Believe That the Gitmo Detainees Cleared for Release Deserve Freedom?

During the defense appropriations voting that finished just hours ago, Jerry Nadler offered an amendment to prevent the further detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees that have already been cleared for release.

86 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have already been cleared for release.  The government admits that these people have done nothing wrong.  However, such individuals have nevertheless been subjected to torture and humiliation in prison and have been prevented from reuniting with their families.
A few months ago, the Washington Post described the situation as "Kafkaesque":

For the 86 prisoners, it’s a plight almost Kafkaesque in its cruel absurdity: though the United States believes they should be released from their concrete cells at Guantanamo Bay, they have stayed in prison, often for years, not because of any crime they committed or immediate threat they pose, but because of diplomatic and political hurdles out of their control.

For the Obama administration, it’s a maze with no obvious exits: it doesn’t want to keep these prisoners locked up in Gitmo, which is politically and diplomatically costly, not to mention antithetical to Obama’s stated desire to close the prison, but Congress has forbidden the prisoners from being transferred to U.S. soil. Though the administration had searched for foreign countries to which the detainees could be released, it appears to have since given up, having closed the office responsible for finding those countries.

A number of these innocent detainees have been participating in the ongoing hunger strike in protest of their mistreatment. At the latest count, there were 69 total hunger strikers, 45 of them being force-fed (which the UN considers torture). At its height, there were 106 detainees participating in the hunger strike. I'm not sure how many of the 69 are cleared for release, but considering the indignation that such individuals cleared for release must feel, I would assume they make up a considerable share of the hunger strikers.

To repeat, this amendment sought to release people who have not committed any crimes yet are being held against their will, apart from their families and under dehumanizing conditions (such as having to face genital searches in order to talk to their attorneys).

Nadler's amendment, to my disappointment but not surprise, failed 176 to 242.

170 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted in favor of Nadler’s amendment. 220 Republicans and 22 Democrats voted against it.

The 6 Republican supporters were Justin Amash (MI-03), John Duncan (TN-02), Richard Hanna (NY-24), Walter Jones (NC-03), Tom Massie (KY-04), and Mark Sanford (SC-01).

Which 22 Democrats want to keep innocent individuals imprisoned?

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)

Allyson Schwartz's name particularly caught my attention because she is running for governor in my home state of PA.  I won't be in PA for the 2014 election and will be a registered MA voter by then.

However, I don't think I could vote for her in a primary and would have to hold my nose to vote for her in a general election. Voting to keep innocent individuals in prison should be an electoral deal-breaker.  At least, on the positive side, she'll be gone from Congress, and PA-13 can get a better Democrat, hopefully State Senator Daylin Leach.

The moral abomination of Guantanamo Bay has become a tool for propaganda by extremist groups.  Back in April, Thérèse Postel of the Century Foundation wrote in The Atlantic about the use of Gitmo in Inspire, the English language recruitment magazine of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The White House has liked to throw the charge of "aiding the enemy" at whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden; however, the continued existence of the Guantanamo Bay Prison is actually aiding enemy recruitment.

Majority of House Dems Repudiate Obama and the NSA, Side with Civil Liberties. Here's How They Voted.

The debate preceding the Amash-Conyers amendment (i.e. the amendment to curb the blanket surveillance powers of the NSA) was riveting to watch.  Unfortunately, the amendment failed, but it failed well.  It failed 205 to 217. If seven votes had flipped, it would have won.  From what I've heard, the party leadership (on both sides) were furiously whipping on the House floor to ensure it wouldn't pass. Failing well--although not as good as winning--is still a positive sign.  If you fail well, the next time you can fail better or even win.

111 Democrats and 94 Republicans voted in favor of the amendment. 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats opposed it. A majority of the House Democratic caucus supported the amendment even though the President was lobbying heavily against it.  That itself is an accomplishment.  The trans-partisan nature of the privacy rights coalition is also welcome.

I want to highlight three groups here: the Democrats who should be shamed for their "NO" votes, the Democrats who should be praised for their "YES" votes, and the Republicans with whom--although we disagree on almost everything--can find at least one point of common ground.

The majority of the Democratic support, of course, came from the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  From what I heard earlier today, Ellison and Lee were whipping in favor of the amendment. I find it unfortunate--troubling, even--that ten members of the Progressive Caucus, including two vice chairs, voted against it. The 10 members of the Progressive Caucus who opposed the amendment were vice chairs Jan Schakowsky and Sheila Jackson Lee then members Corinne Brown, Lois Frankel, Luis Guiterrez, Eddie Johnson, Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Joe Kennedy III, and Louise Slaughter. There are, thankfully, few times I will ever say that I agree with Louie Gohmert or Steve Stockman over Jan Schakowsky.  Unfortunately, this is one.

Most of the House Democratic leadership--Pelosi, Hoyer, Van Hollen, Wasserman Schultz--voted no.  Clyburn, however, voted yes.

Which 83 Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for voting against protecting civil liberties and upholding the Fourth Amendment?

Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Al Green (TX-09)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Robin Kelly (IL--02)
Joseph Kennedy (MA-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Ann Kuster (NH-02)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Sander Levin (MI-09)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Grace Meng (NY-106)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

These 111 Democrats merit our praise:

Karen Bass (CA-37)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
James Clyburn (SC-06)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Gerald Connolly (VA-11)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
William Keating (MA-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-5)
John Larson (CT-01)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Luján (NM-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
George Miller (CA-11)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Bobby Scott (VA)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

And here are 93 Republicans with whom--no matter how crazy or vile much of what they say or believe often is--you can find at least one point of shared ground:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Joe Barton (TX-26)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Diane Black (TN-06)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Vern Buchanan (FL-16)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Kevin Cramer (ND)
Steve Daines (MT)
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Sean Duffy (WI-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Stephen Fincher (TN-08)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Cory Gardner (CO-04)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Tim Griffin (AR-02)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Ralph Hall (TX-04)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Bill Huizenga (MI-02)
Randy Hultgren (IL-14)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Bill Johnson (OH-06)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Mark Meadows (NC-11)
John Mica (FL-07)
Gary Miller (CA-31)
Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Richard Nugent (FL-11)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Trey Radel (FL-19)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Tom Rice (SC-07)
Phil Roe (TN-01)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Dennis Ross (Fl-15)
Keith Rothfus (PA-12)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Jason Smith (MO-08)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)
Steve Southerland (FL-02)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Glenn Thompson (PA-05)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Roger Williams (TX-25)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Kevin Yoder (KS-03)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Don Young (AK)

Which 17 Democrats Should You Thank for Opposing the Toxic Student Loan Deal?

Yesterday, we were lucky to have votes taking place in both the House and the Senate that reveal who the true progressives are because Democrats will have to vote against the administration on key issues--on the NSA in the House and on the student loan "compromise" in the Senate.

The White House has been putting pressure on Senate Democrats to support the student loan "compromise" deal crafted last week and has threatened to vilify the bill's Democratic opponents.

What does the "compromise" bill do?

Under the agreement, federal student loans will be calculated and fixed to the interest rates on the 10-year Treasury bill. Undergraduates will pay an additional 2.05% with an 8.25% interest rate cap; graduate students will pay an additional 3.6% with a 9.5% interest rate cap; and PLUS loans, which mainly affect parents of college students, will have an additional 4.6% with a 10.5% interest rate cap.

The New York Times editorial board came out against the bill this morning:

During the last decade, Congress sensibly replaced a system of variable-rate loans with fixed rates that allowed families to know what their loans would cost. It set the rate on both subsidized and unsubsidized loans at 6.8 percent, but later ordered the rate on subsidized loans — two-thirds of which go to families with incomes under $50,000 — to gradually decline by half. The refusal of Republicans in both houses to renew the lower rate means that students who start college this fall and finish in four years will be saddled, on average, with an extra $4,000 in debt.

This increase in costs comes at a time when college debt has already reached record levels, damaging the economy and hobbling young graduates. It also draws attention to the fact that the federal government is making quite a lot of money from the loan program. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new, higher rate would earn the government about $184 billion over the next decade, after taking into account program costs, including potential defaults. Ms. Warren and other lawmakers describe this pile of money as “profit.” The Obama administration disputes this. But if it is not profit, what is it?

The government should not be making money off the backs of struggling student borrowers. In the long term, the loan program needs to be restructured so that the loans are closely linked to the government’s actual cost of borrowing, which could reduce rates for students.

A Senate compromise bill that is supposed to address the harmful rate increase falls well short. The bill, supported by the White House, would temporarily lower interest rates, while raising rates in future years to make up for lost federal revenue. (Under interest rate caps included in the bill, rates on undergraduate loans in future years could rise as high as 8.25 percent.) Ms. Warren got it exactly right when she said the bill pits students against one another, requiring future college students to pay for the financial break enjoyed by students who precede them. “I think this whole system stinks,” she said, summing it up.

However, the New York Times editorial board did endorse the amendment put forth by Jack Reed and Elizabeth Warren to cap most loans at a rate of 6.8%.

The Senate bill should pass only if it includes a provision, offered by Ms. Warren and Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, that would cap most loans at the rate of 6.8 percent. If Republicans resist that, the Senate should leave the loan rate exactly where it is. Congress should not make matters worse than they already are.  

Over the past few days, a coalition of Senate liberals had been sending out petitions to their email lists on this issue: Jack Reed (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). I've heard Boxer, Sanders, and Warren speak out against the bill on the Senate floor. 

Unfortunately, the Warren-Reed amendment failed 46 to 53.  7 members of the Democratic caucus joined the full Republican caucus in opposition.

Which seven Democrats want the government to make more profits off the backs of college students?

Tom Carper (D-DE)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment that would provide a sunset date to the student loan bill so that the bill's provisions would end before the steep rate spikes for future students take effect.
Sanders's amendment failed 34 to 65.

Which 19 Democrats see no problem with a bill that hikes rates for future loans, allowing the government to make money off students?

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

The full bill, without these important progressive amendments, passed 81 to 18. 36 Democrats joined the Republican caucus (save Mike Lee of Utah) to pass this anti-student legislation.  I want to name and shame the 36 Democrats who voted for it but also commend the 17 Democrats who were willing to oppose the White House on this issue.

Here are the 36 Democrats who sold out the country's students:

Max Baucus (D-MT)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Now, here are the 17 Democrats that you should thank for standing up for progressive values:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Votes like this are important because they help us to identify which Democrats will vote for what's right rather than what the White House wants when those two conflict.

The White House is Trolling Democracy with its Statement on the Amash-Conyers Amendment

Reps. Justin Amash, John Conyers, Jr., Thomas Massie, Mick Mulvaney, and Jared Polis are proposing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would curtail funding for the implementation of orders under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act unless the order is explicitly limited in scope.

Here is the key language of the amendment:

This Order limits the collection of any tangible things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).

(emphasis added)

The House Republican leadership had attempted to use procedural tricks to limit the amendment process and prevent the Amash-Conyers amendment from coming to a vote. Thankfully, the civil libertarian won the first part of the battle:  There will be a vote tomorrow.

The White House just released a statement on the amendment, and it just seems as though they are consciously trolling democracy here:
 

   THE WHITE HOUSE
    Office of the Press Secretary
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    July 23, 2013     Statement by the Press Secretary on the Amash Amendment

In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens.  The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the President’s meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Litt’s speech at Brookings, and ODNI’s decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools.  This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process.  We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

(Emphasis added)

So, a debate and vote that will take place on C-SPAN is not "open" or "deliberative" to the White House.  It doesn't meet the standards of "openness" of a White House that thinks that NSA spying is transparent because there is a secret court to rubber stamp government requests.  It doesn't meet the standards of "openness" or "deliberation" of a White House which sent NSA Director Keith Alexander to the Hill earlier today for closed, separate meetings with each party to fear monger about the amendment and persuade members of Congress to vote against the bill.  We won't ever get to see what Alexander said to the members of Congress.  But we will get to see what they say on the floor tomorrow and how they vote.  And, for me, that will be open, informed, and deliberative as the legislative process should be.

Sory, Folks, But The "New, New Atheism" Isn't New

On Sunday, Katie Engelhart (the London correspondent from Maclean's, I believe), penned an article for Salon "From Hitchens to Dawkins: Where are the women of New Atheism?," in which she looked at how the world of organized humanism/secularism/atheism has tended to be dominated by men--just like the world of organization religion.  Humanism, secularism, and atheism are all completely different terms and are often used, unfortunately, as though they were the same.  That's an issue for another day.  What I do want to address, though, is the stunning lack of historical and present-day context in the media reporting on the rise of non-religious individuals interested in the communitarian and contemplative aspects of religion, but without the theology.

In her article, Engelhart writes, "Will things be different in a church of “New, New Atheism”? Over the last few months, several secular churches have broken ground in Britain, North America and elsewhere. The Sunday Assembly (which I profiled for Salon in April) was launched in London by two comedians—to much fanfare. With new branches in Melbourne and New York, the Assembly has plans to open 40 American outposts this autumn. The guiding tenet of the Assembly is that Atheists have something to gain from the structures of a traditional church (or mosque, or synagogue): a sense of community, thoughtful lectures, periods of respite and occasions for moral contemplation.

Other secular churches have been opened by philosophers, former Pentecostal preachers, and reformed Christians. Centers like Harvard University’s Humanist Community have also garnered international attention."

First, I am always peeved when such organizations are referred to as "secular churches."  It stems from a Christian-centric worldview in which the beliefs (or non-belief) of others must be explained through the lens of Christianity.  Just as a synagogue is not a "Jewish church," these are not "secular churches," per se. If they identify with the word "church," that is their choice.  It should not be a given.

However, my main gripe is the stunning omission of Ethical Culture in this discussion.  The Ethical (Culture) Movement was started in New York City in 1876 by Felix Adler, the son of the head rabbi at Temple Emanu-El.  Adler created the ethical movement--and corresponding ethical societies--as a spiritual home for those who could not intellectually believe in the theism of traditional religion and wanted a new form of fellowship rooted in social justice and critical, independent thought about the ethical questions of the day.  The movement spread from New York to other cities over the ensuing decades and then spread abroad by the turn of the century.  Ethical societies existed across Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and Japan at various points before World War II.  The German and British societies were perhaps the most successful of those abroad although both faced trouble negotiating a role between religion and the emergent socialist movement. Although ethical culture, as a movement, peaked long ago, ethical societies still exist in cities like New York (Manhattan and Brooklyn), Philadelphia, Boston, DC, Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago, and others.  The remnant of the international presence of the movement lies in South Place Ethical Society, at Conway Hall in London.  South Place has a much different feel than its American counterparts, less "social justice" and more "lecture society."  Throughout its history, Ethical culturalists (or Ethicists, as they were more commonly called in Britain) were active in progressive advocacy on issues including civil rights, economic justice, and peace.

I've never understood why the "New Humanists" like the ones at Harvard haven't embraced ethical culture. Starting a "New Humanism" or a "New, New Atheism" feels like reinventing the wheel--something that we on the left side of the spectrum always seem to do.

Antonin Scalia Links Holocaust to "Judicial Activism," Spews Nonsense

The invocation of the Nazism in political debates is one of my biggest pet peeves because such invocations often demonstrate a complete lack of historical knowledge and understanding as well as a lack of skills in rational argumentation.

However, since Antonin Scalia is an ignorant troll, I can't say that I was surprised to hear that he made such a historically unsound allusion at a gathering held by the Utah State Bar Association.  The Aspen Times reported on the event:

Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust, which happened to occur in a society that was, at the time, “the most advanced country in the world.” One of the many mistakes that Germany made in the 1930s was that judges began to interpret the law in ways that reflected “the spirit of the age.” When judges accept this sort of moral authority, as Scalia claims they’re doing now in the U.S., they get themselves and society into trouble.

First of all, what does he mean by "the most advanced country in the world"?  Germany had been a leader in technology and manufacturing since its unification in 1871; however, after World War I, the Germany economy had been in a prolonged depression.  In 1932, before the rise of the Nazi Party to power, the unemployment rate hovered around 30%.  The Weimar Republic also experienced severe hyperinflation. It had, additionally, always suffered from a degree of political instability because only three major parties--the Social Democratic Party, the German Democratic Party, and the Centre Party--were resolutely pro-republican, and the German Democratic Party was almost nonexistent by the end of the 1920s.  Weimar Germany had a strong intellectual and scientific culture and many prominent universities, and I think that properly falls into the definition of "advanced."  But to call Germany the "most advanced in the world," one needs evidence or, at the least, clear definitions.

Scalia, though, seems to be referring to post-1933 Germany as the "most advanced country in the world" at the time.  Apparently, then, democratically-elected legislatures don't factor much into his definition of "advanced," and his definition is narrowly focused on technology and manufacturing.

He also seems to be saying that the Holocaust--or maybe just the development of the totalitarian NSDAP state--was a result of jurists interpreting the law within the "spirit of the age."

During the Third Reich, all professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into one corporatist body under heavy state influence: the National Socialist League of  German Jurists.  In April 1933, Hitler passed a law (Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service) which purged Jewish and Socialist judges, lawyers, and other court officers from their professions.  The Academy of German Law advocated for the removal of any "Jewish influences" on the law.  Considering the father of the German constitution--Hugo Preuss--was Jewish, the constitution was pretty much too "Jewish" for the Third Reich. Moreover, judges were enjoined to allow "healthy folk sentiment" guide their decisions.  Such developments stemmed from heavy state pressure, not just the will of individual judges acting within what they saw as the "spirit of the age."   And that "spirit of the age" bore heavy state influence as well.

Because Hitler was not happy with the "not guilty" verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court in the Reichstag Fire Trial, he ordered the creation of the People's Court in Berlin in 1934, to try treason and other important "political cases." The People's Court was an extra-constitutional kangaroo court that condemned tens of thousands of people as "Volk Vermin" and thousands more to death for "Volk Treason." The People's Court was integral to the enactment of state terror.

So, Scalia, do you define "judicial activism" as the formation of a national corporatist body for all jurists, purged of all of the state's ideological opponents and religious/ethnic minorities, and the creation of an extra-constitutional kangaroo court used to try ideological opponents?  I'm going to guess no.  Rather, "judicial activism" seems to mean upholding the principle of equal protection under the law for LGBT individuals. (Oh, and by the way, Nazi Germany hated them, too.)
However, there's more to this uh...stimulating...speech by Scalia:

He also explained that he believes judges should not rule on issues like abortion, a state’s right to employ the death penalty, and “homosexual sodomy.”

“I accept, for the sake of argument, that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,” he said, according to the Aspen Times. “Rather, I am questioning the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having a value-laden decision such as that made for the entire society by unelected judges.”

I am thankful for the fact that I don't have that strong of a visual imagination because putting "Scalia" and "orgies" together is mentally scarring. Who knew that he had a pro-orgy side to him?

Scalia argues that issues like abortion, the death penalty, and gay sex are too "value-laden" to be decided by the courts.  The death penalty, as I see it, clearly falls into the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment," so its constitutionality should be questionable under the Eighth Amendment.  However, I don't buy Scalia's overarching argument that some issues are so "value-laden" that they must be taken out of the courts and decided only by elected legislators.  Politics is morality writ large. ALL POLITICAL DECISIONS ARE VALUE-LADEN.  The Constitution itself is a value-laden document.

During Independence Day weekend, Linfield College professor Nicholas Buccola wrote an eloquent article in Salon, entitled "Scalia Fails to Grasp True Democracy." In it, he contrasted the thinking of Frederick Douglass and Antonin Scalia:

According to Douglass, majoritarian democracy lacks a sound “philosophical theory” at its foundation. It is not “genuine” in the sense that it lacks any justification for itself beyond power. The fundamental flaw in the majoritarian conception of democracy, Douglass wrote, was that it violated “the only intelligible principle” on which democracy can be based: the equal dignity of each human being. “The right of each man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he concluded, “is the basis for all social and political right.”

On social issues, Scalia argues that the majority has the right to vote away the rights of the minority in defiance of that core democratic principle of "the equal dignity of each human being."  However, we can't even credit Scalia for consistency.  His respect for majoritarianism only goes so far. He overrode the will of the democratically-elected legislature and executive in the Voting Rights Act decision, and his belief in the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act also defied the will of the elected majority.  One wonders whether Scalia has regard for democracy at all.  I think we all know the answer.

How to Write Bad Social Criticism

 The other day, I bought The Consumer Society Reader, edited by Juliet Schor and Douglas Holt, at a used bookstore. The book had some familiar texts---Adorno and Horkheimer's The Culture Inudstry and Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class--and a number that I had never read before.  Although most of the scholars who contributed to the collection are critical of consumer society, one section featured works by consumer society's advocates.  Included among those was James Twitchell's "Two Cheers for Materialism."  The title appears to be an allusion to Irving Kristol's well-known work Two Cheers for Capitalism---Kristol held back the last "cheer" because of capitalism's failure to cater to humanity's spiritual needs. Twitchell, however, never carries through with the scheme presented by the title, denying the reader the knowledge of why he is holding back a third "cheer"--or what any of the "cheers" are.

Twitchell's article, in many ways, offers a valuable case study in how not to write social criticism.  I've listed the lessons below.

How to write bad social criticism:

(1) Lump together similarly minded critics whom you dislike and generalize their argument in order to empty it of any nuance or intent.
(2) Offer no citations or textual evidence when disagreeing with other critics. Better yet, cite nothing and no one at all.
(3) Make up your own words, and don't bother to define them.
(4) Toss around abstract/conceptual terms like "freedom" and "democracy" without ever providing your definition for what such words mean.
(5) Make an allusion to a well-known piece of social criticism in your title, and then ever refer to that original text anywhere in your work. Also, proceed to ignore the argument or scheme you made by your title when writing.

Also, another good lesson--which we can learn from the author although not this text in particular--is that you shouldn't plagiarize.

New Poll Finds Wide Bipartisan Support for Climate Action, But Legislators Aren't Listening.

The Natural Resources Defense Council just came out with a poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates and Chesapeake Beach Consulting, that tested public responses to the President's climate plan.  The poll showed wide bipartisan support for key climate change action proposals included in Obama's speech from several weeks ago.

Perception That Climate Change is a Serious Problem
The first question in the poll was the following: “How much of a problem do you consider the issue of climate change and global warming to be?”

66% of respondents saw climate change as a serious problem. 31% saw it as not a problem.  These numbers remained largely unchanged since December 2012 (65-32). However, the share that sees climate change as a “very serious” problem has grown from 31% to 39%, now outnumbering the share that sees it as only “somewhat serious” of a problem.

86% of Democrats viewed climate change as a serious problem as opposed to 13% who saw it as not a problem. 62% of Independents saw it as a serious problem versus 35% who did not. Republicans were more evenly split than one might think: 46% said climate change was a serious problem as opposed to 50% who did not see it as a problem.

Support for Obama’s Climate Plan
The survey then asked respondents whether or not they supported the President’s climate plan.  Prior to the questions, surveyors read the following explanation:

“The plan that President Obama announced aims to protect public health and address climate change by cutting the amount of carbon pollution produced by the United States. The plan directs the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, to establish carbon pollution standards for power plants to limit the amount of carbon pollution these plants can emit. The plan also would increase fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles as well as set energy efficiency standards for new household appliances and new buildings. Further, the plan would increase investment in renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power.”

In other words, the framing of the President’s climate plan here stressed (1) EPA standards on power plants, (2) increased fuel efficiency standards, (3) energy efficiency standards for new appliances and buildings, and (4) increased investment in renewable energy.  The description left out some of the parts of Obama’s plan that are less attractive to liberals and environmentalists, e.g. fracking and “clean coal.” However, leaving those out allows us to see the support for the good parts of the plan. Respondents supported the President’s climate plan—as described—by over two to one: 61% to 27%. 39% strongly supported the plan, and 19% strongly opposed it.  These numbers align quite well with the percentages believing that climate change is a problem/not a problem and the percentages holding such beliefs strongly.

The plan—as described—garnered majority support among all demographic groups (geographic, gender, age, party) except for Republicans.

Geographically, the largest support was in the Northeast: 68% to 24%. The lowest support was in the South: 52% to 36%.

Women (64% to 20%) supported the plan more strongly than did men (57% to 36%).

The youngest age bracket (18 to 34) showed the highest support: 68% to 21%.  The oldest bracket (65 and older) showed the lowest support: 50% to 34%.

86% of Democrats supported the plan, and only 9% of Democrats opposed it. Independents gave the plan majority support as well: 58% to 35%. A majority of Republicans opposed it: 32% to 51%.

Republican opposition, however, went away when the survey tested the individual components of the plan—as we will soon see.

Individual Components of the Plan

Each component of the plan achieved a majority of support among the general public surveyed.  A majority of respondents strongly supported four out of the six.

79% supported increasing fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. 55% strongly supported such a policy.

78% supported increasing investment in renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro). 56% strongly supported such a policy.

78% supported increasing energy efficiency standards for new appliances and buildings. 51% strongly supported such a policy.

76% supported taking lead in urging large countries (China/India) to expand efforts. 54% strongly supported such a policy.

75% supported strengthening communities against effects of climate change (flood, drought, fire). 47% strongly supported such a policy.

65% supported having EPA set standards on the carbon pollution that electric plants can release. 40% strongly supported such a policy.

Each component that gained over 70+% of general support also gained 70+% of support from Independents.  Independent support for EPA standards on electric plants, however, was only 56%---a weaker but still clear majority.

A majority of Republicans supported five out of the 6 policies, with support seeing roughly a 10% drop compared to the general public on each measure.  The largest drop, though, appeared in the response to taking the lead in urging other big countries to take action. Only 61% of Republicans supported such an action—a 15% drop from the overall response.

Only 49% of Republicans surveyed supported EPA standards on power plants.  While not a majority, this was still a plurality because only 45% opposed such standards.

As we regularly see in health care polling, Republicans like many of the individual components of the President's proposals but oppose them largely for tribal or ad hominem reasons.

SUPPORTERS/OPPONENTS
The survey also read respondents two passages--one citing the claims of supporters and one citing the claims of the opponents--in order to test the effect of such arguments.

“SUPPORTERS of this plan say that cutting carbon pollution is essential to keeping our air and water clean, protecting our kids' health, and reducing the devastating effects of climate change. President Obama's plan represents a reasonable and comprehensive approach that will help our economy to continue to grow and recover while sparking innovation in energy technology and cutting our dependence on foreign oil.

OPPONENTS of this plan say it will seriously harm our economy just as it is starting to improve. This plan will mean higher energy costs, making it more expensive for companies to do business and leading to thousands of job losses and higher prices for consumers. All this without having any real impact on climate change, because big polluters such as India and China do not limit
pollution from their power companies.”

[Quick aside: I always find it interesting how politicians always speak about “foreign oil,” preferring the ability to evade directly criticizing domestic production as well.] 

Reading such passages caused only a minor dip in support (61% to 59%) and rise in opposition (27% to 32%).  The strong support and strong opposition remained nearly unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS
As I noted earlier, we have often seen in polls that Republicans support many of the centrist and even progressive policies included in the President's proposals but oppose them when they get attached to the President.  Unfortunately, politics are very tribal.

The NRDC poll ignores the less environmentally or logically sound parts of Obama's plan, such as fracking and "clean coal." Support for fracking tends to split on partisan lines. Increasing domestic oil production, unfortunately, tends to poll well.  The President's "all-of-the-above" strategy always sounds as though it came right out of a focus group.  We will also have to wait and see if the President undermines his professed support for climate change action by approving the Keystone XL pipeline.  Keystone tends to register broad but shallow support because people just tend to like "more" energy overall.  Passion, thankfully, lies on the side of the opponents.

Rather than acknowledging public support for carbon regulations, Senate Republicans have already introduced legislation to prevent the EPA from issuing such standards. Thankfully, it won't go anywhere. A budget amendment by Sen. Inhofe back in March which sought to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases failed 47 to 52.

Climate legislation, of course, is DOA in the House, and it unfortunately seems unlikely the Senate as well. I've written before about why I doubt the proposed Boxer-Sanders legislation could even pass committee.

The money from fossil fuel interests, particularly Big Oil and Big Coal, win over the hearts and minds--and votes--of too many of our lawmakers, so near-term action on climate will have to come from the executive.  I hope that Obama will let Gina McCarthy do her job and do it well and not cater to polluters instead as he has done in the past. I wish Gina the best.  The planet depends on her.

In Defense of the Rolling Stone Cover

The latest cover of the Rolling Stone, which features Dzokhar Tsarnev (the "Boston bomber"), has inspired a lot of backlash: a stern letter from Boston mayor Tom Menino, criticism from MA governor Deval Patrick, bans from stores like CVS, lots of media chatter and online discussion. I can understand why some people might be upset, but I think that their criticisms are misguided and will explain why.

Before I begin, I will cite the editorial note that precede's Janet Reitman's article "Jahar's World":

Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families. The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS

Well-said.  Now, let me proceed to my own points. 

(1) There is a legitimate debate to be held about whether or not the photos of suspects should be published because the fame gained by such suspects could inspire copycat crimes among those who would seek such notoriety for themselves.  However, the “don’t publish the photos” side lost the debate—for better or for worse.  The FBI published the photos of the suspects online, and then in the ensuing days, the photos of the suspects (both from the incident and from the past) were plastered across every newspaper, website, broadcast channel, and cable news channel. Jahar has already gained his fame. If you have a problem with giving such excessive attention to a criminal, your criticism is misdirected and most certainly late.

(2) The photo on the cover previously appeared on the front page of the New York Times.  I remember no backlash. I would think the NYT has wider readership than the Rolling Stone.

(3) The Rolling Stone cover was not adulatory. Jahar is referred to unambiguously as a “monster.”  The language around the story that graces the cover highlights that it is a “narrative of decline.” Jahar did not have a “photo shoot” with the Rolling Stone; that would have been unarguably tasteless.  Had I not known who he was, I would have thought the reason why he appears only in an externally sourced photo was that he died in a heroin overdose.

(4) Those who commit such violent crimes are not horned creatures living in underground lairs. They do not always have bugged-out eyes, creepy glares, or awkward frames. Unfortunately, we do not live in a Disney film where someone’s moral character can be discerned merely by the color of his skin, the length of his nose, the shape of his eyes, the size of his mouth, the height of his cheekbones, and the style of his hair.  The world is more complex than that. And the Rolling Stone article—and cover—does a service in highlighting that fact.  If we cannot get past a tendency to “other” those who commit such crimes, then we will be unable to understand how they became radicalized in the first place and will be less likely to prevent future tragedies.

(5)  If you find the Rolling Stone cover insensitive because it features a man responsible for the death of young children (or, for that matter, adults), have you complained about the multiple Rolling Stone covers that featured President Barack Obama, the man responsible for the death of the sixteen-year-old American kid Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki as well as the scores of other innocent children in Pakistan and Yemen and their parents, grandparents, and cousins who have been killed with drone strikes in a targeted killing program more morally perverse than any “stand-your-ground” law?  Is such a cover insensitive to their families?  Or the families of those being held indefinitely without charges or recourse to a trial in Guantanamo Bay?  If you are going to be critical, at least be consistent.

(6) Yes, the Rolling Stone covers current affairs, not just pop culture.  And its coverage is better quality than a lot of what appears in Newsweek or TIME.  Financial journalist and prominent Wall Street critic Matt Taibbi writes for the Rolling Stone.  You can find many other well-researched, provocative articles here.

Liz Cheney is Running for Senate in Wyoming. Does Your City Have More People than Her New State?

Liz Cheney declared yesterday that she will be running for Senate in Wyoming against conservative Republican incumbent Mike Enzi.  Her father, Dick "He doesn't stab you in the back--he shoots you in the face" Cheney, served as the Representative-At-Large for Wyoming, from 1979 to 1989 although you might remember him from his more recent history as a war criminal, war profiteer, and the Vice President to George W. Bush during his two terms.

Liz actually lives in northern Virginia and only bought a house in Wyoming last year. But the people of Wyoming, hopefully, will welcome her as a liberator.

However, rather than going through all of Liz Cheney's familiar blend of neoconservative foreign policy, neoliberal economics, and rhetorical extremism, I want to highlight how small the state of Wyoming really is.

I'll address that by asking the question: Does your city have more people than the state of Wyoming?

Wyoming, the nation's smallest state and the one that makes Alaska look well-populated, has only 576,412 people (2012 estimate).  That's fewer residents than the 31 most populous U.S. cities:

(1) New York City: 8,336,697 (about 14.5 Wyoming's)
(2) Los Angeles: 3,857,799 (about 6.7 Wyoming's)
(3) Chicago: 2,714,856 (about 4.7 Wyoming's)
(4) Houston: 2,160,821 (about 3.7 Wyoming's)
(5) Philadelphia: 1,547,607 (about 2.7 Wyoming's) 
(6) Phoenix: 1,488,750    (about 2.6 Wyoming's)
(7) San Antonio: 1,382,951 (about 2.4 Wyoming's)
(8) San Diego: 1,338,348 (about 2.3 Wyoming's)
(9) Dallas: 1,241,162 (about 2.2 Wyoming's) 
(10) San Jose: 982,765 (about 1.7 Wyoming's)
(11) Austin, TX: 842,592
(12) Jacksonville, FL: 836,507
(13) Indianapolis: 834,852
(14) San Francisco: 825,863
(15) Columbus, OH: 809,798
(16) Forth Worth, TX: 777,992
(17) Charlotte, NC: 775,202
(18) Detroit: 701,475
(19) El Paso, TX: 672,538 
(20) Memphis: 655,155
(21) Boston: 636,479
(22) Seattle: 634,535
(23) Denver: 634,265
(24) District of Columbia: 632,323
(25) Nashville: 624,496
(26) Baltimore: 621,342
(27) Louisville, KY: 605,110 
(28) Portland, OR: 603,106
(29) Oklahoma City: 599,199 
(30) Milwaukee: 598,916
(31) Las Vegas: 596,424

All population numbers are 2012 estimates and refer only to the city proper, not the metro area.

Wyoming: 576,412 people, 2 Senators
DC: 632,323 people, 0 Senators

And therein lies (1) why the Senate is such an awful institution and (2) why the failure to grant DC voting representation continues to make a travesty of democracy.

Which 22 House Democrats Voted to Delay Implementation of the Affordable Care Act Even More?

Today, the House took two votes concerning the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  I'll go through them in order.

The first bill was the Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667).  As you likely already read, the Obama administration recently decided to delay the implementation of the employer mandate for one year.  Rather than going into effect on January 1, 2014, it will go into effect on January 1, 2015.

Among those of us left of center, there were some supporters and some detractors. Frankly, substantive policy aspects aside, I think the decision made the administration look inept.  The Affordable Care act passed over three years ago, and there should have been ample time for planning and education.

The Mandate Delay Act was a statement of congressional approval for Obama's decision to delay the employer mandate for a year:
   
(a) In General- Section 1513(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.

    (b) Reporting Requirements-
        (1) REPORTING BY EMPLOYERS- Section 1514(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `December 31, 2013' and inserting `December 31, 2014'.
        (2) REPORTING BY INSURANCE PROVIDERS- Section 1502(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking `2013' and inserting `2014'.
    (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to which they relate.

The President and the House Democrats opposed it. I am not sure what authority the administration even had to delay the provision in the law since it is making an executive decision to violate the text of the law as written; however, the Republicans only wanted to pass it as a jab at the Affordable Care Act. It passed 264 to 161. 35 Democrats voted for it. 1 Republican voted against it: Morgan Griffith (VA-09).  I'm not sure why he voted against it, though. I feel that this vote was somewhat of an embarrassment for everyone, so I can't bring myself to care enough to do a roll call. 

The bill that was more directly intended to slow down implementation--apart from the administration's own slowness--was the latter bill, the Fairness for American Families Act.  The title stems from the GOP claim that if employers get a delay, it is only "fair" for "hard-working American families" to get one, too.  As we all know, the GOP cares about working families ever so much.  I'm personally no fan of the individual mandate as a concept.  It is rooted in a conservative belief in "personal responsibility" just as the exchanges are based in a conservative (or more aptly neoliberal) fetish for "choice."  However, the ACA is the law and is better than the status quo ante.

This bill passed 251 to 174.  Again, Griffith was the sole Republican opponent, and again I have no idea why.  22 Democrats voted for it.  Everything else was party line.

Which 22 Democrats voted to make implementation of the Affordable Care Act take even longer than it's already taking?

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)

12 of these Democrats won last year with a margin of victory less than 5%.  20 out of the 22 received less than 55% of the total vote last election.  I wouldn't be surprised if DCCC chair Steve Israel told them to vote this way because the Democrats always seem to believe that they boost their chances by not voting like Democrats.

Collin Peterson (MN-07), however, won his last election 60.4% to 34.8%.  That's a pretty comfortable margin of victory, but Peterson has a very conservative voting record for the party.

Gary Peters's name stands out the most to me on this list because he is running for Carl Levin's vacant Senate seat next year. He won his House seat last year 82.3% to 15.6%, and Michigan is a blue state. Peters has been racking up quite the list of awful votes lately, and I don't see why he thinks that that will help him win next year.