LCV Endorses Coal-Loving, Pipeline-Loving John Walsh, Ignores Primary Opponent

I've written before about the corruption in Big Green (see here and here for instance).

Well, here's another great example.

Today, the League of Conservation Voters Action fund endorsed appointed Democratic incumbent John Walsh for election in the Montana senate race this fall.

The same John Walsh who has been calling on Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The same John Walsh who is a champion of coal.

Sounds like a real environmental champion!

As I have stated in prior posts, I don't think that environmental groups should endorse Keystone-XL supporters in general elections. They could campaign against the Republicans in the race if they wish, but not for the Democrats.

However, this case is made worse by the fact that Montana actually has a Democratic primary. They are not only endorsing John Walsh against Steve Daines but, implicitly, against his Democratic primary challengers.

Take, for example, rancher Dirk Adams.

Here he is in the Huffington Post with the "top 10 reasons Montanans should oppose the Keystone XL pipeline."

And on his website:

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline (which is only a shortcut on an existing pipeline) is a bad deal for Montana. Yet Dirk Adams is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is standing up against it. The pipeline promises jobs it won't deliver. It will cause problems for landowners. The last pipeline TransCanada built in Montana had 12 spills in its first year of operation, spewing over 20,000 gallons of crude. The Keystone XL pipeline is bad for the environment and the businesses that depend on it. It is bad for Montanans' health and pocketbooks.

And let's check out his website. Here's what he thinks of coal:

Coal is no longer viable as a long term source of energy, or a reliable source of jobs in Montana. We need to start strategizing now to create alternative jobs for our 1200 workers at Colstrip. The 700 million tons of coal in Montana will be left in the ground. Financial research shows there is not financing for export terminals, and local opposition to proposed West Coast terminals is strong. They will not be built.

America is reducing its energy use and is investing in renewables. Environmentalists have succeeded in persuading decision-makers of the stark danger to our climate that coal offers. Natural gas is more readily available than ever. The Great Falls Tribune reported on Feb. 12 that PPL, Montana's coal-fired electrical generating plants are costing the power company millions of dollars, according to documents Northwestern Energy submitted to state utility regulators.

The data, one independent industry analyst said, paints a "bleak" picture for coal-fired generation in Montana.

There's a big adjustment coming in utilities.

We need a fair and just transition. Not just new jobs. Not just more jobs. We need jobs that help rebuild our infrastructure in such a manner that a new economy can grow from it. Workers must be involved in the planning. We must build even as the old foundation deconstructs.

We must both mitigate climate disruption and build new economic infrastructure. The two are not at odds.

Coal is dead. I will not be dishonest about this for political gain. Lying isn't going to help those workers. Instead, I have a plan for retraining and job growth. I'm going to serve the impacted citizens by dealing with reality, rather than serving myself by hustling concerned workers for votes with promises no candidate will keep.

We often talk about elected people as leaders. Some are. Some aren't. Regardless, none of us need to be "led" with rhetoric and buzz phrases. We need to recognize external realities and navigate them, aim for new goals and use the momentum of change to generate something that serves the citizens, the economy, and builds the middle class.

That, to me, sounds like a far stronger environmental champion and someone the LCV should be supporting. But that would mean having to buck the establishment. And the LCV clearly has no desire to do so.

House Votes for Black Budget 345-59, Avoids Amendments on Drones and Dragnet

Continuing the Appropriations voting, the House just passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 by a large margin: 345 to 59.

There were some interesting amendments relating to drone warfare and NSA surveillance, but (You'll never believe this), they weren't allowed to have a vote.

Also without a vote? The amendment, from Pete Welch (VT-AL), Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL), and David Price (NC-04), to make the toplines for the black budget publicly available.

194 Republicans and 151 Democrats voted for the black budget. 26 Republicans and 33 Democrats voted against it.

Here are the 26 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-260
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)

Here are the 33 Democrats:

Karen Bass (CA-37)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13))
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)

House Votes to Protect States' Rights on Medical Marijuana and Hemp Cultivation

The Justice Appropriations last night saw a number of votes related to the drug war.
In a positive development, bills protecting medical marijuana and hemp cultivation and research passed with bipartisan support.

Republican Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to prevent states from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

The bipartisan amendment was co-sponsored by Sam Farr, Don Young (AK-AL), Earl Blumenauer, McClintock, Steve Cohen (TN-09), Paul Broun (GA-10), Jared Polis (CO-02), Steve Stockman, and Barbara Lee (CA-13).

It passed 219 to 189.

170 Democrats and 49 Republicans supported it. 172 Republicans and 17 Democrats opposed it.
Here are the 49 Republican supporters:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Chris Collins (NY-27)
Steve Daines (MT-AL)
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Renee Ellmers (NC-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Joe Heck (NV-03)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
David Joyce (OH-14)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Tom Reed (NY-23)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Tom Rice (SC-07)
Mike Rogers (AL-03)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Aaron Schock (IL-18)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
David Valadao (CA-21)
Greg Walden (OR-02)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)
Todd Young (IN-09)

Here are the 17 Democrats who opposed it:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-16)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to prevent states from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp, as defined in section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

It passed 237 to 170.

171 Democrats and 66 Republicans voted for it. 154 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 16 Democrats who voted against it:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-16)
John Larson (CT-01)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Here are the 66 Republicans who supported it:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Mark Amodei (NV-02)
Andy Barr (KY-06)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Larry Buschon (IN-08)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Chris Collins (NY-27)
Michael Conaway (TX-11)
Steve Daines (MT-AL)
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Renee Ellmers (NC-02)
Bill Flores (TX-17)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
Cory Gardner (CO-04)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Joe Heck (NV-03)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Robert Hurt (VA-05)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)
John Kline (MN-02)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Luke Messer (MN-06)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Reed (NY-23)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Tom Rice (SC-07)
Scott Rigell (VA-02)
Phil Roe (TN-01)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Todd Rokita (IN-04)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Steve Stivers (OH-15)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Marlin Stutzman (IN-03)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
David Valadao (CA-21)
Greg Walden (OR-02)
Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)
Todd Young (IN-09)

Republican Tom Massie (KY-04) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in contravention of section 7606 ("Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research") of the Agricultural Act of 2014 by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

It passed 246 to 162.

171 Democrats and 75 Republicans voted for it. 146 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.

Here are the 16 Democrats who voted against it:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-16)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Linda Sanchez (CA-38)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Here are the 75 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Andy Barr (KY-06)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Larry Buschon (IN-08)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Chris Collins (NY-27)
Steve Daines (MT-AL)
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Jeff Denham (CA-10)
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Sean Duffy (WI-07)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Renee Ellmers (NC-02)
Bill Flores (TX-17)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
Cory Gardner (CO-04)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Trey Gowdy (SC-04)
Tom Graves (GA-14)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Brett Guthrie (KY-02)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Doc Hastings (WA-04)
Joe Heck (NV-03)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Robert Hurt (VA-05)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Adam Kinzinger (IL-16)
John Kline (MN-02)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Luke Messer (MN-06)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Alan Nunnelee (MS-01)
Erik Paulsen (MN-03)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Reed (NY-23)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Tom Rice (SC-07)
Scott Rigell (VA-02)
Phil Roe (TN-01)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Todd Rokita (IN-04)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Aaron Schock (IL-18)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
John Shimkus (IL-15)
Steve Stivers (OH-15)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Marlin Stutzman (IN-03)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
David Valadao (CA-21)
Greg Walden (OR-02)
Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
Brad Wenstrup (OH-02)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Rob Woodall (GA-07)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)
Todd Young (IN-09)

However, two efforts to reduce DEA funding failed.

Steve Cohen (TN-09) offered an amendment to reduce funding for salaries and expenses at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) by $18 million and to increase funding for payment to the Legal Services Corporation by $15 million.

The House killed it 173 to 238.

163 Democrats and 10 Republicans supported it. 212 Republicans and 26 Democrats opposed it.

Here are the 10 Republicans:

Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
Joe Heck (NV-03)
David Jolly (FL-13)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Tom Rooney (FL-17)
Steve Stivers (OH-15)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
Kevin Yoder (KS-03)

Here are the 26 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Tim Bishop (NY-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Ben Lujan (NM-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Jared Polis (CO-02) introduced an amendment to reduce funding for the Salaries and Expenses, Drug Enforcement Administration by $35,000,000. He argued that the DEA should not need any more than its current funding levels given that several states have legalized recreational marijuana use.

The House killed the amendment 339 to 66.

The 66 supporters consisted of 41 Democrats and 25 Republicans.

Here are the 41 Democrats:

Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Ann Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
George Miller (CA-11)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
David Scott (GA-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)

Here are the 25 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Ron DeSantis (FL-06)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Jeb Hensarling (TX-05)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Ed Royce (CA-39)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Steve Scalise (SC-01)
David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)

House Republicans Endorsed Wage Theft and Predatory Lending Last Night

Last night, the House voted on Justice and Commerce appropriations. I would like to highlight two amendments here.

Keith Ellison (MN-05) introduced an amendment to prohibit use of funds to enter into a contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition outlined in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System include the term "Fair Labor Standards Act." In other words, if you have been accused of wage theft or any similar such violation, you can't do business with the government.

The House killed it 211 to 196. 186 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted for it. 211 Republicans voted against it.

Who were the only 10 Republicans to think that your employer shouldn’t steal your wages?

Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
Don Young (AK-AL)

Scott Garrett (NJ-05) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Justice to enforce the Fair Housing Act in a manner that relies upon an allegation of liability under C.F.R. 100.500. This refers to the principle of "disparate impact," i.e., discrimination is determined not by stated intent but by the disproportionate adverse impact on a specific group. Think of predatory lending practices as an example.

It passed 216 to 190.

215 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for it. 185 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against it.
Jerry McNerney (CA-09) was the only Democrat to support the bill.

The 5 Republicans who opposed the amendment were the following:

Randy Forbes (VA-04)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Mike Turner (OH-10)

I'll have more diaries up soon about some of the other amendments.

Congress's Response to the VA Scandal? Rolling Back Civil Service Protections.

On Wednesday, the House passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act in response to the VA scandal. However, the bill does nothing to address systemic problems at the VA. Rather, it rolls back longstanding civil service protections.

The House Democratic leadership split on the bill. Hoyer, Van Hollen, and Becerra opposed it. Pelosi, Israel, and Wasserman Schultz supported it.

Here's Steny Hoyer on why he opposed the bill:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this. I urge my Members to vote against it. I don't know if they will, but I urge them to do so. All of us in this body need to be for accountability. None of us in this body, however, ought to be for turning a civil service system into a patronage system. None of us ought to be for turning a civil service system, one of the best in the world, if not the best in the world, into a system which allows for no reason that needs to be articulated to turn senior executives into at-will employees. “I'm disappointed that this bill has been brought to the Floor with little notice and no markup in Committee. We talk about considered judgment. We talk about thoughtfulness. We talk about reading the bills. And then we bring them to the Floor without [a markup].

“We must ensure that those who serve our veterans in the VA system do so with accountability and oversight.  All of us are outraged at the allegations that have been made. Not one of us should step back and say we should not respond vigorously to the offenses that have allegedly taken place. Because, if the allegations are true, heads ought to roll. Period.

“But that's not what this legislation is about. This legislation is about a knee-jerk reaction to a bad situation painted with a very broad, broad brush – and undermining a system that can work, has worked, and has the mechanism to work. I cannot support this bill as written. I believe it opens the door to a slippery slope of undoing the careful civil service protections that have been in place for decades.

“This is about due process. Now due process is put under stress at critical times. Pursuing due process at times when there is no stress is not difficult. The test of a society is whether, at times of stress, it can follow due process and the law. This bill does not provide for that. Protections that have been put in place for decades to ensure politically appointed managers cannot fire non-political senior executives in federal service without proper cause. Neither party ought to be for that. The civil service reforms adopted decades ago were there for a purpose. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to vote against this premature and not-thought-out piece of legislation.”

Nonetheless, the bill passed easily: 390 to 33. 228 Republicans and 162 Democrats voted for it. The only opposition came from 33 Democrats:

Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
George Miller (CA-11)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)

The majority are members of the Progressive Caucus. There are also a few--like Hoyer, Van Hollen, and Hanabusa--who live in districts with a large number of federal workers and thus would be very concerned about rolling back civil service protections.

As noted, the bill does nothing to address any systemic problems. If there was any wrongdoing, people should be fired, but they should be fired after receiving due process. However, if Congress wanted to do something meaningful, they would be seeking to increase the funding of the VA and to modernize its operations. They could also stop starting aggressive wars.

Jonathan Cohn has an excellent piece in the New Republic about systemic problems behind the VA scandal:

In 2001, the General Accounting Office issued a report warning that wait times for medical services at VA clinics were excessive—and dangerous. Since that time, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created a whole new generation of veterans. Advances in battlefield medicine have allowed more fighters to survive serious injuries, but that has also meant more returning home with wounds and disabilities, both physical and mental. Even though the total number of veterans has been declining, as the World War II generation passes on, the number of veterans seeking care has been increasing—placing further strains on the system. As my colleague Alec MacGillis has noted, the lawmakers screamingly most loudly right now seem blissfully unaware that the need for VA services is a direct by-product of wars they supported even more enthusiastically.

But demand alone doesn’t explain the VA's problems. Antiquated, sclerotic bureacracies are also part of the story. Veterans who wish to use VA health services must first apply. They also must get determinations about what kinds of disabilities they have—and how they got them. Those determinations are important: Veterans who lost limbs in battle, for example, get priority for services over those who served stateside without injury. The application files are still on paper, creating a huge backlog. The process also inflates wait times for actual medical services, since the disability determinations frequently require tests and checkups at VA medical facilities.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama talked about the toll these processes were taking on veterans. “It’s an outrage,” Obama said in one speech. “It’s a betrayal … of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.” And the Administration has done a lot more than the tone of the current media frenzy might suggest. The transition from paper to electronic eligibility records is underway. That application backlog is down by 44 percent, at least according to official figures. Meanwhile, the Administration has eased eligibility for victims of Agent Orange and post-traumatic stress disorder—changes veterans advocates had sought for decades.

Those changes may have added to the system’s burden, creating the same kind of strain that took place in the 1990s. But Obama and allies like Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, have also fought for and secured substantial increases in the VA’s budget. The Administration has also presided over innovations, such as the opening of new outpatient clinics and the introduction of tele-medicine. These projects are expanding the VA’s reach at relatively low cost, while preserving its commitment to high-quality medicine. (The actual care at the VA remains top-notch, by most accounts, once people get it.) Oh, and a plan to reduce homelessness among veterans seems to be working. It's down by 24 percent.

The bill that passed will not address these problems. 

And if Congress really cared about the health of veterans, they could try not creating new ones. But yesterday, Congress shot down an amendment to sunset the 2001 AUMF. Instead, they (and that "they" is mostly, but not entirely, Republicans) voted for endless war.

House Votes against Climate Action and Gitmo Closure, for Indefinite Detention and Endless War

Yesterday, the House passed its defense appropriations bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for fiscal year 2015. The NDAA provides a great opportunity for anti-war liberals and "anti-government" conservatives to join hands in obeisance to the military industrial complex.

As usual, the NDAA passed with a wide margin: 325 to 98. 216 Republicans and 109 Democrats voted for it. 85 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted against it.

Here are the 85 Democrats who should be commended for voting NO on the NDAA:

Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
William Keating (MA-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
George Miller (CA-11)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Last year, however, 90 Democrats voted for the House markup of the NDAA. What changed?

Congress gained Katherine Clark (MA-05) and lost Mel Watt (NC-12). They voted the same way, so that comes out even.

4 Democrats who voted against the House NDAA last year were not in attendance today: Karen Bass (CA-37), Cedric Richmond (LA-02), Bobby Rush (IL-01), and Louise Slaughter (NY-25).

4 Democrats who were absent for last year’s vote showed up to cast NAY votes today: Judy Chu, Donna Edwards, Marcia Fudge, and Richard Neal.

12 Democrats who voted against the House NDAA last year voted for it this year:

G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Andre Carson (IN-01)
Kathy Castor (FL014)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)

7 Democrats who voted for the House NDAA last year voted against it this year:

Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
David Price (NC-04)

Returning to this year, here are the 13 Republicans who voted against the NDAA:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Randy Weber (TX-14)

However, last year, 18 Republicans voted against it. What changed?

7 Republicans who voted against the FY 2014 NDAA just voted for the FY2015 one:

Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Matt Salmon (AZ-05)
David Schweickert (AZ-06)
Ted Yoho (FL-03)

Trey Radel (FL-19), who voted against the FY 2014 NDAA, resigned because of his drug problem.
And then 3 Republicans who voted for the FY 2014 NDAA—Jones, Posey, and Weber—voted against the FY 2015 one.

Now, let's look at some of the key amendments.

CLIMATE CHANGE
David McKinley (WV-01) introduced an amendment to "prohibit funds for the Administration to conduct any anti-fossil fuel climate change agenda, which includes the National Climate Assessment, the IPCC report, the UN's Agenda 21, and the Social Cost of Carbon. "

It passed 231 to 192 on a mostly party line vote.

Only 3 Republicans voted against it: Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Chris Gibson (NY-19), and Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02).

4 Democrats voted for it: John Barrow (GA-12), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), and Nick Rahall (WV-03).

GITMO

Adam Smith (WA-09), along with Jim Moran (VA-08) and Jerry Nadler (NY-10), introduced an amendment to provide a framework for closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by December 31, 2016.

The House killed the amendment 247 to 177. 171 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted for it. 224 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted against it.

The 6 Republicans who voted to close Gitmo were Justin Amash (MI-03), Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), Chris Gibson (NY-19), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Mark Sanford (SC-01).
Last year, only Amash and Duncan voted for it, so this was an improvement.

Here are the 23 Democrats that want to keep Gitmo open:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Last year, only 21 Democrats voted against closing Gitmo, so we’ve seen some regression here. Bill Foster (IL-11) had voted against closing Gitmo last year but, to his credit, has since flipped his vote in the right direction.  Gene Green and Collin Peterson flipped their votes in the opposite direction. Carol Shea-Porter was not in attendance for the vote last year but showed up to show her support for Gitmo today.

Adam Smith also introduced an amendment, co-sponsored with Paul Broun (GA-10), to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the U.S., its territories, or possessions, by providing for immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under the Constitution or any appropriate state court.

The House killed it 191 to 230. 176 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted for it. 214 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.

Here are the 16 Democrats that support indefinite detention:
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sander Levin (MI-09)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Dutch Ruppersberger
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)

Last year, only 13 Democrats voted against indefinite detention. Pete Gallego (TX-23) and Filemon Vela (TX-34) voted against prohibiting indefinite detention last year but this year voted to do so. Last year, Ron Barber, Gene Green, Stephen Lynch, Collin Peterson, and Terri Sewell voted in favor of banning indefinite detention; they have since changed their mind and embraced it.

Here are the 15 Republicans who voted for the amendment.

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Paul Gosar (AZ-04)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Thomas Massie (KY-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Reid Ribble (WI-08)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)

Last year, 19 Republicans voted for the amendment. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Bill Posey (FL-08), John Shimkus (IL-05), and Ted Yoho (FL-03) voted for it last year but not this year. Steve Stockman voted against the amendment last year but voted for it this year.

Endless War

Adam Schiff (CA-28) introduced an amendment to sunset the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in twelve months.

The House killed it 191 to 233. 164 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for it. 203 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted against it.

Here are the 30 Democrats who voted against it:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Thankfully, we’ve seen some progress. Last year, 39 Democrats voted against a similar amendment.
Rob Andrews (NJ-01) voted against it last year, but he’s now gone because he resigned mid-term to become a lobbyist. A swell guy, isn’t he? Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) who voted against it last year wasn’t in attendance today. Cedric Richmond (LA-02) was also not in attendance today.

Here are the 14 Democrats who opposed sunsetting the AUMF last year but now support doing so. They flipped their votes correctly.

Julia Brownley (CA-26)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
David Scott (GA-13)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Last year, Cheri Bustos and Carolyn McCarthy weren’t in attendance.

6 Democrats then opposed sunsetting the AUMF although they voted to do so last year:

Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Which 49 Democrats Learned to Love the NSA Dragnet?

Yesterday, the House passed a gutted version of the USA Freedom Act by a vote of 303 to 121.
179 Republicans and 124 Democrats supported it. 51 Republicans and 70 Democrats opposed it.

The bill, once championed by reformers, has been watered down beyond recognition.

Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation wrote in the Guardian this morning:

It really is astonishing to look at how abruptly this legislation has been warped. All the major civil liberties organizations dropped their support for the USA Freedom Act as soon as the new version – re-written in secret at the last minute, with help from the NSA's lawyers and the Obama administration – was made public on Tuesday. The privacy groups' withdrawal was followed quickly by the major tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter. But that apparently doesn't matter to the White House or Congressional leadership, who barred amendments that could have potentially strengthened the bill from being offered on the floor ahead of Thursday's vote.

Just 17 days ago, in a compromise that moved the formerly strong legislation out of committee and into action, the bill was weakened significantly: in came more immunity for telecoms, and out went tough transparency and provisions for the Fisa court, along with protections against warrantless "backdoor" searches of your communications. But at least that deal was out in the open, and at least it didn't make things worse. Indeed, to many close watchers of national security, that version of the USA Freedom Act still looked marginally better than the status quo.

But with the most recent closed-door re-write of the bill, any chance for even traces of mediocre change have vanished. The New York Times' Charlie Savage highlighted the alterations between the already-weak USA Freedom Act and the obliterated new version, showing how critical definitions of what the NSA can search have been widened, and how all potential transparency now rests in the hands of the very person who Snowden's leaks caught lying, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Marcy Wheeler, who's been warning about what she calls "Freedumb" for two weeks, breaks down even more stealth provisions in what she now calls "Freedumber" that may open up new ways for the NSA to search even more our data.

Marcy Wheeler has done an excellent job at analyzing how the bill, which has been gutted and how it actually makes things worse in some areas. 

The bill passed today extends the USA PATRIOT Act two and a half years, replacing the current sunset date of June 1, 2015, with December 31, 2017.

What was once a worthwhile reform bill has become an authorization of domestic spying in violation of the 4th amendment.

I decided to compare today's roll call with that from the Amash-Conyers amendment last year. Below, I bolded the name of any Democrat who voted NO last year but has since flipped in favor of the 4th amendment.

Here are the 70 Democrats who voted NO today:

Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
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)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
William Keating (MA-09)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
George Miller (CA-11)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Katherine Clark just became a member of Congress in December. Horsford, Negrette McLeod, and Pallone had not been in attendance for the vote last year.

Karen Bass (CA-37), who voted for Amash-Conyers, was not in attendance today. Mel Watt is no longer in Congress.

Dropping them, accordingly, here are the 49 House Democrats who learned to love the dragnet:

Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
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)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Dan Kildee (MI-5)
John Larson (CT-01)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Luján (NM-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)

PA-13 Election Results: A Tale of Two Counties

In the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 13th district, state rep Brendan Boyle won handily with 41% of the vote over Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law and PA-13's rep from 1993-1995 Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky (27%), state senator Daylin Leach (17%), and physician Val Arkoosh (15%).

Brendan Boyle won because of strong trade union support and the backing of the Philadelphia Democratic machine. However, he has a troubling record on reproductive rights, public education, and surveillance. He's also a drone-loving hawk.

What was fascinating about the results for this race was the clear divide between the two counties that make up PA-13: Philadelphia and Montgomery. The light blue line is the border of the district, and the darker lines are the county borders.



Boyle, unsurprisingly, crushed the other candidates in Philadelphia:

Boyle: 69.50%
MMM: 17.99%
Arkoosh: 7.56%
Leach: 4.93%

However, he came in dead last in Montgomery County:

MMM: 35.27%
Leach: 26.58%
Arkoosh: 22.05%
Boyle: 16.10%

Margolies Mezvinsky, Leach, and Arkoosh all live in Montgomery County. Leach, although the most progressive candidate in the race, doesn't actually live in the district. The majority of his township is in PA-13, but his home was redistricted to PA-07, the most badly gerrymanderd district in the state.

The MA Dems Platform Endorses Single Payer, but Only One MA-GOV Candidate Wants to Make It Happen

Saturday in the mail, I received the call to convention for the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention next month, where I will be a delegate.

In it, along with the itinerary, was the 2013 party platform. The Mass Dems platform is solidly progressive and covers a number of issues.

When reading the health care section, I was pleased to see that the platform included an endorsement of a single payer system.

Massachusetts Democrats believe that every person should enjoy good quality of life and good health and wellbeing. We believe that high-quality and affordable health care should be available to all through a single payer government sponsored program like Medicare, regardless of employment status.

We often see a discrepancy between party platforms and party policymaking, even in states like Massachusetts where Democrats are unobstructed by Republicans. 

This dynamic came to mind when reading that passage because while the platform endorses single payer, there is only one gubernatorial candidate who wants to make it happen.

When asked about single payer, Attorney General Martha Coakley normally hedges, noting that she does not support single payer "at this time."

State Treasurer Steve Grossman says that he will "consider it" and "put it on the table" but has yet to display any clear commitment or concrete interest in it.

Former Homeland Security adviser Juliette Kayyem will often say that she supports single payer in theory but will do nothing for it.

Former COO of Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts Joe Avellone is openly opposed to single payer.

That leaves us with only one gubernatorial candidate with a firm commitment to this plank of the state party platform: former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Don Berwick. He discussed why Massachusetts must take this next step in health care reform in recent interviews in Vox and Wonkblog. Last month, he hosted a town hall event discussing his Medicare for All proposal, and he regularly emphasizes how such a system can accomplish the threefold goal of better health, better care, and better cost. As a trained pediatrician, former CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement a former head of CMS, he knows a lot about health care, and he knows that we need to move to a single payer system.

The Gerrymandered Districts of Southeastern Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has its primary elections this Tuesday, so I thought it would be a great time to look at how badly gerrymandered Southeastern Pennsylvania is.

No district in PA can really outdo PA's 7th district, whose seat is held by Republican Pat Meehan.


PA's 7th district includes most of Delaware County and then parts of Montgomery, Chester, Berks, and Lancaster. It stretches the bounds of what "contiguous" means. And it just completely ignores the redistricting principle of "compactness."

It didn't always look this messed-up. Here's what it looked like in the last decade.



Even with the odd appendage in Montgomery County, it was still fairly compact and contiguous.
However, the PA-07 of the 2000s had a slight Democratic lean. It was Joe Sestak's former district. The Republicans succeeded at cobbling together an area between Philadelphia and Lancaster that would be more favorable to Republicans. It went from D+3 to EVEN in its partisan rating.

(Interestingly, even though it still has an EVEN partisan rating, DCCC recruitment seems to be woefully lacking, a complete failure of Steve Israel's leadership.)

The zig-zags of PA-07 in Montgomery County have an inevitable impact on the district adjacent to it: Allyson Schwartz's PA-13, which has a heavily contested primary coming up.



Another strange creature is PA-06 (retiring Republican Jim Gerlach), which contains parts of Chester, Montgomery, Berks, and Lebanon counties. If you notice, you can see how Reading is encircled by PA-06 but left outside of it.



That would have meant too many Democrats for PA-06, so it was tossed into the 16th district. The 16th district contains a large portion of southern Chester County, most of Lancaster County, and a sliver of Berks County (Reading).



Compared to these, PA-08, the district where I spent my adolescence, is contiguous and compact.






However, that does not mean that the Republicans didn't reshape it to their advantage. PA-08 has consistently been the district of Bucks County. However, Republicans cut out some of Northeast Philadelphia that used to be in the district and replaced it with parts of northern Montgomery County taken out of PA-13. And those areas added to the district are both more conservative than Northeast Philly and Bucks itself. In 2012, Obama won Bucks County 50.0% - 48.8%. However, he narrowly lost PA-08 49.4% - 49.3%. Nothing drastic, but a subtle shift that can still reap returns.

During my time in the Philadelphia area, I lived in two other districts: Bob Brady's PA-01 and Chaka Fattah's PA-02.

Here's PA-01, which snakes along the Delaware River, incorporating a large chunk of Philadelphia as well as parts of Delaware and Chester Counties.


PA-01 has a lot of wasted votes. Bob Brady won with 84.9% of the vote back in 2012. Obama won with 82.3% of the vote.

Amusingly, I didn't even realize that I had been redistricted from PA-02 to PA-01 until Election Day 2012. I was completely taken by surprise by all of the Bob Brady signs at the polling location, since I thought that Chaka Fattah was still my representative.

Here's PA-02, Chaka Fattah's district.



As far as PA districts go, it's reasonably compact and contiguous. However, it's designed to keep all of the Democrats out of the surrounding districts. There are a lot of wasted votes in PA-02. Chaka Fattah won in 2012 with 89.3% of the vote, and Obama won with 90.4% of the vote.

The Republicans in the state legislature moved things around to take Democrats out of PA-06 and move them into PA-02. You can see that in the land swap below. The newly added territory on the right was almost all formerly PA-6.



All of this just serves as a great testament to why redistricting needs to be taken outside of partisan control.

Hey Bill, Here are Some Things You Could've Done About Inequality That Don't Involve Jailing People

At Pete Peterson's Fiscal Summit, that big bipartisan wet kiss to the plutocratic class, Bill Clinton was asked about how to address growing inequality. His response:

"I don’t think there’s much you can do about that unless you want to start jailing people."

That's an interesting take, Bill. It's fitting that someone responsible for the expansion of the police state would immediately think of jails as a solution to a problem. 

 

Prosecuting the bankers responsible for the financial crisis would be great, but let's put that discussion on hold for a second. Rather, here are a few things you could have done--or should I say, not done--as president to address the issue.

Bill, you signed the North Atlantic Free Trade Act (NAFTA) into law 20 years ago. You said it would accomplish many great things, even world peace. Yep, that's right: you promised world peace.

NAFTA has had an effect on inequality, Bill. It's made it worse.

Earlier this year, Public Citizen took a look at NAFTA's 20-year legacy. It isn't pretty.

•    Rather than creating the promised 170,000 jobs per year, NAFTA has contributed to an enormous new U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, which had already equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004. This figure, calculated by the Economic Policy Institute, includes the net balance between jobs created and jobs lost. Much of the job erosion stems from the decisions of U.S. firms to embrace NAFTA’s new foreign investor privileges and relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its lower wages and weaker environmental standards. The NAFTA-spurred job loss has not abated during NAFTA’s second decade, as the burgeoning post-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has not declined.

•    More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries. The TAA program is quite narrow, only covering a subset of the jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss.

•    NAFTA has contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them taking a pay cut of greater than 20 percent. As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs have joined the glut of workers competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors under NAFTA. The resulting downward pressure on middle-class wages has fueled recent growth in income inequality.

•    Despite a 188 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 65 percent since the deal went into effect. This is the opposite of the outcome promised when NAFTA passage was debated. Then, some NAFTA proponents acknowledged that the deal would cause the loss of some U.S. jobs, but argued that U.S. workers would win overall by being able to purchase cheaper imported goods.

•    The reductions in consumer goods prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses to wages under NAFTA. U.S. workers without college degrees (63 percent of the workforce) have likely lost an amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages under NAFTA-style trade even after accounting for the benefits of cheaper goods. This net loss, calculated by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, means a loss of more than $3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $27,500.

•    Soon after NAFTA’s passage, the small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus with Mexico turned into a massive new trade deficit and the pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. The inflation-adjusted U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of $2.5 billion and the $29.1 billion deficit with Canada in the year before NAFTA have morphed into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion. The rosy job-creation promises made at the time of the NAFTA votes were predicated on NAFTA improving the U.S. balance of trade. The reality has been the opposite.

•    During the NAFTA debate, scores of U.S. corporations promised to create specific numbers of jobs if NAFTA passed. Public Citizen catalogued these pledges, the failure to meet them and even the record of the same firms’ relocation of jobs to Mexico and Canada in a comprehensive report.

•    The average annual U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA stands at $800 million, more than twice the pre-NAFTA level. U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S. beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.

You could have avoided exacerbating the problem by not signing NAFTA. I'm not talking about creative or tried-and-true measures for reducing inequality. I'm just talking about not actively making it worse. 

 

Bil, you gave yourself a nice pat on the back for ending "welfare as we know it" with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. How did block granting welfare and adding a work requirement turn out, Bill?

Fifteen years after President Clinton joined with congressional Republicans and affixed his signature to a law that “ended welfare as we know it” -- imposing a five-year time limit on federal cash assistance for poor families, while allowing states to set shorter limits -- the social safety net is failing to keep pace with the needs of struggling Americans, many experts say. Millions of single mothers are falling through the cracks, scrambling to support their families with neither paychecks nor government aid.  …

Since the beginning of the recession in late 2007, the nation’s unemployment rate has increased by 88 percent, while welfare caseloads have grown just 14 percent, according to the Urban Institute report.

Experts say this disparity reflects the inadequacy of remaining welfare programs in the face of a veritable epidemic of joblessness. During a period of national distress, fewer and fewer people have been able to secure help to meet their basic needs, according to the report.

Between 2007 and 2010 -- just as the economy was contracting and joblessness was rising, generating greater demand for public assistance -- welfare caseloads dropped in 13 states, according to the Urban Institute report. In Arizona, which faced a particularly powerful blow to its finances in the form of a sustained plunge in housing prices, the welfare caseload dropped by 48 percent during that timeframe.
…
The share of people who both live in poverty with no reported income and lack welfare assistance has changed significantly since welfare reform. In 1996, 1 in 8 single mothers fit this profile, according to Zedlewski. By 2008, the most recent year for which this data is available, that figure had climbed to 1 in 5, she said.

In the early days after welfare reform, many states enacted stricter time limits, Arizona included, and beefed up programs offering subsidized child care -- a crucial component for single mothers required to work. The budget crisis assailing states has prompted many states to effectively roll back these programs.

States around the country are slashing cash benefits, reducing time limits and, in some cases, imposing strict work requirements on welfare applicants, said LaDonna Pavetti, an expert on welfare who works at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The practices also make it very hard for parents already dealing with a job crisis, a disability or other complications to qualify for cash aid, she said.
...
In 1997, the first year the reforms took effect in most states, Georgia used 73 percent of its federal welfare block grant to provide cash aid to poor families, according to data the state reported to the federal government. By 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, Georgia spent just 11 percent of its block grant on cash aid. Spending in Florida, Texas and Arizona plunged by similar margins.

The impact of these cuts is easy to discern: Far fewer poor families are being given cash assistance. In 2009, Georgia and Texas each provided cash aid to less than 10 percent of poor families, according to the Urban Institute report.

You could have not done that either. What an idea! And while you're at it, you could have also not escalated the drug war and basically created an underclass of predominantly African American men locked out of employment and federal aid because of non-violent crimes. 

 

Bill, you also said at the Fiscal Summit that your repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

However, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who once chaired your Council of Economic Advisers, Joe Stigitz, begs to differ:

The next issue that came very much to the fore was the issue of repealed Glass-Steagall Act While I was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, that didn't go through. It happened after I left. I opposed it very strongly. I thought there were good reasons why we had passed Glass-Steagall in the aftermath of the Great Depression. You look at the history, and it was clear that the quarter century after World War II, in which we had strong financial market regulations, is that one quarter century in the world in which there was almost no financial crises, no banking crises. It was also the period of most rapid economic growth, and it was also the period in which the inequalities in our societies were being reduced. So it was very hard to say that these regulations had stifled economic growth.

...

But there were two other problems. One of them is that by breaking down these barriers, we would wind up with larger financial institutions that would reduce competition, increase the risk of too big to fail. Banks that are too big to fail have incentives to engage in excessive risk taking. And that's exactly what happened. The increase in the concentration in the banking system in the years after the repeal of Glass-Steagall has been enormous, and we've seen the excessive risk taking, which American taxpayers have had to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for.

And the third factor that I think was not fully appreciated at the time, but clearly is evident since, was that the culture of these two kinds of institutions is and ought to be very different. Investment banks take rich people's money and are exposed to undertake risk, which is appropriate to those seeking high returns but can bear the high risk. ... The basic commercial banks are supposed to provide finance to small and medium-sized enterprises. They are an essential part of the lifeblood of an economy. That kind of banking is supposed to be boring; it's supposed to be conservative; it's supposed to do the job of assessing risk and making sure capital goes to where it's supposed to go. ...When you put them together, unfortunately what happened is the high-stakes, high-return culture of the investment banks dominated. And so what happened is the commercial banks, which had the security of deposit insurance, the backing of the U.S. government, in effect, dominated. And we wound up having to pay, as I said, hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue these commercial banks that engaged in excessive risk taking.

You could have not pushed for and signed the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, Bill, That wouldn't have done wonders for addressing inequality, but it would have not made the problem worse. 

Do you know what else you could have not done, Bill? You could have not lowered the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. That would have been grand, Bill.

House Armed Services Committee Kills Amendments on Gitmo Closure, Military Justice Reform

As the appropriations process moves ahead, the Armed Services Committee had its markup of the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last Thursday.

I wanted to highlight a few amendments in particular.

Guantanamo Bay Prison

Adam Smith (WA-09) offered an amendment to strike sections 1032 and 1033 of the NDAA.
Section 1032 prohibits the use of funds to construct a facility in the US to house the detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison.

Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify Facilities in the
United States to House Detainees Transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, to modify or construct any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

Section 1033 prohibits the use of funds for the transfer or release of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to the US or its territories.

Section 1033—Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be used during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2015, to transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions.

The Committee killed the amendment 38-23. The NDAA will continue to block the use of funds for closure.

Only 1 Republican voted for it: Walter Jones (NC-03).
Six Democrats opposed it: Ron Barber (AZ-02), Pete Gallego (TX-23), Dan Maffei (NY-24), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Loretta Sanchez (CA-46), and Shea-Porter (NH-01).
Tar Sands and Other Dirty Fuels

Mike Conway (TX-11) offered an amendment to exempt DOD from Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Here is Section 526:

SEC. 526. PROCUREMENT AND ACQUISITION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement  of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Basically, the amendment is authorizing the use of tar sands oil and other carbon-intensive fuels by the Department of Defense.

It passed 33 to 28. The vote was party line with two exceptions. Republican Chris Gibson (NY-19) voted no, and Democrat Pete Gallego (TX-23) voted yes.

Military Justice

Jackie Speier (CA-14) offered two amendments.

The first amendment would give authority for prosecuting all serious non-military offenses to the Chief Prosecutor of the respective service, taking it outside the chain of command. This purpose mimics that of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act.
It failed 13 to 49.

12 Democrats and 1 Republican supported it.

That one Republican was Walter Jones (NC-03).

The 12 Democrats were the following:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)

16 Democrats opposed it:

Madeleine Bordallo (Guam)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Mike McInTtyre (NC-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Adam Smith (WA-09)

The second amendment would give authority for prosecuting sexual assault-related offenses to the Chief Prosecutor of the respective service. This narrows the former amendment to cover only sexual assault, rather than all non-military offenses. It failed 28 to 34.

Three Democrats voted no: Susan Davis (CA-53), Loretta Sanchez (CA-46), and Adam Smith (WA-09).

Three Republicans voted for it: Mike Coffman (CO-06), Chris Gibson (NY-19), and Walter Jones (NC-03).

Final Passage

The Armed Services Committee being what it is, the final bill passed unanimously, 61 to 0, with a recommendation that the full House do so as well.

What "Performance-Based Pay" Means in the C-Suite

In yesterday's New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson took a look at Walmart's proxy filing to see how it's paying its executives.

When measuring top executives' performance for compensation purposes, Walmart makes various "adjustments" to its financial results, making those look better than in its audited financial statements. And better results means more pay (for the top).

Walmart claims that it makes these "adjustments" to eliminate stand-alone occurrences in order to base compensation on "comparable" years, but they, unsurprisingly, take a lot of liberties.

This year, the company included far more adjustments than in recent years. The impact of 11 “significant” items — including store closings, delays in store openings and the sale of operations — was eliminated from its results. In each of the four previous years, the number of adjustments never exceeded five.

The current adjustments essentially make the costs or lost income disappear when figuring performance pay.

Consider the case of William S. Simon, president and C.E.O. of Walmart’s United States unit. Under Walmart’s pay plan, he would receive some incentive pay if sales grew more than 2 percent.

The trouble was, Walmart’s United States sales rose only 1.8 percent in fiscal 2014. That meant Mr. Simon would miss his threshold.

Enter the adjustments.

After adjusting for certain items relating to the company’s sales, the Walmart unit eked out a growth rate of 2.03 percent in 2014. On the strength of that “adjusted” performance, Mr. Simon received $1.5 million, the proxy noted. His total compensation was $13 million last year.

What adjustments helped Mr. Simon clear the bar? One action that the company took was to eliminate the decline in its United States sales that occurred after the government cut food stamp benefits — formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, or SNAP — by 5 percent last November.

That reduction in benefits hurt Walmart’s sales, the company acknowledged, because many customers use food stamps in its stores.

But for executive-pay purposes, that sales decline never happened. And that meant a bigger payday for Mr. Simon.
…
There’s more. When figuring cash incentive pay, the company requires performance to exceed another threshold relating to its operating income. The bar is low — the company’s total operating income could decline by 1.5 percent, the proxy said, and executives would still earn a minimum cash incentive payout.

Again, the adjustments provided a crucial lift. According to the company’s annual financial filing, its actual operating income fell by 3.1 percent. But after making its adjustments — presto chango — the growth rate became a positive 1 percent.

Six of Walmart’s top executives received a total of $8.42 million in cash incentive payments for 2014, the proxy said. Mr. Tovar declined to specify how much of that was generated by the adjustments.

This contrasts with Walmart's own abysmal pay of most of its store employees. However, it called to mind another revealing contrast. 

You see, the Walton family is really big on performance-based pay somewhere else:

Although Walmart opened its first two stores in the nation’s capital just last December after a protracted battle over the retailer’s wages, the Walton Family Foundation has played a role in steering the direction of public education in the city for more than a decade. Since 2000, the foundation has invested more than $80 million here, not only in charter schools but also in support of taxpayer-funded vouchers for students to attend private schools. It poured millions into a controversial overhaul of tenure, the implementation of stricter teacher evaluation systems and the introduction of performance pay in the district’s public schools.

(emphasis added) 

Something tells me those teachers aren't getting so many "adjustments."

62 Democrats Buck Leadership and Join GOP to Extend Corporate Tax Perks

Today, the House voted to make the corporate research and development (R&D) tax credit permanent. This will add $155 billion to the deficit over the next decade, and although Republicans have demanded that an extension of emergency unemployment compensation be offset, they take no such stance when it comes to corporate giveaways.

The Democratic Party leadership, correctly, urged a NO vote because Republicans had decided to move forward with this tax credit alone, making passage of other extensions less likely. Democrats also saw it as a way to criticize GOP's double standard on deficits. (You could and should oppose it because it's a flagrant corporate giveaway, but that's asking too much of most politicians.)

Here is what House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer distributed this morning:

This bill would make the research and development (R&D) tax credit, which expired with the rest of the most recent tax extenders package at the end of calendar year 2013, permanent. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this permanent extension will add $155 billion to the deficit over 10 years, and Republicans have chosen to bring the bill to the Floor without providing an offset.

The R&D tax credit is the first of six permanent corporate tax extender bills approved by Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee. These six bills taken together would add $310 billion to the deficit over the next decade – 13 times the amount that it would cost to renew emergency unemployment insurance for the entire year. It is hypocritical of House Republicans - who have let emergency unemployment insurance expire for more than 2.5 million Americans, refused to provide a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) for Medicare payments to doctors, and failed to replace the irrational, across-the-board spending cuts imposed by the sequester all on arguments over offsets - to bring this bill to the Floor without paying for it.

House Republicans are attempting to justify this lack of a pay-for with the incorrect assertion that tax cuts pay for themselves. In fact, many economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Bush Administration Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson have stated that this is simply not the case.

This bill also ignores the many other bipartisan priorities in past tax extenders packages, choosing instead to move R&D by itself. This puts several tax provisions that benefit middle class and low income Americans - like the state and local sales tax deduction, the $250 deduction for teachers who purchase supplies for their classroom, as well as incentives for renewable energy, education, and dozens of others - at risk of not being renewed.  The bill also puts in doubt the future expansion of key refundable tax credits that expire in 2017, like the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit.

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has said that, “The people deserve a government that works for them, not one that buries them in more debt.” Unfortunately, bringing permanent, unpaid-for tax cuts to the Floor does exactly the opposite. The White House agrees and has issued a SAP stating that the President would veto this bill. If House Republicans are serious about fiscal responsibility, they should work with Democrats to find a bipartisan way to pay for making the R&D tax credit permanent, as well as other priority tax extenders, in a way that does not add to deficits and limit our ability to make the investments needed for businesses to continue to innovate, grow, and create well-paying jobs. Members are urged to VOTE NO.

The so-called American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014 passed 274 to 131. 

 

Despite the leadership's opposition, 62 Democrats joined 212 Republicans in supporting it:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
John Larson (CT-01)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Michelle Lujan Grisham
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Timothy Walz (MN-01)

Today's Congressional Bipartisan Charter School Lovefest

Today, the House passed H.R. 10, the "Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act," which consolidates the two existing federal charter school programs into one to award grants to state entities and authorizes the secretary of Education to maintain a federal grant competition for charter schools that did not win state grants. Overall, it increases federal funding of charter schools from $250 million to $300 million.

Teachers' unions expressed concern with the lack of charter oversight and transparency in the bill:

"The Miller-Kline bill includes improvements over current law, but it doesn’t go far enough in requiring the oversight and transparency that is owed to the students who attend charter schools and to the taxpayers who financially support them," AFT President Randi Weingarten said.

The National Education Association (NEA), the largest professional employee organization in the U.S., expressed reservations as well.

"While we are encouraged the bill includes improvements in some areas over current law, it ultimately falls well short of long-overdue parent, student, educator, community and taxpayer safeguards needed in the now 23-year old charter sector," Mary Kusler, the NEA's director of government relations, wrote in a letter to House offices last month.

The bill passed 360 to 45. Only 34 Democrats and 11 Republicans opposed it. 

Here are the 34 Democrats:

Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Katherine Clarke (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Dan Kildee (MI-5)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Here are the 11 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Mo Brooks (AL-05)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Scott Garrett (GA-05)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)

Kathy Castor (FL-14) offered an amendment that would require the secretary of Education to develop conflict of interest guidelines for all charter schools receiving federal funds.  Such guidelines would have to include disclosures from anyone affiliated with the charter school that has a financial interest in the school. The amendment failed 190 to 205.

178 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted for it. 201 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against it.
The four Democrats were Steve Cohen (TN-09), Jim Cooper (TN-05), George Miller (CA-11), and Bill Owens (NY-21).

The 12 Republicans were the following:

Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Jim Gerlach (PA-06)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Joseph Pitts (PA-16)
David Reichert (WA-08)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Aaron Schock (IL-18)

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) offered an amendment to direct the website publication of materials on the websites of Charter Schools regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, extra-circular activity, etc.

It failed 179 to 220. 175 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted for it. 207 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted against it.

The four Republicans were Chris Gibson (NY-19), Richard Hanna (NY-22), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27).

The 13 Democrats were the following:

John Carney (DE-AL)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
George Miller (CA-11)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Why, Yes, Bill Clinton Has Nothing But Contempt for You

The New York Times's Wall Street coddling wunderkind Andrew Ross Sorkin has an interview with former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the New York Magazine this weekend.
In the interview, Geithner recalls something that Bill Clinton once told him:

At another point, he cheerfully relayed a story that also appears in his book about the time he sought advice from Bill Clinton on how to pursue a more populist strategy: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley,” Clinton said, “and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again.”

That's how Bill Clinton views you for thinking that the banks should have faced accountability for wrecking the global economy and numerous people's lives.

And Hillary probably views you no differently than Bill does:

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop.

Their economic priorities are quite clear.