Which 12 Democrats Just Joined the GOP to Vote for Government-by-Crisis?

Earlier this evening, the House GOP's effort to pass a three-week funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security went down in flames.

The bill failed 203 to 224.

John Boehner suffered 52 defections from his caucus, the hardliners that refuse to vote for any bill that does not "defund" the President's executive orders on immigration.

However, here, rather than focusing on the 52 hardliners, let's focus on a different group of defectors: the 12 Democrats that voted with John Boehner.

The House Democratic leadership has continually insisted that they want a clean, yearlong DHS funding bill and do not want to override the President's executive orders or promote government-by-crisis.

Here is the advice Minority Whip Steny Hoyer gave to the caucus:

This measure is not a solution to the problem of funding DHS for the entire fiscal year and will only heighten the uncertainty faced by the Department.  Moreover, it would deprive DHS of the resources it needs to protect the nation’s borders, ports, and airways, a fact that DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have stressed repeatedly during this manufactured crisis. Just last night, Secretary Johnson sent a letter to Congressional Leaders, stating that “…as I have noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.”

This morning, the Senate is expected to pass a “clean” bill that funds DHS for the remainder of FY2015 – and includes no poison-pill amendments that target the President’s executive actions to address our broken immigration system.  That is what the House should be passing - not this short-term CR. Opposing the short-term CR makes clear that governing crisis-to-crisis, especially when it risks the our national security and the safety of Americans, is unacceptable.

If House Republicans are serious about protecting our borders and citizens, they will stop playing political games and allow for an up or down vote on the clean,
Senate-passed DHS funding bill. Members are urged to VOTE NO.

Here are those 12 Democrats: 

Nick Ashford (NE-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
David Scott (GA-13)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

I was watching part of the vote on C-SPAN and noticed that just about all of these 12 Democrats voted for the bill when they were certain it was going to fail. In other words, they wanted their voting record to reflect that they are no different from a Republican. As if that ever turned out voters to the polls for them. If voters wanted a representative who voted like a Republican, they'd vote for a real one.

Elizabeth Warren and Five Other Senators to Arne Duncan: Stop Gouging Student Loan Borrowers

Yesterday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with five colleagues--Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)--wrote to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to urge him to stop gouging student loan borrowers.

They write, "The Department of Education has broad authority to compromise, modify, discharge, and cancel student debts. Instead, the Department continues to gouge borrowers who struggle to meet their payments, subjecting them to debt collection, wage and benefit withholding, and other harsh penalties even when it is clear that the debtors cannot pay." The letter highlights other options available to help students that the Department of Education is ignoring. Instead, the Department of Education plans to make a $110 billion in profits from its student loans over the next decade, money that will be used for government operations that have nothing to do with education.

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Secretary Duncan:

Earlier this month, the President released a budget for the Department of Education indicating that the Department expects to generate several billion less in profits from federal student loans than it had previously estimated. While this progress is encouraging, the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent baseline indicates that the federal government is still expected to produce $110 billion in profits from its student loans over the next decade.

Congress did not create federal student loans to generate revenue for the federal government – to the contrary, it gave the Department of Education a host of tools to ensure that federal student loan borrowers are treated fairly and with dignity. For that reason, we write to ask the Department of Education to commit to reducing federal student loan profits by fulfilling its existing responsibilities under the law to help student loan borrowers manage their debts.

Student loan borrowers are buried in debt. Of the more than 40 million Americans with student loan debt, at least 25% are in deferment, forbearance, or default. With the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all sounding the alarm that student debt is threatening to drag down both our families and the economy itself, it is striking that the Department still intends to generate such significant revenue from federal loan programs designed to help young people get an affordable education. While some of these federal profits are the inevitable result of artificially high interest rates on federal student loans locked into place by Congress, much of this revenue will be collected as a direct consequence of the Department’s failure to implement congressional directives or utilize its discretionary authority to protect our most vulnerable borrowers.

We recognize that the President’s recent efforts to enroll more students in congressionally-authorized income-based repayment plans have had a positive impact on the ability of these students to repay their loans and, as a result, have contributed to the reduction in the Department’s projected profits on these programs. Income-based repayment, however, is only one of the tools Congress has given to the Department to relieve the burden of student debt. Congress has also created additional programs to help distressed borrowers across a host of additional areas, the Department of Education is failing to do what Congress has directed it to do.

The Higher Education Act, for example, directs the Department of Education to implement a plan to cancel student loan borrowers’ debts when their colleges act in ways that hurt the quality of their education or their finances. To date, however, the Department of Education has yet to give borrowers a clear idea of how to exercise this option. Similarly, the Department of Education has broad authority to compromise, modify, discharge, and cancel student debts. Instead, the Department continues to gouge borrowers who struggle to meet their payments, subjecting them to debt collection, wage and benefit withholding, and other harsh penalties even when it is clear that the debtors cannot pay. The Higher Education Act also requires the Department of Education to offer student loan discharges to students whose college close their funds to bail out their federal student loan debts. All the while, the government is overcharging these borrowers and pocketing the profits to spend on unrelated government activities.

It is not the job of the Department of Education to maximize profits for the government at the cost of squeezing students who are struggling to get an education. Federal student loan programs were created by Congress to provide an opportunity for every young person who works hard and plays by the rules to pursue higher education. Congress has also acted to grant more authority to the Department of Education to ensure that borrowers who need relief can, in appropriate circumstances, receive the assistance they need. And Congress has charged the Department of Education with executing these federal student loan programs. Instead of implementing more policies designed to maximize federal profits on the backs of our kids, the Department should take further steps to implement the directives it has been given by Congress to ensure that our most vulnerable young people struggling with the burden of federal student debt have meaningful opportunity to build a strong future for themselves and their families.

Obama Wants to Make Sure Your Broker Can't Take Advantage of You. Which Dems Disagree?

On Monday, at an AARP event, President Obama, with Senator Elizabeth Warren at his side, announced a new Department of Labor proposal to impose a fiduciary duty on financial advisers. In other words, your financial adviser would have to act in your best interest, not his or her own.

Here's what the White House said about the new proposed rule in its fact sheet:

A system where Wall Street firms benefit from backdoor payments and hidden fees if they talk responsible Americans into buying bad retirement investments—with high costs and low returns—instead of recommending quality investments isn’t fair. These conflicts of interest are costing middle class families and individuals billions of dollars every year. On average, they result in annual losses of 1 percentage point for affected investors. To demonstrate how small differences can add up: A 1 percentage point lower return could reduce your savings by more than a quarter over 35 years. In other words, instead of a $10,000 retirement investment growing to more than $38,000 over that period after adjusting for inflation, it would be just over $27,500. ....
Because of outdated rules protecting retirement savings, we’re seeing similar types of bad incentives and bad advice lead to billions of dollars of losses for American families saving for retirement every year—with some families losing tens of thousands of dollars of their retirement savings. That’s why today, the President directed the Department of Labor to move forward with a proposed rulemaking to protect families from bad retirement advice by requiring retirement advisers to abide by a “fiduciary” standard—putting their clients’ best interest before their own profits.

That seems like common sense, right? Well, not to the industry lobbyists and members of Congress who have been fighting this pending rule for years because they think that financial advisers should be able to take advantage of you.

On October 29, 2013, the House passed the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act. This bill was designed to delay this Department of Labor rule until the SEC--more in the pocket of Wall Street--finalized its rule.

Here is some excellent background information by David Dayen that I included when I wrote about the bill then:

The Labor Department proposal, known as the “fiduciary rule,” would change the ethical standards by which employer-based retirement products like 401(k)’s and IRAs are marketed and sold. The rule has not been updated since 1975, before 401(k)’s and IRAs even existed. The Labor Department wants to broaden the definition of a “fiduciary” to cover all financial advisers who offer individual investment advice for a fee. Under the rule, they would be legally required to work in the best interest of their clients. For example, a fiduciary would not be able to push investment products on customers in which they have a financial stake. The agency defines the goal of the proposal as “to ensure that potential conflicts of interest among advisers are not allowed to compromise the quality of investment advice that millions of American workers rely on, so they can retire with the dignity that they have worked hard to achieve.” ...
Currently, it is depressingly common for financial advisers, more than 80 percent of whom are not fiduciaries, to self-deal when offering advice. First off, they obtain large fees from the retirement products they sell. According to the think tank Demos, a median-income, two-earner household will pay $155,000 during their lifetime to financial advisers on average. (The lifetime gains for two-earner households from retirement accounts are around $230,000, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the profits go to the industry.) Second, non-fiduciary financial advisers can enjoy kickbacks; right now there is no rule against an adviser from a mutual fund company encouraging clients to put their money in specific funds sold by that company. In fact, that’s the norm, and the adviser typically receives a commission for the sale.

Conflicts of interest like this cost retirement investors at least $1 billion a month, because the funds they get channeled into underperform the alternatives. Financial advisers also encourage rollovers into high-cost IRAs when an individual changes jobs. None of these schemes have to be disclosed to the customer, under the current standard. The National Bureau for Economic Research found in a recent study that “adviser self‐interest plays an important role in generating advice that is not in the best interest of the clients.”

So in the middle of a retirement crisis, when the majority of Americans already aren’t accumulating the savings they need to maintain their standard of living, sellers of retirement products are skimming close to $60 billion a year off the top through deceptive practices, making a bad situation even worse.

30 Democrats joined the GOP in voting for it. This was less than what supporters had expected, but was still far too high.

Which Democrats voted to allow your financial adviser to take advantage of you?

Of the 30 House Democrats who voted for it, seven are no longer in Congress:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)

And an eighth has moved up to the Senate: Gary Peters (D-MI).

But 22 are still in the House:

John Carney (DE-AL)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Ed Perlmuter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

It Says a Lot About the Democratic Party That Only 23 Dems Signed This Letter

For the past few weeks, Keith Ellison (MN-05), Maxine Waters (CA-43), and Steve Cohen (TN-09) have been circulating a letter around House Democrats urging John Boehner to postpone his invitation to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress.

Here is the text of the letter:

We write to urge you to postpone your invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress in March…

The timing of this invitation and lack of coordination with the White House indicate that this is not an ordinary diplomatic visit.  Rather this appears to be an attempt to promote new sanctions legislation against Iran that could undermine critical negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran. At the State of the Union President Obama made it clear that he will veto new Iran sanctions legislation. The invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu enlists a foreign leader to influence a Presidential policy initiative. We should be able to disagree on foreign policy within our American political system and without undermining the Presidency.

Aside from being improper, this places Israel, a close and valued ally, in the middle of a policy debate between Congress and the White House. As members of Congress who support Israel, we share concerns that it appears that you are using a foreign leader as a political tool against the president. We should not turn our diplomatic friendship into a partisan issue. Beyond threatening our diplomatic priorities, the timing of this invitation offers the Congressional platform to elevate a candidate in a foreign election.

A visit from Israel’s Prime Minister would normally be an occasion for bipartisan cooperation and support. Our relationship with Israel is too important to use as a pawn in political gamesmanship. We strongly urge you to postpone this invitation until Israelis have cast their ballots and our consideration of the current round of Iran-related legislation has concluded. When the Israeli Prime Minister visits us outside the specter of partisan politics, we will be delighted and honored to greet him or her on the Floor of the House.

There is nothing controversial about this letter. It doesn't even challenge the bipartisan consensus around Israel. 

 

And the public seems to agree with Ellison, Waters, and Cohen. A recent poll by CNN found that 63 percent of Americans and 81 percent of Democrats think Boehner was wrong to invite Netanyahu to address Congress without notifying Obama.

But how many of their colleagues were they able to get to sign on to their letter?

Only twenty.

Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
André Carson (IN-07)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Republicans are having a foreign leader speak before Congress to openly disparage the president and attempt to sabotage the president's foreign policy. One would think that it would be a no-brainer for Democrats to at the least sign this letter but also not attend. But, instead, most Democrats will just wring their hands a bit and then go, giving a Netanyahu a standing ovation for every single thing he says.

33 Dems Join GOP to Say Deficits Don't Matter When It Comes to Corporate Tax Cuts

Yesterday, the House GOP showed--yet again--that deficits only matter to them in discussions of helping the middle and working class. When it comes to extending tax credits that largely benefit upper incomes, increasing the deficit (by draining revenue) is great.

The House continued with their piecemeal and unfunded approach to tax extenders today, extending a set of tax credits for small businesses that would increase the deficit by $79.2 billion over ten years.
Democrats were urged to vote NO by the party leadership:

This bill is a combination of three bills permanently extending tax provisions affecting the tax treatment of small businesses and S Corporations, whose income are taxed at the individual shareholder level rather than the corporate level, as C Corporations are.  

The first bill would permanently extend an expired tax provision that increased the Section 179 maximum expensing of depreciable property for small businesses from $25,000 to $500,000, and increased the threshold over which such expensing is phased out from $200,000 to $2,000,000. It also extends the expired expansion of eligible property to include software.

The second bill would allow corporations converted from C Corps to S Corps to hold assets for only 5 years, rather than permanent law's 10 years, in order to avoid paying the full corporate tax rate on the "built-in gain" on income from the sale of that asset.
The third bill would allow a charitable contribution's adjusted basis, rather than its fair market value, to be used in calculating an S Corporation shareholder's individual tax benefit from the charitable contribution.

The JCT estimates that this package of permanent tax cuts will add $79.2 billion to the deficit over 10 years, and Republicans have chosen to bring the bill to the Floor without providing an offset.
…
The choice made by House Republicans to address these provisions one by one, while adding their cost to the deficit, represents an irresponsible approach that will only make reaching comprehensive tax reform and fixing our broken tax system harder.

This morning, DCCC chair Ben Lujan noted on Twitter that the unpaid-for tax cuts passed by the GOP yesterday and today could provide 10 years of universal Pre-K for American children and a year of NIH research. That the GOP chooses tax cuts instead is a statement of their values. 

33 Democrats, however, voted with the GOP:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Brenda Lawrence (MI-14)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

This vote was largely similar to the one yesterday.

12 Democrats who voted for yesterday's unpaid-for tax credits voted against today's:

Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)

And six Democrats did the opposite:

Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Brenda Lawrence (MI-14)
Grace Meng (NY-06)

Walter Jones (NC-03) remained the sole Republican NO vote.

The House Just Passed the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act. Spoiler: It's Not About Fighting Hunger.

Earlier today, the House voted to pass the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act 279 to 136.

Has the House GOP shown a new interest in fighting hunger? Hahaha, of course not.

The bill extends three tax credits:  the deductions for contributions of food inventory, allowing tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for charitable purposes, and the deduction for contributions of conservation easements to preserve land.

When discussing tax credits for charitable giving, it's important to remember that they are designed to primarily benefit the top 1%:




Most Democrats opposed the bill because it extends a tax credit to benefit the rich without offsetting the lost revenue. The GOP, of course, only cares about the deficit when it comes to policies aimed to benefit the middle and working classes.

One Republican--Walter Jones (NC-03)--joined Democrats in voting against it.

39 Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

And lest you thought Republicans suddenly started to care about the hunger crisis in the US, they're already planning to hack away at SNAP even more than they already have.

Comcast EVP/Republican Fundraiser to Serve as Senior Advisor to DNC 2016 Host Committee

Earlier today, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter announced that David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast, will serve as senior adviser to Philly's Host Committee for the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

The same Comcast that is one of America's least favorite companies.

And the same David Cohen and same Comcast that lobbied against Obama's net neutrality proposal.

And the same Comcast that fought Philadelphia's paid sick leave legislation, getting the mayor to veto it two times before he finally accepted a watered-down version today:

The biggest opponent of the bill is Philadelphia-based telecommunications giant Comcast. Almost all of the $108,429.25 Comcast spent on lobbying in 2011 was in opposition to paid sick days. It also is a major contributor to Mayor Nutter, contributing $7,500 to his campaign in 2011 and an additional $8,500 in 2012.

Comcast is also heavily involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC," and has representatives on both the Communications and Information Technology Task Force and Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force. As the Center for Media and Democracy reported, ALEC has had opposition to paid sick days on its agenda since 2011 -- specifically, state bills that would preempt local paid sick day efforts -- and ALEC members have consistently been vocal opponents to the common-sense legislation in almost every city and state it has emerged.

And the same David Cohen that raised money for former Republican governor Tom Corbett and current Republican senator Pat Toomey.

 

Here he is hosting fundraisers for Pennsylvania's Tea Party Republican governor Tom Corbett back in February 2013:

A major Pennsylvania Democratic donor has announced that he will back Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's bid for reelection in 2014, according to multiple state news outlets. As first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen hosted a January fundraiser for Corbett at his Philadelphia home that helped net the governor $200,000 for his reelection campaign.

"I expect to support Gov Corbett," Cohen told the Inquirer in an email message this week.
....
The Naked Philadelphian, a blog covering Pennsylvania politics, also reported on Cohen's decision to fund the incumbent governor's reelection. A source close to Comcast who attended the fundraiser told the blog, "Comcast is a business in the state of Pennsylvania. They need to be able to talk to both sides." Comcast is headquartered in Philadelphia.

This is not Cohen's first time reaching a hand across the aisle. He has donated to powerful Republicans in Washington, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.); Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; and Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Nor is it Cohen's first time giving to Corbett, according to campaign finance data available through the National Institute of Money in State Politics. In his 2008 bid to be reelected state attorney general, Corbett received $1,500 from Cohen.

Here Cohen is hosting a fundraiser for PA's Tea Party Republican senator Pat Toomey back in June of 2013.

Democratic powerbroker David L. Cohen has already crossed party lines to raise money for Republican Gov. Corbett.

Now, the executive vice-president of Comcast is holding a fundraising reception at his home for Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey.

.....

“Pat Toomey is a smart and gutsy legislator, and exactly the kind of person we need in Washington,” David L. Cohen wrote in an email soliciting attendees and donors for the event. He said Toomey, elected in 2010, has made a “noticeable mark” in the Senate, and praised him for championing legislation that would have extended background checks to firearms purchases made at gun shows.

The same Pat Toomey that Democrats need to defeat if they plan to win back the Senate. 

With friends like David Cohen....

Sanders to Yellen: The Federal Reserve Needs to Stop Abetting the ECB's Destruction of Greece

When Syriza won the parliamentary elections in Greece two weeks ago, Senator Bernie Sanders soon after came out with a statement:

The Syriza victory in the Greek elections tells us that people around the world will no longer accept austerity for working families while the rich continue to get much richer.  The top 1 percent of the world’s population will soon own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent.  This is wrong and unsustainable from a moral, economic and political perspective.

Since then, he has used the greater authority that comes with being ranking "Democrat" on the Senate Budget Committee to put pressure on the IMF and the Federal Reserve to reject the damaging austerity imposed on Greece and support the new government's push for recovery.

A week and a half ago, he sent a letter to IMF Director Christine Lagarde, inquiring about how US funds have been used to force austerity on the Greek population, threatening the political stability of Greece and the financial stability of Europe and the world.

January 29, 2015

Dear Ms. Lagarde,

This week, the Greek people elected a new government and invested that government with a mandate to reverse the failed austerity policies of the last six years. It is an important election, not just for people in Greece but for people all over the world struggling with declining spending on their own human needs even as they see rising profits for the financial sector.

Nowhere is this contrast more clear than in Greece. The costs of austerity in humanitarian terms are clear. One in four workers is unemployed, and the health system has been cut by 40%. Homelessness has spiked by a quarter, and HIV cases have increased by 200%. Hospitals are missing basic equipment such as surgical gloves, and pharmacies are running out of medicines. Malaria, once under control, is returning because Greek cities cannot pay for mosquito spray.

The humanitarian cost is severe, but it is important to note that these cuts have failed to address Greece’s debt problems. Despite these cuts, or rather because of them, the Greek economy is smaller than it was just a few years ago, and the debt to GDP ratio is higher than it was when austerity measures were first implemented. As a result, failed austerity policies are leading to a heightened risk of financial contagion, which should be a key concern of the Fund. Should failed austerity policies continue in Greece, Spain, and Italy, the international banking system will have its resilience severely tested.

Finally, the most significant cost is political. The severity of these austerity measures has created a dangerous political vacuum. The neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn has gained seats in the Greek Parliament, and is waiting in the wings should the current government fail. The resurgence of the anti-democratic right is not isolated to Greece. Extremist parties all over Europe are gaining as austerity measures are imposed on nation after nation.

With a new Greek government in place, we have an opportunity to stop the slide of Greece, the Eurozone, and the global financial system into chaos. The people of Spain, Italy, and Portugal are watching to see if this situation can be addressed in a manner that can point toward a pathway to broad based economic recovery into their countries. The International Monetary Fund, as a multi-lateral institution and one member of the “Troika” negotiating with the Greek government, has an important role to play. As ranking member of the Budget Committee, I am concerned about the IMF using United States government resources to impose austerity on a people that cannot take any more of it and risking severe financial contagion and political instability in doing so. I also believe that with the right leadership and choices, the IMF can help resolve this painful situation in a way that recognizes reasonable losses to creditors while aiding the Greek government in reducing tax evasion and corruption.

There is substantial debate over whether the American government should increase the amount of U.S. resources available to the IMF for lending to foreign countries. Without wading into this debate for the moment, I would like to understand how our commitments are being used in this case, and whether those commitments are being used to induce financial contagion and right-wing political extremism through excessive austerity or to aid in helping Greece and the rest of Europe achieve a manageable debt load and a sustainable economy.

With this in mind, I would appreciate a meeting with you and a briefing by the team at the Fund that is handling the Greek situation. My senior policy advisor, Matt Stoller, will be in contact with your office to follow up and arrange a briefing.

Sincerely,
Bernard Sanders
United States Senator

This past weekend, he sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen urging her to "make it clear to the leadership of the European Central Bank that the United States and the Federal Reserve object to actions that affect our national interest and risk U.S. and global financial stability through unnecessary and counterproductive implementation of deflationary policies." The Federal Reserve provides substantial sums of money to the ECB and thus is complicit in what it does.

February 8, 2015

Dear Chair Yellen:

As you know, the Greek people are suffering from a severe economic depression. Due to deflationary-inducing austerity policies, the Greek economy is 25% smaller than it was just a few years ago. Unemployment, youth unemployment, homelessness, HIV, suicides, and even cases of malaria have increased. While the humanitarian crisis is severe, budget cuts have failed to address Greece’s debt problems. The country’s debt to GDP ratio is higher than it was when austerity measures were first implemented. The situation threatens to create a Eurozone-wide deflationary spiral, it elevates the risk of financial contagion, and it undermines vital U.S. interests.

Several weeks ago the Greek people voted for a new government. The government canceled the privatization of key public assets, raised the minimum wage, and restored electricity to the needy. This government is seeking to restructure its relationship with the European Union to encourage economic growth in Greece and to escape from a deflationary cycle.

Recently, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that it will no longer accept Greek official debt as collateral for loans to financial institutions in that country on the grounds that the new government is not following the dictates of the previous, failed policies. This move had an immediate destabilizing effect on the U.S. and world markets, and further moves could provoke a run on the Greek banking system in the days or weeks ahead.

The United States cannot stand idly by while the European Central Bank undermines the new democratically elected government of Greece, induces deflation and risks financial instability. President Barack Obama was right when he recently noted, with regard to Greece: “You cannot keep on squeezing countries that are in the midst of a depression. At some point, there has to be a growth strategy in order for them to pay off their debts to eliminate some of their deficits.”

It would be a terrible mistake for the world to forget what happens when a democratically-elected government, as was the case in Germany in the 1920s, is unable to relieve the severe economic suffering of its people. We must remember that waiting in the wings should this recently elected Greek government fail is the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party. We cannot allow fascism to come to power in a European country due to our unwillingness to reverse harmful austerity policies.

As you know, the Federal Reserve has in the past provided substantial sums of dollars to the European Central Bank through what is known as a ‘swap line’. During the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve engaged in 271 transactions with the ECB, with an aggregate amount of dollars extended totaling more than $8 trillion. Currently, the Federal Reserve has a standing credit arrangement with the ECB on which the ECB can draw at any time. These swap lines, as they stand, tend to make the United States implicitly supportive of the policies that have so destabilized and damaged Greece. But they also give us a reason, indeed an obligation, to object when a partner Central Bank departs from its commitment to financial stability.

Therefore, I am writing to ask you to make it clear to the leadership of the European Central Bank that the United States and the Federal Reserve object to actions that affect our national interest and risk U.S. and global financial stability through unnecessary and counterproductive implementation of deflationary policies. Our staffs are already working to set up a conversation on this vital question, and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,
Bernard Sanders
United States Senator

You should thank Senator Sanders for being vocal on this issue and understanding that the fight against damaging austerity policies is a global one.

Which 19 House Democrats Just Voted to Hobble Federal Regulators?

Following its vote Wednesday on a bill to subject federal regulators to more burdensome paperwork and open the door to more industry lawsuits, the House voted on another bill yesterday to do the same thing.
The "Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015" would require federal agencies to measure the costs of regulations on small businesses.

Here is the White House's statement on the bill:

H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and costs for businesses and the American public. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 527. ...
Passage of H.R. 527 would burden the existing framework with layers of new procedural requirements that would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates. It would expand the use of advocacy review panels, create needless grounds for judicial review and judicial remedies, and impose unrealistic analytic requirements on agencies. In these ways and others, H.R. 527 would impede the ability of agencies to provide the public with basic protections, and create needless confusion and delay that would prove disruptive for businesses as well as for State, Tribal and local governments.

The statement also includes an intention to veto the bill, were it to ever reach the President's desk. John Conyers (MI-13) expressed a similar view in the debate before the vote:

"Under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly burdensome regulatory requirements, this bill is just another attempt to prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that promote and protect the health and safety of Americans," said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill passed 260 to 163.

19 Democrats joined the GOP in voting for it:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) offered an amendment to exempt from the bill all regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration relating to consumer safety, including those issued pursuant to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

It failed 172 to 248.

Eight Democrats joined the GOP in voting against it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

Bernie Sanders, Patty Murray, and 24 Other Dems Encourage Obama to Be Bold with New Overtime Rules

Later this month, the Obama administration is expected to announce whether you'll be eligible for overtime pay:

Last year, as part of his plan to raise wages through executive action, the president ordered the Labor Department to revise the rules that determine which workers are eligible for overtime pay. Under the Depression-era Fair Labor Standards Act, hourly workers earn time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 in a week. The idea is to give companies a choice: Either pay a premium for having employees work more, or hire more workers and spread the labor around to other people.

But under the law, only certain salaried workers qualify for the overtime premium. The crafters of the law sought to carve out executives and other well-paid, white-collar professionals.

Thanks to inflation, the current criteria -- set by the Bush administration in 2004 -- exclude the vast majority of salaried workers from overtime pay. Over the objections of Republicans and business lobbies, the White House clearly plans to make the overtime rules more inclusive. But how many workers will become overtime-eligible depends on how ambitious the administration feels.

The rules are complicated, but mostly boil down to what's known as the salary threshold. If you earn below a certain amount in a year, you're automatically qualified for overtime, no matter your work duties. Right now, the salary threshold is historically low -- $455 per week, or $23,660 per year -- which is why so few salaried workers qualify. Today, a mere 11 percent of salaried workers fall under the threshold, compared with 65 percent in 1975, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That growing exclusion has been great for business payrolls. For workers' paychecks, not so much.

According to the above article from the Huffington Post, the White House is leaning toward a $42,000 salary threshold, which would cover 35 percent of salaried workers. 

A group of 26 senators, led by Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray (ranking members of the Democratic Caucus in the Budget and HELP Committees, respectively), wrote to Obama last week urging him to shoot higher and embrace a $56,680 threshold, which would restore the monetary value of the threshold to its 1975 value and cover 47 percent of salaried workers:

Dear Mr. President:

We commend you for your commitment to strengthening overtime protections for American workers. Overtime protections are vital to helping middle class workers and our economy. As you work on a final regulation, we encourage you to increase the overtime threshold to at least $1,090 a week ($56,680 a year) and index it to inflation.
Too many Americans are working longer and harder without anything to show for their efforts in their paychecks. These long hours are straining middle class workers and their families. Since the 1970s, average salaries for middle class individuals have dropped even while salaried workers have increased the hours they spend on the job.

Strengthening overtime protections will help millions of middle class families.
Current regulations fail to protect the majority of the workforce. Today, the salary threshold that determines who is automatically eligible for overtime coverage is so low that earning as little as $455 a week ($23,660 a year) could result in being exempted from being eligible for overtime. Only 11 percent of salaried workers earn less than the current overtime threshold, a drastic departure from the past when most workers earned overtime pay. In 1975, 65 percent of American salaried workers were under the income threshold. To cover 65 percent of salaried workers today, the income threshold would need to be increased to $1,327 (around $69,000 a year).

Raising the income threshold to at last $56,680 will restore the monetary value of the income threshold to 1975 levels and make approximately 47 percent of salaried workers eligible for overtime pay. These are middle class workers who have been working longer hours but without additional compensation. You have the opportunity to help these workers get a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work by restoring the income threshold to at least its 1975 value ($56,680 a year) and indexing it to inflation.

Thank you for your ongoing efforts to help middle class families.

Here are the 26 signers:

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Here are the 19 members of the Democratic caucus not on that letter:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Angus King (I-ME)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Harry Reid was out with an injury, so I wasn't surprised to not see his name.

If you live in a state whose Democratic(s) senator didn't sign on, call them and ask why not. Maybe they missed the request. (I would think people like Merkley, Boxer, and Udall would be supportive.) Maybe they turned it down. It's good to know which one.

Which 9 House Democrats Think That Big Business Doesn't Have Enough Say over the Regulatory Process?

The House GOP continued with its deregulatory agenda today by passing the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015. This bill, like most bills passed out of the Republican Congress, is designed to hobble federal regulators and increase industry power over the regulatory process:

Sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act would hamstring rule-making by requiring regulators to adhere to stringent guidelines and submit additional reviews of proposed regulations to the CBO and other government agencies. It also forces regulators to give industries a heads up and solicit feedback when considering any new rules, giving big business an inside track to defeat any measures they don’t like.

…

The legislation also requires regulators to adopt a new definition of “direct costs” to include metrics such as “forgone business profits, costs passed onto consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes.”

And according to CBO estimates, the bulk of the costs would be shouldered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the bête noire of Wall Street. 

The bill passed 250 to 173.

9 Democrats joined the House GOP:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

17 Democrats voted for this bill when it was brought up last year. Most of the difference resulted from retirements or defeats, although four Democrats flipped their votes against the bill:

Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)

Kurt Schrader (OR-05) flipped his vote to now be in favor of it.

Congress voted on two Democratic amendments.

The first was by Elijah Cummings (MD-07) to strike the section of the bill requiring federal agencies to conduct a retrospective cost-benefit analysis of any regulation at the request of the Chairman or Ranking Member of a Congressional Committee.

It failed 179 to 245.

One Republican--Chris Gibson (NY-19)--joined Democrats in voting for it.

Four Democrats--Ashford, Costa, Peterson, and Sinema--voted against it.

Then Gerry Connolly (VA-11) offered an amendment that would repeal the amendments to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 made by this bill if the average annual rate of real GDP growth remains below 5 percent for the four quarters following its enactment.

That amendment failed 173 to 249. The vote was almost identical to that on the bill itself, with the only difference being Patrick Murphy (FL-18) voting yes and Gwen Graham (FL-02) voting no.