Paul Krugman: Obama Won't Be Able To Pass Major Legislation In His Second Term

Flg away.  

And I did answer, but it went elsewhere.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Paul Krugman: Obama Won't Be Able To Pass Major Legislation In His Second Term

If JoeLieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the DemocraticCaucus in lockstep on cloture and filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman's vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the DemocraticCaucus (and hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/11­/07/us/pol­itics/07co­ng.html?_r­=3&ref=pol­itics&oref­=slogin&or­ef=slogin


http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/


http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/11/8/­17349/2244


For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats got what?

Without 60, without his voting on cloture/fi­libusters, on the legislatio­n that Obama and Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats)­, what is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the DemocraticCaucus (make him privvy to your strategizi­ng) and reward him with a plum chairmansh­ip, where he buried investigat­ing the BushCheney administra­tion over their failures during HurricaneKatrina? 

For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislatio­n, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery and expanding JoeLieberm­an's power wasn't in the interests of the Democratic­Party or the People's. 

Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g, or an ultimatum that he couldn't join Republican­s in cloture/filibusterin­g?? No agreement that he'd sign on to a PublicOption?

Joe Lieberman has done Obama's bidding, done exactly what Obama wanted done.  Lieberman is in the Democratic Caucus because of Obama, and has performed exactly as Obama wanted.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Reach Filibuster Reform Deal [UPDATE]

Pretty much the same people/corporations/industries that Republicans represent.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/29/mcconnell_3/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

While it will be interesting the corporate boards of directors that Obama lands on after the White House, it will be more interesting to see where Michelle Obama winds up.  More and more politicians are working as teams with their spouses, switchbacking between public office and corporate whor/tool-ing (Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine Chao, Chris Dodd and his wife Jackie Clegg, Tom Daschle and his lobbyist wife Linda Hall Daschle, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas, are just a few examples.  Then there's this.

Before entering the White House, Michelle Obama directly benefitted professionally from her husband's legislative efforts through her job at the University of Chicago Hospitals.  She was also a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (a major Wal-Mart supplier) with ties to Citibank.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Filibuster Reform: Senators Reportedly Close To Deal On Modest Limits

Yes. On not getting Democratic voters' objectives met.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

Obama is the military.  He's the CiC.  And the refusal comes directly through the White House and the petition system that they've instituted.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock

FWIW, healthcare providers (the people who are actually providing the healthcare to patients) haven't had a raise in close to 20 years.

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-pa­id bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.  One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Then there are the shareholders.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock

If the Tea Party was any serious threat, Obama would have been running against Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum in the general election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock

Obama never wanted a public option or single payer.  But to get both off the table, he had to do it in stages.  Single payer first, with big talk about "I will not sign any legislation that doesn't include a robust public option".  That had to happen right off the bat, before negotiations even began.  To make sure that there wouldn't be a public option in any final legislatio­n (and that there really wouldn't be any reform of the system, that the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries would continue to be able to make massive profits), single payer had to be taken off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.   Out of sight, out of mind. And that's exactly what Obama did.

Once that happened, then a public option was used as a bargaining chip, to be given up, and we know that from several sources, including Tom Daschle and Richard Kirsch.

A caller on CSpan not long ago asked Richard Wolffe, who was out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House, if we're ever going to get a public option to keep costs down.

Wolffe makes it clear that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way (although Wolffe is mistaken when he says that Obama never ran on supporting a public option -- Not only did Obama campaign on "a public option", he campaigned on single payer, universal health care -- Here's a campaign ad featuring Obama himself -- See the part where he says he has a plan to "cover everyone'? That's 'universal coverage' -- There's even a graphic in the ad that says "The Obama Plan - UNIVERSAL coverage for all Americans"­.  Obama ran against mandates, and criticized Hillary for them in her campaign promises --  Here is Candidate Obama on mandates -- Here again -- Obama campaigned on public option).

When you follow this closely, when you see enough examples, it's impossible to think Obama is a man of character and integrity, in this business for the People.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Post-Partisan Promise Mellows Amid First Term Gridlock

there is no public option because Obama gave up on that without a fight in a futile effort to appease the GOP.

==========================

It had nothing to do with appeasing the GOP.  There is no public option because the insurance industry didn't want one.  Both political parties have signed on to privatizing all American resources and services, including ending government programs that aren't privatized (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.).  That was the reason for making sure that single payer was off the table (and before the negotiations ever began) - So that any 'compromise' position couldn't include a public option.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obamacare 2013: Obama's Legacy Tied To Health Care Reform That Bears His Name

Yes, nations with universal healthcare have the longest lifespans, but ACA is NOT universal healthcare.

health insurance ≠ medical treatment

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  Insurance companies aren't required to cover anyone's preexisting condition gratis.    And between increased premium costs, deductibles and co-pays, ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies

People who voted for Obama/Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment.  That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Voters didn't send Obama/Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment.  Voters didn't send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.  Yet that's precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity WallStreet's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money's in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.  One example is JoelGemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

ACA's nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry.  It's one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.

The health insurance industry provides no real service.  All it does is take money out of the system.  It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.

Dr. MarciaAngell, a proponent of single payer universal health care, testifying before Congress as to the reason the system is in such a shambles:  

"It's set up to generate profits NOT to provide care.  To pay for care, we rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to the sickest patients and limiting services to the others.  They cream roughly 20% off the top of the premium dollar for profits and overhead.  Our method of delivering care's no better than our method of paying for it.  We provide much of the care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay.  Most doctors are paid fee-for-service which gives them a similar incentive to focus on profitable services, particularly specialists, who receive very high fees for expensive tests and procedures.  In sum, healthcare's for maximizing income and not maximizing health..."

And ACA does nothing to change that.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

More crazy circular logic an Obama 'ardent fan'. 

When you wield power, you really don't care what your most reliable enemies call you.  You don't have to.  And Obama has shown us that he has no problem being authoritarian, dictatorial, fascistic, with his gun control executive actions, expanding wars without Congressional authorization (Libya), and other moves by his branch of government.  But Obama's 'most ardent fans' are no different than Bush's, and can never accept that they've been hoodwinked.  They will never believe that the Democratic Party is no different than the Republican Party because they don't want to, and will reject any information that would create doubt.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

It's got 'White House' on it - That's as good as it gets for Obama-approved.  But more importantly, there is NOTHING that comes out as a reaction to the White House petition system that isn't directly linked to the Oval Office.  That's pure political policy.

The circular logic that ObamaZombies have to adopt in order to keep themselves from accepting the responsibility of their poor decision-making process is what's causing the 1%'s ability to enslave the 99%.  

Censorship has nothing to do with this; Limbaugh has no intrinsic right over anyone else to be on the DoD's air waves.  But "censorship" as you deem it has been going on at the AFN for years - Howard Stern, for example.  

A civilian-controlled military is supposed to be apolitical.  And when there's a systemic problem (sexual harassment, abuse and assault), you don't turn a blind-eye to it by providing an approved enabler to opine on the DoD's air waves.  That's crazy dysfunctional.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

Most Obama supporters voted for him because of the free stuff he was giving away at tax payer expense, they could care less about the deficit or anything else..

===========================

By "free stuff", do you mean Social Security and Medicare benefits?  The "stuff" that we've already paid for?  How would you react if you'd paid into a Christmas Club at your bank (or for a life insurance policy, or car, or any annuity) and the company had siphoned off all of the money to give great big bonuses to the CEO and refused to honor their commitment to you?  That's what's happening now.  

Did you care about the deficit when George W. Bush was taking the nation into war based on lies and financing it on a credit card, all the while giving tax breaks to the rich?  Did you object over Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003?  Where were you in 2008, Six Years After Cheney Said ‘Deficits Don’t Matter,’ The National Debt Hits A 50-Year High.  Or was it only recently, when Dick Cheney chatted with Rush Limbaugh, and wouldn’t you know it, the disgraced former vice president has decided that deficits matter after all.  

Even I don't have the necessary word count to explain the pros and cons of a deficit and why we need to be worried about creating jobs now and not the deficit.  I'll include links to others who have tackled it - Paul Krugman: Clueless Washington Doesn't Know The Deficit Is 'Mostly Solved' 
Paul Krugman: Deficit Hawks 'Love Living In An Atmosphere Of Fiscal Crisis'
Joseph Stiglitz: 'This Deficit Fetishism Is Killing Our Economy'
Brad Delong: Over the Cliff We Go
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

Then there's the University of Maryland's findings:  Regular Viewers of Fox News More Likely To Be Misinformed

I'm a liberal and I get my information from a variety of sources, both domestically and internationally, print and electronic, including but not limited to CSpan, Democracy Now!, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Der Spiegle, Christian Science Monitor, Wall St. Journal's news section (not opinion), Financial Times, Economist, IBJ, Naked Capitalism, NPR, ProPublica,The Nation, Scientific American, the Oil Drum, wired services, the NYT/WashingtonPost/LAT/Atlanta Constitution, and more.  I never watch Fox (I watched it once and thought it was like WWF, ridiculous propaganda), and rarely watch MSNBC these days for similar reasons (they're in the tank for Obama, who is NOT a liberal - He's a neoliberal, which bears no resemblance to liberalism).  The media isn't liberal - It's corporate. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, which is all that you've offered here, with nothing to support it.  

Facts are stubborn things.  NPR’s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed:

People who watch no news at all can answer more questions about international current events than people who watch Fox News, PublicMind finds.

NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.

People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category.

SURVEY QUESTIONS:
• To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in removing Hosni Mubarak?
• How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in removing Bashar al-Assad?
• Some countries in Europe are deeply in debt, and have had to be bailed out by other countries. To the best of your knowledge, which country has had to spend the most money to bail out European countries?
• There have been increasing talks about economic sanctions against Iran. What are these sanctions supposed to do?
• Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives right now?
• In December, House Republicans agreed to a short-term extension of a payroll tax cut, but only if President Obama agreed to do what?
• It took a long time to get the final results of the Iowa caucuses for Republican candidates. In the end, who was declared the winner?
• How about the New Hampshire Primary? Which Republican won that race?
• According to official figures, about what percentage of Americans are currently unemployed?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rush Limbaugh Abortion Idiocy Revealed

Whether the troops are (arguably) his biggest fans, I'd offer to you that that is more about their being a captive audience.  "They know they will be told the truth without the leftwing media propaganda" is a silly claim to make, considering that left-leaning radio personalities Thom Hartman, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Mike Malloy, are also on the AFN.  What would that say about their fans?

IMHO none of these political talk shows should be on AFN.  

As studies have shown, the worst informed citizens are those who watch Fox.  I'd guess that that's true for Limbaugh's fans, too.  In my own family, "the" Limbaugh fan is badly informed and falls into all of the other categories one expects in a Limbaugh fan - White, registered Republican, high school education, no college, enlisted in the military right out of high school under parental pressure (non-war time) because he had no direction and no interest in school (nor the grades).  The military would "train" him for a trade.  All that he learned in the military was routine, drinking and camaraderie with other males over sports.  He's a fanatic football fan and square dancer, works for his father-in-law in an appliance sales store, voted for Romney, hates labor unions (all he knows about them is what Limbaugh tells him), and can't understand how he got in to this family.  

He thinks everyone else in the family (all professionals, college-educated, most with graduate degrees) is a brainwashed id-jit.  I've told him, "Don't tell your parents I told you, but you were adopted".  He wasn't, but he actually prefers to believe it, and badgers his parents to tell him the truth so that he can find his "real family", who must be conservative Republican.  His father now tells him that he wasn't adopted, but that he was dropped on his head as an infant.  It's as good a reason for conservatism as any.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Thank you.  I hadn't read it, but it's excellent.  

I just take issue with the author's belief that the Democratic Party can be saved (turned populist, working in the interests of the People) from within.  I and many others have been where the author, L.R. Runner, now is for the past twenty years and the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party has more of a grip on the Democratic Party than ever.  

Even now, with all of Obama's betrayals, the cadre of progressives that gets media exposure supports Obama while expressing "disappointment" with him.  Obama doesn't give a chit about their "disappointment".  Their "disappointment" works in his favor.  They can stay "disappointed", it doesn't interfere with anything he's doing.  They should be calling people to hit the streets and march on Washington with torches and pitchforks.

Not a smooth segue, but I think Chris Hedges is the most relevant journalist around today.  See if you agree:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/once_again_--_death_of_the_liberal_class_20121112

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/elites_will_make_gazans_of_us_all_20121119/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Thanks.  That's a lot to digest.

=====================

You're welcome.  And yes, it is a lot to digest and I applaud you for asking and being willing to consider what seems blasphemous to many Democratic voters, so they reject it out of hand without ever investigating for themselves.   

I come at this as an old OLD liberal Democrat, one who had been in government and party politics for many years.  I've never voted for a Republican (and never will), but I can honestly say I can't see myself voting for any Democrat again.  I come to my opinions based on facts that I include in my comments (see the colored text hyperlinks).  I can decipher legislative text with the best of them, translate political-speak (aka lawyer-speak, Bush-speak, the word-craft of the Frank Luntzes, etc.) although sometimes even I am lulled into believing their intentions are good and noble.  They're not; invariably in the days immediately following, some information will surface exposing their deception.  

Lily Tomlin was right: "No matter how cynical I get, it's impossible to keep up."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

It will be up to someone other president to get that passed.  And I know Obama isn't perfect.  But he's better than Bush, and certainly Romney.  And I know Obama isn't perfect.  But he's better than Bush, and certainly Romney.

====================================

Single payer will never pass until voters like you get better informed about the true nature of both political parties (both wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations).  There is nothing that Republicans have done in the past 40 years that wasn't done without Democrats being on board.  Privatization, deregulation, all Democratic Party approved.   

And Bernie Sanders is one of your heroes?   Stop listening to the rhetoric and watch the actions.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

He NEVER would have gotten a "single payer" plan passed.

============================

Says who?  

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

But Obama only does that to progressiv­es.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Obama took single payer off the table BEFORE negotiatio­ns ever began.  Secretly.  Clandestin­ely.  Publicly he said he was staying out of the legislatin­g, saying that it was Congress's job (that was the same gambit he used when it came to letting Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire, and apparently Obama's 'most ardent fans' keep falling for it).  

Then Obama went and made a secret deal with the pharmaceut­ical, insurance, hospital industries­, the AMA, undercutti­ng all of the Congressio­nal committees working on legislatio­n except one -- Baucus's committee (the Senate Finance committee) which Obama disavowed for months.  Baucus's committee's bill was written by the insurance industry.

When word came out about the deal, the White House Iied it.

Obama took single payer off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.  Because if affordable­, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer.  If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' health care and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.  Because single payer had to be off the table before negotiations ever began so that a public option (the only method for keeping costs down) couldn't be the "compromise" position.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

health insurance ≠ medical treatment

Conceived in the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry.  It is one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.  Fercrissakes, it's RomneyCare.

People who voted for Obama/Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment.  That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Voters didn't send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment.  Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.

Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did. 

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  Insurance companies are not required to cover anyone's preexisting condition gratis.    And between increased premium costs, deductibles and co-pays, ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies

The health insurance industry provides no real service.  All it does is take money out of the system.  It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.  One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council, aka the Republican/corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  When the blowback got to be too much (when the rank-and-file Democratic voter started catching on to their anti-populist ways) and made them ineffective, they morphed into the Third Way and No Labels.  In politics, the credo is "Keep low and keep moving".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Let's look at another alleged progressive champion, Dennis Kucinich, who has found a new home (Fox), and they're welcome to him.

Dennis Kucinich proved himself to be irrelevant years ago­. 

In the closing days of the health care debate and legislatio­n when getting change in our healthcare system was possible, Obama pulled that stunt (a Brooks' Brothers-t­ype rally in Kucinich's state) after all of the progressiv­es who had pledged to not vote for a bill without a public option had caved -- Obama didn't need Kucinich EXCEPT to break the back of the call for a public option, to break the momentum of the left's call for it. 

And what Kucinich did was even more treacherou­s, carried even more betrayal than the other progressiv­es who had caved. What Kucinich did was equivalent to "Et tu, Brute?"

For those who still defend Obama and believe he really wants single payer or a public option, where was that same single-mindedness that he used on the Progressive Caucus (and is now using against the NRA) when it came to going up against Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, the other Blue Dogs and even Olympia Snowe? If the president of the United States had used the bully pulpit against them and still failed, a lot of progressiv­es would have respected that and said, "You tried your best". But Obama didn't try. He cut a corporate-welfare deal. Months earlier, cutting the will of the People off at the knees. The public was powerless in the backroom deal.

By the way, what the Kucinich-t­ale shows us is how selling out, how caving to save yourself ("to fight another day" is how he tried to sell it) never works: He was redistricted out of a seat and the White House put its weight behind anti-choice Democrat Marcy Kaptur.

And in the closing days of his career in Congress last month, Kucinich voted for that corporate-pork laden "Fiscal Cliff" deal.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Under Obama:

Secret Law


This is just the latest example of the Obama administration trying to interpret public laws in secret without adequately informing its citizens. Currently, EFF is suing the government for its secret interpretation of the Patriot Act Section 215, and for secret FISA court opinions that could shed light on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. In addition, the ACLU has sued the Obama administration for its legal opinion stating it can kill US citizens overseas, away from the battlefield.

Of course, law enforcement needs the ability to conduct investigations. But explaining to the public how it generally conducts surveillance puts no one in danger, and compromises no investigations. After all, criminals have known the FBI has been able to wiretap phones with a warrant for decades and it hasn’t stopped them from using wiretaps to catch them.

This information is vital to know if law enforcement is complying with the law and constitution. As we’ve seen with GPS devices, and we are now seeing with cell phone tracking and the use of Stingrays, law enforcement will push the limits of their authority — and sometimes overstep it — if they are not kept in check by an informed public.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Let me exemplify the problem that I, as an old liberal Democrat, have with the state of our government and elections.

You would think that Democratic politicians would be for the same things that I, as a liberal Democrat, am for -- Smart, progressive policies.  Even just the basics, what might be called "compromises", like leaving marijuana illegal, but just rescheduling it.  Or leaving it illegal for recreational use, but leaving medical marijuana dispensaries alone.  Like (on another topic), forget about stopping GMOs from getting into the food supply (oh how I wish), but at least allowing states to permit the labeling of GMOs on food so that I can make a choice whether I want to put GMOs into my body and my children's and grandchildren's bodies.  

Here is the roll call vote on the 6/21/2012 US Senate vote on a bill to permit states to require any food, beverage or other edible product offered for sale have a label on it indicating that it contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

Guess who else voted against this?

Democratic senators Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Ben Cardin, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow, among other Democrats. Monsanto has bought and paid for them.  I'm told they're referred to as "The Monsanto Senators".

Al Franken, fercrissakes.

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But that is NOT going to happen under Obama or the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party as we'd hoped when we put them in power in 2008; it's not even on their 'To Do' list.  Both parties are corrupt to the bone.

This liberal Democrat is done with the Democratic Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Democratic politician­s in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kill liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

The Kabuki theater that Democrats performed over promises like a public option and ending the wars (they're not ended; they're expanded and being fought with mercenaries paid for by you and me) are two great cases in point.  

Let's look more closely at the Progressive Caucus, what charlatans they are, and how they tag-team us.

As the head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a public option.  
Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Lynn Woolsey likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats (and Obama) ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significant here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and didn't it.  They didn't need Republican­s to do it.

Unbeknowns­t to Lynn Woolsey's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­man Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressiv­e Marcy Winograd

'Progressi­ves' like Woolsey have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to kill Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

As we all know, politicians say many things; the proof is in their actions.  When it comes to Democrats, they talk trash to their constituents better than Republicans to theirs.

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as their real constituen­ts.  
 
Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time.  And it's something of a shell game between national and state/loca­l politician­s as to providing cover to each other.  The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.
 

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

As predicted, any effective changing of the filibuster rules will not happen - HarryReid Doesn't Plan To Advance Talking Filibuster.

And Republicans haven't been filibustering; they've been threatening to filibuster. HarryReid could have forced them to actually do it, filibuster, at any time. That is at the discretion of the SenateMajorityLeader (HarryReid). SenateRule 22. When it serves something that the DLC-contro­lled Democrats want, HarryReid can (and has) require the GOP to actually filibuster (stand and talk without end). 

HarryReid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployme­nt benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical'­, Reid had no problem calling Republican JimBunning's bluff to filibuster­. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.

Democrats could even have changed the supermajor­ity rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc .state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448. pdf ].

But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republican­s to actually filibuster and changing SenateRule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".

They didn't.

There's not just one way (or even two or three) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.

But Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People. And that's not what Obama and Company are there for.

Obama and Company are there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns. Along with the Republican­s, as was clearly evidenced the time that HarryReid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointmen­ts, collaborat­ing with Republican­s to keep progressiv­es and liberals out of government­. It was another tag-teamin­g by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to screw over the American people on behalf of the corporatio­ns.

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Recalls Memories Of 1994 Battle

Talk of Democratic politicians having no spines are greatly exaggerated, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base.    

Obama should be adding to the list of wants - Like Medicare for all, single payer, healthcare for the millions that ACA doesn't cover.  After all, we won.  

But Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like jobs, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, WallStreet reform, environmental and energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the RoveMachine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching BushCheney off the table, have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Push For Assault Weapons Ban, Says White House

I'm as pro-gun regulation as the next guy, but it's patently obvious that there's something more afoot to the record gun related deaths in the US than the plethora of guns here or the large capacity magazines.  People in other nations where citizens possess guns in large numbers aren't killing each other as we are in the US.  

I would guess that much of it has to do with our culture of fear, of bullying, and our nature in this country to resort to violence as our first response.  As a nation, we admire greed and audacious brazen crookery.  Until we change that, at the top, in our government, all the rest of this is merely for show.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Push For Assault Weapons Ban, Says White House

So what are background checks going to check for?  

Then are we going to preclude classes of people from legally owning guns?

Background checks aren't going to uncover people with mental illness without ripping through HIPAA laws.  Andinarguably, only a fraction of a fraction of those with mental illness are violent and a danger to others.  

More money to treat mental illness?  YES.

Outlaw large capacity magazines?  Sure.

But remember that while this is the headline, politicians are working to make out society less civil by driving more of us into poverty.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gun Control Poll Finds Broad, Even Bipartisan, Support For Some Limits

So what are background checks going to check for?  

Then are we going to preclude classes of people from legally owning guns?

Background checks aren't going to uncover people with mental illness without ripping through HIPAA laws.  And inarguably, only a fraction of a fraction of those with mental illness are violent and a danger to others.  

More money to treat mental illness?  YES.

Outlaw large capacity magazines?  Sure.

But remember that while this is the headline, politicians are working to make out society less civil by driving more of us into poverty.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gun Control Poll Finds Broad, Even Bipartisan, Support For Some Limits

The problem with background checks for mental illness is HIPAA.
About Guns
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Averted: How The White House Got A Deal Before The Deadline

This was a sell-out by Obama way before the election.  This was planned and plotted, (lame) ducks lined up in a row for passage before any new Congress got into office.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters', along with Democratic politicians' supporters and Republican politicians' supporters, need to realize that none of these are good guys, working in the interest of the 99%.  They're all out to feather their own personal nests (John Breaux and Trent Lott, fercrissakes), the people be d@mmed.  They're corrupt to the bone, and that includes the occupant of the Oval Office.

I know that's hard for Obama's supporters to accept, as his general persona is charming and likable.  But are his followers really that naive to believe that charm and corruption are mutually exclusive?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Averted: How The White House Got A Deal Before The Deadline

The "fiscal cliff" legislation passed this week included $76 billion in special-interest tax credits for the likes of GeneralElectric, Hollywood and even CaptainMorgan. But these subsidies weren't the fruit of eleventh-hour lobbying conducted on the cliff's edge -- they were crafted back in August in a Senate committee, and they sat dormant until the White House reportedly insisted on them this week.

The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, which passed through the Senate Finance Committee in August, was copied and pasted into the fiscal cliff legislation, yielding a victory for biotech companies, wind-turbine-makers, biodiesel producers, film studios -- and their lobbyists. So, if you're wondering how algae subsidies became part of a must-pass package to avert the dreaded fiscal cliff, credit the Biotechnology Industry Organization's lobbying last summer.

Some tax lobbyists mostly ignored the August bill "because they thought it would be just a political document," one K Streeter told me. "They were the ones that got bit in the butt."

Here's what happened: In late July, FinanceChairman MaxBaucus announced the committee would soon convene to craft a bill extending many expiring tax credits. This attracted lobbyists like a raw steak attracts wolves.

Former Sens. JohnBreaux, D-La., and TrentLott, R-Miss., a pair of rainmaker lobbyists, pleaded for extensions on behalf of a powerful lineup of clients.

GeneralElectric and Citigroup, for instance, hired Breaux and Lott to extend a tax provision that allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries. This provision -- known as the "active financing exception" -- is the main tool GE uses to avoid nearly all US corporate income tax.

Liquor giant Diageo also retained Breaux and Lott to win extensions on two provisions benefitting rum-making in PuertoRico.

The K Street firm CapitolTaxPartners, led by TreasuryDepartment alumni from the ClintonAdministration, represented an even more impressive list of tax clients, who paid CTP more than $1.68 million in the third quarter.

Besides financial clients like Citi, GoldmanSachs and MorganStanley, CTP represented green energy companies like GE and the AmericanWindEnergyAssociation. These companies won extension and expansion of the production tax credit for wind energy.

Hollywood hired CTP, too: TheMotionPictureAssociation of America won an extension on tax credits for film production.

After packing 50 tax credit extensions into the bill, the committee voted 19 to 5 to pass it. But then it stalled. The Senate left for the conventions and the fall campaign. Meanwhile, House Republicans signaled resistance to some of the extensions -- especially for green energy.

KEEP READING

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397#.UOUVk2iFGH_

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Averted: How The White House Got A Deal Before The Deadline

Fiscal Deal Wipes Out Obamacare Funding for Health Co-Ops

“The fiscal cliff deal, approved by Congress on New Year’s Day, eliminates most of the more than $1.4 billion in remaining funding from the federal health law for new nonprofit, customer-owned health plans designed to compete against the major for-profit insurers,” reports MedPage Today.

The withdrawal comes after a two-year period in which nearly $2 billion in loans were approved for 24 proposed state co-ops. Those loans will escape the cut, but no new loans can be approved for any additional co-ops.

“We were blindsided by the elimination of funds,” said John Morrison, president of the National Alliance of State Health Cooperatives. “The health insurance industry is getting its way here by torpedoing co-ops in the 26 remaining states. This is not about budgets; it is about those health insurance giants killing competition at the expense of millions of Americans who will pay higher premiums because of it.”

By signing the so-called fiscal cliff deal, it appears that President Obama knowingly “torpedoed” part of his own hard-fought health care law. Initially, the 2010 Affordable Care Act allocated $6 billion to help start co-ops and meet state insurance solvency requirements. “In 2011,” MedPage Today reports, “Congress reduced that funding to $3.4 billion as part of broader budget cuts.”

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mark Kirk Returns To Congress (VIDEO)

What operation?  Coronary bypass?  That was after he left office.  But what's your point?
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mark Kirk Returns To Congress (VIDEO)

Of course.

That's what being one of the privileged Haves gets you:  'Government insurance' that covers care and rehabilitation and holds your job (and pays you as if you've been there, on the job) until you're ready to return or have decided not to.  And continues to accommodate you at your diminished pace and capacity.

Nice work if you can get it.
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Pentagon bans Towleroad, AMERICAblog sites for being "LGBT." Coulter, Limbaugh ok

How is it we claim to be the freest nation in the world, yet our government censors what we can hear/read/see and where we can and can't travel (Cuba)?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

NDAA Signed Into Law By Obama Despite Guantanamo Veto Threat, Indefinite Detention Provisions

To your Republican friends,

Did you not catch Waco, and Ruby Ridge?  Or the war in Iraq?  Did their guns protect them from SCUDs?  

Guns are no protection against the tyranny of the government once it's turned against you.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

And what do you think happens to Constitutional rights and protections from cruel and unusual treatment when private corporations own what is the government's responsibility?  If you believe that your rights to quality nutrition or medical care or protection from other inmates are protected no matter who owns the prison, you're deluding yourself.  

In exchange for keeping at least a 90 percent occupancy rate, the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has sent a letter to 48 states offering to manage their prisons for the low price of $250 million per year, according to a letter obtained by the Huffington Post

The company says it’s a way for states to help manage their current budget crisis. “We believe this comes at a timely and helpful juncture and hope you will share our belief in the benefits of the purchase-and-manage model,” CCA chief corrections officer Harley Lappin said in the letter.

But reports indicate that private prisons do not actually save states money, since the average inmate costing more than in public prisons. Worse yet, for-profit prisons have been accused of heightened levels of violence toward prisoners and have limited incentives to reduce future crimes by current inmates, through education and training programs, counseling or drug and alcohol rehabilitation, according to a report from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Last year, the CCA became the first for-profit prison company to buy outright a state-owned prison, under the auspices of the Administration of Ohio Governor John Kasich (R).

Whether it's substandard food (or as is happening now, fewer meals on weekends to save on staff salaries), or inmates dying of heat stroke from cells reaching temperatures of 108 degrees, America is being turned into a third world nation by paid off politicians doing the work of corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

Private Prisons Spend $45 Million On Lobbying, Rake In $5.1 Billion For Immigrant Detention Alone.

Private prison industry helped draft Arizona immigration law.  A private corrections company helped write and lobbied hard for a draconian bill that'll help fill their cells

Correction Corp of America's Contributions to Federal Candidates in 2010, in 2012.

In actuality, the prison industrial complex goes beyond merely housing - Lobbyists work both sides of the street, seeking expansion of criminal laws to increase the prison population.  Here's just one way they go about it - Private Prisons: Immigration Convictions In Record Numbers Fueling Corporate Profits.  Then there are the drug wars.  And debtors' prisons are making a comeback (what do you think happens when you make personal bankruptcy impossible while leaving banks to make bad loans which they then go to the government for bailing out?).

Private Prison Corporations on a Shopping Spree - Private Prison Corporations Are Modern Day Slave Traders - The nation’s largest private prison company, the Corrections Corporation of America, is on a buying spree.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

"It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," Shakyra Diaz, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, tells HuffPo. "In order to have it at 90 percent, you need to be able to make criminals to fill it at 90 percent." Diaz can relate better than most — Ohio sold off a prison to the CCA last year after learning that they stood to save $3 million each year through the transaction. Other Buckeye State institutions have since followed suit, and one prison put itself on the market last year only for the CCA to swoop it up for $72.7 million.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the 48 states the CCA is appealing to right now have immigration laws that will ensure that the prisons will stay packed. That’s where the Corrections Corp. notes an eligibility factor for facilities that might be interested in selling. In order to be considered for purchase, the prisons approached by the CCA must be able to house no fewer than 1,000 inmates, while also guaranteeing that the facility will stay at a minimum of 90 percent of capacity during the length of their contract.

It’s the privatization of America’s prison system and with it comes an almost guaranteed promise of putting more citizens behind bars. As states fall on hard times, an offer of millions might seem like an easy sell to many, as evident by the list of facilities that have already followed through with the decision. In the end though, the payoff that goes to a billion-dollar private business comes at a cost to civil liberties of the rest of America, as citizens become less of a voice of the state and more a profitable hot commodity.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out.  Jailing Americans becomes a profitable business:

The privatization of America’s prison system is well on its way to complete.
Corrections Corporation of America, the largest operator of for-profit prisons in the US, is appealing to 48 states across the country with an offer to buy out their detention facilities.

The Huffington Post has obtained a letter sent out by Corrections Corporation of America Chief Corrections Officer Harley G. Lappin, in which he explains to state officials across the country the benefits of being bought out. According to Lappin, the CCA has earmarked $250 million for purchasing and managing government-owned corrections facilities, and describes the effort as an “opportunity for federal, state or local government that are considering the benefits of partnership corrections.”


Founded in the early 1980s, the CCA currently manages over 60 correctional facilities across the US. With profits skyrocketing for the private company in recent years — while states are continuously stuck the red — they are insisting to these governments that selling off their cells would be beneficial to both.

The CCA says that by selling off prisons, state governments can remediate the “challenging corrections budgets.”While it could come as a saving grace for taxpayers, it also conjured up questions over the motives of a for-profit corporation that makes bank off of putting men and women behind bars.

While seeing their revenues increase quintuple over the last 20 years, the CCA has used those profits for more than just maintaining prisons. For one thing, they’ve forked over a fair share on lobbying Congress. While netting $133 million in income between 2006 and 2008, the CCA spent nearly $3 million lobbying; during that decade, the number of dollars spent in Washington amounted to around $17.6 million.

And what were they asking for? Stricter laws that will see to it that their prison cells are more easily stocked.

Corrections Corporation of America officers have been linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which has in turn lobbied for increased sentencing for inmates convicted of non-violent crimes across the country and helped pass the controversial immigration law in Arizona. Corrections Corp. themselves have lobbied for Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, and the reasoning is simple: an more stringent immigrant laws means more arrests and, thus, more jam-packed for-profit prisons.

In 2009 reports obtained by National Public Radio, the CCA wrote that they expected “a significant portion of our revenues" from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. According to BloombergBusinessWeek, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement pays around $90 every day for each detainee that their work helps land behind bars.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Fiscal Cliff: A Box Office Hit for the Governing Class.

A Compromise That Makes Neither Side Happy Is a Bad Compromise
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

We're All Screwed Now:

I often try to figure out ways to convince people that private prisons are not in the best interest of anyone but executives of private prison companies.  There are plenty of others out there like myself, trying to work with elected officials and concerned citizens to convince our legislator­s that continuall­y giving billions of dollars to an industry whose very survival depends on locking up an ever-incre­asing segment of our population is morally reprehensi­ble, and bad business to boot. But unfortunat­ely, much of that activism seems for naught, as the anti-priva­tization movement's resources and political relationsh­ips pale in comparison to the influence built up by the privateers­.

Take for example BroderickJ­ohnson, lobbyist extraordin­aire who was paid more than $1 million to lobby to get TARP passed on behalf of the major financial institutio­ns that destroyed our economy.  He's also worked for such socially conscious organizati­ons as TalxCorp (which helps employers challenge unemployme­nt claims), Comcast, and the GEO Group.  Johnson also happens to be a senior adviser to Obama, whose immigratio­n policies have been, if not an expansion, at least the continuati­on of the compassion­ate and sensible policies of his esteemed predecesso­r.

So Obama's got a former GEO Group lobbyist working as a senior adviser.  He also appointed a former employee of the GEO Group and CCA, Stacia Hylton, as director of the US Marshal's Service, a federal agency in control of millions of dollars worth of private prison contracts.  So it should come as no surprise that the GEO Group was awarded a contract in excess of $235 million to house immigratio­n detainees, despite decades of evidence proving the company can't operate a prison efficientl­y and that it seems incapable of treating its wards with basic human decency.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Deal Sneaks In Wall Street Gifts, NASCAR Perk

They have, we all have.  They're called "entitlements" because we've paid for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Deal Sneaks In Wall Street Gifts, NASCAR Perk

This was a sell-out by Obama way before the election.  This was planned and plotted, (lame) ducks lined up in a row for passage before any new Congress got into office.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters', along with Democratic politicians' supporters and Republican politicians' supporters, need to realize that none of these are good guys, working in the interest of the 99%.  They're all out to feather their own personal nests (John Breaux and Trent Lott, fercrissakes), the people be d@mmed.  They're corrupt to the bone, and that includes the occupant of the Oval Office.

I know that's hard for Obama's supporters to accept, as his general persona is charming and likable.  But are his followers really that naive to believe that charm and corruption are mutually exclusive?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Deal Sneaks In Wall Street Gifts, NASCAR Perk

One lobbyist said he didn't worry too much about the Baucus bill because "we knew the House wasn't going to pass it." But another lobbyist, who had worked on the PuertoRico issues, said he saw Baucus' bill as an important starting point that "set the parameters" of a future fight with HouseRepublicans.

But there never was a fight. Baucus' bill sat ignored until last week, when the WhiteHouse sat down with Senate Republicans to craft a deal averting the fiscal cliff.

A RepublicanSenate aide familiar with the cliff negotiations tells me the WhiteHouse wanted permanent extensions of a whole slew of corporate tax credits. When SenateRepublicans said no, "the WhiteHouse insisted that the exact language" of the Baucus bill be included in the fiscal cliff deal. "They were absolutely insistent," another aide tells me. 

Sure enough, Title II of the fiscal cliff legislation is nearly a word-for-word replication of the Family and Business TaxCutCertaintyAct of 2012.

So, this wasn't a case of lobbyists sneaking provisions into a huge package at the last minute. That probably wouldn't have been possible, many lobbyists told me Wednesday, because the workload in the past two weeks was too large and the political stakes were too high.

One lobbyist who worked on the bill over the summer said he would never ask a member " 'Hey, can you do this for a client,' when their political lives are on the line."

"The legislators and the staff go underground when things get so intense," another Hill staffer-turned-lobbyist told me. "Nobody has time for a meeting. Nobody wants to talk about what's going on. ... The key is to plant the seed months in advance."

GE, GoldmanSachs, Diageo -- they planted their seeds over the summer. They'll enjoy the fruit in the new year.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397#.UOUVk2iFGH_
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fiscal Cliff Deal Passed By Congress After Republicans Cave

Obama Signs American Taxpayer Relief Act Into Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/fiscal-cliff-obama_n_2398544.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost