Robert Reich: Beware the "Middle Ground" of the Great Budget Debate

Image via WikipediaRobert Reich: Beware the "Middle Ground" of the Great Budget Debate

How debates are framed is critical because the "center" or "middle ground" is supposedly halfway between the two extremes.

We continue to hear that the Great Budget Debate has two sides: The president and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending, but not by privatizing Medicare. On the other side are Paul Ryan, Republicans, and the right, who want cut the deficit by privatizing Medicare and slicing programs that benefit poorer Americans, while lowering taxes on the rich.

By this logic, the center lies just between.

Baloney.

According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 78 percent of Americans oppose cutting spending on Medicare as a way to reduce the debt, and 72 percent support raising taxes on the rich -- including 68 percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans.

In other words, the center of America isn't near halfway between the two sides. It's overwhelmingly on the side of the president and the Democrats.

I'd wager if Americans also knew two-thirds of Ryan's budget cuts come from programs serving lower and moderate-income Americans and over 70 percent of the savings fund tax cuts for the rich -- meaning it's really just a giant transfer from the less advantaged to the super advantaged without much deficit reduction at all -- far more would be against it.

And if people knew that the Ryan plan would channel hundreds of billions of their Medicare dollars into the pockets of private for-profit heath insurers, almost everyone would be against it.

The Republican plan shouldn't be considered one side of a great debate. It shouldn't be considered at all. Americans don't want it.

Which is why I get worried when I hear about so-called "bipartisan" groups on Capitol Hill seeking a grand compromise, such as the Senate's so-called "Gang of Six."

Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, a member of that Gang, says they're near agreement on a plan that will chart a "middle ground" between the House Republican budget and the plan outlined last week by the president.

Watch your wallets.

In my view, even the president doesn't go nearly far enough in the direction most Americans would approve. All he wants to do, essentially, is end the Bush tax windfalls for the wealthy -- which were designed to be ended in 2010 in any event -- and close a few loopholes.

But why shouldn't we go back to the tax rates we had thirty years ago, which required the rich to pay much higher shares of their incomes? One of the great scandals of our age is how concentrated income and wealth have become. The top 1 percent now gets twice the share of national income it took home thirty years ago.

If the super rich paid taxes at the same rates they did three decades ago, they'd contribute $350 billion more per year than they are now -- amounting to trillions more over the next decade. That's enough to ensure every young American is healthy and well-educated and that the nation's infrastructure is up to world-class standards.

Nor does the president's proposal go nearly far enough in cutting military spending, which is not only out of control but completely unrelated to our nation's defense needs -- fancy weapons systems designed for an age of conventional warfare; hundreds of billions of dollars for the Navy and Air Force, when most of the action is with the Army, Marines, and Special Forces; and billions more for programs no one can justify and few can understand.

If Americans understood how much they're paying for defense and how little they're getting, they'd demand a defense budget at least 25 percent smaller than it is today.

Finally, the president's proposed budget doesn't deal with the scandal of the nation's schools in poor and middle-class communities -- schools whose teachers are paid under $50,000 a year, whose classrooms are crammed, that can't afford textbooks or science labs, that have abandoned after-school programs and courses like history and art. Most school budgets depend manly on local property taxes that continue to drop in lower-income communities. The federal government should come to their rescue.

To think of the "center" as roughly halfway between the president's and Paul Ryan's proposals is to ignore what Americans need and want. For our political representatives to find a "middle ground" between the two would be a travesty.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Taking on G.O.P., Obama Unveils Debt Relief Plan - NYTimes.com

Taking on G.O.P., Obama Unveils Debt Relief Plan - NYTimes.com

By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

WASHINGTON — President Obama made the case Wednesday for slowing the rapid growth of the national debt while retaining core Democratic values, proposing a mix of long-term spending cuts, tax increases and changes to social welfare programs as his opening position in a fierce partisan budget battle over the nation’s fiscal challenges.

After spending months on the sidelines as Republicans laid out their plans, Mr. Obama jumped in to present an alternative and a philosophical rebuttal to the conservative approach that will reach the House floor on Friday. Republican leaders were working Wednesday to round up votes for that measure and one to finance the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. Obama said his proposal would cut federal budget deficits by a cumulative $4 trillion over 12 years, compared with a deficit reduction of $4.4 trillion over 10 years in the Republican plan. But the president said he would use starkly different means, rejecting the fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Republicans and relying in part on tax increases on affluent Americans.

The president framed his proposal as a balanced alternative to the Republican plan, setting the stage for a debate that will consume Washington in coming weeks, as the administration faces off with Congress over raising the national debt ceiling, and into next year, as the president runs for re-election.

Mr. Obama named Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to lead the negotiations with Congress, which the administration hopes will produce the outlines of a deal by the end of June, though a detailed agreement might have to await the outcome of the 2012 election. Mr. Biden played a similar role in talks that averted a government shutdown at the 11th hour, over issues far less thorny than those on the table now.

In a 44-minute speech to an audience at George Washington University that included Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the author of the Republican plan, Mr. Obama was often combative and partisan, saying the Republican approach would hurt the elderly by driving up the cost of medical care, deprive millions of health insurance and starve the nation of investments in its future.

“These are the kind of cuts that tells us we can’t afford the America that I believe in,” he said. “I believe it paints a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.”

“There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” the president continued, as Mr. Ryan sat stone faced. “There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”

Yet Mr. Obama acknowledged that the rising medical costs and the mounting debt required action. And he warned Democrats that his administration would have to cut cherished programs and strictly limit the growth of Medicare and Medicaid. “If we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society,” he said, “we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments.”

Mr. Obama said he would meet his $4 trillion deficit-reduction target by cutting spending across a range of government programs, from farm subsidies to federal pension insurance.

He called for cutting $400 billion more in military spending — twice what his defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told Congress was the largest cut he could recommend.

In a sign of the tensions the plan may cause within the administration, officials at the Pentagon said Mr. Gates was not told of Mr. Obama’s proposal until Tuesday. In a statement, a Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said that “further significant defense cuts” would reduce the military’s capability. “It is important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices, and not be a budget math exercise,” Mr. Morrell said.

Republicans criticized the plan, both for the cuts in military spending and for what they said was an overall lack of detail.

“Republicans, led by Chairman Ryan, have set the bar with a jobs budget that puts us on a path to paying down the debt and preserves Medicare and Medicaid for the future,” Speaker John A. Boehner said in a statement. “This afternoon, I didn’t hear a plan to match it from the president.”

Mr. Boehner repeated a threat to refuse to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling on the national debt, which the government is likely to breach in early July, unless the administration agrees to rein in spending and deficits. The administration has sought to keep the debt ceiling issue separate from the broader budget debate, and Mr. Obama addressed it only indirectly on Wednesday.

“If our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts,” Mr. Obama said, “that could drive up interest rates for everyone.”

Still, in what some analysts said was a gesture to Republicans, Mr. Obama said his plan would contain a trigger to require across-the-board spending cuts if, by 2014, the federal debt was still projected to be rising as a percentage of the total economy.

The trigger would apply not only to spending but also to what the administration calls “tax expenditures” — essentially payments to taxpayers for deductions for charitable donations or home mortgages.

The use of the phrase “tax expenditures” allows the administration to lump tax-related issues into the spending category. Mr. Obama was more direct in his call for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for higher-income Americans to expire in 2012.

The president agreed to extend the cuts last December, as part of a budget deal with the newly elected Republican majority in the House. Now, with the economy getting back on its feet, Mr. Obama attacked the demand by Republicans to make the lower tax rates permanent as emblematic of their plan to enrich the wealthy on the backs of the elderly and poor.

“They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 30 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I am president,” Mr. Obama said, his only line that drew applause.

While Mr. Obama’s plan does not detail specific cuts, analysts said it offered enough detail to set off a substantive debate with Republicans. Some said the proposal for capping the annual cost increase in Medicare and Medicaid to just above the economic growth rate was surprisingly conservative. Others said they were pleased that Mr. Obama had called for overhauling Social Security, even if he was vague and said it was not a leading culprit for the deficit.

“It looks like Ryan smoked him out, so to speak,” said Rudolph G. Penner, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Mr. Penner said Mr. Obama’s plan hewed closely to the recommendations of his commission on deficit reduction. Mr. Obama did not explicitly endorse those recommendations when the commission submitted its report in December — a decision that fueled criticism from Republicans and some Democrats that he was not facing up to the tough choices in the budget debate.

The co-chairmen of that commission — Erskine B. Bowles, who was a chief of a staff to President Bill Clinton, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson — were in the audience Wednesday, along with Mr. Biden. At one point, Mr. Biden appeared to nod off, closing his eyes for 30 seconds.

Jackie Calmes, John Harwood and Thom Shanker contributed reporting.

Related articles

• Obama proposes $4tn cuts to tackle budget deficit (guardian.co.uk)

Obama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt - NYTimes.com

Image via WikipediaObama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt - NYTimes.com

By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama will call this week for Republicans to join him in writing a broad plan to raise revenues and reduce the growth of popular entitlement programs, as the battle over the nation’s financial troubles moves past Friday’s short-term budget deal and into a wider and more consequential debate over the nation’s long-term fiscal health.

In a speech to be delivered at a university here on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will in effect come off the sidelines on the debate over reducing the nation’s debt, which is reaching dangerous heights as the population ages.

After months of criticism that he has not led on budget talks, Mr. Obama will urge bipartisan negotiations toward a multiyear debt-reduction plan that administration officials said would depart sharply from the one proposed last week by House Republicans.

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes to Social Security.

In his remarks, which come after Friday’s bipartisan deal to cut domestic spending by about $38 billion for the remainder of this budget year, Mr. Obama will not offer details but will set deficit-cutting goals, White House officials said. The numbers were still under discussion on Sunday.

“He’ll lay out his approach this week in terms of the scale of debt reduction he thinks the country needs so we can grow economically and win the future — a balanced approach,” David Plouffe, the senior White House political strategist, said on “Fox News Sunday,” one of four talk shows on which he appeared Sunday.

“Obviously, we need to look at all corners of government,” Mr. Plouffe said, adding, “We’re going to have a big debate.”

Until now, Mr. Obama has avoided prescribing specific changes to entitlement programs like Medicare, beyond those contained in his health care overhaul. Indeed, few of the recommendations made by his own bipartisan fiscal commission were included in the budget he presented to Congress in February.

What is more, while Mr. Obama proposed a five-year freeze on the growth of domestic spending, he recommended increases in education, research, infrastructure and clean-energy programs — emphasizing that although deficit reduction is important, so are investments to create jobs and skilled workers.

The growing debate over federal spending and taxes is certain to ripple from the White House and Congress to the 2012 presidential campaign, helping to shape voters’ assessment of Mr. Obama’s record and challenging rivals for the Republican presidential nomination to respond, even as they court conservative voters who oppose any compromise with Mr. Obama.

Whether anything tangible comes of the debate, it will contrast the parties’ visions of the role of government.

Republicans reacted skeptically to word of Mr. Obama’s speech. “I sit here and I listen to David Plouffe talk about, you know, their commitment to cut spending and knowing full well that for the last two months we’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said on Fox.

The timing of Mr. Obama’s remarks reflects a White House strategy devised late last year after Republicans won their House majority, together with the confluence of four events, two last week and two ahead.

Friday night’s 11th-hour agreement on spending cuts, which averted a government shutdown, removed what had been a distraction for months over this year’s unfinished federal budget. Administration officials said they also hoped that the compromise helped build trust with the House speaker, John A. Boehner, that would carry over to the larger debates about long-term spending and the national debt.

Some lawmakers said Sunday that they opposed the compromise, but leaders in both parties remain confident it will pass in the House and Senate this week.

Also last week came a moment the administration had been awaiting for months: Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, outlined House Republicans’ long-term budget plan.

Mr. Ryan said it would cut $6 trillion in the coming decade, though budget analysts questioned some of the claimed savings. The plan would turn Medicare into a voucher program for future generations and slash spending for the need-based Medicaid program and other domestic initiatives, while largely sparing the Pentagon and cutting $4 trillion more in corporate and high-income taxes.

The White House settled on a strategy in December by which Mr. Obama would wait for the House Republicans to lay down their cards before he proposed major reductions in popular entitlement benefit programs, according to interviews with administration officials at the time.

Mr. Obama’s budget waiting game, however, has helped to fuel widespread criticism by Republicans, pundits and some Democrats that he has failed to lead.

Another impetus to Wednesday’s move is the White House’s belief that a bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators will announce this week that they have reached agreement on a debt-reduction package similar to that of the president’s fiscal commission.

After months of private discussions, the tentative agreement among the three Republican and three Democratic senators would cut military and domestic programs and overhaul the tax code, eliminating popular tax breaks but using the new revenues to lower income-tax rates and reduce annual deficits. It would be the model, if not in all details, for Mr. Obama’s own goals, Democratic officials say.

Perhaps the biggest prod for Mr. Obama to act, however, is the need for Congress to vote to raise the legal limit on the federal debt, now $14.25 trillion. The government will hit that limit on its borrowing authority in as few as five weeks, the Treasury Department has said. Without an increase by early July, the government cannot continue to make payments on its existing debt, potentially forcing it into an economy-shaking default.

Speaking on Saturday in Connecticut, Mr. Boehner said Republicans would not agree to raise the cap “without something really, really big attached to it.”

Unlike the recent spending-cut negotiations, in which Mr. Obama was not active until the final days, “he knows he has to take a greater role from the beginning” on the debt-limit measure and any companion plan for reducing debt, said an adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Several presidential advisers interviewed in recent weeks said Mr. Obama has been torn between wanting to propose major budget changes to entice Republicans to the bargaining table, including on Social Security, and believing they would never agree to raise revenues on upper-income Americans as part of a deal.

Three House Republican leaders, including Mr. Ryan, were on the fiscal commission; unlike the three Senate Republicans, they opposed the recommendations because they raised revenues and did not cut enough from health care.

The risk to Mr. Obama includes further alienating liberals in his own party. Progressive groups have formed coalitions to oppose any changes to Social Security, for instance.

Related articles

• Obama to call for broad plan to reduce debt - San Jose Mercury News (news.google.com)
• Obama's new approach to deficit reduction to include spending on entitlements - Washington Post (news.google.com)

Budget Deal Reached to Avert Shutdown - NYTimes.com

Budget Deal Reached to Avert Shutdown - NYTimes.com

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and President Obama headed off a shutdown of the government with less than two hours to spare Friday night under a tentative budget deal that would cut $38 billion from federal spending this year.

After days of tense negotiations and partisan quarrelling, House Republicans came to preliminary terms with the White House and Senate Democrats over financing the government for the next six months, resolving a stubborn impasse that had threatened to disrupt federal operations across the country and around the globe.

Speaker John A. Boehner, who had pressed Democrats for cuts sought by members of the conservative new House majority, presented the package of widespread spending reductions and policy provisions and won a positive response from his rank and file shortly before 11 p.m.

Both Democrats and Republicans proclaimed they had reached a deal and would begin the necessary steps to pass the bill and send it to Mr. Obama next week.

Democrats said that under the agreement, the budget measure would not include provisions sought by Republicans to limit environmental regulations and to restrict financing for Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions. But Mr. Boehner said in a statement that the agreement included a restriction on abortion financing in Washington.

“This has been a lot of discussion and a long fight,” Mr. Boehner said as he left the party meeting. “But we fought to keep government spending down because it really will in fact help create a better environment for job creators in our country.”

Speaking from the White House after the Republican meeting ended, Mr. Obama said that both sides gave ground in reaching the bargain and that some of the cuts accepted by Democrats “will be painful.”

“Programs people rely on will be cut back,” said Mr. Obama, who said Americans had to begin to live within their means. “Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed.”

The announcements capped a day of drama as lawmakers and members of the federal work force waited anxiously to see whether money for government agencies would run out at midnight.

“We didn’t do it at this late hour for drama,” Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, said. “We did it because it has been hard to arrive at this point.”

In the closed-door Republican session, according to people present in the room, Mr. Boehner described the plan as the best deal he could wring from Democrats and said the cuts — an estimated $38 billion in reductions — represented the “largest real dollar spending cut in American history.”

Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.

Because of the need to put the compromise into legislative form, Congressional leaders said the House and Senate would vote overnight to pass a stopgap measure financing the government through Thursday to prevent any break in the flow of federal dollars. The actual budget compromise would be considered sometime next week.

The Senate approved the stopgap measure by 11:20 p.m. and the House approved it after midnight. The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo saying normal government operations were back on track.

The developments came after Republicans and Democrats spent the day blaming each other for what could have been the first lapse in government services brought on by Congress in 15 years.

As the midnight deadline approached, efforts to finish a deal intensified, and Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner spoke by telephone to try to find an agreement.

“Both sides are working hard to reach the kind of resolution Americans desire,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, who had consulted closely with Mr. Boehner on strategy during the fractious talks. “A resolution is actually within reach. The contours of a final agreement are coming into focus.”

Mr. McConnell’s optimism could not disguise the fact that time was steadily slipping away, and testy leaders of the two parties were pushing hard to shape public perceptions of who was responsible for an impasse that threatened to have serious political repercussions — and to presage even more consequential fiscal showdowns in the months ahead. Democrats said Republicans were insisting on overreaching policy provisions; Republicans said it remained about money.

After nightlong negotiations that ended before dawn on Friday yielded no agreement, Senator Reid went on the offensive. He told reporters and said on the Senate floor that Mr. Boehner, the Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama had essentially settled on $38 billion in cuts from current spending, a figure that represented a substantial concession for Democrats.

But he said that Republicans were refusing to abandon a policy provision that would withhold federal financing for family planning and other health services for poor women from Planned Parenthood and other providers.

“This is indefensible, and everyone should be outraged,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. “The Republican House leadership have only a couple of hours to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how truly shameful they have been.”

In a terse statement of his own to reporters, Mr. Boehner said there was “only one reason we do not have an agreement yet, and that is spending.” He asked, “When will the White House and when will Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?”

As the day went on, aides reported progress in attempts to reach an accommodation on the family planning provision. Even veteran anti-abortion Republicans, like Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, indicated a willingness to compromise, not wanting the party to be accused of shutting down the government over divisive social policy and diluting its new emphasis on cutting spending. Other Republicans, in interviews and statements, indicated that it was time to end the stalemate.

The dueling characterizations of the negotiations added to the frustration, extending far beyond the nation’s capital, among federal employees and the people who rely on their services, as they waited to find out whether serious disruptions were imminent, and how long they might last.

Despite the disagreement over what still divided the two parties, it was clear the dollar difference had been reduced considerably, to about $1 billion or $2 billion. That amount left some lawmakers and their constituents grappling to understand how the federal government could be shut down over such a relatively small sum. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said he was embarrassed. “People across Virginia cannot understand why we can’t get this done,” he said.

Allies of Mr. Boehner, the veteran lawmaker in his first months as speaker, said he seemed to be pursuing a strategy of pushing the negotiations to the last possible tick of the clock to appease rank-and-file conservatives, who have been very reluctant to give an inch from the $61 billion in cuts approved by the House.

In a private party meeting Friday afternoon, Mr. Boehner told Republican lawmakers that he was fighting for all the cuts he could get, and regaled them with reports of how angry Mr. Obama was with him for the hard line he has taken in the talks — news that elated his membership.

Emerging from the meeting, Mr. Boehner called the negotiations “respectful,” but added: “We’re not going to roll over and sell out the American people like has been done time and time again in Washington.”

In the absence of a deal, Mr. Boehner again urged the Senate to pass a temporary House budget resolution that would finance the military for the balance of the fiscal year, cut $12 billion in spending from the current year’s budget and keep the rest of the government operating for another week, as Republicans in the House had voted to do.

“This is the responsible thing to do,” he told reporters.

Senate Democrats rejected that approach as a gimmick, and Mr. Obama said he would veto the resolution.

Mr. Reid, who at one news conference was surrounded by about three dozen Democratic senators in an unusual tableau, told reporters that the Senate would explore the possibility of a stopgap bill that would keep the government open for another week. But it was unlikely to clear procedural barriers.

It was an unusual Friday on Capitol Hill, a day when corridors are often empty of lawmakers who have left for the weekend. Instead, they milled about, and took the Senate floor to expound, as they nervously awaited news of an agreement or braced for the expiration of government financing. It was frustrating to some because most lawmakers were not privy to the high-level talks.

“I hope that negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere,” Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said as he spoke about six hours before funding would run out.

Lawmakers said they realized that the outcome of the negotiations would have implications not only for them, but also for the federal work force, the public, the economy and the nation’s image.

“We know the whole world is watching us today,” Mr. Reid said.

Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.

Related articles

• Federal Budget Deal Reached, Government Shutdown Averted At Least Temporarily (armwoodnews.com)

Jerry Brown takes a big risk - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Jerry Brown takes a big risk - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

By: Andy Barr

January 23, 2011 02:46 PM EST

After spending nearly 20 years working his way back to the pinnacle of California politics, Jerry Brown is risking it all with an opening gambit that will either lead his distressed state to solvency or leave him in political ruin.

Brown’s bet is that the fear over California’s enormous $25 billion budget hole will give him a six-month window to unite the state’s many powerful warring factions for the greater good – even as each of them takes a major hit.

He’s expecting the state’s dominant state employee unions to sign on to major cuts in salary and services, business to back tax increases and the counties to deal with an enormous shift in expenses onto their books.

On top of that, Brown needs the dysfunctional legislature in Sacramento to cast votes designed to cut services and increase taxes. Even if he can persuade his party to go along with the painful cuts – and that’s a big if – he needs the votes of several vulnerable Republicans in both the state Assembly and Senate to assemble the two-thirds majority needed to approve a budget.

And all of that has to get done by June in order for Brown to put the tax increases in front of voters for approval in July. Otherwise, the deal falls apart.

If he pulls it all off, California’s budget hole will be filled and a crisis will likely be avoided. If not, he could find himself mired in the same kind of drawn out budget battle that permanently damaged his predecessor, former GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The path ahead is littered with pot holes and crevices and bottomless pits,” acknowledged Brown adviser Steven Glazer of the recently unveiled budget. “It’s a daunting path to follow. And that’s why previous legislatures haven’t had the courage to attempt it.”

“What we’re trying to do is get all the interests to recognize that unless we find common ground, the economic recovery we care about, the schools we appreciate – there will be no future,” he said.

For now, it seems Brown has a path to success.

“It’s going to be difficult, but it’s certainly possible,” said Allan Zaremberg, the president and CEO of California’s Chamber of Commerce.

Zarenberg said Brown is being given room to work because most of the state’s political interests believe it is smarter to be seen as taking a hit now for the betterment of the state than be caught hoping the deal falls through.

“He’ll have at least six months of a honeymoon,” the chamber president said of Brown.

Brown has been able to line up some support because he structured his budget proposal in such a way that the pain is spread around.

“The governor kind of took the baby and split it in half. He has $12.5 billion in cuts and $12.5 billion in revenue increases,” said state Assemblyman Jim Beall, the Democratic chair of the Committee on Human Services, which oversees the social programs that will take the biggest hit.

Brown has held frequent meetings with legislators of both sides. And he has so far been able to sell Democrats on the massive cuts by laying out the scary scenario of what happens if his budget doesn’t pass, the assemblyman said.

“I don’t think the governor’s budget is one that’s approved of in terms of the cuts,” said Beall. “But if we cut the full amount and had no new revenues, we’d have serious cuts to education – maybe a quarter of education – and maybe cut 30 percent of the revenue to health and human services.”

The magnitude of what Democratic interests stand to lose if Brown can’t get all sides in on a deal is what encouraged the California Teachers Association, one the state’s most powerful unions, to sign on to a $2 billion deferral in funds for K-12 education and a loss of $1 billion from the budget of the University of California system.

And making it all even more complicated, Democrats have to agree to the cuts on faith that voters will extend the tax increases enacted in 2009 and set to expire. Brown promised any new taxes would be put to voters, and the earliest an initiative could be placed on the ballot is July. So Democrats and labor will have to take the initial hit in hopes that voters agree to raises taxes, even as Republicans likely campaign against them.

“There really is not another option for labor and others. It’s either an all cut budget, or a budget that’s split up,” said Chris Lehane, a California Democratic strategist. “You have a Democratic governor who has a positive relationship with labor and labor is able to trust him.”

“The hole is just too deep,” added Jack Pitney, a political scientist at California’s Claremont McKenna College. “Democrats dislike the social service cuts, but the alternatives were to raise taxes even more or to go after K-12 education. His current tax proposal is a tough enough sell as it is: anything bigger would probably fail. And further cuts to K-12 education would trigger a furious reaction both from teacher unions and parents.”

Many of California’s pro-business interest groups are, for the most part, on board. That’s because there is no major Republican interest that takes the brunt of the tax increases, said Zarenberg. “You’ll have opposition, but you won’t have as well-funded of an opposition as you would if the tax was against one industry,” he said.

Still, winning over the handful of Republican lawmakers Brown needs to get to two-thirds will be tricky.

After watching what happened to the last group of GOP leaders who joined Democrats on a budget deal – the Senate minority leader was immediately sacked and three of the six Republicans who voted for the budget were not reelected – there is intense pressure on the state’s Republicans to oppose Brown’s budget.

The state Senate GOP leader has called Brown’s proposed cuts “difficult but necessary,” but has voiced concerns about the tax hike — a common talking point among state Republicans. Others have flat out said no. During a hearing last week, state Sen. Bob Huff, the GOP caucus chairman, called the plan a “non-starter,” adding that his district has “no appetite for raising taxes.”

In the state Assembly, Minority Leader Connie Conway acknowledged in a statement that “difficult choices lie ahead,” but would not commit to supporting tax hikes, saying that “voters made it abundantly clear that they want Sacramento to live within its means.”

“The best part about California today is that the Democrats own it,” said Linda Ackerman, a Republican National Committeewoman from California.

“We do not control the Assembly and we do not control the Senate, so all the fallout is going to come down on the Democrats,” she said. “The Democrats own it, let them own. Let’s see what they’re able to do with it.”

California’s GOP Chairman Ron Nehring has voiced similar sentiments, a message that is frustrating Democrats in Sacramento.

After state Sen. Tom Berryhill told reporters last week following a meeting with his Republican colleagues that “no one person in there is ready to support extra taxes,” the state’s Democratic president pro tem yanked the Modesto Republican’s leadership post on the Senate Agriculture committee.

Brown is hoping that he’ll be able to leverage the deep ties he’s built in Sacramento over a lifetime in state politics to convince all the players he needs to get on board.

“What he’s tried to do is just talk straight with everyone and be honest about what this budget will and won’t do,” said Glazer, the Brown adviser. “It’s not a magical formula. And some legislators seem to feel like you can just wave a wand and solve all these difficult problems.”

“Jerry Brown has been going around having meetings with the Democrats and Republicans on a daily basis…Jerry Brown is doing the things he should be doing,” added Beall, the Democratic assemblyman. “I’ve been impressed by his work ethic, especially in comparison to Governor Schwarzenegger, who didn’t do the personal kind of work.”

But even if Brown gets his budget, the peril is far from over.

Brown’s path to fiscal health for the state is paved at the expense of local governments. Rather than cut many services, he’s transferring the cost to counties and municipalities.

“Right now we’re expecting a cost shift of $1.2 billion from the state to the county,” said Ryan Alsop, the assistant CEO of Los Angeles County.

Counties suffering huge shortfalls on their own will be responsible for $6 billion in additional costs if Brown’s budget is passed, mostly in the form of taking over state social services that Sacramento is dumping on local budgets.

Los Angeles County is facing a $450 million cut alone in funding for CalWorks, the state’s temporary financial assistance program for the unemployed – a move that affects 37,000 families who will have to be taken onto the county’s books, said Alsop.

“It’s a hell of a cost shift. And it’s reliant upon a skeptical public in California voting to extend taxes when their opinion of government in general is in the toilet,” he said.

Related articles

• California Governor Jerry Brown Declares State of Fiscal Emergency (dailyfinance.com)
• California Treasurer Warns of IOUs, if No Cuts - Fox News (news.google.com)

The Maddow Blog - Never let hate diminish you

Image via WikipediaThe Maddow Blog - Never let hate diminish you

Because hate will certainly try to make less of you, and because it certainly can. Rep. James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), writing on The Hill's Congress Blog:

I have been asked often in recent days if the current public discourse is the worst I have ever seen. In my experience, the answer is no. For those of us who lived through the 1960s, we have poignant memories of the dark days when President Kennedy, Dr. King and Senator Robert Kennedy were assassinated. We lived through bombings, lynchings, and mobs spewing such venomous hate that we all wondered how we would overcome. But we did. We overcame with Dr. King’s admonition that our protests must remain nonviolent. In his words, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” And even more importantly, in my opinion, you refuse to allow his h

Haley Barbour, blind to history

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related articles

• Haley Barbour's new fake history (maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com)
• Haley Barbour: 'I don't remember the civil rights era being that bad' (theroot.com)
• Haley Barbour accused of praising 'racist organisation' (telegraph.co.uk)

Analysis: Perry's 'states' rights' battle cry evokes history that could damage his message | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

Analysis: Perry's 'states' rights' battle cry evokes history that could damage his message | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News

wslater@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – In trumpeting states' rights, Republican Gov. Rick Perry has tapped a fierce anti-Washington sentiment with a phrase that long had a mixed meaning in the segregated South.

Gov. Rick Perry, who attended Veterans Day ceremonies in Dallas last week, says his use of 'states' rights' as a national rallying cry is about spending and federal mandates, not race.

To some, "states' rights" evokes an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights.

Perry's use of the phrase to unite fervent opponents of federal meddling has made him a national voice – but he risks damaging his message if he's seen as a politician who's out of touch with the legacy of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

It is a difficult balancing act, said Rice University professor Earl Black, an expert on Southern politics.

"What's the best term to use to make the argument and be persuasive? I guess this term was at hand, but it certainly is going to muddy his message," he said.

For some blacks, the term is offensive. "Perry would be better off politically if he could find a term to get at the essence of his argument that's not a red flag," he said.

Perry defends his use of the phrase, saying his fight against Washington is about spending and federal mandates on health care and the environment, not race.

And in his new book, Fed Up, he tries to dissociate his use of "states' rights" against modern Washington from the negative connotations of the past.

"Let me pre-empt the naysayers out there who want to paint me as a backward Southern governor," he writes.

Cause vs. clause

In his re-election bid and his national book-promotion tour, Perry has appealed to tea party activists with his call to redress the balance between the state and federal governments.

The tea party movement, which has focused on fiscal issues, has rejected criticism that race plays a role in its opposition to Obama administration spending. Leaders have distanced themselves from signs at rallies depicting President Barack Obama in whiteface or as an African witch doctor.

But the sensitive issue of racial politics flared when tea party favorite Rand Paul , running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an example of government overreach. The law made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

In a recent interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the federal government's actions ending segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act.

He said he'd prefer that Congress relied on the constitutional amendments ending slavery and guaranteeing citizenship to blacks, instead of basing its authority on the commerce clause allowing government to regulate business between the states.

"You don't need the commerce clause to clearly state that racism is not appropriate in this country," Perry said. "That's my concern, that the Congress and the Supreme Court have used the commerce clause way past what it should have been."

A test of context

Gary Bledsoe, Texas president of the NAACP, said he understands that Perry isn't speaking of states' rights in a racial context, but not everybody might get that message.

He said Perry's aggressive use of the term in his fight with big government is putting to a test – 40 years after the nation's civil rights conflicts – whether the term "states' rights" still carries the baggage it once did.

"I realize it was the federal government that freed my ancestors. It was the federal government that got rid of Jim Crow. It was the federal government that seeks to protect my right to vote. So these things are really sacrosanct," he said. "So that states' rights thing does have a really negative connotation."

Ken Emanuelson, a steering committee member of the Dallas Tea Party, said fighting big government is an appealing message for grass-roots conservatives. But he said there might be a better way than using the term "states' rights" to express it.

"I don't think for a minute that the governor and a lot of people who are using that term have any ill intent. But it is a little tone-deaf and may be a lot tone-deaf," he said. "There are terms that maybe aren't as broadly used, terms like 'federalism' and 'decentralization,' that mean the same thing."

Treading carefully

As governor, Perry has dealt carefully with questions of race. He's called for the federal government to secure the border with Mexico but has said Arizona's tough illegal-immigration law is not right for Texas. He signed a hate crimes bill that strengthens penalties for crimes against minorities. And he named the first Hispanic woman to the state Supreme Court.

In the exit poll on Election Day, Perry claimed 70 percent of white voters but just 8 percent of black voters who turned out.

Bledsoe of the NAACP said that although he and the governor differ on the role of the federal government, they share a belief that championing states' rights these days should not be about race.

"He doesn't want to have that kind of connotation when he uses the word and I'm hoping that he can talk with others or be a leader in that regard to let people know that when they use that term, they shouldn't mean those things," he said.

DADT to face vote in Congress Nov. 17: Rachel Maddow relays breaking news that Senator Carl Levin has agreed to keep the "Don't ask, don't tell" provision in the defense spending bill, raising the possibility that it could be voted on in the lame duck session.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related articles

• Levin Pressing Military To Release 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Survey (huffingtonpost.com)
• McCain firm on DADT hypocrisy (maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com)

Bill Clinton 'disturbed and ticked off' - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Image via WikipediaBill Clinton 'disturbed and ticked off' - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Former President Bill Clinton is "disturbed and ticked off" by much of what he's seen from the midterm election campaign.

Speaking at a rally for 28-term incumbent Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) Sunday, Clinton said argued “right-wing rhetoric” against government spending does not accurately frame how Democrats have tried to aid a country still reeling from a recession, and showed frustration that the attacks against Democrats seems to have stuck.

"I almost gag when I hear these Republicans lambasting the president and the Democrats in Congress, 'Oh, they're such big spenders, they're just crazy, they're quasi-socialist,'" he said during the rally at the University of Michigan. "I have a simple question: Who's the last president to give you a balanced budget?

“I like all this enthusiasm, but frankly there are a few things about this election that have gotten me somewhere between disturbed and ticked off,” he added.

More...

Related articles

• Gingrich still lobbing rhetorical grenades (politico.com)
• Bill Clinton Campaigns For Tarryl Clark In Minnesota (huffingtonpost.com)
• Reviving Clinton-style populism (politico.com)

Health Care and the Campaign - NYTimes.com

Health Care and the Campaign - NYTimes.com

Republican candidates and deep-pocketed special interests are spreading so many distortions and outright lies about health care reform that it is little wonder if voters are anxious and confused.

Here are a few basic facts that Americans need to keep in mind before they go to the polls, and afterward. First, most aspects of the reform do not go into effect until 2014. Second, things are indeed bad out there: The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are (still) rising, and some employers are (still) dropping coverage. But for that, you should blame the long-standing health care crisis and the current bad economy. Health reform is supposed to help with these problems.

Here is a look at the claims being made on the campaign trail — and the distortions they contain:

PURE NONSENSE: John Raese, the Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, is claiming that the law will require patients to go through a bureaucrat or panel to reach a doctor. That is flat out untrue. You will still choose your own doctor or insurance plan without interference. Nor, despite other claims, will the law provide subsidized insurance to illegal immigrants. They are precluded from using even their own money to buy policies on new exchanges.

The Obama administration will not be compiling a federal health record on all citizens, including each individual’s body mass index, as Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican running for a House seat in upstate New York, has claimed on her Web site. The administration is offering incentives to doctors to record various vital statistics in electronic medical records and report the data in the aggregate, to help understand national health trends.

WE CALL THAT CAPITALISM: Republican politicians never tire of denouncing health care reform as a “government takeover” — or socialism. What is true is that the law relies heavily on private insurers and employers to provide coverage. It also strengthens regulation of those insurers and provides government subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy private insurance on the exchanges.

Those exchanges will promote greater competition among insurers and a better deal for consumers, which last time we checked was a fundamental of capitalism.

WHAT ABOUT MCDONALD’S? Conservative commentators pounced after the fast food chain and several other large employers that provide skimpy, low-cost policies to their workers warned that they might drop their health plans entirely if forced to comply with the new law. They particularly objected to a requirement that they begin raising the low annual limits on what their plans are willing to pay for health care.

In response, the administration has granted some 30 waivers for one year (Rush Limbaugh promptly accused the administration of allowing these employers to “break the law”) and has signaled willingness to smooth out other bumps on the road toward full reform. In 2014, all plans will have to meet minimal standards and large employers will have to provide coverage or pay a stiff fine.

WHAT ABOUT MY PREMIUMS? Some Republicans are also claiming that health reform is driving up premiums. There have been sharp increases in some states, primarily in response to soaring medical costs. Some insurers may also be trying to increase their profits before the reform law holds them in check. A few very welcome provisions that take effect early, like requiring insurers to cover preventive care without cost-sharing, will play a minor role in premium increases for next year.

Reform has also energized federal officials and many state regulators to challenge and force down big increases sought by insurers. The Justice Department just filed suit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan for allegedly using its market power to drive up costs for its competitors and its own subscribers.

More...

Related articles

• Correcting The Lies About Health Care Reform (alan.com)
• Health reform's benefits kick in (politico.com)

Axelrod Says Undisclosed GOP Contributors Trying to Sway Regulation of Industry

Axelrod Says Undisclosed GOP Contributors Trying to Sway Regulation of Industry

Continuing the Democrats' assault on Republican fundraising, senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the ability of political action groups supporting the GOP to raise millions for the campaign without full disclosure of contributors is giving special interests "a louder voice" on who will decide issues like regulation of major industries that have come under intense scrutiny in the past two years.

President Barack Obama has taken a lead in the criticism of fundraising by the Chamber of Commerce and other Republican allies, like as the "super-PACs" that proliferated in the wake of Supreme Court decisions allowing them to raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups. One that has come to particular attention is the American Crossroads group, which was founded with the help of Karl Rove, former top strategist for President George W. Bush.

More...

Related articles

• Axelrod Says 'More Growth and Jobs' Are Top Priority Next Year (businessweek.com)

Black Voters, Courted and Studied, Could Be a Deciding Factor in Midterms

Black Voters, Courted and Studied, Could Be a Deciding Factor in Midterms

They have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party, some black voters say. But African-Americans could be the key in a midterm election that Democrats and Republicans agree hinges on the enthusiasm of each party's base.

"In Anticipation of November 2: Black Voters and Candidates and the 2010 Midterm Elections," released on Thursday by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, shows that African-American voters, strategically located in key states and districts, could determine the results in close races.

The research was conducted by David A. Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center, which studies the black electorate. He said this election could echo midterm elections in 1986, when significant black turnout helped Democrats gain House seats and take control of the Senate, and again in 1998, when Democrats picked up governorships in Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia.

More...

Related articles

• Study touts impact of black turnout (politico.com)
• Study: Black Vote Crucial For Dems In Mid-Term Elections (npr.org)

Attacks on the President show Newt Gingrich groveling to far right, with 2012 surely in mind

Attacks on the President show Newt Gingrich groveling to far right, with 2012 surely in mind

Intelligence does not assure trust in the world of politics, or outside of it. Newt Gingrich has proven this with his hectoring xenophobia toward Muslims when the iron was hot among those on the extreme right. The former speaker of the House could have instead offered a good cold bucket of water to opponents of the proposed Cordoba House project, but he did not. Some assume that his outrage, so perfect for Fox News, was no more than a cynical quest for power among Republicans, perhaps enough to get the GOP nomination for President in 2012.

His willful distortions of fact about Muslims and their intentions for the proposed Muslim community center were disgusting. But he continues. Gingrich knows that there are those in the nation who are so deluded by their ignorance that they actually believe American Muslims could ignore the national laws and impose Islamic law. There is no doubt that he knows that's impossible, but he keeps saying it nonetheless.

Of late, Robert A. George, a conservative and libertarian journalist, poured intellectual hot coals down the back of Gingrich's pants. He was disturbed by Gingrich's embracing a wacked-out theory - first proposed by Dinesh D'Souza in a Forbes cover story - about Barack Obama having absorbed his purported disdain for Western values from his Kenyan father.

George, who is black, worked for Gingrich following the 1994 midterm elections. Due to that career choice, George has taken his lumps from blacks and liberals in cable news and print for not embracing left-wing ideals and, therefore, "betraying" his race.

George writes that the Gingrich we now see is not the man for whom he worked and who proved himself, over and over, neither afraid of a political brawl nor at a loss for solid beliefs well-grounded in scholarship.

During the Republican squabbles over the loss to Barack Obama, Gingrich transcended the verbal and intellectual mud-slinging, often seeming quite reasonable. He did not submit to the levels of demonization that became part of the act for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. He seemed wrong for the budding Tea Party movement.

That Gingrich has taken a powder. Eventually, Gingrich leapt ahead of others on the right who were wary of being connected to (and diminished by) association with the rage heating up at the Republican margins; he rolled up his sleeves, left his principles behind, and went along with them.

This is not unusual and has too long and varied a pedigree to lay out right here, but we should never forget the way the Democratic Party was forced to kowtow to elected rednecks who kept their supporters by protecting Southern racism. Gingrich remembers how well the "Southern strategy" of President Richard Nixon worked. It attracted disgruntled Southern donkeys willing to become Republicans as long as the red in their necks was respected.

So Gingrich's change of tune is another disappointing example of how the possibility of rising to a position of power can intellectually deform a person.

Time takes principles and vitality down the drain. It is as much the enemy of a politician as it is the elemental fact movie stars dread every morning as they look into the mirror. In the case of Newt Gingrich, the question is: If you will not try to grab power now, when will you?

Plato once wrote of a man who had to devour his children in order to achieve his goal. If Gingrich chooses to see the electorate as his children, he appears to have decided that, at the end of the day, he can wipe the blood off his teeth.

crouch.stanley@gmail.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gingrich Channels D'Souza in Casting Obama as a Kenyan (theroot.com)

Howard Dean: No More Apologies -- It's Time to Stand Up for Our Convictions

Howard Dean: No More Apologies -- It's Time to Stand Up for Our Convictions

For some time now, various "reporters" and on-air personalities on the Fox News Network have failed to report the full story or relevant facts, instead indulging in race baiting in order to exploit people's fears and crank up the fringe of their audience. This was exemplified by Glenn Beck's nightly assault on Van Jones earlier this year. Recently, Fox has cranked up stories about the Department of Justice's decision not to prosecute a voter intimidation case against a Black Panther group and even worse, calls for Atty. General Holder's resignation. And now, the Sherrod Debacle.

Turns out Van Jones' name was added to a website without his permission, a fact the group finally admitted some time after he resigned. And maybe he said some things about the Republican Party that he shouldn't have -- but that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a brilliant environmental organizer. It also turns out that it was the Bush Administration who decided not to prosecute the case against the black panthers because as Bush's Assistant Attorney General Perez testified, "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statues, and under the Obama Administration Justice Department a judgment was won in a civil case.

And by now we all know how the Sherrod story went down. Despite his claims to the contrary on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace didn't have his facts quite right. As a media matters study showed, Fox News did in fact spend a lot of air-time on July 19th and 20th cranking up the false story. Not to mention that foxnews.com bragged that shortly after they posted a "report" about the video Mrs. Sherrod resigned.

None of this is new. I don't believe all or even most of the Republican party voters are racist, but going at least as far back as Lee Atwater, the Willie Horton ads, and the attacks on John McCain in the South Carolina primaries in both 2000 and 2008, the immigration debate in 2006, there is a persistent willingness in the Republican party to use race baiting for electoral advantage. The fact is, this is racist behavior.

Now if the Tea Party, which is not a professional group of politicians have the decency to repudiate the racist fringe in their group, why can't the Republicans? Obviously they think this approach works on the margins, but even if this stuff works, it sure doesn't produce good leaders or a civil society, and it certainly doesn't produce a stronger America, it produces an even more polarized and angry America. It's that willingness to put party ahead of country that has the Republicans in such low regard.

There are lessons to be learned here. Tom Vilsack stated the first one best: don't make decisions without all the facts. To that I would add: consider the source. If it is a group of individuals or a corporation that has chronically ignored the facts and engaged in race baiting in the past, they are likely to do it again. A report by Fox News, Breitbart or Matt Drudge, ought to have -- as it does in most people's minds -- little credibility.

The second lesson is harder. Stand up for what you believe in. I admire Nancy Pelosi because she is tough, gets things done, and doesn't take crap from the right wing or any one else. After the year and a half this country has just been through, it is pretty obvious that the right-wing has no intention of cooperating with anyone, and that they will do anything to regain power, just as they were willing to do anything to hold on to it. The only reasonable approach is to stand up to them as you would any group of bullies. Call them out for what they do- or don't do as the case may be. If the Tea Party can call out some of their own members, surely we can call out a group of people who have put their party ahead of their country.

I have often said the biggest problem with the Democrats is that we are not tough enough. Now is the time to be tough. The fact is that the stimulus package has reduced unemployment from where it would have otherwise been in this Bush-induced recession (based on policies most of the Republicans now in Congress voted for). The fact is, as 60 members of the House and the CBO showed last week, the Public Option, or Medicare Buy-in, as it should more correctly be called, would have reduced the deficit over ten years by an additional $68 million dollars. The fact is that President Obama -- despite Republicans killing the climate change bill -- has done more in 18 months to change America's approach to the environment and green jobs than any president in memory.

The fact is that if we are going to tackle the deficit, it makes no sense to cut taxes for people with plenty of money while we tell people who depend on Social Security and Medicare that they have to do with less, or to play games with unemployment insurance for those who need it most.

The fact is that the Democrats won the election in 2008. The Republicans refuse to do anything for the country except say "no". That means we have to work hard and do what we believe is right. And we have to stop apologizing for it. We have to stand up for what we believe in and stop trying to make deals with people who cannot be trusted to make deals for the good of our country. It's not too late to win in 2010. Conviction politics works. Just ask the right wing!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Howard Dean tells Fox: Your coverage of Sherrod was racist (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• Howard Dean Calls Fox News Racist, Chris Wallace Strikes Back (newsbusters.org)