Daily Kos

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson The day before the delivery of more than enough signatures to force a recall election against him, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was present as the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. was given a particularly powerful tribute by University of Maryland law professor and civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill.

"Many people want to own Dr. King's memory and claim him for their own," Ifill said:

I admit that I too wonder on occasion how Dr. King would respond to the great challenges of our day. Of course, we can never really know, but we have some clues and it would be an insult to the 12 hard years of extraordinary work that constitutes Dr. King's legacy to this country to pretend that we don't know what he stood for.

Those clues? Ifill summoned King's own words and actions on war, housing and mortgage discrimination, mass incarceration, and then, with Scott Walker sitting just feet from her, she said, "We know that Dr. King would have been on the side of workers struggling to receive a fair wage and decent working conditions. We know this ... we know this ... we know this ..."—and here, Ifill's repetition is not because she lost her way but because she could not be heard above the sustained roar of the crowd in the Wisconsin Capitol, with Scott Walker smirking away behind her. "We know this not because Dr. King was partisan," she finally continued. "Dr. King famously said 'both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice.' We know this because Dr. King died in Memphis, Tennessee where he had come to march in solidarity with the city's striking black sanitation workers."

Ifill's subsequent words on unemployment and corporate personhood drew what you'd generally consider good applause. But it was another issue that's been fought in Wisconsin over the past year that brought it home.

"And finally, I cannot pretend not to know how Dr. King, who fought against the poll tax and literacy tests, and who marched in Selma would have responded"—and here again a rising cheer begins to drown her out—"would have responded to the assault on voting rights throughout the country. I can't help but know how Dr. King would have responded to onerous requirements that require the elderly, and rural voters, and minority voters, and members of Native American tribes who've lived on the reservation to have a government-issued ID to vote."

(h/t Workers Independent News)

From The Hill:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that the challenges faced by his presidential campaign had strengthened his spiritual life, telling South Carolina voters on Monday he knew God had never promised him he would win the GOP nomination.

"He sure didn't tell me I was gonna win," Perry said at a campaign event in South Carolina, according to NBC News. "But I know I'm doing God's will for my life.”

God told him to run. But God didn't say he would win. God, as it turns out, was bored out of his omniscient mind last summer and, knowing that he would have precious little to do right about now other than decide the outcome of football games based on public displays of piety, thought he could at least have a little fun goading people into doomed runs for the presidency.

I've noticed that the conservative version of God is really kind of a jerk. Which I guess explains why so many religious conservatives think "acting like a jerk" is the most godly thing you can do, and why they do so much of it.

Well, at least Perry is treating this as a teachable moment. I actually applaud the guy for this:

“I've matured as a Christian in the last six months as I've gone through this process,” said Perry, speaking at a town-hall event sponsored by website CafeMom.

I think everyone seeking true spirituality should run for president. Sometimes it will get you exposed as a philandering ass (see: Herman Cain), which is probably good for you, or sometimes it will just prove to you that you are not, in fact, seen by the wider public as the greatest thing since sliced bread—also probably very good for you. So if you've got a few million dollars to spend and nothing much to do, sure. Go out there and have a go at it.

 

What seems obvious to us is news to Washington pundits:

A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama.

Independents, widely considered the most critical voting bloc this fall, continue to blame Bush far more than Obama for the economic troubles. Fifty-seven percent of unaffiliated voters put the blame on the former Republican president, while 25 percent believe the blame rests more with Obama.

Heck, even one in five Republicans say Bush is more responsible than Obama for the state of the economy!

Why do I say it's news?

We’ve written for quite some time that the longer Obama is in office (and the longer Bush is out of it), the more likely it is that blame for the economy would shift toward him. But, these numbers suggest — gasp! — we were wrong.

Yes, you were. But credit Chris Cillizza for saying so.

And that's not all. From CBS/New York Times:

The public is not assigning blame equally between President Obama and Republicans in Congress for the partisan gridlock over key legislation.

In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent say Mr. Obama is attempting to work with Congressional Republicans to try to accomplish something; 27 percent say Republicans in Congress are making the same effort to work things out with the president.

There is strong public support for politicians to start cooperating. At least 80 percent – regardless of party identification – say Republicans and Democrats should compromise some of their positions in order to get things done.

You can fool the voters some of the time, but you can't fool the voters all of the time. The idea that Obama is doomed because the unemployment rate is xx percent is a bit too simplistic. It's hurting him, but there's a lot more going on than just a number, and it's pretty clear the public wants better but doesn't blame Obama for getting us into this mess. That's a wasted effort on Republicans' part.

The election will be about who can get us out.

Today, hundreds of websites shut down either entirely or partially in order to educate their audiences about the dangers of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protct IP Act (PIPA). Then, in conjunction with dozens of activist organizations, they directed millions of people (over 4.5 million from Google alone) to contact their senators and members of Congress in opposition to those bills. The result was amazing:

• As of this writing, 18 senators have declared their opposition to PIPA today. This brings the total number opposed to 33. Just one week ago, only five senators were opposed.
• The senators declaring their opposition are skewing Republican. While three of the original five opponents—Sens. Maria Cantwell, Jerry Moran, Rand Paul, Mark Warner and Ron Wyden—were Democrats, 18 of the 28 who have declared their opposition in the past week have been Republicans.
• In celebration of today, Sen. Ron Wyden, who led this fight for months and kept PIPA from passing almost single-handed, has penned a must-read letter (PDF) to "Innovators, Speakers and Agents for Change, The World Wide Web."
• Lest it seem all the action was in the Senate, Rep. Keith Ellison blacked out his website in protest against SOPA, while Rep. Allen West decided to oppose SOPA in order to stick it to Eric Holder. Also, several co-sponsors of SOPA in the House pulled their support.
• In New York City, close to 1,000 people held an off-line rally against PIPA outside the offices of Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. A lengthy, archived video of the event can be seen here.
• DaMadFiddler collected a great series of screencaps of many of the sites that participated in the protest.
• Facebook and twitter joined in, sort of.
• Mother Jones collected a series SOPA jokes on Twitter.
• Weatherdude sums up why this was such an important tactical move.

Over 22,000 Kossacks contacted their senators today, and more than 75,000 have taken action in the last two months. A big thanks to each and every one of you for making this one of the more successful days of action I can ever remember.

It's well established that, particularly in budget matters, it's difficult for one Congress to impose its will on future Congresses. But, it turns out, this Congress can't even impose its will on itself.

[D]espite a veto threat from President Barack Obama, congressional Republicans and a handful of Democrats have vowed to somehow unravel the spending cuts this year — which are scheduled to hit defense and domestic programs equally in January 2013.

“I’m very concerned about the defense cuts in sequestration, but it’s also the cuts to nondefense discretionary [that] are also devastating,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told POLITICO. “Ultimately, I think there’s a very strong feeling that it’s not going to go into effect.” [...]

California Republican Buck McKeon, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Boehner ally, has introduced a bill that would trim the federal workforce and use those savings to offset one year of automatic cuts to both defense and domestic programs. [...]

On the Senate side, Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Marco Rubio of Florida are putting together a bill that would package various spending cuts identified by the supercommittee and deficit negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden with some smaller nontax revenue-raisers to prevent the defense cuts. That measure is expected to be released sometime this month.

Just to make this absolutely clear—which the article doesn't do—these are the cuts that Congress agreed to last summer in the debt ceiling deal. They voted to create the Super Congress to find massive budget cuts, and also voted on automatic cuts that would occur if the Super Congress failed. Which it did, of course. I mean, even this Congress was smart enough to look ahead and see that happen.

Of course, this Congress was also cynical enough to pass that law knowing that they'd figure out some way to renege on it.

With the Obama administration's refusal to kowtow to the arbitrary and politically motivated Republican deadline to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Speaker of the House John Boehner was one of the first out of the gate to express his fauxrage:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ...

What he didn't say?

... in December 2010, according to Boehner’s financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada’s oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport.

So in the coming days, as Republicans crawl out of the woodwork to denounce the president's decision, ask yourself what's in it for them besides scoring political points.

Look at who is dropping support for SOPA.

"I'm withdrawing my co-sponsorship for the Protect IP Act," said Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican.

Sen. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, "will be withdrawing his name as a co-sponsor" of Protect IP, a spokesman told CNET today. Fellow Protect IP co-sponsor Sen. James Risch, an Idaho Republican, said today that he wants "more time to re-examine the legislation before going to a vote" and has asked staff for a detailed briefing, a spokesman said.

And Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who has long been a close ally of Hollywood on copyright and is up for re-election this year, said on Twitter that "I will not only vote against moving the bill forward next week but also remove my co-sponsorship of the bill." [...]

Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican who is listed as a SOPA sponsor, "reserves judgment on the final bill," a spokesman told CNET today. "He's certainly not saying pass the bill as-is -- there are legitimate concerns in this bill." SOPA sponsor Tim Griffin, an Arkansas Republican, now says: "I will not support a bill unless my constituents are comfortable with it."

If you keep reading that story, the Democrats listed all remain adamant that they'll remain co-sponsors of the legislation but work to "fix it".

Bullshit.

It's been a while since we've seen Democrats this tone deaf, this oblivious to political reality.

You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it's FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?

Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks, than heed the will of millions of Americans who have lent their online voice in an unprecedented manner.

Are they really this stupid? Can they really be this idiotic?

Are they really going to cede this issue to Republicans, hand them this massive public victory, then get left with nothing but public scorn when SOPA and PIPA go down in flames?

Ever since the FDR administration initiated the federal-state partnership that forms the nation's unemployment insurance program, Republicans have sought ways to weaken it. Protection for troubled corporations is one thing; protection of out-of-work individuals, you know, real people, is another thing altogether in the GOP mindset. The party has been hard at work during the Obama administration to make life tougher for Americans covered by the program. They're at it again.

Destroying the program is impossible, even for a Republican Party in the thrall of tea partiers and the Koch brothers—pardon me for being redundant. But diluting the program, making it serve fewer people, reducing how much they get and giving the states even more say in how it operates, has been their m.o. for the past two-and-a-half years. The latest attempt can be found in the House version of the bill to extend the payroll-tax cut for a full year. At the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Hannah Shaw and Chad Stone have shredded the proposal.

What House Republicans seek to do is authorize the Secretary of Labor to let up to 10 states use UI funds for doing things other than paying benefits to jobless workers. This will provide what they say is needed flexibility. Given that several GOP-dominated states have already used long-standing flexibility to whack their UI programs, there's little doubt 10 states could be found to do what the House Republicans want, if they can just get a Secretary of Labor who is nothing like Hilda Solis. Shaw and Stone write:

Workers eligible for unemployment benefits have effectively paid taxes into the UI system, often for many years or decades.  Technically, employers pay the UI tax, but economists agree that employees largely bear the burden of the tax in the form of lower wages than they otherwise would receive, much as employees effectively bear the burden of the employer share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.  Yet, under the House provision, states could obtain waivers to change their UI programs in ways that deny benefits to people who have been working (and effectively paying UI taxes) for years and then lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Moreover, the House proposal could enable states to replace state or local funds now used for job training or other such purposes with diverted UI funds and then to shift the withdrawn funds to other uses, including tax cuts.  The net result could be a reduction in unemployment benefits with little or no offsetting increase in employment services.

The UI system already features extensive state flexibility.  As Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security, which provided the basic blueprint for what would become the Social Security Act, stated, “The States shall have broad freedom to set up the type of unemployment compensation they wish.” [...]

Broad freedom already exists, with only two major conditions set by federal law: 1) every nickel from a state's unemployment fund "shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment compensation”; and, 2) states cannot set up administrative methods that keep otherwise eligible individuals from receiving payment.

Those are the two conditions the Republicans want to make "flexible." In effect, their proposal would allow states to take money meant to provide benefits for jobless Americans and spend it for other purposes, such as job training, and then transfer money now spent for job training to cover, for example, tax cuts. It would also allow them to impose extraneous requirements beyond those related to a people having built up sufficient work records, become unemployed through no fault of their own and be looking for a job. Through waivers included in the proposal, states could, for example, require a jobless person to have a high school diploma or GED.

Since the beginning of the UI program, states have been able to restrict eligibility, set limits on how long someone receive benefits and establish minimum and maximum amounts they can receive in each benefit check. Several states have cut the duration a person can collect a check from the 26 weeks that all states had used for half a century to as low as 12 in Florida under some conditions. Other states have cut the maximum benefit. Some have done both. That's plenty of flexibility. As Stone and Shaw say:

Permitting the use of funds for purposes other than providing UI benefits would start the UI system down a slippery slope that would alter its fundamental nature.  That is true even if the purposes to which states diverted UI funds would seem to benefit some unemployed workers, such as providing additional job training.

Dismantling the New Deal obviously remains high on the Republican wish list.

Brian Beutler points out that, based on his own statement, quarter-billionaire Mitt Romney pays federal taxes at an effective rate of 15 percent.

As noted here in December, the reason he gets to do this is because his earnings don't come from teaching, or building cars or fighting fires:

The rate derives from something called "carried interest." It's a perfectly legal loophole that ought not to be. It gives partners at private equity firms and hedge funds a tax break from higher rates on income they collect from their part in hammering out corporate buy-outs and other deals. Instead of the top 35 percent the wealthiest Americans pay on income from their salaries and, say, on interest from their money market accounts, the carried interest rate is 15 percent.

Romney co-founded such an equity group in 1984, Bain Capital. Its business? Find struggling companies, break them up and sell the parts. The damage? Thousands of laid-off employees. The human toll, and toll to communities can be large, and the profits to the principals in these enterprises immense. When Romney left Bain in 1999, he got a 10-year deal by which he continued to draw income from previous deals, income taxed at 15 percent.

Such a deal. The kind of deal you could get if you had an army of lobbyists and a vault full of campaign money to contribute.

If you would like to get an idea of how much you might save if you paid at the rate Romney does, check out this feature set up by the Democratic National Committee.

MoveOn is one of the many progressive netroots organizations taking action against SOPA and PIPA today. A quick look at the best available list of groups taking part, including many that are not listed such as Democracy for America and CREDO, tells you this could be the biggest single-day online action of all time.

It keeps getting results, too. Rep. Tim Holden, a co-sponsor of SOPA, has now withdrawn his support and announced his opposition.

We are rapidly approaching 15,000 emails to senators from the Daily Kos community today, and more than 70,000 emails to Congress overall. Be a part of history and send an email to your senators opposing PIPA.

3:05 PM PT: The PIPA whip count now shows 30 senators opposed, 35 in favor. And you guys have sent over 20,000 emails just today, more than 75,000 overall.

Reposted from Daily Kos Elections by David Nir Politico first reported it earlier in the day, but now news outlets everywhere are confirming:

Ten-term Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of Ulster County is retiring.

Hinchey, who recently completed treatment for colon cancer and has been declared cancer free by his doctors, will announce tomorrow that he will not seek reelection and will retire at the end of his current term, his office said.

The announcement will be at 1 p.m. at the Senate House State Historic Site located at 296 Fair Street in Kingston, NY where Hinchey announced his first campaign for Congress in 1992.

It's a relief to hear that Hinchey is cancer-free, but you can hardly blame him for wanting to retire after spending a year undergoing treatment, especially since he's 73. Hinchey also faced an unusually tough fight for re-election in 2010, winning by just six points over teacher George Phillips. While last cycle's red storm was unlikely to be repeated again this year, Hinchey probably didn't look forward to the rigors of another serious campaign. (Phillips said he'd seek a rematch, and former assistant U.S. attorney Tom Engel had also announced a run.) And as Brian Tumulty at the Ithaca Journal notes, Hinchey only had about $100K in the bank, a rather small sum for anyone facing a potentially competitive race.

With Hinchey retiring, everyone instantly began speculating that the 22nd District would get dismantled in redistricting, since New York is losing two congressional seats this year. That makes sense on its face, but as you can see from the map below, every district which touches Hinchey's—the 19th, 20th, 24th and 29th—is currently held by a Republican:

They are also all swingish seats which were all occupied by Democrats as recently as 2010, so these Republicans probably aren't eager to take on blue turf, especially the college town of Ithaca. Still, some creative line-drawing could probably do the trick, so let me pose this challenge: Using Dave's Redistricting App, can you redrawn upstate New York in a way that would satisfy Republicans? (Let's assume there's a compromise plan that also involves taking out GOPer Bob Turner in NY-09.) I'll be curious to see what people come up with.

P.S. If somehow the 22nd survives past this year, Roll Call's Joshua Miller says that Ulster County Executive Mike Hein could potentially run for the Democrats.