Book Note: "The House That Herring Built" -- an amazing evening with Mark Russ Federman

"As far as I know, I am the only Jewish father who was disappointed that his kid became a doctor. I was thinking sturgeon, not surgeon."

-- from Russ & Daughters: Reflections and
Recipes from The House That Herring Built

by Ken

The son in question is Noah, the older of Mark Russ Federman's two children, Noah. He tells us in his new memoir that he had fantasies of working side by side with his son in the family business, To Mark's considerable surprise, his daughter Niki came back into the family business, Russ & Daughters, the legendary appetizing store on Houston Street in New York's Lower East Side. He consoles himself with the thought that Noah is a good doctor.

As disappointed as Mark was by Noah's defection, he was just as startled when his daughter Niki, in 2006, asked if she could come back into the business, which she had worked in growing up on a fill-in basis, like most Russ family members. That happened in 2006, four years after Niki's cousin Josh (the son of Mark's sister Tara), a chemical engineer, asked his dumbfounded uncle if he could come into the business.

Today Kiki and Josh are the fourth-generation owners of Russ & Daughters, and Mark is the author of this sensational book telling the story of an immigrant family's struggle to survive and establish itself in the New World. In a talk Tuesday night in Elebash Recital Hall of New York's City University Graduate Center, he stressed that in those first two generations in particular -- the generations of his grandfather, Joel Russ, and of Joel's three daughters and their husbands -- their story was like that of hundreds of immigrants who were struggling to survive and establish themselves on the Lower East Side, the next goal being to escape the crowded, foul conditions of the Lower East Side.

I can hardly begin to explain why I was so enthralled Tuesday night. I laughed. I cried. I don't remember when I had such a good time. On the simplest level, Mark is a great storyteller. I suspect he could have gone on for hours, and the packed house would have happily stayed with him. But beyond that, he had a heckuva story to tell, or rather stories -- of the four generations of his family, of the history represented by the changes that have taken place on the Lower East Side, and of how we understand and remember the past while tucking it into the future.

Those were hard times in New York when Mark, then a busy practicing uptown lawyer, startled his parents by telling them that he wanted to come into the business, with a view to taking it over from them. It made sense, he thought. He was itching for a change, and they were tired from the grind, and his father in particular was increasingly ailing. He thought he could combine overseeing the business with practicing law, on a less constricting basis than he was finding in his law firm. However, as he told us and tells every interviewer, on his first day back in the store in his new capacity, he knew that his law career was over.

The first thing Mark noted when he took the podium earlier this week was that the packed house was of "an appropriate age" -- old enough, he explained, to need little explaining about what it is he does, or did, in the 30 years that he presided over Russ & Daughters. He said that part of what got him through the difficult decades of the '70s, 80s, and '90s was the fact that his name was on the door. He took that as a warranty to customers that they were getting the best fish, the best everything, that was offered for sale on the premises.

Mark's mother, Anne Russ Federman, is the youngest of the three eponymous Russ "Daughters," and is still living in Florida at age 92. His Aunt Hattie Russ Gold lives there too, pushing 100. The middle sister, Ida Russ Schwartz, died at age 86, but had long since departed from the business along with her difficult first husband. Mark says the circumstances of their departure -- jumped or pushed? -- are still unclear.

Mark took pains to note that his grandfather wasn't an early feminist. He was simply making optimal business use of the resources he had. He didn't have sons; he had three daughters. Each of them, when her time came, had been required to give up any thought of schooling, not to mention a social life, to come into the business, because that was the only way the family could make a living. Joel understood that the presence of three attractive young women in the store could be good for business -- and to this day the phrase "good for business" seems to be a discussion-clincher in the Russ family.

In the book Mark tells us, for example, that he invoked the "good for business" meme in 2005, when he persuaded his mother and his Aunt Hattie, to make the heroic trip up from Florida to participate in a XXXXX that Niki Federman had arranged to do a presentation involving four generations of her family, moderated by writer Calvin Trillin -- without having ascertained whether her mother, her aunt, or longtime customer and family friend Trillin were willing or able to participate. Mark agreed to tackle his mother and aunt, but told Niki she would have to deal with Trillin. That turned out to be no problem at all. Trillin, it turns out, is crazy about Niki, all the more so now with his own daughters both on the West Coast.

I might add at this point that most of my "involvement" with Russ and Daughters is via decades' worth of food writings of Trillin, whom Mark describes as "the poet laureate of Russ & Daughters." I'm not sure that I've ever actually bought anything in the store. In recent years anytime I've passed it, it has been so mobbed that I wouldn't venture inside. But I had my own formative experience with a similar appetizing store in Brooklyn called Hymie's, which had been around long enough that my grandmother was a regular customer when my mother was growing up, and when she moved back into the neighborhood decades later, Hymie's wife, Rose, recognized her. Hymie, like Joel Russ, was a terror to customers, while Rose, like Joel's three daughters, were loved by customers.

By that time Mark too the CUNY Graduate Center podium Tuesday night we had seen a brief video, which I assume is the one that was made for Niki's presentation in 2005, with at least some of the interview with Anne and Hattie. As Mark is quick to point out, the answers to every question involved, shall we say, discussion, between the sisters.. This is, apparently, a family tradition. You get a vivid image of what life was like when Grandpa Joel, his three daughters, and one by one the newly added sons-in-law were all working in that tiny store.

It was an amazing evening. By the end I knew I had to have the book, and so I joined the line to buy a copy. I didn't really care about having it signed, but I hung around in that line too, thumbing through the book (looking, for example, for the promised photo of Grandpa Joel, the "high holiday" type of only-moderately-observant Jew, in a white linen suit, with his older brother Shmemendel (yes, Shmemendel, an amalgam of Shmuel and Mendel), an observant Jew who worked briefly in the business. I found it -- it's a great picture.

Is Ann Kuster Selling Out Already? Just A Late Night Question

Looks like they may have been right about her-- though for the wrong reasons

It didn't surprise me when lifelong Republican/spoiled brat Patrick Murphy of Florida turned out to be one of the worst "Democratic" freshmen in the class of 2013. We warned about him all during the 2012 cycle. Of course he's not some kind of insane crackpot war criminal like Allen West, who he replaced... but Allen West wasn't able to get inside the Democratic caucus and woo naive freshmen Democrats away from progressive ideals towards a Republican agenda that Murphy has always supported. That's exactly what Murphy has been doing since he got into Congress-- that and voting with Boehner and Cantor on the crucial issues of the day.

What did surprise me were some of the freshmen Murphy was able to win over to the Dark Side-- and not just always-untrustworthy New Dems and corporate whores like Ami Bera (CA), Pete Gallego (TX, Congress' only freshman Blue Dog), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Joe Crowley pawn Grace Meng (NY), Scott Peters (CA) and Eric Swalwell, a former Ellen Tauscher staffer. I'm certain Murphy didn't have to twist any arms to get those 7 to sign on, but I was profoundly disappointed to see freshmen Joe Garcia (FL), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and, most of all, Ann Kuster (NH) get on board the Patrick Murphy Express To Nowhere.

When Garcia was going up against Republicrook David Rivera I was certainly rooting for him. He's an old friend and I like him and he's got some good ideas about moving the country forward. But... not exactly a courageous full-throttled progressive. We wrote about Rivera's unfolding corruption scandals all through the campaign but never endorsed Joe. So when he joined the New Dems and started crossing the aisle on crucial votes, it didn't really shock me. Similarly Kyrsten Sinema, a People For the American Way former Young Elected Official and a fellow board member, is someone Blue America considered endorsing. She has a carefully cultivated reputation among some Democrats as a progressive. But when we looked into it, from people on the ground, it became clearer and clearer that, at best, she'd be a mainstream Democrat-- never a stalwart progressive. We didn't endorse her and, sure enough, she got into Congress, joined the New Dems and started going out of her way to take the most cowardly and craven route to reelection the DCCC tries enforcing on their "stars" who don't shine that brightly-- vote with Boehner and Cantor, Israel urges them. And Sinema has been doing just that.

Where this has cut deep and hurt badly is the case of Ann Kuster, who Blue America did endorse and did raise money for in 2010 and 2012-- even though we didn't always get the feeling that she was what we were really looking for in a candidate. We should have followed our guts. She did join the Progressive Caucus but she was one of the only members to vote against the Back To Work Budget and she's been working with Murphy and voting badly over and over on key issues, like voting to end regulations for derivatives in the Agriculture Committee the other day, a position that only a Republican or a sold-out Wall Street shill could defend.

That derivatives vote for Wall Street is an especially bad idea-- one that crosses a bright red line. Former Goldman Sachs banker Jim Himes (R-CT) is working with Republicans to pass it and Kuster was one of the Democrats who went along. She's touting her connivance with Murphy on a phony-baloney bipartisan caucus (which includes mostly extreme right-wing Republican sociopaths like domestic terrorist Steve Stockman) and she told a New Hampshire audience recently that “On social issues, I am what they call progressive. But on the rest of the issues, I’m business-oriented.” So a Republican on economic justice? She mouthed Steve Israel's nonsense about none of the budgets being "bipartisan" enough and voted against the Progressive budget and even the pretty conservative Senate budget. "Unfortunately, none of the budget proposals on the table this week reflect the type of bipartisan compromise that New Hampshire families expect and deserve." This is what Israel has told vulnerable Democrats to spout. Notice the verbiage from Blue Dog Kurt Schrader when he gave his excuse for voting NO on the Senate budget:

Blue Dog Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) said he voted against the Senate budget because it did not go far enough on entitlements.

"It is not enough entitlement reform in there going forward. It needs to be a more complete and balanced picture and it wasn't bipartisan in the end of the day," Schrader told The Hill.

More entitlements cuts? Is that what Schrader and Kuster are angling for? You'd think she has a background as a lobbyist in a GOP-oriented shop instead of as a community activist like she sold us on when she was trolling for support. Some people blame it on an exceptionally bad staff but... she's the one voting with Boehner, not her staffers.

And speaking of trolling, Wall Street shill Jim Himes keeps sending e-mails-- like every day-- asking for money from the grassroots so they can pay for the nooses for their own hangings. Here was the one from yesterday:

I hate to flood your inbox, but I wanted to make sure you saw the email that I sent yesterday. Despite whatever her spokesperson said, Linda McMahon is clearly thinking about running for Congress. RNC chair Reince Priebus let is slip this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe that he met with McMahon yesterday.

That's right: she's not just meeting with local Republicans, she's meeting with the national head of the GOP. Former candidates don't meet with national party leaders unless they're seriously considering a run.

We've seen that Linda McMahon is willing to spend $100 million to try and buy a public office, and we'll need every donation to counter her millions. Can you give $25, $50, or $100 to help me get ready to face her?

Himes is carrying Wall Street banksters' water. Let's see if they pay for his 2014 campaign against McMahon. There's not a chance on God's earth Blue America would chip in a nickel. And if you're wondering what's so bad about deregulating derivatives, the way Kuster and Himes are working with the GOP to do, here's how Thom Hartmann explained it Friday:

Less than a week ago, Senator Carl Levin issued a scathing report on the devastation JP Morgan caused with risky multibillion-dollar derivative trades. Yet, some in Congress are fighting to deregulate Wall Street, and remove oversight on derivative trades between utility companies and banksters. Levin said, “It is incredible that less than a week after new JPMorgan Whale hearings detailed hoe the bank’s London office piled up risk, hid losses, and dodged regulatory oversight, that some House members are again supporting the weakening of derivative safegaurds.”

And despite gridlock in Washington, the new effort to loosen regulations and water down the 2010 Dodd Frank Act is getting bipartisan support in the lower chamber. Republican Representatives Patrick McHenry and Scott Garrett are backing the measure, and Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore said the plan is only meant to relieve regulatory burdens on companies that do business with big banks. Another democrat, Representative Jim Himes, even wants to roll-back Dodd Frank, and stick taxpayers with the bill, should the derivative market implode again.

It’s only been five years since the banksters crashed our economy by gambling with derivatives, and the modest legislation we’ve enacted is meant to prevent another economic meltdown. Representative Alan Grayson, a leading voice for financial reform, criticized his colleagues for considering putting our nation at risk again. He said, “the road to hell is paved with these bills.”

We should be strengthening regulations on Wall Street, not giving banksters another free pass to gamble with our economic future. Call Congress today and tell them they must stop the next derivatives debacle before it’s too late.

Paul Ryan-- The Prince Of Pain

I'm retired now. All the work I do is volunteer work. And the sun never rises before I'm up and working. Before I retired I was the president of TimeWarner's Reprise Records, home of Green Day, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Wilco, Fleetwood Mac, Morrissey, Lou Reed, Frank Sinatra, Barenaked Ladies, Cher, Enya, Josh Groban, Erasure, Rickie Lee Jones, Steely Dan, Chaka Khan, and dozens of other artists. I didn't work any harder then than I do now. And before that I started my own independent record company, 415 Records, which I eventually sold to CBS. That was hard work too.

I've written a lot about what I did before my days in the record industry. I have a whole blog devoted to my travels around the world and before I started 415 Records I was tamping around Europe, Asia and Africa for nearly seven years, right out of college. I spent time in Essaouira with Jimi Hendrix, smuggled kif out of the Rif Mountains into Spain so I could finance a trip to India, a trip that brought me to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and every corner of India. And eventually settled down in Amsterdam to work in a meditation center. I learned more-- and more useful stuff-- on that sojourn than in my 4 years at university. That trip, in fact, eventually, led to me winding up as president of Reprise, a job that paid 7 figures. But when I washed up in San Francisco in the late '70s my net worth was barely seven dollars.

Maybe I would have found food some other way-- scavenging? a life of crime?-- but without food stamps I would never have been able to start 415 Records and launch my career in the music business. That I know for sure. I've literally paid well over a million dollars in federal income taxes since then. A pretty good investment for the federal government.

Thursday, just after it passed the House by a surprisingly narrow margin, we looked at why the American Catholic Bishops have decried Paul Ryan's heartless budget as anathema to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's a budget premised on the kind of pain conservatives feel compelled to inflict on poor people "for their own good." In Paul Ryan's world-- a world of grubby inheritance and corporate indulgence and sell-out-- pain will forge "them" into better citizens. In Ryan's world "the social safety net represents a moral threat to Americans’ character, as well as a fiscal threat to their country’s budget."

He’s incessantly warned of luring “able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency” and depriving them “of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” In his latest budget, he introduced his cuts to Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other support programs for low-income Americans with a warning that the safety net “can create a powerful disincentive to get ahead.”

Included in those cuts is a massive reduction in spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities took a look at the employment situation of Americans who rely on the program, and the reality belies Ryan’s rhetoric:

Among households with children that include an adult who isn’t elderly or disabled, 87 percent of the households receiving SNAP in a given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.

Ryan actually has an ongoing problem when it comes to honestly representing the SNAP program. Last year, he claimed it was “growing at unsustainable rates”-- a notion that fails to account for the effects of the recession, that fails to differentiate spending in raw dollars from spending as a share of the economy, and which utterly ignores the program’s projected path over the next decade.

Ryan’s budget would cut SNAP spending by $135 billion between now and 2023-- requiring either 12 to 13 million of the 44.7 million people currently on the program to be kicked off, or a reduction in benefits of $190 a month for the poorest of American families by 2019. Nor did the 1996 welfare reform law-- on which Ryan models his current budget proposals-- turn out to be the success he presents it as. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, welfare’s case load grew only 16 percent, even as the numbers of the unemployed increased by 88 percent; an utter failure to keep up with the needs of impoverished Americans.

As for the safety net as a whole, CBPP cites research from the National Bureau of Economic Research that one of every seven Americans would be poor without the safety net, but are above the poverty line because of it-- a total of over 40 million people.

But Ryan and the Republican Party do not believe in investing in the American people. They believing in protecting the gains of the wealthy few-- even though Ryan himself-- like his idol, Ayn Rand-- personally subsisted on government aid for many years when they needed it to scrape by.

Can Colbert's Sister Win In South Carolina-- Even Against A Corrupt Philanderer Like Mark Sanford?

In the South, they prefer a sinner who claims to have repented rather than a saint who never sinned. No one can relate to a saint; they're all sinners, struggling with guilt and fearing the hell their preachers use to keep them in bondage. And in their weird religions of self-righteous hatreds-- a kind of "Christianity" utterly devoid of Jesus' message-- they've been taught that no matter how opportunistic and insincere the repentance, it trumps everything else. James Dobson-- the pope of a right-wing s&m religionist cult based in Colorado Springs but appealing primarily to primitive southern neo-Confederates with an overwhelming feeling of having been wronged-- built a ministry, and a personal fortune worth over a hundred million dollars, based on it-- and little else. After winning first place in the South Carolina Republican primary Tuesday, Mark Sanford promised voters he would marry María Belén Chapur, his Argentine mistress.

Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch never really had much of a chance. It's a very Republican district. No Democrat has represented it since 1980-- and it's been gerrymandered in such a way to dump thousands of African-American voters into the 6th district to the west. Last November Romney beat Obama there 58.3% to 40.2%. (Obama beat Romney in the 6th district, 70.9% to 28.1%-- next door neighbors with such divergent views, the truest mark of a partisan gerrymander effort.) From day one, Colbert Busch's only real chance to win was predicated on a Sanford victory in the 15-man Republican primary. That's because Sanford's greatest asset-- his name recognition-- is also, potentially, his greatest liability.

For some reason, National Review's John Fund is warning darkly that Colbert Busch could win, but that's a long shot. If you really want it, Phillip Bump has an extensive run-down on the demographics, but what all you need to know is that Republicans outnumber Democrats 60-40 in the district; it went for Mitt Romney by 18 points; Sanford won more total votes than Colbert Busch Tuesday, even though she got 96 percent of the Democratic vote; and no Democrat has represented the seat since the fairly conservative Mendel Davis lost in 1980.

Sanford's return is proving eerily like his fall: weird to watch, because it feels guiltily like rubbernecking, but also a refreshingly honest performance the likes of which seldom occurs in politics. Back in 2009, once Sanford admitted he hadn't been hiking and 'fessed up to his extramarital affair, the world was treated to one of the oddest, most frank press conferences ever, in which he explained his love for María Belén Chapur, in surprising, squirm-inducing detail. And he showed his resilience then: Despite predictions from almost every quarter that he'd have to step down, Sanford finished out his term as governor before entering the figurative (rather than literal, Appalachian) wilderness, briefly.

During his comeback, sensing the futility of trying to cover it up, he's maintained a similar stance, as Jason Zengerle showed in a great profile in New York. Sanford insists he's learned from his mistakes, but is extremely self-effacing: "I'm anybody but the guy to take marriage lessons from, but you want to treat that marriage as something special and unique and guard it and protect it in a way that I did not." And yet he still does things like ask his ex-wife to run his campaign, just as she did his prior ones. ("I could pay you this time," he offered.)

She passed. But will South Carolina voters-- especially South Carolina women voters? The runoff is April 2 and it is expected to be a very low-turnout affair. This could help former Charleston City Council Member Curtis Bostic, who has backing from evangelical activists and the presumed backing of the last congressman from the district, Senator Tim Scott. Most of the South Carolina congressional delegation cringes at the idea of Sanford but it isn't likely any of them will come out and endorse Bostic (after two had endorsed third-place runner-up Larry Grooms last week). So far the only significant endorsement since Tuesday has come from former state Senator John Kuhn, who finished 6th out of 16 and says he's voting for Bostic-- and that he wouldn't even vote for Sanford in the general election if he wins the primary!

“I think that Curtis Bostic is a great guy. He's honest, he's honorable and he's hard-working, a strict constitutionalist. I got to know him on the campaign trail and like him a lot," Kuhn said. "I'm definitely throwing my support behind Curtis Bostic.

“I will not back Sanford under any circumstances including in the general [election]. That doesn't mean I'd vote for the Democrat either, but I would not back Sanford under any circumstance. I think he's lied too many times to the public of South Carolina.”

...Despite Kuhn’s endorsement of Bostic, it’s unclear whether there’ll be a groundswell of resistance to Sanford by his former opponents.

That may hurt Bostic’s prospects of catching Sanford, who has a major cash and name identification advantage with less than two weeks until the runoff.

South Carolina state Rep. Andy Patrick (R), who finished fifth in the GOP primary, said he jumped into the race partly because he thought Sanford’s run was a bad idea.

But he declined to endorse either candidate in the April 2 runoff and said other GOP state lawmakers in the state have not begun to rally around Sanford or Bostic.

“I’ve been up in [the state capital] Columbia the last two days and don’t really get a sense that anyone is really coalescing around anyone,” Patrick said.

In fact, Sanford has locked up the endorsements of two first-round rivals-- Charleston County School Board member Elizabeth Moffly and businessman Keith Blandford-- though neither won more than 1 percent of the vote.

Patrick said Sanford faces a more difficult task convincing voters in the upcoming special election to rally behind him.

“I don’t know, but a lot of them seem to think that it was a bad idea for [Sanford] to run,” Patrick said. "That is one of the reasons I decided to run."

Teddy Turner, who won a little less than 8 percent of the vote, said Sanford would fare better than Bostic in the general election but declined to endorse either candidate “at this point.”

Turner said he is leaving for spring break with his family and would not be able to contribute, regardless.

Turner said it is difficult to switch from competitor to ally so soon after an election.

“You are fresh off a race where you are running against these guys,” he said. “It’s kind of really hard to kiss and make up.”

In a special election, Turner argued, Sanford’s high name recognition would outweigh the baggage that is associated with his name.

“It certainly hadn’t [hurt] so far,” he said. “Everyone’s got baggage … His is all out there so everybody knows Mark Sanford and knows his baggage. And it doesn’t seem to upset as many people as you would think it would.”

Kuhn disagreed, arguing that Sanford was vulnerable in the primary and would put the seat at risk for the GOP if he wins the runoff.

“Yes, absolutely he's vulnerable in the general. The vast majority of women in the Republican Party won't vote for him, and I'm worried they'll turn around and vote for [Democrat] Elizabeth Colbert Busch against him,” he said.

“Even someone like me who's a party loyalist won't back him, with his ethics violations and spending the state's money to visit his mistress.”

State Sen. Larry Grooms (R), who Bostic narrowly edged to make the runoff, also hasn’t endorsed anyone.

Colbert-Busch is counting on moderate Republicans, Republican women, enthusiastic Democratic turnout-- and her good relationships in the district... including with Republicans. Still, if Sanford just keeps yelling "Obama" and "Pelosi" often enough, it's likely that Republican voters will be unable to resist the hatreds and prejudices that dominate the area's politics.

A Clear Majority Of Democrats Abandon Pelosi's And Hoyer's Job-Destroying Sellout To Boehner

One of Pelosi's finest moments was when she stood up to her boss, House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, in October 2002, and told him to take the Iraq War Authorization bill he and DeLay had put together and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Although-- with help from House leaders Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Joe Crowley and Eliot Engel-- Gephardt managed to get 81 crucial Democrats in the House to OK Bush's plot to invade Iraq, most Democrats backed Pelosi and that was the end of Dick Gephardt's dreams of being Speaker or president. He's a creepy-crawly, sleazy Beltway lobbyist now. And Pelosi went on to be the first woman Speaker of the House f Representatives in history.

She's eager to retire now-- at least according to her daughter-- and she's... well, slipping. She's been backing Obama's crackpot scheme to go along with Republican plans to torture seniors by mercilessly slashing Social Security. And this week she voted for Boehner's Continuing Resolution. It passed-- with only with a minority of Democratic votes-- 81 + Pelosi. 115 Democrats voted no. The House caucus leader who did on Thursday what Pelosi had courageously done in 2002 was Los Angeles' fighting progressive Xavier Becerra, the emerging antidote to corrupt conservatives like Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz, and Israel.

Most of the progressives in the House voted against Boehner's bill and they were joined by 27 Republicans-- a few mainstream conservatives and libertarians like Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan and Justin Amash, but mostly crackpot extremists and nihilists like Michelle Bachmann (MN), Paul Broun (GA), Ron DeSantis (FL), date rape doctor Scott DesJarlais (TN), Louie Gohmert (TX), Phil Gingrey (GA), Matt Salmon (AZ), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Steve Stockman (TX)... the Todd Akin/Richard Mourlock wing of the House Republicans.

Raúl Grijalva-- rather than Pelosi-- spoke for a clear majority of Democrats when he refused to back the plan, which is likely to cost over a million jobs and fits in with the Republican Party Austerity Agenda that Obama seems to have embraced lately. “I won’t be told to vote for a bill that slashes everything in sight in the name of getting the budget process over with,” Grijalva said. “What House Republicans are doing to this country borders on criminal. This might be the first time we’ve seen a political party simultaneously take hostages and refuse to negotiate. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Back to Work Budget, which reduces unemployment to near five percent and reduces the national deficit by more than four trillion dollars in the next decade, is the way out of this mess. Austerity is going to be seen as the short-sighted ideological failure that it is, and we should stop this now before anyone else gets needlessly put out of work.” Grijalva listed the following as some of the reasons he and most Democrats turned their backs on Pelosi and Hoyer and Obama today and told them to go betray the American working family with the Republicans and leave good Democrats out of it.

•          Funding levels in the CR will impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act as states and the Department of Health and Human Services establish health insurance exchanges. With a few exceptions, the CR reduces funding for every program in the Labor, Health and Education section below today’s funding levels.

•          The CR cuts Head Start by $400 million, resulting in 70,000 children losing access to comprehensive early learning and development services.

•          The CR cuts $730 million from Title I programs for education of the disadvantaged-- the equivalent of cutting instructional services for more than 2,500 schools serving more than 1 million disadvantaged children.

•          The CR cuts $282 million from job training programs, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, veterans, young adults, and students losing access to employment services.

•          The CR cuts more than $1.5 billion in National Institutes of Health grant funding, which will slow the pace of important scientific research, result in fewer research awards, and threaten the jobs of researchers across the country.

•          The CR cuts more than $580 million in special education grant funding, which is the rough equivalent of shifting the cost of educating nearly 300,000 students with special needs to states and local education agencies.

•          The CR cuts $115 million from child care programs, which will cause roughly 30,000 children to lose access to child care.

•          The CR forces yet another pay freeze on all federal employees, which is widely expected to prevent the recruitment and retention of a qualified and committed federal workforce.

Sunday Classics preview: Risë Stevens (1913-2013)

Risë Stevens as Prince Orlofsky (who may be blasé about
most worldly matters, but not about his beloved champagne)

J. STRAUSS II: Die Fledermaus: Act II, Champagne Trio

Risë Stevens (ms), Prince Orlofsky; James Melton (t), Eisenstein; Patrice Munsel (s), Adele; Robert Shaw Chorale, RCA Victor Orchestra, Fritz Reiner, cond. RCA, recorded c1950

by Ken

No, Risë Stevens didn't make it to the 100 mark, but most of us would settle happily to make it into our 99th year.

She was a Met mainstay for more than 20 years, from 1938 through 1961, and sang a number of signature mezzo roles well enough that we've heard her a lot here in Sunday Classics -- as Bizet's Carmen, Saint-Saëns's Dalila, Gluck's Orfeo, Richard Strauss's Rosenkavalier ("Rose Knight") Octavian, and, yes, even Johann Strauss's Prince Orlofsky. As a result, although we'll be hearing some new material as well, much of what we'll be hearing in this week's remembrance will be a refresher for us.


SINCE WE'VE ALREADY HEARD STEVENS SINGING
WITH POPULAR MET TENOR JAMES MELTON . . .

. . . here's a tidbit I found which we haven't heard, Jerome Kern and Ira Gershwin's "Long Ago (and Far Away)," written for the 1944 film Cover Girl. It's apparently from a broadcast from the year the film was released.

Read more »

D.C. Circuit appeals-court nominee Caitlin Halligan drops the other shoe gently

Sure, there are plenty of dumb and/or corrupt Democrats. But today's Republicans really seem to represent a biological breach -- some sort of mysterious reversal in the course of evolution.

"I am confident that with Caitlin's impressive qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction."

-- President Obama, about Ms. Halligan's withdrawal from
consideration for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

by Ken

Both Howie and I wrote about the infuriating roadblock thrown up by the worthless scum of the Senate Republican conference against the nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of Caitlin Halligan, on the pretext that she might have some sympathy for gun-sales limitations. By that standard, of course, riffraff like Smirkin' John Roberts and Sammy the Hammer Alito would have been sent packing after about two minutes' research into their records, with the abundant indications that they consider the Constitution merely scratchy old toilet paper.

It seemed pretty clear after the last time the Senate Republican cabal filled its buster that the Halligan nomination was doomed, and that the neanderthals aren't likely to approve any nomination to the important D.C. Circuit unless it's someone on their level of depravity.

White House withdraws Caitlin Halligan nomination
Posted by Rachel Weiner on March 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm

The White House has withdrawn the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, weeks after Republicans filibustered a vote on her nomination for the second time.

Halligan requested that President Obama withdraw her nomination.

"I am deeply grateful to you for your confidence in me, and your steadfast support of my nomination," she wrote in a letter to the president. "After much reflection, I believe that the time has come for me to respectfully ask that you withdraw my pending nomination from further consideration by the United States Senate." . . .

Back in the days when "Chimpy the Prez" Bush was flooding the Senate with judicial nominations of life forms that seemed to have turned back the tides of evolution, right-wing scumbags screeched and wailed about the right of each of these toxic dumps to "an up-or-down vote." Once it was a Democratic president making the nominations -- and nominating such inoffensive moderates that they could have been appointed by a sane Republican president, if we happened ever to have such a beast -- we learned that the screechers and wailers were, more than anything else, lying liars, to borrow Al Franken's essential phrase.

An up-or-down vote was exactly what the Senate Republican scumbags devoted all their energies to preventing, knowing that the eminently qualified Halligan would easily win confirmation. And so once again the vile right-wing pond scum made sure everyone knows that it's the slime brigade that runs the show.

For the record, President Obama had this to say:

This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of Senators from expressing their support. I am confident that with Caitlin's impressive qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction. The D.C. Circuit is considered the Nation's second-highest court, but it now has more vacancies than any other circuit court. This is unacceptable. I remain committed to filling these vacancies, to ensure equal and timely access to justice for all Americans.

As usual, there is no price to pay for the America-hating, Constitution-shredding slimebrains. My fantasy is to see a campaign launched whereby voters in their home states are flooded with information about who and what they are, to the point where everywhere they go they are treated like pariahs until, one by one, each acknowledges his worthlessness and appears before live TV cameras brandishing the preferred Second Amendment prize of his choice and, as they say, eats it.

First in line, surely, should be Alabama [not Mississippi, of course -- thanks, Phil!] moron Jeff Sessions. The notion that a creature like that even has a voice in judicial appointments -- or any other matter of serious public concern -- is creepy beyond measure.

#

Is The DCCC Gearing Up To Take On Buck McKeon, Corrupt Drone Advocate And Chairman Of The House Armed Services Committee?

It must have been such a relief when every single Democrat voted against the Ryan budget Thursday morning. Normally, you'd get at least 3 or 4 corrupt, reactionary Blue Dogs or New Dems like Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA) and Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC) voting with Boehner and Cantor and against the Democrats, These four are particularly problematic not just because they do it all the time but because all four are on the DCCC Frontline List. This is what the DCCC and their allied House Majority PAC wasted in the reelection battle for each of these traitors in 2012:

Barrow- $1,095,442
Matheson- $1,209,985
McIntyre- $2,034,142
Owens- $1,270,358

Around $6 million down the drain just on these 4 corporate whores who vote with Boehner and Cantor far more than with Pelosi and Clyburn! That $6 million would certainly have elected Lee Rogers over Buck McKeon, Rob Zerban over Paul Ryan, Nate Shinagawa over Tom Reed, Taj Syed over Kerry Bentovolio, and Aryanna Strader over Joe Pitts, 5 stalwart progressives who would be voting on behalf of working families now, not sleazy Beltway lobbyists and greedy/grubby corporations the way Barrow, Matheson, McIntyre and Owens do. But now I'm sensing that the DCCC may be turning over a new leaf.

I think Steve Israel got a wake-up call when he found himself on the Republicans' target list. Here he had gone out on a limb for his Republican buddies-- sabotaging Democrats who tried to run against his senior pals across the aisle and giving free passes not just to Boehner and Cantor but to vulnerable GOP committee chairmen like Paul Ryan, Fred Upton, Mike Rogers, Buck McKeon, etc. So this cycle I'm starting to detect hints that the DCCC is getting more aggressive towards high-ranking Republicans. Maybe it isn't because of Israel being targeted by the NRCC. Maybe it's because the DCCC has a new Executive Director, Kelly Ward-- replacing the incompetent Robby Mook who went to work for Terry McCauliffe's gubernatorial campaign-- or because nail-chewing Donna Edwards is now the head of candidate recruitment. Or... who knows, but I've heard from half a dozen incumbents that there's a new day dawning at the DCCC. We'll see about that but, meanwhile, they did send out the press release below right after the vote. And because none of the usual suspects backed Ryan and the GOP yesterday, the DCCC press releases didn't look hypocritical criticizing Republicans who voted the same way as their Frontline candidates.

Congressman McKeon Breaks Medicare Promise, Supports Cuts Starting for People 59 and Younger

Congressman Buck McKeon has taken the art of saying one thing at home and doing another in Washington to a new level, breaking a promise he made to the people of California that he wouldn’t make any changes to Medicare for those over 55.

After boldly and publicly proclaiming that he wouldn’t cut Medicare for anyone over 55, Congressman McKeon voted for a radical Tea Party budget that would turn Medicare into a voucher program for people who are 59 and younger. Not only that, the budget Congressman McKeon supports is even worse than the infamous Ryan budget because it raises the Social Security eligibility age to 70, slashes student loans, and could eliminate the mortgage interest deduction-- all while cutting taxes for corporations and millionaires.

In short, the Republican Study Committee budget that Congressman McKeon supports breaks his promise and irreparably harms the middle class while giving millionaires a leg up.

“Congressman McKeon promised the people of California that no one over 55 had anything to fear about Medicare-- but he broke that promise,” said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “If Congressman McKeon will break his word to the hardworking people who built this country and earned their Medicare benefits, what promise will he break next? The people of California want a representative who will stand with them and keep promises, not support radical budgets that end the Medicare guarantee, could end the mortgage interest deduction and slash student loans.”

  Background

Congressman McKeon Supported the Extreme Republican Study Committee Budget. [H Con Res 25, Vote #86, 3/20/13]

Congressman McKeon Assured Voters No Changes Would Be Made to Medicare for Those 55 and Older. On his congressional website, Buck McKeon assured voters that he supported a budget that included no changes to Medicare for those 55 and older and “protects and preserves this critical program for those in or near retirement.” [Mckeon.house.gov, accessed 3/21/13]

Congressman McKeon Promised to Preserve and Protect Medicare and Social Security if Re-elected. In 2012, McKeon promised that if he was re-elected he would “preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security.” [buckmckeon.com, 11/02/12]

The Republican Study Committee Budget Would Turn Medicare Into a Voucher Program for Those 59 and Younger. According to The Hill: “The key difference between the two proposals [the RSC and Ryan budgets] is the plan to overhaul Medicare. While Ryan calls for implementing his ‘premium support’ plan for future beneficiaries age 54 and younger, the RSC budget would start the change for people 59 and below.” [The Hill, 3/15/13]

The RSC Budget Would Raise The Social Security Eligibility Age From 65 to 70 for those 51 and Older. According to the RSC’s FY 2014 budget blueprint, “This budget would slowly phase in an increase in the Social Security full-retirement age for individuals born in 1962 (currently 51) and after to an eventual full-retirement age of 70.” [RSC Budget, March 2013]

The RSC Budget Would Allow Pell Grants to Collect Interest During Enrollment and Deny Grants to Adjust to Inflation. Under current law, Pell Grants do not collect interest during the student’s enrollment; however, the RSC’s FY 2014 budget blueprint calls for the repeal of this provision. In addition, the RSC budget would prevent the Pell Grant from keeping pace with inflation. [RSC Budget, March 2013]

The RSC Budget Would Slash the Corporate Tax Rate from 35 Percent to 25 Percent and Adopt a Territorial Tax System. According to the RSC’s FY 2014 budget blueprint, “This budget calls for reducing America’s top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. In addition, the “budget directs the House Ways and Means Committee to identify tax deductions and credits that could be eliminated and to report legislation transitioning the U.S. to a territorial tax system.” [RSC Budget, March 2013]

The RSC Budget Would Cap the Capital Gains Tax at 15 Percent, Remove the Capital Gains Inflation Index. The RSC’s FY 2014 budget blueprint would cap the capital gains tax at 15 percent. In addition, “This budget would eliminate the capital gains tax on inflation.” [RSC Budget, March 2013]

The RSC Budget Would Establish A System With Two Income Tax Brackets: 25 Percent and 15 Percent and Eliminate Individual Deductions and Credits. The RSC’s FY 2014 budget blueprint would establish: “Just two rates-- 15 percent (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25 percent (taxable income above those amounts); A standard deduction of $12,500 for single filers, and $25,000 for joint filers; An additional deduction of $12,500 for each dependent; and No other individual deductions or credits or exclusions.” [RSC Budget, March 2013]

  • CBPP: Two-Tax Bracket Structure Included in RSC Budget Would Likely Result in Net Tax Increases for Low and Middle Income Families. In 2012, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed the impacts of Rep. Dave Camp’s tax reform package, which contained many of the policy proposals that are also included in the FY 2014 RSC budget-- such as the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and two income tax brackets-- and concluded that if passed, the proposal would result in a net tax increase for working families. The CBPP wrote: “The proposals thus provide no protection from policy changes that would shift tax burdens down the income scale by giving large net tax cuts to high-income individuals and net tax increases to low- and moderate-income families.  That’s because the tax rate cuts that the bills call for would be very regressive and give their biggest tax cuts by far to people at the top, while curbs on tax expenditures could cause significant tax increases for low- and middle-income families. That’s especially true if, as many Republicans favor, policymakers protect the primary tax expenditure that benefits people at the top-- the low top rate on capital gains and dividend income-- while substantially cutting tax expenditures on which ordinary families rely.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/31/12]

I hope that signals that the DCCC is paying close attention to CA-25 and the floundering Buck McKeon. It looks like Lee Rogers is considering another campaign but I suspect he won't do it again unless he has support from the DCCC. Last year a lot of congressmembers backed him-- from Grayson and Grijalva to California Reps Zoe Lofgren and Henry Waxman-- but without the DCCC is was almost hopeless. I've noticed that this year the DCCC has been relentless in its early efforts against McKeon. They've already sent out more communications targeting him in 2013 than in all of 2011 and 2012 combined! The above e-mail was also sent to media outlets in districts represented by John Fleming (R-LA), Steve Pearce (R-NM) and Scott Rigell (R-VA). When I asked DCCC Communications Director Jesse Ferguson why those four, he told me they're all "in competitive districts, each has said they wouldn’t implement these Medicare cuts for people over 55, then voted for RSC budget which did that."

Drones And Privacy-- Do Libertarians Still Back Buck McKeon? What About Ed Markey?

Buck McKeon is riding the weapons manufacturers' drone expansion agenda to immense personal wealth

We started sounding the alarm about drone privacy issues as soon as we realized that the founder and chairman of the House Drone Caucus, Buck McKeon, was taking massive legalistic bribes-- hundreds of thousands of dollars-- from the drone manufacturers, more than any other Member of Congress. They don't give him that kind of money because they like the cut of his jib. He's expected to always be there for their special interests and to push their agenda relentlessly. He hasn't disappointed them and managed to push through legislation that enables licenses for 30,000 or more domestic drones, most of which will be used to spy on American citizens. The DCCC is starting to come around to the idea of targeting the now vulnerable McKeon in 2014 and, hopefully, Lee Rogers will defeat him the next time they face each other.

Meanwhile, though, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey, chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, is trying to deal with the ramifications of McKeon's treachery against the Constitution and the American people. Yesterday he introduced a bill, The Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act (DAPTA), that would establish safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals from expanded use of McKeon's drones. Markey:

“As drones increasingly fill our skies, Americans must be afforded a level of privacy and protection from these aerial technologies. My drone privacy bill provides transparency on the domestic use of drone aircraft and adds privacy protections that ensure this technology cannot be used to endlessly watch Americans. I look forward to working with my Congressional colleagues on this bi-partisan issue to ensure that strong personal privacy protections and public transparency measures are put in place now, before this technology is literally hovering over our heads.”

Congressman Markey introduced similar legislation in 2012 which Boehner was able to kill by sending it to Fred Upton's notorious Committee of Corporate Shillery (House Energy and Commerce), where it died without a hearing or vote. “Drone surveillance poses a real threat to privacy and civil liberties in the United States. Congressman Markey's bill adds much-needed transparency to the drone authorization process and mandates important restrictions that will help to protect Americans from unwarranted drone use," said Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Similarly the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are also supportive of the Markey bill, issuing a press release that supports his efforts based on the need to safeguard the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. "This bill leaves the door open for law enforcement use of aerial drones while upholding the right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Striking the proper balance between law enforcement interests and privacy interests, this bill is the first step in the right direction towards transparency and accountability in future drone use.”

There is no accompanying legislation in the Senate-- at least not yet. Markey is running for the open seat John Kerry gave up to become Secretary of Defense-- and Kerry has endorsed him (as has Massachusetts' other U.S. Senator, Elizabeth Warren. No doubt he will introduce the same bill in that body as soon as he's elected. Perhaps he and Rand Paul, who also purports to oppose McKeon's drone expansion, could co-sponsor it. If you'd like to help make sure Markey gets to the Senate (instead of a conservative corporate shill), you can do so on the Blue America Senate page.

Why Did 35 Democrats Join The GOP To Defeat The Senate Budget?

Schrader also claims he voted against the Senate budget because it didn't cut "entitlements" enough

Wednesday evening, we took a quick look at the House vote on the Progressive Caucus Back To Work Budget. Wednesday the House also voted on the Senate budget. Oddly, it was introduced by South Carolina teabagger Mick Mulvaney (who voted against it). Every Republican voted against it... and it failed 154-261. The Democratic caucus operation is a near-shambles and no one was leading. Nancy is preparing herself to sail away into retirement. Hoyer is conflicted with everything and Clyburn is sidelined. No one is cracking the whip and Democratic Members are just doing whatever they want. 35 of them voted with the Republicans against the Senate budget. Oh, wait-- they weren't just doing whatever they wanted. Many of them-- the freshmen and vulnerable members in red-leaning districts, were counseled by Steve Israel, chairman of the DCCC, to vote with the Republicans. He does that kind of thing; it's a losing strategy that causes low Democratic turnout. It killed the Democrats in 2010... but Israel has learned nothing from the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse.

Among the Democrats who voted against the Senate budget are these 20 Democrats on the DCCC Frontline List, represented the seats Israel sees as the most vulnerable in 2014:

• Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ)
• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Bill Enyart (IL)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Ann McLane Kuster (NH)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)

Only half a dozen Frontline Democrats ignored Israel and voted for the Senate budget, Tim Bishop (NY), Lois Capps (CA), Suzan DelBene (WA), Elizabeth Esty (CT), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), and John Tierney (MA). The Hill claims "House Democrats were instructed to vote for the Senate Democratic budget," but I heard from several Members that Steve Israel was urging "vulnerable" incumbents to vote against it.

Blue Dog Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) said he voted against the Senate budget because it did not go far enough on entitlements.

"It is not enough entitlement reform in there going forward. It needs to be a more complete and balanced picture and it wasn't bipartisan in the end of the day," Schrader told The Hill.

He said he thinks there is an even chance of a deficit grand bargain this summer, but it will not look anything like the House majority or Senate majority budgets.

"Given the fact that none of these bills are going to pass with any bipartisan votes, it begs the question. The president has teed it up. He has talked about entitlement reform-- not the Paul Ryan approach--he's defended some of the tough things in front of the Democrat caucus," Schrader said.

He said there are many centrist Republicans who would do something to increase revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

The Senate budget has been criticized by Republicans for doing too little to cut spending. It would turn off the sequester and includes $975 billion in new taxes. It also includes new spending cuts, but it would increase spending when turning off the sequester is included in the calculation.

...Of the three, the Senate budget was least offensive to Republicans. But even that plan would raise taxes by $1 trillion and still add nearly $5 trillion more to the deficit than the House GOP budget from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

The CBC and Progressive budgets call for trillions more in taxes and spending compared to the Senate plan.

Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) offered the Senate budget as a way to create a contrast with the Ryan budget, and put members on the record on the Senate plan. Mulvaney said he would have rather submitted President Obama's plan, as he did last year, but said Obama's plan is not expected to be released until April.

"This is the first time in modern history that a president has failed to offer a budget before the United States House of Representatives took up the topic," Mulvaney said.

"It's the very first time since the Budget Act of 1921," he said. "I don't know how we're supposed to discuss the president's vision for the nation, as contained in the budget, when it's not here."

"If the Senate thinks it can send us anything like what it has and that can pass, that is never, ever going to happen," Mulvaney said after the vote. "The vote shows that there are a lot of House Democrats who are also uncomfortable with what Senate Democratic leaders are doing."

...Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) thanked Mulvaney for introducing the Senate budget, even though he questioned whether it was just a "stunt."

Still, Van Hollen encouraged members to vote for the Senate budget, which calls for repeal of the sequester and would provide $100 billion for infrastructure projects.

"It's a good thing the gentleman brought to the floor to replace the sequester," Van Hollen said. "This plan that the gentleman has brought forward today, apparently under a sort of a mock bipartisanship, will reduce the deficit in a balanced way, calls for shared responsibility, and certainly does not give folks at the very top a tax break financed by middle-income taxpayers like the Republican proposal does."

Paul Ryan's Anti-Jesus Christ Budget

Yesterday, Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was one of several Democrats on the House floor raging against Ryan's extremely ideological Law of the Jungle budget-- what he referred to as "merely a repackaging of the same extreme agenda that the American people rejected last fall."

“The House Republicans’ budget would again try to end Medicare as we know it by replacing the guarantee of health coverage with a private voucher program that would reduce benefits. This throws seniors back onto the mercy of the private insurance market, while every year giving them less and less of the health benefits they have earned through a lifetime of hard work.

"The Republican budget would not only make permanent the arbitrary, across-the-board budget cuts known as ‘sequestration,’ it would go further-- making even more savage cuts to domestic programs. Critical social services like food stamps, college assistance for low-income families, Section 8 housing, home heating assistance, and Medicaid-- all would face drastic cuts. Under the Republican proposal, our transportation investments would be cut by 20% over the next 10 years, exacerbating the challenges posed by our outdated roads, bridges, and airports. The bill also completely eliminates support for PBS, NPR, AmeriCorps, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.

"The Republican budget makes all of these cuts while refusing to cut a dime of military spending. What’s worse, the Republican plan actually reverses planned reductions to military spending by increasing cuts to vital social programs-- a callously unfair proposal that will have terrible consequences for millions of American families.

"To add insult to injury, the bill before us today would make sweeping, regressive changes to the tax code which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut that averages $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less, which is just one more reason why we must defeat this bill.

"According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of all of these policies would decrease GDP by 1.7%, resulting in 2 million jobs lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich?"

And just as Ryan was introducing his toxic Austerity Agenda, Cyprus' new right-wing government was verging on the brink of social collapse for adopting their own version of the Ryan Roadmap and... better news... Ryan's 2012 opponent, Rob Zerban announced the formation of an exploratory committee. (In other words... he's running against Ryan again, hopefully, this time with the support of the DCCC, which stood in implacable opposition to anyone taking on Ryan in 2012.) Last year, even with DCCC hostility, Zerban gave Ryan the closest challenge of his Congressional career-- and shaved nearly 20 points off Ryan's average victory margin, even while Ryan was on the national news almost everyday as part of the Romney presidential ticket. It was the closest 2012 Congressional election in Wisconsin and caused Paul Ryan to lose his home ward, his home town, and his home county. Rob:

"Since the election, I have been inundated with phone calls and emails from people all over the First District urging me to come forward again to give the people of Southeast Wisconsin a viable alternative to Paul Ryan. I've been listening to people from Janesville to Racine talk about their need for jobs and economic security, good schools and fair pay, and a strong social safety net for the hardships life sometimes throws our way. The formation of this exploratory committee is simply a formalizing of that process of listening to my friends and neighbors.

"My hope is that, over the next few months, we will begin to have a conversation about what the people of the Wisconsin's First District really want: a secure future, not federal austerity."

A poll released Monday by the very pro-Republican Rasmussen bunch shows Ryan's approval rating sinking like a stone. What a difference a day makes! Last August fully half the voters had a favorable impression of Ryan and less than a third was through him. Now only 35% of likely voters said they had a favorable impression of him, while 54% said they viewed him negatively. Even Republicans-- who once thought Ryan could do no wrong and backed him with a stunning 83% approval-- are not nearly as sold on the bill of good he's peddling. Only a slim majority (52%) of Republican voters approve.

Ryan's toxic budget passed this morning 221-207. Even more interesting than every single Democrat voting NO-- even the worst right-wing shills in the party (like Kirkpatrick, Matheson, Barrow, Negrete McLeod, Schrader and McIntyre)-- is that 10 Republicans voted against it. The Republicans were a mixture of Libertarians, mainstream conservatives and insane neo-fascists who found Ryan "too moderate" (like the 2 crackpot psychopaths competing for the open Georgia Senate seat, Broun and Gingrey). Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, obviously both voted against it. They issued a joint statement: "Budgets are about choices, and the Back to Work Budget chooses investing in America’s working families. The Republican Ryan budget ignores the results of the 2012 elections and protects the world’s biggest corporations at working families’ expense. The country needs jobs right now, not a budget that takes away health care and gives massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires."

Although Ryan's detractors include many on the lunatic fringe-- like the aforementioned lunatics from Georgia-- the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was horrified by Ryan's jihad against the poor. Although Ryan makes a show of trying to portray himself as a good Catholic, he long ago tossed Jesus' message aside for the admittedly anti-Christian greed-and-selfishness preachings of his favorite childhood story teller, Ayn Rand. Watch:

In twin letters sent to the House and Senate, the bishops said they “support the goal of reducing future unsustainable deficits, but insist that this worthy goal be pursued in ways that protect poor and vulnerable people at home and abroad.”

The bishops blasted the Ryan budget as failing to meet certain “moral criteria” by disproportionately cutting programs like food stamps that “serve poor and vulnerable people.”

...The bishops said the revamped plan would “drastically cut” spending by $800 billion over 10 years.

“This figure is very concerning, since 70 percent of the spending in this budget category goes for programs to help poor and vulnerable people,” they wrote.

The bishops warned the Ryan budget would likely slash safety net programs likes Pell Grants, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, school lunches and the Earned Income Tax Credit, among others.

Ryan first drew the ire of the bishops last year when he said his Catholic faith helped shape his budget plan.

He said that by accelerating the debt crisis, President Obama’s policies will be more damaging to the poor. Ryan also said the USCCB doesn’t represent the views of all Catholic bishops.

The USCCB shot back, saying the officials who penned the congressional letters were elected to represent the bishops on policy matters at the national level.

After you watch Rand trying to whitewash the Robber Barons during her 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, take a look at the clip below from the History Channel: