Politics Plus

Democrats are forming a group that will accept secret denotations to reelect Obama, like the Republican groups, wrongly made legal by Citizens United, that dominated 2010.  Some on the left say this is evidence of a sell out.  I don’t think so.  After examining  the issue more deeply than the knee-jerk reactions of some, I want you to contact the White House to force donation disclosure for all.

Let’s state as clearly as possible that political spending from anonymous donors is bad for our democracy — whether it’s coming from Republicans or Democrats. Now that leading Dems have announced a new group designed to raise and spend big bucks on Obama’s reelection — some of it from undisclosed donors — voters will be seeing reams of ads from the Dem side without knowing who paid for them.

That’s wrong. Voters have every right to know who’s funding ads supporting Dems and Republicans alike.

But that said, the charge coming from the right this morning — that this amounts to a brazen and hypocritical sell-out on the part of Democrats — demands a response.

Please, folks, let’s approach this hypocrisy charge with a bit of nuance. Here’s the Republican National Committee’s statement:

The Obama White House has completely walked away from the mantle of “change” in order to embrace the type of politics they once relentlessly attacked. Just as when he reneged on his promise to campaign within the public finance system, this President is all too happy to embrace and discard “principles” according to what is most politically expedient for him.

The Rove-founded group Crossroads GPS added: “Obama’s brazen hypocrisy, in encouraging his own operatives to start groups exactly like the ones he demagogued last year, shows how cynical this President can be when it comes to perpetuating his own power.”

There’s one problem with this argument: Obama and Democrats would close this group down tomorrow if groups on the right agreed to do the same. This is not a matter of spin or argument. It’s a matter of simple factual reality that Obama and Democrats have long supported, and continue to support, legislation that would outlaw such non-disclosure — even for themselves. Dems believe the rules that allow undisclosed spending are wrong, and support changing those rules — even for themselves. By contrast, Republicans want to keep the rules as they are, because they believe undisclosed spending is a right that should be protected… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Democrats in the House passed legislation requiring full disclosure.  Republicans in the Senate filibustered it.  This shows that it is false to claim there is no difference between the parties.  Anyone foolish enough to believe such tripe should compare Sotomayor and Kagan with Roberts and Alito.

There’s been buzz about an executive order that could potentially end the secrecy.  Lets tell Obama to bring it into the open, as suggested in an email I received yesterday.

President Obama is circulating a draft of an important Executive Order that could enhance disclosure in campaign finance regulations. This order would require disclosure of contributions to "third party" or "independent" expenditure groups by corporations receiving government contracts (which would include big spenders like Koch Industries, JPMorgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, and Bank of America).

During the 2010 elections, much of the unlimited election spending made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was kept secret by groups taking advantage of the the tax code. The President’s proposed order would lift the veil on secret spending in time for the 2012 elections, at least for those corporations receiving government contracts. Tell President Obama you support this plan and ask him to sign this Executive Order.

The Executive Order is a step toward limiting the secret corporate spending that tainted the 2010 elections by groups hiding behind their nonprofit status to keep funding sources secret. Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, for example, spent almost $17 million in 2010 attacking Democratic candidates without disclosing who was funding these attack ads. Over 46% of election spending in 2010 ($135.6 million) was entirely secret. Polls show that 92 percent of Americans want greater disclosure – add your voice to that number by contacting President Obama.

Please call the White House at 202-456-1111 and tell President Obama to require disclosure of contributions to "third party" or "independent" expenditure groups by corporations receiving government contracts. Or send an email by clicking here.

I called and I emailed.

I have said, over and over again, that making concessions to terrorists with hostages only encourages them to increase their demands and take more hostages.  Republicans have demonstrated the truth of these words every time Democrats have caved in to them.  But now Republicans are trying something new, terrorism on the installment plan.

House Republicans are considering a plan to grant only incremental increases to the federal debt limit in a bid to extract more concessions on spending cuts and budgetary reform from the Obama administration.

The idea has a champion in Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, who says he is “building allies” in the House Republican Conference to push for extending the debt limit every two months.

“My argument is, you give them two months at a time, because each time you could get something reasonable,” Norquist told The Hill in an interview this week at his downtown offices.

The proposal has gained traction with some members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who plan to bring it up in “listening sessions” scheduled by party leaders for after the Easter recess.

“It is the only leverage that we have over a Senate and a president that is seemingly unconcerned about the over-spending,” said freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), who said he would not support any bill that allows borrowing past Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. “I would support a much shorter time-frame.”

A push for short-term debt-limit increases is likely to face a wall of opposition with Senate Democrats and the administration, but it would set a significant marker for Republicans as they begin negotiations. The Treasury Department has not specified how high it wants the debt ceiling raised — though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently suggested a ballpark of $2 trillion — saying it is up to Congress to decide… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

What Grover Norquist considers as “getting something reasonable” will not be reasonable for America.

This plan has an added benefit for Republicans.  It creates a permanent state of crisis that precludes getting any real work done to meet the nation’s needs.

Folks, this does not take rocket science.  Any agreement must cover all the expenses for fiscal 2011.  Any short term agreements for more negotiating time must include no concessions.  Otherwise, call their bluff.

If Republicans fail to raise the debt limit, the first people that will devastate are the Banksters, because they hold their mandated reserves in treasury securities.  Do you really thing that Republicans will throw Banksters under the bus?

I’m not sure if he was distracted, thinking about that missed putt on the 16th, or perhaps had bending the elbow a few times too many, but Speaker John Boehner (R-BP) goofed while trying to evade the truth, so it did not come out as intended.  In the process, he opened a hornets’ nest sure, not only to embarrass him and his fellow Republicans, but also, to hold them up as the corporate sycophants they are.

Earlier this week, spin doctors for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) scrambled to do damage control following his comments Monday to ABC News advocating cuts to Big Oil subsidies .

In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Boehner had this to say:

It’s certainly something we should be looking at. We’re in a time when the federal government’s short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share…Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and frankly, they’ve got some part of this to blame.

A Boehner spokesman quickly characterized his boss’s comments as an attempt to avoid a trap sprung by ABC’s Karl:

The Speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a non-starter, and he’s told the president that. He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending ‘Big Oil’ companies. Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We’ll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.

The dial-back didn’t stop President Obama from firing off an arch letter to Boehner, writing that he “was heartened that Speaker Boehner yesterday expressed openness to eliminating these tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry.”

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that, after Boehner’s comments opened a crack in the Republicans’ armor, Democrats will waste no time in pursuing legislation to end the subsidies. In a Wednesday press conference, he said that his party will push consideration of President Obama’s proposal to repeal Big Oil tax breaks as early as next week. “There’s no necessity for these subsidies,” he said. “The companies have broken all records for profits.”

Oil industry insiders have lashed out at the Democrats’ attempt to end oil subsidies as job killers. Reuters reports:

“This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now. If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist John Felmy said.

And yet, if first quarter trends continue through the rest of the year, Exxon alone stands to net ten times as much in profits as the entire industry receives in subsidies… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Independent>

In this brief clip, Rachel Maddow hammers home why the subsidies are so absurd.

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

Now, don’t get your hopes up.  If you think there is any way in hell that the GOBP will allow Big Oil to pay a penny more of their share, call me.  I’m selling drilling permits for oil on the moon.  Seriously, as long as Republicans have a majority in the House and/or enough Senators to mount a filibuster, such efforts are futile, except that forcing votes on them paints the Republican Party truthfully.  They represent criminal corporations and the richest 1%, not you.

Long ago I nicknamed Harry Reid as The Nevada Leg Hound, because of his sad tendency run around to run around the Senate humping Republican legs. begging for votes, and then, rolling over, whining, and playing dead, when none were forthcoming.  If Senator Reid continues on his present tack, I may have to retire the name.  First  he plans to force a vote to tie Republicans to Ryan’s disastrous budget, and now he wants to make sure Ensign’s crimes follow him home to Nevada.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is "obligated" to issue a report on the sex scandal that ended the career of his Nevada colleague, Republican John Ensign.

In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Reid said he expects an independent counsel appointed by the committee to draw up a report outlining the findings of the inquiry — and for the secretive panel to refer any criminal violations to the Justice Department.

"I would assume, having been chairman of that ethics committee for a long period of time … they would just turn it over to their counsel to draw a report on what they came up with up to this time," he said.

"I think they’re obligated to come up with a report, and once they come up with report, they are also required by law if there is any criminal violations that they see there, they are obligated to refer that – it’s not a matter of discretion – it’s a matter of law to refer that to the Justice Department."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Politico>

Reid is undoubtedly correct.  Ensign’s behavior has been far too devious for hin to just walk away.  If Republicans keep getting away with criminal acts, they will have no incentive to obey the law.