Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Obama asks for joint session, Boehner says NO.


Today, Obama requested a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at 8PM to lay out his plan to boost jobs and the economy.  Turns out that would conflict with a scheduled debate by the Republican candidates for president.  Boehner rejected Obama’s request, suggesting that it be given on Thursday instead.  What gives?  Did the White House screw up?  Did Boehner snub Obama?  You guess.  I’m baffled.  Here is the request from Obama and Boehner’s response.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release August 31, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE
August 31, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:)
Our Nation faces unprecedented economic challenges, and millions of hardworking Americans continue to look for jobs. As I have traveled across our country this summer and spoken with our fellow Americans, I have heard a consistent message: Washington needs to put aside politics and start making decisions based on what is best for our country and not what is best for each of our parties in order to grow the economy and create jobs. We must answer this call.
Therefore, I respectfully request the opportunity to address a Joint Session of Congress on September 7, 2011, at 8:00 p.m. It is my intention to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy by strengthening small businesses, helping Americans get back to work, and putting more money in the paychecks of the Middle Class and working Americans, while still reducing our deficit and getting our fiscal house in order. It is our responsibility to find bipartisan solutions to help grow our economy, and if we are willing to put country before party, I am confident we can do just that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you for your letter requesting time to address a Joint Session of Congress next week.  I agree that creating a better environment for job creation must be our most urgent priority.  For months, the House has been implementing an agenda designed to reduce economic uncertainty, remove unnecessary government barriers to private-sector job creation, and help small businesses, and we welcome the opportunity to hear your latest proposals.
As your spokesperson today said, there are considerations about the Congressional calendar that must be made prior to scheduling such an extraordinary event.  As you know, the House of Representatives and Senate are each required to adopt a Concurrent Resolution to allow for a Joint Session of Congress to receive the President.  And as the Majority Leader announced more than a month ago, the House will not be in session until Wednesday, September 7, with votes at 6:30 that evening.  With the significant amount of time - typically more than three hours - that is required to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber before receiving a President, it is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks.  As such, on behalf of the bipartisan leadership and membership of both the House and Senate, I respectfully invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday, September 8, 2011 in the House Chamber, at a time that works best for your schedule.
We look forward to hearing your ideas and working together to solve America's jobs crisis.
Sincerely,
John Boehner



Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Obama will win re-election says noted forecaster of presidential elections


Allan Lichtman, creator of the Keys to the White House forecasting model for presidential elections says Obama will win the election in 2012.  Lichtman’s model has correctly predicted the winner in ever presidential election since 1984.  His model is based upon 13 Keys to the White House.  If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.  Here is what Lichtman has to say about Obama and the 13 keys:

  1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.
  4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
  5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”
  6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.


So, Obama has three more Keys to his credit than he needs to win, according to Lichtman.  Let’s hope Lichtman is right again.


Monday, August 29, 2011

Americans angry and frustrated with their government


Obama and both parties take a significant hit in a recently released Pew Research Center survey.  79% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country and record 86% say they are frustrated or outright angry with the way the federal government is performing.

Only 34% of Americans say they have a favorable view of the Republican Party and just 22% approve of the job performance of Republican congressional leaders.

75% of Americans say Obama and Republican congressional leaders are not working together to get things done.  Republican leaders are blamed more than Obama (37% to 21%).  12% place the blame on both.

Less than half of Americans now see Obama as a strong leader (49%) but they still believe he is a good communicator (75%), stands up for what he believes in (71%), is warm and friendly (70%), is well informed (63%), cares about them (63%), and is trustworthy (59%).

Only a quarter of voters (26%) say they have a good or excellent impression of the possible GOP candidates.  When asked about nine potential GOP candidates, more than half of Americans who are familiar with the candidate say there is NO CHANCE they would vote for the candidate.  47% and 42% respectively say there is NO CHANCE they would vote for Romney or Perry.

The Tea Party is losing support.  43% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party up from 25% in February.

Read the complete results here:



Thursday, August 25, 2011

Fox news says God listens to Perry Prayers

In the following clip, Fox news appears to attribute the appearance of some much needed rain in Texas as the answer to a "Pray for Rain" proposition issued by Governor Goodhair.  Was Fox saying that God answers Perrry's prayers?  You decide.  Watch this:



Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBpZisdm5bo


Deficit solved, if…..Congress does nothing, says CBO


The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in a recent report says the deficit will brought to a very manageable 61% of GDP if…and only if…Congress doesn’t make any changes in existing law.  In other words, the best thing Congress could do for the deficit is to stay out of Washington and not meet.

This from the CBO from its most recent analysis of the country’s debt.

If the recovery continues as CBO expects, and if tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law, deficits will drop markedly as a share of GDP over the next few years. Under CBO's baseline projections, which generally reflect the assumption that current law will not change, deficits fall to 6.2 percent of GDP next year and 3.2 percent in 2013, and they average 1.2 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections incorporate the effects of the deficit reduction measures in the recently enacted Budget Control Act of 2011; they also reflect the sharp increases in revenues that will occur when provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the 2010 tax act) expire.

In CBO's baseline, cumulative deficits total $3.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021, and by the end of 2021, debt held by the public equals 61 percent of GDP.

However, if Congress does something and changes the current law, deficits will grow:

If some of the changes specified in current law did not occur and current policies were continued instead, much larger deficits and much greater debt could result...[A]nnual deficits from 2012 through 2021 would average 4.3 percent of GDP, compared with 1.8 percent in CBO's baseline projections. With cumulative deficits during that decade of nearly $8.5 trillion, debt held by the public would reach 82 percent of GDP by the end of 2021, higher than in any year since 1948.

This CBO presentation tells the full story:



Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Republican Proposal: Spend $11.4 billion, Save $5.7 billion

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), among others, has proposed raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67 as a way to “fix Medicare.”  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) ran the numbers and found that doing as Coburn proposes would indeed save the U.S. Government $5.7 billion in 2014 alone.  Sounds like a great idea, right?  Not so fast.  What Coburn doesn’t tell us but the CBPP does is that the $5.7 billion savings WOULD ACTUALLY COST the country $11.4 billion in other health care spending.  Let’s see, the Republicans want to save $5.7 billion by spending $11.4 billion.  Now, is that a good deal for the nation?  What do you think?  Here are the numbers and facts.


Here is the CBPP explanation of the $11.4 cost of the Coburn proposal.

  • State spending would increase by $0.7 billion in 2014, Kaiser estimates, because Medicaid would cover all health care expenses for 65- and 66-year-olds who would otherwise have been fully eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and for whom Medicare would have been the primary payer.  State spending would increase by significantly larger amounts in later years as states gradually assume a portion of the costs of 65- and 66-year-olds who would not become fully eligible for Medicaid until health reform's Medicaid expansion is in effect.  The federal government will pay the entire cost of these individuals in 2014, but states must pay 10 percent of their costs by 2020.
  • States would have to pay an even larger share of the cost of covering 65- and 66-year-olds newly eligible for Medicaid — something like 40 percent or more — under a proposal for a "blended" Medicaid matching rate.  The proposal, floated in vague terms by the Administration this spring but never formally issued, would replace the various matching rates at which the federal government reimburses states for their Medicaid costs with a single "blended" rate for each state.[4]  A state's blended rate would be set at a level that provides the state with less federal funding overall than under current law.  Because states would have to pay a much greater share of the cost of insuring individuals who are newly eligible for Medicaid as a result of the health reform law, states would have much less incentive to assure that eligible people enroll.  As a result, the number of 65- and 66-year-olds who became uninsured would be higher. 
  • Employers' costs would increase by an estimated $4.5 billion in 2014 as more 65- and 66-year-old retired workers whose employers offered coverage to their retirees received primary coverage through their employer rather than Medicare. 
  • Medicare beneficiaries would pay a total of $1.8 billion in higher premiums because relatively healthy 65- and 66-year-old beneficiaries would be removed from Medicare's insurance risk pool.  At present, these younger Medicare beneficiaries cost less than older beneficiaries but pay the same premiums, thereby holding down premiums for everyone else.  The Kaiser study estimates that premiums for other Medicare beneficiaries would rise by about 3 percent if 65- and 66-year-olds could no longer participate in the program.
  • Adding 65- and 66-year-olds to the health insurance exchanges would raise premiums for everyone else in the exchanges by about 3 percent, or $700 million in 2014.  The reason is that under the ACA, insurers may not charge the oldest enrollees more than three times as much as the youngest, but the average cost of covering the oldest enrollees is over five times that of the youngest, so insurers would raise premiums for enrollees under age 65 to cover the difference.  As premiums for everyone in the exchange rose because of the influx of 65- and 66-year olds, some of the healthiest unsubsidized participants likely would drop coverage, further pushing up premiums for everyone else.
Read the complete CBPP report here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3564

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Video at moment of earthquake

This video was taken at the moment of the earthquake in VA today:

Location of Earthquake in VA

This map shows the location of the earthquake in VA today:



Earthquake in VA today not far from Washington, D.C.

A earthquake measuring 5.9 occurred today in Virginia at 1:51 PM today about 40 miles northwest of Richmond.  It was felt as far away as New York.  The epicenter was in Louisa County, VA, not far from Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna nuclear plant, where the earthquake knocked out power, but the both nuclear units were shut down without incident and no damage was apparent, Dominion said.




Monday, August 22, 2011

Can Obama turn Libya into political gain?


As things stand at this moment, it appears that the Libyan rebels will take Tripoli and either capture/kill Gadhafi or drive him out of the country.  In short, it looks like a victory for the rebels, NATO and the Obama administration.  The latter can take credit for finding a way for the U.S. to participate in the overthrow of Gadhafi without getting the U.S. bogged down in another war.  It was a thoughtful and measured approach to a difficult foreign policy problem, one that GW or McCain or any of the current Republican president want-a-bees for that matter could not have pulled off. 

If you are a liberal or progressive or independent, you have to be frustrated by Obama’s laid back, almost non-approach to issues, always seemingly detached, always seeking some middle way, always nuanced.  That’s a weakness for many Americans, particularly Republicans, who want a gung ho, John Wayne, simple, all-or-nothing approach.  It’s not too exciting, in fact, it is frustratingly non-exciting.  However, it is sometimes the best way.  Cool and collected may not get your blood pumping but it might just keep you safe when the chips are down.  Steady plodding often wins the race even if it feels like kissing your sister.

If you take an honest look at Obama’s record, he has really achieved a lot.  The stimulus, health reform, finance reform, and so on.  Okay, the stimulus didn’t cure the unemployment problem.  Health reform didn’t get us a single-payer system which was the only approach that made sense.  Finance reform didn’t go far enough.  Obama achieved successes but none of them were successes that sent us into the streets yelling victory.  Still, he got some things done even in the face of a Republican opposition united in a true hatred, not just of his policies, but him, a Black man who dared to be President.  You know that is the truth.

Obama isn’t going to change.  What you get is the bright, thoughtful, laid back, seeker of middle ground, plodding, non-leader, negotiator for progress-by-inches, he has always been.  Libya gives him and his PR team a chance to demonstrate to Americans that, in dangerous times, whether from threats from abroad or threats, economic and otherwise, right here, an Obama-style President isn’t such a bad deal after all.  In fact, it might just be a very good deal indeed.  Take Libya, for example.

New poll: Obama in close race

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, Obama would be in a very tight race versus any of the current possible Republican challengers according to a recent Gallup poll.  See the results in the table below or here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx

That’s bad news.  What is greater bad news is that Obama would lose the support of self-described Democrats vs. all Republican challengers while only Ron Paul would lose Republicans to Obama by 10% or more.  Needless to say, it is going to be hard for Obama to win if Democrats defect at the rate of 10% or more.  The first rule of politics is to shore up your base.  Obama isn’t doing that and it may cost him the election.  Also, he is splitting independents with his possible Republican rivals.  He needs independents to win. 

As Gallup admits, a lot can change between now and the election.  Obama had better hope it does.  More importantly, he better get started doing something to change things.  It is unlikely he is going to get any help from Republicans so he had better get busy appealing to his base and scaring voters with what could happen to the country if a nut case like Perry, Bachmann or Paul should end up in the White House.














Saturday, August 20, 2011

Rick Perry’s tax miracle—Soak the poor


The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy offers a state-by-state comparison of the tax burden by income group.  It probably comes as no surprise to you to learn that Rick Perry’s Texas has one of the most regressive tax structures of any state.  The poorest Texas families with average incomes of  $11,200 per year pay more than 12% of their family income in state and local taxes while the top 1% with incomes averaging nearly $1 3/4 million per year cough up just 3%.  Middle-income Texans don’t come out much better than the poor.  They pay an average 8.4% of their income to Texas governments.  That’s tax fairness, Perry style.  See the chart for Texas below. 

How does Perry’s Texas compare to other states?  Take a look at the calculations for New York in the second chart below.  The poorest New Yorkers are tapped for 9.6% of their income, a little less than other income groups in New York pay.  Of course even in New York, which has one of the most progressive tax structures, the richest 1% get a break but it is nothing like the one Perry's rich Texas friends and donors get. 

So, Governor “Goodhair”  is this the kind of tax policy you plan to bring to the entire country?  Wouldn’t be surprised, not in a Texas minute.

Check out how your state compares to Texas, New York and other states here:  http://www.itepnet.org/  Just click on your state.




































Friday, August 19, 2011

Some facts about the American voter you may not know


We are rapidly moving into the campaign season for another presidential election.  As you follow news reports about the campaign and the AttackDemocrat and other political blogs, keep in mind the following facts about the American voter.  They are based upon a large number of studies by political scientists including The American Voter, an historic study of voting behavior published in 1960 and its follow-up The American Voter Revisited published in2008.

Here are the Facts about the people who go to the polls and who don’t:

  • Most Americans, most of the time, don’t pay very much attention to politics. Most Americans are uninformed, not just about specific political issues, but about their government and how it operates.  For example, in a March 2011 survey, only a little over one third of Americans knew that Republicans controlled the House and only a little over 40% knew who the Speaker of the House was.  Only a little over one half knew the approximate unemployment rate in the country even though unemployment was a major issue.  The attitudes of most Americans about most issues are “Non-attitudes.”  They neither know very much nor do they care very much about most political issues.
  • Only about 60% of Americans who are eligible to vote ever manage to go to the polls.
  • If you ask Americans if they voted in the last election, one in ten will say they did when they didn’t.  They will lie.
  • Most Americans are NOT politically active.  Only about 20% ever wear a candidate’s campaign button.  Only about 6% ever contribute money to a campaign and only 3% ever work for a candidate.
  • People are more likely to vote if someone personally asks, encourages or pressures them to do so.
  • The higher their education, the greater the likelihood a person will vote.
  • Registering to vote and actually voting are two different decisions.  Just because someone is a registered voter says nothing about whether they will actually vote.
  • Education and age have a big impact on registration.  The older and more educated you are the greater likelihood that you will be a registered voter.
  • You are more likely to self-describe yourself as being a Strong Democrat or Strong Republican if (a) both of your parents were members of the same party, and (b) your parents talked about politics often at home.
  • Once you identify with a particular party, you are likely to remain committed to that same party for life.  Your strength of identification may weaken but you are not likely to switch your allegiance.
  • The older you are the more likely you will identify with a particular party.  Few young people and first time voters express a strong attachment to a party but half of voters over the age of 75 do.
  • Party attachment is a taste you acquire with age.  People don’t express much interest in politics until they enter adulthood, get a job, buy a home, have kids, join social groups and begin to realize that political issues are important to them and their family.  At that point, they begin to form an attachment with a political party—usually the party of their parents. 
  • Once people form an attachment with a party, a kind of self-reinforcing selective perception kicks in that acts to reinforce their choice.  They will overlook or screen out negative information about their chosen party.  People experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance when it comes to their choice of party.  They want to be consistent in their words or actions.  If they have expressed support for a particular party in words or deeds, they will experience extreme psychological discomfort in changing their allegiance.
  • People do not become more sympathetic with the Republican Party as they grow older.  In fact there is some evidence that they become more sympathetic with the Democratic Party.
  • The strength of a person’s attachment to the Republican Party tends not to change dramatically as they age.
  • The strength of a person’s attachment to the Democratic Party tends to increase with age.
  • A major realignment of party identification among the American electorate is rare.  It takes a major upheaval to significantly alter the distribution of party identification among the population.  Such a major shift in party allegiance has occurred only twice: in the aftermath of the Civil War when Americans shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party and in the aftermath of the Great Depression when Americans shifted to the Democratic Party.
  • There is some support for “cognitive madisonism” among a segment of the electorate.  These people consciously prefer divided government and will split their vote between parties in order avoid giving any single party control of both houses of government and the White House.
  • Most of the time people vote for candidates according to their party identification.  Issues usually do not matter. 
  • All three of the following must be true for someone to become a issue-driven voter:
    • 1. The issue must be recognized by the voter,
    • 2. The voter must take a non-neutral position; i.e, have a clear preference when it comes to the issue, and
    • 3. The voter must believe one candidate is more likely to work for his preference than the other candidate.
          Less than half of voters at any given time will meet all three of these conditions.
  • Dealing with issues is just too much bother for most voters, most of the time.
  • While most Americans don’t know very much about or have a fully formed opinion about most political issues, most will provide an answer in a public opinion survey if asked.
  • Only a small segment of American voters are ideologically consistent, always taking the liberal position or conservative position, across issues.
  • Conservatives are less ideologically consistent across issues than are liberals.  For example, self-identified conservatives who prefer activist governmental policies far outnumber self-identified liberals who prefer private sector solutions.
  • Republican candidates usually avoid references to specific policy positions because they recognize that conservative voters are typically “conflicted conservatives,” in other words they are conservative when it comes to general ideology but may agree with a liberal position when it comes to a specific issue.
  • Women no longer turn out in higher numbers when a woman is on the ballot because having a woman candidate is no longer a novelty.
  • While many people assume that most voters assign the incumbent President or his party responsibility for the state of the economy, in fact only 25% of voters do.  The rest place the responsibility for the economy elsewhere
  • Voters use a Retrospective approach when judging the economic performance of an incumbent president running for reelection.   In other words, they judge him based upon his actual performance.
  • Voters use a Prospective approach when judging the probably economic performance of a challenger or anyone who has not previously held the office of president.
  • Politicians influence public opinion as much, or more, than they are influenced by public opinion.  “Public opinion is NOT an autonomous and immutable force that politicians must discover and obey.  The will of the people is, instead, a rather pliable phenomenon; usually created by the very individuals and groups who claim to submit to it.”  Politicians create public opinion in much the same way manufacturers of consumer products create brand loyalties and product preferences. 


If you would like to learn more about the American voter, I recommend you read: Michael S. Lewis-Beck, William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg, The American Voter Revisited, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008.

Bachmann says Americans today fear the Soviet Union


Michelle Bachmann on a radio show yesterday had this to say about what Americans fear today.

[Bachmann:] "It really is about jobs and the economy. That doesn't mean people haven't [sic] forgotten about protecting life and marriage and the sanctity of the family. People are very concerned about that as well. But what people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward. And especially with this very bad debt ceiling bill, what we have done is given a favor to President Obama and the first thing he'll whack is five hundred billion out of the military defense at a time when we're fighting three wars. People recognize that."

Yep.  According to Bachmann we fear THE SOVIET UNION.  Would somebody tell her the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore and hasn’t existed for 20 years.  Please. 

I’m not kidding that’s what she said.  You can hear her here:  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-american-people-are-concerned-about-rise-soviet-union

Thursday, August 18, 2011

A plan to create jobs NOW.


The stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-ARRA) cost $787 billion and created an estimated 3-4 million jobs.  Suppose it was possible to create over 1.5 million new jobs while investing a fraction of what ARRA cost.  There is such a plan.   It was developed by Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization. 

Demos proposes that the federal government “create jobs for the unemployed directly and immediately in public employment programs that produce useful goods and services for the public’s benefit…[such as]…” construction work (e.g., the rehabilitation of abandoned or sub-standard housing), conservation measures (e.g., caulking windows and doors in private dwellings), the construction of new affordable housing units, the improvement of existing public parks, the construction of new parks, and the beautification and maintenance of indoor and out­door public spaces.  The program also could expand and improve the quality of public services in areas such as health care, child care, education, recreation, elder care, and cultural enrichment. Special projects could be undertaken in each of these areas, and existing levels of service delivery could be enhanced. In­stead of being forced to cut public services during a recession, government agencies could offer better services than in non-recessionary periods.”

Eligibility requirements for the jobs program would insure that those in most need of assistance, the long-term unemployed, would receive assistance immediately.  Demos reasons that since these people are in most need of a job and are suffering most economically, they would immediately spend their income.  That spending would have multiplier effect, creating more jobs.

Demos estimates that the total jobs program cost for directly creating 1 million jobs would be $46.4 billion per year but that taxes and other government revenue savings generated by the program would reduce the net cost to $28.6 billion.  Additionally, the program would indirectly create another 414,000 jobs.

Demos argues that this program to directly create jobs could be fully funded by simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.  An additional modest stock transfer tax and/or small payroll tax—like the way we fund unemployment insurance—could be established in order to create a trust fund to pay for the program after the first few years. 

This is the kind of plan for creating jobs that we should be considering.  It is immediate, has worked before (in the 1930s), is relatively inexpensive, provides the most benefit to those in most need, has significant multiplier benefits spinning off other job creation, and can be fully funded without placing an increased tax burden on 90%+ of American tax payers. 

Read the full Demos plan here:

Molly Ivins on Rick Perry


The great columnist Molly Invins knew Rick Perry when Perry wasn’t cool.  Here is a sampling of her insight into the makings of Perry, whom she dubbed “Governor Goodhair.”

[June 18, 2001] Bush was replaced by his exceedingly Lite Guv Rick Perry, who has really good hair. Governor Goodhair, or the Ken Doll (see, all Texans use nicknames—it's not that odd), is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But the chair of a major House committee says, "Goodhair is much more engaged as governor than Bush was." As the refrain of the country song goes, "O Please, Dear God, Not Another One."

[August 6, 2002] This, in turn, brings up the interesting role of coincidence in the life of Gov. Goodhair. Last summer, the Guv appointed an Enron executive to the state's Public Utilities Commission and, the next day, Perry got a check for $25,000 from Ken Lay. He explained this, to everyone's satisfaction, as being "totally coincidental."

[At a 2006 Texas gubernatorial debate] The Coiffure was in his usual form. As one opponent after another attacked his record, Gov. Rick Perry stood there proudly behind that 35 percent voter support he has so richly earned and simply disagreed. The Coiffure seemed to consider blanket denials a fully sufficient and adequate response.

[Jan. 11, 2004]  I have failed to give sufficient recognition to our only governor, Rick "Goodhair" Perry, who is adding to the old je ne sais quoi in truly impressive quantities.
Good hair gave such an amazing performance at his end-of-the-year news conference that I was forced to call a perfectly reliable reporter for the Dallas Morning News and ask if it was a joke. …

The guv remains convinced that his greatest accomplishment was not raising taxes, even though fees, tuition, fines and everything else that the Leg could find to jack up without calling it a tax was jacked sky-high. …

You may think the guv's had a rough year – three special sessions on top of the regular session just to pass that misbegotten redistricting bill, not counting the two bolts by Democrats and such minor unpleasantness as having to hack $10 billion out of the state budget.

For some, the budget-cutting, aimed mostly at services for desperately needy people, was a painful and even tragic exercise. Especially knocking 250,000 poor children off health insurance.

Fortunately, Gov. Goodhair has a firm grasp on priorities, and when asked his biggest disappointment of the year, he replied: "Aggie football."


Read more:
and

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Rick Perry: The GOVERNMENT job creator


 Jared Bernstein at the Christian Science Monitor took a look at jobs created and lost in Texas between 2007 and 2010.  Turns out Rick Perry’s so-called job creation depended a whole lot on creating government, not private sector jobs, and using stimulus money to make up for state revenue shortfalls.  Bernstein found that 47% of all government jobs added in the US between 2007 and 2010 were added in Texas.  In 2010, Texas used stimulus funds to make up 97% of its budget shortfall according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

The chart below tells the story:















Read more here:  

More on Rick Perry and the scary religious movement called Dominionism

In a recent post, I discussed Rick Perry’s involvement with a fringe religious group that has some lofty political goals.  This is scary stuff, people.  Here is some more information about this religious movement.

Forrest Wilder from Texas Monthly and The Texas Observer discussed Rick Perry's involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation movement recently on the Rachel Maddow show.  See the segment here:




Also listen to Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast on dominionism, a evangelical Christian plot to take over government endorsed by Rick Perry and Michelle Bachamann on the The Majority Report.  

Test your political news IQ

How informed are you about politics?  Take this short political IQ test presented by Pew Research.  Click the link below.

http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Texas Observer: Rick Perry has close ties to scary religious movement


In a recent article about Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is now running for the Republican nomination for president, the Texas Observer says: “A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick Perry might be their man.”

Watch an interview with Forrest Wilder, the Texas Observer reporter who broke this story, here and read the complete article below.  If we needed any evidence why Rick Perry would be a very bad and very dangerous choice for president, the Texas Observer has just provided that evidence.



Read Forrest Wilder’s article here:



Do Bachmann and Perry have ties to Christian movement seeking to rule world?


There is nothing wrong with a candidate for the presidency expressing his or her faith in a particular religion, or no religion at all for that matter.  There is something very wrong and disturbing for any candidate to support using the power of government to promote a particular religion or to closely associate with a religious sect that proposes to do just that.  Two of the top contenders for the Republican nomination for president may have just such a disturbing connection according to recent reports.    

Michelle Goldburg, writing on the Daily Beast blog, raises some disturbing questions about how much the professed religion of Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry might influence how they would govern if elected President.  Goldburg writes:

Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry aren't just devout—both have deep ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which says Christians should rule the world…

Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing…

Writing about Bachmann in The New Yorker this month, Ryan Lizza spent several paragraphs explaining how the premise fit into the Minnesota congresswoman’s intellectual and theological development. And a recent Texas Observer cover story on Rick Perry examined his relationship with the New Apostolic Reformation, a Dominionist variant of Pentecostalism that coalesced about a decade ago. “[W]hat makes the New Apostolic Reformation movement so potent is its growing fascination with infiltrating politics and government,” wrote Forrest Wilder. Its members “believe Christians—certain Christians—are destined to not just take ‘dominion’ over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world.”

Watch the following video to learn more about Dominionists:
  



Identified—the 19 people responsible for the U.S. bond downgrade


Standard & Poors says the reason it downgraded the U.S. bond rating WASN’T because of the deficit or the seeming inability of Congress and Obama to reach agreement on a deficit reduction package.  It downgraded the U.S. because some lawmakers were saying that defaulting wouldn’t be any big deal.  Joydeep Mukherji, senior director at S&P, said recently: “"[P]eople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior directior at S&P. "That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns." See: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/after-triggering-downgrade-debt-default-skeptics-try-to-run-from-their-records----but-they-cant.php

So, who were the people who were saying default wasn’t such a big deal?  Who were the people responsible for the S&P downgrade?  Talking Points Memo (TPM) has compiled a list the 19 people destroyed America’s credit.  Here it is.  Click on the link to TPM to see what these people said:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA),
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Republican Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI
Republican Nebraska Senate candidate Jon Bruning
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO)


Monday, August 15, 2011

Tell Congress to “Vote for Jobs”


Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is promoting three bills in Congress that would go a long way toward bringing unemployment under control in short order.  ADA calls it their “Vote for Jobs” proposal and plans a campaign this fall to put pressure on Congress to consider these bills.  These are ideas well worth considering.

The first “Vote for Jobs” proposal would revive the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which in the 1930’s matched up willing workers with needed public projects all across the country.  Sponsored by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), the new CCC would immediately put people to work restoring our environment and improving our transportation infrastructure. 

The second bill would increase employment by spreading it around more evenly.  Since those who still have jobs are often overworked, the Shortening Hours and Retaining Employees (SHARE) Credit Act addresses both sides of the employment crisis.  Introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the SHARE act would offer tax credits to employers  who shorten hours (without reducing pay), thus creating more work  for the unemployed.  Work-sharing has been a success in Germany and other countries, and was an idea raised at the ADA Education Fund policy symposium at Harvard last year.

The final legislative measure deals specifically with youth unemployment.  It is a resolution introduced—at ADA’s instigation—by Rep. Jim  McDermott (D-WA) that calls for doubling the budgets of three public  service programs that chiefly serve youth: the Job Corps, the Peace Corps  and AmeriCorps.  ADA recently hand-delivered a letter to every member  of the House urging them to co-sponsor the resolution; the letter was  signed by ADA National Director Michael J. Wilson and Reese Neader of  the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network, another organization focused  on the youth jobs crisis.   

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Republicans and austerity hawks are endangering Capitalism


The Republicans in the United States and austerity hawks around the world are endangering Capitalism with their insistence on drastic cuts in government spending and their refusal to address spreading income inequality.  The turmoil in England and the plight of the declining middle-class in the U.S. and elsewhere are a danger signal.  Capitalism works only when it works for everyone—rich and poor alike.  Indeed, the survival of capitalism depends upon it working for everyone.  When it starts working only for the rich, the disaffected masses will eventually revote and tear the system apart.  Massive greed leads to the ultimate destruction of capitalism, not its salvation.  Workers will not tolerate extreme income inequality for long.  When they lose hope of sharing in the rewards of their labor, they will reject capitalism and turn to communism or worse. 

In his book The Post-Capitalist Society, Peter Drucker, the capitalist hero, wrote that the capitalist society of the early 1900s was saved from Marxism by a progressive-driven Productivity Revolution.  Drucker credits the Productivity Revolution in great part to the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) who introduced Scientific Management to American capitalists and then to the world.  Drucker writes this about Taylor’s motivation:

Taylor's motivation was not efficiency. It was not the creation of profits for the owners. To his very death, he maintained that the major beneficiary of the fruits of productivity had to be the worker, not the owner. His main motivation was the creation of a society in which owners and workers, capitalists and proletarians, could share a common interest in productivity and could build a harmonious relationship on the application of knowledge to work. (Peter Drucker, The Post-Capitalist Society, p. 34.)

Drucker continues:

By 1930, Taylor's Scientific Management…had swept the developed world. As a result, Marx's "proletarian" became a "bourgeois" The blue-collar worker in manufacturing industry, the "proletarian" rather than the "capitalist," became the true beneficiary of Capitalism and Industrial Revolution. This explains the total failure of Marxism in the highly developed countries for which Marx had predicted "revolution" by 1900. It explains why, after 1918, there was no "Proletarian Revolution" even in the defeated countries of Central Europe where there was misery, hunger, and unemployment. It explains why the Great Depression did not lead to a Communist revolution, as Lenin and Stalin-and practically all Marxists-had confidently expected. By that time, Marx's proletarians had not yet become affluent, but they had become middle class. (Peter Drucker, The Post-Capitalist Society, p. 39.)

Progressives aren’t enemies of capitalists.  Progressives are capitalists’ greatest friends, their protectors.  Progressives don’t seek to destroy the capitalist pie; they seek only that it be equitably shared.  Give the people a fair share, say progressives, and the capitalist pie will just grow larger.  By giving up part of the pie now, the rich will enjoy a much larger future pie.  Accepting a fair slice of a very secure large pie is much better than greedily demanding all of a much smaller pie, particularly if that pie is increasingly in danger of being stolen by those who are desperately hungry and have little to lose.

True Capitalists, whatever their political philosophy or party affiliation, should be worried—very worried—about the developments in Great Britain and the increasing inequality in the United States and the rest of the world.  The riots in London, Greece and elsewhere are a wakeup call.   Learn to share, Capitalists, if you want your economic system to survive.  Start making the system work for everyone just like Taylor and informed Capitalists did in the 1930s, or you may pay a terrible price.  It is a price you do not have to pay.

Conservative economist’s calculations demonstrate that stimulus worked quite well.


Michael Linden at the Center for American Progress uses the methodology of conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin to assess the impact of the stimulus (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) on growing the economy and creating millions of jobs.   Much of last summer, Holtz-Eakin used a graph which he said showed that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was utterly ineffective at spurring economic growth.  That graph is on the right below.  Holtz-Eakin agrued that it proved that the stimulus money was wasted because it cost $260 billion and the difference in what the GDP would have been without the stimulus if trends had continued was $268 billion, in other words little difference.  Linden updated the graph with more recently available numbers that show that the economy was much sicker than originally thought.  Linden’s graph is on the right.  Result, the stimulus “produced about $2.10 in economy activity for every $1.00 in spending or tax cuts. That’s a pretty good multiplier.”  Damn right.  I’ll take two for one any day.

Imagine what the economy might be like today if the Republicans had not blocked any additional stimulus.  Want to know why unemployment is still high?  The Republicans prevented us from continuing to do what was working.  The economy was very sick.  The Obama administration and Democrats prescribed just the right medicine.  The economy started getting better.  Then, the Republicans stepped in and took the medicine away.  The economy hasn’t completely died but it remains a lot sicker than it would have been.  Of course, as I have said before many times, a sick economy is just what the Republicans doctors have ordered.  Now the Republicans are insisting on feeding the economy a poison pill of reduced spending in the name of deficit reduction.  They aren’t satisfied with a weak economy.  They want to kill it.  Unless Obama or someone stands up to them, they may just get their way. 































Friday, August 12, 2011

11th Circuit Court of Appeals rules health law individual mandate unconstitutional


In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled today that the individual mandate in the health law was unconstitutional, upholding a decision of the Northern District Court of Florida issued on January 31, 2011.  The Appeals Court overturned the portion of the District Court ruling that struck down the entire law so everything in the law other than the individual mandate remains “legally operative.” 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the law and could take up the case as soon as October of this year.  It is uncertain whether the health reform could succeed without an individual mandate since healthy individuals might not purchase health insurance in the exchanges.  If that happened, premiums for health coverage through the exchanges would go up 15% to 20% or more. 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has published a analysis of how health reform might be impacted by a ruling by the Supreme Court that declared the individual mandate unconstitutional but upheld the rest of the law as did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the RWJF report here:


Here is a summary from Kaiser Health News showing the status of 26 federal lawsuits that have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Appeals Court Status & Rulings
  • Florida vs. HHS: Appeals court found individual mandate unconstitutional (jump to)
  • New Jersey Physicians vs. Obama: Appeals court upheld district court dismissal on Aug. 3 (jump to)
  • Thomas More Law Center vs. Obama: Appeals court ruled law constitutional on June 29 (jump to)
  • Virginia vs. Sebelius: Oral arguments heard May 10 (jump to)
  • Liberty University vs. Geithner:  Oral arguments heard May 10 (jump to)
  • Baldwin & Pacific Justice Institute vs. Sebelius: Oral arguments heard July 13 (jump to)
  • Susan Seven-Sky vs. Holder: Oral arguments scheduled for Sept. 23 (jump to)
District Court Status & Rulings
  • Court overturned law or part of law: 2 cases (jump to)
  • Court ruled law constitutional and dismissed case: 6 cases (jump to)
  • Court dismissed for lack of standing or procedural problems: 9 cases (jump to)
  • Court dismissed but gave plaintiff right to refile: 1 case (jump to)
  • Court decision pending: 8 cases (jump to)

Read more on the status of cases challenging the health law here:

Bad news for Obama in recent poll

A Washington Post poll conducted August 9, 2011 has some bad news for Obama.  Only 20% of Americans and only 33% of Liberals now say they will definitely vote for him. 
















Other results:

78% said they were Dissatisfied with the way the country’s political system was working.
71% said they thought the federal government was focused on the wrong things.
73% were NOT confident the government in Washington could solve economic problems.
69% said they were inclined to look around rather than re-elect their Congressman.
  

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The truth about ten common Republican myths

You can’t listen to Republican politicians or read the Republican blogs for long without hearing or reading about the ten myths I discuss in this post.  Here are the Republican lies and the truth:

Myth #1: The U.S. has a debt/deficit problem.

The U.S. does not have a problem financing its debt at this time.  Even after the S&P downgrade, the U.S. Treasury can sell its bonds at extremely low rates of interest.  U.S. Treasury bonds are still considered to be the safest investment in the world. 

The U.S. might have a problem financing its debt 10 or 20 years from now if revenues as a % of GDP don’t improve and/or Congress doesn’t make some minor adjustments in taxes, discretionary spending and spending on entitlement programs.  The steps necessary to bring the deficit to a level that the country could manage indefinitely are well known, not drastic, can be phased in over a decade or more, and need not cause significant hardships for the American people.

Myth #2: The U.S. debt/deficit problem is the result of runaway spending, primarily by the Obama administration.  We have a spending problem.

Excluding short-term stimulus spending, the Obama administration discretionary spending is well in line with or less than historical averages over the last 50 years.  Our current deficit is less a result of uncontrolled spending than it is a result of tax cuts that primarily benefited the rich at a time when we were fighting several expensive wars.  Our spending as a percent of GDP is not out of line with that of other developed countries.  However, revenue we collect as a percent of GDP is extraordinarily low historically and compared to that of other developed nations.  We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.  If we brought revenue as a percent of GDP up to the level of taxation of most developed countries—which we could do by simply raising the top marginal rate paid by the richest Americans and closing tax loopholes exploited by corporations and the rich to avoid paying taxes—we could greatly reduce the long-term deficit and perhaps drive it to historic lows.

Myth #3: Cutting federal spending will generate jobs. 

Cutting federal spending when the economy is weak and unemployment is high will cost jobs because spending cuts will further decrease already weak demand for products and services in the private sector and will result in layoffs of state and local government workers.  During and immediately after a recession when the economy is struggling, federal spending should be increased, not decreased, even if that means the federal government must run large deficits.  Deficit spending is not only the right thing to do, it is the essential thing to do, to help a weak economy recover.

Myth #4: Tax increases kill jobs

Tax increases have a minimum, if any, impact on job creation, particularly if they involve increasing the top marginal rate.  For example, increasing the top marginal rate from 35% to 39% or even 45% would have almost no impact on job creation or loss.  The simple fact is businesses don’t hire or have layoffs because of the top marginal rate their owners pay.  They hire or layoff workers based upon an increase or decrease in demand for goods and services from their customers.  An increase in taxes could only cost jobs if it was targeted at Americans at the low and/or mid-income levels.  In contrast, tax cuts for Americans at low income levels can have a positive impact on jobs because Americans with low incomes are more likely to spend the tax savings immediately for food, housing, clothing, and so on and therefore increase demand.  Rich people and people with upper-middle incomes are less likely to immediately spend any tax savings since they can already cover life essentials without the tax savings.

Myth #5: Republicans are seeking to reduce deficits

Republicans are seeking to deny Obama a second-term.  They believe that Americans are much more likely to blame Obama for high unemployment and a second recession than they are to blame the Republican Party.  Republicans see no political advantage in helping the president to stimulate the economy or create jobs.  If Republicans were seriously concerned with cutting the deficit, they had numerous opportunities over the last year to negotiate deals with the President and Democrats to achieve long-term deficit reduction.  Each time the Republicans realized that they were close to a deal because of the willingness of Democrats and Obama to compromise and accept Republican demands, they walked away from the negotiations usually citing demands from Obama and/or Democrats for tax increases or tax reform as the reason they were withdrawing from negotiations.  In fact, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated much more concern for long-term deficit reduction than the Republicans.  Obama and Democrats in Congress have taken positions on issues like entitlement reform that are opposed by the Democratic Party liberal/progressive base.  Additionally, Republicans are well aware that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to significantly reduce the deficit without including some type of revenue enhancement in any workable deficit reduction plan.  The deficit cannot be brought to sustainable levels over the next 10 to 20 years without increasing revenues from their current level.  The deficit problem simply cannot be fixed through spending cuts alone since the level of cuts that would be necessary would cripple the country, not to mention be politically unfeasible since voters would rebel.

Myth #6: The S&P downgraded the country’s credit rating because of the deficit.

The S&P downgrade, which probably wasn’t justified for any reason, occurred because of the Republican-manufactured debt ceiling crisis.  If Republicans had agreed to raise the debt ceiling unconditionally in the spring, S&P would not have taken the action it took.  The downgrade occurred because of the protracted fight over raising the debt ceiling during which the Republicans repeated refused to compromise.  Some Republicans even stated publicly that they did not care if the country defaulted on its obligations.  The gridlock in Congress over raising the debt ceiling undermined the confidence of S&P raters that Congress could address short-term unemployment and long-term deficits in any significant way. 

Myth #7: Unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed should not be extended since it just encourages recipients not to seek work.

People collecting unemployment insurance are required by law to look for work.  If they fail to look for work and/or lie about looking for work while receiving unemployment compensation, they can be prosecuted for fraud.  The long-term unemployed aren’t unemployed because they aren’t seeking work.  They are unemployed because there are few jobs within a reasonable commuting distance from where they live and they can’t afford to move to where the jobs are and/or they lack the minimum skills necessary to qualify for the jobs that are available.  Lately, the long-term unemployed have encountered an additional obstacle to employment.  Many companies have adopted an implicit or explicit policy not to consider for employment any applicant who is not currently employed.  These companies refuse to even consider an application from a person who is unemployed.

Myth #8:  Businesses aren’t hiring because of high taxes, excessive regulation and/or the deficit.

Businesses aren’t hiring because of a lack of demand for their goods and services and because their CEOs are uncertain about the future state of the U.S. and European economies.  They fear a second recession that might reduce demand even further.  The Republican-induced inability of Congress to reach agreement on legislation to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy in the short-term and to deal with the long-term deficit has generated this uncertainty.  As I have explained earlier, the legislative gridlock over employment and the deficit has been created by the Republican Party for political reasons.  See my response to Myth #5.

Myth #9: Taxes are too high.

The effective tax rate the average American pays is one of the lowest levels of the past 50 years and is significantly less than the tax rate paid by citizens of other developed countries.  Additionally, the amount of taxes U.S. corporations actually pay is less than or on a par with that paid by corporations in other developed countries.  We are not over-taxed, we are under-taxed.  As I said earlier, we have a revenue problem largely due to tax cuts.  See my response to Myth #2.

Myth #10: The Tea Party is a grassroots movement expressing the frustration of average Americans with big government in general and out-of-control government spending in particular.

The Tea Party was created and is controlled by a few extremely rich individuals.  These individuals used their fortunes and media access (particularly their control over Fox News) to tap the highly generalized sense of anger of a diverse group of Americans in order to elect members of Congress whose votes they could control.  These rich individuals care little about the deficit or even taxes since they know how to take advantage of numerous tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes.  Their primarily goal is elect members of Congress they can instruct to vote to reduce and/or eliminate government regulation these rich individuals see as an impediment to their ability to accumulate even more wealth, power and influence.

Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement have little in common other than blaming government for a range of imagined wrongs.  Only about 20% to 30% of Americans have ever identify with the Tea Party movement and only a small number of these have ever attended a Tea Party rally or worked for a Tea Party candidate.   The number of Americans with a positive view of the Tea Party movement has been declining steadily over the last year.