That’s right, I said it — Insider Democrats scored another epic fail.
I mean, just take a look at this headline in yesterday’s New York Times — “Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House.”
Here’s the best part — the vote was 255-159 in favor of the bill. Now, I wasn’t a math major, but 255 was bigger than 159 last I checked.
So, what happened? Democrats brought up the bill under special rules requiring two-thirds support to pass. So even though the bill had clear majority support, it still failed.
This isn’t the sort of bold progressive leadership I fought for in 2006 and 2008. I worked to elect Democrats to get stuff done, but they keep letting Republicans trip them up with parliamentary tricks. I’m sick of it.
That’s why here at DFA we don’t support just any Democrat, we support Better Democrats. We support Democrats with backbone, who are willing to lead on the tough issues and get stuff done — Democrats like Howard Dean and Alan Grayson. But we can’t do it alone. We rely on small contributions from supporters across the country to get our work done. Contribute today to support our mission.
Progressive legislation has been killed or watered down over and over again. The public option — killed. Climate change legislation — killed. Wall Street reform — watered down. Now, Democrats are letting Republicans kill bills to help 9/11 victims.
In 2006, Insider Democrats told us to sit down and be quiet — we needed to retake the Congress, even if it meant we weren’t electing the most progressive candidates.
In 2008, Insider Democrats told us to sit down and be quiet — we needed to retake the White House and get 60 votes in the Senate, even if it meant we weren’t electing the most progressive candidates.
Well, now it’s 2010 and it’s time they learned DFA members aren’t going to sit down and be quiet. We’re not going to support candidates just because they have a “D” next to their name.
But if we’re going to fire up progressives and elect a real, progressive majority then we need to start today. So here’s the plan: We’re going to put staff on the ground in critical states where our progressive primary challengers won, like Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Elaine Marshall in North Carolina. And we’re going to work to elect progressives like Beth Krom in so-called “red” districts, just like we did with Alan Grayson in 2008.
I don’t want to see headlines like that one in the New York Times again. I want to wake up on the day after Election Day and see “Progressives Win” in big, bold letters. Contribute today to help make it happen.
Arshad Hasan, Executive Director
Democracy for America
If nothing else, this is one of the worst fundraising appeals I’ve ever seen.
There have been plenty of episodes where the Democratic Party has not shown much of a spine (FISA, HAMP, not fighting enough for the public option in health care reform, not backing up the glowing rhetoric from Number 44 about the climate crisis with actual legislation to combat it, etc.), but the recent vote over funding health benefits for first responders on 9/11 is not one of them as far as I’m concerned (indeed, Anthony Weiner commendably flipped out at his fellow New York rep, Repug Peter King, over his parliamentary trick that helped defeat the bill, as noted here).
As the HuffPo link tells us, the House Democrats brought up the bill in suspense of the rules to prevent the Repugs from gumming up the works with more of their pointless amendments, a tactic they’ve worked to near perfection in the Senate. However, by doing so, it dictated that a 2/3rds vote would be required for passage.
To me, this is “epic fail” all right, but not on the part of the Democrats (who voted in their entirety for the bill along with 12 Republicans).
As I said, if DFA wants to go after the party leadership for fundraising (a bit counterproductive, I would think, but oh well), they need to choose their targets better next time.
…leading Democrats rule out a short-term, across-the-board extension of the expiring Bush tax cuts, even though a temporary extension might stimulate the economy.
Does Harwood have a degree in economics or finance that we don’t know about? If he does, then why isn’t he writing for the business section?
Given the economy’s weakness, Mark Zandi, an independent economist, recently warned that letting taxes rise now would be a bad idea.
With impressive discipline, Republicans have argued that Mr. Obama’s economic policies represent big-spending government gone wild. The argument starts with the 2009 stimulus law.
Never mind that Mr. Zandi, whose message on taxes Republicans have welcomed, was a co-author of a paper last week that found “very substantial” economic benefit from the $787 billion spending bill. Republicans said it represented a wasteful and damaging increase in deficits.
I thought Harwood’s explanation here of what Zandi said was confusing; this WaPo story clarifies things somewhat, telling us that Zandi said that “The Bush tax cuts should be extended permanently for families with annual incomes of less than $250,000 and should be phased out slowly for those making more than that.”
And the Repugs oppose letting Dubya’s godawful tax cuts expire “with impressive discipline”? Is Harwood auditioning for The Weakly Standard?
Or his he just taking hallucinogenic drugs?
On January 1, 2010 Americans could see the largest tax increase in the history of our nation—$3.8 trillion over ten years. Every single tax bracket would be increased, child tax credits would be slashed and the estate tax would return in full force, if Congress does not act.
This tax hike will affect every American individual and business. Most in Congress agree that we shouldn’t sit by idly and let the economy grind to a halt, but there is sharp disagreement about whether some Americans should have to pay more next year.
I wonder if PA-16’s waste of protoplasm knows that, as noted here, “this year the Bush tax cuts will give millionaires more in tax breaks than 90 percent of Americans will make in total income”?
And as dday tells us here…
Returning the tax rates to the Clinton years, a time of historic prosperity, would bring $2.6 trillion dollars back into the government, which can roll back out in services in a highly progressive fashion. It saves the government money in the long-term and would allow the funding base for all kinds of programs that promote economic equality. It could also allow for immediate spending to arrest the jobs crisis, and the kind of larger deficit that we need immediately, with the funding rolling in down the road.
I know it’s tempting to go “Nyah nyah” at the teabaggers and inform them that the Obama White House has cut taxes and not raised them, but the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face” comes to mind.
And Pitts tells us he’s concerned that “child tax credits could be slashed”?
Is Pitts SERIOUSLY trying to communicate to us that he cares about kids?
I don’t know whether to laugh or pick up my PC monitor and try to throw it out the window in response!
This tells us that Pitts opposed a five-year renewal of the Head Start antipoverty program for children of ages 3 to 5 and the Early Head Start program for infants, toddlers and pregnant women. The same link also provides information on how Pitts voted against a bill empowering the FDA to regulate cigarette content, requiring disclosure of product ingredients, banning cigarette marketing to children, and requiring more prominent health warnings. This tells us that Pitts voted against a bill providing federal employees with additional benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act; the bill would entitle civil servants to four to eight weeks of paid leave to care for a newly born, adopted, or fostered child (such leave is now available to civil servants without pay). This tells us that Pitts voted No on HR 1256, a bill to begin federal regulation of tobacco products. The bill empowers the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarette content, require disclosure of product ingredients, ban cigarette marketing to children, and require more prominent health warnings (the bill would preempt state tobacco laws).
Also, Pitts tells the following…
In my district in southeastern Pennsylvania, farmers are especially vulnerable to the estate tax. Many are eking out a living farming land that is worth millions to developers.
I wonder if Pancake Joe is aware that Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Jon Kyl want to set the estate tax rate for family farms at 35 percent (here – argue about the merits of this if you wish, but I think it speaks volumes about how out of touch Pitts is that he somehow doesn’t know this).
Residents of PA-16 who may happen to be reading this, please click here to do all you can on behalf of Lois Herr, Pitts’ Dem opponent this fall. By sending Pitts back to private life, you will, among other things, give him ample free time to write for The Daily Caller as much as he wants.