Censored Whig Letters

The Obama/Democratic Stimulus Worked

Simple proof…

It’s up to the wingnuts. If they want to keep lying about Obama, then we’ll do our best to set the record straight. If they want to bring up legitimate criticism, and there’s plenty of it, then we’d likely join them, and we could all have an Obama bashing party together. But they’re not that smart…

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7679

Taking Elections Back From the Corporations and the Constitution Back from the Gang of Five

By Robert Borosage

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010020503/taking-elections-back-corporations-and-constitution-back-gang-five

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi) and chair of the House Judiciary Committee today introduced an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United that gave corporations the right to spend unlimited funds in election campaigns as a matter of free speech.

Edwards, a brilliant first term legislator with a long commitment to free elections, quoted Justice Lewis Brandeis: ‘We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.’ It is time we remove corporate influence from our policies and our politics. We cannot allow corporations to dominate our elections, to do so would be both undemocratic and unfair to ordinary citizens.”

“The ruling reached by the Roberts’ Court overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns,” said Congresswoman Edwards. “Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision. A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done.”

Judiciary Chair Conyers concurred and co-sponsored the amendment, noting that “”The Supreme Court’s idea that corporate political is no different than an individual citizen’s political speech was not the law when the Constitution was written, was not the law before the Supreme Court’s decision two weeks ago, and should not be the law in the future.”

Senator John Kerry announced a plan to introduce a similar amendment in the Senate

A broad coalition of groups are joining together to push the drive for the amendment, while supporting legislation to limit the Court’s ruling.

This should lead to campaigns in every state to pass the amendment - and force legislators to decide which side they are on: Should corporations be guaranteed the same free speech rights as American citizens?

The Supreme Court’s decision - imposed by the gang of five activist conservative justices - is wrong on the law, wrong on the history, wrong on the principles of a Republic (as opposed to the interests of Republicans). Scorning decades of precedent, and dozens of settled federal and state laws, the right-wing majority imposed a power-grab every bit as egregious as the decision in Bush v Gore that made Bush president by shutting down the vote count in Florida.

If citizens begin to understand the stakes, then this decision may well backfire on the Gang of Five and their conservative allies.

See amendment and Edwards and Conyers’ statement here http://donnaedwards.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=54&sectiontree=29,54&itemid=121 .

See Edwards’ floor speech on issue here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysUr0fj3aRY .

For more information go to www.freespeechforpeople.org.

Shareholders Forced Political Spending

When we make an investment by buying shares in a corporation are we endorsing the political goals of corporate CEO’s or other corporate executives? For most American citizens, the answer is clearly “NO!”

The recent Supreme Court ruling stating that corporations have the right to spend the shareholders’ money to influence federal elections seems designed to trample on the property rights of individual shareholders, empower the international corporate executive class and distort the electoral process in favor of the pro-corporate Republican Party. It completely fails to protect the property rights of shareholders against politically-motivated abuse by corporate executives.

While the ruling was both bad law and bad for American democracy, as most commentators have stated publicly, few editorialists or pundits have examined how badly the ruling tramples on the property rights of shareholders. I might want to buy shares to fund my retirement or meet unexpected future financial demands. I want my money used in the core missions and functions of the business. I did not invest my money to have it misused by corporate executives to fund their political goals or agenda instead of mine.

Why did this radically activist Supreme Court empower corporate executives to use my money for politics instead of for the legitimate business purposes that are the reasons shareholders bought shares in the first place?

Every member of Congress should support a new federal law that would require all shareholders agree before any corporate money can be spent to influence elections. This does not violate the premise of the Supreme Court ruling that states (incorrectly in my opinion) that corporations have the right to spend corporate funds on elections. Such a law would not require a Constitutional Amendment.

Shareholders should never be forced to make a political contribution to a candidate or campaign that the individual shareholder does not support. These forced contributions are unjust. In fact, corporate executives who spend corporate funds on influencing elections are frankly stealing from the shareholders.

Even before the new federal law is passed, shareholders should consider suing any corporate executives who misuse corporate funds to influence election outcomes directly or indirectly. The lawsuits should seek both to injunction the corporation from using shareholders money without universal approval from all shareholders and to fire the corporate executive involved “with cause” so that any “golden parachute” provisions (where more shareholder money gets stolen by executives) might get blocked.

Any officeholder who fails to support a new federal law restricting corporate executive power and empowering individual shareholders to veto spending corporate money on elections is helping in the politically-motivated theft of shareholder property! We need to identify these officeholders regardless of political party and vote them out of office. They are corrupt!

While corporations are not people, shareholders and corporate executives are people. The corporate executives should not overrule shareholders when it comes to political spending of corporate funds. The corporate executives work for the shareholders and never should be legally permitted to forget this basic fact.

Written by: Stephen Crockett (Host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: 698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, Delaware 19702. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com.

Feel free to publish at no charge without prior approval.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/25/mass-health-care/

Poll Confirms Massachusetts Election Was Not A Rejection Of Health Care Reform

Following the surprise victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) in last week’s special election, conservatives have attempted to paint the election as a rejection of healthcare reform and progressive policies more generally.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, “what happened in Massachusetts” shows that “people are alarmed and angry about the spending, the debt, the government takeovers [including health care].” Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will said on This Week that Massachusetts “really was a health care election.” “This was a referendum on a particular piece of legislation that is the signature legislation of the administration, and the people of Massachusetts and the country are hotly angered over its substance,” Will said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on Meet the Press yesterday, said, “the message in Massachusetts was absolutely clear. The exit polls that I looked at said 48 percent of the people in Massachusetts said they voted for the new senator over health care.” McConnell added: “The people are telling us, ‘Please don’t pass this bill.’”

This “referendum” on health reform meme has become near-conventional wisom, with the media and even some Democrats echoing it. But a new Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll undermines this assertion. The poll suggests that while the election was a “protest of the Washington process,” it was not a rejection of progressive policy. Only 11 percent of voters, including 19 percent of Brown voters, want Brown to “stop the Democratic agenda:”

- 70 percent of voters think Brown should work with Democrats on health care reform, including 48 percent of Brown voters.

- 52 percent of voters were enthusiastic/satisfied with Obama administration policies.

- 44 percent of voters believe “the country as a whole” would be better off with health care reform, but 23 percent believe Massachusetts would be better off.

- 68 percent of voters, including 51 percent of Brown voters approve of Massachusetts’ health care reform.

- 58 percent of all voters, including 37 percent of Brown voters, felt “dissatisfied/angry” with “the policies offered by the Republicans in Congress.”

A different poll, from Rasmussen Reports, cast doubt on the notion that Brown voters were primarily motivated by opposition to health care reform. The poll found that 52 percent of Brown voters said health care was their top issue, while an even greater percentage of people who voted for state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) — 63 percent — placed it first.

And as the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted, Brown “doesn’t make a very convincing messenger for opposing the policy behind health reform,” considering he voted for his state’s health reform legislation in 2006. “He promised to be the 41st vote against reform because Massachusetts had already passed its own health reform bill, arguing that the state shouldn’t pay for the national effort,” Volsky added.

More at the WonkRoom

Supreme Court legalizes everything America hates about lobbyists buying Washington

By Brent Budowsky

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/77489-supreme-court-legalizes-everything-america-hates-about-lobbyists-buying-washington

Chief Justice John Roberts did not tell the truth in his confirmation hearings when he claimed he would respect stare decisis, the idea of legal precedent. The Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate cash to buy unlimited political power through unlimited political spending is one of the greatest single attacks on democracy in the history of jurisprudence, and one of the single greatest demonstrations of contempt for legal precedent in the history of the United States Supreme Court.

Now the capital that is bought and paid for by lobbyists already will be even more bought and even more paid for. Now our politics, which is in wide disrepute, will be deluged with an onslaught of negative television ads, at first used as blackmail threats by lobbyists to win votes on the floor of Congress for special-interest legislation, and if blackmail fails, which it rarely does in this town, the money will be used to finance media “hit men” running ads full of lies, deceit and fear-mongering.

Think about it: There is a populist revolt from the left and right throughout the nation, but the policymaking and ideological political agenda of the Supreme Court majority now gives the dominating power to those with the most money and destroys into virtual silence the free-speech rights of those without the money to buy the speech, and the power to buy the votes, in the Congress that only pretends to be of the people, by the people and for the people.

This decision will grow to be hated by the people of the nation. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy will go down in history alongside predecessors on the court who upheld the practice of slavery and were later condemned by the high court of history.

The very notion of legalizing what will in fact become weapons of blackmail and bribery in the hands of the lobbyists of the greedy and powerful is inimical to the very idea of what America stands for, and alien to the deeply held views of people throughout the nation and believers in democracy everywhere.

This decision is vile and evil and wrong and will be seen by historians as vile and evil and wrong. Americans should use every means of political and constitutional action to resist this and reverse this.

Nine-Million-Member Union Coalition Calls For Defeat Of Cadillac Tax

by Sam Stein

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/nine-million-member-union_n_420524.html

A coalition of federal and postal employees, numbering nearly nine million members, sent a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday insisting that the final health care bill not include an excise tax on high-end insurance plans.

Sixteen unions penned the letter amidst increasingly tense negotiations between House and Senate leaders over how to structure the pay-for provision in the final health care bill. The Senate favors the tax, citing its benefits in reeling in health care costs. Approximately 190 House Democrats have signaled that they will oppose it out of concerns that it will unfairly hit working-class families.

The letter from the federal and postal employees frames the tax as both inequitable and potentially damaging to the prospects of recruiting future government employees. The groups write:

“While the excise tax is slated to be imposed on the insurers on so-called high cost plans, the tax will be passed on to enrollees in the form of higher premiums, co-pays or reduced benefits. [Blue Cross blue Shield] plans cover approximately 48 % of [Federal Employees Health Benefits Program] enrollees, or nearly 3.8 million Americans. Single enrollees would be subject to the effects of the tax in 2013, while families are hit in the third year. Including other, non-BC/BS plans, more than one-half of active and retired enrollees will face the effects of these taxes that accumulate to thousands of dollars in the middle to out years of the Senate-passed bill. Because we understand the value of all health care is counted towards the threshold amounts, enrollees with dental or vision coverage, or a Flexible Spending account, could reach the thresholds even sooner and feel the effects of this tax earlier.

Characterizing this tax proposal as a “Cadillac tax” is a misnomer. It hits the average blue collar and white collar employee or annuitant. FEHBP insurers will simply reduce coverage and, as the taxes increase, a downward spiral towards less coverage will ensue, which is antithetical to health care reform’s states purpose. Penalizing FEHBP enrollees with this tax is a huge disincentive to qualified applicants seeking federal or postal employment. It is bad for the government and bad policy overall.

The note to congressional leaders is the latest lobbying salvo by the labor community in opposition to the excise tax. Also on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) hosted several major union leaders to discuss their opposition to the provision.

The unions signing the letter are as follows:

American Federation of Government Employees
American Foreign Service Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Postal Workers Union
Federal Managers Association
Laborers’ International Union of North America
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association
National Air Traffic Controller Association
National Association of Letter Carriers
National Association of Postal Supervisors
National Association of Postmasters of the United States
National League of Postmasters of the United States
National Postal Mail Handlers Union
National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association
National Treasury Employees Union
Professional Aviation Safety Specialists
———————————————————————————–
EDITOR’S NOTE: If you click over to Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com you will find articles where the International Associations of Machinists (IAM) and the Fire Fighters union (IAFF) both came out firmly against this terrible tax provision.

My Congressman Frank Kratovil better get behind the House version of healthcare reform if he wants to get a second term. So far, he has been less than helpful. My vote is nothing he can count on in the Fall at this point as a result.

Jan. 11, 2010

Greetings everyone,

As many of you know, last year the Cecil County Young Democrats organized a team for the MS walk that was held at the University of Delaware. In our first effort, the group raised over $500 for the MS Society. This year we are doing it again, and hope to raise $1,000 for this cause.
Here’s what we want from you:

1) Contribute. There will be a link in this e-mail that will allow you to contribute to the group as a whole, or to an individual participant.

2) Join! We would love to make this a far reaching event for the YDs. We’d love to have some other faces to hang out with on the day of the walk. Also, your added efforts to raise funds will certainly help toward our overall goal

3) Spread the word! Anyone, no matter whether they are in Cecil County or not can contribute to this cause. Even if they do not contribute to our team, or an individual on our team, the MS Society is a great cause and needs the help.

Here is the Cecil County Young Democrats MS Walk Site, which will allow you to donate or join as a participant.

http://main.nationalmssociety.org/site/TR/Walk/DEDWalkEvents?pg=team&fr_id=13381&team_id=186245

Thanks to all, and hope to see you at the Young Dems meeting tomorrow night!

Jobeth Bowers

I am not sure if I will support him in 2012 over his backing of the Senate middle class healthcare benefits tax concerning the healthcare reform bill…. along with not demanding either a robust public option or Medicare buy-in at costs for everyone. Obama should have put his full support behind HR 676.

However, here is an interesting item.

Found this post on another blog but the author was not identified.

“To those of you that continue to harp the falsehood of Obama’s broken promises I suggest you stop trying to mislead others.
The FACTS are that the current administration has kept more campaign promises in a YEAR than the previous administration did in eight.

The Obameter Scorecard
* Promise Kept 90
* Compromise 29
* Promise Broken 11
* Stalled 66
* In the Works 244
* Not yet rated 68

From http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE, New York Times

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax their health benefits.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer workers.

Labor leaders say the tax would hit not only wealthy executives with expensive health benefits, but also many rank-and-file union members who have often settled for lower wage increases in exchange for more generous health benefits.

The tax would affect individual insurance policies with annual premiums above $8,500 and family policies above $23,000, which by one union survey would affect one in four union members.

The House bill does not contain such an excise tax, and many House Democrats oppose adding it to the combined House-Senate legislation. But the tax is a critical revenue component in the Senate’s bill. If the bill does too little to cover its costs, it might be defeated. Many economists support the tax, saying it will help hold down costs.

With labor groups warning that the tax will infuriate a key part of the Democratic base — union members — President Obama has agreed to meet with several top labor leaders on Monday to address their concerns and try to defuse their anger. The group includes the presidents of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Teamsters and the steelworkers’ and service employees’ unions.

But whether the tax is negotiable remains unclear. Not only has Mr. Obama specifically endorsed the idea, but the White House and Senate leaders see the tax as pivotal in paying for the health care overhaul and addressing runaway health care costs.

Many Democrats and union officials fear that if both sides dig in on the issue, it could create a rift between the White House and labor — with some union leaders hinting they might lobby aggressively against the entire health care bill if it contains such a tax.

Union leaders have repeatedly warned the White House about the strong rank-and-file dismay, which could hurt the Democrats in Congressional elections this fall, especially in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Ron Gay, an AT&T repairman in Youngstown, Ohio, who spent much of the summer of 2008 urging co-workers to vote for Mr. Obama, said, “If this passes in its current form, a lot of working people are going to feel let down and betrayed by our legislators and president.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 19 percent of workers — or about 30 million employees — would be affected by the tax in 2016. Economists say most of them would be nonunion, although it is organized labor that has the lobbying clout to take a stand.

In recent days, labor’s strategy has become clear. Unions are urging their members to flood their representatives with e-mail messages and phone calls in the hope that the House will stand fast and reject the tax. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of nine million union members, has declared next Wednesday “National Call-In Day” asking workers to call their lawmakers to urge them not to tax health benefits. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is urging members to tell their representatives that “such a tax is simply a massive middle-class tax hike that this nation’s working families should not be forced to endure.”

Many Democrats fear that enacting the tax will hurt their re-election chances.

“This would really have a negative impact on the Democratic base,” said Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, who has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter opposing the tax. “As far as the message goes, it’s a real toughie to defend.”

While union leaders would prefer killing the tax, some say privately that they could live with it if the threshold is lifted to $27,000, say, or $30,000. They argue that many insurance policies above $23,000 are typical of the coverage in high-cost areas like New York or Boston, or policies that cover small businesses or employers with older workers.

According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a $23,000 threshold, but only one in 14 if the threshold were raised to $27,000.

White House officials, however, voice concern that raising the threshold that much would lose $50 billion of the $149 billion in revenue that the tax is expected to generate over 10 years….

(Read the rest of this article at the link below)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html?hpw

Obama is totally wrong in backing the tax provisions of the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill. Taxing health insurance benefits (like the Senate bill does) is a tax on the middle class. The House bill taxes the very, very wealthy.

Obama promised not to push for middle class tax increases.

I am considering not voting for Obama in the future and publicly pushing for real economic populist Democratic primary challengers for Obama and all corporatist Senate or House Democrats. We need real Democrats in office from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. We need pro-working class, pro-middle class, pro-labor Democrats!

In solidarity,

Stephen Crockett