'Prince of Pork' to oversee ban on earmarks

Can you feel Tea Party fever of fiscal discipline sweeping over the GOP, where it's out with the old and in with the new?...

... Um, except it's not. The all-powerful House Appropriations Committee will be chaired by 30-year veteran Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky, who brought home $252 million in earmarks between 2008 and 2010.

The Honorable Mr. Rogers will now be in charge of -- don't laugh! -- enforcing the GOP's pledge to ban legislative earmarks, aka "pork" projects.

That's kind of like (choose your poison)...

... the DEA being run by Pablo Escobar

... PETA being run by Michael Vick

... the SEC being run by Bernie Madoff

... the State Dept. being run by Julian Assange

... or the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency being run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

But hey, that "hopey changey thing" could always work out for ya teabaggers, yeah?



Hal Rogers, 'Prince Of Pork,' To Be Appointed GOP Chairman Of House Appropriations Committee
December 7, 2010 | AP/Huffington Post
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/hal-rogers-appropriations-committee_n_793529.html

Sirota: Dem leaders' predictable post-election blame of election-losing liberals

Can't believe I missed this one after the elections. Here it is. Sirota says it all.

Thank You, Dick Cheney, For Giving Me the Proper Words

By David Sirota

November 4, 2010 | Open Left

Like many of you reading these pixels, I've found myself in the last year burnt out on American politics, mostly because it has become a glorified red-versus-blue summer camp color war devoid of substance and logic. That kind of thing, which might have been fun as a kid in summer camp, is neither enjoyable nor mildly interesting as an adult muddling through day-to-day issues here in the real world. Sure, political junkies on cable TV, in the blogosphere and in the halls of power think the world revolves around political palace dramas, but as Jon Stewart so aptly put it, "Most Americans don't live their lives solely as Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals -- most Americans live their lives that are just a little bit late for something they have to do."

The fact that so few in our political arena appreciate that truism is one reason I've really just had it. There's only a finite amount of time in a given day, and I -- like most Americans in the real world -- just don't have time or energy to contribute to the part of our culture that pretends D.C. gossip and the day's manufactured partisan controversies are monumentally important when, for the most part, they aren't -- at least not to those of us who are living here in a real recession-hammered world that both parties ignore.

The other reason I've become less interested is because the political arena has become less interesting. It is as if the drama of politics -- once vaguely provocative -- is now all pre-programmed. We know what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are going to say. We know how progressive media is going to respond. We don't even have to tune in to know the reaction.

This is particularly true after elections -- and, in specific, when it comes to the mind-numbing "Future of the Democratic Party" debate. Indeed, I could have told you months ago that the week after the election would be marked by various self-appointed pillars of the Democratic Party coalition saying Democrats should do this or should do that to rescue their electoral future.

For example, I could have told you that a washed-up has-been like Evan Bayh would publish a New York Times op-ed insisting that Democrats "were too deferential to our most zealous supporters" (read: liberals) even after the Democratic Party crushed a public option, watered down Wall Street "reform," extended Bush-era civil liberties atrocities, escalated the Afghanistan War, further ballooned the defense budget and began moving to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Likewise, I could have told you that those careerists in D.C. who make their livelihood off this kind of pablum would publish a "strategy memo" in something self-importantly called "The Democratic Strategist". And I could have told you that this "strategy memo" would defend the bash-the-liberals meme with bromides about how "all of the major perspectives within the Democratic Party have a legitimate place and role in today's Democratic coalition" and about how "the present moment categorically demands a basic level of Democratic unity from every element of the coalition" (read: liberals shouldn't criticize the corporatists who destroyed the Democratic Party -- and the country).

I could have told you all of this because, as I said, it's pre-programmed. It's not spontaneous. It's not reacting to any reality out here in the real world. It's not responding to a changing country. It's pre-written, pre-conceived, pre-packaged feces sprayed at us in liquid form, all to justify a continuation of how it's always been -- and, frankly, how it probably will always be.

In the past, I may have contributed to some sort of organized pushback. But not this year. No, this time I can muster only one Cheney-esque response to the whole grotesque kabuki theater surrounding the inane "Future of the Democratic Party" debate: Go fuck yourself.

Evan Bayh and Third Way and The Democratic Strategist and the DLC and all the professional pundits and cable-TV zombies and D.C. spokesholes - all of you soul-raping corpses and shit-eating poindexters paid to appear on my television screen and scream at me about liberals ruining everything, please, I beg you on behalf of the silent irritated majority: Just go fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself because all of your arguments are about what policies should be pursued to rescue Democratic politicians' electoral future, rather than about what policies are needed to rescue, say, the fucking country's future. Additionally, go fuck yourself because if you know so much about winning elections and if you are so sure conservadem-ism/Blue Dog-ism is the way to win said elections, how come it was the conservadems/Blue Dog candidates - not liberal candidates - who lost the most elections this year?

Also, go fuck yourself because the fact that you are even trying to create the same old bash-the-liberals debate exposes you not just as substantively wrong, but as professionally employed to despoil our culture with bullshit -- and specifically, with bullshit that you know is bullshit. That, really, everyone knows is bullshit.

The facts are painfully apparent. Though hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people in D.C. are professionally paid to pretend these facts require debate and analysis and parsing and speculation and press releases and pithy Tweets and Sunday Show roundtables and C-SPAN symposia and to-camera cable-TV rants and lengthy thousand-page books, they don't require any of that. The facts are simple. The facts are obvious. The facts are undeniable to anyone not paid fistfulls of sweaty money to lie or sensationalize:

1. The Democratic Party shit on its base with its policies, as noted above.

2. This demoralized the Democratic base, which responded by not turning out to vote. As CBS News notes, "Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections (but) turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels."

3. In cause-and-effect style, the result of all this was, as the Washington Post reports, a freshman congressional class that is primarily made up of angry, white, lunatic-conservative assholes.

So yes, all of you who are wasting all of our time pretending this isn't the basic point-A-to-point-B story of the election -- and there are a lot of you out there -- please, if not for me, then for everyone else: Go fuck yourself.

We've got lives to lead, we've got struggles to struggle through, we've got bills to pay - in short, we've got to get through the shit you've created and continue to create. And as you now incessantly bitch about the alleged scourge of those evil election-losing liberals, as you whine and wail and cry from the cocktail and hors d'oeuvre paradise of TV studios and green rooms and congressional offices and party fundraising events, you've made quite clear you don't give a shit about the harsh reality we all face - the harsh reality we all face thanks to you.

Knowing all of that, I'll end just reiterate my one succinct request: All I ask is that as you continue your hard work to prop up the kleptocracy, as you continue to clog our last remaining democratic conduits with your viscous rhetorical shit bombs, please, do us all a favor and for the love of whatever god you worship - please just stop wasting our damn time and go fuck yourself.

Massive secret spending by GOP groups, thanks to SCOTUS

Outside Republican groups spent $54 million more than outside Democrat groups during the campaign. Was that all the difference?

Four GOP groups alone -- Rove's Crossroads groups, the American Chamber of Commerce, and American Action Network -- spent $83 million on attack ads against Democrats. And thanks to Dubya's Supreme Court, they didn't have to disclose who donated how much to them.

Spending blitz by outside groups helped secure big GOP wins

Hedge fund moguls helped bankroll groups' attack ads, sources tell NBC News
By Michael Isikoff and Rich Gardella
November 3, 2010 | NBC News

A tightly coordinated effort by outside Republican groups, spearheaded by Karl Rove and fueled by tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street hedge fund moguls and other wealthy donors, helped secure big GOP midterm victories Tuesday, according to campaign spending figures and Republican fundraising insiders.

Leading the GOP spending pack was a pair of groups — American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS — both of which were co-founded by two former aides in the George W. Bush White House: Rove, and Ed Gillespie.

Together, the groups — which are not formally part of the Republican Party — spent more than $38 million on attack ads and campaign mailings against Democrats, according to figures compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending in congressional races.

A substantial portion of Crossroads GPS' money came from a small circle of extremely wealthy Wall Street hedge fund and private equity moguls, according to GOP fundraising sources who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity. These donors have been bitterly opposed to a proposal by congressional Democrats — and endorsed by the Obama administration — to increase the tax rates on compensation that hedge funds pay their partners, the sources said.

A scorecard compiled by NBC News shows the ad barrage appeared to mostly pay off: Republican candidates won nine of the 12 Senate races and 14 of 22 House races where American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent money.

That had the groups' leaders gloating Wednesday about what they described as their pivotal role in the election results.

'A decisive blow for freedom'

"Thank you, America!" read the banner headline on a blog posting by Steve Law, president of American Crossroads, on the group's website. The posting proclaimed that the organizations' team had "struck a decisive blow for freedom" with the election results. "Together we not only retired House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, we also achieved the largest House seat switch since 1938!" Law wrote.

While it is hard to calculate exactly how much of an impact the Crossroads groups had in an election that was tilting Republican for a variety of reasons, their efforts helped fuel an substantial overall spending advantage by outside GOP groups. Overall, outside Republican groups outspent outside Democratic groups, $245 million to $191 million — a $54 million edge.

The Crossroads affiliates and similar groups were formed after a controversial Supreme Court ruling in January that permitted outside political groups to collect unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions and other wealthy donors and use them directly on campaign ads. In addition, groups that were organized as nonprofit "advocacy" organizations (such as Crossroads GPS) did not have to disclose the identity of their donors.

As a result, the airwaves this campaign season were flooded with millions of dollars in attack ads, paid for by secret donors. Out of nearly $300 million spent on congressional campaigns ads by both parties, 42 percent were funded by undisclosed donors, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just behind the Crossroads groups in outside spending on the GOP-side were the Chamber of Commerce ($31 million) and the American Action Network ($14 million), according to Sunlight Foundation figures. Neither disclosed the identity of its donors.

While outside Democratic groups belatedly tried to mimic the GOP efforts, they fell short. America's Families First Action Fund, a group founded by a number of former Democratic strategists that operated much like American Crossroads, wasn't organized until last summer and spent just $5.5 million — $1 million of which came from a non-disclosing nonprofit affiliate, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The big outside spenders on the Democratic side were labor unions such as AFSME ($10.7 million) and the SEIU ($10 million.)

Groups coordinated spending, insiders say

In addition to the spending advantage, outside GOP groups like the Crossroads groups, Americans for Prosperity and Club for Growth coordinated their efforts, divvying up which groups would spend in which races at which times. The groups' leaders would meet and talk regularly in sessions often led by Rove or one of his associates, according to the two GOP fundraising sources familiar with how the organizations worked.

The coordination could be seen in spending patterns in key Senate races.

In Illinois, for example, GOP winner Mark Kirk benefited from $5.5 million in attack ads from the Crossroads groups targeting his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, the Crossroads groups didn't spend any money, but the Chamber of Commerce spent $748,000 on attack ads that helped defeat Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. (Feingold, ironically, was co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law whose restrictions on advertisements by outside groups was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, paving the way for the creation of groups such as American Crossroads.)

The long term impact of the spending by the outside groups during this election will be to lay the groundwork for an even bigger effort during the presidential campaign two years from now. That will substantially diminish the role of the two political parties, according to campaign finance experts.

Other than running primaries, "who needs (political parties)?" asked Brett Kappel, a Washington lawyer who specializes in campaign finance laws. Contributions to the parties remain "heavily regulated," under strict limits and must be publicly disclosed, he noted.

"After this election," Kappel said, "all of that can be outsourced to unregulated entities that don't have to disclose their donors."

Local politics is anti-Tea: States, cities raising taxes left and right

The AP was able to provide a snapshot of how voters in several states have been embracing tax increases at the local level. The analysis looked at 39 states, representing a cross-section of the country. The review found 2,387 revenue measures in 22 states where they appeared on local primary and special-election ballots this year. Voters in 19 states – or 86 percent of those holding such elections – passed 50 percent or more of the local tax initiatives that came before them.

Now, let's recall that about 1/3 of the $862 billion stimulus bill was for state aid and unemployment benefits. (Another 1/3 went to tax cuts, and the final 1/3 went to infrastructure, health care, and other projects -- money that has only been about 70 percent spent so far.) That is, the federal gov't has provided a HUGE bailout for state budgets; and states have had discretion over how those funds are spent and how quickly.

So, the same electorate that is allegedly mad as hell about high taxes and runaway spending is voting for more taxes so that their states can keep spending on the same things that the federal gov't gave them stimulus money to pay for.

Ergo, either Americans are hypocritical idiots, or the received "lamestream" media wisdom about what's driving this November's elections is wrong.

Despite Election Rhetoric, Many Cities Are Actually Raising Taxes

By Robin Hindery

October 29, 2010 | AP

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/despite-election-rhetoric_n_775829.html

Tea Party predictions from top political analyst

OK, no news article this time. This is 100% moi. I'm posting one for posterity this time, making predictions about that ragtag group of modern Know-Nothings known as the Tea Parties. Or teabaggers, in the vernacular.

In 2010, a few Tea Party-identified GOP candidates will win. Then they will go on to run a government gaffe marathon and slowly be brow-beaten into "lamestream" Republicanism.

By 2012, they will be something like MoveOn.org: just a way to organize and fire up Republicans.

If Palin doesn't win in 2012 (whether she loses the nomination to Romney or some radical like Mike Pence, or loses to Obama), then by 2014, they will not exist. Oh, they'll have some web sites and stuff, but they'll stop mattering. Even today, more people's cats have web sites than Tea Party groups do.

Why will the Tea Parties fade away? Because, first of all, Republicans like winners and hate losers. (This goes along with their whole Social Darwinism thing; but in a larger sense I mean this as a compliment: Democrats take perverse pride in losing "for all the right reasons," whereas Republicans never see a good reason for losing.) If the Tea Parties are seen as a liability to conservatives winning future elections, then teabaggers themselves will scuttle the "movement."

The other reason that the Tea Parties will die out is that Republicans who win Congress (yes, I'm predicting that will happen, too) will have to take principled Tea-Party stands on issues or else compromise with dastardly lib'ruls, Obama, and RINOs. If they stand on principle in the House, then they will be irrelevant because of their small numbers. If they compromise, then the movement will become disillusioned and abandon them, and/or the movement. Tea Party candidates will morph seamlessly into old fashioned Republicans.

Of course, all you teabaggers are welcome to prove me wrong, but American political history has never been kind to third parties. Also, most teabaggers are old white people, and everybody knows old people hate change. Conservative old people hate change most of all. Hence, old white people will slip comfortably back into that warm, old, familiar pair of socks known as the GOP. -- Especially if some principled Tea Party candidate has the gall to touch the 3rd Rail of American Politics: old, white, conservative people's Social Security or Medicare.

And if you answer, "The Tea Parties were never meant to be a real party; they were meant to purify the Republican party," then I ask you to tally after the 2010 November elections how many of the 91 Republicans in the House and 33 Republicans in the Senate who voted for TARP lost their seats or failed to win the GOP's nomination, i.e. "got purified" by the Tea Parties.

Finally, most of the new health care program benefits will have kicked in by 2014, and some of those apathetic young slackers who fund the teabaggers' Big Gubument benefits with their FICA contributions might then realize that they like their health care just as much as the "Greatest Generation" and Baby Boomers love their Medicare/Medicaid. Then they might make the Tea Parties irrelevant the old fashioned way -- at the ballot box.

Senate GOP leader: NO to unemployment benefits, YES to tax cuts for rich

$34 billion for unemployment benefits -- no way! $678 billion in tax cuts for the rich -- no problem!

And you guys think this November is going to be a cinch for Republicans? Not if Dems simply point out which party is trying to screw the Little Guy sideways.

Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit

By Sam Stein

July 12, 2010 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/jon-kyl-extend-bush-tax-c_n_642862.html