POLITICO Magazine: Jesse Rifkin- 'Paul Ryan and The Long History of Political Beards'

Source:POLITICO Magazine- U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) perhaps looking for a private place to scratch his beard.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Speaker Paul Ryan has only served as Speaker of the House for barely more than a month, but he is already revolutionizing the position in a manner unseen for nearly a century: by growing a beard. Ryan's facial hair makes him the first speaker to do so since Frederick Gillett in the 1920s.

Above, Paul Ryan and his new beard—or, as some have objected, “scruff”—were all over social media this past week after he posted a picture of the new facial hair paired with a question directed at the U.S. House History Account: “Hey, @USHouseHistory, when was the last time a Speaker of the House sported a beard?”

From POLITICO Magazine 

"James Corden take a hard-hitting look at Paul Ryan's decision to report to work with a beard before paying homage to the hunters heading to Michigan for stripper season." 

Source:The Late Late Show With James Corden- talking about Speaker Paul Ryan's beard.

From The Late Late Show With James Corden

When I first saw new Speaker of The House Paul Ryan and his new beard I guess a week ago, I thought: "Great, here’s another political faker wannabe. Someone who wants to fit in with the Millennial hipsters. (Or whoever else) And will follow whatever the current cool fad is." To be honest with you, I doubt he’s still wearing that beard a month from now. Sure! It will keep his face warm when he goes back to freezing Wisconsin and perhaps help him get through another disappointing Green Bay Packers playoff loss.

But he’s got to deal with both Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and to a certain extent House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when he needs to him to bail him out on things like getting votes on things that the House Tea Party doesn’t believe in. Like paying for government. (To use as an example) And paying our debts, which is really what the debt ceiling is about. Officially acknowledging that you have a government debt. He’s got to deal with people who are never afraid to crack a joke. Especially when they know that person can’t hurt them or fire them.

All of these leader’s all have quick-wits and sense of humors and he’s friendly with all of them. which could kill him with the Tea Party. The next handshake with President Obama, could cost Speaker Ryan his speakership. Senator Robert Bennet, who at the time at least was one of the most conservative members of Congress, lost his Senate seat in a Republican primary in 2010. Because he was caught shaking hands with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. They’re all going to take shots at his beard, at least in private. And with Mitch McConnell, those shots might actually come from a gun. He’s from Guntucky after all.

I believe one of the things that Paul Ryan has going for him is that he comes off as real and as someone who Joe and Mary Average can relate to. He comes from a Midwestern Irish-Catholic background, who needed student loans to get through college. Whose had a government job most of his working life. This is not someone who comes off as being better than everyone else who feels he has something to prove. He’s someone who has worked very hard to get where he is, because he’s had too.

Unlike, gee I don’t know, just throwing out a name here, but try George W. Bush. (Just to use as an example) And the Speaker’s beard to me as it does for a lot of guys who aren’t lumberjacks, or rednecks, or bikers, or cowboys, headbangers, football players, it just looks phony to me. And someone who looks like they want to be someone else. Paul Ryan, should be Paul Ryan. A very bright Irish-Catholic guy from Wisconsin whose gotten to the highest point in Congress by being Paul Ryan. Not by trying to convince people he’s someone other than Paul Ryan. 

TIME Magazine: Senator Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of The Marriage Business Altogether

Source: TIME Magazine- U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R, Ken.

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Senator Paul on this, as far as government getting out of marriage, at least as far as deciding who and who can’t get married in the United States. If this were always the case, or at least in the last 10-15 years, we wouldn’t see all of those homophobic same-sex marriage bans all across the country. And we wouldn’t need states passing laws and ballot measures legalizing same-sex marriage in their state, because it would already be legal in their state.

When government puts people in different classes and says class a, should be treated better than class b, even though class a has no special considerations under the law that makes them more worthy than class b, or any other class, they’re violating the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. Why, because they would be giving one class of Americans special rights and treatment over another. And just because they prefer that class of people over another one. Gays, have the right to get married to their willing partners in America, just as much as straights do, just because they’re American and of age. Which is all that they need.

So that’s where I disagree with Senator Paul here. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t redefine anything here. Pre-2003 or so, there wasn’t any official government position of marriage. And sure, the Religious-Right can up until the last ten years or so say marriage was always between a man and a women. But that wasn’t government law. Just how the society conducted itself. 20-30, years ago, gays were still in the closet. They were just trying to survive in a world where they were outsiders. And they were worried about if they were going to get fired if their sexuality was discovered, or would they lose their home. Would they lose their straight friends, would their family disown them. Not if they could marry their girlfriend or boyfriend.

And Senator Paul, can make the Chief Justice John Roberts argument that this Supreme Court decision hurts American democracy and our democratic principles all they want to. But it’s not the Left that is constantly reminding Americans that we live in a republic, not a democracy. The Right does that and this is an example where our system and form of government can hurt their political goals. We live in a Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have basic fundamental human and individual, as well as constitutional rights, simply as Americans, that we can’t lose at the ballot box. Gays, aren’t getting special treatment under the law with this Supreme Court decision. Just their basic fundamental human, individual and constitutional rights as American citizens.
Source:CNN

Politico Magazine: Tom Keane: Elizabeth Warren Meets The Ted Kennedy Myth

Source:POLITICO Magazine- U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Source:The New Democrat

We should be really careful to comparing people who are very new to elected office like Senator Elizabeth Warren, just elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, after never holding a seat in Congress before, or ever in elected office, to one of the political giants in American history. Like Ted Kennedy who was a giant as a U.S. Senator regardless of party, who was one the few members of Congress who really knew how to make it work. What it took to pass a bill in the Senate. The Democrats he would be able to count on and the Republicans he would need to work with to get the bill out of the Senate. And then the people he would need to work with in the House, again in both parties to get the bill out of Congress. Once the Senate and House pass their bills. And then what would it take to get the President to pass the final legislation.

Senator Kennedy could be as partisan as anyone in Congress and in Washington or in the country. But again he knew how the institution, especially the Senate worked and what to say and what not to say in order to get his bills passed. Right now, Senator Warren is a flame thrower. Someone whose great at getting her partisan arguments out and her people behind her and getting and keeping her name in the public eye. But after little over two years in the Senate, not much to show for herself as a legislature. What they have in common, they use similar partisan rhetoric for Republican special interests and perhaps the Republican Party in general. What they also have in common, is that they both don’t tend to attack Republicans personally. But concentrate on their policies. Which is very uncommon in todays hyper-partisan Congress.

All I’m really saying here is that Senator Kennedy and Senator Warren are different in their approaches. They use similar rhetoric, but Ted Kennedy was in the Senate to legislate. He was a legislature for public service before anything. Which is why he was so good at it because he spent so much time on it and knew how to work with people. Especially people who tended to disagree with him, like Senator Orrin Hatch. And use his Irish wit and charm to make people feel good, but also to see how likable he was. Senator Warren right now at least to me sounds like a political activist who also happens to be a U.S. Senator. But who seems more interested in fighting the good fight. Even if that means gridlock gets continued. Instead of working with the other side even to make policies as good as they can be.

Brookings Institution: E.J. Dionne: A Conversation With House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Source:Brookings Institution talking to U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

Source:The New Democrat

Infrastructure investment, a national energy policy, education and job training for our low-skilled adults and low-income students, immigration reform and expanding trade to sell more American products oversees as they are built in this country, this is how you not only increase economic security for middle class Americans, but also expand the middle class in America. Educating Americans and putting them to work with good jobs that not only allows for them to pay their bills, but put money away and joy life in America.

You can talk about all sorts of government social programs to help people in poverty, but without a strong and expanding American middle class who are the real job creators in America because of the economic growth that they drive with their consumer spending, you won’t have the resources needed to pay for those social programs that you want. You can only tax so much and tax people who have money to tax. The larger the middle and even upper classes in America that you have, the more people with more money you have to do the things that we need government to do.

Infrastructure, energy, immigration, education and job training for our low-skilled adult population so they can get themselves good jobs that puts them in the middle class and even upper middle class, education reform so low-income students aren’t trapped in failing schools simply because of their zip code, that is you expand and strengthen the middle class in America. By freeing people up to be free and live their American dream and not need government to take care of them. This is the economic agenda that President Obama has pushed and that Leader Pelosi and her House Democratic Caucus should back as well. And a lot of them already do.

Senator Elizabeth Warren: The New Populism is a Fight For America's Values

Source:Americas Future- U.S. Senate Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Source:The New Democrat

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren at the New Populism Conference

"Thank you, Bob Borosage and Roger Hickey for all your hard work, for inviting me here today, and for featuring my book, “A Fighting Chance.”
I wrote this book out of gratitude – gratitude to my parents who worked so hard and had so little. And gratitude for an America that gave a kid like me a fighting chance.

I’m told you’ve spent much of the day talking about populism – about the power of the people to make change in this country. This is something I believe in deeply.
In 2009, I was fighting hard for a new consumer agency that would level the playing field for families, by preventing the big banks from pushing people into loading up on credit cards and mortgages with tricks and traps. As you probably remember, the big banks hated the idea. For over a year, they spent more than $1 million dollars a day lobbying Congress to stop financial reforms.

But we were able to fight back. We were able to fight back because people like you – along with people across the country – said: we’re in this fight, too.
And because the people were with us, we won that fight.

And it matters. That little agency has been up and running for only a couple of years, but already it has forced the largest financial institutions in this country to return more than $3 billion to people they cheated. That’s how we can make government work for people!
Our uphill, against-the-odds, can’t-win battle for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasn’t unique. In every fight to build opportunity in this country, in every fight to level the playing field, in every fight for working families, the path has been steep.

Throughout our history, powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. From tax policy to retirement security, the voices of hard-working people get drowned out by powerful industries and well-financed front groups. Those with power fight to make sure that every rule tilts in their favor. Everyone else just gets left behind.

Just look at the big banks. They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the six biggest banks are 37 percent bigger than they were in 2008. They still swagger through Washington, blocking reforms and pushing around agencies. A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank breaks the law on laundering drug money or manipulating currency, and no one even gets arrested. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!

But it isn’t just the big banks. Look at the choices the Federal government makes: Our college kids are getting crushed by student loan debt. We need to rebuild our roads and bridges and upgrade our power grids. We need more investment in medical research and scientific research. But instead of building a future, this country is bleeding billions of dollars in tax loopholes and subsidies that go to rich and profitable corporations. Many Fortune 500 companies, profitable companies, pay zero in taxes. Billionaires get so many tax loopholes that they pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. But they have lobbyists – and their Republican friends – to protect every loophole and every privilege. The game is rigged – and it’s not right!

Or take a look at what’s happening with trade deals.
For big corporations, trade agreement time is like Christmas morning. They can get special gifts they could never pass through Congress out in public. Because it’s a trade deal, the negotiations are secret and the big corporations can do their work behind closed doors. We’ve seen what happens here at home when our trading partners around the world are allowed to ignore workers rights and environmental rules. From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters, and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the upcoming trade deals in their favor.

Why are trade deals secret? I’ve heard the supporters of these deals actually say that they have to be secret because if the American people knew what was going on, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people – people whose jobs are at stake, small business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day – those people, those people without an army of lobbyists – would be opposed. I believe that if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not happen.

The tilt in the playing field is everywhere. When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunities for the rich to get richer, for the powerful to get more powerful. They don’t mean opportunities for a young person facing $100,000 in student loan debt to start a life, for someone out of work to get back on his feet, for someone who worked hard all her life to retire with dignity.
The game is rigged. The rich and the powerful have lobbyists, lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. Everyone else, not so much.

Now we can whine about it. We can whimper. Or we can fight back. Me? I’m fighting back.
This is a fight over economics, over privilege, over power. But deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their age-old principle: “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”
But we’re guided by principle, too. It’s a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future.

We know that the economy grows when hard-working families have the opportunity to improve their lives. We know that the country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. We know that our lives improve when we care for our neighbors and help build a future not just for some of our kids – but for all of our kids.

These are progressive values. These are America’s values.
These values play out every day. These values are what we’re willing to fight for.
We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.

We believe no one should work full-time and live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe people should retire with dignity, and that means strengthening Social Security – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe that a kid should have a chance to go to college without getting crushed by debt – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe workers have a right to come together, to bargain together and to rebuild America’s middle class – and we’re willing to fight for it.

We believe in equal pay for equal work – and we’re willing to fight for it.
We believe equal means equal, and that’s true in the workplace and in marriage, true for all our families – and we’re winning that fight right now.
We – the people – decide the future of this country.
These are our shared values. And we are willing to fight for them.
This is our fight!"

The New Democrat

Seems to me at least that today's Progressives need a New Populism because the old FDR progressive wing of the Democratic Party seems to be dying off and disappearing and even moving left of the FDR/LBJ progressive wing of the party. And instead of being that mainstream progressive wing instead is doing all it can t live up to the negative Democratic stereotypes of being against everything that a solid of majority of Americans support. And being in favor of a lot of things that a solid of majority of Americans opposed.

During the FDR and LBJ years President Roosevelt and President Johnson didn't seek to end American capitalism and create some type of socialist superstate. Or eliminate personal responsibility, or seek to end law enforcement and our military. The opposite was true and they were in favor of all of those things. What they wanted however was for freedom economic and otherwise at least in Lyndon Johnson's case to work for all Americans. And for none of us to have to live in poverty. Or live without personal freedom, but have a real shot at making it in American and living in freedom.

Today's so-called Progressives want to go further than the means-tested safety net. And create a society where all Americans regardless of income would live off of the central state. Instead of having the independence to take care of ourselves even if we can. Which is why the Dennis Kucinich's, Ralph Nader's and in 2016 Bernie Sanders never have any shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president because they want to create a Federal Government so big that most Americans wouldn't be willing to pay for it.

What the progressive movement in America needs is for the real Progressives to stand up and reclaim that FDR/LBJ vision of progressivism and America. That is not about using government to replace freedom, capitalism and personal responsibility. But say we believe that government can be used as one tool that could help Americans achieve all of those things for themselves. Not run their lives for them, but to see that all Americans have the opportunity to live well in America.

They get back to that and someone like a Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination for president and even be elected president. Because Americans would see that Democrat as not someone who wants government to run our lives for us. But use government as a tool to help people who are struggling to be able to make it on their own in America. And someone like that could do very well politically in this country.
Source:Americas Future

U.S. Representative Jim McDermott: Affordable Care Act

Source:U.S. Representative Jim McDermott- talking about the House Republicans 37th attempt in 3 years, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. (Also known as ObamaCare)

"Rep. McDermott on Republicans' 37th Vote to Repeal the Affordable Care Act" 

From Representative Jim McDermott

You would generally have a better chance of seeing bird fly a real plane or win the Indianapolis 500 in a race car, then to see me agree with Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, Washington State on anything. Perhaps a January heat wave in Wisconsin or a blizzard in South Florida, happens more often than I agree with Representative Jim McDermott on anything. 

Not that I don't like Jim McDermott, because I actually do, because at the very least you always know what the man is thinking. Which makes him as special as the Cleveland Indians winning the World Series. That just doesn't happen very often in Congress (House or Senate) so when it does, you meed to give the member credit for it. 

My broader and more serious point here is (and yes, I have one) is that Jim McDermott is not just right here, but he's damn right. House Republicans made the whole 112th Congress about reducing the deficit and repealing the Affordable Care Act. They won on deficit reduction and I give them credit for that. But even the U.S. Supreme Court believes the ACA the law of the land. 

House Republicans didn't gain seats in 2012, they lost 8. The Republican Party didn't win back The White House in 2012, they lost it again. Not only that, but Senate Democrats not only held the Senate, but picked up 2 seats. So what's the point on voting to once again repeal the ACA, when you know the legislation will never even get out of Congress, let alone get to The White House? 

MSNBC: ‘U.S. Senator Jon Tester Backs Marriage Equality’

Source:NBC News- U.S. Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana)

“The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this.

The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this afternoon:

“Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.”

There are 55 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, and according to Time magazine’s count, 45 of them have now publicly announced their support for marriage equality. That’s obviously short of 100%, but given the recent push, unanimity appears inevitable.

It’s worth noting that Tester is a “red”-state Democrat who was narrowly re-elected last year, as was Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who also endorsed marriage equality the other day. Some other recent announcements have come from “red”-state Democrats — Virginia’s Mark Warner and Alaska’s Mark Begich — who announced their support for same-sex marriage before their re-election fights in 2014.”

From MSNBC

This is not actually that surprising, if you are familiar with the State of Montana. Montana gets stereotyped (especially by left-wing Democrats) as a hillbilly, backwards, right-wing, redneck state. And sure, there are folks like that in the State of Montana. But in actuality, Montana matches up very well with the other Mountain West and Northwest states in the country, as a more center-right, conservative-libertarian state. Where Democrats (if they’re not left-wing) get elected statewide there on a fairly regular basis. Just not at the presidential level. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Associated Press: 'U.S. Senator Richard Lugar Loses Indiana GOP Primary to Tea Party Foe'

Source:Associated Press- 6th term U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (Republican, Indiana)

"U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar was ousted Tuesday by a tea party-backed challenger in Indiana's Republican primary, abruptly ending his nearly four-decade career as one of Indiana's best-known and popular politicians." 

From the Associated Press

Jan Shakowsky: 'Announces Bill to Create 2.2 Million Jobs'

Source:U.S. Representative Jan Shakowsky (Democrat, Illinois) talking about her jobs plan.

"Representative Jan Schakowsky talks about her new Jobs Bill which will hire two million Americans to address our jobs crisis." 

From Jan Shakowski 

The so-called House Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists of America, in actuality) developed a similar plan back in the April during the official House debate on the budget. That got around forty votes in a 435 Member House, which should give you a pretty good idea of how many people voted against it. Not all of the forty-five members or so of the so-called Progressive Caucus in the House voted for it, they weren't even united behind their own plan. 

The CPC plan back in April also had a tax hike of over 1T$ in it including on the middle class when they can least afford it in this bad economy. Where they are struggling just to pay their current bills, so a new tax bill doesn't make that any easier. 

I'll give Representative Jan Shakowski credit for not putting in a middle class tax hike in her latest plan. But her jobs plan is essentially centered around creating new Federal Government jobs, creating all of these new Federal agencies to go out and hire all of these new people to do these public works. And have very little if anything to create jobs in the private sector thats hurting right now, people who actually have to meet payrolls and live within budgets or risk going out of business. 

The private sector is not like the Federal Government that controls the national currency and can just borrow and spend to pay for its operations, because they can print money. Had Representative Schakowski's (great name by the way especially for someone from Chicago, but thats a different story) had her plan been centered around fixing and expanding infrastructure in America, then I would have a lot more respect for it. 

And then we also need tax cuts to encourage consumer spending which is where the real weakness in our economy economic growth (or the lack of it) because not enough people in America are spending enough money for us to have enough economic growth to create enough jobs to bring down our unemployment rate. 

The debt and deficit are big issues in the economy today as well because they relate to the weakness of our dollar with all the money we owe other nations, but without a strong economy, we'll never be able to bring down our debt and deficit to the point where we can manage it in a healthy way.

A solid economic plan to me is in the neighborhood of around 1-2T$ over five years thats centered around infrastructure, like a National Infrastructure Bank that I've mentioned and pushed before that I'll being doing again in the future. That repairs and builds roads, bridges, airports, waterways, schools, etc. With kids going back to school in the next few weeks, now would be a perfect time to spend 50B$ or so right now on fixing and building new schools.

A NIB could finance all of these projects through the private sector and then hire private companies to do the work and then they would hire the workers to do the work. As well as focusing on our consumer spending (or the lack of it) with tax cuts for the middle class to do that, like a payroll tax cut or a consumer tax credit, a tax credit that people would have to spend automatically and make it big enough to make a difference. 

And then passing the Central America, Columbia and Korea trade deals that are stuck in Congress, so we can start exporting again. But then pay for this entire plan and not put it on the national debt card.

What we need right now as a country more than anything else and we need a lot, is job growth where we are creating around 200K jobs a month again. And the only way to do this is through economic growth of around 4-5%. And to do this we need start building and exporting things again. And as people we need to start spending money again, not expanding the Federal Government.

Mike Stark: 'James Clyburn- On Deficit Commission, Means-Testing Social Security'

 

Source:Mike Stark- House Majority Whip James Clyburn, talking about Social Security.

"The number three Democrat in the US House of Representatives is widely perceived as being fairly liberal.  Here he says he has confidence in the President's deficit commission, does not believe that a Value-Added Tax is on the table and that social security should be means tested." 

From Mike Stark

Jim Clyburn who's one of the members of Congress in both the House and Senate that I respect the most in both party's, has this exactly right: Democratic Socialists in Congress and around the country should jump all over this potential deal. 

Means-testing for Social Security and Medicare and reforming it in a way for people who actually need it, meaning wealthy people paying more into Social Security and collecting less if anything and giving more benefits to the retirees who actually need Social Security income to pay their bills, making the program more of a Welfare Insurance program for the people who actually need it and eliminating early retiree income for high-earners as well, would save Social Security and Medicare.

We should also be reforming Medicare in a way that reforms it for the people who need it by increasing Medicare taxes on high-earners and having them pay more in premiums. In exchange Democrats would get an excise tax on millionaires as well as substantial, somewhere in the ballpark of 70-100B$ a year in defense cuts. 

Conservative Republicans are already on board for defense cuts and some of them are already on board tax hikes, but they would probably have to start at around a million dollars a year, not 250K$. They would probably also need tax reform including corporate tax reform, that eliminates tax loopholes and lowers rates. 

This for me would be a grand bargain for Democrats and their left-wing (if not Far-Left) base, because they would get a millionaires tax and serious defense cuts. Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, but not in a way that hurts anyone who needs it but helps us get our deficit and debt under control. 

Anyone who's truly interesting in moving the debt ceiling as well as the broader deficit and debt issue past us, so we can concentrate mostly on the economy again and bringing our troops home, should take this deal. Anyone who just wants this issue to fire up their base will of course say no. 

President Obama wants to make this deal, I believe House Speaker Boehner wants to make this deal and I believe Senate Leader Reid wants to make this deal. 

If people on Social Security and Medicare who need those programs aren't hurt by it, which they wouldn't be and then he could sell the deal to the Senate Democratic Caucus. The question is will the fringe bases in both party's allow the deal to happen or not.