John McCain

The 99% Seek a Just Economy, Not Just an Economy

Leo Gerard — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:05:03 -0400

Republicans jammed together a mess of old, failed and vague schemes and called it a jobs bill. Sen. John McCain conceded the reason for the rehash: “Part of it is in response to the president saying we don’t have a proposal.”

They still don’t. This despite the fact that they promised voters during their campaign to take control of the U.S. House one year ago that they’d create jobs. That they’d focus on jobs. That nothing was more important to them than jobs.

Now, what they’ve offered instead of actual jobs is a polyglot of GOP talking points. It’s certainly no vision to move the country forward. It’s a plot to set the country back – to repeal the health care law that will soon help provide coverage for the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance, to rescind the Wall Street reform law designed to prevent another financial sector-caused meltdown, and to thwart regulations, like those that stopped distribution of listeria-infected cantaloupe that killed 25.

GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio called the Republican polyglot a “pro-growth proposal to create the environment for jobs.” It is, in fact, a pro-business proposal to permit corporations to destroy the environment for humans.

It is another GOP ploy to appease, accommodate and absolve corporations. It is another GOP ruse to firmly establish in America an economy designed for, dedicated to and directed by corporations rather than a just economy controlled by and beneficial to the 99 percent.

Republicans offered up their “Jobs Through Growth Act” mishmash after the GOP minority in the Senate wielded the filibuster again to block a vote on President Obama’s $447 billion American Jobs Act, a measure that even Republican economists determined would create 1.9 million jobs and reduce the nation’s aching 9.1 percent unemployment by as much as 1 percent.

The Republican measure, by contrast, could hurt the economy, according to Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Analytics, an independent firm whose chief economist advised the McCain presidential campaign. Here is what Faucher said:

“Should we look at regulations and make sure they make sense from a cost benefit standpoint? Certainly. Should we reduce the budget deficit over the long run? Certainly. But in the short term, demand is weak, businesses aren’t hiring, and consumers aren’t spending. That’s the cause of the current weakness, and Republican Senate proposals aren’t going to address that in the short term. In fact, they could be harmful in the short run if the focus is on cutting spending.”

Of all the Republican proposals, the most insidious, the most dangerous, the absolutely most outrageous is their demand to roll back Wall Street reform, to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed in an attempt to prevent recurrence of the 2008 financial collapse that destroyed the U.S. economy and caused the highest levels of foreclosures, unemployment and misery among the 99 percent since the Great Depression.

Go back, the Republicans are saying. Go back to 2007 when Wall Street financiers sold worthless mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting investors, contending with a straight face that these were assets. Go back to 2008 when these firms made hundreds of millions betting those securities would fail. Go back to 2009 when the banksters, bailed out by taxpayers, awarded billions in bonuses to the executives who’d gotten the firms and the U.S. economy into so much trouble. Go back to early 2010, the Republicans are saying, before Obama signed the Dodd-Frank reform act, and allow Wall Street to do it all over again. Reprise unfettered, irresponsible Wall Street, the Republicans demand.

For Republicans, it’s all about enforcing freedom for the few – allowing corporations and millionaires to do whatever they want. No matter what that means to the freedoms of the 99 percent. The GOP demand for repeal of health care reform is another example of that. Already, this law has expanded health coverage for a million young adults because it allows them to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26. It has also helped 1.2 million senior citizens afford their prescription drugs by beginning to close the “donut hole” during which they must pay.

Still, Republicans want to get rid of that law. They want to regress to those free-for-all days when health insurance corporations could make unlimited profits from illness, deny coverage to those with chronic illnesses and terminate coverage when policy holders got sick. They want those young adults dropped. They want senior citizens to pay more for their prescriptions again. For Republicans, it’s all about enforcing freedom for the few – allowing health insurance corporations to do whatever they want. No matter what that means to the freedoms of the 99 percent.

The Republican rebuke of any attempt to control the 1 percent is highlighted in their “jobs bill” by its call for a regulation moratorium. No new rules! The country is in the midst of the deadliest outbreak of foodborne illness in 25 years. Twenty-five people are dead. A total of 125 people in 26 states have been sickened by listeria-poisoned cantaloupe from Jensen Farms in Holly, Colo. One sickened woman suffered a miscarriage. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says more illnesses and deaths may occur over the next several weeks.

If the Republicans got their way, the FDA would be unable to write new regulations to prevent another such incident. It’s fine with the GOP that Jensen had hired its own inspector, a firm that certified the Jensen packing plant fine and dandy just before listeria-tainted cantaloupes killed 25 and just before the FDA found numerous, obvious violations.

That’s because the Republican precept is: an economy just for the 1 percent.

Bipartisan Senators Indict Wall Street, Media Yawns. Six Guys Push Stale Deficit Hype, Media Goes Wild

Richard Eskow — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:57:04 -0400

It should have been the lead story from coast to coast: A bipartisan panel of senators, including some of that body's most conservative members, released a damning report that slammed bankers, regulators and ratings agencies—and they made it clear that they'd like to see warrants issued against the CEO of Goldman Sachs and other financial executives.

This report was endorsed by all of its Republican members, including conservative co-chair Tom Coburn and Tea Party Senator Rand Paul. Hey, editors, how's this for a headline? "Libs and Tea Party Senators demand: 'Bring me the head of Goldman Sachs.'"

Now that's what I call news!

The media responded with a collective yawn.

Last week also saw yet more coverage of the relentlessly publicity-grubbing "Gang of Six." It's hard to imagine a more stale story. The Gang's just the latest in a series of right-leaning groups that throw a few persuadable Democrats in with Republicans, label them 'bipartisan' or even 'centrist,' then start issuing calls for a conservative agenda that cuts entitlements and keeps taxes low for the wealthy. We've seen that story a thousand times, both in general and specifically about these six senators. What's more, the Democratic Gang members have been bypassed by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, so a few more interviews with this over-exposed crowd aren't exactly "man bites dog" stuff.

Guess which story got more coverage? A Google News search on "Gang of Six" yielded 4,600 hits this morning, while a search on "Levin Coburn" came up with only 180 hits. And coverage of the Gang of Six continues to be overwhelmingly (and falsely) flattering. Reporters continue to cite the Gang's inaccurate talking points, which were generated in think tanks and crafted by marketers, as if they were Holy Writ. But the exhaustively researched Levin/Coburn Report was treated as if it were empty senatorial bluster.

The coverage of these two stories tells us all we need to know about the media's negative effect on the political process. Sloppy journalism doesn't just cheapen our discourse. It changes the way that politicians govern, too.

Senators, like all politicians, thrive on favorable publicity. When a self-seeking initiative like the "Gang of Six" receives 25 times as much coverage—and much more positive coverage—than a detailed and comprehensive study like the Levin/Coburn Report, it affects senatorial behavior. And when truly bipartisan initiatives like Levin's and Coburn's are dismissed, while the phony bipartisanship of the Gang is celebrated, that sends a message to politicians who rely on independent voters.

The Levin/Coburn report really is newsworthy. These senators—Democrats and Republicans, liberals and die-hard conservatives—laid the blame for the financial crisis directly at the feet of Wall Street's executives, and they document a pattern of risky lending and fraudulent marketing by U.S. banks. They also placed the blame with regulators, who displayed both incompetence and a (sometimes embarrassing) subservience to Wall Street. The senators slammed the morally compromised, incompetent ratings agencies. The panel even called for more regulations.

That's right. Senators like Tom Coburn, John McCain, Rand Paul, and Scott Brown signed a report that includes such recommendations as "Narrow Proprietary Trading Exceptions" and "Design Strong Conflict of Interest Prohibitions." When four of the senate's most prominent Republicans, including Tea Party senators, endorse more regulation, that 's news.

And the panel didn't mince words. "Our investigation found a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest, and wrongdoing," said Democrat Levin. Republican Senator Coburn said: "Blame for this mess lies everywhere from federal regulators who cast a blind eye, Wall Street bankers who let greed run wild, and members of Congress who failed to provide oversight."

The panel made it clear they felt laws had been broken. Sen. Levin stated that they were referring several reports regarding Goldman Sachs executives, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on perjury and other charges. And the panel report includes a number of sentences like this one: "Federal regulators should review the (investment banking) activities described in this Report to identify any violations of law."

That's incendiary stuff. But, as the Columbia Journalism Review reports, the story was downplayed by major media outlets and its major findings were softened. The Wall Street Journal placed the story in section C1, and falsely claimed that the report "lacked evidence of outright fraud." Sen. Levin's call to investigate Goldman executives was described this way: "Sen. Levin said Wednesday that he believed some Goldman executives may have misled Congress during a committee hearing in April 2010. He didn't specify how."

Actually, he did specify how. And how did The New York Times, the nation's "paper of record," handle this story? An otherwise excellent story failed to mention it altogether.

Other outlets either didn't cover the story at all or, like the Journal, buried it deep in the bowels of their back sections. Contrast that with some of the recent headlines about the Gang of Six and their mediocre work:

Senators Boast New Deficit Reduction Plan Will 'Make Everybody Mad'‎ - Fox News
Alan Simpson: 'Pray for Gang of Six'‎ - Wall Street Journal
'Gang of Six' hopes to spur bipartisan action on deficit‎ - USA Today
Gang of Six plan in demand - Congress.org
Who They Are & Why They Matter: Senators Work Behind Closed Doors On Bipartisan Debt Reduction Deal - ABC News

Coverage like that explains a lot. Sen. Dick Durbin has been heroic on banking reform issues, especially debit card reform. Last week he laid a mighty smackdown on overrated bank CEO Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, who has led the charge to roll back bank regulations and return us to the pre-2008 days of uncontrolled misbehavior by too-big-to-fail banks. That confrontation brought Durbin almost no publicity. But his Gang membership has provided him with fawning coverage from coast to coast.

Is it any wonder that Sen. Durbin's reluctant to leave the Gang and devote more time to combating Wall Street?

The Times story on the Levin/Coburn report was co-written by Gretchen Morgenson, who created a stir last week by asking the burning and critical question: Where are the prosecutions for Wall Street crime? Morgenson's a nonpartisan journalist at the pinnacle of her profession, and she's asking the same question that being asked by senators as politically diverse as Carl Levin, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, John McCain, and Scott Brown. Their report should increase the pressure on the Justice Department to reverse its shameful refusal to enforce the law when rich bankers are the perps.

But with coverage like this, it's more likely that we'll see unnecessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare instead.

__________________________________

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Before He Cuts Social Security, I Hope the President Listens To This "Obama" Guy

Richard Eskow — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:13:47 -0500

In an open letter to the President this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders mentioned "worriesome reports" that the President is planning to cut Social Security. These reports don't come out of the blue. They're the culmination of a months-long campaign. The White House has been privately signalling for months that it was leaning in that direction, and now the sky over Washington is darkening with trial balloons floating up from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Before you make such a disastrous and unwarranted move, Mr. President, there's someone I think you should meet. Actually, you may have run into him before: He's a skinny guy with an keen analytical mind and a gift for brilliant oratory. Sound familiar? He ran for President last time around, and he had some very sensible things to say about Social Security:

As you can see in this video, Presidential candidate Barack Obama opposed exactly the kind of cuts that are being discussed now by the White House. Candidate Obama pointed out that John McCain had indicated he would cut retirement benefits, either by raising the retirement age or slowing down the cost of living (COLA) adjustments, and responded unequivocally. "Let me be clear," the Candidate said. "I will not do either." That statement is admirable for its clarity and forthrightness - so much so, in fact, that it bears repeating:

"Let me be clear. I will not do either."

The Candidate showed a genuine command of the topic, and clearly understood what actuaries and others with specialized knowledge of the topic had been saying for years: that raising the cap on payroll tax deductions - or perhaps applying it to income above $250,000 - would remove any long-term concerns about the program's solvency.

In 2008 the public has just weathered a nerve-rattling attempt by Republicans to 'privatize' and cut Social Security, and it had survived an Administration that was openly run by lobbyists and special interests. Recently their trust in government has been shaken by the appointment of a series of right-leaning business figures to this Administration. Candidate Obama promised a different kind of government - and he pledged to defend Social Security.

Lobbyists have been hard at work trying to destroy Social Security ever since that election, and now they see their opportunity. The Chamber of Commerce, which the President is scheduled to address on February 5, continues to press for Social Security cuts and privatization. And the President's own Deficit Commission was stacked with a number of people in the past or present employ of Pete Peterson, a billionaire who has made Social Security cuts a lifelong passion. Peterson has quite a few people in Washington lobbying for his point of view (some of them have economics degrees).

But that's not who Barack Obama was elected to represent. The President was elected to represent the New Silent Majority, that vast number of Americans who have seen nobody in Washington fighting for them. Three out of four Americans want the government to do more to crack down on Wall Street, so the President's recent appointments won't please them. Are they about to discover that the President's pledge to protect their old-age financial security is being broken?

Our latest polls show that eight out of ten Americans oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit. That includes 78% of independents, 82% of Republicans, and 74% of Tea Party supporters. That's worth repeating: The President may be on the verge of adopting a position that's too right wing for the Tea Party.

Our polling page also details the Democratic Party's plunging support among seniors. That's a fifteen-year trend that has accelerated under President Obama (the gap has widened from 8% to 21%). Wonder how candidate Barack Obama would have performed with this age group, with his straightforward position on this issue?

It would have seemed unthinkable in 2008 that Democrats could lose their lead over Republicans on the question, "Which party do you trust on Social Security?" Yet the figures are clear: The President and his party have lost the public's trust on this issue. "Trust" is a profound and delicate relationship. If you make an unequivocal promise, and then start equivocating as soon as you're in a position to meet your commitment, trust will fade away like dew on the White House lawn.

But it's not too late. The President can still stand up for Social Security in his State of the Union address, repeating the sensible (and financially accurate) comments of Harry Reid. Reid was absolutely right when he said that the "arithmetic" for Social Security was sound. There are reams of actuarial and economic studies to confirm that comment. Reid was eqully correct to say that Social Security cuts are "something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government." (The President may feel that such a comment isn't "civil discourse," but I don't feel it's very civil to frighten people needlessly for political reasons.)

The Candidate was right: We can protect Social Security benefits - which are too low, if anything - and fix future financial problems (scheduled to occur in 2037) by raising the cap. That would be smart policy and smart politics. It would also send the message that Candidate Obama and President Obama are one and the same person - a person who keeps his promises.

I'm sure his advisors are telling him that he must cut Social Security, even though it's politically unwise and fiscally unnecessary. Before he does, I hope the President will take the time to listen to Candidate Obama. I think he'll find that he's a pretty impressive guy. We certainly thought so; we elected him.

The President might want to give special attention to the words spoken by that candidate when he declared his intention to run for President, on a winter's day in Springfield just three years ago:

"Too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own."

The President we elected will stand up and defend Social Security in his State of the Union address. We're hoping to see him there.

________________________________________________

This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Give Mayors a Role in the Obama Administration

Harry Moroz — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:58:28 -0400

This year's presidential campaign has not involved the "urban decline" rhetoric that rallied politicians - and policymakers - to the cause of cities in the mid 1960s and late 1970s. Instead, as Alex MacGillis pointed out in Sunday's WaPo, Senator Obama

"has adopted the framing increasingly favored by many mayors and urban-policy types - promoting America's cities based on their strengths, not their failings."

This framing involves a slight shift of perspective from urban cores to metro areas. In many ways, this optimistic view of cities as nestled within metros (which aren't as politically, or racially, charged as cities) is productive. Economics backs up the sunny view, as MacGillis notes, with the majority of the nation's GDP generated and of its population and jobs located in metro areas.

But the champions of the metro perspective fail to defend the political relationship - the partnership - that is necessary between the federal government and cities. In interviewing mayors from cities across the country, I have consistently heard that cities will not truly prosper until mayors are provided more substantive opportunities to influence federal policy. This influence would extend beyond calls for more funds for the CDBG and COPS programs to provide mayors and other parochial officials occasions to highlight model local policies and coordinate with state officers and, indeed, with other officials inside their metro area.

Mayors have already joined together in ad hoc groups to meet Kyoto Protocol targets and in official organizations like the Conference of Mayors, but they have little formal means to influence federal policy. If mayors are heard at all, they are heard to be begging for money; if they receive money, they often receive too little or are constrained in its use. Providing mayors a platform for influence, exchange, and coordination -similar to Senator Obama's White House Office of Urban Policy - would capitalize on the economic power of metro areas while restoring urban policy to its proper place in national discourse. At its best, this would mean strengthening the power and authority of mayors at the federal level--something that Obama's transition team should embrace.

In today's WSJ, June Kronholz points out that few mayors become president. They have often been overlooked when they should be empowered. Today, mayors nationwide overwhelmingly want the next presidential administration to reverse that trend.
A recent interview DMI's MayorTV did with Mayor Dannel Malloy of Stamford, CT explores the much-needed political partnership between cities and the federal government. Check it out.

For similar video interviews, visit MayorTV.

Meet Joe the REAL Plumber

Tula Connell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:36:16 -0400

Sen. John McCain, meet Joe the plumber. Unlike Samuel Wurzelbacher, Joe’s given name is…Joe.

And, unlike Wurzelbacher, he’s a licensed plumber.

Joe Moenck, a plumber in Zumbrota, Minn., is a member of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters (UA) Local 6—which, like all building and construction trades unions, has high professional standards for its members—such as making sure they hold a license to practice their craft.

Moenck was dismayed to see McCain repeatedly trot out “Joe the Plumber” during this week’s presidential debate with Sen. Barack Obama. Says Moenck:

I felt that when John McCain was talking about Joe the Plumber, I didn’t feel that that was sincere. He didn’t mention the middle class in the last two debates at all. It upset me that he brought this up strictly because he had to, because his ratings are low among the middle class. I don’t think he believes what he said, but he knows his support is low there and said that strictly for the ratings, as a campaign strategy.

When “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher met Obama in Toledo on Sunday, Wurzelbacher expressed concern about being taxed on earnings of $280,000 per year should he ever start a small plumbing business.

But, as Moenck can tell you, hard workers like him in the building trades aren’t paid anywhere near $250,000 a year. For Moenck—and even for Wurzelbacher, who right now makes far less than his dream salary—Obama’s tax plan would mean a decrease in taxes by more than $1,200 a year—more than under McCain’s tax plan. And should Wurzelbacher ever pull in $250,000, he’d only pay a few hundred dollars more in taxes under Obama’s plan. Not a deal-breaker for a guy thinking of starting a small business.

Wurzelbacher also has a bit of an agenda. He’s a member of the Associated Builders & Contractors, a nonunion trade group that has endorsed McCain.

So, in addition to Moenck, we’d like to introduce McCain to a few other real Joe the plumbers.

There’s Joe Gutzwiller, a licensed plumber in Indianapolis and member of UA Local 440. Gutzwiller shares a lot in common with Moenck, including seeing through McCain’s pretensions of support for America’s middle class.

I heard the one about health care, where McCain wants to tax our benefits, and I just think he’s looking out for bigger businesses and corporations leaving middle class people out of the whole picture.

I think Obama is actually trying to help out middle class people who are feeling the effect of our economy. From what I’ve seen in the debates, he’s trying to prevent future problems and give the middle class a tax break to help stimulate the economy.

And then there’s Joe Tatum in Virginia, who’s been a licensed plumber for 35 years after apprenticing with UA Local 10.

McCain thinks we make over $200,000. I don’t make anywhere close to that. If I did, I could retire now instead of waiting ’til I’m 62.

Over in Colorado, Joe Martinez, a plumber and member of UA Local 3, has this to say:

John McCain doesn’t understand working families and I don’t understand how any plumber can vote for John McCain. He’s just not in touch with the working man at all.

And there’s Joe Vicena, a member of UA Local 75 in Milwaukee, who sees McCain as continuing the same disastrous economic policies as George W. Bush.

Our jobs are being sent overseas, people are losing their pensions and their 401(k)s, and the stock market is tanking. We need change in a positive manner. McCain is not the person to do it. He is absolutely not the person. Me and my family can’t take four more minutes, much less four more years, of the missteps and mispolicies we’ve had the past eight.

Moenck, Gutzwiller, Tatum, Martinez and Vicena agree with their union that Obama is the best choice for America’s plumbers—and all middle-class workers—because, as under Bush, McCain’s economic policy would benefit the wealthiest and flush the rest of us down the tank. As Moenck puts it:

If the middle class doesn’t have money to call Joe the Plumber, Joe the Plumber’s not gonna be in business very long.

(This is a cross-post from the Firedoglake blog.)

Talking Cities: A Video Letter from the Nation's Mayors

Harry Moroz — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:45:09 -0400

As final preparations for the last presidential debate are made – water glasses weighed and secret memoranda consulted – both candidates have revamped their economic plans for the economic crisis now gripping the country.

McCain was uncertain, at first, about whether to release a revised plan. But even after deciding that certain “economic news and conditions” demanded such action, he seems to have omitted several critical elements from the proposal. No, if you were concerned, he remembered to include a cut in the capital gains tax. And yes, if you’re worried he was going soft, he will employ a surge strategy to prevent foreclosures.

What McCain forgot is perhaps less obvious, unless you’re Mayor Doherty of Scranton, Mayor Wilder of Richmond, or Mayor McLin of Dayton. Although the McCain-Palin team rallied recently in each of these cities – McCain even announced Palin’s vice presidential candidacy in Dayton – the Republican’s campaign seems not to have taken to heart their experiences in these swing state cities.

Indeed, the McCain-Palin ticket thrived off the rallies’ rabid crowds , but their economic recovery plan provides no aid for the struggling state and local, including city, governments that employ, provide benefits to, and protect the crowds. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio all face midyear FY2009 budget gaps and city governments are increasingly pessimistic about their economic health. This is just one more example of the McCain camp’s failure to address urban issues.

Tonight is the final opportunity that both candidates will have to demonstrate their understanding of the importance of cities. We’ve put together a short video to remind the candidates why cities matter:

McCain's Job Plan: Expensive, Jobs Lost

Armand Biroonak — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

John McCain's "Jobs for America" plan would cost $280 billion and create fewer than half a million jobs in 2009.

McCain Plan Adds Tax to Employer-Sponsored Health Care Benefits

Alexander Sewell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

McCain’s health plan will hit families with a huge new tax. Currently, employer-provided health care benefits are tax exempt, a longstanding policy that has saved families thousands of dollars and helped keep health care costs from spiraling out of control. McCain has promised to eliminate this tax break, a move that could add over $1,100 to the average family’s tax bill by 2013.

McCain Health Care Tax Places New Burden on Americans

Alexander Sewell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The tax credit McCain claims will offset this new burden would rise only at the rate of inflation—not the rate of health care costs, which grow much more quickly—so that by 2018 a family earning $40,000 a year will be paying $2,800 in higher taxes, even with McCain’s tax credit.

The Devil's in the Details: McCain Health Care Plan May Cause Americans to Lose Health Care

Alexander Sewell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The health care tax exemption does more than lower families’ tax burden; it also provides an incentive for businesses to offer health care benefits to their employees. Without the exemption, an estimated 11 million to 27 million people nationwide will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. In the hardest-hit states— New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut—as many as 1 in every 6 currently-insured workers would lose their health care coverage.