I would like to quickly introduce myself, my candidacy, and why I am running for Congress.
My singular professional goal is to create as much positive change as possible. This goal is what led me to join AmeriCorps and work to make the lives of impoverished Americans a little bit better. This goal is what led me to work on President Obama's campaign staff. This goal is what led me to pursue my Master's in Public Policy. And this goal is what leads me to run for Congress today.
I see a number of significant challenges looming on the horizon that will take true leadership- the leadership of people more concerned with making America's future brighter than poll numbers or re-election. Standard politicians who rise through the ranks in standard ways turn into standard, hypocritical, spineless, poll following politicians. I certainly have my faults and my deficits, but being a standard politician is not one of them.
These challenges we face as a nation are epitomized by the need to transform our energy sector. In this time of high unemployment, we most importantly need a green energy economy to create the jobs of today and tomorrow. However, the need for a green energy economy goes well beyond employment; in fact, it goes well beyond the vast environmental necessities. A green economy goes to our fundamental economic and national security needs (more on this in a later blog posting). We can change our reliance on foreign oil, and we can do it in a way that keeps more dollars at home, creates more jobs, and protects our single greatest asset- our ecosystem.
We also face a tremendous challenge in reinvigorating our education system. America pioneered public education, and it is a travesty that we now are in a position of looking up at much of the industrialized world. We need politicians who not only pay lip-service to education, but who will truly dedicate their time and effort towards improving the system because an investment in our country's children is an investment in our nation's future. Moreover, while improving the education system is the foundation to leveling the playing field and offering an opportunity to climb out of poverty, we also need to look at the larger community in which students are falling behind and how to revitalize these communities. This means investing in non-profits, alternative learning programs, and youth employment opportunities that help spark curiosity, confidence, and hope for a brighter future; because without hope, there is no desire for learning.
Another challenge that is looming increasingly large on the horizon is our national debt. Deficit reduction must be prioritized, and this means being unafraid of speaking truth to power (e.g., voters). This means saying yes we need to raise more revenue and yes we need to cut spending- including in the big three entitlement programs that are quickly driving our fiscal balance the way of Greece. I know that most politicians will say that you can never say such things to voters- you can never be so forthright, but I firmly believe that, if you treat voters with the respect they deserve they will reciprocate such respect at the voting booth.
However, to effectively accomplish any of these objectives (or any other for that matter), we first have to address the role of money in politics. It is the reform that makes all other reforms possible. The quid pro quo politics of privately funded elections skews our free market system toward wealthy entrenched interests, limits the opportunities for regular working people to hold elected office, and costs American taxpayers billions of dollars through paybacks to corporate donors via subsidies, no-bid contracts, pork, regulatory loopholes, and tax breaks. To get politicians to serve the public interest, we need public financing of elections.
I have a firm belief in the possibility for a brighter future, but we need government to work with this nation's great people instead of working against us. We need politicians with the backbone to stand up to special interests and politics of the moment to fight for our nation's long term prosperity. If the voters of Maryland give me the tremendous opportunity to serve and fight for you, I will do everything in my power to limit the influence of special interests, return power to the people, and ensure every child- no matter the circumstance they are born into- has as close to an equal opportunity to succeed in life as possible.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who will openly tell you he does whatever President Obama and Speaker Pelosi instruct, can bring the war escalation funding to the House floor despite the opposition of Appropriations Chairman David Obey. This is because the House passed the bill without the war escalation funding and sent it to the Senate, which has now sent it back to the House.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer spoke Tuesday morning in a large private room (the Columbus Room) at Union Station in Washington, D.C. and took questions. He had no answers for the questions I put to him.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday he's "hopeful" that Congress will reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid later this year, after lawmakers deal with contentious healthcare reform and energy bills.
"I'm hopeful this fall that we can focus on the entitlement issues," Hoyer said during a speech at a summit of fiscal health experts. "One of the reasons my being here today is to sort of set down a marker that we ought to be discussing that."(...)
Hoyer also told reporters that there was "no formal plan" to take on Social Security reform. "We're certainly not going to look other issues for August other than those two issues" of healthcare and energy," he said.
While there is "no formal plan" for Social Security reform, for the Democratic House Majority Leader to be speaking in these terms shows that there is real, and increasing, movement toward Social Security legislation. After the health care and energy fights later this year, Social Security and Medicare will probably be on the agenda for 2010.
Even though Social Security will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2042, this time around I think progressives should not take a completely opposition tack to engaging in Social Security "reform." Instead, we should be pushing to significantly raise, and eventually eliminate entirely, the wage cap on Social Security taxes. The reasons for this are three-fold:
It is popular: Back during the 2005 Social Security fight, the only changes to the system for which public polling consistently showed greater than 45% support was raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes. All three times the question was polled, it received 60%+, 2-1 support. It is the consensus solution among Americans at large.
President Obama campaigned on it: President Obama campaigned on raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes. As such, this is a position where we both have Presidential support, and where we can push President Obama to keep a campaign promise.
It would end "Social Security is going broke" talk forever: If the wage cap was not only raised, but eliminated entirely, and if the additional revenue generated from wages currently beyond the cap were applied to benefits in a means-tested manner, then Social Security would be solvent for centuries. (Note that the only mean-testing I am proposing is on wages currently beyond the cap, not on existing Social Security tax revenue.) In this way, we can achieve a permanent victory on Social Security, which is far preferable to having this argument flare up every five or ten years.
As such, rather than pushing the "there is no crisis" line ala 2005, we might be better off pushing for an elimination to the wage cap on Social Security taxes. It is popular, it has big-time institutional support, and it would give us long-term victory surpassing even what we achieved in 2005. Seems like the smart play to me.
"We're just educators and we provide an important function as an education function," Fenton said... He said he planned to give $5,000 to several of the new representatives.
And this is how corruption is accepted.
Rep.-elect Mark Schauer, who will represent the Battle Creek, Michigan, area, said he already had to raise a lot of money to win his election. He said he came to the event to meet people who could help educate him on issues.
"It's the policy side that we are going to need a lot of guidance -- especially this economic mess that we are in right now," Schauer said.
While there are a whole lot of annoying aspects of the article it does speak to the reality of life on Capitol Hill. John Dingell, Steny Hoyer, and coal king Nick Rahall hosted this "2008 Red to Blue New Member Debt Retirement Reception" honoring all twenty two freshmen. The invitation suggests that the lobbyists who attend should sign up "at levels ranging from a $20,000 "PAC Host" to a $2,500 "Individual Friend."" The article doesn't say which freshmen actually attended (an important detail!), but the self-rationalization here from both lobbyists and members is just kind of amazing. Here's more from Schauer, Hoyer, and our lobbyist friends.
The Senate, on its ninth try, finally passed legislation last night to extend a package of renewable energy tax credits. To get it done, Senate Democrats had to remove revenue-raising provisions to mollify GOP senators.
Today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the package wasn't good enough. The reasoning is the same as it always has been -- that the credits aren't offset by spending reductions elsewhere or a revenue increase -- but as Congress debates a $700 billion unpaid-for bailout, that case becomes hard to make
"While we applaud the Senate for acting yesterday and taking a step toward being fiscally responsible, their bill still falls short of the pay-as-you-go principle that House Democrats have insisted on. The House has already passed responsible legislation this year to extend expiring energy incentives and business tax credits," said Hoyer.
The Senate Democrats are being irresponsible. The Blue Dogs are being both dishonest and irresponsible. This bill would help move a few dollars to put up some windmills and solar panels. Maybe if they assured Congress that the electricity would only go to thieving wealthy pricks Congress would pass it.
I'm breaking out the pink tie. Serious times, y'all.
Here's Steny being Steny, the money quote being "One of the things we have to deal with is the extraordinary failure of this administration to protect the Constitution." And then, in explaining how Republicans can eviscerate the Constitution, he says, "They rationalize. We all to some degree rationalize our philosophy based upon our objectives, the ends justify the means."
This is one of the key guys negotiating the bailout for us.
What's on your mind? And where are my damned pitchforks?
I just got back from a few events with various progressive groups, and a presser with Steny Hoyer. I don't get the sense that the Democratic Party members understand just how much rage is out there against these fuckers on Wall Street. I keep telling members about BuyMyShitPile.com, and they love it. Hoyer looked shocked when I mentioned it, but the woman with him came up to me after the event and told me he thought it was great. "What just happened" is apparently what he said in the elevator leaving the event.
Hoyer was clear that Congress is going to cut a deal, though it may delay going home to campaign for as long as it takes. He set a soft deadline of Friday. There are still lots of caucus meetings, nothing firm. I'm getting the sense that Democrats don't realize just how much leverage they have in this; they are scared of armageddon, without understanding that the other side is in an incredibly weak political position. They need to be on TV with pitchforks.
One sort of hilarious rumor is that Blue Dogs John Tanner and Alan Boyd are 'having heartburn' at this deal but that they recognize the politics and will let it go through. Blue Dogs are perpetually upset at things they are voting for and they think that fiscal responsibility is a slogan rather than something that means making hard choices. To them, wars and bailouts are free and the deficits are the fault of liberals. A Blue Dog is someone who eats a lot of ice cream every day, insists he is on a diet, and blames a conspiracy for his weight gain.
Listening to them is like dating a guilt ridden sociopath who blames everyone else for their own actions. "Why are you making me so angry at you, honey?"
Fuck them. Anyone know where you can get a pitchfork in DC?
Every week or two I read another article in Roll Call, the Hill or the Politico on the increasing clout of the Blue Dog caucus. Today's came out in Roll Call, titled 'Blue Dogs' Bite Gets Stronger'. Anna Palmer's article opens with the sentence, "Blue Dogs get ready: The ranks of obsequious lobbyists looking to curry favor - and contribute to your war chest - is set to explode." The article also dubs Blue Dogs 'pro-business' and 'fiscally conservative'.
Since the 2006 elections, the Blue Dog political action committee has become one of the fastest growing, and is among the largest in Democratic leadership. Already it has nearly doubled its fundraising this cycle from the $1.2 million raised in 2006. This cycle, through the end of May, it had raised more than $2.2 million, according to CQ MoneyLine.
That puts it nearly on a par with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) AMERIPAC, which as of the end of April had raised more than $2.2 million.
"We've always been fairly successful with fundraising, even when we were in the minority," said Vickie Walling, chief of staff to Tennessee Rep. John Tanner, a founding member of the group.
Going on to the FEC site lets you see the truth about the Blue Dog PAC - 85% of its money - $1.95M - comes from conservative corporate interests. The list is pretty standard. Walmart, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast, US Chamber of Commerce, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. And Steny Hoyer's PAC - AmeriPAC - isn't much better. Roughly 65% of his money comes from PACs, most of them similar to the ones flooding the coffers of Blue Dogs - Raytheon, AT&T, Boeing, etc.
From Hoyer and the Blue Dog PAC the money spreads outward. Just check out the list of candidates and committees Hoyer supports, from the Congressional Black Caucus to conservatives like John Barrow, Al Wynn, Don Cazayoux, Larry Kissell, Brad Ellsworth, and the Blue Dogs to progressives like John Hall, Dennis Schulman, Jim Himes, and Darcy Burner.
Now don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the people that Hoyer gives to, which is the point. We've endorsed some of them on our Better Democrats page. It's just important to note that much of the capital funding the Democratic Party is corporate PAC money, sluiced through figures such as Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dog caucus.
This has real consequences, for the business community. Check out the roll call for the net neutrality amendment that went down to defeat in 2006, 269-152. Blue Dogs voted against it, by and large, which is not so much pro-business as it is pro-telecom and cable industry and anti-technology and innovation. Or if you look at the people protecting the large tax credits for oil and gas, just check out the Blue Dog caucus and you'll find a good number in there. And telecom immunity matters deeply to businesses that don't break the law.
The sluicing funds within the Democratic Party represent relationships that make it really easy to go along with the status quo. They are at their heart network systems, dense thickets built to withstand change. I'm really quite excited about some new mapping tools I saw at Personal Democracy Forum which will help us understand just how dense the networks are, on all sides.
I know this is a crushing defeat. But damn if this doesn't make me proud of the netroots again. For awhile there the primary fight was gut wrenching in many regards. But here everyone is again, firing on all cylinders against the very people they helped elect.
Note to anyone who espouses the ridiculous idea that "both extremes are the same" in any form: What did the Republican base do when their Majority leader was actually indicted for multiple felonies? What did they do when their Speaker was found covering up for a Republican known to make advances on teenage boys? What did they do when their President's rationale for war proved untrue, then proved to have been known to be untrue? They stood by them. Tooth and nail. Clearly there are some core principles at stake on the left, lines people will not cross even for people they really like.
I don't like losing these fights any more than any of you, but I am proud of the response. We are fighting the fights that need fighting and I don't imagine we will have any regrets about this. Chris thought we might be approaching peak "I told you so" but I think we just found some new reserves yesterday.
Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Barack Obama, the leaders of our party, all took essentially the same position on the final FISA capitulation, which essentially boils down to 'it's not my responsibility to stop this horrible mess.' Whether it was Hoyer pushing the compromise, Pelosi encouraging him and calling it an improvement on the original FISA legislation, or Obama's radio silence when a word to Hoyer could have stopped this train in its tracks, this is the basic attitude that the Democratic leadership has had towards the Bush administration in general, even after winning in 2006. It's the attitude on display in 2007 during the war capitulation vote, during the Energy bill fight when Hoyer stuck billions in nuclear subsidies into an Appropriations bill, on net neutrality, on FISA in August, 2007, on impeachment, on military contractors, on Congressional subpoenas, on global warming, on immigration, on torture, on Federal budget priorities, and on basically every major policy issue that has come up this Congressional cycle.
(I'm going to send this when it hits 50 comments. - promoted by Matt Stoller)
I was writing an email to Steny Hoyer's Chief of Staff to try to let him know how much rage there is out there about his boss's actions around capitulating on the FISA issue, but I realized that my words are probably less powerful than yours. I'm just one person, so he has no reason to believe me except as someone engaged in hyperbole around a contentious issue.
So instead, please put your comments about FISA and Hoyer in this thread, and I will send it onward. Please keep in mind that this will be sent to Hoyer's office, so I will delete off-topic or especially rude comments. If you support Hoyer, let him know that. If not, let him know that. And if you are a donor or volunteer for Democrats who won in 2006, mention it, as that will help him understand why he should consider listening.
House and Senate negotiators are on the verge of striking an accord on a contentious overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), several aides said Friday.
The development comes after a Thursday meeting with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Bush administration officials, according to two aides.
Even assuming that Hoyer was strongly opposed to immunity (a dubious assumption), being the only one in that crowd is not likely to lead to a no-immunity outcome.
The game is clearly to provide de facto immunity without spelling it out explicitly in a de jure manner. That's actually a victory of sorts, since Republicans put great stock in not just winning on issues, but ritual humiliation of Democrats.
The Hill, CQ and FireDogLake will spell it out inside...
STATE BLOGS
