tagged w/ Super Committee
-
-
Mark Bittman has provided the ultimate Thanksgiving guide for anyone interested in making our broken food system work again. His exhaustive list of the 25 people or groups for which he is most thankful is a must-read.* It starts with nutritionist and food system reform pioneer Marion Nestle and ends with "anyone who's started a small farm in the last five years, and anyone who's supported one; anyone who cooks, and especially anyone who teaches others to cook." That covers a good portion of Grist readers, I'd like to point out. So good on all of you, too. Heaven knows, I'm thankful for you.
In the glass-half-full spirit, I thought I'd take a moment to point out some recent news developments for which we should also all be thankful.
The collapse of the deficit supercommittee
There are, no doubt, many reasons to be thankful for this. After all, we can cut our national debt by $7.1 trillion by doing absolutely nothing, so it's not clear why we need a bunch of old men sitting in a room to come up with ways to cut less by performing all sorts of budgeting gymnastics. But, more to the point, it also follows that no deal in the supercommittee means no Secret Farm Bill. Or at least it means that reformers might still get a chance to weigh in on farm policy, in hopes of moving it away from large, wealthy corporate farms and towards farms who need and better deserve the support.
The Secret Farm Bill, which is no longer a secret thanks to the Environmental Working Group, won't be entirely scrapped, I'm afraid. But at least it will probably move back to the more open House and Senate Committee process and will likely require a standalone vote from the full Congress. That fact alone may turn back the most egregious elements of Big Ag's attempted raid on the treasury. A more public process may ensure that such brilliant maneuvers as cutting the subsidy criteria from $1 million all the way down to $950,000 might be seen as the accounting tricks they truly are. That eligibility cut was admittedly a fiendishly clever move on the part of farm state representatives. After all, "No farm subsidies to nine-hundred-fifty-thousandaires" doesn't have quite the ring that "No farm subsidies to millionaires" does.
Marion Nestle does a nice job of summarizing the contents of the Secret Farm Bill, which will likely form the basis of the 2012 Farm Bill, warts and all. At least reformers know what they're up against.
More at the linkMark Bittman has provided the ultimate Thanksgiving guide for anyone interested in... more
-
-
No, `both sides’ aren’t equally to blame for supercommittee failure
By Greg Sargent
Here’s why the supercommittee is failing, in one sentence: Democrats wanted the rich to pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction, and Republicans wanted the rich to pay less in taxes towards deficit reduction.
Any news outlet that doesn’t convey this basic fact to readers and viewers with total clarity is obscuring, rather than illuminating, what actually happened here.
I agree with those who have argued that supercommittee failure doesn’t really matter all that much, and that the obsession with the deficit is itself misguided and makes solutions to the actual crisis at hand — unemployment — far less likely to happen.
But since the press is going to be obsessing over the supercommittee’s failure for days to come, and since we will be inundated with reams of bogus false equivalence reporting about it, it’s worth stating as clearly as possible what really transpired.
And so: Any news outlet that doesn’t leave readers and viewers with an absolutely clear sense that the primary sticking point was over whether the rich should see their contribution to deficit reduction increase or decrease is letting down its customers.
You can dig this basic conclusion out of multiple news reports, but you have to try very hard to do it. The problem is that readers and viewers emerging from the cloud of fingerpointing and confused reporting risk coming away with the impression that both sides made roughly equivalent concessions, but just couldn’t meet in the middle, when this isn’t what happened at all.
For instance, the New York Times’s epic account gives you the truth of what happened in paragraphs 25-28:
A potential breakthrough occurred in a meeting in the Capitol late on the night of Nov. 7, when Republicans, led by [Pat] Toomey, offered a $1.2 trillion package that included $300 billion of new tax revenue. It was the first time Republicans had shown themselves open to significant amounts of new taxes.
But as Democrats studied the proposal, they found much to criticize. The proposal would have permanently reduced tax rates for all taxpayers, and Democrats objected, in particular, to lowering the rates paid by the most affluent Americans.
This is when the patient seemed to take a turn for the worse.
In the eyes of Republicans, when Democrats rejected the Toomey plan, saying it would provide a windfall for millionaires and billionaires, little more could be accomplished.
And this is only half the story. The GOP plan offered by Toomey would have exchanged increased revenues through the closing of loopholes and deductions in exchange for tax reform that would have cut all tax rates, but would have locked down the tax rate for top earners at 28 percent. This is the “concession” the GOP offered.
But in truth, what the GOP proposal would have really meant is that that the wealthy would pay less in taxes towards deficit reduction than they would if we just did nothing, i.e., let the Bush tax cuts expire, as stipulated by current law. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, this not only would have taken further tax increases on the wealthy completely off the table in future deficit reduction talks; the cutting of tax rates across the board would also have disproportionately benefitted the wealthy.
GOP aides themselves told the Times (see the bolded portion above) that when Dems said No to this, because it would reduce what millionaires and billionaires would pay towards deficit reduction, little more could be accomplished. So again: One side wanted the rich to pay less towards deficit reduction; the other wanted the rich to pay more towards it. This is the difference that doomed the agreement.
Also: As Steve Benen notes, GOP Senator Jon Kyl effectively admitted that the GOP offer of new revenues didn’t amount to any kind of real tax increase, even if he didn’t mean to.
Let’s allow that the GOP offer was a concession, in the sense that the original Republican position was that any and all revenues of any kind would be an automatic nonstarter. And let’s compare it with the concessions Democrats proposed to make. Both of the Dem offers were roughly split evenly between tax increases and spending cuts. In other words, both Dem offers involved both sides making concessions of roughly the same size.
This is the primary difference in a nutshell: The Dem offer involved both sides making roughly equivalent concessions; the GOP offer didn’t. The main GOP concession — the additional revenues — would have come in exchange for Dems giving ground on two major fronts: On cuts to entitlements, and on making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Putting aside whether the supercommittee failure matters at all, it’s plainly true that one side was willing to concede far more than the other to make a deal possible. And anyone who pretends otherwise is just part of the problem.
By Greg Sargent | 08:21 AM ET, 11/21/2011
Here's Kyl's inadvertant admission of their desire to not raise taxes on the wealthy:
“If you really want to get serious about the deficit, our country has to grow economically. We have to put people back to work. That’s what creates wealth that can be taxed. We’re not going to tax our way out of this, we need to grow. And you can’t grow if you raise taxes in the middle of a recession. That’s what President Obama said when, when unemployment was at 9 percent a few months ago. He said don’t raise taxes in a recession. And he’s right. That impairs job creation by taking more money from the very people, primarily small business folks, who will create most of the jobs coming out of the recession.”No, `both sides’ aren’t equally to blame for supercommittee failure
By... more
-
-
There was never any reason to think that giving and inordinate amount of power to a subset of Congress split between the two parties would somehow solve the partisan dispute over whether or not to raise taxes. So it’s not surprising to read that with just a few days left before their deadline, discussions have turned to how to announce their failure:There was never any reason to think that giving and inordinate amount of power to a... more
-
-
WASHINGTON -- As the Nov 23 deadline draws near, the Super Committee members are hanging their heads in shame. None of the twelve members have outwardly admitted absolute failure, but in reality, says one anonymous congressional intern, no deal will be reached.
The intern also mentioned that the Super Committee members had collectively thrown their hands into the air and determined that they'd failed their country, and the citizens of the greatest country in the world.
"Basically what they decided," he said, "is that they're going to kill themselves. No other deal would be more suitable to the American public. It's the only way, and each of the twelve members agrees. In their pursuit of serving only their party and its immediate interests, they have failed the people of this nation. That's what they said, and they'll leave the more official statement in their suicide note."
Despite the spokesman's grim announcement, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said, "I don't think there's failure yet. I believe that the elements of a deal -- probably not as big as some of us would like -- are still there." The intern alluded to Becerra's statement by saying, "A couple of the committee members have made allusions to the making of a smaller deal, but that's just not going to happen. Time has run out. The members are disgraced. They have agreed on the best, final solution."
The intern admitted that the committee members were still hammering out the details as to how they would end their disgrace, but that they were "well on their way" to making an agreement by the 23rd. He guessed they would not take a messy or painful way out. "I'm sure they'll make it as painless as possible," he said.
http://deardirtyamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/super-committee-vows-to-kill-themselves.htmlWASHINGTON -- As the Nov 23 deadline draws near, the Super Committee members are... more
-
-
Here is something we all can agree on: Federal deficits are a serious problem.
Here is something no one seriously disputes: Today's big deficits were caused mainly by big tax cuts for the wealthy, two unpaid-for wars, a horrible recession caused by Wall Street greed, and an expensive prescription drug program rigged to favor pharmaceutical companies.
Here is something we should not agree to do: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
There is surprisingly broad consensus among Americans (except inside the corporate-dominated D.C. beltway) on what to do about deficits. In poll after poll, strong majorities favor making the wealthiest Americans, who, in many cases, have never had it so good, share the sacrifice and pay a little more in taxes. Increasing taxes on the wealthy is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and independents. A majority of Republicans and people in the Tea Party movement also support taxing millionaires to help bring down deficits. Even many millionaires say they should be paying higher taxes. At a time when many profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income taxes, there also is widespread support for closing corporate tax loopholes. Taking a hard look at mushrooming defense spending also enjoys widespread support.
For far too long, the Washington agenda has been set by powerful corporate interests and a right wing that do not represent the needs and aspirations of most Americans. For too long, the Democrats have gone along with Republican demands and caved in to these powerful special interests. The American people are frustrated and disgusted. They want Democrats to fight back.
As a Thanksgiving deadline nears for action by the powerful Super Committee on deficit reduction, I hope (but doubt) that Republicans will listen to the American people and support deficit reduction in a fair and responsible way. I hope (but doubt) that Democrats will not once again capitulate just for the sake of an agreement - but that's been the pattern.
In December -- when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House -- Congress and President Obama not only extended Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy but also gave new breaks to heirs of the super-rich.
In April -- with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats still in the majority in the Senate -- Republicans threatened to shut down the government and delay the processing of new Social Security benefits for senior citizens unless their demands were met. Democrats went along with $78 billion in cuts from the president's budget request.
In August, in an outrageous display of unprincipled gamesmanship, Republicans put the United States on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead of invoking clear 14th Amendment powers to honor our nation's debts, the president and most Democrats agreed to a $2.5 trillion deficit-reduction package.
That's how we got to where we are today.
Incredibly, throughout all of these negotiations -- in December, in April, in August and again today -- the wealthiest Americans and the country's major corporations have not yet been asked to contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. That is despite huge cuts in life-and-death programs for working families.
The American people have had it. The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing. A virtual popular uprising forced Bank of America to drop an unpopular $5 monthly debit card fee. On Election Day 2011, in Ohio and many other states the American people said NO to right-wing extremism and corporate greed.
The American people are very clear. They do not want Democrats to reach another 'grand bargain' with representatives of the rich and powerful that eviscerates the most successful and popular social programs in the history of this country. They want Democrats to stand up for the 99 percent, not the 1 percent.
If the president and Democrats on the super committee go along with cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the three pillars of the New Deal and the Great Society, and permanently extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent, the American people will shake their heads in disbelief. They will arrive at the reasonably valid conclusion that there are no significant differences between the two parties controlled by corporate interests.
More of Senator Sander's speech at the linkHere is something we all can agree on: Federal deficits are a serious problem.... more
-
-
The super-rich 1% have plunged us into a debt crisis by refusing to pay their fair share of taxes even as they strain the budget with wars, corporate welfare and bailouts. Now, the crisis they created is their excuse to force us to accept austerity measures.
Led by the Koch brothers and using the Tea Party as a front group, they succeeded in passing a bill that set up a Super Committee charged with drafting legislation by November 23 to slash $1.5 trillion from the federal budget.
If the Super Committee fails to produce a budget reduction plan or if the plan does not become law, spending will be lowered by $1.2 trillion, with $109.3 billion in cuts per year, half of which, $54.7 billion, comes from military spending and the other half from the rest of the budget. These cuts affect both mandatory and discretionary spending with proportionate cuts to both, but Social Security and Medicaid are protected while Medicare providers would see, at most, a two percent reduction in payments.
Why the Supercommittee Should Disband
Defense Contractors Pay Little To No Corporate Income Tax While Earning Billions
Fraudulent defense contractors paid $1 trillion
The dozen Super Committee members are the targets of countless corporate lobbyists and campaign donors working to protect defense contracts and industry subsidies while encouraging spending cuts and privatization for Food Stamps/SNAP, School Meals, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
In the last three months, the Farm Bureau and Biotech have spent $700,000 to influence the Super Committee and stave off cuts to direct payments for commodity producers (most are huge corporations growing Monsanto's genetically engineered crops) by gutting nutrition programs for hungry people.
If Congress had to put each of these deficit reduction measures to a vote, they would lose. Maintaining corporate welfare and tax breaks for the richest 1% by looting programs that serve the working poor and unemployed in a time of economic crisis isn't a good reelection strategy.
The Senate recently voted 84-15 to cut farm subsidies to anyone with an average income over $1 million. They voted 58 to 41 to defeat cuts to Food Stamps/SNAP.
The Super Committee process is designed to avoid votes like that. Congress will have to vote up or down on the debt reduction package without amendments or filibuster.
The Super Committee shuts down democracy. We need to shut down the Super Committee!
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation to do just that (H.R.3201). Here's her argument:
More at the linkThe super-rich 1% have plunged us into a debt crisis by refusing to pay their fair... more
-
-
Coming up on today’s show, we have David Waldman from Daily Kos back on the show to give us an update on the Super Congress.
We also have Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon back on the show to give us her take on the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal and the proposed insane Mississippi personhood amendment.
Plus we have an update on Rick Santorum’s war on condoms from none other than the Incredible Hulk.
And we have the world premiere of the trailer for Rick Perry: The Movie.
We’ll also be discussing updates at Occupy Oakland, the New York’s Post ridiculous attack on Occupy Wall Street, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker being confronted by protesters in Chicago.
Our writer/performers today are Josh Bolotsky and Bob Rok.
Remember, you can subscribe and podcast the show for free on iTunes and at www.matthewf.net. You can follow the show on Twitter and Facebook. You call the listener hotline at 617-855-TMFS. You can support the show by becoming a member. We have new shows every Tuesday and Thursday.
-Matt
For More info go to —> http://matthewf.net/ http://twitter.com/#!/MattFilipowicz and http://www.youtube.com/user/matthewmattmattComing up on today’s show, we have David Waldman from Daily Kos back on the show... more
-
-
Last week, we wrote about the likelihood that the $300 billion 2012 Farm Bill would take shape weeks before 2012 even begins, in the form of a dashed-off bill swept into the larger "super committee"-driven deficit-cutting process. As this week starts, that troubling prognosis remains.
In fact, last week, several congressional aides told agriculture trade publication Agweek that lawmakers planned to "work through the weekend to try to complete a Farm Bill proposal for the super committee in charge of deficit reduction by November 1." But so far, nothing decisive has been announced.
This might explain why the food and farming advocacy site Food Democracy Now sent out an email this morning with the subject line "24 hours to stop the Secret Farm Bill." The site asked subscribers to call a short list of senators and congressmen and tell them to say "‘No' to the Secret Farm Bill," because "rushing this vital piece of legislation behind closed doors is unfair and undemocratic."
Sustainable food advocates have been struggling to adjust to this new reality. As the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) described it last week:
No hearings, no amendments, no debate. Under this scenario, we may have very little idea about what is in the Farm Bill until after it has passed ... It's hard to overstate how messed up this is. We now have an environment where highly paid lobbyists thrive and citizen's voices, along with real reforms, evaporate.
Oxfam American chimed in with a list of reasons Occupy Wall Street supporters aren't likely to appreciate this rushed Farm Bill:
1. It was negotiated to satisfy high powered industry lobbies that pay lots of money to influence the Ag Committee.
2. It's a giveaway to big industrial farms at the expense of family farmers.
3. It promotes unhealthy, unsustainable farming practices at the expense of sustainable farming.
4. It targets conservation and nutrition programs for cuts disproportionately.
The bill's details remain unclear, but we know it will involve $23 billion in cuts. One Republican senator from Iowa went on record last week saying he believed the committee would cut $15 billion from farm subsidies and $4 billion each from conservation and nutrition. Another House conservative told the press that the cuts would "reduce farm subsidies about 20 percent and cut conservation spending about 10 percent. Nutrition programs, including food stamps, would be cut about 1 percent."
Advocates for sustainable and local food movements have rushed out two bills of their own, to be included in the larger Farm Bill process. The Local and Regional Food Bill would bolster support for family farms, and "expand new farming opportunities and rural jobs, and invest in the local agriculture economy." The Beginning Farmer Bill would help new farmers get access to capital (the lack of which is a well-known roadblock for beginning farmers) using microloans, matched savings accounts, and similar strategies.
Whether these additions have a chance of passing, or are simply symbolic, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, California food, farming, conservation, and environmental groups have been lobbying hard to have some say in the proposed Farm Bill. But the state -- whose agricultural industry is said to produce more than 400 different crops, employ 800,000 people and generate annual revenues of $37.5 billion -- will most likely continue to be left out of the discussion. One reason is that California farms don't produce the bulk of those commodity crops -- like corn, soy, and wheat -- that farm bills tend to concentrate on.
More at the linkLast week, we wrote about the likelihood that the $300 billion 2012 Farm Bill would... more
-
-
No surprise, this Tuesday, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a., the "Supercommittee") is listening to all the normal Washington insiders talk about why Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of programs critically important to the American people must be sacrificed on the altar of deficit-reduction. What we have here is the one percent speaking to the one percent, recommending sacrifices from the ninety-nine percent
Yes, only the so-called "adults" have been invited to tell the Supercommittee why it's imperative that Congress cut Social Security, even though it adds not one penny to the deficit -- and these other vitally important programs to show the rate-setting agencies, the bond markets and Wall Street that Congress can enact unpopular reforms.No surprise, this Tuesday, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a.,... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
7 months ago
- |
-
Below is the proposal passed by the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on Wednesday October 26, 2011 in reclaimed Oscar Grant Plaza. 1607 people voted. 1484 voted in favor of the resolution, 77 abstained and 46 voted against it, passing the proposal at 96.9%. The General Assembly operates on a modified consensus process that passes proposals with 90% in favor and with abstaining votes removed from the final count.PROPOSAL:
We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.
We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.
All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.
While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.
The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.
The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday.Below is the proposal passed by the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on Wednesday... more
-
-
Congress announced plans this week to starve the goose that's laying the golden eggs--and the name of that goose is the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Fairy tale knowledge a little rusty? Here's a refresher: once upon a time, there was a government agency that returned about $87 to taxpayers for every dollar the government fed it. In the last year alone, this agency—the GAO—laid $50 billion in golden eggs. Well, that’s what the magical goose said anyway, so take those numbers with a grain of salt. Anyways, despite the bird’s best efforts, famine struck and the government had to find at least $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or else it was going to lose the farm to sequestration. But did Congress continue to feed this industrious egg-laying goose? Not exactly.
The Huffington Post reported this week that Congress has proposed slashing the GAO’s budget by about $50 million (the agency’s total budget is $557 million.) David Walker, who headed the GAO from 1998 to 2008, told the paper: “GAO generates one of the highest returns on investments of any governmental entity in the world, and that needs to be recognized.”
These cuts would also force the watchdog agency to consider layoffs, according to Government Executive. The president of a GAO’s Employees Organization, Ron La Due Lake, told the paper that both the agency and the union were concerned about the extent of potential cuts, and he “didn’t believe anyone was expecting it.”
According to the House Appropriations Committee, the cuts won’t substantially affect the work the office does. It wrote in a press release, “this funding level will allow the continuation of the essential work of the GAO to provide Congress with accurate reporting of how taxpayer dollars are spent, while cutting spending for additional hiring, travel, support contracts, and other lower-priority activities.”
But those working closely with financial oversight issues don’t necessarily agree. Sam Rosen-Amy, a federal fiscal policy analyst at OMB Watch, told POGO that GAO does a range of investigations no other government agency covers—like the recent in-depth report they did on transparency in the Recovery Act.
“I imagine with this budget cut you’ll lose $50 million worth of investigations. If Congress is really serious about streamlining the government and saving money, it should be increasing, not decreasing, the GAO budget and also listening to their recommendations,” said Rosen-Amy.
POGO’s Bryan Rahija pointed out earlier this year that in times of fiscal duress in particular, investing in oversight is ultimately “a boon for taxpayers.” Given that the GAO has demonstrated repeatedly that its earning potential far exceeds its investment requirements, it would be a shame for Congress to further strap the GAO’s resources.
After all, if Congress is anything like the Aesop Fable, “As the farmer grew rich, he grew greedy. Thinking to get at once all the gold the goose could give, the farmer killed it only to find—nothing.”Congress announced plans this week to starve the goose that's laying the golden... more
-
-
Quelle surprise! Bankers and financiers will be sitting pretty when the “Super Committee” decides where spending gets slashed over the next decade.
This just in: The folks at Maplight have released some disturbing numbers on who has been the most generous to the 12 members of the newly-formed Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, fondly known as the “Super Committee.”
http://maplight.org/content/72819
To recap, the Committee was formed by the last-minute debt ceiling increase deal reached by Congress and the Prez earlier this month. It’s comprised of the following Senators:
Pat Toomey (R-Pa.),
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Rob Portman (R-Ohio),
Patty Murray (D-Wash.),
John Kerry (D-Mass.),
Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
And Representatives:
Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas),
Fred Upton (R-Mich.),
Dave Camp (R-Mich.),
Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.),
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.),
Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.).
Maplight reports that the 10 biggest organization contributors (this includes PACs and Employees) to Super Committee Members are…
Club for Growth $990,066
Microsoft Corp. $810,100
University of California $629,495
Goldman Sachs $592,684
EMILY’s List $586,835
Citigroup Inc. $561,081
JPMorgan Chase & Co. $494,316
Bank of America $349,566
Skadden, Arps, et al. $347,356
General Electric $340,935
Hmm. Club for Growth, the biggest spender, is a rabid anti-tax and anti-government group boasting 9,000 members and dominated by Wall Street financiers and executives. And then we naturally find the big banks –the Goldmans, the Citigroups — filling out the list. Guess how these folks feel about paying their fair share in taxes?....
Continue Reading at:
http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/08/16/getting-what-you-pay-for-super-committees-super-close-ties-banking-finance-55088/?utm_source=New+Deal+2.0+newsletter&utm_campaign=7927f841b7-ND20_Weekly_8_18_118_17_2011&utm_medium=emailQuelle surprise! Bankers and financiers will be sitting pretty when the “Super... more
-
-
I guess McConnell and Boehner didn’t get the memo that this was to be a bi-partisian committee dedicated to finding real spending cuts, free from outside influence and political lobbying. Instead participating in good faith. Instead, all they have basically done is reinforce the brick wall with cinder block.
http://moderncirc.us/republicans-appoint-grover-norquist-puppets-to-super-committee/I guess McConnell and Boehner didn’t get the memo that this was to be a... more
-
-
Look at who the rethuglicans have appointed. Is Obama going to come out and say he expects them to raise revenue. If he does, I'll just scream.Look at who the rethuglicans have appointed. Is Obama going to come out and say he... more
-
