— by CAP Action War Room
The Omnibus Spending Bill And Tax Extenders Package Contain Significant Progressive Accomplishments
After weeks of negotiations, congressional leaders and the White House have agreed to a spending deal to fund the government through 2016. The omnibus spending bill and the tax extenders package still need final approval from the House and Senate. But with the release of the bill, all that’s left are the final votes, which are both expected tomorrow. There’s a lot to unpack in the 2,009-page bill, so we’ve broken it down into the good, the bad, and the fun.
- Permanent Renewals Of Earned Income Tax Credit And Child Tax Credit Expansions: Under the stimulus bill, the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit—two key programs that help keep millions of Americans out of poverty—were expanded until 2017. But the tax extenders package made the extensions permanent, a clear win for working families. Allowing these expansions to expire would have pushed 16 million Americans, including 8 million children, into or deeper into poverty.
- Wind and Solar Tax Credit Extension: Renewable energy was also a winner in this year’s budget deal, thanks to a five-year extension of the solar Investment Tax Credit and the wind Production Tax Credit. Solar accounts for 1 in 78 new jobs in the country, and the solar Investment Tax Credit has been a crucial driver in the growing industry. The increase of wind and solar capacity is seen as a critical way for the U.S. to meet its goals under the Clean Power Plan as well as its commitments under the new UN climate agreement.
- Accountability For Fast Food Chains: Congressional Republicans tried to block a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that makes large corporations like McDonald’s responsible for how their franchises treat workers. The ruling, which remained intact, may force McDonald’s and similar brands to take responsibility for workplace conditions. This could significantly improve the chances that workers can force change in the industry.
- Health Care For 9/11 First Responders: A health care bill for 9/11 first responders—brought to national attention thanks to the advocacy of Jon Stewart—was included in the year-end spending bill. The legislation was also included in the omnibus, only after 9/11 first responders made hundreds of advocacy trips to D.C.
- Investment In The Middle Class: The omnibus bill funds key investments in a number of areas to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy. These investments include education from early childhood through college, medical and science research, transportation infrastructure, and conservation. These investments were made possible by the recent budget deal, which reversed about 90 percent of the cuts sequestration would have made to nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2016.
- Defeat of Many Policy Riders: Congressional Republicans had a long wish list of inappropriate and nongermane partisan policy riders. Luckily, many failed, including riders that would have defunded Planned Parenthood, made it harder for Syrian refugees to come to the United States, blocked the Department of Labor from protecting retirees’ savings, and hindered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s ability to protect consumers.
- A Win For Big Oil: Unfortunately, lawmakers also handed a win to big oil. As a part of a broader energy package, including the wind and solar tax credit extensions, the 40-year-old crude oil export ban was lifted, meaning American crude oil can be shipped abroad for the first time since the 1970s. Lifting the ban has been a priority for the oil industry. Many environmental groups are concerned that the policy change could lead to more domestic drilling and the potential for additional pollution.
- Decreased Transparency In Money In Politics: Snuck into the 2,009-page omnibus bill are two sections that will only make the influence of money in politics worse. Section 735 would block the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to require companies that receive federal contracts to disclose their contributions to political organizations. And Section 127 will prohibit the IRS from formalizing proposed rules to reign in political groups who use the title of tax-exempt 501(c)(4) “social welfare” non-profits to avoid disclosing their funding.
- Bans On Gun Violence Research (Still): Public health, medical, and gun violence prevention advocates were unable to take out a rider known as the “Dickey amendment,” which effectively prevents the CDC and NIH from doing any research on gun violence. The provision was maintained despite the fact that former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), for whom the amendment is named, has since spoken out against the policy saying he regrets no research is being done. The good news is, despite the fact that the NRA spent more than $27 million to elect a Republican majority in the 2014 elections, several other gun lobby priority items failed to make it in.
- Budget Cuts For The IRS Enforcement Division: The budget deal cuts $25 million in funding for the IRS team that keeps people from evading their taxes. The IRS enforcement team has already experienced huge cuts, which limits its ability to save the government money through auditing returns and pursuing tax evaders.
- Sledding provision: The crude oil export ban wasn’t the only ban lifted as a part of the budget deal: In a big win for winter cheer, the sledding ban on Capitol Hill was also lifted, ending an official ban of 14 years.
BOTTOM LINE: Crisis averted? We’ll see tomorrow when the House has scheduled a vote on this ill-conceived budget. Congress has (almost) successfully avoided a government shutdown and agreed on a spending bill to fund the government for the next year. The deal is imperfect, but it is largely absent of highly partisan riders and funds key investments in a number of areas to strengthen the middle class and grow the economy.
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. ‘Like’ CAP Action on Facebook and ‘follow’ us on Twitter
Today, 275 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 1599, the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act. By voting for the DARK Act, these politicians (including all of Nevada’s GOP Representatives—Amodei, Hardy and Heck) voted AGAINST truth and transparency, AGAINST science, AGAINST your right to know, and AGAINST the more than century-old right of states to legislate on matters relating to food safety and labeling. If this bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, it will nullify laws in states like Maine, Connecticut and Vermont where currently, GMO products are required to be labeled as such.
They voted against the 90-percent of Americans who are in favor of mandatory labeling of GMOs. They voted against the producers of non-GMO foods. The voted against States’ Rights. They voted against you.
Whatever your views on GMOs, there is no Constitutional justification for the federal government to preempt state laws in this area. There certainly is no justification for Congress to preempt private sector efforts to meet consumer demands for non-GMO foods, while allowing those who support the use of GMOs to do so.
H.R. 1599 was sold to Congress via multi-million dollar public relations and lobbying campaigns built on lies and deception. Rumored to have been written by Monsanto themselves, the bill’s sole purpose is to support one industry—Monsanto’s poison-peddling industry—that was founded on lies and deception from the get-go. Monsanto—that same corporation who sold Agent Orange to our government as “safe” to use on our nation’s soldiers.
According to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Pompeo, the DARK Act gives consumers what they want: the means to know whether or not their food contains GMOs: “Consumers can choose to presume that all foods have GMO contents unless they are labeled or otherwise presented as non-GMO. Meaning that it is knowable and it is known by the public which products have GMO and which don’t.”
Government regulation should NOT be an iffy, maybe they will, maybe the won’t kind of thing. But, the DARK Act turns regulation upside down. It would create a VOLUNTARY, government-run non-GMO certification program. Unless every producer of non-GMO products pays to have those products certified as non-GMO, consumers will still have no way of knowing which products contain GMOs, and which don’t. And why should the burden of labeling fall on the producers of non-GMO foods, when the risk factor is associated with those foods that do contain GMOs?
Did our Congress members vote against us because they were fooled by Monsanto’s slick, deceitful packaging of this so-called “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act”? Or did they simply vote with their wallets, stuffed full of biotech and junk food industry cash?
We don’t know. Given the Citizens United ruling, we’ll probably never know. But we better know this: We can’t let this bill get through the U.S. Senate. We need to target Senator Heller and let him know this bill is unacceptable.
We’re one judge away from government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
By Jamie Raskin
Here’s a little quiz you won’t find on the LSATs: Which Supreme Court justice called a recent ruling by the court a “threat to American democracy”? And what decision was it?
A. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote it of the Citizens United decision, which armed corporations with the political free speech rights of human beings.
B. Justice Sonia Sotomayor included this phrase in her dissent to the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
C. Justice Elena Kagan said it while reflecting on the Bush v. Gore case, which shut down the counting of more than 100,000 ballots in Florida — handing George W. Bush his first presidential win.
D. Justice Antonin Scalia penned these words when he objected to the recent Obergefell ruling, which struck down marriage discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.
The answer is D.
I made up the rest, but they’d all be far more accurate than what Scalia said in real life.
It’s hard to think about the state of American democracy without pondering the Supreme Court. As the least democratic branch of the federal government, it’s always had outsized importance in shaping the opportunities for citizens to participate in our political institutions and social life.
At its best, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle of “one person-one vote,” struck down whites-only party primaries, and invalidated educational apartheid. It did those important things when less enlightened views might have been more popular.
At its worst, the court has upheld poll taxes and literacy tests, okayed restrictive photo ID requirements for voting, knocked the teeth out of the Voting Rights Act, and intervened in the 2000 election to stop vote counting.
For better or worse, the Supreme Court defines the rules of engagement of American politics. So what’s at stake in the 2016 presidential race?
A whole lot.
With several justices already over 80, the next president could nominate as many as four new members of the court. Will the new justices bolster the conservatives, who favor legislative power only when it violates minority rights, or the liberals, who have demonstrated a serious commitment both to voting rights and to the legislative process?
With the plutocratic Chief Justice John Roberts and Scalia leading the way, the conservatives pose as outraged populists regarding marriage equality. They pretend, ludicrously, that they don’t believe in the court reviewing and invalidating popularly enacted laws.
What a joke. The same justices have no problem with nullifying laws that implement affirmative action, produce majority-minority legislative districts, or exclude corporations from spending money in political campaigns.
These so-called conservatives strike down almost any law that curtails the power of corporations. They just don’t like the idea of equal protection and due process applying to people.
These same so-called conservative justices have some questionable ethcal issues as well:
- Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas attended Koch Brothers political functions at a time when the court was considering loosening limits on corporate campaign contributions.
- Justice Samuel Alito spoke at a fundraising dinner for the conservative American Spectator magazine, where tickets were sold for as much as $25,000 a plate.
- Justice Thomas failed to report his wife’s income from the Heritage Foundation, even as she lobbied against the Affordable Care Act while cases worked their way to the Supreme Court. He also failed to recuse himself from ACA-related cases despite a clear conflict of interest with his wife’s work.
But here’s the principal question facing the court for the foreseeable future: Who is the Constitution for? Is it for corporations, or the rest of us?
Right-wing forces want to scrap all limits on campaign spending and contributions. They want corporations to be treated as free speech actors in elections, but they don’t want workers to have any free speech rights in the workplace.
They also embrace elaborate photo ID requirements, narrow registration laws, and endless barriers to voting for communities of color and young voters.
If a future Republican president replaces even a single liberal justice with a conservative, we could wind up with a democracy of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. Regardless of Justice Scalia’s fantasies, this is the real threat to American democracy.
Jamie Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University, a Maryland state senator, and a Senior Fellow at People For the American Way. He is the author of Overruling Democracy: the Supreme Court v. the American People. Distributed via OtherWords.org
— by Sen. Bernie Sanders
When I read the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision, I had to ask myself a question: What democracy is Chief Justice John Roberts living in? Because it doesn’t look anything like ours.
In McCutcheon, just like in Citizens United, the Roberts majority of the Supreme Court essentially legalized corruption, first by corporations and now by super-wealthy individual donors. So, in John Roberts’ democracy, corporations are supposed to have the same rights as people and more influence on our government. And when a billionaire spends thousands of dollars on every Congressional race in the country, they’re not looking for anything in return, they’re just speaking their mind.
It’s absurd. When my friend Russ Feingold joined with John McCain and passed campaign-finance reform, they did it because huge, unlimited checks were corrupting our government. There was proof, and the Supreme Court agreed: When corporations call all the shots, that’s not democracy, that’s corruption. That’s allowing the billionaire class to buy elections.
But that was then. Today’s conservative court, in 5-4 votes, embraces corruption. That has to stop or this country will rapidly evolve into an oligarchic form of society where virtually all power rests in a handful of wealthy hands.
This matters to our middle class. The more corporate money is allowed to corrupt our government, the more elected officials are beholden to the rich and the powerful, the harder it becomes to win fights for working Americans. Corruption affects everything. Corruption makes it harder to pass an increase in the minimum wage, to expand Social Security benefits, to reverse climate change and to block the horrible trade deals that send jobs overseas. Corruption means letting Wall Street run wild.
So it’s important to talk about what specific contribution limits should be, or how much any one person should give, and how we keep corporate interests like the Koch brothers from pouring hundreds of millions into our elections. But before we do, we have to make sure the Supreme Court understands the most fundamental reason why we fight: saving our democracy from corruption.
I’m partnering with my friends at Progressives United, who have been on the front line of this fight, to tell the Supreme Court that corporate influence isn’t part of American democracy. It’s corruption. Please, join me today and tell the Supreme Court that we cannot allow the billionaire class to buy our elections!
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have announced they will issue initial guidance regarding qualification requirements for tax-exemption as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This proposed guidance defines the term “candidate-related political activity,” and would amend current regulations by indicating that the promotion of social welfare does not include this type of activity. The proposed guidance also seeks initial comments on other aspects of the qualification requirements, including what proportion of a 501(c)(4) organization’s activities must promote social welfare.
There are a number of steps in the regulatory process that must be taken before any final guidance can be issued. Given the significant public interest in these and related issues, Treasury and the IRS expect to receive a large number of comments. Treasury and the IRS are committed to carefully and comprehensively considering all of the comments received before issuing additional proposed guidance or final rules.
“This proposed guidance is a first critical step toward creating clear-cut definitions of political activity by tax-exempt social welfare organizations,” said Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Mark J. Mazur. “We are committed to getting this right before issuing final guidance that may affect a broad group of organizations. It will take time to work through the regulatory process and carefully consider all public feedback as we strive to ensure that the standards for tax-exemption are clear and can be applied consistently.”
“This is part of ongoing efforts within the IRS that are improving our work in the tax-exempt area,” said IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel. “Once final, this proposed guidance will continue moving us forward and provide clarity for this important segment of exempt organizations.”
Organizations may apply for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code if they operate to promote social welfare. The IRS currently applies a “facts and circumstances” test to determine whether an organization is engaged in political campaign activities that do not promote social welfare. Today’s proposed guidance would reduce the need to conduct fact-intensive inquiries by replacing this test with more definitive rules.
In defining the new term, “candidate-related political activity,” Treasury and the IRS drew upon existing definitions of political activity under federal and state campaign finance laws, other IRS provisions, as well as suggestions made in unsolicited public comments.
Under the proposed guidelines, candidate-related political activity includes:
- Communications that expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party.
- Communications that are made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.
- Communications expenditures that must be reported to the Federal Election Commission.
- Grants and Contributions
- Any contribution that is recognized under campaign finance law as a reportable contribution.
- Grants to section 527 political organizations and other tax-exempt organizations that conduct candidate-related political activities (note that a grantor can rely on a written certification from a grantee stating that it does not engage in, and will not use grant funds for, candidate-related political activity).
- Activities Closely Related to Elections or Candidates
- Voter registration drives and “get-out-the-vote” drives.
- Distribution of any material prepared by or on behalf of a candidate or by a section 527 political organization.
- Preparation or distribution of voter guides that refer to candidates (or, in a general election, to political parties).
- Holding an event within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) at which a candidate appears as part of the program.
These proposed rules reduce the need to conduct fact-intensive inquiries, including inquiries into whether activities or communications are neutral and unbiased.
Treasury and the IRS are planning to issue additional guidance that will address other issues relating to the standards for tax exemption under section 501(c)(4). In particular, there has been considerable public focus regarding the proportion of a section 501(c)(4) organization’s activities that must promote social welfare. Due to the importance of this aspect of the regulation, the proposed guidance requests initial comments on this issue. The proposed guidance also seeks comments regarding whether standards similar to those proposed today should be adopted to define the political activities that do not further the tax-exempt purposes of other tax-exempt organizations and to promote consistent definitions across the tax-exempt sector.
The assault on our democracy is a bigger problem than the temporary closure of national parks.
America’s best idea is in trouble, and I don’t mean our national parks. Yes, our parks were closed, which was a crushing disappointment for millions of would-be visitors and an economic gut-punch for neighboring communities — to the tune of $76 million dollars a day.
But what’s really under attack is something even older than our national park system: our democracy.
How did we reach a point where one fraction of one party that controls one chamber of Congress would drive our government into the ground if it doesn’t get everything its members want? ‘This shutdown is like a firefighter standing on the hose to stop the rest of the company from putting out a blaze until he gets a million-dollar raise — all while the building burns.
We didn’t get here by accident. It’s the result of a systematic attack on basic democratic principles by a handful of people who have no interest in a functioning democracy. While there is no excuse, there is an explanation.
It starts with big money. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for a tidal wave of corrupting corporate money into our system. But where is the money coming from and where is it going?
Huge amounts are from polluter-backed groups, which spent more than $270 million on television ads in just two months of the 2012 election — and that explains why Congress has taken more than 300 votes attacking clean air and water. The same people who are poisoning our democracy are also determined to poison our environment. It’s no surprise that 80 percent of Americans agree that political money is preventing our most important challenges from being addressed.
At the same time, special interest groups are spending millions to keep anyone who disagrees with them away from the polls and out of office. No sooner did the Supreme Court gut a key part of the Voting Rights Act, that state houses with Republican majorities pushed through suppressive legislation to keep young people, seniors, students, and people of color away from the polls. It’s no coincidence that those are the same citizens who have voted against them.
These challenges have led the Sierra Club to team up with the NAACP, Communications Workers of America, and Greenpeace to form the Democracy Initiative. Our goal is to build a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, prevent the manipulation and suppression of voters, and address other obstacles to significant reform.
Challenges to our democracy might get even worse. We’re fighting a frightening Supreme Court challenge to campaign finance limits that would allow individuals to write million dollar checks to buy influence, brought to the court by Shaun McCutcheon — a coal company CEO.
Only about 1,200 people came close to reaching the spending limits McCutcheon wants overturned — and a good number of them are oil, gas, and coal executives, from the sectors that directly contributed $40 million in 2012. Give them free rein to write whatever size of a check they want, and we’ll see that number skyrocket.
The faster that money pours in, the quicker the voices of ordinary Americans are drowned out. We can’t let that happen. And we won’t. They may have millions of dollars, but we have millions of people. And, thanks to efforts like the Democracy Initiative, we are organizing and coming together to make sure our voices are heard.
If we want to see more shutdowns and debt crises, then we should maintain the status quo. If we want more attacks on our air, water, and climate, then all we need to do is turn away in disgust at the political posturing. But if we want to restore a democracy that works for Americans and will preserve a healthy planet for future generations, it’s time to stand up and fight back.
Michael Brune is the executive director of the Sierra Club, the largest grassroots environmental organization in the United States. SierraClub.org. Image courtesy of Oil Change International. Distributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org)
Help make the money in politics more transparent. Please sign this petition to ensure 501c4 organizations must devote their efforts “exclusively” to social welfare. That would force organizations like FreedomWorks, Crossroads, CrossroadsGPS, and yes, OFA (Organizing For America into tax-exempt categories where their donor contributions would need to be disclosed. No longer would they be able to say they’re “social welfare organizations” that do relatively nothing to promote “social welfare” but do pretty much everything to promote an ideological political agenda.
Currently, at whitehouse.gov, there is a petition on the We the People page titled:
The replacement by the IRS of the word “exclusively” in the original and still-extant pre-1959 501 c (4) statute, with the word “primarily” in the procedural ‘regulation’ manual,simply put, violates the law. At whatever cost to those who have ridden this loophole to the absolute corruption of our political system by money, the original wording of “exclusively social welfare” needs to be enforced.
As I write this post, that petition at whitehouse.gov has only 16,104 signatures. That means it needs 83,896 more signatures for President Obama to make good on his promise to address any petition which garners 100,000 signatures. I’m not sure that President Obama can actually take that action via Executive Order, or whether, since it’s an IRS Regulation, it would have to go through the process by which regulations are updated/changed, but needless to say, if nothing else we could force the President to force the IRS to amend their regulation and properly administer the long-standing statute.
If you don’t already have a logon for whitehouse.gov, you’ll need to create one so you can sign the petition (that’s how they ensure one person can’t sign a single petition thousands of times). But, PLEASE sign this petition!
After you’ve signed the petition, if you have a Facebook or Twitter account, make sure you share a link to your friends and followers. We can do this! It’s time to put some integrity back into our politics and finally know where all those campaign dollars are coming from.
— by Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary for President Bill Clinton
The Supreme Court, which hears oral arguments today and tomorrow on same-sex marriage, has become the nation’s de facto decider of social policy. The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, whose monetary policy is pumping $83 billion into the economy every month to keep long-term interest rates down, has become the nation’s de facto decider of economic policy. And the Department of Defense, now in the twelfth year of an undeclared war on terror, has become the nation’s de facto decider of foreign policy. As politics becomes inundated with big money and paralyzed by partisanship, key government functions are being parceled out to entities having little or no accountability to the public, and whose decisions are far removed from public scrutiny. Future historians may well ask: What happened to American democracy?
Whatever issue you may be most concerned about — climate change, widening inequality, declining real median wages, rising poverty among the young, the soaring costs of healthcare, bailouts for Wall Street, the sprawling military-industrial-congressional complex, the morality brigade that wants to dictate who can marry and whether a woman has control over her body, a government captured by corporations and the wealthy — nothing can be done until we get big money out of politics and reclaim our democracy. It is the first step to all reform. It’s difficult, it’s frustrating, it’s not sexy — but it’s a necessity.
And where do we begin on this arduous task? How do we choose between getting behind a constitutional amendment to reverse “Citizen’s United,” or public financing of major federal and state elections, or requiring all media using public airwaves or cables to provide free advertising to candidates, or fighting against gerrymandering at the state level? What’s most important? All of it, and more. When I’m not spouting off about the problems of our economy and democracy I chair a citizen’s group called “Common Cause,” which is leading the charge on these issues nationally and in many states. At the very least, I urge you to join up and get involved. (I’ll provide you with the link in the next post, in a moment.) Complaining is easy, and it may be even therapeutic. Rolling up your sleeves and doing something about all this is much harder — but, in my view, the most important thing you can do as a citizen.
- Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United (progressillinois.com)
- Citizens United Constitutional Amendment (Huffington Post)
- Overturning Citizens United: Is a Constitutional Amendment the Best Path to Limit Dark Money? (Democracy Now)
- Review of Constitutional Amendments Proposed in Response to Citizens’ United (League of Women Voters)
- Five Constitutional Amendments That Could Overturn Citizens United – How Are They Different? (International Business Times)
GOP Report Shows Party is Out of Touch With Americans on Threats to Democracy: Money in Politics and Voter Suppression
The Republican National Committee released a report on Monday reviewing its losses in the 2012 election cycle and laying out a roadmap for the future of the party. People For the American Way Vice President Marge Baker released the following statement:
“This report highlights what we already knew: that the Republican party is out of touch with America. Instead of addressing the party’s anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-worker policies that voters resoundingly rejected in 2012, today’s report calls for a complete gutting of campaign finance reform – in essence calling for even more big money to be poured into our elections. If the Republican party were listening to Americans, they would know that the country supports finding systemic solutions to the problem of unregulated money in our political system. The answer is certainly not to gut the regulations we already have in place. Instead, we need to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC and related cases so that we can create more effective regulations to get big money out of our democracy.
“The GOP report’s recommendations on voting rights also underscore a continuing focus on keeping certain voters from the polls. After an election cycle overflowing with examples of discriminatory voter suppression efforts aimed at historically disenfranchised communities, the report recommends an ongoing focus on so-called ‘ballot security training initiatives.’ This is simply another phrase for the same voter intimidation tactics used in the name of preventing supposed ‘voter fraud.’ It’s baffling that the GOP thinks it can improve its image with people of color while still working to block their access to the ballot box.
“This report is yet another example that the GOP’s ‘soul-searching’ hasn’t gotten them very far. It’s time to refocus our efforts on getting the big money out of elections and the voters into the voting booth.”
Ready to go?
Just exactly how much lipstick have they purchased? Maybeline and Revlon combined couldn’t make enough lipstick to take care of that pachyderm.
Yesterday— the Republican National Committee released its wide-ranging “autopsy” report called the “Growth And Opportunity Project Report.” In it, the party admits to several shortcomings that contributed to the party’s wide losses in the 2012 election. A portion of the report includes market research from voter focus groups around the country. Not surprisingly, when asked to describe Republicans, respondents said that the party was “scary,” “narrow-minded,” “out of touch,” and full of “stuffy old men.” What’s most interesting is that the report failed to quantify just how out of touch their party has become on a number of issues, from climate change, to marriage equality, to universal background checks, to women’s rights, to the minimum wage, and more.
The GOP thinks they merely have a messaging problem … and just need to change a few words they used to talk about things. HAH! Now that’s a joke and a half. Maybe they should look at their 2012 Platform. Better yet, maybe they should look at what is happening in State Legislatures and what members of their party have introduced in the Congress:
- Restricting access to or insurance reimbursement of costs associated with an abortion;
- Restricting time frames in which a woman could seek an abortion to 12-weeks and in on case, to 6-weeks from conception;
- Mandating the use of transvaginal ultrasounds and other medically unnecessary procedures as a means to shame women;
- Gleefully and gloatingly defunding Planned Parenthood;
- Attempting to elevate “religious” rights above all others to allow zealots to assert their religious rights to deny all types of service and/or medications should it offend “their” personal religious beliefs, making their beliefs superior to yours;
- Continually attempting to repeal Obamacare and providing NO replacement;
- Promoting continued systemic discrimination against the LGBT community, as a whole, via marriage inequality espoused throughout our Nation’s income tax and estate tax structures;
- Attempting to enact one voter suppression tactic after another to disenfranchise voters as well as restricting early voting opportunities;
- Continually filibustering one bill after another, even those introduced by Republicans;
- Blocking Consumer Financial Protection and making multiple attempts to repeal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform;
- Promoting racial profiling as a means of harassment to convince Hispanics to “self-deport’ ;
- Promoting Personhood for embryos and essentially demoting women’s status to nothing more than an incubator;
- Replacing Democracy with Dictatorships (Overseers);
- Promoting fatherhood visitation rights for rapists.
I’m sure I’ve missed of few other big issues we’ve had to overcome … but need I go on? There’s a politically incorrect term we frequently used when I was in the Navy to define that kind of behavior. The term stars with “cluster.” The GOPs (Grouchy Old Patriarchs) problem is much more than a “messaging” problem. It’s a policy problem and we should cheer them on in pursuit of their messaging delusion. It will most certainly shorten their path to minor party status. We may have a few challenges to overcome in the short run, but we’ll all be much better off in the long run.
Don’t believe me? See for yourself, take your pick, click a pic or two. Read/compare a few — then compare the numbers.
|GOP 2012 Platform||GOP Growth Opportunites||2009 Path to Recovery||2010-Better Solutions|
|2010-Pledge to America||P2P v1.0||P2P v2.0||P2P v3.0|