Progressive Breakfast: White House (Finally) Considering Another Stimulus?, Campaign for America’s Future, September 3, 2010, by Terrance Heath, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

White House (Finally) Considering Emergency Stimulus

Politico Reports that the White House is considering an emergency economic stimulus: “The Obama administration is mulling a raft of emergency fixes to stimulate the economy before the midterms, including an extension of the research and development tax credit and new infrastructure spending, according to several people familiar with the situation. Administration officials have been huddling almost continuously during the past week, brainstorming for ideas that would boost employment without hiking the massive federal deficit – with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner rushing to the West Wing for further consultations late Thursday. The White House press office on Thursday refused to say how much a financial package might be, other than to say it won’t be a “second stimulus.” But the administration will have a tough time selling nearly any package to terrified, Obama-phobic Hill Democrats who increasingly blame the president – and his ambitious, expensive legislative agenda – for their dismal prospects this November.”

It’s (Still) The Economy, Stupid

Bernanke tells the Financial Crisis Commission that he had no options to stop Lehman’s collapse: “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a panel examining the U.S. financial crisis that he had no options to prevent Lehman Brothers’ failure in September 2008 even though he knew its downfall would be “catastrophic” to the financial system and economy. The Lehman failure set off severe market turmoil, spurring debate about whether the government should have done more at the time to halt the investment bank’s collapse. Speaking to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on Thursday, Mr. Bernanke said legal and practical considerations prevented taking action, even though ‘I never at any time wavered in my view that we should do absolutely everything possible to prevent the  failure of Lehman.’ The Democratic chairman of the 10-member panel, Phil Angelides, pressed Mr. Bernanke on the move, again calling it a ‘conscious policy decision,’ as he did during the commission’s hearing on Wednesday, citing comments from other government officials.”

Dean Baker considers the latest advice from the IMF, and wonders why these people still have jobs: “If the boys and girls at the IMF can learn a little economics, they would discover that we can run a deficit that is pretty much as large as we want in a period of high unemployment like the present. This does not have to create a debt burden because the Fed can just buy and hold the debt. This way the interest on the debt is paid to the Fed, which is then refunded to the Treasury. If we are lucky this process will generate a little inflation which will lower the real interest rate and reduce the debt burden on households and the government. If they have trouble with the theory, they can see how this works in practice. There is a small island nation where the central bank has bought an amount of debt that is almost equal to its GDP. It’s called “Japan.” Its interest burden is less than 2 percent of GDP and the interest rate on long-term debt is well under 2.0 percent in spite of having a debt to GDP ratio of 220 percent. It is incredible that IMF economists still have jobs. It is even more incredible that anyone in a policy position would waste their time listening to them.”

Ruth Marcus wants us to get shed of the word “shed”: “How did shedding migrate from shaggy dogs to job loss? The Oxford English Dictionary cites The Economist of March 1975, “the industry shed about 100,000 of its workforce.” In the last three months alone, a computer search of news reports shows 2,116 uses of the term in connection with jobs, from Ireland to Fiji. You can imagine how the term took hold. Financial writers became bored with saying the economy lost jobs. Shed is evocative. Shed worked for copy editors trying to cram the news into a headline only a few columns wide. But what might have been compactly colorful is now unnecessarily insensitive—not to mention trite. Lost is a better four-letter word. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official tallier of the nation’s joblessness, stoops to shed.”

As the summer comes to an end, Liz Schuler explains what a jobless summer means for young people: “So, what does this mean beyond a bunch of teenagers without gas money, a few new video games or an outfit their parents won’t finance? Plenty. A May report in the National Journal described the job plight of today’s young workers as a broken escalator. Instead of young people getting on at the bottom and smoothly traveling to the top throughout their careers, workers already near the top are losing jobs and going backwards, nudging out young people trying to climb on. Older workers who can’t afford to retire aren’t stepping off the escalator to make room for a new generation. And with jobs still disappearing, the escalator has all but stalled. That’s what we see in the teen jobless rate. Teenagers are competing with jobless adults for low-end, entry-level positions. This is especially true where state and local budget crises have destroyed summer jobs programs for teens.”

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson diagnose the problems of the Irish economy and the implications for the global economy: “Ireland, simply put, appears insolvent under plausible scenarios with current policies. The idea that Ireland, Greece or Portugal can cut spending and grow out of overvalued exchange rates with still large budget deficits, while servicing all their debts and building more debt, is proving — not surprisingly — wrong. Such policies leave nations burdened with large debt overhangs that effectively tax businesses and borrowers — because interest rates must stay high to reflect risk. Investors must wonder whether businesses and homeowners can afford these higher interest rates, so banks and investors cut credit lines and reduce lending. This strangles economies, even when the fiscal authorities take tough steps needed to cut deficits.”

Slate’s Daniel Gross writes that the U.S. auto industry is smaller now, but healthier: “With Ford’s restructuring, and the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, the U.S. auto industry has shrunk and cut costs to the point at which it can make money on a smaller, more realistic number of sales. So far this year, auto sales have risen in spite of tighter credit, an absence of artificial government support and slack overall demand. They’re being spurred by the demand that arises naturally from people who need and want to replace cars—not by the demand that arises artificially when lenders, dealers, manufacturers, and the government offer bribes. In large measure, the activity in the car market is mimicking that of the overall economy, one in which retail sales are rising even as credit card use declines and savings increase. Of course, it’s possible that vehicle sales will fall off a cliff and help lead the U.S. economy back into recession. But the data suggest that the industry is in a pretty decent place, especially considering where it has been. It may be years before the electric car becomes popular, but in the meantime, gasoline-powered cars may have entered an era of sustainable consumption.”

Reconsidering Iraq

WaPo’s Matt Miller admits to his Iraq mistake: “My fellow Americans: I’m a pundit, not a president, but since it’s a moment for taking stock of America’s role in Iraq, I want to remind you that I blew it. …I supported the war in 2003 because I thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. …Still, I’m torn. I can’t help thinking that, 100 years from now, America’s readiness to send its brave youth half a world away to topple a heinous dictator and then flush him out of a hole will be seen as noble. And not just about oil. For better or worse, I lack the moral clarity and strategic certainty of the war’s ardent supporters or foes. Instead, in retrospect, invading Iraq strikes me as a bad decision that the United States has had no choice but to make the best of. Our troops have performed remarkably. Whether they’ve been well served by their political leaders — or their political pundits — is another matter.”

Oil & Water in the Gulf

BP reports that the cost of the spill as hit $8 billion, WSJ: “Oil major BP PLC said Friday it has spent around $8 billion to date in response to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and expects to resume its relief-well drilling shortly. The sum includes the cost of the spill response; containment; relief-well drilling; the “static kill” operation of providing mud and cementing; grants to the Gulf states; compensation claims paid; and federal costs. No new oil has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from the Macondo well since July 15, the company said in a statement. BP said individuals and businesses had submitted more than 42,000 claims since the claims processing was transferred to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility on Aug. 23. They relate to compensation sought for damages resulting from an explosion in April on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which caused the U.S.’s largest offshore oil spill. BP has made 127,000 claims payments, totaling about $399 million so far.”

BP also says that limits on drilling are hampering oil spill payouts: “BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The company says a ban would also imperil the ambitious Gulf Coast restoration efforts that officials want the company to voluntarily support. BP executives insist that they have not backed away from their commitment to the White House to set aside $20 billion in an escrow fund over the next four years to pay damage claims and government penalties stemming from the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The explosion killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.”

BP has removed the the cap on the leaky remains of the Deepwater rig: “The Obama administration’s pointman on the Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe Thursday evening announced that BP successfully removed a containment cap that had stopped crude oil from spewing into the Gulf of Mexico nearly two months ago and is expected to remove the well’s dysfuntional blowout preventer later Thursday. ‘Under the direction of the federal science team and U.S. government engineers, BP has completed the capping stack removal procedure _ an important step in the process to remove and preserve the damaged BOP,’ Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said in statement, using the common abbreviation for the blowout preventer. ‘This procedure was undertaken in accordance with specific conditions I set forth in a directive authorizing the capping stack removal and BOP replacement last week. BP will continue to follow these required conditions for the BOP removal procedure, which is expected to commence this evening. I will continue to provide updates as necessary.’”

Another fire on an offshore oil rig in the Gulf may delay lifting the ban on drilling: “The fire on a Mariner Energy oil and gas platform in shallow waters of the U.S. Gulf on Thursday was a major setback for companies hoping for an early end to the government’s drilling moratorium and raised more questions about the safety of offshore drilling. ‘This explosion will make it less likely that the moratorium on offshore drilling will be lifted,’ said Rick Muller, senior analyst for Energy Security Analysis Inc in Boston. The United States is still reeling from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior Department officials declined to comment on whether the Mariner accident would prompt Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to consider expanding the current deepwater drilling moratorium to shallow waters. Such a action would be a blow to the oil industry, which has complained that the department has been too slow to approve permits for shallow water drilling since the Gulf oil spill. The Interior Department imposed a six-month halt on exploratory deepwater drilling in late May after an explosion on April 20 left a well spewing crude into the Gulf.”

Hazing Arizona

Newsweeks Eve Conant reports that the past 24 hours have been rough on Arizona politicians: “It started with Brewer, whose opening statement in last night’s debate with gubernatorial contenders, including Attorney General Terry Goddard, was painful to watch. Whether it was stage fright or just the result of a really bad day is hard to know, but Brewer, known for her brash statements, found herself struggling for words and appeared ill prepared. …Arizona’s other leading tough talker, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is also out of his comfort zone, and this case—his ongoing dispute with the federal government—could be a lot more serious. He told reporters today that he just needed more time to comply with the feds, who are investigating allegations that his department discriminates against Hispanics. The Justice Department today said it was suing the sheriff for failing—for more than a year—to turn over records as part of that investigation.”

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer stumbled through her first debate: “Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer stumbled out of the gate during her opening statement in the first and potentially only debate in the state’s race for governor Wednesday night. Brewer, who has gained national notoriety for signing into law the country’s toughest provisions for illegal immigrants, awkwardly paused twice during the opening statement of the Clean Elections Debate broadcast on the state’s PBS affiliate. ‘I have … done so much and I just cannot believe that we have changed everything since I’ve become your governor in the last 600 days. Arizona has been brought back from its abyss,’ Brewer said, after appearing to lose her train of thought. Then, after saying, ‘We have cut the budget, we have balanced the budget and we are moving forward. We have done everything that we could possibly do,’ the governor paused for 10 seconds — an eternity in a live televised debate — before looking down at her notes. ‘We have … did what was right for Arizona. I will tell you that we have really did the best that anyone could do,’ she said, visibly flustered.

After her debate debacle, AZ Gov. Jan Brewer ran away from reporters questions about her bogus claims of beheaded bodies in the AZ desert: “Later, in an exchange about the economy, her opponent, Attorney General Terry Goddard, pointed out that Brewer’s fearmongering about violence in Arizona did not do great things for the state’s financial prospects. He then called on Brewer to recant her totally made-up claim that illegal immigrants were running around beheading people in the Arizona desert. Naturally, Brewer evaded the question. Afterwards some reporters had the gall to continue the line of questioning, asking Brewer if she still stood by her completely made up story. She was clearly too flustered to dissemble or lie, so she just ran away.”

More bad news for Brewer. News reports from Arizona say that her campaign has ties to private prisons housing illegal immigrants: “Gov. Jan Brewer’s campaign chairman and policy adviser is also a lobbyist for the largest private prison company in the country.

Chuck Coughlin is one of two people in the Brewer administration with ties to Corrections Corporation of America. The other administration member is communications director Paul Senseman, a former CCA lobbyist. His wife still lobbies for the company.

According to campaign finance records, CCA executives and employees contributed more than $1,000 to the governor’s re-election campaign. The company’s political action committee and its lobbyists contributed another $60,000 to Brewer’s top legislative priority, Proposition 100, a sales tax to help avoid budget cuts to education. Caroline Isaacs from the American Friends Service Committee, which advocates for social justice issues, said the money is evidence of influence the company has on the governor. …Corrections Corporation of America holds the contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to lock up illegal immigrants picked up in Arizona. Tough immigration laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070 could send thousands of new bodies its way, and millions of dollars.”

The Justice Department is suing Maricopa County Sherrif Joe Arpia over a bias investigation: “The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County for not cooperating with an investigation into whether his department was systematically violating the rights of Hispanics. Obama administration officials called the suit the first time in 30 years that the federal government had to sue to compel a law enforcement agency to cooperate with an investigation concerning Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. …The Justice Department issued 51 requests for documents, most of which Sheriff Arpaio’s department ignored, as well as asking for tours of department facilities and interviews with commanders, staff members and inmates. Sheriff Arpaio, who has denied that he engages in racial profiling, has remained defiant of the government’s investigation. His lawyers have repeatedly refused to provide the documents sought by the Justice Department or provide unfettered access to its facilities.”

Politico’s Ben Smith says Arizona Governor’s debate performance is a poor reflection: “Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s opening statement in last night’s debate reflects either an amazing lack of preparation, or sheer panic.”

Breakfast Sides

A new survey says employers are passing health care costs on to employees: “Score one for the nation’s employers. On average, the total cost of a family health insurance policy rose just 3 percent last year, to $13,770 in annual premiums, according to a survey of employer health benefits released on Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group. (See updated article.) But the news was much better for employers than their workers, according to the survey, which is conducted yearly by Kaiser with the Health Research and Educational Trust, an organization affiliated with the American Hospital Association. Instead of sharing the pain, as they have generally done in the past, employers chose to keep their costs steady by passing the higher costs onto workers. As a result, the employee contribution toward family coverage rose an average of 14 percent, or almost $500, from what employees paid last year. Workers are now paying nearly $4,000 a year for a family policy, a jump of 47 percent since 2005. Wages have increased by just 18 percent during that time, according to Kaiser. It included a chart detailing the changes over the last five years.”

Michael Scott Moore ponders what it means to be liberal: “Social liberals in America have been tarred by economic liberals (“conservatives”) for being so illiberal about free markets, while true social conservatives resent them for being morally liberal on the one hand, or over-liberal with a tax dollar on the other. Economic liberals in Europe, meanwhile, rarely charge ahead on social justice, because by calling themselves “liberal” they don’t necessarily mean minorities should have equal rights. It’s the economic wing of liberalism that the last few years of financial trouble have bruised so badly. Free markets have gone out of style. (Never mind whether an opaque gambling market for complex derivatives with no real use to the public should be called “free,” if most participants can hardly grasp what they’re doing.) Europeans relate market liberalism to the “Anglo-Saxon” economic model. But that’s another term that slithers around what it means.”

John Dickerson wonders what the president will say to excite Democrats about this campaign season: “President Obama has been slowly turning up his political rhetoric for months. He’s made broad attacks on Republicans and taken specific shots at people like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He hasn’t turned the dial up to 11 though—yet. Before his vacation, he warned Republicans he’s going to start. ‘They’ve forgotten I know how to politick pretty good,’ he said before leaving for vacation. He’s likely to start Monday in Milwaukee, Wisc., at a Labor Day rally. What will the new pitch sound like? Will Obama and his aides fully let go of worries about damaging his post-partisan brand? More important, will the president be effective at rallying Democrats to the polls with more partisan rhetoric? Obama clearly enjoys giving a political speech, but his circumstances have changed since he last gave so many good ones. During the 2008 campaign, he was derided as all pretty words and no substance. Now he faces the opposite problem: He’s pushed and passed a heap of big, fibrous legislation but gets criticism (sometimes from himself) for not being very good at communicating.”

The EPA will issue more rules on greenhouse gas emissions: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will roll out more regulations on greenhouse gases and other pollution to help fight climate change, but they will not be as strong as action by Congress, a senior administration official said. The agency ‘has a huge role to play in continuing the work to move from where we are now to lower carbon emissions’, said the official, who did not want to be identified as the EPA policies are still being formed. President Barack Obama, looking to take the lead in global talks on greenhouse gas emissions, has long warned that the EPA would take steps to regulate emissions if Congress failed to pass a climate bill. The Senate has all but ruled out moving on greenhouse gases this year, even though the House of Representatives passed a bill last year. In late July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped climate provisions out of an energy bill, saying he could not get one Republican vote for them.”

Terrance Heath is the Online Producer at Campaign for America’s Future. Prior to his current position he worked as a Blogging and Social Media Consultant for a number of organizations and agencies, as an outgrowth of his work as Blogmaster for EchoDitto, Inc. He stumbled into blogging and social media after starting his own blog, The Republic of T., but cut his teeth as an activist working on LGBT equality and HIV/AIDS issues. In that capacity he worked for the Human Rights Campaign and the National Minority AIDS Council. Terrance has kindly allowed Evans Liberal Politics to publish his works on an ongoing basis. He sums himself up: Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

The Cry for Democratic Moral Leadership and Effective Communication, Truthout OpEd, September 2, 2010, by George Lakeoff, quoted verbatim:

If you have not read Drew Westin’s outstanding piece “What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November” on The Huffington Post, AlterNet, and other venues, read it immediately. Westin states as eloquently and forcefully as anyone what he, I, and other progressives have been saying from the beginning of the Obama administration. I agree fully with everything he says. But …

Westin’s piece is incomplete in crucial ways. His piece can be read as saying that this election is about kitchen table economics (right) and only kitchen table economics (wrong).

"All Politics Is Moral"

This election is about more than just jobs and mortgages and adequate health care. All politics is moral. All political leaders say to do what they propose because it is right. No political leaders say to do what they say because it is wrong. Morality is behind everything in politics – and progressives and conservatives have different moral systems.

In the conservative moral system, the highest value is preserving and extending the moral system itself. That is why they keep saying no to Obama’s proposals, even voting against their own ideas when Obama accepts them. To give Obama any victory at all would be a blow to their moral system. Their moral system requires non-cooperation. That is a major thing the Obama administration has not understood.

The conservatives understand the centrality of morality. They attacked the Obama health care plan as immoral, violating the moral principles of freedom (“government takeover”) and reverence for life (“death panels”). The Obama administration made a policy case, not a moral case. The conservatives have characterized the bailouts as thievery and Obama’s ties to Wall Street as immoral – as being in bed with the thieves. The attacks on government are seen as moral attacks, with government seen as taking money out of working people’s pockets and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. Whether it is the birthers, or the anti-Muslims, or the anti-immigrants or the pro-lifers, the attack is a moral attack. The Tea Party cry is moral – for “freedom” (see my book “Whose Freedom?”), for God, for patriotism. Even jobless benefits are seen as giving money to people who are not working and don’t deserve it. Even Social Security that workers have earned, that are deferred payments for work, are seen as undeserving people “sucking on the tits of the government.”

The moral case is not answered just by good policy that will help people who need help – as Westin proposed. The good policies – extending unemployment benefits, help to small businesses, help for teachers and firemen, limits on credit card rates, restrictions on rate increases and service reductions by HMO’s – in themselves fit a progressive moral system, but don’t in themselves make a case for progressive moral leadership.

Why are so many people about to vote against their interests? The Republicans are not offering kitchen table benefits. When people are voting against their interests, more interest-based arguments don’t help.

Westin’s discussion of “the center” and of populism in general, misses what is crucial in this election. There is no one center. Instead, a considerable number of Americans (perhaps as many as 15 to 20 percent) are conservative in some respects and progressive in other respects. The have both moral systems and apply them to different issues – in all kinds of ways. You can be conservative on economics and progressive on social issues, or conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues and so on – in all sorts of combinations.

Neuroscience 101, which Westin correctly invokes, tells us that in the brains of such voters, the two incompatible systems inhibit each other, that strengthening one weakens the other and that the stronger one can have its influence spread to other issues. The “swing voters” are really “swing thinkers.” And it is language – moral language, not policy language, heard over and over – that strengthens one political moral system over the other and determines how people vote. The Democrats need to reach the swing thinkers – the people who are moral conservatives on some issues and moral progressives on others – and strengthen their progressive moral views. The kitchen table arguments must become moral arguments as well – arguments about freedom, life, fairness and the most central of American values.

What are those values? They are the values that won the 2008 election for Barack Obama – and they were not just hope and change. Candidate Obama made the case that American is, and has always been, fundamentally about Americans caring about each other and acting responsibly on that care. Empathy, which he proclaimed over and over was the most important thing his mother taught him and is the basis of our form of government. Responsibility is both personal and social. “I am my brother’s keeper,” as he said over and over in the campaign. And thirdly, excellence – doing everything as well as we can, individually and as a nation. That is why we have life, freedom, fairness, equality – and quality – as fundamental values.

We haven’t heard that kind of moral leadership since the inauguration. Americans are longing for it. And those moral values really do motivate every kitchen table policy!

It is morality, not just the right policy, that excites voters, that moves them to action, that creates movements. Legislative action must come from a moral center, with moral language repeated over and over.

What should be avoided, besides policy-wonk and pure-policy discourse? Again, the answer comes from Neuroscience 101. Offense not defense. Argue for your values. Frame all issues in terms of your values. Avoid their language, even in arguing against them. There is a reason that I wrote a book called, “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” Don’t list their arguments and argue against them using their language. It just activates their arguments in the brains of listeners.

Don’t move to the right in your discourse or action. That will just strengthen the conservative moral system in the brains of swing thinkers. Frame your arguments from your moral position.

In addition, beware of the same pollsters and focus group dialers who missed Scott Brown’s moral message to the swing thinkers in Massachusetts and claimed that Martha Coakley would win so handily that she could go on vacation. Just because a message plays well in focus group dialing doesn’t mean it will win elections.

Finally, Democrats need a truly effective communication system. They need unified morally-based framing of issues. They need to train spokespeople all over the country in using such framing and avoiding mistakes. They need to organize those spokespeople. And they need to book them, as conservatives do, on radio, TV, in civic and religious groups, in schools and universities. This is doable, but this late, it will take resolve from the top.

Winning this election will require the right policies and actions, but it will also require moral leadership with honest, morally-based messaging and a communications that will not just blog and knock on doors, but will be there in the districts with the crucial swing thinkers 24/7 day and night.

The Democrats cannot take their base for granted. Only moral leadership backed by actions and communicated effectively can excite the Obama base once more. Without that excitement, the Democrats will lose big.

See 5 Ways the Tea Party Agenda Screws Tea Party Supporters, AlterNet, September 3, 2010, by Adele M. Stan: "In their quest to save the country from liberals, Tea Partiers signed on to an agenda that will cause them untold pain while granting unlimited powers to corporations."

See After Saddam, America’s Next Fake Enemy: Deficits, Truthout, August 31, 2010, by Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Evans Liberal Politics, August 25, 2010, by Paul Evans. This article used material from The Huffington Post, August 24 Primary Election: A Look At The Day’s Hottest Races, August 24, 2010, by Elyse Siegel, excerpts quoted verbatim. Photo of McCain is public domain from Wikipedia, by Raustadt:

Arizona Senate Primary in Focus:

The most closely watched race has to be in Arizona, where perennial Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain beat back a challenge from former U.S. Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who is more of a right wing, Tea Party type than John McCain. McCain spent a whopping $20 million (or $21 million) to beat back the challenge, but has managed to stay fairly comfortably ahead in the polls, and easily won renomination.

From HuffPo: “‘Do you think it takes that much to win?’ Politics Daily’s Jill Lawrence asked McCain last week. His reply: ‘Well, I don’t know. But I’ve always done whatever’s necessary to win.’”

Well, almost always. The year 2008 comes to mind, Senator.

Now with 99 percent of the vote, McCain has won by a margin of 56 percent to J.D. Hayworth’s 32 percent.

Politics Daily’s Top Five Reason’s Why McCain Was Likely to Come Out On Top:

1. McCain was the Republican presidential nominee just two years ago. People rally around the party’s standard bearer, and there must be a psychological disincentive to rejecting the man you voted for in 2008 for president. More than that, though, being a presidential nominee comes with tremendous institutional advantages, which McCain availed himself of during this primary campaign.

2. J.D. Hayworth was a flawed candidate. Hayworth’s image was damaged when a video of him appearing in an infomercial offering “free money” (YouTube video) surfaced.

3. McCain avoided facing top-tier opponents. Conservative Arizona Reps. Jeff Flake, John Shadegg and Trent Franks all decided not to challenge McCain. Their entry would have likely meant The Club for Growth would have spent millions to defeat McCain. But not only did these three conservatives not oppose McCain — they endorsed him.

Also endorsing and campaigning for McCain was Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, No. 2 Senate Republican leader, (also from Arizona). Kyl actually became general chairman of McCain’s 2010 re-election bid. (He apparently did a pretty good job, too.)

4. Money. McCain has reportedly spent around $21 million during this primary season — a lot of money, to be sure. Around $7.5 million of that was transferred from his presidential campaign.

5. Sarah Palin. John McCain made Palin a household name when he selected her as his running mate, and she returned the favor by endorsing him and campaigning for him. It is unclear how important her endorsement was. Palin’s support may have helped stanch the argument that Hayworth was the Tea Party conservative. But just imagine if Palin had decided to sit this one out, or worse, to endorse Hayworth.

HuffPo summarized Hayworth’s flawed campaign and McCain’s counterpunching: “As Hayworth touted conservative principles and Tea Party ties, McCain seemed to shift to the right. From immigration reform to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the longtime Republican lawmaker found himself walking back — and in some cases flip-flopping — on a host of issues.” This harder line taken by McCain on key conservative issues, as well as Hayworth’s mini-scandal on his “free money” video, seemed to blunt the far right Tea Party candidate’s momentum, as McCain’s change of tune did him no harm and probably a lot of good.

Arizona Democratic Primary Election Results for Senate

The Democratic Primary in Arizona features four different candidates:

Voters are choosing between Rodney Glassman, Randy Parraz, John Dougherty and Cathy Eden.

Until recently, Glassman was considered to the the frontrunner in the four-way race; however, a poll recently commissioned by Parraz’s campaign suggested that the Democratic nomination may still be up for grabs.

The New York Time has called this race. With 99 percent of the vote in Rodney Glassman has been called the winner, taking 35 percent of the vote, to Cathy Eden’s 27 percent and John Dougherty’s 24 percent. Randy Parraz was a distant fourth with 15 percent.

On the Republican side, McCain has won the Republican primary in Arizona, and AP has the margin going almost 2 to 1 for McCain. The NY Times, with 99 percent of the vote counted, says the margin of victory for McCain was 56 percent to 32 percent over J.D. Hayworth.

Key Arizona House Races

In the Arizona House 1st District, Ann Kirkpatrick is the Democratic incumbent and ran unopposed. On the Republican side Paul Goser has been projected the winner with 100 percent of the vote in, taking 31 percent of the vote. Kirkpatrick has a big fundraising advantage and the NY Times has this race leaning Democratic.

In the Arizona 3rd House District, Representative John Shadegg, an eight-term Republican, made a surprise announcement earlier this year that he would not seek re-election. Here, after the dust settled, Democrat Jon Hubbard (who raised $776,500 and spent $350,000) will face Republican Ben Quayle, who must have faced a crowded field, winning with 23 percent of the vote. Quayle raised $1,330,000 and spent $915,000 of that. Quayle has the fundraising advantage and the NY Times has this race leaning Republican.

In the Arizona 5th House District, Democrat Harry Mitchell is the incumbent. He raised $1,453,000, spent $817,000 and has $836,000 on hand for the general election. He will be opposed by Republican David Schweikert, who won with 38 percent of the vote. Schweikert has some strange numbers in terms of campaign cash (voodoo economics): The New York Times has Schweikert having raised $408,000, spending $447,500 so far, but with $225,500 cash on hand. That’s some interesting accounting! The Times has this race leaning Democratic anyway.

In the Arizona 8th House District race, the incumbent is Democrat Gabrielle Giffords. There’s some interesting accounting here too: Giffords raised $2,236,000 and spent $1,111,000 but claims to have $1,923,000 cash on hand. Interesting. On the Republican side, Jesse Kelly has won with 49 percent of the primary vote. She must be a good fiscal officer as her accounting makes sense: She raised $566,500, spent $489,400 and has $79,000 cash on hand. The Times has this race leaning Democratic.

Election Results from Vermont:

According to The New York Times, the Democratic race for governor was a tight three-way contest.

With 92 percent of the precincts reporting, state Sen. Doug Racine, and Senate President Peter Shumlin each has roughly 25% of the vote. Shumlin leads by just 260 votes, but the margin has been increasing overnight. Deb Markowitz is only 744 votes further back with 24% of the vote. Matt Dunne trails with 21% and Sen. Susan Bartlett is well back with 5%.

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie is the only Republican in the governor’s race. He’ll face whomever wins the Democratic nomination, in a state that has gone Republican for governor each of the last three elections.

In Other Tuesday Primaries Around the U.S.

The Guardian has called the Florida Republican race for nominee to be governor: “Rick Scott will be the Republican nominee for the Florida governor election in November.”

Florida Senate Primary:

More from the Guardian:

Scott spends his way to a win in Florida:

The big result of the night was Rick Scott winning the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Florida, an upset of sorts against an establishment candidate endorsed by (GOP) party leaders, including Jeb Bush. The very wealthy Scott spent something like $50m in the primary and can easily do so again in the general election. Alex Sink is the Florida Democratic nominee and she will need hefty outside support to have a chance.

With 99 percent of the vote in, Alex Sink took 77 percent in the Democratic primary, while on the Republican side, Rick Scott took 46 percent of the vote to Bill McCollum’s 43 percent, representing a defeat for the Republican insider establishment which had strongly backed McCollum. Essentially, Scott bought the election. ~ Paul Evans

Scott’s troubled career as head of a rapacious health insurance company may not endear him to Florida voters, and Republicans may not rally around him, as they have the tougher senate race involving Marco Rubio versus Charlie Crist to concentrate energy on.

The Guardian on the Florida Senate Race:

In Florida, in the US Senate primary – an open seat – there are no surprises in the Republican primary, where Tea Party heartthrob Marco Rubio is running away with it, having had the field largely to himself since Charlie Crist jumped ship to become an independent.

But the Democratic senate primary is the one to watch here, and it’s a mirror image of the Republican gubernatorial race. This time, wealthy evil mastermind Jeff Greene is … ah, let’s see, losing is the word, to Democratic party stalwart Kendrick Meek.

In fact AP has called Florida’s Democratic senate primary for Meek. So, great job Jeff Greene, you may as well have just taken $20m and set fire to it for all the good it has done you.

The low point of Greene’s moronic campaign was when Mike Tyson was forced to speak up to defend Greene. Yes, Mike Tyson – the boxer. When Mike Tyson is a character witness, then you are really in trouble.

See below for Florida Democratic primary election results where Kendrick Meek, a four-term congressman backed by President Obama, has defeated challenger Jeff Greene, a real estate mogul.

Florida House Races:

In the House Florida 2nd District, with 99% reporting, Allen Boyd, who is the incumbent, appears to be the winner for the Democrats taking 51 percent of the vote to challenger Al Lawson’s 49 percent, which is nonetheless a 2, 426 vote lead. For the Republicans, Steve Sutherland cruised to an easy win over four challengers, taking 47 percent of the vote.

In the House Florida 8th District, of course Democrat incumbent Alan Grayson ran uncontested and will apparently face Daniel Webster, who made an easy victory over several candidates, taking 40% of the vote (a 17 percent margin). Look for a LOT of Republican money to flow into this race against progressive crusader Grayson.

In the House Florida 17th District, historically solidly Democrat, and with 100 percent of the vote in, incumbent Kendrick B. Meek has successfully jumped up to the big leagues by winning the nomination for U.S. Senate. Here for the Dems, Frederica Wilson has cruised to an easy win over several challengers, taking 35 percent of the vote (a 21 percent margin of victory). For the Republicans, the New York Times reports that there was no primary election, and since the Democrat Meek was the incumbent, apparently the GOP will not contest this seat or else the Times didn’t report the nominee.

In the House Florida 24th District, with 99 percent of the votes in, Democratic incumbent Suzanne M. Kosmos has easily won renomination, taking 78 percent of the Democratic vote. On the Republican side, in a race still too close to call, there is a three way race. Sandra Adams leads by some 560 votes and 30 percent of the vote over Karen Diebel, who is getting 29 percent, and Craig Miller who has 28 percent. Tom Garcia and Deon Long round out the field, taking 10 percent and 3 percent respectively.

The Missouri Senate Race may go to the Republican Roy Blunt:

GOP’s Roy Blunt Posts Double-Digit Lead in Missouri Senate Race

Politics Daily reports: Seven-term Republican Rep. Roy Blunt has opened up a double-digit lead for the first time in his race against Democrat Robin Carnahan for Missouri’s Senate seat, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Aug. 23. The seat is being left open by GOP Sen. Kit Bond, who decided not to seek re-election.

Blunt leads Carnahan, the Secretary of State, by 51 percent to 40 percent with 5 percent preferring some other candidate and 4 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4 points.

Additional Late Breaking Tuesday Primary News

See Primary voters back the familiar, The Boston Globe, August 25, 2010, by Matt Viser:

US Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, a four-term congressman backed by President Obama, beat back a Democratic primary challenge from a self-made billionaire in Florida, one of several expected victories last night for the political establishment against insurgent candidates with either deep pockets or a wealth of Tea Party movement support.

…SNIP….

“Floridians sent a clear message: They want a real Democrat representing them in the US Senate,’’ said Meek, who was declared the winner early in the evening over Jeff Greene, a Worcester, Mass., native and real estate mogul. “The naysayers said we couldn’t beat a billionaire, and tonight with your help, we proved them wrong.’’

Throughout this year’s pivotal midterm primaries — from Kentucky to California, Connecticut to Colorado — insurgent outsider candidates have often had the upper hand, tapping into an electorate angry at Washington and dispirited by a deflated economy.

But last night, at least, was one for the establishment, where voters generally backed incumbents whose positions were more carefully groomed and their backgrounds generally less flamboyant than those of their challengers.

Alaska Election Results

According to the New York Times election center,, for all the open seats, U.S. Senate (Lisa Murkowski – R), Governor (Sean Parnell – R), and the at-large House seat (Don Young – R) in Alaska, are for the Republicans the incumbents seeking reelection. With 33 percent of the vote in, Murkowski trails the Republican challenger Joe Miller, who has 51 percent of the vote to Lisa Murkowski’s 49, a close race, while Sean Parnell is doing fairly well, leading with 48 percent of the vote (a 13 percent lead). For the Republican nomination in the at-large House seat, incumbent Don Young seems to be a shoe in, taking 70 percent of the vote so far.

UPDATE: In the Alaska Republican race for U.S. Senate, Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent who replaced the recently deceased Ted Stevens, is still losing to Tea Party challenger Joe Miller, 51 percent to 49 percent. Murkowski outspent Miller 7 to 1, $1,412,500 to $198,800. But Miller greatly benefited from the endorsement of Alaska favorite Sarah Palin. Palin in fact has been able to influence both this race and the Arizona Senate race, where she endorsed Senator John McCain, giving him an easy win. Miller leads by 1,960 votes out of 90,000 cast.

The Democratic (challengers) races are a little more interesting. Scott McAdams (Senate) and Ethan Berkowitz (Governor) are leading their races, with 59 percent and 54 percent of the vote, respectively although these races have not been called. McAdams lead by double digits as two challengers split the rest of the vote. Berkowitz lead by 8 points over Hollis French, who has 46 percent of the vote from Democrats for Governor. The Democratic nominee for the at-large House seat will apparently be Harry Crawford, who ran uncontested. The Times calls all three of these positions as likely to go to the Republican nominee.

The race for Alaska Governor is also decided as to the primary winners. For the Democrats, Ethan Berkowitz has won with 56 percent of the vote, to Hollis French’s 44 percent. On the Republican side Sean Parnell has been called the winner over five other office seekers, taking 49 percent of the vote.The actual election this fall is likely to go to the Republican Sean Parnell, barring a miracle for Berkowitz.

In the race for the House seat open in Alaska, Democrat Harry Crawford ran unopposed. On the Republican side, incumbent Don Young has won over Sheldon Fisher, 70 percent to 24 percent, with 6 percent going to John Cox.

See also Alaska Election Results Provide a Boost to Palin, CBS News, August 25, 2010, by Stephanie Condon, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Conservative insurgent Joe Miller may be on the verge of toppling Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the state’s Republican primary, in what could prove to be a significant victory for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (as well as Miller, of course).

An unknown attorney from Fairbanks, Miller currently holds a slight lead over Murkowski in large part because of his support from Palin, he said Tuesday night.

“I’m absolutely certain that was pivotal,” Miller said of Palin’s endorsement, the Anchorage Daily News reports.

The Miller lead over Murkowski is still holding up 51 percent to 49 percent, with 429 or 438 precincts reporting.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 181 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Read It… And Weep, Daily Kos, August 20, 2010, by Bob Swern, used with permission, quoted verbatim with additional important material from economic forecaster Gerald Celente:

Some of the better, IMHO, reality-based reads of the week (so far, still a day to go) on our economy:The Ongoing Destruction of Our Middle Class

A piece currently running in the International Online version of Germany’s Spiegel, by Thomas Schulz: “The Erosion of America’s Middle Class.” (See excerpt, below.)

“Austerian” Hysteria, Political Pandering and Social Security

Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future? A Marshall Auerback guest post at Naked Capitalism, from Monday. (See below.)

Three posts from Calculated Risk from Thursday, August 19th (alone, just one day of god-awful economic story after story that screams to me: “If this is ‘the Recovery,’ god forbid if we ever officially enter into a double-dip.”):

Commercial Real Estate: Moody’s: Commercial Real Estate Price Index declines 4% in June.

Ongoing Economic Contraction: Philly Fed Index shows contraction in August, first time since July 2009.

Unemployment: Weekly initial unemployment claims at 500,000, highest since November 2009.

All in one day’s news cycle! Foreclosures

The NY Times lead editorial from Friday: Foreclosures Grind On.

Financial Reform

AFL-CIO: Stronger Financial Reform Would Have Saved Jobs, by Simon Johnson over at his Baseline Scenario blog.

The Status Quo/Business As Usual

When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules, from economist Dean Baker, currently near the top of the FP over at HuffPo.

Paul Krugman’s two columns in this week’s NY Times, from Monday and Friday–
Social Security: Attacking Social Security
Deficit Hawks: Appeasing the Bond Gods

“The Dismal Science”

Joe Stiglitz’ commentary via the Financial Times: Needed: a new economic paradigm.

This kind of quasi-Euro-”Austerian” commentary pretty much sums it all up in what was, IMHO, a “slow” news week for the economy…

The Erosion of America’s Middle Class
By Thomas Schulz
Spiegel (International Online Edition)

August 19th, 2010…For people in the lower income brackets, the recovery already seems to be falling apart. Experts fear that the US economy could remain weak for many years to come. And despite the many government assistance programs, the small amount of hope they engender has yet to be felt by the general public. On the contrary, for many people things are still headed dramatically downward.

According to a recent opinion poll, 70 percent of Americans believe that the recession is still in full swing. And this time it isn’t just the poor who are especially hard-hit, as they usually are during recessions.

This time the recession is also affecting well-educated people who had been earning a good living until now. These people, who see themselves as solidly middle-class, now feel more threatened than ever before in the country’s history. Four out of 10 Americans who consider themselves part of this class believe that they will be unable to maintain their social status.

Unemployment Persists

In a recent cover story titled “So long, middle class,” the New York Post presented its readers with “25 statistics that prove that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.” Last week, the leading online columnist Arianna Huffington issued the almost apocalyptic warning that “America is in danger of becoming a Third World country.”

In fact, the United States, in the wake of a real estate, financial economic and now debt crisis, which it still hasn’t overcome, is threatened by a social Ice Age more severe than anything the country has seen since the Great Depression…

And, last but definitely not least, I have to say: WTF!? (Sometimes, we Democrats are our own worst enemy.)

(Even Krugman acknowledged this week, while slamming GOP’er Paul Ryan on Monday, that it’s not just Republicans encouraging the “austerian,” anti-entitlement meme.)

(Diarist’s Note: Diarist has received written authorization from Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith to print her blog’s posts in their entirety.)

Auerback: Which Party Poses
The Real Risk to Social Security’s Future

Auerback: Which Party Poses the Real Risk to Social Security’s Future?
Naked Capitalism
Monday, August 16, 2010

By Marshall Auerback, a portfolio strategist and fund manager who writes at New Deal 2.0

Hint: it’s not Republicans.

Social Security remains one of the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party since its creation 75 years ago. Although Republicans have historically fulminated against the program (Ronald Reagan once likened it as something akin to “socialism”), they have actually made little headway in touching this sacred “third rail” in American politics. President Bush pushed for partial privatization of the program in 2005, but the proposal gained no policy traction (even within his own party) because Social Security continues to be hugely popular with American voters. It’s a universal program that benefits all Americans, not a government handout to a few privileged corporations.

Which is why it’s odd that Democrats seem almost embarrassed to continue to champion the legacy of FDR. The party frets about long-term deficits and the corresponding need to “save” Social Security from imminent bankruptcy and, in doing so, opens the gate to radical cuts in entitlements that will do nothing but further destroy incomes and perpetuate our current economic malaise. It is true that some Republicans have signed on to the idea of privatization, notably a proposal championed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. But only a handful of GOP lawmakers have actively embraced the measure and, in the aftermath of the worst shock to the financial system since the Great Depression, many Republican lawmakers would just as soon see the idea forgotten.

So why don’t the Democrats leave well enough alone? Why bother even setting up “bipartisan commissions” to discuss the issue of Social Security? At the risk of sounding like one of those ungrateful members of the “Professional Left”, whom Robert Gibbs recently decried, I note that it was President Obama who most recently re-opened this issue by setting up a commission on reducing long term budget deficits and dealing with the long term issue of entitlements, including Social Security. In the Commission’s remit, nothing is off the table, including Social Security and Medicare. (Of course, given that one of the members is a director of Honeywell, it’s hard to envisage any suggestions of defense cuts). I also note that according to the Washington Post, “Democrats said Simpson and Bowles are uniquely equipped to blaze a path out of the fiscal wilderness — and to forge bipartisan consensus on a plan likely to require painful tax increases as well as program cuts.” No mention of Republicans getting on board. This is self-immolation, plain and simple. And Obama wonders why voters remain unhappy?

Now that the President has opened this Pandora’s Box, it is hard for him credibly to make the case, as he attempted to do in last Saturday’s weekly radio address, that “some Republican leaders in Congress want to privatize Social Security.” In fact, it is an idea enthusiastically embraced by a number of Wall Street Democrats who are funded with huge campaign contributions from Wall Street itself. (Candidate Obama received more money from Wall Street in 2008 than Hillary Clinton.) These contributors would be the Rubinites who for decades have played a huge role in allowing for greater financial leverage ratios, riskier banking practices, greater opacity, less oversight and regulation, consolidation of power in `too big to fail’ financial institutions that operated across the financial services spectrum (combining commercial banking, investment banking and insurance) and greater risk. Privatization of Social Security represents the last of the low hanging fruits for Wall Street. Who better to provide this to our captains of the financial services industry than their major political benefactors in the Democratic Party?

The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Mr. Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters.

At the very least, these kinds of ties raise questions in regard to proposals for dealing with Social Security. Many members of the Commission stand to become clear direct and indirect beneficiaries of the privatization that the President is now warning against. It’s disappointing that these ties have not been fully explored by the press, and it is extraordinary that the President would exhibit such political tone deafness in making these kinds of appointments. It tends to undercut the message of his last radio address.

I’ll leave aside the nonsensical arguments in regard to Social Security’s “solvency,” because Professor Stephanie Kelton has dealt with them conclusively here. The only point I would add is in regard to the alleged issue of deficit spending today burdening our grandchildren. In reality, we will be leaving our grandchildren with government bonds that are net financial assets and wealth for them. As Randy Wray and Yeva Nersisyan have recently argued, even if government decides to raise taxes in, say, 2050 to retire the bonds (for whatever reason), the extra taxes are matched by payments made directly to bondholders in 2050. We can question the wisdom of whether it is right to make this political argument in favor of bond holders over tax payers. But it is a decision to be made at that time (not before) by future generations as to whether they should raise taxes by an amount equal to those interest payments, or by a greater amount to equal retirement of debt.

In the meantime, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to plummet. His scaremongering has little credibility, given the disparity between his rhetoric and his actual policies. At the risk of further upsetting Robert Gibbs, we’ll try to explain why Obama isn’t finding stronger support from his base despite having passed, for instance, a health care bill, a fiscal stimulus bill and a financial regulation bill. For a start, follow the money: with the President and leading Democrats having taken the most campaign dollars from corporate interests those bills purport to challenge, and having gutted the most progressive elements in the bills themselves (see Matt Taibbi’s latest as a perfect illustration of the phenomenon), it is clear that those signature pieces of legislation do not fundamentally challenge the structure of power at a time when that’s what Americans most want. The only “change” most Americans might experience is a reduction in their Social Security benefits from a President currently presiding over one of the most regressive wealth transfers in history. They’ll be receiving nothing but pocket change if a serious attack on entitlements is legitimized by this commission. A scaremongering radio address doesn’t do a whole lot to change that or to alter the country’s current economic trajectory. To paraphrase one of his leading political opponents, Mr. Obama would do well to stop practicing the cynical “politics as usual” that his Presidency was supposed to “refudiate”.

#            #            #

However, from where I’m sitting, Dean Baker has the most apropos headline of the week: “When Wall Street Rules, We Get Wall Street Rules.”

So, will I be voting Democratic in November and then again in 2012? Ummm…yes, I will. But, if things keep moving forward as they are now, these will be some of the most underwhelming and unenthusiastic votes of my life.

Evans Liberal Politics would like to thank Bob Swern for permission to republish his work on an ongoing basis. Bob is our favorite progressive economics writer. More than even Paul Krugman, Mr. Swern fleshes out his articles with lots of details and links, and so provides real grist for liberals and progressives to learn from. You are invited to email Bob Swern here.

Economic Forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ Coming

See Economic forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ coming, The Raw Story, August 20, 2010, by Daniel Tencer, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Collapse of middle class means there’s no fuel for recovery, Gerald Celente argues.

The US economic recovery in recent quarters is little more than a “cover-up” and the world is headed for a “Greatest Depression,” complete with social unrest and class warfare, says a renowned economic forecaster.

Gerald Celente, head of the Trends Research Institute, told Yahoo!News’ Tech Ticker that there’s no risk of a “double-dip recession” because the first “dip” never ended.

“We’re saying there’s no double dip, it never ended,” Celente said. “We’re looking at the Greatest Depression. There’s no way out of this without [rebuilding] productive capacity. You can’t print [money to get] out of it.”

Celente, who has been credited with predicting the 1987 stock market crash, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subprime mortgage crisis of recent years, said the US and other developed countries can expect to see the sort of social unrest the world witnessed in Greece this year once government attempts to shore up the economy fail and lawmakers turn to “austerity measures” to plug gaping budget holes.

“You’re going to see it all over the world,” Celente said. “What they call austerity programs … What are they doing? They’re bailing out the banks and they’re making the people pay for it. And the people don’t like that.”

Celente pointed to a near-riot that took place last week in Atlanta when 30,000 people showed up to be put on a housing waiting list, saying that the event is a harbinger of what’s to come.

He also argued that the way unemployment is measured today masks a much larger joblessness crisis because “once you’re off the unemployment rolls, you’re no longer unemployed.”

Celente said the current unemployment rate, if it were measured as it was measured during the Great Depression, would be around 17.5 percent. And he expects that number to rise to around 22 percent in the coming years.

“One of the good businesses to get in to may be guillotines,” Celente quipped. “Because there’s a real off-with-their-heads fever going on. People are really fed up.”

Hire a Dedicated Worker
for Your Business in Northeast Ohio

SENDING IT OUT TO THE UNIVERSE: I NEED A JOB, by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: Here in Wooster, Ohio, the three of us in this house have been trying to get jobs for six months now. And while the unemployment rate for those making $200,000 a year or more stands at a very tolerable 3.2 percent, for those making $20,000 a year or less, unemployment stands an an official 31 percent. That’s the official unemployment rate.

I’m looking for any reasonable work. I have a B.A. with an undergraduate G.P.A. of 3.44 from Miami of Ohio, a good school, and an “all-but-thesis” in fields that I am no longer interested in (geology), but this constituted for me an excellent, liberal education. I type 70 words per minute, can program web pages in three languages and can work with five, and will happily design a website for you, and have edited 12 books. I can help you with your book or other project in terms of style, word processing and editing. I can do a very credible job fixing or optimizing your computer, and I’ll do it for less. And I’ll do any sort of reasonable work and I am a fast learner and a hard worker who “gets it”. I have no symptoms of mental illness whatsoever and am in healthy condition. My resume can be downloaded here. If you have work for me, please email me or call 330-202-7661. Real work for a hard worker.

HEY UNIVERSE!!!

I’m very grateful to the Universe for my life. I think that only in America could I have had the happy, even fulfilling, life that I have led. But for me, so far, the American Dream has not materialized. Now that my mental illness is not a factor and I am functionally well, simply because I have the word “disabled” on my resume is no reason not to consider me. I’ve been afraid that so far in my job search, employers have perhaps not been taking me seriously just because of that little, poisonous word “disabled” on the resume, with a lack of much of a recent, successful work history. But a person sometimes has to have a long time-out in their work history, and sometimes, if the Universe wills it, if God is listening, a person can make a big time comeback. I’m willing to work in Wooster, Canton, Massilon, Mansfield, Orrville, Smithville, Akron, Wadsworth, Medina, or anywhere in Northeast Ohio including Cleveland and the suburbs, and I’d certainly strongly consider relocating in the long run. You want hard work and loyalty? Consider hiring me, and you’ll never regret it. Please email me or phone 330-202-7661. Thanks for considering me.

I did want to say, despite the “dark” comedy by George Carlin below, I still believe in the American Dream. I still believe in the decency of people and the intelligence of the HR people making employment decisions. So I’m putting it out to the Universe: give me a chance and I’ll be your best, most dedicated employee. Now let’s listen to a little black humor on an American Dream that for many in our society, has gone badly wrong.

Serious Comedy on the American Dream

Warning: Obscenity. For Mature Audiences Only.

George Carlin: The American Dream

OR: Why the American Education System Will Stay "Broken"

"The American Dream": (This is a repeat due to popular demand.) George Carlin performs a brilliant and scathing monologue on our serfdom which may be his very best short effort. — 3:15. Scary stuff.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 180 Rock and Pop Hits!

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

(Everyone knows we have an outmoded and archaic Presidential election system whereby an electoral college vote, determined by each state, elects the President, rather than the popular vote. And everyone remembers the election of 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote by some 543,895 votes, yet was robbed in the electoral college.):

Massachusetts Joins Move to Bypass Electoral College, About.com, Robert’s US Government Info Blog, August 11, 2010, by Robert Longley, quoted verbatim, with additions:

The State of Massachusetts – the sixth state to join the Union – has now become the sixth state to enact the National Popular Vote bill, the basis of a plan that would modify the Electoral College system by ensuring that the presidential candidate winning the nationwide popular vote would be elected.

“Massachusetts has moved the country one step closer to abandoning an outdated system that effectively disenfranchises two-thirds of the country and four times in our history has elected the second-place candidate,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts in a press release. “With a national popular vote, all votes in every state will be equally important.” [Learn about the National Popular Vote plan...]

Also See: Electoral College: Who Really Elects the President?

According to the Common Cause Press Release on this:

The new law makes Massachusetts the sixth state to join an interstate compact that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide; the agreement takes effect once a sufficient number of states have passed identical laws. Other participating states include Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington.

With the Bay State’s 12 electoral votes, a total of 73 electors are now committed to the national popular vote program. That’s 27 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the proposal.

Once enough states have signed on, participating states will award their electors as a bloc to the candidate capturing the most votes nationwide. That guarantees that the candidate receiving the most votes will be declared the winner of the election.

“This reform is critically important,” said Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause. “We are not red states and blue states, we are the United States. This proposal would bring us together and establish the principal of ‘One person, one vote’ in the most important election in the world — for President of the United States.”

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 180 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Campaign For America’s Future, Landing Page, Social Contract, and as noted, August 14, 2010, by Campaign for America’s Future Staff, photo from Campaign For America’s Future, excerpts from CAF and other sources quoted verbatim:

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly reject cutting Social Security and Medicare as a means of lowering the federal deficit, and support progressive proposals for reviving the economy. See the results.

Politicians will face major voter backlash if they advocate cuts in Social Security benefits or choose deficit reduction over job creation, according to a poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner commissioned by the Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps, with support from MoveOn.org; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. Read the full poll results (.pdf).

Read The Big Decisions Ahead on Economic Renewal and Reduced Debt (.pdf), August 12, 2010, by Stan Greenberg, James Carville and Peyton M. Craighill.

Campaign for America’s Future has joined a major coalition of 60 organizations, representing 30 million people, delivering a simple message: “Strengthen Social Security … Don’t Cut It.” Learn the latest on the effort to strengthen Social Security.

See especially Now We Know What Public Wants – Get Candidates On The Record, Campaign for America’s Future, August 13, 2010, by Dave Johnson..

See At 75, Social Security Ripens as Voter Issue, ABC News, August 14, 2010, by John Fritze, USA Today, excerpt quoted verbatim:

They spent months on health care and Wall Street in Congress, but as lawmakers talk with voters during the summer recess they are increasingly focused on an entirely different issue: Social Security.

Hoping to capitalize on the popular program before the midterm elections, lawmakers in both parties are using this weekend’s 75th anniversary of Social Security to position themselves as guardians of its 53 million beneficiaries.

Democrats are holding events at senior centers and are attacking plans by some Republicans to privatize the program. GOP lawmakers say Democrats have “raided” the Social Security trust fund by spending, rather than saving, excess payroll taxes.

Obama: If GOP retakes Congress,
they will seek to destroy Social Security

Obama: If GOP retakes Congress, they will seek to destroy Social Security, AP on The Raw Story, August 14, 2010, by Associated Press: President Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats’ support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it.

Seventy-five years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday: “We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever.”

Some Republican leaders in Congress are “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall,” Obama said.

He contended that such privatization was “an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.”

Most Republicans, in fact, are wary of touching that idea, because Social Security is virtually sacrosanct to voters, particularly seniors.

Nonetheless, Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

Read the full story, here.

See Stop the plot against seniors!, The Huffington Post, August 14, 2010, by Rep. Alan Grayson, and SIGN THE PETITION.

Watch a Fox Business Network propaganda video Social Security Turns 75, Will There Be Another 75?.

Comment by Evans Liberal Poliitics owner Paul Evans: The Fox News analyst is almost reasonable, which is surprising. The answer conservative economists have for fixing Social Security, which ISN’T broken, is privatization, and raising the retirement age, and NEVER, never simply raising the cap on Social Security taxes. Right now the upper limit on taxable income for Social Security is around $100,000. Simply raising the Cap to say $300,000 fixes the system completely, but the rich people who control Congress won’t allow this to be even up for discussion. When he was a candidate, Barack Obama proposed having income between $100,000 and $225,000 exempt from Social Security taxes, and income above and below that level taxable. But there isn’t the stomach in Congress to even consider this, which would completely fix the system and even allow surplus funds to be used elsewhere by the government. Shameful.

Comment by @B3sideYouInTime on Twitter: ‘@BarackObama if you cut social security ur gonna lose alot of votes. act like a Liberal for gods sake, thats why we voted u in.’ I think President Obama "Gets it:" Listen to audio from the President, below:

The President’s Weekly Address

Weekly Address: Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It

"The President’s Weekly Address:" Honoring Social Security on it’s 75th anniversary, not privatizing it. White House audio — 3:16 Click the smiley to listen and just keep the player open to listen to more recent news and music.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 174 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Obama attacks Bush policies in Bush’s home state, Reuters, August 10, 2010, by Ross Colvin, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Texas (Reuters) – President Barack Obama attacked the economic policies of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush in Bush’s home state on Monday as evidence of the way Republicans would operate if given power in November 2 U.S. congressional elections.

At a fund-raising event for Democrats in Dallas, where Bush now lives, Obama said the former president’s “disastrous” policies had driven the U.S. economy into the ground and turned budget surpluses into deficits.

Obama defended his repeated references to Bush’s policies, saying they were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited from Bush in January 2009.

“The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?” Obama said at another fund-raising event in Austin, referring to Bush’s eight years as president.

In reminding voters about the policies of the unpopular Bush, Obama is trying to protect his fellow Democrats’ majorities in Congress and limit anticipated Republican gains.

On November 2, voters will choose all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 37 members of the 100-seat Senate.

Republicans say they doubt Obama’s effort to cite Bush as a reason to vote against them in November will work because Americans are more concerned about getting or keeping a job.

“When we talk about this ‘going back’ thing, I notice that some Republicans say, ‘Well, he just wants to bash the previous administration, he’s looking backwards.’ … No, no, no. The reason we’re focused on it is because the other side isn’t offering anything new,” Obama said in Austin.

He said later in Dallas that Republicans were simply offering “retreads” of economic policies that “got us into this mess in the first place” and had no new ideas to offer voters.

One part of Bush’s legacy remains a subject of intense debate in Washington — the tax cuts for all Americans he steered through Congress in 2001 and 2003.

These expire at the end of this year, and a pitched battle has begun over whether to extend all or part of them.

Obama and the Democrats say tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year should be ended to help close the U.S. budget deficit. Republicans argue that no taxes should rise in a time of economic peril.

Obama, grappling with the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, 9.5 percent unemployment, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, soaring budget deficits and an impatient electorate, said all that Republicans have done is try to obstruct him at every turn.

Read the full story here.

See Obama to GOP: I’m pretty good at politicking, remember?, CNN, August 9, 2010, by CNN Wire Staff,excerpt quoted verbatim:

(CNN) — President Barack Obama warned Republicans on Monday that he is back in campaign mode.

In a fundraising speech in Austin, Texas, Obama complained that while his administration has been governing the country since January 2009, Republicans have been trying to obstruct progress.

“There has been a fundamental lack of seriousness on the other side,” Obama said. “We’ve spent the last 20 months governing; they have spent the last 20 months politicking.”

In reference to the upcoming November congressional elections, Obama said: “Well, we can politick for three months. They forgot I’m pretty good at politicking.”

The speech repeated the main campaign themes Obama has mentioned in recent months, particularly his assessment of GOP proposals as a repeat of failed policies from the previous administration.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 164 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

It’s Nasty In Colorado This Primary Day, NPR, August 9, 2010, by Liz Halloran, photo montage of Denver courtesy of Wikipedia, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Voters in four states will go to the polls Tuesday and pick their party’s fall candidates, but perhaps no races are being watched more closely than the primary contests for governor and the U.S. Senate in Colorado. There, the expected has taken a back seat to the astonishing.

Plagiarism? Check. Gender politics? Check. Charges of Wall Street coziness? Check. Competing presidential endorsements? Check. Bicycle-sharing as a United Nations plot? Check. Selling house for campaign cash? Check.

Add to that the last-minute gubernatorial candidacy of an independent party spoiler in the name of former five-term conservative Rep. Tom Tancredo, and the political situation in Colorado is “pandemonium,” says Denver-based pollster Floyd Ciruli.

GOP’S Dimmed Hopes — For Now

That the chaos is largely playing out in the Republican contests doesn’t bode well for a party that had viewed the state as highly promising territory.

Party leaders had great hopes this fall of picking up the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Michael Bennet and of recapturing the governor’s office being vacated by one-term Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.

Bennet, the former Denver school superintendent, was appointed to the seat in January 2009 after then-Sen. Ken Salazar was tapped by President Obama to become interior secretary.

“I thought that the Republicans here had a very good chance to take back a significant amount of the political landscape they used to control out here,” Ciruli says. “And up until early June every poll consistently showed that they had a 5-point generic lead statewide — whatever the matchup.”

“But it’s now all up in the air here,” he says.

What Happened?

Democrats, as they do nationally, looked increasingly vulnerable in Colorado.

The ailing economy is local voters’ top issue, and one that doesn’t favor the party in power. Statewide unemployment is north of 8 percent.

And Obama, whose win in Colorado with 53.7 percent of the vote in the 2008 presidential race suggested a political swing away from the GOP, has seen his approval ratings in the state plummet to 38 percent.

Colorado Republicans had recruited candidates who, on paper, looked strong — from former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton for Senate to former six-term Rep. Scott McInnis for governor.

Both now are in dead heats with party upstarts.

Senate Race

Norton, endorsed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, is battling Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney and a Tea Party favorite endorsed by emerging conservative kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

(Buck, however, may have alienated some Tea Party adherents recently when, in a private conversation with a Democratic operative, he was recorded saying: “Will you tell those dumb asses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates when I’m on the camera?”)

Buck, who was referring to those who question whether Obama was born in the United States, has also mixed it up with Norton over footwear.

In videotaped comments from a gathering of conservatives, Buck was shown answering a question about why party members should vote for him with this: “Because I do not wear high heels,” but “cowboy boots, they have real bulls- – - on them.”

Buck defended the comment as a response to Norton ads that question his “manhood.”

Polls show Norton, who made some hay with the high heels comment, with a slim lead. She has raised more than $2.87 million for her campaign; Buck has raised $1.26 million.

Obama Vs. Clinton?

The Democrats’ Senate contest pits Obama-endorsed Bennet against Andrew Romanoff, who secured former President Bill Clinton’s endorsement — and recently sold his house to infuse cash into his insurgent campaign.

Romanoff, a former state speaker of the house, has used a series of hard-hitting and controversial advertisements — criticized as unfair by some in the party — to link Bennet with Wall Street interests.

Bennet, a lawyer and businessman who served in the Clinton administration, was also the subject of a recent New York Times article critical of the way he structured school funding as superintendent in Denver, where the financing terms have now become a financial drain. Bennet’s campaign has dismissed the criticism.

Though Clinton has not been on the campaign trail for Romanoff, he recorded a pitch for the candidate that will be sent as a robo call to potential voters in the final hours of the hard-fought campaign. The popular former president’s endorsement has given the challenger some credibility, says Joannie Braden, a Democratic consultant in Denver.

“Bill Clinton is a very popular Democrat and I think it was a meaningful endorsement,” Braden says.

Obama has recorded automated calls for Bennet that started last week.

And though the pollster Ciruli says that Obama’s endorsement is increasingly seen as a wash among state voters, Bennet has a huge fundraising edge: $7.7 million raised as of July 21, compared with the $1.9 million raised by Romanoff.

Bennet holds a slight lead in the race.

“It’s tight sneakers,” Braden says of the Romanoff-Bennet contest.

The downside for Democrats, strategists say of the historically expensive race, is that no matter who emerges from the negative campaign will be covered with that bitter residue. ….

Read the full story, including information about the governor’s race, here.

See Tom Tancredo Hands Colorado to Democrats, KicK: Making Politics Fun, August 9, 2010, by Rack Jite.

UPDATE: "Colorado Senate Contests:" Dan Balz handicaps the very competitive Colorado US Senate primaries. — 5:50

"Midterm Elections 2010: Colorado Senate Race Gets Rocky:" Audio news on the US Senate race in Colorado from CQPolitics. — 4:58

See today’s article Bob Swern on Economic Incompetence as a separate page. An expose on business and economic incompetence featuring Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Chris Whalen and Yves Smith. Daily Kos and Evans Liberal Politics, August 9, 2010, by Bob Swern.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 164 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google