School shooting

This time in Connecticut. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

What are we going to do about it? Nothing is not an option.

Team Douchebag

Your starting five: Team rape (cue the music)



At guard, from Missouri, U.S. Rep. and senate candidate Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin!
At the other guard, Indiana state treasurer and state senate candidate Richard "God Intended Rape to Happen" Moooour-dock!
At forward, from Iowa, U.S. Rep. Steve "Statutory Rape" King!
At forward, from Pennsylvania, senate candidate Tom "Rape = Out-of-wedlock Pregnancy" Smith!
And at center, from Wisconsin, state Rep. Roger "Rape so Easy" Rivard!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Mourdock's Rape Comment
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

UPDATE: It wasn't a good night for Team Douchebag last night, as Akin, Mourdock, Smith and Rivard all lost their election bids. Of course, that means it was a good night for the people of the United States of America. Maybe now we can all start treating women like, you know, people.

Ladies and gentlemen ...

the end of the Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia cut in when Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said the justices would need to look at “the structure and the text” of the 2,700-page [ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act].

“Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment?” Scalia asked — a joking reference to the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

“And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"

Taking a swipe at the court’s textualists, Justice Elena Kagan said the court could dispense with the legislative history and “look at the text that’s actually given us.”
“For some people, we look only at the text,” she said. “It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks.”

“I don't care whether it's easy for my clerks,” Scalia said to laughs. “I care whether it's easy for me.”

Given that Needler was arguing the merits of a law that provides health insurance -- and access to lifesaving healthcare -- to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it, it might not have been prudent for him to answer Justice Scalia's question the way he would have liked. But, given that I am just an average American citizen and not burdened with that responsibility, perhaps I can enlighten Scalia about the expectations of average Americans like myself:

YES! When the Supreme Court hears a case, I do expect you to be fully aware of all the relevant issues. If that means reading every word of a 2,700-page document, that's OK with me. Your job as a Supreme Court justice carries an incredible amount of responsibility, and the Court's decisions affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people and alters the course of our nation.

In exchange for that taking on that awesome responsibility, you are compensated more than adeqautely, at more than $200,000 per year, placing you comfortably within the top 5 percent of American wage earners. And, with your lifetime appointment, you also have unprecedented job security at a time when the term "job security" is, for many people, becoming an oxymoron.

I also expect you to judge cases based on their constitutional merit, leaving your personal political beliefs at the courthouse door. We wouldn't want judges on the top court in the land "legislating from the bench" now, would we?

So yeah, I expect you to read every word on every page of the 2,700-page PPACA. It's your job. And given the fabulous wage and benefits package you receive, I don't care whether it's easy for you.

It's hard to believe that a Supreme Court justice asked an attorney arguing before the Court if the attorney expects him to read the law they are talking about. Are you fucking kidding me?

Take the Bastards Down

Dropkick Murphys, in support of the Wisconsin protesters.



To purchase a limited edition "Take em Down" T-shirt, click here. Proceeds benefit the Workers’ Rights Emergency Response Fund.

The angry rich

Remember what I've said over and over in this space? That Republicans (and Blue Dogs) don't give a shit about you unless you're rich? Krugman:

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

This column brings to mind a post by Athenae that's linked to at Susie's place:

In the second place, in the second paragraph, really. You're really going to tell starving children to go blow because you're mad about your taxes. That's a thing you're going to do. The starving children, natch, having all kinds of influence in Congress, given how everybody's falling all over themselves to help THEM. Those are the people who can do exactly dick about your tax sitch, so I'm sure your brave moral stand will SO TOTALLY get noticed by our decision makers. Shit, stop giving money to politicians if you don't like how they behave, but Toys for Tots did nothing to you to deserve your contempt, and you're doing plenty to earn mine.

Of course, the starving children have no influence on Congress because the only thing congresspeople care about is getting re-elected, that is to say, their own asses. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, for example, would rather shut down the federal government than alienate what he sees as a bumper crop of new potential supporters in the tea baggers.

“We must not blink,” he said, noting that money cannot be spent without the House voting to pass it. “If the House says no, it’s no.”

Their new tea party backers won’t tolerate anything less than a full repeal of the health care law, he said.

“They will leave us if we go wobbly,” he said. “I am worried about that, but that’s why I think it’s got to be a blood oath.”

No word from King about what might happen if the entire nation goes "wobbly" because the House forces a shutdown of the government. But apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is not "worried about that." Apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is more "worried about" getting Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa re-elected.

Country first, y'all.

How they voted

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

on HR 847 to provide health care to 9/11 rescue workers.

Because not everyone will click through to see the shameful list of assholes, here are the 159 no voters. Of these, 155 are Republicans and four are Democrats (the Democrats are in bold).

Aderholt, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Barrett (SC), Bartlett, Barton (TX), Bean, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boozman, Boustany, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite Ginny, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Castle, Chaffetz, Coble, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (KY), Diaz-Balart L., Diaz-Balart M., Djou, Dreier, Duncan, Ehlers, Emerson, Fallin, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson (IL), Johnson Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Lamborn, Latham, LaTourette, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA),Linder, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, McCaul, McClintock, McCotter, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller Gary, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe (TX), Posey, Price (GA), Putnam, Rehberg, Reichert, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Sullivan, Terry, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Turner, Upton, Walden, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf.

The Democrats used a procedural tactic that prevented Republicans from adding all kinds of bullshit, pro-wealthy amendments to the very popular bill, which would have made it all but impossible for Democrats to vote against said amendments. But that tactic also requires a 2/3 vote for the bill to pass. So even though the vote was 255-159 in favor, the bill required 285 votes to pass. Sure, the tactic made it harder to get the bill passed, but getting Republicans to do the right thing shouldn't be so hard. This bill was a slam-dunk, but without amendments giving away what's left of the national treasury to the already super-rich, this bill just didn't seem like a good idea to Republicans. It's just more evidence that, unless you have obscene amounts of money, Republicans don't give a shit about you.

The procedural tactic isn't the reason the bill didn't pass. The 159 assholes who voted against it are the reason it didn't pass.

The 14th Amendment

I don't do this often, but I think I might agree with morons (or whores, depending on your view of the sincerity of their publicly proclaimed positions). Maybe Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl and so many other conservative dumbasses and lunatics are right: Maybe it is time to review the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, quit pussy-footing around the issue, bitches. Quit your cowardly floating of trial ballons and checking of polls. Let's repeal the fucker.

After all, why should U.S. citizenship be accorded to just anyone? To people who, through no effort or accomplishment of their own, just happen to be born within the borders of the United States? Since when do we just give away shit for free in this country? Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's a responsibility that requires knowledge of our history and hard work to stay informed about issues affecting this great nation today. How could an uninformed citizenry possibly be effective stewards of our democracy? How could an ignorant, disinterested electorate keep its leadership honest and strike fear into a corrupt government? How could a lazy, apathetic public be anything more than a punch line, allowing thieving criminals with their hands on the levers of power to begin their lies with the phrase, "The American people ..."?

Citizenship is a serious responsibility that shouldn't be trusted to just anyone. If you can't be bothered to stay informed about the issues facing this country and protect it from those who would do it harm for personal gain; if you are too busy to learn the history of the nation you purport to love; if you are here just to take what you can from this country for yourself with no regard for it or anyone else who lives here; if you can't name the three branches of our government; if you couldn't pass what amounts to a high school civics pop quiz; then please explain to me why you deserve citizenship.

And don't hand me any of that shit about "my parents were here legally." This isn't about their citizenship, it's about yours. So what have you done to deserve to be an American citizen? And remember, if we repeal the 14th Amendment, being born here ain't gonna cut it no more.

If the extent of your commitment to this country is to fly American flags on your vehicle, find somewhere else to live. If you think patriotism is a weapon for divisiveness in a country founded on the virtue of tolerance by people fleeing persecution, if you think loving your country means hating others, get the fuck out of my country. You're too fucking stupid to live here.

No more free rides and no more getting credit for your parents' circumstances. If you want to be an American citizen, earn it. It's the American way.

Another fake controversy debunked

Remember the e-mails that proved climate scientists exaggerated the threat of global warming for ... uh, in order to ... I have no idea why?

Well...

The controversy known as "climategate" erupted in November 2009 with the publication of more than 1,000 e-mails to and from scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in eastern England.

The e-mails, dating back to 1996, were published on Web sites run by climate change skeptics who claim efforts had been made to manipulate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, stepped down from his post while reviews were conducted. It was announced Wednesday that Jones would return to the role of Director of Research at the university after an independent review cleared the CRU of manipulating or falsifying data.

"We concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," said the review's chairman Muir Russell.

In early July, an investigation by Penn State University into one of the authors of the e-mails, Professor Michael Mann, found that he had not strayed from accepted practices for "proposing, reporting or conducting research."

I hope this is the last we hear of a group of people with a political and/or financial agenda falsifying facts to exaggerate a controversy.

ACORN cleared

Just so you know.

When a duo of right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute released selectively-edited videos trying to impugn the community activist group ACORN, both Democrats and Republicans condemned the organization.

Congress then voted to cut off federal funding for the group (a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional). Following negative press and Congress' vote, ACORN effectively disbanded Apr. 1 and reorganized under new names.

But a just-issued report by the Government Accountability Office that reviewed ACORN's federal funding at the behest of Congress found little grist for the mill for politicians or right-wing bloggers looking to bash the now-defunct advocacy group for the poor.

The 38-page report surveyed over 31 federal agencies, probing how ACORN used federal funds and whether adequate controls on spending existed.

The report found no evidence of fraud, lax oversight or misuse of federal funds.

In fact, the report discovered that ACORN had adequately accounted for spending $40 million worth of major and minor grants awarded by the federal government to the group since 2005 to combat a variety of problems afflicting poor Americans, including lead poisoning, housing discrimination and lack of adequate job training.

The preliminary report on the group’s funding also found that of the grants that warranted audits no irregularities in spending were found. Smaller grantees said that oversight was adequate as well.

Of eight major grants awarded ACORN by the federal government the report found fault with one, a grant by Neighbor Works.

“Neighbor Works determined that ACORN Housing Corporation had not provided a description of what it planned to accomplish under the grant, as required. After Neighbor Works brought this to the attention of ACORN Housing Corporation officials, these officials subsequently provided the documentation. Oversight of sub-awards is generally delegated to grantees,” the report states.

Of fifteen sub-grants awarded ACORN by a variety of federal agencies, the report did not find any irregularities.

Along with the preliminary finding, the federal agency did a comprehensive review of all criminal investigations by the Department of Justice and federal Inspector General’s since 2005. [...]

The agency also found the Federal Election Commission had closed all investigations into voter fraud by the group.

Of corurse, that still leaves open the question about the motives of the "right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute" and their financial backers. Do they hate poor people, programs that work to help poor people, or the effective use of federal funding?

Enemy of traditional marriage

The state of Texas.

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

This is the language of an amendment to the Texas Constitution that was adopted in 2005. But don't worry. Apparently it doesn't mean what it says.

“The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.”

Hear that? The Texas Constitution is constitutional. So everyone can relax.

Until they hire some people better versed in the English language, Texas might want to consider a "You Know What Was Meant" amendment, because in their attempt to trample the civil rights of some of their citizens, Texas lawmakers have trampled the civil rights of everyone. In the process, they made it unlawful for anyone to become married or to be recognized as married in the state.

But you know what was meant. So go ahead and ignore this particular provision of the constitution.

Unless you're gay.

Show me the note, part deux

This expands on a previous post, which is referenced in the title of this one.

From Roger Ebert’s review of Michael Moore’s "Capitalism":

The second is the reckless, immoral gambling referred to as "derivatives." I've read that derivatives are so complex they're created by computers and not even the software authors really understand them. Moore asks three experts to explain them to him. All three fail. Essentially, they involve bets placed on the expectation that we will default on our mortgages, for example. If we do, the bets pay off. What if we don't? Investors can hedge their bets, by betting that they will fail. They hope to win both ways.

Our mortgages are the collateral for these bets. Moore says they are sliced and diced and rebundled and scattered hither and yon. He has an interview with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who advises her constituents: If a bank forecloses, don't move, and demand they produce a copy of your mortgage. In many cases, they can't.

And even if they can, the current holder of the "security" (that's starting to look like a rather ironic term, huh?) may not have the legal standing to foreclose, as mentioned in the previous post:

MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.

After all, it's not the homeowners' fault that a bunch of traders have essentially paid off the mortgagee by buying fractions of the sliced-and-diced mortgage as part of various bundles, and left themselves with no legal recourse should the homeowner stop making payments, is it?

Once again, as before, I urge, warn and direct you to speak with an attorney with expertise in real estate law before taking any action. I am not an expert on real estate law, so acting on my impressions of the current landscape would be to act as irresponsibly as the securities traders who now appear to have paid through the nose for worthless paper.

In reference to millions of American homes, if it turns out that nobody can prove who owns what, millions of mortgages will be unenforceable. But what’s bad for the banking industry might just be good for the rest of the economy. Finally, a bottom-up solution to a bottom-up problem, which is how I think the government should have handled this mess in the first place: If the banking crisis was due to widespread mortgage defaults, why not just pay off the delinquent mortgages? The money ends up going to the same banks as it went to anyway, but that way at least someone got something for it instead of it being a simple giveaway of taxpayer money. Instead, the banks collected free money and still got to collect mortgage payments and foreclose on properties, which presumably will increase in value someday.

And just think of all the shit people could have bought to stimulate the economy with the money they no longer had to use for mortgage payments. The top 1 percent may have most of the money, but they aren't going to be able to support 100 percent of the economy. Even those greedy swine can buy only so many cars, TVs and houses.

UPDATE: More on the Kansas Supreme Court decision from someone who knows more about real estate law than I do.

The end of the road

Joe Biden, on GOP plans to take back some House seats in the midterm:

They're going to put their chips on movement in the 35 seats in the House that have been traditionally Republican districts and trying to take them back," Biden said, according to the White House pool report.

"If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do. This is their one shot," he went on. "If they don't break the back of our effort in this upcoming election, you're going to see the things we said we're for happen."

If Democrats can keep those seats, he said, Congress will finally see bipartisanship.

The end of the road? Where the fuck is the start of the road? Why is it that I have to wait until you find out if you keep seats that you already fucking hold before I see the things you said you're for happen?

Is it because the Republicans aren't the problem? Your political opposition has rendered itself all but totally powerless with eight years of servicing corporate America at the expense of the American people, and yet you still can't anything done. You need exactly ZERO Republican votes in both the House and Senate to get your agenda passed, so political opposition can't possibly be the problem, because you don't have any.

So what's the problem? Frankly, other than a few fringe nuts who watch Faux News 24/7, I don't know of anyone who opposes your stated agenda, other than Wall Street and the healthcare industry. Are they the ones who have stolen your spine? Are you really going to cater to them at the expense of the American people? Have you learned nothing from the Republicans' experience?

One more thing: Nobody gives a shit about "bipartisanship." Republicans already don't hold those seats. What about losing them again is going to make Republicans suddenly reasonable?

Republicans only care about one thing: making the rich even richer. I don't share that goal and therefore have no interest in compromising with them. The rich are rich enough.

And, frankly, if Republicans oppose something, it's a pretty good indicator that it will benefit the American people and/or improve the country in some way. So do yourself a favor and stop talking about "bipartisanship" except to point out what a horseshit smokescreen it is.

Maybe instead of worrying about the next election, you could accomplish something meaningful now. Something tells me that if you do that, the next election will take care of itself.

And if you don't, well, then I would start worrying.

Self explanatory

Exactly whom do you represent, Mr. President?

From the Houston Chronicle's Nick Anderson, by way of Crooks & Liars.

Water

Hey all you stupid small-government idiots: Check out the results of relieving polluters of the heavy burden of government regulation.

Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

“How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?” said Mrs. Hall-Massey, a senior accountant at one of the state’s largest banks.

She and her husband, Charles, do not live in some remote corner of Appalachia. Charleston, the state capital, is less than 17 miles from her home.

“How is this still happening today?” she asked.

When Mrs. Hall-Massey and 264 neighbors sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste into local water supplies, their lawyer did not have to look far for evidence. As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals — the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps.

But state regulators never fined or punished those companies for breaking those pollution laws.

This pattern is not limited to West Virginia. Almost four decades ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into waterways and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. States have passed pollution statutes of their own. But in recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen steadily across the nation, an extensive review of water pollution records by The New York Times found.

In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses.

However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene.

But at least those more than half a million violations of the Clean Water Act have led to cost savings that have created thousands of jobs and stimulated the shit out of the economy.

Oh, right.

For a list of the polluters near you and the number of times they have violated the Clean Water Act without having to worry about the burden of fines, prison or any penalties whatsoever because government has wised up and gotten out of the way of free enterprise, click here. And I'm glad that the same government that looks the other way while corporations pollute our water is working hard to deny affordable healthcare to people sickened by filthy, toxic water. And to everyone else, for that matter.

And, in what I'm sure is a completely unrelated story:

Dangerous staph bacteria have been found in sand and water for the first time at five public beaches along the coast of Washington, and scientists think the state is not the only one with this problem.

The germ is MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus — a hard-to-treat bug once rarely seen outside of hospitals but that increasingly is spreading in ordinary community settings such as schools, locker rooms and gyms.

I read the news yesterday and came away so depressed by the boundless greed in this country that is completely untempered by even the slightest grain of human decency and compassion. The health insurance industry is spending millions and working tirelessly to deny Americans access to affordable health insurance that won't be canceled the moment they need it, the Supreme Court is about to make it even easier for corporations to tighten their grip on elected officials, and polluters are poisioning our fucking water to save a few bucks while regulators yawn.

With everything that's going on, I am starting to think that raising a family in these conditions is simply irresponsible. And it pisses me off that I might have to leave my fucking country -- MY country -- in order to raise my family in a secure, healthful environment. People who used to say, "If that happens, I'm moving to Canada" used to sound like crackpots. Now they sound like pragmatists.

With all due respect to the late President Kennedy, when is it OK to ask what your country can do for you?

Closing

All branches of the Free Library of Philadelphia, due to budget constraints, unless state legislators take action. Too bad legislators like tax cuts more than providing services for their constituents. Too bad more rich people don't use libraries.

In a related matter, I wonder if the Philadelphia Eagles have ponied up the $3 million they owe the city or if team owner Jeff Lurie is going to continue dicking around in the courts and paying well-heeled attorneys while the people who have supported his team for so long lose yet another service as the city goes broke.

Blue dogs

Seeing a lot of green.

As the Obama administration and Democrats wrangled over the timing, shape and cost of health care overhaul efforts during the first half of the year, more than half the $1.1 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party's Blue Dog Coalition received came from the pharmaceutical, health care and health insurance industries, according to watchdog organizations.

The amount outstrips contributions to other congressional political action committees during the same period, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog organization. The Blue Dogs, a group of fiscally conservative lawmakers, successfully delayed the vote on health care overhaul proposals until the fall.

"The business community realizes that (the Blue Dogs) are the linchpin and will become much more so as time goes on," former Mississippi congressman turned lobbyist Mike Parker told the organization's researchers.

On average, Blue Dog Democrats net $62,650 more from the health sector than other Democrats, while hospitals and nursing homes also favor them, giving, respectively, $5,680 and $5,550 more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics , a nonprofit organization that tracks the influence of money in politics.

The contributions came at a time when health care and pharmaceutical companies were mounting a campaign against a government-run public health insurance option, fearing cost controls and an impact on business. The Blue Dogs' windfall also came at a time when the 52-member coalition flexed its muscle with both the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives as an increasingly influential bloc in the health care overhaul debate.

At the same time, many Blue Dogs were also rubbing shoulders with health care and insurance industry executives and their lobbyists at fundraising breakfasts and cocktail receptions that cost upward of $1,000 a plate, according to public information compiled by the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, which advocates greater government transparency. Since 2008, more than half the Blue Dogs have either attended health care industry fundraising receptions or similar functions co-sponsored by lobbyists representing the health care and insurance industries.

In June, as Rep. Mike Ross, D- Ark., who heads the coalition's task force on health care, publicly expressed the Blue Dogs' misgivings about the Democratic leadership's efforts, the former pharmacy owner was feted at a series of health care industry receptions. Ross has received nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance and health care industries over his five-term career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Calls to Ross' office weren't returned.

And we are supposed to believe that blue dogs are fighting the meaningful healthcare reform that so many Americans need so badly based on some selfless, genuine concern about costs. I guess the fact that they are protecting the interests and profits of health industries at the exact same time they are receiving piles of money from those industries is just a coincidence.

It appears the only costs they are concerned about are the costs of their next campaign.

Politicians putting self-interest ahead of the national interest. Who'da thunk it?

Obstruction

Republicans are slowing work on the healthcare bill in the Senate HELP committee by objecting to their own amendments.

An insider speaks

On Bill Moyers Journal, Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications for CIGNA, spells out exactly what the for-profit healthcare industry is up to. HINT: It has to do with protecting their profits at the expense of our health.





Click here to read the transcript.

Shorter Jon Kyl

the other Republican senator from Arizona, on healthcare: We plan on bullshitting you.

UPDATE: Here's what the bullshit will sound like, so you can recognize it when you hear it: "government takeover of healthcare."

The party of 'No'

Both the House and Senate passed budgets yesterday, with not one Republican vote in either case. Zero Republican votes in the House, zero Republican votes in the Senate.

As for the GOP budget "plan" -- you know, the one without any substance or even many actual numbers (see for yourself), Deputy Director for Management and Budget Rob Nabors called it a "joke." And it appears that some Republicans may have agreed with him.

About twice as many Republicans (38 or 20 percent of their conference) voted against the GOP alternative budget -- than Democrats (20 or 8 percent) who nixed their party's spending plan.

To be fair, it's possible that those Republicans are so accustomed to obstructionism that they simply voted no out of habit.

So once again we see that it is possible to get legislation passed in both the House and the Senate with no Republican support whatsoever. And we have seen that Republicans are simple obstructionists with no ideas of their own who will vote no to Democratic proposals without offering any meaningful alternative.

So can congressional Democrats now stop trying to work with people who have no interest in working with them? And can the American people just stop voting for Republicans? Because, even in this hour of great national crisis, Republicans cannot be bothered to either support efforts to solve our country's problems or offer an alternative. Even in the face of the worst economic disaster of most of our lifetimes, Republicans would rather do nothing than support the efforts of Democrats.