Congress Doing Well, $ for Nothing

Six-figure salary, first-rate health insurance, pension, per diem expenses etcetera, etcetera all for doing nothing all day.

Meet the Congressional Republicans living high on the tax payers. 

Worth noting, Wisconsin Republican Congressman Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin) infamously complained he didn't get paid enough, noting he drives a "used minivan," owns only two houses and his tax payer-financed health insurance, pension and other expenses make him in debt. Sounds rough, poor guy. (Somanader, ThinkProgress)

From Political Capital:

Wisconsin's Corrupt Attorney General's Quest to Block Marriage Equality

Wisconsin has a wide collection of Republican officeholders today making national headlines that would do Mississippi proud.

There's Wisconsin's "dumb Ron Johnson," a U.S. senator who likes to run political interference on behalf of child molesters.

Wisconsin's crooked and extremist governor, Scott Walker who is so afraid of the Wisconsin people, he has failed to hold one listening session, after campaigning his would be the most transparent and open administration in Wisconsin history. "I attended a (Mary) Burke question-and-answer meeting in Waunakee," writes Nila Frye in a letter to the editor in today's Wisconsin State Journal, making the score: Burke: Many; Walker: Zero.

Wisconsin's fake budget numbers guy, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), who is scaring away Republicans as he explains why Social Security and Medicare are un-American.

Then there is Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a corrupt jurist who went to court in 2008 claiming all of the state bureaucracies' databases' names of Wisconsin residents had to exactly match as a precondition to vote. Seriously.

Van Hollen's charge now, in his mind, is to defend all manner of unconstitutional laws such as the Wisconsin same sex marriage ban and the GOP photo voter obstruction law.

Van Hollen foolishly declared in June there would be "legal repercussions" for county clerks marrying couples after U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb held Wisconsin's ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional in Wolf v. Walker.

Now, instead of allowing marriage equity to proceed, Van Hollen along with Scott Walker announced yesterday they are appealing Judge Crabb's decision, despite widespread and growing sentiment for marriage equality. (Marley, Ferguson; Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

In typical Walker and Van Hollen fashion both Republicans do not have the courage of their bigoted convictions, and both officials refrain from explaining why denial of two people of the same sex getting married is constitutional.

Had Walker and Van Hollen not appealed, Judge Crabb's declaration and injunction against enforcement of gay marriage bans would have gone into effect.

Van Hollen can read case law, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has fast-tracked a similar case from Indiana where the appellate Court ordered Indiana on July 1 to allow one couple to marry because one of the spouses has terminal cancer.

"It is time for the State of Indiana to leave Niki (Sandler) and Amy (Quasney) in peace and not subject them and their marriage to any more stress and uncertainty as this case proceeds," Lambda Legal staff attorney Paul D. Castillo said in a statement.

Congratulations to Ms. Sandler and Ms. Quasney.

Shame on the bigots and their infantile rants.

Equal protection under the law is the Republican nightmare, and the outgoing J.B. Van Hollen leaves behind a legacy of partisanship, corruption and obstruction of the right to vote and even get married as his legacy.

Paul Ryan, Romney and GOP: Phase out Social Security and Medicare

Money for GOP, not for thee

The 14 scariest words in American politics: 'We're from the Republican Party, and we're here to save Social Security and Medicare."

"If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be 'forced' to make 'hard choices' - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked."
- Mike Lofgren, who retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Republican Congressional staffer (TruthOut, Saturday September 3, 2012)

Lofgren is brilliant, but seeing what Ryan, Romney and the GOP are up to is like wondering if we were going to war with Iraq in January 2003—the decisions were made, and ideology and propaganda led the way to disaster.

The GOP has always hated the Medicare and Social Security, and now they want the presidency to save it, not to bury the social insurance program though their asserted reason—debt is the achieved objective of the Bush-Cheney administration and unregulated Wall Street speculators.

"Romney insisted on Wisconsin radio [last[ Friday that Ryan's plan does not balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly ... It instead preserves Medicare and preserves Social Security." (The Paul Ryan Watch)

Reviews are not kind to these unpopular GOP positions, as noted by Xoff:

A Christian Science Monitor column by Howard Gleckman calls it Ryan's "mystery meat budget" saying he "airily promises both trillions of dollars in tax cuts and a nearly balanced budget within a decade, but never says how he’d get there."

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones says:

Paul Ryan has released the latest Republican budget, and it's a blizzard of numbers, gimmicks, weird comparisons, and obfuscation. It's no more serious than any of Ryan's other budget proposals, no matter how many PowerPoint slides he includes... 

Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post, says Ryan's idea is to help the poor by hurting them:

Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, is on record as saying, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” And Ryan has just written a budget that supports Romney’s boast.

In an editorial, the Post calls Ryan's plan "dangerous and intentionally vague."

The Post also says Democrats want to know how much taxpayer money was spent to produce those slick videos with Ryan to try to sell his budget.  So far, no one's saying.

Paul Ryan Budget Ignores Veterans, Not Even a Mention

Paul Ryan is all smiles, veterans get no love or mention

The federal budget is a statement of priorities. In the Rep. Paul Ryan's version of the 2013 budget subsequently embraced by Gov. Mitt Romney, the word veteran never appears.

The budget proposal runs to 98 pages. Zero mention of veterans. Two protracted conflicts, high veteran unemployment and a multitude of coming home issues and not one mention of veterans in this budget proposal.

It clearly states that veterans are NOT a priority.

This budget proposal is worse than an empty thanks for your service, an empty thanks would require being mentioned. Veterans did not even make the list of prioirites. Veterans were ignored entirely. Veterans are essentially being told thanks for nothing, you are on your own. This is absolutely unacceptable. Especially coming from an aspiring commander-in-chief.

By Patrick Bellon and Christopher Miller

Now contrast that with the 2013 budget the President recently unveiled that clearly makes veterans a top priority. The contrast is very stark.

With a new generation of veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the few significant increases in the executive’s 2013 budget is to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs,which would be increased by 10%. This increase addresses issues facing veterans ranging from mental health to homelessness. It even addresses the needs of the growing female veterans population. Most importantly it budgets for needed increases in health care and disablity compensation.

But the budget mostly cuts. For every $1 in revenue raised from those making $250,000 annually and closing corporate tax loopholes, it cuts $2.50 from the budget. In ten years it will cut virtually the same amount of all discretionary spending for 2013. This was a target agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans.

The media has reported that President Obama’s 2013 budget is controversial, though it reflects bipartisan agreement in Congress that discretionary spending should be reduced by $1 trillion over ten years. It allows the Bush tax cuts that have mostly benefitted the wealthiest Americans to expire. It institutes the ‘Buffet Rule’ that no household making over $1 million a year will pay less than 30% in taxes. It also includes the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on America’s biggest financial institutions who contributed to the financial crisis to ensure every cent of taxpayer funds from the TARP are paid back to the federal government.

So where is the controversy? The budget still projects a $901 billion shortfall. In the $3.6 trillion proposal, $2.5 trillion, about 70%, is ‘mandatory’ spending, which means that the money must be spent according to laws passed by Congress. The other $1.1 trillion is ‘discretionary’ spending, meaning this is money the President would like to spend. To ‘balance the budget’, as many in Congress are calling for, would mean cutting out all discretionary spending except for around $200 billion.

This sounds easier than it is, especially when the cost of defense maintenance and operations is $272 billion alone. Virtually all defense spending is discretionary and the President’s budget already includes billions of dollars in defense cuts in procurement, operations, bases, and personnel. Discretionary spending increases in the budget include Veterans healthcare, student aid, the State Department, and housing. To balance the budget in 2013 would mean mothballing the Pentagon and State Department, as well as veterans’ healthcare, student aid, and the federal prison system. And that would just be for one year. It wouldn’t even begin to pay down the national debt which we have accumulated over decades.

Americans have gotten used to demanding government provide services we all want and benefit from, but refuse to pay higher revenue, or taxes, to fund them. This seems to include paying for the true costs of war,if the Ryan-Romney 2013 budget is any indication. This is unacceptable.

The budget discourse takes place on intellectually dishonest terms. Who would provide the services everyone is accustomed to if this budget was passed? Some of the most vital services the government provides no private sector firm can or would provide. What private firm could provide a military? Even private defense contractors employ former soldiers trained by the U.S. military. Private intelligence contractors do the same. Who would build and maintain roads and airports and secure them? Firms may build roads and airports where and when they need them, but they wouldn’t build them beyond their own need for capacity or use. Even if the government got out of the healthcare and Social Security game altogether, individual Americans would still have to pay for these services out of pocket.

President Obama’s 2013 budget should not controversial. Most of the President’s budget (like all budgets) is controlled by laws passed by Congress. If Sen. McCain were sitting in the White House today instead of President Obama, he would be facing the same problems. Americans support preserving and continuing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They want a strong national security apparatus, good infrastructure, and education. Americans also overwhelmingly support our military and veterans,one of the few issues most agree on regardless of party. As a nation we must take a hard look at our values and realize that all of these things cost money and must be paid for. It isn’t a choice of which or how much; it is a choice of either/or. Either we decide we don’t want these things and don’t have to pay for them or we decide we do and we pay the what is required. Great countries require investment and hardwork, not dishonest conversations that allow us to shirk our responsibilities. As americans we must set priorities that live up to our highest ideals and values.

President Obama’s budget proposal makes sense and displays a very different set of priorities than the Ryan budget. Veterans occupy a preeminent place within that set of priorities, especially compared to being completely ignored. It is a balance of cuts and revenue increases. It provides for the programs Americans overwhelmingly support. It continues to fund programs we need to help our economy grow out of this economic downturn.

Franklin Roosevelt's Statement on Signing the Social Security Act

Paul Ryan, Rick Perry and the GOP possess a shameful incapacity to appreciate that seniors see Social Security as benefits accrued over a lifetime of working. And that seniors' work, their labor, is honorable and sacred.

By President Franklin Roosevelt

Statement on Signing the Social Security Act on August 14 , 1935

Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last.

This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.

I congratulate all of you ladies and gentlemen, all of you in the Congress, in the executive departments and all of you who come from private life, and I thank you for your splendid efforts in behalf of this sound, needed and patriotic legislation.

If the Senate and the House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this Bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.

Republicans Lock Down Town Halls to Stifle Critics



Rep Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) - Prevent democracy

By Evan McMorris-Santoro

In 2009, the current Republican Congressional majority rode into power on a wave of voter frustration voiced through organized protest at town halls. So it's perhaps out of fear that the same thing will happen to their majority in 2012 that Republicans found new and novel ways to stifle the voices of constituents who might criticize them. ...
That's the easiest way to avoid town hall criticism, of course: not to have a town hall at all. And that's exactly what Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- who is a prime target for progressive and Democratic protesters -- has done. Instead of public, open meetings, Ryan opted for visits with civic groups that charged the public admission to attend.

Paul Ryan toasts Medicare cuts with $350 bottles of wine

Paul Ryan lives large - Photos via AP/Susan Feinberg

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), budget-hawk and free-spender, wines and dines with buddies, [A Hedge Fund Manager and a University Of Chicago Economist; Cliff Asness and John Cochrane], downing two $350 bottles of wine, as witnessed by Rutgers Prof. Susan Feinberg. Outrage follows Ryan consuming $100s in wine while Congress tries to cut seniors' safety net. "F—— her," said one of Ryan's companions referring to Feinberg.

Update: Ryan now (late October 2015) positioning himself as the next Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

From Jim Rowan's comment on TPM's piece by Susan Crabtree:

At the swanky Bistro Bis restaurant, where a website gushes:

An award-winning destination restaurant in Downtown Washington, DC, Bistro Bis is the place to savor and be seen - where Capitol Hill powerbrokers and politicians enjoy innovative interpretations of classic French bistro cuisine.

Owned and operated by renowned Chef Jeffrey Buben, this non-smoking, downtown DC restaurant is next to The Hotel George on the slope of the world-famous Capitol Hill. Senators, congressman, celebrities, entertainers and leaders come to experience bold French fare in the refreshing ambiance and chic luxury of one of he most enticing restaurants in downtown Washington, DC

More from the account of the dinner, the confrontation and a subsequent interview, from Talking Points Memo:

Ryan and anti-working class friends live it up

Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan's table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same price-tag.

If you're a fiscal hawk, life is good in DC.

If not full of contradiction - - a long way from Janesville, Wisconsin, aina.