There are now 64 sponosor's to Alan Grayson's Medicare buy-in bill. That's 14 more since yesterday. Here is the complete list:
64 CURRENT COSPONSORS: Representatives Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, Rush Holt, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Tammy Baldwin, Mike Doyle, Diana DeGette, Steve Cohen, Bennie Thompson, Andre Carson, Yvette Clarke, Steve Israel, James Moran, Emanuel Clever, Judy Chu, Donald Payne, and John Garamendi.
Since this is a stand alone bill, it is worth asking: are there 216 votes for a Medicare buy-in? Are there 51? Even if there are, will those votes still be around next year?
When the buy-in is limited to 55-64, or even 50-64, I believe that there are, and that there will be enough votes. When everyone is allow to buy-in, I don't know. However, it's best to start seeing how many votes there are for the big enchilada, and then decide where to go from there.
Here is a cool pic of the ongoing process:
Have a good weekend. I am going to try and chill out before the six days of insanity start on Monday.
In just two days, Alan Grayson has piled up 50 co-sponsors to his Medicare buy-in bill, which is designed as a stand-alone bill rather than as an amendment to the health reform bill. Here is the complete list of 50 co-sponsors:
50 CURRENT COSPONSORS : Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, and Rush Holt.
Every indication has always been that there is overwhelming support for a Medicare buy-in among Congressional Democrats. This could very well pass as a stand alone bill, especially in 2011 once filibuster reform has taken place. This is definitely one of the ways that progressives can viably continue the fight for real health reform no matter what happens to the current bill.
Representative Alan Grayson has introduced a four-page bill that would allow all Americans under the age of 65 purchase Medicare for a fee. It is a great solution for health insurance in this country that would give everyone a choice of a robust public option.
The bill currently has ten co-sponsors. Notably, I have learned that these co-sponsors were gathered in only 15 minutes, making one co-sponsor for every 90 seconds of effort. That is a pretty good pace.
Grayson is resuming his efforts, so expect quite a few more members of Congress to sign on today.
Two key lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Ron Paul (R-TX), are pushing to authorize a full, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. The plan has sparked fury from both the Fed and the corporate banking industry, but the proposal is so appealing that the controversy is almost laughable.
The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful economic institutions in the world, but most of its operations are conducted in total secrecy. The Fed's rescue activities have dwarfed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, but without any public accounting. Some of these efforts may have been entirely appropriate, but we don't even know who the Fed is helping. That fact is a major barrier to establishing effective and fair economic policy.
"The Fed is a typical Washington institution that operates un-democratically and in virtually total secrecy, and a Congressionally-mandated audit that they (and much of the DC establishment) desperately oppose would be a serious step towards changing the dynamic of how things function. At the very least, it would provide an important template for defeating the interests which, in Washington, almost never lose."
Under the Grayson-Paul plan, which is offered as an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, the Government Accountability Office would be given the authority to audit all of the Federal Reserve's activities, just as it can audit other public programs and institutions.
Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved the audit-the-fed bill, despite opposition from panel Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), who tried to gut the plan. Even on the Financial Services Committee, where the banks concentrate their campaign contributions, Grayson was able to convince 14 other Democrats to stand up to the financial establishment.
The vote of approval scarcely registered on mainstream media's radar, and even then, the Grayson-Paul legislation was portrayed as an assault on the Fed's "political independence." As Dean Baker notes for Talking Points Memo, it's hard to see how a simple, public accounting can be construed as a political hit on the Fed's policy-making.
By setting interest rates, the Fed has enormous power to do almost anything under the economic sun, from fueling quick growth to destroying jobs. All of these powers have useful functions under the right circumstances, and we really don't want Congress to make decisions about the economy based on the interests of powerful lobby groups. The Grayson-Paul bill wouldn't do anything of the sort. As John Nichols explains for The Nation, audits of sensitive economic policy decisions would be subject to a six-month lag before they could be publicly released. If the Fed needs to act fast, Congress won't be able to get in its way. The public will eventually know how its own money is being spent, however, and learn how a public institution is conducting itself.
"In other words, this is about simple transparency, which everyone should favor," Nichols writes.
The White House and the Congressional Democratic leadership need to support a full and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. It's an issue of basic democratic accountability. There is no good reason why economic policy should be conducted in secret.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Unemployment figures in the U.S. are staggering: The official rate stands at 10.2%, the highest in 26 years. A broader measure that includes people who are involuntarily working part-time or who have given up looking for work is at 17.5%. That's a full-blown economic emergency.
But, as Joshua Holland explains for AlterNet, President Barack Obama's response to the unemployment crisis has not matched the urgency of his response to the crisis on Wall Street. This isn't just unfair, it's bad economics.
"It's important to understand that the economic crisis in which we find ourselves is not just a function of a shaky financial system but of a crash in consumption that's come along with the evaporation of $14 trillion worth of the wealth of American families," Holland writes.
Widespread joblessness can be every bit as damaging to the economic structure as a financial crisis. When people are out of work, they buckle down on household expenses. When several million people cut back at the same time, the economic machine grinds to a halt. If people are not buying and selling stuff, the economy isn't working.
As Mary Kane explains for The Washington Independent, about 40% of families don't have enough money to cover expenses through a three-month stretch of unemployment-even if one member of the household is receiving unemployment benefits. Kane highlights a Brandeis University study that reveals the haggard state of the American household and the unfair distribution of wealth along racial lines. A full 66% of African-American and Latino families can't afford three months without work. At a time when 5.6 million workers have been jobless for at least six months, the study highlights just how dire finances have become for many households.
GRITtv's Laura Flanders discusses potential labor market remedies with economist Dean Baker and The Nation's John Nichols. Baker suggests a work-share arrangement, in which employers cut back on their workers' hours to allow more people to work. To prevent losses for households, the government would step in and pay for the shortfall in hours. Employers would have more part-time jobs available, but the government would make sure everyone was paid as if they were working full-time. Baker also endorses a public jobs program, which he says could be especially useful in cities like Detroit and Cleveland that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.
Nichols highlights the political consequences of failing to fix the unemployment mess. Unemployment directly affects the lives of voters. If widespread joblessness persists through November 2010, Democrats will net huge Congressional losses. If Obama thinks it's hard to garner bipartisan support for his legislative priorities now, imagine a few dozen more Republican obstructionists.
It's not that Obama failed to respond to the unemployment crisis. He did. That's what the stimulus package was all about. Today's 10.2% unemployment is a catastrophe, but it would be more like 12% without the stimulus package. But, given the seriousness of the issue, Obama is not giving unemployment enough attention.
In fact, Obama's economic priorities are a mirror-image of his campaign promises, as Robert Scheer argues in both a column for TruthDig and an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! After talking tough about reining in recklessness on Wall Street and making the financial system more accountable, Obama has hired many of the very policy makers who pushed through the deregulatory agenda back in the 1990s. Top Obama administration officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Gary Gensler and Neal Wolin helped make this mess in the first place.
"This is not a minor criticism," Scheer says. "I think the guy is betraying his own presidency."
Obama's timid efforts to rein in Wall Street and heal the ailing job market are setting the stage for a political disaster. If Obama and Congressional Democrats can't take strong action to fix the economy, they will find themselves with much narrower majorities next November. The economy, and the public institutions that support it, are supposed to work for everyone, not just the financial elite.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The jobs bill is going to happen. The House will likely pass a bill in December, and the Senate will match in January or February after the health care bill is done. Rather than "if" it will happen, the major questions for the jobs bill are how large it will be, what will be in the bill, and how the bill will be funded.
Relating to the latter, I recently had a chance to ask Representative Alan Grayson if there was any legal barrier to using the remaining Wall Street bailout money to fund the bill. He did not believe there was any such legal barrier, and indicated that political barriers would be more significant.
The lack of legal barriers is virtually self-evident. TARP funds have already been used for a variety of non-Wall Street related projects, including the auto bailout and assistance for struggling homeowners. Further, the Obama administration has said it is interested in using some of the funds to pay down the debt, and using others to increase lending to small businesses. Clearly, there is a lot of flexibility in how the money can be used.
"If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America." -- Congressmember Alan Grayson
At a time when progressives have grown increasingly frustrated with timidity and lack of vision coming from elected Democrats in Washington, Congressmember Alan Grayson has emerged as a rare example of someone who actually represents us--not just with his vote, not just with his voice, but with his actions. It's one thing to tell the truth about the Republican health care plan--"Don't get sick.... If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: 'die quickly.'" That's rare enough by itself--virtually unheard of. But Grayson not only refused to back down when Republicans threw their predictable hissy fit in response, he barreled ahead and went right into a discussion of the recent Harvard study finding that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance. In short, he showed himself to be the real deal. TODAY he's asking us to back him by contributing to his moneybomb. At Open Left we're re-running the interview with him from Saturday so you can hear him tell you why in his own words.
Congressmember Alan Grayson:I have to start by thanking you for giving me the person [Matt Stoller] who is the best Congressional aid of all.
OL: [Laughs.] So I can't rail at you for stealing from us.
AG: You can if you want, but it's not going to do any good.
OL:I know.
AG: And I'm going to keep him.
OL: I know. There are some battles you just don't want to fight. Let's start right off. You're having a moneybomb on November 2. Most basic questions: Why are you doing it? And why now?
Doing it to show that it's possible for progressive to raise money without having to cater to lobbyists and people who want favors.
We're trying to invent an entirely new model to finance a campaign.
My campaign next year is going to cost $2 million. There's no getting around it. I don't set the media rates around Orlando, somebody else does that. And the result of that is that we have to show that money can be raised for progressive causes in the old fashioned way, which is $20 here, $50 there, $100 here, rather than asking big shots for favors.
I want a campaign that's a campaign by the people and for the people. And this money bomb will show whether or not it's possible.
I think we've already shown a lot of success, I mean we've already raised a quarter million dollars, and the money bomb is still three days away. But what we need to do is to show that we can do it the same way the right does it. The right has had multi-million dollar money bombs for Ron Paul, and we need to show that we can do it that way ourselves. Otherwise people on the left in Congress will feel that they have to keep making deals with lobbyists just for the sake of financing their own campaigns.
"If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America." -- Congressmember Alan Grayson
At a time when progressives have grown increasingly frustrated with timidity and lack of vision coming from elected Democrats in Washington, Congressmember Alan Grayson has emerged as a rare example of someone who actually represents us--not just with his vote, not just with his voice, but with his actions. It's one thing to tell the truth about the Republican health care plan--"Don't get sick.... If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: 'die quickly.'" That's rare enough by itself--virtually unheard of. But Grayson not only refused to back down when Republicans threw their predictable hissy fit in response, he barreled ahead and went right into a discussion of the recent Harvard study finding that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance. In short, he showed himself to be the real deal. This Monday he's asking us to back him by contributing to his moneybomb. And Open Left wanted to have him tell you why in his own words.
Congressmember Alan Grayson:I have to start by thanking you for giving me the person [Matt Stoller] who is the best Congressional aid of all.
OL: [Laughs.] So I can't rail at you for stealing from us.
AG: You can if you want, but it's not going to do any good.
OL:I know.
AG: And I'm going to keep him.
OL: I know. There are some battles you just don't want to fight. Let's start right off. You're having a moneybomb on November 2. Most basic questions: Why are you doing it? And why now?
Doing it to show that it's possible for progressive to raise money without having to cater to lobbyists and people who want favors.
We're trying to invent an entirely new model to finance a campaign.
My campaign next year is going to cost $2 million. There's no getting around it. I don't set the media rates around Orlando, somebody else does that. And the result of that is that we have to show that money can be raised for progressive causes in the old fashioned way, which is $20 here, $50 there, $100 here, rather than asking big shots for favors.
I want a campaign that's a campaign by the people and for the people. And this money bomb will show whether or not it's possible.
I think we've already shown a lot of success, I mean we've already raised a quarter million dollars, and the money bomb is still three days away. But what we need to do is to show that we can do it the same way the right does it. The right has had multi-million dollar money bombs for Ron Paul, and we need to show that we can do it that way ourselves. Otherwise people on the left in Congress will feel that they have to keep making deals with lobbyists just for the sake of financing their own campaigns.
Last week, Mike Stark asked Joe Lieberman if he'd side with Republicans to block a vote on health care reform.
Lieberman's response: "I haven't decided that yet."
Yesterday, Politico had yet another Lieberman response to the same question:
“Not vote for cloture? I wouldn’t rule that possibility out — not at all,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats.
With the health care issue now moving into Harry Reid's court, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will deliver this petition signed by over 85,000 people to Reid today:
"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care."
This is what it sounds like when someone talks to you about a foreign country, not just with some experience of the outside world, but--even more importantly--also without having feed on brainwashing terms for 20 or 30 years.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Quite the opposite: those who think that invasion is the answer to everything are utterly isolated in their abstract fantasy land, totally removed from the human and historical reality they talk about with such hollow, pompous authority.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, a self-proclaimed "Democrat with guts," appears unlikely to be subject to a resolution of disapproval for suggesting that part of the Republican health care plan is for Americans to "die quickly if you get sick."
The Associated Press is reporting that a spokesman for Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who drafted a resolution of disapproval against Grayson and threatened to introduce it on the House floor, is suggesting that Price does not plan to do so.
It is almost unprecedented for Republicans to back down from their demands for an apology from a Democrat. And yet, that is exactly what happened here.
As I wrote last week, other Democrats need to take notice of this. You don't have to back down when the Republican smear machine comes after you. In fact, you can pick--and win--a fight with that smear machine, if you are smart about it and know who your allies are.
"Honestly, the people I deal with, the people I actually am across the aisle with every day, I don't think they care about ordinary people. I don't think that the Republicans in Congress actually have a heart. I'll be honest with you."
"But that's not the same as saying that they want you -- I mean, let's get straight what I said," he explained. "I said their health care plan is 'don't get sick,' and if you do get sick, then die quickly. And what did I mean by that? Because if you get sick and those bills are mounting, and you're in the hospital and you're feeling weaker and weaker, and you've got no way to pay for this, then what are they gonna do for you? Nothing. They're gonna do nothing."
If you haven't had a chance to read Chris' great post this afternoon on teachable moments for other Dems from this episode with Rep. Alan Grayson, go ahead and take a look. One of the most salient points that stands out to me is that too many Dems in Congress don't know that there are all of us out here on the 'tubes ready to back someone who stands up like Alan Grayson did. As a result, there are many who don't speak their mind and challenge the Republicans' rhetoric and policy... or if they do, they quickly walk it back with an apology.
Tonight with Ed Schultz (who is VERY fired up and applauding), Grayson stated that point in another way. Take a look:
"We need Democrats with guts." It's not just hot air- Grayson is a living, breathing example of what happens when you have guts. He has an extra $100,000+ over the last 24 hours with which to continue doing battle in Congress, and that means something to other members. Blue America's "Carrots AND Sticks" action, which raised over $400,000 in just days for House members who stood firm on the public option, is another example. It's one of the best ways those of us out here can communicate that we support those who support us.
Certain portions of the blogosphere are all atwitter over Alan Grayson's powerful rhetoric on health care insurance reform -- and don't get me wrong, I'm all for effective rhetoric.* Grayson said:
44,789 Americans die every year according to the Harvard study. and you can see it by going to our website at grayson.house.gov. That is 10 times more than the number of Americans who have died in Iraq and who died in 9/11. but that was just once. this is every single year. That's right. every single year.
Take a look at this. Read it and weep. And I mean that, read it and weep, because of all these Americans who are dying because they don't have health insurance. Now, I think we should do something about that and the democratic health care plan does do something about that. It makes health care affordable for those who can't afford insurance and it saves these peoples' lives. ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America
Grayson's wrong** on one very obvious and important fact:
Today, I was invited on MSNBC to discuss the distraction-topic of Rep. Michele Bachmann inserting "sex clinics" into the health care debate. Via her local paper:
Rep. Michele Bachmann continues to surprise us, despite us believing she couldn't ever surprise us again with her over-the-top and flat-out false fear mongering.
This is a good one though. Bachmann has decided that part of the health care bill that discusses school-based clinics (she calls them sex clinics) would lead to students being whisked away during school hours for abortions without parent consent. OMG. Totally plausible.
I decided there were 3 things that could salvage this otherwise-pointless discussion. 1) Pivot somewhere to the public option, 2) Mention Bachmann's Democratic opponent, state Sen. Tarryl Clark, and 3) Call Bachmann "crazy."
My calling Bachmann "crazy" twice irked right-wing blogger Matt Lewis, causing me to do it a 3rd time. It also seemed to turn off Alex Witt. But best of all -- hopefully out of respect -- David Schuster compared my "crazy" remark to Alan Grayson calling Republicans in Congress "neaderthals."
Let's go to the video tape:
My favorite part:
Matt Lewis: Let me just say this politically. Putting aside the issue, whether it's right or wrong, true or false, politically speaking...
Davic Schuster: It's false. Let's be clear about that.
Usually when Republicans and conservative media join together to throw a coordinated hissy fit against something "outrageous" a Democrat has said, it resulted in apologies (John Kerry in 2006), resignations (Van Jones) and public condemnations in Congress (MoveOn.org). Yesterday, however, Republicans actually backed down from their hissy fit when Rep. Alan Grayson stood up to them. Even as Grayson intensified his rhetoric, Republicans withdrew their resolution to condemn him on the House floor.
There were several important differences between this and most of the other attacks from the Republican manufactured outrage machine. Other Democrats in Congress could stand to learn from them:
Grayson specifically chose to use rhetoric that echoed earlier rhetoric used by many prominent Republicans. Lesson: Throwing Republican rhetoric back at them can potentially be more effective then just condemning Republican rhetoric.
Too often, Democrats allow policy discussions to be derailed by Republican rhetorical excess. By contrast, Grayson used his rhetorical moment to shift to a policy argument about tens of thousands of people dying from lack of health insurance. Lesson: rhetorical moments like these can allow you to control the debate, as Republicans long ago learned
Many Democrats in congress are oblivious to the existence of the progressive netroots or even progressive media. As such, they think no one will be around to support them if they pick a fight like this. Alan Garyson, by contrast, hired Matt Stoller, thus making his office more aware of the netroots than anyone else in Congress. His non-apology yesterday was targeted directly at the progressive netroots, and earned him $100,000. Further, progressive media like the Huffington Post and the Daily Show immediately produced reams of quotes and video showing Republicans using the same sort of rhetoric over the summer.
Lesson: If you want to pick a fight, and if you understand the medium, progressive media and the progressive netroots can help you.
It is a landmark moment for a freshman Democrat from a marginal, R+2 district to win a rhetorical fight with the Republican smear machine like this. Hopefully, it will become a teachable moment for other Democrats in Congress.
If you liked Adam Bink's post a while ago, featuring a bold strong Alan Grayson, you'll LOVE Grayson's appearance on CNN's Situation Room.
The insurance company lobbyists won't be donating to Grayson anytime soon, but we can!
Today is the last day of the national fundraising quarter, which political insiders use to judge which candidates are strong. Grayson is a top Republican target in 2010.
Alan Grayson took to the House floor this afternoon to issue an apology. But it's not the kind you think and have come to expect from run-of-the-mill Democrats. Check it out.
In The Progressive Revolution, Mike wrote about how when John Kerry told a bad joke in 2007, Dems rushed to distance themselves. When MoveOn.org ran a controversial ad, the same thing happened, even resulting in Congressional censure. When Dick Durbin compared Guantanamo to the worst atrocities in our history, he was left undefended, and instead issued a tearful apology on the Senate floor.
We can't let that happen to Alan Grayson. The NRCC just launched this website going after Grayson. He's already all over RedState, and I expect to see him all over FOX and Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative machine soon. They'd like to make him their next scalp. Like Chris wrote this afternoon, if we don't stand up for our champions- including Matt Stoller, who co-founded OpenLeft and now works for Grayson- no one will. Like Kerry, and MoveOn.org, and Durbin, Democrats will abandon him. Rep. Larson already has. We have to defend our champions in the face of the conservative smear machine.
Other Democrats would retreat hastily. What did Alan Grayson do? He took to the floor and refused to apologize, reiterated how critical health care reform is, then took to DailyKos to reiterate that he's standing firm and thank us for having his back. Now that's what I call a Better Democrat. Please chip in to have Alan Grayson's back.
Open Lefters, it is time to dig into your pockets and show your support for Representative Alan Grayson by giving to his campaign today.
Representative Grayson was one of the Better Democrats on Open Left who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2008. Now, Republicans are drafting a resolution to condemn him for saying the Republican health care plan was "don't get sick, and, if you do, die quickly." Here is the video:
Republicans are claiming this is the equivalent of Democrats condemning Joe Wilson, even though Wilson broke House rules with his comments, and Grayson did not. Donate to Alan Grayson now.
Democratic leaders, of course, are already encouraging Grayson to apologize. They didn't bother doing the same when those Republicans made their remarks. Thanks, guys. Donate to Alan Grayson now.
Matt Stoller, who co-founded Open Left and now works for Alan Grayson, is being directly attacked in this firestorm, too. Some Democratic "allies" are even leaking his private emails to the Politico. Nice. Good to know we have such friends on Capitol Hill. Donate to Alan Grayson now.
Republican lies, double-standards for progressives, backstabbing Democrats, Congressional leaders who won't stand by us-if we don't stand up for one of our own at a time like this, no one will. We have to defend our champions when the right-wing smear machine comes after them, and Democrats help that smear machine out. Donate to Alan Grayson now, and defend a Better Democrat who made it to Congress.
Update (Adam): The NRCC just launched this website, www.alandisgrayson.com, attacking Alan Grayson and his record. They're all piling on, so now is critical to have his back.
There is a solution to all the complaining by Congress over the Obama administration's plan to give more power to the Federal Reserve. It is a solution that solves the worries people have about giving a secretive, undemocratic institution that blew it in the run-up to this financial crisis more power. It is a solution that looks at least in part to have broad bipartisan support, if one bill with 238 co-sponsors in the House is any indication. It is a solution that Democrats ought to be excited about if they take all their historic statements about government transparency and more democracy seriously.
The only downside is that it would be picking a big policy fight that directly challenges the power of the too-big-to-fail banks.
The idea is simple, has been around for a long time, should have been done a long time ago: make the Fed a more open and democratic institution, rather than the secretive one tied so closely to the big banks it is supposed to be regulating. There are a variety of ideas in this area, some of my favorites being:
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which now has 238 co-sponsors (weirdly a lot more Republicans than Democrats, but with 47 Democrats led by Alan Grayson). This bill gives GAO the authority to audit the Fed and report is findings to Congress.
Requiring the Fed to disclose which banks are receiving trillions of dollars to prop them up.
Taking bankers off the governing board of the regional Feds, and making sure that only consumer, labor, and public interest representatives are on the governing boards (currently, banking industry representatives or those affiliated with the banking industry are allowed to have three out of nine seats board seats for each of the 12 Regional Feds). Having those kinds of reps placed inside the Federal Reserve is important as well.
Making the Fed more transparent, and changing the governing structure so that more people than bankers are involved with it, would make it acceptable to progressives to give the Fed more power. Without that kind of restructuring, the issue will not go away, and will likely doom regulatory reform.
Opening up the Fed should be one of the major things progressives demand before they support giving them any more power.
The folks over at FDL have an action page on this, and you can add your support here.
In 2010, with 257 Democrats in the House and 59 in the Senate, Democrats will inevitably have to turn more of our electoral efforts to defense of incumbents than to support for challengers. Tonight, Open Left is adding our first incumbent to the Better Democrats 2010 page: Representative Alan Grayson, of Florida's eighth congressional district.
Alan Grayson, the outspoken member from Orlando, as usual, wasn't mincing words: "Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we'd all need pain killers."
Grayson was a Better Democrat back in 2008, and he was also an original signer of The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. He has also wasted no time demanding more accountability for the Wall Street bailout, a campaign that is closely connected to our efforts here on Open Left:
Let's keep Alan Grayson in Congress--throw a few bucks his way. To help connect the inside and outside of the progressive movement, we need leaders like Grayson in Congress.
