KIRSTEN GILIBRAND FOR PREZ IN 2020? PERHAPS AS VICE-PREZ FOR HILLARY

KIRSTEN GILIBRAND FOR PREZ IN 2020? PERHAPS AS VICE-PREZ FOR HILLARY:

WALL STREET LIKES GILIBRAND & HILLARY.

NO PREZ CANDIDATE CAN WIN WITHOUT WALL STREET’S $UPPORT.

HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD RUN AGAIN AS DEMS’ TOP TICKET WITH GILIBRAND AS HER ROBIN.

WHY HAS EVERYONE GIVEN UP ON HILLARY?

SHE DESERVES ONE MORE CHANCE & I THINK SHE COULD WIN UNLESS TRUMP RUNS AGAIN.

TRUMP BORROWED OBAMA’S POLITICAL PLAYBOOK FOR CAMPAIGNING.

THIS TIME HILLARY WILL HAVE TO DO IT OBAMA’S WAY OR DEMS WILL LOSE AGAIN.

LAUGH IF YOU WANT BUT I’M USUALLY CORRECT EVEN IF I HAVEN’T RECEIVED ENOUGH CREDIT FOR MY POLITICAL COMMENTARY.

I’M JUST SAYING.


Sources: PBS, NBC News, The Week, Youtube


***** Kirsten Gillibrand 2020? Not with her Wall Street problem.


TThe presidential campaign was always here. Before man was, the campaign waited for him. And President Trump's first 100 days in office are almost up. So you know what that means: idle speculation about who will run in 2020!
Jokes aside, it is obviously too early to actually start running for the presidency, even in this wretchedly dysfunctional country. But it's not too early for ambitious politicos to start thinking about which policies to advocate for and what kind of reputation to cultivate. Laying the groundwork early has always been part of running for national leadership in every democracy.

One obvious proto-candidate is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). She has a decent national profile, a couple of solid signature policies, and a lot of goodwill with the Democratic base for defying President Trump early. Plus, she would be able to claim that first female president ring that eluded Hillary Clinton. (Better still, she doesn't have one quarter of the baggage that Clinton had.)

There's just one big problem: Wall Street. If she wants to lock up the next Democratic presidential primary, she would be wise to make herself absolutely loathed by the bankster class.

The basic shape of a potential Gillibrand candidacy is outlined reasonably well in a sympathetic profile by Rebecca Traister. Gillibrand started her career in a conservative district in New York, taking office in 2006 as part of the great Democratic wave. She had been a lawyer for Big Tobacco in her early career, and started out as a Blue Dog conservative, holding pro-gun, pro-austerity, and anti-immigration positions.

She was thus thought to be a bad choice to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat when Clinton was tapped to serve as secretary of state in 2009. But Gillibrand quickly moved left, reversing course on immigration and gun control, and helping kill Bill Clinton's odious policy on gays in the military. She was easily elected in a 2010 special election and reelected properly in 2012.

She has since been a fairly middle-of-the-road Democrat, but has made a bit of a national name for herself by advocating for paid family leave in the form of the FAMILY Act. As policy and politics, it could stand to be more aggressive, but it's still pretty good by Democratic Party standards. (At least it's not a rotten tax-advantaged savings account.) And since then, Gillibrand has garnered even more attention by consistently opposing President Trump in almost everything he's done — including voting against more of his Cabinet nominees than any other senator.

But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right."

Why is this bad? For one, Wall Street is a cancer at the heart of the American economy. Its share of GDP has roughly doubled since the 1950s, and approximately all of that growth has come at the expense of the rest of the economy. It went from about 8 percent of corporate profits to 20-40 percent while becoming less efficient at basic financial tasks.

How? By abusing contracts, tax law, and market power to dominate consumers and productive enterprises so as to extract quick cash. Most "markets" in this country have become monopolies or oligopolies — the deliberate result of mergers and acquisitions coordinated on Wall Street. A generation of pressure from finance means corporations are now mainly expected to think only about the next quarter's profits, and to immediately disgorge them all — or more than all — to shareholders and executives.

Pick some economic abuse disproportionately affecting women or minorities, and it's a safe bet that some finance goons will be up to their neck in it. And that's setting aside actual criminal actions, like systematic document fraud that kicked nine million people out of their homes.

Dodd-Frank was a step in the right direction, but about 1/40th the proper size. We need cricket bat regulation.

Bernie Sanders got tremendous political mileage out of arguing that big banks must be broken up, his signature call to to wrest political power away from the "millionaires and billionaires," and above all from his palpable contempt for the ultra-rich. By necessity, taking a credible populist stand now means a ferocious attack on Wall Street.

If Gillibrand tries to split the difference, and run a Clinton-style campaign of status quo finance plus moderate new social programs, she's likely to be outflanked by a more credible populist. What's more, she will not have Clinton's gigantic head start, nor her total lock on all the party insiders. And with Clinton's astonishing loss to Trump, electability arguments against such a challenger will be far less convincing.

It will be tough — Gillibrand is married to a banker — but a good first step would be to contemptuously refuse all donations from finance for her upcoming reelection campaign. She won in 2012 by 46 points, partly on the strength of gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs. A smaller margin of victory there would pay national electoral dividends.

CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA)

CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA):

BOOKER IS A GREAT CANDIDATE BUT DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN RAISE BIG MONEY LIKE OBAMA DID.

BOOKER IS PASSIONATE BUT IT TAKES MORE THAN PASSION TO BECOME U.S. PRESIDENT.

TRUMP STILL PULLS BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

OBAMA ALSO PULLED BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

IN FACT TRUMP BORROWED HIS 2016 WINNING STRATEGY FROM OBAMA'S POLITICAL PLAYBOOK.

OBAMA SET A POLITICAL GENIUS STANDARD HARD TO BEAT FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

MANY SOUTHERN BLACK VOTERS DON'T KNOW BOOKER.

WILL BLACK VOTERS SHOW UP FOR BOOKER IN LARGE NUMBERS? I DON'T KNOW.

~ FYI:
I DON'T BELIEVE TRUMP IS RACIST, PERHAPS MISGUIDED.

SOMETIMES I REALLY DO MISS "COOL HAND LUKE" OBAMA.

I'M JUST SAYING.


Sources: NJ.com, Raw Story, BBC News, CNN, Youtube


****** Cory Booker's voice challenges the silence of Trump supporters


Every now and then, a political leader seems to capture what is on our minds. Franklin Roosevelt had that ability. So did John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and occasionally Barack Obama. Even Chris Christie could do it until he became intoxicated with his presidential ambitions and his bully ways.

This week Cory Booker found his voice – and ours, too, with just six words.

“She hit a nerve in me.”

Booker was not talking about one of his colleagues in the U.S. senate or even one of his constituents back in New Jersey. His words, spoken during an interview on CNN, were directed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

It was evening in Washington, D.C. Booker looked worn out. He was sporting a five o’clock shadow beard when he appeared on CNN.

Hours earlier, in one of his first appearances as a new, very junior Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker had listened quietly as Nielson said she “could not recall specific words” when President Trump reportedly cursed a blue streak a week earlier as he criticized an immigration plan suggested by Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican.

As almost everyone in America has heard, the “specific words” that Trump is said to have uttered are “s---hole” during that immigration discussion. The president was not describing the plan or any of the people in the Oval Office. His words were aimed at Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. Simply put, the president wanted to register his disapproval of immigrants from those “s---hole” nations.

After the meeting broke up, Durbin went public with Trump’s vulgarity, saying Trump was out of line and disrespectful of those nations and their people. Graham backed Durbin up. Neither Trump nor the White House tried to deny the “s---hole” remark – at least not initially.

But as uproar spread across the nation that the president – indeed, any political leader – would describe poor nations like that, Trump had second thoughts. He suggested that he didn’t quite use the “s---hole” phrase.

So what did Trump say?

About a dozen people were in the Oval Office for the immigration discussion. But it seems that everyone except Durbin and Graham came down with a sudden case of hearing loss, amnesia or had taken a monk-like vow of silence.

Actually, that’s not quite correct. After first claiming they did not know what Trump said, two GOP senators who were present for the discussion said that Trump did not say “ s---hole” but “s--- house.”

As if that makes a difference.

But now, here was Kirstjen Nielsen several days later testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe she could recall what Trump actually said. Was it “s---hole” or “s--- house” – or something else?

Instead of shedding light on what happened, Nielsen did her best imitation of Sergeant Schultz, the rotund, dim-witted Nazi prison guard in the 1960’s TV sitcom, “Hogan’s Heroes,” who habitually exclaimed to “know nothing” when asked by his commander whether the American and British prisoners of war were planning to escape.

Nielson first claimed too many people were talking at once so she couldn’t quite determine what was being said. Then, she conceded that she managed to hear what she described as “rough talk.” She just couldn’t recall anything specific. So how did she know the talk was “rough”?

As Nielson offered this lame explanation, the TV footage showed Booker in what could kindly be called a slow burn. When it was his time to speak, his eyes widened and he declared that he was “seething with anger” over Trump’s alleged comments.

He then used his entire 10-minute session that had been set aside for him to question Nielson to lecture her. He mentioned Ghandi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also described his parents’ difficulty in confronting bigotry when they purchased a home in Harrington Park.

Booker's message was simple: Why wasn’t Nielson confronting bigotry – in this case, the words of her boss, the president?

Nielson sat stone-faced.

“I sit here right now because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred, they stood up,” Booker declared.

Nielson still sat stone faced.

When Booker had finished, Nielsen did not address what he said but instead talked about threats from white supremacists. Then Nielson said she believed that the president was trying to suggest in that Oval Office discussion that America ought to have a “merit-based” immigration system – meaning that highly educated immigrants or those with skilled would be admitted.

She didn't have to say that immigrants from “s---hole” nations would be rejected. She didn’t need to. Suggesting a “merit-based” immigration system was her clever way of avoiding any discussion of immigrants from “s---hole” nations – the poorest of the poor.

What is disturbing here is not just the president’s words, but the reaction from those closest to him like Kirstjen Nielson. Simply put: What is it going to take for people in the White House – or, frankly, in the Republican Party – to criticize Trump for stepping over a line?

We shouldn’t be surprised by the silence. Remember Trump’s “rapist” comment about Mexicans? Or when he doubted that John McCain was a war hero? Or when he disparaged the Muslim parents of an Army officer who was killed in Iraq? Or when he mocked a disabled journalist?

Trump loves picking on anyone who is vulnerable. But the uproar over Trump’s litany of outrageous statements was often brief at best and coming mainly from Trump’s critics. Trump’s allies were mostly mute, dulled into tacit acceptance.

This pattern seemed to bother Booker deeply – and rightly so. What does it take for Trump’s buddies to speak up?

And so, when Kirstjen Nielson seemed overcome with amnesia, Booker fired back. And a few hours later, when asked on CNN why he was so bothered, he said, “She hit a nerve in me.”

In that simple sentence, Booker captured the frustration that so many have felt in the first year of Trump’s presidency. He not only strikes a nerve when he opens his mouth, but his supporters strike that same nerve in their silence.

This week, Cory Booker found his voice.

When will Trump’s people find theirs?

DOUG JONES WON BECAUSE THIS TIME DEMOCRATS REMEMBERED BLACK VOTERS (OBAMA 2008, BLACK WOMEN)

DOUG JONES WON BECAUSE THIS TIME DEMOCRATS REMEMBERED BLACK VOTERS:

DEMS LOST IN 2016 BECAUSE THEY TRADED BLACK VOTERS FOR LATINO VOTERS.

NO OTHER VOTING BLOCK CAN COMPETE WITH THE POWER & LOYALTY OF BLACK VOTERS.

ESPECIALLY BLACK WOMEN VOTERS.

JUST ASK OBAMA ABOUT HIS 2008 ELECTION WIN.

TAKE HEED GOP LEADERS IN 2018 & 2020.

DEMS PLAN TO WIN 2020 ONE STATE AT A TIME JUST AS OBAMA & TRUMP DID IN PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.

PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS.

"Fully 96 percent of Black voters supported OBAMA and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, Black women turned out at a higher rate than Back men."


Sources: CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Politico, The St. Louis American, Youtube


***** There Is Power In The Black Vote


There is something happening in America, and it starts with the power of Black women. It started a long time ago when they were queens, and we see the evidence in their work ethic and their ability to achieve under impossible odds.

When Black women are behind you, their passion and drive can move mountains.

In the 2017 Alabama senate race, the largest voting segment of the population was Black women, in which 98 percent of that group voted Democrat.

Black men voted Democrat at 93 percent, and together they were the largest core group of Democrats in the election, and many experts think this was the reason Doug Jones won the election.

“We learned valuable lessons last month and last night – we invest early and in our communities, we win,” said DNC Black Caucus Chair Virgie Rollins. “The DNC knows Black voters are a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box, and that’s exactly why we used a nearly $1 million investment to mobilize Alabama’s African-American, millennial, and faith communities.

And to help boost turnout, we made sure we had our own staffers on the ground engaging Black leaders and implementing organizing programs.”

Democrats now have a template that they can use around the country to get the black vote out.

Investing a large part of $1 million into the black community is a significant amount of money that will change Black voting habits during mid-term elections. When Black voters are informed and mobilized, they vote.

According to the New York Times, “Black voters turned out in force, handing Mr. Jones a decisive lead in Alabama’s cities and predominantly Black rural counties.

In Jefferson County, home to Birmingham and its whiter suburbs, turnout exceeded the 2014 governor’s race by about 30 percent, and Mr. Jones nearly matched Hilary Clinton’s vote total there. Other populous, heavily African-American counties, including Montgomery and Dallas County, where Selma is, also exceeded their 2014 turnout.”

As I talk to many African Americans in Orlando, many have a pessimistic attitude about organizing and mobilizing the Black vote in 2018.

Many think we have lost our excitement with the voting process, and even with the Democratic Party.

But I believe the problem in the Black community is leadership, financing and supporting the Black media. In order to galvanize our community, our leadership must agree on a strategy, communicate the information with our media, and stay organized and be determined.

“And so for all little girls out there who need somebody to believe that you’re better than your circumstances. I need you all to remember that Black girl magic is real,” said Keisha Lance Bottoms, newly elected mayor of Atlanta.

Many experts expected Keisha Lance Bottoms to lose this election to a white candidate, but she won by 800 votes. She won with help from the hip-hop community, and a collaboration of progressive whites, Black women, Hispanics, and the LGBT community.

The African-American community is making the difference if a candidate wins or loses an election all around the country.

The Democratic Party understands the power of the Black vote, but black folks are not in many powerful executive positions and party leaders are reluctant to spend money in the Black community.

But if the Democratic Party during the mid-term elections spends millions of dollars in the Black community and treats us as the cornerstone of the party, the results will be phenomenal.

Democrats have the opportunity to win back the Senate, and make the House more competitive and closer in terms of numbers.

There is power in the Black vote, and the black community is not taking full advantage of its influence and power.

Once the Black community takes full advantage of its power, there will be a major transformation in American politics.
Our leaders must work for the majority of the American people, as opposed to the rich and major corporations.

SEN HEIDI HEITKAMP INTRODUCES BILL TO HELP HOUSE WOMEN & CHILDREN IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS (HEALS ACT)

SENATOR HEIDI HEITKAMP INTRODUCES BILL TO HELP HOUSE WOMEN & CHILDREN IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS:

NOT HAVING THE RESOURCES TO LEAVE IS WHY MOST WOMEN REMAIN IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS.

THE OTHER REASON IS PSYCHOLOGICAL BECAUSE CONSTANT ABUSE CAUSES WOMEN TO QUESTION THEIR SELF-WORTH.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS WOMEN PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WHEN A MAN CONTROLS A WOMAN'S MIND WITH HIS FISTS.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSERS ARE VERY CUNNING AND OFTEN ACCUSE THEIR VICTIMS OF "PROVOKING THEM".

THESE NARCISSITIC MEN APPEAR TO BE "NICE" IN PUBLIC WHEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THEY ARE MONSTERS.

THE CYCLE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST WOMEN MUST BE STOPPED.

GREAT JOB SENATOR HEITKAMP........THANK YOU.


Sources: NTXE, WDAZ


******* Sen. Heitkamp introduces bill to help shelter victims of domestic violence

After an incident of domestic violence, many victims don't have a place to go.

But a safe place may soon be closer to home.

WDAZ's Scott Cook tells us how badly it is needed in our area.

"It's extraordinarily difficult for a woman in an abusive relationship to leave. In fact, national statistics tell us it takes seven times. And you may ask why -- why is because frequently there are no other options, there’s no place to go, there’s no housing," says Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

No housing, no place to go. That's an issue many victims face after an act of domestic violence. But Senator heidi Heitkamp has introduced a bill to fix the crunch. The Help End Abusive Living Situations Act or HEALS -- would provide more funding for 'transitional housing,' an important step between shelters and permanent housing that includes counseling, childcare, career and financial training.

"Whether people are aware of it or not, we have a huge need for housing in this community," says Kristi Anderson, CVIC Counselor.

According to Kristi Anderson with the CVIC here in Grand forks, its a problem more common than most would think.

Thirty-three families are in danger of allowing the cycle to continue, as they wait for housing.

"The clients we see coming in -- usually the biggest barrier is where are they going to stay that night. If they can't go home because of the abuse in the family, they would need to either utilize a hotel, which sometimes they don't have the funds for, so they would need to utilize shelter, which isn't always the best option especially for families with kids," says Anderson.

The HEALS Act would increase funding and create more flexibility for transitional housing programs that help victims get back on their feet. And the added funding would help with more than just the housing waitlist.

"It's not just housing, it's the whole wrap-around services that are so critically important to these families recover from a life of violence," says Heitkamp.

Some legislature that could help some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, fifty-one percent of victims who need emergency housing do not receive it.

GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)

GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

KASIM REED SLAMS BERNIE SANDERS & OVERHAULS ATLANTA'S PUBLIC SAFETY

KASIM REED SLAMS BERNIE SANDERS & OVERHAULS ATLANTA'S PUBLIC SAFETY:

REED HAS ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON; REACHES FOR U.S. SENATE.

Sources: AJC, CNN, Fox Atlanta, Youtube

**** Mayor Reed on BERNIE SANDERS:

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed stepped up his attacks on Sanders as Sanders' Atlanta visit neared. Our AJC colleague Katie Leslie reports that he predicted a Sanders thrashing in Georgia on March 1.

Our AJC colleague Katie Leslie reports that at a press conference on Tuesday, he predicted Sanders would be clobbered on Georgia’s March 1 primary.

“He’s never led anything in the U.S. Senate. What has he led? How many bills has he passed? He’s no Senator Kennedy,” Reed said of Sanders, comparing his rallies to Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s raucous events.

“We are not going to put our party in the hands of someone who is not even a Democrat and watch him take this party over a cliff,” he said. “He is not going to get away with this foolishness in Georgia or South Carolina.”

He added: “Stop treating Bernie Sanders like he’s something special. He’s not going to be the nominee.”

**** Mayor Reed on PUBLIC SAFETY:

According to Mayor Reed, 461 individuals were responsible for 10,000 crimes last year and only 16 of them, or 4 percent, spent time in jail.

"Not only are we going to be tough on crime, but we are going to be smart on crime." 

Reed said repeat offenders are no longer getting a "free pass." Approximately 55 percent of repeat offenders are now receiving jail time, according to Reed.

At the briefing, Reed also said officials are working to improve safety on the city's Westside, which will consist of adding more than 1,000 cameras in the area.

"Today gives us an opportunity to keep our eyes focused on repeat offenders, and to let you know what we have planned to keep you and the city of Atlanta safe in 2016."

The briefing was held at the Atlanta Public Safety Headquarters. Reed was joined at the briefing by the city's Chief Operating Officer, Chief of Police, Fire Chief and the head of the city's Department of Corrections.

**** Mayor Reed on WINNING ON ANOTHER ELECTION:(Circa Tuesday, June 23, 2015)

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, long rumored to have his sights on higher political office, said he has “another election” in him before retiring from public life.

“I think I have another election in me, because I love public service,” Reed told WABE radio hosts Denis O’Hayer and Rose Scott on Tuesday.

Reed wouldn’t reveal just which office he’s eyeing, though he’s widely believed to desire a gubernatorial run, if not U.S. Senate. Reed has said he plans to return to the private sector after leaving Atlanta City Hall in 2018, but on Tuesday left open the possibility of another campaign.

He could face stiff competition if he runs in 2018. Former gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter and House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams could run on the Democratic ticket, and several Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, Secretary of State Brian Kemp and Attorney General Sam Olens are said to be considering a bid.

Reed could also wait out until 2022, when shifting demographics could play more into the Democratic Party’s favor. An influx of minorities and newcomers has analysts predicting Georgia could become a purple state by the decade’s end.

WHITE MAYOR WANTED IN ATLANTA (KASIM REED'S ASCENSION)

WHITE MAYOR WANTED IN ATLANTA (KASIM REED'S ASCENSION):

On Nov 7, 2017 registered Atlanta voters will elect a new Mayor.

In the video above I explain why Atlanta is ready for a new more diverse image and why Atlanta's next Mayor should be WHITE.

Incumbent Atlanta Mayor KASIM REED's future reach for the office of U.S. Senator is also discussed.

**** Could One Of These Rumored Candidates Be Atlanta's Next Mayor?

Although the Atlanta mayoral contest is less than one year away, the rumor mill is busy speculating about candidates.

Mayor Kasim Reed is unable to run for a third consecutive term, so the field is wide open. These potential candidates are making moves that are creating a bit of buzz:

• Ceasar Mitchell: The current Atlanta council president hasn’t formally declared, but has long been seen as a front-runner in the 2017 race. A long-established political action committee for Mitchell shows no signs of slowing, either, with an upcoming fundraiser in his honor.

• Kwanza Hall: The Atlanta councilman hasn’t officially filed to run, but says he’s formed an exploratory committee to seriously consider a bid. Hall has also stepped up the number of public appearances with Mayor Kasim Reed in recent months.

• Margaret Kaiser: The state representative announced a desire to run earlier this year, following Woolard’s announcement, and repeated recently that she’s still interested in the seat. But for now, Kaiser said she’s focused on her state district.

• Peter Aman: The former Reed deputy and Bain & Co. partner has been quietly making the rounds across the city to chat with insiders about a potential run. He also moved into city limits in recent years, a clear sign of intent. This week, Aman said he’s “seriously considering” a bid. His most public move yet? Joining Twitter.

• Robb Pitts: The former Fulton commissioner and Atlanta councilman may not be done with politics. A spokeswoman for Pitts, who narrowly lost his bid for Fulton chairman in 2014, said he’s considering a run for mayor in 2017. Pitts ran for mayor in 2001 and lost to Franklin.

Sources:  AJC, Youtube, Wikipedia 

MARCO RUBIO vs BARACK OBAMA JR: Helping To Eradicate Poverty Before 2016 (Who's Right??)

#RUBIO

MARCO RUBIO'S "WAR ON POVERTY" REFORM vs OBAMA'S "PROMISE ZONES": WHERE ARE THE JOBS??

This week U.S. Senator MARCO RUBIO (R-FL) delivered a response to Pres OBAMA'S recent Anti-Poverty Speech aka "PROMISE ZONES".

I agree with MARCO RUBIO on the subject of ERADICATING POVERTY more so than Pres OBAMA.

Sort of.....

Why??

Because from 2009 to 2013, Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies appear to have contributed to POVERTY in America.

From his STIMULUS Legislation which was intentionally passed through CONGRESS with RACIALLY Divisive guidelines, to his administration sending more JOBS overseas (DETROIT)........
It's quite clear Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies have in fact contributed to lingering High U.S. Unemployment numbers.

(U.S. Unemployment - 7.3%)
(BLACK Unemployment - 14%)

I am in NO way Opposed to the Federal Gov't offering some level of Assistance to help LIFT People out of POVERTY but we must remember that PEOPLE NEED JOBS NOT JUST HAND-OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

PEOPLE ALSO NEED FAIR OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE SMALL BUSINESSES SO THEY CAN BECOME JOB CREATORS.

However........

For MARCO RUBIO to suggest CONGRESS should leave the act of ERADICATING POVERTY solely to Governors & State Legislators as the only Solution to helping LIFT Poor Citizens out of a cycle of POVERTY, is in itself Politically NAIVE.

What about States with with a long history of RACISM & SEGREGATION??

For example: ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, LOUISIANA, TEXAS, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA??

If the Federal Gov't does NOT step in and FORCE those States to help LIFT Poor BLACK & LATINO Citizens out of POVERTY via Fair OPPORTUNITIES, those Citizens will remain in POVERTY Forever.

So what's the Solution??

Both CONGRESS & State Lawmakers must work together to help ERADICATE 21ST CENTURY POVERTY.

The Solution must NOT stem from POLITICS & Winning Elections!

Instead it must stem from COMPASSION for Our Fellow Human Beings & Neighbors.

Nevertheless I still agree more so with MARCO RUBIO'S ideology on ERADICATING POVERTY than Pres OBAMA'S.

Sort of.....

To both DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS:

WHERE ARE THE JOBS???





ARTICLE: "Rubio Wants States, Not U.S., To Lead Second Wave In War On Poverty"


Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday proposed a sweeping overhaul of the nation's anti-poverty programs, arguing that for decades Washington has been too fixed on dealing with poverty's consequences rather than its causes.

The Florida Republican suggested giving federal funds to states so they could devise ways to combat poverty.

"Five decades and trillions of dollars after President Johnson waged his 'War on Poverty,' the results of this big-government approach are in," Rubio said on the 50th anniversary of the day Johnson first declared his goal for government help to the poor.

"Our anti-poverty programs should be replaced with a revenue-neutral flex fund," Rubio argued. "We would streamline most of our existing federal anti-poverty funding into one single agency."

Each year, the flex funds would go to states "so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity."

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee and Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, is expected to discuss poverty in an interview Thursday with NBC's Brian Williams.

Rubio offered no list as to what programs would be involved in his initiative, other than perhaps the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

The senator also proposed replacing the earned income tax credit, a popular break for lower- and moderate-income workers, with a "federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs."

Someone with a lower-paying job would also get a federal benefit, paid at the same time as the monthly paycheck. The amount, Rubio said, "will depend on a range of factors."

Rubio's address to a group of experts and reporters at the Capitol's Lyndon B. Johnson Room was a marquee event during a day of reflection and speeches over how to tackle poverty.

The poverty rate was 15% in 2012, down slightly from the mid-1960s. Critics charge the change has been negligible and expensive. Supporters say the rate could be higher if not for the expansion of safety net programs.

Partisan divisions over how to proceed were clear Wednesday.

"We created new avenues of opportunity through jobs and education, expanded access to health care for seniors, the poor, and Americans with disabilities, and helped working families make ends meet," President Barack Obama said in a statement.

At the Capitol, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told the Senate that 50 years ago Johnson identified poverty as "a national problem. And that's why he made it a national priority."

"So I think we ought to rededicate ourselves today to that national priority," said Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

The nation is emerging from a deep recession, and unemployment in November was 7%, its lowest level in five years. The divide between rich and poor remains stark, triggering a flood of recent promises from the White House and congressional leaders to work to narrow the gap.

Rubio is one of three Republican senators mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential candidate talking about new approaches to government help for the poor.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is promoting "economic freedom zones," which would provide tax breaks for companies and workers in high unemployment areas.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas urged several steps he said would reduce inequality, including repealing the Affordable Care Act, expanding energy production and stopping "abusive regulations that are hammering small businesses."

Rubio, like other Republicans on Wednesday, first offered compassion and empathy for the poor. He explained how lower-income Americans today are plagued by a lack of lower-skilled jobs.

"The jobs that have replaced the low- and middle-skill jobs of the past pay more," he said. "But they require a high level of professional, technical or management skills. And we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain those skills."

The solution does not lie in dictates from Washington, he contended.

"Our current president and his liberal allies propose that we address this by spending more on these failed programs and increasing the minimum wage to $10.10," he noted. "Really? That is their solution to what President Obama has identified as the defining issue of our time?"

The Rubio approach contains two long-held Republican philosophies: Give the private sector an opportunity to thrive by removing regulatory burdens and unfair taxes and give the states more flexibility.

The plan is similar to the overhaul of the nation's welfare system in 1996, when states got more responsibility to reduce dependence on government aid.


Sources: AP, CNN, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel Online, USA Today, Youtube

JANET YELLEN Confirmed By Congress As First Female Federal Reserve Chair! Congrats!!

#JanetYELLEN

JANET YELLEN has been Confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the First FEMALE Federal Reserve Chair. CONGRATS!





ARTICLE: "Janet Yellen Will Be A Fed Chair For The Real, Every-Day Economy"


Janet Yellen, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, was confirmed Monday by the Senate to succeed chairman Ben Bernanke as the next head of America’s central bank. Her term, which begins February 1st, will mark an important shift in the direction of the bank’s policy efforts, as it begins to “taper” back the last five years of unconventional monetary policy, which have resulted in the Fed pouring some $3.8 trillion into the U.S. economy following the financial crisis.

While Yellen’s appointment marks continuity with the Bernanke era, and with the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing” of which she was one of the chief architects, it also heralds a number of firsts. Yellen is the first woman to head the central bank, but even more important, she’s also its first openly reform-minded, Keynesian-oriented leader. A stellar academic economist and 36-year Fed veteran with a particular focus on the human impact of unemployment, Yellen has said on many occasions that the last five years of crisis, joblessness and slower growth, “aren’t just statistics to me.”

While former Fed colleagues like Donald Kohn, Alan Blinder, and Larry Meyer cite her as among the most data-driven and analytical economists around, she’s also someone who’s more interested in clear, well articulated ideas with real world impact than creating the cleverest mathematical models. That commitment was partly inspired by her Yale mentor, the legendary liberal economist James Tobin, who argued that the first priority of economics was to improve the lives of real people.

You can bet that Yellen will be keeping that in mind as she slowly and carefully continues the paring back of quantitative easing that began in December. The challenge will be to keep both the markets and the economy steady as the central bank exits from the largest bout of unconventional monetary policy in history. While the Fed’s dual mandate of keeping inflation and unemployment low will be her first task, there’s currently no conflict there, since inflation is running far below the 2 % target that Yellen herself crafted, meaning that tapering doesn’t need to be rushed. She’ll also have her eye on banking reform. Blinder, who was the Fed vice chair back in the 1990s when Yellen was a governor, remembers speaking with her “many times about how the Fed was being too lax on regulation.” And since then he adds, “things have only gotten worse.”

To do all that, she’ll need to build consensus among a group of Federal Reserve governors who are increasingly independent. Fortunately, says Kohn, who worked with her as a Fed staffer in the mid 1990s, “Janet brings a CEO-type skill set to this job.” He and many others say she’s a “listener and a questioner” who likes to surround herself with the smartest people possible, hear out their arguments, challenge them on any weaknesses, then take her own decisions.

It’s a managerial strategy that seems to have worked, as Yellen has the best track record on policy predictions of any Fed leader since 2009. While she’s often characterized as the “nicest” big name economist around, no one should mistake that for a lack of spine. “She can get at the strengths and weaknesses of someone’s arguments so quickly,” says Berkeley professor and Haas School of Business colleague James Wilcox, “but so politely. She’s got that iron fist in a velvet glove quality.” It’s a quality that will likely serve her well as she steers the most important institute in America today towards a new era of monetary policy.


Sources: Bloomberg News, TIME, UCBerkley, Youtube

"Pay Fairness Act" Another Democrat Political Gimmick To Woo WHITE, Women Voters!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What is the "Pay Fairness Act"?

Another Political Gimmick cooked up by Congress (Democrats) to continue Pandering to WHITE, Female Voters in America, just as the "Lilly Ledbetter Act" was enacted for.

Who gives a Blankety-Blank-Blank about BLACK Women, Latino Women, BLACK Men & Latino Men?

As long as WHITE, Female Voters get what they want & keep Supporting Pres. Obama its all good right?

Tell that to Thousands of BLACK & Latino Women who were Laid-Off their Jobs from March 2009 to March 2012!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama pushing for Paycheck Fairness Act

President Barack Obama and his allies in the Senate pushed Tuesday for a bill that calls for equal pay in the workplace, an election-year effort to merge political appeals to women with the No. 1 concern for all voters: the cash in their wallets on the heels of recession.

The device for this debate is legislation without hope for surviving the Senate this year, but with meaning for women workers making an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Lilly Ledbetter, the face of the movement for workplace equality, is expected to speak alongside Senate Democrats and watch the vote from the Senate gallery. She has long complained that Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, won't say whether he supports the bill.

"To those of our colleagues who claim to be so concerned about the economy and the middle class, now is your chance to prove to your constituents that you really mean what you say," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., as debate opened Tuesday. "The paycheck fairness act is not just about women, and it is not just about fairness. It is about the economy."

The debate has Republicans on the defensive, arguing that stabilizing the economy is the best way to ensure equal treatment and that the bill would unfairly burden employers.

"Of course Gov. Romney supports pay equity for women," said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. "In order to have pay equity, women need to have jobs, and they have been getting crushed in this anemic Obama economy, losing far more jobs than men."

The response came amid a choreographed showdown on the Senate floor over the "Paycheck Fairness Act," a measure that aims to strengthen the Fair Labor Standards Act's protections against paycheck inequities based on gender.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would require employers to prove that differences in pay are based on qualifications, education and other "bona fides" not related to gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who ask about, discuss or disclose wages in response to a complaint or investigation. And it would subject employers who violate sex discrimination laws liable for either compensatory or punitive damages. Under the bill, the federal government would be exempt from punitive damages.

Proponents of the bill say it is the next step after the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Obama signed into law in 2009. The law effectively overturned a Supreme Court decision that had strictly limited workers' ability to file lawsuits over pay inequity. Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of her own pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 1979-1988 career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala.

Near the end of her career, she received an anonymous tip that she was earning less than her male colleagues. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A jury initially awarded her more than $3 million in back pay and punitive damages, a sum that a judge later reduced to $300,000.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in May 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination even though she was not aware at the time that she was receiving less than her male colleagues.

The Ledbetter Act clarified that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate. Therefore, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.


Sources: ABC News, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow Blog, Youtube

Bob Kerrey vs His Nebraska Residency: GOP Wants To Block His Eligibility

Nebraska GOP pushes forward with Kerrey residency challenge


The Nebraska Republican Party will push forward in court with a challenge to the residency of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bob Kerrey, the group confirmed Tuesday.

Kerrey, who served as a Nebraska senator from 1989-2001, later moved out of the state to serve as president of The New School in New York City.

Last week Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale determined Kerrey moved back to Nebraska "with some urgency" to file the requisite residency forms, but that he remained eligible to appear of the May 15 primary ballot and the November general election ballot.

Gale said Nebraska state law requires Senate candidates meet requirements laid out by the U.S. Constitution, which only mandates a person be a resident of their state at the time they are elected.

On Tuesday, Nebraska Republican Party Executive Director Jordan McGrain said his group was challenging the ruling in court.

"Part of our contention is that while the federal Constitution provides the requirements to serve in the Senate, individual states certainly have the purview to decide whether or not he can remain on the ballot," McGrain said.

In the original challenge to Kerrey's residency submitted to the Secretary of State, the Nebraska GOP contended Kerrey hastily moved back to Nebraska after deciding to make a bid for Senate seat vacated by retiring Sen. Ben Nelson.

In his determination opinion, Secretary of State Gale concluded Kerrey initially listed his sister's Omaha residence on his voter registration application when he first moved back to Nebraska in February. He soon switched his residence to another Omaha address, telling the Secretary of State he was leasing the guest house on a friend's property.

In his determination, Gale wrote, "It is quite clear that Mr. Kerrey considered himself a resident of New York State until February 28, 2012, when he filed his first voter registration application with the Douglas County Election Commissioner."

Despite concluding the accusations from the Nebraska GOP had merit, Gale said he would be unable to bar Kerrey from appearing on the primary and general election ballots since the federal rules only require a person to reside in the state at the time of election.

McGrain said his group was pushing forward with a court challenge, saying, "We've heard a number of Nebraskans who are concerned in the manner in which Bob Kerrey was able to fly in at eleventh hour for purposes of running for Senate."

No matter the outcome, the effort will underscore a major element of the Republican campaign against Kerrey, which seeks to paint the former senator a New York liberal. Radio spots from the conservative group American Crossroads, which began airing last week, asserted: "A decade in Greenwich Village changed Bob Kerrey."

"We feel there's a compelling argument to get him removed, and I suppose the political byproduct is people remain informed that he still doesn't live in Nebraska," McGrain said. "It seems he's flying back to New York every weekend, and even if he won, would move with his family to Washington."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, N in the Know, Youtube, Google Maps

Democrats In Congress Being Outspent By GOP Candidates (Super PACS)

Post-Citizens United Money May Swamp Congressional Candidates

Political spending by deep-pocketed donors and cash-rich corporations threatens to sow chaos in this year's congressional races, political consultants warn.

A billionaire or corporation writing a check for $1 million -- or even $10 million -- isn't enough to swing a presidential election. But when it comes to congressional campaigns, it could be plenty.

“You can work for months and years to develop a fundraising advantage over your opponent of $2 million, $5 million or $10 million. And all that can be wiped out in seconds by a few people giving to a super PAC," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.

While Republican and Democratic candidates are, in theory, equally susceptible to that kind of unlimited outside money, it’s the Democrats who sound much more alarmed.

"No one is safe, and everyone's got to protect themselves," said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. "Super PACs can strike at any time they want."

"There's sort of no way to fend it off because it's so much," said progressive strategist Mike Lux. "It's just so much money that even when you know it's coming, it's hard to deal with."

Lux said his biggest worry is the last-minute ad blitz -- a staple of elections dating back to the '90s. Now with the rise in outside money, election-eve ads can hit "at an even more massive level,” he said. The result: candidates who "can't compete with an overwhelming mass of money at the end that swamps the close races."

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, along with a subsequent lower court ruling, struck down post-Watergate caps on political contributions by corporations and individuals. As a result, super PACs fueled mostly by contributions of $500,000 or more have already pumped $78 million into the Republican presidential primary, outspending everyone else and flooding the airwaves with negative ads.

Successful congressional candidates in 2008 spent an average of $1.4 million to win a House seat and $7.4 million to get elected to the Senate, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. Potential spending from super PACs -- and their secretive 501(c)(4) cousins -- dwarfs those amounts.

One super PAC, whose wealthy donors are targeting incumbents from both parties, has already spent nearly $1 million in just eight congressional primaries. But that's widely considered to be just a minor foreshadowing of what is to come in congressional races in the general election.

And while most outside money will likely be targeted for maximum ideological payoff, in some cases it could also be personal.

"If somebody is pissed off at a particular member for a piece of legislation -- even a line of questioning at a committee hearing -- I absolutely see that kind of revenge giving," Lux said.

Sheinkopf said he imagines there will be districts where people with money "hate the incumbent or the challenger" and can now pull out their checkbook and underwrite a deluge of negative ads. The result, Sheinkopf argued, is that "personal pique will substitute for democratic reasoning." Even candidates who are feeling confident are likely to hoard money they might otherwise have sent to their party committees or to members of their party in closer races, Sheinkopf predicted.

"It will mean the continued breakdown of both parties, because it's now every man and woman for themselves," Sheinkopf said.

With all that money sloshing around outside the official campaigns, said Gary Kalman, federal legislative office director for the U.S. PIRG consumer group, "there's going to be certain people that are going to be little bitty players in their own elections."

Meanwhile, competition for voter eyeballs grows more ferocious. "What's different is you used to be an only child or in a well-behaved family. Now you're in a family of eight, and if you don't eat your food quickly, it's going to disappear," said Democratic media consultant Will Robinson.

Federal Election Commission rules still require that broadcast stations give candidates for federal office "reasonable access" to the airwaves at the lowest cost available. So super PACs can't actually push candidates who have already bought ads out of the way.

"But what they can do is come in and buy every available piece of air around them," Robinson said. Some media markets will sell out, as Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia mostly did in the 2008 general election. "Things are very Darwinian right now," Robinson said.

Robinson predicted that advertising scarcity will also extend to prime online ad space. In key swing states, "online is beginning to disappear already," he said.

Another feature of the post-Citizens United world is that while super PACs have to disclose their donors -- not in real time, but eventually -- donors who don't want anyone to know they're behind a given ad campaign are allowed to launder unlimited political contributions through tax-exempt groups, known as 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations for the Internal Revenue Code regulations that cover them.

Those ad campaigns make it impossible for the public to know for sure where the money is coming from -- but, Lux contended, not necessarily that hard to guess. "It'll be coming from the banks, number one, because everybody hates them so badly," he said. "Certainly oil companies will want to hide their dollars. Some of the big telecom companies."

Not everyone is unhappy with the new order, of course. "I'm more optimistic about the current system than I was prior to Citizens United," said Republican strategist Keith Appell. "Both sides can raise plenty of money," he added. "My feeling is as long as the playing field is level, then that’s the best of all worlds. In the end, it nets out fine."

Democratic political strategist James Carville said that the ability to spend unlimited sums endows big donors with so much power that they don't even have to use it.

"You can threaten," he said. "The real impact of this is, let's say you want something -- there's a bill that you really care about -- you go to someone kind of on the fence, and usually you would say, 'I'll do a fundraiser for you.' Now you say, 'If you don't vote for this, I'm going to dump a million dollars on you.'" Or, he continued, "'If you don't vote to give me a pollution exemption, I'm going to croak you.'"

"The potential for mischief here is pretty good," Carville said.

Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his family have kept Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich alive in the primaries, with at least $10 million in contributions to the pro-Gingrich super PAC.

But Adelson's ability to spend unlimited sums will also make him hugely influential the next time he wants something from Congress, noted Carville. "He could say, 'Anybody votes against this? I'm worth $23 billion.'"

Indeed, all the moguls need is few examples of "croaking" people who crossed them, Carville said, "and you establish the principle."


Sources: Brookings Institution, Hoover Institution, Huffington Post, Youtube

Obama's Tax Cut Bill Passes In The Senate 83-15; Next Nancy's House

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Tax Cut Bill Easily Clears Senate Hurdle


Far-reaching legislation to avert a Jan. 1 income-tax increase for millions won overwhelming support in a Senate test vote on Monday, backed by an uneasy and unusual alliance between the White House and lawmakers in both parties.

By a vote of 83 to 15, the measure easily cleared the 60-vote threshold needed for most legislation to advance in the 100-seat Senate.

Even before the vote was complete, President Barack Obama said the show of support "proves that both parties can in fact work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people."

Senate passage, expected within a day or two, would set up a final showdown in the House between Obama and liberals in his own party who want the White House to scale back the billions the bill includes in relief ticketed for the rich.

In his remarks, the president gave no indication he was willing to accept further changes to the measure he negotiated with senior Republicans.

"I understand those concerns," he said of the objections from some of his usual allies in Congress. "I share some of them. But that's the nature of compromise, sacrificing something that each of us cares about."

Despite strong criticism from fellow Democrats, Obama has made passage of the bill a key year-end priority, essential for the economy as it struggles to recover from the worst recession in decades.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his GOP counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, were joint sponsors of the bill, a symbolic gesture of bipartisanship on an issue that

produced nothing but gridlock until midterm elections gave Republicans additional leverage in negotiations.

"We're telling the American people to keep money that's rightfully theirs, so they can spend it and invest it as they please," said McConnell.

In a jab at Democrats, he added, "This is an important shift, and the White House should be applauded for agreeing to it."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said, "This bipartisan compromise is about creating jobs. Extending middle class tax cuts will help create jobs. ... Job creation needs to be our number one priority."

The bill needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle. It achieved that level quickly in a long roll call, although no final tally was expected for hours.

The bill would provide a two-year reprieve in the tax increases scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 at all income levels, reduce Social Security taxes for every wage earner in 2011 and extend an expiring program of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. The estimated cost, $858 billion over two years, would be added to already-huge federal deficits.

The measure represents a reach across party lines after two years of political combat in which Republicans wanted a permanent extension of all the tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president, while Democrats insisted rates be permitted to rise on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

Despite the bipartisanship in the Senate, disgruntled House Democrats have vowed to block a final vote unless the legislation is changed to scale back the tax relief for the nation's wealthiest.

"I think we're going to have a vote on the Senate bill, with possible changes," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said. "We may have it with amendments, we'll see what the process is."

The compromise emerged a week ago after private talks involving the White House and top leaders in Congress, including Republicans who emerged from midterm elections with significantly increased strength.

In the days since, Obama has drawn strong criticism from liberals unhappy that he agreed to changes in the estate tax and income tax that will benefit the rich. Firing back, he said failure to compromise would produce gridlock at a time the economy is still frail and unemployment is at a persistently high rate of 9.8 percent.

The administration's outgoing top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, said in a speech a few hours before the vote that the agreement should increase consumer spending and help the economy "now and for the next several years."

On the other end of the political spectrum, some conservatives have spoken out against the bill, saying that the renewal of jobless benefits should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

In fact, even supporters of the bill were at pains to point out parts they found objectionable.

Baucus singled out the decision to leave tax rates unchanged on upper income earners.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., highlighted a series of energy tax breaks added to the bill late last week, including an extension of the federal subsidy for ethanol.

McConnell cited "the Democrats' insistence that we borrow the money we need to pay for a further extension of unemployment insurance. In my view, if both parties agree that the debt is a serious problem, we shouldn't be writing checks that we don't have the money to cover."

Many House Democrats objected strongly to a change in the estate tax that Republicans won as part of the deal. The first $5 million of a couple's estate could pass to heirs without taxation, and an additional $5 million could be passed along for the spouse. The balance would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.

The estate tax was repealed for 2010. But under current law, it is scheduled to return next year with a top rate of 55 percent on the portion above $1 million, $2 million for couples.


Sources: MSNBC