Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has released a new ad campaign targeting 17 House Republicans who voted in favor of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” budget plan.

The web campaign revives a Democratic attack line from the 2012 presidential election, labeling Ryan’s budget as “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Although the ads are ostensibly targeting 17 different vulnerable representatives — the version above is designed to hit California’s David Valadao — Ryan is the undisputed star. The ads feature Ryan explaining that the budget is “an expression of our budgeting philosophy,” interspersed with clips of political analysts describing how Ryan hopes to cut benefits and radically shrink the federal government.

The ad ends with onscreen text naming the target congressperson, and declaring “The Radical Republican Budget: Help the rich get richer. Soak the middle class & seniors.”

According to Talking Points Memo, the ads will target the following representatives:

AR-02 Tim Griffin
AR-04 Tom Cotton
CA-21 David Valadao
CA-31 Gary Miller
CO-06 Mike Coffman
IN-08 Larry Bucshon
MN-02 John Kline
MN-03 Erik Paulsen
NE-02 Lee Terry
NJ-03 Jon Runyan
NY-11 Michael Grimm
NY-23 Tom Reed
OH-14 David Joyce
OH-16 Jim Renacci
PA-08 Mike Fitzpatrick
VA-02 Scott Rigell
WA-03 Jaime Herrera Beutler

The new campaign provides some insight into how Democrats hope to win House elections across the country in 2014. Polling suggests that vast majorities of Americans oppose almost every cut suggested by Ryan, and Ryan’s personal approval rating plummeted to 35 percent in a recent Rasmussen poll — down from 50 percent before he became Mitt Romney’s running mate in August.

Democrats face an uphill battle to capture the net 17 seats that they need to regain the majority in the House of Representatives, but this campaign shows how they plan to fight it: by running against Ryan and his extreme budget at every opportunity.

  • howdidisraelget200nukes

    And by the time this is over, you can add shumer, durbin and the rest of the idiots that supported everything that bush did to the list.

    Face the facts. No matter how insane a republiCON proposal looks, sooner or later the dems pass it.

    Look at NAFTA.

    Look at rayguns “for profit” healthy care bill passed in 1982 “because free market competition will stabilize prices”.

    Didnt bush say the same thing about oil prices?

    Didnt Obama say the same thing about his “Affordable Health Care” joke which simply forces us all to buy into the failed republiCON concept of “for profit” health care.

    All in the name of “compromise”.

    These guys are all the same republiCON/Democrats.

    • Interesting moniker. Since Israel has been a nuclear power for about 40 years, you may want to ask the folks that gave them those weapons what the rationale was for doing that. While you are at it, you may want to ask them why did they give WMDs to Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war, and why did they arm the Mujahadeen, including Osama bin Laden, when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
      U.S. Presidents have very little influence over oil prices, although I would love it if the stop subsidizing that industry. Oil prices are influenced by the law of supply and demand, which has been adversely affected – for us – by China’s growing thirst for oil to satisfy their industrial needs and improved standard of living. It is also influenced by OPEC decisions, by instability in oil producing countries, and by market speculators. When everything else fails and prices slide down, the oil industry uses the West Texas intermediate as the standard to keep oil prices high, or comes up with excuses like the one they gave a few weeks ago: some refineries had to be shut down for maintenance before the driving season started.
      Contrary to popular opinion, and with the possible exception of industrial job creation in the USA, international trade agreements benefit our economy. In any case, isolationism is the last thing we need. We have, indeed, been running trade deficits for many decades, but our exports are growing and, by default, strengthening U.S. manufacturing and related industries.
      ACA is far from perfect, and it will hopefully be modified as time goes by, but compared to a system that excluded 40 million fellow Americans from preventive medical care, and tens of thousands from critical care as a result of pre-existing conditions or exceeding insurance company caps, it is the best we could hope for in a country where common sense takes a back seat to ideology.

      • howdidisraelget200nukes

        bush had a lot of influence on gas prices.

        He tripled them and now Exxon makes triple the profits +

        As an example, when bush was elected, exxon was making about 1 billion in profit per year. today, a bad quarter is when they dont make 10 billion.

        Obama could break up the “energy” companies just like Roosevelt did using the Sherman Act. He could also use it to destroy the for profit health care cabal but really, he is not interested as it would jeopardize those board of directors seats.

        imagine what exxon pays those on the board making 10 billion per quarter profit.

      • Independent1

        Dominick, trying to explain something to 200nukes is a waste of time – he’s not looking to understand, he’s posting in these threads simply to be an antagonist. Over the past several months, 200nukes, aka nobsartist, has been spewing exactly the same propoganda despite my, your and numerous other posters here correcting his misguided notions. Just so you know.

    • awakenaustin

      You are a stealth republican, right? Is the deal to try to alienate Dems into thinking it doesn’t matter who one votes for so one shouldn’t bother voting? I have heard this line before and it usually comes attached to a Libertarian or some other third-party self-promo effort.
      People have this tendency not to do everything I would like them to do, it doesn’t follow, however, that therefore they are all corrupt and greedy. I would have much preferred a single payer universal health care system. However, in the non-alternate universe I live in that wasn’t happening. There is a lot about AHA that is problematic, but sometimes something is better than nothing. Maybe sometimes it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

      • RobertCHastings

        Conservatives use the Canadian health care system as an example of wheere we are heading – directly toward (as they call it) “socialism”. It is the one-payer system of which you speak and, like similar one-payer systems around the world, the doctors work for the government. (That does not, per se, imply it is a SOCIALIST system.) The percentage of our GDP that we spend on healthcare is in the neighborhood of 15-16%, while the Canadians spend a whopping 5%, about one third. When you factor in that our GDP is much higher than that of Canada, the ratio is even more telling. Canada’s system is cheaper and much better than ours is, at present. Obama is doing some things that will make our system more efficient, like doing trial programs at some hospitals that 1) have a TEAM of phyusicians advise the patient, deciding what tests are needed and which are not, 2) finding the “best practices”, or those treatments are the most effective in treating an individual’s individual issues, rather than using the current scattergun technique, 3)paying doctors and hospitals based not on the number of procedures, but on the success of treatment, based upon how often the patient must return to the hospital. These are reasonable methods for getting control of healthcare costs. Next year, insurers will be required to eliminate their Medicare Plus plans, which now pay 117% of what would normally be paid by Medicare. This plan has proven to be costly and NEEDS to be eliminated. Unfortunatelym, try as he may, he is still unable to override a Republican House that still allows drug companies to extend their patents, making drugs that should be available in generic form more expensive for a longer time. The health care problem is an extremely complex issue, and will take a long time for the US to control. However, progress is being made. We are approaching that threshhold where 22,000 people will NOT die annually from treatable issues because they cannot afford healthcare, and that point at which annually hundreds of thousands will NOT have to declare bankruptcy because of medical costs.

        • howdidisraelget200nukes

          Canada’s system works, ours doesnt. Its that simple.

          I find it difficult to support a system that has proven to not work even though now its a law.

          So since its obvious that this system does not work, how is it that the solution to the problem is to drag us all into it.

          Face it, Obama is only interested in helping out his supporters so he can grab those board of directors seats.

          I think I will take the same route as the banks.

        • Independent1

          Not to muddy the water here, but are you two aware that Canada has less people (35 million or so), than America has uninsured citizens (40-50 million). You’re trying to compare creating a healthcare system for 350 million against a system that works for 1/10th of our population. Because something seems to work for 35 million, doesn’t mean it would ever work for ten times the number of people it is set up for – the contention for healthcare is obviously much much less in Canada.

          • RobertCHastings

            1)As you so eloquently indicated, the Canadian system is a hodge-podge of 11 DIFFERENT systems (sort of like a system for each state, here, which would appeal to the Republicans) 2) Britain’s system is for a population about three times that of Canada, and still functions very nicely, 3)Once again, the proportion of GDP spent of healthcare by the Candians v the US is still 1/3 and,since their GDP/capita is much smaller than ours,they spend, dollarwise, MUCH less for healthcare than we do. Germany’s system is very different, with about as many different insurance providers as we have. However, in Germany each provider gives exactly the same product, the only difference being the service, a system VERY similar to that in existence in the US for crop insurance. A very simple fact of this discussion is that, while we spend so muchmore on healthcare than our fellow developed nations, the quality of our care is somewhere into the second tier. Our life expectancy is ten years less than that of people in nations offering an effective single-payer system. Issues of coverage and efficacy of treatment are not nearly as severe in places like Japan and GB as they are here.

          • RobertCHastings

            There is no VALID reason why a system like Canada’s would not work here. So our population is NINE times theirs’, this only means the savings generated by the programs they employ, if used here, would generate even greater savings because of the additional volume of clients. Savings spread out over a base of 315 millions would, logically, be greater per individual than in a smaller population, like that in Canada.

          • Independent1

            Robert, I’m not sure you can just extrapolate those numbers. If you noticed in the article Canadians complain about wait times, access to treatment and unusual treatments being used. With a population 10 times theirs, all those things could lthemselves extrapolate to the point where wait times and access to treatment became totally unmanageable and more than an acceptable number of people would be dying before they got the treatment then needed to stay alive. I’m not saying it the Canadian system wouldn’t work, but what it suggests is that the states (provinces in Canda) would be running healthcare – and from what I’ve seen state run anything can be a total disaster: states proved over 150 years that they couldn’t handle disaster management (that’s why we have FEMA); so I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with state run healthcare. But we’d have to see.
            :

          • RobertCHastings

            Nothing has been extrapolated. The figures I use are direct from the conversation about health care from almost four years ago. And they are still valid. Healthcare costs are about 15 – 16% of the GDP in the US. Healthcare costs in GB, Germany, Japan, France, Canada, etc. are ALL in the range of 5 -6 % of GDP in those countries. Why is their healthcare so much cheaper, and yet gets better results. ONE of the criteria I use for “better results” is life expectancy and, among the countries listed above, just take a wild guess at which country has the SHORTEST life expectancy. If you guessed the US, you are correct. In some cases, the difference is over ten years. Two very important differences between the US and those other countries are 1) the number of people who die annually from treatable medical conditions because of their inability to access adequate healthcare, and 2) the number of bankruptcies caused by excessive healthcare costs. Once again, guess who leads the world in those two categories, and that is not just in numbers, it is in frequency, or incidents per thousand. The MAIN reason waits may be longer with the Canadian healthcare system (and others like it) is that non-critical and optional procedures (like plastic surgery not connected with an emergency) ARE required to wait. As you should be aware if you have done ANY research on the consumption patterns of Americans with regard to healthcare, most procedures are not required, and most tests duplicate the results of other tests, causing much overlap – an obvious huge waste of healthcare resources. I do not advocate panels that decide what care individuals will receive; however, I do advocate panels that can decide what procedures are appropriate, and what courses of treatment will have the best outcomes.

          • Independent1

            By extrapolating I was referring to your assumption that because Canada appears to be saving via their healthcare system by having lower costs than ours, that applying their system to a much larger group of citizens would necessarily imply we would achieve bigger savings. My point was, that personally, although Canada may have cheaper healthcare, one reason is because they’re forcing their citizens to suffer for much longer periods of time with illnesses as their waiting times for treatment are often 2,3 and more times longer than Americans have to put up with. And to br honest, I’m not sure I agree that saving money is worth making people suffer longer when they’re in pain or suffering illnesses that could even be fatal. I’d take the added costs overthe forced-suffering savings.
            But on top of that, is that their system is based on 15 provinces/districts administering their healthcare, whereas here it would be 50 different states. And it could be that the Canadian provinces are not quite like our states, in that our states consider themselves virtually autonomous from our national government and quite often choose to not implement legislaltion as it’s crafted by Congress, or even close to it; which to me means that the results from such a system could go from being great in one state to a near disaster in another: America is probably going to experience some of that with ACA as states cut and paste applying portions of ACA as they see fit (just look at the hodgepodge of what’s going on with states choosing and not choosing to implement portions of the ACA).
            Also, the results in the other countries you pointed out may be much closer to a true single-payer system, where it’s the national government that is overseeing healthcare and not each individual county, province or whatever. I’m not disagreeing that a true single-payer system wouldn’t provide savings, and I think that’s what America should be moving to; but it’s my feeling that America was not in a position financially or economically (while running trillion-dollar deficits) back when ACA was enacted to have moved to a single-payer sysem. Not only – where was the money going to come from for America to suddenly ramp up for a single-payer system? but with 14 million people already unemployed, it’s my feeling that going to a single-payer system then could have pushed Ameica into a depression by throwing maybe a million or more people out of work that are involved in health insurance. I’m not against a true single-payer system, I just don’t think that Canada’s system is really a true single-payer system – there are too many provinces with their fingers in the pie.

          • RobertCHastings

            Thank you for making my point regarding the single-payer system. In reference to the long waits endured by many Canadians for healthcare, their emergency care system responds with the same efficiency and speed that ours does, but the waits are experienced by those who are not necessarily in need, or who are waiting for elective procedures (facelift, etc.). Those who have true emergencies do not experience waits. Triage is practiced on the battlefield, to treat those whose lives are immediately at risk first. Someone like Kevin Ware, the basketball guard for Louisville who suffered a double compound fracture, would receive immediate care, while a teammate who may have had a hangnail would have had to wait, or make an appointment for later in the week. My neighbor has fallen on hard times and has no insurance. He is, however, a veteran of eights years service in the Navy, which entitles him to medical care. He has what appears to be pneumonia and, not having insurance or the money to pay for an emergency room visit, must wait until he can arrange an appointment at a VA hospital about 25 miles away. A single-payer system would permit him to visit a hospital and have this potentially fatal condition treated. Our current system, based upon the greed of the insurers, will not make money off him so it would be best (from the standpoint of the insurers) if he just died. One other issue that must be understood and dealt with is the fact that in the single-payer system, the doctors, nurses, etc. are employees of the state and, as such, negate the other issues of malpractice, excessive fees, etc. that plague our current system.

        • Independent1

          Not only does the Canadian healthcare system only cover 35 million people, not all Canadians like the system. Here’s an excerpt from a 2009 NY Times article that really muddies the water: it appears Canada’s system is not “universal healthcare” it’s a hodgepodge of multiple systems; Read on:

          OTTAWA — Canadians can be of two minds about their public health care system.

          Tommy Douglas, a former premier of Saskatchewan, was voted “The Greatest Canadian” by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation viewers for setting up what became the model for the country’s health system. And a survey last year partly sponsored by the federal government found that Canadians ranked “universal health care” among the 10 defining factors of their country (along with Niagara Falls, beavers, hockey and a robotic space arm).

          At the same time, Canadians can be quick to complain about that very system. Their chief complaints include wait times, access to doctors, unusual treatments and specialized imaging equipment as well as its overall cost.

          Given that, it’s not surprising that Canada’s experience is being used to support the arguments of people on both sides of the American debate about health care.

          But before judging Canada’s system, and its suitability as a model for the United States, let’s look at how the system’s financing developed.

          The biggest problem in assessing Canada is that there are, in fact, 15 different systems rather than a single, national program like Britain’s. Each of the 10 provincial and 3 territorial governments administers and delivers health care to most residents. On top of that, the federal government is responsible for native people who live on reserves, as reservations are known in Canada, as well as members of the military and their families.

          While broad pieces of federal legislation provide overall guidance for each provincial system, they have nevertheless developed largely on a piecemeal basis since the 1960s. Adding to the complexity is the tendency of provincial governments to bicker amongst themselves while vigorously opposing any federal efforts to usurp their constitutional powers over health care.

          So when thinking about health care in Canada, bear in mind that for every general rule there can be a multitude of exceptions.

      • howdidisraelget200nukes

        No. I am just a democrat sick of supporting useless jerk offs for 40 years.

        After watching Obama, I quit.

        • jgsoliveira

          I’m a Democrat too but I have to agree that Obama is very slick, especially behind the scenes.

        • RobertCHastings

          How DID Israel get 200 nukes, and what does it matter?

    • Actually, it’s the nonprofit health insurance cooperatives that are being pushed. You don’t have to buy your health coverage from the for-profits.

      • republiCONsanddemsarebothsuck

        except that the republiCON governors are quickly changing them to “for profit”.
        Try reading something other than this for news.

  • There is no need to spend thousands of dollars in ads. The best ambassadors to highlight the excesses of Tea Party advocates and far right Republicans in general, are themselves. The more radical their ideas, the better the future looks for Democrats.
    Proposals such as privatizing Social Security, dismantling MEDICARE, denying poor seniors the funding they need to spend the rest of their existence in a nursing hom; while insisting that loopholes and subsidies that help the wealthy are off limits, is the best thing that could have happened to us. Instead of wasting money in negative ads, we should be exposing the TP and making sure everybody knows what they are proposing. Let the disciples of the anti-Christ hang themselves.

    • Absolutely.

    • Lovefacts

      Agree 100%. Although… 🙂 some people need to hear the truth repeatedly before they believe it.

      • Lovefacts that is what the problem is. In the words of Bush 43 ” If you say it enough it must be true”!!! As Mitt Romney wrote a book called “No apologies” to justify it all”! And Dominick your absolutely right. It’s all bout the manufacturing of Anti-Christ. Appearing as a squeaky clean Christian. Truly! A slap in the face of True Christian and Conservative Value.As it is in the face of Human Decency!!!

    • Independent1

      Dominick, I agree that it shouldn’t be necessary to spend thousands on ads to get messages out, but unfortunately, I don’t see any other way. Are you assuming the message will get out through a grassroots effort? I’m always amazed how there seem to be so many voters, that are totally clueless (based on the way they vote) about the fact that the GOP is doing everything it can to undermine their futures – for example, it’s my understanding that Romney got a higher percent of the senior vote in November than Obama did, when Obama pointed out in virtually each of the debates that the GOP’s agenda included decimating Social Security. So if the Dems message is really getting out, how could the Florida vote which is weighted pretty heavily to seniors be so close? It’s been my feeling for quite a while, that one of the biggest things Dems need, is finding a way to better inform voters of the disaster that the GOP is trying to create for seniors and other middleclass citizens (the 98%).

  • exdemo55

    Here are comments on the Senate budget.

    The body approved a plan that relies heavily on $975 billion in new tax revenue to stabilize the growth of the national debt within the next ten years. The budget does not balance, however, and has a deficit of $566 billion in 2023.

    The Murray budget contains $975 billion in spending cuts, including $275 billion in new cuts to Medicare and Medicaid spending. But it also turns off $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts scheduled over nine years. Factoring that in, the budget does not constitute a net spending cut.

    “Now that the Senate majority has written a plan we can finally begin this conversation: Do we balance the budget and grow the economy for all Americans? Or do we continue to enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people?” Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said after the budget passed.

    “This budget is a rehash of the extreme policies that continue to hobble the economy and crush the middle class,” Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “The only good news is that the fiscal path the Democrats laid out in their Budget Resolution won’t become law.”

    Passage of the budget at approximately 5 a.m. came after a marathon “vote-a-rama” on the floor during which leaders tried to tackle 562 filed amendments.

    McConnell called the session “one of the Senate’s finest days in recent years.”

    • RobertCHastings

      And your point is? Yes,we understand you are an ex-Dem, and, yes we understand that you are frustrated with the way BOTH parties are conducting business in DC,but, other than that, what is your point? Sure the Senate budget doesn’t balance the budget. Does the one passed by the House balance the budget? Which budget proposal does McConnell support? Which budget do the Republicans support, and what are its basic points, and does it lead America to prosperity? Every budget passed by the HOUSE over the past 18+ months has been virtually the same, 1) eliminate ACA (a proposal almost solely the purview of Michelle Bachman), 2)UNSPECIFIED changes in entitlements, 3)UNSPECIFIED closing of loopholes, although Ryan’s final numbers are awfully specific considering there are no specifics. The Democratic budget proposal is MUCH more specific and, although it, too, does not eliminate the budget deficit, at least we have a chance over the next few years of returning to prosperity. Over the past four years, while Obama has not been able to balance the budget (partly because of the inability of BOTH houses of Congress to agree on some simple basics), he has greatly reduced the size of the deficit. Intransigence in a governmental system founded upon compromise is not a formula for success, it is a formula for disaster. Unfortunately, many Americans who had already made plans to visit the White House over the next few months were hit, personally, with the cold, hard facts of the sequester by being denied.

      • exdemo55

        Gimmicks are common in political budgets. But the new proposal from President Obama may set a new record.

        For starters, his claimed ten year total of spending reductions is less than a single year of the deficits he proposes. You thought his previous $1.4-trillion deficits was bad? Now he wants to push it up to $1.6-trillion.

        Obama brags that he’s going to cut discretionary spending by 5 percent. But he does it by redefining huge amounts as mandatory spending rather than discretionary. Take away the word games and he ‘s adding $14-billion, not cutting anything.

        And in the name of deficit reduction, he proposes 15 new tax hikes. On air travel, on gasoline, on capital gains, and many more. The whole budget is a surprise package—and not all surprises are good.

  • jgsoliveira

    I voted for Obama just because there was nobody better.

  • Gary Parsons

    If you want to see what the real republican agenda / plan is. Just keep an eye on Wisconsin. In the past two years they have gone from 11th in jobs creation to 44th! , and now their republican Furher is going after the poor / disabled and elderly by cutting “so-called” entitlements.

  • Vote Out a Corporate Bought Politician in the Special Interest of ALEC and
    its’ Tea Party

    Personally I believe that this is not the way of True Christian and Conservatives Values. And believe the up-right Heart of the True Republican should demand that ALEC and the Tea Party become a separate political organization. And stand on their-own merit before the common good and honest living. And stop hiding behind the banner of true Christian and Conservative Values. Because corporate fascism: gives Republicanism a bad
    reputation, and a great dishonor. What is going on in several states makes it very clear today. That is A Republic. The belief that the supreme power of a country should be vested in it’s electorate.

    The Paul Ryan Plan is an exemplary example of “Deficit doesn’t matter in cutting [or exploiting] government programs” on principal! In simplicity!!! Cutting Americans benefits from Social Security and other “Self-sustaining Federal Funds”. Provides more revenue in
    exploiting and extracting the contributions of the common good and honest living! As it steals from, through pillaging the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. It’s what fascism through obstruction and faction dose the best when it comes to the economy of any country. In the illusion that Free-market capitalism: needs no regulation whatsoever.

    Just like Bernie Madoff screwed his investors out of billions of dollars. Just like
    Big Banks sold bad mortgage bundles as a good investment. Just like Mitch
    Mcconnell and his wife demonized the American Working Family. As uncouth and
    lazy workers! In the total support laid against the American Family in out
    sourcing of our jobs to China through Venture Capital and Private Equity. For the very sake of Globalization and Profiteering! As those believe that ALEC and its Tea Party is doing them a great favor. In a trickle down economy purposed through supply-side economics of Ronald Regan. The voodoo economics’ of stealing form the common good to pay for the tax free holiday. Defined as Free-market capitalism.
    The utter subjugation of our tax base in devaluating the good intention of Our Forefathers! As they fought against: the fascism of Merry-old-England.

  • Vote Out a Corporate Bought Politician in the Special Interest of ALEC and
    its’ Tea Party

    Personally I believe that this is not the way of True Christian and Conservatives Values. And believe the up-right Heart of the True Republican should demand that ALEC and the Tea Party become a separate political organization. And stand on their-own merit before the common good and honest living. And stop hiding behind the banner of true Christian and Conservative Values. Because corporate fascism: gives Republicanism a bad
    reputation, and a great dishonor. What is going on in several states makes it
    very clear today. That is A Republic. The belief that the supreme power of a
    country should be vested in it’s electorate.

    The Paul Ryan Plan is an exemplary example of “Deficit doesn’t matter in cutting [or exploiting] government programs” on principal! In simplicity!!! Cutting Americans benefits from Social Security and other “Self-sustaining Federal Funds”. Provides more revenue in
    exploiting and extracting the contributions of the common good and honest
    living! As it steals from, through pillaging the Federal Insurance Contribution
    Act. It’s what fascism through obstruction and faction dose the best when it
    comes to the economy of any country. In the illusion that Free-market capitalism: needs no regulation whatsoever.

    Just like Bernie Madoff screwed his investors out of billions of dollars. Just like
    Big Banks sold bad mortgage bundles as a good investment. Just like Mitch
    Mcconnell and his wife demonized the American Working Family. As uncouth and
    lazy workers! In the total support laid against the American Family in out sourcing of our jobs to China through Venture Capital and Private Equity. For the very sake of Globalization and Profiteering! As those believe that ALEC and its Tea Party is doing them a great favor. In a trickle down economy purposed through supply-side economics of RonaldRegan. The voodoo economics’ of stealing form the common good to pay for the tax free holiday. Defined as Free-market capitalism.
    The utter subjugation of our tax base in devaluating of
    the good intention of Our Forefathers! As they fought against: the fascism of
    Merry-old-England.

    • I believe the “trickle down” theory should really be called getting pissed on.

  • pbrower2a

    Trial balloons. Democrats will see if they work against Republican House members… and if they work they will be turned on others.