Democrats Move To Appease Wall Street & Corporations

Senate Democrats have announced that Mark Warner of Virginia has been added to their leadership team -- as a policy development advisor. This is disappointing. Warner is a "centrist", with close ties to the business community. In other words, he is a "blue dog" that has sold out to Wall Street and the giant corporations.

When Elizabeth Warren was added to the leadership team last week, I had hoped that senate Democrats were finally coming to their senses, and were finally going to return to a policy of helping ordinary Americans. Warren's appointment seemed to give some balance to a leadership that was already slanted toward Wall Street.

But this appointment (of Warner) dashes that hope. It is a clear signal to Wall Street that they are still firmly in their camp -- that the Warren appointment was just to throw a bone to progressives (who have not been happy lately), and not a real desire to change.

I view the Warner appointment as a step backward for the Democratic Party -- and with his input into policy, we can be pretty sure no real progressive policies will be pursued.

(The caricature above of Warner is by DonkeyHotey.)

Democratic Candidates Should Support Democratic Policies

(This cartoon image of a "Blue Dog" is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.)

Some Democratic candidates think it is smart to run away from the president and principles of their own party -- claiming to be an "independent" who just happens to be running on the Democratic ticket. They all refused to let the president campaign for them (and one even refused to admit she voted for the president of her own party), and they all refused to publicly support the progressive principles of their own party.

Take it from this Texan (where we have a tradition of Democratic candidates running away from their party), that is not a winning strategy. And the Blue Dogs learned that in this election. Pryor (Arkansas), Begich (Alaska), Hagan (North Carolina), Grimes (Kentucky), and Nunn (Georgia) all were guilty of this -- and all of them lost their electoral bid. If you can't be a real Democrat, supporting your party's president and principles, you can't expect progressive Democrats to work their butts off for you -- and you can't expect Independents to run to the polls to vote for you. If you will abandon your own party, why wouldn't voters think you'd do the same to them when push comes to shove in Washington?

I think there is a good chance the Democrats can keep the White House in 2016 -- and garb control of the Senate and possibly even the House. But that won't happen if Democratic candidates are too timid to support Democratic principles. Here's how Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, co-founders of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, put it:

Democrats lost on Tuesday, as widely predicted. But for months, pundits got wrong what Democrats would need to win.  

There was rumor that youth turnout, Latino turnout, and cutting-edge Get Out The Vote practices would tip the balance in close races. But when "close" elections are decided by 7 to 12 points, something much bigger is happening.  

Pundits say President Obama was unpopular. Score one for the pundits. But the critical question is: Why was the president so unpopular?  

Did voters not show up because of Syria, Obamacare, or Ebola? No. 

Was President Obama proposing some big liberal idea, sparking backlash? No. It's hard to remember the last time the President offered a big idea.  

Jobs and economic security are consistently the top issues voters say they care about in red, purple, and blue states. But Democrats did not have a united economic agenda in this election.

Voters did not wake up on Election Day thinking that their ability to have a job, have affordable college education, or to retire with security was at stake. It was a Seinfeld-ian election about nothing. And nothing does not inspire potential voters to vote. In the absence of big ideas, Democrats lost.  

(Of note, some Democrats campaigned as Republicans. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) campaigned as the "most conservative Senate Democrat" -- but voters chose a real Republican over a fake one.)  

However, someone did spark energy this election cycle. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attracted standing-room only crowds in red and purple states. Democrats who didn't want to be seen with the president were proud to be seen with Warren.  

And Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail for a reason: Her message of taking on Wall Street, reducing student debt, and expanding Social Security benefits is popular everywhere.  

While progressives such as Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) won re-election -- and Representatives Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-calif.) won their close races -- they won because they have consistently been economic populists and local voters knew that. But for other Democrats across the nation, nothing substitutes for a clear, authentic, united Democratic message focused on big ideas. 

Moving forward, something needs to change for Democrats. We need a bigger politics. We won't win our own tidal wave elections unless we can build a movement around big ideas -- like free college education, full employment, Medicare for All, expanded Social Security, and real reform of Wall Street.  

We need to make these issues so central to the national debate that candidates actively campaign on these ideas. And we need to start now.  

Hillary Clinton may be coming around to this strategy. In the final few weeks of the campaign, she tried to sound more and more like Sen. Warren. (While not hitting the language precisely, the intent seemed admirable.)  

Progressives will be organizing in states like New Hampshire and Iowa to ensure that all Democrats running for president take a position on -- and campaign actively on -- Elizabeth Warren's bold populist agenda. This is the path to victory in the primary and general election. 

A national progressive movement stands ready to work with those leaders in Congress who choose to recognize this imperative and step up to champion big ideas.  

And if Obama makes Warren's agenda the centerpiece of his agenda in 2015, his popularity will rise and Americans will get the debate about big, bold ideas that we deserve.  

Focusing on big ideas is the path forward for progressives and Democrats. The Warren wing of American politics is ready to lead.  

Paul Sadler Is A Blue Dog After All

Paul Sadler is a candidate for the Democratic nomination to run for the U.S. Senate in the state of Texas. Before the first round of the Democratic primary, he did a pretty good job of posing as a progressive -- saying he was in favor of women's rights and gay/lesbian rights. I was fooled, and even wrote a post saying I could support him if he won the Democratic primary (which he will probably do). It now looks like I'm going to have to eat those words, because in the debate with his only remaining opponent (retired school teacher, Grady Yarbrough), Sadler exposed himself as just another Texas blue dog.

During its recent state convention in Houston, the Texas Democratic Party re-affirmed its progressive roots and beliefs. It is just sad that this party, who finally seems to be finding itself after wandering in the electoral wilderness for so long, will not have a proud progressive senatorial candidate to lead it into the next election.

The party voted for a progressive platform in Houston, but Sadler had already abandoned that platform. I might be able to forgive his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana, even though that is a platform plank. There are too many Democrats without the courage to take a reasonable stand on marijuana (including the president). But Sadler's ideas on how to "fix" the economy are well over the line. He has made it clear that he would vote with the Republicans to cut spending further and refuse to find the money for job creation.

That is inexcusable. Cutting the programs that help hurting Americans will not balance the budget -- and neither will continuing the Bush tax cuts. Their is only one way out of our economic mess, and that is through massive job creation. And that can't be done without some additional government spending. Once people get back to work (and paying taxes) the deficit will be brought down -- and that's the only way it'll be brought down without throwing this nation into a deeper recession. We need look no further than the economic mess in Europe to know this (where "austerity" has been a disaster).

It looks like Sadler is running on the same old blue dog program that has caused defeat for other Democrats for years -- the program that tells voters "I'm a conservative, too, so vote for me." This is a plan guaranteed to fail. Those wanting to vote for a conservative will vote Republican (where the real right-wingers are). Why would they choose a "pseudo-Republican" when there are real Republicans on the ballot?

Frankly, I doubt I'll even vote in the primary run-off. I don't even want to have to choose between an incompetent (Yarbrough) and a blue dog (Sadler). And the Green Party candidate is looking pretty good for November. I don't even know who that is, but at least I can be sure he/she is a real progressive.

Big Oil's Purchase Of Senate GOP Pays Off

The above cartoon (from the website EcoWatch) is pretty descriptive of what went on in the U.S. Senate this last week. The Big Oil companies have to be celebrating, because the gusher of taxpayer money they have been enjoying for years will not be cut off. And the many millions of dollars they have put in Republican campaign coffers has paid off a thousandfold.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) had introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to cut off $24 billion in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies. These companies are enjoying record profits, and don't need the subsidies (which allow them to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes on those record profits). It only makes sense, especially in this terrible economy, that those companies and individuals who are making the most money should at least pay their fair share of taxes.

But the oil companies don't see it that way -- and neither do the GOP senators they have purchased. Both the Big Oil companies and the Republican senators think taxes are something to be paid by the working and middle classes -- not corporations and the moguls who run them.

The bill by Menendez needed 60 votes in the Senate to be brought up for a vote -- a vote that almost surely would have eliminated the subsidies for Big Oil and forced them to pay their taxes. But 43 Republicans (and four Democrats) made sure that wouldn't happen. The Republican filibuster was not ended by a 51 to 47 vote in the Senate. To be fair, two Republicans did vote to end the GOP filibuster (Maine's two senators -- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). The four blue dog Dems who voted with the Republicans were Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Begich (Arkansas), and Jim Webb (Virginia).

Why would these senators vote to keep giving the Big Oil companies $24 billion in tax subsidies, when they so obviously don't need them due to their record (and still growing) profits? Well, a big clue can be found in what these senators have received from the oil companies. The 47 senators who voted against ending the subsidies have received a total of $24,057,254 ($22,899,852 for the GOP senators and $1,157,402 for the four Democrats). That's an average of $511,856 per senator.

That $24 million was money well spent by Big Oil. They get to keep 1000 times that amount  in subsidies to fatten their already bulging bank accounts.

Stealing From Social Security

The above quote from Senator Bernie Sanders is the truth. Social Security is not in immediate trouble, and the problems that might pop up 25 years down the road could be easily fixed for generations by simply having the rich pay the same percentage in FICA taxes that working and middle class people have to pay. So why do the Republicans (and blue dogs) keep whining about how Social Security is going broke?

It's because they have been raiding the Social Security fund for years to give tax cuts to the rich, subsidies to the corporations, more bloated contracts for military toys, and to fund unnecessary wars. Now they don't want to pay that money back, and if they cut benefits and raise the retirement age they won't have to. The Republicans want to use money workers have paid in to the Social Security program to pay for their own proliferate spending.

Don't let the Republicans (and blue dogs) steal retirement money from hard-working Americans! It's the big-spending Republicans' giveaways to the rich that must be cut -- not Social Security!

And for those of you who still doubt that it's the Republicans who are the biggest spenders, view the following graphic:

Those Dirty Blue Dogs !

I've about had it with the "blue dog" politicians in Washington. For those of you who don't know, a "blue dog" is a person who gets elected as a Democrat but votes with the Republicans. They call themselves conservatives, but what they are is scoundrels who fool the voters of their district or state into thinking they support Democratic values while they are really just corporate-owned politicians (no different than Republicans).

Once again these blue dogs have crossed the line of good sense and sided with the Republicans against the citizens of this country. They have announced that they support Republican efforts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. They do this in spite of the fact that the BBA would double the current level of unemployment and shrink the economy by more than 17% -- throwing the country into a severe Depression. Here's what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the BBA would do:

“The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House is expected to consider this week could force Congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018.

“If revenues are not raised (the House-passed budget resolution assumes no increase above current-policy levels) and all programs are cut by the same percentage, Social Security would be cut $184 billion in 2018 alone and almost $1.2 trillion through 2021; Medicare would be cut $117 billion in 2018 and about $750 billion through 2021; and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be cut $80 billion in 2018 and about $500 billion through 2021.”

I find it hard to believe that anyone elected as a Democrat could vote to do such damage to this country. And frankly, I think all Democrats should refuse to vote for these blue dogs in the next election. I know some of you are going to say that would just result in a Republican being elected to replace them. My answer to that is that you are already being represented by a Republican (dressed in Democratic clothing). Once they have been voted out, you can start working to replace them with a real Democrat who will vote for Democratic ideals and values.

I know Democrats are famous for their "big tent" philosophy, but these rabid blue dogs are not just stinking that tent up, they are trying to burn it down. They are destroying the party, and they are helping the Republicans destroy the country. For your information, here are the 25 members of the Blue Dog Coalition in the 112th Congress:

Members in the 112th Congress

1. Jason Altmire (PA-4)
2. Joe Baca (CA-43)
3. John Barrow (GA-12), Co-Chair for Policy
4. Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
5. Dan Boren (OK-2), Blue Dog Whip
6. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
7. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
8. Ben Chandler (KY-6)
9. Jim Cooper (TN-5)
10. Jim Costa (CA-20)
11. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
12. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
13. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
14. Tim Holden (PA-17)
15. Jim Matheson (UT-2)
16. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
17. Mike Michaud (ME-2)
18. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
19. Mike Ross (AR-4), Co-Chair for Communications
20. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
21. Adam Schiff (CA-29)
22. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
23. David Scott (GA-13)
24. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Co-Chair for Administration
25. Mike Thompson (CA-1)

Even The Blue Dogs Weren't That Dumb

If you've read this blog for very long then you'll know that I have no use for the "blue dogs" in Congress (the conservative Democrats who vote mostly with the Republicans). They are pretty much just worthless twits who are holding a position that could be filled by a real Democrat. But we found out recently that even a blue dog is not a suicidally-crazy as a Republican.

It turns out that Rep. Paul Ryan, author of the infamous Ryan Plan (which would abolish Medicare and destroy Medicaid), actually thought he could line up some blue dog support for his ridiculous budget plan. He went to the blue dog caucus (yes, those 26 twits actually have their own caucus) and tried to mine it for votes. He didn't get any.

It turns out that as dumb as the blue dogs are, they knew better than to mess with Medicare. I guess that makes them slightly smarter than the idiot Republicans who voted for it and are still trying to defend it. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Arkansas), communications director for the Blue Dog Coalition, said Ryan "met with us, but we quickly realized that the differences were too great. I'll never vote to privatize social security or Medicare."

While the blue dogs aren't too bright, they are smart enough to avoid political suicide.

A Cause For Celebration

Back in 1985, a new group was formed within the Democratic Party. It was called the Democratic Leadership Council and was mainly composed of conservatives within the party (commonly referred to as "blue dogs"). The purpose was to "save" the party by bringing it back to the right -- to make it sort of a "Republican-Lite" party.

All it ever really succeeded in doing was to divide the party, and encourage "blue dogs" to abandon party values and vote with Republicans. Perhaps the height of the DLC's infamy was when they supported independent (and party turncoat) Joe Lieberman over the official candidate of the Connecticut Democratic Party.

Fortunately, they have failed in their effort to make the Democratic Party a pale imitation of the Republican Party. And now there is cause for progressives to celebrate. It seems that the DLC is broke and dying. Insiders say the DLC could close its doors and go out of business as soon as next week. It couldn't happen soon enough to suit me.

The DLC has been a sad and failed experiment. They never realized that to appeal to the public you have to offer a real alternative to the opposing party -- not an imitation of it.

Another Volley In War On Social Security

Since Social Security was passed in the 1930s and signed into law by President Roosevelt, it has been a lifesaver for many working Americans -- people who worked hard for all their lives for low wages.   For many of these people, their Social Security check is the only income they have, and the only thing keeping them in food and shelter.

The Republicans, and the rich people they represent, have always opposed Social Security, and even today they would love to destroy the program.   Fortunately, Social Security is popular with a large majority of Americans and the Republicans have not been able to muster enough support to destroy it -- yet.   So, for now, they are directing their efforts at just trying to weaken it -- that is, get rid of it a little bit at a time.

The latest lie they have been spreading is that Social Security has serious financial problems and is about to go broke.   They want Americans to believe the program is unsustainable (and have even called it a "Ponzi scheme").   If they can get people to believe this, then they can begin to cut benefits (and eventually abolish it altogether).

The truth is far different.   There is enough money in Social Security to continue making full payments to its recipients until at least the year 2037.   After that, one adjustment to the program would keep it solvent for many decades.   And that adjustment does not involve cutting benefits or extending the retirement age for recipients.  

All that needs to be done is to remove or raise the cap on Social Security payments into the system by workers (currently payments are made only on income up to $106,800).   This makes imminent sense, since the burden would be borne only by those who can afford it and not by low or middle class workers (who would be hurt the most by cutting benefits or extending the retirement age).

But that would mean that the rich politicians and their even richer corporate benefactors would have to cough up a little more money.   They hate that.   Just like with income taxes, they would rather the working and middle classes shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden.   And some Democrats, most notably the Blue Dog conservatives, are joining with the Republicans in this effort to screw American workers.

A couple of days ago, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) appeared on CNN saying benefits must be cut for Social Security.   Just listen to what the Democrat (Warner) had to say:

"Look, folks at 25 or 30 years old today aren’t going to get Social Security at 65 or 67. We’re going to have to raise the retirement age slowly, in a slow way that doesn’t affect folks 50, 55. But this is just math. We’ve got to do some of these things."


Blue Dog Mark Warner has obviously climbed aboard the bandwagon of Republican lies about Social Security.   There was a time when Democrats would act to protect the best interests of ordinary Americans, but Warner has decided to throw his lot in with the rich and the corporate moguls.   And he's not alone.   Other Blue Dogs will probably join him.

And then the Democrats wonder why the electorate doesn't respect them.   At least the Republicans are honest.   They hate Social Security and would love to abolish it.   But Democrats claim to support it.   That makes it very puzzling when they join Republicans in voting to hurt the Social Security program and the people who depend on it.   Why should voters support Democrats when they say one thing and do another?

This is just one more volley in the war on Social Security.   It will get worse now that the Republicans have regained control of the House of Representatives.   And if the people can't depend on the Democrats to save Social Security without cutting benefits for those living on a fixed income, then the war may be lost.

"Blue Dog" Bill White Not Polling Well

Yesterday, I discussed the fact that Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Blue Dog Bill White, is not only less well-known that the leading two Republican candidates, but he also has around $4 million dollars less to spend than they do. It's going to take a lot of money just to introduce himself to the voters outside the Houston area, and he has to get that done because voters simply will not elect a candidate they don't know.

Now a new poll has come out that shows just how deep the trouble is for Blue Dog Bill. The newest Rasmussen Poll on the Texas governor's race shows him losing not only to the two leading Republican candidates, but also to their third place candidate -- who only has the support of 16% of Republicans. Here's how he stacks up against all three Republicans:

Hutchison...............49%

White...............36%

Perry...............48%

White...............39%

Medina...............41%

White...............38%

Now the Rasmussen Poll is a poll that usually slightly favors Republican candidates, but that fact doesn't seem to help Blue Dog Bill (pictured) at this point. Even if we take five points away from each Republican (and I doubt the Rasmussen bias is anywhere near that much), Hutchison and Perry still win by more than the margin of error (3%). And the Medina-White race is still within the margin of error.

That margin could probably be made up in the next few months if the leading Republicans were not viewed favorably by the general public, but that is not the case. The two leading Republicans are viewed favorably by a majority of Texans. Here are the favorability ratings for all four candidates:

Hutchison...............57%

Perry...............54%

White...............46%

Medina...............44%

At this point, it looks like the "anointed" Democratic candidate is headed for defeat in November, and this time they can't blame it on Kinky. Maybe someday they'll nominate a Democrat who offers the voters some real progressive change. That's the day they'll have a real chance to win.

Blue Dog Will Run For Governor

Another professional politician has entered the Democratic primary wanting to be the party's nominee to run for governor. Houston's Mayor Bill White has been term-limited out of his current job. He had tossed his name into the race to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the U.S. Senate. But then Hutchison decided she wouldn't resign, so White had to look for another political job. He has decided to run for governor.

The really bad thing about this is that White's decision has run a really good progressive candidate out of the race. Hank Gilbert announced yesterday that he is withdrawing from the governor's race, and will instead make another run for Agriculture Commissioner. Hank will make a great Agriculture Commissioner, but I think he would have made a much better governor than Bill White.

Gilbert's withdrawal leaves the race without a true progressive. Gilbert threw his support to Houston hair care magnate Farouk Shami. He said he couldn't support White because he doesn't trust him. Before entering the governor's race, Gilbert asked Bill White twice if he might be getting into the race. Both times, White assured Mr. Gilbert that he would not enter the governor's race. By entering the race, White has now exposed himself as a liar and someone who cannot be trusted.

I am a Kinky Friedman supporter. But if Hank Gilbert had bested him in the primary, I could have supported and voted for Mr. Gilbert in the November election. I cannot say the same for Bill White.

Several Democratic-leaning blogs have already jumped on the White bandwagon. One even referred to him as a pragmatist and a problem-solver. For those of you who don't know, that's Democratic code-talk for a right-wing, business-oriented, BLUE DOG! He's Tom Schieffer with a better campain chest.

I honestly don't know why some progressive blogs are so happy about White entering the race. One even referred to his "star quality". The truth is that he's another boring Houston politician who's a complete unknown outside of Houston and South Texas. He reminds me a lot of the "empty suit" Democrats chose to run in 2006 -- Chris Bell, who couldn't even hold the Democratic base.

I know there are Democrats who believe a Blue Dog Democrat is better than a Republican. I can't agree. What's the point of electing a Democrat who'll govern like a Republican? If that's the best the Democrats have to offer, then they don't deserve to govern (and nothing would be changed if they did).

The only way I could support or vote for Bill White next November is if he could somehow convince me he's not just another Blue Dog. I doubt that will happen though. I think he's blue all the way to the bone.

This makes Kinky Friedman's candidacy more important than ever.

Rep. Edwards Lacks Political And Moral Courage

House Democrats passed their version of health care reform on Saturday night. It was not the bill I wanted since I favor a government-run single-payer system, but it is not a terrible bill. It does accomplish some health care reforms that were badly needed such as doing away with "pre-existing conditions", allowing a person who changes his/her job to take their insurance with them, and stopping the practice of insurance companies dropping patients whose treatment proves to be expensive.

It also includes a public insurance plan as an option in a healthcare exchange, where clients can go to find low-cost insurance. The bill is far from perfect, but it is an important step on the road to providing all Americans with decent affordable health insurance.

Every single Republican, with the lone exception of Rep. Cao from the 2nd District of Louisiana, voted against health care reform. That was expected. Far more disappointing is the fact that 39 Democrats (blue dogs) voted against fixing our broken health care system and providing health insurance for all Americans.

One of those blue dogs who voted against health care was Rep. Chet Edwards from the 17th District of Texas (the Waco area). Here is how he explained his vote, "After listening to thousands of my constituents and carefully reviewing the legislation, I have made a decision to vote no on the House health care reform bill. Given the huge federal deficits facing our nation, I believe there is too much new spending in this bill."

Could he really mean that? Could he really mean that human lives are less important that keeping federal spending and taxes for the rich abnormally low? I don't think so.

The fact is that Edwards (pictured) represents a fairly conservative district. If he had voted for the health care reform bill, there is the possibility that he would not be re-elected. So he had a choice. He could vote to do the right thing and save millions of lives by fixing our broken health care system, or he could vote to save his own political hide regardless of the pain that could cause millions of Americans.

I believe he made the wrong choice -- the choice of a political coward. Do we elect our leaders to protect themselves, or do we elect them to do the right thing for the American people and make this a better country for all Americans? I suggest it is the latter.

I expect elected officials to vote in the best interest of all Americans -- even if that means they may be committing political suicide. But Chet Edwards (and the other 38 blue dogs) disagree, and believe the highest political good is self-preservation. That shows a complete lack of political and moral courage.

I actually supported Edwards in the 2008 election. Today, that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and it won't happen again.

Note To Blue Dog Dems About Budget

I want to direct this post to those in Congress known as Blue Dog Democrats, or "conservative" Democrats. To those of you in Texas and those of you in other states. It's time to step up and help your president, your party and your country.

There have always been Democrats like you -- even in the 1930s. But those conservative Dems in the thirties knew there was a time to show their conservatism and a time to help save their country, and they recognized when their country needed them. They swallowed hard and voted with President Roosevelt for the good of the country.

Well, the Bush conservatives in the Republican Party have run our country into the ground and thrown us into a serious recession that could easily turn into another Great Depression if it is not handled right.

President Obama has proposed his first budget, and it is a fairly large one -- as it needs to be to cope with the serious problems facing the United States. The Republicans almost unanimous response has been NO. After years of their own wasteful budgets that resulted in enormous deficits while only helping the rich, they all of a sudden want to cut the budget.

Please don't join in this subversive budget-cutting nonsense. Before you decide the president's budget is too large and needs to be cut down, please consider the following:

*The Republicans want our economy to fail, so they can claim that President Obama and the Democrats have failed. It is their only hope of surviving the 2010 election without even further losses.

*The people and most businesses have cut back on their spending. If the government did the same at this time, it would throw our economy into an even more serious tailspin and almost certainly bring on a Depression.

*One of the reasons the budget looks so large is that this is a real budget with all the expenses listed -- not one of Bush's phoney budgets that tried to hide the expense of two wars (and many other items).

*The president has included adequate funds in the budget to start the process of weaning the country off of carbon-based fuels, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and transfer to the use of cleaner and greener fuels. Many presidents have promised this, but only President Obama has actually included funding for it in the budget.

*The president has also included funds to start fixing our broken healthcare system. Over 40 million citizens don't have any kind of health insurance, and among those that do, large medical bills that insurance refuses to pay is the single largest cause of bankruptcies in this country. A good health insurance system that controlled costs and covered everyone, would not only help the citizens but also businesses (who are having trouble competing because of government healthcare insurance in other countries).

*For the first time in many years, our educational system will be adequately funded. Without a fully-funded and functioning public education system, how long would our democracy survive?

*The budget includes some cost-cutting measures by cutting unwarranted, ineffective and unnecessary programs.

*Further cutting would be realized by going back to competetive-bidding on all contracts (unlike the Bush administration that awarded non-competetive open-ended contracts to their friends and political supporters).

*More savings would be realized by the winding down (and eventual ending) of the Iraq War.

This is a large budget, but it is also a good budget. It is also a budget that addresses America's serious needs. Don't join with those who would cut this budget and hurt the country. Your president and your country need you to help pass this budget as it is. It will take political courage, especially for you "Blue Dogs", but it is necessary.