By Robert Creamer

There is a tendency among people who spend their lives working to promote policy positions, Members of Congress, Congressional staffs, and even the media to discuss political issues in terms of public policy.

I don’t mean simply that they use wonky terms and acronyms – though that is often true and it is the surest way to make people’s eyes glaze. I mean that they focus on the potential “effectiveness” of a particular legislative or administrative initiative.

Now the effectiveness of a particular program or policy is enormously important – both to government and politics. But everyday voters mainly make decisions over whether a policy – or a political leader – is effective based on the objective circumstances of their day-to-day lives. If, for instance, President Obama’s policies are not ultimately effective dragging the economy out of the economic ditch into which it was driven by George Bush he will certainly have a very difficult time being re-elected.

But when it comes to the impact of political dialogue – of direct messaging – on the outcome of elections, discussions of the effectiveness of policy are not important determinants of outcomes. Often messaging focused on the effectiveness of a candidate – or a person – can in fact have a big impact on outcomes, but not the discussion of the effectiveness of a policy. The Democrats need an effective economic policy because that will ultimately impact the real circumstances of everyday people. Those real circumstances will have a huge impact on the outcome of elections. But it isn’t the “discussion” of those policies that will be determinative in the least.

Elections are decided by two groups: persuadable swing voters, and mobilizable voters who would cast their ballots for one of the two parties but are unlikely to vote unless they are mobilized.

Neither of these groups is comprised of policy wonks. In fact, both are less likely to be heavily engaged and focused on political and policy issues than more partisan voters. That doesn’t mean these voters are less intelligent than more partisan voters – just less interested.

They care about the things that normal people think about – not policy debates. They care first and foremost about the actual circumstances of their own families – about their job, their income, their kid’s school, their retirement, their hopes and aspirations.

But when it comes to what dialogue – or messaging –affect their political decisions, they don’t focus on the potential “effectiveness” of one policy or another. Instead they want to know whether something is right or wrong.

From the standpoint of most voters there are two inter-related but distinct components of this notion of right and wrong.

On the one hand there is the moral frame that is engaged by any particular political message. Normal voters think of political decisions as choices that are measured against values – not “policies.” This fall we need to make the election a choice between our very popular progressive values and their very unpopular values.

We have to provide a clear contrast to the Right’s belief in unbridled pursuit of individual interest with our commitment to the common good; selfishness versus commitment to others; division versus unity; fear versus hope; that we’re all in this together, not “all in this alone.”

On the other hand voters make political decisions by asking the closely related question of whether you are on “my side.” Whose side is a candidate on? Is he a good guy or a bad guy? Does he represent good guys or bad guys? Are his proposals right or wrong? And remember that right and wrong, and good guys and bad guys, are always defined from the standpoint of who you are and where you sit.

In other words — as George Lakoff argues — from the point of view of the voters, most political decisions are moral decisions.

This is not so because swing voters and mobilizable voters are somehow more “unsophisticated” than more engaged, partisan voters. In fact, you could argue that they are actually more focused on what really matters. Whether a particular policy will “work” is important, but it is a technical question. In fact, most people know instinctively that it’s not the principal driver of political decision-making in any society or group. Normal voters want to strip away the euphemism and policy talk and get to the real question: whose interest is being served and whose is not? What real choices are being made? Is it fair?

Political decisions involve competing self-interests. Normal people know it, and they want to know whose nest is being feathered and whose ox is being gored. First and foremost they want to know if a candidate is on their side.

For many years the Republicans and the far right did a much better job of speaking to that sense of right and wrong than Democrats and Progressives. That helps explain why for much of the last 40 years they were more successful politically. That changed in 2006 and especially in 2008. Barack Obama communicated moral language about hope and possibility – about justice – about standing up for everyday people not special interests.

To win this fall, Democrats need to revive that sense of moral fervor. We have to assure that the election is not about the “effectiveness” of Democratic policies – but whose side a candidate is on.

The debate in the next two months must focus on one central question: do you want to entrust our future once again to Republicans who wrecked the economy – not because they were incompetent or had “bad” policies – but because they were bought and paid for by huge special interests like the big Wall Street Banks, Big Oil and the insurance industry. That is a moral question – not a policy question.

Voters were not outraged by the bank bailout or the huge Wall Street bonuses because they thought they were “ineffective” policies. They are furious because they saw them as unjust.

Everyday people are perfectly willing to sacrifice for a cause that is important. In fact, they long to be called upon to commit their lives to a cause that is bigger than themselves — something to which they can make a significant personal contribution. One of the chief self-interests of every person is a desire for meaning in life and meaning comes from the commitments you make. Everyday voters want their leaders to call on them to make commitments to the greater good – to the future of their children.

But people are livid if they believe they are called upon to play by the rules and then one day get laid off from their job – for no fault of their own – because some Wall Street sharpie made horrible bets with someone else’s money and then walked off scott-free with millions of dollars when the bottom fell out. That’s wrong.

The right-wing arguments that stuck during the health care debate were not “policy” arguments. They were the myths about “death panels,” and Government controlling your life and depriving you of freedom. It was the myth that Health Care reform would cut the Medicare that you have paid into your entire working life. People view these questions in moral terms – in terms of right and wrong – not effectiveness or efficacy.

There are three additional reasons why political messaging that involves moral frames is so resonant:

. Moral questions engage the emotions, not just conscious thought. Emotion is much more likely to break through – to get people’s attention. It is especially effective at mobilizing people to vote. With mobilizable voters, the problem is not convincing them that we are right. Mobilizable voters – by definition — are voters who would vote Democratic, but need to be mobilized to assure they will go to the polls. In 1994 we did not lose because most Americans disagreed with Democratic policies, but because Democrats stayed home and Republicans went to the polls. Mobilization is not about persuasion, it’s about motivation – motivating them to act. That is much more about emotion than thought.

· Moral questions engage value frames that are deeply embedded in each of our unconscious minds. As Lakoff points out, we often have several contradictory value frames. Our view of a subject or candidate is heavily influenced by the frame that is being activated at the particular time. If Democrats do not communicate in moral terms and the other side does, they will be much more apt to activate a clear value frame and win the day.

· A final reason we are much more likely to gain attention of the voters when we use moral language involves narrative. Everyday voters are much more likely to become engaged with our campaigns and candidates if we engaged them with a narrative – or story – about the race. Narratives always involve a protagonist and antagonist. They always involve conflict. At some level, every good story is about right and wrong. Good stories engage us because we empathize with some character and end up rooting for their success. The same is true of election campaigns.

In this election a moral frame is particularly important because it allows Democrats to play offense. We will not win a debate over whether we have been “effective” enough at digging out of the economic hole that Bush and the Republicans left. People are too unhappy with the status quo. Virtually every economist agrees that the stimulus bill did a great deal to stave off true economic disaster, but that doesn’t ring true to someone whose brother-in-law is out of work. In this election the winning ground for Democrats is the question of who’s on your side, and whether we want to hand over the country to the Republicans who will once again do the will of elite special interests.

Discussing questions in moral terms requires that we always address the question of motive. In fact, the motive is often more important than any other aspect of our message. What is important is not just that the Republicans wrecked the economy – but that they wrecked the economy at the bidding of the Big Wall Street banks. They didn’t wreck the economy because they were incompetent or stupid, but because they were – and remain – a wholly-owned subsidiary of the biggest special interests in the country.

And let’s remember that while on the one hand, this is by far the most compelling way to frame the issues in the Mid-terms; it is also without any question the most accurate description of reality.

If Democrats are to persuade and mobilize this fall, every debate must be cast in moral terms:

· Republicans want to cut guaranteed benefits and privatize Social Security for two reasons: because Wall Street wants to get its hands on the Social Security Trust Fund – and so that they allow the wealthiest people in America to keep the huge Bush tax breaks. They would much rather “balance the budget” on the backs of Social Security recipients than demand that the wealthy pay the same tax rates they did during the prosperous Bill Clinton years. It turns out, by the way, that over the next 25 years the “shortfall” in Social Security is about the same amount as the revenue lost if Congress continues the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

· Republicans want to replace Medicare with vouchers for private insurance from the same companies that raised their rates three times faster than wages and are now engorged with profit.

· Republicans opposed the Democratic stimulus bill, extensions of unemployment and more federal money for teachers, firemen and police because they wanted the recovery to stall for their narrow political purposes.

· Republicans oppose tough regulation of drilling by oil companies because they have been bought and paid for by Big Oil.

· Republicans want to repeal the new law reining in the recklessness of the Big Wall Street banks that cost eight million Americans their jobs, because they are owned by Wall Street.

· Republicans want to take away provisions in the new Health Care law that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions because the insurance companies dump millions of dollars into their campaigns.

· Republicans side with big business contributors when they consistently oppose measures to discourage the outsourcing of American jobs abroad.

Everything has to be about who is on your side. Everything has to be about motive — about right and wrong.

Democrats face a tough political environment in November because the economic catastrophe that the Republicans created two years ago was so fundamental. It would be outrageous if they were allowed to reclaim control of Congress as their reward for causing that catastrophe and then doing everything they can to stall economic recovery. Now that would be wrong.

Over the next two months we have to passionately make the moral case. We must make the election a choice between those who side with everyday Americans and those who stand shoulder to shoulder with the economic elites whose greed and recklessness unleashed a flood of misery that has yet to fully recede from the Main Streets of America.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

On Labor Day, Work to Save the Middle Class

This Labor Day feels gloomy. It’s a celebration of work when there is not enough of it, a day off when too many desperately seek a day on.

America has commemorated two Labor Days since this brutal recession began near the end of George Bush’s presidency in December of 2007. Now the relentless high unemployment, the ever-rising foreclosures, the unremitting wage and benefit take-backs have replaced American optimism and enthusiasm with fear and anger.

Happy Labor Day.

On this holiday, we can rant with Glenn Beck, kick the dog and hate the neighbor lucky enough to retain his job. Or we can do something different. We can join with our neighbors, employed and unemployed, our foreclosed-on children, our elderly parents fearing cuts in their Social Security lifeline and our fellow workers worrying that the furlough ax will strike them next. Together we can organize and mobilize and create a grassroots groundswell that gives government no choice but to respond to our needs, the needs of working people.

We can do what workers did during the Great Depression to provoke change, to create programs like Social Security and achieve recognition of rights like collective bargaining. These changes were sought by groups to benefit groups. In a civil society, people care for one another. And America is such a society – one where people routinely donate blood to aid anonymous strangers, children set up lemonade stands to contribute to Katrina victims and working families find a few bucks for United Way.

The self-righteous Right is all about individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. That proposition – the do-it-all- by-yourself-winner-takes-all philosophy – clearly failed because so many Americans are jobless, homeless and too penniless to afford boots.

Over the past decade, the winner who took all was Wall Street. The banksters gambled on derivatives and other risky financial tomfoolery and won big time. Until they lost. And crashed the economy. After the American taxpayer bailed them out, those wealthy traders returned to making huge profits and bonuses based on perilous schemes.

Still, they believe they haven’t taken enough from working Americans. They’re lobbying to end aid for those who remain unemployed in a recession caused by Wall Street recklessness. And they’re demanding extension of their Bush-given tax breaks. This is the nation’s upper 1 percent, people who earn a million or more each year, the 1 percent that took home 56 percent of all income growth between 1989 and 2007, the year the recession began.

Since 2007, 8.2 million workers have lost jobs. Millions more are underemployed, laboring part-time when they need full-time jobs, or barely squeaking by on slashed wages and benefits. Since the recession began, the unemployment rate nearly doubled, from 5 percent to 9.6 percent, and that does not include those so discouraged that they’ve given up the search for jobs, a decision that is, frankly, understandable when there are only enough openings to re-employ 20 percent of the jobless. Five unemployed workers compete for each job created in this sluggish economy.

And American workers weren’t prepared for this downturn, having already suffered losses in the years before it began. The median income, adjusted for inflation, of working-age households declined by more than $2,000 in the seven years before the recession started.

At the same time, practices like off-shoring jobs and signing regressive international trade deals contributed to the loss of middle class, blue collar jobs. A new report, “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market,” by the Center for American Progress and The Hamilton Project, says:
“The decline in middle-skill jobs has been detrimental to the earnings and labor force participation rates of workers without a four-year college education, and differentially so for males, who are increasingly concentrated in low-paying service occupations.”

The recession compounded that, the report says:
“Employment losses during the recession have been far more severe in middle-skilled white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or low-skill service occupations.”

What that means is high roller banksters are living large; lawn care workers and waitresses subsist on minimum wage, and working class machinists and steelworkers are disappearing altogether.

The researchers found the U.S. economy is increasingly polarized into high-skill, high-wage jobs and low-skill, low wage jobs. America is losing the middle jobs and with them its great middle class.

No wonder the rising anger in middle-class America.

But fury doesn’t solve the problem. This Labor Day, we must organize to save ourselves and our neighbors. We must stop America from descending into plutocracy. We must demand support for American manufacturing and middle class jobs. That means terminating tax breaks for corporate outsourcers, ending trade practices that violate agreements and international law and punishing predator countries for currency manipulation that subverts fair trade by artificially lowering the price of products shipped into the U.S. while artificially raising the price of American exports.

We must demand support for American industry, particularly manufacturers of renewable energy sources like solar cells and wind turbines that create good working class jobs, increase America’s energy independence and reduce climate change.

We must insist on policies that support the middle class, including preserving Social Security and Medicare, extending unemployment insurance while joblessness remains high, and enforcing the health care reform law so that every American worker and family can afford and is covered by insurance.

On this Labor Day, we should all have a picnic, invite neighbors, friends and family, and over hot dogs and potato salad, organize to save the American middle class.

Mobilize to end the gloom and restore American optimism.

***

For help: the Union of the Unemployed, the AFL-CIO, USW, Working America. Join the One Nation March for jobs Oct. 2 in Washington, D.C.

Rich Trumka is talking this Labor Day about the need for Economic Patriotism. It’s a message/theme we think will resonate–certainly among working people and the millions of jobless workers–and one that certainly can apply in many ways: EG: Corporations acting anti-patriotic by moving jobs out of this country. (In the much-discussed New York Times artilcle yesterday on Wall Street deserting Obama, this graf buried toward the end hit me hard:

***Just last week, Paul S. Otellini, chief executive of Intel, said at a dinner at the Aspen Forum of the Technology Policy Institute that “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”

Mr. Otellini has overseen two big acquisitions in the last two weeks — the $7.7 billion takeover of the security software maker McAfee and the $1.4 billion deal for the wireless chip unit of InfineonTechnologies. If he is true to his word, those deals will most likelylead to job cuts in the United States, not job creation.***

Piling on to not only call out such behaviors but cast them for what they are–unpatriotic, anti-American–can help us take back the ground grabbed by reactionaries for so long, with the Tea Party just the latest manifestation of such warped usage of the red, white and blue.

Also, check out our national television ad running this Labor Day weekend during baseball, NASCAR and college football events:

www.aflcio.org

It’s downloadable from our homepage.

Tula

……………………………………….
Tula Connell
AFL-CIO Managing Editor
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
www.aflcio.org

Follow the AFL-CIO at
Facebook: www.facebook.com/AFL-CIO/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AFLCIO
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/AFLCIONow

Paul Steinhauser

August 30, 2010

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/30/tea-party-group-that-assisted-miller-now-helping-odonnell/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29&utm_content=Twitter

(CNN) – A leading Tea Party organization that supported Republican Senate nominees Sharron Angle of Nevada and Mike Lee of Utah, and which gave a big boost to Senate candidate Joe Miller of Alaska, says it’s coming to the aid of Christine O’Donnell of Delaware.

Tea Party Express, one of the best known national Tea Party groups, says it will go up with commercials in support of O’Donnell, who is facing off against Rep. Mike Castle in the battle for Delaware’s GOP Senate nomination.

Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell tells CNN that his group hopes to start running two pro-O’Donnell commercials on television in Delaware by the end of the week. Russell says Tea Party Express will spend around $250,000 for the initial ad buy, and says “we’ll see where it goes from there.”

The group endorsed O’Donnell in late July but the ads are the first the organization has produced in support of O’Donnell. In backing O’Donnell, Tea Party Express said the candidate has “established a reputation as a strong voice for conservative constitutionalist principles consistent with the ideals of the Tea Party movement,” and they criticized Castle.

“Mike Castle is so liberal he voted for Barack Obama’s agenda nearly 60 percent of the time,” says the narrator in one of the two ads in the works. Russell says that besides the two TV commercials, three radio spots are also in production.

Russell tells CNN that “this race is another example, much like Nevada and Alaska, where a true conservative is going toe-to-toe with a RINO [Republican in name only] Republican backed by the establishment.”

Castle is a popular nine-term congressman and former two-term governor who’s considered much more moderate than O’Donnell, a conservative commentator and marketing consultant who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2006 and 2008.

Castle defeated O’Donnell in May at the state GOP convention and is backed by the state party chapter. The Republican Party of Delaware describes O’Donnell as a “perennial candidate” and Chairman Tom Ross terms the involvement of the Tea Party Express as “unfortunate.” A Republican source tells CNN that O’Donnell’s trying to piggyback off the Tea Party movement.

The winner of November’s general election will fill out the remaining four years of Vice President Joe Biden’s final term in the Senate. Biden stepped down from the Senate after his election in November 2008 as vice president. Former Biden aide Ted Kaufman was named as an interim replacement. Kaufman is not seeking a full term.

After much speculation that he would run for his father’s old seat, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden announced in late January that he would instead run for re-election as his state’s top lawyer. Nine days after the younger Biden’s announcement, New Castle County Executive Chris Coons officially announced his candidacy for the Democratic Senate nomination. He is the presumptive Democratic Senate nominee in a race political handicappers consider a prime pick-up possibility for the GOP.

The involvement of the Tea Party Express in assisting O’Donnell comes after the group poured nearly $600,000 to help Miller, who leads Sen. Lisa Murkowski by 1,668 votes, according to unofficial results from last Tuesday’s GOP Senate primary in Alaska. Counting of up to 15,000 absentee ballots begins Tuesday.

Tea Party Express is one of the most recognized national Tea Party organizations thanks to its three high-profile bus caravans and rallies. The Tea Party Express has also become a major player in Republican politics, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads for Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who in January upset Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat.

More recently, the organization helped the little-known Angle win the Republican primary in Nevada to face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, endorsing her and spending about a half-million dollars on ads.

The group also targeted incumbent Republican Sen. Bob Bennett in Utah for his vote on the Troubled Assets Recovery Program and helped defeat his bid for a fourth term. It then backed underdog Mike Lee’s successful primary campaign and Lee now appears to be a shoo-in to win the general election in November and join the Senate next year.

This summer, the National Tea Party Federation, which seeks to represent the Tea Party political movement around the country, expelled the Tea Party Express because of an inflammatory blog post one of its leaders, Mark Williams, wrote responding to criticism from the NAACP. Williams later stepped down as spokesman for Tea Party Express.

Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @psteinhausercnn

The Hill: Tea Party Express ready to spend on Rep. Castle challenger

Shane D’Aprile

August 30, 2010

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/116429-tea-party-express-ready-to-spend-on-rep-castle-challenger

The Tea Party Express, which spent some $600,000 to aid Alaska Republican Joe Miller’s primary challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R), says it’s preparing to do the same on behalf of Christine O’Donnell (R) in Delaware.

O’Donnell is challenging Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) from the right in the state’s September 14 Senate primary, but she has yet to capture the same kind of attention from conservative activists as other Tea Party-backed candidates have this cycle.

Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell said Monday that his organization is already cutting TV and radio ads in Delaware and expects to be on the air by the end of the week. Russell said he hopes to match the support the group offered in GOP primaries in Utah, Nevada and Alaska this year.

“All of our spending is dependent on the enthusiasm of the Tea Party Express members,” Russell said. “It’s up to that race and that candidate to capture their imagination.”

As to whether O’Donnell has done that to this point, Russell admits “not quite yet.” But he expressed confidence that the money will flood in over the coming days.

“I’m sure we’ll be spending six figures in Delaware,” Russell predicted.

In an interview with The Hill, O’Donnell said the same sort of outside support that helped promote Miller in Alaska could put her over the top in her primary against Castle.

“We’re already ahead of where Joe was in the polls,” O’Donnell said. “If we could just get that extra push.”

Of the Tea Party Express and other third party groups like the Club for Growth, O’Donnell said, “I hope they see the potential difference they could make.”

O’Donnell is working hard to gin up enthusiasm for her challenge to Castle, one of the most moderate Republicans in Congress. She noted that her consulting team includes strategists who worked on Doug Hoffman’s race in the special election for a New York congressional seat last year.

She’s also trumpeting polling from earlier in the year showing her ahead of Democrat Chris Coons. More recent polls on that hypothetical general election match-up, however, put Coons ahead. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this month shows Coons ahead by double-digits.

The Republican establishment in the state is also downright hostile to O’Donnell and doesn’t seem to fear any sort of backlash from conservative activists or voters.

State Republican Chair Tom Ross labeled O’Donnell “a perennial candidate who lacks the standing in Delaware to get elected to anything.”

Ross also took a shot at the Tea Party Express, calling it “unfortunate that a group like that would get involved and try to override the choice of local activists in Delaware.”

Ross said that O’Donnell was defeated soundly at the state’s GOP convention and accused the Tea Party Express of “monkeying with the primary process.”

Wall Street Journal: Tea Party Endorses O’Donnell in Delaware

Jonathan Weisman

August 30, 2010

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/30/tea-party-endorses-odonnell-in-delaware/tab/print/

Delaware tea party candidate Christine O’Donnell got a major boost today in her long-shot campaign to take the Republican Senate nomination from under the nose of Rep. Mike Castle, who is considered the overwhelming favorite. The Tea Party Express announced it would spend around $600,000 ahead of Delaware’s Sept. 14 primary on her behalf.

But before the pundits could say “Joe Miller,” the Republican establishment had mobilized to shake Castle’s lapels and try to energize his campaign. Washington Republicans laid into O’Donnell, saying she could hardly be viewed as a paragon of fiscal virtue when she owes back taxes, had her home foreclosed on, and never received a diploma because she didn’t pay her tuition.

For months, political handicappers have put Delaware at the top of their list of Senate seats most likely to flip from Democratic to Republican. Sure, the seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden is in a Democratic state, but Delawareans statewide have been pulling the lever for Castle for decades, first as governor, then as the First State’s only House member.

O’Donnell has portrayed Castle, a leading moderate Republican, as a classic RINO (Republican in Name Only), blasting his stands on gun control, his support for embryonic stem cell research, and his votes on taxes and budgets – never mind that he opposed President Barack Obama’s health care plan, his stimulus plan, and much of the rest of his agenda.

Now, O’Donnell may be presenting an unexpected threat to Castle.

The Delaware primary is “closed,” meaning only Republicans can cast ballots in the GOP nomination contest, and Democrats and independents who have been voting for Castle for years are excluded.

After Joe Miller’s tea party-fueled upset of Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, the media is looking for the next big shocker. (Murkowski is running second to Miller after last Tuesday’s voting, and state officials will begin counting absentee and questioned ballots on Tuesday.)

But before folks get too excited, they might want to take a deep breath. A Republican operative says the closed Republican primary could help Castle. Because the deadline for registering has long passed, a wellspring of newly energized conservative voters can’t materialize to dilute the sea of long-time Castle supporters. Even a Democratic strategist watching the race closely will need a lot more than the Tea Party Express to start predicting a stunner.

http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/

This is a very detailed, well-documented list. Please look for your member of Congress and publicize what you find in your local media, community and blogs.

Delaware’s Castle features prominently in this list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHvgH5m1ujU

I absolutely love this video!

-Stephen Crockett

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Lauren Weiner, 202-470-5870
August 9, 2010 Jeremy Funk, 202-470-5878

Does U.S. Rep. Mike Castle Agree With His Leader John Boehner That Delaware Cops, Fire Fighters, and Teachers Are Nothing But “Special Interests”?

Republican House Leader John Boehner Reacts to Vote Tomorrow on Emergency Job-Saving State Assistance by Insulting Delaware’s First Responders and Educators

Will Castle Condemn Boehner’s Statements – or Join Him in Voting to Fire Hundreds of Delaware Public Service Workers?

Washington DC – Americans United for Change challenged U.S. Rep. Mike Castle to condemn outrageous statements made by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) that legislation to provide emergency state assistance that will save the jobs of 290,000 public service workers — including teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses – amounts to a “pay off” to “special interests.”

Tom McMahon, Executive Director, Americans United for Change: “Republican House Leader John Boehner isn’t just out of touch with reality, he must be out of his mind if he thinks the folks working hard every day to educate our children and who are putting their lives on the line to keep us safe are nothing but “special interests.” Boehner has offered no apologies for insulting Delaware’s cops, teachers, nurses, and fire fighters, and Congressman Mike Castle’s constituents deserve to know: does he stand behind his leader?”

“Considering the Republican House Leader has perhaps the coziest relationships in Washington with CEO’s and lobbyists for the big Wall Street banks, big Oil, and the big insurance companies, he’s the last guy you’d expect to be preaching about “special interests.” Like Boehner, Representative Castle has taken money hand over fist from the real special interests and voted to protect their bottom line time and again over the interests of middle-class families in Delaware.”

“But tomorrow, Representative Castle will have an opportunity to get his priorities straight by voting for emergency state assistance that will ease the burden on cash-strapped local governments and protect the jobs of nearly 300,000 Americans,” added McMahon. “Make no mistake: a vote against this emergency aid is a vote to fire hundreds of thousands cops, fire fighters and teachers across America and to leave those remaining stretched to the breaking point. Will Rep. Castle stand with Delaware’s brave first responders and educators, or will he stand with his Leader that considers them nothing but “special interests?”

FACT SHEET: The U.S. House is set to vote Tuesday on an emergency state assistance bill that:

1. Saves and creates 290,000 American jobs (140,000 teacher jobs saved and 150,000 jobs created or saved, including police officers, firefighters and nurses).

2. These funds are needed immediately to prevent layoffs or actually rehire teachers and prevent law enforcement officers from losing their jobs.

3. Completely paid for, in part by closing tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas.

4. Cuts the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

SOURCE: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2439

CONTACT: Emily Spain (202) 224-2441

Carper Votes for Funding to Protect Education and First Responder Jobs, Provide Medicaid Assistance to States

WASHINGTON - Today, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) voted with the majority of his colleagues in supporting the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and Education Jobs Fund amendment to H.R. 1586.

The Senate recently passed H.R. 1586 to create a $10 billion Education Jobs Fund to pay educators’ salaries as states face crippling budget shortfalls. The Fund is modeled after the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), which was created last year under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is currently funding more than 300,000 education jobs. The $10 billion Education Jobs Fund would keep approximately 140,000 educators employed next year. Delaware could receive up to $27 million from the fund.

In addition, the legislation included a provision safeguarding the support the federal government provides to state Medicaid programs that offer health care to more than 50 million low-income families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased the federal assistance to help states pay for Medicaid as they faced falling revenue due to the recession and an increasing demand for health care from vulnerable citizens. This legislation extends that increase in the federal Medicaid funds for an additional six months, through June 30, 2011. This will ensure that states slowly recovering from the recession continue to receive this additional support throughout state fiscal year 2011. The provision is estimated to cost about $16 billion, and Delaware could receive up to $48 million.

The $26 billion cost of the legislation is paid for by cuts to federal spending and by closing offshore tax loopholes.

“This legislation helps some of the most self-sacrificing Americans, our teachers and first responders,” said Sen. Carper. “Nearly 140, 000 teachers won’t face a pink slip in the coming weeks and tens of thousands of fire fighters, police, and other first responders will be able to continue to provide the critical aid that saves lives and protects communities. In these tough economic times, we need to take responsible measures to support our nation’s recovery efforts. Saving hundreds of thousands of jobs is one of those measures. I also fought hard to ensure that this federal assistance did not come at the expense of vital education programs which are driving state- and local-level education improvements for students across the country, like the Race to the Top program, the teacher-incentive fund, and charter school start up funding.

“The six month extension in Medicaid assistance in this legislation will help states continue to provide health care for their most vulnerable citizens during these tough economic times,” continued Sen. Carper. “States across our country are facing high budget deficits and this funding will help states maintain these vital social services as they continue to recover from the recession. I hope the House of Representatives will swiftly pass this bill and send it to the President’s desk for his signature.”

The House of Representatives is expected to pass the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and Education Jobs Fund amendment to H.R. 1586 next week.