The Daily Change

Join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

Lobbyists for corporate special interests have many ways of influencing the government. One way is by simply joining it.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) — the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee — tapped a top lobbyist with the American Gas Association to be the committee’sAi??senior aide on energy and environment issues.

Tom Hassenboehler, who serves as the American Gas Association’s vice president of policy development and legislative affairs, willAi??Ai??be chief counsel for the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which deals with key environmental regulations.

The American Gas AssociationAi??gave Upton $4,000Ai??during the last election cycle, andAi??$170,500 from the oil and gas industry at large. Keep in mind that the American Gas Association is largely funded by the industry but that it does not directly disclose its donors, which leaves us guessing as to who exactly will be represented by their lobbyist who was just appointed to the committee.

We don’t have to live in a country that has a government run by Big Money. Click here to join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign and help us kick Big Money out of politics.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the Clinton tax plan was “idiotic” in 1993. Yet it resulted in a budget surplus and did not stop great economic growth.

Republicans are doing everything they can to protect the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They claim that they are doing this because ending these tax cuts would harm the economy.

But this claim isn’t new. In fact, it’s exactly what they said in the 1990’s, when Bill Clinton first increased taxes on the wealthy. Here’s some of theAi??fear-mongeringAi??they engaged in then:

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Heritage, the go-to think tank for the Republican Party, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to “higher deficits” and that it served as a “recipe for a recession.” The organization also predicted that the tax increase would “destroy jobs” and “undermine America’s international competitiveness.”

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): “The problem in not that we do notAi??taxAi??enough, it is that Government spends too much.Ai??The President has reverted to true form, that of aAi??taxAi??and spend, old-time Democrat. He has abandoned tens of millions of middle-class voters that trusted him.Ai??Raising taxes on the middle class is not patriotic, it is idiotic.”Ai??(From the Congressional Record on February 17th, 1993)

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT):Ai??”Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust toAi??these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will beAi??created.”Ai??Ai??(From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY):Ai??This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter.Ai??(From the Congressional Record on August …

Alan Simpson, author of a plan to cut Social Security

You might’ve seen a new video of Alan Simpson — the former senator and Washington lobbyist who authored a plan to lower corporate taxes and cut Medicare and Social Security benefits — where he does the popular “Gangnam Style” dance. If not — here it is:

At the end of the video, Simpson warns young Americans to beware of “old coots who clear out the Treasury before you get there.” Considering that the entire video is made to recruit young Americans to sign a petition calling for cuts to benefits for programs they rely on, like Social Security and Medicare, Simpson’s warning is particularly ironic.

Here’s another interesting fact. The popular Gangnam Style song is itself a parody of the residents of the region of Gangnam, a wealthy part of the South Korean capital city of Seoul. As Foreign Policy’s Max Fisher writes, the song is made to lampoon the “self-importance andAi??ostentatiousAi??wealth” in Gangnam. The star of the song, the Korean artist Psy, is a “clownish caricature” of a an out of touch rich person.

Then perhaps it is fitting that Simpson would utilize this song in a desperate attempt to enlist young Americans to cut benefits in programs like Medicare and Social Security while lowering the corporate tax rate.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

During his weekly address yesterday, House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told the press that major cuts to Medicare benefits must be on the table:

Hoyer said GOP proposals to raise the Medicare eligibility age, make wealthier seniors pay higher Medicare rates and limit the cost-of-living increases for some federal programs are legitimate ones, even as he warned he might not support them.

ai???They clearly are on the table,ai??? Hoyer said of the Medicare changes during his weekly press briefing in the Capitol. ai???They were on the table in the Boehner-Obama talks. They’ve been on the table for some period of time. That does not mean that I’d be prepared to adopt them now, but they’re clearly, I think, on the table.ai???

Seniors on Medicare did not cause our deficit — Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, two wars, and Wall Street’s recession did. They should not be asked to pay through their hard-earned benefits.

We’re asking PCCC members to make calls to Hoyer’s office to ask him to take cuts in Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid benefits off the table. Click here to make a call.

Washington lobbyist Grover Norquist, the head of the powerful “Americans for Tax Reform” group, likes to portray himself as simply an anti-tax activist.

But his activism often simply centers around cementing corporate power. For example, his organization hasAi??gone to bat to prevent Americans from getting cheaper prescription drugs after it received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, something he failed to explain to me in a video interview earlier this year.

In Michigan, Norquist’s latest crusade is to pass a “Right To Work” (for less) law that would weaken unions in the state. In an interview with The Detroit News, Norquist said that “In addition to an economic imperative, it is a moral one,” that the state pass this new anti-union law.

Under so-called “right to work” legislation, workers are allowed to have a free ride and get union benefits without being required to pay dues. This results in weaker unions, which results in far less generous pay, conditions, and benefits for workers. As one example, occupational-fatality rate in the construction industry is 34 percent higher in so-called “right to work” states than those that respect the rights of unions.

We’ll keep you updated on the fight to protect labor rights in Michigan. Use the form above or below to sign up to our e-mail list to stay involved.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

As the expiration of the Bush tax cuts inches ever closer — they are set to expire on January 1st — a number of Republicans are doing everything they can to convince Democrats to keep the tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans around.

Some have suggested a short-term deal that would extend the rates further. But appearing on Fox News yesterday, a top Republican — Sen. John Thune (R-SD) — suggested that enough House Republicans would support an agreement to end these top-tier tax breaks to get the votes to pass the body:

 

ANCHOR: Are Republicans willing to hold the line, to say to the President, I am sorry, we will never agree to a deal that involves an increase in taxes. Are they?

THUNE: I think any deal that passes up here that raises taxes…is not going to enjoy Republican support. Now, there may be enough Republicans that would vote for something like that to pass it in the House of Representatives, they need to get to 218 votes which assumes they get some Republicans —

ANCHOR: Well then it’s done, right?

THUNE: Ai??Well, we’ll see. We don’t know about that.

Watch it (the relevant segment begins at 4:00):

Recall that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) himself previously said that if the “only option” he had was to vote for middle class tax cuts, “of course” he would vote for them.

Democrats should take this as a positive sign and one reason they should not give in to Republican demands to extend the tax rates for the top 2 percent of Americans.

(Photo credit: Flickr user Serenitbee.)

Corporate lobbyists have a terrible idea they’re pushing during the budget debates. They want to lower the corporate tax rate while also cutting benefits for Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. Most Republicans and an unfortunately significant number of Democrats have endorsed this bad idea.

But what if instead we asked corporations that are dodging taxes to actually simply pay the statutory rates asked of them?

In the spring of 2011,Ai??National Peopleai??i??s Action and the Public Accountability Initiative put out a report looking at tax dodging by the nation’s biggest banks. It found, shockingly, that if these big banks simply paid the rates that were asked of them — much as many Americans pay their tax rates withoutAi??exploitingAi??excessive deductions and loopholes — we could re-hire all 132,000 teachers laid off during the recession for another year of teaching — twice:

Six banks ai??i?? Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan StanleyAi??together paid income tax at an approximate rate of 11% of their pre-tax US earnings in 2009 and 2010.Ai??Had they paid at 35%, what they are legally mandated to pay, the federal government would have received an additional $13 billion in tax revenue.Ai??This would cover more than two years of salaries for the 132,000 teacher jobs lost since the economic crisis began in 2008.

Some of these very same banks who have dodged their tax responsibilities are now trying to attack social spending that Americans worked hard for. Remember that Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein recently advocated for cutting Social Security. This is a bank that received a $10 billion taxpayer bailout.

Seniors on Medicare and Social Security did not cause the Great Recession, Wall Street did. And Wall Street and the richest Americans should be asked to …

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)

As we wrote about last week, the Republican Party’s new strategy is to agree to raising revenue from ending token tax deductions — essentially, Mitt Romney’s plan — in exchange to getting Democrats to agree to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week yesterday, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) explicitly said that Republicans want Democrats’ help in order to enact “entitlement reform” — code for cuts — so that they could not be blamed in the next election:

COLE: To be fair to Leader McConnell, he’s always been very forthright, entitlement reform takes both sides — and then it’s not an issue in the next election, because they both did it.

Watch it:

To be clear, Cole is part of the House Republican leadership teamAi??that just sent a proposal that would cut Medicare benefits by raising the eligibility age and Social Security benefits by adjusting the Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA). This is what the Republicans mean by “entitlement reform.”

This is more evidence that Democrats should not fall for Republicans’ trap. They are seeking Democratic cover to move to their real goal: cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits.

As a part of growing labor actions in the United States, over 200 fast food workers in New York City from a variety of restaurants walked out on Thursday, striking against the idea that they should be expected to live in one of America’s most expensive cities on $7.25 an hour.

At a Wendy’s in Brooklyn, eleven workers went on strike. Salon.com’s Josh Eidelson reports that ten of them were allowed to return to work after the strike, but that the eleventh was told she would be fired for absenteeism.

ai???We tried to speak with the general manager that was there, and he wasnai??i??t forthcoming in talking to me,ai??? said New York City Councilmember Jumanne Williams, who supported the strike. ai???So I decided to ask all of the customers that were there if they would leave in support of the worker that was fired. That did happen ai??i?? they left. We began to protest in the store.ai???

After community activists first occupied the store and then picketed outside, the manager agreed to meet with Williams and promptly made sure the eleventh worker would not be fired.

Fast food workers in the city will continue their struggle. “Whatever comes, Iai??i??m ready for it. Iai??i??m know that Iai??i??m not going to give up,” said McDonald’s employee Glenda Soto to Eidelson.

PCCC members supported the strike by turning out to a Times Square rally in support of the workers.

The “Fix The Debt” campaign, backed by tens of millions of dollars from corporate CEOs, is pushing an aggressive campaign to cut Social Security benefits while lowering the corporate tax rate. It claims that it is bipartisan and that it represents all Americans, not just the wealthy elite.

But Fix The Debt’s carefully crafted messaging fell apart over the weekend, as it quietly conceded that it won’t even take a position on one of the most popular ideas for deficit reduction: ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

In a statement to The National Journal, the organization wrote, “The Campaign to Fix the Debt does not have a position on raising tax rates.ai???

We conducted polling in the crucial swing state of New Hampshire an found that 66 percent of those surveyed want to end Bush tax cuts for households making more than $250,000 a year.

Fix The Debt can’t claim to be representing all Americans if it can’t even commit to some of the most basic and fair policies that they want.

The estate tax — which effectively acts like an inheritance tax on the assets of the wealthiest AmericansAi?? — is one of the most progressive taxes that we have. Currently, the richest ten percent of Americans pay the entirety of the tax, and it only applies to inherited assets beyond $5 million.

President Obama just proposed raising the estate tax rate from 35 to 45 percent and lowering the exemption to $3.5 million. This would still result in the tax falling almost entirely on the backs of the very richest Americans.

But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D) is moving to kill Obama’s progressive proposal to tax millionaires. “Rural Montana is much different than urban America,” he told Reuters, claiming that the tax would fall on the backs of family farmers.

But only 100 farming estates pay the estate tax now. Under Obama’s plan, only the 300 richest farming estates would have to pay the tax.

Is Baucus really going to try to kill Obama’s progressive plan to ask more from the wealthy in order to protect America’s 300 richest, multi-millionaire farmers?

We conducted polling in Montana that found that 77 percent of those living there want to see higher taxes on incomes of over a million dollars.

Elizabeth Warren wants to reform the filibuster.

Bold progressive Elizabeth Warren has announced that one of her first priorities as a new senator will be to reform the filibuster — which essentially forces lawmakers to use two-thirds of the vote to pass anything to overcome it — in the Senate.

Why do we need reform? Here’s a graph from the nonpartisan Century Foundation that shows the number of cloture votes — the votes invoked to overcome a filibuster — over the past fifty years. As you can see, the filibuster is being used at a rate dozens of times higher than it was during the middle of the twentieth century:

Keep in mind that these filibusters do not involve the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington long speeches or drawn out stands on the Senate floor. Now, senators simply announce their intent to instruct and then waltz off to fundraisers and galas.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) explained this during his appearance on Up With Chris Hayes this weekend:

MERKLEY: We’re trying to make the filibuster actually work the way it was intended. That is that folks have to make their case known before their colleagues, before their American colleagues. That they can’t simply use the silent filibuster we have now to kill things in the dead of the night. […] The talking filibuster says that if you’re going to obstruct or say there is to be more debate the public has to weigh in and say if you’re a hero or a bum.

Watch it:

The filibuster has become such a powerful tool of obstruction that lobbyists in Washington now specialize in manufacturing tactics to hold up legislation. We need to reform the filibuster so that a recalcitrant minority …

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA)

During the debate over health care reform, Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Jason Altmire (PA) pushed against progressives, voting against one version of the health care bill because it included a wealth tax and also lead opposition to a public option.

Unfortunately, in Washington, siding with big corporations pays. Late last night, Altmire announced that he will be taking a lobbying position with Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Florida. His title will be “Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Government and Community Affairs.”

“Serving the people of Western Pennsylvania in the United States Congress has been the highest honor of my life,” said Altmire in a statement that failed to explain how moving to Florida to lobby for a health insurance company in any way honors the people he was supposed to represent in Pennsylvania.

Join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

One of the ways that special interests get privileged access to lawmakers is buying them meals. In many state capitols, there are almost no restrictions on the kinds of fancy dinners lobbyists can treat legislators with.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has advice for these lawmakers: don’t do it. In an interview this week with a local paper, he told legislators, “Make your own food” and stop going to lunch with lobbyists:

SCHWEITZER: Donai??i??t show up when they (lobbyists) have a free lunch for you. Donai??i??t show up down at Jorgensonai??i??s. Donai??i??t show up down at the Montana Club. Donai??i??t show up. Make your own food at home. Donai??i??t take that drink. Donai??i??t take that food. If you believe that aspersions have been cast upon you because youai??i??re going to these things, then donai??i??t go to them. Make your own meal. But until you do that, the assumption is going to be that your vote has been bought for an old whiskey and a big steak. And in some cases, it has.ai???

It’s going to take a movement to end the corrupting influence of money on our politics. Click here to join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

The corporate lobbyists who want to pass the Simpson Bowles plan to lower the corporate tax rate and cut Social Security and Medicare benefits have far too many allies in Washington. But they also have found a powerful ally on TV: the network CNBC.

The station has given repeated positive coverage to the plan, and frequently features corporate CEOs to praise its features. Here’s one measure of just how skewed CNBC’s priorities have become.

I ran a media search on the term “poverty” during all of CNBC’s coverage during the past month. The term was mentioned 31 times, often in the context of international poverty (for example, talking about Mexico’s drug war). I then searched for “Simpson Bowles.” It was mentioned a whopping 116 times — almost 3 times as often.

CNBC is even more tilted than the traditionally right-wing Fox News. On Fox, Simpson Bowles was mentioned 59 times, and poverty was mentioned 100 times over the same period.

Out of all major cable news networks, MSNBC did the best in balancing out mentions of Simpson Bowles (70) with mentions of poverty (124). CNN had 72 mentions of the former and 111 of the latter.

Recall that CNBC stands for “Consumer News and Business Channel.” With its embrace of Simpson Bowles and its downplaying of the concerns of ordinary consumers — like poverty — it is failing to live up to its title, and is slowly simply becoming a channel of Big Business.

Generations of racial injustice in the United States have resulted in the life expectancy of African Americans being far below that of whites.

Americans pay into Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives. They expect these programs to there for them when they retire.

But corporate lobbyists and their allies in Washington want to cut benefits for both of these programs. One way they advocate of doing this is raising the retirement age to 70.

Their argument is that Americans are living longer, and therefore it makes sense to raise the retirement age. However most gains in life expectancy have gone to white-collar workers, and blue-collar workers are barely living longer at all. Here’s a chart of life expectancy from the Center for Economic Policy and Research that demonstrates this fact:

When you break down the situation by race, it gets even worse. While some politicians clamor for the retirement age to be raised to 70, the life expectancy of black males is only 70.8, according to the latest data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. That’s nearly six years behind non-Hispanic white men, whose life expectancy is 76.2.

Thus, raising the retirement age wouldn’t just disproportionately hurt blue collar workers, it would disproportionately harm African American men. We should not be considering policies that would have such a harmful impact.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Earlier this month, leading Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen (MD) indicated that he was “open to all ideas” on Medicare and Social Security cuts. Discussing a hike in the Medicare retirement age, he told a group of corporate CEOs, “I think it should be part of the conversation.”

On November 14th, one day after Van Hollen made his original remarks, Progressive Change Campaign Committee members sprung into action, flooding his office with constituent phone calls and asking him to take benefit cuts off the table.

Today on Fox, Van Hollen made his first definitive statement that raising the Medicare age was off the table for him:

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Look at Medicare, what you’reAi??doing by moving it from 65 to 67Ai??is again not reducing costs in Medicare, it’s not reallyAi??reforming the Medicare systemAi??you’re just transferring thoseAi??costs and risks onto people whoAi??may be 66 years old.

ANCHOR: You are reforming the Medicare system because it’sAi??going to go bust in severalAi??years, so if you prolong theAi??program and make the age later,Ai??people are living longer, soAi??isn’t that age sort of outmodedAi??and isn’t that a good thing toAi??address long term?

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: There are a lot better waysAi??of doing it.

ANCHOR: That’s a no I’mAi??hearing. You’re not willing to change theAi??age.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN:Ai?? No, because there are muchAi??better ways of dealing with Medicare costs. Let’s look at ways we can reduceAi??the cost of withoutAi??transferring rising healthcareAi??costs.

Watch it:

Our polling showsAi??that, by huge margins, voters oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

We applaud Congressman Van Hollen for listening to his constituents and taking this much-discussed Medicare benefit cut off the table. Today, PCCC members in his district will be calling to thank Van Hollen for his bold statement — and we’ll urge him to firmly …

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Earlier this year, journalist Lee Fang and I talked to Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC), a leading pro-corporate, Blue Dog Democrat, about his plans following his retirement from Congress this year.

We explicitly asked him if he would consider becoming a lobbyist or some other kind of influence peddler. He told us no. Then he insulted us by telling us he’d get a better job than we had:

FANG: [There are press reports that] you’re already negotiating for a lobby job…

SHULER: (laughs) No. I’m going home with my wife.

FANG: You’re not negotiating with the Majority Group or any of these other lobbying firms on K Street?

SHULER: No, you read it wrong buddy. […]
FANG: Are you planning on becoming a lobbyist?

SHULER: No! […]

JILANI: What do you plan to do after you retire?

SHULER: Have a better job than you have, that’s for sure.

Watch the video:

Today, North Carolina’s Duke Energy announced that it would be bringing Shuler on as its “senior vice president of federal affairs,” essentially one of its top officials that lobbies the federal government.

Note that it would be illegal for Shuler to actually register as a lobbyist, because federal law requires a cooling down period before members of the House can become registered lobbyists. But he will still be able to influence peddle without registration, much like Newt Gingrich and others have done.

As a leader in the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, Shuler has been positioning himself for months to push for a debt deal that includes cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits and a lowering of the corporate tax rate that big corporations are seeking. Recall that Duke Energy paid a negative 3.8 percent tax rate between 2008 and 2010 — with Shuler already accepting this new position …

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

A Roll Call article published late last week titled “Tales Of Hoyer’s ‘Liberal Problem’ Are Exaggerated” sought to downplay the conservative views of Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who serves as the House Minority Whip and would likely become the leader of House Democrats if Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) ever stepped down from her role as Minority Leader.

To do this, it cites applause from many of his more progressive House Democratic colleagues, and also references Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress (CAP). “On every major battle, Hoyer has been in the trenches with progressives,” said Tanden.

CAP makes some good contributions to the progressive community — especially their blog, ThinkProgress. (Disclosure: I once worked there.) But on this matter, it is incorrect.

On many critical issues, Hoyer has simply not stood with progressives. Here are a few examples:

Abandoning The Public Option: While Hoyer did voice support for the public option during the health care reform debate, he was saying in August of 2009 — not too long after a New York Times poll was released that showed 72 percent of the country supported a public plan — that it may have to be jettisoned. Keep in mind that progressives in Congress and their allies around the country were rallying for the public option as late as February 2010 — but Hoyer and his pro-corporate allies took the wind out of their sails.
Helping Hide Money In Politics: When President Obama proposed a plan by which he could unilaterallyAi?? require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions, Hoyer — whose district is packed with many of these contractors — attacked the plan, saying that “there are some serious questions as to what implications there are …

Grover Norquist’s influence is decreasing in the Republican Party, but even worse ideas are on the rise.

The media has been abuzz with a spree of high-level Republicans rebuking Washington lobbyist Grover Norquist’s tax pledge in recent days. What has not been explained is why they are breaking with this pledge.

As we explained earlier, the goal of these Republicans is to secure a deal with Democrats that lowers corporate tax rates while cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

In exchange, they are basically offering Mitt Romney’s tax plan of closing some minor deductions and loopholes (some of which are widely used by the middle class).Ai?? Here is how The Maddow Blog’s Steve Benen explains Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) latest offer:

In other words, Graham — being singled out for praise today for being so “reasonable” — would demand that Bush-era tax rates be left in place for everyone, including the very wealthy, but he’d consider a cap on deductions. As a practical matter, his “concession” is being open to adopting Romney’s revenue proposal.

Needless to say, Americans rejected Romney’s tax plan when they rejected Romney. Additionally, we just commissioned a poll in New Hampshire that found that “clear majority” of people in the state “oppose making significant changes to benefits given to seniors who receive Social Security or Medicare. Sixty-six percent supported raising taxes for those earning more than $250,000 a year, with 29 percent opposed to it.”

Whether Norquist likes the plan or not, it is certainly not worth trading for significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Seniors on Medicare and Social Security did not cause the Great Recession, Wall Street did. And they should not be asked to pay for the resulting debt.

We should look instead to Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren …

Stephen Spielberg’s Lincoln is a hit at the box office, and it is widely anticipated to be a strong contender at this year’s Oscars.

The film focuses mostly on Lincoln’s most famous feat: re-uniting a nation that had been through a civil war and ending the abomination of slavery.

But as moviegoers enjoy this Lincoln biopic, they should remember one other important detail about Lincoln’s career: his struggle to stop big corporations from taking over the American economy and the resulting skyrocketing of economic inequality.
Here’s an except from a letter Lincoln wrote to Col. William F. Elkins November 1st, 1864. In it, Lincoln warns of the dangers of allowing all of the nation’s wealth to be “aggregated in a few hands”:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

Indeed, in his December 3rd, 1861 address to Congress, Lincoln warned of how the growing business class must respect its workers:

Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of the community exists within that relation.

The former president also was distrustful of the rise of modern capitalism that would subvert …

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made headlines yesterday when he publicly rebuked lobbyist Grover Norquist, saying that he was willing to violate his pledge against increasing any taxes. (Graham actually broke with Norquist’s pledge back in June.)

What the news coverage of Graham’s remarks missed was why this staunchly right-wing senator was breaking Norquists pledge.

For months, Graham has been working with a group of senators who want to implement the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and lower corporate tax rates. This plan does end some tax deductions and loopholes, which is why Norquist opposes it, and, by extension, Graham.

Like Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) before him, Graham thinks it’s more important to gut our social insurance programs than it is to uphold Norquists’s pledge. That is not cause for celebration among progressives.

In fact, Graham is asking for cuts in Medicare benefits that are even more severe than what Bowles-Simpson proposed. Here’s what he said on ABC’s This Week:

GRAHAM: It goes to 66, 67 here pretty soon for Social Security. Let it float up another year or so over the next 30 years, adjust Medicare from 65 to 67 over the next 30 years, means test benefits for people in our income level. I donai??i??t expect Democrats to go for premium support or a voucher plan, but I do expect them to adjust these entitlement programs before they bankrupt the country and run out of money themselves.

Watch it:

Graham explicitly said on the show that he is only willing to violate the Norquist pledge if Democrats agree to “entitlement reform” — code for cutting benefits. “I think Grover is wrong,” he said. “When you are $16 trillion in debt the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming …

This past week, hundreds of Wal-Mart employees and thousands of their supporters took part in historic walk-outs and demonstrations to protest the chain’s low wages and intimidation of its workers. As we told you earlier, congressman-elect Alan Grayson joined a striking employee at a Florida Wal-Mart.

Over at Democratic Underground, Grayson has written about his experience at the Florida Wal-Mart. “WalMart accounts for more than ten percent of all of the retail sales in the United States. It is the largest private employer in the world, with more than two million employees. And even though those employees comprise barely ten percent of its cost of doing business, WalMart exploits them mercilessly,” writes Grayson. “Now WalMart employees are starting to organize, starting to fight back.”

We appreciate Grayson’s support and encourage other Members of Congress to continue to speak out against Wal-Mart’s practices.

We’ve posted Grayson’s letter in its entirety below:

My Thanksgiving ai??i?? A Turkey Sandwich at WalMart

I did not spend Thanksgiving evening with my wife and my five children. I spent it, instead, handing out turkey sandwiches to workers in WalMart. And showing my support for one brave soul who walked off the job in protest against exploitation.WalMart ai???associatesai??? make an average of just more than $10 an hour. That means that if they manage to get a full 40 hours a week ai??i?? and many donai??i??t ai??i?? they get paid $1,700 a month, before taxes. Somehow, that is supposed to pay for their food, shelter, clothing and medical care, and that of their children. Quite a trick.

In state after state, the largest group of Medicaid recipients is WalMart employees. Iai??i??m sure that the same thing is true of food stamp recipients. Each WalMart ai???associateai??? costs the taxpayers an average of more than $1,000 in …

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

There has been much fanfare about Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss’s (GA) break from Washington Lobbyist Grover Norquist. On a local television station, Chambliss spoke of breaking with Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes under any situation, saying, “I care too much about my country. I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

Many progressives have been celebrating Chambliss’s rebuke of Norquist. While Norquist is indeed a powerful lobbyist who should not have so much influence over the Republican Party, progressives should not be fooled by Chambliss’s rhetoric. The senator is not breaking from Norquist because he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy or big corporations. Rather, he’s doing it because it will make it easier to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Here’s why. For more than a year, Chambliss has been involved with a group of senators who support the Bowles-Simpson plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering the corporate tax rate. This Bowles-Simpson plan closes a few token tax loopholes, and also reduces the popular mortgage interest deduction. Norquist is opposed to closing even the tiny loopholes that the Bowles-Simpson plan closes, so he staunchly opposes the plan altogether — which also means opposing Chambliss.

Chambliss is willing to deal with closing small loopholes in the tax code in order to get to the wider goals of the Bowles-Simpson plan: cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, cutting Medicare benefits by capping overall spending, and dramatically lowering corporate tax rates.

The Senator is likely trying to curry favor with Democrats in order to pass such a plan. Publicly denouncing Norquist is one way to do that. Some in the press have suggested that his feud with Norquist …

The great Wal-Mart strikes of Black Friday 2012 have begun. Workers across the nation are walking out, and thousands of Americans are expected in demonstrate in solidarity today and tomorrow.

In Orlando, Congressman-elect Alan Grayson joined the strikers. Here’s a photo of him walking Lisa Lopez off the job tonight (thanks to United for Respect at Walmart for the photo):

The bulk of walk-outs and demonstrations are expected to occur tomorrow. Click here to find one near you.