West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
In a second development on Friday, the justices blocked a decision of a federal court in West Virginia in another election case while the justices consider an appeal. The West Virginia case concerns whether that state's three House districts must be absolutely equal in population.
There was some Texas stuff in there, too, now that Gov. Perry is ba-a-ack. But back to us here in the Mountain State.
Isn't it sweet that Cheif Justice Roberts is our federal court overseer? He puts a new meaning to one-person-one-vote, huh?
In its second ruling Friday on courts' power to draw new election districts, the Supreme Court in a West Virginia case raised doubts about the authority of federal District Courts to require states to achieve absolute equality of population in drafting new voting boundaries.
:::
The District Court had not adopted a substitute plan of its own, and, in fact, stayed further proceedings after state officials had gone to the Supreme Court for a stay of the ruling.
:::
One of the goals of the legislature's plan was to assure the state's two Republican members of the House - Reps. Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley - that they would not have to run against each other in the GOP primary for the same seat.
So for those of us living in the district that looks the most like a salamander, it is staying the same, minus Mason County.
Legislature is back in session on Wednesday. This should be an interesting session. Will there be a new and proper redistricting plan in place before the Jan. 17 court deadline? edit: forgot the appeal gives the legislature more time. I'm hoping for a WV-02 that makes geographical sense.
What other issues are you looking forward to this session?
Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says extending the payroll tax holiday for only two months is "absolutely ridiculous" and urges leaders in the House and Senate to appoint conferees to negotiate a deal to extend this much needed relief for a full year. Moreover, tax experts agree that a two-month plan isn't workable because it does not leave enough time for businesses to comply which significant changes in tax policy.
So I guess the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, former Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and pretty much every other Republican not kowtowing to the Tea Party were wrong to tell the House Republicans like Capito to quit playing games.
But since she's on the right side, she'll stick by her guns, right?
Those guns the House Republicans were sticking to backfired:
By reaching a deal], House Republicans ended five days of increasing tensions that developed after a contentious Saturday conference call in which rank-and-file Republicans rebuffed Boehner's initial efforts to sell them on the Senate deal that passed with bipartisan support on Saturday. After voting down the Senate deal Tuesday, Democrats led by President Obama and a rising chorus of Republicans criticized them for blocking a deal.
The impasse was brokered in part by the Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who broke with House GOP leaders on Thursday and called on them to approve the short-term patch in exchange for Senate Democrats formally naming negotiators to finalize a full extension through 2012 when Congress returns in January.
Even many Republicans are coming to the right conclusion that these Republicans in the House, including so-called moderates like Capito who is showing she's a radical partisan, are incapable of governing.
Paul Nyden begins a story at the Charleston Gazette that for a moment gave me hope Republican Reps. Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley were going to be reasonable people. Capito, afterall, claims to be a moderate and never includes Republican on her campaign material because she must be embarrassed by the affiliation and McKinley, afterall, voted against repealing the so-called "ObamaCare."
In the face of continued deadlock over ways to reduce the country's debt, some lawmakers who have signed a pledge never to raise taxes have been rethinking that action.
But no, Nyden was just doing the usual media papering over what the Republicans say to make them seem reasonable. Neither Capito or McKinley said they were rethinking their action.
Here's what he quotes them as saying lower down in the story:
Asked last week if she still plans to abide by the Norquist anti-tax pledge, Capito did not answer directly.
In a statement, Capito said she supports changing the tax code "to make it fair and flatter, reining in burdensome regulations that make it harder for small businesses to operate and getting the reckless spending under control."
"We're in a fiscal crisis because we spend too much, not because we're taxed too little," she said.
She gives him some platitudes disconnected from what she actually does and he dutifully serves as stenographer without pointing out how often she votes the way Norquist wants and not what her constituents want.
Then Nyden quotes McKinley as saying:
McKinley still supports Norquist's anti-tax pledge, his spokesman said Friday.
"McKinley remains committed to the pledge and opposed to tax increases. He believes fundamental tax reform that lowers rates while eliminating or limiting some tax loopholes would create jobs," Andrew Sere said.
Capito and McKinley are all but using semaphore flags to signal they their radical stance that puts the wealthiest ahead of the nation's fiscal health and Nyden spins it for them as being open to compromise when they say no such thing.
Do you know when the nation was last booming? When President Clinton was in office. Let's go back to the Clinton tax rates.
Is it any wonder Capito and McKinley can get away with voting for radical rightwing bills and still claim to be moderates back home?
Since the West Virginia legislature screwed up the print in their redistricting plans and are re-doing it, they should scratch the simple one-county move that made no sense either a nonpartisan or partisan stand point and draw Congressional boundaries that fixes the geographic mess that is WV-02. The plan originally put forward by Sen. John Unger makes the most sense from any standpoint.
WV-02 is one of the most ridiculously drawn districts in the nation. It's a fair criticism to point out that Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito very rarely pays attention to the Eastern Panhandle and has little understanding of the place, but in her defense it's so far away - five to six hours of driving - from her home base in West Virginia.
But what the redistricting mess has shown is that redistricting can't be left to the politicians who by nature focus on winning re-election and how redistricting will effect them rather than how it effects people in the districts carved up by them.
Ideally the redistricting fiasco has shown that redistricting can't be left in the hands of the politicians but rather a law should be passed to change the process so a citizen's committee is set up to draw the boundaries. It is too late to set up such a process this time, but there is plenty of time for the legislators to address the issue before the 2020 census.
The plan that would have made the most sense geographically, politically and rationally was of course the plan that was not chosen. Roll Call:
Why didn't the Democratic Legislature tweak the districts to be more favorable to Democratic candidates? The votes weren't there.
"The other plan that we looked at, that would have helped a Democrat in the 1st district, we couldn't get enough Senators to vote for that plan because it affected the counties that they represent," state Senate Majority Whip D. Richard Browning (D) said. "I'm the Whip, and I judged the support for the bill that would have given the Democrats a little better edge in the 1st district" to be lacking, he added, noting he was "a little bit displeased" with the final outcome of the process. He said he had hoped the final map would have made the eastern panhandle of the state whole, instead of leaving it split between the 1st and 2nd districts.
Early on Clem and I had pushed the redistricting plan that was very much like the one that Senator John Unger came up with because it was the one that made the most sense from an obvious, nonpartisan standpoint. Clem and I talked about it and thought if we pushed it, that would make it look like a partisan plan (and it made sense for partisan reasons too. It was a two-fer). WV-02 is a horribly shaped district, the longest east of the Mississippi. The fact that the senators made the minor tweak instead of redrawing the lines is proof you can lead them to an intelligent plan, but you can't make them think.
When Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va, seeks a 2012 re-election bid, she not only faces an early-announced inter-party competitor, but also a grassroots effort to unseat her.
Last month, Delegate Jonathan Miller, a fellow Republican, commended Capito for her service, but announced he would be running as a much-needed fresh face for reform in the second district. Now, a grassroots collective of second district citizens are rallying for her resignation, mostly based on her April support of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan.
Activist and writer Russell Mokhiber of Berkeley Springs, said he is part of the organization demanding resignation for "unconscionable" actions he said would "effectively put Medicare on the road to extinction."
A breakout by Congressional district of the impact the Republican budget called the Paul Ryan Plan and voted for by Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito:
This analysis shows the immediate and long-term impacts of these changes in the 2nd Congressional District in West Virginia, which is represented by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito.
The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Increase prescription drug costs for 11,500 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $114 million for drugs over the next decade.
• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 121,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.
The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Deny 450,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare's guaranteed benefits.
• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 106,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
• Require the 106,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $24.8 billion for their retirement - an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual - to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.
• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 57,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 348,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.
But it would be a real boon to the insurance companies so that would make her investor husband happy and richer.
The ad asks people to call Rep. Paul Ryan, but his friend Shelley Moore Capito voted for the same radical plan.
Call her 202.225.2711. If the aide said she was concerned about the deficit, point out that the CBO says the deficit would be increased by the plan and also she didn't care about the deficit when it was time to vote for two endless wars, the prescription drug plan and the Bush tax cuts for "job creators" who increased their bonuses by laying off their workers.
You know what's not popular? Reforming Medicare such that beneficiaries "receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy." According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent of Americans oppose the idea -- about the same number who dismissed it in 1995. And if they're told that the cost of private insurance for seniors is projected to outpace the cost of Medicare insurance for seniors -- which is exactly what CBO projects -- more than 80 percent of Americans oppose the plan.
But it's not just sweepingly ideological reforms that are unpopular. Cutting Medicare polls poorly even if you leave out the details. Almost 80 percent of Americans oppose Medicare cuts in the abstract, while 70 percent oppose Medicaid cuts. Slightly over half of the country wants the Defense Department left alone. The only deficit-reduction option that is popular? Raising taxes on the rich.
It's almost Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito has something to :
It seems everybody is afraid of Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor charged by President Obama with setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
snip
"If there had been a cop on the beat with the authority to hold mortgage services accountable a half-dozen years ago," she announced, "the problems in mortgage servicing would have been exposed . . . long before they became a national scandal."
ad_icon
Warren added: "We need a cop on the beat that American families can count on. It is critical that we get this right - a real cop on the beat."
"You kept saying 'cop on the beat, cop on the beat,' " complained Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who chaired the day's hearing.
Warren could not dispute this. In reply, she said that banks must know "there will be a cop on the beat" and that her agency will need "enough money to put enough cops on the beat." Before completing her testimony, Officer Warren made four more references to cops-on-beats - possibly putting her in violation of public-nuisance statutes.
But it was a useful metaphor: If she's the cop, then banks are the robbers, and members of the Republican majority on the committee sounded like lawyers for the accused.
Clearly Capito wants to let the banks keep screwing over people or she'd be supporting Warren's nomination.
Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito founded a "civility caucus" in Congress, a move that many of us thought meant she expected us to be civil to her no matter what vile things she claimed about her opponents.
We were right of course. Turns out the Civility Project drew only three members of Congress, and Capito was not one of them to take the civility pledge which set a rather low bar for civility in the first place:
I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.
I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.
But now the Republican leader of the Civility Project is calling it quits and his reason for doing so isn't going to surprise people who have paid attention:
Mr. DeMoss, a former aide to Moral Majority founder Rev. Jerry Falwell and an unpaid adviser to Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in the 2008 presidential campaign, said that he was particularly surprised by the hostility to the civility pledge from conservatives.
"The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn't use in this phone call," he said. "This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn't hear from them."
But I thought the Republicans were for tax cuts. This vote shows that Republicans only care about tax cuts for rich people. Only 3 Republicans voted for tax cuts for people who earn under $250,000.
Update (by Clem G.)
Capito voted against tax cuts for the first $250,000 of income for all households. She's wants to hold our tax cuts hostage for an extra tax break for the rest of the income made by really wealthy households.
Here in Capito's district, WV-02, there are a total of 256,942 households (2008 estimate). Of those, only 4,884 have an income of $200,000 or more. That's less than 2%. And, considering there's probably quite a lot making between $200,000 and $250,000, it's probably quite a bit less than 2%.
Yes, that's right. While Democrat Reps. Rahall and Mollohan voted for a tax cut for all household, Republican Rep. Capito is holding out for even lower taxes for those top 2% of earners.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
