The Republican Cabal Blasts Obama On Cuba,’Forgets’ Reagan and Bush Had Relationships With Dictators

The “do as I say, not as I do” memes that permeate today’s GOP like a fatal and infectious disease continue to reach Olympian levels of hypocrisy.

President Obama, enlisting the help of the freaking pope, shocked many when he revealed that he had been working for quite some time to bring about a rapprochement with Cuba — the feisty communist island-nation that has perturbed American presidents for decades.
The act of starting a path toward the restoration of diplomatic relations with the erstwhile enemy could be likened to the moment when President Nixon normalized relations with China. But Nixon was the original angry white guy and wasn’t exactly the Dalai Lama when it came to forgiving his enemies, so naturally he wasn’t excoriated by the democratic opposition for his actions.
Senator Marco Rubio, perhaps upset that he couldn’t find a bottled water and looking to take a shot at the president to cement a potential 2016 run, slammed President Obama over his actions on Cuba.  Rubio, who previously lied about his parents escaping Castro’s Cuba and clings to the reactionary and cold war-like thinking, called Obama’s actions (ones that even freaking Rand Paul seems to agree) a “concession to tyranny.” But what little Ricky and his fellow Koch Brother-owned Republicans fail to mention (or grasp) is that Bush and Reagan had diplomatic ties with a great many dictatorships, and they were totally cool with it.
1. Zimbabwe

The Sub-Saharan african country that Americans never hear of (Africa is a country, right?), ruled by notorious dictator  Robert Mugabe, has diplomatic ties with the United States. In fact,  the US has given the country $400 million in humanitarian aid, according to juancole.com.
2. Belarus

FOr those unfamiliar with this small European country, think Putin’s Russia but not with as good PR. Belarus is one of the few nations that failed to adopt democratic norms and transition to democracy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ruled by brutish dictator Alexander Lukashenko (scary looking man with a mustache and sexual frustration), western journalists have dubbed Belarus “Europe’s last dictatorship.”  and often criticized by Human Rights Watch. Notwithstanding, The US has an embassy in the Belarusian capital of Minsk.
3. Brunei

The Sultanate of Brunei is a great place for a man to just sit back and relax in a den full of scantily clad  harem. In fact, what happens in Brunei, stays in Brunei.  But seriously, what really happens in Brunei is a series of basic human rights violations. Nonetheless, the Us has fabulous relations with Brunei and maintains an embassy there.
4. Uzbekistan

In 2011,  failed Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain famously didn’t know who the leader of U-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan when he turned the FSR into a rap remix. Most Americans didn’t even know this greater middle eastern country existed, but just figured it had to be evil and sucked for tailgating parties since it ends in stan.
The fact of that mater is that its leader, Islam Karimov, had his own freaking daughter locked up!  Okay, so maybe Americans would start loving Billy ray Cyrus if he were to do the same, but Karimov was a total di*k about it. In fact, Parade Magazine labeled Karimov as one of the “world’s worst dictators.” Nonetheless, the U.S. has diplomatic ties with Uzbekistan and the country has served its interests int the war on terrorism. IE, it has provided dark bases for some yummy rectal feedings.
5. Saudi Arabia 

Ah, always save the best for last. There’s really nothing else to say about Saudi Arabia other than that it is ruled by a decades-old absolute monarchy and bars all political parties and any form of public dissent. It also loves stoning women for doing nothing other than being women  (maybe it’s the dry heat or oilfield fumes?). But hey, this nation sits on a freaking dinosaur bones mausoleum so we have loved this country. Not only do we maintain diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia and have embassies, but we still have 5 military bases there after Invade Iraq part one and part deux.
6. Egypt

Ronald Reagan is to republicans what McDonald’s is to food; it’s actually kind of crappy and unhealthy but we simply venerate it anyway.

Prior to being ousted in the 2011 Arab Spring, Mubarak experienced quite a kinship with Ronald Reagan. Time has shown that Egypt might have been better of with the pro-west strongman, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he had a lot of enemies killed and suppressed his own people for decades. What makes this relationship especially contradictory is that Reagan was credited for helping end the Cold War and importing democracy. But the fact of the mater is that he supported a great many nasty dictators, in what would be known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine.
As Wikipedia points out:

The Kirkpatrick Doctrine was the doctrine expounded by United States Ambassador to the United NationsJeane Kirkpatrick in the early 1980s based on her 1979 essay, “Dictatorships and Double Standards“.^[1] The doctrine was used to justify the U.S. foreign policy of supporting Third Worldanti-communistdictatorships during the Cold War.^[2

Cuba has unquestionably suffered under the thumb of Fidel Castro. But ever since he has become a washed up mob boss in a track suit and handing power over to his brother Raul Castro, attempting a rapprochement with Cuba and working to achieve the same type of diplomacy and economic reforms like with Deng Xiaoping in China has never been more important.

Senate Democrats Push McConnell To The Breaking Point By Refusing To Back Down

Senate Democrats sent a strong message to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by refusing to back down on their demand that anti-abortion language be removed from the human trafficking bill.

In remarks on the Senate floor, Democratic Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said:

The most important question for a party in power is simply: “Can you govern?” Or in other words, “Can you steer this ship? Can you pilot this great nation of ours?” We are just over 100 days into this Republican-controlled Congress, and it is already clear that the Republican Leader and his side are not up to the task.

For evidence, look no further than Republican’s botched handling of the human trafficking bill before the Senate. The Majority Leader and the Assistant Majority Leader took a good, bipartisan piece of legislation and steered it right into the rocks.

….

What has taken place on the direction of human trafficking is an effort to obfuscate, to hide the real purpose of the legislation. We all agree that human trafficking should stop. With this legislation we have before us is a step in the right direction and we want to support that legislation and our friend the republican leader says all ire complaining about is a sentence or so. That’s why people spend all these years going to law school and taking these contracts courses. That’s why my friend, Assistant Republican Leader who served as a trial court judge, a Texas Supreme Court justice, he dealt during his entire career with lawyers coming to him talking about sentences in a contract or sentences on a piece of legislation. That’s what this is all about. And we should eliminate those sentences that here allow Hyde to be expanded to non-taxpayer money. We cannot allow that to happen.

It’s over 100 days into this Congress, we should move forward and get this bill done and it’s time on this legislation Republicans right the ship. If human trafficking legislation is any indication, Republicans haven’t a desire to govern dependably and I think that’s unfair. I hope, I hope that this cloture vote will be defeated. Perhaps at that time people will finally come to the realization we’re willing to do whatever needs to be done to change this language so that Hyde language does not apply to taxpayer dollars.

Like I said, we’re just over 100 days into this Congress. It’s not too late. There is time for Republicans to right this ship, if they want to. But if the human trafficking legislation is any indication, Republicans haven’t any desire to dependably govern.

Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans are trying to prove that they can strong arm their agenda past the Democrats. For Republicans, this legislative battle is about demonstrating their power. Democrats don’t want to set the precedent of agreeing to anti-choice language that gets unnecessarily attached to legislation. Senate Democrats have a legitimate complaint about what Sen. McConnell has done to this piece of legislation.

Reid pointed out in his remarks that Democrats have offered four different potential solutions, but Republicans have rejected them all. Senate Republicans are tanking their own legislation by turning it into a partisan power play, Republicans have demonstrated that they aren’t interested in coming to the middle and governing. The difference is that it is Mitch McConnell’s job as Majority Leader that is on the line.

McConnell has grown increasingly desperate to demonstrate that he can lead a majority that is capable of governing. Democrats are well aware of McConnell’s desperation, which is why they aren’t backing down. Pushing is coming to shove for Sen. McConnell, and he has to make a decision. Either he is going to come to the middle and govern, or he is going to go down with the sinking Republican ship.

One thing is certain. Democrats aren’t going to be strong-armed, and they are not going to back down.

Congratulations on ignoring public

Over and over, you tune out those meddling citizens

TO: Legislators and other political leaders
FROM: The Powers That Be
SUBJECT: That meddling public
We wanted to send this quick memo just to commend you on your performance in ignoring members of the public on matters that directly affect them. As you know, this is an essential part of our approach to governing, and your performance recently has been stellar.
Indulge us and let us single out a few individuals who have shone brightly in this regard.
First, N.C. Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry. Cherie has ignored a state law that requires her to meet with an outside advisory committee at least twice a year. Despite this burdensome regulation, Cherie has shown the courage not to call a single meeting of this group in five years.
The 11 citizens on the State Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health include labor advocates, a migrant labor expert and three others with an understanding of worker safety issues. They could be quite an annoyance as Cherie fashions a business-friendly approach at the agency created explicitly to look out for workers. Aside from not wasting precious time hearing from these labor advocates, Cherie is saving the state several dollars in travel reimbursements each year by not following the law. Thank you, Cherie, for your existence in the labor commissioner’s office.
Another group seeking to diminish the public’s input is Rep. Skip Stam and his colleagues of both parties who seek to abolish protest petitions in North Carolina. For nearly 100 years, those petitions have let ordinary citizens make developers work harder to show that their rezoning request is a good move. With House Bill 201, Skip admirably strikes a blow for the developers and raises the bar on the affected neighbors. Well done, Skip!
Skip’s bill also changes local policy from Raleigh, which brings us to our next honorees: Sen. Trudy Wade of Greensboro and Sen. Chad Barefoot of Raleigh. Trudy, in the face of opposition from the public and even fellow Republican legislators from Greensboro, has shepherded a bill through the Senate that would overhaul the Greensboro City Council. Her bill would cut the number of members and change how they are elected. It has been an unpopular idea and would surely be defeated if the people of Greensboro could vote on it. Congratulations, Trudy, for pushing on despite that.
Similarly, Chad led an effort to redraw the Wake County commissioner districts. Democrats won all seven seats last year, which cannot stand. Chad’s bill will take care of that. Opponents of the bill learned about one opportunity to speak out against it only two hours before the meeting convened. Then, legislators defeated an effort to let voters have a say on the change, and Chad’s bill is now law.
That’s the way! Now the rest of you, go and do likewise.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article18526277.html?utm_content=buffera0618&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#storylink=cpy

Rick Scott Would Rather Sue Obama Than Expand Medicaid

Even Republicans in Florida are furious over his stubbornness to approve the Medicaid expansion.

Rick Scott Is Insane
  We mean just look at that picture.

House Republicans Harm Working People By Passing A $3 Million Tax Cut For Millionaires

House Republicans made it clear whose side they are on today by voting to pass a $3 million tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

The final vote was 240-179 along mostly party lines.

Speaker of the House John Boehner tried to sell his tax cut millionaires and billionaires as a bill that helps families by righting a wrong, “Family farmers, ranchers, and small business owners work tirelessly to create jobs in our communities, put food on our tables, and – God willing – have something to pass on to their children and grandchildren. Taking away that opportunity with a massive death tax bill is simply wrong. And while the money is nothing more than a drop in the bucket to the federal government, it can prove devastating to families – forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely. The Death Tax Repeal protects families and small businesses, and makes it easier for them to grow and plan for the future. We’ve also taken another step to bring more certainty to the tax code by extending and making permanent a provision allowing families and small businesses to deduct sales tax from their tax filings, helping them keep more of what they earn. These are common-sense bills that make the tax code simpler and fairer for hardworking families and I urge the president to reconsider his opposition to these measures.”

The White House debunked Boehner’s death tax fairy tale in their threat to veto this bill, “Repealing the estate tax exclusively benefits just the wealthiest one or two estates out of every thousand—which would receive a tax cut averaging more than $3 million each—because current law already exempts more than $5 million of wealth for individuals and more than $10 million of wealth for couples from the tax. Given these large exemptions, well over 99 percent of Americans, including virtually all small businesses and family farms, do not pay any estate tax. H.R. 1105 would also shift a greater share of the tax burden onto working Americans at a time when the top one percent already holds more than 40 percent of the Nation’s wealth and wealth disparities have risen to levels not seen since the 1930s.”

Republicans have made it clear who they are standing with. The GOP isn’t supporting hard working people who are falling behind a little more each day. John Boehner showed more sympathy for the plight of a few thousand of the richest families in the country than he ever has for working class Americans.

The good news is that Senate Democrats are certain to block this bill, and if, by some off chance, the legislation would get to President Obama’s desk, he has promised to veto it. This vote demonstrated the Republican priorities in the clearest way.

John Boehner loves to claim that he works for “The People’s House,” and today’s vote demonstrated exactly who the people are that the Speaker is working for.

No War On Women?

This Is How Republicans Still Want Wives To Behave

Wingnuts want to go back to the 1950s. Thank goodness it’s 2015…

Read full story 

Diddling the Lobbyist

House Republican leading transportation panel dating airline lobbyist

Cops have killed way more Americans in America than terrorists have

Police have killed more Americans on U.S. soil since the year 2000 than the Islamist terrorists. At Vox, Anand Katakam created an interactive map with data from Fatal Encounters, a nonprofit working to build a national database of police killings. This database, and the map Vox created, shows that US police have killed at least 5,600 people since the year 2000. That's many more than have died in terrorist attacks on American soil.

A huge majority of the more than 5,600 deaths on the map are from gunshots, which is hardly surprising given that guns are so deadly compared to other tools used by police. There are also a lot of noticeable fatalities from vehicle crashes, stun guns, and asphyxiations. In some cases, people died from stab wounds, medical emergencies, and what's called "suicide by cop," when someone commits suicide by baiting a police officer into using deadly force.

More

As It Moved To Seize Home, Bank Never Told Widow Her Loan Was Insured

Bank of America, Select Portfolio Servicing — a company that collects mortgage payments — and a Florida insurer all face a federal lawsuit in California.

As It Moved To Seize Home, Bank Never Told Widow Her Loan Was Insured

Judge Forces Mormon Cult Abuse Victims To Pay Half Their Abuser’s Legal Fees

This takes victim blaming to a whole new level.
Read more

Low wages mean more than $150 billion in public assistance for working families

Republicans tend to talk like there are two distinct groups of people: working people, and moochers on government aid. This doesn't mean Republicans support policies that benefit working people, like a minimum wage increase or paid sick leave, but it's a strong moral distinction they like to make. In reality, though, most people-73 percent of them-receiving government aid are from families where at least one adult is working at least part-time.

A new study from the University of California Center for Labor Research and Education looks at participation in four key aid programs-Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-finding that:

...  between 2009 and 2011 the federal government spent $127.8 billion per year on these four programs for working families and the states collectively spent $25 billion per year on Medicaid/CHIP and TANF for working families for a total of $152.8 billion per year. In all, more than half-56 percent-of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.

More than half of fast food workers are enrolled in one of these programs; nearly half of child care and home care workers are, as are one in four part-time college faculty. That means these are industries where low pay from employers is subsidized by public assistance-by taxpayers. Some states are looking to combat this, and not just by raising the minimum wage:

In Connecticut, for example, a legislative proposal calls for large employers to pay a fee to the state for each worker who earns less than $15 an hour. In 2016, California will start publishing the names of employers that have more than 100 employees receiving Medicaid, and how much these companies cost the state in public assistance.

On April 15, workers in several of the industries where low wages force high use of public assistance-fast food and home care and, yes, higher education-will be joining together to fight back with a national day of action. With median wages stagnating and economic inequality soaring, this is a fight for the broader middle class.

More

Burger King Co-Founder Worried More About The Dollar Menu Than His Employees

You know what would help reduce the debt in this nation? Getting people off government assistance. You know what would get people off of government assistance?...
Burger King Co-Founder Worried More About The Dollar Menu Than His Employees

The Daily Drift

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!  

 

The Truth Be Told is read in 203 countries around the world.

 
Like all tyrants, Republicans don't like people talking - People that talk are people that ask questions and they can't have that, now can they ... !

Today is - World Amateur Radio Day
 

Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:

The Americas

Itupeva, Jaragua do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Vitoria and Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil

Chelsea, Montreal and Ottawa, Canada

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Tlalnepantla, Mexico

Boaco, Nicaragua

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Burien, Cicero, Doral, Irmo, Plano, Mineola, Orono and Visala, United States

Christiansted, Virgin Islands

Europe

Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Glavinitsa, Bulgaria

Ebchestar, Chester and London, England

Cerny, Lyon and Paris, France

Tbilisi, Georgia

Berlin, Frankfurt Am Main, Hamburg, Hurth and Rothe Erde, Germany

Athens and Moskhaton, Greece

Mosfellsbaer and Tallaght, Ireland

Ivera, Milan and Rome, Italy

Riga and Veo Liepaja, Latvia

Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Netherlands

Warsaw, Poland

Moscow, Russia

Belgrade, Serbia

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Madrid, Spain

Lulea and Stockholm Sweden

Plycern and Zurich, Switzerland

Ankara, Turkey

Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine

Asia

Bangalore, Bokaro, Chennai, Shillong and Trichur, India

Bekasi,  Jakarta, Indonesia

Amman, Jordan

Shymkent, Kazakhstan

Seoul, Korea

George Town. Johor Bahru, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Port Louis, Mauritius

Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Colombo, Sri Lanka

Bangkok, Thailand

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Africa

Ash Shuhada, Egypt

Addia Ababa, Ethiopia

Tripoli, Libya

Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pietermaritzburg, Roodepoort and Stellenbosch, South Africa

The Pacific

Homebush and Sydney, Australia

Silway, Philippines

Congress actually does something

by Steve Benen

After the Republican gains in the 2010 midterms, Congress has fallen on hard times. The legislative branch has approved no meaningful legislative accomplishments in over four years, and congressional productivity has dropped to lows unseen in modern American history. As the public respect for the institution deteriorates, it’s been hard to watch.

It’s also why it was such a pleasant surprise to see Congress actually do something.

The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved sweeping changes in the way Medicare pays doctors, clearing the bill for President Obama and resolving an issue that has bedeviled Congress and the Medicare program for more than a decade.

The 92-to-8 vote in the Senate, following passage in the House last month by a vote of 392 to 37, was a major success for Republicans, who devised a solution to a complex policy problem that had frustrated lawmakers of both parties. Mr. Obama has endorsed the bill, saying it “could help slow health care cost growth.”

At the risk of sounding ungenerous, I’m not sure I’d call it a “major success for Republicans,” so much as this was a rare example of bipartisan policymaking. Far-right GOP lawmakers still opposed the compromise, but their objections were not enough to derail the deal.

The details of the package get a little wonky – readers can revisit our coverage from March to get an overview – but the underlying point is to resolve the “doc fix” problem that has annoyed lawmakers for years, ask high-income seniors to pay a little more for their Medicare coverage, and extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was facing a dangerous cliff this year, for two additional years.

In the bigger picture, this compromise is easily the most significant health care legislation approved by Congress since the Affordable Care Act passed more than five years ago, and I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say it’s the biggest legislative accomplishment for Congress in over four years.

What’s more, let’s not overlook how this happened: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) approached House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and effectively said, “Let’s try to work something out here.” And they did.

The question then becomes: maybe this can happen again?

Remember, since early 2011, Boehner has started every policy conversation asking himself what his far-right GOP conference will tolerate. If the Speaker’s conservative members were disinclined to support a proposal, the proposal was likely doomed.

To pass this “doc fix” bill, he did the opposite, starting with Pelosi. If Boehner had started governing this way from the start, his Speakership probably would have been less ridiculous.

As for whether mainstream members can repeat the success, hope springs eternal, but I’d advise lowering expectations. I’m reminded of something Greg Sargent wrote in March, before Congress left for its spring break, and before the outcome of this bill was certain.

There are plenty of differences between this situation and the other potential chaos points that loom in coming weeks and months. For one thing, as Dem Rep. Sander Levin said on the House floor today, the basic outlines of today’s compromise have been in place for a year. For another, as Paul Kane and Jason Millman write, “a significant bloc of conservatives supported the legislation,” leading to a split among the most “rebellious” of them. So the price on the right might not be too high.

Also consider the specifics of the battles that lie ahead. The Highway Trust Fund is set to run low on money this spring, which could stall infrastructure projects around the country and cost jobs, and Republicans say they want to replenish the fund. But that will require agreeing on an actual way to pay for it, which will be harder in this case than it was for the Medicare doc fix.

There are some ugly pitfalls ahead: a debt-ceiling increase, a possible response to the Supreme Court gutting the American health care system; an appropriations process that could lead to another government shutdown; etc. So far, there’s literally nothing to suggest Republicans are ready to reach out to Dems to make a deal.

Last night’s breakthrough was both heartening and a rare sight, but the odds of it happening again anytime soon are low.

Obama’s Move On Cuba Is A Win For America, But A Loss For Rubio

Rubio’s loss, the world’s gain.
Read more 

Harry Reid Calls All Of The 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates Losers

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) delivered some devastating straight talk when he called the entire 2016 Republican presidential field losers.

In an interview with CNBC, Sen. Reid (D-NV) was asked who the Republican nominee was going to be, and he answered, You know, I don’t really care. I think they’re all losers.”

The Republican Party has been proclaiming for years that they have a “deep bench,” but a look at all of their presidential candidates reveals a group that contains fatal flaws. Jeb Bush has been out of office for a long time, and he is saddled with a last name that is synonymous with political failure. Scott Walker is being dogged by one of the worst economic records in the country. Walker’s only claim to fame is union busting. Rand Paul is too libertarian for the Republican Party and too Republican to be elected president. Ted Cruz is best known for shutting down the government. Marco Rubio has a closet full of personal finance scandals, and his initial support for immigration reform doomed his chances of winning the Republican nomination.

There isn’t a single candidate in the Republican field who Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be the favored on paper to beat. That doesn’t mean that Clinton will win. What it means is that Republicans lack the complete candidate that can go toe to toe with the likely Democratic nominee from day one of the campaign.

It is rare to see a politician be as bluntly honest as Reid was with his opinions. What Reid was suggesting is that any Republican presidential candidate will be a loser as long as they are stuck with their party’s anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigration, and anti-middle class agenda.

The positions of the Republican Party are extremely unpopular. It doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate if that person will be forced to carry the flag for positions that most Americans do not support.

Republicans have put together a team of losers, but that won’t stop them from doing everything that they can to defeat Hillary Clinton.

It's a joke, folks ...

Republicans are walking jokes - 

Always have been, always will be.

Thousands Across U.S. Rally For $15 Minimum Wage

Wilson started at McDonald’s at $7.25 per hour. Ten years and two days later, she makes $8.25 per hour as a crew trainer on the 5 a.m. shift.

$15 Minimum Wage

Senator Elizabeth Warren pushes plan to break up big banks

Senator Elizabeth Warren pushes plan to break up big banks

It Is Time For The Democrats To Seize Control Over The Tax Argument

Obama’s brilliance at passing a modified GOP healthcare bill can be repeated, this time to enable the long overdue overhaul of the tax code.

Read more 

Obama Wallops Republicans With The Facts About Their Plan To Cut Taxes For The Rich

President Obama used facts and math to reveal the true agenda behind the Republican plan to cut taxes for the wealthy during an event in Charlotte, NC.

The President said:

Now, it is significant that today is Tax Day. If you haven’t filed, you — But the reason I mentioned all the policies that I just talked about is that overall when you put my policies together in the budget, I want to cut taxes for more than 5 million middle-class families who need help paying for child care. I want to cut taxes for more than 8 million families of students who need help paying for college. I want to cut taxes to help 30 million workers save for retirement. I want to cut taxes for 13 million low-wage workers the same way that I fought to expand tax cuts like the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit — and we’ve been able to implement those.

So all told, my plan would cut taxes for 44 million working and middle-class families. That’s who our tax code should benefit — working Americans who are out there struggling every day, doing the right thing, supporting their families and trying to get a leg up in this new economy.

Now, it is a good thing that Republicans in Washington have started to talk about wages and incomes and the middle class. It’s better late than never, and so I’m encouraged. Unfortunately, the policies they’re putting forward don’t answer the mail — they don’t speak to the issues that ordinary families are facing.

I’ll just give you a couple examples. Their tax plan would give the average millionaire and billionaire a $50,000 tax cut. That’s about what the average middle-class worker makes in an entire year. They’re also pushing a new $270 billion tax cut for the very wealthiest of the wealthiest. It would affect about 5,000 families all across America; it would cost $270 billion. Here in North Carolina, it would benefit precisely 120 households.

For $270 billion, which is the cost approximately of the tax breaks I’m giving to 44 million people, it would benefit a little over 5,000 people.

So their plan would cut taxes for the top one-tenth of 1 percent and let taxes go up on 25 million working families and students. And my view is we don’t need tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Republicans are doing their best to hide the facts behind their tax plan. They keep discussing tax fairness, which in GOPspeak means rich people should pay less while everyone else pays more. All of the Republican tax plans are the same. Taxes get cut for the wealthy and raised for everyone else. The plan is nothing new. The American people have caught on to it, but every year it comes back again.

Republicans try to dress it up as helping “job creators” or some vague definition of fairness, but at its core, it is the same plan that they have been trotting out for the last thirty years, and it every time that the trickle down tax plan was tried, it failed.

Democrats will be running on economic fairness and middle-class tax cuts in 2016. Tax plans like the one that Republicans are proposing make it almost too easy. Republicans have put it in writing. It’s clear whose interest they are looking out for, and it’s not the 99% who work the hardest but have the least.

Bernie Sanders Calls For A Mobilization Of Millions Of Americans To Take Down The Kochs

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded MSNBC of what liberalism looks like by calling for a mobilization of millions of Americans to take down the Koch brothers and other wingnut billionaires.

Video:

Video Link

The Morning Joe crew wanted to play up a potential Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton conflict, but Sen. Sanders had a bigger message.

Sanders called on millions of Americans to stand together to take down the Koch brothers.

Sen. Sanders said:

I think the issue is, frankly, it’s not just Hillary, Elizabeth, or Bernie Sanders, or anybody else. This country faces enormous problems. Our middle-class is disappearing. We more people living in poverty than at any time in the history of America. We’re the only major country without a national health care program guaranteeing health care for all people. What’s it all about? The question is this one basic question. How do take on a billionaire class, which has so much economic power, and with Citizens United, can now buy elections. Where we are moving in many ways towards an oligarchic form of society rather than our traditional democracy.

Who is prepared to do it? So let me just say this, no president, not Hillary, not Bernie Sanders, not anybody, will succeed unless there is a mass mobilization of millions of people who stand up and say, enough is enough. Koch brothers and billionaires can’t have it all.

….

The bottom line is we need people to stand up to the billionaire class, and their economic and political power. That is what we need.

Sen. Sanders was correct. Unless the American people mobilize and stand up to billionaires, like the Koch brothers, no Democratic president can succeed with the people behind him/her. President Obama has been able to fight back because his argument about middle-class economics is popular with tens of millions of Americans. Obama has mobilized a coalition that stands by his side every day.

The next Democratic nominee will need an ever bigger coalition because the billionaires are dumping more and more money into our electoral process in an attempt to purchase the most powerful elected office in the world. One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton is putting people first in her campaign because it is going to take an army of people armed with their voices and their votes to beat the billionaires.

The Beltway press will continue to obsess over the horserace elements of 2016, but for 99% of the country what is at stake is their voice and power in our elections.

Ted Cruz Reveals He Has No Idea What Taxes Are For — Or That They Pay His Salary

Ted Cruz hates taxes so hard… too bad he doesn’t realize a lot about them. Here are just a few things he may want to know…

Read more 

Quicker

Republicans Lay the Groundwork for the Baseless Impeachment of President Obama

Ted Yoho has authored a resolution in high hopes of using it to begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama for acting like a President. …

We have come to expect nothing less than crazy from  Ted Yoho (R-FLA), and he has delivered again.

Yoho has authored a resolution in high hopes of using it to begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama for acting like a President. It is allegedly supposed to take aim at the President for his immigration actions.

Obviously, Yoho’s resolution is fraught with peril seeing as it seeks to criminalize the president for acting on presidential power. But it also managed to take a big old (unintentional, I presume since Republicans are still refusing to admit any responsibility for the fact that they lied in the lead up to the Iraq War) swipe at former President George W. Bush, with part of his resolution reading: “(5) intentionally lying to Congress to obtain an authorization for war”.

Yoho’s resolution seeks to (for starters):

To establish standards defining impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” within the meaning of Article II, section 4 as applied to the President of the United States.

Whereas Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”;

What is this high crime?

Acting like a President. Ironically, it seems, a recent Republican president:

The House of Representatives declares the following Presidential actions shall constitute impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” within the meaning of Article II, section 4, which will cause the House to vote an article or articles of impeachment to send to the Senate for trial—

(1) initiating war without express congressional authorization;

(2) killing American citizens in the United States or abroad who are not then engaged in active hostilities against the United States without due process (unless the killing was necessary to prevent imminent serious physical danger to third parties);

(3) failing to superintend subordinates guilty of chronic constitutional abuses;

(4) spending appropriated funds in violation of conditions imposed for expenditure;

(5) intentionally lying to Congress to obtain an authorization for war;

(6) failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of nonenforcement;

(7) substituting executive agreements for treaties;

(8) intentionally lying under oath to a Federal judge or grand jury;

(9) misusing Federal agencies to advance a partisan political agenda;

(10) refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents or testimony issued for a legitimate legislative purpose; and

(11) issuing Executive orders or Presidential memoranda that infringe upon or circumvent the constitutional powers of Congress.

Cristina Marcos of the Hill noted, “The Yoho resolution defines impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in a way that is clearly aimed at Obama’s actions to unilaterally delay deportations…”

And later, Marcos observed dryly, “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted last summer that impeachment is a “scam” perpetuated by Democrats.”

Yoho denies that it is aimed at President Obama. Now go re-read Speaker Boehner’s claim that Republicans are not going to try to impeach President Obama like they did with the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

Yes, plenty of Yoho’s resolution applies to things that Bush did while in office. But Republicans are not known for dealing in reality right now, and so their idea of using a federal agency for partisan activities is the President telling the agency how to implement a law. This is not the same thing as what Bush did when he used the Department of Justice to carry out partisan activities. The latter actually happened.

This is not a matter of which side of the fence you are standing on, although plenty of the complaints can be applied to most presidents, including President Obama. But Obama is nowhere near Bush in abuse of presidential power. He has, at times, even sought to limit it.

Yoho wants you to believe he just so happens to be setting the stage for impeachment of any old president, while a Democrat is in office. It shouldn’t escape notice that Republicans are seeking to limit the power of the one office they can’t seem to get back, and face an uphill battle winning in the near future until they join the rest of the population in the current century.

Republican bill slashes funding for studies on Medicare, guns, climate change

On Wednesday, Republicans revealed their 189-page re-authorization of the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal research institutes.

The Republican war on science continues

Mike Pence Declares The Storm Has Passed While GOP Keeps Voting For Discrimination

Pence's words came against a backdrop where Republicans are continuing to cast legislative votes for, anti-gay discrimination.…

Embattled Indiana Republican Governor Mike Pence told reporters on Tuesday that the storm surrounding the state’s decision to pass a discriminatory religious freedom law had finally passed. Pence confidently declared:

I think the difficult time that Indiana just passed through two weeks ago is behind us.

Reeling from his declining approval numbers, and a sustained backlash from passing the law, Pence is trying to put the controversy behind him. Indiana hired a global public relations firm, Porter Novelli, and the state is paying them over two million dollars to try to mend Indiana’s tarnished image.

Pence defended hiring the PR firm, and he stated:

We’ve got a great story to tell. I really do believe that we are through the storm, that now’s the time to heal.

Whether it is wishful thinking or cynical damage control, Pence’s words came against a backdrop where Indiana Republicans are continuing to cast their votes for, rather than against, anti-gay discrimination.

Republican lawmakers shot down a bill introduced by Democrat Rep. Ed Delaney (Indianapolis) on Tuesday which would have extended statewide protections to gays and lesbians from discrimination in housing, employment, education and public accommodation. They also killed a separate measure, on a 40-10 party-line vote, simply to create a committee to study the possibility of adding statewide protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

So while Governor Pence is trying to declare the storm is over, members of his party continue to keep the issue alive, by refusing to reject discrimination against LGBT residents. No matter how much Governor Pence spends on pricey PR firms to repair Indiana’s image, the Hoosier brand will remain soiled, as long as Republicans continue to dominate state politics with their antiquated, homophobic views.  Instead of hiring a PR firm maybe the Republican Party should shift their focus away from damage control, and actually try to do the right thing, by rejecting discrimination in all its forms.

Religious Freedom Law Endangered The Health of a Georgia Woman

This week a story in Georgia illustrates just how dangerous religious tyranny posing as religious freedom can be to the health of women. …

There was, and maybe still is, some interest by a few Americans over the rash of so-called ‘religious freedom’ laws sweeping the nation after Indiana garnered national attention for its legalization of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Throughout the brief but intense controversy (Americans suffer short attention spans) over the evangelical edict, few if any Americans paid attention to pundits and commentary that laws like Indiana’s will adversely affect women more than the gay community; likely because Americans have even less concern about the rights of women than they do gays. Indiana’s law, like every other state religious freedom statute, has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with imposing evangelical rules on the rest of the population.  This week a story in Georgia illustrates just how dangerous religious tyranny posing as religious freedom can be to the health of women.

In Milledgeville Georgia, a young woman looking forward to an addition to her family received some incredibly devastating news after a visit to her doctor; she had suffered a miscarriage after only six weeks of pregnancy. According to the woman, Brittany Cartrett, she had a tough decision to make whether to undergo an invasive surgical procedure known as a dilation and curettage (D&C or ‘rape and scrape’), risk a life-threatening infection, or choose an alternative treatment. In a D&C the patient is put under either general anesthetic or given an epidural and then the doctor dilates the cervix and inserts a special instrument (speculum) to scrape the uterine lining to remove tissue to prevent a dangerous infection. No matter how one looks at a D&C, it is an invasive surgical procedure that in Cartrett’s case was not the only or best option for her according to her treating physician.

With her doctor, Cartrett  “made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine instead. So he said I’m going to give you this medicine, you’ll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don’t have to go the more invasive route.” Sounds reasonable under the circumstances and not only did Cartrett not have to undergo the invasive surgical procedure and deal with the risk of bleeding, the financial cost was substantially less. So the doctor did what doctors do and phoned the Milledgeville Walmart pharmacy to fill the prescription for Cartrett. However, he was told that despite his valid license to practice medicine in Georgia, they would not honor his medical opinion and treatment and did not give a reason why they overruled his choice of medical treatment. The particular drug was Misoprostol which can also be used to induce abortions at an early stage in a pregnancy, but is regularly prescribed as an alternative to a D&C.

Subsequently, Cartrett said the doctor eventually found another pharmacy that acknowledged his medical expertise and would fill the prescription. Cartrett said, “I had to go up there to get another prescription anyway, so when I went up there she (the pharmacist) asked if I had any questions about this prescription. I said no I don’t, but I do have a question about the other one. She looks at my name and says ‘oh, I can’t think of a valid reason why you need this prescription‘.” One would think that a licensed physician phoning in a prescription was reason enough, but according to a Walmart pharmacist who was aware of the situation said that in Georgia, pharmacists “have the ability to turn down prescriptions at their own discretion.”

According to a Mercer University Law Professor, Zac Buck, there has been a religious freedom (conscience clause) law in Georgia for about 15 years that give pharmacists’ personal religious beliefs supremacy over licensed physicians and the professional right to overrule the doctor and “turn down prescriptions” they believe are wrong for the patient without knowledge of the patient’s situation or medical history; religious people are apparently all-knowing according to Georgia law.  A spokesman at Walmart’s corporate office, Brian Nick, said that “Our pharmacists fill prescriptions on a case by case basis every day in our stores throughout the country. We encourage them to exercise their professional judgment in doing so.” Translation; professional judgment is code for religion trumps a physician’s training making the evangelical pharmacist the arbiter of what constitutes necessary medical treatment.

Cartrett said the experience was “very frustrating because who is the pharmacist to make that decision? I’m not going to see that pharmacist, I’m going to see a doctor and if its due to the conscience clause I think it’s called; what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who needs it?” Cartrett related that since posting her experience on social media she had several people “message her who were in similar situations who had to go to many, up to five, different pharmacies before they could get their medications.” These situations are not unique to Georgia, and with more stringent conscience clause (religious freedom) laws making their way through 23 Republican state legislatures, there will be more stories like Cartrett’s and certainly many will have deadly consequences.

This is just one example of why religious freedom laws are not about a person’s right to worship without government interference; they are about religious tyranny to control the lives, and in Cartrett’s situation her health, of all Americans. In this particular scenario it was about several evangelicals deciding what medication a physician is allowed to prescribe regardless the reason for the prescription. It is also a portent of what the rash of ‘religious freedom‘ laws making their way through 23 different states will mean for millions of Americans; subjection to the will of any number of evangelical service providers from pharmacists to physicians to emergency room staff to first responders to nurses to school personnel.

One hates belaboring a point, but it is noteworthy that none of the so-called ‘religious freedom’ bills making their way through Republican state legislatures ever mention the words discrimination or gay, but they all give free rein to evangelicals to refuse service to anyone on the basis of religion. The religious freedom laws are the ultimate ‘conscience clause‘ edicts that give anyone, whether they are members of a religion or not, legal cover to impose their will on other citizens if they claim their personal beliefs inform their actions; sadly the Papal-5 on the Supreme Court legalized this new form of religious tyranny.

Americans have not yet seen the scope or consequences of ‘religious freedom‘ evangelicals are going to impose on this nation, but they damn sure can rest assured that every American will be impacted at some point in the near future. It is due, in great part, to both apathy in the face of impending theocracy and the abject fear of Americans to condemn what very few citizens still believe will never happen in America; theocratic tyranny under the guise of religious freedom.

20 Low-Paying Jobs Scott Walker Isn’t Qualified For Because They Require A Four-Year Degree

Most jobs these days require some form of higher education to get hired. There are students coming out of college right now applying for jobs that require...

Scott Walker Isn’t Qualified

Libertarian 'Thinker' On Human 'Failures': 'It Is Best They Should Die'

by Ian Millhiser

Herbert Spencer was a popular author during the nineteenth century who supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor. Nature, Spencer argued, "secures the growth" of the human race by "weeding out those of lowest development," and he also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection. Though Spencer was not a eugenicist - he actually argued that the poor should be treated much more harshly than nineteenth and twentieth century eugenicists did - he was both a social acquaintance of Sir Francis Galton, the father of the eugenics movement, and a significant influence on Galton's thinking. Spencer also shaped many of the policies developed by some of the most powerful judges and lawmakers of his era.
Reading Spencer's many works today is an uncomfortable experience - the man devotes hundreds of pages to establishing a philosophical justification for a kind of neglect that most Americans would now view as a moral atrocity. Yet Spencer is also one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the economically libertarian philosophy that drives politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
On Monday, ThinkProgress published a piece entitled "Rand Paul's Favorite Philosophers Think Poor People Are 'Parasites.'" The thrust of the piece is that, though Paul now claims that his policies would lift up poor people and minorities, the economic libertarianism that drives Paul is so inherently anti-poor and anti-civil rights that Paul's efforts to offer himself up as the champion of the downtrodden are misguided at best and deeply cynical at worst. Over the course of the piece, we trace the intellectual roots of economic libertarianism through Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), as well as through thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand and Spencer.
This is, to say the least, a rogue's gallery of philosophical influencers. Rothbard, a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" economist, called for "abolishing the welfare system" and accused "the entire 'civil rights' structure" of "trampl[ing] on the property rights of every American." Ayn Rand labeled men and women who seek government assistance as "irrational," "parasites," "dishonest," "thieving loafers," "compromising knaves," "sniveling neurotics," and as "both a beggar and a sucker." Spencer's "own philosophy," we conclude "can safely be described as genocidal libertarianism."
Not long after we published this piece, two of the libertarian movement's flagship institutions leaped to Spencer's defense. Over at Reason, Damon Root does not contest our description of Spencer as one of the foundational thinkers in the development of Rand Paul's economic libertarianism. He does, however, contest our description of Spencer as a genocidal libertarian. Though we quote Spencer's 1851 book Social Statics, which opposes "[a]cts of parliament to save silly people" and argues that if a man or woman is "not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die," Root claims that Spencer "never advocated anything remotely like letting the poor die in the streets." Root concludes his piece with an oversimplified history of eugenics in the United States, claiming that Progressives, and not nineteenth century proto-libetarians like Spencer, are the real eugenicists. (Though Root throws around the capital "P" term "Progressive" throughout his piece, it is worth noting that this term is not synonymous with the lower-case "p" term "progressive," which is often used to mean "liberal.")
Shortly before Reason published Root's piece, the Cato Institute - arguably the nation's most influential and well-funded libertarian institution - published a similar piece purporting to rebut our description of Spencer.
The fact that Cato and Reason both reacted so swiftly is a testament to the central place Spencer holds in the development of libertarian thought. According to Rothbard, who the elder Paul describes as the "founder of the modern libertarian movement," Spencer's Social Statics is the "greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written." Yet this foundational libertarian text does not say what Root and Cato claim that it said. Indeed, if Social Statics is, indeed, the "greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written" then that is the most damning indictment of libertarianism imaginable.

The Real Herbert Spencer

Root's claim that Spencer did not support allowing the least fortunate to die from neglect is simply wrong. Social Statics claims that "stupidity," "vice," and "idleness" are "nature's failures," that people who possess these traits "are recalled by her laws when found to be such." These human "failures," are the people Spencer casts aside with the dismissive conclusion "they die, and it is best they should die."
To rebut this point, Root quotes a different passage of Social Statics, where Spencer writes that "in so far as" nature's cruelty "is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated." To Root, this is proof that Spencer believed that private charity should reduce the suffering caused by a laissez-faire society.
Yet, while it is true that Spencer did believe that charity was appropriate under limited circumstances, Root would have done well to read the entire paragraph where Spencer talks about "the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other." In that paragraph, Spencer also warns that charity sometimes "defeats its own end." As Spencer writes,

    Instead of diminishing suffering, it eventually increases it. It favours the multiplication of those worst fitted for existence, and, by consequence, hinders the multiplication of those best fitted for existence-leaving, as it does, less room for them. It tends to fill the world with those to whom life will bring most pain, and tends to keep out of it those to whom life will bring most pleasure. It inflicts positive misery, and prevents positive happiness.

Charity, in other words, risks extending the life of individuals who are unworthy of living.
Root, however, persists in his effort to rehabilitate Spencer. "Spencer devoted 10 chapters in his two-volume Principles of Ethics to spelling out the importance of "Positive Beneficience," Root writes, "otherwise known as charity towards the impoverished and the unfortunate."
Ten chapters is a whole lot of chapters! Only one of these chapters, however, focuses specifically on the issue of "Relief for the Poor." And that chapter spends far more time discussing cases where charity is not appropriate than it does laying out the few cases where Spencer believed that private donors should improve conditions for the poor. Needless to say, Spencer called for a near-blanket prohibition on "relief of the poor from public funds raised by rates," but he also objected to charity administered by "privately established and voluntary organizations." When a donor gives to such an organization, Spencer reasoned, the "beneficiary is not brought in direct relation with the benefactor" and this increases the likelihood that the money will ultimately be spent on "idlers, spendthrifts, and drunkards" or someone else that Spencer viewed as "worthless."
Indeed, the primary thrust of Spencer's chapter on "Relief for the Poor" is that charity must be carefully tailored to "increas[e] the aid given to the worthy and restrict[] that given to the unworthy." Those that Spencer deems "unworthy" of charity must be cleansed through suffering:

    Having, by unwise institutions, brought into existence large numbers who are unadapted to the requirements of social life, and are consequently sources of misery to themselves and others, we cannot repress and gradually diminish this body of relatively worthless people without inflicting much pain. Evil has been done and the penalty must be paid. Cure can come only through affliction. The artificial assuaging of distress by state appliances, is a kind of social opium eating, yielding temporary mitigation at the eventual cost of intenser misery. Increase of the anodyne dose inevitably leads by and by to increase of the evil; and the only rational course is that of bearing the misery which must be entailed for a time by desistance. The transition from state beneficence to a healthy condition of self-help and private beneficence, must be like the transition from an opium-eating life to a normal life-painful but remedial.

Spencer's views on charity, in other words, are entirely consistent with the vision he laid out in Social Statics calling for genocide by neglect.

The Birth of Eugenics

Having misstated Spencer's views, Root then changes the subject to eugenics. Eugenics is a morally bankrupt philosophy which claims that undesirable traits ranging from "feeblemindedness," to criminality to sexual promiscuity can essentially be bred out of the human race by preventing individuals who posses these traits from reproducing. As Root notes, many early twentieth century Progressives believed in eugenics, though this fact has far less relevance to modern politics than Root implies because, as we note above, the capital "P" term "Progressive" is not synonymous with modern day liberalism. Nor, as we explain below, was support for eugenics limited to Progressives.
The father of eugenics, like modern day libertarians, was influenced by Spencer. Sir Francis Galton was a contemporary of Spencer's who also divided humanity into the worthy and the unworthy. A few years after Spencer's death, Galton was invited to deliver the Herbert Spencer Lecture at the University of Oxford, where Galton acknowledged his "personal debt" to Spencer - the two men would often converse over games of billiards at London's Athenaeum Club. Yet Galton's vision for humanity differed from Spencer's in several important ways. As I explain in my book, Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted, Galton shared Spencer's desire to build a stronger, more worthy race of humans, but he believed that this task should be accomplished differently than Spencer did:

    While Spencer wrote that we should simply ignore the least fortunate and allow nature to kill them off, Galton preferred a more active approach. "What Nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly," according to Galton, "man may do providently, quickly and kindly."
    In one sense, Galton offered a more moderate alternative to Spencer's genocidal libertarianism, as he did not argue that the least fortunate should simply be allowed to die. "I do not," Galton explained, "propose to neglect the sick, the feeble or the unfortunate." To the contrary, he promised to do everything he could "for their comfort and happiness." This charity, however, came at a steep price: "I would exact an equivalent for the charitable assistance they receive, namely, that by means of isolation, or some other drastic yet adequate measure, a stop should be put to the production of families of children likely to include degenerates."

More

Where the poor and rich really spend their money

by Max Ehrenfreund

Lawmakers in several states are urging limits on how welfare recipients use public benefits, suggesting that the poor are buying things like lobster, filet mignon, vacations aboard cruise ships and visits to psychics. It's an open question whether the problem these proposals aim to solve actually exists, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics just helpfully released new data on how the poor -- and the rich -- spend their money.
For the first time, the bureau released this data for ten equally sized classes of U.S. households, sorted by income. While the bureau doesn't have data on lobster and filet mignon, the survey does provide a fascinating level of detail.

As the chart above shows, the rich spend more in almost every category, because they can. As a percentage of their total incomes, which are larger, the rich generally spend less. The result is that the rich have relatively more to spare after covering essentials such as housing, despite their more extravagant budgets in these categories.
[...]
The survey provides no evidence that the poor are wasting their money on delicacies. Indeed, the results show that regardless of income, Americans make very similar choices at the grocery store. The wealthy spend more overall, of course, and less as a share of their total spending. Yet the rich, the poor and the middle class all spend about 19 percent their grocery budget on fruits and vegetables, about 22 percent on meats, and about 13 percent on breads and cereals.
Other categories of food also show no variation with income. What about that lobster? Fish and seafood account for between 3 percent and 4 percent of the grocery budget for all groups – $80 per year for the poor, and $222 per year for the wealthiest group.”

More

Court upholds racial profiling injunction on Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio

From the "This is a good thing" Department:

Court upholds racial profiling injunction on Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio