Five years to the day after our last national minimum wage increase, Paul Ryan is set to lay out a “new” six-pillared poverty plan. Ryan has long preached about how to tackle poverty and fashions himself as a serious politician and policy wonk. But if you believe that, I’ve got a 2 hour marathon time to sell you!
Ask the elites of the Republican establishment in Washington about the civil war within their party, and you’re likely to be met with feigned bewilderment. Well golly, I’ve got no idea what you’re talking about!
It’s a strategy that has been an almost religiously adhered to by the so-called adult types – the John Boehners and Paul Ryans in Congress, and George Wills and Charles Krauthammers of the punditry class – who are grasping at straws in an effort to keep the party from coming completely unglued.
But now, even the most wide-eyed supporters must now see through this guise of unity. This week House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who boasts a 95 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, was tossed aside for Dave Brat, an unknown ultra-conservative Tea Partier. That’s right, the same Eric Cantor who has been long-considered a young star of the party, known for being a constant thorn in the President’s side for his refusal to compromise his conservative values, was toppled by the Tea Party in the blink of a primary. He became the sitting first majority leader in history to lose a primary since the position was created in 1899. Just hours later, extreme Tea Partier Chris McDaniel, who is running to unseat incumbent conservative Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran in another nasty and drawn out intra-party fight, sent a fundraising email with the subject line “We Just Beat Eric Cantor.”
Now that the Tea Party has killed the narrative of its decline with a single swift victory, what will be their next target? The American people can only await complete and utter government gridlock in the coming months.
See research after the jump.
It’s 2014. Paying women the same as men for the same work should be a no-brainer, right? Not for many right-wing Republicans. The extreme conservatives highlighted in American Bridge’s new website UnequalPay.com have gone to absurd lengths to block and even undo equal pay protections for women: voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, paying female employees less than their male counterparts, and arguing that women don’t really want equal pay anyway, so what’s all the fuss about? The list of these shameful tactics and faulty arguments goes on and on.
In honor of this year’s Equal Pay Day, check out American Bridge’s new website and read below for a few highlights of Republican office holders and candidates whose opposition to equal pay protections should give female voters serious pause at the ballot box:
View supporting research after the jump.
CorrectTheRecord2016.org will fight back against Republican attacks
WASHINGTON – Expanding its scope beyond Republican candidates for office, American Bridge 21st Century announced today the launch of Correct the Record, a dedicated research, tracking and rapid response communications project to defend Democrats in preparation for the 2016 Presidential election.
The website, CorrecttheRecord2016.org, will introduce an aggressive rapid response program to defend potential Democratic candidates from false attacks leveled by Republicans, and also will house the early opposition research and video tracking already being done by American Bridge on potential Republican candidates.
During the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney was asked a question about pay equity for women. Rather than admit that he has refused to say whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and that his running mate voted against it, Romney instead spoke about being given “whole binders full of women” to consider when his closest advisers were incapable of identifying qualified women for his cabinet. But as governor of Massachusetts, Romney neglected to elevate women to the bench by disproportionately nominating white males for judicial appointments.
Additionally, as both governor and as a presidential candidate, Romney has advocated policies that hurt women. Romney wants to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides access to basic health care for millions of women. In 2008, he claimed he was “not familiar” with the Violence Against Women Act. And in Massachusetts, Romney vetoed funding for breast and cervical cancer treatment and prevention on multiple occasions.
View full memo after the jump.
In advance of the vice presidential debate, American Bridge has released 13 policy-based research briefings laying out the truth about Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan’s record.
Find these briefings at the links below.
Ryan Opposed Efforts To Punish China For Currency Manipulation
In 2010, Ryan Opposed The “Currency Reform Fair Trade Act” To Impose Tariffs On Countries With Undervalued Currencies. According to the Boston Globe, “In 2010, when the House voted on the Currency Reform Fair Trade Act, Ryan was among the 79 congressmen who opposed the measure. The bill passed – 348 to 79, with 99 Republicans voting in favor – but was not taken up by the Senate so it never became law. The legislation would have given the president expanded authority to impose tariffs on the imports from countries that have ‘fundamentally undervalued’ currencies.” [Boston Globe, 8/16/12]
Ryan Said Social Security Privatization Was Not Necessary, But He Preferred It Personally. According to a transcript of “The Charlie Rose Show,” Ryan was asked, “When you look at that Social Security for a moment, do you think it’s necessary to reform Social Security with private accounts?” Ryan responded, “No, it’s not necessary. I personally prefer it because, look at me, for example. I’m 40 years old. I’ll about a one percent return on my payroll taxes if Social Security could pay me my benefit, which, of course, it can’t… It’s not privatized. It’s managed by the government in safe index funds. It harnesses the power of compound interest so they grow their money at five percent or six percent per year instead of negative one percent. They get better benefits. It’s a nest egg they control that goes to their property.” [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 11/15/10]