Twitterchat Takeaways: Don't beat up your friends.

During last Tuesday's #99erAid Twitterchat, there were some complaints about Rep. Lee's presentation of H.R.589.  H.R.589 was proposed in a manner that would not allow it to be an amendment to another bill, making it's path to passage even more difficult. There was similar conversation when S3706 hit a wall last summer. Going back to June, 2010 the same tone was used for Rep. Jim McDermott. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama are also popular targets because of a lack of results for 99ers. All these criticisms are fair, but...

99ers are also vociferously dumbfounded at the consistent lack of media coverage. Understandably so, since the continued inaction fuels a downward spiral of hunger, homelessness and suicide. But as long as the "Jersey Shore" means more than a destination to cool off during a hot summer, good luck finding a scintilla of common sense in what the media chooses to cover.

Were it not for the insufficient meager attempts at legislation to support the long term unemployed, media coverage would be even less. So continue to tell our legislative "friends" that they need to do better, 99ers deserve real help. That's where a (daily) phone call, fax or email is appropriate.  In public, 99ers need to stick to air kisses.  In public we must remain unified. You may think, with friends like these politicians, who needs enemies. Without friends like these all 99ers have are enemies.

Politics means never having to say you're sorry.

Yesterday's post was written to be non-partisan. I hope I succeeded. Today, not so non-partisan.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik criticized vitriolic political rhetoric during a press conference about the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. He in turn was criticized by Sen. Jon Kyl and vitriolic right wing bloggers for having the temerity to suggest that perhaps the tone of  political conversation might have contributed to the attack. Some have even called Sheriff Dupnik's comments an attack on the 1st Amendment.

Have you ever walked into a room full of children to find family heirloom in pieces on the floor and ask "What happened?" The 1st one that says "I didn't do it" is the culprit. Perhaps if the Sheriff's criticism didn't hit the target, the response wouldn't be as vociferous? More importantly, in Brandenberg v. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is not protected by the 1st Amendment.  I believe an attempt to kill a U.S. Representative qualifies as imminent lawless action. Also, Sheriff Dupnik never suggested abridging anyone's 1st Amendment rights. He merely suggested exercising restraint in rhetoric,a nuance obviously lost to right wing hate mongers. Finally, Sheriff Dupnik did not ascribe the counterproductive caustic rhetoric to either (any) political philosophy. The offense taken by the right wing blogosphere proclaims "the lady doth protest too much, methink."

Instead I suggest the offended angry right go learn the lesson of Sue Lowden.  Ms. Lowden was the front runner for Nevada Republican nomination to challenge Harry Reid for Senate. Polls showed Lowden way ahead of Reid in a general election. (Un)fortunately Ms. Lowden, while attempting to criticize Pres. Obama's health care reform initiative, made a remark about bartering chickens for health care. When asked about her non-21st century approach to affordable health care, Lowden chose to reiterate rather than retract the statement. Both Harry Reid and Sharron Engle capitalized on this gaffe. Engle won the Republican nomination and Harry Reid won the Senate race. A simple "I chose my words poorly" and Sue Lowden would likely be Senator Lowden and the Republicans might control the Senate. That's the power of "I'm sorry."

The responsibility for the high volume discord pervasive in today's political climate does not rest solely with any party. Still if one (either) party is unwilling to consider they're portion of the mess jointly created, the mess can't be cleaned, not even for the memory of a nine year old girl.

This is compromise? I'd hate to surrender.

I am sure that had there been a network interview of Robert E. Lee after his surrender at Appomattox, Gen. Lee would have talked about the need to compromise to avoid holding the populace hostage via partisan bickering.  "Sure, I gave up some things but I got to keep my sword.", General Lee would have said. Since President Obama is a fan of history perhaps this was his model for accepting the "compromise" on tax cuts for the rich.

Monday night's agreement to extend tax cuts for all for two years and unemployment benefits to 99 weeks for 13 months is truly bipartisan. There is plenty for anyone to dislike:

1. Rich folks can dislike helping the lazy unwashed masses that refuse to find a job.
2. The working poor can dislike that they received nothing from this agreement. Their earnings leave minimal tax burden. The burden of the working poor is working and still being poor.
3. Small businesses can dislike that for all the agreement has to offer it will have minimal effect in stimulating demand. Demand more than anything drives small business and the economy.
4. Same for the middle class. Whatever benefits they derive from this agreement, without growing demand and growing American manufacturing, the middle class continues to shrink.
5. Future generations can dislike paying for the always burgeoning bank accounts of the wealthy.  This agreement make the bill for future generations more expensive.
6. 99ers can dislike the whole agreement.

Ezra Klein points out the real good in this compromise is it creates a framework of future bipartisan agreements. Mr. Klein has a great point but that thought goes in the wait and see column.

There is loads of bad in this compromise with the Republicans. Most obvious is the contempt this agreement shows for the long-term unemployed. With 5 job seekers for each job, if you're unemployed for longer than 99 weeks,  you're on your own. For those with reinstated unemployment benefits, if you've received more than 43 weeks of benefits, you'll probably be a 99er sooner than you think. If you'll still be eligible for benefits in 13 months, you'll be back in this fight after Thanksgiving, 2011.  If you think job search statistics will improve significantly over the next 13 months, God bless your optimism.

The to do list is simple: scream loudly and scream often.  To simplify this call to action, here are some easy suggestions: Click the link on the right side of the blog and sign the petition. Here are links to 2 other petitions. (if you're not on Twitter you can cut and paste to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi). After you've signed these petitions, pass them along to your friends. Call, fax and email your Representatives and Senators. Request extended funding and additional weeks of unemployment benefits. Without these two improvements ask them to vote against the bill. Do not go quietly into the night, some will not make it to the morning.

Today is November 3, 2010. Make it count.

Senate races in Colorado, Alaska and Washington are too close to call.  It is still too soon for analysis and too early to make predictions for 2012.  I remember November 4, 2008. Two years is a very long time.

The future for the unemployed however, looks uncertain.  No extensions are funded beyond November 30, 2010.  Anyone receiving benefits beyond 26 weeks will be cut off beginning in December.  The incoming Congress appears unfriendly and potentially hostile to the plight of the unemployed.  99ers and all unemployed must target the lame duck session of Congress (beginning Nov. 15, 2010) for any help. Grassroots lobbying on behalf of the 15 millions+ unemployed begins today.

UWAG has suggestions. I expect other unemployment writers, bloggers and advocacy groups will also have recommendations for action. I suggest calling/faxing the Whitehouse, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi.  I would contact each of these three today, tomorrow and each day after until there are extended unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. Each day is precious, don't waste a single one.

Postscript: Donalee King wrote last night about the potential of violent protests. I don't disagree but I hope she is wrong. Violence doesn't solve anything and only delays reaching goals.