What good is a fact checker if it won’t stand up to the biggest of all Republican lies? In a move that can only be described as Orwellian, PolitiFact says anyone who correctly points out that the House-approved GOP budget plan ends Medicare gets their Lie of the Year:

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” […]

[Democrats] ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare — or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years. They used harsh terms such as “end” and “kill” when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

As Greg Sargent tweeted, “According to @Politifact, if I convert my garage to a shed, and you say it’s no longer a garage, you are the liar of the year.” Matt Yglesias provides a more in-depth breakdown of PolitiFact’s twisted logic.

The even bigger lie is that Medicare needs replacing in the first place. It’s a lie the GOP needs to convince young people to look the other way while the GOP works to gut entitlement programs to fund tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. In reality, Social Security is completely fine through at least 2038 and Medicare is primarily facing a health care cost pressure problem. Shifting that cost burden from the government to the individual doesn’t address that problem at all. All the House GOP budget does is give the biggest tax cuts in history to the wealthy, funded by a combination of slashing the social safety net and massive borrowing.  

This is cross-posted at Rustic Observer.

As someone who spent years organizing around education issues, I’m well aware of how our schools are constantly underfunded and receive the blunt of the blow when it comes to budget cuts. These funding gaps have a devastating impact on schools districts that are already desperately trying to improve failing schools, keep quality teachers in the system, and prepare students for the 21st Century job market. So when Roanoke’s schools were facing an enormous budget crisis, the city council decided to take action and unanimously passed a two cent increase in the prepared-meal tax.

While this move would help fund the schools, there were a lot of people who were also concerned about how the increased tax could impact local restaurants. Families on a tight budget were already cutting back on eating out, after all, and there was some concern that an added tax might cause them to go out even less. Those concerns have proven wrong, however, partly due to a program that officials have called “Eat for Education.” The program is essentially an intense PR campaign that promotes eating at local restaurants.

In the end, this has created a lot of good for the City of Roanoke – both for the schools and the restaurant business. Those results have caused Roanoke to get a lot of praise, including an article written in Governing magazine that highlights the positive impact of the campaign.  

The buzz worked. The tax brought in $4.6 million in the first year, and second-year receipts also are exceeding projections. Meals-tax revenue is up 2.5 percent, after factoring in the rate increase. And restaurants have not suffered. Some owners have told Carson that they are actually doing better now. Roanoke residents make sure that their destination restaurant is within the city limits.

Bishop and her team are delivering results with these added funds. For the first time, all of Roanoke’s schools are accredited. The graduation rate has increased to 76 percent. Key to that success is what happens in the summer. Roanoke’s enhanced summer school now helps remediate 2,600 students. When kids arrive in the fall “caught up,” they have a much better chance of graduating. Bishop’s strategy also includes Forest Park Academy, a special school for students who have been socially promoted or are at high risk of dropping out. Forest Park has produced more than 400 graduates in the last three years.

As the folks over at Blue Ridge Caucus pointed out, it’s also worth highlighting how the article mentions that nobody who voted for the tax increase lost their election in 2010. Even non-incumbents who were leaning towards supporting the measure also won a seat on the council. This seems to confirm that the public is willing to have a slight increase in taxes if it means keeping critical programs (like a quality school system).

This is something that should be considered as we’re currently seeing a debate in Washington over whether or not the wealthiest one percent in the country can afford to pay their fair share in taxes. That being said, it seems like every single time the Democrats always end up caving in on the issue have an opportunity to have a slight tax increase on the EXTREMELY wealthy. Why? Perhaps because they’re afraid of the public backlash. But that’s an issue the Roanoke experience shows a good PR campaign can properly address.

UPDATE: It’s worth noting that the tax increase is currently set to expire in the spring of 2012. The council likely won’t be making a decision on whether or not to extend the program until they’ve been able to look at the impact of the state budget on the school system. While the General Assembly might make some changes to the budget, the proposal that Bob McDonnell released yesterday seems to place its priorities on protecting the wealthy instead of providing the proper funding to our schools. It therefore looks like the council might need to extend the tax Eat for Education program.

Six years, almost to the day, after the launch of Draft James Webb – by a few of us crazy, progressive, netroots activists – how has it all worked out? Here are a few positives and negatives, six years later.

Positives

1. We defeated George Allen, at a time when all the “smart” people in the Virginia Democratic establishment felt that it was absolutely hopeless – no chance whatsoever – that we could beat Allen in 2006. That’s why they picked a wealthy guy as a placeholder candidate. I never bought that analysis. Why not? Because I looked at Allen’s 2000 election numbers (not impressive – just 52% over a severely weakened Chuck Robb), his poll numbers in late 2005 (mediocre), his record in the U.S. Senate (96% voting with Bush, no accomplishments to speak of), and the Republicans’ declining poll numbers across the country. With the right candidate, why couldn’t Allen be beaten? I didn’t buy it, nor did others in the “Draft James Webb” movement, and we acted accordingly.

2. We defeated slimeball lobbyist, conservadem, and unethical hack Harris Miller, despite being outspent something like 6:1 (Miller used that money to savage Webb in mailers as essentially a racist, misogynist, and of course Reagan Republican). That, in and of itself, was a huge accomplishment, for which I’ll forever be proud to have participated in.

3. We built a 14,000-strong “ragtag army” of Webb supporters across Virginia. That was one of the coolest things I’ve ever been involved with, and probably ever will be involved with. It also proved that “people power” can win out over money, the “powers that be,” etc.

4. As a U.S. Senator, Webb’s done some great work. First and foremost, of course, was his modern-day GI Bill. Second, Webb has been a voice for our fighting men and women, as well as our veterans, across the board. Third, Webb has done great work on East and Southeast Asia, including helping pave the way towards a possible breakthrough with Myanmar/Burma. Fourth, Webb has relentlessly pushed for criminal justice reform, has built a large, bipartisan coalition supporting it, and has not given up despite outrageously absurd obstacles put in his path. I hope he gets this one before he leaves the Senate in a bit over a year. Fifth, I’ll never forget Webb’s awesome response to George W. Bush’s State of the Union address on January 23, 2007. Finally, for those who think Webb hasn’t been a strong enough Democrat, it’s important to point out that, in the end, Webb has voted approximately 94% of the time with his party — about the same as Mark Warner, who’s voted 95% of the time with the Democrats.

5. We took back the U.S. Senate in 2006, with Webb’s election tipping it to the Democrats. That, in and of itself, made it all worthwhile.

6. We arguably prevented Felix Macacawitz from getting the Republican nomination for president in 2008. Remember, in early 2006, Felix was busy running, but not for Senate so much as for president. That’s why he was hanging out in places like…oh, Iowa and New Hampshire…and not “real Virginia.” Heh.

7. Before I get to the “negatives’ below, let me just conclude by pointing out that Webb’s been infinitely better than Felix Macacawitz, who would have been a disaster on every issue. So, yes, overall I’d say that in many ways, Draft James Webb worked out extremely well. But now, the negatives…(you knew those were coming!).

Negatives

1. As I’ve written about previously, my biggest frustration with Webb has been on one of his core “themes” of 2006 — the importance of fighting for the working and middle classes, the need to measure the health of a society at its base and not at its apex, “Jacksonian Democracy.” While I’ve seen some signs of this, I’ve also seen Webb inexplicably arguing that “the proposed $250,000 cut off level is too low, and he is advocating that it be raised.” I’m sorry, but in no way/shape/form is %250,000 per year working class or middle class. In fact, according to a recent poll, 53% of Americans said that making $150,000 or less actually makes you “rich” in this country, while just 29% said that making $300,000 or more is required to be “rich.” So why on earth did Webb make this argument, when in 2006 he argued – correctly – that the rich were getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class getting squeezed? I don’t know, but I do know he was right then but he’s dead wrong now. I’d love to hear what Andrew Jackson would say to Jim Webb on this one if he had a chance.

1a. On this same topic, we also had Webb’s absurd opposition – “absurd,” that is, if he’s really the Jacksonian Democrat he claimed in 2006 to be – to the “millionaire’s surtax.” Webb joined with super conservadems like Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin, plus the execrable Joe Lieberman, on that one. Ugh.

2. The other major area of unhappiness with Webb has been on energy and environmental issues. True, I never expected Webb to be an expert on energy issues, let alone a champion of clean energy and the environment, as he’s shown very little interest or understanding of energy markets in 2006 (or beyond). Still, in “Born Fighting,” Webb ripped the coal industry, writing that “The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. {The people of Appalachia} got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land.” Given that, I never thought that I’d see Webb speaking a coal-company-sponsored, pro-industry rally on the National Mall. I certainly never expected Webb to slavishly mouth the coal industry’s propaganda points, like “we are not going to let EPA regulate coal out of business,” or “we need to get our support behind the Rockefeller amendment” (to gut EPA enforcement powers).” Simply appalling. Then there’s Webb’s support for offshore oil drilling, even in the aftermath of the disastrous Gulf of Mexico BP oil gusher. And, with all of this pro-fossil-fuel garbage, where’s Webb’s support been for CLEAN energy like wind, solar, and energy efficiency? Uhhhhhh…is that the sound of crickets chirping I hear? Why yes, it is!

As for the environment, Webb has not been a friend, I’m sad to say. For instance, he’s been absolutely, wildly, dead wrong on global warming, actually stating on the floor of the Senate, “I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide.” Webb also was absolutely, wildly, dead wrong when he claimed the (supposed) “sweeping actions that the EPA proposes to undertake… represents a significant overreach by the Executive branch.” That’s so many kinds of wrong it’s hard to know where to start. In fact: a) the EPA’s establishment (by President Nixon) was approved by Congress, back in 1970; b) the Clean Air Act was passed by Congress, extended multiple times by Congress, etc; c) the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled in 2007 that the EPA “can avoid taking further action [on global warming] only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation.”; d) the U.S. Senate has utterly failed in its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the overwhelming scientific evidence, etc. In sum, Jim Webb on energy and environmental issues has been a dismal, abysmal, and wildly irresponsible failure, even as scientific evidence mounts that the planet’s environment is in grave danger, with urgent action required IMMEDIATELY. Webb totally doesn’t get that, and apparently has no interest in learning.

3. Although we built an amazing rag-tag army of grassroots/netroots volunteers in 2006, we weren’t able to sustain this in the long term. Yes, there’s still a few-dozen-member “Webb Brigades” club, which meets once a month, but that’s not the same as having a full-fledged, 14,000-strong movement fighting for the ideals (Jacksonian Democracy, etc.) Webb espoused in his 2006 campaign. In large part, this was a failure of the Virginia Democratic establishment, which in the end refused to work with us to figure out how to integrate that tremendous energy and talent into the party. Instead, they went right back to their business-as-usual mode, chose to keep their small tent of insiders intact (and safe from the “barbarians at the gate”), and as a result lost a golden opportunity to infuse new energy, vitality, and talent into the party.

4. Continuing on with the theme from point #3, Jim Webb could have used his status to fight for his “ragtag army,” help reform DPVA, etc., but he chose not to do so. That’s a huge, missed opportunity. It’s also very disappointing, given Webb’s strong rhetorical support, during the 2006 campaign, for the entire “ragtag army”/grassroots democracy ideal. What happened? Got me.

Bottom Line

On balance, as you can see, there have been major “positives” as well as major “negatives” (or maybe it’s more accurate to call them “disappointments”) six years after the Draft James Webb movement. I’m still very glad we did it, wouldn’t trade that experience for anything, and overall am very happy  with what we accomplished. Still, as you can see from the “negatives” list, it could/should have been a lot better.

P.S. Given everything I’ve written above, I can’t decide if Webb’s decision not to run for reelection is a positive or a negative. What do you think?