We are 135 days into the 113th Congress and House Republicans are utterly failing to do their job.  Instead of doing the work the American people sent them to Washington to do, the GOP is wasting time and taxpayer dollars chasing scandals and voting on dead-end bills to nowhere.

Some conservatives eagerly applaud the partisan political games being played. Heritage Action even sent a letter to Speaker Boehner and House Republicans urging them to do even less legislative work for the American people:

…it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference.

To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. [5/15]

But, as the conservative National Review says, “scandal is not an agenda.”

Yesterday, the House GOP voted for the 37^th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act – a bill that has no chance of becoming law. They defended their (in)action by admitting it was pure political theater – saying the Republican freshman members had not had the chance to vote for it yet. From MSNBC:

“If you’re a freshman—the guys who’ve been up here the last year, we can go home and say listen, we voted 36 different times to repeal or replace Obamacare. Tell me what the new guys are supposed to say?” Congressman Mick Mulvaney asked late last month. “We haven’t had a repeal or replace vote this year.”

At $1.45 million per vote – House Republicans have wasted $53.8 million taxpayer dollars just so GOP members can say they did it.

The American people are tired of bitter partisanship. They want action on job creation and bills to strengthen our economy … now.

What else could $52.4 million pay for?

HEAD START: 6,900 kids in Head Start for one year or the equivalent of restoring the estimated Head Start cuts in Ohio (3,600 children), Virginia (1,440 children) and Wisconsin (1,320 children) resulting from the sequester.

PUBLIC DEFENDERS: Restore the estimated $43 million cut to federal public defenders resulting from the sequester.

PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: Restore $20 million funding shortfall to programs that fight domestic violence and sexual assault will see this year as a result of the sequester.

MEALS ON WHEELS: Restore the estimated $41 million cut to Meals on Wheels nutrition programs across the country and ensure the 19 million meals slashed by the sequester are served to those who need them.

THEN

Working Families Flexibility Act of 1996 [H.R. 2391] – Rejected by Congress

Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997 [H.R. 1] – Rejected by Congress

Family Time Flexibility Act of 2003 [H.R. 1113] – Rejected by Congress

NOW 

Working Families Flexibility Act

From Salon –

The talking points haven’t changed much. “To many working men and women, time with their family is just as valuable as extra money,” current House Speaker Boehner said in March of 1997. “In fact, many would prefer to have time rather than money,” then-Rep. Judy Biggert said in 2003. “Time is more precious to [a working father] than the cash payments,” Rep. Martha Roby told the National Review last month. [5/6]

But that’s not the only thing that remains the same. It’s STILL a bad idea.

THEN

1997:

When Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) was being courted by the House leadership to support the flextime measure, he asked the assembled bigwigs if any of them had spoken to labor – the representatives of millions of those workers the bill is supposed to help. “It was as if I had said, Have you met with somebody from Mars?’” said King, who along with Rep. Michael Forbes (R-Quogue) bucked their party to vote against the measure. [Newsday, 3/25/97]

“This bill proposes to alter labor protections that have existed for almost 60 years,” said 9to5′s [Ellen] Bravo. “Families are desperate for more flexibility, but they do not want anyone to tinker with their overtime pay.” [Palm Beach Post, 3/23/97]

2003:

“What this bill does is give employers flexibility to schedule more overtime without paying for it,” said Bill Samuel, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s legislative director. “Right now, the Fair Labor Standards Act is meant to discourage excessive overtime because it costs money. The real point is this is going to mean more overtime for more workers for less pay. And more overtime will mean less family time for many workers.” [NYT, 5/10/03]

“We don’t think it’s the best thing for employees,” said Jack Wells, president and business manager of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 50, which represents more than 1,200 utilities workers across Hampton Roads. “It’s probably pretty good for companies.” [Virginian-Pilot, 5/11/03]

Perhaps the late Molly Ivins put it best in 2003:

“To hear the Republicans tell it, you’d think these were family-friendly bills, something like Clinton’s Family Leave Act, designed to help you balance the difficult combined demands of work and family. With such a smarm of butter over their visages do the Republicans go on about the joys of “flexibility” and “freedom of choice” that you would have to read the bills for maybe 30 seconds before figuring out they’re about repealing the 40-hour workweek and ending overtime.” [4/24/03]

It didn’t work then – and it’s not going to work now. The GOP just doesn’t change.

House Republicans are targeting popular “mommy blog” websites in a digital ad campaign beginning Tuesday as part of an ongoing effort to repair the GOP’s image with certain voting blocs — in this case swing female voters — who have sided decisively with Democrats in recent elections…

GOP leaders have faced some embarrassing setbacks in the base-broadening effort.

For example, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the second most senior Republican in the House garnered national headlines last month after he used a racial slur during a radio interview in describing his memories of Latinos from his youth.

Last week, Republican leadership scuttled a planned vote on a bill aimed at providing sick Americans with health care because it didn’t have enough GOP support to pass.

After the spring recess, House GOP leaders are expected to put their latest bill harming middle class families on the floor under the guise of giving workers flexibility with comp time and overtime. Not surprisingly, the bill actually does the opposite.

Bloomberg BNA:

“This bill has nothing to do with promoting workplace flexibility,” [Democratic Congressman Joe] Courtney said. “It is about not paying overtime. It is about saying to hourly workers already struggling to make ends meet–if you need time off to care for a sick child or attend a school concert, you need to work extra hours, forgo the earned overtime pay, and then, as long as it is not disruptive to your employer, you may get some time off.”

In addition, Courtney said, “nothing in this bill requires that the worker has access to time-off when she really needs it.” 

Chicago Tribune:

…This bill presents comp time as optional, but what’s to keep an employer eager to save money on overtime costs from pressuring employees to accept comp time, particularly when many workers are clinging to their jobs for dear life?

And what happens if your employer tries to deny you the hours you have accrued? The bill technically prohibits that, but for those of us living in an imperfect world, you know it’s going to happen.

For those who think I’m being too cynical about employers playing fast and loose with hourly wage laws, consider this: I pulled data from the Department of Labor and found that companies in Rep. Roby’s home state of Alabama have, since fiscal 2007, paid more than $50 million in back wages stemming from cases in which the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rules were violated.

And that’s coming from a Labor Department that already can’t keep up with the claims.

One surefire way to tell the GOP is playing a game of smoke and mirrors with working families? Look at what the critics are saying about the bill:

Judith Lichtman, National Partnership for Women and Families:

It should be called the Employer Flexibility Act, because at every turn here, the employer gets to decide. It pretends to provide a set of options to employees. But even if they elect to take the comp time instead of wages, when they can take it is fully at the discretion of the employer. You have no ability to take that leave when you need it. The employer can decide. 

Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research:

Touted by Republicans as a new comp time initiative that will give hourly-paid workers the flexibility to meet family responsibilities, it is neither new nor about giving these workers much needed time off to care for their families. The bill rehashes legislation Republicans passed in the House in 1997, some 16 years ago, and that they introduced again in most subsequent Congresses. Its major effect would be to hamstring workers — likely increasing overtime hours for those who don’t want them and cutting pay for those who do.

Linda Meric, 9to5, National Association of Working Women:

Under this proposal, the employer, not the employee, determines when earned comp time can be used. In other words, a low-wage working mother could be forced to work 50 hours one week during Spring Break when her children are off from school and in exchange for the overtime work get 10 hours off another week when they are back in school. This may be flexibility for the employer, but it would cost the employee extra money for childcare, less money in overtime earnings and less time with her family.

90 percent of Americans support background checks for all gun sales.

41 House Republicans have signed onto a letter to Speaker Boehner demanding the House NOT vote on a gun violence prevention bill that includes background checks.

Astonishing…even to other Republicans.

GOP Congressman Peter King (NY) had this to say about the bipartisan background check compromise unveiled yesterday in the Senate:

If Pat Toomey can support it, most conservatives should be able to support it and should want to support it. [4/11]

So who will Speaker Boehner listen to?

Today, President Obama released a budget proposal that makes investments to grow the economy, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class while continuing to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. The President’s proposal also demonstrates the Administration’s willingness to make tough decisions as part of a bold and balanced proposal that also asks wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share and initiatives that spur economic growth with jobs.

NYT: Obama Unveils Budget Meant to Draw G.O.P. to the Table

In his fifth annual budget proposal to Congress on Wednesday, President Obama once again has put forward a fiscal mix of investments in infrastructure, education and research with further deficit reduction through tax increases and spending cuts. But for the first time he has included changes to Medicare and Social Security intended to entice Republicans back to the bargaining table… [4/10]

But, after months of demanding “proof that Obama is ‘serious’ about cutting spending,” Boehner’s response and the GOP’s political tactics underscores why people across the country are frustrated with the GOP:

Hill: Speaker on budget: ‘Whoop-dee-doo’

… In the closed-door House GOP meeting, Boehner turned the arrival of the president’s budget into a laugh line.

“Well, Obama’s budget is coming out this week … whoop-dee-doo,” the Speaker said to his colleagues, according to two people in the room. [4/10]

The Week: Republicans move the budget goal posts again

… what’s striking is that Obama has given Republicans exactly what they’ve asked for — and it’s still not good enough. [4/10]

Politico –

A survey from Quinnipiac University released last week found that Americans back such background checks 91-8 percent. Voters in gun-owning households say the same, 88-11 percent. [4/9]

Washington Post –

Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that’s been duplicated in nearly every major public poll. [4/3]

So why are Senate Republicans threatening to filibuster legislation that the American people overwhelmingly support? If they oppose universal background checks designed to help ensure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands (criminals, mentally ill, or otherwise prohibited from owning a gun) – they should vote accordingly. But why are they obstructing the open process and blocking a vote on the floor of the Senate? CBS News tried to find out…

Huffington Post –  

CBS News called out 14 Republican senators on Tuesday for declining requests to be interviewed about their proposed filibuster of an upcoming gun control bill.

The senators—including minority leader Mitch McConnell—are part of an effort, led by Kentucky’s Rand Paul, to block any potential expansion of gun laws in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. On Tuesday’s “CBS This Morning,” congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on the lobbying being done by families of some of the Newtown victims.

She then said that none of the potential filibustering senators had agreed to an interview.

“We asked all 14 Republican senators for an interview about their filibuster threat, but none of them were available,” Cordes said. [4/9]

Even some Republicans are shocked by the GOP threat to stand in the way of a vote backed by an overwhelming majority of Americans:

Michael Steele, former RNC Chairman, on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown just this morning:

…I don’t understand the idea of positioning the party, positioning the leadership against an issue that is a 90% issue with voters out there. At least pretend that you’re interested in it. At least pretend that you give a damn about what happened and that you’re willing to make a step forward to resolve the concern that people have in the country about guns. Regardless of where you are on the NRA and all of that, that’s not the point. This is some of the craziest posturing I’ve ever seen. When the country is hemorrhaging their concern on this issue for the party is to sit back and basically say we’re not even listening to what you have to say. It’s crazy. [4/9]

Senate Republican Johnny Isakson (GA):

“I’ll speak for myself on that question,” Isakson said on CBS’s “This Morning” when asked about the filibuster. “There’s no ambivalence on the gun issue, I think everyone knows what the issues are. We have not seen the final draft of the legislation that was produced, I understand, last night, but I think it deserves a vote up or down.” [Politico, 4/9]

House Republican Chairman Peter King (NY):

“Even If I did not support that legislation, I would say let this come to a debate,” he said. “An issue that’s grabbed hold of the American people, an issue that has to be resolved. And even if it doesn’t go down the way I want it to, the American people are entitled to a debate and to me, to use senate rules to block a debate on an issue of this importance is just wrong.” [Politico, 4/9]

We need to work together to reduce the gun violence that has taken too many victims and destroyed the lives of families and communities across the country. America has a right to see where their elected officials stand on this critical issue – anything less is indefensible. But perhaps that is why the GOP is hiding.

Now, from coast to coast, the sequester’s across-the-board cuts are squeezing American workers and their families and threatening our economic growth.

Huffington Post: Sequestration Effects: Cuts Sting Communities Nationwide

The Huffington Post set out to do an extensive review of sequestration stories from the past week, with the goal of finding 100. What seemed like a daunting task was completed in hours. No one region of the country has been immune. Rural towns in Alaska, missile test sites in the Marshall Islands, military bases in Virginia, university towns across the country, and housing agencies in inner cities are all beginning to feel the cuts… [4/2]

Stateline: Sequester Cuts at Justice Department Threaten Local Drug Investigations

KHAS Central Nebraska’s Channel 5: Sequestration could hinder medical responders

The Gazette: Sequestration may hurt Cedar Rapids flood-protection plans

Washington Post: Pentagon favors reductions in force if sequester continues next year

The Emory Wheel: Sequester to Reduce Funds For Research by $17.5M

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Sequestration may mean hard times for Meals on Wheels

KJRH Tulsa’s Channel 2: National sequester forcing Tulsa-area campgrounds to be delayed

Time and again, Democrats have tried to put our plan before the GOP-led House to stop the sequester and responsibly cut spending, end unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks for special interests and advance the Buffet Rule, ensuring millionaires pay their fair share.  Every time, House Republicans have refused to allow an up-or-down vote on our balanced plan choosing instead to block our proposal from coming to the House floor for consideration.

We are 90 days into the calendar year.  GOP leaders have called the House into session on 37 of those days – eight of those days were pro forma sessions where no business was completed. In the 29 days Republicans have allowed debate and votes on the floor – they have offered ZERO plans to stop the sequester and put an end to the uncertainty and instability rocking the middle class.

A new Gallup poll tells a different story. Americans across party lines want job creation proposals:

Where the GOP-Ryan budget costs two million jobs next year alone and stalls our nation’s recovery by decreasing economic growth by 1.7 percent, House Democrats have a plan to put 1.2 million more people to work this year than the GOP budget, invest in education, energy, research, and infrastructure, and keep our promises to seniors.

It’s time for Republicans to abandon their ideological agenda and work with Democrats to make real the American Dream for all Americans.

Key House Republican leader – and former Vice Presidential candidate – Rep. Paul Ryan is back in the spotlight with the latest version of the GOP-Ryan budget on steroids and his plan to end Medicare as we know it for American seniors.

From Los Angeles Times:

Fired up as once-unimaginable spending cuts start to slice the federal budget, Republicans are launching a new phase in their austerity campaign — resurrecting the party’s cost-cutting plan to turn Medicare into a voucher-like system for future seniors…

But [Rep. Paul Ryan’s] effort has run afoul of the GOP vow not to change Medicare — the federal healthcare program for seniors and the disabled — for those now 55 or older.

Medicare eligibility currently begins at age 65. Ryan’s approach would transform the benefits program into one that would provide a fixed amount of money in a voucher that future seniors could apply to the cost of buying private health insurance or to buying coverage through traditional Medicare.

Throughout last year’s presidential campaign, the GOP promised not to change Medicare for today’s seniors — only the next generation. But Republicans familiar with the number-crunching in Ryan’s budget committee say balancing the budget may not be possible unless the changes start for those who are now 56 and younger…

But a new budget isn’t all he’s talking about. Ryan is sounding off on the sequester saying “we’re not talking about are deep cuts” and the pain felt by American families as a result of the sequester cuts is “overstated.”  

Hmmmm. Here are just a few recent headlines about the impact of sequester on Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin:

The Business Journal of Milwaukee – Sequestration could hit 15,000 Wisconsin jobs: Hospital association

Wisconsin Public Radio – Wisconsin Companies Will Feel Effects Of Federal Sequester

NBC 26 – Sequester Hitting Senior Meals Budget

WXOW News 19 – Fort McCoy Braces for Sequestration

Fond du Lac Reporter – Pending cuts hit close to home for local family

And in a moment rich with irony – Rep. Ryan, a leader in the GOP Do Nothing Congress, criticized the President as “not as serious about legislating” just before saying House Republicans will continue to obstruct any and all plans to close tax loopholes.

Business as usual for the GOP.