Right Wing Apoplectic That Montana School Is Teaching Tolerance, Safe Sex, And Anti-Bullying Measures
Right Wing Apoplectic That Montana School Is Teaching Tolerance, Safe Sex, And Anti-Bullying Measures
Over 500 Helena, MT residents gathered at the Helena School District’s school board meeting Tuesday night to weigh in on a new K-12 health education plan released last week. The 62-page proposal, developed by community members and health officials over two years, promotes a broad health and nutrition education program for each grade. However, there is a small section dealing with sex education that has ignited a firestorm of backlash among conservatives, both locally and nationally.
The curriculum would teach first graders “that human beings can love people of the same gender;” second graders “not to make fun of people by calling them ‘gay’ or ‘queer;’” and fifth and sixth graders that “there are several types of intercourse.” These ideas spurred right-wing pundits Sean Hannity (and guest Fox News contributor Todd Starnes), Bill O’Reilly, and Laura Ingraham into a tail-spin on their shows this week over the curriculum as a weapon to promote the homosexual agenda:
– HANNITY: What right does a school district that can’t even teach kids to read and write — and this is, generally speaking, around the country — have to impose their values on the kids? [7/13/10]
– STARNES: Sean, this is the report right here. Sixty-two pages. I have read every single word. And I’ve got to tell you something, Jack and Jill go up the hill, and they do some really inappropriate things once they get up there. [...] Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub. [7/13/10]
– O’REILLY: This stuff comes from the school boards and the superintendent. They want to indoctrinate the children. The reason is they don’t want bullying. They want tolerance across the board. So you take a 5-year-old who just wants to play and, all of a sudden, it’s Heather has two mommies or Gary has 18 daddies. I don’t know what it is. [7/14/10]
– INGRAHAM: Children will learn that sexual relationships could happen between two men or two women. Why stop there? Why are they stopping at two? I mean that’s very exclusionary, don’t you think? No plant life invoked. [7/15/10]
Watch it:
Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingraham, and many right-wing conservatives actually have no problem imposing values onto students — as long as they’re the values they champion, as found in programs like abstinence-only education. Medical experts have concluded that not only do abstinence-only programs not curb teen pregnancy, but “there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active.” Despite clear evidence and increasing recognition of their inefficacy, such programs continue to receive millions in federal funding.
When it comes to curriculum content, the right-wing watchdogs are clear on what values are acceptable. Hannity slammed an Arizona school district for “refusing to end its Mexican-American studies program,” citing a Chicano civil rights textbook as evidence that the class radicalizes students to overthrow the government. Both O’Reilly and conservative pundit Michelle Malkin insisted that a California proposal to include LGBT history in textbooks was “extreme and dangerous” propaganda that would prevent teachers from criticizing the “gay cannibal” Jeffrey Dahmer.
Supporters of the Helena plan recognize the need to support curriculum that “contains honest, science-based information on wellness and allows students to make better decisions.” As one parent supporting the plan said, “[T]his is about reality and truth so our kids don’t grow up in La-La-Land.” The board will have one more opportunity for public comment before it makes a decision at its August meeting.
- Comments
- 401
Coburn Throws Roommate Heath Shuler Under The Bus To Attack Unemployment Benefits
Coburn Throws Roommate Heath Shuler Under The Bus To Attack Unemployment Benefits
Senate Republicans have been preventing a final vote on a measure to extend unemployment benefits to more than 3 million Americans because of the $33 billion cost. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been on the front lines of the unemployment benefits battle all year.
This week on C-Span, Coburn argued that he’s not against extending the benefits, he just wants the cost to the government to be offset. (He has no such concerns when it comes to extending the Bush tax cuts, however.) “We’re just saying, it’s important now…that if we’re going to do that that we pay for it.” But then Coburn suggested that people don’t even need the benefits anyway, citing a conversation he had with his roommate, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC):
COBURN: I live with Congressman Heath Shuler. He told me yesterday that a job fair in North Carolina…had over 500 jobs available. Three people showed up. Three people showed up for 500 jobs in an area of unemployment of 10 percent. And his explanation was, “They’re not going do it until the benefits lessen.” And that may not be an exact interpretation of what his words were but the fact is there is a negative aspect to continuing unemployment.
Watch it:
Did only three people show up to a job fair that had 500 jobs available? As Crooks and Liars noted, this seems highly unlikely. ThinkProgress spoke with a knowledgeable source who helped organize the jobs event with Shuler. The source told us that it was actually a “work force training” and that there were “some jobs available,” but not 500 as Coburn had claimed.
And did Shuler really suggest that Americans on unemployment benefits won’t look for a job until their “benefits lessen?” That statement “is not consistent with what [Shuler's] position has been” on unemployment benefits, said the source, who called Coburn’s comment “insulting” because he made Shuler’s constituents “out to look like a bunch of deadbeats.”
Asked for his views on extending unemployment insurance, Rep. Shuler provided ThinkProgress with the following statement:
While it needs to be done in a fiscally responsible manner, I think it is our responsibility to provide unemployment benefits for those who lose work through no fault of their own. I’m holding a variety of events in my district to create a job-friendly environment and to connect my hardworking constituents with job opportunities.
Indeed, according to the source, the congressman has had other job events in his district that were “phenomenally attended.”
Retreating, GA Dem. Gov. Primary Candidate Roy Barnes Says He Would Support Arizona-Style Immigration Law
Retreating, GA Dem. Gov. Primary Candidate Roy Barnes Says He Would Support Arizona-Style Immigration Law
Next week, Georgia voters will go to the polls to vote in a statewide primary election that will decide nominees for various statewide offices for both the Democratic and Republican parties. Yesterday, the Democratic contenders for the gubernatorial nomination in Georgia debated a variety of issues before a televised audience in Atlanta.
At one point of the debate, the moderator turned to the issue of Arizona’s radical new immigration law. When asked what he thought about the law and the Obama administration’s decision to sue Arizona for enacting it, former Democratic governor Roy Barnes said that he would sign a similar bill if it were passed in Georgia, and he criticized the administration’s decision to litigate the issue:
Democratic gubernatorial front-runner Roy Barnes said Friday he would sign immigration legislation similar to what Arizona passed if he is elected, adding he disagreed with the Obama administration’s decision to sue over the law.
Barnes, in a debate sponsored by WSB-TV, said state officials are already enforcing some federal laws, a key element of the Arizona law that empowers local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
“Would I sign a law that had some of those elements? I would,” Barnes said. “But I would want to make sure it was not a racially profiling bill.”
Barnes also said he doesn’t believe “the United States government should sue any state.” “I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Barnes said.
In endorsing the Arizona law, Barnes staked out a much more anti-immigrant position than his fellow candidates. Attorney General Thurbert Baker said that enforcing immigration “can’t be a state responsibility,” but that he would “entertain” a new immigration law. House Minority Leader DuBose Porter and former Labor Commissioner David Poythress both said they would hold off on commenting about an Arizona-style law until after the decision is announced in the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona. (In the past, Poythress compared Arizona’s law to the Soviet Union.)
But Barnes’ position doesn’t just conflict with those of his fellow candidates, but also with his own past statements. In a debate held just last month, Barnes slammed the Republicans for making the law the “dominant issue” and for “distracting” from other important matters. He emphasized the need for a “national solution“:
“There are some parts that I can go along with. Local governments enforce federal laws all the time. Police officers arrest folks for federal laws all the time. So I don’t have any problem with that part. Now, you have to be careful not to be racial profiling. I think there’s a balance there.
“But let me tell you this. This seems to be the dominant issue over on the Republican side. It’s a little distracting. I’ll be quite frank with y’all. The army of Georgia is not big enough to march to the Rio Grande river, stopping folks from coming across. I might could stop those Alabamians from swimming across the Chattahoochee. You have to push for some sort of national solution.”
As President Obama has said, the Arizona law is “ill-conceived” and drives a “wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.” If Barnes is truly concerned about the immigration issue, he should push for comprehensive immigration reform, just as he did last month, and abandon support for such a radical and ultimately ineffective law.
Group Run By Anti-Stimulus Crusaders Rove And Gillespie Airs Ad Attacking Reid For Lack Of Stimulus Money In NV
Group Run By Anti-Stimulus Crusaders Rove And Gillespie Airs Ad Attacking Reid For Lack Of Stimulus Money In NV
GOP operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently founded a network of right-wing attack groups to rival what they view as inept and ineffective Republican National Committee. One of those groups, American Crossroads, is a 527 committee, formed to spend tens of millions of dollars on House and Senate races this year.
The group recently launched an ad in Nevada attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D):
It’s bad enough that Nevada has the highest unemployment in the nation. And Harry Reid claims to be helping the jobs situation? Really Harry? Recent data show Nevada ranks 50th in the money received from Harry’s stimulus bill. That’s right — Senate leader Harry Reid has gotten his own state less help than every other state but one. And along with bailouts, deficits, and Obamacare, that’s what Harry Reid’s done for Nevada. Really Harry? That’s not the kinda help Nevada needs.
Watch it:
Is American Crossroads really concerned about who gets what monies from the Recovery Act? Here’s Rove and Gillespie attacking the stimulus:
GILLESPIE: The fact is that we’ve got unemployment at 9.5 percent. They said it wasn’t going to go above 8 when they passed the stimulus. We have a $1.4 trillion deficit. We have $13 trillion in debt.
ROVE: Look, the stimulus bill was not stimulative. The American economy is strong enough it’s gonna come out of recession. The question is did these policies impede or speed up its recovery. I think they impeded its recovery. I don’t think they sped it up.
Rove even attacked the stimulus for not creating jobs. “We’re approaching the anniversary of the stimulus package, and a recent poll shows, and I think it was 9 percent of the American people think the stimulus package has helped create jobs,” he said.
Moreover, Nevada is one of the smallest states in the U.S. and as the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson noted, “stimulus money went disproportionately to states with larger public sectors and higher Medicaid bills.” In fact, it’s Reid who has been trying to get unemployment benefits extended for out-of-work Americans, but Senate Republicans have been blocking it from getting though. “Almost two million people who are long-term unemployed. These are not numbers. They are people,” Reid said scolding the GOP for their obstruction.
“The ad is factually accurate, [but] It’s also an embarrassment,” Thompson noted. “Republicans have spent the last three months blocking a Sen. Reid-endorsed extension to unemployment insurance that would particularly help Nevada.”
Report: ‘It’s Clear That Some With Racist Agendas Are Trying To Make Inroads Into’ The Tea Party
Report: ‘It’s Clear That Some With Racist Agendas Are Trying To Make Inroads Into’ The Tea Party
This week, the NAACP approved a resolution condemning what it called “racist elements” within the Tea Party movement. “You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions,” NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said. Conservatives and tea partiers immediately took offense. Rush Limbaugh called the resolution “not true,” while Sarah Palin said it is “false” and “appalling.” Sean Hannity claimed he “can’t find any” racist Tea Party signs, while Tea Party Express founder Mark Williams attacked the NAACP, claiming it makes “more money off race than any slave trader ever.”
But as ThinkProgress has documented, there is racism in the Tea Party movement. Moreover, a new report from the Kansas City Star digs deeper into the racist elements of the Tea Party and citing various instances of racism linked to the movement, concludes that “it’s clear that some with racist agendas are trying to make inroads into the party,” noting that “in several instances, tea party members with racist backgrounds”:
Billy Roper is a write-in candidate for governor of Arkansas and an unapologetic white nationalist. “I don’t want non-whites in my country in any form or fashion or any status,” he says.
Roper also is a tea party member who says he has been gathering support for his cause by attending tea party rallies. “We go to these tea parties all over the country,” Roper said. “We’re looking for the younger, potentially more radical people.”
The Star also found that “white nationalist groups are encouraging members to attend tea parties”:
The Council of Conservative Citizens, a St. Louis-based group that promotes the preservation of the white race, has sponsored its own tea parties in some Southern states.
The council’s website has referred to blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity” and said non-white immigration would turn the country into a “slimy brown mass of glop.” Gordon Baum, the group’s founder, told The Star that the council encourages members to participate in tea parties. [...]
Roper, a former organizer for the neo-Nazi National Alliance and now chairman of White Revolution, said he has been attending tea party rallies to recruit members and garner support for his 2010 write-in campaign for Arkansas governor.
“Liberals think these are all poor, angry, working-class whites, but that’s not true,” said white nationalist movement scholar Leonard Zeskind. “It’s a solid middle class. The belief that these are people hit by the economic downturn is a myth. It’s people who have what they want and don’t want it taken away. They’re defending white privilege. Their slogan is ‘We want our country back.’”
Indeed, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 52 percent of Tea Party supporters said “too much has been made of the problems facing African-Americans” while 28 percent of Americans overall said the same.
BP Launches Effort To Control Scientific Research Of Oil Disaster
BP Launches Effort To Control Scientific Research Of Oil Disaster
Foreign oil giant BP is on a spending spree, buying Gulf Coast scientists for its private contractor army. Scientists from Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University and Texas A&M have “signed contracts with BP to work on their behalf in the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) process” that determines how much ecological damage the Gulf of Mexico region is suffering from BP’s toxic black tide. The contract, the Mobile Press-Register has learned, “prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.” Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama — whose entire department BP wished to hire — refused to sign over their integrity to the corporate criminal:
We told them there was no way we would agree to any kind of restrictions on the data we collect. It was pretty clear we wouldn’t be hearing from them again after that. We didn’t like the perception of the university representing BP in any fashion.
The lucrative $250-an-hour deal “buys silence,” said Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs environmental lawyer who analyzed the contract. “It makes me feel like they were more interested in making sure we couldn’t testify against them than in having us testify for them,” said George Crozier, head of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, who was approached by BP.
These efforts to buy silence and cooperation come in addition to the $500 million Gulf Research Initiative, a Tobacco Institute-like program managed by a panel picked by BP to disburse scientific research grants in the coming years. Louisiana State University, University of Florida’s Florida Institute of Oceanography, and Mississippi State University’s Northern Gulf Institute have already accepted $10 million each.
In contrast, the federal government has failed to coordinate the massive research program needed to save the Gulf, preventing academic researchers from observing the data collected by the NRDA teams that include both government and BP contractors. “The science is already suffering,” Richard Shaw, associate dean of Louisiana State University’s School of the Coast and Environment said. “The government needs to come through with funding for the universities. They are letting go of the most important group of scientists, the ones who study the Gulf.” (HT: The Independent Weekly)
Still Looking Out For Wall Street, Leading Republicans Are Already Calling To Repeal Financial Reform
Still Looking Out For Wall Street, Leading Republicans Are Already Calling To Repeal Financial Reform
Earlier this week, the Senate voted 60-39 to pass Congress’s financial regulatory reform bill, setting the stage for President Obama to sign it into law next week. The bill installs new safeguards and protections for consumers in their interactions with financial institutions and is a response to the economic crisis started in 2008 largely due to bad behavior by the world’s most powerful financial institutions.
Yet, just as they did for the health care bill earlier in the year, leading Republicans have already started calling for a repeal of the bill, this time before it has even been signed into law:
– Even before the bill passed the Senate, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters on the day of the vote, “I think it ought to be repealed.” [7/15/10]
– “If we were in a position to do something, maybe [Boehner] is right,” said GOP Policy Chairman Sen. John Thune (ND), endorsing Boehner’s call for repeal. [7/15/10]
– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-AL) said he’d “love for it to be repealed.” [7/16/10]
– Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, told Good Morning America that he and other Republicans would “like to repeal it.” [7/16/10]
However, some Republicans have been hesitant to endorse a full repeal of the bill. When pressed by ThinkProgress, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) refused to endorse Boehner’s call for repealing the legislation. Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) told the Hill that “some parts” of the bill “are good,” and that he would only endorse repealing parts of it.
“Now, already, the Republican leader in the House has called for repeal of this reform,” said President Obama in his weekly address, responding to Boehner’s comments. “I would suggest that America cannot afford to go backwards, and I think that is how most Americans feel as well. We cannot afford another financial crisis, just as we are digging out from the last one.”
‘Emergency Committee for Israel’ Based Out Of ‘Committee for the Liberation of Iraq’ Offices
‘Emergency Committee for Israel’ Based Out Of ‘Committee for the Liberation of Iraq’ Offices
In a nice catch, Eli Clifton reports that the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), the latest neocon astroturf pro-war outfit, is based out of the same office as a previous neocon astroturf pro-war outfit, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI):
The evidence lies in a a letter from ECI’s executive director (pdf), Noah Pollak, to Comcast regarding the attack ad the group has been running in Pennsylvania. The letterhead bears the following address: “918 Pennsylvania Ave., SE · Washington, D.C. 20003.”
That address happens to be the same as that of Orion Strategies, a public-relations consultancy owned and operated by renowned GOP lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, who, in addition to serving as president of the CLI, has been retained since the 2008 elections as Sarah Palin’s personal — and Bill Kristol-approved — foreign-policy trainer.
The connection to Orion Strategies comes through former Weekly Standard web editor and regrettable McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb, who joined Scheunemann’s firm last January, and serves as an adviser to the Emergency Committee for Israel. In addition to his work with ECI, Goldfarb also advises the Liz Cheney/Bill Kristol-led Keep America Safe, and was a research associate at the Project for the New American Century, which served as the mothership for various neocon enterprises in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, most notably the invasion of Iraq.
In addition to serving as president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Scheunemann served as PNAC’s director, and was a key ally of Iran-connected con-man Ahmad Chalabi.
Considering how disastrous the Iraq invasion was, not only for U.S. security but also for Israel’s — driving radicalism and sectarianism in the region, vastly increasing Iranian influence in the region and allowing it to advance its nuclear program — it is deeply ironic that the people operating the “Emergency Committee for Israel” are among those most responsible for creating that “emergency” in the first place.
BP Ran Magazine Article Extolling Relations With Libya As It Secretly Lobbied For Terrorist’s Release
BP Ran Magazine Article Extolling Relations With Libya As It Secretly Lobbied For Terrorist’s Release
BP received a new round of scrutiny yesterday when it admitted that officials had lobbied the British government in 2007 to “conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, 189 of them Americans.” BP was “worried that a stalemate on that front would undercut an oil exploration deal with Libya.”
The new details demonstrate that BP was willing to risk international security for pure profit motives. The UK ambassador to the U.S. issued yesterday stated that the British government “is clear that Megrahi’s release was a mistake,” but denied any link with BP. (The UK justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, had admitted that the BP-Libya deal was a factor in the government’s review of Al-Megrahi’s case.) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the issue, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said BP should freeze its operations in Libya because it “should not be allowed to profit on this deal at the expense of the victims of terrorism.”
As BP was privately lobbying the UK government, it was also publicly trying to improve the country’s image and extolling how beneficial an oil relationship between Libya and BP would be for Britain. ThinkProgress found an old BP Magazine (Issue 4 2007) that ran an entire article titled, “Libya: A Commanding Presence on the World Stage.” In the piece, a BP official essentially brushes aside the Lockerbie bombing:
“When you talk to people outside about Libya, Lockerbie is often the first thing they think of — terrorism. In actual fact, it’s probably one of the safest places I’ve been to with BP,” says BP Libya’s business support manager, Ian McGregor.
“Initially, most people ask about security. They think it’s very unsafe, or there are a lot of army and guns everywhere. To be honest, it’s the absolute opposite.” [...]
Speaking at the signing, Hayward hailed the agreement as the start of an enduring and mutually beneficial partnership, which will allow BP and Libya to deliver on their aspirations for growth.
“With its potentially large resources of gas, favourable geographic location and improving investment climate, Libya has an enormous opportunity to be a source of future energy for the world.”
BP is poised to begin deepwater drilling in Libya next month, a deal potentially worth $20 billion. Jim Mitchell of the Dallas Morning News writes, “I’m not so naive to think that BP is the only company that has put profits and business opportunity ahead of justice, but this is stunning especially since Lockerbie was such as heinous act and Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi the only convicted perpetrator for a crime that has provided little closure to families of victims.”
Bigoted Tea Party Leader Mark Williams: ‘It’s Impossible For There To Be A Racist Element In The Tea Party’
Bigoted Tea Party Leader Mark Williams: ‘It’s Impossible For There To Be A Racist Element In The Tea Party’
Mark Williams, the former chairman and current spokesperson of Tea Party Express, went on MSNBC today to again deny that there is any racism in the tea party, and to bash the NAACP for daring to point out the obvious examples of bigotry within the movement. When host Tamron Hall asked why not “move forward” by condemning extremism in both camps, Williams instead pointed fingers, blaming all cases of racism on agent provocateurs Crash the Tea Party. Even more absurd, Williams said it is “impossible” for the tea party movement to contain racist elements:
HALL: Do we move forward by either side calling out extremism in their party? [...]
WILLIAMS: It’s impossible — it’s impossible for there to be a racist element in the tea party, you don’t get it! The tea party is about human rights, it’s about the United States constitution. The United States constitution mankind’s foremost human rights document.
HALL: What about the signs of the president as an African with a bone in his nose? What is that? Is that about the constitution?
WILLIAMS: Those signs were brought by Crash the Tea party, the coalition of anti-tea party groups, google crashed the tea party. You will find it all there. … Buy my book!
Watch it:
Of course, as ThinkProgress has documented, Williams needs to look no farther than himself to know that it is not “impossible” for the tea party movement to contain racist elements. Moreover, William’s pathetic attempt to dismiss every single example of tea party racism as the work of Crash the Party is complete nonsense. If he took his own advice and googled Crash the Tea Party, he would see that the group didn’t even exist until April of this year — a year after racist and bigoted signs began appearing at tea party rallies. Beyond this, the counter-protesters never really materialized, and basic common sense should tell Williams that the group couldn’t possibly be responsible for every single racist sign.
Yesterday, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous called out tea party leaders, like Dick Armey, saying, “Dick we don’t think your racist, we’re just disappointed that you’re being silent in at the racism amongst your ranks.” A good place for Armey to break that silence would be with Williams.
Read more about racism in the tea party in today’s Progress Report.
Bachmann files to start, lead House Tea Party caucus.
Bachmann files to start, lead House Tea Party caucus.
Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) filed paperwork to start a House Tea Party Caucus in the current 111th Congress. Possibly taking a cue from Kentucky Senate GOP hopeful and fellow Tea Partier Rand Paul, who recently said he might start a similar caucus in the Senate if he were elected, Bachmann sent a letter to the Committee on House Administration in an effort to “formaliz[e] the [Tea Party] movement within the federal government.” The letter read:
I would like to register the House Tea Party Caucus as a Congressional Member Organization for the 111th Congress. The House Tea Party Caucus will serve as an informal group of Members dedicated to promote American’s call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government. Presently, I will serve as the chair of the House Tea Party Caucus.
This may be Bachmann’s first step towards overthrowing the GOP leadership with “constitutional conservatives.”
Greenspan Calls For Full Expiration Of The Bush Tax Cuts That He Helped Enact
Greenspan Calls For Full Expiration Of The Bush Tax Cuts That He Helped Enact
With the legislative calendar starting to dwindle, lawmakers are paying more and more attention to the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the year. Republicans across the board are advocating for the extension of all the cuts, and have explicitly said that extending the cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans (which would cost $678 billion) does not have to be paid for.
President Obama has called for letting the cuts for the very richest expire, allowing the rates to reset to where they were under the Clinton administration. In an interview with Bloomberg News’ Judy Woodruff, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan went a step further, calling for all of the tax cuts to expire, essentially sending the tax code back to 2001:
WOODRUFF: On those tax cuts, they are due to expire at the end of this year. Should they be extended? What should Congress do?
GREENSPAN: I should say they should follow the law and let them lapse.
WOODRUFF: Meaning what happens?
GREENSPAN: Taxes go up. The problem is, unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook, we are going to have major problems. I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward.
Greenspan’s right that addressing the long-term structural deficit is going to require raising some taxes, as getting the budget anywhere near balance entirely on the spending side would mean draconian cuts to popular programs that Americans support and rely on. But Greenspan was able to call for allowing the cuts while conveniently leaving out his role in getting them enacted in the first place.
As Matt Yglesias has pointed out, “in 2001 Alan Greenspan warned the country against the prospect of budget surpluses and debt reduction and argued that only large regressive tax cuts could save the country from this specter.” It is “far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases,” Greenspan said. Of course, the Bush tax cuts are now one of the biggest drivers of the country’s long term deficits, amounting to more than $3 trillion in deficits over the next ten years.
While Greenspan is now expressing concern that “we misunderstand the momentum” of the deficit, less than a decade ago, he was claiming that we misunderstand the momentum of the surplus. In fact, as the New York Times reported at the time, Greenspan said that “without a tax cut the surplus might be so big that it would force the government to begin buying stocks and bonds on Wall Street in as little as five years, a development he said would be harmful to the free enterprise system.”
In 2005, Greenspan said that “it turns out that we were all wrong” when it came to his 2001 support for the tax cuts (to which then Sen. Hillary Clinton shot back “just for the record, we were not all wrong, but many people were wrong”). He has also famously repented for his deregulatory zeal during the 1990’s, saying “those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
So, Greenspan at least seems to be coming around to the notion that the conservative economic philosophy is a big sham that doesn’t work in practice. Will the rest of the GOP ever follow?
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Peter King: Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Lay Out A Complete Agenda,’ Because It Might Become ‘A Campaign Issue’
Peter King: Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Lay Out A Complete Agenda,’ Because It Might Become ‘A Campaign Issue’
For the past year, Republicans have been desperately trying to show Americans that they have substantive policy ideas, and that they are not just “the party of no” that reflexively opposes anything President Obama supports in order to score cheap political points. “House Republicans have engaged with the American people to develop innovative solutions that meet the serious challenges facing our country,” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) declared on the flimsy “GOP Solutions” website.
But Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was perhaps a little too honest yesterday, explaining to radio host Bill Bennett that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda,” because then people would be able to scrutinize it and make it “a campaign issue”:
BENNETT: Is it enough for Republicans to say we are opposed to what [Obama's] doing — stimulus, health care, we don’t like what he’s doing with the government, and look at the job situation — or do we need to have meat on the bones? And say, this is what we are for? Do we have to have positive proposals? [...]
KING: So, It’s a combination of being against what Obama is for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for. Having said that, I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.
Of course, an agenda should be a campaign issue — the most important issue. But King’s political calculation reflects the strategies of several Republican candidates, like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul, to hide from the mainstream media, lest they accidentally reveal more of their extreme agenda.
And later in the interview, King offered a good example of why he probably shouldn’t be talking about policy. While saying that conservatives need to craft a “much more intelligent argument” to defend the Bush tax cuts, King argued that those tax cuts “saved our economy”:
KING: That’s where we have to make a much more intelligent argument and defend the Bush tax cuts. Because after all the years of the Bush tax cuts, after two wars, after September 11th, as of 2007, the deficit was down to $165 billion, which is almost chump change by today’s standard. No, the tax cuts is what saved our economy. People forget, they have this talk about how there was a $6.5 trillion surplus projected when President Bush come in. The fact is, he inherited a severe economic downturn — the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, the economy was tanking. Then we had September 11th, then we did have two wars — both of which I’ve supported — and with all of that, the economy continued to add jobs, and by 2006, 2007 the deficit was being dramatically reduced.
Listen to a compilation here:
King’s claim that the Bush tax cuts increased revenues reflects the “view of virtually every Republican on that subject,” according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but contradicts the facts and Bush’s own economic advisors, including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
ThinkFast: July 16, 2010
ThinkFast: July 16, 2010
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing to discuss BP’s role in securing the release of the Libyan terrorist Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted for his role in the 1988 airliner bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said BP should freeze its operations in Libya because it “should not be allowed to profit on this deal at the expense of the victims of terrorism.”
Transocean has already spent $110,000 on a lobbying firm it hired after its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, tapping “veteran Congressional denizens” to influence Congress on “energy legislation, mobile drilling units and offshore drilling.” “Unlike BP, Transocean did not have a major lobbying presence in Washington, D.C., prior to the spill.”
Yesterday, the U.S. Army “reported a record number of suicides in a single month among active duty, Guard and Reserve troops, despite an aggressive program of counseling, training and education aimed at suicide prevention.” In June, there were 32 soldiers who are believed to have committed suicide, and suicides “for the first half of the year are up 12 percent over 2009.”
Judge Jay Bybee, who approved detainee torture under President Bush, told the House Judiciary Committee that “the Central Intelligence Agency never sought approval for some practices detainees later said had been used on them, including dousing them with cold water to keep them awake.” “I have regrets because of the notoriety that this has brought me,” Bybee said when asked if there was anything he regretted.
“Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to settle federal claims that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product as the housing market began to collapse.” The settlement with the SEC “would rank among the largest in the 76-year history of the” agency, but “represent only a small financial dent for Goldman, which reported $13.39 billion in profit last year.”
Rep. Roy Blunt Refuses To Join Boehner In Calling For Repeal Of Financial Reform Legislation
Rep. Roy Blunt Refuses To Join Boehner In Calling For Repeal Of Financial Reform Legislation
Earlier today, the Senate broke a Republican filibuster by a 60-39 vote and approved major financial reform legislation. Even before the bill passed, House Minority Leader John Boehner declared at a press conference, “I think it ought to be repealed.”
However, not all of Boehner’s colleagues are rushing to join his immediate call for repeal. ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — a former GOP whip and current Senate candidate — to ask him if he supported Boehner’s plan. After pausing for a few seconds, Blunt danced around the question. When pressed again, Blunt said that “it’s just a hypothetical question” and “really doesn’t matter right now”:
TP: Obviously you’ve been following the financial reform bill. I was curious, if it ends up passing – which it looks like it will – would you be in favor of repealing the bill?
BLUNT: Well, the bill does look like it’s going to pass. I think probably what the most likely thing to happen now is that people are going to have to watch and see if the difficulties for small banks – the restriction on credit – really occurs. And if it does, as I anticipate it will, we’ll have to take a second look at this bill and the country will demand it.
TP: But you wouldn’t immediately be in favor of repealing it?
BLUNT: It’s just a hypothetical question, it really doesn’t matter right now.
TP: Well, you’d voted against it before. Do you regret that vote now, or do you still think that we shouldn’t have this law – well, this bill that’s about to become a law?
Blunt: Why don’t you get back to me when the bill becomes a law?
Listen here:
As The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo points out, repealing the bill would mean: losing the ability to unwind failed banks without engaging in bailouts, halting the efforts to make the derivatives market more transparent, allowing risky trading to continue, and disbanding the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other things.
After Claiming They Support Fair Nomination Process, GOP Retaliates For Berwick Appointment With Holds
After Claiming They Support Fair Nomination Process, GOP Retaliates For Berwick Appointment With Holds
Refusing to allow Republicans to delay implementation of reform any longer and trying to avoid a Republican hold, President Obama recess appointed Harvard Professor Don Berwick to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a position vacant since 2006. Republicans, who had had characterized Berwick as a proponent of “health care rationing,” took to the Senate floor to condemn Obama for installing Berwick before he even had a chance to appear before the Senate Finance Committee. The GOP admitted that they had criticized the nominee but argued that they had not held up his nomination and would have treated his confirmation fairly:
– SEN. JON KYL: (R-AZ): But for anybody to suggest that Republicans are to blame for the fact that Dr. Berwick’s nomination didn’t come to a vote or wasn’t brought to the senate floor is sheer fantasy. We have not held up the nomination. We have not prested a vote. We haven’t — We have not prevented a vote. [7/12/2010]
– SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: (R-AZ): But where’s the evidence of delay in Berwick’s case? It can’t fairly accuse the other side of political gamesmanship when you short circuit the process and storm off the court before the first set. [7/13/2010]
– SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading. [7/7/2010]
Ironically, the Republicans are now showcasing their desire for a fair and transparent nomination process by delaying two other nominations in retaliation for Berwick’s appointment. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has “blocked a Democratic request Wednesday evening to advance two of President Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,” the Hill reports. “Democrats didn’t schedule so much as a committee hearing for Donald Berwick,” McConnell said. “So given that the President has been so dismissive of the Senate’s right to provide advice and consent under the Constitution, I am not inclined at this point to consent to the agreement proposed by my friend from North Carolina,” he added.
The GOP is also demanding to hear from Berwick, and has written a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) asking him to call Berwick to testify.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Georgia GOP Candidate Handel On Why She Doesn’t Think Gays Are Suitable Parents: ‘Because I Don’t’
Georgia GOP Candidate Handel On Why She Doesn’t Think Gays Are Suitable Parents: ‘Because I Don’t’
This week, Georgia GOP gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Nathan Deal slammed his opponent, former secretary of state Karen Handel, for her past support of “taxpayer-funded domestic partner benefits and gay adoption” and membership in the Log Cabin Republicans. Concerned about shoring up support for next week’s primary, Handel has been denying and backtracking on those positions.
But in 2003, the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans said it supported Handel’s candidacy for county commission chair because she “demonstrated in her last run that she was supportive of domestic partner benefits” and “supported same-sex adoptions on the basis of the best interest of the child.” Handel is now calling the quote inaccurate, even though “she never asked Southern Voice for a correction or retraction.”
In an interview yesterday, Handel made her new-found feelings clear. Speaking with Doug Richards of Georgia’s 11 Alive, she uncomfortably tried to define her new opposition to gay rights and became exasperated when Richards pushed her to explain herself:
ON GAY ADOPTION:
Q: Do you know any gay couples with children?
A: Not that I’m aware of.
Q: So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples?
A: I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child.
Q: Is it better or worse than a single parent household?
A: Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances. I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that.
Q: I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents.
A: Because I don’t.
ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Q: Well why — do you view committed gay relationships as being less legitimate than committed heterosexual relationships?
A: As a Christian, I view relationships and marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Q: But what about the legitimacy of the relationship? Do you have any gay friends? Do you know gay couples?
A: Of course I do. Are we going to spend our whole day talking on this issue?
Q: I want to know how you feel about this.
Watch:
Obvious equality issues aside, recent research does not support Handel’s view. Studies have shown that “children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment” and a paper published last month showed that “children of lesbian mothers tend to do better than those in heterosexual families on certain measures.”
In April, “an Arkansas Circuit Court struck down a state law that banned unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.” The law, clearly targeted at gay couples wishing to adopt, was found to be unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses. An explicit gay adoption ban in Florida has also been found to be unconstitutional.
GOP Reps. Cite The Bible To Support Harsh Crackdowns Against Undocumented Immigrants
GOP Reps. Cite The Bible To Support Harsh Crackdowns Against Undocumented Immigrants
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing titled “The Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System,” which made the case that reforming the country’s broken immigration system is a moral duty.
Several religious leaders testified before the committee, citing the Bible’s moral invocations for caring for the least among us and treating each other humanely. “Immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue since it impacts the basic rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families,” said Bishop Gerald Kicanas, the vice president of the U.S. Conference of Bishops. “As such, it has moral implications, especially how it impacts the basic survival and decency of life experienced by human beings like us. … Our current immigration system fails to meet the moral test of protecting the basic rights and dignity of the human person.”
Yet several of the Republican members of the committee did not take kindly to the religious leaders’ words. Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA) both cited the Bible to attack the idea that it is a moral responsibility to treat undocumented immigrants humanely and give them the chance for a decent life. King even went as far as to cite the human rights-violating Israeli separation wall it has built deep into Palestinian territory as an example of how “the land of the Bible” deals with immigration:
Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, repeatedly cited passages from the Bible in support of a stronger crackdown on illegal immigration. “The Bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law,” he asserted. “The scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities with preserving order, protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers.” Smith cited, among other things, Romans 13: “Let every person be subject to governing authorities.” [...] “Americans need not repent for wanting to uphold the rule of law and provide jobs for legal workers,” he said. “A truly Christian moral approach would be not to acquiesce to illegal immigration, but to work to end it.” [...]
Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King, however, complained that for many reform advocates the only “biblically acceptable option … seems to be open borders.” “I didn’t realize that the Bible barred the enforcement of immigration laws and neither did I realize that it erased borders, demanded pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants, or … forbid the leaders of a nation from caring most about the well-being of its own citizens.”
King noted approvingly that “in the land of the Bible the leaders of today’s Israel (have) built border fences to protect their citizens from terrorists or illegal job seekers alike.” There is a “greater and more immediate” moral obligation to take care of U.S. citizens first, he said.
Of course, comprehensive immigration reform does not mean that we have to “acquiesce” to undocumented immigration, as Smith says, but instead that we secure our borders, give hard-working immigrants who are already here a fair path to citizenship, and overhaul our legal immigration system.
And while King claimed that the Bible would have us care most “about the well-being of [our] citizens,” the advocacy group Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR) disagrees. Citing Genesis, CCIR writes, “We believe all people, regardless of national origin or citizenship status, are made in the ‘image of God’ and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”
After Advocating For Cutting Servers’ Wages, MN GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Gets Pennies Dumped On Him
After Advocating For Cutting Servers’ Wages, MN GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Gets Pennies Dumped On Him
As ThinkProgress previously reported, the Republican candidate for Minnesota’s gubenatorial race, Tom Emmer, recently advocated for reducing the minimum wage of service workers in his state, ludicrously citing $100,000 compensation that few Minnesota service workers get.
Yesterday, Emmer held a town hall with servers at a Mexican restaurant in Roseville, Minnesota, to try to contain the political backlash from his earlier comments. Yet the gubernatorial candidate had to cut the meeting short as political activist Nick Espinosa of Minneapolis dropped a bag of thousands of pennies in front of Emmer while yelling, “I have a tip for you too, Emmer!“:
A trial lawyer by trade, GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer encountered one tough jury Wednesday: a packed room of servers who feared that he wants to cut their wages.
An hour later, he walked out after a bag of 2,000 pennies was dumped inches from his face by a man exclaiming, “I have a tip for you too, Emmer!” as cascading pennies bounced in every direction and the crowd at a Roseville restaurant erupted into chaos. [...]
Then the pennies flew. They were dropped in front of Emmer by Nick Espinosa of Minneapolis, who sometimes goes by the name Robert Erickson. [...] A stunned Emmer looked flustered as Espinosa, who has disrupted at least one other conservative event, rushed out a side entrance.
Espinosa shouted at the meeting that he did it “partly because of Emmer’s support of Arizona’s controversial immigration bill.” The gubernatorial candidate “tried to yell out his closing statement, but it was mostly lost as people shouted and clapped.” A photographer for the Star Tribune snapped a picture right as Espinosa dropped the bag on the table before Emmer:
This isn’t Espinosa’s first time in the national spotlight. Last year — again using the name Robert Erickson — he managed to get a speaking spot at an anti-immigration rally and satirically began railing against European immigration.
Black Conservative Bishop Refuses To Condemn Mark Williams’ Bigotry, Says The NAACP ‘Should Be Ashamed’
Black Conservative Bishop Refuses To Condemn Mark Williams’ Bigotry, Says The NAACP ‘Should Be Ashamed’
Bishop E. W. Jackson, founder of the social conservative group STAND, appeared on MSNBC today to defend the tea party against the NAACP condemnation of “racist elements” within the movement. “I don’t think there is any question whatsoever that the NAACP should be ashamed of themselves. They are wrong,” Jackson — himself an African-American — said of the charges.
But host Chris Jansing, citing ThinkProgress, presented Jackson with clear evidence to the contrary, quoting from Tea Party Express spokesperson Mark Williams’ litany of bigoted comments. Jackson refused to condemn Williams, and instead attempted to downplay Williams’ importance and the hatefulness of his comments. “People will sometimes say things that some of us won’t []agree with,” he said:
JANSING: Well, according to ThinkProgress, a former Tea Party Express chairman, Mark Williams called President Obama, quote, “an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.” He also called the Muslim god Allah, quote, “a terrorists’ monkey god.” Are you comfortable with that?
JACKSON: Well, first of all, nobody speaks for me. And if you ask me, am I comfortable with everything that Al Sharpton said, or Jesse Jackson said, or any black conservative said, you’d probably find things I’d say, nah, that doesn’t represent me. I’m a Republican. I don’t agree with everything Michael Steele says. So, look, we understand that the tea party is a broad movement and people will sometimes say things that some of us won’t disagree with — will disagree with. But the idea that the tea party movement is racist or that it has racist elements that need to be denounced is a nonsensical statement.
Watch it:
As Williams’ hateful comments demonstrate, it’s clearly not “nonsensical” to say there are racist elements within the tea party movement. And while it’s one thing for rank-and-file activists, or even minor leaders to express bigotry, Williams is one of the tea party’s most prominent leaders, appearing on TV many times over the past year and a half to represent the movement.
Tea Party Express — one of the most important tea party groups — has paid Williams over $20,000, and allowed him to lead the organization as its chairman, giving him “day-to-day managerial responsibilities.” Williams was the face of the group’s big Tax Day press conference in April, when it introduced the world to “the event’s star,” then-unknown Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle.
Williams remains the group’s principle spokesperson, and only stepped down as chairman to lead a crusade against the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Other Tea Party Express members have refused to condemn Williams’ bigotry, and said his “monkey god” comments “played no role in his change in status within the Tea Party Express.”
Williams is exactly the type of racist element that the the NAACP challenged tea party activists to expel and condemn, “or take full responsibility for all of their actions.” The NAACP did not accuse the entire tea party movement of racism, despite attempts by Jackson and other conservatives to construct that straw man. Jackson, Tea Party Express, and other conservatives should condemn Williams’ unvarnished bigotry in the strongest possible terms if they want to prove the NAACP wrong — or their cowardice to do so could turn their straw man into a reality.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll