Media Repeats Breitbart’s Lies At Their Own Legal Peril
Media Repeats Breitbart’s Lies At Their Own Legal Peril
Yesterday, right-wing provocateur Andrew Breitbart posted a now-infamous video on his “Big” media empire. Although Breitbart’s carefully-edited video appeared to depict USDA official Shirley Sherrod admitting that she denied government services to a poor farmer because he was white, we now know that Sherrod was telling a twenty-four year old story about how she came to embrace this white farmer’s cause — enabling him to save his farm after two years of Sherrod’s hard work.
And Breitbart’s actions do not simply reveal his already well-known aversion to reality, they may also place his Big empire in deep legal jeopardy.
Under the First Amendment, it’s not easy to win a defamation lawsuit, and for good reason. Democracy depends on a robust and unafraid media, and reporters who live in constant terror of being sued into oblivion are far less likely to report unpleasant truths. Nevertheless, the First Amendment’s protections are not unlimited, and they simply do not apply to publishers whose callous disregard for the facts paint others in a false light.
As a general rule, when a publisher’s false statements force another person into the public spotlight they are liable for defamation if they knew or should have known that their claims were false. In other words, if a publication fails to take the most minimal steps to ensure that their content is true, they risk an expensive lawsuit if their content turns out to be false.
But Breitbart appears to have taken no steps whatsoever to verify the video’s context before he posted it alongside a rant accusing Sherrod of the most vicious racism:
In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. . . .
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
Of course, it’s now up to Sherrod and her lawyers to decide whether they want to pursue what could be a very strong defamation case against Breitbart, but other media outlets should not think that they are off the hook.
In most states, a publication or other news source can be held liable for republishing another person’s defamatory statement if they “know or ha[ve] reason to know of its defamatory character.” And all media sources now have more than enough reason to know that any story touted by Breitbart cannot be trusted. Beyond his shameful behavior in the Sherrod incident, Breitbart is, of course, most famous for publishing a deceptively edited video which falsely suggested that the now-defunct ACORN violated the law.
None of this means that reporters cannot republish Breitbart’s claims if they conduct their own investigation and determine those claims to be true, but far too many reporters (and, tragically, White House officials) failed to conduct any meaningful investigation into the Sherrod video. If a commitment to the truth wasn’t enough to inspire such an investigation this time, maybe the threat of a legal sanction will suffice the next time around.
- Comments
- 4
The Wonk Room At Netroots Nation
The Wonk Room At Netroots Nation
Blogging will be lighter than usual this week, since all of us here at ThinkProgress, the Wonk Room, and Matt Yglesias are going to be in Las Vegas for the annual Netroots Nation conference.
While there will definitely be plenty of fun and games, we assure you we’ll also be working. If you’re also going to be attending the conference, we’d love for you to stop by and check out some of the panels we’ll be on:
THURSDAY, JULY 22
Environmental Conflict and Climate Change: The Grassroots vs Big Green
9:00 AM – 10:15 AM, Brasilia 2
Speakers: Michael Brune (Sierra Club), Majora Carter (Majora Carter Group), Gene Karpinski (LCV), Michael Kieschnick (CREDO/Working Assets), and Amanda Terkel (ThinkProgress)Immigration Reform’s Strange Bedfellows: The Surprising Consensus that Reform will Improve American Jobs and Bolster Our Economy
3:00 PM – 4:15 PM, Brasilia 6
Speakers: Mark Lauritsen (United Food and Commercial Workers), Adam Luna (America’s Voice), Andrea Nill (Wonk Room), State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Arturo Venegas (former chief of police for the city of Sacramento)Copenhagen to Cancun: Climate Negotiations and the Netroots
4:30 PM – 5:45 PM, Brasilia 2
Speakers: James Henn (350.org), Kate Horner (Friends of Earth), Brad Johnson (Wonk Room), Kate Sheppard (Mother Jones), and Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman (Alliance for Climate Protection)
FRIDAY, JULY 23
Is the BP Oil Disaster the Breaking Point for Communicating about Clean Energy?
10:30 AM – 11:45 AM, Miranda 1-2
Speakers: Kevin Grandia (DeSmogBlog.com), Steve Kretzmann (Oil Change International), Jason Miner (The Glover Park Group), Phil Radford (Greenpeace), Amanda Terkel (ThinkProgress)
SATURDAY, JULY 24
The Obama Doctrine: Successes, Challenges and the Future
10:15 AM – 11:30 AM, Brasilia 1
Speakers: Max Bergmann (Wonk Room), Wendy Chamberlin (Middle East Institute), Paul Eaton (retired general), Lawrence Korb (Center for American Progress)The Filibuster and Senate Reform
4:00 PM – 5:15 PM, Brasilia 6
Speakers: Mimi Marziani (Brennan Center), Dave Roberts (Grist), Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), David Waldman (Congress Matters), and Matthew Yglesias (ThinkProgress)
The Progress Report will also be on break the rest of this week, and returning on Monday, July 26.
EXCLUSIVE: Records Show Military Surveyed Troops In 1940s, Prior To Racially Integrating The Forces
EXCLUSIVE: Records Show Military Surveyed Troops In 1940s, Prior To Racially Integrating The Forces
Earlier this month, as part of the year-long Defense Department review of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the Pentagon distributed surveys to some 400,000 servicemembers to gauge their reaction to repealing the policy. While LGBT groups have characterized the questionnaire — which asks the troops to speculate on the sexuality of fellow servicemembers — as “derogatory and insulting,” the Pentagon continues to insist that they need to know what the troops are thinking in order to properly repeal the ban. “How do we identify beforehand the problems, the issues, and the challenges that we’re going to face? The kind of training requirements we’re going to need, the kinds of changes in regulations, the impact on benefits — all of these things need to be addressed in advance…. That’s where we want to hear from you all,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told troops stationed in South Korea.
Yesterday, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld reported that this is not the first time the military had surveyed the troops. “Prior to President Truman’s 1948 executive order integrating the armed forces…our preliminary research shows that branches of the armed forces undertook a number of modestly sized surveys of the attitudes of enlisted and nonenlisted troops concerning racial issues, integration, and morale,” Eleveld quoted a Defense Department spokesperson as saying.
Today, I traveled to the National Archives and recovered some of the surveys the military conducted about the troops’ attitudes towards black people between 1942 and 1946. At the time, the military — along with the overwhelming majority of the country — opposed integrating black servicemembers into the forces and preferred a ’separate but equal’ approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. One month before Truman’s order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration.
These surveys show that the same attitude pervaded the military: 3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers thought it was a good idea to have separate service clubs in army camps:
While smaller, these racial polls share some common questions with the DADT survey. In fact, in some instances one can even replace “negro” for “gay” and end up with today’s questionnaire. Both polls ask servicemembers if they objected to working alongside minorities, how they felt serving with minorities, how effective minorities are in combat and if their feelings have changed about the minority after serving with them. (Interestingly, 77% of respondents said they had more favorable opinion).
Truman integrated the forces despite the objections of the troops and it remains to be seen if Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and President Obama (who have to sign off on the DOD study) are willing to do the same for Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell. So far, the Pentagon insists that it will. “It is abundantly clear to this working group that their marching orders from the Secretary of Defense are to determine how to implement a repeal of DADT,” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon’s spokesperson insists. “Their job is not to determine whether or not the force wishes a repeal to take place or not to take place. Their job is to prepare for that inevitability.” (While the results of the DADT survey are obviously pending, past surveys of military veterans have found that an overwhelming majority say it’s “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.”)
Lieberman: Utilities Want A ‘Breather’ From Letting People Breathe
Lieberman: Utilities Want A ‘Breather’ From Letting People Breathe
As negotiations on a stripped-down bill to limit global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants reach the final hour, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is sympathizing with the utility industry’s attempt to suspend Clean Air Act rules on pollutants that kill tens of thousands of Americans a year. At a meeting with environmentalists, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers “led the call for regulatory relief on a number of existing Clean Air Act programs dealing with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury, including a new EPA rule proposed last week that deals with interstate pollution.” However, thirty-one environmental and health organizations sent a letter to senators last week calling such rollbacks “simply unacceptable.” Center for American Progress senior fellow Van Jones called it a “literal poison pill.” Today, Lieberman made the ironic claim that polluters “just want a breather” from clean air rules:
That’s a tough one. They frame it in a different way. They just want a breather. And not an eternal pre-emption. These are all topics of negotiation. That’s what we’re supposed to be doing here.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Lieberman’s partner in developing a Senate climate bill, last Thursday said there was a little room for negotiation, but opposed any “rollback.” “If we put those requirements into a different form so that we are still adhering to them, that is a different issue and those are two different choices,” Kerry said. “But there is not going to be a rollback of current requirements.”
Other Democrats don’t find this one of the acceptable “topics of negotiation.” “I’d not want to see any weakening of the authority they have today,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said last week. “It’s been a major tool for cleaning up our air.”
The environmental and public health community — including NAACP and Green For All, Public Citizen and the American Lung Association, the Environmental Defense Fund and Environment America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists — are united in their opposition, saying that “delaying the cleanup of these plants threatens the health of millions of Americans.” “I’m sure people throw everything on the table,” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. “But we’ve made it damn clear … that there are no trade-offs of any regulation of any [conventional] pollutants.”
You mean to spew more sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, and less carbon? That's not my idea of progress.
Report: Multinational Corporations And Banks Use Tax Havens To Dodge $37 Billion In U.S. Taxes Per Year
Report: Multinational Corporations And Banks Use Tax Havens To Dodge $37 Billion In U.S. Taxes Per Year
Last month, in Tax Notes magazine, Martin Sullivan laid out the dramatic drop in the effective tax rate of Transocean, which owns the failed Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, as it incorporated itself in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Transocean’s tax avoidance helped it lower its tax rate by nearly fifteen points, despite the fact that it kept most of its operations in the United States.
“These tax-motivated restructurings occur with little or no real change in day-to-day business operations. Top executives, key personnel, and all significant business operations in the United States before the transaction remain in the United States,” Sullivan noted. But Transocean is far from the only company taking advantage of America’s loophole ridden tax code to park profits offshore and avoid taxes.
According to a new report from Business and Investors Against Tax Haven Abuse, an organization backed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) that is seeking to end tax avoidance and evasion, multinational corporations and banks are ducking $37 billion annually in taxes:
Fifty years ago, corporate income taxes accounted for 23.2% of federal government receipts, and individual income tax payments were less than twice those of large corporations’ tax payments. Today, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates corporate tax receipts will account for just 7.2% of federal revenues in 2010, with large corporations contributing less than one-sixth as much as small business and individual taxpayers to the Federal Treasury (small businesses most often pay taxes according to their owner’s individual tax rates).
Eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations and 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors have at least one subsidiary in a tax haven, the report says. Companies as different as Goldman Sachs, Safeway, and Liberty Mutual all share a common penchant for tax dodging. Such widespread avoidance simply shifts the tax burden onto law abiding individuals and businesses, who ultimately have to pay more to make up for the lost revenue.
The report recommends, among other things, the implementation of Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s (D-TX) International Tax Competitive Act of 2010, which “would treat a company as a U.S. company for tax purposes if its management and officers with day-to- day control are located in the U.S., even if its paper incorporation is offshore.” I spoke to Doggett back in April, when he told me, “I always find it impossible to explain why a pharmacist in Bastrop, Texas, or a small retail store in San Marcos is having to pay higher rates on the income that their hard-working small business owners are earning than some multinational that can duck and dodge taxes in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.”
Of course, doing anything to crack down on tax evasion means incurring the wrath of the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business community, which continually fearmonger about the effect of taking such steps to ensure that companies pay the tax rate that is on the books.
On Whether The Individal Mandate Is A Tax
On Whether The Individal Mandate Is A Tax
Austin Frakt points to this post by Jim Hufford who argues that conservatives misunderstood Robert Pear’s big health care article on Sunday. Pear may have added fuel to the repeal movement by noting that while the President had insisted that the new individual mandate was not a tax in September, his Justice Department was now defending the law in court and describing it as just that. But Hufford says that this is actually a bad thing for repeal advocates:
[Even if] the commerce clause argument gives the mandate’s challengers a leg to stand on, the taxing and spending clause does not. Congress’s power of taxation is limited only by the requirement that any tax laid be conducive to the general welfare; and Congress decides whether a tax is conducive the general welfare. [...]
The article makes it sound like the administration has the upper hand on the taxing clause (a.k.a., the “general welfare clause”) argument, but the challengers are still in the fight and coming out swinging with their commerce clause argument. But it’s not really like that. Because you can’t answer a general welfare clause argument with a commerce clause argument. And if the government wins on either issue, the fight is over.
Ok, fair enough, but I also don’t think that conservatives have a very convincing argument with the “gocha” on taxes point. What Obama told George Stephanopoulos in September is still true today. The individual mandate — originally a Republican idea — is designed to get everyone to take responsibility for their own health and eliminate the cost shifts that occur when individuals receive uncompensated care. “What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,” Obama said at the time. “Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that, if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”
The mandate is not a “tax” in the sense that its primary purpose is to raise revenue even though it meets the legal definition, which is somewhat different than the popular understanding of that term. As Ian Millhiser tells me, conservatives obviously think “that they have caught Obama in some grand contradiction because he uses one meaning of the word ‘tax’ in one context and his lawyers use another meaning of that term in a legal brief, but the word ‘tax’ has an unusually broad meaning in the constitutional context — it can include nearly any provision that adds money to the federal treasury.”
Kyl Selectively Edits Report In Weak Attempt To Refute Legitimate Criticism Of His Deficit Hypocrisy
Kyl Selectively Edits Report In Weak Attempt To Refute Legitimate Criticism Of His Deficit Hypocrisy
Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
This week the Washington Post ran a sensible editorial highlighting the hypocrisy of Republicans who oppose a $33 billion extension of unemployment benefits but strenuously support an extension of massive tax cuts for very rich people that would cost 20 times more. Specifically, the Post called out Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who, in a recent interview, tied himself into rhetorical knots trying to justify the obvious contradiction. The Post rightly pointed out that such a stand speaks volumes, “about the GOP’s refusal to practice the fiscal responsibility it preaches.”
The Post also, almost as an aside, mocked Kyl’s reliance on, “the tired and unsubstantiated argument that the tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended because otherwise ‘you’re going to clobber small business.’” Today, in a letter to the Post, Kyl responded, and his response really illustrates how weak the Republican position is on the merits:
The Post also questioned my assertion that raising taxes on upper-income Americans would ‘clobber small businesses.’ But facts are stubborn things. Small businesses generated roughly 64 percent of net new jobs in the past 15 years. Of the almost 120 million private-sector workers in the United States, slightly more than half work for small businesses. So if we’re trying to promote economic policies that create jobs, why raise taxes on the job creators? The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation noted this month that half of all income reported by individuals in the top two tax brackets is business income.
Kyl first offered two data points (unsourced, of course) to illustrate how crucial small businesses are to the economy. That’s fine, but it’s also entirely beside the point. Kyl offers no evidence that any of the businesses he referenced would be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at all, and chances are extremely high that they would not, as fewer than 2 percent of small businesses owners file in the top two income tax brackets.
Kyl then tries again by referencing this JCT report, which states that “half of all income reported by individuals in the top two brackets is business income.” But did you notice anything at all odd about that sentence? Did you notice that the word “business” is not preceded by the word “small?” Maybe it’s because the very next sentence from the very same JCT report that Kyl relies on says:
These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ’small.’ For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million.
So, what we are really talking about here is extremely wealthy people who claim millions and millions of dollars in income as “business income” and have no relationship at all to actual small businesses. In fact, that very same JCT report states that only 3 percent of taxpayers with any net positive business income at all will be affected by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The Post rightly dismissed Kyl’s argument as “tired” and “unsubstantiated,” because, as his reliance on cherry-picked data makes clear, that’s exactly what it is.
Sen. Barrasso Calls For Repealing Middle Class Tax Cuts To Finance Tax Cuts For The Rich
Sen. Barrasso Calls For Repealing Middle Class Tax Cuts To Finance Tax Cuts For The Rich
In the last week or so, a dizzying array of Republicans have made it their official stance that $33 billion to extend unemployment benefits must be fully paid for, but financing a $678 billion extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy with deficit spending is just fine. “I think we need to be paying for all the spending that’s going on,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “But when people can keep more of their own money that shouldn’t be considered a cost.”
Today, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) tackled this topic and started to go down the same road as the likes of Bachmann, and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who was the first to set foot in this fiscal fantasy land. But he then pivoted to suggest that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be funded with unspent stimulus funds:
Q: Are you for extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yes or no? [...] Are you paying for them? Or are you for adding to the deficit to continue those tax cuts?
Barrasso: There is so much unspent stimulus money that we ought to use that in a responsible way, which is to help keep taxes low.
Watch it:
This is problematic on two levels. First, it’s simply not true that there’s “so much unspent stimulus money” just lying around. 
According to the latest data, there is $362 billion in stimulus funding waiting to be allocated (see chart at right), so Barrasso is still $325 billion short of the money he would need to cover the $678 billion cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for just the richest two percent of Americans.
And a longer look at the chart reveals that $125 billion of the unallocated funding is already dedicated to tax cuts. Remember, despite conservative’s constantly portraying it as only federal spending, the stimulus cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. So Barrasso’s plan to repeal the money amounts to a tax increase on the lower- and middle-classes, which Barrasso wants to then turn around and spend on tax cuts for the rich.
Barrasso didn’t explicitly call for raising taxes on the poor and middle class in order to pay for his preferred policy outcome (which is tax rates for the wealthy that are as low as possible), but that’s what his suggestion would do. A similar sentiment was made far more directly by Wall Street Journal Editorial Board member Stephen Moore, who called for raising the rate of the lowest tax bracket in order to bring down tax rates for the rich.
Religous Right Still Manufacturing Fear To Raise Money
Religous Right Still Manufacturing Fear To Raise Money
Since Congress passed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 1993, American society has began accepting gays and lesbians both legally and socially, relegating support for the ban to some fairly radical corners of the political spectrum. As a result, social conservative groups like the American Family’s Association (AFA), Family Research Council (FRC), and the Center for Military Readiness are becoming increasingly irrelevant, but they are no less inflammatory. Over at Pam’s House Blend, guest blogger and former AFA insider Joe Murray reveals how these organizations have continued to manufacture fear to make money and hold on to what’s left of their constituency:
There is no denying that homophobia became a worthwhile business for many on the right and has yielded a number of straw men struggles. The battle for marriage, the fight against Heather and her two mommies, and the fictional “homosexual agenda” were created for one reason – it produced a cash cow. [...] Need to see how the cow works? Look no further than the American Family Association (AFA).
In its battle to keep patriots from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces for no other reason than their sexual orientation, the AFA is preparing to educate supporters about the importance of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT)….When the reader opens the AFA email, he cannot help but see a picture of what appears to be a U.S. soldier sitting alone on a Middle Eastern street. The solider looks exhausted, isolated, and desperate. His picture is centered and on his right (viewer’s left), are the words “DON’T ASK” and on his left (viewer’s right) are the words “DON’T TELL.”
The insinuation is clear – thanks to the power of the “homosexual” lobby and a complacent administration, U.S. soldiers are left stranded on the battlefield as a new batch of recruits are soon to be inducted into the military under the rainbow flag. In other words, the image is an unfortunate manipulation of U.S. troops to further a profitable political message.
I pointed out last week that the Family Research Council claimed that Congressional Democrats were moving to repeal DOMA in order raise funds. And today, Kyle Mantyla of Right Wing Watch notices that Tony Perkins has invented the notion that President Obama has abandoned the term “religious freedom” in favor of “religious worship” to “completely secularize America.” Mantyla discovers that Obama used the phrase “religious freedom” just four days ago and that “a search of the White House website returns 124 uses of the phrase ‘freedom of religion’ compared to just 9 uses of ‘freedom of worship.’” Conversely, “a search of the George W. Bush White House website archive also returns exactly 124 mentions of ‘freedom of religion’ versus 33 uses of ‘freedom of worship,’” he notes.
This evening’s “Mission Compromised” webcast — which will certainly rely on similar tactics — will feature Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Todd Akin (R-MO). Interestingly, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and now a strong supporter of DADT, is not scheduled to appear.
Sharia Compliant Finance Will Make America Safer
Sharia Compliant Finance Will Make America Safer
My colleague Ian Millhiser has already addressed the falsehoods upon which neocon conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s latest attack on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is built, but it’s worth taking a look at the issue of sharia compliant finance that has poor Frank so frothy.
Gaffney accuses Kagan of “enabling… the penetration of Shariah into our capital markets through the Harvard Law School’s Islamic Finance Project“:
The purpose of that project is, according to an excellent essay by Mr. McCarthy, “Elena Kagan’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Shariah Policy,” published last week in National Review Online “to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector.”
This is accomplished via legal support to an industry known as Shariah-compliant finance (SCF). It was invented in the mid-20th century by Brotherhood operatives as a means of facilitating and underwriting the penetration of Shariah into Western societies by mainlining it into their capitalist bloodstreams.
Yes, that’s right — Gaffney actually cites Andrew McCarthy as an authority on Islam. It should come as no shock that McCarthy is, in fact, completely wrong about both the origin and purpose of Shariah-compliant finance. It’s not part of some Islamist conspiracy to steal our vital essence — and I understand that by writing that, in Gaffney’s and McCarthy’s view, I have become a part of the conspiracy — but rather a far more practical effort to enable economic activity among pious, observant Muslims.
As Jawad Ali explained in a 2007 interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, “Sharia-compliant financing is done by investors who chose to invest their money in a manner that is compliant with Islamic sharia”:
The basic principle of investing on a sharia-compliant basis is that when you are introducing any leverage, any financing, that leverage has to be compliant. This means you cannot receive or pay interest on borrowed money. In conventional finance, there is a distinction between usury and interest. Regulators in the United States and western jurisdictions regulate and distinguish between interest rates that are considered reasonable and interest rates that are considered usurious. Under Islamic sharia, any interest—even 0.01 percent—is usurious. There is no distinction between acceptable interest and unacceptable interest. So if you are financing a sharia-compliant investor, you have to figure a way to inject that financing other than borrowing and charging interest.
As Ali notes, sharia-compliant finance is a very fast-growing industry,growing by about 35 percent to 40 percent per year. And the reason more and more banks are getting into the sharia-compliant finance game is that they’ve discovered — and you should prepare yourselves for the sinister tale I’m about to unfold — that there’s a huge, under-served customer base. As CNN noted last year, the global economic recession has also sparked greater interest in banking practices and forms of investment that aren’t based upon the sort of “financial products” gamesmanship that led to the crisis.
As scholar Vali Nasr, currently an adviser to Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, argued in his recent book The Forces of Fortune, the growth of Islamic finance and the growth of an observant, global Muslim middle class that it portends has serious positive implications for stability in the societies in which these entrepreneurs operate, and therefore for U.S. national security.
“The reason… that all of this economic vitality around the blending of Islam and capitalism is so important for the West to take note of,” Nasr writes, “is that it reveals so much about the nature of the new middle class that is driving this growth, and is in turn growing ever larger and more influential“:
Some members of this new middle class are the children of the old haute bourgeoisie, their families tied to large, venerable industries and the type of state patronage that the West is familiar with. But a far larger percentage — and here is the key — comes from the provincial and lower social classes. These sons and daughters of the poor and the provinces who have made the jump to the middle class have done so by accepting the requirements of modern economies and latching on to the economic realities that define modernism. They have embraced the rules of the market, responding to its incentives, and are guided in their decisions by the desire to serve their economic interests. So energetic is their commitment to the capitalist credo that their activities now account for most of the real economic growth in the region. The consumerism of the general population is largely the result of their handiwork. Ambitious and resourceful, they fill the ranks of the professionals, the entrepreneurs, the corporate businessmen, and the traders. It is they who have established for the next generation a new economic model of the good life here on Earth.
The interests that this economy is creating, and the ties with the global community that it is forging, offer ample opportunities for engaging this “critical middle” that has come to be the center of gravity in one Muslim-majority society after another. In coming years, that middle is only going to get bigger, and richer… Globalization and rising middle classes with big wallets — and a continuing interest in living as observant Muslims — have gone hand in hand.
The crucial aspect of this “critical middle” that is difficult for those in the West to grasp is that for this population, Islam is a powerful supporter of the drive to modernity. The great majority of Muslims think that Islam improves their lives. They want heaven later, and wealth in the meantime — and think that handling the latter well can help lead to the former.
There’s a bit of neoliberal messianism in there, but the basic argument is sound: Given the option, most people would rather do business. Gaffney, McCarthy and associated hysterics want us to believe that by engaging in sharia-compliant finance, Islamic extremists are getting one over on the West. But the truth is actually the opposite: Facilitating the participation of aspiring and ambitious Muslim entrepreneurs in the Western-led global economic system creates a hedge against extremism. By helping to grow this religiously observant middle class, we’re helping to create an anchor of stability for the societies in which they live, and building powerful new constituencies to oppose the sort of discord that extremists are offering. It’s one thing to try and get people to eschew extremism because you think it’s bad. It’s quite another to them to do it because it’s bad for their business.
Why Warren Is Fit To Lead The New Consumer Protection Agency
Why Warren Is Fit To Lead The New Consumer Protection Agency
Tomorrow, President Obama will sign the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill, moving the task of creating a fair, stable financial system from the legislative phase to the implementation phase. And the highest profile step at the moment is appointing the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Reportedly, the three leading candidates for the post are Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor and head of the Congressional Oversight panel for TARP; Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr; and Eugene Kimmelman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. Warren is easily the highest profile of the three. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) have all circulated petitions supporting her nomination.
It’s obvious to see why Warren is the front-runner for the job. After all, the idea to create an agency solely tasked with policing consumer lending was hers, which she laid out in a 2007 journal article. But lately, there’s been a lot kvetching in Congress, not over whether Warren is qualified, but whether she’s confirmable:
“Elizabeth would be a terrific nominee,” said [Sen. Chris] Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who leads the Senate Banking Committee. “The question is, ‘Is she confirmable?’ And there’s a serious question about it.”
Of course, if she’s a “terrific nominee” then why is there such a “serious question” about getting her confirmed? Dodd doesn’t deign to say.
The main complaint about Warren seems to be that she’s done her job as chair of the Oversight Panel too well, ticking off various members of Treasury and lambasting the financial services industry. But as Paul Krugman wrote, “Warren really is a pioneering expert on household debt and financial distress, who has also shown an ability to work effectively in an official position. Against that, whatever personal quarrels she may or may not have had shouldn’t count at all.”
In fact, the willingness to speak up against the Treasury Secretary (and the other bank regulators) when the occasion calls for it is an asset for the Bureau’s Director, as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is largely composed of the current regulators and chaired by the Treasury Secretary, can veto the Bureau’s rules. The Bureau Director has a seat on the council and can’t be too deferential if the Bureau is to actually implement rules with teeth.
Warren will also help in attracting qualified personnel to the new agency, which is another critical ingredient for ensuring that it doesn’t find itself immediately subservient to the already well-established bank regulators. As the Cambridge Winter Center’s Tim Duncan wrote, “the first Director will have to make recruitment from existing agencies and the outside world his or her top priority and be willing to go to the mat with other agency heads to secure experienced, high-quality people. The Bureau should not be tempted into hiring employees simply for the sake of filling in boxes on an organization chart.” The appeal of working for Warren will help a lot in this area.
Of course, Republicans will gripe about Warren’s nomination, and likely mount a filibuster. But they are going to complain about any nominee, since they are fundamentally opposed to the very creation of the CFPB. Just like the Dodd-Frank bill itself got stronger because of a public fight on the Senate floor, picking a fight over the nominee — and forcing Republicans to go to bat for the big banks against an incredibly qualified, consumer focused choice — could pay significant dividends.
Pence Doubles Down On Health Repeal: ‘Committed To Repealing ObamaCare Lock, Stock And Barrel’
Pence Doubles Down On Health Repeal: ‘Committed To Repealing ObamaCare Lock, Stock And Barrel’
Yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) doubled down on his party’s commitment to repealing health care reform and promised to replace it with a GOP alternative, paid for by the savings from malpractice reform:
PENCE: Let me tell you, I believe the House Republicans are committed to repealing ObamaCare lock, stock and barrel, and replacing it with health care reform that will focus on lowering the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. The Republican alternative, I know we get talked about a lot as a party of ‘no’; we actually had substantive alternatives on all these bills. On health care, our alternative allowed Americans to purchase across state lines, it brought about medical malpractice reform, used those savings to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Watch it:
I know that Republicans have promised to fund their replacement health care plan — which places everyone with a chronic condition in a state-based high risk pool, allows younger and healthier Americans to purchase the least regulated and cheapest insurance product, and encourages small businesses to form purchasing associations — with malpractice savings before, but hearing it post reform reminds me why that’s such a bad idea.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that between 2010 and 2019, tort reform will save about $54 billion and so that’s all the GOP plan can cost (the actual amendment came in at $61 billion, so they had some other savings). That’s the cap — about 6% of the cost of the current health law. And the CBO estimates that the Republican plan — also known as the Boehner proposal — would cover just 3 million people and actually increase the number of uninsured to 52 million by 2019. Deficits would decrease by $68 billion over the 2010–2019 period and the bill could slightly reduce premiums for Americans who purchase coverage independently.
So that’s really the choice: you can keep the current law, which covers some 30 million Americans or you can switch to this, which will increase the number of uninsured. That’s the choice Pence is presenting.
The WonkLine: July 20, 2010
The WonkLine: July 20, 2010
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 9:30 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security, immigration and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Climate Change
Due to “concerns the cap it installed last week could be allowing oil and gas to seep out the sides,” BP “could use a new method of closing off the well by pumping heavy drilling fluid into the top—an operation similar to the ‘top kill’ procedure that failed in May.”
According to new data released by the International Energy Agency, “China has passed the U.S. to become the world’s biggest energy consumer,” consuming “2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent last year, about 4% more than the U.S.”
Heavy rain in China has led to “floods and landslides” that “have left scores of people dead and missing in recent days.”
Health Care
“Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is asserting she had no involvement in discussing the government’s response to a lawsuit against the health care reform legislation passed earlier this year.”
“President Obama still wants the Senate to confirm Donald Berwick as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and he resubmitted his nomination to the Senate on Monday.”
“In the early implementation of health reform, states with the most progressive health policies are having a more difficult experience than others locking down a share of the $5 billion of federal funding for new high-risk pools.”
National Security
“Afghan President Hamid Karzai has closed a major international conference in Kabul with a call for his country to control its own security by 2014.”
“Iran’s parliament authorized tit-for-tat retaliation Tuesday against countries that inspect cargo on Iranian ships and aircraft as part of new U.N. sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear program.”
“The top American military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, says the United States will continue to conduct military exercises in the international waters of the Yellow Sea, in spite of strong objections from the Chinese government. The Pentagon confirmed last week that there will soon be joint U.S.-South Korean naval exercises in both the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.”
Economy
With the swearing in of Carte Goodwin as the new senator for West Virginia, “Senate Democrats are poised to break a partisan stalemate on Tuesday over extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans.”
Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman Sachs Group trader “at the center of the government’s fraud probe against the firm, denied regulatory charges that he misled investors,” telling the SEC that that he isn’t responsible for “for any alleged failings” made by the firm.
“A reconciled bill to fund the Federal Aviation Administration could be ready this week,” reports The Hill, with a provision correcting an inequity in labor law that benefits FedEx likely to come up in a separate vote.
In Memoriam: Stephen Schneider
In Memoriam: Stephen Schneider
Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the greatest minds of the science of climate change, has died at the age of 65. Schneider advised every presidential administration since Nixon, founded the journal Climatic Change, was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers. He was also a unique voice, clearly expressing the threat of manmade global warming to the general public for over three decades. As he said in a 1979 appearance as a young scientist with an Eric-Bogosian mop of hair:
We’re insulting our global environment at a faster rate than we’re understanding it.
Watch it:
On September 2, 2005, as the Gulf Coast reeled from Hurricane Katrina, Dr. Schneider appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher:
Every time we try to talk about getting a tax on these emissions, we’re told it’s an interference in the free market, as if we should get our garbage collected for free.
Watch it:
In one of his last media appearances, the oft-smeared Dr. Schneider participated in a podcast with ClimateScienceWatch about his recent paper, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” co-authored with blogger Jim Prall, Jacob Harold, and lead author William Anderegg. A moon-faced Schneider vehemently explained that credible expertise is a life-and-death matter:
It really matters what your credentials are. If you have a heart arrhythmia, as I do, and I also have a cardiologist — and you also have an oncological problem, as I do, I’m not going to my cancer doc to ask him about my heart medicine and my cardiologist to ask about my chemo, I’m going to the experts. Who is an expert really matters. People with no expertise, their opinion frankly doesn’t matter much on complex issues, and in my opinion, shouldn’t even be quoted about complex details of science.
Watch it:
His most recent book, Science as a Contact Sport, is a delightful work reminiscent of Richard Feynman’s memoirs, full of amusing anecdotes and remarkable breakthroughs that reveal both a diamond-hard scientific mind and an effervescent joy for life.
I tried to catch him for an interview at the Copenhagen climate conference last December, but we couldn’t make our schedules mesh. Fortunately for myself and the rest of the human race, Dr. Schneider will live on through his great opus of work. Sadly, time is running out for us to honor his legacy by turning back the black tide of global warming.
Blaming The Health Care Law For Everything
Blaming The Health Care Law For Everything
In his latest Kaiser Health News column, Jonathan Cohn points to two health care trends in today’s papers (”Firms Cancel Health Coverage“) and (“Insurers Push Plans Limiting Patient Choice of Doctors“) and explains why reform is not to blame:
Insofar as the articles report broader trends–and they may not–they actually chronicle the same basic process at work. Health care is getting more expensive; the economy is still sputtering. Employers who provide and help pay for employee coverage can react to this in one of two ways. They can stop offering insurance altogether, which is what the Globe reports some small Massachusetts firms are doing. Or they can simply offer less generous policies, which is what the Times suggest will happen in those three cities. [...]
But what about the people who watch as employers whittle down coverage, restricting which doctors and hospitals they can see? Again, this happened before and was bound to happen again–only now, thanks to health reform, the law will limit how plans can do it. They can’t impose cost-sharing for basic preventive care. They can’t impose annual or lifetime dollar caps on benefits. And while they can limit beneficiaries to certain doctors and hospitals, they have to offer beneficiaries the right to appeal treatment denials–and the right to get treatment out-of-network if it’s not available in-network.
And that’s perhaps one of the ironies of reform: critics and the general public will blame the law for causing the very same long-existing problems that it seeks to ameliorate. (Remember when conservatives faulted the new grandfather regulations for forcing Americans out of their existing insurance plans, when in reality the regulations discourageed employers and insurers from stiffing beneficiaries with very higher costs?)
Over the short term, any anxiety about the changing insurance market or the shift from employer-based coverage will be blamed on the Democrats and reform. Stories like this one about businesses anxieties and loss of employer-sponsored coverage are and will continue to dominate the media. Only successful implementation of reform and time will change this narrative.
New Study Confirms That Poverty Is Feeding AIDS Epidemic
New Study Confirms That Poverty Is Feeding AIDS Epidemic
A new report commissioned by the CDC and presented this morning at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna finds that “[p]overty is perhaps the most important factor in whether inner-city heterosexuals are infected with the AIDS virus.” The report, which excluded men who have sex with men and drug users, examined 9,000 heterosexual adults living in some 23 cities and detected HIV “in 2.4 percent of the people who were living below the federal poverty line” and a significantly lower 1.2 percent of people “who made more money than the federal poverty guideline.”
From CDC’s press release:
Prevalence was especially high in those with the lowest socioeconomic status. Within the low income urban areas included in the study, individuals living below the poverty line were at greater risk for HIV than those living above it (2.4 percent prevalence vs. 1.2 percent), though prevalence for both groups was far higher than the national average (0.45 percent)….The absence of race-based differences in this analysis is likely due to existing high prevalence of HIV in poor urban areas, which – regardless of race or ethnicity – places individuals living in these areas at greater risk for exposure to HIV with each sexual encounter.
Authors note that other factors associated with poverty also likely contribute to high HIV prevalence in these settings. Some of these factors include limited health care access, which can reduce utilization of HIV testing and prevention services; substance abuse, which can increase sexual risk behavior; and high rates of incarceration, which can disrupt the stability of relationships.
Of course, the absence of race-base differences doesn’t mean that they don’t exist; it suggests that black people are disproportionately affected by AIDS not because they are disproportionately poor. In fact, given that black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to live in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty than other racial and ethnic groups, the study’s participants were 77% black, 15% Hispanic and only 4% white.
As the Black AIDS Institute put it, “We believe this is essentially a difference without a distinction.” The gap in AIDS rates have been “driven by social determinants of health: socioeconomic status, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, high rates of incarceration, man sharing (knowingly and unknowingly) due to gender imbalances, lack of access to healthcare, lack of a regular health provider and low HIV literacy.” Black people “are disproportionately poor” and “when Whites and Latinos live in poor Black communities, they are negatively impacted by the same social determinants that undermine the health of their Black neighbors.”
“Black people still bare the brunt of the AIDS epidemic in America today,” the organization notes. “This study demonstrates one of the reasons why. Race matters and so does poverty. Black people are disproportionately impacted by HIV; Black people are disproportionately poor. ‘You say tomato; I say tomato.’” The CDC’s own statistics demonstrate this reality:
Obama’s new AIDS initiative re-allocates “more attention and resources” to “populations at highest risk of HIV infection,” including Black and Latino Americans — many of whom are living in poverty. The initiative also instructs federal agencies to consider additional efforts to support housing assistance and community clinics and notes that under the health law, poorer Americans will be eligible for Medicaid coverage.
Kyl Obstructs Small Business Tax Cuts In Order To Protect Small Businesses From Imaginary Tax Increase
Kyl Obstructs Small Business Tax Cuts In Order To Protect Small Businesses From Imaginary Tax Increase
Today, President Obama pressed Congress to approve a pending bill that provides tax credits to small businesses and sets up a lending fund to get credit to businesses that are having trouble finding loans. “We must continue our efforts to do everything in our power to spur growth and hiring. And I hope the Senate acts this week on a package of tax cuts and expanded lending for small businesses,” he said.
One of the reasons that the bill Obama referenced hasn’t made its way through the Senate is that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been threatening to bog it down with his proposed cut in the estate tax, which would send $91 billion in tax cuts to the richest of the rich. But Kyl is claiming that his obstruction of the small business bill is actually an attempt to protect small businesses from tax rates that he says are “going to skyrocket”:
If the Small Business Lending bill is intended to help small business create jobs, wouldn’t it make sense to provide small business owners with the certainty that their tax rates aren’t going to skyrocket at the beginning of next year?
It definitely does make sense to ensure that tax rates don’t “skyrocket” on small businesses, and Kyl is presumably worried that allowing the estate tax to reset to its 2001 level, as current law stipulates, will do just that. But even if we grant Kyl’s premise, all that’s needed to avoid that outcome is for the Senate to approve a bill to approve a bill which has already passed the House that will permanently set the estate tax at the 2009 level. However, it was Kyl himself who blocked that plan, in his zeal to cut taxes for the super rich.
In fact, just like Kyl’s position on the Bush tax cuts proves that he doesn’t really care about deficits, his position on the estate tax proves that he doesn’t really care about small businesses. After all, at the 2009 level, just 0.25 percent of estates will have any estate tax liability at all. And just 1.3 percent of that 0.25 percent will be composed of estates with significant small business assets.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that at the 2009 level, just 110 small businesses in the entire country will owe any estate tax in 2011. Of these, all but a handful will have sufficient assets to pay the tax, and the exceedingly few that don’t “have other options — such as spreading their payments over a 14-year period — that would allow them to pay the tax without selling off any” assets.
In all, less than one quarter of one percent of the total cost of Kyl’s tax cut would actually end up in the hands of small businesses; the rest would simply go to further enriching the rich. So either Kyl has no idea what the practical implications of his stated policy preference are, or he’s using small businesses as a convenient prop to knowingly push through tax cuts for the rich. Either way, his professed concern over an imaginary tax hike on small businesses is getting in the way of small businesses receiving actual relief.
‘Ex-Gay’ Life Coach Forced Patients To Touch Themselves
‘Ex-Gay’ Life Coach Forced Patients To Touch Themselves
Right on the heels of Family Research Council’s George Rekers scandal, Truth Wins Out has a new video exposing how a major figure in the so-called ex-gay movement forced his male clients to touch themselves during “therapy” sessions:
Truth Wins Out (TWO) released an exclusive video statement today from two former clients of “ex-gay” life coach Alan Downing. The clients, Ben Unger and Chaim Levin, alleged that during individual therapy sessions, Downing (pictured) made them undress in front of a mirror and touch their bodies while the significantly older therapist watched. Unger and Levin call the sessions a “psychological striptease” and believe they were harmed by what they consider unprofessional behavior and sexual misconduct.
Downing, who admits he is still attracted to men, is a major player in the “ex-gay” industry and a practitioner of so-called “reparative therapy”. He is the lead therapist for Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) and is listed on the People Can Change website as a “Senior Trainer” for Journey into Manhood, which is a controversial “ex-gay” backwoods retreat designed to supposedly make gay men more masculine.
Watch the testimonials:
Major medical associations have condemned the ex-gay movement. “The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great,” the American Psychiatric Association warns, “including depression, anxiety and self destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self hatred already experienced by the patient.” “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed,” the American Psychological Association has concluded.
According to Truth Wins Out, the anti-gay movement grew in response to the flourishing gay communities in New York and San Francisco, which “presented a challenge to conservative churches.” “Influenced by the miracle-seeking Jesus Movement, the ex-gay ministries adopted name and claim theology. Essentially, this meant if you kept repeating you had “changed” — even if you had not — God would eventually grant you the miracle of heterosexuality as a reward for your faith.” Almost every ex-gay group has been rocked with scandal when their supposedly converted “straight” success stories are caught having sexual relations with other men. As Unger says in the video, “I’ve literally never met somebody coming out of that therapy who turned straight.”
In April, CNN invited “ex gay” Richard Cohen to ask if “homosexuality, is a problem in need of a cure.” After a grassroots campaign by LGBT bloggers and activists, the network admitted that “Richard Cohen was not the most appropriate guest to have on” and interviewed a psychologist who debunked the notion of reparative therapy.
Today, “the main financier and facilitator of ex-gay ministries is Focus on the Family, which hosts a quarterly symposium called Love Won Out.”
Gregg On The GOP Blocking Extended Jobless Benefits: We ‘Caught Up With’ Bunning
Gregg On The GOP Blocking Extended Jobless Benefits: We ‘Caught Up With’ Bunning
Back in February, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), backed by a handful of Republican Senators, took a well-publicized stand against an extension of unemployment benefits, repeatedly objecting to motions to move the extension and telling Democrats trying to approve the benefits, “tough sh*t.”
One month later, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) expressed regret that Republicans hadn’t supported Bunning en masse, saying, “we didn’t give him as much help as we probably should have.” And the Senate GOP seems to have taken that to heart, as today Bloomberg details how “almost every Republican” in the Senate is now jumping aboard the Bunning express:
It turns out U.S. Senator Jim Bunning was ahead of the curve. Four months after the Kentucky Republican made colleagues squirm by blocking an extension of unemployment benefits for Americans out of work long-term, the party has adopted his cause as its own…“Our party caught up with the people Bunning was already with,” said New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg.
“This is the issue across the country,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). “We’ve had a few primaries and elections along the way and people understand the ferocity of the public’s view on this.”
Actually, it would seem that people don’t understand the “ferocity of the public’s view” when it comes to this issue, as a recent Gallup poll showed that 60 percent of Americans favor additional government spending in order to boost job creation. Just today, a group of leading economists released a “manifesto calling for more government stimulus and tax credits to put America back to work.” “The urgent need is for government to replace the lost purchasing power of the unemployed and their families and to employ other tax-cut and spending programs to boost demand,” they wrote.
The Republicans blocking these extensions claim to be doing so because they don’t want to add to the deficit. But even deficit hawks aren’t buying that rationale. “Attacking that is not attacking the real deficit issue,” said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition (which does nothing but advocate for balanced budgets). “Unemployment benefits seem to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Due to the Republican filibuster, almost 3.2 million Americans have seen benefits that they expected to receive unceremoniously yanked away, at a time when there are five workers for every job opening and 45.5 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least six months. Never before has Congress allowed benefits to lapse with unemployment so high.
Fortunately, Carte Goodwin, who is replacing the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the Senate, will be sworn in tomorrow, and with his vote, Democratic leaders are “optimistic” that they can “break the impasse and restore the benefits.” Today, President Obama pushed for the GOP to give up on its obstruction. “For a long time, there’s been a tradition – under both Democratic and Republican presidents – to offer relief to the unemployed. That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican Senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits – benefits that are often a person’s sole source of income while they’re out of work – are in jeopardy,” he said.
Daschle: GOP Must Choose Between Mitt Romney Or The U.S. Military
Daschle: GOP Must Choose Between Mitt Romney Or The U.S. Military
In a powerful and hard-hitting address at the Center for American Progress this morning on the New START treaty, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle took treaty opponents to task for playing politics with America’s nuclear security.
The New START treaty — which needs 67 votes to be ratified — is entering a critical phase as a vote is expected soon with hearings having concluded in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Daschle noted that Republicans in the Senate face a stark choice in their upcoming votes between politics and governing, between Mitt Romney or “the entire U.S. military establishment“:
There is no clearer example of plain and simple short-term politics at play than on New START, and we can’t afford to let that rule the day, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons. … But New START is so widely acknowledged to be the right move that it presents conservatives in Congress with a clear choice: They can choose politics, or they can choose governing. They can choose Mitt Romney, or they can choose the entire U.S. military establishment. They can choose a world with a greater risk of nuclear disorder, or one with less. On this issue, there is simply no in between. Some have already decided that denying the President a victory is more important than America’s national security interests. But I know there are many who don’t share that view, and to them, I say that the consequences of choosing politics over governing are real.
Watch it:
In his 25-minute address, Daschle also called out by name the seven Republican Senators who voted for the original START treaty, which passed 93-6. He noted that “common sense says they should be consistent,” since the reasons for continuing with the START treaty framework have only grown. He also pointed out that any Republicans that are suspicious of Russian intentions should vote for the treaty, because the New START treaty allows the US to put boots on the ground to monitor and inspect Russia’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Therefore, every day that goes by without New START our military is losing valuable intelligence. This is why the senior leadership of the US military unanimously endorsed the treaty.
Daschle also explained why the failure to ratify new START could have huge consequences. He noted that there is an asymmetry in the treaties impact. While New START is modest and largely maintains the nuclear status quo, its failure in the Senate could have tremendously dire implications for our national security – potentially leading to an international state of “nuclear anarchy.” He explained:
What international unity currently exists to stop nuclear proliferation, to counter nuclear terrorism, and to confront Iran would fray and possibly even collapse. Should New START fail… American credibility on nuclear issues would evaporate. Countries belonging to the NPT would then ask a very simple question: If the U.S. is unwilling to live up to its commitments, why should we live up to ours? And if the U.S. is unwilling to ratify even a modest arms-control treaty, what obligation do we have to maintain the status quo and not pursue nuclear weapons ourselves?
That is how we fall past the nuclear tipping point – the point at which the nuclear dam breaks and countries large and small, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, from the Middle East to Africa, decide that their national security interests would be enhanced by possessing the bomb… Rejecting New START has real potential to push the world into a state of nuclear anarchy.
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
