Dodd: It’s Not Worth A Fight To Get Elizabeth Warren Confirmed As CFPB Director
Dodd: It’s Not Worth A Fight To Get Elizabeth Warren Confirmed As CFPB Director
When it first looked like Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren might stand a serious chance of getting appointed at the first director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a regulatory agency which she was the first to suggest — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) poo-pooed the notion, saying there’s a “serious question” about whether Warren is “confirmable.”
The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber wrote that “after surveying a dozen insiders over the last few days — congressional aides, industry officials, progressive activists, and a few administration officials — I’ve concluded that the odds are good that Warren would be confirmed if nominated by the White House.” And Dodd now seems to have shifted his rhetoric, saying that even if Warren is confirmable, it’s not worth a potential fight to get her the job:
What you don’t need to have is an eight-month battle for who the director or the head or chairperson of this new consumer financial protection bureau will be.
Watch it:
Dodd pretty clearly would prefer that current Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Shelia Bair receive the nod, but Bair has said that she’s not interested in the job. “I did some checking on Sheila Bair and I was going to have very little difficulty getting Sheila Bair confirmed,” said Dodd. “I’d probably confirm her in a couple of days. That’s how strongly people felt, Democrats and Republicans.”
Bair certainly has the credentials to do the job, as she was one of the first federal officials warning about the proliferation of subprime loans during the buildup of the housing bubble. But she’s doing very important work at the FDIC, and as The Wonk Room explains, there’s simply no reason for passing over Warren.
Leaving aside Warren’s qualifications, it makes little sense that Dodd feels a political fight here isn’t worth it. Warren is an unabashed, articulate consumer advocate, and her nomination would set up a clear choice: consumers or the banks. After having overwhelmingly voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, Republicans standing against her nomination would once again be siding with the financial services industry. It’s worth the fight to show that dynamic at work.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
- Comments
- 222
Pawlenty’s Plan To Extend The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy: Take From The Middle Class
Pawlenty’s Plan To Extend The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy: Take From The Middle Class
As Republicans double down on the need to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, most have been unwilling to a offer a way to pay for the lost revenue they represent, while others have concocted a fantasy world where tax cuts pay for themselves.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt yesterday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) called for the extension of all the Bush tax cuts, and at least attempted to provide a way to pay for them — use unspent stimulus money to find $40 billion:
HUNT: Okay, alright. $40 billion is what those [Bush tax cuts for the wealthy] cost in one year. Where you take the $40 billion from?
PAWLENTY: That’s easy. You can start by going back and looking at the stimulus package, which is still half unspent, which is not a good package. That could be redesigned and redeployed. And number two, if you look at the growth in federal spending, whether it’s in the entitlement side or the mandatory outlay side or on the discretionary side, you could easily find $40 billion.
Watch it:
First of all, Pawlenty’s figure of $40 billion is pathetic. Renewing the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans alone would cost $830 billion over ten years, more than 20 times the amount Pawlenty thinks he can find in the stimulus.
But more importantly, Pawlenty is suggesting taking tax cuts away from the middle class in order to give them to the rich. Contrary to conservative talking points, the stimulus package actually cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, and there are still $55 billion in tax benefits that have yet to be expended. So removing funds from the stimulus to pay for tax cuts amounts to raising taxes on all of those people.
The tax benefits in the stimulus include the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which will give up to $400 to working individuals and $800 for working married couples this year; the Additional Child Tax Credit, which makes more families eligible for tax credits; and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which increases tax credits to taxpayers with three or more children. Bottom line: Pawlenty’s proposal is to take money from the middle class and give it to the rich.
Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award.
Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award.
CNN host and Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria has returned a prestigious award given to him by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), saying he is “stunned” at their decision to oppose the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. From his column:
The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.
On his CNN show this Sunday (which was pre-taped), Zakaria further says that he was “personally and deeply saddened” by the ADL’s stance. In a response letter to Zakaria, Foxman writes, “I am not only saddened but stunned and somewhat speechless by your decision.”
Conservatives Go After Judges Who Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality
Conservatives Go After Judges Who Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality
On Wednesday, Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, issued a landmark ruling declaring the state’s ban on marriage equality unconstitutional and without any “rational basis.” His opinion was widely praised by legal scholars, with Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick writing that “nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today.”
The right wing is trying nevertheless, as they have in other states where judges ruled that denying same-sex couples marriage rights is unconstitutional. They have called for impeaching the judges, launched political campaigns to oust them, and perhaps most disturbingly, perpetrated nasty whisper campaigns about their personal lives:
– Impeachment: The right wing is already calling for the impeachment of Walker, whose main crime seems to be issuing a decision with which it disagrees. The American Family Association (AFA) sent out one of its many action alerts yesterday, saying that Walker “frustrated the express will of seven million Californians.” Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, said that after her decision legalizing marriage equality, opponents “hired a small plane to fly for weeks over Boston” — including over her apartment building — trailing a banner reading, “Impeach Margaret Marshall.”
– Political Campaigns: Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that marriage equality is legal. Scholars said that while the decision was “politically divisive,” it was “legally sound.” Critics, however, have launched Common Sense PAC, an effort to vote three of the justices who are up for a “retention vote” in November out of office. Common Sense PAC has “spent $2,272, and had $1,392 on hand as of July 15,” and it is erecting black plywood signs that are “designed to look like a ballot, with red check marks in the “No” column for each justice.”
– Personal Attacks: The right wing is currently engaged in a vicious smear campaign to dismiss Walker’s opinion by arguing that he is gay. AFA wrote its supporters that Walker is an “open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.” MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan said Walker must be gay because it was “unnatural” for an “older white guy” to support marriage equality. The right wing similarly went after Marshall in 2004, saying that she allegedly “colluded with homosexuals.”
These attacks are nothing more than sour grapes and grasping for straws. As NPR’s Karen Grigsby Bates has pointed out, conservatives had no problems with Walker’s sexuality when it was first announced that he would be the judge. Supporters of Prop. 8 “did not ask that he be recused from it. They didn’t think that he’d have a conflict in overseeing it,” she said. President George H.W. Bush also nominated Walker, who was opposed by many Democrats for being perceived as anti-gay.
Asked multiple times, Cantor can’t name a single thing he would do to reduce the deficit.
Asked multiple times, Cantor can’t name a single thing he would do to reduce the deficit.
Earlier this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) admitted what many of his Republican colleagues will not: that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans will “dig the hole deeper” when it comes to the deficit. But that hasn’t changed Cantor’s desire to spend $830 billion to extend the cuts anyway. But if the tax cuts were actually extended, how would Cantor go about reducing the deficit? Today, Robert Barbera, chief economist of Mount Lucas Management — who seems sympathetic to extending all of the Bush tax cuts himself — asked Cantor three times what he would do to get the long-term budget deficit under control if the cuts were extended. “Excuse me, do you have any proposals about out-year cuts in entitlement expenditures?” he asked. The results were predictable:
CANTOR: First of all, let’s just talk about these so-called tax cuts. If you look at the entrepreneurs and small and large businesses out there, nobody’s getting a tax cut. One of two things is going to happen in January. Taxes go up or they stay the same.
BARBERA: No, no, no, I agree. I want my taxes to stay the same. I agree with you. I’m just saying if the contention is that we have a large expenditure problem, can’t you attach to this, and end the debate, some cuts in out-year entitlement spending? You’re saying we need to cut spending, so let’s cut spending.
CANTOR: Absolutely, listen, we’ve got spending to cut in the short-term, and what we’ve got is a huge problem in the long-term, where we’ve got to get serious about it. You’re absolutely right.
BARBERA: We could get serious about it now. In other words, there’s nothing preventing you from saying ‘I would propose that we cut, ten years out, expenditures on Social Security by blank.’ You could do that today. You could put out a press release.
Watch it:
Cantor finally came to the eloquent conclusion that we need a “commitment to long-term address these situations.” As the Wonk Room explains further, the GOP’s collective inability to name any solutions for the deficit shows that they’re fundamentally disinterested in serious budgeting. Of course, considering that Cantor’s “big idea” for job creation is “to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again,” his performance really isn’t surprising.
Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon.
Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon.
In opposing the planned Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City, conservative stalwarts have picked up on right-wing extremists’ paranoid hysteria over the initiative. In an interview with RealClearPolitics today, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) joined Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, and many others in attacking the plan as an “inappropriate” affront to 9/11 victims. Deeming the site “hallowed” and “sacred ground,” he asserted that “we shouldn’t have images or activities that degrade or disrespect [the site] in anyway.” But, as Salon’s Justin Elliott points out, Pawlenty and company are “strangely silent” over the fact that “Muslims have been praying inside the Pentagon since Sept. 11″:
Yes, Muslims have infiltrated the Pentagon for their nefarious, prayerful purposes — daring to practice their religion inside the building where 184 people died on Sept. 11, 2001. They haven’t even had the sensitivity to move two blocks, let alone a mile, away from that sacred site.
In noting the Pentagon’s Ramadan celebrations and a Qur’an reading at a 9/11 memorial service one month after the attack, Elliott points out that “no one has ever heard about Muslims praying at the Pentagon — let alone cared.” “It’s almost as if the entire ‘ground zero mosque’ controversy was whipped up out of nothing by a right-wing tabloid and politicians in search of a wedge issue,” he said. (HT: Daily Kos)
Is McCain now ‘waving a white flag to al Qaeda’?
Is McCain now ‘waving a white flag to al Qaeda’?
Last night, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) called for unanimous consent to bring the Defense Authorization bill to the floor of the Senate after the August recess. The bill includes an amendment to begin the process of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who earlier in the day reassured reporters that he woud not filibuster the measure, objected, citing his opposition to the DADT amendment:
MCCAIN: I’m not going to allow us to move forward and I will be discussing with out leaders and the 41 members of this side of the aisle as to whether we’re going to move forward with a bill that contains a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy repealed before, before a meaningful survey on the impact of battle effectiveness and morale on the men and women who are serving this nation in uniform. It’s again…moving forward with a social agenda on legislation that was intended to ensure this nation’s security.
Watch it:
During the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain accused Obama — who at the time voted against the defense authorization measure because it did not include a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq — of embracing the policy of surrender and called his vote “the equivalent of waving a white flag to al-Qaeda.” The Wonk Room peels back the layers of hypocrisy surrounding McCain’s claims.
Opponent Of Cordoba House Is Building A Museum On Top Of A Muslim Cemetery In Jerusalem
Opponent Of Cordoba House Is Building A Museum On Top Of A Muslim Cemetery In Jerusalem
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center appeared on Fox News yesterday to argue against the Cordoba House project in lower Manhattan. “It’s a great idea, it’s the wrong location,” Hier said. “It’s very insensitive.”
HIER: For 3000 families, the 9/11 site is one of the — is the site of one of the greatest atrocities ever committed in the United States, and it’s a cemetery. And the opinion of the families should be paramount as to what should go near that site. Now having a fifteen-story mosque within 1600 feet of the site is at the very least insensitive.
Watch it:
Interestingly, while Hier believes that Ground Zero should be treated as a cemetery, Hier’s own organization is currently building a “Museum of Tolerance” atop an actual cemetery — the Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim graveyard in Jerusalem “with thousands of grave sites that go back some 1200 years.” The planned museum has caused a huge international uproar, causing celebrity architect Frank Gehry to withdraw from the project.
In February 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other groups filed a petition on behalf of the Palestinian descendants of those buried in the Mamilla Cemetery. The petition claimed:
A significant portion of the cemetery is being destroyed and hundreds of human remains are being desecrated so that SWC can build a facility to be called the “Center for Human Dignity – Museum of Tolerance” on this sacred Muslim site.
Great idea. Wrong location.
Howard Dean Launches Misguided Attack On Health Reform
Howard Dean Launches Misguided Attack On Health Reform
Speaking on MSNBC this morning, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D) made the wildly incorrect claim that the provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring almost all Americans to carry insurance is not “essential to the plan”:
DEAN: [T]he truth is the mandate’s not essential to the plan anyway. It never was essential to the plan. They did it in Massachusetts and had a mandate, but we have universal health care for kids in my state without a mandate. … I made this prediction before and I’m going to make it again: by the time this thing goes into effect in 2014, I think the mandate will be gone either through the courts or because it’s unpopular. You don’t need it. There will be two or three percent of the people who cheat. That is not enough to bring the system to a halt and people don’t like to be told what to do.
Watch it:
Sadly, Dean — who has been a leading progressive champion for health reform — is simply wrong about the mandate. As MIT economist Jonathan Gruber explains, this provision is essential to any health reform package that forbids discrimination against persons with preexisting conditions:
Insurance companies are also prohibited from excluding coverage due to preexisting illnesses. This is a highly popular reform, but it doesn’t work in a vacuum. If insurance companies must charge the same price to people whether they’re sick or healthy many healthy people will view this as a “bad deal” and not buy insurance. This results in higher prices that chase even more people out of the market. The result is a “death spiral” that leads only the sick to purchase insurance at very high prices. Several states tried such community rating reforms—offering health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons without medical underwriting—in their nongroup markets over the past two decades, and sharp rises in insurance prices ensued along with rapidly shrinking market size.
An amicus brief that I co-wrote on behalf of seventeen disease and health organizations goes into more detail. It explains that seven states attempted to ban preexisting conditions discrimination without also requiring everyone to carry a minimum level of coverage, and all of them saw their premiums skyrocket. According to a scholarly study of Vermont’s health plan, Vermont’s premiums shot up after it enacted a ban on preexisting conditions discrimination but no mandate in 1993. Between 1994 and 1996, most of the country only experienced single-digit increases in its insurance costs. In Vermont, however, average premiums increased by 16 percent during this same two year period.
In Massachusetts, the one state to enact a minimum coverage provision along with its ban on discrimination, the numbers are very different. There, individual premiums fell a massive 40 percent in the years after Massachusetts’ minimum coverage law went into effect, while the rest of the nation experienced a 14 percent increase.
Dean’s claim that the courts may strike down the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision is also misguided. No one questions that a ban on discrimination against persons with preexisting conditions is constitutional, and, as even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia admits, when Congress passes a constitutional law “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”
Whitehouse Assails GOP’s ‘Violation Of The Courtesies And Traditions Of The Senate’ Over Judicial Nominee
Whitehouse Assails GOP’s ‘Violation Of The Courtesies And Traditions Of The Senate’ Over Judicial Nominee
Before the Senate officially recessed last night, the chamber unanimously confirmed dozens of executive nominations, including three federal district court judges and one circuit court judge. Because of a Senate rule on recesses of a certain length, the remaining unconfirmed nominees will need to have their appointments resubmitted by the White House when the Senate returns in September.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) came to the floor yesterday evening to request unanimous consent to waive this requirement for John McConnell, a federal district court judge nominee for Rhode Island. While noting how Senators’ preferences on district court nominees for their home states are usually deferred to, he said the re-submission rule “adds nothing to the process other than…deliberate and unnecessary hassle.” However, Republican Senators had already “bolt[ed] town en masse,” so Whitehouse respected “the Senate’s long-standing tradition that the majority party does no business without a member of the minority party present.”
Still, he expressed his frustration about “holding myself back out of respect for the traditions and courtesies of the Senate,” while Republicans — who couldn’t be bothered to tend to their official duties — left him “on the loosing end of a violation of the courtesies and traditions of the Senate”:
WHITEHOUSE: Well, I’m in an interesting predicament here. I am informed that there is no one from the minority party in town that with the end of the session, everybody is headed home, and therefore there is no one around to respond to my request for a unanimous consent. I will confess that I’m inclined to take advantage of this moment by propounding the unanimous consent, which I would obviously win.
The presiding officer would grant the order because there would be no objection. But I also believe that to do so would be inconsistent with the courtesies and the traditions of the Senate. And so I will not take that step at this time, but it is frustrating to be in this position of holding myself back out of respect for the traditions and courtesies of the Senate when I feel that at the moment I’m on the loosing end of a violation of the courtesies and traditions of the Senate.
Watch it:
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved McConnell’s nomination by a 13-6 vote in mid-June, and his confirmation has been pending on the Senate floor ever since. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “has launched an extraordinary campaign against seating McConnell” because he’s represented plaintiffs in lawsuits against companies for asbestos and lead-paint safety violations.
Last week, a Center for American Progress report by Ian Millhiser explained how the Senate Republicans’ rate of obstructing judicial nominees is unprecedented. The obstruction has even “extended like a blanket over” district court nominees, who have been “historically uncontroversial” and largely unopposed. Overall, the Senate has only confirmed around 40 percent of Obama’s judicial nominees, even though “every modern president saw 80 percent or more of his judicial nominees confirmed.” Because Senate rules let the minority party delay and obstruct action on the floor to an extreme degree, Millhiser explains that “to get the 48 pending nominees confirmed, the Senate would have to do nothing else for the next 120 days, working around the clock, 24/7.”
DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’
DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’
During a lengthy speech on the Senate floor yesterday about his opposition to the confirmation of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) went on a tangent, claiming the ongoing economic downturn “was not Bush’s recession” but was a “result of Democrat economic polices”:
DEMINT: The decision that have been made about our economy over the last couple of years have brought our economy to its knees. This is no longer something we can blame on President Bush. In fact, the Democrats have been in control of policy making, economic policy spending, for four years now. This is not Bush’s recession. This is the result of Democrat economic polices. This nomination will continue our move in the wrong direction.
Watch it:
Even the staunchly conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board understood it was Bush’s recession, writing in early 2009 that Bush’s comment that “Wall Street got drunk and we got a hangover,” “reveals how little the President comprehends about the source of his Administration’s economic undoing. To extend his metaphor, Who does Mr. Bush think was serving the liquor?” Even if one ignores everything after 2006, Bush still had the worst record of job creation in 40 years.
Moreover, the economy only began to recover after President Obama and the Democratic Congress passed the stimulus package in early 2009. Since then, the GDP has grown, the financial sector has recovered, and — while the overall employment situation is still bleak — private sector job growth has rebounded:
In a recent report, two leading economists “empirically proved” that the Obama’s stimulus package and other interventionist measures “helped avert a second Depression.” Without the stimulus package, GDP would have been 2 percent lower and an additional 2.7 million jobs would have been lost, they found. Meanwhile, “On every major measurement” of economic growth, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, citing Census data.
It’s odd that DeMint — a tea party leader who has tried to distance himself from Bush — would defend the former president. Bush’s economic record is clear — “the worst track record for job creation” of any modern president, anemic income growth, and increased poverty — but as Republicans attempt to repackage Bush’s failed economic policies as something new, perhaps it’s not surprising that DeMint is trying to resurrect Bush’s legacy.
Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attacks On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’
Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attacks On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’
Last Friday, President Obama visited General Motors and Chrysler plants in Detroit, MI to resoundingly reaffirm the administration’s decision last year “to rescue the ailing auto industry.” While visiting the GM plant, the President test drove Chevrolet’s highly touted electric car, the Volt. In anticipation of Obama’s visit to Detroit, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a campaign to deride Chevrolet’s electric vehicle, attacking “everything from the federal bailout of Chevy’s parent General Motors Corp. to the supposed superiority complex of people who would buy electric or hybrid cars.”
At a Center for American Progress event yesterday entitled “Securing Michigan’s Clean Energy Future,” Think Progress spoke with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) about Limbaugh’s high-handed criticisms of the Chevy Volt. Granholm — a passionate advocate of clean energy as an avenue of job growth and economic revitalization — said Limbaugh’s claims are “just un-American.” She also pointed out that the Volt is a “‘good’ new story” and GM has successfully paid back its loans to the public:
Q: And we know you’ve had the disaster in the Gulf, you’ve had an oil spill in your own state. You know, you guys are doing a lot in making these investments in batteries and in new care. And here you have people like Rush Limbaugh, come out and say that the Volt is an “overpriced lemon.” What do you say to critics?
GRANHOLM: It’s just un-American. I can’t believe that somebody would say this about this American product. He hasn’t even driven it. He hasn’t sat in it. You know, why wouldn’t you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers, who now have jobs as a result of this. Why wouldn’t you be supportive of that? It is mind-blowing to me. And of course, the public is getting paid back. You know, GM has paid back the loan — the bottom line is, is this is a “good” news story, and somebody who would twist it to be something negative obviously has another agenda. Which we all know he does.
Watch it:
During his vitriolic attack on the Volt last week, Limbaugh announced “with no small amount of pride that he turned down General Motors’ lucrative offer to continue advertising for the company because his strong principles would not allow him to recommend to people the Chevy Volt.” Last year, however, the hate radio host was singing quite a different tune. As Media Matter notes, when GM’s advertising dollars began flowing to his network in April 2009, Limbaugh eagerly endorsed the auto company’s payment protection plan despite lambasting GM only weeks earlier.
Bill O’Reilly asks why Obama has not come out in favor of same-sex marriages.
Bill O’Reilly asks why Obama has not come out in favor of same-sex marriages.
Lately, Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has been flanking to the left of President Obama on gay rights issues. Late last month, O’Reilly suggested that the President should “sign an executive order” ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). And yesterday, during a segment about U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8, O’Reilly wondered why Obama has not come out in support of same-sex marriages:
O’REILLY: But why do you think he opposes it?
HOLDER: I don’t know. I mean, I wish we could get a reason from him…. I wish we could get a reason from him instead from Axelrod and his administration. Why do I think? I can’t speculate for the president. I don’t think anybody knows.
O’REILLY: Because I don’t know either. I mean, I got — I’ll sympathize with you. I don’t know why the president is against it either. I mean, you know.
Watch it:
O’Reilly’s concern is shared by many opponents of Proposition 8, who have expressed bewilderment over the administration’s response to the ruling. The Wonk Room breaks down the reaction to the President’s statement and recalls his past support for same-sex marriages.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
In a June interview with a local Nevada NBC news affiliate, GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle reaffirmed her belief that the separation of church and state is unconstitutional. The drafters of the Constitution “didn’t mean that we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum,” she said. The AP reports that — according to a questionnaire for a conservative PAC that endorsed her candidacy — Angle has expounded on that view and revealed more of her far-right positions on social issues:
Republican Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit and opposes laws allowing gays to adopt children. [...]
Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to “publicly acknowledge the Creator.”
The federal government bans churches from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, but Angle said clergy should be able to express views on candidates from the pulpit.
Also in the questionnaire, Angle reaffirmed her view that abortion should be illegal “in all cases” and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution. The GOP candidate had previously said that getting an abortion in cases for rape or incest would interfere with God’s “plan” and that women in those situations should instead make “a lemon situation into lemonade.”
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
The Labor Department’s employment report released this morning indicates the U.S. economy lost 131,000 jobs last month. Much of the decrease was due to the completion of work performed by temporary Census workers. Private-sector employment edged up by 71,000. June’s employment figures were revised downward from 125,000 jobs lost to 221,000.
The Obama administration named 14 U.S.-based individuals who were accused of being part of a “deadly pipeline” that routed money and fighters to the Somali al-Shabab network. “Attorney General Eric Holder said the indictments reflect a disturbing trend of recruitment efforts targeting U.S. residents to become terrorists.”
Yesterday, the Republican National Committee adopted a change to party rules requiring future candidates to “sign a pledge promising not to oppose their party’s eventual nominee in the race or else forego any national party money for their campaign effort.” The loyalty oath is meant to avoid defections like that of Gov. Charlie Crist, who dropped out of the GOP primary race to run as an independent.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell yesterday publicly asked WikiLeaks to return the tens of thousands of classified U.S. field reports from the war in Afghanistan it made available on its website earlier this month, as well as the 15,000 additional documents it may soon release. “We are asking them to do the right thing and not further exacerbate the damage done to date,” Morrell said.
“The number of Army soldiers forced to serve beyond their commitment has been cut in half in the past year and is on track to be eliminated by March 2011.” The practice, known as “stop loss,” has affected the majority of the Army’s soldiers since 2001, and has been blamed for low morale an even high suicide rates.
Anti-Choice Group Says Its ‘Prayers’ Have Been Answered When Abortion Clinic Closes Due To Doctor’s Leukemia
Anti-Choice Group Says Its ‘Prayers’ Have Been Answered When Abortion Clinic Closes Due To Doctor’s Leukemia
After more than 30 years in business, the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic in Arkansas closed its doors on July 30. The clinic had more than 500 patients and was “one of only two places in the state where women could have a surgical abortion.” While it focused mainly on obstetrics and gynecology, it also performed 700-800 abortions each year. The Fayetteville Women’s Clinic was also frequently targeted by protesters. Over the years, the office had been firebombed and the doctor kept a gun as a result of all the death threats he received.
40 Days for Life is one of the groups that frequently protested the clinic, run by Dr. William Harrison. It says it practices “a determined, peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families.” When the news came that Harrison’s clinic was shutting down, 40 Days for Life staffers praised and took credit for the news:
“This will be the sixth abortion center at a location where 40 Days for Life’s peaceful prayer vigils have been conducted to go out of business,” said Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life campaign director. “It is truly an answer to prayer that abortions will no longer be carried out at this facility. All the glory belongs to God.” [...]
“How humbling will it be,” asked Carney, “to see God use the simplicity of prayer, fasting, outreach, and vigil to bring an end to abortion in many more areas, just like Fayetteville?”
“We rejoice over the babies that will be saved and the parents who will be spared from a lifetime of regret,” said Juliet Cassell, Fayetteville coordinator for 40 Days for Life, upon learning of the facility’s closure.
The actual reason that Harrison shut down his clinic is that he has leukemia — a fact not mentioned in the 40 Days for Life press release. According to the Fayetteville Flyer, these “health reasons” are why Harrison closed shop, although the doctor said “he plans to make a full recovery and hopefully reopen.”
ThinkProgress contacted David Bereit, 40 Days for Life’s national director, and asked him about this issue. Bereit reiterated that the clinic’s closure was “an answer to prayers,” but still said that he is praying for Harrison:
We have no doubt that the hundreds of volunteers who faithfully prayed outside that facility, as well as the dozens of pro-life counselors who lovingly offered alternatives to potential abortion customers, had an impact on the business of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic — and this facility’s announced closure is certainly an answer to prayers.
Dr. Harrison and I have communicated on many occasions by e-mail over the last several years, and he knows that the local Fayetteville 40 Days for Life volunteers regularly pray for him and wish him no harm.
Kyl ‘Damaging U.S. Interests’ By Blocking Dominican Republic Ambassador Nominee Over Iran Sanctions
Kyl ‘Damaging U.S. Interests’ By Blocking Dominican Republic Ambassador Nominee Over Iran Sanctions
Back in November, President Obama nominated former president of National Council of La Raza and Arizona State University professor, Raul H. Yzaguirre, to serve as ambassador to the Dominican Republic on behalf of the U.S. Despite a devastating earthquake in neighboring Haiti and the fact that the Dominican Republic is home to the largest Caribbean economy, his nomination is still being stalled in the Senate by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Kyl a letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, asking him to release his hold on Yzaguirre’s nomination “without further delay”:
Earlier in her letter, Clinton reasons that Yzaguirre’s nomination has been held up “for reasons completely unrelated to his credentials or fitness to serve.” Indeed, the fact that Kyl is bitter over the fact that the Iran Sanctions Act doesn’t make the Iranian people as miserable as he would like them to be has little do with U.S. interests in the Caribbean. And, as Clinton notes, the Dominican Republic is “a significant trading partner” and “a major hub for our relief and reconstruction efforts in neighboring Haiti.” The U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic has been without a permanent ambassador for over 18 months. An aide from Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office pointed out that, if his nomination does not go through tonight, the Dominican Republic will have to wait at least another five weeks until congressional recess is over to have an ambassador.
Republicans in Congress have both blocked and delayed a number of critical nominations over reasons that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. This past fall, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly blocked the confirmations of Arturo Valenzuela, Obama’s nominee to be assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and Thomas A. Shannon Jr., the nominee to be ambassador to Brazil over the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the de facto Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti. Shortly after DeMint agreed to drop his opposition to Shannon, Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) decided to further delay Shannon’s critical confirmation over the innocent role he played in initiating talks with Cuba on family migration and direct mail service.
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Last month, as the Senate was gridlocked by a Republican filibuster of a bill to extend much-needed unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) stood with the GOP against the extension. Nelson claimed that his concerns about the deficit overrode his support for the extension; he voted against the bill that finally passed 60-40.
Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.
Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:
Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]
Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”
DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
While calling for bipartisanship, McConnell says he’s not ‘very interested in doing things left of center.’
While calling for bipartisanship, McConnell says he’s not ‘very interested in doing things left of center.’
Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sat down with a group of political reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Despite leading the most obstructionist minority party in American history, McConnell attacked Democrats and the President for what he perceived as their lack of bipartisanship. The Kentucky senator then called for more bipartisanship, but in the very same breath, said he is not willing to give an inch to the left:
McCONNELL: If you have a big majority, what you want to do is pick off a Republican or two, give it the taint of bipartisanship and do what you want to do. If you’re between 55 and 45, you get genuine bipartisan agreement. And what I hope we’re going to have — and it will be up to the American people — but what I hope we’re going to have is more balance, more balance, which will give us opportunities to do things together, that simply are missing when you have this kind of disparity. But, I’m not going to be very interested in doing things left of center. It’s going to have to be center-right and I think the President is a flexible man and I’ll think he’ll become a born-again moderate.
Watch it: More »
Rick Scott ‘Discriminated Or Cut Corners In Pursuit Of Profit,’ According To Lawsuits He’s Keeping Confidential
Rick Scott ‘Discriminated Or Cut Corners In Pursuit Of Profit,’ According To Lawsuits He’s Keeping Confidential
Rick Scott, a disgraced ex-hospital executive and anti-health care reform propagandist is poised to be the Republican nominee for governor in Florida. Still, Scott is dogged by legal trouble. The Miami Herald reports today that Scott and his health care company are hiding details about nearly a dozen lawsuits against them, lawsuits which “portray the company, and sometimes Scott by extension, as a ruthless employer who discriminated or cut corners in pursuit of profit”:
Just six days before Rick Scott announced his bid for governor, he was deposed in a case that alleged his healthcare company Solantic had broken Florida law by filing false medical licensing information with the state.
But what Scott said April 7 might never be known to the public.
Within a month, Solantic settled the 2-year-old case and signed a confidentiality agreement with Dr. P. Mark Glencross, who claimed his medical license was misused by the Jacksonville-based chain of walk-in clinics. …
The Glencross lawsuit — along with nine other court actions filed against the company since 2001 in Duval County — tells a different story. Taken together, they portray the company, and sometimes Scott by extension, as a ruthless employer who discriminated or cut corners in pursuit of profit.
In all but one case, the plaintiffs, Scott and Solantic’s chief executive officer, Karen Bowling, said they could not talk about what happened because they had signed confidentiality agreements. Bowling said Solantic settled the cases at the behest of its insurance company, which found that protracted court fights were too expensive.
Between 2003 and 2005, “five Solantic employees and two job applicants claim that the company regularly discriminated against people who were overweight or minorities.”
Scott has a rough history with the law. Another company he led, Columbia Hospital Corporation/Hospital Corporation of America, pled guilty to fraud charges and paid a settlement of $1.7 billion — the largest in U.S. history — in 2000. “Columbia/HCA systematically defrauded taxpayers,” wrote Lee Fang on the Wonk Room, “charging Medicare $15,000 for Tiffany pitchers and other luxury goods, ‘exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating,’ and engineering a program where doctors were granted partnerships in hospitals as a kickback for referring patients” when Scott was at the helm.
Of course, Scott’s record of health care fraud isn’t limited to his business behavior. When Congress was debating health care, he launched Conservatives for Patients Rights as an anti-reform front group, regurgitated discredited talking points in a 30-minute advocacy infomercial, and coordinated an obstruction strategy with industry lobbyists.
Florida’s Republican establishment is uneasy with a potential Scott nomination, and the state’s former governor Jeb Bush will try to boost Bill McCollum, Scott’s GOP rival, with “a statewide fly-around Monday, the first day of early voting.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll