Bush Treasury Secretary on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire: ‘That’s okay.’
Last month, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — who was instrumental in advancing the Bush tax cuts — called for allowing the entire package of cuts to expire, saying “they should follow the law and let them lapse.” Yesterday, Paul O’Neill, who was Treasury Secretary when the Bush tax cuts were enacted, seemed to follow suit. On CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria, O’Neill pointed out that “I was strongly opposed to the Bush tax cut that was enacted in 2003. It was one of the reasons I got fired.” He explained that he opposed the cuts because they were unaffordable, given the looming war with Iraq. When pushed by Zakaria about whether or not the cuts should expire, O’Neill said a full expiration is “okay,” while making the case that broader tax reform is really the issue:
I say let them — I don’t care, I honestly don’t care — but I do care whether the President takes the lead in saying ‘this is not the right issue, it’s off the table, they’re expired. You know, everybody is going to pay more in taxes.’ That’s okay…I don’t mind paying taxes.
Watch it:
O’Neill, however, came out against more stimulus funding — despite unemployment hovering at 9.5 percent and the economy creating a sluggish number of jobs — saying that an overhaul of the tax code would suffice to boost demand. As The Wonk Room explains, O’Neill’s stance contrasts starkly with that of Congressional Republicans, who seem to have no concern over the effect extending the cuts has on the deficit.
- Comments
- 6
Palin laughs and rolls her eyes when demonstrator says she’s a teacher.
Over the weekend, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was in Homer, Alaska, to film her TLC documentary series Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Alaskan teacher Kathleen Gustafson decided to welcome Palin with a banner reading “WORST GOVERNOR EVER.” Upon seeing Gustafson’s handiwork, Palin walked over to talk with her. Gustafson told Palin that she was angry that the former governor quit to become a “celebrity.” Palin tried to defend herself, claiming that she’s working to “elect candidates who understand the Constitution,” but the teacher was unmoved, insisting that if Palin really wanted to help the people of the state, she would not have quit her post:
GUSTAFSON: You swore on your precious Bible that you would uphold the interests of this state, and then when cash was waved in front of your face, you quit.
PALIN: OH, you wanted me to be your governor! I’m honored! Thank you!
GUSTAFSON: I wanted you to honor your responsibilities. That is what I wanted. I wanted you to be part of the political process instead of becoming a celebrity so that you could (inaudible). And if that’s the best you could do, then good for you. If that’s the best you could do.
PALIN: Here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. [...] That’s what I’m out there fightin’ for Americans to be able to have a Constitution protected so that we can have free speech…And also there…
GUSTAFSON: In what way are you fighting for that?
PALIN: Oh my goodness!
GUSTAFSON: In what way?
PALIN: To elect candidates who understand the Constitution, to protect our military interests so that we can keep on fightin’ for our constitution that will protect some of the freedoms that evidently are important to you too.
GUSTAFSON: By using your celebrity status, certainly not by political status.
At one point, Palin asked Gustafson what she did for a living. When Gustafson responded that she is a teacher, Palin visibly rolled her eyes. Watch it:
Validating Guastafson’s point, TLC confirmed today that Kate Gosselin of Jon & Kate Plus 8 fame will be making an appearance alongside the former governor on Palin’s documentary series.
Angle Headlines Far-Right ‘Doctors Tea Party’ Event Attended By Fake Doctors
“The National Doctors Tea Party” drew several hundred protesters to a park in San Diego this Saturday, where activists clad in white lab coats protested the Affordable Care Act. As was the case at a recent tea party event in Philadelphia, turnout at the California event appeared to be lower than expected.
The protest was meant to showcase physicians’ opposition to “Obamacare,” and many activists present were “wearing white lab coats – implying that they were doctors.” But at least one man was not, telling the San Diego Union-Tribune that he borrowed a white lab coat for the protest, because the event’s website encouraged attendees to do so:
Craig Brown, a psychiatrist who lives in Del Mar, donned a white lab coat and wore a stethoscope around his neck as U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada spoke against the health-care bill signed into law earlier this year.
“I’m against ObamaCare,” Brown said. “It doesn’t achieve the goals of reduced health-care spending and because it will increase regulation and create more government agencies.”
Brown said he borrowed the white coat from a nearby lab because a website suggested people wear lab coats to the event.
In fact, as the OB Rag noted, “there are actually only two local San Diego medical doctors that belong to the sponsoring group.”
The highlight of the event was a speech by Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle, who thanked the doctors for “standing up for freedom and liberty.” As has become her default strategy, Angle fled from reporters after the event, granting only the conservative web outlet PJTV an interview. After Angle escaped, a spokesperson seemed to admit that the reporters present were not “mainstream media.” When asked if they were, the spokesperson said, “well, the campaign wasn’t responsible for what media outlets showed up.” “But she [Angle] was definitely here and available to answer questions,” the spokesperson added with Angle safely hidden from view.
Angle’s headlining of the event has raised eyebrows, as the event’s sponsor, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, is a far-right organization that propagates absurd anti-government conspiracy theories. The group has called the establishment of Medicare “evil” and “immoral”; has denied the link between HIV and AIDS; has argued that the FDA is unconstitutional; has promoted “one of Angle’s previously expressed theories that abortion may cause breast cancer“; and has even warned that President Obama may have used a “covert form of hypnosis” to win over voters.
Angle’s association with extremist groups is not too surprising at this point, but it appears that staffers from the campaign of California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorina were also at the event.
Analysis: Tea Party Supporters Harbor More Racial Resentment Than Other Conservatives
TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson
As the right-wing media machine pursues the “Southern Strategy” of stoking fear among their white conservative audience about black and brown people destroying America, pundits have argued whether the Tea Party movement — closely aligned with Fox News, conservative talk radio, and right-wing websites — is “racist.” Although instances of racist sentiment at Tea Party rallies can be easily found, defenders of the movement argue they are aberrations, if not part of a liberal conspiracy to smear tea partiers.
As TP’s Matt Yglesias wrote in this weekend’s Washington Post, right-wing xenophobes are fueling a “summer of fear” that has its roots in the economic downturn. The strategy of linking racial resentment to fears of economic redistribution and government control under a black presidency — in right-wing storylines including Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, New Black Panther Party, ACORN, the “Ground Zero Mosque“, and “anchor babies” — is finding a ready audience among the people who identify themselves as tea party supporters.
National surveys of the Tea Party have found that explicit racist sentiment is a strong component of the tea-party make up, in addition to economic conservatism and strong Republican partisanship. The April, 2010 New York Times/CBS News national survey of Tea Party supporters found that they are:
– More than twice as likely as the general public (25% vs 11%) to believe that “the policies of the Obama administration favor blacks over whites.”
– Half as likely as the general public (16% to 31%) to believe that “white people have a better chance of getting ahead in today’s society.”
– Almost twice as likely as the general public (52% to 28%) to believe that “too much has been made of the problems facing black people” in recent years.
Drudge Report, July 19, 2010
In a broad study of adults in Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California conducted between February and March, the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Sexuality (WISER) asked a number of questions about “racial resentment” — such as whether blacks don’t try hard enough or have gotten more than they deserve. Conservatives are 23 percent more likely to be racially resentful, and Republicans 15 percent more likely than Democrats. However, the institute found that this racial sentiment isn’t simply a byproduct of white conservativism:
[E]ven as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment.
It is untrue, as political commentator Dave Weigel argues, that racism in the Tea Party is merely reflective of its conservatism. The WISER study found that compared to other conservatives, Tea Party supporters are:
– 25 percent more likely to have racial resentment.
– 27 percent more likely to support racial profiling.
– 28 percent more likely to support indefinite detention without charges.
Tea Party supporters are also significantly more likely to hold racial stereotypes, with a majority believing blacks are not hard-working, intelligent, or trustworthy. Their fear of others transcends race, however — the WISER study found that a majority of tea party adherents distrust Latinos, Asians, and other whites as well.
Of course, this means there are still millions of Tea Party supporters whose views on race and equality are indistinguishable from most Americans. However, it is a unfortunate fact that deep-rooted racial resentment is a key distinguishing feature of Tea Party activism, above and beyond non-racist tenets of American conservatism or partisanship.
ThinkFast: August 9, 2010
ThinkFast: August 9, 2010
The current death toll in Pakistan’s ongoing flooding is estimated at 1,600 people. As of Sunday, the impact is reported to have affected more than 15 million people. The U.N. said Monday that the number affected could exceed that of the 2004 Tsunami, 2005 Kashmir earthquake, and 2010 Haiti earthquake combined.
“A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland,” American scientists are now reporting. The ice island, which is 100 square miles in size, broke off from the Petermann Glacier Thursday.
Although the Obama administration has deported “a record number of immigrants convicted of crimes,” it is sparing “students who came to the United States without papers when they were children.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement head John Morton said that with limited resources, the agency’s “time is better spent on someone who is here unlawfully and is committing crimes in the neighborhood.”
Social Security “is facing a rare shortfall this year as more people opt to collect payments before their full retirement age.” The safety net is also facing strain from reduced tax collections due to high unemployment. “More people filed for Social Security in 2009 — 2.74 million — than in any year in history.”
White House energy adviser Carol Browner told NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday that it “makes a lot of sense” that a large portion of any monetary penalties BP pays for its oil disaster are given to Gulf states affected by the spill. Many “Gulf-area politicians have suggested that 80 percent of the money be returned to the states affected by the worst oil spill in U.S. history.”
Liz Cheney, Whose Dad Dismissed Public Opinion On Iraq, Now Outraged That Obama Is Ignoring Prop. C
Liz Cheney, Whose Dad Dismissed Public Opinion On Iraq, Now Outraged That Obama Is Ignoring Prop. C
Seventy-one percent of Missourians voting in the state’s primary election last week supported a ballot initiative saying the state cannot require its citizens pay a fine to the federal government if they do not purchase health insurance. While Republican voters represented much of the 23 percent of the state’s eligible voters that turned out, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted last week that the measure carries little significance because federal law trumps state law. It’s “a vote of no legal significance in the midst of heavy Republican primaries,” Gibbs said.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney took issue with Gibbs’ comment:
CHENEY: You’ve also have Robert Gibbs this week, when asked what does it mean if 71 percent of the people in Missouri said they don’t want any mandate for health insurance, he said, “it means nothing.” Now when you have a White House that is that unwilling to listen to what people out there are saying, I think, you know, it causes some real concern about whether or not they are actually going to be responsive to the voters.
Watch it:
If Liz Cheney is concerned that the White House isn’t listening to what the American people are saying — really only a small number of mostly Republican Missourians — she must have been really troubled when her father dismissed in 2008 polls showing that Americans opposed the Iraq war:
MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC): Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
DICK CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
But the reality is that recent polling shows that Americans are giving the new health care reform law increasing support. Kaiser Family Foundation polling has found that “overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward.”
In another flashback to the Bush years, Cheney criticized President Obama’s comment last week that the GOP “can’t have the keys back” to running the country because Republicans “don’t know how to drive!” “You have the President saying you can’t have the keys back like he’s the decider,” Cheney grumbled.
Deficit Frauds Boehner And Pence Can’t Answer How Tax Cuts For Wealthy Will Be Paid For
Deficit Frauds Boehner And Pence Can’t Answer How Tax Cuts For Wealthy Will Be Paid For
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Republican leaders John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) had a tough time answering host David Gregory’s questions about how they would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Gregory asked Boehner to respond to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said last week that extending the tax cuts without offsets would be “disastrous” and that they do not pay for themselves. “The only way we’re going to get our economy going again…is to get the economy moving,” was all Boehner could muster in response. Gregory repeatedly pushed Boehner to answer how they would paid for, but the Minority Leader simply wouldn’t respond:
GREGORY: You’re not being responsive to a specific point which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes as well when they’re not paid for?
BOEHNER: Listen, you can’t raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy. […]
GREGORY: But tax cuts are not paid for is that correct?
BOEHNER: I am not for raising taxes on the American people in a soft economy.
GREGORY: That’s not the question. Are tax cuts paid for or not?
BOEHNER: Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there. …
GREGORY: Do you believe tax cuts pay for themselves or not?
BOEHNER: I do believe that we’ve got to get more money in the hands of small businesses.
Later in the program, Pence ran into the same trouble:
GREGORY: This tension that I got out with Leader Boehner. Republicans want more tax cuts seems to me he acknowledged that they’re not paid for and yet at the same time they want tax cuts but they’re so worried about the deficit. How do you resolve that tension?
PENCE: Well I think the way you resolve it is you focus on jobs. …
GREGORY: But congressman, you’re asking Americans to believe that Republicans will have spending discipline when you’re saying extend the tax cuts that aren’t paid for and cut the deficit, how is that a consistent credible message?
PENCE: Well I understand the credibility problem. …
GREGORY: You acknowledge, tax cuts being extended cannot be paid for, it would be borrowed money.
PENCE: Well no I don’t acknowledge that. … I think it’s apples to oranges.
Watch it:
The reality is that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost $830 billion over the next ten years and the Republicans — who have made bringing down the deficit one of their signature issues — have no idea how they will pay for them.
Boehner open to repealing parts of the 14th amendment: ‘I think it’s worth considering.’
Boehner open to repealing parts of the 14th amendment: ‘I think it’s worth considering.’
Although the Republican National Committee touts the 14th amendment as one of the GOP’s brightest “accomplishments,” many high-profile Republicans are now trying to appeal to their far-right base by calling for repealing parts of it. Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Jon Kyl (AZ), John McCain (AZ), Tom Coburn (TX), Mitch McConnell (KY), Chuck Grassley (IA) and Jeff Sessions (AL) all back holding hearings on the issue. Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) joined them, saying that “clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants”:
GREGORY: Do you support efforts to have the 14th amendment amended at this point?
BOEHNER: Well David, I’m not the expert on this issue. I have read these comments here over the past week. There is a problem. To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country. I do think that it’s time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow this conversation about the 14th amendment to continue.
GREGORY: Do you have a position on it?
BOEHNER: Listen, I think it’s worth considering. It’s a serious problem that affects our country, and in certain parts of our country, clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants — a lot of whom came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens. They should do it the legal way.
Watch it:
Ted Olson To Chris Wallace On Marriage Equality: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
Ted Olson To Chris Wallace On Marriage Equality: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
This morning, Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore — appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.
Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”
When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:
OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.
Watch a compilation:
At the end of the interview, Wallace conceded that his right-wing points failed to crack Olson’s arguments. “Mr. Olson, we want to thank you so much for joining us today. We’ll keep following your lawsuit. And I gotta say, after your appearance today, I don’t understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir,” he said.
Study: Contemporary Mosques Are A Deterrent To The Spread Of Terrorism
Study: Contemporary Mosques Are A Deterrent To The Spread Of Terrorism
In recent weeks, conservatives who have been arguing against the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero have been claiming that such a building would be “offensive” to the memory of the 9/11 victims. They have also tried to imply that this mosque would embolden terrorists, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich saying:
The idea of a 13-story building set up by a group many of whom, frankly, are very hostile to our civilization — and I’m talking now about the people who organized this, many of whom are apologists for sharia, which is a form of law that I think we cannot allow in this country, period.
However, today the New York Times highlights an academic study that concludes the opposite of what Gingrich and his uninformed ilk are claiming, finding that many mosques deter terrorism:
A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.
“Our research suggests that initiatives that treat Muslim-Americans as part of the solution to this problem are far more likely to be successful,” said David Schanzer, one of the authors of the study. Co-author David Kurzman added, “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization. This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”
The Center for American Progress recently held an event on identifying, preventing, and responding to domestic terrorism, with Schanzer and other experts. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was the keynote speaker, and he pointed to the “critical role Muslims in America have played and must continue to play in fighting domestic violent extremism.” For example, as ThinkProgress highlighted, Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention.
Unfortunately, the battle at Ground Zero is playing out across the country. In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, protesters are similarly disparaging a proposed mosque. In June, Lou Ann Zelenik — a Republican candidate for Congress in that area — claimed the mosque was “designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee.” Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R), who is running for governor, wondered whether Islam is a “cult” and said Muslims “crossed a line when they start trying to bring Sharia Law into the state of Tennessee.”
Additionally, supporters of these Islamic centers are not the ones who are being extremists — it’s the opponents who are ramping up. Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), run by self-described “anti-jihadist” and right-wing blogger Pamela Geller — has launched a series of bus ads reading, “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!” in major cities. Opponents of a planned mosque in southern California have ominously warned of a “confrontational atmosphere” if the construction plans move forward:
The pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, just across a cul-de-sac from the site of the mosque, said the two religions “mix like oil and water” and predicted a “confrontational atmosphere” if the project moves forward.
“The Islamic foothold is not strong here, and we really don’t want to see their influence spread,” said Pastor Bill Rench.
“There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it’s a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing,” he said.
On Friday, the Connecticut Post reported that approximately “a dozen right-wing Christians, carrying placards and yelling ‘Islam is a lie,’” confronted Muslim worshippers outside a mosque. Using a bullhorn, the protesters yelled “Jesus hates Muslims,” and one protester “shoved a placard at a group of young children leaving the mosque.”
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.
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.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll